Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, I’m school we have long talked about it I’m high school in the 1990s. Mostly because I grew up near the city that perpetuated that myth”Hollywood”. Yes, it’s mostly a culture myth. I’m fact the evidence suggest that there we’re Hebrew slave owners on the out skirts of Egypt for further demystifying. Weird huh? How it all comes about. I was part of a weird nerd demystifying club trying to dispel, urban, cultural, science and history myths. Testing the “truths”. Inspired by the show “fight back with David Horowitz”. Anyway thanks for posting.
I was having this conversation with orthodox Jewish people, including some rabbi. Some new it and talked about it as point of fact. Others, well.
I am currently focusing on my upcoming kid on not about being me or what I want but what they want. I would like well placed moral values of course. But I am using and implementing a newer parent theory called “self determination theory-patenting”. It seems like the one I most would have loved to grow up in(I grew up in strongly authoritarian parenting style) but don’t like permissive and certain key elements of authoritative don’t focus on kids autonomy to much. So I choosing “self determination theory parenting”. I hope you can find your own way and help your kids establish morals while finding out who they are and being supportive. Anyways best of wishes and prayers to you. Quote:“Do you believe in the existence of God?” For many, an immediate “yes” would be considered the right answer. But what does an answer of “yes” constitute? Is it the love for their God? Is it faith? Or yet, is it fear? Erich Fromm states, “(Religion) is not as an act of faith but in order to escape an intolerable doubt; this decision not out of devotion but in search of security?” If Fromm is accurate, has humankind forgot the deeper meaning of religion? Has religion, with its gods and faith, forgot its essence – the soul? With Erich Fromm’s Psychoanalysis and Religion, we explore the authoritarian and humanistic religion; humankind’s disoriented feelings toward religion, and the relevance of Fromm’s argument.
Erich Fromm describes two branches of religion – the authoritarian and humanistic religion. The authoritarian religion describes an unseen higher being, controlling the life and destiny of humankind. “What makes it so is the idea that this power, because of the control it exercises, is entitled to ‘obedience, reverence, and worship,’” Fromm said. “The essential element in authoritarian religion and in the authoritarian religious experience is the surrender to a power transcending man. The main virtue of this type of religion is obedience; its cardinal sin is disobedience.” According to Fromm, an individual who follows an authoritarian religion is a helpless and insignificant figure. They have given up their independence, not able to think for one’s self. They are eventually a marionette in strings, being controlled by a strong, unseen force – their God. “In an authoritarian religion, God is a symbol of power and force,” Fromm argues. “He is supreme because He has supreme power, and man in juxtaposition is utterly powerless.”
The humanistic religion plays the opposite of authoritarian religion. While authoritarian religion restricts its followers from questioning their faith, the humanistic religion welcomes discussions to understanding one’s faith. Instead of religion owning its followers, the humanistic religion describes a religion where followers own their faith. “Humanistic religion is centered around man and his strength,” Fromm explains. “Man must develop his power of reason in order to understand himself, his relationship of his fellow men and his position in the universe. Man’s aim in humanistic religion is to achieve the greatest strength, not the greatest powerlessness; virtue is self-realization, not obedience.” If a humanistic religion displays the ideal religion, then why does it not play a major role in everyone’s life? Fromm answers that throughout time, humankind has lost touch in what a religion should be.
“The underlying theme of the preceding chapters is the conviction that the problem of religion is not the problem of God, but the problem of man,” Fromm states. Authoritarian religion is the most dominant type of religion out there. Instead of people celebrating their faith, they fear it. Fromm argues that authoritarian religion has restricted individuals from completely comprehending their faith. “Religious formulations and religious symbols are attempts to give expression to certain kinds of human experience,” he said. “What matters is the nature of these experiences.” Fromm explains that people are so preoccupied on obeying the rules and regulations of their religion that they forget the main essence of religion, the human soul. Most societies live with an authoritarian religion where having a religion and believing in God is enough but human growth and understanding have no strong importance. One must wonder: if religion is so important, do we need a God to show compassion and love?
“It is easy to see that many who profess the belief in God are in their human attitude idol worshippers or men without faith, while some of the most ardent ‘atheists,’ devoting their lives to the betterment of mankind, to deeds of brotherliness, and love, have exhibited faith and a profoundly religious attitude,” Fromm said. Many religious followers’ has abandoned and forgotten the foundation of religion. As Fromm presents, people hide behind their God and religion, feeling that they are secured and safe, when in reality, they are nothing more than zombies with no mind of their own. People like to feel comfortable and thinking having a God in their life and religion gives them that safety net in life. But comfortable does not give you liberation or understanding of who we really are as individuals. Religion should contain love, compassion, and finding ways to make life easier for everyone.
Fromm makes a valid argument. Religion seems to have become a joke to many people. It has become a walking contradiction and for years have lost its essence. Parents scare their young children by forcing them to go to church and damn them to hell if they ask questions. Churchgoers’ who attend church every Sunday seemed to have forgotten the lessons their own religion is teaching. Religious figures, from priests to politicians, become hypocrites as they preach about one thing but yet act in another. Where are the love and the compassion?
Fromm believes that a person who shows compassion for their mankind, with or without a God, performs the humanistic religion. People should not depend on their God to provide miracles or to control their life but rather use God’s teachings and help their fellow mankind. Even for atheists, who people consider “godless,” can show humanistic religion through appreciation for one’s life and helping their fellow kind. Fromm points out that you do not need a God to reach enlightenment or to be a respectable human being, but rather have good intentions in your heart and being true to yourself. According to a new book, Mother Theresa had lost her faith with God but yet, she continued to serve her people. She was not trying to fulfill an obligation to serve her religion and God but to fulfill her own destiny. Mother Theresa was serving her people because she felt in her heart, it was the right thing. And with that, is the true meaning of religion.
Erich Fromm does not dislike religion, but disapproves where religion has taken mankind. With authoritative religion, it has provided a blueprint for one’s life before even being born. Parents continue to pass down religious ideas and rituals that restrict one from exploring one’s individuality. We have come so far in life from the ancient cave men to a much more complex individuals who create technology based on our fantastic dreams. Though we have evolved so much, it seemed that we still can’t seem to think for our own self. People’s relationship with their religion and God is like a young child learning how to ride a bike. They need God and their religion to continue holding them from behind because they are afraid to fall. They feel safe, yet they are not going anywhere. Fromm suggests that we should learn from our religion and God and start exploring on our own. Because the greatest enlightenment, is telling our religion and God to “let go” and start seeing the world in our own eyes.
In order to escape fear, one must develop ones own authentic self and moral compass independent of authority and outside figures or orgs. Once you do that they hold no power over you. They can’t wield undo influence. Once you realize that like a family relationship or marriage, obedience isn’t a manifestation of love but insecurity, the actual manifestation of love is co-operation just as in family and marriage. I would never set rules to my wife or marriage, not because stuff shouldn’t be it should be done, but because we talk to each other in love about our individual needs and needs as a couple and work towards them that they aren’t necessary to establish.
Because obedience is the sign of a insecure authority figure,(authoritarian) co-operation is the sign of a mature person(authoritative, self determination). Self-determination through co-operation becomes the healthy unit of love, not the destructive force of insecure authority figure obedience.
DarkJedi wrote:The word “elective” being in there is a good point, Ray. I’m assuming it’s there for the case of a child born with attributes of both genders in which a choice has to be made (usually by the parents early on). Nevertheless, I could see that an understanding leader might have a more open interpretation of it and not see it as automatically necessary to excommunicate the person. Leadership roulette comes into play, probably heavily leaning in the excommunication direction, unfortunately.
I had actually given this some thought since my first comment. Although I am not a fan of “If I were in this situation, I would….” (because we really don’t know what we would do until we are in the situation), I might be tempted to change my name (happening anyway), move to a different place, contact the missionaries and take the lessons and be baptized as a different person. I would then eventually progress to the temple, etc. That is, of course, if I felt that it was OK between me and God and there is no way for me to know that. I do tend to think God is much more understanding than most men.
Funny you should say that. I have a friend in Taiwan who tried to do something similar, but in the end he decided that he didn’t want to join a group where he wouldn’t be forgiven no matter how much he repeated for how long because of this.
Quote:Persons who are considering an elective transsexual operation should not be baptized. Persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy in an interview with the mission president or a priesthood leader he assigns. Such persons may not receive the priesthood or a temple recommend.
Never being able to receive the priesthood or get a temple recommend no matter what he did to repent.
Its a very small issue in the USA, but as I found out is a much bigger issue in the Taiwan, Singapore, Philippines area.
nibbler wrote:Tempt me to the dark side of the force will you?
#1) They focus on the BoA text as it relates to the recovered fragments but completely ignore the misinterpretations of the vignettes. That’s nowhere to be found in the essay.
#2) I felt the small section dedicated to the KEP didn’t go into enough detail. The KEP suggests that characters from the recovered fragments actually were the source of the BoA text.
#3) The BoA includes text that ties it to one of the vignettes and reinforces the misinterpretation of the vignette.
#4) No mention of similarities between The Philosophy of a Future State.
#5) No mention of lacunae reconstruction. A minor issue to be sure, but it was omitted from the essay.
#6) No exploration of the Jewish redactor theory… which could have helped their argument.
#7) etc., etc. I just don’t have the energy for the BoA anymore. I dedicated enough to it over the years. I’m on the other side.
:wave: Quote:Only small fragments of the long papyrus scrolls once in Joseph Smith’s possession exist today.
Quote:It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.
That statement is very misleading IMO and it’s the one that sticks out the most. First of all it ignores the common argument that the KEP does tie specific characters found on the recovered fragments to text in the BoA. Second the estimates of the length of the missing scroll range anywhere from 41 feet to two feet. If the scroll was 41 feet then the recovered portions would represent “small fragments.” If the missing portion of the scroll represented two feet then the recovered portion represents “quite a lot.” It’s disingenuous to make this statement and only presenting the side that is favorable to their argument.
Quote:On many particulars, the book of Abraham is consistent with historical knowledge about the ancient world. Some of this knowledge, which is discussed later in this essay, had not yet been discovered or was not well known in 1842.
According to some scholars a lot of that information
wasavailable to Joseph. The Book of Jasher and The Antiquities of Freemasonry are ones that I’ve heard about. Quote:But even this evidence of ancient origins,
substantial though it may beThe essay is full of these types of phrases. Phrases that only seek to lead the reader to a specific conclusion, phrases that do not to contribute actual information.
Quote:Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.
It really feels like they are trying to say that Egyptologists could be wrong, that the papyri fragments really could be about Abraham after all. That’s not what they are saying but I think they could restructure the wording. Minor, minor point.
The essay throws a lot on the wall in hopes that some of it will stick. Joseph could have translated the BoA because most of the scroll is missing, but if it was the scroll it was just a catalyst and we misinterpret the word “translate.” An appeal to scholars is futile but here’s what scholars in our camp say about similarities in the BoA and what we now “know” about Abraham.
I’m no stranger to my perspective, I can take a step back and view it externally: Nibbler wouldn’t be satisfied with anything short of a statement telling members to rip the BoA out of their scriptures… so of course this essay isn’t going to satisfy him. Ok, that’s a little extreme
I find the essay consistent with the correlation commits stated purpose though. You pointed out some of the problems with it is also the sane problems with the essay both the good and bad stays the same because the mission is still the same.
Quote:The function of this Committee is to pass upon and approve all materials, other than those that are purely secular, to be used by our Church Priesthood, Educational, Auxiliary, and Missionary organizations in their work of instructing members of the Church in the principles of the Gospel and in leading others to a knowledge of the Truth. To meet such required standards for use by Church organizations, such materials must:
(1) Clearly set forth or be fully consistent with the principles of the restored Gospel. (2) Be wholly free from any taint of sectarianism and also of all theories and conclusions destructive of faith in the simple truths of the Restored Gospel, and especially be free from the teachings of the so‑called “higher criticism.” Worldly knowledge and speculation have their place; but they must yield to revealed truth. (3) Be so framed and written as affirmatively to breed faith and not raise doubts. “Rationalizing” may be most destructive of faith. That the Finite cannot fully explain the Infinite casts no doubt upon the Infinite. Truth, not error, must be stressed. (4) Be so built in form and substance as to lead to definite conclusions that accord with the principles of the Restored Gospel which conclusions must be expressed and not left to possible deduction by the students. When truth is involved there is no place for student preference or choice. Youth must be taught that truth cannot be blinked or put aside, it must be accepted.(5) Be filled with a spirit of deepest reverence. They should give no place for the slightest levity. They should be so written that those who teach from and by them will so understand. (6) Be so organized and written that the matter may be effectively taught by men and women untrained in teaching without the background equipment given by such fields of learning as psychology, pedagogy, philosophy and ethics. The great bulk of our teachers are in the untrained group. J. Reuben Clark, First Presidency’s 1944 letter on the Literature Censorship Committee
DarkJedi wrote:eyedempotent wrote:Critical thinking became so much more powerful and influential in my ideas about the nature of the universe than any warm fuzzie ever could.
One can be Buddhist AND Mormon, or pretty much anything else for that matter. Likewise, a very good argument could be made that Joseph Smith was a mystic, and that mysticism played a role in the founding of the church. Just saying.
[/quote]
Ya, if you have the opportunity or chance, many journals of the early saints clearly show they were a big mixture of things including apostles. It was a bit of a shock to me some years ago but as I re-read them, decidedly less so, like a nice surprise.
It wasn’t apparently an issue at the time because it’s jotted down very casually as a non dogmatic passing thoughts. That clearly show deep thought into it. It makes me smile because it’s not even orthodox or heterodox thoughts per say but a mixture of various denominations with sometimes a mixture of your own personal spin on them as well.
Quote:I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.
Well said Thomas Jefferson, well said.
turinturambar wrote:I don’t know if this will add to the discussion or not. But I feel like I should point out that we may say that we can still be kind to those with whom we disagree, but it’s going to take a lot more than just saying “we love you” to convince them. Don’t be surprised if gays and lesbians don’t believe it. It’s going to take more than just words. We need to show the love, perhaps for a while before they believe it. As I think about it, it might be too controversial a point to make in the talk. But I think it’s good to understand during the preparation of the talk.
Along the same lines, the Church feels very strongly that it must oppose same-sex marriage in order to honor it’s beliefs. But it’s equally important to understand that this topic is
verypersonal for LGBT folks. We need to understand just exactly what it means personally to a gay couple who is prevented from being married or adopting each other’s children. How would you feel if an outsider came into your life and told you than you couldn’t be married to your spouse anymore? So again, don’t be surprised if they don’t believe it when we say “we love you.” I’d like to see what others think of this.
Hmm, it feels incredibly weird to read a thought as basic as that to the foundation of all relationships and basic real everyday psychology 101 and see it as controversial. After all, how can we progress on the layers upon layers of adult relationship moral interactions if it’s controversial for the basic foundations of doing what it takes to establish healthy ones?
If such was actually controversial, I’m not sure I would want to spend much time with people where we can’t talk about the basic of the basics of healthy relationships. I’m certain I wouldn’t call such people friends.
Are we underestimating here? I hope so.
Please rephrase the answer in the form of a question. “What is the liquid that increases base desires and significantly decreases critical think skills?! Thank you Alex trebek!
Quote:A subsequent group of researchers found that drinking increases levels of norepinephrine, the neurotransmitter responsible for arousal, which would account for heightened excitement when someone begins drinking. Norepinephrine is the chemical target of many stimulants, suggesting that alcohol is more than merely a depressant. Elevated levels of norepinephrine increase impulsivity, which helps explain why we lose our inhibitions drinking. Drunken brains are primed to seek pleasure without considering the consequences; no wonder so many hook-ups happen after happy hour.
Although increased norepinephrine offers some explanation of alcohol’s effects, it doesn’t tell us where in the brain changes are occurring. To see which regions of the brain were more or less active while drinking, researchers gave a group of subjects a PET scan after injecting them with harmless radioactive glucose, the brain’s preferred source of energy. Highly active regions consume more glucose, and those regions are brightly lit during the PET scan, whereas less active regions are dimmer.
The regions of the brain with the greatest decrease in activity were the prefrontal cortex and the temporal cortex. Decreased activity in the prefrontal cortex, the region responsible for decision making and rational thought, further explains why alcohol causes us to act without thinking. The prefrontal cortex also plays a role in preventing aggressive behavior, so this might help explain the relationship between alcohol and violence (see my last post). The temporal cortex houses the hippocampus, the brain region responsible for forming new memories. Reduced activity in the hippocampus might account for why people black out when drinking.
Alcohol doesn’t and does change behavior. It increases norepinephrine while decreasing activity in the prefrontal cortex. What you have left is a bunch of base urges (increased) and the filter through which they go decreased. So ya it is kinda true that it acts like a truth in that it doesn’t change you base thoughts or actions, just allows most random thoughts and urges to go unchecked depending on the toxicity level.
Congrats on doing the right thing. But ya it’s embarking to have unfiltered thoughts or actions exposed before your ready to confront or acknowledge them. Regardless of what she really “feels” it’s important to develop things and feelings consciously. Try actually dating and seeing where it goes from there without disabling critical thinking skills.
That’s a great idea presented. Cash in the “I owe you” for a legitimate date if she is ok with that idea.
See where it goes from there. No need to rush or be also overly cautious second heirs sing every detail.
Sex would have citrates complicated undeveloped feelings in either direction. Instead, develop those feelings deliberately and consciously and see where it goes one step at a time. But never make important decisions with yours or hers prefrontal cortex disabled. Anyways, that was a great decision made under conflicted feelings that’s hard for many people to make.
:thumbup: Quote:I think you’ll find our women are very happy now. We have a dissident now and again, somebody who speaks out very sharply, very strongly. But that’s very unusual. Statistically it’s such a very small item that you’d hardly reckon with it…. They’re outspoken. They speak up. They feel strongly about it. That’s their prerogative. They talk about it a good deal, and we’ve heard what they’ve had to say. We’ve heard it again and again. We feel they’re not right. We let them go forward with what they’re doing. If they speak out against the church in a strong, vigorous way, then possibly some action will be taken.
Gordon B. Hinckley, – Mormon America
This is why.
SamBee wrote:As I said before, David also committed a big no no in orthodox Judaism – often overlooked by Christians.
Bathsheba was bathing due to her menstrual cycle, and ritually unclean as a result.
Interesting that she was an ancestor of both Solomon and Jesus – although how Jesus is descended from either when his father is supposed to be God, and Matthew and Luke give contradictory genealogies…
Well I read the story of David very differently then most. To me it seems he was almost plotting since his childhood his position which he seems to feel was his right since birth so maneuvered his plots since birth Witt the belief it was justified because he had the belief he was chosen. Similar to king James. Who also grew up being taught and believing he was chosen by god since birth. So I don’t see this as a different version of David but the sane plotting David that was there since birth.
Be that as it may, I can’t see any way how what is described in the Torah and oral Torah is more of a sin, sinful then other some other prophets including JS. I find it very weird and hypocritical that one could cast a stone at one and not the other.
Both have done tremendous good and equally bad sins. So how to cast a dim light on either without the other one? Again in that context I wouldn’t want to say there final place in the universe. I can’t see at all how one could say exhalation for one but not the other or visa versa since the level of serious sins is at least equal. And similarities striking.
Quote:“Religion is to do right. It is to love, it is to serve, it is to think, it is to be humble.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson
I really think he hit the nail dead center with that. I am a LDS humanitarian. In as much as the church follows this I am right in the trenches with them serving as best and hard as I can. In as much as they stray from this I back off. I don’t know about the future or unknowable, belief is largely ill-relevant to me although I tend to believe but belief doesn’t accomplish anything worthwhile. Actions do, serving does , loving does, compassion and empathy and service do.Outside of that the particulars are largely ill-relevant because they don’t seem to accomplish anything worthwhile and don’t make the works a better place in the hear and now or foreseeable future. To that end most of my service is to people and charities that do, being an ombudsmen or consoler to those in need where and when I can. Overpopulation, environmental pollution, plundering, cultural assimilation, rape, domestic violence, abuse of power, marginalizing, minimizing and undercutting social position of common folks while maximizing social position of elites. The list is endless but hardly ministered in church and of much more effervescent and important issues for the world at large in the last 2 generations. I wish strongly the 2 would collide and that the 80,000 or so in the mission field could serve some of those things that are desperately seeking even a fraction it the missionary numbers we have to serve but alas the main focus is about the after life and everything needed to get there is apparently not in coherence with the worlds needs at the present and foreseeable future that would produce a better world then most of the effort where we serve and apply ourselves.
Anyways, belief is largely ill relevant to compassionate actions. Most of the beliefs required don’t reflect how to be loving and compassionate or serving the greater common good. I work my hardest to consolidate the 2 every week as much as I can and try to bit sweat all the extra stuff that doesn’t help people in need I know. Work with what you have and instead of just wishing away what you wish you had.
Quote:The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
Today and tomorrow are yet to be said.
The chances, the changes are all yours to make.
The mold of your life is in your hands to break.
The greatest adventure is there if you’re bold.
Let go of the moment that life makes you hold.
To measure the meaning can make you delay;
It’s time you stop thinkin’ and wasting the day.
The man who’s a dreamer and never takes leave
Who thinks of a world that is just make-believe
Will never know passion, will never know pain.
Who sits by the window will one day see rain.
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
Today and tomorrow are yet to be said.
The chances, the changes are all yours to make.
The mold of your life is in your hands to break.
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
Roy wrote:Forgotten_Charity wrote:5) See Talmud, Sanhedrin 107b. As a prophet, David saw that Bathsheba was destined for him. (Solomon’s birth and kingship are proof of this point). The issue was not that Bathsheba was meant to be his wife, but rather how he acquired her.
Interesting footnote. JS also foresaw that certain individuals were “destined for him” to be plural wives.
Which is why I posted it. Similarities are striking, which is why I would never claim that David couldn’t gain it ever. I would have to then by the very same level of thinking put Joseph smith in the same boat. If he isn’t then your founding project sure isn’t as he can’t possibly be described as sinning less then David.In incomprehensible notion that one could and the other not. Unsettling to make that claim. On light of what the records show for each. Hope, valor, justice and mercy demand that I can’t declare such of either. Bit if I do I must create them equal, so I don’t.
Quote:David and Bathsheba
The story of David’s relationship with Bathsheba (II Samuel Chap. 11) is one of the most misread stories in the Bible, and we have to be careful in reading it as if it were some kind of soap opera. In summary, however, this is what happens.
Restless one night, David is pacing the roof of his palace from where he has a view of the homes and gardens in the city below(3). And there he spies a beautiful woman bathing. She is the wife of one of his generals, Uriah, the Hittite, who is away at war.
David sends for Bathsheba and spends the night with her. When she becomes pregnant, he commands that Uriah be placed on the front lines, where he dies in battle. David then marries Bathsheba.
At this point, the prophet Nathan is sent by God to reprove David. (See 2 Samuel 12.) He says that he has come to inform the king of a great injustice in the land. A rich man with many sheep, stole the one beloved sheep of a poor man, and had it slaughtered for a feast.
Furious at what he hears, King David, declares, “As God lives, the one who has done this deserves death.”
Responds the prophet, “You are that man!”
David is humbled. “I have sinned before God,” he says.
This is an enormously complex story and there is much more here than meets the eye. Technically, Bathsheba was not a married woman since David’s troops always gave their wives conditional divorces, lest a soldier be missing in action leaving his wife unable to remarry.(4) However, the Bible states clearly that David acted improperly, and the Sages explain that while David did not commit adultery in the literal sense, he violated the spirit of the law(5).
As noted in earlier installments, the Bible takes a hyper-critical position of Jewish leaders. It never whitewashes anyone’s past, and in that it stands alone among the records of ancient peoples which usually describe kings as descendants of gods without faults.
David’s greatness shines in both his ability to take responsibility for his actions and the humility of his admission and the repentance that follows. This is part of the reason that the ultimate redeemer of the Jewish people and the world will descend from David’s line ― he will be “Messiah son of David.”
Shortly thereafter, Bathsheba gives birth, but the child becomes deathly ill as the prophet Nathan had predicted. David goes into a period of prayer and fasting, but the child dies nevertheless. David realizes that the death of the baby and later the revolt of his beloved son, Absalom (II Samuel 15-19), were divine punishment and also served as atonement for his actions. David “pays his dues,” repents for many years and is ultimately forgiven by God.
Before long Bathsheba is pregnant again. And this time, she bears a healthy child ― who is named Solomon, and who will be the golden child, gifted with unusual wisdom.
4) Talmud, Shabbat 56b
5) See Talmud, Sanhedrin 107b. As a prophet, David saw that Bathsheba was destined for him. (Solomon’s birth and kingship are proof of this point). The issue was not that Bathsheba was meant to be his wife, but rather how he acquired her.
