Child Sacrifice in the Old Testament

[Lemonvariable72]

Well that simple makes god accessory before the fact. That means that he is also eligible for the death penalty under his own laws.

So god makes a law that says do not worship other Gods, along with a law that says you shall not murder... So a king decides he will worship and murder people as sacrifices to other gods..yet in your mind this is the same as God being guilty of something before the fact?

Can you explain this or are you drunk typing?

God had total foreknowledge of those peoples murders and failed to do anything about. That makes him a accessory before the fact and just as guilty as the king that worshipped idols. Especially because it was children.

[Godscreated]

Posted by Godschild - Today 09:34

---

@ Pickup_shonuff, Exodus 22:28-31 and Exodus 23:1-3 NASV, 28) "You shall not curse God, nor a ruler of your people. 29) "You shall not delay the offering from your harvest and your vintage. The first-born of your sons you shall give to Me. 30) "You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep. It shall be with it's mother seven days; on the eight you shall give it to Me. 31) "And you shall be holy men to Me, therefore you shall eat any flesh torn to pieces in the field;you shall throw it to the dogs. 23:1) "You shall not bear a false report; do not join your hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. 2) "You shall not follow a multitude in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice; 3) nor shall you be partial to a poor man in disputes.

These commands continue on, yet no where does it say anything about sacrificing male children, now does it.
Luke 1:59 And it came about that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to call him Zacharias, after his father. 60) And his mother answered and said, "No indeed; but he shall be called John."..... Johns father says later in the verse, 76) "And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; For you will go on before the LORD to prepare His way,

The above scripture shows a first born son being given to the LORD through the act of circumcision on the eighth day.

Luke 2:21-24, 21) And when eight days were completed, so as to circumcise Him, His name was then called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. 22) And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the LORD 23) (as it is written in the Law of the LORD, "Every first-born male male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD"), 24) and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the LORD, "A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

Again another example of a first-born male being circumcised on the eight day in dedication to the LORD.

Genesis 17:11-12 ESV, 11) You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12) He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male through out your generations.....

Exodus 13:14-15, 14) And when in time to come your sons ask you, 'What does this mean?' you shall say to him, 'By a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. 15) For when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed all the first-born in Egypt, both the first born of man and the firstborn of animals. Therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all the males that open the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem.'

Psalm 106:34-41 34) They did not destroy the peoples as the LORD commanded them, 35) but they mixed with the nations and learned to o as they did. 36) They served their idols, which became a snare to them. 37) They sacrificed their sons and daughters to the demons; 38) they poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood. 39) Thus they became unclean by their acts, and played the whore in their deeds. 40) Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against His people, and He abhorred His heritage; 41) He gave them into the hands of the nations, so that those who hated them ruled over them.

Doesn't sound like a God who commanded child sacrifice does it, He punished His people for their acts of murder.

I've shown you that circumcision of the first born males was a dedication to God and the first born of certain animals were for sacrifice, I've shown you tat on the eight day the male child is to be circumcised and the firstborn is circumcised in dedication to the LORD. I haven't sen anything from you that says God commanded child sacrifice.

---

[Mudhammam]

Yes circumcision was required for all males and the examples I gave you showed there was no sacrifice of the first born, only dedication to service for God. You have not brought one speck of evidence that the firstborn males were to be sacrificed to God and there is none in the scriptures, not one example. all your after is to shine a bad light on God and you're going to do it no matter how stupid it makes you look, that sir is called desperation. The only reason you do not want to see what scripture plainly states i because you have abandoned all reason, you have not given us any verses showing God's acceptance of child sacrifice, i on the other hand have shown that the Israelites were punished for such a deplorable act.

GC

Yahweh has no moral objections to the slaughter of children, even babies, if it means faithfulness to a vow or punishment for the "sins of my soul," that is, the parents' failures. Examples of this include:
- The celebration of Jephthah's daughter, who was sacrificed over a dull-witted vow. Unfortunately, no one, including the author of the text, seems remotely aware that any actual moral response deserving an annual celebration would have involved Jephthah breaking his vow to Yahweh. Instead, his vow is kept, his daughter is slaughtered, and Israel creates a new holiday.
- Celebration of Abraham's faithfulness, even to the point of slaughtering his only child. Again, no mention is made of the fact that Abraham actually planned on killing his child. That Yahweh changed his mind and intervened at the last moment has nothing to do with the moral of this story, which is that Yahweh must be obeyed even when it means child sacrifice. Like Numbers 3, this tale demonstrates a way out from child sacrifice (a ram is provided) but nonetheless compliments the Hebrews' past obedience.
- The murder of David and Bathsheba's child, while not a sacrifice in the sense of the others, still portrays the exact same principle. That is, payment for a person's sins can be fulfilled through killing their son or daughter. I'm still waiting to hear your justification for this one.
- We haven't talked about 2 Kings 3:26-27 yet, but this passage seems to indicate that King Moab was rewarded with the defeat or retreat of Israel when he sacrificed his son to Yahweh.
- Of course, Christian theology was born out of the idea of child sacrifice. God sends his figurative son to die on a cross, like the Passover lamb, in order that humanity's sins might be paid and forgiven. This is as objectionable to any case of child sacrifice in the Old Testament, which makes your denial of the latter but full embrace of the former all the more absurd.

I missed your rational and moral justification for all this. Maybe you can re-post it.

[Drich]

So god makes a law that says do not worship other Gods, along with a law that says you shall not murder... So a king decides he will worship and murder people as sacrifices to other gods..yet in your mind this is the same as God being guilty of something before the fact?

Can you explain this or are you drunk typing?

God had total foreknowledge of those peoples murders and failed to do anything about. That makes him a accessory before the fact and just as guilty as the king that worshipped idols. Especially because it was children.

no, seriously.. What did you really mean? I don't get it.

---

Yes circumcision was required for all males and the examples I gave you showed there was no sacrifice of the first born, only dedication to service for God. You have not brought one speck of evidence that the firstborn males were to be sacrificed to God and there is none in the scriptures, not one example. all your after is to shine a bad light on God and you're going to do it no matter how stupid it makes you look, that sir is called desperation. The only reason you do not want to see what scripture plainly states i because you have abandoned all reason, you have not given us any verses showing God's acceptance of child sacrifice, i on the other hand have shown that the Israelites were punished for such a deplorable act.

GC

Yahweh has no moral objections to the slaughter of children, even babies, if it means faithfulness to a vow or punishment for the "sins of my soul," that is, the parents' failures. Examples of this include:
- The celebration of Jephthah's daughter, who was sacrificed over a dull-witted vow. Unfortunately, no one, including the author of the text, seems remotely aware that any actual moral response deserving an annual celebration would have involved Jephthah breaking his vow to Yahweh. Instead, his vow is kept, his daughter is slaughtered, and Israel creates a new holiday.
- Celebration of Abraham's faithfulness, even to the point of slaughtering his only child. Again, no mention is made of the fact that Abraham actually planned on killing his child. That Yahweh changed his mind and intervened at the last moment has nothing to do with the moral of this story, which is that Yahweh must be obeyed even when it means child sacrifice. Like Numbers 3, this tale demonstrates a way out from child sacrifice (a ram is provided) but nonetheless compliments the Hebrews' past obedience.
- The murder of David and Bathsheba's child, while not a sacrifice in the sense of the others, still portrays the exact same principle. That is, payment for a person's sins can be fulfilled through killing their son or daughter. I'm still waiting to hear your justification for this one.
- We haven't talked about 2 Kings 3:26-27 yet, but this passage seems to indicate that King Moab was rewarded with the defeat or retreat of Israel when he sacrificed his son to Yahweh.
- Of course, Christian theology was born out of the idea of child sacrifice. God sends his figurative son to die on a cross, like the Passover lamb, in order that humanity's sins might be paid and forgiven. This is as objectionable to any case of child sacrifice in the Old Testament, which makes your denial of the latter but full embrace of the former all the more absurd.

I missed your rational and moral justification for all this. Maybe you can re-post it.

How far back are you going to move the goal posts on this topic in order to try and save face?

It started with God commanding human sacrifice. Then We had three pages of doctors and university professors worth of quotes supporting your OP, then a page of you cherry picking numbers 3 (as if no one else could read it for themselves) so that your statement remain plausible. The. Finally one of your own told you to cut it out, and you still can not let things go. Now we are saying what? God allows death? Even to kids?

Forgive me if any of you has lost one, but so what. There is a long list of good people who have lost kids and do not blame God let alone try and use the death of a kid to make an argument for child sacrifice.

You lost this one, save what dignity you can take a breath and try another stock atheist arguement maybe one we have done in a while.. I don't keep score unless you push a topic that we have already put to rest.

[Mudhammam]

How far back are you going to move the goal posts on this topic in order to try and save face?

It started with God commanding human sacrifice. Then We had three pages of doctors and university professors worth of quotes supporting your OP, then a page of you cherry picking numbers 3 (as if no one else could read it for themselves) so that your statement remain plausible. The. Finally one of your own told you to cut it out, and you still can not let things go. Now we are saying what? God allows death? Even to kids?

Forgive me if any of you has lost one, but so what. There is a long list of good people who have lost kids and do not blame God let alone try and use the death of a kid to make an argument for child sacrifice.

You lost this one, save what dignity you can take a breath and try another stock atheist arguement maybe one we have done in a while.. I don't keep score unless you push a topic that we have already put to rest.

Deflection, deflection, deflection. How have I shifted the goal posts? You didn't think I meant to lay down all the facts in my first thread, did you? No, I wanted to watch you twist and turn your way out of each dilemma one by one. It appears that you have given up. Everything I have cited thus far demonstrates the appropriateness of my post's title, "Child Sacrifice in the Old Testament."

It appears that you believe it is morally justifiable to kill children for the parents' iniquities. It is very obvious that Christians do not represent a loving God as they claim, but rather a moral monster who curses babies to die and rewards those who would sacrifice their children to him for a vow. Wow. You should feel dirty for encouraging such a sick and immoral religion.

[Godscreated]

---

Yes circumcision was required for all males and the examples I gave you showed there was no sacrifice of the first born, only dedication to service for God. You have not brought one speck of evidence that the firstborn males were to be sacrificed to God and there is none in the scriptures, not one example. all your after is to shine a bad light on God and you're going to do it no matter how stupid it makes you look, that sir is called desperation. The only reason you do not want to see what scripture plainly states i because you have abandoned all reason, you have not given us any verses showing God's acceptance of child sacrifice, i on the other hand have shown that the Israelites were punished for such a deplorable act.

---

GC

Yahweh has no moral objections to the slaughter of children, even babies, if it means faithfulness to a vow or punishment for the "sins of my soul," that is, the parents' failures. Examples of this include:
- The celebration of Jephthah's daughter, who was sacrificed over a dull-witted vow. Unfortunately, no one, including the author of the text, seems remotely aware that any actual moral response deserving an annual celebration would have involved Jephthah breaking his vow to Yahweh. Instead, his vow is kept, his daughter is slaughtered, and Israel creates a new holiday.
- Celebration of Abraham's faithfulness, even to the point of slaughtering his only child. Again, no mention is made of the fact that Abraham actually planned on killing his child. That Yahweh changed his mind and intervened at the last moment has nothing to do with the moral of this story, which is that Yahweh must be obeyed even when it means child sacrifice. Like Numbers 3, this tale demonstrates a way out from child sacrifice (a ram is provided) but nonetheless compliments the Hebrews' past obedience.
- The murder of David and Bathsheba's child, while not a sacrifice in the sense of the others, still portrays the exact same principle. That is, payment for a person's sins can be fulfilled through killing their son or daughter. I'm still waiting to hear your justification for this one.
- We haven't talked about 2 Kings 3:26-27 yet, but this passage seems to indicate that King Moab was rewarded with the defeat or retreat of Israel when he sacrificed his son to Yahweh.
- Of course, Christian theology was born out of the idea of child sacrifice. God sends his figurative son to die on a cross, like the Passover lamb, in order that humanity's sins might be paid and forgiven. This is as objectionable to any case of child sacrifice in the Old Testament, which makes your denial of the latter but full embrace of the former all the more absurd.

I missed your rational and moral justification for all this. Maybe you can re-post it.

You still have not shown through scripture were God commanded child sacrifice. It doesn't appear in the 10 Commandments, nor in the Laws of Moses, it ain't anywhere in scripture. So with out the commandment you have no leg to stand on. Actually I think you've been standing on you head to long.

Jephthah's vow was his own, God did not ask for the vow nor did He require the vow to be keep, Jephthah is solely responsible for his action, even though his daughter through her love for him submitted herself to this vow. God would have given Jephthah victory over the Ammonites regardless, it was His will the victory should take place. So God has no responsibility in this tragedy, actually God is trying to teach a lesson here and the annual custom of Israel's virgins lamenting this tragedy was to remind Israel to think before you say foolish things. Also Jephthah was expecting an animal to come out of the house before any person did, the first floor of the homes of Israelites were actually stables for the animals. For a person to leave the house the animals would have to moved out first, unfortunately this did not happen and Jephthah found himself in a bind, if h had been following God all along this would not have happened.

Abraham never slaughtered his son, so your accusation has no merit. Abraham assured his son that a sacrifice would be supplied, why because God promised that through his son a nation would be born, no son, no nation. Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness from God, it was never God's intention for Isaac to be sacrificed. Abraham was so sure that he would not be sacrificing Isaac that h told his servant they would return from the mountain. As far as your immature thoughts, "well it don't count that God relented and provided a lamb," being childish and insisting that part of the story you don't like has no meaning in the story is as Drich says moving the goal post. Abraham took the actions as far as God would allow, he was showing his faith in and to God, regardless of what you want to make of the story. You are so childish and irresponsible that you will twist a story completely to support your barbaric ideas. You see it's not God nor the Christians here that are consumed with child sacrifice, it is you and your deviant mind. If I were you I would be worried about my mental state.

David's sin against God as you tell it is far different than what we read in the scriptures, again your deviant mind for child sacrifice has blinded you and as I said, you should be worried. David actually pronounced his own punishment when Nathan told him the story of the poor man and his lamb and how the greed of the rich man harmed the poor man. David said the rich man should be put to death and have to pay four fold for the lamb. God said to David, in this order, your sin has been forgiven and you shall not die, but a punishment of the four fold you will pay. He told David he would make his son ill and that the son would die, for seven days David begged God to spare the child, in those seven days David discovered the harm he had caused. David was a shepherd not a master and a shepherd does not treat his flock the way David treated Uriah and the rest of the flock (Israel). David's sin was forgiven before God brought the sickness to David's son, there is no way that the death of the son can be considered a sacrifice. David pronounced his own punishment of fourfold in the taking of Uriah's life.

In 2 Kings 3 there is no King Moab, you should get your facts straight if you want to make an argument. Also the story does not even mention who the son was sacrificed to, again you have your facts screwed up. The king that sacrificed his son did not worship the God of Israel, they worshiped Chemosh. Also Israel, Judah and Edom destroyed most of Moab, only the stone walled city of Kir-hareseth was left, it is where the king sacrificed his son on the wall for all to see, it upset the Israelites enough that they left, they left as victors not as a defeated army. There is no way to interpret this story the way you did except to twist things around to support your blind childish story.

The only absurd thing in this discussion is your twisted belief in child sacrifice. Christ was not a child when He was killed on the cross, unless you consider 30 years of age to be the age of children. You have no idea what sacrifice Christ made for mankind, it actually began the minute He was born of a human mother and went until He died on the cross. God never expected man to sacrifice anyone especially children for the sin of man, why, because not even children were completely pure enough to cancel our sin.

GC

[Mudhammam]

You still have not shown through scripture were God commanded child sacrifice. It doesn't appear in the 10 Commandments, nor in the Laws of Moses, it ain't anywhere in scripture. So with out the commandment you have no leg to stand on. Actually I think you've been standing on you head to long.

I LOL'd.

You don't by any chance work at the circus do you?

Jephthah's vow was his own, God did not ask for the vow nor did He require the vow to be keep, Jephthah is solely responsible for his action,

Judges 11:29: "Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah."
So basically Godschild, you're saying when the Spirit of the Lord is upon someone, pay no mind to the crazy things they say or do. Here I think we actually completely agree.

even though his daughter through her love for him submitted herself to this vow. God would have given Jephthah victory over the Ammonites regardless, it was His will the victory should take place. So God has no responsibility in this tragedy, actually God is trying to teach a lesson here and the annual custom of Israel's virgins lamenting this tragedy was to remind Israel to think before you say foolish things.

The moments that God decides to intervene are quite peculiar, wouldn't you agree?
Judges 11:30-31: "And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.""
Here God turns into the timid
32: "Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands."
Now God is once again the Almighty Decider.
34-37: "When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.” “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.”"
God, quick, you just intervened to give the Israelites victory! Now tell them to stop before the innocent girl is killed in your name! But no, he can't, because once again he's turned himself into
But hey, at least the Almighty Decider arrives in time to give Israel a nice little lesson out of it, right?

Also Jephthah was expecting an animal to come out of the house before any person did, the first floor of the homes of Israelites were actually stables for the animals. For a person to leave the house the animals would have to moved out first, unfortunately this did not happen and Jephthah found himself in a bind, if h had been following God all along this would not have happened.

Abraham never slaughtered his son, so your accusation has no merit. Abraham assured his son that a sacrifice would be supplied, why because God promised that through his son a nation would be born, no son, no nation. Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness from God, it was never God's intention for Isaac to be sacrificed.

Genesis 22:2: "Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”"
Nope, never his intention.

Abraham was so sure that he would not be sacrificing Isaac that h told his servant they would return from the mountain.

Ah, you're right. I missed this verse the first read through in which Abraham clearly states he would never actually kill his son. You're referring to Genesis 22:10 right? "Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son." If you read your Bible, you'd know that Abraham had no problem killing his son: "Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death" (Hebrews 11:19).

As far as your immature thoughts, "well it don't count that God relented and provided a lamb," being childish and insisting that part of the story you don't like has no meaning in the story is as Drich says moving the goal post. Abraham took the actions as far as God would allow, he was showing his faith in and to God, regardless of what you want to make of the story. You are so childish and irresponsible that you will twist a story completely to support your barbaric ideas. You see it's not God nor the Christians here that are consumed with child sacrifice, it is you and your deviant mind. If I were you I would be worried about my mental state.

David's sin against God as you tell it is far different than what we read in the scriptures, again your deviant mind for child sacrifice has blinded you and as I said, you should be worried.

Again, perhaps if you were familiar with your Bible, you would know that David had Uriah the Hittite killed after he had slept with his wife. Murder and adultery, both capital punishments under the law as I have correctly pointed out.

David actually pronounced his own punishment when Nathan told him the story of the poor man and his lamb and how the greed of the rich man harmed the poor man. David said the rich man should be put to death and have to pay four fold for the lamb. God said to David, in this order, your sin has been forgiven and you shall not die, but a punishment of the four fold you will pay.

So the Almighty Decider contradicts his own law, which demanded for David and Bathsheba to be stoned, and furthermore what is David's "four-fold" punishment? Certainly, the Almighty Decider must recall that he says: "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:26). Or maybe on this particular day he actually felt more like this: "I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" (Deuteronomy 5:9). Whatever the case, for the sake of David's child, it is too bad this guy wasn't around instead --->

He told David he would make his son ill and that the son would die, for seven days David begged God to spare the child, in those seven days David discovered the harm he had caused. David was a shepherd not a master and a shepherd does not treat his flock the way David treated Uriah and the rest of the flock (Israel). David's sin was forgiven before God brought the sickness to David's son, there is no way that the death of the son can be considered a sacrifice. David pronounced his own punishment of fourfold in the taking of Uriah's life.

2 Samuel 12:13-15: "Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.” After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill."

'Nuff said.

In 2 Kings 3 there is no King Moab, you should get your facts straight if you want to make an argument.

Ah, I meant Mesha king of Moab. SO SORRY!

Also the story does not even mention who the son was sacrificed to, again you have your facts screwed up. The king that sacrificed his son did not worship the God of Israel, they worshiped Chemosh. Also Israel, Judah and Edom destroyed most of Moab, only the stone walled city of Kir-hareseth was left, it is where the king sacrificed his son on the wall for all to see, it upset the Israelites enough that they left, they left as victors not as a defeated army. There is no way to interpret this story the way you did except to twist things around to support your blind childish story.

Wow, this must be the first victory for Israel ever recorded in the Bible in which they left without looting the city and slaughtering every man, woman, or child (or kept them as slaves). Instead, the king of Moab, who still somehow has seven hundred swordsman around, sacrifices his son on the wall and the result? "The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land" (2 Kings 3:27).

Sounds like a convincing victory.

The only absurd thing in this discussion is your twisted belief in child sacrifice. Christ was not a child when He was killed on the cross, unless you consider 30 years of age to be the age of children.

I'm a few years away from 30 and I'm still my mother's child. Is there an age in which a parent can sacrifice his son or daughter that is not considered child sacrifice? If the son or daughter is fifteen? Twenty? Thirty-three? Or if the child willingly submits to the slaughter, believing it is their duty to God, then that makes it okay under Christianity?

You have no idea what sacrifice Christ made for mankind, it actually began the minute He was born of a human mother

Oh dear, what a poor fellow, having to be born and all.

and went until He died on the cross.

Tell me, why did he have to do that again?

God never expected man to sacrifice anyone especially children for the sin of man, why, because not even children were completely pure enough to cancel our sin.

But hey, it does go a long way: "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (Hebrews 9:22). I applaud your efforts but you missed a few loops. Overall, 6/10.

[Minimalist]

Jephthah's vow was his own, God did not ask for the vow nor did He require the vow to be keep, Jephthah is solely responsible for his action

So how come 'god' stayed quiet while "Jephthah" was lighting the fire? Apparently, as with "Abraham" your god thinks this shit is humorous but at least he stopped that one at the last moment.

"Silence breeds consent" is the legal maxim. Your sky-daddy sat there and watched it happen when all he had to do was say "put the fire out, idiot".

That makes him guilty.

[truthBtold]

Jephthah's vow was his own, God did not ask for the vow nor did He require the vow to be keep, Jephthah is solely responsible for his action

So how come 'god' stayed quiet while "Jephthah" was lighting the fire? Apparently, as with "Abraham" your god thinks this shit is humorous but at least he stopped that one at the last moment.

"Silence breeds consent" is the legal maxim. Your sky-daddy sat there and watched it happen when all he had to do was say "put the fire out, idiot".

That makes him guilty.

I with u Minimalist... In (jud 11:40) it says, "the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament =(To express grief for or about; mourn: lament a death) the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year." We cannot believe that the entire nation turned out to mourn and weep over a single girl being subject to a harmless vow. And Jephthah is listed among the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11:32.. go figure!!

[Lemonvariable72]

God had total foreknowledge of those peoples murders and failed to do anything about. That makes him a accessory before the fact and just as guilty as the king that worshipped idols. Especially because it was children.

no, seriously.. What did you really mean? I don't get it.

WOW your so christ like it is dumbfounding. Seriously maybe if you werent such a arrogant prick with rocks in your head, then maybe you could understand what I'm saying to you.