Animal sacrifice; when is it okay?

[godnotgod]

Which, in a way, makes taking a life all the more meaningful and powerful to those who fully understand it.

BS. There is no such 'understanding' in blood sacrifice as a means of offsetting the infractions of the ego. Such 'understanding' as 'powerful and meaningful' is nothing more than self-hypnosis.

 

[godnotgod]

Your belief isn't determinative as to the appropriate reasons to kill animals.

I don't see anything else that qualifies. Show me what is, then.

 

[godnotgod]

It was a foreshadowing of Christ. It was also a progression in humanity's religious sense. We went from sacrificing humans and animals, to animals only and then God put an end to it by offering Himself as Sacrifice for all time. He always meets us where we are and then moves us forward in His plan when He determines we're ready. I doubt God ever really cared about the animal sacrifices, and basically says so in Hosea 6:6. They were a sign of repentence than anything else. It's not like He needed them or anything.

Yes, so grain and animal sacrifices just didn't cut the mustard. Finally, the only acceptable host in the eyes of God was God himself, in the form of Jesus, The Lamb of God, right? And to think it was all about disobedience to God's little sting operation in the Garden. It seems to me that what really occurred is that God's sting operation failed, and instead of taking it out on his children and ultimately on his only begotten son, he could have recognized his own faulty model and forgave his innocent children. Actually, the older version has it that God DID tell A&E NOT to eat of the Fruit, but with the intention that they do, the 'Forbidden Fruit' being a symbol for Higher Consciousness, or God Consciousness, with God reappearing to A&E as a cute little serpent. IOW, God wanted A&E to share in his supreme and perfect happiness. Mystics call this sharing 'divine union'. But the priests corrupted the story to put a wedge between God and man with the concept of sin, and the notion of a blood sacrifice in the form of a crucifixion became necessary for the Gates of Paradise to once again open for all of mankind to enter. This way, the priests could extract tribute from their unwary and frightened congregations.

You see, God set up a piece de resistance, fully knowing that his curious children could not avoid partaking of the so called Forbidden Fruit. In the world of Zen, we call this a koan; a non-rational problem set up to make the rational mind self-implode.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, so grain and animal sacrifices just didn't cut the mustard. Finally, the only acceptable host in the eyes of God was God himself, in the form of Jesus, The Lamb of God, right? And to think it was all about disobedience to God's little sting operation in the Garden. It seems to me that what really occurred is that God's sting operation failed, and instead of taking it out on his children and ultimately on his only begotten son, he could have recognized his own faulty model and forgave his innocent children. Actually, the older version has it that God DID tell A&E NOT to eat of the Fruit, but with the intention that they do, the 'Forbidden Fruit' being a symbol for Higher Consciousness, or God Consciousness, with God reappearing to A&E as a cute little serpent. IOW, God wanted A&E to share in his supreme and perfect happiness. Mystics call this sharing 'divine union'. But the priests corrupted the story to put a wedge between God and man with the concept of sin, and the notion of a blood sacrifice in the form of a crucifixion became necessary for the Gates of Paradise to once again open for all of mankind to enter. This way, the priests could extract tribute from their unwary and frightened congregations.

You see, God set up a piece de resistance, fully knowing that his curious children could not avoid partaking of the so called Forbidden Fruit. In the world of Zen, we call this a koan; a non-rational problem set up to make the rational mind self-implode.

See my thread here about Atonement theories and my opinion: Atonement theories.

Nice little conspiracy theory you have going for yourself there. I won't hold my breath for any evidence of it.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Who is it that needs to get over themselves?

You do. Because you're the one who immediately leaped to the conclusion that my statement on knowing the value of life through death meant human sacrifice focused at you. With your whole "try it and see" chest-puffing. So again, settle down and get over yourself.

If an animal could speak, they would be just as vocal as a human in its desire to save its own life.

They don't need to speak to display this.

[Animal sacrifice] is, in fact, a set of beliefs based upon fear, ignorance, and superstition propped up with ritual and mumbo jumbo sanctioned by some God.

Except for when it's not sanctioned by a god, and is the devotional action of a hunter or butcher in thanks to several parties.

So don't give me that crap about 'you have no idea blah blah blah'.

Have you ever taken a life?

There is no such 'understanding' in blood sacrifice as a means of offsetting the infractions of the ego.

Blood sacrifice or animal sacrifice; make up your mind which you want to attack, because they're two different things. With blood sacrifice, there is no functional or practical room for ego, making this statement nonsensical. Even with animal sacrifice, it's not about the individual and that's mostly the point.

 

[SalixIncendium]

After all, some animals are over populated...

Like humans?

Farmers all the time will do things like trap kill and toss pests or shoot and throw out animals they can't care for, eat or sell.

And this is an acceptable form of religious sacrifice? Or are we getting off on a tangent?

 

[SalixIncendium]

That doesn't make sense. Everything that lives eventually dies.

Of course the body of everything in this reality eventually dies, but I think @SabahTheLoner was speaking in terms of an animal's "life" being taken under the killer's terms and not the animal's own.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

What then of the elk hunted by the wolves? Should they get consent beforehand?

 

[SalixIncendium]

What then of the elk hunted by the wolves? Should they get consent beforehand?

Of course not. Your example exemplifies killing for sustenance. I am speaking in terms of sacrificing animals for religious purpose.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

In Heathenry, at least, they're the same thing.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Indeed.

There are, however, followers of other paths that practice the sacrifice of animals in a far different fashion.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I can't think of any that do so commonly anymore; most of the discussion here is in terms of ancient cultures and their traditions.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I can't think of any that do so anymore; most of the discussion here is in terms of ancient cultures and their traditions.

Santeria does, and there is a yearly festival in Nepal called the Deopokhari festival that goes back 900 years.

 

[Mister Silver]

Animal sacrifice is okay if the animal is beyond veterinary healing or to save your life by hitting it on the road instead of killing yourself by veering off road.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Santeria does, and there is a yearly festival in Nepal called the Deopokhari festival that goes back 900 years.

Thank you for the examples, truly. I'm reading up on them here.

In an article regarding Santeria, it's saying that while the priest was a boy he was learning about his religion. He saw animals go in alive, and come out dead, but didn't know why. It says that he helped by cleaning or cutting up the meat or plucking chicken feathers, so from this I feel it can be safely assumed that they use the meat afterwards, rather than just throwing it away. It also mentions that the method of killing - cutting the carotid artery - is a humane and preferred method of slaughter. Later on in the article it's clearly stated that the meat from the sacrifices is used and cooked in a feast.

It does mention Jewish animal sacrifice, which makes me wonder if they still do it.

With Deopokhari... I've got nothing for that. There's not much explanation that I can find, but from what I can find it does seem quite cruel. Far more so than other forms of animal sacrifice and ritual slaughter.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Deopokhari

That one is just evil. That's where superstitious bs gets you. I hope it's stopped soon.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not all sacrifice is bad, , obviously, if you adhere to the bible.

 

[Desert Snake]

Is the Passover sacrifice not considered a sacrifice in your book?

Sacrifice is recognized in the bible. Other opinion is just personal opinion.

 

[Mister Silver]

Not all sacrifice is bad, , obviously, if you adhere to the bible.

Adherence to the bible does not make something inside it okay when confronted with morality outside of a biblical context.

 

[godnotgod]

This argument doesn't work unless you start from the point that the religion is not true. If its true, that its internal logic is consistent with itself.

That's not true. One cannot prove or disprove religion since it is outside of the spheres of Logic, Reason, and Analysis. The argument works not due to religion being true or untrue, but because religion is based upon belief in some doctrine as true. There is no such 'internal logic consistent with itself'. That is all made up from the basic premise we call 'belief'. All I am asking is for you to demonstrate that animal sacrifice actually does what it says it does. Then you can talk to me about 'true', 'untrue', 'logic', and 'consistency'.

That's because we have a different belief than Buddhists in what needs to be rectified. What you are describing that Buddhists do, is part of repentance, not atonement.

What I am saying is that in both cases, some wrong has been committed. The Jewish and Christian view sees it as sin, and repentance and atonement are in order. Part of that process involves animal sacrifice. Buddhists don't see sin as the cause, but ignorance, and so get at the root cause of the wrongdoing, correct it, and move on. No animal sacrifice required.

Its definitely not about blood being the life force, because there is no such word or concept in Judaism

LEVITICUS 17:11
“And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that person who consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Therefore, I say to the children of Israel, `No one among you shall consume blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you consume blood.‘”

As I pointed out earlier, only someone who intends to take responsibility for his actions would be bringing this sacrifice in the first place. There's no such thing as a poor animal anymore than there is of a poor carrot. Its my possession to be used in service of G-d.

That kind of thinking is a sickness of the mind, disguised as something good, in the name of an imaginary authority. You possess nothing. It is ego that is in possession, thinking it is the doer. God is not interested in your juvenile notions of killing for sacrifice in his name.

I couldn't possibly care less.

Of course not. A man possessed by ego thinks himself righteous and in complete control.