Why don't you discuss that
in the thread about Jesus being a Zombified human sacrifice to YHWH and ill begotten by YHWH so as to be sacrificed to YHWH in order to appease YHWH... this one is about
2 Samuel 21 and Joshua 7 being
irrefragable proofs for YHWH being a monstrous sadist who wreaks CURSES to torment people and then demands human sacrifice to stop doing that... and accepts the human sacrifice and is appeased by it and stops tormenting his victims.
As
proven in this post and
this one.
The statement you claim was not relevant to this thread was in direct response to quotations you provided in this thread. If talking about what you provided in this thread is not pertinent to it, the fault is not mine. I repeat, the introduction of Paul's writing to this thread was done by you. If it also belongs in another thread, it's a pretty clear indication that the two threads cover the same ground.
I'm not prepared to start yet another thread about what I think is essentially the same thing. I'm quite willing to concur that the god of the Bible, whatever he is called in various parts thereof, is a monstrous sadist who torments people (which we can presume absent other evidence, he enjoys at some level), and that the only way the gospel stories come close to making sense is, as you appear to suggest, as a plan whereby the passive-aggressive god induces curses in order to exact punishment and repentance, a circularity in which he guarantees that the people he created will end up forsaking him so he can punish them. A jealous god who demands not only obedience but ritual and worship, and as in the case of Job, and by some readings Abraham and Isaac, is so insecure that he can't just take it as it comes but must test it in the cruelest ways possible.
What I dispute is whether this constitutes what should be called human sacrifice in the religious sense that other acts of sacrifice are expounded, any more than one would apply that term to, say, Stalin's murder of peasants, or other bloodthirsty escapades. And even if after the fact, a bloke like Paul can claim Jesus's crucifixion was a sacrifice to God, that's not what was ostensibly going on at the time. The only way to reconcile that is to understand that the whole thing was a setup job from the start.
And I'm of the opinion that if one is going to bother to dig into the Bible in any literal way, one ought to take it as the single, canonical assembly that goes by that name, and to consider the god described therein as the same god, seen from somewhat different angles at different times. Since I presume the god of the Bible is a human fiction, it is not surprising if, as his human inventors changed over time, some of the details and descriptions of his character vary. Even if he were a real god, being observed, this would likely be the case, given how parsimonious he is with real evidence.
