2 Samuel 24. How can you possibly justify this?

[Justin108]

2 Samuel 24:15

"So the Lord sent a plague through Israel from the morning until the completion of the appointed time. Seventy thousand men died from Dan to Beer Sheba."



So God killed 70 000 men. Why? Because David decided to take a census! Why would God kill 70 000 because David took a census? A census! He counted people!
What could possibly justify this senseless slaughter?

Even if David was in the wrong for taking a census, why punish his people? David is the one that messed up, so in response God kills 70 000 other men? What possible justification is there for this? How was David's actions evil and why were 70 000 other people punished for David's actions?

[Justin108]

Don't pretend he was secretly evil in other ways the Bible neglected to mention.

Pretend? Most of Christendom accepts that all people are born guilty of sin and worthy of death.

If you paid attention to my conversation with 2timothy316, you will notice 2timothy316 accusing the stick collector of "probably going to sacrifice his children". That is what I meant by pretending he was secretly evil. 2timothy316 does not believe gathering sticks deserves death, so he just assumed the man was probably a child murderer.

[Justin108]

The question was: 2 Samuel 24. How can you possibly justify this?

Well you now have number of logical possibilities from a religious pov that you don't like. They are possible. You claim the high moral ground to try to prove these possibilities are immoral and should be discounted as you discount them, a logical fallacy.

Every given justification comes down to special pleading (a logical fallacy). "God killed them so that makes it ok".

You are not the arbiter of right and wrong.

I don't need to be the arbiter of right and wrong to believe that killing 70 000 men is wrong

[2timothy316]

Don't pretend he was secretly evil in other ways the Bible neglected to mention.

Pretend? Most of Christendom accepts that all people are born guilty of sin and worthy of death.

If you paid attention to my conversation with 2timothy316, you will notice 2timothy316 accusing the stick collector of "probably going to sacrifice his children". That is what I meant by pretending he was secretly evil. 2timothy316 does not believe gathering sticks deserves death, so he just assumed the man was probably a child murderer.

And you assumed he was a righteous man, but God doesn't kill righteous people with wicked people. So if you're going to assume he is was an innocent righteous man without proof why can't I assume the man was unrighteous? Your assumptions are baseless, yet I have shown you scriptures where God only judges wickedness to destruction but you have produced nothing like this. Only speculation because of your own bias. Ttrscott nailed it in his post #18. You asked for justification, and when you don't get that justification you want, you close your eyes and just repeat yourself. In my mind's eye can see your eyes closed and fingers in your ears, repeating, "Im not listening, I can't see you!"

[2timothy316]

The question was: 2 Samuel 24. How can you possibly justify this?

Well you now have number of logical possibilities from a religious pov that you don't like. They are possible. You claim the high moral ground to try to prove these possibilities are immoral and should be discounted as you discount them, a logical fallacy.

Every given justification comes down to special pleading (a logical fallacy). "God killed them so that makes it ok".

You are not the arbiter of right and wrong.

I don't need to be the arbiter of right and wrong to believe that killing 70 000 men is wrong

And by this statement it is clear that you do need arbiter. You don't seem to know what right and wrong is.

Let me ask you this, would the removal of 70,000 ISIS fighters be ok with you? Or 70k serial killers? When does a person became wicked enough for you to understand that it is better for righteous people that wicked be cut off from the world?

[2timothy316]

For your excuse to work, we will need to assume that every single person to ever have worked on the Sabbath at that time was an evil person since people caught working on the Sabbath were all sentenced to death, as was the law.

For yours to work you'd have to prove every single person wasn't.

Innocent until proven guilty.

This is your sense of justice. Another statement that makes it clear you don't understand who God is and what He knows.

God knows if a person is guilty or not. He knows everything that a person has done and what they plan to do. (Jeremiah 17:10) The idea of 'innocent until proven' cannot apply to a being that knows everything. In an investigation with God clues are never missed. Every detail is recorded. He sees everything we do, good or bad. (Psalm 139) Deut 32:4 says that Jehovah's judges are always just and perfect. I have no scriptural reason to think that is not true.

[ttruscott]

Does the time we spend on Earth matter at all to PCE? What exactly is the purpose of our life on Earth? Would David shortening our lives on Earth not affect our purpose somehow?

Life on earth accomplishes a few things:

It keep all sinners and evil sequestered in one place, not bothering the polite folk of heaven.

It allows the redemption of the sinful elect by opening their eyes to their own great sinfulness, allowing them repentance and sanctification.

The sinful elect by living with the reprobate also learn the reprobate will never repent and do not make good family members or friends. Thus they learn that they were wrong rebel against the call for judgement and so come to accept HIS holiness.

IF no elect had rebelled against the judgment, it would have been called right then and then the heavenly marriage would have been instituted right then. Their rebellion caused the postponement of the judgement until after they are redeemed and made holy to avoid damning those under HIS promise of salvation.

The plainest expression of this purpose is found in Matt 13:24-30 with further details at Matt 13: 36-43.

AS for David somehow interfering with this plan for us, I take the doctrines of predestination and our being predetermined to mean that our lives, (NOT our fates which we chose ourselves) are predetermined here to bring each of HIS sinful elect to redemption the most perfect way possible. Everyone rebelled for different reasons and are stubbornly committed to those reasons to different degrees. Some might repent after a sharp rebuke while another may live with suffering and hate for years before they crack and repent. But the one thing they must all do is conceived as human here and die after they are redeemed: Psalm 51:6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place.

Whether we have a long hard life or a short quick life is immaterial except that our stubbornness measures our suffering and accept GOD's grace can happen anytime, even in the womb and the end of that life at that time is a blessing, missing the suffering of human life.

[ttruscott]

Every given justification comes down to special pleading (a logical fallacy). "God killed them so that makes it ok".

I'm curious - is it still special pleading if that is what truly happened? I don't get special pleading so well, I guess. I think that is what happened, but I can't say it because of "special pleading"?

You asked for a possible answer and I gave you one, fully in accord with Christian doctrine.

[Justin108]

If you paid attention to my conversation with 2timothy316, you will notice 2timothy316 accusing the stick collector of "probably going to sacrifice his children". That is what I meant by pretending he was secretly evil. 2timothy316 does not believe gathering sticks deserves death, so he just assumed the man was probably a child murderer.

And you assumed he was a righteous man

Let's go back to my sock analogy.

Suppose there was a law that states "those who wear socks of different colors must be sentenced to death and whoever questions this law must prove that every person who wears socks of mixed colors is not in fact evil". Would you consider this reasonable?

[Justin108]

Let me ask you this, would the removal of 70,000 ISIS fighters be ok with you?

Yes because I know they are evil. The evil they have done is clear and apparent. They are not going to be killed for picking up sticks or taking a census. They will be killed for acts of murder and terrorism. Can you say the same for these 70 000 men? Do you know for a fact that they have committed acts of murder, terrorism, or something equally vile? Or are you going to take the route of "well God killed them so he must have had his reasons"?

When does a person became wicked enough for you to understand that it is better for righteous people that wicked be cut off from the world?

There is absolutely no indication that these 70 000 men did anything evil. If we go by the provided text and only the provided text, these 70 000 men died because of what David did. Then after God has started killing people, David begs God to stop. If these 70 000 people were evil, why would David beg God to stop killing them? I operate under innocent until proven guilty. If you don't then there is no point in us discussing this, because all you'll keep doing is assume that "God killed them, so obviously they were sick, vile murderers and rapists".

[Justin108]

This is your sense of justice. Another statement that makes it clear you don't understand who God is and what He knows.

God knows if a person is guilty or not. He knows everything that a person has done and what they plan to do. (Jeremiah 17:10) The idea of 'innocent until proven' cannot apply to a being that knows everything. In an investigation with God clues are never missed. Every detail is recorded. He sees everything we do, good or bad. (Psalm 139) Deut 32:4 says that Jehovah's judges are always just and perfect. I have no scriptural reason to think that is not true.

God's law states that everyone who works on the Sabbath is to be put to death. The man in the above example worked on the Sabbath and was put to death. It is clear that he was put to death because he worked on the Sabbath! If you want to argue that working on the Sabbath somehow makes you evil, then at least you would be internally consistent. But what you do instead is say "well he was probably going to sacrifice his children". That is my issue. That you immediately assume that a man working on the Sabbath must be some kind of murderer.

If working on the Sabbath in and of itself did not deserve death, then why would God demand the death of anyone who works on the Sabbath?