The backbreaker

[athrock]

Let's be really clear, Rocket: David married Bathsheba after Uriah was killed. Consequently, Solomon was a legitimate son and heir to David's throne.

2 Samuel 11:26-27
26 When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 27 After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the Lord.

Bathsheba was not the first wife of David. He already had sons by his first wives, which is why there was a power struggle for the throne. The entire story of the "wisdom of Solomon", in which he offers to cut a baby in half, is a metaphor for his ascension to the throne. Israel was only recently united under the David kingship, and there was a real possibility for civil war when Solomon took over-- in other words, when it says the illegitimate mother was willing to let the baby be killed while the legitimate mother would rather see her baby given to the pretender than to die, it's Solomon's triumph over the legit heir... Solomon had amassed enough support to split Israel in half fighting for that throne, and if the people really loved their country, they should give it up rather than see it cut in half.

Despite all that, the fact is that Solomon was the second child born of that liaison (wife or not), and he ascended to the throne. I guess killing the firstborn baby was enough to satisfy God's wrath for the death of Uriah?

You are entitled to your opinion, Rocket, but the scenario I offered is plausible and reasonable. You just don't like it because it doesn't fit with your current view of God.

"Tortured"? You know this for a fact how, Rocket? "Tortured" has all sorts of negative connotations, and you'll have to do more than simply assert that God "tortured" the child in order to make your point. Yes, ch. 12 discusses the matter in detail, and yes, God caused the illness which resulted in his death. But merely causing the child to die is not proof that God is a psychopath. Only people who do not hope for life after death would see things this way. You're in that camp, aren't you?

Yes, it is. Have you ever watched an infant die a lingering death (especially in an age without modern medicines) of disease? Have you watched anyone? I would rather die about a million ways other than that. A slow, lingering death inflicted on purpose  to a baby by any intelligent actor, especially to get revenge on that baby's father, is the action of a psychopath. The worst kind of psychopath I can imagine.

That's because you are a mere man and do not have the mind of God. But let's do a bit of math here...

Infinity in heaven + 80 years on earth = Infinite Happiness
Infinity in heaven - seven days of suffering on earth = Infinite Happiness

No, I'm not seeing that the child was cheated in any way. Missing out on those 80 years as a result of dying in infancy does not seem to have diminished the boy's happiness at all.

What YOU can't see (and seriously, this is because you don't WANT to see it) is that God could, in His omnipotence, know that the child may have been destined for a life of suffering because of the circumstances surrounding his conception. See, for an atheist like you, this life is all there is...happiness here on earth is as good as it gets. It never occurs to you that dying and going to heaven is BETTER. Paul wrote:

2 Corinthians 5:8
We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

You can't say that, can you? Because death is the end for you...at least, that is the best you can hope for. (As a former Christian, you might be nagged by "What if..." doubts when you're alone with your thoughts.)

Or that God showed mercy to the child by taking him to heaven quickly where he has been enjoying the Beatific vision ever since. The either-or that you propose does not admit this possibility.

But that is due to YOUR presuppositions, isn't it?

Quickly? It says the baby lingered and took a week to die!

2 Samuel 12:15-18 English Standard Version (NASB)

"Then the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David, so that he was very sick. 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them. 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died."

Yes. Quickly. I don't think the infant went to purgatory at all. Since Jesus had not yet come, the child would have remained in a rather pleasant place known as the Limbo of the Fathers until Jesus came and preached to all of the righteous who had died prior to the incarnation. You Baptists were never taught any of this basic theology, were you?

Oh, one more point before I forget...your signature...some Protestant spoke to you about how it's not possible for someone to lose his or her salvation. I realize that you were raised in a Protestant home, but "once saved always saved" is a relatively modern Protestant heresy, and "Bible Christians" ought to know better.

In Romans 11:22, Paul says, "Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." In Galatians 5:4, Paul says, "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace." This verse implies that they were united with Christ and in grace before they fell. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul again warns the Christians against being overconfident: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified."

This is not the language of "once saved always saved."

Yes, yes, I know you all are experts on the Bible and What It All Means™. I'm sure YOUR version is the right one (insert quoted verses _here_), though!

I wasn't JUST raised in a Protestant home, I was raised in a fundamentalist and therefore Biblical literalist home. However, I do agree with you that it's an incorrect reading to think of it as "once saved, always saved". I simply found their assertion ludicrous enough to mock, for the reasons I state in the second half of my signature.

And for this reason, Rocket, I can understand some of your reaction to bad theology. The Protestant Reformers screwed up...badly. And I could show you this from the writings of the Early Church Fathers, if you like. No doubt you're familiar with the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"? Well, Rocket, if you have based your disagreement with Christianity upon flawed theology, is there any wonder you feel the way you do about God?

But would you still feel the same way if the errors in your thinking were corrected to your own satisfaction?