Did God Require Human Sacrifice to End Famine?

[cardw]

There are a number of strange and difficult stories from the Bible. These are rarely read from the pulpit and create some difficulties in maintaining a literal understanding of the Bible.

This is from Illustrated Stories From The Bible.

Introduction

Christians today would probably scoff at primitive people who believed that disasters, like famines and plagues, were caused by angry gods. They would probably deny that the Hebrews believed the same things about their god, Yahweh. And they would rightly be disturbed at the idea that a god's anger would be appeased by putting human beings to death. Yet, the Bible tells us that this was indeed the case with Yahweh. According to the book of 2nd Samuel, Yahweh caused a famine because he was angry. He only brought an end to the famine after seven of the king's sons and grandsons had been put to death before him at harvest time. Although most preachers are not willing to use the phrase human sacrifice when speaking about this incident, there’s really too much evidence to escape it, as we shall see.

The reason for the famine

During King David’s reign there was a terrible famine that lasted a full three years. By the end of the third year, David suspects that it was brought by Yahweh and asks him directly why he is punishing the people. Without hesitation, and as if they're in an every day conversation, Yahweh explains that it is due to the actions of King Saul, who ruled before David. Saul had angered Yahweh by killing some people from the town of Gibeah: "And the LORD said, 'It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites to death'" (2 Samuel 21: 1). It's not known when Saul did this because the event is not recorded anywhere in the Bible. What we are told is that Saul broke a treaty that Israel had with Gibeah. The treaty was not signed by Saul, though. It was signed by Joshua, and he was tricked into signing it by the Gibeonites (Joshua 9). Nevertheless, Joshua had sworn an oath in the Lord's name, and he refused to kill any Gibeonites. When Saul came to power, he did not honor the treaty.

After hearing the reason for Yahweh's anger, David summons the Gibeonite leaders to see what he can do to make amends. The Gibeonites say they want seven of Saul’s descendents so that they can kill them and hang them up before Yahweh: “let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and exposed before the LORD at Gibeah of Saul” (2 Sam. 21:6).

David hands over Saul's descendents

David obliges. He gives them two of Saul’s sons, but he also gives them five of his grandsons. Saul's two sons are named Armoni and Mephibosheth. They are the children of Saul’s mistress, Rizpah. The five grandsons are the children of Saul’s daughter Merab. Merab was at one time betrothed to King David but she ended up marrying a man called Adriel instead. Merab and Adriel's sons would obviously have been of varying ages with the youngest possibly being quite young. The Bible doesn’t tell us how Merab and Adriel felt about their five sons being taken away to be sacrificed to Yahweh but, as any mother or father will tell you, it would have been utterly devastating. Of course, on the rare occasions this story is used for a Sunday sermon, details like this are usually left out. But it would be hard to deny the extent of their heartache.

Next, we're told that the Gibeonites, “killed and exposed them on a hill before the LORD” (2 Sam. 21:9). The phrase “before the Lord” is highly significant. In the book, The David Story, Robert Alter, professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature at UC Berkeley, explains, “‘Before the Lord’ is an explicit indication of the sacrificial nature of the killings" (W.W. Norton & Co, 2000, p.331). We're not told how the seven people were killed. Some texts say they were hung, while others say they were killed and then “exposed”. Some commentators even believe they were crucified.

We may not know how they were killed, but we do know when. They were killed at the start of the barley harvest: “they were put to death during the first days of the harvest, just as the barley harvest was beginning” (1 Sam. 21:9). The barley harvest was also known as the festival of first fruits, because barley was the first to ripen. This occurred in the spring just after Passover. Matthew Henry, in his commentary, notes the significance of the timing: “They were put to death at the beginning of harvest; they were thus sacrificed to turn away the wrath of Almighty God, who had withheld the harvest-mercies for some years past, and to obtain his favour in the present harvest.” As Henry confirms, then, they were "sacrificed" to obtain God's favor.

Left high and dry

The bodies were also left hung up on the hill before Yahweh in order to humiliate Saul even further. Leaving a corpse to be eaten by birds and beasts instead of being buried would be a great dishonor. The decay would have been extensive and the stench horrendous because they were to remain exposed for about seven months until it rained on them indicating the end of the season. The shame is tempered somewhat by the love of one mother, Saul’s mistress Rizpah. Rizpah's love for her sons was so great that she stayed with the bodies the whole time, protecting them day and night from birds and wild animals: “From the beginning of the harvest till the rain poured down from the heavens on the bodies, she did not let the birds of the air touch them by day or the wild animals by night” (1 Sam. 21: 10). Although, how one woman could protect them day and night for seven months is not explained.

When David heard about Rizpah’s devotion, he gathered the bones of the young men and buried them along with the bones of Saul and Saul’s son Jonathan. After witnessing this, we are told that Yahweh ended the famine: “After that, God answered prayer in behalf of the land.” (1 Sam. 21:14)

Were the seven sacrificed?

Christians are a bit reluctant to admit that Yahweh accepted human sacrifice to end a famine. Therefore, it's the job of apologists to come up with ways of reassuring the faithful. One common method is to claim that the victims “probably” participated in the unlawful killing of the Gibeonites and therefore deserved to be punished. Some have even suggested that they participated with a kind of enthusiasm. In the Commentary Critical and Explanatory, the authors claim, “And if it should seem unjust to make the descendants suffer for a crime which, in all probability, originated with Saul himself, yet his sons and grandsons might be the instruments of his cruelty, the willing and zealous executors of this bloody raid.” Unfortunately for exponents of this view, there is nothing in the text that says this. It is pure supposition. If the author of 1st Samuel saw any need to excuse the human sacrifice, he would have at least softened the blow by mentioning the victims had done something wrong. Clearly, the author saw nothing strange in Yahweh accepting the sacrifice of Saul's family members in return for ending the famine.

And there's another problem with trying to excuse this by assuming Saul's descendents had killed Gibeonites. There is one more of Saul's descendents mentioned in the story. His name was also Mephibosheth, but this Mephibosheth was disabled: "And Mephibosheth, who was crippled in both feet, lived in Jerusalem and ate regularly at the king’s table" (2 Samuel 9:13). Therefore he could not have participated in the attack on Gibeah. But he was not spared due to his innocence. He was spared due to a prior oath David had taken: "But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul, because of the oath of the LORD which was between them, between David and Saul's son Jonathan" (2 Samuel 21:7). Since he was spared because of the oath, we can assume that if there had been no such oath, he would have been handed over. He would have been handed over, even though he had not killed any Gibeonites.

In the absence of a compelling reason to deny that this was a human sacrifice, the reading is clear. Robert Alter doesn’t see any need to shy away from the phrase, and even some Christian commentaries accept that the killings were sacrificial in nature. Unger’s Bible Dictionary states, “This was expiated many years after by giving up seven men of Saul's descendants to the Gibeonites who hung, or crucified, them “before Jehovah ”--as a sacrifice--in Gibeah, Saul's home town” (p. 403-404; my emphasis). Smith’s Bible Dictionary echoes this almost verbatim: “This was expiated many years after by giving up seven men of Saul’s descendants to the Gibeonites, who hung them or crucified them “before Jehovah” --as a kind of sacrifice-- in Gibeah, Saul’s own town" (my emphasis).

Should we have the audacity to question Yahweh?

Some apologists are willing to admit that the young men were sacrificed. So how do they justify this? Well, they generally use the appeal of last resort. This is to assert unequivocally that God can take the life of whoever he pleases for whatever reason he sees fit. They will often add that, because we have all sinned, we all deserve to die and it is only by Yahweh’s mercy that any of us are allowed to live at all. It's a rather negative view of humanity, though. It should be hard for anyone to look into the eyes of a six year old girl and believe she's so corrupt and evil that she deserves to die. It should be hard, but this is what some believers are forced to believe when confronted with Bible stories like this one. We're all so evil that Yahweh is perfectly justified in killing people any time he wants.

John Wesley, in his Notes on the Bible, provides an example of this, even acknowledging the likely innocence of Saul's grandons: “And whereas many of the people were probably innocent of that crime, yet they also were guilty of many other sins, for which God might punish them, though he took this occasion for it.” The quintessential hard line view of Yahweh's wrath can be seen in Matthew Henry’s commentary: "God often visits the sins of the fathers upon the children...If we cannot understand all the reasons of Providence in this matter, still we have no right to demand that God should acquaint us with those reasons.” And he further states, “It must be right, because it is the will of God.” In other words, even if we're pretty sure that killing people for something their grandfather did is wrong, we have no right to question it if Yahweh does it. If Yahweh does it it must be good because everything Yahweh does is good. It's a fine example of the logical fallacy of tautology.

Conclusion

The only redeeming part of the story is the awe-inspiring love and devotion that Rizpah has for her two children. But really there was no need for her to suffer so much in the first place. Wouldn't the death of Saul's five grandsons have been sufficient to appease Yahweh's wrath? Why does it need to be a full seven descendents that have to die? Is seven just a nice round number? And why did any of them need to be sacrificed in the first place? The people have already been suffering for three years. Why is Yahweh only moved into action by the execution of seven people? Surely it would have made more sense to punish the real perpetrator, Saul, during his life time. There's really no way to justify this posthumous bloody revenge, other than to blithely say whatever Yahweh does is good, period.

The great playwright George Bernard Shaw was so disgusted with incidents like this in the Bible that he suggested the book should be burned: “I cannot agree that we should bury the Bible only; we should burn the Prayer Book also. It is saturated with blood sacrifice beyond all possible revision" (Everybody’s Political What’s What?, Constable and Company, 1944). Even Christian icon Adam Clarke, in his revered commentary, found the whole episode so disturbing that he suggested it must have been a terrible mistake in the Bible: "There are evidently many places in this chapter in which the text has suffered much from the ignorance or carelessness of transcribers; and indeed I suspect the whole has suffered so materially as to distort, if not misrepresent the principal facts." So either Yahweh accepted human sacrifice in return for ending a famine, or principle facts have been distorted and misrepresented in the Bible. Either way, it's a bit of a black mark on the Bible.

[John317]

....

Christians today would probably scoff at primitive people who believed that disasters, like famines and plagues, were caused by angry gods. They would probably deny that the Hebrews believed the same things about their god, Yahweh. ....During King David's reign there was a terrible famine that lasted a full three years. By the end of the third year, David suspects that it was brought by Yahweh and asks him directly why he is punishing the people.

The Lord had told His people that if they were disobedient He would withhold His blessings, and so David asked the Lord for the reason for the famine. It should be a lesson to God's people that He cannot bless them when they're disobeying Him.

Deut. 28:15-- But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

... 28:23-- And thy heaven that [is] over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee [shall be] iron.

28:24-- The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

[John317]

(quoting): ....After hearing the reason for Yahweh's anger, David summons the Gibeonite leaders to see what he can do to make amends. The Gibeonites say they want seven of Saul's descendents so that they can kill them and hang them up before Yahweh: let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and exposed before the LORD at Gibeah of Saul. (2 Sam. 21:6).

David obliges. He gives them two of Saul's sons, but he also gives them five of his grandsons.

Notice that David obliges them without consulting with God.

David should have asked God what to do to make the atonement, but instead David only asked the Gibeonites.

God did not tell David to do what he did.

[John317]

Therefore, it's the job of apologists to come up with ways of reassuring the faithful.

Nothing wrong with that.

Do you believe it's your job to come up with ways of showing that God doesn't exist and the Bible is false?

[John317]

...The great playwright George Bernard Shaw was so disgusted with incidents like this in the Bible that he suggested the book should be burned: I cannot agree that we should bury the Bible only; we should burn the Prayer Book also. It is saturated with blood sacrifice beyond all possible revision"

At least Shaw was forthright about his views of the Bible and of Christianity. I'm not surprised he would say this. That is what happens when people read the Bible in order to find fault with it. People generally see what they're looking for. Our motives make a huge difference.

John 7:17-- If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.

Daniel 12:10-- Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

1 Cor. 2:14-- But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

[John317]

Why is Yahweh only moved into action by the execution of seven people?

The Bible teaches that God reads the motives and rewards people for the sincerity of their desire to do God's will, even while He may condemn the actions themselves. Since God didn't command David to have those men killed, it is pure conjecture to assume that it was what God wanted David to do.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

(quoting): ....After hearing the reason for Yahweh's anger, David summons the Gibeonite leaders to see what he can do to make amends. The Gibeonites say they want seven of Saul's descendents so that they can kill them and hang them up before Yahweh: let seven of his male descendants be given to us to be killed and exposed before the LORD at Gibeah of Saul. (2 Sam. 21:6).

David obliges. He gives them two of Saul's sons, but he also gives them five of his grandsons.

Notice that David obliges them without consulting with God.

David should have asked God what to do to make the atonement, but instead David only asked the Gibeonites.

God did not tell David to do what he did.

And yet God told David in prayer that it was a problem with the Gibeonites. And supposedly God knows the future. It would seem like God would have set some type of condition for regaining His favor knowing that if He was silent the sacrifice of these innocent men and boys would occur.

It finally states that, "after that [the sacrifice of Saul's descendents] God was moved by prayer for the land." So apparently God wasn't answering any prayers before that. This basically indicates that God was pleased with the results because he reward Israel with the end of the draught and began answering their prayers.

John, you are not accountable to justice. You will justify any kind of immoral behavior in the name of your concept of god. This is why religion is evil.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Why is Yahweh only moved into action by the execution of seven people?

The Bible teaches that God reads the motives and rewards people for the sincerity of their desire to do God's will, even while He may condemn the actions themselves. Since God didn't command David to have those men killed, it is pure conjecture to assume that it was what God wanted David to do.

God is committing the sin of omission because he knows what will happen. When he stands passively by and allows people to remain ignorant then He is responsible, just like parents are responsible for their children until their child knows what to do.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

....

Christians today would probably scoff at primitive people who believed that disasters, like famines and plagues, were caused by angry gods. They would probably deny that the Hebrews believed the same things about their god, Yahweh. ....During King David's reign there was a terrible famine that lasted a full three years. By the end of the third year, David suspects that it was brought by Yahweh and asks him directly why he is punishing the people.

The Lord had told His people that if they were disobedient He would withhold His blessings, and so David asked the Lord for the reason for the famine. It should be a lesson to God's people that He cannot bless them when they're disobeying Him.

Deut. 28:15-- But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

... 28:23-- And thy heaven that [is] over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee [shall be] iron.

28:24-- The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

Yes,

Unless they honor a treaty they were tricked into making God will starve the nation. LOL

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Why is Yahweh only moved into action by the execution of seven people?

The Bible teaches that God reads the motives and rewards people for the sincerity of their desire to do God's will, even while He may condemn the actions themselves. Since God didn't command David to have those men killed, it is pure conjecture to assume that it was what God wanted David to do.

Well John,

What do you do with this story. Here is the excellent commentary on David counting his troops by the writer of Illustrated Stories of The Bible

Commentary on 2nd Samuel 24, 1st Chronicles 21

Introduction

This story represents one of the most glaring examples of why objective observers reading the Bible for the first time might view the Hebrew god, Yahweh, with a degree of repugnance instead of admiration. Bible teachers who are aware of this episode don't like to be reminded of it because it’s pretty hard to justify the murder of 70,000 people no matter what they had done. It doesn't make for an easy Sunday sermon. Another puzzling aspect to the story is that even believers have to admit they're not sure why Yahweh did this. If you read the text at face value, it appears that he killed 70,000 people because King David wanted to know how big his army was. Many Christian apologists find this disturbing so they look for other explanations. And more problems result from the fact that the Bible contains two separate accounts of the atrocity, neither of which quite matches up to the other. It is worth comparing both versions, not only for their discrepancies, but because together they confirm the extent of Yahweh's rage. It all adds up to this story being a real problem for the faithful.

Contradictions between versions

One version of the story appears in the second book of Samuel, and the other appears in the first book of Chronicles. Unfortunately for those who believe God’s word is without error, the two accounts contradict each other many times. Some contradictions are minor, but others are highly significant to the story, so before discussing the divine massacre, it's worth taking a brief look at a couple of clear differences.

It has been postulated that the writer of 1st Chronicles set out to correct errors that were found in 2nd Samuel, which was written prior to 1st Chronicles. This would account for the many numerical discrepancies. For example, 2nd Samuel 8:4 says, “And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen.” Meanwhile, 1st Chronicles 18:4 says, “And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen and twenty thousand footmen.” Was it seven hundred horsemen or seven thousand? Seven thousand is more consistent, hence the correction by the writer of 1st Chronicles.

Similarly, in the story of David’s Census, when Joab, returns with the final tally of soldiers, there is disagreement about what Joab said. In Samuel, Joab tells David that there are 1,300,000 men, 800,000 from Israel, and 500,000 from Judah:

“And Joab gave up the sum of the number of people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men (24:9).”

In the Chronicles version Joab tells him there were 1,570,000 men, 1,100,000 from Israel, and 470,000 from Judah:

“And Joab gave the sum of the number of people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew the sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew the sword" (21:5).

So was there 800,000 or 1,100,000 men from Israel? Well, this is difficult for apologists to deal with. A typical approach is to point out that the Samuel version says there were 800,000 “valiant men” from Israel, while the Chronicles version just says there were 1,100,000 “men”. Therefore, some apologists claim, there must have been 300,000 men who were not “valiant” that Joab neglected to mention in the Samuel version. This may satisfy the faithful, but it's hardly convincing. David didn’t say, “Go and count all my valiant soldiers, and if you feel like it you can include the non-valiant ones.” Besides, another rather obvious problem with this is that historically there was only one report. Either Joab included these 300,000 men in the census, or he didn’t.

Some apologists are willing to admit the discrepancy, but they say this was a mere “copyist” error, and not actually an error in the Bible. What they are really saying, however, is that there was no error in the original manuscripts. This is convenient because not a single original manuscript of any of the books of the Bible exists that we can check with. All we have are copies of copies which differ in a myriad ways. The Bible, on the other hand, is the collection of translated surviving copies that we can pick up from any book store, and it contains errors, whether you stick the word “copyist” in font or not. In fact, the Bible contains so many such errors that they're far too numerous to list here.

What did David do wrong?

When David hears Joab’s report on the size of his army, it dawns on him that he's done something wrong. This is strange because Joab had already told him this was wrong: “But Joab replied, ‘My lord the king, are they not all my lord's subjects? Why does my lord want to do this? Why should he bring guilt on Israel?’ The king's word, however, overruled Joab (1st Chon. 21:3-4).” So David overruled his wise captain and thereby brought guilt upon Israel by taking the census, a guilt that apparently motivated Yahweh to kill a colossal 70,000 people.

It is significant that apologists can't adequately explain why David’s actions would produce guilt. Some analysts suggest that counting soldiers is a sin because it brings the country closer to war. Others claim that David was relying on the strength of his army instead of relying on God to keep him safe. But many people find this problematic. Why would Yahweh kill all those people because of something David did? This doesn't seem fair. Therefore, defenders of the faith have looked for better answers.

First, there is the anthropological argument. This was a "collectivist" type of society, and the king's guilt was shared by all. The problem is that this only shows the mindset of these primitive storytellers. It does not explain why a perfectly just, all-knowing deity would punish people so horribly for something they didn't do. Apologists who take this view have to explain why it's moral to kill someone for something someone else did. They can't.

Probably the best attempt to explain this comes from a little known verse from Exodus. The verse reads, "When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them" (Ex. 30:12 NASB). That certainly sounds familiar, and apologists assert that, in this case, the people didn't pay their ransom. There are a couple of problems with this. First, neither version of the story says anything about a ransom not being paid. Apologists simply add it in to the story as a way of trying to make sense of the tragedy. And more importantly, this doesn't absolve Yahweh of anything. It's just like saying he killed 70,000 people because they didn't pay their taxes. Do apologists really want that for an image of their supposedly loving and merciful god?

Who made David take the census and why?

There's one more rationalization that must be dealt with. It concerns a discrepancy between the versions that occurs at the very beginning. The Samuel version says that Yahweh was angry with Israel and forced David to take the census: “Again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah" (2 Sam. 24:1).” This rationalization says that Yahweh made David take the census so that he could punish the people. This doesn't work for a couple of reasons. First, why would Yahweh need a trumped up reason to punish the people? If they did something wrong, he should say what it was and should punish them accordingly. And what could they possibly have done that would justify killing 70,000 of them? And third, there is no mention of this anywhere in the Chronicles version. If this was the reason, surely the writer of Chronicles would have told us.

In fact, Chronicles contradicts Samuel once again by saying it was actually Satan’s idea: "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel (1 Chron. 21:1)." And Chronicles goes further and confirms that it was indeed David who sinned, and that the punishment was because of the census: "This command was also evil in the sight of God; so he punished Israel (1 Chron 21:7)." It can't be much clearer. It was David’s command to take the census that angered Yahweh and the slaughter was in retaliation.

David even admits it himself: "David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the Lord, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, O Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing" (2 Sam. 24:10)." And later on, after David witnesses all the devastation, he reminds Yahweh that he is the sinner and the victims are innocent: "When David saw the angel who was striking down the people, he said to the LORD, "I am the one who has sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Let your hand fall upon me and my family" (2 Sam. 24:17). It would appear from the text, then, that the sin was taking the census, and that the people were innocent. Attempts to blame the people go against what the Bible plainly states. The people were slaughtered because David counted his troops.

Choosing the punishment

Just after David's initial admission of guilt, Yahweh sends along his prophet, Gad (not to be confused with God), who explains what the punishment will be. Yahweh has devised a macabre game of ‘pick-a-punishment’. Three punishments are offered. The Samuel version lists them as seven years of famine, three months fleeing from the enemy, or three days of plague: “Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land? Or will you flee three months before your foes while they pursue you? Or shall there be three days' pestilence in your land? (24:13 NASB)” In the Chronicles version, on the other hand, David is offered only three years of famine: “Take your choice: three years of famine, three months of being swept away before your enemies...or three days of the sword of the Lord -days of plague in the land (21:11-12).” Again we have a clear discrepancy in what the Bible says actually took place. Now, since the lives of 70,000 people hang in the balance, David’s choice is critical, yet the two versions disagree over what the choice was. Was it three years of famine or seven?

This discrepancy is very hard to deal with, and attempts to explain it are glaringly weak. One method is to claim that David was originally offered seven years of famine but this was later reduced to three. Again we find apologists inserting their own ideas into the Bible instead of reading it literally as they claim we’re supposed to. There is nothing in the passage that suggests the famine was later reduced to three years. Others believers prefer to say that God’s messenger was emphasizing the middle three years of famine, which would have been the worst, compared to the two before and the two afterward. Again, this is not supported by the text in any way. I challenge the reader to pick up a Bible and try to find these claims. They are simply made up out of thin air to excuse away clear discrepancies.

At any rate David cannot make up his mind. Unfortunately for his poor subjects, he makes the terrible mistake of trusting his god to choose: “Let us fall now into the hands of the Lord; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hands of man (2 Sam. 24:14).” So Yahweh, in his "mercy", opts for the three days of plague.

Yahweh's plague

Either David is mistaken about the merciful nature of his god, or he has a strange understanding of the word mercy. That is one horrific plague and a disturbing human catastrophe. It is almost as if Yahweh was playing a trick. Three years of famine sounds like a long time compared to just three days of plague. But Yahweh is quite skilled at killing a lot of people in a short space of time. One thing both versions agree on is that Yahweh did the killing. Samuel states: “So the Lord sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died" (2 Sam. 24:15).” Chronicles says, “So the Lord sent a plague on Israel, and seventy thousand men of Israel fell dead (21:14).” If 70,000 men were killed, that means there were many times that figure who would have been devastated by the loss of fathers, sons, and brothers. Families would have been devastated. There is no mention or even thought of how the widows were now supposed to care for and feed their fatherless children. This is not love for humanity; it is petty spite and brutal retribution.

And Yahweh is apparently still not satisfied with 70,000 deaths, so he sends an angel to continue the mayhem and destroy Jerusalem. All of a sudden, however, the capricious creature has a change of heart and feels bad about all the lives he’s just obliterated: “And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the LORD saw it and was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was destroying the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand" (1 Chron. 21:15)Ironically, David gets off personally unscathed. As is clearly demonstrated in the book Illustrated Stories from the Bible (that they won't tell you in Sunday school), this is not unusual for those on Yahweh’s preferred list.

Conclusion

There is nothing good in this story at all. Who cares if David counted his soldiers? Even if one can figure out what was so wrong with it, can it really be worth the lives of 70,000 frail and imperfect human beings, and the torment and endless suffering this would inflict upon the survivors? This isn't compassion or mercy. It is an act committed by a god that appears just as vengeful as any of the gods of antiquity. However, there is a more rational explanation that could be offered. Quite possibly a terrible plague, or virus, infected the people. And since it was common for people of that time to attribute disasters to wrathful gods, the Hebrew tribe naturally attributed their catastrophe to their own god, Yahweh. In the Bible, Yahweh is certainly shown to be wrathful. But with stories like this, it takes quite a bit of faith to maintain the notion that he's also kind, loving, and merciful.

[SivartM]

John, you are not accountable to justice. You will justify any kind of immoral behavior in the name of your concept of god. This is why religion is evil.

Religion does not equal Fundamentalism. Besides that, I doubt that John would condone similar actions today; I'm not so worried about people who justify evil in the distant past with pages of theological exposition as I am about people who use that to justify evil today. Cultural relativism is a good thing for religions to use to deal with their violent past, even if it comes across as inconsistent.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

John, you are not accountable to justice. You will justify any kind of immoral behavior in the name of your concept of god. This is why religion is evil.

Religion does not equal Fundamentalism. Besides that, I doubt that John would condone similar actions today; I'm not so worried about people who justify evil in the distant past with pages of theological exposition as I am about people who use that to justify evil today. Cultural relativism is a good thing for religions to use to deal with their violent past, even if it comes across as inconsistent.

John may not, but his system of intractable belief does. And I have seen people who wouldn't normally condone this type of justice sit silently by while those in authority do carry out this type of justice and predictably these nice people support it because it has the right theology.

[SivartM]

John may not, but his system of intractable belief does. And I have seen people who wouldn't normally condone this type of justice sit silently by while those in authority do carry out this type of justice and predictably these nice people support it because it has the right theology.

That's not John or religion in general, though. Your example can be applied in secular instances; why did the Germans let the Nazis have their way? Because it sounded good at the time. Churches used theology to justify it, but even irreligious people justified it in their own way. It's human nature to get caught up in mass hysteria and to justify whatever individuals or the group do, with or without religion. The problem is with fundamentalism, especially in the hands of people who are not nice. It's not religion in general that causes that attitude; only religion that discourages independent thought.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

John may not, but his system of intractable belief does. And I have seen people who wouldn't normally condone this type of justice sit silently by while those in authority do carry out this type of justice and predictably these nice people support it because it has the right theology.

That's not John or religion in general, though. Your example can be applied in secular instances; why did the Germans let the Nazis have their way? Because it sounded good at the time. Churches used theology to justify it, but even irreligious people justified it in their own way. It's human nature to get caught up in mass hysteria and to justify whatever individuals or the group do, with or without religion. The problem is with fundamentalism, especially in the hands of people who are not nice. It's not religion in general that causes that attitude; only religion that discourages independent thought.

I think we can both agree that individual situations need to judged on their own merits. And I think that religion is probably too broad of a definition. I think that anytime anyone sets up a franchise on truth, whether or not it's violent, there are problems. So when I use the term religion I mean such a franchise that excludes all others. Perhaps this is fundamentalism.

Anyone who claims to know what god wants, whether or not what god wants is violent or not, is setting up a system of thinking that closes down the growth of individuals and removes accountability toward those outside of the system of thinking, whether or not that involves violence or not.

I admit that I do use a certain amount of exaggeration in some discussions, but I use it to illustrate how it feels to be on the other side because rational discourse feels rather futile. LOL It also highlights the ridiculousness of some beliefs taken to their logical conclusion when applied literally.

To me there is no reason to retain Yahweh at all. And metaphorically there are so many other far better myths to draw on within Greek mythology.

I'm with Jefferson and other free thinkers who believe that there is a natural ethical system to be learned through empathy and reason. I think we need to be accountable to each other before we are accountable to gods. I think Jesus even taught this by saying what you do to those less fortunate you do to me or god.

I don't see this being emphasized in Christian teaching at all. I see a lot of punitive use and them language. And there are plenty of sources for this in the Bible. So I see no reason to retain the Bible or any other sacred writing as a commentary on reality.

[SivartM]

Anyone who claims to know what god wants, whether or not what god wants is violent or not, is setting up a system of thinking that closes down the growth of individuals and removes accountability toward those outside of the system of thinking, whether or not that involves violence or not.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

To me there is no reason to retain Yahweh at all. And metaphorically there are so many other far better myths to draw on within Greek mythology.

Given that at least 1/3rd of the world believes in Yahweh/Allah (yes John; you have to at least admit that Allah is based on Yahweh), the Abrahamic mythologies are not going to go away any time soon, and there are positive cultural contributions from those communities regardless of their truth value. (Also, Norse mythology is cooler than Greek, sorry!)

[SivartM]

I would note that Christianity was being its most progressive before it had a Bible or any sacred scripture. It was contained within a living community.

I think that is what religion ought to aim for. I don't want religion to go away, I want it to become better rather than being stuck in a dogmatic rut.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

I would note that Christianity was being its most progressive before it had a Bible or any sacred scripture. It was contained within a living community.

I think that is what religion ought to aim for. I don't want religion to go away, I want it to become better rather than being stuck in a dogmatic rut.

I want the same thing except I expand my circle from religion to I want my world to become better instead of being stuck in a dogmatic rut.

I think that the word religion and Christianity have lost the ability to be identified with good. I sense, with the rapid migration away from both, that we are in a transformation.

[SivartM]

I want the same thing except I expand my circle from religion to I want my world to become better instead of being stuck in a dogmatic rut.

I think that the word religion and Christianity have lost the ability to be identified with good. I sense, with the rapid migration away from both, that we are in a transformation.

If the words are done away with, the ideas will remain, though changed, and hopefully for the better. Religion has until the rise of science been inseparable from human experience. Humanity hasn't changed enough since then for it to be able to get rid of religion altogether.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

I want the same thing except I expand my circle from religion to I want my world to become better instead of being stuck in a dogmatic rut.

I think that the word religion and Christianity have lost the ability to be identified with good. I sense, with the rapid migration away from both, that we are in a transformation.

If the words are done away with, the ideas will remain, though changed, and hopefully for the better. Religion has until the rise of science been inseparable from human experience. Humanity hasn't changed enough since then for it to be able to get rid of religion altogether.

I don't expect religion to disappear in my lifetime or ever. Just as America has become greater through its diversity so has our understanding of what it means to be human come from our exposure to the diversity of thinking available to read and understand.

It is simply no longer possible to isolate people from knowledge any longer with access to the internet and our methods of mass communication. Pandora's box is already open. The only trap left is to convince people to believe a lie.

Learning how to think is more powerful than being told what to think. Religion (fundamentalism in your terms) has been telling people what to think too long. Religion has been telling people to ignore reality and direct experience because that is the only way it will survive.

It is not the arguments that convince me the most powerfully, but my own suffering from engaging in religion and my relief by abandoning religion that inform my choices. I have taken the red pill.

[Parade Orange]

i went into shock when i opened the bible and read this and other disturbing stuff as a younger man

it dont make sense to me and im not a pollyanna

i do know one thing

is that GOD operates at a level of love and wisdom and rightouseness and mercy and abhorence of sin beyond anything we conceive

and i have no explaination nor will pretend i do

but i will trust GOD anyway

im glad salvation is based on GODS GRACE and not on me understanding everything

though i do believe a clearer picture of GOD draws us closer to HIM not away

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

Did God Require Human Sacrifice to End Famine?

Every time I see this topic I think someone has suggested that we all turn into cannibals..

[John317]

To trust God doesn't require us to know all the answers to all the questions and problems that people see in the Bible or in the universe. God has provided us with enough reason to put our confidence in Him.

[cardw]

To trust God doesn't require us to know all the answers to all the questions and problems that people see in the Bible or in the universe. God has provided us with enough reason to put our confidence in Him.

Then we are not talking about the god of the Bible.

[cardw]

i went into shock when i opened the bible and read this and other disturbing stuff as a younger man

it dont make sense to me and im not a pollyanna

i do know one thing

is that GOD operates at a level of love and wisdom and rightouseness and mercy and abhorence of sin beyond anything we conceive

and i have no explaination nor will pretend i do

but i will trust GOD anyway

im glad salvation is based on GODS GRACE and not on me understanding everything

though i do believe a clearer picture of GOD draws us closer to HIM not away

Well, this disturbing stuff came from the same Bible that told you about Grace.

The problem with the disturbing stuff is that it is the opposite of Grace.

There are two different gods operating within this narrative.