Part 2 of 2

I think that many of those questions are answered when one's heart is finally opened to God, our Creator

In this I suggest we are in complete agreement. I suggest however, you can’t find that until you see who really created the Bible (both OT and NT), and for what purpose. Only by letting that go can you come to understand God (AKA Source), and what Jesus was really trying to tell us. In order to do that, I suggest you really need to read all the gospels left out of the official book. It is also essential to stop trying to fit it into the OT, or the non-gospel books of the NT. Also try to not force “every word as truth” as the Bible self-defines itself, but rather, read it as an important archaeological document (recognize the books were written by people, which isn’t in any way controversial). Let go of the self-references and arguments created with circular logic that prevent you from looking at the mountains of other evidence in earnest. Read the actual quotes of Jesus instead of assuming all the surrounding rhetoric of the author is some sort of absolute truth.

When you do that, what you get are different perspectives of the same events (and completely different events that aren’t in the Official Book). Glean from these different perspectives (historical documents) what Jesus was really trying to convey. I suggest this approach will give you a much greater understanding of the enlightenment of Jesus and his attempt to share it with us before it was twisted to serve the Priest Class. I am just shy of convinced that the people who created the Roman Christian Church was the same Priest Class as the original Jewish one, controlled by the Jewish control of the Roman economy. I still have to nail that chain down, and the Jewish monetary privileges aren’t laid out in that document (that’s a deeper dive into the Roman laws themselves), but it does show how far back their control as bankers/moneylenders/money changers went. Here’s a start on the Roman law deep dive. From wikipedia:

The'history of the Jews in the Roman Empire traces the interaction of Jews and Romans during the period of'Roman Empire ( 27 BC. J.C. - 476 ). Their cultures began to overlap in the centuries before'Christian era. Jews migrated to Rome and Roman Europe since Land of Israel, the'Asia Minor, Babylon and Alexandria in response to economic difficulties and the incessant war on the land of Israel between empires ptolemaic and seleucid. In Rome, the Jewish communities enjoyed privileges and flourished economically, becoming a significant part of the population of the Empire ( perhaps up to ten percent )

This control of money came originally from a Jewish law stated many times in the bible, but clearly stated in Deut. 23:20

Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

You can fuck over anyone you want by lending at any interest rate you want, as long as you aren't trying to fuck over other Jews. By doing so, you will possess any land you go into. Which is exactly what they did. These laws were transferred to every state they lived in, including Roman Law. The respect the Romans gave to the Jews and their religion allowed them to become the money lenders, land owners, money changers, and economy controllers behind the scenes in Rome, just as they are today. Of course it wasn’t ALL the Jews, but only those at the very top, which also happened to be the Priest Class or their associates/descendants. No small number of the rest of the Jews became the early “Christians,” though they had quite different beliefs than The Church demanded they adopt later (no Trinity e.g.). I suggest that was intentional, creating two separate classes of people; the Jewish Elite (followers of the Talmud) and something of a “lost people” (AKA those Jews who refused Talmudic teachings, but adopted Jesus' teachings of God as Source, of which we are all a part, i.e. not separate and ruled by, but part of in the most fundamental and intimate way).

It was a religious demand that Jews (followers of the Talmud) could only loan money to non-Jews at interest, so that’s exactly what they did, to everyone, including the Romans. It just so happens that the Christian Church made it illegal to charge interest on loans for those Jews that forsook the Talmud and followed Jesus, but allowed the "proper" Jews to do so as a respect of their religion. Weird and whacky coincidence that. All of this fuckery was created by a group of Jewish Priests 3200 or so years ago, when they wrote that law, and then insisted that all countries in which they lived respect their religious laws, by which they ruled the economic world. Nothing has changed in the interim except the form of The Grand Illusion.

I apologize for the length of my response. A fair bit of it is quotes you likely know or won't mind reading, so it may not be quite as long as it appears. I hope you read it and look up the links provided. They took a while to compile, and will, I hope, provide you an entry into a much larger world, or at least allow you to see earnest debate on the topic.

Part 1 of 2

It seems that your questions are coming from "the outside looking in"

I spent the first three decades of my life debating Christian theology with many learned scholars of the religion (my father being my primary debate partner, a theologian, minister, and one of the smartest people I've ever known). Not exactly "the outside looking in," but rather, someone who has studied extensively and found more than what is contained within the box that is the standard offering.

As for child sacrifices, they really are all over the place. That list is in general condemnations of child sacrifice, but when you dig in, you see that almost all of them condemn it either because they were sacrificing their children to the wrong god, or "the Lord your God did not command it," which suggests that it was only allowed when YHWH commanded it, which indeed he did.

Exodus 22:

29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

30 Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.

Within the broader context this implies that first born children and animal sacrifices are both YHWHs possessions, and both subject to sacrifice. This is corroborated in numerous other sections of the The Law. Below is just one of many other examples:

Numbers 3:

12 And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine;

13 Because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the Lord.

This is a clear statement that the firstborn in Egypt were killed because they belonged to YHWH and he could do with them as he wished. He also states clearly that the first born of the Israelites were his to do with as he wished.

40 And the Lord said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.

41 And thou shalt take the Levites for me (I am the Lord) instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel; and the cattle of the Levites instead of all the firstlings among the cattle of the children of Israel.

...

45 Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle; and the Levites shall be mine: I am the Lord.

What exactly happened to the Levites who were taken instead of the Israelites? Who knows. Maybe they were killed. Some say they were made into temple slaves. Temple slaves were castrated, and, of course, slaves. So not death, because why kill when you can have free labor? But maybe they were killed. There is some good dialogue on the debate here.

“God” (or rather, The Law, written by the Priests) allowed that in lieu of sacrificing the first born, they could be redeemed. What is “redemption?” It is giving money to the Priests. The Priests always came out ahead in these sacrifices. They got the first born cattle, lambs, best cuts of meat, etc. Sometimes the first born children were absolutely sacrificed, but sometimes they were just taken as slaves. Sometimes they got money. “God” didn’t get these things, the Priests did. The text above continues:

46 And for those that are to be redeemed of the two hundred and threescore and thirteen of the firstborn of the children of Israel, which are more than the Levites;

47 Thou shalt even take five shekels apiece by the poll, after the shekel of the sanctuary shalt thou take them:

48 And thou shalt give the money, wherewith the odd number of them is to be redeemed, unto Aaron and to his sons.

49 And Moses took the redemption money of them that were over and above them that were redeemed by the Levites:

50 Of the firstborn of the children of Israel took he the money; a thousand three hundred and threescore and five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary:

51 And Moses gave the money of them that were redeemed unto Aaron and to his sons, according to the word of the Lord, as the Lord commanded Moses.

Who were “Aaron and his sons?” The Priest class.

As for specific examples of actual sacrfice to YHWH there are several. The link above goes to a few more, but consider the most popular two, Abraham and the Passover:

YHWH told Abraham to sacrifice his first-born son. Abraham didn’t question that demand. Why? Because it was common practice. All first-born belong to YHWH. Yes, “he” changed that law eventually, where by “change” it is meant the Priests got money or slaves, but it was standard practice, and he (or the Priests) didn’t really change the law. He only changed it for the Chosen People, and only sometimes.

(Note: for other examples, see also 2 Kings 3:27, and Judges 11:39, where people were rewarded by YWHW for sacrificing their first born.)

What about child sacrifice for the non “Chosen People?” Well, of course there’s the passover, where by divine decree YHWH sent Divine Thugs (called “angels”) to murder the first-born child of everyone who didn’t capitulate to his demands. The standard mantra is that he only did it because the Pharaoh wouldn’t let his chosen people go. OK, but what really happened. YHWH slaughtered people that weren’t the Pharaoh, innocent children, as a sort of “lesser of two evils.” What type of Source requires such capitulation to demands? What type of Source is insufficiently powerful that he needs the Pharaoh to capitulate? Why didn't he just kill the Pharaoh instead of untold innocent children? Why didn’t he just let his own Chosen People go? What type of Source of ALL things has a “Chosen People” in the first place?

The Bible is laden with child sacrifice (not to mention racism). There are statements against it, but in context they are statements against sacrificing to other gods, because Source is “Jealous.” There are also plenty of statements for child sacrifice and indeed, acts of it in compliance with the demands of YHWH as well. There are also included allowed concessions if you want to keep your first born child and not submit him to child slavery in the temple or blood-sacrifice, all you have to do is pay a first born child tax to the Priests.

Why would Source care about taxes or slaves? Why would Source care about being a Ruler at all? Why would Source be Jealous? HOW could Source be Jealous? It’s SOURCE. It Is already ALL. There is no fundamental separation of Source from anything else in the universe. There is nothing to be jealous of. You want to know who is jealous? An entity that is NOT Source. An entity who has other entities that he sees encroaching on his domain. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. In other words, there are other gods, but you can’t put them before me. You must do what I say. I am the Lord. I am your Ruler. I am jealous of the other gods when you sacrifice to them.

I have no doubt your brain is screaming at this interpretation of things. You are likely thinking, that I have twisted everything around. That I am ignoring important context. Of course I don’t know if that is what you are thinking, but it is a common enough response. To that I say, maybe. But maybe not. This is not my complete argument, it is only a beginning. You have been trained, likely since birth, to not see the bible in any other way than the way everyone else in that cult sees it.

Cult: a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

We think of a “cult” as being this definition, but only as it applies to an aberrative set of tenets. But what is an aberration (a deviation from “normal”) except what we personally think constitutes such? Any formal set of tenets is a cult. Once a belief system becomes law it becomes a cult.

Of course Christian beliefs aren’t law. Well, actually they are. The beliefs of the Christian Church were laid down as law in 325 AD at the time the bible was formalized, leaving out most of the original texts (that is not a comprehensive list of all deleted books of the original canon, either Jewish or Christian). This was done to unite all the disparate religions of the roman empire in order to unite the empire itself. It also set up a God-Emperor (Divine Ruler) in the form of the Pope (it wasn’t called the Pope yet, but it was the same office). But even if the Christian tenets (as you understand them today) weren’t actually written into law, they would still be “law” of the informal sort (what we call Common Law). The entire concept of a “heretic” is a system of punishment ensuring that the law is followed, if for no other reason than that “you don’t want to be one of those people.” Thus, those that think outside of the box (law) are heretics, and are “fallen away” at best, or shunned/excommunicated at worst (well, worst is probably burned at the stake, but that fell out of favor a few centuries ago).

The worst offense of those Theodosian Laws was, imo, the formal law that creates and defines the Trinity, separating us from Source. The Trinity was not the common belief before the second ecumenical council in 383 AD when it was written into law. Before the “Trinity” it was just the “Duality,” i.e. Jesus being the exclusive Son of God (We are ALL Children of God). The Duality wasn’t the common belief either until the first ecumenical council in 325AD when it was first written into law.

Going back to the foundation of The Church, what we call the OT, where all the Child Sacrifice is (except for the last one of course); people think that the OT was written by the Jews but it wasn’t, it was written by The Jewish Priests. The Priests were the ruling class, and they wanted to remain the ruling class. They were the tax collectors, the money changers, the money lenders, the recipients of all sacrifices, etc. Once you recognize those, never talked about, but otherwise uncontested facts, if you allow yourself to actually look at the racism (“Chosen people”), and the hierarchical rule that was set up, and who those sacrifices really went to, and you start to look at the other evidence of history that was happening in the rest of the world at that time (other nations, other gods), and you really dig in to the architecture, and original writings (not just the interpretations that have been forced on us), and the pottery, jewelry, (symbols), other archaeological evidence, and all the surrounding Context, a different picture of what the Bible (in this case the OT AKA The Law) emerges than the indoctrination all Christians receive in The Church.