Eating the fruit of your body

[doubtingmerle]

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.

I have read it. Can you explain to me how Deut. 28 conveys that eating babies is wrong?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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)

Oh, I see, Deut. 28 says that eating babies is wrong, but one needs to understand Jewish cultural settings to get that message? Can you explain to me how it is apparent to you that, in that cultural setting, this chapter is stating that eating babies is wrong. Just stating that it is in there somewhere doesn't help me much.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Oh, I see, Deut. 28 says that eating babies is wrong, but one needs to understand Jewish cultural settings to get that message?

Nope, that's not what I said, at all. I don't see how it's possible to come away from that and wind up with the word salad I'm quoting here.

Can you explain to me how it is apparent to you that, in that cultural setting, this chapter is stating that eating babies is wrong.

This doesn't make any sense either. As it is written, it is NOT in any cultural setting of its own. You are in your own cultural setting, and reading the passage. (Or not, as appears to be the case)

The passage, on its own, makes it apparent that your point of contention (eating babies) is a BAD thing. Why must I repeat what has been pointed out to you quite clearly already?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Why must I repeat what has been pointed out to you quite clearly already?

Why must you repeat it? Well your strategy appears to be that of keeping on repeating that this passage says that eating babies is a bad thing.

Where does Deut. 28 actually say that? You can repeat over and over that it says that, but if you cannot find the place where it says what you claim, how can you expect that argument to be convincing?

 

[RaiseTheDead]

repeating that this passage says that eating babies is a bad thing.

Where does Deut. 28 actually say that?

I'm sorry I didn't realize I was attempting to converse with a bot. My bad

 

[doubtingmerle]

I'm sorry I didn't realize I was attempting to converse with a bot. My bad

You were attempting to converse?

Then let's converse. When I told you that Duet. 28 did not hint that the action of eating babies was wrong you had responded, "This is not the case. At all." But I note that you have not yet mentioned one place where Duet. 28 hints at that. Do you have any support for that assertion?

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Objection: asked and answered. Several times. Right in this thread.

 

[Zbigge1031]

Deuteronomy 28:15 begins the list of curses that God will bring down if they do not obey God's commands. Also, in verse 57 it states the mother intends to secretly eat her children. Wouldn't you find it odd that she doesn't do it publicly if there is nothing wrong with it? It very clearly implies here that she is doing something detestable.

Furthermore, I do believe this is a threat from God, as you have stated. However, I do not believe threats are inherently wrong. I can't count how many times I was grounded for doing stupid things, and yet people don't say my dad is evil. Heck, even I think he was doing the right thing. Being punished for a crime is just, not evil. Turning away from a holy, perfect God is not the tiny crime many athiests make it out to be. It is an infinite crime, and just the natural consequences of the Israelites' actions affected every part of their society, not even counting the punishments that God had promised.

 

[ForceofTime]

I have read it. Can you explain to me how Deut. 28 conveys that eating babies is wrong?

It seems clear to me that what you quoted indicates this to some degree:

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.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Also, in verse 57 it states the mother intends to secretly eat her children. Wouldn't you find it odd that she doesn't do it publicly if there is nothing wrong with it? It very clearly implies here that she is doing something detestable.

I think from the context it is clear why the Mother hides the child she is eating: she wants to have the meal for herself. This follows verse 55 where it says of a dad that "he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat." He is eating his own children and not allowing anybody to share in it. The mother does the same thing, but hides the corpse so the stronger man cannot take it from her.

I find such cavalier discussion of canabalism to be appalling. But I find it in your book.

Furthermore, I do believe this is a threat from God, as you have stated. However, I do not believe threats are inherently wrong.

Of course. There is a time and place for threats. It is fine for officials to threaten somebody who is doing something wrong.

Turning away from a holy, perfect God is not the tiny crime many athiests make it out to be. It is an infinite crime, and just the natural consequences of the Israelites' actions affected every part of their society, not even counting the punishments that God had promised.

OK, but I don't see many of the commandments of Deuteronomy to be dealing with major crimes. They deal with petty issues that one could easily disagree with.

I do not understand how it would be good to threaten to put people into a situation where they will eat their own children unless they follow all the laws of the book of Deuteronomy. Does that make sense to you?

 

[doubtingmerle]

"her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son"

You make a good point.

But you seem to be relying on the King James here. The KJV uses "evil" to mean calamity or hostility.

For instance:

Amos 3:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be eviuet.l in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?​

And I don't think you would tell me this means the Lord is morally evil. We have here an archaic use of language.

I think most modern translations translate this word in Deuteronomy as "hostile", and of course one could do something hostile without being morally evil.

 

[ForceofTime]

You make a good point.

But you seem to be relying on the King James here. The KJV uses "evil" to mean calamity or hostility.

For instance:

Amos 3:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be eviuet.l in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?​

And I don't think you would tell me this means the Lord is morally evil. We have here an archaic use of language.

I think most modern translations translate this word in Deuteronomy as "hostile", and of course one could do something hostile without being morally evil.

I merely highlighted what you yourself quoted, but if you would prefer to use the word "hostile", then I again would submit that as an indicator of what is wrong. You have attempted to explain that hostile does not necessarily mean morally evil (which, for the sake of argument, I will grant you carte blanche to go as far as you wish), but that still leaves the problem of explaining how the word "hostile" can indicate either acceptable or even neutral morality in this case.

I am not a Hebrew scholar by any stretch of the imagination; however, I would point out the word "evil" used in Amos is not the same used in Deuteronomy, where this is used instead:

H7489
רעע
râ‛a‛
raw-ah'
A primitive root; properly to spoil (literally by breaking to pieces); figuratively to make (or be) good for nothing, that is, bad (physically, socially or morally). (associate selves and show self friendly are by mistake for H7462.): - afflict, associate selves [by mistake for H7462], break (down, in pieces), + displease, (be, bring, do) evil (doer, entreat, man), show self friendly [by mistake for H7462], do harm, (do) hurt, (behave self, deal) ill, X indeed, do mischief, punish, still vex, (do) wicked (doer, -ly), be (deal, do) worse.

This is from Strong's. Other Christians who have a good knowledge of Hebrew may have differing opinions on the meaning of this word and I invite them to correct any presumptions I may have made.

Anyway, all the best to you Doubtingmerle!

 

[RaiseTheDead]

I find such cavalier discussion of canabalism to be appalling. But I find it in your book.

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to view this as "cavalier." Which is the whole reason you started this thread.

OK, but I don't see many of the commandments of Deuteronomy to be dealing with major crimes. They deal with petty issues that one could easily disagree with.

I do not understand how it would be good to threaten to put people into a situation where they will eat their own children unless they follow all the laws of the book of Deuteronomy. Does that make sense to you?

This is where you have failed to take the culture into account. who was it written to? How would they perceive this? More importantly, how was the text used within their society? And what is Jewish understanding of it today?

None of it is left for us to speculate / guess / impose our own meanings upon it.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

of course one could do something hostile without being morally evil.

This assertion seems to be scrutinized to death in Scripture; also noting that the old testament was written in a barbaric age

 

[doubtingmerle]

This assertion [of course one could do something hostile without being morally evil.] seems to be scrutinized to death in Scripture

And you agree with me that the scripture sometimes allows hostility (e.g. in wars or in self defense)? Why not just say you agree with me? That was my point. Hostility is not always morally evil.

 

[doubtingmerle]

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to view this as "cavalier." Which is the whole reason you started this thread.

You might not perceive this passage as being cavalier to the plight of children who are being eaten by their parents, but I do. What did the children do to deserve this?

I'll leave it to the lurkers to decide if the writer of this book had a cavalier attitude toward cannibalism.

This is where you have failed to take the culture into account. who was it written to?

Deuteronomy appears to be written during the exile to Jews in captivity.

How would they perceive this?

The Jews in captivity were very aware of what suffering was like under a siege, and perhaps even saw cannabilism. See http://www.christianforums.com/t7672704/#post60982599. Many probably perceived it as saying they deserved to be treated like pond scum by the Babylonians.

But I don't think they deserved starvation. Do you?

More importantly, how was the text used within their society?

Most people did not have the text, and could not read it if they had it. But they listened to the priests read it. Interestingly, the book tells people to give meat to the priests. So the book was mainly used by priests as a means of earning a living. The people were told they better give meat to the priests, or they would end up eating their own children. I suppose that got their attention.

And what is Jewish understanding of it today?

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

 

[RaiseTheDead]

And you agree with me that the scripture sometimes allows hostility (e.g. in wars or in self defense)? Why not just say you agree with me? That was my point. Hostility is not always morally evil.

You are still in error, maintaining that mention in Scripture = good. It does not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You are still in error, maintaining that mention in Scripture = good. It does not.

Huh? What I said is that your scriptures allow self defense.

Please answer clearly: Do you agree with me that your scriptures allow self defense?

 

[doubtingmerle]

OK, RaiseTheDead, you apparently don't care to tell us if you agree with me that your scriptures allow people to respond with hostility in situations such as wars or in self-defense. I can't understand why you have chosen to attack that statement with a series of confusing one-liners. We all know that self-defense is sometimes good and the scriptures allow it. You seem to be sitting there and shaking your head no whenever I say something--even when I say something obvious like "the scriptures allow self-defense". If I said the sky was blue, would you shake your head no?

At any rate, I find this book quite strange, with the threat that people who don't follow all the commands in the book--like the command to give food to the priests--will end up eating their own children. Some people do not find such threats bizzarre and cavalier to the plight of cannibalized children, but I find it all quite odd.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

The people were told they better give meat to the priests, or they would end up eating their own children.

That's what you take away from this? Alrighty then, that explains everything