Why did Satan call for the eating of sons and daughters

[Enki]

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.

[Gordon]

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'.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.