Why did Satan call for the eating of sons and daughters

[BeRational]

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?

[Hope]

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.

[BeRational]

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?

[Hope]

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.

[BeRational]

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?

[Hope]

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.

[BeRational]

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.

[Hope]

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?

[BeRational]

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.

[Hope]

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. 

[floo]

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.

[ad_orientem]

Zzzzzz!

[Andy]

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...

[BeRational]

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.

[OH MY WORLD!]

May I suggest reading Matthew Henry's Commentary for Lev. 26? It might help you BR. Context is SO important.

[BeRational]

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?

[floo]

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!

[Hope]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Andy]

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.

[OH MY WORLD!]

BR,
Why would an all powerful God abide by your human logic and what you claim is morally right?

[Andy]

WTF is "human" logic?

[BeRational]

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?

[Hope]

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?

[Andy]

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.