The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Was King David justified in killing Uriah?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 59613
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




The Pro view, (mine) is that David was within his legal moral rights to have Uriah done away with. The Con view will seek to show that David was wrong in his treatment of Uriah. As always my main focus will be the Bible but any source is allowed. And good luck Con.

Pro opening argument:

David was the King, Uriah was in the army, the nation was at war.


God punished David. If what David did was right God wouldn't have punished him since God is a holy and just judge.
Debate Round No. 1


Rebuttal: What punishment is Con talking about? Is Pro supposed to guess. Ok here is a guess as to what punishment Con is talking about-

Children don't pay for the sins of their father, (see Ezekiel 18).

Now it is up to Con to guess what child Pro is talking about. But while we are on the subject of children here is Pro's argument number 2-

The children of Israel demanded a king like all the other nations had, see 1 Samuel 8. And that is what the children of Israel got. But Uriah was not one of the children of Israel. Uriah was a Hittite. And this is what Moses commanded to be done to all the Hittites including the ancestors of Uriah-

But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17obut thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: (Deuteronomy 20:16-17)

Deuteronomy 7:3 makes the marriage between Uriah and Bathsheba illegal. The only rights that Uriah had were the rights that King David allowed Uriah to have. As for Nathan the prophet-

Nathan should have consulted the Books of Moses before condemning King David. Also true prophets don't make mistakes when speaking for the LORD. Nathan told David to build the Temple. This was a falsehood. The prophet Nathan had to recant. A very dubious distinction for a prophet. Maybe Nathan was ignorant and didn't know that the Hittites had the death sentence hanging over them or that prophets are supposed to be 100% accurate all the time or else they are false prophets. It comes with the job. If Nathan couldn't handle it he should not have taken the office. (Please correct Pro if he is wrong.)


The punishment was David and Bathsheeba's son died and that his sons would rise up against him. And these promises were fulfilled by God.

Israel is a theocracy, they may have kings but their kings still listen to the commands of God. Except in the case of Northern Israel in which the kings did not listen to what God want and the Bablylonians destroyed them.

One of the 10 commandments states: Thou shall not murder and Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife. King David violated these commandments.

Nathan was a prophet. David was condemned by God, who used Nathan to convey that message.
Debate Round No. 2



It has already been established in the Law of Moses that:
1) The Hittites were to be removed from the Land
2) The Israelites were not to marry Hittites
3) To be a Prophet of the LORD, the 'prophet' could not give a false reading
Nathan was not a true prophet because he contradicted the Books of Moses. And Nathan told David to go ahead and build the Temple. Then Nathan told David he could not build the Temple.

As to Nathan contradicting Ezekiel 18-
It is too bad that Nathan did not have the same insight that Ezekiel had. But that is because Ezekiel was a true prophet.

Pro Final Argument:

These are the 3 branches of Ancient Israel's government:
1) Priests and Levites
2) Judges and Kings
3) Prophets
Each branch wanted to preserve its own power and expand its own power. Nathan as a 'prophet' was not attacking King David. Nathan was attacking the office of King. The prophets and the kings fought for control of Israel until all three-
a) the prophets
b) the kings
c) the nation
were destroyed.

Part of the problem with David was/is that David was/is not a Christian. It is both unfair and impossible for us to judge David from a Christian perspective. David was no Christian. Maybe we can get to the problem from another angle-

The children of Israel demand a king like all the other nations.

From a Christian perspective if Christ conquers all the other nations of the world surrounding that little middle eastern nation of modern day Israel then when Christ finally conquers that little nation their ancient request will be granted. Christ has within His own person all three branches of Government. He is King, Priest, Prophet. He is the BRANCH.

Israel has asked for it.


SomebodyThatYouDontKnow forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF... I will expand later