Child Sacrifice in the Old Testament

[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