Child Sacrifice in the Old Testament

[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.