King David found guilty on all counts.

By questioning Bathsheba's motives for bathing where the king could see her, the defense tacitly admitted to the coveting charge. Provocation is not an excuse. The attempt to impugn Bathsheba's character was a transparent ploy, with no evidence presented to substantiate it.I don't see where David ever contested the adultery charge.The letter to Joab, including the phrase, "that he may be smitten, and die," leaves no doubt as to David's guilt in the conspiracy to commit murder.Guilty on all three counts. (And the prosecution should consider adding a charge of rape.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

"Morally bankrupt" is an interesting phrase, ain't it? Bankruptcy laws protect the bankrupt from having to pay their debts, kinda like having somebody come from out of the blue and pay them for you.David was morally bankrupt, but who paid his moral debts for him? Christians would claim that Jesus paid everybody's debt - retroactively and proactively, I suppose. But those of us who come after have to "accept" the substitute payment. How did David rate a free pass?Presumably, he didn't know anything about Jesus (no hit psalms about Him that I recall). What about all the others today and in the past who never heard of Jesus? Why are their debts still enforceable?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

We recognize mistakes by the consequences. If we cut the wrong pipe and flood the basement, that's a mistake. We don't pretend that we wanted that to happen or that there is some mysterious "reason" for it happening. We recognize our own culpability. The "false assumption" there would be that God is perfect - that is, the God described in the Bible.A better argument would be:1. David was a bad choice for king.
2. God doesn't make bad choices.
3. Therefore, God didn't choose David.We make assumptions about what God "must" be like, above and beyond what is described in the Bible.

He might have been the best of a bad lot, though that seems unlikely.But my point was that, since he was bad, he might not have been God's choice at all. That might just be the spin put on it by the "Divine Right of Kings" crowd.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Not to start an argument but what God perceives as good and bad isn't really important.The Bible was written for us. Part of its function is to help us perceive what's good and bad.It seems quite clear that the Bible intends for us to perceive that murder and adultery are bad. So how does it intend for us to perceive David?Bottom line: Should we perceive that David was good and therefore that God sometimes condones adultery and murder? Or should we perceive that murder and adultery are bad and that the perception of David's goodness is wrong?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Interesting turn of phrase, that.Was David honest "before" God (caught him with his hand in the cookie jar)? Or "after"? It's one thing to feign contrition when it comes to doing the time. It's another to honestly assess yourself before doing the crime. Wasn't he a rock star "before" he went into politics?Seems like another tale of idealistic youth declining into jaded and cynical "maturity". Perhaps a candidate for "ye must be born again".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Sure it is. Jesus defined it as "love God and love thy neighbour as thyself". And He said that that is the basis of the whole Old Testament law.Uriah was clearly David's neighbour - he could see right into Uriah's house - so you can't define away the obvious bad that he did. But we do understand "God's ways" as they pertain to us. That's what the law is all about. The application of the law is not always clear, but you couldn't find a worse case than David's to suggest that "we don't understand". The question here is: Who is responsible for the people in authority?If a leader is elected by the people and he kills (with the tacit blessing of the electorate), aren't the people responsible for their actions?Why is God less responsible for the actions of those He "elects"?Edited by Ringo, : Malfunctioning "Shift" key.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It's easy to "win" the debate since we all set our own winning conditions. The standard of challenge that you set for yourself seems to be very low.Actually, you're completely off topic.FYI, the topic title is "King David found guilty on all counts" and the OP asks the question, "So was Bathsheba just a Good Jewish Mother looking out for the interests of her son?"Where did you even come close to addressing either of those?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's the problem. You're assuming that if God did it, "He must have had a good reason", even if we don't understand the reason. You're assuming that God made a "good" decision in choosing David, even if we can't see the good in it.What I'm saying is that it was a bad choice and therefore God probably didn't make it. Of course. In a democracy, you're responsible for who you elect.If you elect somebody you know is going to repress blacks, homosexuals, etc., then that repression is your responsibility. If he does what you don't expect, then you certainly have a reponsibility to not elect him to a second term. That's exactly what we're talking about. David was not supposed to be breaking the law. If God knew he would break the law, He shouldn't have chosen him. If He didn't know, He wouldn't be God.The sensible conclusion is that God didn't choose David. No. I am trying to say that God would have made the best passible choice from a pool of imperfect humans. Do you seriously believe that David was the best possible choice? Do you seriously believe there was nobody in Israel who would not commit adultery and murder? More important, how do you know he was?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Well, yes and no. Mostly no.We're talking about David comitting adultery and David committing murder. There is nothing "iffy" about those crimes. They were specifically forbidden by the Ten Commandments. David knew that.There is no question in this case that what he did was "bad". We're not talking about God "allowing something to happen". We're talking about God actively choosing an a**hole to be king of Israel. Yes, that does make Him responsible. David's free will doesn't enter into it at all.I'm trying to "make God look good" here by suggesting that the story just claims that God chose David. If you're not a literalist, why is it so hard to consider the possibility that the Bible might not be literally true? That doesn't follow at all. If God created everything, does that mean that He chose what you had for supper tonight?We all exercise our free will. If God chose to put an a**hole like David in a position where David would freely choose adultery and murder, then God would be an a**hole too. It's an opinion that puts God in a better light than your opinion does.Why not give God the benefit of the doubt? Read the question. I didn't ask if David "was" the best choice. I asked if you "believe" David was the best choice.You can believe he was the best choice, you can believe he was not the best choice or you can be unsure what you believe. It's not an impossible question.Once more, I'm saying that maybe God didn't choose David. Maybe David chose David. In that case, God would not be responsible for what David did.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That's one way of telling it is God's choice - if it disagrees with yours.Read the history. David wasn't exactly a shrinking violet about accepting the crown. He wanted it. Don't be too sure that God wanted him to have it. Not at all. If you recognize the possibility that David's story isn't literally true then you must also recognize the possibility that the other stories are not literally true. That's what it means to not be a literalist.But that isn't "discounting" the stories at all. It's recognizing that the stories have more value than just old news. Yesterday's news is only good for wrapping fish and lining birdcages.Have some respect for the real value of the stories. That's "a" moral of the story - I'm not sure it's "the" moral.Another way of looking at is that people who have a lot didn't necessarily get it from God. They may have taken it in spite of God.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

God has only "not perfect" people to choose from - but He has a responsibility to choose the best of the "not perfect".That's why I keep saying: If the person is clearly not the best person for the job - e.g. David - then there's a very good chance that he was not God's choice. If you believe the stories did happen and only a few details are missing, you are a literalist.A non-literalist believes that it doesn't matter if the stories happened or not - the "actual point of the story" has nothing to do with whether or not it literally happened. No. I'm talking about David taking the crown.I don't believe for a split second that God chose David.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You're just mangling the definition of slavery for your own purposes. That doesn't constitute a refutation by any stretch.And you still haven't explained what any of that has to do with the story of David.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't have enough evidence to believe that David even existed. That's the point - God should/would have picked the best of a bad bunch. It doesn't look like David was even close to the best, so it doesn't look like God chose him.Why is it so hard to accept that maybe God didn't choose David? God had the big responsibility. According to you, He made the big mistake.I'm just saying He probably didn't. It was all David.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Why should I explain that?We all know people today who don't commit adultery. We all know people today who don't murder their lovers' husbands. We all know people today who would be a better choice than David.Do you think the people were so much more depraved back then that there was not one single solitary person who could have reigned as king (or queen) without committing adultery and murder? Do you really need the names of David's contemporaries who didn't commit adultery and murder?All you have said is that God might have had some woo-woo reason for choosing David in spite of his faults - but you haven't given us any indication of what that woo-woo reason might be. The trouble is you haven't given any reason for thinking that the far-less-likely scenario happened. How am I missing your point? You're claiming that God made the right decision in choosing David as king - that He chose the lesser of two evils.I'm saying the same thing - that it wasn't a mistake at all. But my reasoning is different - I say it wasn't a wrong decision on God's part because it wasn't a decision on God's part at all.You're bringing in a there-might-not-have-been-anybody-better scenario without any reasoning to back it up - pure speculation. Feel free to roll out that line of resoning.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC