Thread: David and Bathsheeba Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030393
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Today's RCL OT reading for us was the passage from 2 Samuel, discussed here beforehand. What was striking this morning was the effect on our reader. Most certainly, this was not the first time she had heard the passage and she had probably read it in at least one previous service; today, when she reached verse 15, she stopped briefly and was obviously shocked at David's actions and thoughts. She was still shaken when we chatted at morning tea about it.
The preacher took the passage from John 6 as his subject, but in the course of the sermon talked of his horror at the OT passage being read in church at all, and how dreadful was David's behaviour.
What happened at your service this morning?
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Another jolly good reason to use the related OT reading.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Another jolly good reason to read through your assigned reading in advance.
(Our OT reading was 2 Kings 4:42-44.)
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
The C of E lectionary give 2 Samuel 11.1-5 as the continuous reading.
But certainly I'm amazed that a reader can't be bothered to read the reading through first, even if the are last minute replacement.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The preacher took the passage from John 6 as his subject, but in the course of the sermon talked of his horror at the OT passage being read in church at all, and how dreadful was David's behaviour.
What happened at your service this morning?
We heard the 'related' OT reading - one of Elusha's miracles with a link to the feeding of the 5,000. IMHO, unless you are going to preach seriously and (semi-) continuously on the OT, then you should use the 'related' OT reading. If the preacher had chosen to tackle the OT reading, then there is a lot of good homiletical material in it. But it needs careful thinking and careful handling.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
We don't usually use the RCL, but as it happens we did read the Bathsheba passage last Sunday, as an illustration of the wide-ranging consequences that can happen if even one person allows temptation to overcome them. There are all sorts of issues of lust, power, deceitfulness and murder in the tale.
I agree that it is a horrible story - but it also reflects what people are really like. To suggest that it should never be read in church runs the danger of confining one's faith to certain issues while ignoring others. Interestingly neither this story (nor the one about Jael, Sisera and the tent-peg murder) were considered "off limits" when I was a 12-year old member of a Bible class back in the 60s.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
For the man "after God's own heart", David's record with women is a scandalous story - but not as scandalous as the Gospel.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Jesus' life and message may be scandalous, but he didn't have a dependent bumped off because he'd got his wife preggers.
I'd be only too glad to have any OT readings at the main Sunday service, and David and Bathesheba is not the place to start.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I don't approve of those who would want to bowdlerise the Bible. I agree with Baptist Trainfan. There is valuable teaching to be gained from the less admirable parts of the scriptures. Even the fact that they are included is significant. They weren't avoided when I was growing up either.
Incidentally, have shipmates noticed that there are four women mentioned in the genealogy in Matthew 1. Three are named, even though two of those are Tamar and Rahab. The fourth is described simply as 'his mother had been the wife of Uriah', even though everybody knew who she was and what her name was.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Jesus - God incarnate - is himself a scandal to the wisdom of the world, before you even begin to regard his actions & teaching. David is a man after God's own heart - this is not in doubt - the question for the preacher is why.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I don't think it's a bad thing for the readings to shock or otherwise affect people. Surely we want listeners to engage with the text?
We regularly taught D & B to all our Sunday School kids, along with similar "no no" stories. After all, most of them are watching far worse on TV.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The biggest issue for me, as far as use of the story in worship goes, is that the RCL splits the story in two and leaves the completion until the following week. When Nathan comes along with his parable about the rich man taking the sheep from the poor man David immediately condemns his own actions. The story includes Nathan coming and saying that the story is worse than just David committing the sins of lust, rape and murder.
I preached a few weeks ago, and had an earlier part of the story of David as the OT passage. I managed to fit that in quite easily as saying that Davids achievements were because the Lord was with him - and, this was despite the serious imperfections in his character. This story is one of the clearest examples of those imperfections.
I'm not seeing any way to fit the second half of this story into my sermon next week. And, so, loath as I am to not preach on the texts read I feel that I will effectively ignore it altogether.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
You also realise that if Bathsheba is doing what the Bible says she is doing, then the outcome is highly unlikely, as most women are not fertile immediately after their period.
So why does the writer set it at this time? To suggest this is more than a one night stand? Is Bathsheba playing for power? This idea would be in keeping with her behaviour at other times. Some other superstition concerned with having sex immediately after a period?
David is clearly badly behaved but Bathsheba is as complex a character as he and we do her wrong as a woman if we consign her to the docile innocent wife role overruled by a powerful monarch.
If we look at more of his wives, they seem to be willing to do a lot to be the wife of David. These women are proactive in building their future. This scene is the entry of the second powerful wife, the first being Abigail of Carmel. It is the battle between these women and their offspring for power that will shape the rest of David's reign. Further Abigail comes to represent Hebron with David's Judean heritage and Bathsheba Jerusalem with the political elite.
It is through these turbulent waters of human politics that God's will functions.
Jengie
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I hate to rain on a great post, but the post-menstruation bath took place one week after one's period ended--in other words, on or close to Day 14 of the menstrual cycle, which is the average day on which women are most likely to get pregnant.
quote:
Leviticus 15:19-30 (ESV)
19 “When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening....
25 “If a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her menstrual impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond the time of her impurity, all the days of the discharge she shall continue in uncleanness. ... 28 But if she is cleansed of her discharge, she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean."
I take that last verse as meaning that you don't start counting until the bleeding is over, whether it's a normal period or some kind of breakthrough bleeding. Which in the case of an average-length period leaves most women at the height of their fertility.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Young children generally pay more attention to David and Bathsheba/Jael and Sisera/the countless dodgy characters in Judges and elsewhere in the OT - they are awful, interesting, sometimes darkly funny. Just like real life. That's all the more reason to read them in church.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Today's RCL OT reading for us was the passage from 2 Samuel, discussed here beforehand.
Which would be what?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The C of E lectionary give 2 Samuel 11.1-5 as the continuous reading.
But certainly I'm amazed that a reader can't be bothered to read the reading through first, even if the are last minute replacement.
I don't know how you reach the comment in your second paragraph. My OP noted that this would not have been the first time our reader had heard the passage and that this may not have been the first time she had read it herself. And knowing here, she would most certainly have read it during the week before, and rehearsed it. But on this occasion, the enormity of David's behaviour really did hit her at verse 15.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Today's RCL OT reading for us was the passage from 2 Samuel, discussed here beforehand.
Which would be what?
Chapter? Verses? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Sorry Mousethief , I suppose that you as Orthodox don't get the RCL and follow another calendar. Yesterday's OT reading was 2 Samuel 11:1-15.
Alan Creswell, our sermon yesterday was almost entirely on both limbs of the Gospel reading - joining the loaves and fishes with the walking on water. In the past, we have had a sermon on this chapter alone, and another on ch 12, relating it back to the great imperfections shown by David - and all of us.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The C of E lectionary give 2 Samuel 11.1-5 as the continuous reading.
But certainly I'm amazed that a reader can't be bothered to read the reading through first, even if the are last minute replacement.
I don't know how you reach the comment in your second paragraph. My OP noted that this would not have been the first time our reader had heard the passage and that this may not have been the first time she had read it herself. And knowing here, she would most certainly have read it during the week before, and rehearsed it. But on this occasion, the enormity of David's behaviour really did hit her at verse 15.
I apologise for misunderstanding.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The Lutheran Lectionary had 2 Kings 42-44 as an alternative reading. We went with that one because it fits into the Gospel reading nicely.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Young children generally pay more attention to David and Bathsheba/Jael and Sisera/the countless dodgy characters in Judges and elsewhere in the OT - they are awful, interesting, sometimes darkly funny. Just like real life. That's all the more reason to read them in church.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
2 Sam 12:1-22 is much, much more disturbing. We have there a God who kills children to punish their parents.
A human who did that we'd call a complete and utter bastard.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Young children generally pay more attention to David and Bathsheba/Jael and Sisera/the countless dodgy characters in Judges and elsewhere in the OT - they are awful, interesting, sometimes darkly funny. Just like real life. That's all the more reason to read them in church.
I'm sorry, you know people in real life who murder the husband of a woman they fancy for a night of passion and then you tell it to children as a funny story?
The only saving grace of this passage is that the context is so alien as to be essentially impossible for a child to imagine being real life.
But the fact that we think the OT testament passages are relevant to young children shows a lot about us and our children. The great lie about teaching the bible to children is that the stories are appropriate for children. Clearly, on the whole, they are not.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
So, you want us to present the Gospel according to Disney?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you want us to present the Gospel according to Disney?
Nope, I want bible classes to stop for young children. They're damaging to the child and of no help to the faith community.
Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Today's RCL OT reading for us was the passage from 2 Samuel, discussed here beforehand. What was striking this morning was the effect on our reader.
Our reader was also deeply affected. On Sunday morning before the service she told me she had read through the passage a number of times and still spent a sleepless night at the thought of reading it aloud to the congregation.
She described it as shocking, embarrassing and horrifying that David was a man to do such things and that it felt shocking, embarrassing and horrifying to read them aloud.
Part of the shock is in the reading aloud. We (or some of us) read equivalent or worse to ourselves, even in the daily news but we seldom read such things aloud to a group of people we know.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
The ministry of reading Scripture in public is a serious & often difficult one, yes.
Bathsheba isn't the first of David's wives whose former husband "mysteriously" dies, of course.
The fact that "bad" people can be as much engaged with God as "good" is incomprehensible to contemporary culture, but it shouldn't be too much of a surprise to Christians.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you want us to present the Gospel according to Disney?
Nope, I want bible classes to stop for young children. They're damaging to the child and of no help to the faith community.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "bible class", and "young children". But there is, I suppose, a simple spectrum of options ranging from not telling them any Bible stories, through telling them some selected stories, to letting them hear all the stories in the Bible. If you're opting for "some" then where is your line saying what is or is not acceptable? There is also a sideline of re-writing the stories so that they become acceptable.
Do we really want our children to grow up thinking that the Bible is a set of nice stories? The Flood becomes cute, fluffy animals marching in two by two, with a colourful rainbow at the end. David is the singing shepherd boy who becomes king, slaying the big bad giant along the way. And, they all live happily ever after.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you want us to present the Gospel according to Disney?
Another
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "bible class", and "young children". But there is, I suppose, a simple spectrum of options ranging from not telling them any Bible stories, through telling them some selected stories, to letting them hear all the stories in the Bible. If you're opting for "some" then where is your line saying what is or is not acceptable? There is also a sideline of re-writing the stories so that they become acceptable.
I have yet to hear a Sunday School class for young children I thought was acceptable. For me, lessons on Samson, David and Joshua are all inappropriate. If we wouldn't let them hear these stories in videos and books, why is it suddenly acceptable in a church context?
quote:
Do we really want our children to grow up thinking that the Bible is a set of nice stories? The Flood becomes cute, fluffy animals marching in two by two, with a colourful rainbow at the end. David is the singing shepherd boy who becomes king, slaying the big bad giant along the way. And, they all live happily ever after.
Nope. The bible is for adults, the idea that it is in any way for children is totally wrong.
Sunday schools have long tried to shoehorn inappropriate bible stories into children's lives, and it is about time we woke up and realised the effect it is having.
There are plenty of other things we can teach children usefully on a Sunday morning, but most are missed in the infatuation with getting them to colour in soldiers and sticking things onto other things.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
What effect is it having then?
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on
:
I remember reading that one of Queen Victoria's Ladies-in-Waiting tried to cheer the Queen up by remarking 'How interesting it will be in Heaven, ma'am, to meet all those interesting people like St Paul and King David!' The Queen was not amused. 'I will NOT receive King David. His conduct with the wife of Uriah the Hittite was disgraceful.' End of conversation.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What effect is it having then?
Depends on the child - but ranges from nightmares through to disgust, and rising numbers of children leaving the church at first opportunity.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I'm reminded of a remark attributed Eiza, Countess of Erroll, Lady of the Bedchamber to Queen Victoria, when she went to see Antony and Cleopatra quote:
How different, how very different, from the home-life of our own dear Queen.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
I preached mainly on David and Bathsheba.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What effect is it having then?
Depends on the child - but ranges from nightmares through to disgust, and rising numbers of children leaving the church at first opportunity.
Gordon Bennett! Seriously?
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nope. The bible is for adults, the idea that it is in any way for children is totally wrong.
I don't agree with this at all. The gospels aren't suitable for children (as an example)?
I went to a Sunday School which made Bible learning fun, lively and interactive. None of it traumatised me. There were other issues to do with my childhood religion, but the Sunday School's method of Bible teaching was definitely not part of the problem. Indeed, it was the only bearable part of church!
If children can cope with fairytales, many of which have very dark origins, they can handle some of the Bible. I did, and I was a sensitive little thing.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
My mother used to tell a story about the time one of my brothers offered to read the Bible to her. He chose an OT passage that was full of sexual references. After every verse or two, he would remark, "I don't get that." A bit later, "I don't get that either." I think most children would realize that David had done wrong, but they wouldn't understand all the ramifications of the story by a long shot.
Moo
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I don't agree with this at all. The gospels aren't suitable for children (as an example)?
I was specifically talking about the OT, but there is also very little from the NT which is relevant to a small child.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I must admit that I was stunned that this was the OT reading for the day. To launch into the story without preamble or explanation especially when there is no sermon addressing the reading is likely to create a stumbling stone for members of the congregation, particularly those who are new in their faith. In my church the sermon was on the Gospel reading of the loaves and fishes and nothing was said re the OT reading. I spoke to the priest after the service who said he actually agreed with my viewpoint and said he wished another reading had been substituted as he felt some readings should not be read out loud in church without proper discussion.
Posted by DangerousDeacon (# 10582) on
:
The Dean of Newcastle did a very good job on this one (I am currently south on a visit and was in the congregation at Christ Church Cathedral, Newcastle).
The sermon contrasted the greed of David (with some use of next weeks OT reading, which is Nathan condemning David) and contrasted it with the generosity of the boy who sacrificed his bread and fishes for the use of all in the Gospel. In the first case a man with everything took everything - wife, life, future - from Uriah. In the second case a boy with almost nothing, gave all that he had - and this was transformed into a blessing for all.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
Eh? Are people really suggesting withholding parts of the scriptures because we think some might not be able to handle them?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
bib:
To launch into the story without preamble or explanation
Who stopped you from having a preamble or explanation?
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I'm not even sure that it needs a preamble or whatever. Surely everyone can work out that David sinned and doesn't the scripture even say that the Lord was displeased with David because of what he had done?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I don't agree with this at all. The gospels aren't suitable for children (as an example)?
I was specifically talking about the OT, but there is also very little from the NT which is relevant to a small child.
Thank Christ my Sunday School teachers and parents didn't think like you. They had enough common sense to teach Bible stories in age appropriate fashions; like any sensible intelligent parent or teacher would. I'll grant you, there must be exceptions.
But generally speaking, not many Primary One teachers start their students on geometry or logarithims; and few reception classes introduce their four year olds to the complexities of sexual relationships and the use of contraception. I've yet to come across a Sunday School teacher or system who starts their tots and toddlers on the rape, adultery, annihilation and other strong-meat texts of that sort in the Bible.
I'm delighted to say that I - along with most of my contemporaries, so far as I could tell - remained fairly untraumatized with basic tellings of Christ healing people, being kind and loving the world. And of course the more gory OT stuff - and the crucifixion stuff, too - was played down. What moron would try to gross out an inexperienced, vulnerable young child with unexpurgated adult revelations of sex and violence. Obviously I was fortunate enough not to have morons doing Sunday School, or morons for parents.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
David is clearly badly behaved but Bathsheba is as complex a character as he and we do her wrong as a woman if we consign her to the docile innocent wife role overruled by a powerful monarch.
Jengie
I've always thought that the writing of the text was interesting because virtually none of Bathsheba's personal thoughts, motives, desires or reactions were mentioned. It's as if - bearing in mind the context, the era, the authorship - anything she might have thought, experienced or wished for herself was pretty much irrelevant to the story.
It is possible she was in collusion with David, and ambitious to be one of the king's many, many wives. But there is nothing that suggests this in scripture, one way or another. She is closer to being a cipher for the vagaries of David's mortal weakness and his godly repentance in the following chapters, than she is as a full-formed character with a will and purpose of her own.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I think you're right, and her cipherness is a good reflection of the way David himself treated her--as a cipher with no wishes or feelings of her own. But after he came to his senses, we see him comforting her (as if she mattered now!), and she eventually comes into her own as the mother of the heir and a political power in the court.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I must admit that I was stunned that this was the OT reading for the day. To launch into the story without preamble or explanation especially when there is no sermon addressing the reading is likely to create a stumbling stone for members of the congregation, particularly those who are new in their faith. In my church the sermon was on the Gospel reading of the loaves and fishes and nothing was said re the OT reading. I spoke to the priest after the service who said he actually agreed with my viewpoint and said he wished another reading had been substituted as he felt some readings should not be read out loud in church without proper discussion.
Why does this story need proper discussion? Why didn't he discuss it if in fact it needed proper discussion? Why would David and Bathsheba cause members particularly those new in their faith to stumble?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Well, thanks for shocking me awake this morning, some of you! You did a better job than the coffee, Mr Cheesy, by painting the Bible as full of horrifying stories that will scar children for life. Seriously, have you looked at TV lately--even TV meant for children? Read any fairytales? Looked at any tween and YA books (God forbid )?
I have a highly sensitive child, and yet he is not the delicate little flower who can't cope with David and Bathsheba. Heck, half the kids I've taught in Sunday school have adultery going on in their own families (not generally churchgoing themselves, pity). Their lives are being ripped apart by broken parental marriages--if there ever was a marriage in the first place, which is doubtful--and abandonment. The last thing they need is a sanitized Bible that ignores the realities they deal with every day.
When I was nine or ten and going through hell in my own family, I was reading the Bible on my own (OT first!) and found a lot of strength and hope there. The Bible pulled no punches when it was discussing human behavior or God's response to it, and with the various stories (some horrific) I felt I was at least standing on solid ground, in touch with reality--however much it occasionally stinks.
When I had my own child, the only time I can remember skipping bits in the Bible during our family readings was when he was about three or so--and it wasn't such tame stuff as David and Bathsheba, it was the bits about that Levite's concubine being chopped up and mailed to various tribes in Israel. I was far more concerned about the dismembering stuff than the sex angles. And we added that passage back when he was about seven or so (with discussion, naturally). There is nothing off limits to him now, including the embarrassing stuff about guys hung like donkeys in Ezekiel--and if he had come across it on his own at a younger age (any age) I would have let him have it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Well, thanks for shocking me awake this morning, some of you! You did a better job than the coffee, Mr Cheesy, by painting the Bible as full of horrifying stories that will scar children for life. Seriously, have you looked at TV lately--even TV meant for children? Read any fairytales? Looked at any tween and YA books (God forbid )?
My children do not watch TV and when they were young only watched certain programmes with supervision.
I wouldn't have them listen to bible stories without supervision that I would not allow them to watch or listen to in any other context.
quote:
I have a highly sensitive child, and yet he is not the delicate little flower who can't cope with David and Bathsheba. Heck, half the kids I've taught in Sunday school have adultery going on in their own families (not generally churchgoing themselves, pity). Their lives are being ripped apart by broken parental marriages--if there ever was a marriage in the first place, which is doubtful--and abandonment. The last thing they need is a sanitized Bible that ignores the realities they deal with every day.
I don't think that's appropriate. But YMMV.
quote:
When I was nine or ten and going through hell in my own family, I was reading the Bible on my own (OT first!) and found a lot of strength and hope there. The Bible pulled no punches when it was discussing human behavior or God's response to it, and with the various stories (some horrific) I felt I was at least standing on solid ground, in touch with reality--however much it occasionally stinks.
Again, YMMV.
quote:
When I had my own child, the only time I can remember skipping bits in the Bible during our family readings was when he was about three or so--and it wasn't such tame stuff as David and Bathsheba, it was the bits about that Levite's concubine being chopped up and mailed to various tribes in Israel. I was far more concerned about the dismembering stuff than the sex angles. And we added that passage back when he was about seven or so (with discussion, naturally). There is nothing off limits to him now, including the embarrassing stuff about guys hung like donkeys in Ezekiel--and if he had come across it on his own at a younger age (any age) I would have let him have it.
I am specifically talking about very young children. As they approach an age where they understand (and are indeed exposed to more forms of sex and violence) then it becomes less of an issue. And of course, in their teens everything gets discussed.
I am very much against exposing young children to things in church we would protect them from in life. The idea that the bible stories can all be told to all children is very dangerous, in my opinion.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
As so often, Lamb Chopped you too get a
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I've always thought that the writing of the text was interesting because virtually none of Bathsheba's personal thoughts, motives, desires or reactions were mentioned. It's as if - bearing in mind the context, the era, the authorship - anything she might have thought, experienced or wished for herself was pretty much irrelevant to the story.
That's interesting, thank you for this. What caught my attention is that after Nathan did his schtick, David said "I have sinned against the Lord." Great, he repented. But what about Bathsheba? Shouldn't he make amends with her?
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
I was left wondering how Bathsheba felt about her husband not coming to see her while he was on leave. I'm not excusing David, and I'm not saying that Uriah wasn't a victim here, but really, could he not spare a few minutes to see his wife? (And I know that comes off a bit jokey, but I intend it as playing into the "what about Bathsheba" part of this discussion.)
I don't like people skipping the nasty bits, or thinking that I might despair and leave the Church if I hear those bits without the priest spoon feeding a sanitized explanation to me. If anything, I'd like a discussion of what it means that this book that we consider to be special in some way contains those stories.
And as a dad, I am far more concerned about someone telling my daughter that "being Christian" is about acting a certain way and staying away from people who don't act that way than I am about her hearing the soap opera stories from the Old Testament.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I wouldn't have them listen to bible stories without supervision that I would not allow them to watch or listen to in any other context.
So, if you're in church with your children you aren't supervising them when someone stands up to read the Scriptures? As the lesson was announced you wouldn't lean over and whisper in your childs ear "In this story David does something very, very bad. The Bible tells us how even good people can sometimes do very bad things. Of course, this is not something we should do. But, the next bit of the story next week shows us how David recognised how wrong he was, and how God forgave him when he said he was very sorry"?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
So, if you're in church with your children you aren't supervising them when someone stands up to read the Scriptures? As the lesson was announced you wouldn't lean over and whisper in your childs ear "In this story David does something very, very bad. The Bible tells us how even good people can sometimes do very bad things. Of course, this is not something we should do. But, the next bit of the story next week shows us how David recognised how wrong he was, and how God forgave him when he said he was very sorry"?
As discussed, I'm talking about what is taught in Sunday School. In my experience, young children find it hard to concentrate on what is being said in bible readings.
[ 27. July 2015, 16:57: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
That is an entirely different point to whether they should be told Bible stories. Lack of attention is a function of the way something is told, not what it is that's being told. And, I'd agree. My children do not concentrate during the telling of Bible stories either - but, we have no Sunday School so that's just a straight reading from the Bible without any of the additional aids that a dedicated childrens ministry could provide. But also, even if we had a Sunday School, what would retain my daughters attention would fail to gain the attention of my son, and vice versa.
How we teach children the stories of our faith as recorded in the Bible is a difficult question. But, you seemed to be offering a solution to that which was basically not to bother.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
How things are communicated in Sunday school depends on two factors, the teacher him/herself and the materials (if any) that are being used to present the story. As far as materials go, I've never in my life come across anything that presented the David and Bathsheba story in a way more graphic, twisted, or emotionally troubling than the Bible account does. Instead they err on the opposite side, either watering down the story ("David was a bad boy," how left unspecified) or they omit it altogether. If children are not scarred by reading or hearing the Bible passage, they are highly unlikely to be scarred--or even interested!--in the mealymouthed Sunday school retellings I've seen out there.
As for the teacher, well, you could get anything. I would hope that you as a parent would make a point of getting to know the teacher well enough to know if said person is a freak and likely to cause psychological damage to children in any way. Any decent church (yeah, yeah, I know) is going to vet their teachers for the same reason. But the problem, if any, lies with the teacher--not with the Bible story.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That is an entirely different point to whether they should be told Bible stories. Lack of attention is a function of the way something is told, not what it is that's being told. And, I'd agree. My children do not concentrate during the telling of Bible stories either - but, we have no Sunday School so that's just a straight reading from the Bible without any of the additional aids that a dedicated childrens ministry could provide. But also, even if we had a Sunday School, what would retain my daughters attention would fail to gain the attention of my son, and vice versa.
Yes, it is a different point, but I'm less bothered about them hearing bible readings as them being taught about it in Sunday School.
As you don't have a Sunday School, clearly YMMV.
quote:
How we teach children the stories of our faith as recorded in the Bible is a difficult question. But, you seemed to be offering a solution to that which was basically not to bother.
On the contrary, my solution is "in very small doses, carefully, prayerfully and being aware that some of this stuff is not appropriate for small children."
I have always taught my children to think through what they hear in church and we have had robust discussions ever since they were tiny. From this I discovered that they were sometimes picking up very unfortunate things from their exposure to church.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for the teacher, well, you could get anything. I would hope that you as a parent would make a point of getting to know the teacher well enough to know if said person is a freak and likely to cause psychological damage to children in any way. Any decent church (yeah, yeah, I know) is going to vet their teachers for the same reason. But the problem, if any, lies with the teacher--not with the Bible story.
Fundamentally disagree. But y'know, whatever.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
What effect is it having then?
Depends on the child - but ranges from nightmares through to disgust, and rising numbers of children leaving the church at first opportunity.
And how do you conceive that will be avoided by not letting them read the Bible until they're adults?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
mr cheesy: I wouldn't have them listen to bible stories without supervision that I would not allow them to watch or listen to in any other context.
Out of curiosity, what are you planning to do? Have you set an age at which you'll give them access to these stories?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
And if you don't mind my asking, how old are your children?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
My children are late teens. I'm talking about when they were very young.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
So, what did you do?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I was left wondering how Bathsheba felt about her husband not coming to see her while he was on leave. I'm not excusing David, and I'm not saying that Uriah wasn't a victim here, but really, could he not spare a few minutes to see his wife? (And I know that comes off a bit jokey, but I intend it as playing into the "what about Bathsheba" part of this discussion.)
...
I've always got the strong impression that Uriah smelt a rat. Why do you really think he insisted on sleeping in the gate house? Perhaps there were rumours flying around. And after all, he was a foreign mercenary, possibly with no kin to stick up for him.
At a discussion of this passage a few years ago - and Mr Cheesy, don't worry; we were all not just adults but parents of adults - I was intrigued that the women present all assumed Bathsheba was a feeble exploited woman. They were quite shocked when I said that on the basis of 1 Ki 1&2 - though admittedly a generation later - I thought Bathsheba might not have been quite such the innocent victim. After all, why do we think she was bathing on the roof?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
That's funny. I usually run into the opposite ("Poor David, seduced by that designing hussy.")
As for the roof, well, it was where a whole lot of family stuff was done, being a nice flat area and more private than the house (where you probably had people stacked on people, with servants and children running in and out all the time). If you had the brains to put yourself in the middle, away from the edge, you would probably not be visible to anybody. Particularly if you did your bathing at night. Except, of course, if the king was sleepless and decided to go for a stroll on his own, probably much higher, roof. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
You know, given the fact that Bathsheba was married, fertile, and apparently not yet a mother, she was most likely in her mid-teens and fairly newlywed. (She was also granddaughter to a man still serving David as advisor, namely Ahithophel, so likely young.) I have no trouble seeing her as easily exploited, particularly when the victimizer is an older man who is both her husband's employer and the king. What's she supposed to do, tell the royal guards who come to pick her up, "Sorry, not interested" and slam the door in their faces? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Nathan certainly seemed to see Bathsheba as a casualty rather than a beneficiary. Note that in the story, the owner of the lamb is seen as someone who loves and cherishes it, and treats it li9ke family-- presumably the lamb is Bathsheba. If Bathsheba were complicit, wouldn't Nathan have the lamb running away to live the high life while Nathan is robbed and murdered?
Instead, the lamb is stolen and slaughtered for a meal. Two things-- the lamb owner in the story is not killed, though Uriah is, and the brutal fate the lamb suffers-- going from a cherished pet to being killed and consumed by guests-- suggests to me that Nathan was well aware that Bathsheba was a victim in this story-- Wrenched away from a decent man who loved her(according to Nathan), consumed by a man more interested in acquisition than "husbandry". What happened to her, according to Nathan, was very much like murder.
As for the rooftop-- if the bathing spot was indeed a mikvah, Bathsheba would hardly have any control over where it was placed and who could look in, and I am sure whoever staffed the place would not be crazy about shooing the King away if he decided to peek. I think this is another one of the "kings/ kingdoms suck" examples.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
You can bet that Bathsheba had no recourse, either in the marrying of Uriah or of being snabbled by King David. Seriously -- that is not an era you go to, for feminist developments. In a hot country the roof is the place for a lot of things -- drying laundry, dehydrating vegetables, curing herbs.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Wrenched away from a decent man who loved her
I still want to know why he couldn't spare a moment to go see his wife while he was in town.
(And I had the same thought about this being a "see, I told you, you really didn't want a king" story.)
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Kelly Alves: Instead, the lamb is stolen and slaughtered for a meal. Two things-- the lamb owner in the story is not killed, though Uriah is, and the brutal fate the lamb suffers-- going from a cherished pet to being killed and consumed by guests-- suggests to me that Nathan was well aware that Bathsheba was a victim in this story-- Wrenched away from a decent man who loved her(according to Nathan), consumed by a man more interested in acquisition than "husbandry". What happened to her, according to Nathan, was very much like murder.
Hmm thank you, I hadn't looked at it in this way. I still feel that David should have made amends to Bathsheba, instead of only confessing his sin to God. But maybe that's not in the story because Bathsheba was considered Uriah's property? (Just as the lamb.)
There's more to this story than meets the eye ...
[ 27. July 2015, 20:06: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
... or simply that it wasn't included, whatever he said to her, because fundamentally this is a story about God and how he dealt with a chosen king who really fucked up. The author isn't focused on the ripple effects of this whole mess--he's not a novelist, who would be. (Though if you WANTED to make a novel of it, it would be easy to do--what was their marriage like from then forward? Did guilt play a role in David's choice of successor? And particularly intriguing (at least to me), did Ahithophel turn traitor in his old age because the wrong done to his granddaughter still burned in him?)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
As for sparing a moment to see his wife--all I can do is speculate, of course. But I can think of a few things.
a) he was not traveling alone, but with some of his subordinate soldiers. Not good for the troops to see their captain taking his ease at home, particularly when they aren't allowed to themselves.
b) There wasn't a great deal of time, as he knew he was going back to the war in the morning. Perhaps he spent the time doing military stuff before sleep. (I expect Joab would have had a crapload of messages for him to deliver as a matter of routine--"Heading to Jerusalem? Okay, take this dispatch pouch").
c) Perhaps his own explanation was the truth and the whole truth, with nothing more behind it. He didn't think it was fitting.
d) Perhaps he was still somewhat shy of his new wife, especially since there was very likely a thirty year age gap between them, and they hadn't been married long. He might not have wanted to cope with a "hi--g'bye" meeting when they still weren't quite comfortable with one another.
e) Perhaps he did smell a rat and was determined not to go near her until he had a better sense of how things stood.
f) Perhaps he was avoiding someone (his mother-in-law?) who lived in the same home, and didn't want to deal with the drama when he wasn't going to be home very long.
g) Perhaps the marriage between Uriah and Bathsheba was a rocky one, for whatever reason.
These are all novelistic explanations. It's really not so surprising that we don't get answers to these issues in a book that doesn't set out to be a novel.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Lamb Chopped: ... or simply that it wasn't included, whatever he said to her, because fundamentally this is a story about God and how he dealt with a chosen king who really fucked up. The author isn't focused on the ripple effects of this whole mess--he's not a novelist, who would be.
Well, I do think that it is about more than novelisation. It's a theological statement you're making here. If what David has done wrong is between him and God and the effect this has on Bathsheeba (whose husband David murdered) is a 'ripple effect', then that's a theological point.
(Personally, in my own theology I'm objecting more and more to a view of subjects like sin and forgiveness as things that are between us and God; I guess my opinion is influenced by that.)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Well, I agree with you that forgiveness involves a whole lot more; but in this particular book I think the author wasn't focused on making that particular theological point. You have to pick and choose when you're a writer, after all.
[ 27. July 2015, 22:36: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Lamb Chopped: Well, I agree with you that forgiveness involves a whole lot more; but in this particular book I think the author wasn't focused on making that particular theological point. You have to pick and choose when you're a writer, after all.
Perhaps. I do wonder a bit how this would work under Jewish law. Suppose for a moment that it was agreed upon that David murdered Uriah. Would that mean that he owed anything to anyone?
I don't think he owed anything to Bathsheeba. She was just Uriah's possession after all. But would he owe anything to Uriah's family? Or perhaps not, because he wasn't a Jew?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I'm sure LeRoc that's being over-subtle, David knew what he'd done was wrong. Viz his reaction to Nathan's words. Viz the ways things unfold with Absolom, Viz further the way that from then on, David is even more in hock to Joab, who is kin but who also knows where the bodies are buried.
This doesn't fit modern sensibilities at all, but we have to try to assess things from within their own culture. It may be that David's recompense to Bathsheba, once his attempt to foist the child on Uriah had failed, was making her a queen, rather than just casting her aside.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Lamb Chopped: Well, I agree with you that forgiveness involves a whole lot more; but in this particular book I think the author wasn't focused on making that particular theological point. You have to pick and choose when you're a writer, after all.
Perhaps. I do wonder a bit how this would work under Jewish law. Suppose for a moment that it was agreed upon that David murdered Uriah. Would that mean that he owed anything to anyone?
I don't think he owed anything to Bathsheeba. She was just Uriah's possession after all. But would he owe anything to Uriah's family? Or perhaps not, because he wasn't a Jew?
What it would mean (if he weren't king) is being liable to the death penalty at the hands of Uriah's nearest kin. For that matter, adultery also draws the death penalty. But being the reigning king of Israel complicates matters.
AFAIK Uriah being a non-Jew has no effect on the penalty owed by his murderer. I can't think of anywhere in the Law where such an exception is made.
As for what he owed to Bathsheba--
If a court were sitting on the matter (as if!) she would be entitled to claim against him as a rape victim. The fact that he had two capital crimes on his conscience already would sort of wipe that claim out, however--hard to collect from a dead man.
The whole thing is basically moot because there is no court in Israel that is going to prefer charges against David.
Why is why Nathan had to come deal with him. That took major guts.
I suppose
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I think it is rather likely that the situation was an open and notorious secret.
The cuckolded husband stayed away from his wife. No surprise there.
I know "the Lord sent Nathan to David," but surely Nathan conferred with his staff before setting off to rebuke David.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Staff? staff? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
That sounds totally awesome.
I want a staff.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Kelly Alves: Instead, the lamb is stolen and slaughtered for a meal. Two things-- the lamb owner in the story is not killed, though Uriah is, and the brutal fate the lamb suffers-- going from a cherished pet to being killed and consumed by guests-- suggests to me that Nathan was well aware that Bathsheba was a victim in this story-- Wrenched away from a decent man who loved her(according to Nathan), consumed by a man more interested in acquisition than "husbandry". What happened to her, according to Nathan, was very much like murder.
Hmm thank you, I hadn't looked at it in this way. I still feel that David should have made amends to Bathsheba, instead of only confessing his sin to God. But maybe that's not in the story because Bathsheba was considered Uriah's property? (Just as the lamb.)
There's more to this story than meets the eye ...
Later on the text says that David "comforted" Bathsheba after the death of the baby. Admittedly this was the kind of "comforting" that resulted in another child, but still it is an interesting choice of word. It is the same word the translators of the KJV chose to describe the effect of Rebecca's arrival as Isaac was mourning the death of his mother.
It seems to suggest that David gained at least some kind of ability and motivation to see Bathsheba as a person, rather than just an acquisition. Maybe the lamb metaphor rattled him as much as it was supposed to.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This doesn't fit modern sensibilities at all, but we have to try to assess things from within their own culture. It may be that David's recompense to Bathsheba, once his attempt to foist the child on Uriah had failed, was making her a queen, rather than just casting her aside.
This, too. And her next child did wind up the heir, right?
Oh, and forgot how up to his neck David wound up in Joab's shenanigans. Yeah, karma.
[ 28. July 2015, 03:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Lamb Chopped, as usual, thanks for your posts. I certainly agree with the interpretation you offer when linking this episode and then the encounter with Nathan. To that, can I add that Uriah's comments about the Ark and the armies remaining in booths are significant, particularly that of the Ark - surely David should have picked up on Uriah's piousness at the time he, David, had given way to lust and committed adultery.
Then, in chapter 16, David shows his frailty yet again. He is taken to task by Nathan, repents and is forgiven. All should be well, but the child falls ill and dies. David had fasted during the child's illness. After the death, he feasts, saying that his fast had been in vain so why fast now. Not the reaction I would have expected of him.
Bathsheeba could scarcely say no to David, and at least in this instance was blameless - we can scarcely blame her for being beautiful and for purifying herself by bathing after her period. Her action again shows up David. Here she is, following the law, and all David can do is look upon her with lust.
All this shows David to be weak and all too easily turned from his duty. Are we any better?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It seems to suggest that David gained at least some kind of ability and motivation to see Bathsheba as a person, rather than just an acquisition. Maybe the lamb metaphor rattled him as much as it was supposed to.
Yes! Loved that post where you described it, Kelly, great eye opener.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
What is so shocking about a highly esteemed man of God eliminating the competition so he can keep a prized possession? Happens all the time
A person is a saint and a sinner at the same time.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Sort of tangent alert
One of the things I really like about the Bible is the skill of its story tellers - particularly in the history parts of the Old Testament and in the Gospels. The way the account of David and Bathsheba unfold, the way some details are given and some left out, what is hinted at and what you're left to make up your own mind on, is brilliant.
Another really good one, I think, is the way the account of Jacob is put together. Jacob cheats his brother, and has to flee. All sorts of other things happen to him, important things, but all the time, Esau is still hanging in the air, unfinished business, waiting for him, that Jacob must return a generation later.
And the people that are supposed to be heroes, aren't. Both Jacob and David are imperfect. So is St Peter. Esau turns out in many ways to be a better man than Jacob.
The Gospels are put together really well too. The four writers each do it differently - in John's case really differently - but they know how to tell narrative and keep your attention.
The Bible isn't literature. It's much more. And I don't know enough about other ancient literature to answer this. I also wonder, though, whether the scriptures are the oldest writings in which people change and develop as part of the narrative. In most other ancient accounts I've encountered - and in quite a lot of books written now - a person is either good or bad. If they are good, their virtue, courage etc enables them to negotiate all sorts of hazards before they come to success. If they are bad, they come a cropper. But either way, they don't change much.
Throughout scripture, people are portrayed as a mixture, and as capable of changing, in both directions.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
You know, it's interesting.
I raised, on the previous page, the point that the real moral outrage in the story, the truly disgusting bit, is God killing David's baby son to punish David.
And no-one has picked up on that.
It could be a data point in Mr Cheesy's favour here that exposure to these stories as children has apparently rendered a lot of people on here insensitive to this absolutely abhorrent alleged act of God.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
Is the part where God kills the child included in the lectionary?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Is the part where God kills the child included in the lectionary?
It's part of the same story. And it's been referenced in the thread, if obliquely. As "the child dies".
Let's call a spade a spade. In the story, God kills the child.
[ 28. July 2015, 13:00: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
But lots of other children died that year. Child mortality was very high. God was surely responsible for the death of all those other children. (In fact He is on the hook for every sparrow and every hair on the rapidly thinning thatches of our heads.) How is this baby's death worse than the death of some other?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But lots of other children died that year. Child mortality was very high. God was surely responsible for the death of all those other children. (In fact He is on the hook for every sparrow and every hair on the rapidly thinning thatches of our heads.) How is this baby's death worse than the death of some other?
If I thought God was sitting at his computer, looking down on children and choosing "you, you, you - you're toast" and hitting the smite button I'd want nothing to do with him. This is exactly what it's proposed he did to David's son.
It's not that the death is worse; it's that God allegedly did it to get at David. It's no better than a gangster holding a gun to a child's head to try to force their father to do what the gang wants - it's worse, in fact, because God actually pulled the trigger here.
How people can cope with this stuff I simply do not get.
Do you believe God might kill your children in response to something you do wrong? Why not? If he did it to David, why not you? How do you feel about that? Do you think that's fair and just?
[ 28. July 2015, 13:41: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's part of the same story. And it's been referenced in the thread, if obliquely. As "the child dies".
Let's call a spade a spade. In the story, God kills the child.
I think it is hard to say that God is a murderer - if we also say that he controls life/death. In a sense, him choosing to take life (and/or allow death) and one time rather than another is academic, given that all die eventually.
I don't think it is too hard to imagine that certain behaviours exhibited by David led to the child's death, which was not prevented by God. Or that the death was entirely random, but not prevented by God.
I really think this is a reflection of how the writers understood God rather than how we understand God (and is another reason these things are not to be taught to young children).
It is probably unlikely that a child would be taught this passage in Sunday School, I accept. However children are regularly taught about Abraham and Isaac, and what does that tell them about God - that sometimes he asks people to kill their own children as a religious sacrifice..?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I think the problem of Christianity is that it does propose a God who approves of sacrifices in certain circumstances. The whole religion is based around one such event!
The more positive aspect, for modern man, is that the central character of the religion is so kind and loving. In a few 100 years' time perhaps the Trinity will break apart, and 'God the Son' will take centre stage while God the Father with his awful history will recede from view. Like in some animist religions.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I think the problem of Christianity is that it does propose a God who approves of sacrifices in certain circumstances. The whole religion is based around one such event!
I refuse to believe in a God who calls anyone to sacrifice their own innocent child. If we're reading that into our scriptures, we're wrong.
The atonement has zero to do with this.
quote:
The more positive aspect, for modern man, is that the central character of the religion is so kind and loving. In a few 100 years' time perhaps the Trinity will break apart, and 'God the Son' will take centre stage while God the Father with his awful history will recede from view. Like in some animist religions.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QB] quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's part of the same story. And it's been referenced in the thread, if obliquely. As "the child dies".
Let's call a spade a spade. In the story, God kills the child.
I think it is hard to say that God is a murderer - if we also say that he controls life/death. In a sense, him choosing to take life (and/or allow death) and one time rather than another is academic, given that all die eventually./QB]
No it bloody well isn't! There's a massive fucking difference between, say, Boy #1 getting run over by a truck tomorrow at the age of 10 and living to a ripe old age. Not academic in the slightest. Especially if God is alleged to have sent the damned truck.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No it bloody well isn't! There's a massive fucking difference between, say, Boy #1 getting run over by a truck tomorrow at the age of 10 and living to a ripe old age. Not academic in the slightest. Especially if God is alleged to have sent the damned truck.
Clearly it makes a difference to the victim, but does it really put an increased moral burden onto the deity? I don't think so.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No it bloody well isn't! There's a massive fucking difference between, say, Boy #1 getting run over by a truck tomorrow at the age of 10 and living to a ripe old age. Not academic in the slightest. Especially if God is alleged to have sent the damned truck.
Clearly it makes a difference to the victim, but does it really put an increased moral burden onto the deity? I don't think so.
On what basis? It seems to me that if God is going around killing people to get at other people, he needs a bloody good excuse. Better than any I can think of.
If he ever, ever pulls that shit on me, he could forget about counting me in his followers, were it not that I'm bloody terrified of the consequences. What a situation eh - forced to stay by fear.
[ 28. July 2015, 14:10: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
On what basis? It seems to me that if God is going around killing people to get at other people, he needs a bloody good excuse. Better than any I can think of.
If you are a computer programmer, do you need to give a reason to kill an app before it ends naturally? If you make art, do you need a reason to decide a sculpture is not good enough and destroy it?
If life is to the deity what programming is to the computer programmer and sculpture is to the artist, how is he more responsible for destroying it in one way rather than another? Who, exactly, are you expecting him to be able to give an account to?
quote:
If he ever, ever pulls that shit on me, he could forget about counting me in his followers, were it not that I'm bloody terrified of the consequences. What a situation eh - forced to stay by fear.
If, horrible thought, my child was killed in a terrible rockslide I too would be very upset. But there isn't much point in getting angry with the mountain.
[ 28. July 2015, 14:15: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
But isn't that a sign that, while Mr. Cheesy seems to be voicing a controversial opinion here, his idea is actually pretty in line with the RCL?
We get some of the nasty bits, but they do leave most of them out. We get the sacrifice of Isac and uncle Leban sneaking the homely daughter into bed with Jacob, but no forced circumcisions, pull out method birth control, or daughters in law seducing Judah. Part of this is a factor of needing to fit a lot in three years, but part is surely to save priests from having to deal with these gross stories.
I can honestly say that I only know the Levite's Concubine story because it comes up in this kind of discussion.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
On what basis? It seems to me that if God is going around killing people to get at other people, he needs a bloody good excuse. Better than any I can think of.
If you are a computer programmer, do you need to give a reason to kill an app before it ends naturally? If you make art, do you need a reason to decide a sculpture is not good enough and destroy it?
If life is to the deity what programming is to the computer programmer and sculpture is to the artist, how is he more responsible for destroying it in one way rather than another? Who, exactly, are you expecting him to be able to give an account to?
Computer programmes, sculptures - they're not conscious beings with the ability to suffer, with wishes, hopes and desires. There's no comparison.
quote:
quote:
If he ever, ever pulls that shit on me, he could forget about counting me in his followers, were it not that I'm bloody terrified of the consequences. What a situation eh - forced to stay by fear.
If, horrible thought, my child was killed in a terrible rockslide I too would be very upset. But there isn't much point in getting angry with the mountain.
No-one suggests that mountains are persons who do these things intentionally.
[ 28. July 2015, 14:19: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No-one suggests that mountains are persons who do these things intentionally.
Normal moral categories do not apply to the deity - if indeed one believes that he holds the keys to life and death.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Oh, right, God can be as much a bastard as he likes. I forgot. And we shouldn't have a problem with that, but just suck it up.
Fuck that. Seriously considering a change of religion.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Oh, right, God can be as much a bastard as he likes. I forgot. And we shouldn't have a problem with that, but just suck it up.
Well no, but then I don't believe in this "relationship with God' guff. If he is the creator of all things, then it follows that he is going to be doing things we don't like - including deciding the timing of death, whether or not he likes us.
quote:
Fuck that. Seriously considering a change of religion.
Fair enough, I reckon. If I believed in a deity who changed his mind (and the universe) because he liked me, then I'd be forced to change religion too.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
mr cheesy
If some people believe that God the Father as depicted in the Bible is indeed abhorrent, then they might take the religion in a less God-focused direction. Focusing on Jesus instead might be one way to do that, as he is a more palatable representation of God. But who knows what the future of Christianity holds?
For myself, perhaps my cultural background and sense of the dramatic make the notion of sacrifice seem somewhat inevitable. Death is routine, and the notion of divinely ordained sacrifice is just one way of making it more meaningful. OTOH, it rains on the just and the unjust, and in the long run we're all dead, so perhaps death does have very little meaning.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Neither the computer programmer nor the artist is God. The baby didn't have hopes and dreams. It had the potential to hope and dream. Millions of people in our world have no problem snuffing out life with the potential to hope and dream but that is a dead horse issue.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It had the potential to hope and dream. Millions of people in our world have no problem snuffing out life with the potential to hope and dream but that is a dead horse issue.
And also an utterly irrelevant one.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Oh, right, God can be as much a bastard as he likes. I forgot. And we shouldn't have a problem with that, but just suck it up.
Well no, but then I don't believe in this "relationship with God' guff. If he is the creator of all things, then it follows that he is going to be doing things we don't like - including deciding the timing of death, whether or not he likes us.
quote:
Fuck that. Seriously considering a change of religion.
Fair enough, I reckon. If I believed in a deity who changed his mind (and the universe) because he liked me, then I'd be forced to change religion too.
I'm not talking about God changing his mind. I'm talking about him not doing shitty things like killing people to get at other people in the first place.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
mr cheesy
If some people believe that God the Father as depicted in the Bible is indeed abhorrent, then they might take the religion in a less God-focused direction. Focusing on Jesus instead might be one way to do that, as he is a more palatable representation of God. But who knows what the future of Christianity holds?
For myself, perhaps my cultural background and sense of the dramatic make the notion of sacrifice seem somewhat inevitable. Death is routine, and the notion of divinely ordained sacrifice is just one way of making it more meaningful. OTOH, it rains on the just and the unjust, and in the long run we're all dead, so perhaps death does have very little meaning.
It's being taken to this sort of weird place, where people don't matter, they can just die, death has little meaning, that worries me. I mean, why bother? Let's just kill ourselves now, since death doesn't matter.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
The illness/ death of the baby is described as a judgement from God because that is the way people at the time of the writing probably saw it. I see no need to adopt that particular belief in order to get insight from the story.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
mr cheesy
If some people believe that God the Father as depicted in the Bible is indeed abhorrent, then they might take the religion in a less God-focused direction. Focusing on Jesus instead might be one way to do that, as he is a more palatable representation of God. But who knows what the future of Christianity holds?
For myself, perhaps my cultural background and sense of the dramatic make the notion of sacrifice seem somewhat inevitable. Death is routine, and the notion of divinely ordained sacrifice is just one way of making it more meaningful. OTOH, it rains on the just and the unjust, and in the long run we're all dead, so perhaps death does have very little meaning.
It's being taken to this sort of weird place, where people don't matter, they can just die, death has little meaning, that worries me. I mean, why bother? Let's just kill ourselves now, since death doesn't matter.
But you're the one who's just said that if God kills us for some kind of sacrificial and presumably meaningful reason then that's a bad thing!
Either our deaths mean something in a divine sense, or they don't. Maybe it's possible to have it both ways, but you haven't yet argued for that; you just want God to keep out of it. If God keeps out of it, though, how can our deaths be meaningful?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You know, it's interesting.
I raised, on the previous page, the point that the real moral outrage in the story, the truly disgusting bit, is God killing David's baby son to punish David.
And no-one has picked up on that.
It could be a data point in Mr Cheesy's favour here that exposure to these stories as children has apparently rendered a lot of people on here insensitive to this absolutely abhorrent alleged act of God.
I thought of picking it up and decided I was going a Kerygmania too far if I did. Plus surely you've had enough of me already?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It had the potential to hope and dream. Millions of people in our world have no problem snuffing out life with the potential to hope and dream but that is a dead horse issue.
And also an utterly irrelevant one.
It's totally relevant.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
mr cheesy
If some people believe that God the Father as depicted in the Bible is indeed abhorrent, then they might take the religion in a less God-focused direction. Focusing on Jesus instead might be one way to do that, as he is a more palatable representation of God. But who knows what the future of Christianity holds?
For myself, perhaps my cultural background and sense of the dramatic make the notion of sacrifice seem somewhat inevitable. Death is routine, and the notion of divinely ordained sacrifice is just one way of making it more meaningful. OTOH, it rains on the just and the unjust, and in the long run we're all dead, so perhaps death does have very little meaning.
It's being taken to this sort of weird place, where people don't matter, they can just die, death has little meaning, that worries me. I mean, why bother? Let's just kill ourselves now, since death doesn't matter.
But you're the one who's just said that if God kills us for some kind of sacrificial and presumably meaningful reason then that's a bad thing!
Exactly. Being killed is a bad thing. God shouldn't be in the business of doing it. Especially killing the innocent to get at someone else. How twisted is that?
quote:
Either our deaths mean something in a divine sense, or they don't. Maybe it's possible to have it both ways, but you haven't yet argued for that; you just want God to keep out of it. If God keeps out of it, though, how can our deaths be meaningful?
I don't want a meaningful death; I want a meaningful life.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It's totally relevant.
Why is it? What possible connection is there between the creator of the universe deciding to end someone's life and the issue of abortion - other than to bring something totally irrelevant into this discussion?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't want a meaningful death; I want a meaningful life.
I hope you have one. We still die, though. Is it better that God has nothing to do with either life or death?
In my earlier post I suggested that in the future, Christianity might gradually dispense with God the Father and focus on the kinder and more caring life of God the Son. Do you think this would be a useful theological development?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
We should talk some more about this, but I fear we are drifting away from a discussion about rites.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't want a meaningful death; I want a meaningful life.
I hope you have one. We still die, though. Is it better that God has nothing to do with either life or death?
There's a difference between God being with someone in death, whatever that may mean, and his being the one doing the killing.
quote:
In my earlier post I suggested that in the future, Christianity might gradually dispense with God the Father and focus on the kinder and more caring life of God the Son. Do you think this would be a useful theological development?
I think it raises a massive problem if the Father and the Son don't seem to share the same views. I'd rather try to harmonise them. Or give up the whole project. One of the two.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The illness/ death of the baby is described as a judgement from God because that is the way people at the time of the writing probably saw it. I see no need to adopt that particular belief in order to get insight from the story.
I think that's probably true. But that involves recognising that the story as it is told is morally repugnant and casts God in an evil light, which folk seem curiously reluctant to do.
You know I seldom read the Bible these days. It's because I know what's in there, and it disturbs what little faith I have.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's a difference between God being with someone in death, whatever that may mean, and his being the one doing the killing.
It may be that God is unable to control death, that it's beyond his powers. I think some of the liberation theologians take a similar view. It obviously doesn't accord with the notion of God as almighty or who acts in any sense as a judge, but some theologies are able to bypass all of that.
Regarding Jesus, my impression is that for many modern people, he can be admired and respected without the close intervention of the biblical God. Maybe some of these people are even in the church, although a lot won't be.
The problem is that there's a human tendency to want God to be somewhere about, but not requiring too much human attention and not getting too deeply involved in human affairs, unless humans need help to get out of trouble. In the animist religions God isn't a lawgiver at all - he's just the creator. He has no business telling anyone what to do, or getting angry if they disobey.
This isn't the God of the OT, or even of orthodox NT Christianity, but perhaps the God of modern western Christianity is moving in this direction. Our religiosity is increasingly private, and uncontrolled by priests. I do think we need a 'popular theology' to enunciate and theorise the kind of Christianity that's developing beyond the church walls.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Perhaps it would help to think about it in the large sense. The world is full of people and life forms. Clearly they cannot all live for ever. A steady cycle of life and death is a requisite, not only for evolution (if you are not a creationist), but simply so that there is room. If everything ever alive were still here today we would be over our heads in dinosaurs or something.
Furthermore, death is necessary to sustain life. The lettuce leaf, the lamb chop you ate yesterday -- they were alive quite recently. Then they were killed, and then you ate them, sustaining your life into today. Those dead dinosaurs? Squished into geological layers and turned into oil, which is now in your gas tank.
Death, in other words, is part of life. It is built into creation. God must have made it that way. There is no point in complaining to Him about death, any more than there is complaining about gravity. A specific instance of death might grieve you, just like a specific instance of gravity might. (That fall off my bicycle, ouch.) But it is not a sign of God's evil.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Okay, I have to do some disagreeing. Because I'm that kind of person, duh. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Yes, it sucks big time that David's baby died. And anybody horrified by it is IMHO perfectly entitled to be. (Anybody thought about the effect on poor Bathsheba?)
It's true that God has the right to do whatever he likes with us his creation. But it's also true that the moral Law comes straight from him, and it's totally reasonable for us to freak out when it looks like he's acting out of character with it. Since when should human beings be more moral than God?
So we're left with a sticky patch in the Bible. Okay, that happens sometimes. And I'm certainly not going to be able to explain it away. Nor do I want to, as if God needed me to defend him. As if.
But I will say that there are a couple considerations that I personally keep in mind when I read this troubling passage. They help me a bit. They may suck for you. Whatever. If they're any use, here they are.
First, that poor baby is in an untenable position. As a child conceived during Uriah's marriage, his paternity is in doubt. No one is going to be able to prove one way or the other that Uriah hadn't left his wife pregnant, or even gotten her pregnant on that night he appeared to spend sleeping in the guardhouse. His home was not that far away, after all.
So there will always be whisperers, and shouters, even. He's going to spend his whole freaking life with a cloud over him--does he inherit Uriah's wealth? or is he royal? Do any of the possessions, authority, positions he takes up later in life--which are directly based on paternity, esp. in a society where your land, house, etc. came as an inalienable inheritance--do any of these things actually belong to him?
Now let's take him as David's son. As the alleged son of David, he has a strong claim to the throne. In fact his younger brother Solomon actually succeeded on the strength of that claim. And if he lives, there is no way he can effectively renounce that claim or in any way persuade the rest of the world that he is not a threat to their own ambitions. He's going to be looking behind him for a knife in the back all his life. Most likely held by one of his brothers.
I know, I know--better to be alive and have a fucked-up life than be dead. Maybe so. But I don't want to downplay the sheer amount of shit that he's inherited because his father was a selfish jackass. This kid has no chance of a "happily ever after," witness the later behavior of his brothers Adonijah, Absalom, Amnon... There's no chance of him going off to be a simple happy vineyard owner somewhere in peace and harmony. It's going to be fraternal warfare. A short, unhappy life.
From the perspective of others, the poor kid is a threat to the monarchy. He is an ever-present reminder of David's fuckup, he is a potential heir or rival to the heir, and he could easily become a rallying point for David's enemies, whether he wants it or not. Which David deserves, but does the country? They've just had years and years of civil warfare as well as foreign warfare. It's not the kid's fault at all for existing, duh, but it sure would have been better if David had kept it in his pants. The fault is back on David again.
And then there's the high infant mortality thing, which doesn't remove the moral problem but does make it less shocking than it would be if it occurred in 21st century America...
At this point I basically have to decide whether life is something to hold on to at all costs, an absolute ultimate value, or whether I should consider that I don't know everything, and the situation might not be as cut-and-dried as I thought.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Hm.
I was trying to figure out a way to articulate something, and the above is a good lead in. The " questionable parentage" angle crossed my mind, and made me wonder if the child's reported " illness" was a construct to cover up a less than natural death.
in any case-- it is like those "may God dash your babies to the ground" curses in the Psalms. Those are wishes of the worst thing imaginable, in this case the application of God's justice to the baby's death is shaudenfreud at the worst thing imaginable.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
I think this is becoming Kerygmania, rather than about reading in church.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Young children generally pay more attention to David and Bathsheba/Jael and Sisera/the countless dodgy characters in Judges and elsewhere in the OT - they are awful, interesting, sometimes darkly funny. Just like real life. That's all the more reason to read them in church.
I'm sorry, you know people in real life who murder the husband of a woman they fancy for a night of passion and then you tell it to children as a funny story?
The only saving grace of this passage is that the context is so alien as to be essentially impossible for a child to imagine being real life.
But the fact that we think the OT testament passages are relevant to young children shows a lot about us and our children. The great lie about teaching the bible to children is that the stories are appropriate for children. Clearly, on the whole, they are not.
Well not David and Bathsheba as a funny story, because it's not. The dark humour is more referring to Judges - Jael giving Sisera some warm milk and a blanket before killing him with a tent peg? I can't think of a teenage girl who wouldn't enjoy that.
The Bible is appropriate for children because salvation is appropriate for children.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
I came across a comment (and remember only the gist) that pointed out that the story does not dwell on David's guilt in the way he used Uriah or Bathsheba, but only his sin against God's laws.
GG
Posted by Snuffy (# 18404) on
:
All of the OT 'saints' had flaws, in some cases leading to dreadful consequences. If you think David, Bathsheba & Uriah is bad, try the consequences of David's & Solomon's 'parenting' skills on the future of Israel & Judah!
But isn't it great? It is never explicitly mentioned in the OT but somehow those OT people had sufficient forward faith in their God's redemptive Lamb of Passover to entitle them to be forgiven and assessed as 'a friend of God' or 'a man after my own heart'. God works according to His own righteousness. His grace and mercy is vast! Read and preach the whole of Scripture. Get the big picture. :-)
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
The fate of David and Bathsheba's offspring does seem to be in keeping with the general understanding of sin and judgement in the early part of the OT and it might explain why the writers would see the death of the child as direct judgement - even if it was a perfectly natural consequence of living in culture with a high infant mortality by our standards, or for that matter, as suggested upthread, a bit of Palace skullduggery.
Here is a link which may or may not be helpful.
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/do-sons-bear-sins-fathers-or-not
Which doesn't answer the big question if this was a deliberate 'legal execution' of an infant by the almighty - but would explain why it would be taken that way by the writers of Samuel.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I was left wondering how Bathsheba felt about her husband not coming to see her while he was on leave. I'm not excusing David, and I'm not saying that Uriah wasn't a victim here, but really, could he not spare a few minutes to see his wife? (And I know that comes off a bit jokey, but I intend it as playing into the "what about Bathsheba" part of this discussion.)
...
I've always got the strong impression that Uriah smelt a rat. Why do you really think he insisted on sleeping in the gate house? Perhaps there were rumours flying around. And after all, he was a foreign mercenary, possibly with no kin to stick up for him.
Another side of the question is whether Uriah was criticising his king. Carefully, of course, because you don't want to get the king upset.
King David. Giant-slayer and champion of Israel, a clever commander and strategist. His army is out in the field, engaged in battle against the enemies of Israel. Why wasn't David out there with them, giving his commanders the benefit of his agile mind and his men the morale boost of seeing their king out there with them?
Along comes Uriah, "I'm sleeping in the guard house because it isn't right for me to experience the comforts of home while my comrades sleep in tents". With the unsaid criticism "it isn't right for their commander in chief and champion to be lounging around his palace either".
If David had been doing his job he would have been with his men, far away from the palace and not wandering around at night spying on women taking a bath. If he'd been where he should have been there would have been a whole lot of grief saved.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I think that I read that interpretation somewhere else-- that it wasn't just Bathsheba that made Uriah a person of interest.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Uriah certainly is making David look bad by contrast, whether he does it on purpose or not.
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
The dark humour is more referring to Judges - Jael giving Sisera some warm milk and a blanket before killing him with a tent peg? I can't think of a teenage girl who wouldn't enjoy that.
Even better when the story of Jael is discussed at an outdoor Christian festival, when some 15-20 thousand people are camping for the weekend. I think many men had a disturbed night's sleep after that... ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rev per Minute:
[QUOTE]Even better when the story of Jael is discussed at an outdoor Christian festival, when some 15-20 thousand people are camping for the weekend. I think many men had a disturbed night's sleep after that...
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
This week's OT reading thankfully added to the story which should have been read in total the previous week. It was also followed by the singing of psalm 51 which is David's atonement psalm. It would have been preferable to have all this together in one service rather than in dribs and drabs that to many listeners had little meaning. Quite frankly, some of the congregation said that the story of David and Bathsheba wouldn't be out of place in Peyton Place. I realise that we can't sanitise the Bible, but I do feel it could be presented more intelligently.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
Dear all,
The topic of how we addres the 'Problem Passages', cursing psalms etc. in worship is certainly an interesting and important one, and entirely suitable for discussion in Ecclesiantics, as well as a subject which provokes strong reactions.
At the moment it is wandering rather off-topic, and in places also becoming personal. Please try to keep the discussion courteous and related to the use of these passages in worship.
Also, please do not inflame things by bringing Dead Horses into the mix as well!
Apologies for having been distracted by Real Life for the last few days and not getting to this earlier.
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thank you dj-ordinaire. I was not sure whetherI ought to have posted the OP here or in Kerygmania. Your comment sets the doubts at rest.
Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on
:
Stories like this can work better in small discussion groups. I was leading a series of Bible studies on the life of David years ago, and my main lasting memory is the utter shock expressed by one group member when we read this story (she was the only one who had never heard it). We all talked through the implications in much more detail as a result and had an interesting discussion on how God is involved in traumatic events and whether he causes or permits them.
It didn't put her off Christianity, by the way. And she stayed extremely committed to the study group.
Posted by Baker (# 18458) on
:
I taught young children in Sunday school for several years. Second and third graders mostly. Let me tell you those kids love the oogy stories. The ten plagues of Egypt? Bring it on!
I took them into the sanctuary of our cathedral, in which there are twelve big windows depicting Jesus. I explained the symbols, the rooster for Peter, the X shaped cross for Andrew, the knife for Barholomew, and so on, explaining that legends say these are symbols of how they were martyred. By the third window all they wanted to know was "How did THIS one die?"
Posted by Baker (# 18458) on
:
In the previous post I meant to say "depicting the disciples of Jesus", not "depicting Jesus".
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Well not David and Bathsheba as a funny story, because it's not. The dark humour is more referring to Judges - Jael giving Sisera some warm milk and a blanket before killing him with a tent peg? I can't think of a teenage girl who wouldn't enjoy that.
My teen heard this story for the first time in church last weekend and was ranting for a considerable time about how inappropriate this was, what possible spiritual message it could give and why adult Christians think it is appropriate (and even funny! ha ha) to tell this to children.
She wasn't amused.
So in answer to your question, I can think of at least one teenage girl who did not enjoy this specific passage.
quote:
The Bible is appropriate for children because salvation is appropriate for children.
I am not sure I can respond to that from the confines of an Ecclesiantics discussion. However, I think my child's reaction has strengthened my view that these types of bible passages are not appropriate for children to hear read in church.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Well not David and Bathsheba as a funny story, because it's not. The dark humour is more referring to Judges - Jael giving Sisera some warm milk and a blanket before killing him with a tent peg? I can't think of a teenage girl who wouldn't enjoy that.
My teen heard this story for the first time in church last weekend and was ranting for a considerable time about how inappropriate this was, what possible spiritual message it could give and why adult Christians think it is appropriate (and even funny! ha ha) to tell this to children.
She wasn't amused.
She sounds like her father's daughter!
A friend of mine at junior school gave me a kids' book of Bible stories, and this story (obviously in summarised form) is in it. I can't say it scarred me for life! I've always been grateful for this book, even though I got it from a Jehovah's Witness(!), because it gave me an interesting overview of the Bible long before I was willing or able to read the version for grownups.
I suppose it also helped to prevent surprises of the kind your daughter experienced. I don't remember ever feeling particularly shocked by biblical references in worship. Hearing a minister mention his wife's beautiful bum in connection with the Song of Songs is perhaps the closest I've got to that!
[ 01. September 2015, 12:12: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose it also helped to prevent surprises of the kind your daughter experienced. I don't remember ever feeling particularly shocked by biblical references in worship.
I think this is a problem. If the text is no longer shocking, we're not really listening.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
But you've just said that your daughter being 'shocked' was a bad thing, because it meant she'd heard something that shouldn't have been said.
I assumed from this that your preferred alternative was that only strictly 'appropriate' stuff should be mentioned at church (or in all age worship, or Sunday school), which surely means that being shocked is unlikely.
(Of course, from a more mainstream/liberal Christian perspective, being 'shocked' in church is OK if it involves radical sermons about oppression and injustice, etc., but I don't think that's what you're talking about.)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose it also helped to prevent surprises of the kind your daughter experienced. I don't remember ever feeling particularly shocked by biblical references in worship.
I think this is a problem. If the text is no longer shocking, we're not really listening.
This. A hundred times this. I'm always amazed that we take a story where God drowns thousands of animals and people; where a bloody great wooden boat with a tiny remnant in it bobs around surrounded by the bloated corpses of drowned children, is a suitable story for children and is all fun and about rainbows and God being nice to Noah.
Read the thing. It's absolutely horrific.
I think familiarity must blind people to what's actually there.
[ 01. September 2015, 15:54: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But you've just said that your daughter being 'shocked' was a bad thing, because it meant she'd heard something that shouldn't have been said.
Being exposed to a story about a brutal murder in graphic detail is a bad thing.
Being shocked, if one is exposed to such a story, is a good thing.
Not hard, really.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
The Children's Bible that my daughter hated had a very graphic picture of the Ark surrounded by people drowning. No, I didn't think it was suitable for children either.
Have you ever read the context of the famous stories told to children? Joshua fought the Battle of Jericho and went on to commit genocide. David fought Goliath and went on to commit genocide, same with Gideon and the fleece and all the deaths in the story of Noah and his Ark.
(I ran the pram service for years and got very particular about which OT stories I was prepared to tell to toddlers and their parents.)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But you've just said that your daughter being 'shocked' was a bad thing, because it meant she'd heard something that shouldn't have been said.
Being exposed to a story about a brutal murder in graphic detail is a bad thing.
Being shocked, if one is exposed to such a story, is a good thing.
Not hard, really.
True, but when I said that I'd rarely been shocked in church, it's not because I'd heard lots of dreadful things and was indifferent to them! It was (IMO...) because I didn't hear dreadful things in the first place!!
Sorry to say it, but you lot all go to the wrong churches! You ought to become Methodists - upsetting kids, or even grown-ups, is generally not on their agenda at all!
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
It was a Bible from a godmother who attended one of the evangelical churches, not a CofE church. Definitely not something I, or any of the others I knew had come across before, so no, actually, Methodism would not have helped.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But you've just said that your daughter being 'shocked' was a bad thing, because it meant she'd heard something that shouldn't have been said.
I think there are two things in play here: a) whether these stories should be read to children and b) whether adults should be shocked.
As it happens, my daughter is an older teen, so I'm not sure it is going to have a lasting negative effect on her, particularly as she knows she can talk to me about it.
But the context was a family service. The church she attended (for clarity, I wasn't there) was telling this story expecting it to be suitable for children far younger than my daughter.
quote:
I assumed from this that your preferred alternative was that only strictly 'appropriate' stuff should be mentioned at church (or in all age worship, or Sunday school), which surely means that being shocked is unlikely.
I believe in age appropriate material, don't you? Would you let a young child watch a scary horror film? I don't "cottonwool" my child, but as a responsible adult I'm always thinking about what she is consuming and how it might be affecting her (of course, less so as she is getting older).
If we as adults (and, for the sake of consistency) older teens are not shocked by this kind of verse, then are we really listening?
quote:
(Of course, from a more mainstream/liberal Christian perspective, being 'shocked' in church is OK if it involves radical sermons about oppression and injustice, etc., but I don't think that's what you're talking about.)
That too. Shock is a massively undervalued response to church.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
And to be clear: there are very large chunks of the bible that I would not teach to young children. I wouldn't even teach the "sunday school" version of Samson, Elijah and the prophets of Baal, etc and so on.
I was taught all of this from the age of 5, and I don't think it is remotely healthy.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I suppose the only option for worried parents is to vet everything that their children see, including books of Bible stories. A good mainstream Methodist parent would probably cast a critical eye over a kid's book that came from evangelical sources.
However, I don't think my parents (who were not Methodists at the time) ever saw the book I mentioned above. It was just something else I'd brought home from junior school. My mother would have disapproved of the JW connection, but since I didn't tell her or make a fuss, there wasn't an issue. Maybe a more sensitive child would have been upset.
But don't lots of kids these days see all sorts of 'inappropriate' things from a young age? That's the complaint about modern childhood that you always hear. Evangelical godmothers bearing gifts are one small hazard among many! I'd be more worried about porn myself, but I suppose it depends on your social context.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Okay, I have to do some disagreeing. Because I'm that kind of person, duh.
Thanks for that - also thanks to Kelly for the previous post - I had these ideas milling around my head but had never been able to properly articulate either of them.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suppose the only option for worried parents is to vet everything that their children see, including books of Bible stories. A good mainstream Methodist parent would probably cast a critical eye over a kid's book that came from evangelical sources.[/quote[
I am not a "worried parent", I am a parent who is bothered about what we (family, church, society) are teaching our children.
[quote]But don't lots of kids these days see all sorts of 'inappropriate' things from a young age?
Not sure what your point is here - kids see inappropriate things, therefore it is OK to teach them that the deity we're supposed to believe in is A0K with mass murder.. or something.
My kid didn't see inappropriate things, that was part of my job as a responsible parent.
quote:
I'd be more worried about porn myself, but I suppose it depends on your social context.
I don't see this as an "either we're concerned about porn/body image/relationships" or "we're concerned about the way we teach our religion to our children and what they might be picking up from it" issue. I'm quite concerned about body image too, I don't see that has anything to do with this particular discussion.
I must say it concerns me how casual the church (and I find it very hard to believe that Methodist churches are not also teaching their kids exactly the same content) is with telling kids a message that amounts to if God tells you to, you are quite entitled to do absolutely anything that is normally considered to be totally off-limits, up-to and including mass murder of enemies and child sacrifice.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Not sure what your point is here - kids see inappropriate things, therefore it is OK to teach them that the deity we're supposed to believe in is A0K with mass murder.. or something.
I just feel that Christian parents should be able to ensure that their children learn about the Bible without scaring them to bits. That may mean choosing the appropriate books and attending churches that care about children. But I'm not a parent myself, and I appreciate that it must be hard to get it right. Every parent will have their own boundaries.
Certainly, if I thought that Christianity was unsuitable for kids I'd wonder if it was suitable for me. We may need to develop a somewhat different theology for our contemporary sensibilities.
quote:
I find it very hard to believe that Methodist churches are not also teaching their kids exactly the same content
Ah, so you don't have much experience of British Methodism. Fair enough.
Methodism was once very evangelical, but now it has a reputation for being one of the least evangelical of the mainstream churches. There are evangelicals within it, but evangelical congregations don't have the visibility they do in the CofE, and they're a much smaller part of Methodism as a whole.
The problem with Methodism is that it's not a terribly lively denomination to be in, which means young people don't attend or stay in great numbers. This is a shame, because they then end up going to more dynamic evangelical churches, where they hear inappropriate things.
BTW, what kind of church does your daughter attend? And why do you allow her to attend a church that teaches her things you consider to be inappropriate? Is her interest more social than anything else? I'm just curious, because most families with feelings like yours would simply stop going to church. Not that I'm saying you or your daughter shouldn't go, of course.
[ 01. September 2015, 20:04: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Um... Am I the only person to encounter children who enjoy gratuitous violence?
Not saying they truly understand it, but my sister's kids are all for a bit of wanton destruction (okay, maybe not number 4; but the rest...)
Posted by Baker (# 18458) on
:
Gerasu, see my post from yesterday about bloodthirsty Sunday School students.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
BTW, what kind of church does your daughter attend? And why do you allow her to attend a church that teaches her things you consider to be inappropriate? Is her interest more social than anything else? I'm just curious, because most families with feelings like yours would simply stop going to church. Not that I'm saying you or your daughter shouldn't go, of course.
It isn't possible to reply to this without giving lot of personal detail, which a) I don't want to give and b) is not relevant to this thread.
But let it be said that I am perfectly able to share my faith with my progeny whilst at the same time contemplating which parts of it are appropriate to her age, thanks all the same.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am perfectly able to share my faith with my progeny whilst at the same time contemplating which parts of it are appropriate to her age, thanks all the same.
That's great. But if you can do what's appropriate for your children then you shouldn't presume that others can't do the same for theirs. People know what's suitable for their own families.
FWIW, biblical knowledge in Britain is declining, so the problem of children being hurt by unsuitable Bible knowledge would seem to be quite small (though it may be a problem in the circles you know). This decline in knowledge is apparently also the case for churchgoing Christians.
I doubt that many British people choose to learn more about the Bible as adults if they've not been encouraged to do so as children.
http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2014/bible-literacy-and-other-news/
[ 02. September 2015, 01:22: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
That's great. But if you can do what's appropriate for your children then you shouldn't presume that others can't do the same for theirs. People know what's suitable for their own families.
If I don't think mass murder is appropriate for my child to hear in church, why would I think it was appropriate for any other child?
quote:
FWIW, biblical knowledge in Britain is declining, so the problem of children being hurt by unsuitable Bible knowledge would seem to be quite small (though it may be a problem in the circles you know). This decline in knowledge is apparently also the case for churchgoing Christians.
Teaching children age appropriate things does not make them biblically illiterate.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Truth be told, given some of the defences of genocide and draconian laws in the OT that I've seen on here over the years, I'm not sure some of these stories and passages are suitable for adults, never mind children. Some bits'd make the leaders of IS turn around and say "steady on there, old chap!" but it's there in the Bible, so people will defend it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
See, now THAT is a scary thought: will future generations of whatever-religion-IS-morphs-into tell their children a funny story from the archives about when they went into a city, took away all the women and children as slaves and the men to behead publicly later?
Will that kind of behaviour be worth a chuckle in a few thousand years?
I don't think we should hide from these texts, and we should certainly hear and wrestle with them in church - if only to thank the Lord that we've all grown up a bit since OT times.
But we should be shocked by them. They should make us contemplate our own lives. We should be contemplating the inner turmoil of someone who thinks the deity is telling him to sacrifice his own child.
We should be asking ourselves whether it is God who has changed - from the tribal deity who demanded blood to the gentle forgiving Jesus who instead demands inner change - or whether it is actually mankind who has changed not God.
But we should certainly be listening to these things in context and within a community that recognises these things are not funny stories to tell to our children.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Yes, and there is a big space between "telling them as funny stories to children" and "not telling the stories at all".
I agree there is something problematic if by the time our children become adults all they know of Noah is singing "The animals went in two by two. Hurrah! Hurrah!" or of the story of Joshua singing "and the walls came tumbling down". It's equally problematic if they don't know these stories at all.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's equally problematic if they don't know these stories at all.
Is it? Why? How do you suggest we should teach our children these disgusting stories? What do they actually need to know about them?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's equally problematic if they don't know these stories at all.
Is it? Why? How do you suggest we should teach our children these disgusting stories? What do they actually need to know about them?
Well, we start with the observation that these stories fall within part of the Bible that is mythical - these are the foundation stories of the nation of Israel. They serve a bigger purpose than describing what happened, indeed describing what happened isn't required at all.
Noah is probably more obviously non-historical - we can confidently say that at no time did God wipe out all the people and animals on the earth with the exception of eight people and a managerie on a leaky tub. We can easily talk about the destructive nature of sin, about how big an issue it is for God, about how despite being such a big issue He can save those who trust Him.
Joshua is harder because it reads more like history than Noah does. It sits on the boundary between the mythic foundation of the nation stories of Exodus and the more historical stories of Chronicles, Kings etc. It has some elements of each in it. There is a strong element there of trusting in God rather than cowering under the apparent magnitude of our calling (remember the backdrop of the people not entering the promised land earlier because they thought the cities were too strongly defended). In God those things that hinder us can be utterly defeated.
Those are just suggestions, which may not be perfect (probably aren't). But the main point is we do our children, and ourselves, no favours by taking the easy option of ignoring these passages.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
If we think we are entitled to reconstruct Christianity to make sure it fits our own particular package of prejudices, then it's time to take a long hard look at ourselves. We've got something very fundamental the wrong way round. We follow Jesus. We don't expect him to fit in with us.
That's just the same whether we're talking of the Patriot's Bible or an article I read written by a Quaker theologian which assumed that theology had to be assessed according to how it fitted with non-violence.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I'm going to take this to Purgatory as a discussion about what children should and shouldn't be told.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I do not think that my aversion to mass murder, genocide and killing people for worshipping the wrong God is a "personal prejudice". I call it "not being a massive homicidal sociopathic arsehole". Otherwise what right would we have to condemn IS for not having our "personal prejudices"?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - if you can say "genocide is fine if God orders it" then I do actually think you have sociopathic tendancies, a lack of empathy, and are a potentially dangerous individual. It's exactly the thinking that drove the Inquisition, and it's the thinking that drives IS today.
[ 02. September 2015, 10:10: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If we think we are entitled to reconstruct Christianity to make sure it fits our own particular package of prejudices, then it's time to take a long hard look at ourselves. We've got something very fundamental the wrong way round. We follow Jesus. We don't expect him to fit in with us.
But didn't he reconstruct scriptural views of God - e.g. 'If your father....l how much more will your heavenly father...'?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But didn't he reconstruct scriptural views of God - e.g. 'If your father....l how much more will your heavenly father...'?
The difference is that he is the incarnate Son of the Father, and knew/knows what he is talking about. We don't have either that knowledge or wisdom. The three statements 'Jesus/scripture/the inherited wisdom of Christian tradition say x, but I say y', stated as rawly as that, just sound flatulent and conceited.
That we dress up such a statement so that the underlying argument isn't quite as obvious, may fool others. We may even fool ourselves. But the dressed up statement is as flawed as the raw one.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
but he promised that the Spirit would lead us into all truth and gave the Church the authority to discern, bind and loose.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I think that if anything, I'd be even more wary of someone who claimed the Holy Spirit had led them to do something that was inconsistent with scripture, reason and tradition than I would of those who have argued that their personal reasoning overruled and took priority over the other two.
Besides, even as a Prod, I don't think anyone can claim that authority delegated to the Church = delegated to me. Wouldn't that be the ultimate presumptuous sin (Ps 19:13) and wilfully letting it have dominion over one?
quote:
"Jer 17:9 (AV) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:"
Few, if any, of us have the wisdom and self awareness to be entrusted with the ability to discern between the counsel of God and our own particular package of prejudices. There was a time, back in the fifties and sixties when fashionable theologians spoke of 'mankind having come of age'. That phrase sounded then as though people somehow believed that 1933-45 had been a mere temporary aberration. Now it just sounds presumptuous, flatulent and complacent.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I think that if anything, I'd be even more wary of someone who claimed the Holy Spirit had led them to do something that was inconsistent with scripture, reason and tradition than I would of those who have argued that their personal reasoning overruled and took priority over the other two.
Which is why the Church looks for the concensus of the faithful, not for any individuals and also why it as to be consistent with scripture amnd tradition.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
In which case, are we actually that far apart?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0