Arguments Against Christianity: Why God hurts others to punish David? 2 Samuel

[Mike_from_NJ]

Aah, but this is what the people wanted! They begged for a king, which means all that you’ve mentioned and more! Samuel told them, in gory detail, what it meant to have a king, and they begged to have one anyway! And, they literally and explicitly assented to David’s leadership over them! In other words, they gave David the proxy to act on their behalf! And so… his sin is their sin.

When we elect leaders we understand that they may do things which could affect is. If I vote for person X he may cut a program that supports the place where I work. If I instead vote for person Y he may raises my taxes, which would hurt me in other ways. It’s a give and take. Yet no one is voting to give up their lives, their very being. No call for a king deserves such disproportionate slaughter.

Let’s also consider who demanded that there be a king. First there was Saul (who reigned for 40 years) followed by David (who also reigned for 40 years). I don’t know where the census event comes in David’s reign, but it’s likely a vast majority of the people who call for a king before Saul reigned were dead by the time God got angry for missing out on some shekels.

We disagree on the “no fault of their own” part. Sadly, since this is the core of your argument, it seems we won’t reach agreement on this point.

I don’t think that a person who voted for a sheriff who didn’t catch a certain criminal deserves to have his kid murdered later by that same criminal. We all do things that in turn could lead to something (or more accurately something that leads to something that leads to something, etc.), but brutal and pestilent death is clearly not a reasonable (or sane) punishment for one’s leader neglecting to give God his monetary cut. God knows where I am if he wants a lesson in morals.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike, why is it that when rabbis and scoundrels and sadists and Satanists want to find an escape goat, they want Yahweh God to be held responsible?

In this instance God is literally responsible for the death of tens of thousands of people over not getting shekels. It is God who got offended. It is God who only gave options that would hurt innocents. It is God who directly set forth the pestilence.

If God isn’t responsible then no one is.

Either God must control every thought and action or God cannot be held responsible when it is deemed so by the scholar, theologian, rabbi or the average/sub-average joe/hilary.

That is a textbook false dichotomy. There is a wide range of possibilities between God controlling every single thought and action and not brutally murdering innocent people like a cosmic loan shark who didn’t get his money.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Yeah, hollowood’s spirituality!

It is wonderful to pretend

Thus religion!

… Dorothy fought for the lion, the straw man, and the tin man only the bad witch dies and she through pure accidental occurrence… the wizard, without any actual abilities, keeps the world happy and functioning with precision… yet, we all know that reality bites!

That’s not an answer to my question. Just because fiction offers examples of people shown the error of their ways without causing lasting devestation doesn’t mean it’s not a darn good idea. If a long dead writer could fathom a non-cruel method by which to scare someone straight then surely an all-powerful deity should’ve thought of something similar. I’ll take the morality of a Charles Dickens over the Biblical god any day.

God cannot accommodate our insecurities, fears, and desires while allowing us to do as we will–remember the cat in boot? We want God’s Omnipotence at our beg and call while simultaneous rejecting His Authority over us (‘if God is a good…’)

As I’ve noted in other posts on CAF, believers are the first to shout from the mountaintops the power of God and the first to claim limits to that power if it means defending God’s actions. In fact, the more reprehensible the act being defended the stronger the limitations the believers will put on that power.

Are you saying that God couldn’t have punished only David and not thousands of innocents? There are great many options beyond the two of doing nothing or killing the population of a modern medium-sized town.

 

[ethereality]

Mike, I think you’re not seeing these passages in their proper context: God doesn’t kill people the same way we kill people. First of all, God is taking them back to Himself. Secondly, God is in a different position: We are soccer players whereas God is the referee. It’s wrong for us to eject other players from the game, but it’s the referee’s prerogative. This point is strengthened by noting that life is a gratuitous gift given by God in the first place. So even if God sent an asteroid to obliterate all of Asia, we couldn’t blame God because their lives up until that point were a free gift in the first place.

You have a better argument regarding suffering, but here too, there are responses that 1) suffering isn’t that bad and 2) they weren’t that innocent.

 

[Gorgias]

When we elect leaders we understand that they may do things which could affect is. If I vote for person X he may cut a program that supports the place where I work. If I instead vote for person Y he may raises my taxes, which would hurt me in other ways. It’s a give and take. Yet no one is voting to give up their lives, their very being.

Anachronism.

Your argument works in the context of a democracy, but not in the historical context of monarchy.

Let’s also consider who demanded that there be a king.

Let’s.

First there was Saul (who reigned for 40 years)

“[A]ll the elders of Israel assembled and went to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, ‘Now that you are old, and your sons do not follow your example, appoint a king over us, like all the nations, to rule us.’ … The LORD said: Listen to whatever the people say. You are not the one they are rejecting. They are rejecting me as their king. … Now listen to them; but at the same time, give them a solemn warning and inform them of the rights of the king who will rule them.” (1 Sam 8:4-5, 7, 9)

"Samuel delivered the message of the LORD in full to those who were asking him for a king. He told them: ‘The governance of the king who will rule you will be as follows: … As for you, you will become his slaves.’ … The people, however, refused to listen to Samuel’s warning and said, “No! There must be a king over us. We too must be like all the nations, with a king to rule us.’” (1 Sam 8:10-11, 17, 19-20)

followed by David (who also reigned for 40 years).

“The men of Judah came there [Hebron] and anointed David king over the house of Judah.” (2 Sam 2:4)
“All the people noted this with approval, just as everything the king did met with their approval.” (2 Sam 3:36)

“All the tribes of Israel came to David in Hebron, and they said: ‘Look! We are your bone and your flesh. In days past, when Saul was still our king, you were the one who led Israel out in all its battles and brought it back. And the LORD said to you: You shall shepherd my people Israel; you shall be ruler over Israel.’ Then all the elders of Israel came to the king in Hebron, and at Hebron King David made a covenant with them in the presence of the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel.” (2 Sam 5:1-3)

I don’t know where the census event comes in David’s reign

Towards the end.

, but it’s likely a vast majority of the people who call for a king before Saul reigned were dead

Aah… but the people also cried out for David to be their king…

by the time God got angry for missing out on some shekels.

Huh? I’m not sure what you think you understand about the census story, but the gist is that only God is supposed to know His people. David’s sin was that he usurped knowledge that was to belong to God alone.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Anachronism.

Your argument works in the context of a democracy, but not in the historical context of monarchy.

Your argument was a general idea that a people that pushed for a particular type of government/leadership would be responsible for the misery that might come to them from that government/leadership. My expanding of the idea still holds. Pushing for Dewey or Turman as president is quite similar to pushing for Saul or David is king. The fact that people in a democracy still should have basic rights no matter their leader undercuts your claim that pushing for David means the israelites deserved mass murder. Why? Because people in a democracy have far more say in choosing a leader than in a kingdom.

Towards the end.

Aah… but the people also cried out for David to be their king…

To state that the people cried out for David to be king ignores certain facts:

1. Some of the people at that time before David was king were children.
2. It’s quite possible that some of the people who Yahweh killed via pestilence were not alive at the time the people cried out for David to be king.
3. We know from crowds past and present that 100% people don’t agree on anything. The census said there were a total of 1.3 million able-bodied men. Likely there were as many women and children. It strains credulity to believe that every single person back in the day called out for David to be king. To think an entire population has a single mindset is similar to the damaging viewpoint some folks have with Matthew 27:24-25.
4. Most importantly, people should be granted certain basic rights no matter who they champion as a governmental leader. The most basic of these basic rights is the right to live.

Imagine in a scenario where there is a madman threatening to release a chemical bomb in a store full of people. The police send a negotiator in to try and get the madman to release the hostages. A misspoken word by the negotiator and the bomb is set off killing many painfully. Who is to blame? Is it the neogiator for not getting the madman to surrender? Was it the sheriff who put the negotiator in place? Was it the people who voted for the sheriff? The right answer is the madman, the one who kills so many.

God doesn’t get his money and a repentant David asks God what he can do to make it up. If David owed me money I’d just ask him to pay me. I’d give him an opportunity to correct his error. I wouldn’t harm anyone. I certainly wouldn’t harm innocent. Absolutely I wouldn’t hurt thousands of innocents. But then I’m a loving person.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Huh? I’m not sure what you think you understand about the census story, but the gist is that only God is supposed to know His people. David’s sin was that he usurped knowledge that was to belong to God alone.

You are incorrect. Allow me to introduce you to Exodus 30:11-13

11Then the Lord said to Moses, 12“When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them. 13Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel,c according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the Lord.

Anyone who says that God doesn’t want his people to be numbered, full stop, is misunderstanding what God says. Anyone who says that God allows his people to be numbered provided he be given a half-shekel for each adult male 20 years and up has a proper understanding.

Here is one of numerous articles that say the same thing.

So now we know that the difference between a census that goes off without a hitch and one that results in horrid devestation is solely cash money for God. Because of that I quite accurately compared Yahweh in this scenario to a mob boss.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike, I think you’re not seeing these passages in their proper context: God doesn’t kill people the same way we kill people. First of all, God is taking them back to Himself. Secondly, God is in a different position: We are soccer players whereas God is the referee. It’s wrong for us to eject other players from the game, but it’s the referee’s prerogative. This point is strengthened by noting that life is a gratuitous gift given by God in the first place. So even if God sent an asteroid to obliterate all of Asia, we couldn’t blame God because their lives up until that point were a free gift in the first place.

This reasoning always feels like such a cop-out to me. First off, we don’t accept it when other faiths claim the same thing. If Islam claims that people died or should die because of what Allah says we fight against it.

Second, it’s the cloying glurge that we see when an airplane crashes. One child survives and 199 others (including other children) die painfully in flames. There is a reason why believers tell us to focus on the one child and not the 199 that God decided should perish in anguish.

Third, your analogy of God as a referee doesn’t hold in the slightest. A referee has certain guidelines as to when he can remove a player. Also if the guidelines seem wrong then the fans can petition to have a guideline changed. It’s important to note it’s not arbitrary to the whims of the ref.

Fourth, deaths caused by God or ordered by God have been used to defend all sorts of atrocities (not the least of which is Exodus 21:20-21). God supposedly is not just loving but Love Itself, but that is completely in conflict with the God’s deaths disproportionate killings.

You have a better argument regarding suffering, but here too, there are responses that 1) suffering isn’t that bad and 2) they weren’t that innocent.

1. After helping my dad take care of my mom for just two days (where the only thing she said over and over is that she wanted to die) before she passed on I have to disagree that suffering isn’t that bad.
2. Let’s not blame the victims here.

 

[Gorgias]

Your argument was a general idea that a people that pushed for a particular type of government/leadership would be responsible for the misery that might come to them from that government/leadership.

No… my observation was that this was true under a monarchy, in the time and culture of the narrative.

My expanding of the idea still holds.

Since I was making a comment about the narrative, your extrapolation isn’t valid.

God doesn’t get his money

You really need to explain why you keep coming back to this. It makes no sense in the context of the narrative. What in the world are you talking about?!?

 

[jcrichton]

I do not get your concern. You don’t believe there’s a God. Why do you suffer for the things that have happened to people who disobeyed that God that you do not believe exists?

Do you follow?

Either God does not exists or man must be held accountable to his rejection of God.

If you accept God, then you must accept that His Wisdom and Omnipotence matches His Mercy and Justice.

Allowing man to die a physical death does not diminish God’s Ability to rescue man’s spiritual being.

It is as simple as that.

There are no sharks in the cosmic tank.

There’s but man’s will vs. God’s Will:

‘Chose Life so that you may Live.’ (Deuteronomy 30:19–paraphrased)

Man cannot choose death and expect Life.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

That’s not an answer to my question. Just because fiction offers examples of people shown the error of their ways without causing lasting devestation doesn’t mean it’s not a darn good idea. If a long dead writer could fathom a non-cruel method by which to scare someone straight then surely an all-powerful deity should’ve thought of something similar. I’ll take the morality of a Charles Dickens over the Biblical god any day.

Yet, you do not follow that the lasting devastation is everlasting death (spiritual death); it is this death that God wants man to avoid. God can restore the dead. The dead, in sin, cannot be restored:

25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?” (St. John 11)

As I’ve noted in other posts on CAF, believers are the first to shout from the mountaintops the power of God and the first to claim limits to that power if it means defending God’s actions. In fact, the more reprehensible the act being defended the stronger the limitations the believers will put on that power.

Are you saying that God couldn’t have punished only David and not thousands of innocents? There are great many options beyond the two of doing nothing or killing the population of a modern medium-sized town.

No, I am saying that man cannot moralize and limit how and why God operates.

It is wonderful to feel the security of a spirituality that is molded to whatever the whim of the day may be; it is hard to accept that man is not God and must be held accountable… not to his evolving and redesigning of Justice and Eternity.

The quick thinkers are so slow to understand that it is God’s Will that prevails and that it is God’s Justice that sets the moral boundaries. Hollowood is right about one thing, ‘death is only the beginning!’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[pocaracas]

I do not get your concern. You don’t believe there’s a God. Why do you suffer for the things that have happened to people who disobeyed that God that you do not believe exists?

I guess he’s employing what’s called “willing suspension of disbelief” and then trying to make sense of the fictional world.
We do it all the time when we watch some fictional movie, or tv show, or read a book…
Like in Star Wars, the Force is so wonderful, but in a few decades all natural-born wielders of it failed to do so and made it become a superstition? Doesn’t make sense.
In Ironman, where does Stark keep the fuel to propel his suit and himself, while being bulletproof? What material is capable of being so light and bulletproof?
Why doesn’t superman use his laser eyes to strike at foes at a distance more often?

In the accounts of old wars, god seems to be a presence… in the accounts of the NT, not so much… In today’s news coverage of wars (even in and around Israel) god is nowhere to be found. What happened?

Either God does not exists or man must be held accountable to his rejection of God.

Or God must be accountable for his rejection of mankind.
His presence is only manifest in people’s beliefs… and old unreliable tales… his existence outside of these is far from established.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike_from_NJ:

God doesn’t get his money

You really need to explain why you keep coming back to this. It makes no sense in the context of the narrative. What in the world are you talking about?!?

I can’t imagine I can break it down any simpler, but I’ll give it a try:

You seem to be saying that it was wrong no matter what for the Israelites to perform a census. If that is what you’re saying then you are incorrect.

How do we know this? Because in Exodus 30:11-13 (which I quoted earlier) God himself told Moses that he was ok with his people so long as he gets a half shekel for each adult male aged 20 years and up.

So let me repeat that
A census where God gets paid? GOOD
A census where God does not get paid? BAD

If David had remembered to give God his monetary kickback no one would have died. It’s right there in the Bible.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I do not get your concern. You don’t believe there’s a God. Why do you suffer for the things that have happened to people who disobeyed that God that you do not believe exists?

Do you follow?

All religions each like to build themselves as the true source of morality, and Christianity is no exception. Non-Christians will be told that they can not truly be moral without trusting in their god. It’s passages like these (and many others) which shows him acting immorally which shatters the idea of Yahweh being necessary for morality. That’s why I’m concerned about what the Bible says about a god I do not believe in. That’s why I find it somewhat frightening when these actions by the character of god are defended by believers despite how ethically bankrupt they are.

And to follow-up on pocaracas’s excellent points on willing suspension of disbelief and how we can show narrative flaws in fictional worlds (if taken to their logical conclusions), I once had prosyletizers come to my door. When I described my problems with the morality of their god, they claimed that the fact that I merely questioned his morality as if he were real that I must therefore think he is real. I explained that we describe – and at times denounce – fictional characters like Moriarity or Darth Vader without thinking them real.

Either God does not exists or man must be held accountable to his rejection of God.

First things first, non-believers don’t reject your god (or any other god). Belief is not a conscious choice but a natural reaction to available evidence. Even most (but not all) believers do not feel there is undeniale evidence for Yahweh, thus faith is needed.

If Yahweh would judge us on our non-belief he must first make it so that his existence is an undeniable fact. The same could be said for any other deity, including those who have since been discarded.

If you accept God, then you must accept that His Wisdom and Omnipotence matches His Mercy and Justice.

If by accept God you mean accept that he exists, then I would disagree that a believer must accept that he infinitely merciful and just. This very passage in 2 Samuel 24 shows a god lacking in both mercy and justice.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike_from_NJ:

Are you saying that God couldn’t have punished only David and not thousands of innocents? There are great many options beyond the two of doing nothing or killing the population of a modern medium-sized town.

No, I am saying that man cannot moralize and limit how and why God operates.

In so many words: It’s a mystery! This is a common retreat position when a defense of God’s actions can’t be made. God could have spared the innocents, but didn’t. There is no rational explanation, but trust us it’s perfectly good.

You keep bringing up justice, but the major part of justice is to dole out punishments that 1) fit the actions done and 2) are given to those who performed the action. This wholesale slaughter of 70,000 fails on both counts.

If there was a mayor who burns alive the children of anyone who steps on the grass, we wouldn’t call him just.

 

[ethereality]

I think you’re wrong to think of God as being a mafia leader here. I’ve already said that God killing people isn’t like people killing people. You took issue with some literal details of my soccer analogy, missing the point — my point was simply that refs can give people red cards; other players can’t.

Rather than a mafia leader, i.e. someone trying to get their own petty, capricious way without any clear authority otherwise, God was insisting on his authority (which is real because God created them) to keep a primitive people obeying him — doing good — so they wouldn’t fall into the evil practices of their surrounding culture, such as human sacrifice to demons.

I don’t see that it’s ‘ethically bankrupt’ — rather you must understand the passage in its historical context, what life was like for those people back then.

I wonder also if you aren’t misinterpreting Exodus 30.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I think you’re wrong to think of God as being a mafia leader here. I’ve already said that God killing people isn’t like people killing people. You took issue with some literal details of my soccer analogy, missing the point — my point was simply that refs can give people red cards; other players can’t.

I didn’t miss the point of your analogy, it’s just that it was incorrect and not in any way analogous to the topic at hand. You needed to reference someone who has utter control of all people in the game without limitation (like kids playing Red Rover).

Rather than a mafia leader, i.e. someone trying to get their own petty, capricious way without any clear authority otherwise, God was insisting on his authority (which is real because God created them) to keep a primitive people obeying him — doing good — so they wouldn’t fall into the evil practices of their surrounding culture, such as human sacrifice to demons.

Here is the classic theological question: Is an act by God good because he can only do good, or is it good simply because God does it? By defending acts that are needlessly cruel, that punish people for acts of which they took no part, you seem to be veering towards the latter. As I’ve noted several times now God (being all-powerful and all-knowing) had far more options between not doing anything and killing 70,000 people. The idea that keeping order necessitated such an overblown and evil act is no excuse whatsoever.

I don’t see that it’s ‘ethically bankrupt’ — rather you must understand the passage in its historical context, what life was like for those people back then.

At no point in time is it right to teach one person a lesson by hurting innocent others. Context is not a magic word that nullifies the severity of unnecessary atrocities.

I wonder also if you aren’t misinterpreting Exodus 30.

The beauty is you don’t have to wonder. To start with it’s only a few sentences. It’s from God to Moses as he climbed up the mountain the first time. It’s all straightforward procedure. Beyond that there are numerous articles talking about this very thing. Go on google or bing and type david census half shekel and you’ll find plenty of thoughts on the topic. A lot of people I’ve read seem to agree that I’m reading Exodus 30 right and that if David had given the proper amount of shekels to God there would not have been a problem.

 

[Kei]

Three main points to consider:

1. Those punished
2. David’s relation to those punished
3. God’s relation to the people

On this, my reflections are that David is actually representative of the whole nation as its ruler.
There is no reason to assume that all these people were “innocent”.
People die everyday. Pretty much everyone dies. What’s it matter if it is many or few at a time? We are not to take this into our hands, as life is in His Hands, not ours. This was a punishment upon all Israel that David could have accepted himself. This seems like a type of Christ, except showing the frailty of humankind. Whereas man fails to accept punishment unto himself to ransom the nation, our Lord accepted such for all the world.

 

[jcrichton]

I guess he’s employing what’s called “willing suspension of disbelief” and then trying to make sense of the fictional world.

We do it all the time when we watch some fictional movie, or tv show, or read a book…

Like in Star Wars, the Force is so wonderful, but in a few decades all natural-born wielders of it failed to do so and made it become a superstition? Doesn’t make sense.

In Ironman, where does Stark keep the fuel to propel his suit and himself, while being bulletproof? What material is capable of being so light and bulletproof?

Why doesn’t superman use his laser eyes to strike at foes at a distance more often?

In the accounts of old wars, god seems to be a presence… in the accounts of the NT, not so much… In today’s news coverage of wars (even in and around Israel) god is nowhere to be found. What happened?

Ever heard of the expression, “get with the program?”

The Salvific Plan is in effect.

The Old Covenant direct intervention and direct physical response ceased.

God is Spirit and True Worshipers must Worship in Spirit and Truth.

Jesus is the Truth.

Jesus is Yahweh God Come to His People (Jews and Gentile alike).

The Revelation is not that ‘I pray that you remove them from the world’ but that “I pray that you keep them Safe.”

Yet, this safety is not about the physical body, “do not fear the one who can kill you and do nothing else.”

This Safety is about the Eternal Life.

As long as man keeps looking to have God accountable for his misery, while engaging free will to reject God’s Command, “choose Life, so that you may Live,” he will continue on his merry-go-down!

The best example we have about the New Covenant Relationship is found in the experience of Stephen’s martyrdom, mirror by so many throughout time (ei: the little boy who was martyred for remaining Christian and he called out “Viva Cristo Rey!” as he was ruthlessly murdered or the babe that was crucified by the Japanese warlords for being a Christian or the young Christian girl who was burned to death by the “Islamic heroes” that burned her home down as she was taking a shower–with her dying words she confessed to her mom that she had forgiven those who murdered her and she pleaded with her mom that she too (the mom) must forgive them… they echoed Jesus’ Word “forgive them for they know not what they do.”)–this is part of what you are missing in your quest and analysis.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

You continue to fail to understand your own argument.

The US dropped several catastrophic bombs on Japan.

Was it absolutely necessary?

Even though the US bonded with Japan and made restitutions not a single life taken could ever be returned.

God has the power to return Life.

The problem you, your argument and your supporters have is that you are limited to the temporal realm.

Since you reject a spiritual after-life you cannot see beyond the reach of your fleshly demise.

It’s like wanting to play Russian roulette without adding a single bullet to the revolver or filling in all the empty cylinders and expecting the revolver to misfire six times out of six.

Maran atha!

Angel