Why did Satan call for the eating of sons and daughters

[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.

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[floo]

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!

[Hope]

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]

If you have to ask why, I feel very sorry for you!

So, you're happy to be told that an attitude that you have quite often stated as your own
is morally contemptible?

[jjohnjil]

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!

[Andy]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Andy]

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?

[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.

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]

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. 

[Hope]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Hope]

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'.

[Hope]

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.   

[jjohnjil]

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!   

[Andy]

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?

[Shaker]

Anybody know what the car-crash of #66 was about?

[BeRational]

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?

[Shaker]

I think I can help you there BR ...

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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? 

[floo]

If you have to ask why, I feel very sorry for you!

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!