God commands child sacrifice (not Isaac story)

[pocaracas]

For if all who accepted Christ died shortly there after who would be left to answer questions and provide biblical clarity? Without 'us' all that would remain of Christianity is your current understanding of it. Which isn't enough to do anyone much Good.
[...]
If all returned then who would be left to bring the rest of the flock? Who would attend to you good people, or your counterparts from that time till this? Who would see to all of the other potential converts who have not yet heard of Christ?

Kirk: "What does god need with a starship?"

Why does god required you to tell me about him?
Can't he do it himself?
You see, from my standing point, you may have been deceived into believing something which is wrong. After all, you're just human. You and all religious people on the planet are just human and are very likely deceived by other humans of the fact that the divine exists.

Why can't god present himself to all mankind, repeatedly, for all to know? Why must we accept what the people that come before us say? That looks like a very flawed system and one that will lead to diverging statements regarding the "original" deity(s) - if he/they exist.

I have been tasked to share what God has given me, so that others may also come to know God. I have stared down the face of death or at least enough to know that if when it is my time then I will welcome my fate. Granted no one wants to die badly, but if it is my lot to do so then i will accept what I am tasked to complete.

If he gave you something, why doesn't he give it to everyone?
Why must I be first convinced that he exists and then convince myself that some psychological mumbo-jumbo is proof that my original conviction was true?
Why?

You are sucked into the promise of a fictional utopia. I hate to tell you that the meme of "afterlife" was around way before your god myth was invented, and other beleivers such as Muslims and Hindus and Shintoists have their versions too.

Actually no. Islam did not start till around 610 AD, Shintoist got their start 130 years after the muslims, and Hindus we are reborn into this life.
It may sound cliche but what The God of the bible offers to Christians is unique in the time it was promised.

The Egyptian religion lasted for about 4000 years.... until ~year 0, and Julius Cesar.
They had a cult of the dead; a belief in the afterlife; They had to pass some judgement to enter the afterlife....
Just read:

It was thought that the next world might be located in the area around the tomb (and consequently near the living); on the “perfect ways of the West,” as it is expressed in Old Kingdom invocations; among the stars or in the celestial regions with the sun god; or in the underworld, the domain of Osiris. One prominent notion was that of the “Elysian Fields,” where the deceased could enjoy an ideal agricultural existence in a marshy land of plenty. The journey to the next world was fraught with obstacles. It could be imagined as a passage by ferry past a succession of portals, or through an “Island of Fire.” One crucial test was the judgment after death, a subject often depicted from the New Kingdom onward. The date of origin of this belief is uncertain, but it was probably no later than the late Old Kingdom. The related text, Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead, responded magically to the dangers of the judgment, which assessed the deceased’s conformity with maat. Those who failed the judgment would “die a second time” and would be cast outside the ordered cosmos. In the demotic story of Setna (3rd century bce), this notion of moral retribution acquired overtones similar to those of the Christian judgment after death.

And this is just one of the better documented ancient religions (discounting greek and roman). All around the world, people had cults related to the dead. It's probably one of the main reasons why religion came to be. The denial of the end brought forth by the biological death.

[Drich]

Kirk: "What does god need with a starship?"

Why does god required you to tell me about him?
Can't he do it himself?

Because if He did then your ablity to choose your eternal fate goes out the window. For if God presented himself to you then your response would be one of self preservation and not faith/love. For what faith is needed to believe that God is real when God stands before you? God is not the one who needs the star ship here. we need it.

You see, from my standing point, you may have been deceived into believing something which is wrong. After all, you're just human. You and all religious people on the planet are just human and are very likely deceived by other humans of the fact that the divine exists.

your belief is based on a big assumption: That our belief is limited to what happens in Church. God (for me at least) has proven Himself to me over and over again. There is nothing in or our of the church that could convince me otherwise.

Why can't god present himself to all mankind, repeatedly, for all to know? Why must we accept what the people that come before us say? That looks like a very flawed system and one that will lead to diverging statements regarding the "original" deity(s) - if he/they exist.

If you know of God before you make your desision then your desision will be based on self preservation. God does not want that for us. Now after we have decided to seek God out as illustrated in Luke 11 we get indivisual proof of God.

If he gave you something, why doesn't he give it to everyone?

Because 'they' do not ask, seek, or knock as luke 11 tells us to.

Why must I be first convinced that he exists and then convince myself that some psychological mumbo-jumbo is proof that my original conviction was true?
Why?

To perserve the one true 'free will' choice we actually been given.

The Egyptian religion lasted for about 4000 years.... until ~year 0, and Julius Cesar.
They had a cult of the dead; a belief in the afterlife; They had to pass some judgement to enter the afterlife....
Just read:

It was thought that the next world might be located in the area around the tomb (and consequently near the living); on the “perfect ways of the West,” as it is expressed in Old Kingdom invocations; among the stars or in the celestial regions with the sun god; or in the underworld, the domain of Osiris. One prominent notion was that of the “Elysian Fields,” where the deceased could enjoy an ideal agricultural existence in a marshy land of plenty. The journey to the next world was fraught with obstacles. It could be imagined as a passage by ferry past a succession of portals, or through an “Island of Fire.” One crucial test was the judgment after death, a subject often depicted from the New Kingdom onward. The date of origin of this belief is uncertain, but it was probably no later than the late Old Kingdom. The related text, Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead, responded magically to the dangers of the judgment, which assessed the deceased’s conformity with maat. Those who failed the judgment would “die a second time” and would be cast outside the ordered cosmos. In the demotic story of Setna (3rd century bce), this notion of moral retribution acquired overtones similar to those of the Christian judgment after death.

And this is just one of the better documented ancient religions (discounting greek and roman). All around the world, people had cults related to the dead. It's probably one of the main reasons why religion came to be. The denial of the end brought forth by the biological death.

You've missed the point.

[pocaracas]

Kirk: "What does god need with a starship?"

Why does god required you to tell me about him?
Can't he do it himself?

Because if He did then your ablity to choose your eternal fate goes out the window. For if God presented himself to you then your response would be one of self preservation and not faith/love. For what faith is needed to believe that God is real when God stands before you? God is not the one who needs the star ship here. we need it.

That's a stupid way of doing things. How can you be sure you're not being duped by whoever showed you that version of god (who may have been duped themselves, by someone who was duped also, and so on, and so on)?
How do you explain a good part of mankind that can claim to have the same sort of evidence you have, but regarding their particular deities?

You see, from my standing point, you may have been deceived into believing something which is wrong. After all, you're just human. You and all religious people on the planet are just human and are very likely deceived by other humans of the fact that the divine exists.

your belief is based on a big assumption: That our belief is limited to what happens in Church. God (for me at least) has proven Himself to me over and over again. There is nothing in or our of the church that could convince me otherwise.

I don't remember mentioning church, but whatever.
Nothing that could convince you otherwise? What if you had been born in Iran? Or India? Or 4000 years ago in Egypt?
Your version of god was brought to you by your culture: parents, neighbors, tv, church, community, etc...
If you had been born anywhere else, or "anywhen" else, you may believe something else or nothing at all regarding deities.
That is why god should make himself known to all. Otherwise, he's just something some people made up; some other people, made him up differently; some other people made up a whole cast of gods, etc... and now all these peoples are at war with each other over who has the correct god.

Assuming your god is the only in town, if he wants anyone to love him, then he must first make himself known, then people may choose to follow or not. Making yourself known through other people has the danger of multiple gods, or multiple interpretations of the same god, and is, therefore, a flawed methodology.

Why can't god present himself to all mankind, repeatedly, for all to know? Why must we accept what the people that come before us say? That looks like a very flawed system and one that will lead to diverging statements regarding the "original" deity(s) - if he/they exist.

If you know of God before you make your desision then your desision will be based on self preservation. God does not want that for us. Now after we have decided to seek God out as illustrated in Luke 11 we get indivisual proof of God.

I fail to see how that self-preservation would be the case.... after all, didn't Eve go against god? Didn't his most treasured angel (or disciple or companion or whatever christians call these sub-gods) go against him and became what you now call the devil?
They allegedly knew of god, but turned away. No self-preservation instinct.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the mythology, sorry.

If he gave you something, why doesn't he give it to everyone?

Because 'they' do not ask, seek, or knock as luke 11 tells us to.

Knock knock......
Wait
wait
wait
look for him.....
searching..............
hey god? you there?
wait
wait..


nope. nothing.
Luke's method failed.
Is there another?

Why must I be first convinced that he exists and then convince myself that some psychological mumbo-jumbo is proof that my original conviction was true?
Why?

To perserve the one true 'free will' choice we actually been given.

There's a thread about free-will somewhere, and I've claimed that there's no such thing. However, the decision making process is so physically complex that we have the illusion of free will. Very simply put, we are genetics based neurons and experience based synapses working together.... and a few hormones just to put everything out of whack!

---

The Egyptian religion lasted for about 4000 years.... until ~year 0, and Julius Cesar.
They had a cult of the dead; a belief in the afterlife; They had to pass some judgement to enter the afterlife....
Just read:

And this is just one of the better documented ancient religions (discounting greek and roman). All around the world, people had cults related to the dead. It's probably one of the main reasons why religion came to be. The denial of the end brought forth by the biological death.

---

You've missed the point.

Perhaps I did, but it's always good to point out the christianity doesn't have the monopoly of the afterlife.
I went to check and the point seems to have started here:

Death is not the end but one's birth into eternity. The only ones who need fear it are those who will be born into eternal seperation.

"born into eternal separation" meaning separation from god, or the failure to conform to maat (in the egyptian viewpoint).... see? It's the same thing!
Christian mythology is pretty much the same thing as what came before it... it's just copy/paste of bits and pieces of previous work, eventually adding some new bits due to some non-divine inspiration.
(now would be a good time for you to point that god is always the same, just people interpreting him differently through the ages, but then you'd get attacked for it! )

I liked the peace and love message.... too bad the religious leaders and followers couldn't abide by it.

[Cato]

Because ancient languages are difficult to translate, many of the expressions of older languages are extremely hard to translate.

Surely you aren't claiming that god is incapable of such translations. This leaves us with god doesn't exist or that god does exist and is intentionally obfuscatory. The former is a more rational position. Ratinal in that it is more consistent with our experiences.

Easier is the road to destruction.

Keep this in mind as you continue to make no effort in understanding scientific explanations of the natural world in favor of the ignorant dictums of ancients compiled in just one book.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

21 “‘But the children rebelled against me: They did not follow my decrees, they were not careful to keep my laws, of which I said, “The person who obeys them will live by them,” and they desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and spend my anger against them in the wilderness. 22 But I withheld my hand, and for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. 23 Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them through the countries, 24 because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols. 25 So [b]I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; 26 I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’

Even in this translation it still has God giving "statutes that were not good" and it still reads that he had the Israelites sacrifice children. He used child sacrifice to "defile" the Israelites so as to "fill them with horror."

[Polaris]

It means he let them go worship other gods. Since they wanted to worship other gods, He let them follow the statues of those religions to demonstrate what folly they actually were....it was an issue of the "grass is always greener."

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

It means he let them go worship other gods. Since they wanted to worship other gods, He let them follow the statues of those religions to demonstrate what folly they actually were....it was an issue of the "grass is always greener."

If the Israelites thought they were sacrificing to other gods, then that defeats the whole point of God "horrifying" and "defiling" them in order to know he was "Lord." They would be "horrified" and "defiled" by Molech or whatever pagan god they would have been supposedly sacrificing to. Molech or whoever would be the one filling the Israelites with horror, not Yahweh.

The idea of God letting the Israelites sacrifice to other gods to make the Israelites "know he is lord" doesn't make sense.

[Godscreated]

It means he let them go worship other gods. Since they wanted to worship other gods, He let them follow the statues of those religions to demonstrate what folly they actually were....it was an issue of the "grass is always greener."

If the Israelites thought they were sacrificing to other gods, then that defeats the whole point of God "horrifying" and "defiling" them in order to know he was "Lord." They would be "horrified" and "defiled" by Molech or whatever pagan god they would have been supposedly sacrificing to. Molech or whoever would be the one filling the Israelites with horror, not Yahweh.

The idea of God letting the Israelites sacrifice to other gods to make the Israelites "know he is lord" doesn't make sense.

Once the Israelites realized that Molech, Baal and the other gods they were following could not get them out of the mess they made for themselves, they would have to turn and face the one true God and His punishment that was to come.

[Polaris]

It means he let them go worship other gods. Since they wanted to worship other gods, He let them follow the statues of those religions to demonstrate what folly they actually were....it was an issue of the "grass is always greener."

If the Israelites thought they were sacrificing to other gods, then that defeats the whole point of God "horrifying" and "defiling" them in order to know he was "Lord." They would be "horrified" and "defiled" by Molech or whatever pagan god they would have been supposedly sacrificing to. Molech or whoever would be the one filling the Israelites with horror, not Yahweh.

The idea of God letting the Israelites sacrifice to other gods to make the Israelites "know he is lord" doesn't make sense.

Because they would see the consequences of turning away from him. They would do all those sacrifices and there would be no answer from those idols.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

If the Israelites thought they were sacrificing to other gods, then that defeats the whole point of God "horrifying" and "defiling" them in order to know he was "Lord." They would be "horrified" and "defiled" by Molech or whatever pagan god they would have been supposedly sacrificing to. Molech or whoever would be the one filling the Israelites with horror, not Yahweh.

The idea of God letting the Israelites sacrifice to other gods to make the Israelites "know he is lord" doesn't make sense.

Once the Israelites realized that Molech, Baal and the other gods they were following could not get them out of the mess they made for themselves, they would have to turn and face the one true God and His punishment that was to come.

It doesn't say that in these two verses.

It says that God used child sacrifice to horrify and defile the Israelites. It's very specific about the fact that the sacrificing of the children is what was specifically suppose to make the Israelites fear and honor God. If God was just letting them sacrifice to other gods, then that makes no sense with God's stated purpose in mind.

---

If the Israelites thought they were sacrificing to other gods, then that defeats the whole point of God "horrifying" and "defiling" them in order to know he was "Lord." They would be "horrified" and "defiled" by Molech or whatever pagan god they would have been supposedly sacrificing to. Molech or whoever would be the one filling the Israelites with horror, not Yahweh.

The idea of God letting the Israelites sacrifice to other gods to make the Israelites "know he is lord" doesn't make sense.

Because they would see the consequences of turning away from him. They would do all those sacrifices and there would be no answer from those idols.

Other cultures all over the world have sacrificed children. The lack of response from the gods never stopped them.