Why do we judge Michal so harshly?

JimB · Feb 25, 2010

probinson said:
Can you present scripture that shows God admonishing David for this?

Do we need a picture to know when sin is sin?

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.

Always in His Presence · Feb 25, 2010

JimB said:
How do you know God ignored the other. Isnt that one of those nasty assumptions?

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.

sorry you missed my scriptural proof that I have presented quite clearly four times now. I even used different colors to demonstrate it.

If you think posting your OP again a fifth time showing that God only dealt with one person, I'd be happy to.

Would that help?

Tamara224 · Feb 25, 2010

Balance said:
And yet the Righteous God virtually ignored all that and only mentioned her despising David. How do you explain that?

If God "ignored" that stuff about David.... then how do you explain that those facts were included in Scripture? How do we know about them if God "ignored" them?

They're there, in Scripture. Jimbo even linked to the references. They may not be within 3 verses of the one that mentions Micah not having kids, but God didn't "ignore" the fact that David did those things. Obviously, they're mentioned in Scripture.

Do you expect us to believe that it's okay to ignore the history (i.e. the context) of David and Michal's relationship just because it's not repeated in that chapter?

Also... it's an argument from silence to say that God never dealt with David about his own heart issues with regard to Michal. It's not expressly stated that God did deal with David over those. But it's not expressly stated that He didn't, either.

I think that's called "assuming."

probinson · Feb 25, 2010

JimB said:
Do we need a picture to know when sin is sin?

Good question.

Is it a sin to despise someone in your heart?

Always in His Presence · Feb 25, 2010

Just seeing if font and color makes what I am saying plainer

Tamara224 said:
If God "ignored" that stuff about David.... then how do you explain that those facts were included in Scripture? How do we know about them if God "ignored" them?

I never said God did not mention the interaction between David and his wife. I said numerous times, in several posts that have mysteriously disappeared that there is only one person the Word speaks negatively of and that is Micah

I'm out of here when my posts get deleted for no reason.

Cya

nephilimiyr · Feb 25, 2010

There are absolutely no, 0, zilch, posts that have been deleted from this thread.

JimB · Feb 26, 2010

Balance said:
Just seeing if font and color makes what I am saying plainer

I never said God did not mention the interaction between David and his wife. I said numerous times, in several posts that have mysteriously disappeared that there is only one person the Word speaks negatively of and that is Micah

I'm out of here when my posts get deleted for no reason.

Cya

nephilimiyr said:
There are absolutely no, 0, zilch, posts that have been deleted from this thread.

I think its just an attempt to change the subject.

But FTR, if the Bible only paints David in the best light possible, Joe must have a different version of the Bible than I do.

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.

JimB · Feb 26, 2010

probinson said:
Good question.

Is it a sin to despise someone in your heart?

Yes.

Is serial adultery a sin?

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.

probinson · Feb 26, 2010

JimB said:
Yes.

So then, Michal was in sin, and therefore not justified in her feelings against David. Agreed?

JimB said:
Is serial adultery a sin?

Yes.

JimB · Feb 26, 2010

probinson said:
So then, Michal was in sin, and therefore not justified in her feelings against David. Agreed?

Yes.

The Bible does not say. I suppose we could draw that, um, assumption.

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.

probinson · Feb 26, 2010

JimB said:
The Bible does not say. I suppose we could draw that, um, assumption.

To quote you,

JimB said:
Do we need a picture to know when sin is sin?

So here's what we've already decided; I asked you if despising someone in our heart was sin. You said yes. Scripture says that Michal despised David in her heart. So I asked you if Michal was justified in her sin (because we've already established that despising someone in your heart is sin).

So if your answer is that we must draw that assumption since it is not directly stated, you are in essence saying that there could possibly be times when sin is justified.

I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, so based on the facts presented, we can infer with 100% confidence that Michal was not justified in the way she felt in her heart toward David.

This is not to say we can't understand WHY she feels that way, based on the way David had treated her, but being able to empathize with where someone is coming from in their situation does not justify their sin.

JimB · Feb 26, 2010

probinson said:
To quote you,

So here's what we've already decided; I asked you if despising someone in our heart was sin. You said yes. Scripture says that Michal despised David in her heart. So I asked you if Michal was justified in her sin (because we've already established that despising someone in your heart is sin).

So if your answer is that we must draw that assumption since it is not directly stated, you are in essence saying that there could possibly be times when sin is justified.

I'm pretty sure you don't believe that, so based on the facts presented, we can infer with 100% confidence that Michal was not justified in the way she felt in her heart toward David.

This is not to say we can't understand WHY she feels that way, based on the way David had treated her, but being able to empathize with where someone is coming from in their situation does not justify their sin.

I said yes but added, Is serial adultery a sin? And you agreed.

So, I suppose we are down to which sin is most damaging, someone despising someone in their heart (my version of the Bible, however, says "looked with contempt," but Ill let it pass) or someone regularly committing serial adultery? I could handle my wife looking on me with scorn or contempt, especially if I were cavorting half-naked before young women, but I think I would have a major problem if it were adultery especially the Clintonesque habitual kind that David seemed to commit.

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.

probinson · Feb 26, 2010

JimB said:
I said yes but added, Is serial adultery a sin? And you agreed.

So, I suppose we are down to which sin is most damaging, someone despising someone in their heart (my version of the Bible, however, says "looked with contempt," but Ill let it pass) or someone regularly committing serial adultery? I could handle my wife looking on me with scorn or contempt, especially if I were cavorting half-naked before young women, but I think I would have a major problem if it were adultery especially the Clintonesque habitual kind that David seemed to commit.

You keep pointing to David's sins, attempting to use those sins to justify Michal's sin. The point is, 2 wrongs do not make a right.

Your question was "Why do we judge Michal so harshly?", and I don't think I do. I have "judged" that Michal was sinning in the way that she felt toward David. That's all.

I can understand the reasons Michal felt as she did toward David, but it does not justify those feelings.

But let's take a look at this statement;

JimB said:
I could handle my wife looking on me with scorn or contempt, especially if I were cavorting half-naked before young women

Your repeated use of the term "Clintonesque" and stating that David was "cavorting half-naked before young women" implies that his purpose was to impress those young women. But that's not what scripture says. It says;

2 Samuel 6:21-22 (NIV)
David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the LORD's people IsraelI will celebrate before the LORD. I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor."

What this is telling us is that while Michal apparently held the same assumption as you that David was simply showing off for the ladies, he was in actuality dancing before the Lord. That is, unless you believe that David was lying, and really did just want to show off for the ladies, which I think would be a huge assumption .

JimB · Feb 26, 2010

probinson said:
You keep pointing to David's sins, attempting to use those sins to justify Michal's sin. The point is, 2 wrongs do not make a right.

Your question was "Why do we judge Michal so harshly?", and I don't think I do. I have "judged" that Michal was sinning in the way that she felt toward David. That's all.

I can understand the reasons Michal felt as she did toward David, but it does not justify those feelings.

But let's take a look at this statement;

Your repeated use of the term "Clintonesque" and stating that David was "cavorting half-naked before young women" implies that his purpose was to impress those young women. But that's not what scripture says. It says;

2 Samuel 6:21-22 (NIV)
David said to Michal, "It was before the LORD, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the LORD's people IsraelI will celebrate before the LORD. I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor."

What this is telling us is that while Michal apparently held the same assumption as you that David was simply showing off for the ladies, he was in actuality dancing before the Lord. That is, unless you believe that David was lying, and really did just want to show off for the ladies, which I think would be a huge assumption .

For the most part I agree with this. We cannot judge Davids motives in dancing (although the half-naked, i.e. uncovering himself, part does raise suspicions ) that day, and I give him the benefit of the doubt. But I am also giving Michal the benefit of the doubt and unwilling to say that her understandable suspicion of Davids motives on this one occasion was enough to cause her to never be able to have a child. Wheres the justice in that? The Bible does not clearly say why Michal remained childless and my assumption is just as valid as the standard P/C one. IMO, of course.

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.

Tamara224 · Feb 26, 2010

Balance said:
Just seeing if font and color makes what I am saying plainer

I never said God did not mention the interaction between David and his wife. I said numerous times, in several posts that have mysteriously disappeared that there is only one person the Word speaks negatively of and that is Micah

I'm out of here when my posts get deleted for no reason.

Cya

nephilimiyr said:
There are absolutely no, 0, zilch, posts that have been deleted from this thread.

I can confirm this. We would be able to see if there were deleted posts, and there aren't any.

And anyway, the word doesn't "speak negatively" about Micah. It simply states matter-of-factly what she felt/thought about David. As I have said previously (in posts that have not disappeared) - any moral judgment we put on her actions/thoughts/feelings we ASSUME.

probinson · Feb 26, 2010

Tamara224 said:
And anyway, the word doesn't "speak negatively" about Micah. It simply states matter-of-factly what she felt/thought about David. As I have said previously (in posts that have not disappeared) - any moral judgment we put on her actions/thoughts/feelings we ASSUME.

It's like, obtuse-city...

It's a sin to despise someone in your heart
Michal despised David in her heart
?

Perhaps a mathematical explanation of transitive relations would help;

If A=B and B=C then A=C.

Note that we don't have to ASSUME that A=C. It is a mathematical certainty.

So since we've already determined it is a sin to despise someone in your heart and we know that Michal despised David in her heart, we can say with 100% certainty that the way Michal felt toward David was a sin.

Tamara224 · Feb 26, 2010

probinson said:
It's like, obtuse-city...

I told you you'd discuss it again when it served your purpose. What was that, like ten minutes?

It's a sin to despise someone in your heart

Michal despised David in her heart

?

Perhaps a mathematical explanation of transitive relations would help;

If A=B and B=C then A=C.

Note that we don't have to ASSUME that A=C. It is a mathematical certainty.

Nonsense. Assumptions are made in mathematics all the time. Math wouldn't even be possible without them.

Using Assumptions - Wolfram Mathematica 7 Documentation

Besides, in your equation, the inference is that A=C. The assumptions are that A=B and B=C (because you didn't prove those).

A syllogism isn't a syllogism without assumptions. The very if/then formulation calls for us to assume that the "if" portion is true - that is, act as though it is true even without proof.

So since we've already determined it is a sin to despise someone in your heart and we know that Michal despised David in her heart, we can say with 100% certainty that the way Michal felt toward David was a sin.

And you accuse me of being obtuse.

An assumption isn't necessarily wrong, Pete. That it is correct does not make it not an assumption.

It's an assumption merely because it's not EXPLICITLY stated in the text.

IOW, we bring that presupposition to the text.

Assumption + Facts = Inference

Assumption: Despising people is wrong
Facts: Michal despised David
Inference: Michal was wrong to despise David

It's okay. I am not arguing with you that she was wrong to do it. Just observing that the text doesn't explicitly state that it was wrong. That we believe it is wrong to do so is, therefore, (as pertains to this text) an assumption. And that we believe that Michal, specifically, was wrong, is an inference.

JimB · Feb 26, 2010

probinson said:
It's like, obtuse-city...

It's a sin to despise someone in your heart

Michal despised David in her heart

?

Perhaps a mathematical explanation of transitive relations would help;

If A=B and B=C then A=C.

Note that we don't have to ASSUME that A=C. It is a mathematical certainty.

So since we've already determined it is a sin to despise someone in your heart and we know that Michal despised David in her heart, we can say with 100% certainty that the way Michal felt toward David was a sin.

But, is it a sin to look with contempt or with scorn as other translations render the verse or for someone to be embarrassed by the antics of a spouse. If so, my wife has sinned many times over (but I have to admit, with justifiable reasons ).

I cannot see the justice in depriving a woman of children, especially in biblical times, by striking her barren just because she was critical of her husbands actions. Even a woman despising an adulterous husband does not warrant making her childless for life. Maybe some good counseling would be in order but the lifelong stigma of childlessness in ancient Israel would be a bit of overkill, IMO.

~Jim

Church is the only society on earth that exists for the benefit of non-members.

probinson · Feb 26, 2010

Tamara224 said:
I told you you'd discuss it again when it served your purpose. What was that, like ten minutes?

You're the one hung up on assumptions and inferences. I'm simply pointing out that this is not an assumption at all.

Tamara224 said:
Besides, in your equation, the inference is that A=C.

That's not an inference. It's a mathematical fact that if A=B and B=C that A=C.

Tamara224 said:
The assumptions are that A=B and B=C (because you didn't prove those).

In geometry, those aren't called "assumptions". They're called "givens", because, well, they're given to you.

Tamara224 said:
A syllogism isn't a syllogism without assumptions. The very if/then formulation calls for us to assume that the "if" portion is true - that is, act as though it is true even without proof.

To quote you, "nonsense".

As a programmer, I use if/then constructs every day. I CAN NOT make assumptions about the "if" construct without "proving" them, or I would have no logical control over the flow of the program.

In a more practical sense, if I measure a board, and that board is 4' long, and then I measure another board, and that board is also 4' long, I have "proven" that the boards are 4' long. If I then measure a third board that is also 4' long, it requires no "assumption" that it is the same length as both of the other 2 boards.

Tamara224 said:
And you accuse me of being obtuse.

Yes. Particularly so since you got off on this "assumption" tangent.

Tamara224 said:
An assumption isn't necessarily wrong, Pete. That it is correct does not make it not an assumption.

It's an assumption merely because it's not EXPLICITLY stated in the text.

IOW, we bring that presupposition to the text.

Assumption + Facts = Inference

Assumption: Despising people is wrong
Facts: Michal despised David
Inference: Michal was wrong to despise David

It's okay. I am not arguing with you that she was wrong to do it. Just observing that the text doesn't explicitly state that it was wrong. That we believe it is wrong to do so is, therefore, (as pertains to this text) an assumption. And that we believe that Michal, specifically, was wrong, is an inference.

If you want to obfuscate the point that it was wrong for Michal to despise David in her heart and strive over the exact meaning of words, you are free to do so. It's pretty clear to most people though, without the need for any dissertation on the proper use and/or application of the words "assumption" and "inference".

So what's your point as it pertains to this discussion? Do you have one, or do you just want us to recognize and praise you for your intellectual prowess and masterful use of the terms "assumption" and "inference"?

probinson · Feb 26, 2010

JimB said:
But, is it a sin to look with contempt or with scorn as other translations render the verse

Yes, I believe it is. I'm just as guilty as the next person for doing this.

JimB said:
or for someone to be embarrassed by the antics of a spouse. If so, my wife has sinned many times over (but I have to admit, with justifiable reasons ).

No, I don't think it's a sin to be embarrassed by your spouse.

JimB said:
I cannot see the justice in depriving a woman of children, especially in biblical times, by striking her barren just because she was critical of her husbands actions. Even a woman despising an adulterous husband does not warrant making her childless for life. Maybe some good counseling would be in order but the lifelong stigma of childlessness in ancient Israel would be a bit of overkill, IMO.

But I've never argued that Michal was made barren by God, so I'll assume this portion is addressed to someone else.

Why do we judge Michal so harshly?

Legend

Jesus is the only Way

Well-Known Member

Legend

Jesus is the only Way

I've Been Keepin My Eyes Wide Open

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency