"you state God doesn’t want it one way or another"

No, I never said God doesn't want sacrifices. I'm saying that sacrifices of animals to God are a result of the fall.

"but rather just knows how things will be. This notion is contradicted by the many times Jesus speaks of doing the will of the Father, as one can’t do God’s will, if God doesn’t want anything."

It has nothing to do with God not wanting anything. To give an example, the fall. Was Adam and Eve's fall the will of the Father? No, it was entirely on their own will to listen to Satan and eat from the tree (which by the way, knowledge of good and evil = knowledge of sin, meaning it is what made them know sin), and the Father knew things would go that way as he knows everything.

"Further more, Jesus says he always does those things that please the Father, and is never recorded killing an animal to eat it or offering sacrifice. Therefore we can conclude that sacrifices and killing animals to eat their flesh is not pleasing to God."

Jesus never sacrificed animals because he himself was his only sacrifice.

"It is clear you and I do not believe in or worship the same God, as I certainly do not believe in a God that ordained human slavery, animal sacrifice, war, and requires the murder of the innocent (ie. Jesus) in order to forgive sin."

Then you don't believe in the God of the Bible? You don't believe in Jehovah? You don't believe in the God that the Messiah (literally Jesus = Joshua = Jah's salvation) taught? Because he ordained slavery, war, and sacrifices in his Law.

"For example, “love your neighbor as yourself,” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and “the kings of the earth and their great men exercise authority over one another, but it is not to be so among you.” Not to mention his teaching,"

I have already covered "love thy neighbour". And by the way, the Samaritan being considered a "neighbour" isn't that far-fetched. Consider, most Israelites saw Samaritans as foreigners, but not only were they related, but that was specifically a Samaritan living in Judea. Why would it thus be a Samaritan and not for example, an Egyptian? Jesus used a Samaritan in that parable for a reason (just as he did the Levite and Pharisee).

Moreover, on slavery. Either they would be captured from foreign land (as I said) or people would willingly sell their child to slavery (which under Bronze and Iron Age conditions makes perfect sense). Going by Exodus 21, you CANNOT go to your neighbour and sell him as a slave!

"On the equality and brotherhood of man: “call no man your master, for one is your master, the Christ, and you are all brothers.”"

This master does not refer to a slave master. This master is explicitly referring to JEWISH RABBIS. In Syriac, the cognate for Rabbi is used and thus would technically mean master, but in the Greek translation, the word being used is still rabbi, which explicitly referred to jewish rabbis. Why else would they use a Semitic word? Thus this does not teach universal equality among men and thus anti-slavery.

And you still haven't rebuked my points regarding when Jesus actually talked to slave-owners (the Roman centurion who he didn't tell to free his boy once) and about slavery (where he said a slave would be beaten if he knowingly disobeyed his master).

"Psalm 139:22: “I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.”"

This is referring to a different kind of enemy. Again, go back to Leviticus 19, where it is outlaid who your "enemy" is, and the "enemy" in "love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy" is a fellow Israelite who hates or disagrees with you. So that interpretation of that Psalm itself is Pharisaic and Rabbinical.

"Also, Paul swearing oaths is not a valid argument that Jesus didn’t forbid oaths, for many people who come in the name of Jesus still don’t follow his teachings, whether unintentionally by ignorance or intentionally as false prophets."

Are you saying Paul "didn't do the will of the Father" as explained by Jesus in that verse? Because Paul was literally an Apostle, accepted by the original 12 in Acts. You're essentially denying that he is an apostle and saw Jesus, since he got so much wrong (including swearing oaths all the time). Jesus saying to "swear no oaths by heaven or earth or any other thing" was referring to swearing by anything except the Father. As with all his teachings in the Sermon of the Mount, it wasn't rebuking the Law (love thy neighbour etc.) but taking it further than the contemporary Rabbinical interpretation.

" If this is what is meant in Jeremiah, then why does God state he never commanded sacrifices in the first place, rather than just saying he was displeased with sacrifices being offered by selfish people?"

God meant in Jeremiah 7:22 that he didn't ONLY want sacrifices. The English translations are sloppy regarding this , but the Septuagint is clear regarding what he meant:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/jeremiah/7.htm

"If this were the case as you say, then why does Jesus quote from Jeremiah, in the very same speech sacrifices are condemned, and quoting the phrase ‘den of robbers’, where the Hebrew word here means ‘violent, tyrant, murderer’?"

Do tyrants and warmongers target animals? No, they persecute and murder men. Thus it's most likely both literal for them being thieves, and figurative in condemning their practices, for what was said in Hebrew or Aramaic at least. And the Greek word lestes doesn't necessarily mean violent robbers more than it means INVADERS of any kind, armed or not. Stated in John 10:1.

Also, the priests were clearly in league with the money changers for selfishness. Including selfish sacrifices, and selfish money-making, which is why they saw Jesus as a threat.

"I believe the true sacrifice as originally taught was the sacrificing of our lower carnal natures, the sacrificing of our own ego-based systems of thought that separate us from the Mind of Christ and inhibit us from doing the will of the Father."

That's the spirit of sacrifice and what David mentioned in the Psalm, but sacrifice isn't just an allegorical concept, it's literal as well. What's the "burnt lamb" on Passover otherwise?

"Each of us must tread our own path. My take is that you elevate the law of Moses above the teachings of Jesus"

They're one in the same. Jesus always taught the Law and Commandments in some form, this whole separation of them is false doctrine of the Catholic/Orthodox church.