King David's Palace Discovered

[T]he debunkers of Jewish biblical history got some bad news recently, when a spunky, dedicated archaeologist began her latest dig. Dr. Eilat Mazar, world authority on Jerusalem's past, has taken King David out of the pages of the Bible and put him back into living history. Mazar's latest excavation in the City of David, in the southern shadow of the Temple Mount, has shaken up the archaeological world. For lying undisturbed for over 3,000 years is a massive building which Mazar believes is King David's palace.
For Mazar, 48, one of the world's leading authorities on the archaeology of ancient Jerusalem and head archaeologist of the Shalem Center Institute of Archaeology, the discovery was the culmination of years of effort and solid speculation.

(HT:  Between Two Worlds)

Comments

[AaronSTL]

The story of David, Bathsheba, and Uriah is another reason why I think the god of the bible is an evil character. God struck and made sick the innocent child David had with Bathsheba because David sinned against him in committing adultery, trying to conceal it, and then having Uriah killed. In a way this is like what god did for my wife and me; caused a miscarriage so someone else could learn a lesson, right Augustine? The only differences being that David didn't care his child died, we had twins...so there was one lesson for each of us, I guess, and neither of us killed anyone or had an adulterous relationship.

If there ever is enough convincing evidence that the god of the bible exists I'll stop being an atheist and become a theist who doesn't at all care for the guy.

[Joe Dioux]

Dear AaronSTL,
Oh boohoo, woe is me. How can God be both evil and non-existent?

ps: I'd really like to learn how you never did anything wrong in your entire life. I've been struggling for almost three decades, but I still slip up on a daily basis.

[Chris]

Joe, have you ever heard of Columbo tactics? If not learn them, if yes did you forget how to employ them? Your statements are an example of giving off more heat than light.

[AaronSTL]

Oh boohoo, woe is me.

Thank you, Joe, for your condolences. Augustine made the point that my wife had a miscarriage so that Christians like yourself could become more sympathetic towards us lowly nonbelievers. I see it's worked.

How can God be both evil and non-existent?

That's exactly what I believe is the state of the character of the god of the bible, no different than any other evil fictitious character.

I'd really like to learn how you never did anything wrong in your entire life.

I think you misunderstand the issue I've raised which is that the god of the bible capriciously causes one to suffer in order for another to learn a lesson. Wouldn't it make sense that if David, my wife, or I did something wrong our punishment should be our own suffering and not the suffering of someone else? Someone might use the comparison of the god of the bible to a father who must punish his children for acts they commit. In the story of David, Bathsheba, and Uriah and the story of my wife and me, the analogy takes a bad turn. It's like a father who sees one child do something wrong and then punishes that child by killing one of their friends or siblings and not ever explaining to the child what he did to cause the punishment that befell onto the other.

[ChrisB]

" Wouldn't it make sense that if David, my wife, or I did something wrong our punishment should be our own suffering and not the suffering of someone else?"

David's child didn't suffer. David did.

[kpolo]

AaronSTL,
Do you realize that there are other examples of "capricious" behavior, as you term it, in the Bible? For example, the killing of the first born of Egyptians including the Pharaoh for Pharaoh's obstinate behavior? Or of God driving away Ishmael on account of Abraham's lack of trust in God and acting on his own to father a child? But does this really show God to be capricious? What you fail to realize is that these events took place during a covenant period where the revelation was in direct proportion to the judgment. In the case of the Egyptians and David, God's direct intervention in the affairs of men was so direct and incontrovertible that the punishment was in keeping with the revelation. Beyond this you forget that God has every right to take a life because he also can restore the life he takes. This is evidenced most clearly in the account of Job's children. But if you were to look carefully you will find perhaps the greatest tragedy - the subjection of a perfectly sinless person to the wrath justly deserved by millions, a supreme substitutionary sacrifice that God laid on his own Son shows that God did not even spare his own Son from such collateral consequence as you call it for the regeneration and restoration of those he loves. The only pertinent question then is the nature of your response to such a provision.

[AaronSTL]

I'd think to be struck sick and die would be to suffer. You wouldn't agree, ChrisB?

[brgulker]

It's really unfortunate that people who object to biblical text (That are inescapably troubling) repeatedly get treated with disrespect and absolutely no civility around here (I'm looking at you, Joe Dioux).

AaronSTL has offered a legitimate critique of a prominent biblical passages that is directly related to the topic -- but instead of offering an alternative interpretation, he gets attacked.

There's nothing reasonable about that, folks. That's childlike.

I, for one, AaronSTL appreciate the comments you left here. Good food for thought. I don't have a response for you atm, but your comments will remain with me throughout the day (or at least as my mind wanders from work to theology!).

[kpolo]

brgulker, I do present an alternative explanation to AaronSTL's objection.

[Sam]

Usually when we hear about these big archaeological discoveries they're already at least ten years old. I wonder if Mazar has published on it, and what the response has been from his peers. I don't remember reading anything in the Bible about David's palace being buried. Not that it couldn't have happened, but if it DID happen, it seems it would've been significant enough to mention.

[Bryan]

"... neither of us killed anyone or had an adulterous relationship ..."

Aaron, this comment indicates that you don't have a proper understanding for or appreciation of the fact that your sin - regardless of the fact that you've not specifically killed anyone or committed adultery, you are still a sinner who constantly sins - is egregiously offensive to God.

Also, you make an assumption that you have no way of verifying. That is, your (what I'm sure was tragic and terrible, I can't empathize but can only sympathize) wife's miscarriage was not necessarily an act of God punishing you or your wife for something. The Bible specifically teaches that not every bad thing that happens to someone is necessarily a disciplinary action, and in fact tells believers themselves to prepare for a less than perfect earthly life.

Regarding your anger, bitterness and frustration, I understand that, and would feel the same way if I was an atheist as you are. Because, then I'd have no reason whatsoever for hoping that God's grace was bestowed upon your child who died and she/he is now living in paradise for eternity.

Regardless of your dead-and-done worldview, that's my hope for children like yours who have meet an untimely and tragic death.

[Corrupted Geometry]

Kpolo, you raised quite a few very interesting points. Im curious as to your opinion on them Aaron, especially the case of God himself being punished for our wrongdoing. Do you also, consider God evil for punishing His son for our constant and continual crimes against him?
Im not asking that antoginisticly, and I want to make sure you dont take it as such!

[Naturallawyer]

AaronSTL: my condolences on your suffering and the suffering of your loved ones. I echo the sentiments of brgulker.

My immediate thoughts are to remind you that according to scripture, not *all* suffering is the result of the sin of a specific person (e.g., the sin of the one suffering, or his father's sin). Suffering is the result of the fall, but your suffering was not necessarily caused by you or your father.

The story of Job, which I understand is the oldest book in the Bible, involves an innocent man suffering terribly (including the loss of his children) because God allows it.

His friends act the way some of the Christians may have acted toward you. Without compassion, and with blaming and lecturing. At the end of the book of Job, God scolds those friends and vindicates Job to them. The "friends" end up looking rather foolish!

God allows the suffering of Job because He reveals His power through the ordeal. He allows Job to get through this, I think, because He knows Job can handle it in a way that others can't. In a way, it's a badge of honor granted by God.

As for others that God may even allow to die for any reason, we don't know the futures of those people. Their future suffering and death, if "left alone", may have been worse. Likewise, any suffering they go through may actually help them in various ways (perhaps they were to grow up to be immensely prideful, but the suffering limits that grievous sin). God chose a path that affects everyone, and I think we are granted minds to question that path, but must understand, as Job learned, that we are not God, and cannot fathom the options and the complicated balance that God has created. As a Christian, I trust that His judgment is ultimately better than mine, though I certainly cry out "WHY?!" when I suffer.

God's path takes into consideration not only the sin of one person, but the sin of all, and not only the path of one person, but the path of all. Though your suffering and mine may be used to teach others a lesson, they may also be to teach us a lesson, and/or to make us better people, and/or to give us skills and gifts that will benefit other people (if we choose to do so--and it's a tragedy if we don't). A person who has cancer is best encouraged by another person with cancer, right? In a fallen world, where all suffer, God nevertheless has intervened with a great weave of grace to all suffering men (Scripture says "it rains on the righteous and the unrighteous"). He provided that weave of grace though was under no obligation to do so.

I know that these words seem impossible to the one going through the suffering, and it may require grace and faith to accept it, but if you are considering the truth of the Christian story, you must consider this interpretation of some people's suffering.

[Daniel Wynne]

"I don't remember reading anything in the Bible about David's palace being buried. Not that it couldn't have happened, but if it DID happen, it seems it would've been significant enough to mention."

Almost the entire city of Jerusalem has been buried multiple times over the last 3000 years. Is every major event supposed to be recorded in the bible?

[Chris]

Aaron - Having been through what you've been through, I can sympathize. Having watched my wife go through it I know it's even more difficult (at least as I can tell) for the female.

I can state wholeheartedly that my wife and I were able to grieve over what became of our unborn child because we know it is within God's ultimate plan (He is in complete and total control) and know it really isn't about this life at all but our blessed hope in Eternity. My wife and I can take comfort in knowing our child wouldn't have it any other way, and we'll get to meet him or her someday while basking in the Glory of Almighty God.

What suffering King David's child went through after being born, I can't help but imagine, isn't worth a second thought as I'm certain David's child wouldn't have any desire to turn back so he could live life on this side of Eternity. And with my worldview, David is reunited with his child at the resurrection.

Your child will be there too, Aaron. I pray you and your wife have or will repent and put your trust in Jesus Christ for your salvation. 1 Corinthians 15:19

[Prince]

Well said Chris! Good, good good!

[Jim T.]

Bryan >> Aaron, this comment indicates that you don't have a proper understanding for or appreciation of the fact that your sin...is egregiously offensive to God.

Bryan >> you make an assumption that you have no way of verifying.

Do you see the irony in your two statements?

In your first statement, you make a number of positive claims that you can in no way verify. Barring divine assistance, the best you can do is refer to the writings of people that you choose to believe have authority on the matter.

Then in your next statement, you chastise AaronSTL for assuming unverified things about a being that he doesn't even believe exists! AaronSTL is quite clear that he believes God is a character, but not the good one that many religious believers say He is.

So he's assuming something within a story framework that he doesn't believe is true? See, his critique is not of just the characters, but the whole story and those that still tell it.

Bryan >> That is, your wife's miscarriage was not necessarily an act of God punishing you or your wife for something.

That's not his claim at all. I believe he was discussing how previous commenters on this forum have stated that God "caused a miscarriage so someone else could learn a lesson". More specifically, "so that Christians like yourself could become more sympathetic towards us lowly nonbelievers".

To some people, that seems like a rather flippant response to the Problem of Suffering.

I realize that would probably not be clear if you haven't followed every thread for quite a while.

Bryan >> Regarding your anger, bitterness and frustration, I understand that, and would feel the same way if I was an atheist as you are.

I can't speak for AaronSTL, but I can imagine several levels and interrelated issues. First, there's the obvious grief for his loss. My wife an I had one miscarriage, but early on, and even that was gut wrenching.

But a second level of frustration is probably due to religious believers who think they have so many answers and have so much figured out. They tell a story that AaronSTL isn't buying into. And likely, AaronSTL receives criticism for not accepting this story that he concludes is too much fantasy and not enough reality. Then, for reasons I don't know, he tries to understand his personal story in the context of the religious story, maybe to see how it all fleshes out. Like many things, it doesn't make sense to him, and just seems too painfully ridiculous.

On top of that are believers who claim to have the indwelling of God Himself (aka Holy Spirit). This indwelling is important, because it might actually lead to evidence of the religion's claims regarding spiritual and moral growth. But not just that, this is the STR forum itself, which one might hope is a place for civil discourse. Unfortunately, as many discover, the STR forum is only slightly more civil than most Internet forums. Certainly no where near the level one might expect of STR listeners and people indwelt by God Himself.

[Louis Kuhelj]

"Bathsheba because David sinned against him in committing adultery, trying to conceal it, and then having Uriah killed. In a way this is like what god did for my wife and me; caused a miscarriage so someone else could learn a lesson, right Augustine? The only differences being that David didn't care his child died, we had twins...so there was one lesson for each of us, I guess, and neither of us killed anyone or had an adulterous relationship."

AaronSTL,

Why would you think that the two situations you describe would be in any way similar? You assume that your situation would, from a biblical perspective, be an act of judgment from God. why would you think that? Just because it happened in the past does not mean that every loss of a child is the result of judgment of sin. Did not Job lose his children? Yet, was he not a righteous man in the sight of God? Did not God boast of his righteousness?
Furthermore, is it fair to impose our present time sensibilities on a very different type of society? In the broadcast of STR on 7/12/09 Greg mentioned an example of a war time justice being different from peace time one because of the dire consequences some action could bring about. If you steal essential war material that resulted in further deaths because of shortages of those materials, then the legal consequences could be much greater than at peace time. Gossip, for example, was something very serious indeed as enemy spies could gain valuable information to destroy a nation. Therefore, something as simple as gossip that carried no serious ramifications during peace time, could have grave consequences during war. The times spoken of in the old testament were critical times for God's operation to be launched...the rescue mission culminating in Jesus' work on the cross. Considering what was at stake, extraordinary times required extraordinary measures to ensure that nothing would derail the mission to save mankind from slavery to sin. Unfortunately due to the nature of warfare, be it conventional or spiritual, there is a cost involved and it may take the form of human lives. But then, we are the ones who have chosen rebellion and therefore war against God...so, are we not to blame for the casualties as well?

[John]

AaronSTL,

My wife and I tried to have kids for several years. We went to the fertility doctor, took meds, shots. No luck. So we never had kids together. She had a girl from her first marriage. I often struggled in deep anger thinking money trumped God and prayer. If you had money, you could adopt or get invitro and never bat an eye at God. I was starting to think that God was distant and uncaring. After all, look at all the people who die of cancer every year, or people who die of diseases like ALS.

I decided to give God another shot because I really needed to know. So I thought, this time I really need to read the Bible and understand who God really is. Without going into great detail and verses, I am going to offer an opinion and a little Bible insight. My first question when reading the Bible was: “Was the same horrible stuff going on in the Bible as it is today”? The answer was yes. The next question was: “Did God heal, cure or prevent murder in every case”? The answer is no. So does that make God evil? No. It just meant I didn’t and still don’t completely understand why God stands back. The truth is, the same things that happened in the Bible happened today. This makes me feel better because I know that it isn’t some children’s story book. The same struggles throughout the ages.

Another thing about the Bible is it doesn’t always convey the pain and suffering people go through after the fact. It doesn’t always get into the deep suffering say as Ezekiel losing his wife, all the prophets Jezebel murdered, the many who died defending the faith. I would be half way willing to discard God as uncaring or playing favorites if it wasn’t for one thing, and that is the crucifixion of Christ. If God was so uncaring, he would have never died on the cross. That alone trumped my arguments. So I am still on the path looking for answers just like you. The real God is not uncaring, we just lack understanding.

My opinion is that some things just happen. It’s just the way it goes. Not having kids is the way it goes for me. It’s not God testing me or punishing me. I do not believe that “everything happens for a reason” as if God is pulling the strings. I do believe that there are reasons such as environmental reasons why maybe I don’t have kids, but I don’t blame God. I’m not a grammar student so please forgive the mess.

[Corrupted Geometry]

AaronSTL, this is slightly off topic. I have noticed (and two times that I can recall now) that you have a strange way of bringing out some deep comments from some of the fourm dwellers here. Very good to have you.

[Corrupted Geometry]

Jim T.. I hope some of the people here (myself absolutely included) take your criticisms to heart. Maybe us regulars need a bit of humbling.

[Lyle A]

There is no wonder why non-Christians do not understand God's goodness when Bible-loving Christians do not understand it. There was a recent blog that excellently called for us to focus on the beauty of God. With that appeal, please evaluate and change your understanding of Job. Greg warns us to Never Read a Bible Verse. Job must be seen in its entirety. Greg has also discussed "donut-hole theology" which teaches that curses of God are not "curses" per se but are the absence of blessing. Similar to "cold" is the absence of heat, the missing blessing is the curse resulting from "the fall" and sin.

Job seems to clearly say that Job was perfect but in the bigger picture we know from Isaiah 64:6 and Romans 3 that our righteousness (including Job's) is to God as filthy rags. In Job 3:25 Job admits that what he greatly feared came upon him and yet in 2:21 Job accuses God of taking everything away. I think there are more admonitions in the Bible about "not fearing" than any other type of sin. If we want to make a theology out of the non-contexted phrase "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away" it would be like using unrepentant-David's phrase "That's the way it is in war, some live and some die" as a theology to dismiss sin.

Take a full look at Job. His three friends bagged on him and he defended himself. Finally the fourth friend, Elihu who had deferred to the older three, spoke up and chastised the three for their misunderstanding and Job for his. Eventually Job gets it; he repents saying that when he was justifying himself to God and the others it was because he had heard of God but now that he "saw God" he recognized his own desperate lack. So, when you read Job again, in that the place in the end where everybody says that God blasts all of Job's friends, notice that there is no mention of Elihu. Elihu was right and helped Job to recognize his need. When we use early statements from Job to justify curses of death and disease as coming from God we are confusing our ranks and are errantly representing to the world our loving God as a fickle monster.

Furthermore, it is a very Biblical concept that we do not sin in a vacuum. We often wish that those around us would not be affected by our sin. We can wish all we want but the facts remain. We may bear the result of our iniquity and our progeny may also pay a price for ours. It may not seem fair but that is the way it is. It doesn't have to be that way. Christ paid the price and sent His Spirit so that we can deal with iniquity and end the cycles; but we have to deal with it. Only then will other's teeth not be set on edge.

That is the way God is with us. It is true that our sin is "egregiously offensive" to God but when we refer to that we must also appeal to the truth that God loves each of us just as much. God is offended by our sin but separates that sin from us. He deals with the sin but loves us. We have sin but are not sin. God hates sin and loves us. That goes for Christian and non-Christian alike. People are not God's enemies. God's enemies are the things that are attached to all of us in this fallen world that affect our thoughts. See that in Romans 7: 17 and 20.

This is the age of grace and mercy. God paid a tremendous price to buy peace with us. He is not "out to get us." This is the Gospel which means "good news." Remember the God of Beauty. It is right and He is real and beautiful.

[Naturallawyer]

Lyle A: I'm not sure if you were aiming that comment at me (my post and one other post referenced Job), but since your tone is so critical ("change your understanding of Job") I must ask, what is it about your post that you think is inconsistent with what I said? Or was that comment not directed at me?

If your comment was directed at me (and perhaps it was not), I'd like to know where you think I erred in my interpretation of Job.

[Pro Life]

One of the hardest things I learned as a young Christian is that blessings are not all pleasurable. Many are painful trials and seemingly relentless.

[Lyle A.]

Dear Naturallawyer,

I apologize. I wanted to emphasize God's goodness but came across as critical. Sorry about that.

I suppose that your references to Job were a good part of the reason for my remarks. Maybe I have heard similar conclusions about Job that have made me sensitive about what seem to me to be common misconceptions about this book and, in turn, about the nature of God and His goodness. You may not think the thoughts that I was trying to address; you may have just provided a springboard.

I highly recommend that you and anybody else who might have been startled at my comments to re-read Job with a different perspective. Just this morning a Mormon friend of mine made a business call on me and I asked about anything he had learned in the past week. He brought up Job, which he has just started reading and listening to, and he mentioned that he found the beginning a bit troulbesome. I encouraged him to stay with it and, just like a judge instructs a jury, to wait until the end before he formulates an opinion.

Not that you don't think this already, but I think a fair reading of Job will tie well into Romans 8:28 "God causes all things to work together for the good of those who love Him and..." It is not that He causes all things, it is that He causes them to work together for the good. We have neither the knowledge nor the perspective to accurately accuse God as Job did in 1:21 of "Taking it away."

More to the point of apparent offense, the first verse calls Job blameless but we cannot assume that to be that case because, as I pointed out, chapters two and three identify blame. So when we read Elihu's first speech all the way back in Chapter 32 and see that Elihu's righteous anger (remember that God did not correct Elihu in Chapter 42) we see that we must qualify Job's "blamelessness" in Chapter 1 as not from God's perspective. In 33:9&10 Elihu re-states Job's justification and claim of innocence "I am pure, without transgression; I am innocent and there is no guilt in me..." Sure enough, in 42:5&6 Job understands and repents. He repents because he was not really blameless. He was not actually suffering because of his goodness, he repented because he finally saw how much he needed repentance. I think that is like all of us, the closer we get to God, the more clearly we see the evil that affects us.

Not that you don't believe this either, but it is important to note that God is not the author of disease. Eventually He will be seen in righteous judgement but today He is the God of mercy. Let us seek Him and encourage others to do the same while it is still "today."

Hopefully this is less offensive.

Lyle A.

[Naturallawyer]

Lyle A:

I consider myself rather familiar with Job (the entire story, not selective quotes). Job certainly expresses his repentance in the later part of the book, so in no way did I mean (or say) that Job was sinless throughout the ordeal. I said he was "innocent" only in that Job's suffering was not an explicit punishment for some past sin that he committed. Job's attitude toward God as his suffering continued appears to go downhill dramatically. I also agree with your interpretation that Elihu was one of the more accurate voices, unlike Job's peers (if I recall correctly, Elihu was younger than them).

Note that I also said God "allowed" Job to suffer, not that God inflicted it as though He were antagonizing Job (even though Job certainly took it that way).

I'd also share your frustration with the mis-use of the book. This past Sunday, one of my pastors ripped a verse completely out of context from Job (quoting one of the discredited friends' speeches) to support his point. It was as though he found the verse through his concordance and didn't bother to read who said what he was quoting.

[Bryan]

@JimT

Do you see the irony in your two statements?

In your first statement, you make a number of positive claims that you can in no way verify. Barring divine assistance, the best you can do is refer to the writings of people that you choose to believe have authority on the matter.

Then in your next statement, you chastise AaronSTL for assuming unverified things about a being that he doesn't even believe exists! AaronSTL is quite clear that he believes God is a character, but not the good one that many religious believers say He is.

So he's assuming something within a story framework that he doesn't believe is true? See, his critique is not of just the characters, but the whole story and those that still tell it.

I don't see the irony actually. Here is what gives me the leeway - I believe - to make the statements I made.

In Aaron's original message, the inference that he was making was that he does not rightly deserve punishment unless he had done something like 'killed someone' or 'had an adulterous relationship'. My point was, according to what or whom does he not deserve punishment simply because he has not committed one of the two acts he listed? Regardless of whether or not he believes in the God of the Bible, it seemed obvious that God, as revealed there, and the theology surrounding Him was the topic under discussion. So, my point still stands, and that is that, according to the worldview/God/theology Aaron himself is critiquing, his stance that he does not deserve punishment simply because he's not killed someone or committed adultery is not true. It my be true by some other theology or ideology, but not Christian theology.

In both cases he's critiquing Christianity based on faulty assumptions - that is, assumptions that are faulty according to the framework he's trying to critique in the first place, those assumptions being:

1) Aaron expressing that he doesn't believe he deserves punishment because he's not murdered or cheated and
2) Aaron putting forth the notion that this happened to him as some form of punishment (although it seems like I may have missed some context regarding this point)

In other words, if Christianity stated that people should only be punished if they've murdered someone or committed adultery AND it stated that every bad thing that happens to you (or at the very least, when your child dies as the result of a miscarriage) is an act of punishment, then and only then would his critique be valid. Since Christianity teaches neither thing, in fact, it teaches the explicit opposite of both of his points, namely that...

1) We all deserve punishment for sinning against God because we all sin and it in no way would be an act of injustice if God were to not bestow mercy upon any single one of us and not grant us the gift of eternal life with Him forever.
2) Not every single bad thing that happens to a person - whether they are a believer or not - is a specific act of punishment.

...then the criticism leveled is completely invalid, which was my whole point.

In your first statement, you make a number of positive claims that you can in no way verify. Barring divine assistance, the best you can do is refer to the writings of people that you choose to believe have authority on the matter.

I don't know if you're looking for me to backpedal here or what. Of course I have a way to verify my positive claims and that way is the exact way you noted - the teachings of scripture which I obviously consider to be authoritative. The whole point is, my claims are perfectly consistent with those teachings - the topic under discussion and the very topic Aaron was criticizing as inconsistent - and Aaron's claims were not.

In short, what happened was something like this. I say the laws of logic make it clear that it is impossible for a square circle to exist. Then, Aaron says something like "I don't really even believe your laws of logic exist, but it's obvious to me that if they do, they can't be right, because it is possible to have a square rectangle."

And now, in response to you, I'm saying... "What does the obvious possible existence of a square rectangle have to do with anything, my laws of logic never ruled such a thing out in the first place. Demonstrating that a square rectangle can exist does nothing to invalidate the existence of my logical laws that say a square circle is the thing that cannot exist."

[AaronSTL]

Wow, there has been a lot of reaction to my posts. I feel a like a lion in a den of some pretty feisty lambs here.

I think some are still a little confused about the points at which I was trying to get.

First, punishment can only be just when it only (or to the greatest extent) affects the person who does wrong. Like in the father analogy I mentioned, it would be unjust for a father to punish a child for something done by their sibling. In the stories of Pharaoh and the first born, Job and his children, and as you said, plenty of other places in the bible, God creates situations in which he then kills innocents in order to teach lessons to others. The crucifixion is just par for the course in that respect. Anyone is free to believe that God does what he wants to us in order to teach others lessons. I think that very idea might conflict with some other theological issues but more importantly I cannot see it as something that could be considered good or could have a positive effect on anyone.

And punishment is only useful when the punished knows for what they are being punished. Again, using the father analogy, would it be useful for a father to punish a child at random for things the child did in the past?

I understand the bible says many things about suffering; that is sometimes a punishment for sin, a result of sin, redemptive, or just is. Out of all the views on suffering in the bible I subscribe to that of Ecclesiastes. It happens, we should try to make the most of our lives. I’ve not been bitter or angry since I don’t think there is an object towards which I can be. I have been frustrated but that’s probably to be expected for anyone going through the same situation.

And despite what may be thought of my wife and me, we are not hopeless. We have hope that in the event of future problems getting pregnant our doctor will have the ability to perform tests in order to find and treat the cause. We have hope that in the event we cannot at all have children we will have the ability to adopt. No matter what happens we are hopeful about our future together as we are committed to supporting each other through any hardship.

[Sage S]

"In the stories of Pharaoh and the first born, Job and his children, and as you said, plenty of other places in the bible, God creates situations in which he then kills innocents in order to teach lessons to others."

AaronSTL,
Several others have belabored that God did not directly nor indirectly arrange to have Job's children die just in order to teach Job (and his friends, and all of us who read the story) a moral lesson.

The same is true of Pharaoh and the firstborn killed in Egypt: God did not kill the firstborn to teach Pharaoh a lesson (read DIVINE POWER TRIP). God killed the firstborn to affect a massive cultural migration of the Jewish people out of Egypt and into Canaan - the land He had promised they would inhabit. This was God fulfilling a major public promise with overwhelming historic significance! If Pharaoh dug in his heels to try to prevent Omnipotence from a predetermined course, then Pharaoh was setting himself AND his people whom he represented for serious suffering. God did exactly what was necessary to accomplish His promise, and the greater resistance Pharaoh showed to God (despite repeated, explicit warnings from Moses), the greater consequence God used to overcome Pharaoh's resistance.

As soon as we start saying, Why didn't God just kill Pharaoh? or Why didn't he spare all the children? and judge God to be evil, we need to be fair and say we truly don't know why. In absence of evidence (which would require omniscience - knowing all the unfathomable contingencies), we have to resort to reason and logic to evaluate God's action. However we must keep in mind that we resort to mere speculation when we propose alternate courses God might have chosen, and we have nothing with which to support our claims.

Remember Pharaoh represented his people - his every decree was the law of the land. And yet God created the atoms that their bodies were composed of - He literally owned their existence. If a king or president speaking in authority over his people opposes the Almighty despite His repeated, clear warnings, then who is going to win out? And who will suffer hardship in direct proportion to their degree of opposition?

[AaronSTL]

God killed the firstborn to affect a massive cultural migration of the Jewish people out of Egypt and into Canaan - the land He had promised they would inhabit. This was God fulfilling a major public promise with overwhelming historic significance! If Pharaoh dug in his heels to try to prevent Omnipotence from a predetermined course, then Pharaoh was setting himself AND his people whom he represented for serious suffering. God did exactly what was necessary to accomplish His promise, and the greater resistance Pharaoh showed to God (despite repeated, explicit warnings from Moses), the greater consequence God used to overcome Pharaoh's resistance.

Obviously I don't think the story of the exodus is anything more than a story but even taken as such I can't see how it's one that shows much goodness or forethought on the part of God. He himself hardened Pharaoh's heart and then killed the firstborn. The Hebrews were let go and brought to their promised land which, wouldn't you know it, was already inhabited and had to be conquered. I can understand the theological reasons why the story would be told like this; God is powerful, keeps his promises, and sinners get punished, etc but that does nothing to make God's actions good by any standard. If the story had to be moved along so that the Hebrews were let out of Egypt and given the promised land there are an infinite number of ways the story could have been written so that no innocent suffering had to take place.