Chick-fil-A Biblical Family of the Day

Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy: “We support biblical families.”

Today’s Chick-fil-A Biblical Family of the Day: “The Lord struck the child” (2 Samuel 12:15-18).

The Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became very ill. David therefore pleaded with God for the child; David fasted, and went in and lay all night on the ground. The elders of his house stood beside him, urging him to rise from the ground; but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. On the seventh day the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead; for they said, “While the child was still alive, we spoke to him, and he did not listen to us; how then can we tell him the child is dead? He may do himself some harm.”

"They expect good wives to stand by their men. Unless they're the Clintons."

And his own received him not
"She voluntarily married Donald Trump, and that makes her scum - full stop.I'll save my ..."

And you may say to yourself, ..."
"One where all his, um, foibles get laid out in public, I hope."

And his own received him not
"I think you mean 3. Literally Who #7?"

And you may say to yourself, ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Thanks to passages like this, mothers and fathers who have suffered the loss of a child must also grapple with the suspicion that a Supreme Being caused the death on purpose.  *shudder*  

  • Jim Roberts

    I mean no disrespect to our host, but you only think that because he didn’t quote enough of the passage. The verse immediately preceding this one is a prophet of the Lord looking David in the eye and telling him God will take his child from him.

    I’m fairly sure that’s not the point our host was making though – whether he was warned or not does nothing to reduce the horror.

  • Lliira

     The fact that God decided to kill a child for the sins of the father is what makes it horror rather then an everyday sad thing.

    The point Fred is making with these posts is that most “Biblical families” are  really really really bad models for families. (And that society was really really really different when the Bible was written. Among other things.)

    And yes, thanks to passages like this, parents who have suffered with the loss of a child must also grapple with the suspicion that a Supreme Being caused the death on purpose. Religious leaders even often say flat-out that Supreme Beings caused the death of children for the sins of the parents. It is one of the crueler facets of the Just World fallacy the Christian right has embraced.

  • ReverendRef

    It’s not just with the deaths of children that people grapple with the suspicion that God caused the death.  Almost anytime someone dies (other than from the natural aging process) people ask, “Why did God do this?”

    I think that question has more to do with people’s inability to cope with randomness.  i.e. If God didn’t cause this, then who’s really in control???

    FYI – it’s my opinion that any religious leader who says God caused a child’s death for the sins of the parents should be zapped by lightning right then and there — followed by a voice from heaven that said, “He spoke unwisely,” or, “I did NOT, the buffoon,” or something else equally appropriate.

  • Matri

    or something else equally appropriate.


  • No-one

    Just found this, sounds appropriate:

  • christopher_y

    On the other hand, this is one of the very few passages in which the egregious David appears sympathetically – a loving father driven to distraction by his child’s fatal illness. A welcome relief from the usual catalogue of disingenuous power games.

  • ReverendRef

     That would work.

  • Whether God gave out the information in advance or not, the point is that this passage implies that God can and will kill babies.

    Which does not bode well for the “infinitely merciful and benevolent God” claimants.

    And is rather a slap in the face to all the people who get told “It had to have been for God’s reasons”, because there is no reason here; just pure capriciousness.

  • Newbiedoobiedoo

    If the child had lived, would David have put him on the throne as the heir? David wouldn’t have had a throne if the LORD hadn’t put him there, which David seems to have forgotten. And Saul lost his kids too, some in battle and yes, some by David’s hand.

    Not saying this makes me anything close to happy, but it seems like the baby died because it was the one warning David would still listen to. I think it was Meir Shalev who observed that nowhere (except here) does David the poet of the ages make any prayer or petition or poem for his family. Ever.

  • Jim Roberts

    Not “pure capriciousness.” Inhumane reasoning, but it’s not purely capricious. This god as King – his subordinate has done something that displeased him and there will be blood to compensate for it. It is not just or fair, but it is punishment, not caprice.

  • And abusers invent reasons just as specious for why they get angry and hurt their children.