Was David a murderer and an adulterer? He was guilty of both one time, as a result of the Bathsheba incident. But he paid for both, having not just one but two sons rebel against him. Fortunately, he was old the second time, and the son, Adonijah, didn’t feel the need to kill him. He figured David was about ready to die anyway.

But even though he was guilty of both, that’s not who he WAS. He stood for much more. You could argue he was one of the first Renaissance men: artistic, creative, a great leader, a hero in battle, strong in his faith. But in spite of all that, he stumbled — badly.

Which is one reason he’s larger than life. Not only is he a hero in conventional ways, but even his fall just made him a better example of Redemption.

In a way, it’s the fact that he did these horrible things that makes it possible for us not-so-larger-than-life people able to identify with him.

I like the way he danced naked before the lord and pissed his wife off!

That’s my favorite moment in the story.

Because if we were a nation of “true believers” you wouldn’t be free to speak, or wrtie freely, trust me.

Beasides, as a Jew did you ever see two Jews agree on anything?

Oh boy. I can see it coming, another Israel bashing program.

Congratulations Christopher, you have done it again.

the David and Goliath metaphor seems strained today. Israel these days seems to me to be on the side of the one true Goliath—the United States—and the true believers—the Muslims—are David.

(Though let me make perfectly clear that I support neither faction in this conflict, since religions are all foolish and destructive in my eyes.)

I’m sure my take on the metaphor can be challenged by many people out there in Open Source Land (Jdyer, where are you?), and I welcome those challenges as an opportunity to debate and to learn.

and Peggysue,
in regards to your reaction to Pinelson’s post,
hear hear!

So much of mythology and/or tribal lore is fascinating in so many ways. A pity, really, that so many millions still take it literally, giving rise to a host of problems.

As a wise man once said, “Make mistakes, by all means, make mistakes, but by all means, make new mistakes!”

What I wouldn’t give to see the human race start making some new mistakes in the name of religious belief, instead of the same old ones again and again….

from the King James…

The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
He leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul:
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name’ sake.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the House of the Lord forever.

ML King says: “David, as you know was a great king. And one thing that was foremost in David’s mind and in his heart was to build a great temple�…

King refers to I Kings: 8 “And it was in the heart of David my father to build a house for the name of the Lord God of Israel. And the Lord said unto David my father, “Whereas it was in thine heart to build a house unto my name, thou didst well that it was within thine heart�.�

He continues, “each one of you this morning in some way is building some kind of temple. The struggle is always there. It gets discouraging sometimes. Some of us are trying to build a temple of peace. We speak out against war, we protest, but it seems your head is going against a concrete wall�…

And the thing that makes me happy is that I can hear a voice crying through the vista of time, saying: “It may not come today or it may not come tomorrow, but it is well that it is in thine heart.

We didn’t stop the clearcuts in the Nez Perce but we did slow them down in the bigger picture… for a while. It is a constant battle. But it sure made our hearts feel good.

King’s sermon Unfullfilled Dreams…

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/680303.000_Unfulfulled_Dreams.html

As I was tending to my bible reading last night I noticed the maps in the back of my 1961 Revised Standard. On the map, CANNAN and the Tribal Allotments, I noticed that PHILISTIA, which I’m assuming was home to the Philistines, was located on what is now the GAZA STRIP. So it looks like Goliath came out of Gaza. In the story of David and Goliath, Goliath is a fully armed member of a military force and David is a stone throwing kid. Today the tables are turned and Israel has the fully equipped military and Gaza has the stone throwing kids. Maybe the message of the story is… beware the stone throwing kid.

to see map of CANNAN and the Tribal Allotments..

http://www.frappr.com/lydon/photos

or Joseph Heller’s David- ”It may be a good piece of work, taken all in all, but it just isn’t me’
(he is uncircumcised!)

Interesting point. I think the pervasivness of these monotheistic patriarchal tribal desert religions relys on their continuing zealous brutality. I blame Constantine for Romanizing Christianity and then sending it out to conquer the known world. Then all that burning at the stake, millions burned to death for failure to adhere to the one true faith, the iron maiden, kidnapped children sent to mission schools, Potlatches raided, Totem poles burned. Crusaders going door to door embued with rightiousness. I just wonder if Christianity didn’t develop its aggressive nature by riding with the Roman Legions. They seem like a fitting vehicle for a brutal desert cult.

If the Romans hadn’t decided to crucify Jesus, and thus give a boost to his particular cult, the Jews would have probably been forgotten by now, along with all the Jewish and Christian mythology that followed, and who knows how all this would have turned out?

How many OTHER little tribes and peoples in the Americas and Europe and the mid-east, and Asia and Africa ALSO had rich, complex, subtle, beautiful literature and mythology? And which were all swept away by wars and invasions so today we don’t know anything about them, but we fixate on just ONE tribe’s stories over and over and OVER again?

If Jesus’ little band of followers hadn’t succeeeded in marketing their particular mystical martyr, the artists and poets and screenwriters might have given us dramas and poems and sculpture of and paintings of lots of OTHER characters and stories from cults and religions we’ve never even HEARD of.

http://www.frappr.com/lydon/photos

Re: Michelangelo’s David – here is what University of Florence anatomy professor Massimo Gulisano says…

“Some say the feet, the hands are out of proportion. It’s not true,” Gulisano said by telephone during the final session of a two-day conference in Florence of art historians, restorers and scientists to mark the 500th unveiling of the statue.”

and…

“There was only one error. There was a hollow where there should have been a muscle on the right side of the back,” Gulisano said.

But Michelangelo was aware of the flaw, writing in a letter that a defect in the marble block forced him to leave out that muscle, Gulisano said.”

and…

“Some observers have commented that the genitals that Michelangelo gave David seemed out of proportion, but the professors told the conference that measurements indicated all was normal.

“Taking in consideration this is a statue of a young man who was thinking about a battle that was about to happen, everything is normal,” Gulisano said in the phone interview.”

see compltet article…

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/10/1097346685692.html?from=storylhs

http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=60034878&trkid=147042

I go with the foreshortening theory.

Not having seen the statue in person I didn’t understand how big it was (sort of ironic since Goliath was suppose to be the giant) until I saw a film about the Pueblo sculptor Michael Neranjo. Naranjo was blinded by a grenade in Veitnam. As a sculptor he got special permission from the pope to “veiw” Michelangelo’s David with his hands. Naranjo is a big guy himself but seeing him standing high up on scaffolding touching the David’s face he was dwarfed by the 18 ft. sculpture.

When creating the David Michelangelo was still in early twentys. He’d already carved the Pieta in Rome but he was still trying to prove himself. And he did. I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

But Michaelangelo’s David is mutantly out of proportion… (dare I bring up Barbie comparisons and veer this into something about “perfection” and body image?) Art historians will say it was purposeful, whether to focus attention on his fated hands (action) and face (determination) or as a trick of the eye for perspective’s sake (fighting the foreshortening as you look up at him).

David as an ideal is intertesting though. My areligeous upbringing was filled with new riffs where the charactuer is a gawky schlub standing up to the pretty and capable bully. Less God’s favorite, more a bookish writer’s revenge with a trophy at the end. Is this an American translation to keep the underdog story relevant? My country has been convincing me it’s the leading superpower since I was born. Does that mean I will not relate to the civic-minded unarmed small, save reminiscing ousting the red coated British giant to gain independence, and therefore reorganize the myth in my head? David’s righteousness becomes social, financial, or romantic to stay relevant? I’m curious how different cultures and nations frame their Goliaths.

That’s how wars were fought once upon a time. No need to be squeamish about it. Don’t know why that should be taught to children, though.

The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0393320774/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-1371441-5423247#reader-link