Why Does God Need So Much Praise?

[SteveII]

 
That is not what you said. From the OP: 



So wherever you get your data to draw your conclusions about the nature/character of God, it is not correct. If you want to know more about praising God, start here: https://www.guideposts.org/faith-in-dail...-of-praise

How is what I said in this post different from what I said in the op?  Are you saying that the church and the bible itself do not present god as a violently jealous deity who craves praise and worship?  You have left yourself with the task of convincing the majority of readers that they don’t know what they were reading.

For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

An appeal to the context does not change the meaning of this verse.
In the 24th chapter of 2 Samuel god got angry and killed 70,000 men because David held a census to see how many fighting men they had. Christian apologist explain that the reason god was angry was because by holding the census, David betrayed a lack of faith in god.  In other words god wanted the glory for himself and not for the number of men David had.

first, the 1 Cor verse has nothing to do with what you are talking about and your insistence not to use the context to find the meaning is confusing at the least. 

2 Samuel 24: You are basically correct in your facts. The sin was not the counting, it was the condition of David's heart (the leader of God's chosen people) and David knew it as soon as he did it. Was the glory properly Gods?

[Rhondazvous]

]

first, the 1 Cor verse has nothing to do with what you are talking about and your insistence not to use the context to find the meaning is confusing at the least. 

2 Samuel 24: You are basically correct in your facts. The sin was not the counting, it was the condition of David's heart (the leader of God's chosen people) and David knew it as soon as he did it. Was the glory properly Gods?

Again, you cry bad hermeneutics, but do not show how the context in 1 Corinthians invalidates my use of it to show that god deplores wisdom when it doesn’t glorify him.

I am glad you can see that the passage in 2 Samuel does show god’s violent response when he isn’t getting all the glory. But why was it a sin for David to count the number of fighting men at his disposal? And why would god punish David by killing thousands of people? Do you really want to defend this?

[robvalue]

David did some kill stealing by emotional proxy? Aww poor god

[SteveII]

]

first, the 1 Cor verse has nothing to do with what you are talking about and your insistence not to use the context to find the meaning is confusing at the least. 

2 Samuel 24: You are basically correct in your facts. The sin was not the counting, it was the condition of David's heart (the leader of God's chosen people) and David knew it as soon as he did it. Was the glory properly Gods?

Again, you cry bad hermeneutics, but do not show how the context in 1 Corinthians invalidates my use of it to show that god deplores wisdom when it doesn’t glorify him.

I am glad you can see that the passage in 2 Samuel does show god’s violent response when he isn’t getting all the glory. But why was it a sin for David to count the number of fighting men at his disposal?  And why would god punish David by killing thousands of people? Do you really want to defend this?

You conflate "wisdom of the world" (better spelled out in verse 20) with true wisdom (knowing what is really true). The passage is talking about people with the mindset like those on this forum. They think they have the latest wisdom and they "are enlightened from our bronze age beliefs". If God/Jesus turn out to be real, "the wisdom or the world" would be destroyed. 

Regarding the OT story, you are back to the moral argument. You are apparently making the claim that humans have rights in relationship with God and God does not have good reasons for doing what he does. What is your support for those claims?

[Minimalist]

In the 24th chapter of 2 Samuel god got angry and killed 70,000 men because David held a census to see how many fighting men they had.

A classic example of bible bullshit.  Archaeological surveys indicate that "Jerusalem" ( or whatever it was called at the time ) was a miserable little village with a population in the hundreds rather than the thousands in Iron Age I and II.

If "David" ever saw 70,000 men he would have pissed his loin cloth!

[Huggy Bear]

In the 24th chapter of 2 Samuel god got angry and killed 70,000 men because David held a census to see how many fighting men they had.

A classic example of bible bullshit.  Archaeological surveys indicate that "Jerusalem" ( or whatever it was called at the time ) was a miserable little village with a population in the hundreds rather than the thousands in Iron Age I and II.

If "David" ever saw 70,000 men he would have pissed his loin cloth!

Care to post a reference?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

The Tel Dan Stele is a broken stele (inscribed stone) discovered in 1993–94 during excavations at Tel Dan in northern Israel. It consists of several fragments making up part of a triumphal inscription in Aramaic, left most probably by Hazael of Aram-Damascus, an important regional figure in the late 9th century BCE. Hazael (or more accurately, the unnamed king) boasts of his victories over the king of Israel and his ally the king of the "House of David" (bytdwd), the first time the name David had been found outside of the Bible. It is one of only four known ancient inscriptions interpreted to mention the term "Israel", the others being the Merneptah Stele, the Mesha Stele, and the Kurkh Monolith.

http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/scie...02371.html

The scientists describe Khirbet Summeily as a borderland area between the heartlands of Judah and Philistia. It was originally assumed to be a small Iron Age farmstead. However, the excavation of the bullae and other recent finds indicate a level of political organization previously thought not to exist at that time. “Our dates for the bullae are based on multiple types of evidence we combined to determine a general 10th century B.C. date,” Dr Blakely added.

Dr Hardin said: “we are very positive that these bullae are associated with the Iron Age IIA, which we date to the 10th century BC, and which lends general support to the historical veracity of David and Solomon as recorded in the Hebrew Biblical texts. These appear to be the only known examples of bullae from the 10th century, making this discovery unique.”

“You have either political or administrative activities going on at a level well beyond those typical of a rural farmstead.”

*emphasis mine*

[Minimalist]

When you find something with "David's" name on it or, even more unlikely "Solomon's" give me a call.

Meanwhile... try not to let your balls get too worked up.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/near...b_contents

Khirbet Summeliy is near Gaza.  What's next for you?  The Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon?  Keep grasping at straws.  Meanwhile, learn a little about geography.  There is no fucking way that Judah could have supported a population of the fantastical sizes imagined in your fucking bible based on the available water sources.  Humans need water. 

And you might take some time reading George Athas' work on the Tel Dan inscription.  That is, if you want to learn anything....which I doubt.

[The Valkyrie]

God's head is the universe and can't keep expanding if the gullible don't continue to praise it.

[Rhondazvous]

You conflate "wisdom of the world" (better spelled out in verse 20) with true wisdom (knowing what is really true). The passage is talking about people with the mindset like those on this forum. They think they have the latest wisdom and they "are enlightened from our bronze age beliefs". If God/Jesus turn out to be real, "the wisdom or the world" would be destroyed. 

Regarding the OT story, you are back to the moral argument. You are apparently making the claim that humans have rights in relationship with God and God does not have good reasons for doing what he does. What is your support for those claims?

I don't confuse them. I simply don't accept a wisdom that would lead me to defend the indefensible just because some bronze age desert kooks said it came from god.

Since you want to defend the murder of thousands, I have said all that I intend to say about this to you. We will simply have to agree to disagree.

Good night.

[Huggy Bear]

Seems Steve wins that argument...