People first, God second. Should people put themselves above God?

What and have to eat your own children for not doing God's bidding? You really want to eat your own kids? (Deut. 28:15,53)

Anyhow, the Sabbath is not God, and vice versa.

you must read more scripture

Oh, I've read a fair amount, thank you.

That's a bit extreme. I know loads of people who don't bother about God's bidding, but I've yet to meet one who has eaten his children.

The Irish prophet Deut O'Romminy is talking bollocks.

The antagonism between the two is based on a false premise.
Respecting your own needs is respectinv nature at large.

Maybe God is all bluster, a lot of bark and little bite.

I advise reading the full account; The eating of the children was a hyperbole created by Moses, to scare the Israelites into being obedient. The image was put in their minds that if they lost Gods blessings, their enemies would lay seige to the cities, cutting off all access, the starvation that would follow would be to the extent that they would have to eat their children.

Not a nice image indeed, but despite what the internets would have you believe, the Israelites were not encouraged to eat their children.

So, it wasn't an account of what Yahweh actually said? It's just the BS of a fraud, and the full account says so?

Are you now going to tell us that the sun didn't stay still and the moon didn't stop while the Israelites slaughtered the Amorites?

The Bible is a fraud, it's a storybook not an historical account. The census which meant Joseph travelled to Bethlehem and piqued Herod's interest happened 10 years after the death of Herod. Not only that, no Roman census required people to go back to their place of birth.

Yeah, I'm just needling Smiley and his selective literal interpretations of the Bible.

In regard to infant cannibalism, there is evidence of mass infanticide throughout that region, and I do believe that ancient peoples resorted to those extreme measures when faced with extreme circumstances like the prospects of starvation due to a siege or other catastrophes. The rationalization for this would be that the gods forced these conditions upon them as a punishment for disobedience.

Not what I was hoping you'd understand from what I said, so I will try again, sorry Infra.

When a script was not provided by God, prophets sometimes came with a message, rather than a set of words. Bible writers thus used their own character, expressions and colloquialisms to express the message they were conveying. You can always tell the difference between the poets, the linguists and the secretaries, they all put personality into their writings. You can tell from Moses writings that he was a fiery character.

Moses was highlighting the difference between having Gods blessings, and not. using a picture that would disturb the Israelites to ensure they kept in line.
So, without God to protect them, The Israelites would not have his blessings such as abundance of food and protection from their enemies.

During the Hebrews time under Gods direction, they were not the largest, nor the best equipped nation, for they were at the time travelling nomads, however they were on the radar of far larger nations, who saw them as a threat. War was implicit with the land they lived in. By highlighting the possibility of a siege, he was putting it into their mind that on limited resources, they could be starved out. That mental picture highlighted the depths to how bad things could get should they disobey the God that led them. The reason shock and awe campaigns are used in media today is because they work.

Take Drink driving campaigns for example; an advert depicts a man under the influence hitting killing a child with his car. The slogan that follows indicates that drink driving = dead children. It is not a prophecy or a request, it is a warning using worst case scenarios, used to inhibit one from the course of actions warned against.

In short God was not forcing them to eat their children, or asking them to, rather he had quite a simple code, Obedience = Gods protection and blessing. Without that protection, they were vulnerable


Not at all my friend. but always happy to discuss it.

How do you distinguish a script provided by God from a message that a prophet came with? You implied it was to be found in the full account.

In 2 Kings 6:27-29, did the prophet write a script provided by God or did he write a message that the prophet came with?

So, Joshua 10 is a script provided by God and not a message that the prophet came with, right?

I think you may have gotten the wrong end of the proverbial stick again, and for that I am sorry Infra. I was not suggesting there is some magical discernment to be made as to which parts of the bible are God inspired.

There is no discernment needed in the matter. When a prophet spoke the exact words he was given, he always announced them as the words of God. Anything not announced as the words of God, was the wording of whoever spoke or wrote them. Bible writers just wrote the accounts and events as a history of their people under inspiration. If they received prophecies or visions, they also were written as such.

2Kings 6:27-29. records a woman crying out to the King of Samaria during a siege which of course incurred a great famine. This is a record of an event

Joshua 10 includes some expressions mouthed by God, but again, you see where God speaks as it is announced.

So, in 2 Kings 6:29 did the woman eat her child, or is the story merely hyperbole of the prophet?

This was not a hyperbole; As the account says she ate her child and she would not have been the only one, which supports your comments on the archaeology findings. It shows just how dehumanised Samaria had become after the Syrian siege caused a prolonged famine.

Given the prophet's hyperbole about God dehumanizing his people by making them eat their own children as punishment for disobedience, this woman and others would have taken the prophet's words literally, and not as a mere picture, however.

Consider a man who willfully disobeys his employer, he is unreliable and dishonest, he is caught giving his employers stock to his competitors in exchange for money. The man loses his job, therefore his income; as a result he loses his house, his family leaves him and he lives on the street, a lifestyle that delves him into drug abuse and petty crime.
Who is to blame for the mans situation?

Given that man is not an employee of God's, men aren't created by their employers nor are they given free will by their employers, the analogy is as inept as the parent/child analogy.

But this does not address the the matter concerning assertions in the Bible of God's punishments for disobedience, which you dismiss as hyperbole, and examples of those very punishments reported in the Bible by the Adelaide prophet.

if you can't draw the comparisons, that's ok. The point was that the Israelites suffered the consequences of their actions, namely that they chose, using their free will to disobey. They knew in advance, that God would remove protection and blessings if they took an action, just as the man in the analogy knew the consequences of his actions if he was caught. I guess that is all I can offer on the matter, free will is not free of consequence.

Infra, you debate well, and I think our differences are boiled down to simple issues. The question of free will, should it be without restriction? Is it really free will if there are consequences for choosing a 'bad' course of action? Does God have the right to judge someone, as to whether they live or die?

You and I will fall either side of these questions, the rest is really fluff, ultimately I don't think it's fruitful to keep trying to hammer a door from either side, but certainly I thank you for engaging me, I have enjoyed our interchange and until our next discussion, I shall look forward to it my friend