If you need good luck, why not sacrifice a child to appease the god?
Regarding the practice of child sacrifice in many African countries — doesn’t Christianity promote this false idea that there is a god or spirit that must be appeased with a human sacrifice? According to the Book of Hebrews 7:27, 9:26, etc., Jesus is the one and only sacrifice, a man who offers himself as a human sacrifice to Yahweh.
But the Jews have it right, and also the Muslims, as they know Yahweh did not accept Abraham’s human sacrifice of his child Issac (Genesis 22), and God abhors human sacrifice, and God would never accept a human sacrifice, not even the sacrifice of a Jesus. God has no need for a human sacrifice. A human sacrifice is an abomination.
I suspect that Muslims and Jews are immune to Christianity because they know this fact about human sacrifice — God abhors it.
Islam may be the solution to this problem of child sacrifice in many African countries. Either that or adequate law enforcement.
Christianity does not permit child sacrifice, but yet retains the ancient Pagan idea that a human sacrifice is/was essential to appease a god. And Christianity preaches this idea of human sacrifice in Africa where some may be predisposed to act on it.
It would have been better if those who invented Christianity had instead taken the Jewish position that all human sacrifice is abhorrent to God.
It is quite horrific to think that a Virgin Goddess gives birth for the express purpose of having her issue tortured to death with enough blood-letting to fertilize the crops, etc. That is the old Pagan story. It should have been ignored by Paul the Apostle as he devised a new religion to supplement his income. Jesus’ message of love and forgiveness and repentance should not have been tainted with such — sure makes God look like a blood-thirsty demon if God needs to be sated with human blood.
Of course I don’t know how much negative influence Christian ideas of human sacrifice have had on the current situation in Africa. For sure, those who kill the children don’t realize that Jesus was supposedly the ‘one and only’ human sacrifice.
The real historical Jesus of Nazareth, if he was typical of his times, would not have considered himself a human sacrifice, because Jews of that time knew that Yahweh abhorred human sacrifice.
It might be that Christianity was designed to put a stop to a practice of human sacrifice (then perhaps resurgent in the backwoods of Turkey??) with the idea that a mythical Jesus was the ‘one and only sacrifice,’ and therefore, in theory, no other sacrifices would be necessary. However regrettably, Christianity carried forward the non-Jewish idea that God is demon-like, demanding human sacrifice, and assumes God is unable to transform the world except by violence and blood. Not a fit message for those Africans already predisposed to think in such terms.
We can’t even know if there was a Jesus of Nazareth. But if you subtract all the stuff that is similar to Pagan imagery, such as virgin birth, human sacrifice, anointing, resurrection, drinking blood, bridegroom, etc., then you are left with Jesus’ message of love, forgiveness, repentance, and the mistaken belief the world was about to end. Probably most would agree the historical Jesus was some sort of itinerant preacher and healer.
It is important to know something of the mythology and the politics of the times to understand what may be factual in the New Testament.
Jesus’ message of a loving ‘Abba’ does not seem to be compatible with passages that make Jesus into a human sacrifice.
Are there submerged ideas that are carried forward in time in a religion? Even if a practice of child sacrifice is not part of the Christian religion, if it endorses the sacrifice of a particular child, that is, the baby Jesus destined to be murdered, then it is carrying forward the wrong idea, a submerged idea, that child sacrifice is necessary and effective.
At the center of Christianity is the idea that killing a child is acceptable. The young Lord Jesus, decreed to be a human sacrifice, is brought into the world for the express purpose of later killing Him, so you can be “saved” by His blood.
This idea of human sacrifice has roots in pre-Christian Pagan mythology. It is not Jewish. Jews didn’t do human sacrifice. Jews did not drink blood, not any blood, let alone human blood. Jews were not cannibals; not even symbolically (as in wine as blood).
What happens when this idea that the brutal slaughter of the Son is/was necessary, is accepted by millions? Do these millions then believe that bloody violence is always the answer? Does the world become less peaceful as a result?
Switching from the ancient story of a Goddess weeping over her slain Son to a Father-god ‘willing’ the bloody sacrifice of his Son, is not an improvement. In some versions, she killed her Son. Still not an improvement to switch to Father-god doing killing.
The Hebrew Bible condemned those who practiced child sacrifice (Ezechiel 16:20-21, 16:36, 20:26, 20:31 (DRA)). But Pagan rituals of human sacrifice were held even in Yahweh’s temple which contained “carcasses of the kings” (Ezechiel 43:7-9 (DRA)).
The “kings” played the role of “bridegroom,” then were sacrificed, mimicking a god who was a bridegroom and who was sacrificed. I suspect those selected to be kings were teens or otherwise vulnerable.
What happens when retrograde ideas of Bridegroom and sacrifice are deliberately carried forward in time by Paulists in the first century and by today’s Catholics? What submerged corollary ideas tag along?
Do you ever contemplate this while you are drinking the “Blood” (wine) of the “Bridegroom” Jesus who was a “king”?
The article I am reflecting on at RNS says that many African countries have child sacrifice: Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, Swaziland, Liberia, Botswana, South Africa, Namibia, and Zimbabwe.
Article is at