Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   King David found guilty on all counts.
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 136 of 174 (379700)
01-25-2007 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by riVeRraT
01-25-2007 8:17 AM


Re: model of morality?
Rat writes:
Why don't you compare David to the other kings in the bible.
Seems like most of the kings did not have a problem with killing thousands for personal gains.
Of course, some would assert that George W. Bush has to live with the same problem.
I believe that God knew that David was very human and would make some very human mistakes. There is no such thing as a perfect leader, but the difference is that some mistakes affect others more than other mistakes.
I agree with Rats point that murderers can hear from God...often better than "good" people can because good people dont realize that they need God. Some murderers do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2007 8:17 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 137 of 174 (379734)
01-25-2007 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by riVeRraT
01-25-2007 8:17 AM


Re: model of morality?
riVeRraT writes:
Your telling me it is a logical thing to compare people of today, with the way we are taught, to people of long ago, and the way they were brought up? The knowledge base is mostly different.
No, the knowledge base is the same. I said (plainly) that I was talking about people we know personally. That is the same group whether we are comparing them to people of the past or people of the present that we don't know.
"The way they were brought up" isn't relevant because all we know about them is the results of their actions - same as we know about the people of today.
Since we know from history, archaeology, etc. that not every person in the past committed murder, yes it is logical to conclude that David was not the best choice for king.
Then we just really don't know how they would have faired as kings then, would we. Thats just speculation.
It's no worse speculation than your speculation that there was no better choice than David.
I am not saying they wouldn't have done better, but I am not going to say they would have either.
And I'm saying that - given what we know about human behaviour throughout history - it's highly probable that very many people would have done better than David.
You want to compare David to us today....
And to what we know from history, etc. Do you really believe that every king in history was a murderer?
... and to people who were not king.
As I have said, if David was "chosen" he was chosen from among non-kings. You can't ignore the moral standards of everybody else in the world.
Why don't you compare David to the other kings in the bible.
Because none of the other kings in the Bible were on God's short-list for King of Israel. They were not candidates for the job. Their moral fiber is irrelevant.
How can someone just choose to be king?
Read some history.
... you are implying that God only makes good choices....
Of course.
... or would have only made a good choice (in our eyes) and not a bad choice (in our eyes).
My eyes are the only eyes I have. You are no more privy to God's inner workings than I am, yet you feel free to claim that He made a good choice when anybody with eyes can see it was a bad "choice".
So your going to have to explain this theory of God making good choices all the time, and not letting bad things happen, when he makes a choice.
Your question answers itself:
1. God makes good choices all the time.
2. God lets bad things happen. He does not "choose" them.
Otherwise, it is perfectly reasonable to say that God makes choices that appear bad to us. So choosing David, was not only entirely reasonable, it was probable.
No, you can not say "probable". You have no way of knowing what God was thinking or what His goals were, so you have nothing to base your probability calculations on. From your point of view, there is no way to calculate the "probable value" of the choice.
My point of view, on the other hand, is based on what we know about human nature, today and in the past. We know that some people are not murderers, so it is reasonable to suggest that there probably could have been a better king than David.
Oh great, so now all the psalms are worth nothing. Obviously a man who commits murder can not hear from God? Is that it?
That's not what I said. I said that you can't trust everything that David said about David.
If Hitler wrote a song entitled, "God chose Adolf", would you take it as the truth?
The NIV study notes explain....
Don't trust study notes. Do your own thinking.
Daniel 2:21 He changes times and seasons;
he sets up kings and deposes them.
He gives wisdom to the wise
and knowledge to the discerning.
If this is true, then clearly all leaders are there by God's appoinment....
Daniel didn't say "all", you did.
... and many of them are not perfect, why does David have to be?
Could you do me a favour? Just for once, read what I write instead of being so defensive. One more time, I didn't say anything about "perfection".
God didn't have any perfect humans to choose from. But He did have a lot of non-murderers to choose from. So, if He did make the "choice" it seems highly probable - yes, probable - that He would have chosen a non-murderer over a murderer.
So it seems highly probable that He didn't make the choice.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2007 8:17 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2007 5:02 PM ringo has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 138 of 174 (379872)
01-25-2007 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by ringo
01-25-2007 11:28 AM


Re: model of morality?
My eyes are the only eyes I have. You are no more privy to God's inner workings than I am, yet you feel free to claim that He made a good choice when anybody with eyes can see it was a bad "choice".
Because God's ways are not our ways. You cannot compare what we think is bad, to what God thinks is bad.
It's a simple truthful point, yet you keep denying it.
Your question answers itself:
1. God makes good choices all the time.
2. God lets bad things happen. He does not "choose" them.
Just because God knows something bad is going to happen shouldn't stop Him from giving someone a chance. Besides, we have no way of fully explaining the mechanics of how God knows all anyway, and how that interfaces with time for us.
People argue with me that if God knows everything, then there are no choices to make, and there is no free will. But clearly there is free will, as you agreed, and David was given an opportunity.
No, you can not say "probable". You have no way of knowing what God was thinking or what His goals were, so you have nothing to base your probability calculations on. From your point of view, there is no way to calculate the "probable value" of the choice.
Then neither do you.
What gets me is, even though I told you that I would be willing to accept your view, you have not done the same to me and my view. It seems like a one way street. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, even though I do not totally disagree with you, only you with me.
Don't trust study notes. Do your own thinking.
Of course, and that thinking is based on what?
Daniel didn't say "all", you did.
The study notes did, not me. I am only pointing them out, and leaving it as a distinct possibility. There are verses to go along with it as well, but it is probably best left to another thread, which I do not feel like starting.
God didn't have any perfect humans to choose from. But He did have a lot of non-murderers to choose from. So, if He did make the "choice" it seems highly probable - yes, probable - that He would have chosen a non-murderer over a murderer.
Why? I don't see any logic in that.
David set an example, and gave us a lesson to learn for thousands of years. Sounds like something God would do. Thats huge. Not only was David a murderer, but he set an example by his wrong doings for millions of people.
God picked Moses too, and Moses killed someone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by ringo, posted 01-25-2007 11:28 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 01-25-2007 6:41 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 139 of 174 (379890)
01-25-2007 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by riVeRraT
01-25-2007 5:02 PM


Re: model of morality?
riVeRraT writes:
God's ways are not our ways. You cannot compare what we think is bad, to what God thinks is bad.
It's a simple truthful point, yet you keep denying it.
I haven't denied any such thing. I've been saying that you don't have the inside track on "what God thinks is bad". Since none of us knows that, we can only go with our own judgement.
... clearly there is free will, as you agreed, and David was given an opportunity.
No, it is not clear that David was "given an oppurtunity". As I have been saying, it seems much more likely that he seized the oppurtunity.
... even though I told you that I would be willing to accept your view, you have not done the same to me and my view. It seems like a one way street.
Well, yes, it is a one-way street. My viewpoint is based on human knowledge of human nature. It is possible to estimate the probability that David was the best "choice" based on that knowledge.
Your viewpoint is based on what we don't know about God's nature. It is not possible to estimate a probability based on lack of knowledge.
David set an example, and gave us a lesson to learn for thousands of years.
What example was that? Give in to your basest instincts and steal your neighbour's wife? Then abuse your power by having him murdered?
Pardon me if I don't learn that "lesson".
Not only was David a murderer, but he set an example by his wrong doings for millions of people.
We don't really need examples of what not to do.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by riVeRraT, posted 01-25-2007 5:02 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by riVeRraT, posted 01-26-2007 7:56 AM ringo has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 140 of 174 (380037)
01-26-2007 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by ringo
01-25-2007 6:41 PM


Re: model of morality?
Well, yes, it is a one-way street. My viewpoint is based on human knowledge of human nature. It is possible to estimate the probability that David was the best "choice" based on that knowledge.
Wait a sec, your basing what God would have done, or not based on human knowledge? And then your saying that human knowledge is the same now, as it was 3 thousand years ago?
Plus your getting the whole story from the bible, which teaches you that God's ways, are not our ways, and God has done what appears to us as many cruel and indifferent things, and assuming that God has not done those things, and totally denying that David even existed at all?
So in other words, you are your own god?
Your viewpoint is based on what we don't know about God's nature. It is not possible to estimate a probability based on lack of knowledge.
I am basing it on what I read about God, in the bible. You are just making stuff up, based on what we see today. You can't compare today with long ago, because Jesus came in the interim and changed many things about what we feel.
I am disapointed, I thought you would be able to picture more of how things were back then, and see the possibility. I am also disapointed that you are on a one-way street.
What example was that? Give in to your basest instincts and steal your neighbour's wife? Then abuse your power by having him murdered?
If you think that was the lesson, then you are severely lacking in your knowledge base, and your ability to assertain the moral of a story is lacking. You focud too much on what David did, and not what God did to David for being like that.
The book is about God, not David.
The op puts David on trial, not God. David was guilty, and paid a hefty price for what he did. God was Daivds judge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 01-25-2007 6:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 01-26-2007 10:59 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 141 of 174 (380097)
01-26-2007 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by riVeRraT
01-26-2007 7:56 AM


Re: model of morality?
riVeRraT writes:
... your basing what God would have done, or not based on human knowledge?
Of course. What other knowledge do we have?
And then your saying that human knowledge is the same now, as it was 3 thousand years ago?
No, I didn't say that. I spoke of human behaviour and what we know today about human behaviour three thousand years ago. For one thing, we know that not everybody was a murderer.
Plus your getting the whole story from the bible, which teaches you that God's ways, are not our ways....
The Bible can only "teach" that God's ways are not our ways by explaining things in our own terms. Because God's ways are not our ways, it can never "teach" us completely what God's ways are.
So in other words, you are your own god?
That doesn't follow at all from anything you have said, or anything I have said.
I am basing it on what I read about God, in the bible.
You are basing your opinion on what men wrote about God in the Bible. Even worse, you're basing it on what David wrote about himself. Even worser than worse, you're claiming that the people in Old Testament times were more "barbaric" than we are, and yet you take them at their word when they write about God.
You are just making stuff up, based on what we see today.
How can it be "making stuff up" if we see it?
You can't compare today with long ago....
You can only compare long ago with today because all we have left of long ago is what we see today.
... Jesus came in the interim and changed many things about what we feel.
That's a completely different topic (and most fundies would claim that only born-again fundies are changed by Jesus).
I thought you would be able to picture more of how things were back then, and see the possibility.
So you're actually wishing I would make up stuff about way back when instead of seeing what we see.
I am also disapointed that you are on a one-way street.
It's straight and narrow too.
(That one's for the lurkers. I don't expect you to get it. )
David was guilty, and paid a hefty price for what he did.
Not as hefty as the price paid by his victims.
God was Daivds judge.
So why do you claim that the Judge appointed the criminal?
At best, it would be conflict of interest for the Judge to try His own appointee. At worst, it would be entrapment.
(No, I don't expect you to get that one either. )
Edited by Ringo, : Spelling.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by riVeRraT, posted 01-26-2007 7:56 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by riVeRraT, posted 01-28-2007 9:43 PM ringo has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 142 of 174 (380808)
01-28-2007 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ringo
01-26-2007 10:59 AM


Re: model of morality?
No, I didn't say that. I spoke of human behaviour and what we know today about human behaviour three thousand years ago. For one thing, we know that not everybody was a murderer.
But David was a man after God's heart. At the time he might not have been a better choice, that is a distinct possibility. Not everyone has the qualifications to be a king.
The Bible can only "teach" that God's ways are not our ways by explaining things in our own terms. Because God's ways are not our ways, it can never "teach" us completely what God's ways are.
One of God's ways was to wipe out the earth with a flood (or at least that is how the story goes), and God also sets us up to live in an imperfect world, full of depression, and hurt (the tree). It seems pretty normal to me, that God would choose someone capable of screwing up big time, since we all screw up. The world, and the bible is full of God's ways that are very mysterious, and don't exactly seem good to me. So David's screw up is no surprise at all.
you're claiming that the people in Old Testament times were more "barbaric" than we are, and yet you take them at their word when they write about God.
No, I do not take them at their word, I take the bible as God's word through the Holy Spirit. I am sure there many texts to choose from, yet there are the ones that make it into the bible. They may have been barbaric, but if David was a man trying to make himself look good through his writings, then why does he write about his mistakes?
and most fundies would claim that only born-again fundies are changed by Jesus
I don't feel that way, I feel we are all changed by Jesus, in that when Jesus died, the curtain to the temple was torn, and our bodies are now the temple. How we treat our temple, and how we search for God, will determine when we are born again. Before Jesus, we do not even get this opportunity, and must go to the temple to experience God's manifest presense. Only very few people in the OT times are able to get close to God, that tells me that there are very few to choose from. David was a man after God's heart, but that didn't make David perfect, and he screwd up, and should have paid the price. He was regretful of his mistakes.
So you're actually wishing I would make up stuff about way back when instead of seeing what we see.
It is hard to have this conversation with you, because you discredit the OT as being valid, or having ever happened. So it would be immposible for you to imagine how things where based on the writings of OT. I read the OT, and study things about the past(outside the bible), and I get a picture of how things were.
You can even study societies that still live like that today, and get a clear picture of what was going on back then. Clearly what a musslim extremeist thinks is a good man, and what a liberal tree hugger thinks is a good man are two very different things.
That one's for the lurkers. I don't expect you to get it.
I got it, but remeber our narrow paths are subjective.
That's why I keep an open mind.
At best, it would be conflict of interest for the Judge to try His own appointee. At worst, it would be entrapment.
(No, I don't expect you to get that one either. )
You are kind of insulting me when you say that, poor show ringo.
God can entrap anyhone He wants, especially if He gives us the after life. You are looking at life like this is the only life we have. That is why I said, technically speaking, or according to our manmade laws, God is guilty of everything that ever happened. But that is a thought from the minds of men, not God.
I don't expect you to get that one

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 01-26-2007 10:59 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by ringo, posted 01-29-2007 1:04 AM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 144 by iceage, posted 01-29-2007 1:12 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 143 of 174 (380830)
01-29-2007 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by riVeRraT
01-28-2007 9:43 PM


Re: model of morality?
riVeRraT writes:
... if David was a man trying to make himself look good through his writings, then why does he write about his mistakes?
Where did he do that? It was somebody else who exposed David's crimes.
Only very few people in the OT times are able to get close to God, that tells me that there are very few to choose from.
You're making a bad assumption there. The only ones written about in the Old Testament were the ones who were supposedly chosen by God. We have no way of knowing whether or not there were thousands of others to choose from.
... you discredit the OT as being valid, or having ever happened.
I'm not the one who discredits it. You discredit it by taking it so literally.
Clearly what a musslim extremeist thinks is a good man, and what a liberal tree hugger thinks is a good man are two very different things.
And David was more like the extremist, which is why I think there were better choices.
God can entrap anyhone He wants, especially if He gives us the after life.
What a disgusting suggestion: God can do any wrong He pleases as long as He bribes us with goodies? A human judge who did that would go to jail.
You are looking at life like this is the only life we have.
The afterlife doesn't excuse God from behaving properly in this one.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by riVeRraT, posted 01-28-2007 9:43 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2007 7:49 AM ringo has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 144 of 174 (380831)
01-29-2007 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by riVeRraT
01-28-2007 9:43 PM


Re: model of morality?
riverat writes:
It is hard to have this conversation with you, because you discredit the OT as being valid, or having ever happened.
I don't think anybody denies the validity of the OT - the question is... does the OT really describe God or worse written by God.
Maybe, just maybe it is some hazy inchoate view of god written by a bronze age people who where at war with their neighbors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by riVeRraT, posted 01-28-2007 9:43 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2007 7:51 AM iceage has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 145 of 174 (380853)
01-29-2007 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by ringo
01-29-2007 1:04 AM


Re: model of morality?
What a disgusting suggestion: God can do any wrong He pleases as long as He bribes us with goodies? A human judge who did that would go to jail.
I didn't say wrong.
If you can sit there and tell me that I have no way of distinguishing what God perceives as good, why then do you?
Isn't that hypocrisy? Maybe that explains the one-way street.
The afterlife doesn't excuse God from behaving properly in this one.
I think it can. Many people complain about this life an it's "unfairness". We are His creation, and He can do with us what He wants. If God is a good God, then we have to assume that we just don't understand what good is, since babies starving Africa do not seem like a good thing to me either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by ringo, posted 01-29-2007 1:04 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by ringo, posted 01-29-2007 10:21 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 146 of 174 (380854)
01-29-2007 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by iceage
01-29-2007 1:12 AM


Re: model of morality?
I've always looked at is the word of God written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.
It is nothing unless you are seeking God though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by iceage, posted 01-29-2007 1:12 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by iceage, posted 01-29-2007 8:38 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 147 of 174 (380858)
01-29-2007 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by riVeRraT
01-29-2007 7:51 AM


Re: model of morality?
RiverRat writes:
I've always looked at is the word of God written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.
But there is absolutely nothing internally or externally to recommend the bible (especially the OT) as the word of god or inspired!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2007 7:51 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2007 5:19 PM iceage has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 148 of 174 (380881)
01-29-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by riVeRraT
01-29-2007 7:49 AM


Re: model of morality?
riVeRraT writes:
If you can sit there and tell me that I have no way of distinguishing what God perceives as good, why then do you?
None of us knows what God perceives.
We only know what we perceive as good or bad. If we perceive something as bad, we should conclude that God didn't "choose" it - humans did.
Isn't that hypocrisy?
No. It's good sense. We should base our conclusions on what we do know, not what we don't know.
We are His creation, and He can do with us what He wants.
That's like saying you can do what you want to your kids because you "made" them.
No. The creator does have a responsibility to his creation.
If God is a good God, then we have to assume that we just don't understand what good is....
No. If bad things happen, we can find the real cause instead of shrugging it off as "God's will".

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2007 7:49 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by riVeRraT, posted 01-29-2007 5:24 PM ringo has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 149 of 174 (381054)
01-29-2007 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by iceage
01-29-2007 8:38 AM


Re: model of morality?
But there is absolutely nothing internally or externally to recommend the bible (especially the OT) as the word of god or inspired!
Yes there is, there is the Holy Spirit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by iceage, posted 01-29-2007 8:38 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by iceage, posted 01-29-2007 11:59 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 150 of 174 (381057)
01-29-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by ringo
01-29-2007 10:21 AM


Re: model of morality?
None of us knows what God perceives.
We only know what we perceive as good or bad. If we perceive something as bad, we should conclude that God didn't "choose" it - humans did.
You are in direct contradiction with, yourself.
We should base our conclusions on what we do know, not what we don't know.
I thought I explained that thought already. I am absolutely basing it on what we know. I've been trying to explain it to you for quite a few posts now.
That's like saying you can do what you want to your kids because you "made" them.
No. The creator does have a responsibility to his creation.
That is just an opinion from someone who cannot create anything. You only make stuff from the creation, only God can create.
No. If bad things happen, we can find the real cause instead of shrugging it off as "God's will".
The real cause? If God created everything, then it is ultimately His fault. He gave people the ability to choose, right? Why would a good God do that if He knew people where going to make wrong choices?
It seems pretty normal to me, David being God's choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ringo, posted 01-29-2007 10:21 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 01-29-2007 6:18 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024