Forgive and forget

[stevencarrwork]

2 Samuel 12
3 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD ."

Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."

15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

18 On the seventh day the child died.

Why was an innocent child killed by God, even though God had taken away the sin?

What happened to forgive and forget?

Does God forgive and then punish an innocent person for the sin which had been forgiven?

[stevencarrwork]

Death was God's punishment to Adam and Eve for disobedience. Sin offerings required the death of an animal in order to be acceptable--offerings of fruits and grains were not good enough. Jesus' death was supposed to be the punishment for the world's sins, so that we need not suffer death as a punishment.

Strictly speaking that is not true.

Leviticus 5:11 If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering.

Flour is perfectly acceptable as a sin offering.

Jesus could have baked brownies to save humanity.

[JamesBrown]

Flour is perfectly acceptable as a sin offering.

Jesus could have baked brownies to save humanity.

Thanks for the correction. I had Cain's unacceptable sacrifice in mind when I wrote that. I forgot about the provision for the poor.

As Stephen King wrote regarding Christianity: "Love and murder are intertwined. And God drinks blood."

[axeplayer]

JamesBrown said: Compare this to 2 Samuel 24. God tricks David into the horrible sin of conducting a census.[/qoute]

God does not tempt or trick people. consider James 1:13-14 "When tempted, no one should say, 'God has tempted me', for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed."

In the 2 Samuel passage, God did not make David pick a punishment, in verse 10, David asks God to punish him, and then God gives him three options of how he should punish him.

[JamesBrown]

God does not tempt or trick people...

Then how would you interpret verse one?
1 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."

What does it mean to 'incite' someone to do something? Would you consider it a good thing to 'incite' someone to do something forbidden? Would you worship a deity who 'incited' you to commit a sin? It seems that when anyone tells you to do something wrong, its a temptation, but when God does it it's just a test. See the difference?

Incidentally, exactly what is the crime in conducting a census? Does the anger of the LORD burn against the United States every ten years we conduct a census? The standard apologetic answer is about lack of trust in Jehovah, etc. I fail to see how the numeration of what is supposed to be a blessing from God (large population) is at the same time an offense. If a grandfather gave his granddaughter some birthday money, would he become offended if she counted it?

In the 2 Samuel passage, God did not make David pick a punishment, in verse 10, David asks God to punish him, and then God gives him three options of how he should punish him.

I don't see a difference. Jehovah incites David to conduct a census. His general Joab argues against it (for no real reason.) David insists. As soon as the census is complete, David wracks himself with guilt. David did NOT ask Jehovah to punish him; he merely asked to remove his guilt. The prophet Gad arrives and says that Jehovah will conduct one of three punishments and David has to choose one--three years of famine, three months fleeing enemies, or three days of plague. (I wonder what options Satan would have laid out were he in charge?)

David says better to suffer from Jehovah than from other people, so he opts for three days of plague. As a result, seventy-thousand people died, who did absolutely nothing to Jehovah but stand up and be counted under orders of their king. David is not punished for the crime of counting noses; it is seventy thousand innocents.

Only after seeing the suffering does David beg to be punished. But Jehovah refuses. When David builds an altar and worships the deity who is killing innocent people, only then does Jehovah relent.

The point of this thread is that Jehovah had a warped sense of justice. A man and woman sin, and an innocent baby dies for it. One man sins, and seventy-thousand people die painful deaths for it. Maybe that's the way it really is. Maybe Jehovah is powerful and I have no right to question his ways. But being powerful is not the same as being just.

[snowman]

Hey, there was some great discussion going on here. I asked a similar question in another arena.

But to answer who 'incited' David...read Chronicles. (Just a clue who this God was who tempted David to disobey THE TRUE GOD)

Now what about David and his sin? Perhaps Davids child was taken into death to make King David realize the pains of disobedience? He could not realize this as a dead man?

Just a thought.

[Dilettante]

Let me give another example. Take a homosexual who contracts AIDS. He can confess to God and repent of the sin of homosexuality and be freed from that demonic stronghold by the Lord. God will forgive the sin of homosexuality in his life. But that does not mean that the ex-gay man will not suffer and die of AIDS, the consequence of his sin.

But in the New Testament, when Jesus forgave people's sins the "consequences of their sin" (leprosy, blindness, disabilities, etc) disappeared.
Besides, in your example you make at least two highly controversial assumptions:
a) That homosexuality is a free choice.
b) That AIDS is a consequence of homosexuality rather than a consequence of certain high-risk sexual practices when inadequate or no protection is used.
Even if homosexuals are the main group at risk of contracting AIDS, it doesn't follow that you get AIDS because you're a homosexual. People get AIDS because they expose themselves to a virus. Young people are more likely to be involved in road accidents than older people. But if a 20-year-old dies in a car crash, we wouldn't say that age was the cause of the accident (even if it played a role), we would say that carelessness, or drunk driving, or speeding was the cause.

[JamesBrown]

Now what about David and his sin? Perhaps Davids child was taken into death to make King David realize the pains of disobedience? He could not realize this as a dead man?

Just a thought.

So then, if a man in our society commits a murder, we should let him go free and we should execute his child. After all, what better way to prove that our society takes a dim view of murder than by murdering his own child? He certainly can't reflect on his choices and on the negative consequences of his own actions if he's given a lethal injection. Right?

Once again, if any judge in a court of law made a ruling the way Jehovah did, he would be strung up.

[snowman]

Great response, Jamesbrown. I love it when there is a great challenge like that. Good for you, friend.

Just read it (I am not on this particular forem much so just quickly read and add some thoughts!)

And you sure got me thinking more about this NOW! I actually argued this particular thought with a person that calls himself a "righteous Gentile". He calls himself this because he took on the Jewish religion but is not a Jew. He believes that David did not actually sin in deed, nor in thought...and that children fail to make it...and David thought this had to do with what he did! Perhaps this is true, perhaps not.

But what if this was unique, depending on the individual? Surely the same punishment (I use that term loosely) doesn't have the same effect on all, everywhere, at the same time? You woudn't punish your child (if you had one) the same way as another, would you? For it may not affect them the same, and may not bring about the desired results? Sure, this may be a seemingly weak argument...and that may be something worth bringing up, BUT, what about the actual text?

Did God punish every man and woman the same way after Davids sin? What about David? Did he ever sin in like manner, after-wards? As far as I know, he never did...but unfortunately, David still carried the weight of this transgression throughout his life. Sad. Again, good response my friend.