One of the primary reasons God in the Old Testament demanded sacrifices of animals is to prove a point. Most pagan religions, particularly the Egyptian one, either revered animals or were part animal in their visualization of their demon gods.
Christians will slaughter every cow in India one day and have beef tacos when they convert from demon worship.
I don't agree that this is a correct interpretation of sacrifice. I think some sacrifices were about obedience and fellowship, death exists and in the matter of the Lord, the atonement sacrifice was completed in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection.
I say in the original post that it's only part of the reason.
Those things you mention here are also part of it too, but making a case on those things are like speaking Greek to the barbarians who just want to say "God bad."
Prove what point? Pretty much all old religions did animal sacrifices.
I try to be charitable with you, but you know, it's tough. God is telling the Israelites to sacrifice the symbols of gods of other religions. Then they did.
Regardless of whether God rewarded them with actual grace or not for the acts, the point being that killing them did not get them cursed or some such. That proved a point, eh?
This is completely made up with no evidence in either scripture or tradition.
Fucking heretic.
You continue to surprise, arguing as if you were a Christian, when you're not. As for that...
The golden calf in Exodus, was what, exactly? Further, in Genesis, Man was given dominion over the animals, not the other way around, to worship them.
Anyway, one of the greatest theologians of all time covers this topic a fair bit. See here: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FS_Q102_A6.html
And again. Neither scripture nor tradition supports your claim.
Are you part of one of these weird denomination where every random person can interpret the bible to their liking?
I gave you two scriptural references, and a passage of the Summa Theologica. You ignored both.
Are you a Protestant?
If you are a Catholic, find me any traditional opinion or quote from the Catechism that supports your claim.
What you posted does not support your claim.
Oh, it most certainly does, and besides, I provided the relevant passage from the Summa Theologica, which is 2nd most Catholic of Catholic books (the first being the Bible) Here's the quote in particular:
"Of birds they were allowed to eat the tamer kinds, such as hens, partridges, and the like. Another reason was detestation of idolatry: because the Gentiles, and especially the Egyptians, among whom they had grown up, offered up these forbidden animals to their idols, or employed them for the purpose of sorcery: whereas they did not eat those animals which the Jews were allowed to eat, but worshipped them as gods, or abstained, for some other motive, from eating them, as stated above (A[3], ad 2). The third reason was to prevent excessive care about food: wherefore they were allowed to eat those animals which could be procured easily and promptly."
Are you Protestant?
Looks like you're afraid to answer the question. You could just take the loss and not reply, which I think would be better for you at this point.
In my belief system, the Eloha whom we call "Lucifer" and his scientific team were exiled here and not allowed to return to their home planet because they were revealing information to the Earthlings that was meant to be classified + fucking the human girls. They were violating some serious protocol.
So, while here, they were susceptible to Earth parasites and needed to have their bacon extra crispy to avoid getting sick. You may think my belief system is ridiculous, but I can't think of a better explanation for a "God demanding burnt offerings."
https://www.rael.org
Your belief system is also, pretty much, from the Book of Enoch. Have you ever read it?
I've only read commentary, but yes, would love to read the whole thing.
See chapters 6-8 - https://www.bibleword.org/wp/Enoch.pdf
"the Watchers" I believe were angels, but they could, I suppose, have been alien beings that breed with women and provided the basics of scientific knowledge.
Partials (life) animated (inception towards death) within whole implies SAC'RIFICE, verb - "to devote with loss" aka DEVOTE, verb - "to set apart".
Pagan/pangere/pag - "to fix; to fasten"...animation cannot be fixed/fastened by those within; trying it anyway hastens ones demise.
What about asking Abraham to sacrifice his son? Who was going to do it. That should have been a test to see if Aaron would go through with something evil... not how much he loved God. What about God sacrificing his one and only son to attone for people's sins? What about people pretending to drink Jesus' blood and eat his flesh and singing the "beautiful" song "we are washed in the blood of the lamb." Now before you make excuses or reasons let's pretend Satanist were doing all these things in the name of Satan. What would one's reaction be?
ABH (father) RAHAM (multitude)...animation sacrifices (sets apart) multitude.
Few suggested MANY to come together, as to trick each one to ignore that nature sets each one apart from one another.
Aka whole (god) setting apart (sacrificing) each one (son) aka AT (direction towards) ONE...
a) Whole does; each partial within reacts to being (life) done (inception towards death). Reacting to the reactions of another tempts one to ignore being done.
b) A satan-ist is consenting to suggested satan-ism, while ignoring perceivable...satan/adverse/advertere - "turning towards".
Did Abraham sacrifice Isaac?
No, it was a "test" by God. He asked him to. And Abraham brought him to the alter, then God basically said haha just kidding I was just testing your love and obedience to me.
It was not a test, it was a physical description of foreshadowing the Messaiah and the Father's sacrifice. The Lord was helping us understand.
And thank you for making my point for me. God was saying don't sacrifice your children, have faith in me instead.
Abraham and Isaac is an ANTI-child sacrifice story.