Extreme obesity

In fact i think, no. In the modern welfare state with stable redistribution of incomes, the situation when the common people is striken with famine and no one helps them, would arise a great indignation against the state as well as against the most wealthy people if they don't give significant contribution to help the poor.

But people didn't always feel in this way. I read many sources about huge famine in Egypt of crusaders period, in France in 1775 and about a huge famine in Ireland ic. 1848.

The first and the third of these famines were not such shortages as Amos describes, but giant catastrophes with hundreds thousands of people dead from hunger. The hunger of 1775 in France was maybe of the kind that Amos describes, may be worse.

In the first, Egyptian case, nobody was angry with those people who had enough food and continued to eat as they wanted. Everybody understood that if even the elite would give all their food to the common people and starve to death itself, it would save almost zero souls. The elite and non-elitary wealthy people were too little in numbers, and their storages of food were too little in volume to change the situation at visible degree if even they would give to the people all they had. The state and communal storages were larger, but everybody understood that their first aim was to supply state apparatus and army. What could be done for the people, was done and these supplies ended very soon.

The common rule for the situation was that everyone stands for himself, and if anyone is very kind, he can give some food to some person in private way. Thus, if any person had more food then those dying from hunger, no one expected from him that he would take all his extra food and give it for common use. It just wouldn't change anything for the greatest majority of those who suffered from hunger. It was possible only to help few persons personally tied to the person who had extra food. This was practiced really by those who were more kind, but Amos doesn't say anything on such a topic, he doesn't say that these women and their families were so greedy, that they didn't give anything to anybody at all.

Moreover, if this would be the case, than fatness wouldn't emerge in Amos' text because the lean people of elite are not more or less merciful then fat ones. Be it the case you supposed, Amos, I think, would have spoken about greedy and merciless rich people who don't give anything to their poor compatriots in their misfortunes, and Amos would have emphasized namely this aspect - that they don't help their suffering brethren. The motive of fatness wouldn't have been used here at all, because lean rich people are not more or less greedy and heartless than fat rich people.

But we see, that Amos uses abundantly the motive of fatness in his attacks against the persons involved, and doesn't mention in connection with it any hunger or any lack of help to anyone. The hunger and other calamities appear independently in further passages, and these passages have no connection with fat cows of Bashan. It seems that these two entities of verses are rather independent of each other.

As for famines of 1775 and 1848 , I also didn't see indignation against those who had an opportunity to continue to eat much and used this opportunity. I saw many blamings on state policy, and on the traders who didn't sell food by fixed low prices. But private persons being blamed for the fact that they continue to use their private wealth for high consumption of food while great masses are starving - no, I couldn't trace such an indignation except of some extreme leftist political people and writers in 1848.

Of course, there were sharp voices against those rich people who were so greedy that they didn't want to give even a penny for the sake of their unhappier brethren , but it was not about their high consumotion. Almost no one had nothing against the fact that rich persons continue to have extra food in situation where millions of people of their country are starving. The people were indignated if such rich persons didn't want even to give a penny for the sake those dying from hunger. But practically nobody asked, why the Duke So and So didn't sell one of his palaces and give the money in some fund of help for those suffering from hunger, or why he continues to drink expensive wine, one bottle of which was equal in price to several extra days of life of a poor man striken by hunger. It was obvious that if even all Dukes would have begun to drink water instead of wine, and to give all the saved money to hungry ppl, it wouldn't in practice change almost anything. As the result the common attitude to such facts was " if he's lucky one to have in this bad year money enough for wine, let him drink wine".

It is highly ironic that this is coming from a Russian, whose country is known for the October Revolution.

Yahwen as you put it is a pathological narcisst btw.

Welp, looks like this thread is about to go down a very toxic route. Explaining things to people in the Bible is one thing, but I do not have the emotional spoons to litigate the ethics of Deities.

I am out.

It will be reasonable to re-address this question to the authors of Old Testament, and to the authors of Book of Job and the books of Prophets especially)). It was not me who inventioned this image of the deity in question that you mean))

I am not a fan of Old Testament Yahweh. I definitely prefer Yahweh of 10th - mid-7th centuries BC, when Israelis thought that he is just a normal pagan god. In those times they ascribed to him a wife, Asherah, and a huge amount of other gods were worshipped in his temple, as Bible itself tells us. It was only in early 7th century and then at last in 622 BC when the radical reforms of the cult made him to function is that monotheistic universal deity which we know from Old Testament. Some traces of that early pagan image of Yahweh can be found in Old Testament itself, e.g. in such phrases as " the God arose in Assembly of gods..."

Yes, and we have had so much enough of it that we really don't want it anymore).
I think there is pretty few Germans now who are fond of Nazism.
And there was not a single attempt of republican Revolution in England after their experience with Cromwell who put to the bitter end the monarchy and the monarch under the most freedom loving slogans -!and then became much more cruel and tyrannical dictator than this monarch had been .
One such experience is more than enough.

It's nothing personal to you, but now that Enas has joined the conversation, I no longer want to discuss this topic. He has ... a history of going in insane directions in anything that involves politics, and I don't want to deal with the stress.