Which is the Most Violent Religion Based on the Doctrine?

[wizanda]

Jesus was of the Pharisee tradition

Separate debate, for another thread....

Obviously you have missed the entire point of this.

Your translation doesn't make much difference to the context; priests murder prophets, then claim it was a righteous sacrifice sent by God.

it is a teaching which comes FROM rabbinic Judaism and has a specific meaning.

Heard the meaning multiple times from a Jewish professor, still don't find it right, sorry.

And then quoting Jesus is useless when your argument was supposed to be about your claims that Judaism allows for murder in the mistaken belief that it effects atonement.

The destruction of the 2nd temple, and expulsion from the land, was because Yeshua was murdered as an atoning sacrifice (plus all the other prophets, as he stated).

 

[metis]

Separate debate, for another thread....

Actually we can do that if you wish, but it does pertain to what you wrote in that it's all too easy to lose sight of the context of Jesus' Judaistic approach. The context of Jesus' comments dealing with the Pharisees is quite interesting in that it vacillates, which makes sense if viewed as an internal debate but makes no sense if Jesus is pictured outside of the Pharisee movement, the movement of which was not at all monolithic.

 

[wizanda]

it's all too easy to lose sight of the context of Jesus' Judaistic approach.

Yeshua being Jewish isn't an issue; him being brought up within Pharisee/Sadducee/Levite/Essene customs isn't either.... Yet to make him a Pharisee invalidates most of his doctrine.

It is also a reason so many modern Rabbinic Jews are very confused, trying to make someone who was more an Essene, a Pharisee.

 

[rosends]

Your translation doesn't make much difference to the context; priests murder prophets, then claim it was a righteous sacrifice sent by God.

An accurate translation is unimportant to you? So noted. Nothing in the quoted text says anything about claiming something as a "righteous sacrifice" sent by or to God.

Heard the meaning multiple times from a Jewish professor, still don't find it right, sorry.

So you heard explanations from someone who is trained and informed but you just don't like it because it clashes with what you want to believe. So noted.

The destruction of the 2nd temple, and expulsion from the land, was because Yeshua was murdered as an atoning sacrifice (plus all the other prophets, as he stated).

No, it had nothing to do with Jesus, and Jesus was killed by an occupying government as a military action to suppress a political rebellion. Along with other bits of trivia, Jesus was not a prophet, let alone a "sacrifice".

 

[metis]

Yeshua being Jewish isn't an issue; him being brought up within Pharisee/Sadducee/Levite/Essene customs isn't either.... Yet to make him a Pharisee invalidates most of his doctrine.

It is also a reason so many modern Rabbinic Jews are very confused, trying to make someone who was more an Essene, a Pharisee.

There has never been established an Essene connection, and if you spend time going through what we do know about the Essenes, it becomes obvious that they certainly were quite far from being on the same page. The Essenes chose to not relate to a world they saw as corrupt, thus serving as recluses, whereas Jesus did the opposite. Nor is there one single verse in the gospels or epistles that only is found in myriad of Essene scriptures that went beyond what's found in the Tanakh. Nor would they even touch any alcohol. Etc.

OTOH, Jesus had a great deal in common with the Pharisees, with the emphasis on scripture, belief in heaven and hell, having rabbis and synagogues, commenting on the scriptural readings, etc. However, his theology is definitely more in the direction of the more liberal Pharisees, which took issue with the Oral Law as "laws made by men". He was not the only one who objected to that approach, btw.

I would suggest that probably most of today's Christian theologians now recognize that Jesus was a Pharisee, as was Paul, the latter of which identifies himself as being one when he was arrested. Since Paul was a Pharisee praising Jesus, that clearly points out the simple fact that Jesus also would have to be one because of their approaches.

If one does not put Jesus into the proper context, then it's all too easy to make some pretty serious theological mistakes as he was a Jew working from a Jewish paradigm. The Wiki article on the Pharisees is actually quite good, including covering the variations of Pharisees that existed at Jesus time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

OTOH, if you check out the Essenes, you'll see there are major problems trying to establish any kind of theological or physical link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

 

[wizanda]

An accurate translation is unimportant to you?

If I'm concerned about a verse, will normally check every word, cross referencing it with a concordance, to verify inherent meaning, interlinking metaphors by the prophets, etc...Translations alone are useless without a context.

Nothing in the quoted text says anything about claiming something as a "righteous sacrifice" sent by or to God.

The quoted verses went from Hosea 6:6-9; yet like with everything read the chapter, and book around it as well.

So in verse 6, it states 'the knowledge of God is more important than your burnt offerings'; who brings the knowledge of God?

Who is then implied as having traps set for them in verse 9? Jeremiah tells you, if you're unsure.

So when Yeshua interlinks this, he is referring to all the prophets, as he stated in Matthew 23:35.

So you heard explanations from someone who is trained and informed but you just don't like it because it clashes with what you want to believe.

No, as God wouldn't let anyone into Heaven who claimed, 'that they've got atonement from the death of the righteous', neither would God accept an offering based on death.... God is the lord of the living, not the dead.

No, it had nothing to do with Jesus, and Jesus was killed by an occupying government as a military action to suppress a political rebellion. Along with other bits of trivia, Jesus was not a prophet, let alone a "sacrifice".

Did Yeshua state the 2nd temple would be destroyed, and the people expelled because of him?

Did Zechariah 11:10 state that the covenant would be broken with all people, if the 30 pieces of silver were paid, and put in the potters field in the house of Israel?

Gospel of Nicodemus states the Sanhedrin forced the hand of Pilate; Pilate in the synoptic gospels states he didn't want to, and was "innocent of this man's blood".

Can list numerous prophecies by Yeshua that have all come true; yet since you already pointed out, you're not interested in learning, guess 'basically, it isn't a useful discussion'.

 

[rosends]

If I'm concerned about a verse, will normally check every word, cross referencing it with a concordance, to verify inherent meaning, interlinking metaphors by the prophets, etc...Translations alone are useless without a context.

So when you quoted a bad translation, did you do all that first? I think not. Here is the original for verse 9:
וּכְחַכֵּי אִישׁ גְּדוּדִים חֶבֶר כֹּהֲנִים דֶּרֶךְ יְרַצְּחוּ שֶׁכְמָה כִּי זִמָּה עָשׂוּ
have at it.

So in verse 6, it states 'the knowledge of God is more important than your burnt offerings'; who brings the knowledge of God?

Who is then implied as having traps set for them in verse 9? Jeremiah tells you, if you're unsure.

But verse 6 says nothing about human sacrifice. It is a comment about ALL sacrifices being lesser than true devotion. Invoking it in any discussion of human sacrifice is wrong.

No, as God wouldn't let anyone into Heaven who claimed, 'that they've got atonement from the death of the righteous', neither would God accept an offering based on death.... God is the lord of the living, not the dead.

It is adorable that you think you can speak for God and you know who gets into heaven and who doesn't. Since you completely don't understand the Jewish notion of atonement and how a dead person fits in to that, your pronouncement is even more ludicrous.

Did Yeshua state the 2nd temple would be destroyed, and people expelled because of him?

No idea because it doesn't matter. It and he have nothing to do with Judaism. You have completely lost sight of what this is supposed to be about because you have had to move topics when you have been unable to substantiate earlier claims.

Gospel of Nicodemus states the Sanhedrin forced the hand of Pilate; Pilate in the synoptic gospels states he didn't want to, and was "innocent of this man's blood".

That's nice. A useless text making claims which substantiate its own position. Why would that be relevant?

Can list numerous prophecies by Yeshua that have all come true; yet since you already pointed out, you're not interested in learning, guess 'basically, it isn't a useful discussion'.

True. It just shows you don't know the Jewish concept of a prophet or a prophecy. But since you don't care to learn because you have made up your mind and will just say other irrelevant things, it isn't a useful discussion.

 

[wizanda]

Since Paul was a Pharisee praising Jesus, that clearly points out the simple fact that Jesus also would have to be one because of their approaches.

That approach is working backwards, and will arrive at a faulty conclusion....Paul contradicts Yeshua on well over 36 points; yet Paul does fit with some of the Pharisaic expectations of first century Judaism....Yet Paul is just wrong when understanding the line of the prophets, and Yeshua.

So if we take a step back, the Essenes had many apocalyptic ideas expecting it within that time, as did Yeshua.

The idea of living without wealth, can clearly be seen by them, with their belief that everything was provided for by God...Have had Rabbinic Jews try to suggest so does their texts; yet if you check dates, it is later thinking, and not inherent to the belief as Yeshua was teaching....

Which leads us on to the Ebionites (the poor ones), who were far more inline with Yeshua's doctrine of following the commandments, to ascend into Heaven, and by giving up wealth...They were against the Pauline idea, that Yeshua came as a living sacrifice.

Christians who perceive Yeshua to be Pharisee, is due to the lack of information contrary, as the Pharisees have monopolized Judaism.

 

[wizanda]

But verse 6 says nothing about human sacrifice. It is a comment about ALL sacrifices being lesser than true devotion. Invoking it in any discussion of human sacrifice is wrong.

'Yeshua asked for mercy and not sacrifice, and if you knew what this meant, you wouldn't condemn the innocent'; same still applies.

As for you being told that is what it means; yeah if you read one verse completely outside of its context....

• Verse 5 says about 'God sending prophets as light',
• 6 that God doesn't need sacrifice, yet to follow what is righteous,
  
• verse 7 says 'they've dealt treacherously',
  
• 8 says 'the place is polluted with blood',
  
• and 9 says 'the priests are the ones doing it'.

Which is why Yeshua challenged the Pharisees directly over it.... Yet you're so busy defending what you don't understand; you miss the point in the process.

No idea because it doesn't matter. It and he have nothing to do with Judaism. You have completely lost sight of what this is supposed to be about because you have had to move topics when you have been unable to substantiate earlier claims.

If you paid more attention, the reason the Jews were expelled from the land of Israel, according to Yeshua, and the prophets (not Christianity), is because you've been charged with murdering prophets as atoning sacrifices...That is what the rest of this conversation has been about; since you've lost sight of what we're discussing.

That's nice. A useless text making claims which substantiate its own position. Why would that be relevant?

It is far from nice; just like war isn't non violence, etc....

The reason it is relevant, is because if the gospel of Nicodemus is right, and by him (who was a member of the high council); he is declaring that the Jews murdered Yeshua, and thus you can't go blaming the Romans for it.

But since you don't care to learn because you have made up your mind and will just say other irrelevant things, it isn't a useful discussion.

Just allow the evidence to speak for its self; don't really do beliefs.... As for irrelevant, nothing ever is; if you pay attention you realize everything has a deeper meaning, it is just comprehending it.

It just shows you don't know the Jewish concept of a prophet or a prophecy.

Who cares about only the Jewish prophetic understanding; this is global as you will see soon.

 

[Tumah]

So when saying doctrine, also including the things taught within it?

So for instance Sikhs are trained warriors, with horse back riding, always carrying a knife, etc.

Taoism established Kungfu, thus has a whole martial arts dedicated to it.

Yet in both of these, they are taught as self defense, and used to protect.

So before anyone puts Islam, as far as i was aware Jihad means to protect, not to go attacking people.

Yet Islam is far from innocent, with countless battles described within it, where Allah gives favour to his people to win wars.

So on to the Jewish Bible, which clearly has more wars, violence, brutalization, and severe punishment system than the rest....So i suppose since I've already half answered it, is there any religion less violent?


People are violent anyway, and recognition of that seems to help dissolve the issue; so at extreme sports matches, such as boxing, rugby, American football, there is then less violence.... Almost like it releases some of the piped up aggression, we all have to some extent.

So what if the religions of violence had some form of martial art/self defense system added to them, do you think it might resolve them causing such violence in the world?

This OP and subsequent post are really poor work in proving (or even suggesting) that Judaism is especially violent.

Perhaps you meant to say, which religion has the most violence in its Books? I'm not familiar with other religions books, but I can hear an argument that the Tanach favored by Jews and Christians might contain the most violence.

But I suppose the reason you didn't want to formulate the OP in that way, is that you realize that violent texts do not automatically equate to violence. Christians on the whole are not running around waving guns in the air screaming Yeshu Akbar. Jews are not running into cafes with semi-automatics. Violent texts can encourage violence, yes, but its demonstrably not true that the more violent a text, the more violent its adherents. Which would render your point that violence in Jewish texts proves that Jews are violent, moot.

Instead, your OP asks, "which is the most violent religion based on doctrine". In other words, of all religions have violent texts, which one is currently the most violent?
You give examples of religions that [currently] teach violence (as defensive measures) as part of their teachings (Sikhs and Taoists). I can definitely hear why you would suggest these two in a list of violent religions, since (if what you say is true,) martial arts are a part of their distinct teachings.

For some reason though, you gloss over Christianity and Islam, arguably two religions most easily associated with violence in the past two millennia (inquisitions, pogroms, crusades, wars and a substantial amount of terrorism today) and jump to Judaism, a religion that has no such doctrinal teaching or requirement, nor is any sort of martial act taught in any form as a religious doctrine in any Jewish school in the world now or in the knowable past. In fact off-hand, the only (non-defensive) violence that can be attributed to Judaism, took place before the invention of both Christianity and Islam (in the form of the Sicarii). And that mostly took place against occupying Romans. Hardly relevant to a discussion of current violent religions.

So the question of your title is: of the many religious doctrines that espouse some form of violence or other in the many religions of the world, which one is causing its adherents to kill and injure the most people today?
Shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

That would be if it was true; based on the doctrine (if you've read the texts), many are not teaching peace....

Islam doesn't teach peace, just to protect what they have, and to kill infidels; yet it is based on the war like mentality of Judaism...Though Islam does mean 'submit to peace'; yet hasn't been often applied.

Judaism is full of atrocities, which then Christianity is established on...Yeshua didn't come to bring peace either; yet the sword of division, to make everyone fight against each other.

This post is in all honesty worse than the first.
"War like mentality of Judaism"? My friend. Up until about 200 years ago, practically every Jew in the world was either living crammed together on a little Judengasse, living out in the village trying to eke out a living under the resident poritz, or living as dhimmi. Try to learn from other history professors besides Mr. Duke. Even if there ever was some sort of "war like mentality", your ancestors and their friends in most countries throughout Eurasia and North Africa had done their bestest to stamp it out through persecution, oppression and expulsions. To clarify, in order to establish a "war like mentality" of the Jewish nation, you need to point to "war like" actions that have taken place by Jews as a nation at least currently if not some amount of recent history.

That isn't true, one of the reasons the Jews have been kicked out of so many countries is for ritually sacrificing children, etc....

You do realize that by making such a[n absurd] comment, you are making the argument that Jewish violence is not a result of their teachings, since Jewish Law prohibits ritual sacrifice of any persons. Which nicely contrasts with your OP about Jewish violence stemming from its doctrines...

Oral tradition states that, 'the death of the righteous, can atone for the sins of that generation'...So hardly not bloody.

It kind of seems you just through this in here because it could be perceived as being violent when connected with the rest of your post.
"Rabbi Elazar said, why is the mention of the priestly garments put next to mention of the death of Aaron (Num. 20:28)? To teach that just as the priestly garments atone, so too does the death of the righteous."
-Babylonian Talmud, tractate Moed Katan 28a

Not a lot of bloody violence there.

 

[roger1440]

So when saying doctrine, also including the things taught within it?

So for instance Sikhs are trained warriors, with horse back riding, always carrying a knife, etc.

Taoism established Kungfu, thus has a whole martial arts dedicated to it.

Yet in both of these, they are taught as self defense, and used to protect.

So before anyone puts Islam, as far as i was aware Jihad means to protect, not to go attacking people.

Yet Islam is far from innocent, with countless battles described within it, where Allah gives favour to his people to win wars.

So on to the Jewish Bible, which clearly has more wars, violence, brutalization, and severe punishment system than the rest....So i suppose since I've already half answered it, is there any religion less violent?


People are violent anyway, and recognition of that seems to help dissolve the issue; so at extreme sports matches, such as boxing, rugby, American football, there is then less violence.... Almost like it releases some of the piped up aggression, we all have to some extent.

So what if the religions of violence had some form of martial art/self defense system added to them, do you think it might resolve them causing such violence in the world?

 

[EtuMalku]

So i suppose since I've already half answered it, is there any religion less violent?

Luciferianism has not one act of violence associated with it. Being that the US prisons are mostly Protestant I would have to go with that religion being the most criminal / violent.

 

[whatbibleteaches]

In contributing to this question:
Might I say that ONLY Jehovah God, THE CREATOR of all things - - ONLY Jehovah can DECIDE the definition of what "violence" is. Only Jehovah can DETERMINE what constitutes "violence".
Jehovah God is the CREATOR of this thing called: "LIFE", or "Living Existence".
As the Creator, He may determine matters of "SPAN' (as in "life-SPAN".)

When Jehovah created this new "TYPE OF LIFE" called: PLANT-KIND (a "kind" of "LIFE" / a "type" of life / a "form" of life); Jehovah can DETERMINE what it's "length of existence" shall be.
If God created a flower to blossom for a day, or a week; and then "wilt" and "die" ("returning from whence it came") ~~~ the term "violence" does not apply.
If God created another plant to exist for 50 years; or a tree to exist for a few hundred or thousand years; and then it would "return from whence it came" ~~~ the term "violence" does not apply.
If a tree gets "chopped down", and the tree "falls to the ground"; and then it "rots and decays" ~~ even humans don't consider the "taking of this LIFE" as "murder". Nor do we call it "torture" nor "killing".
Due to His Creatorship, Jehovah God is rightly PERMITTED to DETERMINE what constitutes "murder" or "violence".

Moving on:
When Jehovah created another brand new "type of life" called: Animal-KIND (a "kind" of LIFE / a "type" of "LIFE" / a "form" of "LIFE"); Jehovah is permitted to DETERMINE it's "existence SPAN".
If God created a little mouse to exist for a year or so; a cat to exist 12 years or so; an elephant to exist 70 years or so; a parrot to exist 90 years of so; a tortoise to exit 120 + years; and a sea mollusk to exist 350 years or so; and then it would "return from whence it came" ~ ~ ~ this is not called "murder" or "cruel".
Also, you cannot attach such a term as "unfair" to the "different" spans given to different animal KINDS. This would be ridiculous.

Moving on:
Then, if Jehovah creates other COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KINDS-of-LIFE; Jehovah again retains the right to determine matters of SPAN of Existence. Sorry, - - them's just the brakes.
When God created "conscious" LIFE; Jehovah has the RIGHT to determine the "TERMS" for that EXISTENCE.
Jehovah GAVE life ~ ~ ~ Jehovah can TAKE BACK that life. He can RECLAIM it. He can END it. ***THIS***IS***HIS***RIGHT***. And us puny little humans, who did not create ourselves, we just don't have the right to determine what's "violence" or not.

Moving on:
Jehovah God HAS determined such things. He has INFORMED mankind of his DETERMINATION; and His TERMS for their continued EXISTENCE. We have His word The Bible.
Jehovah can DETERMINE what "words" will mean; and what meanings do-not-apply to a certain words.
Until mankind recognizes Jehovah's Sovereignty - - you-alls will continue "debating" things.

There you have the essence of the "low-down". May your day be blessed.

 

[roger1440]

 

[roger1440]

 

[LionofJuda]

Why, are you not aware of what is happening today? Who are behind those terror attacks? Especially the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11. What is there religion? How about the resent terror attack in France. Series of terror attacks worldwide are made by who those who claim themselves as islam. and they are admitting this. This is not an accusation.

 

[Aset's Flames]

So when saying doctrine, also including the things taught within it?

So for instance Sikhs are trained warriors, with horse back riding, always carrying a knife, etc.

Taoism established Kungfu, thus has a whole martial arts dedicated to it.

Yet in both of these, they are taught as self defense, and used to protect.

So before anyone puts Islam, as far as i was aware Jihad means to protect, not to go attacking people.

Yet Islam is far from innocent, with countless battles described within it, where Allah gives favour to his people to win wars.

So on to the Jewish Bible, which clearly has more wars, violence, brutalization, and severe punishment system than the rest....So i suppose since I've already half answered it, is there any religion less violent?


People are violent anyway, and recognition of that seems to help dissolve the issue; so at extreme sports matches, such as boxing, rugby, American football, there is then less violence.... Almost like it releases some of the piped up aggression, we all have to some extent.

So what if the religions of violence had some form of martial art/self defense system added to them, do you think it might resolve them causing such violence in the world?

No.

I am afriad that you do not know what a martial art is.

A martial art is any form of fighting: armed or unarmed or offensive or defensive.

 

[wizanda]

I am afriad that you do not know what a martial art is.

Haven't said a Martial art is non violent, just a form of disciplined self defense; thus we find far less violence overall, when human violence is channeled into something disciplined, and constructive.... A thug is no longer a thug, when he becomes a trained warrior.

Why, are you not aware of what is happening today? Especially the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11. What is there religion?.

As far as the real evidence shows:

• Mossad agents were there in advance to film the whole thing, dressed as Muslims, when arrested they declared "We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem."
• Larry Silverstein, had just brought and insured the building, purposefully for terrorist attacks...He has had one of the biggest insurance claims in history, as he had it x2.
• Jews were sent a text message telling them not to be in the building that day.
• And tons more evidence here: Israel did it.

Though i don't think you should blame it purely on religion; Zionism is an extremist sect of Judaism.

Who are behind those terror attacks?

Isis was funded, trained and created by the CIA and Mossad....So I'd blame the instigators; 'this is not an accusation, they admit this'.

 

[wizanda]

This OP and subsequent post are really poor work in proving (or even suggesting) that Judaism is especially violent.

Which would render your point that violence in Jewish texts proves that Jews are violent, moot.

Not saying Jews are violent, asked which text/doctrine does.... Also asking if an opposite reaction occurs, due to having an outlet for violence.

So will now ask due to your questions, does a violent text cause people to become detached from violence?....Considering what was just asked:

Clearly, you are against war, capital punishment and eating animals, and these become acts of violence to you.

This shows clear signs of being detached from violence....

So this could partially explain why Zionist can help fund wars on both sides, causing mass slaughter of millions of Goyim; without any concern for their life...

Obviously taking the Talmud into account, also makes no one care if a sub-human Goyim dies.

So the question of your title is: of the many religious doctrines that espouse some form of violence or other in the many religions of the world, which one is causing its adherents to kill and injure the most people today?
Shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

Since both Christianity, and Islam were created, and can be fixed by Judaism; then clearly only one religion is causing it.

To clarify, in order to establish a "war like mentality" of the Jewish nation, you need to point to "war like" actions that have taken place by Jews as a nation at least currently if not some amount of recent history.

To blame our whole people (as saying in the last post) is silly...

Zionism is an extremist sect of Judaism; yet clearly we can show funding, and organizing of wars by these extremist, which is still continuing in mass today....

With most of us ignorant to what is really going on, and simply trying to defend our heritage.

You do realize that by making such a[n absurd] comment, you are making the argument that Jewish violence is not a result of their teachings, since Jewish Law prohibits ritual sacrifice of any persons. Which nicely contrasts with your OP about Jewish violence stemming from its doctrines...

Again wasn't implying Jews are violent, completely missed the point....

Yet on the other hand, this point was to show that it isn't free of violence, people are individuals, and just as religious text states something, doesn't mean everyone follows it....

Clearly Solomon makes a great example, as do others within the text...

Some people went completely against the doctrine to follow other gods, and sacrifice to Moloch, etc.

It kind of seems you just through this in here because it could be perceived as being violent when connected with the rest of your post.

Within the on going discussion been explaining that; here is a quick summary:

Is that due to Yeshua's murder for 30 pieces of silver as a sin offering, and put in the potters field in the house of Israel, the people have been found to be violent by YHVH...

Thus were expelled from the land, and the 2nd temple destroyed...

Which has then happened multiple times of being expelled from different countries for human sacrifice; so something is clearly going on.

 

[rosends]

This shows clear signs of being detached from violence....

Because I eat a hamburger? Your claims re: 9/11 show how detached from reality you are.

So this could partially explain why Zionist can help fund wars on both sides, causing mass slaughter of millions of Goyim; without any concern for their life...

More hate filled accusations devoid of any basis in the real world.

Obviously taking the Talmud into account, also makes no one care if a sub-human Goyim dies.

Then you invoke the talmud based on not knowing it, but parroting what some hate sites, which are replete with lies and fabrications, said. Why don't you think for yourself?

Zionism is an extremist sect of Judaism; yet clearly we can show funding, and organizing of wars by these extremist, which is still continuing in mass today....

Then you REALY don't know what Zionism is.

Is that due to Yeshua's murder for 30 pieces of silver as a sin offering, and put in the potters field in the house of Israel, the people have been found to be violent by YHVH...
Thus were expelled from the land, and the 2nd temple destroyed...

No, that is an article of faith that you subscribe to which is not supported by any actual facts.

Which has then happened multiple times of being expelled from different countries for human sacrifice; so something is clearly going on.

Look -- more unfounded accusations about human sacrifice. I guess you researched those "accusations" and found them to be true, or else why would you bring it up again?