Eating the fruit of your body

[doubtingmerle]

Deut. 28:52 And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:

54 So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:

55 So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.

56 The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,

57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.​

And eating your own babies would be wrong, I assume.

 

[Sketcher]

Yes it is - your point?

 

[Elioenai26]

Deut. 28:52 And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:

54 So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:

55 So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.

56 The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,

57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
​

And eating your own babies would be wrong, I assume.

If you were in a beseiged city and there was absolutely nothing to eat to sustain your life, would you:

A. lay down and die
B. Run outside the city and die
C. Eat some of the flesh off of some of the children who had already died and try to survive.

This is like trying to say that the people who jumped out of the windows of the World Trade Center buildings were intentionally committing suicide. I believe they were trying to escape from being burned alive.

I doubt very seriously they were standing up there thinking about what was right and wrong when their backs were being burnt by the roaring raging flames.

Living in a beseiged city is a horrendous thing. No one can imagine what it must be like, this scripture tells us a little bit about it.

 

[Johnnz]

Yes as a consequence of breaking covenant and being conquered by foreigners, which is what actually happened.
2 Kings 6:28-29 She answered, "This woman said to me, 'Give up your son so we may eat him today, and tomorrow we'll eat my son.' 29 So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, 'Give up your son so we may eat him,' but she had hidden him." NIV

John
NZ

 

[drich0150]

Doubting Merle! The King of cherry picking! Just read the whole chapter in it's intended context. The First half of the Chapter lists all of the things/blessings that will be bestowed on Israel if they Obey God, and the part you have taken, (out of context) is the same list where they oppsite things happens when Israel disobeys God. It a warning not to disobey, not a command to eat babies.

 

[doubtingmerle]

It a warning not to disobey, not a command to eat babies.

Nobody said it was a command to eat babies.

The odd thing is that it speaks of eating babies, without the slightest hint that this is wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

If you were in a beseiged city and there was absolutely nothing to eat to sustain your life, would you:

A. lay down and die
B. Run outside the city and die
C. Eat some of the flesh off of some of the children who had already died and try to survive.

I don't see where it says that the babies had "already died". It looks like murder and canabalism to me.

One wonders why a God would threaten to punish people by putting them in a situation where they will eat their own babies.

We as Humanists find such passages rather odd.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes as a consequence of breaking covenant and being conquered by foreigners, which is what actually happened.
2 Kings 6:28-29

Interesting. And in this passage both sons were alive, and the one was intentionally killed for food?

It is hard to identify with mothers who intentionally kill their own babies for food.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

And eating your own babies would be wrong, I assume.

How is this left to assumption? How is the intent here not perfectly clear?

You are snipping a portion of the CURSE.

And it was indeed fulfilled.

Horribly.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

The odd thing is that it speaks of eating babies, without the slightest hint that this is wrong.

This is not the case. At all.

Scripture is written to a people rather in the position of your avatar ...

 

[RaiseTheDead]

I don't see where it says that the babies had "already died". It looks like murder and canabalism to me.

Correct.

One wonders why a God would threaten to punish people by putting them in a situation where they will eat their own babies.

"Threat" implies things very different than what is the case here.

We as Humanists find such passages rather odd.

You sure you're not a Christian, or a Jew? Because both those groups find such passages very odd.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Nobody said it was a command to eat babies.

The odd thing is that it speaks of eating babies, without the slightest hint that this is wrong.

The implication is obvious that this is a terrible and undesirable situation to find oneself in.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[brinny]

Deut. 28:52 And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.

53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:

54 So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:

55 So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.

56 The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,

57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.​

And eating your own babies would be wrong, I assume.

God is speaking of how abominable these people were. Have you read the entire book of Deuteronomy? Have you read the entire Bible?

 

[drich0150]

Nobody said it was a command to eat babies.

The odd thing is that it speaks of eating babies, without the slightest hint that this is wrong.

Again the portion you highlighted is in contrast to the blessings offered n the first part of the chapter. If you simply will read the passage in context then you will see how 'Wrong' is conveyed.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Actually, reading it in context only reaveals a little bit of how "wrong" is conveyed. While it's there, it becomes much more apparent in a Jewish cultural setting. (I imagine the language adds to that, too)

 

[doubtingmerle]

How is this left to assumption? How is the intent here not perfectly clear?

Excuse me, but the passage does not actually state that eating babies is wrong, does it? So if it mentions eating babies, and does not specifically state that eating babies is wrong, then it is left as an assumption that the writer thinks this is wrong.

You are snipping a portion of the CURSE.

And it was indeed fulfilled.

The famine was a curse.

But eating babies because one is hungry is a moral outrage.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The odd thing is that it speaks of eating babies, without the slightest hint that this is wrong.

This is not the case. At all.

Interesting. Can you show me where Deut. 28 actually gives a slight hint that eating babies in this case is morally wrong?

 

[doubtingmerle]

One wonders why a God would threaten to punish people by putting them in a situation where they will eat their own babies.

"Threat" implies things very different than what is the case here.

I don't understand. Portions of Deuteronomy 28 looks to me like a clear threat. They tell the Children of Israel that if they don't do certain things God will punish them. Can you explain to me why you would not consider that as a threat?

You sure you're not a Christian, or a Jew? Because both those groups find such passages very odd.

n
Nope. I am not a Christian or a Jew (but I used to be a Christian).

And you find Deut 28:52-57 to be odd? Then why does you Holy Book include that passage?

 

[doubtingmerle]

The implication is obvious that this is a terrible and undesirable situation to find oneself in.

A heck of a horrible situation to be in. I get that.

If I were writing something like this I might say something like, "You will be so hungry you will even consider eating human flesh." I would not say that it will get so bad that you will eat your own babies.

When faced with starvation, I think most mothers would sacrifice themselves by nursing their infants. I don't consider the action mentioned here to be a normal human reaction to starvation.

 

[doubtingmerle]

God is speaking of how abominable these people were.

I don't find that emphasis. I find the issue in Deut. 28 is whether they obey all the law of Moses. I do not think a person who disobeys some of the laws of Moses is abominable.

Do you think a person who disobeys some of the laws of Moses is abominable?

Have you read the entire book of Deuteronomy? Have you read the entire Bible?

Yes, I have read the whole Bible--every chapter, every verse, every line, every word. Have you?