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

[ethereality]

Why does God hurt innocent people to punish King David? Moreover, even David doesn’t understand it, raising the additional problem of why God would give a punishment not understood by the person supposed to be punished. From today’s readings:

He asked: “Do you want a three years’ famine to come upon your land, or to flee from your enemy three months while he pursues you, or to have a three days’ pestilence in your land? Now consider and decide what I must reply to him who sent me.” David answered Gad: “I am in very serious difficulty. Let us fall by the hand of God, for he is most merciful; but let me not fall by the hand of man.” Thus David chose the pestilence. Now it was the time of the wheat harvest when the plague broke out among the people. The LORD then sent a pestilence over Israel from morning until the time appointed, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beer-sheba died. But when the angel stretched forth his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD regretted the calamity and said to the angel causing the destruction among the people, “Enough now! Stay your hand.” The angel of the LORD was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. When David saw the angel who was striking the people, he said to the LORD: "It is I who have sinned; it is I, the shepherd, who have done wrong. But these are sheep; what have they done?

 

[jcrichton]

The angel of the LORD was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. When David saw the angel who was striking the people, he said to the LORD: "It is I who have sinned; it is I, the shepherd, who have done wrong. But these are sheep; what have they done?

Hi!

Have you noticed how “drama” is forced into existence in the films, movies, and shows?

I find it is the same when people read Scriptures… consider that David and the people are one (Israel); consider that God’s anger is turned against Israel (verse 1); consider that the punishment boils down to restitution (not just simply punishment out of anger); consider that the restitution is made through sacrifice; consider the test (choices): 1 - seven years of famine (can the king suffer famine in isolation or must the land/people not be caught up in it as well?), 2 - the king’s adversaries would put him to task (would a dynasty’s enemies be content with making only the king/monarchy suffer or would they not also be intent in making all of the nation suffer?), 3 - three days of mayhem (death, destruction, fear, corruption, insurgency, anarchy…).

The least worst thing is what David chose. But the story does not end there… David is given a task to do and here’s the outcome:

25 And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered holocausts and peace offerings: and the Lord became merciful to the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel. (2 Samuel 24)

The horror which you speak of was removed from Israel as soon as her king (which back then also meant the people) returned to Yahweh God’s Fellowship.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Kei]

As king, David was directly representative of Israel. He doesn’t realize or pretends to not realize the great responsibility he has to his people. It is also wrong to assume they are innocent.

 

[Gorgias]

Why does God hurt innocent people to punish King David? Moreover, even David doesn’t understand it, raising the additional problem of why God would give a punishment not understood by the person supposed to be punished.

Here’s my take on it: David’s problem, all along, has been an inability to take personal responsibility for his mistakes. Here, God is giving him a chance to redeem himself. David has brought God’s wrath on Israel, by taking a census, and God is offering him three choices of punishment:

• seven years of famine. who suffers? The people. (After all, if there’s a famine, do you really expect the king will go hungry?)
• three months of David being chased by his enemies. (Ooh… a chance for David to pick a personal punishment for a personal bad decision!)
• three days of death: In the Latin, it’s pestilentia, but in the Greek, it’s θάνατον – death! (This can’t be too bad, right? After all, it’s the shortest of the three!)

The pestilence is the trap: in choosing the shortest duration, David is still choosing something that harms his people for his own sin.

But, David recognizes his mistake, and begs forgiveness. God hears David’s change of heart, and relents.

So, this isn’t about God wanting to hurt others – it’s about God wanting David to take his responsibility seriously.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

But, David recognizes his mistake, and begs forgiveness. God hears David’s change of heart, and relents.

Could God have taught David a lesson without 70,000 people dying?

 

[Elf01]

I had never thought of that the way that @Gorgias put it and I think it’s excellent.

No, he had to see the consequences of his choice in order to repent and say

Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Let thy hand, I pray thee, be against me and against my father’s house.

As an atheist I can understand why you can’t fathom the deaths, but to a Christian death is not the end. While we believe that they were not admitted to heaven then (assuming they were righteous) we do believe that they had comfort.

 

[Gorgias]

Could God have taught David a lesson without 70,000 people dying?

The point being expressed is that David was acting in a way, as a leader, that had already put his people in the path of destruction. God’s action, then, wasn’t to teach David through 70K unwarranted deaths – it was to give David the option to avoid the carnage. He didn’t take it.

 

[ethereality]

Your answer dehumanizes the pestilence victims as mere instruments for David’s relationship with God, rather than human beings in their own right with their own relationships with God.

I think the conclusion from this passage is that suffering and death is far less important than we think it is. This makes sense if the Christian theology about the immortality of the soul and life with God after death is correct.

 

[ethereality]

Your response here is a cop-out: A census does not cause pestilence. David did not “put his people in the path of destruction” through numbering them: He only offended and blasphemed God, who had said that the Israelites would be uncountable. The text clearly states that God caused the pestilence; don’t try to dodge this question.

I will say again to Mike that I think this text teaches us that suffering and death are far less important than we think, and that we should regard our lives as every moment coming from God, and hence not ours to preserve, nor is suffering the worst outcome to befall us — it seems suffering is just a mode of being, and it’s up to us to “look past it” rather than rebel against it with our will and intellect.

 

[Kei]

I think you have some points here.
People die constantly all the time. It’s part of the natural order of things in this fallen world. Pretty much everyone dies. It matters less when than how.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The point being expressed is that David was acting in a way, as a leader, that had already put his people in the path of destruction. God’s action, then, wasn’t to teach David through 70K unwarranted deaths – it was to give David the option to avoid the carnage. He didn’t take it.

But you’re just kicking the can down the road. When you say that David “put his people in the path of destruction” what you’re saying is that David did a census without giving a half-shekel to God, thus God was going to punish many for the actions of David. A good person doesn’t hurt others to teach one person a lesson. The Mafia does that.

God could have made David think that the deaths of the 70,000 people were real and then when David repented for not giving God a cut of the census he could have pulled the curtain back and revealed it was all a vision put in place by God, thus not actually killing all of those people. He’s God, infinite in power, wisdom, and love; yet he was not either not powerful enough, wise enough, or loving enough to come up with a plan that didn’t involve outright murdering those people through no fault of their own.

This wouldn’t be the only time that someone else would be punished for the actions of David. The saying “One death is a tragedy. One million is a statistic,” is sadly true. Since the deaths of 70,000 – enough to fill Yankee Stadium – is being brushed aside, then perhaps one death may hold more weight. In the TV movie God On Trial prisoners in a concentration camp put God on trial for breaking his covenant with them. Here’s a link where a rabbi discusses God punishing David for his actions against Uriah the Hittite:

Rabbi: After Saul there came David who took Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, to himself by arranging to have Uriah killed against the wishes of God. Did God strike David for this?

Scholar: In a manner of speaking.

Rabbi: Did he strike Bathsheba?

Scholar: In the sense that when they…

Rabbi: Adonai said, “Since you sinned Me the child will dir.” You asked earlier, “Who punishes a child?” God does. Now did the child die suddenly, mercifully, without pain?

Scholar: In chapter 12 we learn that…

Rabbi: Seven days. Seven days that child spent dying in pain while David wrapped himself in sack and ashes and fasted and sought to show his sorrow to God. Did God listen?

Scholar: The child died.

Rabbi: Did that child find that God was just? Did the Amalekites think that Adonia was just? Did the mothers of Egypt, the mothers, did they think Adonia was just?

Scholar: But Adonia is OUR god. Surely…

Rabbi: Oh, what, did God not make the Egyptians? Did he not make their rivers and make their crops grow?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I see this as similar to the previous thread about why did God kill Jeptha’s daughter.

1. Someone in power does something stupid which endangers uninvolved/ innocent people
2. Instead of begging pardon to God for their stupidity and trying to save the innocent people, the person in power just carries through with the “bargain”
3. Innocent people suffer

Bottom line: Actions have consequences, and if you are in power and don’t realize that - including realizing that you may be in a position to, in some way, save the people under you - then innocent people will suffer, and it will be because of you.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I had never thought of that the way that @Gorgias put it and I think it’s excellent.

We’ll have to disagree. I’m more inclined to agree with ethereality.

No, he had to see the consequences of his choice in order to repent and say

God could have shown David the consequences of his actions without actually killing anybody. Heck, it worked for Ebenezer Scrooge.

As I said in my response to Gorgias, he’s infinite in power, wisdom, and love; yet he was not powerful enough, wise enough, or loving enough to come up with a plan that didn’t involve outright murdering those people through no fault of their own. Believers will tell you God is all-powerful but are the first to render him impotent in power when defending his indefensible actions.

As an atheist I can understand why you can’t fathom the deaths, but to a Christian death is not the end. While we believe that they were not admitted to heaven then (assuming they were righteous) we do believe that they had comfort.

God himself considers death a punishment, yet you’re asking us to not treat anymore than a minor inconvenience. As ethereality put it in so succinctly in his first post, such a defense dehumanizes the victims.

 

[Gorgias]

Your answer dehumanizes the pestilence victims as mere instruments for David’s relationship with God, rather than human beings in their own right with their own relationships with God.

And your answer misunderstands the context of the narrative in its time and place. The Bible is a challenging book – it asks us to understand the cultures in which its various narratives were written, and it asks us to recognize the lessons therein through their eyes, and not as if it were written today.

I agree with you, inasmuch as you’re correct that, if this narrative were written today, it would speak to a ‘dehumanization’ of sorts. It wasn’t; and it doesn’t. Rather, this narrative challenges you to recognize the relationship between king and subjects. Was it a perfect solution? Of course not. But, in its own context, the human kingdoms of that time were precisely about the subjugation that you’re picking up. Without assenting to that form of governance, we read it and understand what’s being said: God wants David to act in a way above and beyond what a king in the ancient Near East would have acted.

I think the conclusion from this passage is that suffering and death is far less important than we think it is.

That’s a conclusion that treats the context as if it were the lesson. It isn’t.

This makes sense if the Christian theology about the immortality of the soul and life with God after death is correct.

No, that’s not the implication of Christian theology.

 

[Gorgias]

God was going to punish many for the actions of David. A good person doesn’t hurt others to teach one person a lesson.

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.

a plan that didn’t involve outright murdering those people through no fault of their own.

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.

Gotta cut it short… reboot coming. I’ll be back…

 

[jcrichton]

Hi!

Exactly!

…we have to go back to the original incident… Israel, by demanding a “king” as the “nations” around them have rejected Yahweh God, the King of kings, as her King. Even when warned that the king the elect (Saul) will use and abuse them, the nation’s resolve is to have an earthly king… as the movie Excalibur, the land and the king are one (the people and the king are one).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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?

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.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

God could have shown David the consequences of his actions without actually killing anybody. Heck, it worked for Ebenezer Scrooge

Yeah, hollowood’s spirituality!

It is wonderful to pretend… 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!

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…’)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[hymin]

In the Conferences of John Cassian, Abba Theodore (Conference six) gives a good explanation of how to see the good that suffer murder.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/350806.htm

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I see this as similar to the previous thread about why did God kill Jeptha’s daughter.

I will get back to that thread once my patience reserves have been refilled

1. Someone in power does something stupid which endangers uninvolved/ innocent people

But where does this endangerment come from? Yahweh. He is the Godfather (no pun intended) who is hurting the family of the man who cheesed off the Cosa Nostra. It wasn’t even that God said if you hold a census and do give me my half-shekel for each man counted that there would be a specific punishment. Even considering the disparity between the so-called crime and the punishment, God could just have easily given David the choice of three punishments that would have only affected him. The 70,000 people who died were utterly blameless.

1. Instead of begging pardon to God for their stupidity and trying to save the innocent people, the person in power just carries through with the “bargain”

I’m not sure what you’re reading, but David clearly realized his mistake after it was done and pleaded with God in 2 Samuel 24:10 “I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.” This was before being told by his seer that God would punishm him.

And I don’t know if you read the bit of transcript or clicked on the link I gave above, but as his child struggled in pain for seven days David wept and begged for his child to be spared. No mercy was shown.

1. Innocent people suffer

1. The defense of wholesale murder of innocents is defended to the stark horror of non-believers.

Bottom line: Actions have consequences, and if you are in power and don’t realize that - including realizing that you may be in a position to, in some way, save the people under you - then innocent people will suffer, and it will be because of you.

Our jurisprudence system does not directly punish innocent people for the crimes of others, and for good reason. As I’ve said before and likely will say again, God being omni-everything could with no effort punished David without punishing anyone else. When we gauge what is moral we compare a particular act (or non-act) to other possible acts. Because God killed 70,000 people when he could have punished David alone, when he could have punished David instead of slowly killing David’s child, the acts of God are clearly immoral.