Raf

I never conceded your 'evolving God" point, so to accuse me of strawman and dishonestly switching from one perspective to the other makes no sense in context. You're the one switching definitions of God, not I.

Aww, he thinks Wierwille deduced "together with, yet distinctly independent of" instead of reading that wording in Bullinger, finding it useful and simply repeating it (which, I will say, is not the same thing as plagiarism, because most people don't cite the author of a dictionary or lexicon when relaying word definitions. But that's a whole other story). Anyway, the notion that Wierwille "got the idea" of anything is amusing, in this context.

I can concede David existed (there probably was a King David) without believing that he killed a 10-foot gladiator with a slingshot or that he sent a soldier to the frontlines because the man wouldn't bang his wife to take credit for her baby. I can concede all of those things without believing that some all-loving, all-powerful Deity couldn't figure out a way to punish David without ripping the kingdom apart (which, it must be said, flipping happened anyway). Nothing in your "Superman" post actually contradicts my position, so I feel no need to answer it.

I am more moral than the Green Goblin. This does not mean I believe the Green Goblin actually exists. Come on.

So it was impossible for God to serve justice with David while simultaneously protecting Israel. An all-powerful God couldn't pull that off. Never mind that Israel fell apart because of what David did, not a generation later, according to scripture.

ok.

1. There is nothing "miraculous" about societies adapting over time to recognize that there is a better way to do things. Looking down on what came before is neither ego nor immoral. It is, rather, the only way to improve. 2. God should be incapable of improving. Thus, his actions 7,000 years ago are subject to the very same moral analysis we use today. "It was a different time" can excuse what ignorant men did, but it cannot excuse what an omnipotent, omniscient God who defines himself as "love" did. Of course, if the David and Bathsheba story never happened, that changes the game. Same with Job. But that's another story.

I missed this earlier. I think we can agree on the important part of this: Namely, that what we're discussing is greatly alleviated if this is a story and the events did not actually happen to real people. This would make sense on a number of levels, all of which are off topic. My points are irrelevant, except as a theoretical exercise, if no one is insisting on this as actual history.

I don't think there's a need for a new thread, given that it's already the subject of an old thread. I think we can keep it on topic for this thread by, as others have demonstrated, persistently reminding us of the original question. The original question is, what would Christianity today have done with David, given what we know. Given what we know, it is my belief and opinion that Christianity today would try him as a criminal, and rightly so. And unlike (apparently) the rest of you (if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it), I do not believe for a heartbeat that this reflects badly on Christianity today. I think murder and conspiracy to commit murder should be prosecuted, not excused. And I don't think an omnipotent God should suddenly be helpless to bring a murderer to justice because doing so would have negative ramifications on a kingdom. He is omnipotent. He can protect the kingdom and bring the murderer to justice at the same time. This is especially relevant given that the ramifications of what David did ultimately ripped the kingdom apart anyway, according to scripture! It just seems to me that we're doing everything we can to get around the fact that God excused a murder, but made damn sure to punish a baby and a kingdom for it.

Yes, math evolved over time, but its principles didn't change. We just learned them. 2+2=4 always. At all times. It was that way before man figured out addition, and it will be that way long after humanity is extinct. 2+2 didn't become four slowly after people realized 2+2=3 didn't make sense. Nice try, though.

"The concept of God evolved over time." Yeah, that happens with fictional characters. Originally, Superman couldn't fly.

Depends on whether we're talking about Christians or people who call themselves Christians but don't seem to have the slightest idea what Christianity stands for.

To me, the notion that an all-powerful God cannot remove a corrupt murderer as king without jeopardizing the security of Israel is contradictory. If He's all-powerful, he should be able to do that with no difficulty whatsoever. Christians today would NEVER handle this the way Yahweh did, for the simple reason that Christians today are more moral than the God they worship. Of course, I'm talking about ACTUAL Christians, who care about things like morality. If we're talking about hypocrites who CALL themselves Christians but know nothing of morality, they would probably elect a stone-cold murderer as long as he hated the same people they hate.

? I answered you sincerely and without sarcasm. What gives?

I think I am not the one with a prepackaged argument that doesn't flow. You're the one making excuses for a killer to get away with murder, and a God too weak to do anything about it other than shrug and say "Well, you wanted s king!" Don't you think an Almighty God could craft a way to protect Israel AND see to it that justice is served? I mean, without letting an innocent baby die to teach his dad a lesson?

I don't understand how God can be Almighty while simultaneously unable to protect the kingdom from a sociopathic king. And no, the answer is not "free will." An all-powerful God could institute a system of government in which a murderer can pay for his crime without the kingdom falling apart. Unless of course, "all-powerful" is not really true. Respectfully, you would reject your own reasoning if applied to any other god. He pays in conscience? Sheesh. Look at what worship makes people excuse.

I'm being silly? You're inventing alternative universe genocides to justify David not having to pay for his crime, and I'm being silly?

If you can invent a genocide, I can invent a bunch of lives that would have been saved if David had been removed and jailed instead of "bygones, you get to have Bathsheba as your wife now." Starting with his son.

What the bloody hell? Talk about a straw man! You can straight up invent a genocide that would have happened if David were removed?

Twinky, my point is that present day Christianity would do exactly what I said... he would be tried for conspiracy to commit murder or some related crime. He would not be let off the hook because oh well. Because modern day Christians are more moral than Yahweh. But thank you for reminding me of the topic. (That was sincere, not sarcastic)

Whose murder did he facilitate before his removal? Oh, right.

Just a reminder, if this argument were used in defense of any other god, you would point to it as evidence of that god's immorality and unworthiness of worship. I won't "derail" the thread further. If you want to continue, feel free to open a thread in Questioning Faith. (Note: I put "derail" in quotes because I don't think it's really a derailment, but courtesy demands taking this train of discussion elsewhere).

More like, F-you, Uriah! The king was horny!

Jailing David would have been immoral. WOW. Look at what theism talks us into!

Umm, he's of INFINITE knowledge and wisdom. No, it's not a strawman argument. It's only a strawman argument if He's not what He is claimed to be. Which is sort of my point.