4 ms·

I don't know the other stories well and Christianity is a big good-bad theme in itself with its hell and heaven but in David versus Goliath the giant never was

I don't know the other stories well and Christianity is a big good-bad theme in itself with its hell and heaven but in David versus Goliath the giant never was the bad guy. He was just fighting for the other side and David killed him, that's it as far as I know.

dragontamer 9y ago
I think that's a fair point. But otherwise, David is very much a "good guy" in virtually all of his stories. King David's famous "Slice the baby in half, so that both 'mothers' can have half of it" is clearly a fight of good vs evil. The Evil mother doesn't care for the child, while the good mother cares deeply for the child. And that's how King David solved one child-custody problem... (not actually killing the baby, but by judging the reactions of the two 'mothers' to the potential act). ----------- The story of "Sodom and Gomorrah" is implicitly about evil. The town faces divine punishment because 10 good people couldn't be found. Its perhaps not "good guy vs bad guy", bit the concepts of "bad guy" are definitely explored.
- hacknat 9y ago
  David wasn’t the king who proposed to slice the baby in half it was Solomon, and the whole point of that story is to illustrate how wise Solomon is not to belabor some point about an evil mother.
- phaemon 9y ago
  That was Solomon, not David.
  - dragontamer 9y ago
    Ugggh, so easy to get the various kings confused. Ah well.
- valine 9y ago
  The “cut the baby in half” was Solomon. If you’re looking for stories in the Bible where David is the bad guy, check out 2 Samuel 11. It’s all about how David murders a dude so he can commit adultery with the dudes wife.
- bobcostas55 9y ago
  >David is very much a "good guy" in virtually all of his stories. The whole Bathsheba incident portrays him in a very negative light.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    He also comes across as a fairly bad father (his kids rape, murder, and commit treason). That goes all the way back to taking multiple wives against explicit instructions. 1 Chronicles 21 describes David as being responsible for the death of 70,000 of his people.
humanrebar 9y ago
> He was just fighting for the other side and David killed him, that's it as far as I know. The Philistines in the Bible were generally military aggressors. Goliath was at the head of that aggression. He provoked and tried to dishonor Israel. You could read everything he said about Israel as so much smack-talking, but the fact that he was there to conquer is hard to hand-wave around.
- kstenerud 9y ago
  Except that Israel did the same kind of conquering of its neighbors as its neighbors did do Israel. There was no "evil" in it; that was just the way of things. In fact, Yahweh encouraged Israel to conquer her neighbors. All he cared about was who gets the credit (him). Furthermore, there is much dispute in what gets translated to Philistines, as the wording often referred to Israel's warring neighbors in general. We often make the mistake of looking at these stories through a modern lens, and ascribing morality to them that simply didn't exist at the time.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    The Bible describes the conquest of the Holy Land as being both a fulfillment of promises to Israel and a consequence for the behavior of the conquered. Earth and everything in it is God's so the authority of Israel wasn't in military power but fiat by the creator of the universe. Of course, most don't follow Biblical theology, which more or less amounts to "Trust God. He wouldn't have told them to take the Israel if it was unfair." The Philistines taking Israel simply because they want it, in contrast, would be sinful. > We often make the mistake of looking at these stories through a modern lens, and ascribing morality to them that simply didn't exist at the time. Right. The "everyone's just conquering stuff" morality isn't accurate either, though.
    - kstenerud 9y ago
      While this is technically correct within the confines of the biblical narrative itself, I was referring to the parent poster's depiction of the Philistines as aggressors outside of any historical context. It was common for a conqueror to say that he had favor with his gods and/or the conquered were on his gods' hit list, which was more than sufficient justification for attacking a neighbor. Actually, the bar for attacking was much, much lower, but adding a spiritual purpose was always a nice touch.
krapp 9y ago
>but in David versus Goliath the giant never was the bad guy. He was just fighting for the other side and David killed him, that's it as far as I know. Remember the context in which this story exists, where it's written and for whom. Goliath is the "bad guy" for two simple reasons. 1) he was a Gentile, and, therefore, unclean in the sight of God, 2) he stood against God's chosen people, and by extension, the will of God.

dragontamer 9y ago

I think that's a fair point. But otherwise, David is very much a "good guy" in virtually all of his stories. King David's famous "Slice the baby in half, so that both 'mothers' can have half of it" is clearly a fight of good vs evil. The Evil mother doesn't care for the child, while the good mother cares deeply for the child. And that's how King David solved one child-custody problem... (not actually killing the baby, but by judging the reactions of the two 'mothers' to the potential act). ----------- The story of "Sodom and Gomorrah" is implicitly about evil. The town faces divine punishment because 10 good people couldn't be found. Its perhaps not "good guy vs bad guy", bit the concepts of "bad guy" are definitely explored.

hacknat 9y ago
David wasn’t the king who proposed to slice the baby in half it was Solomon, and the whole point of that story is to illustrate how wise Solomon is not to belabor some point about an evil mother.
phaemon 9y ago
That was Solomon, not David.
- dragontamer 9y ago
  Ugggh, so easy to get the various kings confused. Ah well.
valine 9y ago
The “cut the baby in half” was Solomon. If you’re looking for stories in the Bible where David is the bad guy, check out 2 Samuel 11. It’s all about how David murders a dude so he can commit adultery with the dudes wife.
bobcostas55 9y ago
>David is very much a "good guy" in virtually all of his stories. The whole Bathsheba incident portrays him in a very negative light.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  He also comes across as a fairly bad father (his kids rape, murder, and commit treason). That goes all the way back to taking multiple wives against explicit instructions. 1 Chronicles 21 describes David as being responsible for the death of 70,000 of his people.

humanrebar 9y ago

> He was just fighting for the other side and David killed him, that's it as far as I know. The Philistines in the Bible were generally military aggressors. Goliath was at the head of that aggression. He provoked and tried to dishonor Israel. You could read everything he said about Israel as so much smack-talking, but the fact that he was there to conquer is hard to hand-wave around.

kstenerud 9y ago
Except that Israel did the same kind of conquering of its neighbors as its neighbors did do Israel. There was no "evil" in it; that was just the way of things. In fact, Yahweh encouraged Israel to conquer her neighbors. All he cared about was who gets the credit (him). Furthermore, there is much dispute in what gets translated to Philistines, as the wording often referred to Israel's warring neighbors in general. We often make the mistake of looking at these stories through a modern lens, and ascribing morality to them that simply didn't exist at the time.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  The Bible describes the conquest of the Holy Land as being both a fulfillment of promises to Israel and a consequence for the behavior of the conquered. Earth and everything in it is God's so the authority of Israel wasn't in military power but fiat by the creator of the universe. Of course, most don't follow Biblical theology, which more or less amounts to "Trust God. He wouldn't have told them to take the Israel if it was unfair." The Philistines taking Israel simply because they want it, in contrast, would be sinful. > We often make the mistake of looking at these stories through a modern lens, and ascribing morality to them that simply didn't exist at the time. Right. The "everyone's just conquering stuff" morality isn't accurate either, though.
  - kstenerud 9y ago
    While this is technically correct within the confines of the biblical narrative itself, I was referring to the parent poster's depiction of the Philistines as aggressors outside of any historical context. It was common for a conqueror to say that he had favor with his gods and/or the conquered were on his gods' hit list, which was more than sufficient justification for attacking a neighbor. Actually, the bar for attacking was much, much lower, but adding a spiritual purpose was always a nice touch.

krapp 9y ago

>but in David versus Goliath the giant never was the bad guy. He was just fighting for the other side and David killed him, that's it as far as I know. Remember the context in which this story exists, where it's written and for whom. Goliath is the "bad guy" for two simple reasons. 1) he was a Gentile, and, therefore, unclean in the sight of God, 2) he stood against God's chosen people, and by extension, the will of God.