Exodus Demands Child Sacrifice

[SLD]

Exodus Chapter 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.

Now there are other passages saying nope, don't do that. Substitute a sheep or something like that. Then God says just the Levites. But the funny thing about those passages is that supposedly they were written after Chapter 22, and they basically are agreeing that the original text was commanding child sacrifice, but later people were like uhhh, no. We don't like that idea. Let's use a substitute. These later texts are agreeing that the original one was a commandment to sacrifice your first born. Pretty pathetic.

 

[ideologyhunter]

In the final chapter of Leviticus, there's a lengthy passage on designating your property for sacrifice. Get to verses 28 and 29 and the Good Book says:
"No one may sell or buy back what he has unconditionally dedicated to the LORD, whether it is a human being, an animal, or land. It belongs permanently to the LORD. Not even a human being who has been unconditionally dedicated may be bought back; he must be put to death."

Not shocking at all when you consider God's roid rage in the seventh chapter of His Book. And weren't the first born of Egypt, in a sense, sacrifices to buy the freedom of God's people?
Compare with Kim Jong Un's treatment of North Koreans. Who looks better?

 

[steve_bank]

On this I would have to say it would have been rhetoric not literal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the final chapter of Leviticus, there's a lengthy passage on designating your property for sacrifice. Get to verses 28 and 29 and the Good Book says:
"No one may sell or buy back what he has unconditionally dedicated to the LORD, whether it is a human being, an animal, or land. It belongs permanently to the LORD. Not even a human being who has been unconditionally dedicated may be bought back; he must be put to death."

Not shocking at all when you consider God's roid rage in the seventh chapter of His Book.

At some point it went out of vogue. Isaac is the first thing to comes to mind regarding sacrifice. But it becomes not a thing later on.

Leviticus is so ridiculously transactional.

And weren't the first born of Egypt, in a sense, sacrifices to buy the freedom of God's people?

No, that wasn't remotely necessary to get the freedom. It was simple vengeance. The tale of the Exodus from Egypt makes less and less sense every time it is read. God being angry is the most sensical part of it. The tale is important. They are saying something that really mattered. And we have no clue what it is. We go from a polytheistic Genesis to a radically monotheistic Exodus which denotes the explicit punishment of polytheists during the Exodus.