Animal sacrifice: out of fashion

[IndigoChild5559]

The Jews sacrificed at the temple in Jerusalem until it was ransacked and brought to ruins by the Romans.

Not the first time the temple was destroyed. And just like in Babylon, we say prayers in lieu of sacrifice as per Hosea, until the temple is rebuilt and sacrifices resume.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This is another discussion. Put another way, many people attend religious meetings of their choice and certainly not all could be said to obey God.

Judaism is not about attending synagogue. It is about keeping the 613 commandments. Synagogue worship is just icing on the cake.

 

[dybmh]

But it is clearly not painless. Even with a sharp knife. Both halal and kosher butchery require sharp knives and in their day they were more humane than many other methods. But we can be even more humane today. So why not go with that? The bruise to the forehead does not affect the meat in any way at all. I would suggest a combination of the two if one wanted to maintain one's traditions. Stun and then cut the neck just to be sure.

I've been told that it can take multiple attempts to stun the animal. I've been looking for a source to back that up, but I haven't found one yet. If the first stun doesn't work, then that method is much more painful for the animal. I did find a source to confirm that Jewish ritual slaughter is better, but more difficult.

But, I've learned that no matter what source I bring in a debate with you, if you disagree with the idea, then you deny the source regardless who it is or how credible. If the author of the source has a Jewish sounding name, I have no doubt you will reject it.

So, I'll just post this for the fair minded folks.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But it is clearly not painless. Even with a sharp knife. Both halal and kosher butchery require sharp knives and in their day they were more humane than many other methods. But we can be even more humane today. So why not go with that? The bruise to the forehead does not affect the meat in any way at all. I would suggest a combination of the two if one wanted to maintain one's traditions. Stun and then cut the neck just to be sure.

I am not at all convinced that being stunned means the animal doesn't feel the pain of being killed. It just makes them more compliant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've been told that it can take multiple attempts to stun the animal. I've been looking for a source to back that up, but I haven't found one yet. If the first stun doesn't work, then that method is much more painful for the animal. I did find a source to confirm that Jewish ritual slaughter is better, but more difficult.

But, I've learned that no matter what source I bring in a debate with you, if you disagree with the idea, then you deny the source regardless who it is or how credible. If the author of the source has a Jewish sounding name, I have no doubt you will reject it.

So, I'll just post this for the fair minded folks.

I never said that stunning was perfect. I am not sure of the statistics either. Your quote sounds like a PETA quote. Not very reliable. The point is that even if imperfect it is better than no attempt at easing the animal's suffering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not at all convinced that being stunned means the animal doesn't feel the pain of being killed. It just makes them more compliant.

Stunning knocks it unconscious. One needs to be conscious to feel pain. You are now looking for excuses not to be more humane. The burden of proof would be upon o you to show that stunning does not reduce pain.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Stunning knocks it unconscious. One needs to be conscious to feel pain. You are now looking for excuses not to be more humane. The burden of proof would be upon o you to show that stunning does not reduce pain.

I didn't realize it rendered the animal completely unconscious. thank you for the information. Not sure why they call it stunning if they aren't actually stunning, but knocking it unconscious, but that's a side issue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't realize it rendered the animal completely unconscious. thank you for the information. Not sure why they call it stunning if they aren't actually stunning, but knocking it unconscious, but that's a side issue.

It seems that many halal slaughterhouses are adding stunning to the procedure. There are many Muslim priests that have officially endorsed this practice. This is an article on it:

Pros and cons of different stunning methods from a Halal perspective: a review

There has always been a debate about the acceptability of stunning methods for preparing Halal slaughtered meat. Throughout the last few decades, stunning methods have become acceptable for Halal slaughtering due to an increasing majority of Muslim countries ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Perhaps there are some kosher slaughter houses that do the same.

And when I looked into this it turns out that non-kosher slaughterhouses cut the throats of cattle and other meat animals too. It is part of the process to drain the blood regardless of religion.

And just an FYI, meat from regular slaughterhouses are not red due to blood. It is probably as pale as kosher meat. But we like meat that has a red look to it. And there is a simple safe way to get it red colored. The meat is exposed to carbon monoxide. That preserves the color of freshly cut beef and also is supposed to preserve flavor:

Home | Meat Institute

www.meatinstitute.org

Cut beef that is never treated by that will turn pale as it oxidizes a bit.

 

[ChristineM]

Let me put it this way to you -- many people kill each other. Could be a form of patriotism. "Duty to one's country," right? How do you feel about that, since you're so concerned that killing animals is barbaric? I'll just say this -- I lived near slaughterhouses for a while, that part of the country. The things I heard and read about them weren't the greatest. Then again, the bones of those humans killed by other humans in war is not the greatest either.

I am not concerned that "humain" killing of animals is barbaric. Just ritualist slaughter of fully conscious and aware animals.

In just the same way i am concerned about non combatants in war.

I was raised on a farm, figure it out from there...

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not concerned that "humain" killing of animals is barbaric. Just ritualist slaughter of fully conscious and aware animals.

In just the same way i am concerned about non combatants in war.

I was raised on a farm, figure it out from there...

ok. Right now I'm not going to pursue the subject because I, too, am learning. Although I am now wondering how you feel about non-combatants and why you mentioned it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've been told that it can take multiple attempts to stun the animal. I've been looking for a source to back that up, but I haven't found one yet. If the first stun doesn't work, then that method is much more painful for the animal. I did find a source to confirm that Jewish ritual slaughter is better, but more difficult.

But, I've learned that no matter what source I bring in a debate with you, if you disagree with the idea, then you deny the source regardless who it is or how credible. OK If the author of the source has a Jewish sounding name, I have no doubt you will reject it.

So, I'll just post this for the fair minded folks.

OK, I'm learning, too, so at this point because there is so much variance and dispute about religion, and just like some do not wish to bring God's name to bad use, I'm going to drop the subject. But I'm still thinking about it and learning.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not the first time the temple was destroyed. And just like in Babylon, we say prayers in lieu of sacrifice as per Hosea, until the temple is rebuilt and sacrifices resume.

I understand your position about this. Although -- I know many who do NOT say prayers about this, who do not believe anything much about God. Much less anything about the temple. Plus more. So while you say 'we,' I guess you and I can also go back to Hosea and see how God feels about this. Even though many do not know or care in the various religions anyway. Right now I"m not going further into this.

 

[ChristineM]

ok. Right now I'm not going to pursue the subject because I, too, am learning. Although I am now wondering how you feel about non-combatants and why you mentioned it.

You mentioned war. If two groups want to fight thats up to them. Unfortunately it's the noncombatants who have to bear the mess

 

[YoursTrue]

You mentioned war. If two groups want to fight thats up to them. Unfortunately it's the noncombatants who have to bear the mess

And, unfortunately, many religious sects encourage the citizens of the various countries to do their "duty," meaning go fight and kill if necessary, even if they are members of their families, etc., pregnant women, children, etc. There are some who choose not to bear arms and kill their nation's so-called enemies, for which they can be severely punished.

 

[ChristineM]

And, unfortunately, many religious sects encourage the citizens of the various countries to do their "duty," meaning go fight and kill if necessary, even if they are members of their families, etc., pregnant women, children, etc. There are some who choose not to bear arms and kill their nation's so-called enemies, for which they can be severely punished.

It's a matter personal ethics.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's a matter personal ethics.

could be. or -- religious belief.

 

[ChristineM]

could be. or -- religious belief.

That too

 

[dybmh]

I never said that stunning was perfect. I am not sure of the statistics either. Your quote sounds like a PETA quote. Not very reliable. The point is that even if imperfect it is better than no attempt at easing the animal's suffering.

If the attempt to stun causes more suffering than Jewish ritual slaughter it's not a good idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the attempt to stun causes more suffering than Jewish ritual slaughter it's not a good idea.

Do you think that all Jewish slaughter occurs without a hitch? Done correctly stunning leads to a painless death. Even when done perfectly you cannot say that for Jewish butchery. It is less stressful than some methods, but it is far from painless.

 

[dybmh]

Do you think that all Jewish slaughter occurs without a hitch? Done correctly stunning leads to a painless death. Even when done perfectly you cannot say that for Jewish butchery. It is less stressful than some methods, but it is far from painless.

I think it's less error prone than a bolt-stun-method.