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

[TechieGuy]

Um, guys, maybe, as was pointed out in the very first post, maybe the story isn’t an actual historical record, but instead just a dramatic tale where the events didn’t really happen, but was intended to make a point about about what the priests of that time and later times thought about King David.

 

[Agathon]

But most important is this: This still doesn’t explain why innocents should be punished for the acts of one man.

Except at the beginning of the text it explicitly reads that Israel wasn’t innocent.

 

[pocaracas]

Mike_from_NJ:

But most important is this: This still doesn’t explain why innocents should be punished for the acts of one man.

Except at the beginning of the text it explicitly reads that Israel wasn’t innocent.

Since when are civilians held accountable for the way the country is run? (in a monarchy setting… y’all 'murricans are guilty of Trump )

 

[Gorgias]

I’m the one asking the question, so you cannot expect me to have the answer to it already. However, I think Our Lady of Fatima is instructive: Apparently for private revelation, when the children saw Mary, and later Joseph and Jesus, they did not physically see them (since no one else saw them), but nonetheless in their subjective experience they describe it as seeing them.

This undermines your responses to me that we cannot expect to see anything merely because they’re not physically here on Earth.

I don’t think it does, and here’s why: we look at apparitions as miraculous experiences. In other words, it’s not that our perception of God is something that we expect to be able to measure empirically. So, if the question is “how can I prove God’s existence through empirical measurement?”, then the answer – by definition – cannot be “through measurements of miraculous appearances.”

Moreover, in the case of apparitions, we have to ask a critical question: is an apparition something that exists in the physical world in general, or does it exist only in the perception of the person who is having the vision? If it’s the latter, then there’s absolutely no way to measure it (unless you suggest that all humans wear sensory measuring devices 24/7/365).

So God can give us experiences that to us seem physical even though they are not empirical.

This is a good distinction.

However, it forces us to ask the question: does something that seems physical necessarily imply that it is actually physicsl?

 

[Gorgias]

Um, guys, maybe, as was pointed out in the very first post, maybe the story isn’t an actual historical record, but instead just a dramatic tale where the events didn’t really happen, but was intended to make a point about about what the priests of that time and later times thought about King David.

That’s a slippery slope. 2 Samuel is generally considered to be one of the historical books of the Bible. If we start saying “I don’t like what’s written here, and therefore I’m gonna claim it never happened,” then we’re in a world of hurt when someone replies, “well, then, can’t we suggest that none of it really happened, and the whole thing is just one big ‘dramatic tale’?”

 

[Agathon]

Agathon:

Mike_from_NJ:

But most important is this: This still doesn’t explain why innocents should be punished for the acts of one man.

Except at the beginning of the text it explicitly reads that Israel wasn’t innocent.

Since when are civilians held accountable for the way the country is run? (in a monarchy setting… y’all 'murricans are guilty of Trump )

“Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel.” So apparently BOTH the king AND his subjects pissed the LORD off.

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

Agathon:

Mike_from_NJ:

But most important is this: This still doesn’t explain why innocents should be punished for the acts of one man.

Except at the beginning of the text it explicitly reads that Israel wasn’t innocent.

Since when are civilians held accountable for the way the country is run? (in a monarchy setting… y’all 'murricans are guilty of Trump )

“Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel.” So apparently BOTH the king AND his subjects pissed the LORD off.

Or so goes the tale.
I can read that thing as “the king pissed the religious leaders off” and the people, as always, were pawns with no say.
I can’t say that those religious leaders had the power to cause an epidemic… but maybe they did?.. or maybe they capitalized on one that coincidentally popped up?

Somehow, I don’t think the god you guys nowadays call Christ would ever be pissed off by something as petty as people not paying their religious leaders… but I can see how those leaders could be pissed off.

 

[Agathon]

Agathon:

pocaracas:

Agathon:

Mike_from_NJ:

But most important is this: This still doesn’t explain why innocents should be punished for the acts of one man.

Except at the beginning of the text it explicitly reads that Israel wasn’t innocent.

Since when are civilians held accountable for the way the country is run? (in a monarchy setting… y’all 'murricans are guilty of Trump )

“Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel.” So apparently BOTH the king AND his subjects pissed the LORD off.

Or so goes the tale.
I can read that thing as “the king pissed the religious leaders off” and the people, as always, were pawns with no say.
I can’t say that those religious leaders had the power to cause an epidemic… but maybe they did?.. or maybe they capitalized on one that coincidentally popped up?

It clearly says “Israel” not just David or just his subjects. No matter how you want to dance around it, that’s what the text says.

Somehow, I don’t think the god you guys nowadays call Christ would ever be pissed off by something as petty as people not paying their religious leaders… but I can see how those leaders could be pissed off.

My God actually flipped the tables when people desecrated His Father’s House, and He through Peter brought down judgement on two people who lied to the Spirit. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

 

[Gorgias]

Somehow, I don’t think the god you guys nowadays call Christ would ever be pissed off by something as petty as people not paying their religious leaders

Again… paying the temple tax was not the reason for God’s displeasure.

 

[goout]

But most important is this: This still doesn’t explain why innocents should be punished for the acts of one man. God had the power to punish David, to teach David, and/or to remove David from power without hurting anyone who was not responsible for the census/numbering. It wasn’t that God had only two choices of nothing or having David decide which atrocity would befall his people. Why did God not do this? If 70,000 is too many to fathom, then explain why God had David’s son suffer until he died 7 days later for the act of David?

It pains me to say it, but as an atheist your moral outrage in regard to this “god” is on target. You should object to it, it is objectionable and does not accurately reflect a loving God as revealed in Christ.
You are debating fundamentalist interpretations that are not in step with mainstream Catholic thought or Tradition.

Keep this in mind: Catholicism interprets all of scripture through Jesus Christ.
The violent “god” clung to by many Christians is a caricature of the God we put our faith in.

 

[qui_est_ce]

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.

They are wrong.

 

[Agathon]

Mike_from_NJ:

But most important is this: This still doesn’t explain why innocents should be punished for the acts of one man. God had the power to punish David, to teach David, and/or to remove David from power without hurting anyone who was not responsible for the census/numbering. It wasn’t that God had only two choices of nothing or having David decide which atrocity would befall his people. Why did God not do this? If 70,000 is too many to fathom, then explain why God had David’s son suffer until he died 7 days later for the act of David?

It pains me to say it, but as an atheist your moral outrage in regard to this “god” is on target. You should object to it, it is objectionable and does not accurately reflect a loving God as revealed in Christ.
You are debating fundamentalist interpretations that are not in step with mainstream Catholic thought or Tradition.

Keep this in mind: Catholicism interprets all of scripture through Jesus Christ.
The violent “god” clung to by many Christians is a caricature of the God we put our faith in.

I’m not sure denying the justice of God means that you affirm that He’s loving. And since God is the author of life “who are you, a man, to talk back to God?”

 

[ethereality]

It sounds like you think we ought to reject what the Old Testament says in favor of the New Testament. This idea that the Bible depicts two different gods is an old heresy, and if you insist on saying parts of the Bible are wrong, I think eventually you’ll leave the Catholic Church, if not Christianity all together. … the reason being that you’re putting yourself as the authority rather than the Church.

 

[ethereality]

I’m puzzled by why you’ve insisted on misinterpreting my question: From the very beginning I clarified that I was not demanding physical or empirical proof like a common uneducated Reddit atheist.

You make a good point that the Fatima apparition was miraculous and so we shouldn’t expect to see angels, though. Still, my question remains, and it seems to me you don’t know that angels or God exists, but rather are trusting human beings who tell you they do. Or perhaps you’re also convinced by arguments resting on uncertain principles (e.g. the kalam argument)…

 

[ethereality]

I meant popularity doesn’t imply truth.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m puzzled by why you’ve insisted on misinterpreting my question: From the very beginning I clarified that I was not demanding physical or empirical proof like a common uneducated Reddit atheist.

LOL!

No … I’m not trying to ‘misinterpret’ you. Rather, when you ask for proof, I’m pointing out that ‘proof’ of the type you’re looking for is necessarily empirical. Or… do you think that there is such a thing as ‘proof’ of spiritual realities? If so, can you give an example of the type of proof that you’re seeking?

it seems to me you don’t know that angels or God exists, but rather are trusting human beings who tell you they do.

If I point to the Bible… would you claim that this is “trusting in human beings” or in God?
If I point to the teachings of the Church, given that Jesus said that what the Church teaches on earth, He upholds in heaven… would you claim that this is trust in humans or in Jesus?

It all comes down to this: what would you consider to be proof from God? (Here’s my guess: it’s gonna be something physical / empirical, but I’m willing to hear your response and to hope that it’s not.)

Or perhaps you’re also convinced by arguments resting on uncertain principles (e.g. the kalam argument)…

I haven’t seen you respond to my appeals to Kalam. What would you consider “uncertain principles” vis-a-vis its argument?

 

[Gorgias]

any character who would kill 70,000 people for lack of payment (or even just for holding a census) is twisted. I’m the one here not twisting the words to say something it does not say.

God isn’t “killing 70,000 people for lack of payment”. You are the one twisting the narrative, if this is what you assert it’s saying.

To say that it is talking about a specific census would be adding to scrupture

If the reference in Exodus 30 isn’t to the census in Numbers, then please identify what census it refers to. (There is no other. Therefore, my analysis is exegesis, not the eisegesis you’re claiming that it is. )

On top of that the Talmud says

You realize that the Church doesn’t hold the Talmud as inspired, or even authoritative, don’t you? So, some Jewish scholars have expressed this take on the narrative. Umm… why’s that convincing to a Christian?

doesn’t even bother to try and wade through the much of whether it was God or Satan that told David to perform the numbering. He’s making it seem like David called for the census on his own which is doubly wrong, both when compared to the passage in 2 Samuel and in Chronicles.

Here’s the thing: what you’re missing in your analysis is that the ancient OT perspective is occasionalist – God Himself, and God alone, is responsible for every event that happens on the earth. (The implication is that, if God doesn’t cause every event, then He’s not omnipotent – someone else causes stuff to happen.)

So, with that in mind, the narrative of 2 Sam 24 doesn’t say what you assert it does – it just reflects an occasionalist perspective. On the other hand, by the time of the post-exilic account in 1 Chronicles, Israel has already escaped occasionalism… and therefore, attributes the blame to an “adversary” (that is, to a ‘satan’).

So… I get it that you recognize a difference. However, disregarding the narratives simply on account of the differences, without attempting to understand the reason for the difference, is an approach that is rather anachronistic.

I’m curious how you’re going to say that X means not X.

“Occasionalism means not ‘secondary causation’.” Pretty straightforward… unless your goal is simply to denigrate the narrative.

 

[ethereality]

I’m short on time and in pain.

I think you’re on the right track — I just want to stop hurting. I want a clear answer from God or His angels, not to sit in a silent church and assume that God is saying ’No, I don’t want to heal you’ or ‘I’m healing you slowly and I want you to endure the pain a bit longer’. You could say that a physical healing would be empirical. You’re right that someone else being healed could easily be reduced to ‘trusting a human being’ (if I can’t verify it) or ‘some natural process we don’t understand yet’ (if I can verify it), i.e. there’s no clear way to link an event to God apart from God ‘internally convincing’ us directly. I suppose you intend for it rather to be an argument in defense of faith (i.e. trusting in Church doctrine).

As I can recall from the kalam argument (ugh, opening a can of worms?) it fails trying to defend the premise that the universe had a beginning by contradicting the definition of ‘infinity’ (i.e. trying to start counting “from” minus infinity, as if you can go back to the ‘first’ point of an infinite past and then begin counting your way forward). I.e. it is logically consistent to suppose that every moment in time had a prior moment that brought it about (“for every moment at time T, there exists a moment at time T-1”); it is self-contradicting to suppose this and then claim to have identified the first moment of such a regression. This does not prove that the universe cannot have an infinite regression: It only proves that the speaker is not being careful to think about what he’s saying.

Because every formulation of the kalam argument depends on this error (i.e. denying a previously stated premise thereby introducing a contradiction that they erroneously suppose /follows/ from the premise), well, the kalam argument in every formulation I’ve seen is unsound, invalid.

 

[mythbuster1]

Calling this victim blaming is begging the question. If they were guilty, then your premise that God slew the innocent is baseless. God judges justly, and David affirms this in the case of the death of his son, saying, “I will go to him; he will not return to me.” He knew that his son’s soul was saved, though his mortal life was cut short in infancy. Thus the adulterers suffered the pain of losing a child, but the child will surely go to Heaven.

 

[mythbuster1]

The Temple Tax was not one of the Kohenite gifts. The priests would hardly be upset by not receiving money they couldn’t keep.