Religion 102: King David of Israel (Din 102)
King David, real life of the man who ruled Israel
April 15, 2008
Star of David
Under king David. Eretz Yisrael reached from the “river of Egypt unto the
great river, the river Euphrates”, just as God had once promised the patriarch
Abraham so long ago”. The bible devoutly notes, “And Yahweh gave victory to
David wherever he went”.
This could be another proof that bible was written to make David look good,
the authors wrote it so that the boundary promised to Abraham was exactly
what David had managed to grab.
God “gave victory”, meaning, God let him kill by the thousands, men, women &
children, but God didn't want David to build the temple, because David had blood
on his hands?!
Flag of Israel
David subdued all of the traditional enemies who had long threatened the very
existence of the land of Israel - the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Edomites,
the Amalekites - & the smaller tribes & peoples submitted without a fight.
After each victory, David left behind garrisons to occupy the defeated nation,
& he carried tributes & plunder back to Jerusalem.
So God allowed wandering nomads to move into other people's lands, kill the
locals & take their lands, because God had promised the land to His chosen
people, who couldn't stop worshiping idols & other gods?!
David is praised for his administration of “justice & righteousness”, but we
are never shown or told exactly what he did to earn such praise.
After defeating the Moabites in battle, David lined up the survivors in 3
groups, & he ordered the men in each line to lie on the ground, 2 lines to
put to death & 1 full line to keep alive. When David withdrew from the land
of Edom, he left behind a series of garrisons, & all the Edomites became servants
this is supposed to be “justice & righteousness?!
One day, abruptly, David tries to find out if anybody is left from Saul's
family so that he could show some kindness for Jonathan's sake! Saul, Jonathan
& 2 sons died in the battle. Later, bible tells us that David ordered 7 sons
& grandsons of Saul be killed. But now we are told that David wants to be kind
to Saul's children!
Book of Samuel says that the land of Israel suffered a famine that lasted 3
years, & David sought a divine oracle to explain why. It comes out that “blood
guilt rests on Saul & his family because he put the Gibeonites to death”. This
crime is never described in the bible, but David wants to make up for it. David
offers silver & gold to the Gibeonites, but they refuse & ask for blood-vengeance,
they ask for 7 of Saul's sons so they could hang them up unto Yahweh. David turns
5 sons & 2 grandson of Saul to the Gibeonites.
With is actually going on here, some scholars speculate, is the offering of royal
blood to propitiate an angry god who has punished the Israelites with famine, a
ritual of human sacrifice that may have been borrowed from the practice of the
pagan Canaanites & one that plainly violates the official theology of the bible.
The very notion that David surrendered the sons of Saul for “hanging” is shocking.
Yet we are supposed to believe that David never even allowed anybody to say
anything bad about Saul?!
Only one male descendant of Saul now survived, & he was an unfortunate cripple
named Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, who was only 5 when Jonathan died, & was
taken by his nurse into hiding. David promises him that “I will restore to you
all the land of Saul, & you shall eat bread at my table”.
Based on what we know of David, it makes sense to think that David did this to
keep a watchful eye on the last survivor of the house of Saul.
bible suggests that David rose from an afternoon nap & idled on the rooftop of
his palace in order to catch a cool evening breeze. But we might also imagine
that David woke from his slumber in a state of agitation & perhaps even sexual
arousal. And perhaps he wondered whether he might be able to spot some willing
woman from his observation point atop the palace. He spots a naked woman taking
a bath on a nearby rooftop. David sent & inquired after the woman. Her name was
Bathsheba, the wife of man called Uriah the Hittite, a member of David's military
elite, one of the many men of foreign ancestry who served in the army of Israel.
Bathsheba, too, may have been a non-Israelite. The Chronicler gives her name
as “Bathshua”, which was also the name of the Canaanite wife of Judah, a distant
ancestor of David & founder of the tribe of Judah. So this woman was doubly
forbidden to him - she was married to another man, & she may have been one of
those seductive strangers whom the bible routinely accuses of luring Israelite
men into “harlotry & other abominations”. But David “sent messengers, & took
her; & she came in unto him, & he lay with her”.
At the moment of their adultery, Bathsheba “was purified from her uncleanness”,
meaning she was not in her menstrual period, so David did not - God forbid! - have
sex with a ritually impure woman! This also means that she was likely to be ovulating.
Masters of propaganda & brainwashing at their best!
They ignore the crime, but talk about all sorts of rubbish details, trying to
shift focus, all to make David look good.
She goes back to her own home & later sends a message to David that “I am with
child”. David, so skilled in the arts of deception, decided to make it appear
that the bastard child had been fathered by her husband, Uriah. David sent word
to his general, Joab: “send me Uriah the Hittite”. David has a short chitchat
with Uriah & then tells him, “go down to thy house & wash thy feet”. The Hebrew
word for 'feet' or 'legs” (raglayim) was sometimes used in biblical Hebrew as a
euphemism for genitalia.
But Uriah didn't go to his house & spent the night at the door of the palace.
David then insisted that Uriah join him for a feast & tries to get him drunk,
so he'd go & have sex with his wife. But Uriah still didn't have sex with
Bathsheba. David then sent Uriah back to his unit with a letter for his general,
commanding, “put Uriah in the front of the hottest battle, & then fall back &
leave him to meet his death”. This was done & Joab sent message to David that “they
servant Uriah is dead”. David sent message back, “do not let this distress you
- the sword devours one way or another ...” Bathsheba shows neither relief nor
satisfaction at the death of her husband, but observed the customary period of
ritual mourning. “David sent for her & brought her into his house. She became his
wife & bore him a son”.
So David tries to get Uriah to have sex with his wife,
so David could deny to be the father of the bastard child.
He then gets the innocent guy killed.
Only idiots would believe that this sex-machine killer was chosen by God, not
just any God, but a God who has repeatedly warned against sin & adultery, &
that the all-knowing God would protect David & his dynasty “forever”, regardless
of what they do!
Now Nathan, the new 'prophet', talks to David & tells him a story to teach
him he did wrong having taken somebody else's wife, & delivers a message to
David from God, “I anointed thee king over Israel & delivered thee out the
hand of Saul, & I gave thee thy master's daughter, & I made his wives lie
down in thine embrace, I gave thee the daughters of Israel & Judah, & if
that were too little, I would give thee that many again, why then hast thou
despised the word of the Lord, to do that which is evil in my sight? Uriah
the Hittite thou has smitten with the sword, & his wife thou hast taken to
be thy wife. Now, therefore, the sword shall never depart from thy house”.
Nowhere does the bible confirm Nathan's remarkable suggestion that Saul's
wives ended up in David's harem.
God's disappointment with the failings of humankind is perhaps the single
most persistent theme of the bible. The same punishing despair is found in
the story of the flood, where God resolves to exterminate the whole of his
human creation save Noah & his family; & in the tale of Sodom & Gomorrah,
where God destroys 5 cities filled evildoers for the want of 10 righteous
men; & in the saga of Exodus, where he threatens to slaughter the Chosen
People & start all over again with Moses.
But He seems to be too thick to get the message & learn once & for all!
This is not a real god, it's a man-made god, it's all a fiction.
Does this mean that mankind were created by incest twice, first from Adam's
children having sex with each other, then by Noah's children?!
There were nobody else to take as wives/husbands, but their own sisters/brothers.
God tells David, through Nathan's dream, that “thou shall not die. Behold,
I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, & I will take thy
wives before thine eyes, & give them unto thy neighbors, & he shall lie with
thy wives within the sight of this sun”.
Finally, God announced his intention to deliver a 'coup de grace' for the
crime of David & Bathsheba - a death sentence, not on the star-crossed lovers,
but rather on the wholly innocent victim of their fornication. Nathan warned,
“the child that is born unto thee shall surely die”.
What pure rubbish!
A true God, who preaches 'morality', would never ever do such things!
Either this is all lies/fiction; or if such events happened, then it has to
be 'explained', later, how & why 'god' let it happen, so the text has to be
edited that 'god' said all this was going to happen as a form of punishment.
We are told that people didn't want prophets & talked God into choosing Kings
instead. God chose 2 kings & promised to protect the dynasty of David
forever. So why all of a sudden have a 'prophet' again?! If having prophets
was working, why not continue with it. If it wasn't, then why continue with kings?
Seems to me, this 'god' doesn't know what he is doing. He can't even put his
chosen king on the throne.
Who is supposed to be running the show anyway, people or 'God'?
God doesn't seem to like kings, argues against it, but then goes & chooses
one that he doesn't like anyway, & then another one but can't put him on the
throne, but still doesn't work & he has to choose another 'prophet'?!
Is it because only prophets can get long message from god in dreams, & not
just by tossing coins? Otherwise, people would question how the king got the
message by tossing coins!
What's the point of having a 'king' when the prophet seems to be really the
'boss' & in-charge?!
the biblical prophets who found themselves filled with “the spirit of Yahweh”
have been likened to the ecstatics & diviners of other times & places, not
only he mystics & wonder-workers who were active in pagan cults throughout
the ancient world but also the Hasidim, dervishes, & Pentecostals of today.
As with the shamans & seers of indigenous cultures who carry messages from
the spirit world, no ordination was required to be a prophet - men & women
received the word of god through the medium of “visions & oracles delivered
in a state of trance”. Ecstatic practices of an orgiastic type - singing,
dancing, speaking in tongues, perhaps even self-flagellation & self-mutilation
- are some of the expressions which, taken collectively, are called 'prophesying'.
Samuel, the first of the 'classical' prophets, was literally called by God
as a young child - called by name & called by night - to the task of making &
breaking both kings & high priests.
David refused to accept the decree & sought to bend God's will to his own.
“David besought God for the child keeping a prayer vigil night & day, fasting,
& sleeping on bare earth in a display of remorse & repentance”. But the boy died.
Abruptly, David rose, washed himself, & dressed in fresh clothes. Then he anointed
himself, walked to the tent-shrine of Yahweh, prostrated himself, & prayed one
more time. David then sat down to his first meal in 7 days. His servants dared
to ask, “what is this? While the child was alive, you fasted & wept & kept a
vigil for him, but now that the child is dead, you rise up & eat”. David said
that he was hoping to save the boy, but now that he was dead, there was no point
in fasting, because he couldn't bring him back, “I shall go to him, but he will
not return to me”.
Bible doesn't tell us about Bathsheba's grief, but David “went in unto her, &
lay with her”, according to the literal translation of the euphemistic biblical
Hebrew in the King James Version, or “had intercourse with her”, according to
the plain-spoken New English Bible.
This is non-sense.
He is the man who had sex with another man's wife, tried to deny he was the
father, had the husband killed, but now he is portrayed as a “caring father”?!
He eats & has sex with his wife after he hears about his own son's death. What
a caring father!
David is a worldly-wise man who refuses to blame God when his own prayers
are unavailing, a man who lives wholly in the here & now & neither beseeches
nor blames God for his lot in life.
Bathsheba gives birth to another son. The child is named twice. The prophet
Nathan, acting on instructions from God, dubs him Jedidiah, “beloved of the
Lord”; but Bathsheba insists on calling him Solomon, which is traditionally
understood to derive from the Hebrew word for peace, shalom. God announces
to David in the book of Chronicles, “a son shall be born on thee. his name
shall be Solomon, & I will give peace & quietness unto Israel in his day. ...
I will be to him for a father”.
But why did god tell Nathan to call him Jedidiah?!
It seems the editors can't keep track of all the 'fiction' & stories & changes.
so troubled were the rabbis & sages by the story of David & Bathsheba that
they concocted a whole array of improbable excuses & far-fetched exculpatory
tales to soften the impact of the frank biblical report. Bathsheba was to
blame for provoking David's lust, by taking off her dress where she knew he
would see her; David was not technically guilty of adultery; Uriah gave his
wife a bill of divorcement before going off to fight; Uriah was to blame for
his own death; the whole nasty affair was God's doing in the first place: God
decreed that David should summon Bathsheba to his bed so that he could later
serve as a shining example of moral redemption. Satan was to blame, Bathsheba
was bathing behind a screen, Satan became a bird & knocked down the screen,
the sight of her naked body was too much for David; David spent 22 years as
a penitent, eating his bread mixed with ashes & weeping for a full hour each day.
Very close to stories made by mullahs in Shiit-Islam !
bible allows us to imagine that Bathsheba yearned for David with the same
passion, but “d sent messenger, & took her”. Cheryl Exum argues, “this is
no love story. The scene is biblical equivalent of 'wham bam, thank you,
m'am': he sent, he took, she came, he lay, she returned. ... raped by the pen”
Two women named Tamar figured crucially in the life of king David. The first
Tamar was a Canaanite who disguised herself as a harlot in order to seduce
her father-in-law, Judah, so that she might conceive a child. Despite her
sins of incest & fornication & prostitution, the bible pronounces her a
righteous woman. David was a distant but direct descendant of Tamar & Judah,
founder of the tribe of which he was king, & her passionate blood ran in his
veins. Is it not ironic that David - God's anointed, king of all Israel, &
progenitor of the Messiah - traced his ancestry back to the bastard son of a
foreign woman who played the harlot with her own father-in-law? By now, we
know enough about David to realize that his bloodline are perfectly appropriate.
Te second Tamar was the daughter of king David, the only one actually named
in the bible. Among the admirers of the fair Tamar was her half-brother, Amnon,
who was firstborn son of David & was destined to replace David. Bible reports,
“Amnon the son of David lover her, & was so distressed that he fell sick because
of his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin, & it seemed hard for Amnon to do
anything unto her”.
Is the author implying that if Amnon's sister wasn't a virgin, he would've had
sex with her & it would've been OK?!
Amnon lusted after his sister & lost appetite & weight. He told his cousin
Jonadab, “I love Tamar, my brother Absalom's sister”. Jonadab was “a very
subtle man”, as the bible tells us, & he gave David a plan: go to bed pretending
to be sick, when your father comes to see you, tell him: 'let my sister come
& give me food. Let her prepare the food in front of me, so that I watch her
& then take it from her own hands'. David agreed & told Tamar, “go now to thy
brother Amnon's house & prepare a meal for him”.
Surely this is a very strange request & a sex-machine like David must've
know what was going on.
Tamar made cakes & baked it, but Amnon refused to eat & ordered his household
to leave. Amnon told Tamar to bring the cake to his bed so he could eat it
from her hands, & told Tamar to “come lie with me, my sister”. Tamar gets the
message & said, “no, my brother, do not force me, for no such thing ought to
be done in Israel. Do not behave like a beast!” Amnon tries to rape her, & she
tries to talk him out of it: “where could I go & hide my disgrace? ... why not
speak to the king? He will not refuse you leave to marry me”. Bible reports,
“being stronger than she, he forced her, & lay with her”.
I suppose we should be surprised that the bible doesn't tell us how sexy David's
son was & how Tamar couldn't resist her, but this is not needed, because Amnon
ends up dying, so there is no need to justify his actions. But still, it is
shocking that the holy book doesn't picture Amnon as 'evil'.
After the rape, Amnon's 'love' turns into disgust & suddenly orders Tamar,
“Arise, Be gone.” Tamar protests, “No! It is wicked to send me away. This is
harder to bear than all you've done to me”. Amnon orders his servant to “put
out this 'thing' from me, & bolt the door after her”. So Tamar, no longer a
virgin, & unacceptable as a wife to anybody, is thrown out into the street,
with messy hair & clothes.
To explain this change of heart, which makes the ugly scene even uglier,
Talmudic sages speculated that “Amnon hated Tamar because, when he raped
her, he became entangled in her pubic hair & injured himself”. Wow! Isn't
this similar kind of things Muslim Mullahs would come up with about their Imams?
Incest between a brother & his half sister - “daughter of thy father” - is
specifically ruled out by the set of laws known as the Holiness Code.
Contrary to what we've been taught by Freud, the taboo against incest was
not primal & universal, & the biblical world regarded incest with far less
horror that we might suppose by reading the parade of sexual atrocities in
the book of Leviticus. Throughout the ancient Near East, & down through
history, sex & marriage among close relations have been not merely tolerated
but actually celebrated. And, it has been argued, the cosmopolitan court of
king David was both familiar & comfortable with such practices.
The ancient Egyptians embraced the notion of incestuous marriage both in
religious myth & common practice. Because property passed from a mother to
her eldest daughter, rather than from father to son, an Egyptian father might
marry his own daughter, or a son might marry his sister, in order to prevent
the family wealth from falling under the control of a son-in-law or a
brother-in-law. The reigning pharaohs customarily married their own sisters
in pious imitation of the myth of Isis & Osiris, the sibling-lovers with whom
the kings of Egypt identified. Although a prohibition against sexual intercourse
between a father & his daughter is literally chiseled in stone in the Code of
Hammurabi, the sacred myth of ancient Mesopotamia depicted gods & goddesses
in sexual coupling with their own offspring & siblings. And the people of the
land of Canaan, among whom the Israelites lived throughout their long history,
told a tale in which the god called Baal engaged in sexual union with his sister,
At certain vivid moments, the bible betrays an easygoing attitude towards
incest in general & the marriage of brother & sister in particular. For example,
the daughters of Lot, a nephew of the patriarch Abraham, ply their father with
wine & then sleep with him in order to conceive, all without condemnation or
punishment of any kind. Indeed, since Lot's daughters apparently believed that
the rest of humankind had been destroyed along with Sodom & Gomorrah, they are
praised in biblical tradition for acting courageously to preserve human life
on earth by the expedient of sleeping with their father.
Elsewhere in the bible, the patriarchs pass off their wives as their sisters -
not once but 3 times! Abraham did it twice with his wife Sarah, Isaac did it
with his wife Rebekah. Abraham even said, “she is the daughter of my father,
but not the daughter of my mother”. Was Abraham saying that Sarah was his wife
& his half-sister, or was he lying?
Even the oldest codes of law probably didn't find their way into the bible
until the priests & scribes of ancient Israel fixed the text of the 5 books
of Moses in their final form as late as the 4 century BCE.
According to tradition in ancient Israel, as in so many other times & places,
no man would marry a woman who had been deflowered by another man, whether
with or without her consent. The penalty for rape under biblical law was the
marriage of the rapist to the woman he had raped, at least if the victim so
desired. Since the rapist had rendered his victim unmarriageable, the only
way to repair the damage was to marry her.
Tamar didn't tell her father David & didn't try to seek shelter in her father's
house, instead, she went to her brother's house.
David the sex-machine & expert in deception should've known what Amnon wanted.
In fact, David may have been tipped off to this by the word Amnon used. The
Hebrew word that Amonon used, lebibot, is usually translated into English as
'bread' or 'cakes' or 'dumplings'. But 'lebibot' is also an 'erotic pun'
derived from the Hebrew word for 'heart' & suggests arousal & pleasure. Some
have read this as “libido cakes”.
One scholar suggests that David was not only tacitly approving Amnon's sexual
claim on his sister but actually delivering her into the hands of her rapist.
Absalom, Tamar's brother, seems to understand the treacherous family politics
behind the rape & tells her “keep this to yourself, he is your brother - do
not take it to heart”. Absalom didn't say a word to Amnon or David & waited
to see what David would do. Bible reports that when David heard the story,
he was very angry, “but he would not hurt Amnon because he was his eldest son
& he loved him”.
After 2 years, Absalom invites David & all the royal household to his house
for a party. David ends up not going, but his sons went. Absalom gets everyone
drunk & then orders his servants to kill Amnon. Everyone got up & ran away.
News got to David that Absalom had killed all of his sons. David goes crazy,
but Jonadab, the 'subtle' cousin, told David that only Amnon was dead, but
there is no explanation on how he knew this. The author wanted Jonadab to tell
David that Absalom's anger was caused by the rape of Tamar, & not say that he'd
planned the event. David accepts Absalom's death & shifts his attention to
Absalom, who is the next in line for the throne. But Absalom runs away & seeks
refuge in the country of his mother, the kingdom of Geshur, for 3 years.
Joab, David's nephew who was commander of the army & David's henchman, too it
upon himself to bring Absalom back. He recruits a woman to play act & talk David
into allowing Absalom to return. Absalom returned to Jerusalem but David didn't
see him for 2 more years (2+3+2= 7 years after the rape). David finally agrees
to see Absalom, but the tenderness is short-lived. Absalom regards his father
as a man in decline, ruled by his heart than his head. He sees no reason why
he should not be the king now, starts acting like a king, & tries to take over.
Bible says that “there was no blemish in him” & that “Absalom stole the hearts
of the men of Israel”. When Absalom turns 40, he gets serious about taking
over, moves to Hebron, capital of Judah, & wears the crown of Judah. David
hears about Absalom's plan to take over, & runs away from Jerusalem, “lest
he overtake us & bring down evil upon us ...”, but he leaves 10 concubines
behind. People of Israel fall behind Absalom, which shows that David may have
been beloved of God, but he was despised of men. A man shout insults at David
when he is on the run, “begone, begone, you scoundrel! You man of blood! The
Lord has returned upon you all the blood of the house of Saul, whose throne
you have stolen!” Joab's brother asks David “why should this dead dog curse
my lord the king?” & wants to kill the man, but David stops him, saying “if
someone curses in that way, it's because Yahweh has said to him: 'curse David!'”
This is not 'like' the sex-machine killer we've seen so far.
Absalom & his army move into Jerusalem & take over. Ahitophel advises Absalom
to make a public display of authority: “have intercourse with your father's
concubines & all Israel will come to hear that you've given great cause of
offence to your father ...”. a pavilion is erected on the roof of the royal
palace, & each one of the 10 concubines is escorted there to have sex with
Absalom, “in sight of all Israel”.
This is typical biblical exaggeration, “in sight of alllll Israel”.
How could allllll Israel see the top of the palace from miles away? Surely
'Israel' was not just a few blocks around the palace in Jerusalem! This was
all written to keep the audience in shock-&-awe.
God is nowhere to be seen or heard in these ugly affairs, the same God who
promised to protect David's dynasty forever! But one of the authors seems
to want us think that God had a hand in this, by inserting in the text that
Gad had previously threatened David “I will take thy wives before thine eyes,
& give them unto thy neighbor, & he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of
this sun”. Why should all-merciful God punish innocent wives of his chosen
king for the crimes of their husband? If God wanted to punish David for his
sin with Bathsheba, why should 10 innocent woman pay for it, but Bathsheba's
son end up being the King?! Saying “god moves in mysterious ways” is not a
proof for God's existence or God's involvement.
Bible reports that Absalom's greatest glory was his hair, weighing 1.5 kg.
Now war breaks out between father & son, but Absalom delays which gives time
to David to make better preparations. We are told that David tells his killer
generals “deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom”, but I find this
hard to believe, it just doesn't fit the killer sex-machine we've seen so far.
He must have known that his killer generals were not into dealing 'gently'.
Absalom is riding on his mule in a forest, his hair gets caught in the branches,
& he is “taken up between the heaven & the earth & the mule that was under him
went on”. One of David's man reports this to Joab, who protest “why did you not
strike him to the ground?” Soldier says that he wouldn't kill king's son for
even 1000 pieces of silver because they all heard the king demanding that no
one should touch his son. So Joab went in search of Absalom who was dangling
“between the heaven & the earth”, found him & struck him “ through the heart”
with darts. But Absalom didn't die (!), so 10 men who were with Joab “smote
Absalom & slew him”.
David returned to Jerusalem & his first decree was to shut his 10 concubine,
who were raped by his own son, away where he would never see them again, “so
they were shut up unto the day of their death in widowhood, with their husband
David's final act of kingship was taking a census to determine the population
of Israel. One author says that God got angry at Israel & told David to “go,
number Israel & Judah”, another says that Satan made David do it. But David
feels guilty after the census, even though God ordered him to do it,” I have
sinned greatly in what I've done”! So prophet Gad, yet another man who dreams,
shows up to tell David that God intended to punish Israel with one of the 3
afflictions: 7 years of famine, 3 days of pestilence/plague, 3 months of David
fleeing while being pursued by his foes. David refused to choose but let god
know that he didn't want to “fall into the hand of man”. So god chose 3 days
of plague & 70000 men died, from Dan to Beersheba, but when it reached Jerusalem,
god relented & told angel of death “It is enough. Now stay thy hand”. But angel
of death shows itself to David as a ghostly specter hovering above the
threshing-floor of a Jebusite named Araunah. David is moved to beg God for
mercy, “Lo. I have sinned, but these sheep, what have they done? Let thy hand
be against me ...”.
1- It's beyond me to think that God would decide to punish but let the humans
choose from the 3 forms of punishments!
2- a true caring 'king', who was old already, would've chosen the option
less harmful to his people, so he'd chosen the 3rd choice. So David was not
a 'caring' king! What kind of 'God' would choose such a selfish sex-machine
killer to be king over His own Chosen people?!
3- is the author telling us that woman & children didn't die?!
4- since most of the sins seems to have been done in Jerusalem, shouldn't
the plague have started from there?!
5- But if God was angry because of the census, why punish 70000 innocent
people & spare those who did the actual census?! Not only David admits that
he has sinned, & angel of death hovers over him, yet he gets away with it,
but God kills 70000 innocent men instead?!
6- David told God he didn't want opt-3, so God would've chosen opt-1 or opt-2,
both would've resulted in a lot of death. But David said nothing, till 'death'
reached Jerusalem?! If he had cared about the 'sheep', he would've chosen opt-3.
Prophet Gad told David that this all meant that Yahweh wanted him to “rear an
altar unto the Lord in the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite”. This is
strange, if God already was using Gad to send message to David, then why use
angel of death as well & scare the shit out of his chosen King, whom he didn't
want to punish?!
When Araunah learned of the king's plan, he insisted on providing David with
all of the necessaries for a ritual sacrifice: “Behold the oxen for the
burnt-offering, & the threshing-instruments & the furniture of the oxen
for wood”. David was apparently untroubled by the fact that a threshing-floor
belonging to a Jebusite might have been used as the site of idol-worship &
other pagan rituals. After all, he was accustomed to handling the teraphim &
other idols, & some of his best friends were Gittites & Philistines, Pelethites
& Cherethites, all of them idol-worshippers. But David insisted on paying for
what Araunah had offered as gift, saying “I will verily buy it at a price,
neither will I offer burnt-offering unto the Lord my God which cost me nothing”.
The 2 men settled on 50 shekels of silver as a fair price. David proceeded to
build an altar & offer up the cattle to Yahweh, “so the Lord was entreated for
the land, & the plague was stayed from Israel”.
This is very strange.
Why should a killer, who for years lived off what he stole or took by force
from innocent people, refuse a free 'gift'?!
Why should God, who was so fussy about purification & rituals, out of alllllll
the unused sites in the area, choose a site that used to be used for idol-worship?!
Knowing that this site ends being the holiest Temple, it is only logical for
us to think that it wouldn't have looked good for it to have 'belonged' to
non-Jews, so somebody must have 'cooked' the book to say that David 'paid'
for it, so it 'belongs' to the Jews. Some authors even claim that a much
higher price was paid for it, which proves that not all authors believed in
what was in the bible!
So God killed 70000 of innocent people, from his own people, for nothing?!
Why didn't he tell David to build the altar in the first place?
Oh, I know David had “too much blood on his hands”; but Yahweh, who smote 50000
here & 70000 there, & told his king to kill them all man/woman/children/ass, didn't?!
The link between David & the Temple, that Solomon builds, is only suggested
in the book of Samuel, but it is spoken out loud in the book of Chronicles,
where the take of the threshing-floor is retold with a few significant
variation. The Jebusite who owned the sacred site is called Ornan rather
than Araunah, & the price paid by David is given as 600 shekels of gold
rather than 5 shekels of silver. According to the book of Samuel, the
threshing-floor was the site of a crude altar of sacrifice to Yahweh, but
the book of chronicles makes it clear that the Temple will rise on the same
site during the reign of David's son & successor, king Solomon. David is made
to declare, “this is the house of the Lord God, & this is the altar of
burnt-offering for Israel”. So eager was David, according to the Chronicler,
that he began to assemble a corps of masons & a supply of gold & silver, ...,
all of it to be used for “the house that is to be builded for the Lord”. But
David is not permitted to actually build the Temple. David tells his Solomon,
“my son, as for me, it was in my heart to built a house unto the name of the
Lord my God, but the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 'thou hast shed
blood abundantly, & hast made great wars; thou shalt not build a house unto
my name ....”. but Solomon was no less of an intriguer than his father, no
less ruthless in his lust for power, no less willing to shed blood of even
his closest kin.
At the age of 70, the king of Israel, once so fresh & full of promise, once
so strong & virile, lay alone in the bed that had accommodated so many warm
bodies. “now king David was old & stricken in years; & they covered him with
clothes, but he could get no heat”.
One of the courtiers suggested a way to cheer his king: “let there be sought
for my lord the king a young virgin, & let her stand before the king, & be a
companion unto him, & let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat”.
So a kind of bible-era beauty contest was conducted throughout the land of
Israel until a suitable woman was found - a “fair damsel” called Abishag, a
woman from the town of Shunam in the hill-country outside Jerusalem.
Would the next king of Israel be Adonijah, David's eldest son, or Solomon,
the late-born son of David & Bathsheba? These 2 contested each other for the
throne. The very idea of dynastic succession was something wholly new in ancient
Israel, & no law or custom was available to resolve the conflicting claims of
Adonijah & Solomon.
Solomon was more subtle in his politicking but no less effective.
David's ruthless general sides with Adonijah, but Nathan sided with Solomon.
“Have you not heard that Adonijah has become king, all unknown to our lord
David?” Nathan said to Bathsheba. “Now come, let me advise you what to do for
your own safety & for the safety of your son, Solomon”.
Nathan urged Bathsheba to present herself to king David & remind him that he
had once vowed to her that he would make Solomon his successor as king of Israel.
Until now, the bible has reported no such promise by David, & some scholars
think that Nathan may simply have invented it.
I bet the blind-fanatics would say Yahweh told Nathan to do this.
Also, if the dynasty had changed in future, some author would've said that
'Satan' made Nathan do it.
This is what happens when man puts words in God's mouth, when anybody could
say that God told him so in a dream.
Bathsheba talked to David & named names, listing each of the courtiers who
were siding with Adonijah, & said, “and now, my lord the king, all Israel is
looking to you to announce who is to succeed you on the throne. Otherwise,
when you sleep with your forefather, my son Solomon & I shall be treated as
So no matter who became the king, he'd treat others as criminals & kill all opposition.
This is another reason why this 'king-system' was not decided or planned by
the all-knowing all-powerful God! Such a God would know humans & would plan a
'system' to prevent any dog from taking over His Kingdom & mess it up.
At very least, God should've chosen the next king, well in advance, & not sit
back & watch dog-eat-dog.
If Nathan were a true prophet, he'd go directly to David & tell him that Yahweh
wanted Solomon to be king, & not scheme with a 'foreign' woman who committed adultery.
Nathan, who had slipped into the king's bedchamber during Bathsheba's address,
confirmed that everything Bathsheba had told him was true & then added a few
incriminating details of his own. The sons of David & Joab, his general, ate &
drank with Adonijah, boldly toasting him as if he already wore David's crown:
“Long live king Adonijah!”
David promised Bathsheba, “... that Solomon your son should succeed me, & that
he should sit on my throne, & so will I do this day”. David promptly set in
motion the plan that would make Solomon the next king of Israel.
At the very moment of Solomon's anointment, as the bible reveals, Adonijah &
his own band of intimates - Joab & high priest & all the other sons of David -
were celebrating what turned out to be Adonijah's premature claim on the kingship.
This is so stupid.
They must've had good reason for thinking so & David should've known it to.
There should've been no doubt who was to be the next king.
David created hostility by his own stupidity & such a stupid sex-machine killer
can be no man of God & no God-chosen King.
When Adonijah's supporters found out that Solomon was now the king, they all
began to scatter in panic & abandoned him. Adonijah went to the altar of Yahweh, a squat column
of stone with a hornlike protuberance on each corner, & he caught hold on the
horns of the altar, thus invoking an ancient tradition by which a man could
claim the protection of Yahweh against his pursuer. It is reported to Solomon that Adonijah has laid hold
on the horns of the altar, saying: 'let king Solomon swear to me first of all
that he will not slay his servant with the sword”.
Solomon replied, “if he shall show himself a worthy man, there shall not a hair
of him fall to the earth, but if wickedness be found in him, he shall die”.
Adonijah went to Solomon & prostrated himself before his brother in abject surrender.
David charged Solomon to be resolute & ruthless in claiming & keeping the crown
of Israel. Just as Moses & God once charged Joshua, conqueror of Canaan, to
“be strong & of good courage”, David urged Solomon:
“be thou strong, & show thyself a man”.
Next, David gave orders for what would be his final act of revenge. Indeed,
he gave Solomon a hit list - “a last will & testament worthy of a dying Mafia
capo”, & the scene was copied in the movie The Godfather.
David said, “You know how Joab treated me & what he did to 2 commanders-in-chief in Israel. He killed them both, breaking the peace by bloody acts of war, & with that blood he stained the belt about my waist & the sandals on my feet. Do as your wisdom prompts you, & let not his gray hairs go down to the grave in peace”.
David told Solomon that he was still nursing a grudge against old Shimei, the
man who once cursed him as a “bloodstained fiend of hell”, & instructed him to
punish Shimei for the old insult. He even admitting that by doing so he was
carefully sidestepping his own vow to God, “true, I swore by the Lord that I
would not put him to death with the sword, but you don't need to let him go
unpunished now ... ,bring his gray hairs in blood to the grave”. .. to the
very end, then David was a “man of war” & a “man of blood”.
I find it incredible that Jews believed that their Messiah was going to be
from blood-line of David. What is there to admire in him?!
How could anybody think that somebody like Jesus could've been from David's
bloodline! But then, one could say that Jews didn't accept Jesus as their Messiah.
Which also proves that Jesus was not God & was not chosen by the all-knowing
all-powerful God, because such a God would not fail to 'move' His followers in
His direction & have them follow His chosen Prophet or Messiah.
some late biblical editor, who probably came along a few hundred years after
these lines were first written down, found himself appalled at the brutality,
cynicism, ruthlessness, & sheer impiety of David's final charge to Solomon.
So he decided to give the dying king a few theologically correct lines to speak,
& he boldly wrote these new lines into the old text “keep the charge of the
Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, ..., according to that which is written in
the law of Moses, ...”
Therefore, the whole book can't be trusted at all.
It is not 'facts' but fiction & lies, edited by too many editors, each with
his own hidden agenda.
according to Deuteronomy, the fate of ancient Israel was not predetermined by
God; rather, the Israelites enjoyed the gift of free will, & their fate depended
on how they used it. So the promise of God to house of David came with a big “if”:
“if” thy children take heed to walk before me in truth with all their heart & with
all their soul, there shall not fail thee ...” But the biblical spin doctor at
work here chose to ignore the promise that God had once made to David through
the prophet Nathan, “When thou shalt sleep with thy father, I will set up thy
seed after thee, & I will establish the throne of his king forever”, promised God.
At the moment of his birth, according to a tale preserved in the Midrash, David
was destined to survive only 3 hours, “He would've dies immediately had not
Adam made him a present of 70 years”. Indeed, even though more biblical text
is devoted to David than to any other figure in the Hebrew bible, relatively
few tales are told about him in the vast accumulation of legends & lore that
we find in the Talmud & the Midrash. The flesh-&-blood is rendered in the bible
with such brilliance that mere mythmaking seems hardly worth the effort.
“And the days that David reigned over Israel were 40 years: 7 years reigned
he in Hebron, & 33 years reigned he in Jerusalem. And Solomon sat upon the
throne of David his father; & his kingdom was firmly established”
Solomon's first victim was his brother, Adonijah, the man he'd forgiven. The
biblical author says that Adonijah approached Bathsheba with a strange &
shocking request: “you know the kingdom was mine but I was passed over ....
And now I make one small request of you, don't refuse me. Speak to king Solomon,
for he will not refuse you! Ask that he give me Abishag the Shunamite in marriage”.
This is too shocking & stupid to believe. The bible has made it clear by few
examples that one should not go anywhere near a king's wife/concubine, yet we
are supposed to believe that king's son, who was scared of his own life &
prostrated to Solomon, would now say such a stupid thing, when he could've
had almost any virgin girl in the country.
In fact, Adonijah's demand was so plainly suicidal that scholars cannot take
it seriously, so they suggest that perhaps Bathsheba falsely made this accusation
to persuade her son to kill this potential rival, or maybe some later biblical
author made up the whole story in order to provide a excuse for Solomon's
assassination of his own brother.
As everyone in the royal household except Adonijah seemed to recognize, the
request was a plain act of treason, & Solomon recognized it as such.
It seems that the authors are deliberately trying to shock their readers with
extreme exaggeration just to wake them up or scare them into submission,
God smote not just 10, but 50000; David's son raped not just 1 of his wives/concubines
in private, but 10 of them on the roof where allllll Israel watched; etc.
The authors never say David had a silent fart, because it would be boring; so
they say David had a giant exploding fart that smote 5000 Philistines
& created a sand storm, which killed 50,000 Philistines & then the rest of the
Philistine army of 500,000 ran away in terror.
They give Yahweh the same treatment: Yahweh didn't just kill 1 or 2 people, He
smote 50,000 because 1 man made him angry; or Yahweh didn't command that 10 of the
Philistine leaders be killed, he commanded that every man, woman, child, & animal be
killed, & He got very angry when even 1 man was spared.
Perhaps they did this exaggeration to raise their own profile - by raising
Yahweh's profile - & to make the defeated & abused Israelite, who were living
as slaves in exile, feel good & make them proud so they follow Judaism & not
convert to the religion of their masters.
Solomon's chose Benaiah, who was a sinister thug who out-Joabs his predecessor,
to be his executioner. Benaiah killed Adonijah & then went after others who were
on David's death-list. Joab ran away to the tent-shrine of Yahweh & clung to the
horned altar. Benaiah not wanting to violate the sanctuary of Yahweh, reported
this to Solomon, who told him to kill Joab in the shrine!
King Solomon's extraordinary ruthlessness in ridding himself of enemies &
rivals has convinced some scholars that David is wrongly blamed in the bible
for the crimes of his son. Perhaps, they speculate, the life story of David -
or at least the so-called Succession Document that describes how Solomon came
to be his successor - was first composed in the court of Solomon to explain
(& excuse) his willingness to kill for the crown. If, as the bible records,
Solomon was the 4th son of David & the offspring of a marriage that began in
adultery, the royal chroniclers in Solomon's court might have felt it necessary
to explain how & why he ended up on the throne ahead of his 3 older brothers.
And, significantly , they may have decided that a frank account of David's
life as a “man of blood” would make Solomon look somewhat less bloodthirsty,
if only by comparison to his father.
The united monarchy over which David had reigned, however, didn't survive
Solomon's death. Indeed, the kingdom shattered along the same stress lines
of tribal politics that can readily be seen in the life story of David. Only
the tribe of Judah recognized Solomon's son as his successor. Ten of the other
tribes now seceded from the tribal union & established their own monarchy.
The northern kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians in 772 BCE, & its people
were dispersed & destroyed - a catastrophe so complete that they have come to
be known as the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. Judah, too, eventually fell to a
foreign power when the Babylonians invaded & conquered the southern kingdom
in 597 BCE, & began to send the aristocracy, intelligentsia, & the priesthood
into exile. Babylonians destroyed the Temple of Solomon, razed the city of
Jerusalem, & put the last Davidic king to death in 586 BCE.
God may have promised eternal kingship to David & his descendants - “And thy
house & they kingdom shall be made sure forever” – but history proved God
to be wrong.
God can never fail & can never be wrong, so it must be that God never made the
promise, & that man created this fiction to make Israelites feel good.
Slowly & subtly, the notion of eternal kingship began to be reworked &
reinterpreted, & a new theological spin was put on God's vow to king David ....
the next king from the house of David would be a spiritual emissary from God,
both a king & a messiah, & he would reign not in the here & now but in the end
of times. And yet, even then, the Messiah-King would be a direct descendant of
David. Indeed, he might be David himself, raised from the dead & elevated to
the right hand of God. Thus was David transformed from an earthly king into a
Here is exactly the pint in history where “messiah” began to take on the
profoundly mystical & history-changing meaning that is now attached to the
word in both Jewish & Christian tradition. The phrase 'anointed one' (mashiach
in biblical Hebrew, “messiah” in English translation) refers to anyone who was
anointed with oil in a ritual of coronation. Later, the term was used to identify
anyone who merited the special favor of God; for example, the Persian emperor
Cyrus II, who defeated the Babylonians, is identified as an “anointed one” by
the prophet Isaiah. But now the Messiah became the spiritual focus for the
yearning of an oppressed, heartbroken people. “Messiah”, as the term came to be
understood, now identified the redeemer whom God would send one day to establish
the kingdom of heaven on earth.
The yearning for the Messiah only grew sharper as the subsequent generations
in the land of Judah tasted fro themselves the bitter experience of foreign
occupation & oppression, first under the Persians, then the Greeks, & finally
The last man to bear the title “king of the Jews” was Herod the Great, a Roman
puppet-king from the neighboring Arab land of Idumea, a man whose family had
only recently converted to Judaism as a matter of opportunism & who was generally
loathed by the Jewish people.
Herod was technically not a Jew, his mother was Arab.
by 70 CE, when the Romans destroyed the Second Temple & razed Jerusalem to the
ground, the messianic idea was the focus of both Judaism & Christianity, although
Jews & Christians had reached very different conclusions about the identity of
Messiah. Christians believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, &
Jews were (& are) still awaiting him. On one thing, however, Christians & Jews
agree: the Messiah would be a direct descendant of king David, “a shoot out of
the stock of Jesse”.
According to Talmudic sages, “if the Messiah-King comes from among the living,
David will be his name; if he comes from among the dead, it will be David himself”.
The genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels trace his human lineage all the way back
to king David, even though, strictly speaking, Christian theology doesn't regard
Jesus as the son of a mortal father.
On one article of faith, then, Christians & Jews were in agreement: the ancient
promise of eternal kingship that God conveyed to David through the prophecy of
Nathan would be fulfilled one day, & on that day, the blood of David would flow
in the veins of a savior, a redeemer, a liberator - the Messiah.
The sacralization of David reaches its most exalted expression in a passage of
the Christian bible where the royal bloodlines of king David are invoked to
authenticate Jesus of Nazareth as the long-promised & long-delayed Messiah.
During the first century CE, the Tenth Legion in Palestine remained under
standing orders from four successive Roman emperors “to hunt out & execute
any Jew who claimed to be a descendant of king David”. The order was given
precisely because “political revolutionaries inevitably traced their right
of government back to king David”.
After the victory of 1967, a minister in Israeli government asserted that
the modern state of Israel enjoyed the legal right to clear the Temple Mount,
as the site is known in Jewish tradition, because king David had purchased
it form Araunah the Jebusite for 50 pieces of silver.
More recently, Yael Dayan, member of parliament & daughter of Moshe Dayan,
cited the intimate relationship between David & Jonathan in support of a
proposed law to extend civil rights to gay men & lesbians.
In 1997, a celebration of the 3000th anniversary of Jerusalem was conducted
in the modern state of Israel & in Jewish communities throughout the world.
What actually happened 3000 years ago in Jerusalem? According to the bible,
it was the conquest of the Jebusite hill-town by the newly crowned king of
Israel & his private army of foreign mercenaries, perhaps by means of a commando
attack on the water works & the slaughter of “the blind & the lame”.
Robert Alter is convinced of David's history & writes that it is “possible”
that the soap opera of David's intimate family life “may have been reported
on good authority”, he is intellectually honest enough to admit to concede
that the biblical stories “are not, strictly speaking, historiography, but
rather the imaginative reenactment of history by a gifted writer”.
Perhaps the biblical king David is best compared to the medieval king Arthur ...
Like Arthur, David may have been a rude aboriginal chieftain whose obscure life
was glorified beyond recognition by later mythmakers.
Even the so-called Start of David, the symbol that has come to signify Judaism
in general & the modern state of Israel in particular, has no real connection
with king David. The distinctive six-pointed star first came to be associated
with David among alchemists & magic-users in medieval Christian & Islamic
circles, & early Jewish sources linked the start sometimes to David, sometimes
to Solomon, & sometimes to neither of them. The earliest written reference to
the “Shield of David“ (magen David), as six-pointed star is known in Jewish
usage, dates only to the 14 century. And it was not until the 19 century that
the Star of David came to be adopted by the Jewish community as “a striking &
simple sign which would 'symbolize' Judaism in the same way as the cross
symbolizes Christianity”, according to Gershom Scholem, a leading scholar of
Still, as mighty as David & his little empire may have been, they wholly
escaped the attention of the scribes & chroniclers of every other nation of
the ancient world, & the story of his conquests is told only in the pages of
There is not a single contemporary reference to David or Solomon in the many
neighboring countries which certainly were keeping written records during the
10 century BCE. As far as archaeology is concerned it was a paper empire only
(existing only in the bible).
In 1993, a team of archaeologists was at work at a place in northern Israel
called Tel Dan, which had been under work since 1966. they found a stone which
was a portion of a stela, with some inscription on it. But the stela had been
broken up & put to use as building material not long after it was made. The
language was early Aramaic, a sister language of biblical Hebrew. It referred
to the 'house of David' (bet David), recording the 'defeat' of a king from the
house of David, dating back to early 8 century BCE.
“I [killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab] king of Israel, & [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin-]g of the
house of David. And I set [their towns into ruin & turned] their land into [desolation]”
the missing words & letters make it impossible to prove that the stela makes
a direct reference to king David. Indeed, he (Thomas Thompson) points out,
the word that has been interpreted as “David” also appears on an important
archaeological find from Jordan, the Mesha Stele of the 8 century BCE, where
it is used as the divine title for an ancient god called Yahweh, who may or
may not be the same deity who is identified as the God of Israel in the bible.
Exactly what are we meant to learn from king David as he is depicted in the
bible? Once we have read his biblical life story with open eyes - & once we
have witnessed the shocking excesses of which he was capable - some of us may
be left with the idea that he doesn't really belong in a book that holds itself
out as a source of moral instruction for humankind!
David seemed to embrace only the thoroughly modern notion that nothing succeeds
like success - or, when it came to satisfying his sexual appetite, the equally
modern notion that nothing succeeds like excess.
David does what he has to do to preserve his power at all costs: just ask his 7
brothers whom he jumped in the quest for the family's patrimony; king Saul whom
he undercut as a monarch; Ahimelech, the priest whom he gulled out of Goliath's
sword; Uriah, whom David arranged to have killed so that he could sleep with
Uriah's wife (for much longer that he already had done), Bathsheba; & the
tens of thousands of dead he left strewn about Palestine as he conquered his
various neighbors, aggressive & pacific alike.
The Talmudic rabbis were so troubled by the plain facts of David's life that
they simply dreamed up a new & improved David. “Whatever leisure time his royal
duties afforded him, he spent in study & prayer”, they imagined.
Other bible readers may prefer the vision of David that we encounter in the
prophetic writings of the bible - a wholly celestial messiah-king .... Prophet
Isaiah exults, “A son is given unto us , & of peace there be no end, upon the
throne of David”. Here he becomes the child=king who reigns in a utopia that
resembles nothing in the life experience of the fleshly David: “& the wolf
shall dwell with the lamb, ..., & a little child shall lead them”.
Such images still exerts a powerful tug on the hearts & minds of men & women
who are aghast at the world in which we find ourselves nowadays, a world that
tolerates & even encourages “ethnic cleansing”, child pornography, biological
warfare, “squash” videos, & the miscellaneous horrors of modernity. Indeed,
some corners of the bible still offer a comfortable refuge for those who find
themselves battered & bruised by what confronts us in newspapers & motion
pictures, & on TV & the Internet.
But more often the bible is not a comforting book. It is often provocative &
challenging, unsettling & off-putting, sometimes even shocking & scandalous.
The deepest of all the mysteries that confront us in the Hebrew bible is the
mystery of how a man as flawed as David can be a man after God's own heart.
When the prophet Micah wonders out loud what God demands of us, his answer
is a simple moral credo that can be understood & acted upon in here & now:
“only to do justly & to love mercy, & to walk humbly with thy God”. Even
prophet Isiah says that God wants us: “... to share your bread with the hungry,
& to take the wretched poor into your home, ...”
David, of course, cannot readily be credited with the profound compassion or
the fierce sense of social justice that inspired the prophets. His last charge
to his beloved son was: “be thou strong, & show thyself a man”!
The more I read this book, the more shocked I became:
brother (next in line to succeed God's king) raping sister, son raping
step-mothers, etc etc.
But, the author(JK) is not bullshitting.
This can only mean that David wasn't holy at all & was full of shit, which means
the all-knowing & all-powerful God had nothing to do with this guy.
Hell, even Yahweh didn't want David to build the Temple!
We've seen how Yahweh, the god of Judaism, who is also supposed to be the god of
Christianity & Islam, operated for centuries, choosing so many prophets, one after
the other, letting them make decisions by tossing coins, & say 'God told me so'.
Why should such a god, all of a sudden decide to change His religion by choosing a
circumcised Jew to preach a new religion, then before he gets anywhere, have him
crucified, then resurrect him into an almost god-like figure?
Even more dramatic, as many believe, why should such a god, the all-knowing
all-powerful God, decide to give up on prophets & come to earth, in the form of a
Jewish child, created from virgin birth, then get circumcised & live among normal
Jews for 30 years, then get crucified, without converting most Jews to His new
religion? If all he wanted was to suffer for 'our sins', then why come in the
form of a child from virgin birth, why not appear in the form of an adult, preach,
then get crucified? How come this child's own mother didn't consider him a prophet
When you read early banned 'bibles', you see very clearly that Christianity as we
know it today did not exists in 100 CE, it has gradually changed over the centuries
to what it is now. It too had extremely corrupt clergies & caused too much pain &
prosecution & killings, all in the name of Jesus who said “turn the other cheek”
& “love thy enemy”. But the true religion of the all-knowing & all-powerful God would
be very clear from the start, & wouldn't allow men to re-invent it or shape it into
what they like. At the very least, such a religion would at least say that earth is
not flat. How could a 'holy' book talk about brothers raping their sisters, but not
mention that earth moves around the sun? Simple, its 'authors' didn't know this
simple fact, so they were not 'connected' to God at all.
Doesn't the fact that most Jews didn't accept Jesus as their prophet or messiah
prove that God failed? How would it look like if Mohammad had failed to convert
Arabs to Islam, then moved to France & converted all France to Islam, praying in
the French language & reading Quran in French? Would it not be strange? Isn't a
'prophet' supposed to be accepted by his own people?
Then how come Jesus was not accepted by most Jews?
Yahweh has clearly failed in many of his actions & promises, as described in
God, by definition, simply doesn't work this way at all.
The all-knowing all-powerful God is never wrong, can
never fail, & doesn't do stupid things or things that make no sense.
I've often criticized Shiit Muslims for following a rubbish religion, but this
stuff about David is simply beyond belief. If anybody says such things about any
of the 12 Imams, he won't live long, yet these things are not mere accusations,
they are all in the Old Testament, in black & white, for all to see! Which goes
to show how stupid people used to be in the BC days, or centuries after it, to
have believed in this rubbish, as 'facts' about God.
This also proves that most people follow the religion of their parents, no matter
what it is. Because as children they accept everything they are told as facts &
can't use much 'logic' to question things. Once they grow up, it's too late for
change for most, & it is much easier to follow the 'tradition' & the crowd. In fact,
often, those who dare to question their religion, are simply killed by the crowd
or the power-hungry & corrupt clergy.
But can we expect much from them when, even now, millions follow all sorts of
Just take the uneducated Shiit Muslims of Miran, who still believe what the
filthy killer KIR mullahs tell them.
Billions of people believe in all sorts of rubbish & gods & religions all over the
world, so it must 'work' for them at some level, it must pay off & give them some
comfort at least. So it seems to me that no matter what religion you follow, you'd
benefit from it. So, if any religion would do the job, then why not follow the one
that would make more sense & would cause the least damage. But to find such a religion,
we need to use our rational thinking & logic, & not just give in to peer pressure &
follow the stampeding-cattle-crowd.
At very least we must try to be open, not be fanatic about what our parents have
told us about their religion, & we must not accept it all as God-given facts.
What if there is a God & we are following the wrong religion?!
Back to History Index