Greensboring.com | Greensboro, NC

As always, I hope this can be a serious study of the Christian Bible, and I only ask that those who participate try to stay away from personal-level attacks. All pertinent comments are welcome, regardless of whether you are a believer or not.

This week, we look over a rather familiar story from the Old Testament and the life of King David - the Bathsheba Affair.

2 Sam 12:13-18 - David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan said to David, "Now the LORD has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die." Then Nathan went to the house.

The LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bore to David, and it became very ill. David therefore pleaded with God for the child; David fasted, and went in and lay all night on the ground. The elders of his house stood beside him, urging him to rise from the ground, but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. On the seventh day the child died...

Some context for those who are unfamiliar with the story - David decided he wanted to get in bed with Bathsheba, and had her husband killed in a rather sneaky manner. She got pregnant by him and Nathan (David's personal Man of God), just as the above text gets started, has exposed David's little secret. There are some rather interesting ramifications in this passage:

First, I think it interesting that David says that he's sinned against God. It seems to me that Uriah (Bathsheba's dead husband) should have been considered as an offended party, too. In Psalm 51 (which is supposedly written by David in response to this episode), it says "Against you alone, oh Lord, have I sinned." There's no question that I can see about the attitude shown here, and I find it a bit puzzling.

Second, Nathan, speaking for God, says that David's sin has already been "put away." I thought for a moment that God sure was treating his pet king rather lightly.

Third, we see that the old blood-and-thunder god of the Torah is going to insist on having his form of "justice," making a baby die in the place of the guilty.

Comments?

And this is an example of the good ole fashioned bible morals christians want everybody to adopt.

Are any of the putative just and honorable men in the Old Testament actually just and honorable by today's standards?

A Person wrote:Are any of the putative just and honorable men in the Old Testament actually just and honorable by today's standards?

That's a very good question. I rather think that many of the prophets -- those guys who rose up to speak out against the coldness and hypocrisy of the religious hierarchy -- had a few things going for them. Not Ezekiel, as such, since he WAS a priest. But some of the more populist guys were fairly cool by today's standards. I think I'll be covering a few later on...

How do we know from the bible that human skin is the most elastic substance in the universe?




Because Moses tied his ass to a tree and then walked a mile.

You know I've heard it said that it was Jesus, Saul, Balaam, Barruch and Moses who tied their asses to trees and walked, 2 miles, 40 miles, into town, into Damascus.

I haven't found this bit in the bible - just who (if anyone) did tie his damn ass to a tree?

A Person wrote:You know I've heard it said that it was Jesus, Saul, Balaam, Barruch and Moses who tied their asses to trees and walked, 2 miles, 40 miles, into town, into Damascus.

I haven't found this bit in the bible - just who (if anyone) did tie his damn ass to a tree?

No one, mon. It's just a joke...

Now Baalam had a talking ass -- but that's a separate joke, if you will.

A Person wrote:You know I've heard it said that it was Jesus, Saul, Balaam, Barruch and Moses who tied their asses to trees and walked, 2 miles, 40 miles, into town, into Damascus.

I haven't found this bit in the bible - just who (if anyone) did tie his damn ass to a tree?

There were a LOT of asses in the bible--many of them with two legs.

I know it's a joke, but it's only funny if the Bible actually said that. (it's barely funny then)The joke is the ambiguity in the statement from a revered source. If the statement was never made in the bible then there's no ambiguity so where's the joke?

Much like the one about Priest putting his hand on the Nuns leg and being told "Remember Psalm 129". If Psalm 129 doesn't say "Go forth and seek, further up, you will find glory." then the joke completely loses it's point.

Or am I being too analytical

A while back I had a fortune cookie that said "You are thoughtful and analytical" (which is more of a prediction than a fortune) My friends had it framed and put on my office wall.

A Person wrote:Or am I being too analytical

Yes, dear. WAY too analytical. And on St. Paddy's day too!

St Patrick, the welshman? But then I suppose that makes as mch sense as St George (a Turk) being the patron saint of England.

Personally, I celebrate St Arnulf of Metz. Every day is his day. St Patrick's day would be pretty boring without ol' Arnie

A Person wrote:St Patrick, the welshman? But then I suppose that makes as mch sense as St George (a Turk) being the patron saint of England.

Personally, I celebrate St Arnulf of Metz. Every day is his day. St Patrick's day would be pretty boring without ol' Arnie

Humpfff! Patron Saint of Brewing is your connection with St. Arnulf I suppose. Tsk, tsk, tsk! St. Paddy may have been adopted by Ireland, but the Irish are a good hearted and open group. On St. Paddy's day, everybody gets to be Irish--even St. Patrick.

A Person wrote:Humpfff! Patron Saint of Brewing is your connection with St. Arnulf I suppose. Tsk, tsk, tsk!

P.S. I've nothing against breweries in a moral sense mind you. It's just that I think beer and ale are nasty concoctions, best poured back into the horse.

So how DO you celebrate St Patrick's day without beer or ale? A nice glass of green tea?

A Person wrote:So how DO you celebrate St Patrick's day without beer or ale? A nice glass of green tea?

By the wearin' o' th' Green o' course!
(And with frozen lime Margaritas.)

A Person wrote:If Psalm 129 doesn't say "Go forth and seek, further up, you will find glory." then the joke completely loses it's point.

I agree!!

So I propose Luke 14:10
"Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have glory" (American Standard Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, English Revised Version)

That's worth remembering

Any candidates for Moses tying his ass to a tree?

Does the Webster's have the word "arse" in it? Ass is another word for donkey - is that what people have at the bases of their spines.........donkeys?

ghost wrote:Does the Webster's have the word "arse" in it? Ass is another word for donkey - is that what people have at the bases of their spines.........donkeys?

It's things like this that makes English such an entertaining language to play around with.

It also hi-lights -- seriously now -- the biggest drawback to the whole "divine revelation" scenario. All languages are ambiguous means of communication. When you try to translate between extremely different languages, such as between Hebrew and English, enormous problems inevitably arise. In a matter of such importance as a god communicating what it wants to its creations, language is a pathetic tool to try and use. Even more so is a one-shot, multiple-reuse deal like the "big 3 monotheisms" try to push off on people.

Clearly we have an English ghost here. Americans don't care about the confusion between 'ass' (gluteus maximus) and 'ass' (Equus asinus), indeed it is a souce of japes and merriment.

There is no confusion in English English, because gluteus maximus = arse and Equus asinus = donkey

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:Second, Nathan, speaking for God, says that David's sin has already been "put away." I thought for a moment that God sure was treating his pet king rather lightly.

Third, we see that the old blood-and-thunder god of the Torah is going to insist on having his form of "justice," making a baby die in the place of the guilty.

Comments?

After the story of the poor man and the rich man...

2Sa 12:5-And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, [As] the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this [thing] shall surely die:

2Sa 12:6-And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

2Sa 12:10-Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

2Sa 12:11-Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give [them] unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

2Sa 12:12-For thou didst [it] secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

David had already cursed himself. He was punished fourfold, he lost four sons. I think, that is punishment enough. God promised alot of heartache, you seemed to have uh... skipped it.

The child was put on earth by God, and then so taken. That was the child's purpose. God is GOD. He can do what he wants, and we are not to say if it be just, because it always is.

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:The child was put on earth by God, and then so taken. That was the child's purpose. God is GOD. He can do what he wants, and we are not to say if it be just, because it always is.

That's a convenient excuse. If I acted like God I'd be executed by the state. God's an asshole, and by example shows he is pro- choice.

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:The child was put on earth by God, and then so taken. That was the child's purpose. God is GOD. He can do what he wants, and we are not to say if it be just, because it always is.

So God is under no moral obligation to treat his creations in any particular way, is that what you contend? If God has no morality, how can you judge that his actions are "just"? The Bible says that "God is love," but how can you square that with a being that creates babies only for the purpose of killing them "to teach a lesson"? That is totally alien to any definition of "love" that I have ever encountered.

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:
The child was put on earth by God, and then so taken. That was the child's purpose. God is GOD. He can do what he wants, and we are not to say if it be just, because it always is.

Very interesting. So it's "just" simply because your god says it is, okay then. It seems like your god has two sets of rules. One set for himself and another set for everyone else. This particular passage is an excellent example of this. Your saying here that this "child's" sole purpose was for your god to kill him. A most excellent example of a post-natal abortion if I ever saw one. If people do this prison is the likely result. Ah, but lo and behold if your god does it it's a part of his mysterious plan that we insignificant humans are incapable of fathoming. Logic based, reasoning people call this "rationalizing". That way god can break all his own rules and still be "just", simply because he says so.

RebelSnake wrote:

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:
The child was put on earth by God, and then so taken. That was the child's purpose. God is GOD. He can do what he wants, and we are not to say if it be just, because it always is.

Very interesting. So it's "just" simply because your god says it is, okay then. It seems like your god has two sets of rules. One set for himself and another set for everyone else. This particular passage is an excellent example of this. Your saying here that this "child's" sole purpose was for your god to kill him. A most excellent example of a post-natal abortion if I ever saw one. If people do this prison is the likely result. Ah, but lo and behold if your god does it it's a part of his mysterious plan that we insignificant humans are incapable of fathoming. Logic based, reasoning people call this "rationalizing". That way god can break all his own rules and still be "just", simply because he says so.

You know, in Ephesians 5:1, it commands Christians to imitate God. So if God is completely without moral restraint, and can kill babies while still being equated with "love"...

Need I complete the syllogism here?