At least Veggietales portrayed Bathsheba as the poor man's beloved lamb stolen by the rich man and not the poor man's lamb who went willingly to the rich man and is equally if not more to blame because ew women.
- When I think of victim blaming ("what was she doing") I also think.. well what was God doing? Cloud perving again? I accept every blaming the victim as also blaming God for setting it up and watching.
- The bible is very violent. Its been a while but how many people did God kill in the bible? How many did Satan (or figures people attribute to be Satan) kill? While I don't believe the characters are real, I do appreciate the truth telling "bad guy" over the prideful, arrogant, immoral "all-knowing" being that apparently has regrets but not enough to stop being terrible to the small flawed creatures He "loves".
- This also reminds me how easily innocent children get murdered in the bible. Sorry but blood cult stuff is really messed up. Passover, Canaanites, bears killing kids for making fun of a bald man, the unborn being property (not so "pro-life"), .... the Flood.
- Your point about people essentially being trained to accept deeply flawed people as "vessels" saddens me. If I am "failing" by not respecting or "following" a lying, bigoted, self serving convicted criminal that has proven his complete lack of humanity then I accept my failure. Then, I admit I have no clue what "moral good" is, as such Christians do, if they see it in Trump. As they say, "your boos mean nothing, I have seen what you cheer".
I One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
V Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
At B'nai ISrael we debated this translation in Samuel:
וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד מַלְאָכִים וַיִּקָּחֶהָ
וַתָּבוֹא אֵלָיו וַיִּשְׁכַּב עִמָּהּ
"And David sent for her and he took her
And she came and he lay with her."
The order or the words are screwed up and the words are worse than ambiguous. We know that David sent for her AFTER the mourning period, but the word "took" there can mean take as in took for a wife.
The way Rabbi Stahl taught it it's SUPPOSED to be ambiguous because even in the most charitable interpretation we should still condemn David. We're not supposed to look for reasons to exonerate someone when they have done something wrong. Sending Uriah to his death was an abuse of power. It was 1980 when we had this conversation in Sunday School (the year of my Bar Mitzvah), but even then we knew that BathSheba could not actually consent because of the difference in power between her and David. So at the bare minimum it's coercion, and she did not consent -- so David should be condemned.
Did he physically rape her?
The reason there is debate is because later on in Samuel in the story of Tamar and Ammon just 2 chapters later, the hebrew SPECIFICALLY states that Ammon overpowered Tamar and raped her. So why didn't the author say that in chapter 11 when talking about BathSheba
David clearly abused his power in MULTIPLE ways and used coercion. We were taught when you use coercion it's rape, even if you don't physically overpower. Lack of consent is what makes it rape.
I've always appreciated the depth and nuance I hear from Jewish scholars, compared to the pre-packaged acceptable view I was mostly taught. And while I don't know if he definitely raped her (because I do not know if this even happened), I agree that even a more charitable reading should condemn David. (I also think it's possible that the anonymous author could have chosen to use more ambiguous language in David's case for the purpose of protecting his image.)
I was just thinking about this story as I read the Epic of Gilgamesh for my class... so fascinating the parallels between David & Jonathan and Gilgamesh & Enkidu (also how much older this story is than the biblical one!... and how it portrays healthy masculine individuation, gods we need more of that)
At least Veggietales portrayed Bathsheba as the poor man's beloved lamb stolen by the rich man and not the poor man's lamb who went willingly to the rich man and is equally if not more to blame because ew women.
Also as a rubber ducky. 🐤
A lot of land mines I hit in that one :P ha!
- When I think of victim blaming ("what was she doing") I also think.. well what was God doing? Cloud perving again? I accept every blaming the victim as also blaming God for setting it up and watching.
- The bible is very violent. Its been a while but how many people did God kill in the bible? How many did Satan (or figures people attribute to be Satan) kill? While I don't believe the characters are real, I do appreciate the truth telling "bad guy" over the prideful, arrogant, immoral "all-knowing" being that apparently has regrets but not enough to stop being terrible to the small flawed creatures He "loves".
- This also reminds me how easily innocent children get murdered in the bible. Sorry but blood cult stuff is really messed up. Passover, Canaanites, bears killing kids for making fun of a bald man, the unborn being property (not so "pro-life"), .... the Flood.
- Your point about people essentially being trained to accept deeply flawed people as "vessels" saddens me. If I am "failing" by not respecting or "following" a lying, bigoted, self serving convicted criminal that has proven his complete lack of humanity then I accept my failure. Then, I admit I have no clue what "moral good" is, as such Christians do, if they see it in Trump. As they say, "your boos mean nothing, I have seen what you cheer".
Good works in non-mysterious ways.
Sorry, I felt very obligated...
I One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
V Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
At B'nai ISrael we debated this translation in Samuel:
וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד מַלְאָכִים וַיִּקָּחֶהָ
וַתָּבוֹא אֵלָיו וַיִּשְׁכַּב עִמָּהּ
"And David sent for her and he took her
And she came and he lay with her."
The order or the words are screwed up and the words are worse than ambiguous. We know that David sent for her AFTER the mourning period, but the word "took" there can mean take as in took for a wife.
The way Rabbi Stahl taught it it's SUPPOSED to be ambiguous because even in the most charitable interpretation we should still condemn David. We're not supposed to look for reasons to exonerate someone when they have done something wrong. Sending Uriah to his death was an abuse of power. It was 1980 when we had this conversation in Sunday School (the year of my Bar Mitzvah), but even then we knew that BathSheba could not actually consent because of the difference in power between her and David. So at the bare minimum it's coercion, and she did not consent -- so David should be condemned.
Did he physically rape her?
The reason there is debate is because later on in Samuel in the story of Tamar and Ammon just 2 chapters later, the hebrew SPECIFICALLY states that Ammon overpowered Tamar and raped her. So why didn't the author say that in chapter 11 when talking about BathSheba
David clearly abused his power in MULTIPLE ways and used coercion. We were taught when you use coercion it's rape, even if you don't physically overpower. Lack of consent is what makes it rape.
I've always appreciated the depth and nuance I hear from Jewish scholars, compared to the pre-packaged acceptable view I was mostly taught. And while I don't know if he definitely raped her (because I do not know if this even happened), I agree that even a more charitable reading should condemn David. (I also think it's possible that the anonymous author could have chosen to use more ambiguous language in David's case for the purpose of protecting his image.)
I was just thinking about this story as I read the Epic of Gilgamesh for my class... so fascinating the parallels between David & Jonathan and Gilgamesh & Enkidu (also how much older this story is than the biblical one!... and how it portrays healthy masculine individuation, gods we need more of that)
Oh, I will need to revisit!
🤍🤍🤍