Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: BeRational on September 04, 2015, 09:53:25 AM
-
In Leviticus 26:29 Satan wants to punish by causing the situation where you would have to eat your sons and daughters:-
"…28then I will act with wrathful hostility against you, and I, even I, will punish you seven times for your sins. 29'Further, you will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters you will eat."
Why would Satan want to do this?
Just because he is evil?
-
In Leviticus 26:29 Satan wants to punish by causing the situation where you would have to eat your sons and daughters:-
"…28then I will act with wrathful hostility against you, and I, even I, will punish you seven times for your sins. 29'Further, you will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters you will eat."
Why would Satan want to do this?
Just because he is evil?
What's the larger context of the verses you've quoted, BR? Try reading the whole of Chapter 26, for instance.
-
In Leviticus 26:29 Satan wants to punish by causing the situation where you would have to eat your sons and daughters:-
"…28then I will act with wrathful hostility against you, and I, even I, will punish you seven times for your sins. 29'Further, you will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters you will eat."
Why would Satan want to do this?
Just because he is evil?
What's the larger context of the verses you've quoted, BR? Try reading the whole of Chapter 26, for instance.
What could be the context for Satan to command such a thing?
-
What could be the context for Satan to command such a thing?
Well, as I say, read the context, and then I think you will discover the answer to your own question. I will give you a start by pointing out that (1) Satan isn't speaking in this passage and (2) the speaker is saying what will be a consequence of the people of Israel's disobedience. This particular section refers to the people's reaching a stage of having very little to eat, and their ways of overcoming that.
-
What could be the context for Satan to command such a thing?
Well, as I say, read the context, and then I think you will discover the answer to your own question. I will give you a start by pointing out that (1) Satan isn't speaking in this passage and (2) the speaker is saying what will be a consequence of the people of Israel's disobedience. This particular section refers to the people's reaching a stage of having very little to eat, and their ways of overcoming that.
Is it a punishment?
Is Satan punishing them?
-
Is it a punishment?
Is Satan punishing them?
I believe that - as was seen on a number of occasions during the last century - that it is one natural response to starvation, BR.
I'm still unsure where you get the 'Satan' bit from.
-
Is it a punishment?
Is Satan punishing them?
I believe that - as was seen on a number of occasions during the last century - that it is a natural response to starvation, BR.
I'm still unsure where you get the 'Satan' bit from.
I assumed such a harsh punishment would be from Satan.
I see I have this wrong, it was actually from the all loving god. My mistake.
-
I assumed such a harsh punishment would be from Satan.
I see I have this wrong, it was actually from the all loving god. My mistake.
But who said this particular section was referring to punishment? As I said in my previous post, I understand that this behaviour is one of a number of natural reponses to starvation; starvation brought about by disobedience. If you read the full passage, the punishment (and of course the most loving of parents will punish [aka discipline] a wayward child, if necessary) is that God would withdraw his protection of the people from the consequences of their disobedience. I suspect that most people here would also regard that as the action of a loving parent.
So, your point is ... ? That God is a loving parent?
-
I assumed such a harsh punishment would be from Satan.
I see I have this wrong, it was actually from the all loving god. My mistake.
But who said this particular section was referring to punishment? As I said in my previous post, I understand that this behaviour is one of a number of natural reponses to starvation; starvation brought about by disobedience. If you read the full passage, the punishment (and of course the most loving of parents will punish [aka discipline] a wayward child, if necessary) is that God would withdraw his protection of the people from the consequences of their disobedience. I suspect that most people here would also regard that as the action of a loving parent.
So, your point is ... ? That God is a loving parent?
A loving parent causing and overseeing the chaos that results in parents eating their children?
Are you sure this is not Satan?
Why does Satan get such a bad rap, cos I am not seeing the love from your guy.
-
A loving parent causing and overseeing the chaos that results in parents eating their children?
Are you sure this is not Satan?
Why does Satan get such a bad rap, cos I am not seeing the love from your guy.
Is 'my guy' causing the chaos? Surely the cause was the people of Israel's disobedience, a disobedience that had been on-going for many years by this stage of the Pentateuch.
-
Satan gets a bad press, even though no nasty deeds are actually attributable to that 'naughty' entity. However, the deeds that are supposedly committed by the deity are evil in the extreme, and it is impossible to understand how it can be describe as a 'god of love'. Some idiot Christians say that the deity is being a 'parent' and correcting its 'children', what sort of human parent would treat its children as the deity is supposed to have done, not a good one? They would be locked up and their kids removed at the very least.
-
Zzzzzz!
-
Whoa, back up a minute. Let me get this straight - these Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to take away their food supply so that the only thing left for them to eat was their kids (or each other), and that punishment is supposed to be one carried out by a loving parent?
Please tell me I've got something wrong here...
-
Whoa, back up a minute. Let me get this straight - these Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to take away their food supply so that the only left for them to eat was their kids (or each other), and that punishment is supposed to be one carried out by a loving parent?
Please tell me I've got something wrong here...
I think that's pretty much the gist of it.
I think we may not have the correct context though.
I find that when things look this bad, it's usually all down to context.
-
May I suggest reading Matthew Henry's Commentary for Lev. 26? It might help you BR. Context is SO important.
-
May I suggest reading Matthew Henry's Commentary for Lev. 26? It might help you BR. Context is SO important.
Can you explain the context where it is morally right to punish people in this way?
-
May I suggest reading Matthew Henry's Commentary for Lev. 26? It might help you BR. Context is SO important.
Can you explain the context where it is morally right to punish people in this way?
There is a heck of a lot that is totally immoral in that not so good book!
-
Whoa, back up a minute. Let me get this straight - these Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to take away their food supply so that the only thing left for them to eat was their kids (or each other), and that punishment is supposed to be one carried out by a loving parent?
Please tell me I've got something wrong here...
"You've got something wrong", Andy. These Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to suffer the consequences, rather than being protected from them by God. As I said earlier, most people here seem to think that loving parents allow their children to suffer consequences and, hopefully, learn from their mistakes. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.
-
Hope,
"You've got something wrong", Andy. These Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to suffer the consequences, rather than being protected from them by God. As I said earlier, most people here seem to think that loving parents allow their children to suffer consequences and, hopefully, learn from their mistakes. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.
My youngest wouldn't turn off her bedroom light the other night when I told her to. I've decided therefore not to make sure she can cross the road safely any more...
..."lovingly" of course.
You may or may not be the most (Big C) Christian here Hope, but you are one of the least (small c) christian people I've ever come across, albeit for reasons you'll never comprehend.
-
Whoa, back up a minute. Let me get this straight - these Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to take away their food supply so that the only thing left for them to eat was their kids (or each other), and that punishment is supposed to be one carried out by a loving parent?
Please tell me I've got something wrong here...
"You've got something wrong", Andy. These Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to suffer the consequences, rather than being protected from them by God. As I said earlier, most people here seem to think that loving parents allow their children to suffer consequences and, hopefully, learn from their mistakes. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.
There's suffering consequences and then there's standing by while your children starve to the point of having nothing left to eat but each other. You'd do that would you - hold a sandwich as ransom and let kids get so hungry that they start knawing on each other? The mafia boss analogy works a treat again.
-
BR,
Why would an all powerful God abide by your human logic and what you claim is morally right?
-
WTF is "human" logic?
-
BR,
Why would an all powerful God abide by your human logic and what you claim is morally right?
Do you use your moral compass to decide what is right?
How is it that you conclude Satan is evil, and God is good?
-
There's suffering consequences and then there's standing by while your children starve to the point of having nothing left to eat but each other. You'd do that would you - hold a sandwich as ransom and let kids get so hungry that they start knawing on each other? The mafia boss analogy works a treat again.
If a child or children decide that they don't want any help from their parents, is it the poarents' role to force help on to them? Are you in favour of the metaphorical forced-feeding of intransigent children by their parents?
-
There's suffering consequences and then there's standing by while your children starve to the point of having nothing left to eat but each other. You'd do that would you - hold a sandwich as ransom and let kids get so hungry that they start knawing on each other? The mafia boss analogy works a treat again.
If a child or children decide that they don't want any help from their parents, is it the poarents' role to force help on to them? Are you in favour of the metaphorical forced-feeding of intransigent children by their parents?
Holy shit and corruption, you really are warped. Listen, if kids are so hungry that they start to try eating each other because there is no other sources of food, you really expect them to require force feeding? "No, dad, I don't want your sandwich, my brother's arm is much tastier".
I can't believe a conversation like this even needs to be had with people.
-
There's suffering consequences and then there's standing by while your children starve to the point of having nothing left to eat but each other. You'd do that would you - hold a sandwich as ransom and let kids get so hungry that they start knawing on each other? The mafia boss analogy works a treat again.
If a child or children decide that they don't want any help from their parents, is it the poarents' role to force help on to them? Are you in favour of the metaphorical forced-feeding of intransigent children by their parents?
Defending the indefensible seems to be your hobby.
What would your children have to do in order that you would starve them to death. Just give me a little example with context of course.
-
Hope,
If a child or children decide that they don't want any help from their parents, is it the poarents' role to force help on to them?
Of course it is - BECAUSE THEY'RE CHILDREN!!!!
Actually, on reflection"Big C" suits you better after all I think.
-
Hope,
If a child or children decide that they don't want any help from their parents, is it the poarents' role to force help on to them?
Of course it is - BECAUSE THEY'RE CHILDREN!!!!
Actually, on reflection"Big C" suits you better after all I think.
I am often asked how my children are, bhs. One is 30, the other 28.
-
Hope,
If a child or children decide that they don't want any help from their parents, is it the poarents' role to force help on to them?
Of course it is - BECAUSE THEY'RE CHILDREN!!!!
Actually, on reflection"Big C" suits you better after all I think.
A 'child' can be in their 20s, 30's, even their 70's, as far as the parents are concerned.
Oh well, that makes all the difference then - let them eat one another. ::)
-
Hope,
If a child or children decide that they don't want any help from their parents, is it the poarents' role to force help on to them?
Of course it is - BECAUSE THEY'RE CHILDREN!!!!
Actually, on reflection"Big C" suits you better after all I think.
I am often asked how my children are, bhs. One is 30, the other 28.
So what could they do, that you thought the best option was to let them starve to death even though you could feed them?
Remember they do not want to starve, they want food, but you without it lovingly to punish them.
What would they need to do please?
-
What would your children have to do in order that you would starve them to death. Just give me a little example with context of course.
If my 30-year old or 28-year old children decided that they didn't want to have anything to do with me and/or their mother (unlikely in our case, thankfully) there would be nothing for us to do as their parents, other than to be available should they change their minds. Or are you suggesting that we, as parents, should interfere in their lives?
-
So what could they do, that you thought the best option was to let them starve to death even though you could feed them?
Remember they do not want to starve, they want food, but you without it lovingly to punish them.
What would they need to do please?
And, you know that they want me to feed them? As I've already said, if they choose to do their own thing and cut ties with their parents, are you suggesting that we, as their parents, should insist that they accept help from us?
-
So what could they do, that you thought the best option was to let them starve to death even though you could feed them?
Remember they do not want to starve, they want food, but you without it lovingly to punish them.
What would they need to do please?
And, you know that they want me to feed them? As I've already said, if they choose to do their own thing and cut ties with their parents, are you suggesting that we, as their parents, should insist that they accept help from us?
Well obviously they're going to prefer eating their children to eating a meal prepared by their estranged parents.
Really Hope, just stop.
-
So what could they do, that you thought the best option was to let them starve to death even though you could feed them?
Remember they do not want to starve, they want food, but you without it lovingly to punish them.
What would they need to do please?
And, you know that they want me to feed them? As I've already said, if they choose to do their own thing and cut ties with their parents, are you suggesting that we, as their parents, should insist that they accept help from us?
Yes they want food.
Under what circumstances do you withhold it to punish them.
What would they have to do?
This is the situation in the bible, the people did not want to starve, and I assume your god had it within his power to feed them, but chose not to as punishment.
Go on, think of an example where you would do the same.
You must think it is morally correct to do so I assume?
-
Hope,
I am often asked how my children are, bhs. One is 30, the other 28.
Three problems there:
1. Presumably then if one of them had been "disobedient" to you and you happened to notice that a car was about to run him over as he crossed the road you wouldn't bother shouting a warning? ("Lovingly" of course).
2. The god you posit does not stand in a like-for-like relationship with his "children" - given his possession of the "omnis" the relationship would be akin to a parent/young child one.
Unless that is you think us to be of equal maturity, judgment etc to this god of yours?
3. Your problem is not that your moral compass is off; rather it's that you appear to have no moral compass whatever.
-
What could be the context for Satan to command such a thing?
Well, as I say, read the context, and then I think you will discover the answer to your own question. I will give you a start by pointing out that (1) Satan isn't speaking in this passage and (2) the speaker is saying what will be a consequence of the people of Israel's disobedience. This particular section refers to the people's reaching a stage of having very little to eat, and their ways of overcoming that.
Is it a punishment?
Is Satan punishing them?
Did you read the whole chapter as Hope requested?
-
Satan gets a bad press, even though no nasty deeds are actually attributable to that 'naughty' entity. However, the deeds that are supposedly committed by the deity are evil in the extreme, and it is impossible to understand how it can be describe as a 'god of love'. Some idiot Christians say that the deity is being a 'parent' and correcting its 'children', what sort of human parent would treat its children as the deity is supposed to have done, not a good one? They would be locked up and their kids removed at the very least.
Did you read the chapter before replying, Floo?
-
Whoa, back up a minute. Let me get this straight - these Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to take away their food supply so that the only thing left for them to eat was their kids (or each other), and that punishment is supposed to be one carried out by a loving parent?
Please tell me I've got something wrong here...
Did you read the chapter before replying, Andy?
-
Hope,
"You've got something wrong", Andy. These Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to suffer the consequences, rather than being protected from them by God. As I said earlier, most people here seem to think that loving parents allow their children to suffer consequences and, hopefully, learn from their mistakes. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.
My youngest wouldn't turn off her bedroom light the other night when I told her to. I've decided therefore not to make sure she can cross the road safely any more...
..."lovingly" of course.
You may or may not be the most (Big C) Christian here Hope, but you are one of the least (small c) christian people I've ever come across, albeit for reasons you'll never comprehend.
Did you read the chapter before replying, BHS? (PS Good to see you back)
-
Hope,
"You've got something wrong", Andy. These Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to suffer the consequences, rather than being protected from them by God. As I said earlier, most people here seem to think that loving parents allow their children to suffer consequences and, hopefully, learn from their mistakes. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.
My youngest wouldn't turn off her bedroom light the other night when I told her to. I've decided therefore not to make sure she can cross the road safely any more...
..."lovingly" of course.
You may or may not be the most (Big C) Christian here Hope, but you are one of the least (small c) christian people I've ever come across, albeit for reasons you'll never comprehend.
Did you read the chapter before replying, BHS? (PS Good to see you back)
Give us the gist to put it into the correct context in your own words please.
-
Whoa, back up a minute. Let me get this straight - these Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to take away their food supply so that the only thing left for them to eat was their kids (or each other), and that punishment is supposed to be one carried out by a loving parent?
Please tell me I've got something wrong here...
Did you read the chapter before replying, Andy?
I've read the commentary canoe mentioned, plus I'll have read the chapter when I last read Leviticus.
-
Alien,
Did you read the chapter before replying, BHS? (PS Good to see you back)
I was commenting only on Hope's (in my view morally contemptible) justification. (PS Thanks!)
-
Whoa, back up a minute. Let me get this straight - these Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to take away their food supply so that the only thing left for them to eat was their kids (or each other), and that punishment is supposed to be one carried out by a loving parent?
Please tell me I've got something wrong here...
"You've got something wrong", Andy. These Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to suffer the consequences, rather than being protected from them by God. As I said earlier, most people here seem to think that loving parents allow their children to suffer consequences and, hopefully, learn from their mistakes. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.
PATHETIC! >:(
-
Hope,
"You've got something wrong", Andy. These Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to suffer the consequences, rather than being protected from them by God. As I said earlier, most people here seem to think that loving parents allow their children to suffer consequences and, hopefully, learn from their mistakes. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.
My youngest wouldn't turn off her bedroom light the other night when I told her to. I've decided therefore not to make sure she can cross the road safely any more...
..."lovingly" of course.
You may or may not be the most (Big C) Christian here Hope, but you are one of the least (small c) christian people I've ever come across, albeit for reasons you'll never comprehend.
Did you read the chapter before replying, BHS? (PS Good to see you back)
Give us the gist to put it into the correct context in your own words please.
Happy to when you tell me whether you read the chapter before posting (as I asked you in #35). I have the sneaking suspicion you found that verse on a site like SAB and posted without reading the chapter. Am I wrong? Do tell me I am.
-
Alien,
Did you read the chapter before replying, BHS? (PS Good to see you back)
I was commenting only on Hope's (in my view morally contemptible) justification. (PS Thanks!)
OK. You'll read the chapter ahead of any comments on the subject BeRational brought up, I take it then (PS You're welcome).
-
Alien,
OK. You'll read the chapter ahead of any comments on the subject BeRational brought up, I take it then (PS You're welcome).
Again, I was commenting on a rationale that Hope made - not on the content of any particular "holy" book.
-
Alien,
OK. You'll read the chapter ahead of any comments on the subject BeRational brought up, I take it then (PS You're welcome).
Again, I was commenting on a rationale that Hope made - not on the content of any particular "holy" book.
Understood.
-
What would your children have to do in order that you would starve them to death. Just give me a little example with context of course.
If my 30-year old or 28-year old children decided that they didn't want to have anything to do with me and/or their mother (unlikely in our case, thankfully) there would be nothing for us to do as their parents, other than to be available should they change their minds. Or are you suggesting that we, as parents, should interfere in their lives?
Your attitude towards your own children seems to have no relevance whatever to Leviticus 26:29, or even to the whole chapter.
The chapter, it seems to me, can be divided into three parts:
The first part is about how the Israelites should conduct themselves in accordance with God's edicts, and how He will reward them with the wherewithal to have a good life.
The second part(which is by far the longest) deals with the punishments which God will mete out if His laws are not obeyed. The theme running throughout this section(and which includes said verse) constantly emphasises the deliberate acts that He will perform to make their lives as miserable as possible, including pestilence, starvation and war. He even suggests that if they do not come to their senses, then He will punish them even more severely by devastating their lands and cities and scattering the remainder throughout other lands. In fact there seems to be a theme of hate running throughout this section.
God does however suggest, towards the end of the chapter that for those few that are left, if they recant their 'iniquities' and accept the punishments that He meted out, then He will renew his covenant with them and they will be no longer rejected.
Now, from my position, this simply illustrates the savagery that was part of those times when everything, including war, famine, disease etc. was attributable to a god or gods.
However, I fail to see how your idea of a parent who either helps or, at least, doesn't interfere in the life of a wayward child has anything to do with a God who, according to this chapter, threatens to interfere by using vicious and appalling punishments for those who go against Him.
-
Sounds a right bastard THAT one eh ?!?!?!? ;)
I often think only a real masochist or shitfer can have ANY kind of faith in such a horrible creature ?!!? :o
Even Satan is refreshingly MORE honest than this monster !!!
Nick
-
Hope,
"You've got something wrong", Andy. These Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to suffer the consequences, rather than being protected from them by God. As I said earlier, most people here seem to think that loving parents allow their children to suffer consequences and, hopefully, learn from their mistakes. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.
My youngest wouldn't turn off her bedroom light the other night when I told her to. I've decided therefore not to make sure she can cross the road safely any more...
..."lovingly" of course.
You may or may not be the most (Big C) Christian here Hope, but you are one of the least (small c) christian people I've ever come across, albeit for reasons you'll never comprehend.
Did you read the chapter before replying, BHS? (PS Good to see you back)
Give us the gist to put it into the correct context in your own words please.
Happy to when you tell me whether you read the chapter before posting (as I asked you in #35). I have the sneaking suspicion you found that verse on a site like SAB and posted without reading the chapter. Am I wrong? Do tell me I am.
You are not wrong, I did just see the headline and reacted instinctively to it.
I now understand you consider my initial reaction was wrong, as I do not understand the full context, so please explain.
I also saw a headline where Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, disabled people and others, and I have to say I am guilty of reacting in the same instinctive way. I also admit I have not read his arguments in any detail as to why it was justified.
My immediate moral reaction is to consider both actions wrong, where wrong is nowhere near a strong enough word to describe my reaction.
-
Hope,
"You've got something wrong", Andy. These Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to suffer the consequences, rather than being protected from them by God. As I said earlier, most people here seem to think that loving parents allow their children to suffer consequences and, hopefully, learn from their mistakes. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.
My youngest wouldn't turn off her bedroom light the other night when I told her to. I've decided therefore not to make sure she can cross the road safely any more...
..."lovingly" of course.
You may or may not be the most (Big C) Christian here Hope, but you are one of the least (small c) christian people I've ever come across, albeit for reasons you'll never comprehend.
Did you read the chapter before replying, BHS? (PS Good to see you back)
Give us the gist to put it into the correct context in your own words please.
Happy to when you tell me whether you read the chapter before posting (as I asked you in #35). I have the sneaking suspicion you found that verse on a site like SAB and posted without reading the chapter. Am I wrong? Do tell me I am.
You are not wrong, I did just see the headline and reacted instinctively to it.
I now understand you consider my initial reaction was wrong, as I do not understand the full context, so please explain.
I also saw a headline where Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, disabled people and others, and I have to say I am guilty of reacting in the same instinctive way. I also admit I have not read his arguments in any detail as to why it was justified.
My immediate moral reaction is to consider both actions wrong, where wrong is nowhere near a strong enough word to describe my reaction.
If you read the whole chapter you will see the full context. As for your point about Hitler, thank you for your attempt at guilt by association.
I'm surprised that you reacted instinctively, what with you being the only person I know who claims to not be affected by any biases.
-
I was commenting only on Hope's (in my view morally contemptible) justification. (PS Thanks!)
Oddly enough, bhs, its the kind of justification that the likes of Floo, jeremy, BR, Gordon and others have given to similar discussions over the past few months. Perhaps you will explain why you feel that it is a morally contemptible justification.
-
Again, I was commenting on a rationale that Hope made - not on the content of any particular "holy" book.
Yet you were commenting on something within the context of what is clearly the 'content of any particular "holy" book', bhs; unless you responded to my post without reading the rest of the thread (in which case you would have no reason to regard my post with any opinion), you would know that BR was tryinr, rather unsuccessfully, to rewrite Leviticus.
-
I was commenting only on Hope's (in my view morally contemptible) justification. (PS Thanks!)
Oddly enough, bhs, its the kind of justification that the likes of Floo, jeremy, BR, Gordon and others have given to similar discussions over the past few months. Perhaps you will explain why you feel that it is a morally contemptible justification.
If you have to ask why, I feel very sorry for you! :o
-
Your attitude towards your own children seems to have no relevance whatever to Leviticus 26:29, or even to the whole chapter.
I woulkd disagree, enki.
As you point out in your post the second section 'deals with the punishments which God will mete out if His laws are not obeyed'. In other words, what follows is a list of consequences. Are any of them other than natural?
He even suggests that if they do not come to their senses, then He will punish them even more severely by devastating their lands and cities and scattering the remainder throughout other lands. In fact there seems to be a theme of hate running throughout this section.
As a parent, don't/wouldn't you hate it when one of your children wilfully disobeys you? Does that mean that you hate the child? It is simply God saying that he will progressively accept that, by their continued disobedience, the People of Israel were saying that they didn't want his presence or protection with all the escalating consequences that this passage lists. Remember that one can usually make the same impact on someone by actions of commission or of omission.
The fact that it is the longest section is no different to any other judicial document of the time, or even of today - laws, by their definition deal with wrong-doing.
However, I fail to see how your idea of a parent who either helps or, at least, doesn't interfere in the life of a wayward child has anything to do with a God who, according to this chapter, threatens to interfere by using vicious and appalling punishments for those who go against Him.
As I have said above and before, I don't see this passage talking about interference, be that vicious or protective, appalling or helpful. I see it as a list of consequences that will escalate naturally as a result of a people's continued and probably progressive rejection of God. God doesn't hav to actively punish us; all he has to do is leave nature to itself.
-
If you have to ask why, I feel very sorry for you! :o
So, you're happy to be told that an attitude that you have quite often stated as your own
is morally contemptible?
-
These sort of stories show that the writers were simply trying to keep the masses in order. What a great way to do that by threatening them with Gods wrath!
The old carrot and stick method, before there was any police service.
Hope justifying it by explaining that he would do the same thing with his kids, takes my breath away! Unbelievable!
-
God doesn't hav to actively punish us; all he has to do is leave nature to itself.
Yea, left to the nature you believe this god created in the first place. Back to your doublethink again.
-
Hope,
Oddly enough, bhs, its the kind of justification that the likes of Floo, jeremy, BR, Gordon and others have given to similar discussions over the past few months. Perhaps you will explain why you feel that it is a morally contemptible justification.
Gladly:
1. “Disobedience” is at worst a misdemeanour, not a major crime. What kind of inadequate would be so offended by being disobeyed that he’d consign the offender to death?
2. While the Victorians may have thought that punishment was a good response to “disobedience”, most of us have moved on to more enlightened methods of explanation and encouragement. Why is your god so far behind responsible parenting?
3. Even if you were to be insecure and immature enough to think that punishing your child for disobeying you was an appropriate response, why would you indulge in such a grossly disproportionate act as allowing the child the be killed FFS?
Yet you were commenting on something within the context of what is clearly the 'content of any particular "holy" book', bhs; unless you responded to my post without reading the rest of the thread (in which case you would have no reason to regard my post with any opinion), you would know that BR was tryinr, rather unsuccessfully, to rewrite Leviticus.
No he wasn’t. Leaving aside the morally disgusting Leviticus, you took the issue out of context by attempting a parent/child analogy. I merely pointed out how morally contemptible your position was in respect of that analogy.
Just out of interest, is there any behaviour by your god – however grotesque or disgusting or disproportionate – that you would not attempt to justify with further victim blaming? I’ll grant you that you’re in common company with WLC and others when you do so, but you’ll forgive those of us at least possessed of a moral compass to look askance when you do it I hope.
-
It's just a story to remind us that we are never far from social and moral degradation.......look at the world for goodness sakes.
-
It's just a story to remind us that we are never far from social and moral degradation.......look at the world for goodness sakes.
Yea, right now we're living through some fucked up times, yet there are people out there willing to help however they can, inspite of a regime who label themselves under a religion and believe they carry out a gods work by beheading young kids in front of their parents.
So if this story relates to what goes on now, then what, it sets as a reminder that social and moral degradation is at the mercy of obeying the god depicted in Leviticus? Really? Only that the height of this degradation appears to manifest in a regime who also think they're obeying a god. What's going on, has this god made a new covenant with IS now?
-
Hope,
"You've got something wrong", Andy. These Israelites were disobedient and their punishment was to suffer the consequences, rather than being protected from them by God. As I said earlier, most people here seem to think that loving parents allow their children to suffer consequences and, hopefully, learn from their mistakes. I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.
My youngest wouldn't turn off her bedroom light the other night when I told her to. I've decided therefore not to make sure she can cross the road safely any more...
..."lovingly" of course.
You may or may not be the most (Big C) Christian here Hope, but you are one of the least (small c) christian people I've ever come across, albeit for reasons you'll never comprehend.
Did you read the chapter before replying, BHS? (PS Good to see you back)
Give us the gist to put it into the correct context in your own words please.
Happy to when you tell me whether you read the chapter before posting (as I asked you in #35). I have the sneaking suspicion you found that verse on a site like SAB and posted without reading the chapter. Am I wrong? Do tell me I am.
You are not wrong, I did just see the headline and reacted instinctively to it.
I now understand you consider my initial reaction was wrong, as I do not understand the full context, so please explain.
I also saw a headline where Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, disabled people and others, and I have to say I am guilty of reacting in the same instinctive way. I also admit I have not read his arguments in any detail as to why it was justified.
My immediate moral reaction is to consider both actions wrong, where wrong is nowhere near a strong enough word to describe my reaction.
If you read the whole chapter you will see the full context. As for your point about Hitler, thank you for your attempt at guilt by association.
I'm surprised that you reacted instinctively, what with you being the only person I know who claims to not be affected by any biases.
I'm surprised that you reacted instinctively, what with you being the only person I know who claims to not be affected by any biases.
Bias?
This is moral position about suffering, so yes I am biased in favour of reducing it or eliminating it.
Are you?
-
Hope justifying it by explaining that he would do the same thing with his kids, takes my breath away! Unbelievable!
Thanks for that, jj. It confirms to me that you, along with a number of other people here find my explanation difficult to accept, so misrepresent it in order to make themselves feel more comfortable. It's happened before and will, no doubt, happen again.
-
Yea, left to the nature you believe this god created in the first place. Back to your doublethink again.
No, back to the nature that has been damaged by humanity's choices, Andy. Its amazing just how much things come back to human behaviour.
-
Yea, left to the nature you believe this god created in the first place. Back to your doublethink again.
No, back to the nature that has been damaged by humanity's choices, Andy. Its amazing just how much things come back to human behaviour.
Choices allowed/permitted by this god whatsit in the story.
Of course, it's only a daft old story that nobody of any sense takes seriously as something that actually happened; that goes without saying. But unfortunately there are a lot of senseless people around who erect these ridiculous fables into belief systems who seek, and amongst the unastute gain, credibility, respectability and even in some quarters political power on the back of them.
Bizarre.
-
This is moral position about suffering, so yes I am biased in favour of reducing it or eliminating it.
Are you?
Yes, biased, BR. First you make out that you misunderstood what you so confidently quoted in your OP - having clearly not read the context in which it sits. Then you completely ignore the fact that this passage is about consequences of wrongdoing, consequences that would have been put in train by the Israelites' actions. Clearly, you have started the thread with a specific agenda (aka bias) in mind, and when it has gone so badly wrong and the arguments of those who think like you have gone so wrong, you then start to squeal 'morality'.
-
Choices allowed/permitted by this god whatsit in the story.[/qote]Well done Shaker. You are learning.
Of course, it's only a daft old story that nobody of any sense takes seriously as something that actually happened; that goes without saying. But unfortunately there are a lot of senseless people around who erect these ridiculous fables into belief systems who seek, and amongst the unastute gain, credibility, respectability and even in some quarters political power on the back of them.
Bizarre.
Oh, that's what you're trying to do. I'll make sure that I use my education to avoid being taken in by you. ;)
-
Hope justifying it by explaining that he would do the same thing with his kids, takes my breath away! Unbelievable!
Thanks for that, jj. It confirms to me that you, along with a number of other people here find my explanation difficult to accept, so misrepresent it in order to make themselves feel more comfortable. It's happened before and will, no doubt, happen again.
How the hell have I misrepresented your 'explanation'! This story should be taken as a method of controlling by fear, used by the powers that be of that time. No one in their right mind would think an all powerful, all knowing god, who can do anything at all (as Alien keeps reminding us) would even bother about a small tribe 'disobeying' it's orders.
And yet you come out with utter tosh about any parent would do the same! This sort of blinkered following of every word in a book written by people who knew no better millennia ago, is what we've come to expect of the followers of ISIS, not Christians! It makes me feel physically sick!
-
Yea, left to the nature you believe this god created in the first place. Back to your doublethink again.
No, back to the nature that has been damaged by humanity's choices, Andy. Its amazing just how much things come back to human behaviour.
Such as what? The laws of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy maybe? The fact that we require to fuel ourselves in order to stay functioning?
-
Anybody know what the car-crash of #66 was about?
-
Hope Alien
Can you explain the context that makes the punishment justified?
Is there nothing however evil your God could do that you would not immediately make excuses for?
-
I think I can help you there BR ...
-
Are you in favour of the metaphorical forced-feeding of intransigent children by their parents?
Yes if the alternative is to watch them kill and eat each other.
-
If you read the whole chapter you will see the full context.
OK I've done that. It's a god telling his people what he will do to them if they disobey him.
What, in your opinion, is it about the context that makes it OK for God to force his people to the point of eating their children?
-
If you have to ask why, I feel very sorry for you! :o
So, you're happy to be told that an attitude that you have quite often stated as your own
is morally contemptible?
There is nothing morally contemptible about my attitude towards those who think the evil deeds attributed to the deity are good! >:(
-
Your attitude towards your own children seems to have no relevance whatever to Leviticus 26:29, or even to the whole chapter.
I woulkd disagree, enki.
As you point out in your post the second section 'deals with the punishments which God will mete out if His laws are not obeyed'. In other words, what follows is a list of consequences. Are any of them other than natural?
He even suggests that if they do not come to their senses, then He will punish them even more severely by devastating their lands and cities and scattering the remainder throughout other lands. In fact there seems to be a theme of hate running throughout this section.
As a parent, don't/wouldn't you hate it when one of your children wilfully disobeys you? Does that mean that you hate the child? It is simply God saying that he will progressively accept that, by their continued disobedience, the People of Israel were saying that they didn't want his presence or protection with all the escalating consequences that this passage lists. Remember that one can usually make the same impact on someone by actions of commission or of omission.
The fact that it is the longest section is no different to any other judicial document of the time, or even of today - laws, by their definition deal with wrong-doing.
However, I fail to see how your idea of a parent who either helps or, at least, doesn't interfere in the life of a wayward child has anything to do with a God who, according to this chapter, threatens to interfere by using vicious and appalling punishments for those who go against Him.
As I have said above and before, I don't see this passage talking about interference, be that vicious or protective, appalling or helpful. I see it as a list of consequences that will escalate naturally as a result of a people's continued and probably progressive rejection of God. God doesn't hav to actively punish us; all he has to do is leave nature to itself.
Hope, I am not talking about how we regard such things as natural calamities/wars/diseases etc. today. I'm talking about how the writer of Leviticus, in Ch.26, used them.
The writer of Leviticus either didn't think that they were just natural consequences or tried to frighten his readers into believing that they were God sent. The impression of God given here is of one who pursues active angry punishment in order to bring terror and distress to those who would dare to go against Him. The writer even seems to suggest that God will be imbued with a sense of loathing towards the Israelites which will accompany this punishment. Time and time again the impression, clearly given, is that God would cause these punishments to happen, just as he suggested that God would cause good things to happen(for the Israelites, that is) if they followed God's commandments. Either way the idea of God shown here is one who intervenes either in support of or against his chosen people.
There is no mention of either helping or not getting involved or things taking their natural course. On the contrary there is plenty about being involved, especially where vengeance and punishment are concerned.
As I said, I fail to see how the type of God depicted in this chapter has anything much to do with healthy parent/child relationships.
-
I had a read and this seems like a primitive story from relatively primitive times with an equally primitive message.
Can't see that it has any relevance to the reality of parenting, unless of course one wishes to become a 'parent from hell'.
-
It's just a story to remind us that we are never far from social and moral degradation.......look at the world for goodness sakes.
It is indeed just a story - from the most boring book in the whole Bible, and I can't understand why BeRational is getting so vexed about it, let alone bringing Satan into the scenario. It is well known that God in the early part of the Bible particularly is always threatening horrible punishments upon his 'chosen' people if they don't stick to the rules that the particular prophet of the time has decided are 'real rules' (they change rather a lot). Such vengeance is indeed often enacted by a 'malak Yahweh' (a spirit from God, of whom Satan is an example).
What old Yahweh seems to be concerned about in this part of the Bible is worshiping and sacrificing to 'false gods' - and a glance at the phraseology in the chapter seems to indicate, as so often, that the real bugbear is the worship of Baal. The giveaway phrase is "High Places" - these are always associated with Baal-worship in the OT. This sacrificing to idols really gets old Yahweh's knickers in a twist.
However, the so-called 'morality' of the tale, which our dearly beloved evangelicals are attempting to justify, is something that should be quietly approached as a relic of the barbarism of olden times. I think the whole nonsense might be left well alone by all parties (if that's not being too patronising). There are other more significant matters to argue over in the Bible.
-
I had a read and this seems like a primitive story from relatively primitive times with an equally primitive message.
Can't see that it has any relevance to the reality of parenting, unless of course one wishes to become a 'parent from hell'.
In a nutshell.