Why did Satan call for the eating of sons and daughters

[BeRational]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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]

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.

[Andy]

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.

[BeRational]

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?

[Hope]

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?

[Hope]

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?

[Andy]

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.

[BeRational]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Alien]

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?

[Alien]

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?

[Alien]

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?

[Alien]

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)

[BeRational]

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.

[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...

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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!)

[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...

"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!

[Alien]

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]

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).

[bluehillside Retd.]

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]

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.

[Enki]

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.

[trippymonkey]

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 ?!!?
Even Satan is refreshingly MORE honest than this monster !!!

Nick

[BeRational]

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.