PDA

View Full Version : Yahweh Vs. The gods



Scrawly
01-14-2015, 08:38 AM
Please watch the video and discuss the content. Agree? Disagree? Why?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp5nwFefWj0

Boxing Pythagoras
01-14-2015, 10:16 AM
Please watch the video and discuss the content. Agree? Disagree? Why?The gentleman is making generalizations which are not really very accurate. The conception of "deity" which he discusses certainly wasn't the one envisioned by Pythagoras, Plato, or Aristotle, for example, and there are a great many religions, today, which are not Abrahamic but which nonetheless hold to the idea of a supernatural deity.

It is certainly not true that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the only religions which have ever asserted that deity is wholly removed from Nature, and that the gods of all other religions are entirely anthropomorphic. It's not even true that Judaism was the first monotheistic religion, as the gentleman rather strongly implies.

Further, his ultimate point seems entirely dubious. The fact that a religion offers some unique view of things tells us nothing about the veracity of that view. Even if he had been correct in his assertion that the Jews were the first people to hold to the idea of a transcendent monotheism, that does not-- in any way-- indicate that it is correct to hold to the idea of a transcendent monotheism.

So, I guess it's safe to say that I disagree with him.

Bill the Cat
01-14-2015, 10:44 AM
My ADD kicked in pretty quickly. He's very monotone and doesn't command his audience's attention very well.

jordanriver
01-14-2015, 11:01 AM
at the end
"...the Hebrew people say we didn't want this God, but we couldn't get away from Him, ...H broke into our life and revealed Himself..."

that makes sense,
I think they were perfectly happy with pagan practices

37818
01-14-2015, 12:11 PM
Yes. I agree. God of our Hebrew Bible has always reveled Himself to man. He was not invented by man. Though the critics accuse otherwise. God is both transcendant and knowable. Knowable on His terms.

37818
01-14-2015, 12:17 PM
It is certainly not true that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the only religions which have ever asserted that deity is wholly removed from Nature, and that the gods of all other religions are entirely anthropomorphic. It's not even true that Judaism was the first monotheistic religion, as the gentleman rather strongly implies.Give an example. One of a deity totally removed from Nature. Give one example where Yahweh as part of His creation.




So, I guess it's safe to say that I disagree with him.Yes, that is evident by your arguments.

Boxing Pythagoras
01-14-2015, 12:35 PM
Give an example. One of a deity totally removed from Nature.From antiquity? Plato's conception of deity was abstract and removed from Nature. In modern religions? Ba'hai, Sikhism, the Druze, and Yazdanism.

Zoroastrianism counts for both antiquity and modern religion.


Give one example where Yahweh as part of His creation.While that wasn't really one of my claims, you don't even need to go outside the Bible for that one. Genesis 3 depicts God as walking around Eden physically, such that he created noises which Adam and Eve heard.

37818
01-14-2015, 05:22 PM
From antiquity? Plato's conception of deity was abstract and removed from Nature. So man is not part of nature? Plato depicts God as a "craftsman." Who fashions the world out of chaos. Plato's God is subordinate to other pre-existent things.



In modern religions? Ba'hai, Sikhism, the Druze, and Yazdanism.They deny the God of the Hebrews. And as you pointed out they are "modern" post the influence of Judeo-Christian beliefs.


Zoroastrianism counts for both antiquity and modern religion.Zoroaster's god was a spirit being, Ahura Mazda from the Old Iranian religion which preceded him. Not even close.



While that wasn't really one of my claims, you don't even need to go outside the Bible for that one. Genesis 3 depicts God as walking around Eden physically, such that he created noises which Adam and Eve heard.Ah, that was the Son of God (as explained John 1:18)who as Yahweh made all of God's appearances on His behalf as God, and so walked in the garden. And appeared to Abraham, Genesis 12:7 (John 8:56), and was seen by Isaiah the prophet, Isaiah 6:5 (John 12:41). Those appearances are also called theophanies.

Boxing Pythagoras
01-14-2015, 06:59 PM
So man is not part of nature? Plato depicts God as a "craftsman." Who fashions the world out of chaos. Plato's God is subordinate to other pre-existent things.You're mistaking the metaphor for the essence. In Plato's Laws, he explicitly argues that there existed one or more divine souls which were the origin of motion in the natural world. These souls are entirely distinct from the natural world. It's quite likely that Aristotle built upon this framework when developing his own concept of unmoved movers, which was later adapted by Averroes and then Aquinas.


They deny the God of the Hebrews. And as you pointed out they are "modern" post the influence of Judeo-Christian beliefs.What does denial of the God of the Hebrews have to do with anything? The gentleman in the video claimed that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the only transcendental monotheistic religions. He was mistaken, as these religions are certainly transcendental monotheisms.


Zoroaster's god was a spirit being, Ahura Mazda from the Old Iranian religion which preceded him. Not even close.Zoroastrianism is definitely a transcendental monotheism.


Ah, that was the Son of God (as explained John 1:18)who as Yahweh made all of God's appearances on His behalf as God, and so walked in the garden. And appeared to Abraham, Genesis 12:7 (John 8:56), and was seen by Isaiah the prophet, Isaiah 6:5 (John 12:41). Those appearances are also called theophanies.You asked for an example of the God of the Hebrews in his Creation. I gave you an example of this. Whether you think it was the first, second, or third person of the Trinity is irrelevant. It was still the God of the Hebrews in Creation.

firstfloor
01-15-2015, 03:40 AM
He was not invented by man.According to the story written in the book by men.

37818
01-15-2015, 06:54 PM
According to the story written in the book by men.

You really don't understand.

37818
01-16-2015, 05:34 AM
You're mistaking the metaphor for the essence. In Plato's Laws, he explicitly argues that there existed one or more divine souls which were the origin of motion in the natural world. These souls are entirely distinct from the natural world. It's quite likely that Aristotle built upon this framework when developing his own concept of unmoved movers, which was later adapted by Averroes and then Aquinas.

What does denial of the God of the Hebrews have to do with anything? The gentleman in the video claimed that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the only transcendental monotheistic religions. He was mistaken, as these religions are certainly transcendental monotheisms.

Zoroastrianism is definitely a transcendental monotheism.

You asked for an example of the God of the Hebrews in his Creation. I gave you an example of this. Whether you think it was the first, second, or third person of the Trinity is irrelevant. It was still the God of the Hebrews in Creation.
Just because you make these bogus claims, you think are true does not make them true. Just provide proof for one.

firstfloor
01-16-2015, 06:02 AM
You really don't understand.Nobody does. But He’s not in the book. Cannibalism is though.
“I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.”

Boxing Pythagoras
01-16-2015, 06:22 AM
Just because you make these bogus claims, you think are true does not make them true. Just provide proof for one.For Plato, I already mentioned that it was from his Laws, but I'll get more specific. In Book 10 of Laws, Plato explicitly argues that the soul is not a physical body, that souls precede physical bodies, and that deity is what provides the soul with motion, therefore deity must be similarly non-physical and must precede even souls.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0166%3Abook%3D10 %3Apage%3D893

For the Ba'hai faith: http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-2.html
For Sikhism: http://www.sikhs.org/philos.htm
For the Druze: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3158&context=etd
For Zoroastrianism: http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/XLVII/4/557.short

37818
01-16-2015, 09:03 AM
For Plato, I already mentioned that it was from his Laws, but I'll get more specific. In Book 10 of Laws, Plato explicitly argues that the soul is not a physical body, that souls precede physical bodies, and that deity is what provides the soul with motion, therefore deity must be similarly non-physical and must precede even souls.That does not change the fact that Plato's deity is subordinate to things which pre-exist.



http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0166%3Abook%3D10 %3Apage%3D893

For the Ba'hai faith: http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-2.html
For Sikhism: http://www.sikhs.org/philos.htm
For the Druze: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3158&context=etd
For Zoroastrianism: http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/XLVII/4/557.shortThey all have been influenced by the Hebrew and Christian scriptures which precedes their modern views.

Boxing Pythagoras
01-16-2015, 09:28 AM
That does not change the fact that Plato's deity is subordinate to things which pre-exist....actually, it does. Read Plato's Laws. Seriously, I linked right to it, Book and page. His concept of deity is not subordinate to pre-existent things. Plato's deity consists of the earliest extant self-animated spirit, which he explicitly argues to have pre-existed all things physical, in a direct contrast to the Atomist view that the physical precedes the spirit.


They all have been influenced by the Hebrew and Christian scriptures which precedes their modern views.Even if true, it's irrelevant. The gentleman in the video claimed that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the only transcendental monotheistic religions. There are other transcendental monotheistic religions. Whether those religions were influenced by the Abrahamic religions or not has no bearing on the fact that the gentleman was wrong.

37818
01-16-2015, 11:56 AM
...actually, it does. Read Plato's Laws. Seriously, I linked right to it, Book and page. His concept of deity is not subordinate to pre-existent things. Plato's deity consists of the earliest extant self-animated spirit, which he explicitly argues to have pre-existed all things physical, in a direct contrast to the Atomist view that the physical precedes the spirit.OK. I'll recheck this.


Even if true, it's irrelevant. The gentleman in the video claimed that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the only transcendental monotheistic religions. There are other transcendental monotheistic religions. Whether those religions were influenced by the Abrahamic religions or not has no bearing on the fact that the gentleman was wrong.Are you sure? I'm going to rewatch the video. As I remember it, I understood other ancient deities were meant. At least that is how I had taken what was said.

Pentecost
01-16-2015, 12:01 PM
BP has a point. I do not know if Plato made this claim, but Neo-Platonism does make the claim that there is one self caused Ideal from which all things sprung, and the physical realm was very very far removed from this deity, which one can conceptualize using the classical knowledge of ideals and archetypes.

Edit: The gentleman stated at the beginning and restated at the end the uniqueness of the Abrahamic tradition in having a monotheistic, transcendental deity. I would assume that he does not actually believe this but used a half truth to keep the time limit.

jordanriver
01-16-2015, 12:48 PM
The gentleman should test his ideas here at TWEB before making a video, like I do

ill be ready to make a video in about 20 years

37818
01-16-2015, 01:54 PM
One problem: The title of the thread is a little different than the title of the video: Yahweh and the Ancient Gods: Seven Minute Seminary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp5nwFefWj0) My understanding of the video included its title.

Scrawly
01-16-2015, 02:06 PM
...actually, it does. Read Plato's Laws. Seriously, I linked right to it, Book and page. His concept of deity is not subordinate to pre-existent things. Plato's deity consists of the earliest extant self-animated spirit, which he explicitly argues to have pre-existed all things physical, in a direct contrast to the Atomist view that the physical precedes the spirit.

It was actually the Demiurge-god that "creates" the cosmos, not his "Ultimate God", and the Demiurge does not create it ex nihilo, but rather out of something - the FORMS (which "exist" somehow, somewhere in an immaterial "transcendental realm"). Like most ancient Greeks, Plato believed that form and matter always existed eternally. Thus there was no creation "out of nothing". The "stuff" needed was already there. So for Plato it is the Demiurge-god that "created" the cosmos, including man, out of Plato's pre-existing immaterial Forms. So, for Plato, ultimate reality was forms, not a personal God.


Even if true, it's irrelevant. The gentleman in the video claimed that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the only transcendental monotheistic religions.

OK, so Monotheism is not a Hebrew original, but was borrowed from _____?


There are other transcendental monotheistic religions. Whether those religions were influenced by the Abrahamic religions..

Dr. Oswalt argues that the worldview of the Bible is distinct from that of the rest of ANE literature:

1) God is spirit and not matter which is the polar opposite viewpoint of myth. Myth states that matter is the basis of everything.

2) There was no conflict during the creation process. In myth creation evolves from chaos but in the Old Testament the world exists only because God spoke it into existence.

3) The Old Testament has a very high viewpoint of humanity. In fact man is made in the image of God. God created man last and man is the apex of all creation. In myth humanity is an afterthought and the only purpose is to provide for the gods.

4) God is reliable and consistent. Yahweh will bless people and be there for his people even when it is not to God’s advantage. In myth the gods are fickle and only self-serving.

5) God is supra-sexual which simply means God is not sexed. He is neither male nor female. He is spirit being and does not take on any traits of sexuality and sex played no part in the creation process. In myth gods comes into existence by sexual means. They have sex with each other to make other gods and also have sex with desirable women to make semi-gods.

6) Since God is not sexed in the Bible, sex is desacralized in the Old Testament. God set clear boundaries to establish what is acceptable and what is forbidden when dealing with sexual relationships. Mythology uses all types of sexual rituals so that they can influence and manipulate the gods. There are no boundaries and anything goes.

7) The Old Testament also prohibits the use of magic. Sorcery of all kind is forbidden and may not be used to attempt to manipulate God in any ritualistic way. The attempt to manipulate God to gain self-interest is vile to God. You maintain a personal relationship with God though prayer and obedience. In mythology magic, sorcery and rituals are common and essential to dealing with the gods. There is no individual as the individual is just part of the continuous nature. The gods are only influenced through the rituals of society.

8) Humans relate to God though ethical behavior and to the disciplined obedience of God. What matters most to the Israelites is how people treat their parents, their children, their neighbors and strangers. They show their commitment to God by how they interact with others. God gives strict laws for his people to uphold and follow. Strict obedience to this covenant will create holiness for oneself bringing one closer to the holiness of God.

Source: http://www.academia.edu/6973036/Oswalt_Book_Summary_donload

Pentecost
01-16-2015, 07:00 PM
It was actually the Demiurge-god that "creates" the cosmos, not his "Ultimate God", and the Demiurge does not create it ex nihilo, but rather out of something - the FORMS (which "exist" somehow, somewhere in an immaterial "transcendental realm"). Like most ancient Greeks, Plato believed that form and matter always existed eternally. Thus there was no creation "out of nothing". The "stuff" needed was already there. So for Plato it is the Demiurge-god that "created" the cosmos, including man, out of Plato's pre-existing immaterial Forms. So, for Plato, ultimate reality was forms, not a personal God. From what I recall the Demiurge had multiple origins depending on the Neo-Platonic school of thought, with at least the Valentinian Gnostics teaching about how it was born of spirit beings who were born of other spirit beings, but they all spring from one original transcental being from which all ideas sprung being that this deity was the self-caused one, the deluded Demiurge did in fact make matter as a pale imitation of the real transcedental Ideals. But the Demiurge was never considered a positive being, so I think it's unfair to refer to it and not the self actualized God. Otherwise, of course I agree with you, and no deity of Neo-Platonism is personal (Demiurge, kinda but not in a good way).

37818
01-16-2015, 07:31 PM
Nobody does. But He’s not in the book. Cannibalism is though.
“I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.”Like I said, you do not understand. God's judgment upon that city. These people were brought to starvation.

Jeremiah prophet writes, ". . . [They that be] slain with the sword are better than [they that be] slain with hunger: for these pine away, stricken through for [want of] the fruits of the field. The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children: they were their meat in the destruction of the daughter of my people. . . ."

37818
01-16-2015, 07:53 PM
...actually, it does. Read Plato's Laws. Seriously, I linked right to it, Book and page. His concept of deity is not subordinate to pre-existent things. Plato's deity consists of the earliest extant self-animated spirit, which he explicitly argues to have pre-existed all things physical, in a direct contrast to the Atomist view that the physical precedes the spirit.Give me a citation or a reference.

Like this: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1572/1572-h/1572-h.htm

Or a quote, ". . . As I said at first, all things were originally a chaos in which there was no order or proportion. The elements of this chaos were arranged by the Creator, and out of them he made the world. . . ." As I said, Plato's God created from pre-existing matter.



Even if true, it's irrelevant. The gentleman in the video claimed that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the only transcendental monotheistic religions. There are other transcendental monotheistic religions. Whether those religions were influenced by the Abrahamic religions or not has no bearing on the fact that the gentleman was wrong. The video's title: Yahweh and the Ancient Gods: Seven Minute Seminary. I understood it in that context. OK. You did not.

Boxing Pythagoras
01-17-2015, 07:31 AM
It was actually the Demiurge-god that "creates" the cosmos, not his "Ultimate God", and the Demiurge does not create it ex nihilo, but rather out of something - the FORMS (which "exist" somehow, somewhere in an immaterial "transcendental realm"). Like most ancient Greeks, Plato believed that form and matter always existed eternally. Thus there was no creation "out of nothing". The "stuff" needed was already there. So for Plato it is the Demiurge-god that "created" the cosmos, including man, out of Plato's pre-existing immaterial Forms. So, for Plato, ultimate reality was forms, not a personal God.Plato discusses his conception of deity primarily in two of his works. One is the Timaeus dialogue, which you are here referencing-- our source for Plato's Demiurgic concept. The other is the Laws, Book 10, which I cited. In Laws, Plato explicitly argues that spirit precedes the physical.

Now, it is possible that Plato's positions in Timaeus and Laws are inconsistent. However, in neither case does Plato consider deity to be "subordinate" to previously existing matter, as was 37818's claim.


OK, so Monotheism is not a Hebrew original, but was borrowed from _____?I don't believe that I ever claimed the Hebrews borrowed their monotheism from anyone. It's certainly possible that Hebraic monotheism was influenced by other ancient Near East religions-- for example, the Zoroastrians or the Cult of Aten-- but I honestly have not researched the subject enough to confidently present such a claim. It's also entirely possible that Hebraic monotheism developed independently of other monotheisms. However, this seems entirely beside the point, which was simply that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not the only transcendental monotheistic religions, in contradiction to the claims of the OP's video.


Give me a citation or a reference.I did. I paraphrased the content of Plato's Laws, Book 10, and I gave you a link to the precise page in that text which began to illustrate my paraphrase.

For Plato, I already mentioned that it was from his Laws, but I'll get more specific. In Book 10 of Laws, Plato explicitly argues that the soul is not a physical body, that souls precede physical bodies, and that deity is what provides the soul with motion, therefore deity must be similarly non-physical and must precede even souls.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0166%3Abook%3D10 %3Apage%3D893

firstfloor
01-18-2015, 06:40 AM
Like I said, you do not understand. God's judgment upon that city. These people were brought to starvation.“The essence of religion is attributing to god what really belongs to man.” – Jersey Flight
This inversion forces you to adopt the understanding that the victim brings his suffering upon himself. The associated moral and ethical problems are obvious.

37818
01-18-2015, 08:30 AM
“The essence of religion is attributing to god what really belongs to man.” – Jersey Flight
This inversion forces you to adopt the understanding that the victim brings his suffering upon himself. The associated moral and ethical problems are obvious.
So am I to understand you condone burning one's own children in worship of some god [Baal] is better?

firstfloor
01-18-2015, 12:43 PM
So am I to understand you condone burning one's own children in worship of some god [Baal] is better?No, you are not.

jordanriver
01-18-2015, 01:19 PM
Plato discusses his conception of deity primarily in two of his works. One is the Timaeus dialogue, which you are here referencing-- our source for Plato's Demiurgic concept. The other is the Laws, Book 10, which I cited. In Laws, Plato explicitly argues that spirit precedes the physical.

Now, it is possible that Plato's positions in Timaeus and Laws are inconsistent. However, in neither case does Plato consider deity to be "subordinate" to previously existing matter, as was 37818's claim.

I don't believe that I ever claimed the Hebrews borrowed their monotheism from anyone. It's certainly possible that Hebraic monotheism was influenced by other ancient Near East religions-- for example, the Zoroastrians or the Cult of Aten-- but I honestly have not researched the subject enough to confidently present such a claim. It's also entirely possible that Hebraic monotheism developed independently of other monotheisms. However, this seems entirely beside the point, which was simply that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not the only transcendental monotheistic religions, in contradiction to the claims of the OP's video.

I did. I paraphrased the content of Plato's Laws, Book 10, and I gave you a link to the precise page in that text which began to illustrate my paraphrase.

For Plato, I already mentioned that it was from his Laws, but I'll get more specific. In Book 10 of Laws, Plato explicitly argues that the soul is not a physical body, that souls precede physical bodies, and that deity is what provides the soul with motion, therefore deity must be similarly non-physical and must precede even souls.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0166%3Abook%3D10 %3Apage%3D893
so which Greek god was Plato referring to

Boxing Pythagoras
01-19-2015, 07:03 AM
so which Greek god was Plato referring toPlato wasn't referring to any specific god, in Laws, but rather to the very concept of deity.

37818
01-19-2015, 08:55 AM
Plato wasn't referring to any specific god, in Laws, but rather to the very concept of deity.Based on Plato's concept of deity, I prefer being an atheist. Really. The only reason I'm not a athiest now, is that I know God. [Which means you can too. But see Romans 3:11. There is a refusal in the works.]

37818
01-19-2015, 09:00 AM
No, you are not.So how are you understanding it? (Jeremiah 19:5, . . .)

Pentecost
01-19-2015, 11:18 AM
so which Greek god was Plato referring to Monad, "the One," "The Form of Good." Those are names he gave to describe his God, but he has nothing to do with such myths as Zeus or Poseidon.

Doug Shaver
01-26-2015, 07:21 AM
His argument depends on several assumptions that he does not state and with which I disagree.

Pentecost
01-26-2015, 04:52 PM
His argument depends on several assumptions that he does not state and with which I disagree.

Who's argument? The guy from the video? Which assumptions? Any of the ones mentioned in the thread already?

showmeproof
02-02-2015, 03:39 AM
So am I to understand you condone burning one's own children in worship of some god [Baal] is better?

Read Ezekiel 20:25-27

37818
02-03-2015, 06:45 AM
Read Ezekiel 20:25-27

V.24 and context. You seem to have a problem with understanding and with truth.

showmeproof
02-05-2015, 07:11 PM
V.24 and context. You seem to have a problem with understanding and with truth.

So you are okay with the statement that because the Israelites were sinners, Yahweh gave them laws to make them burn their children in order that he might horrify them?

I don't see how the context helps your case. And my original point was to call out 37818 on the fact that this was also a Jewish practice.

whag
02-05-2015, 08:32 PM
V.24 and context. You seem to have a problem with understanding and with truth.

25 I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live; 26 and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all [a]their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the Lord.”’

27 “Therefore, son of man, speak to the house of Israel and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Yet in this your fathers have blasphemed Me by acting treacherously against Me.

What's the truth?

Doug Shaver
02-07-2015, 06:49 PM
Who's argument? The guy from the video? Which assumptions? Any of the ones mentioned in the thread already?

I'm sorry. I missed the notification when you posted this. When I have time, I'll check the video again and see if I can answer your questions.

Pentecost
02-08-2015, 02:33 PM
I'm sorry. I missed the notification when you posted this. When I have time, I'll check the video again and see if I can answer your questions.

Please do not feel obliged to, I simply had no idea what you were getting at and figured if you posted a reaction you wanted to be understood.

Cow Poke
02-08-2015, 02:47 PM
My ADD kicked in pretty quickly. He's very monotone and doesn't command his audience's attention very well.

Who?

37818
02-09-2015, 08:05 PM
So you are okay with the statement that because the Israelites were sinners, Yahweh gave them laws to make them burn their children in order that he might horrify them?That is false. And the sad part here is you think your argument is true.


I don't see how the context helps your case.Yeah, you do not.
And my original point was to call out 37818 on the fact that this was also a Jewish practice.Your assertion, is not true. You cannot even get my view on this right.


25 I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live; 26 and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all [a]their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the Lord.”’

27 “Therefore, son of man, speak to the house of Israel and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Yet in this your fathers have blasphemed Me by acting treacherously against Me.

What's the truth?God allowed that evil to befall them, for their own evil. But you seem not to understand that.