Animal sacrifice; when is it okay?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your belief is based on your own beliefs.
My belief is based on the Torah.

... and your beliefs about the Torah.

 

[Akivah]

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.

Judaism hasn't sanctioned any material sacrifice (including animals) for over 2000 years. Sacrifices can only be brought to the Temple, which currently doesn't exist.

I see that the article states

It would be difficult for the city to prove that killing animals in a ritualistic manner, such as the Jewish faith does, is crueler than killing animals in a slaughterhouse.

The writer of the article, Kimberly Thorpe, doesn't appear to be knowledgeable about Judaism. She should have used the word "did" instead of "does".

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

In this particular case, namely, Santeria, animal sacrifice is only about consumption as a means of sharing (not even divine union) with Orisha, the spirit-god.

No, that's not the only thing they utilize animal sacrifice for. In the article that I linked in Post #77, it's shared that both clergy in the observation were healed from their rituals, where medicine had failed them. You're free to balk at this, as I'm sure you will, yet the fact remains that Santeria animal sacrifice is not only about sharing the feast with their gods.

And in such uses of animal sacrifice - sharing a feast - who are you to judge any for that?

That is the ritual of 'sharing'. No one 'knows' if it 'works'.

There is nothing to "work" or "fail".

Just a belief, which then leads to the ritual, and not the other way around. My understanding comes from the link I provided. Is it incorrect?

Yes. Right from the first word: "Animal sacrifice is central to Santeria. The animal is sacrificed as food, rather than for any obscure mystical purpose." It is ritual butchering. Having similar rituals, the reasons for this examples function are as follows:

1. Initiation of the priest/ess
2. Preparation of a celebratory feast
3. Inclusion of the gods

Other reasons are given such as birth, marriage, and death. Yet nowhere is there the reason given for "Well, god said to kill an animal, so let's kill an animal! Oh, and Hannah was born, so let's toss that in there too."

The mystic, OTOH, transcends belief, opinion, conjecture, and concept for direct experience, cutting through all obstacles between himself and Reality.

Which reminds (though it wasn't forgotten,) that you haven't answered a question: have you ever taken a life?

So does Santa Claus 'work' for children; it absolutely does; until they find out, and then the belief loses its power, and they wake up and grow out of that phase.

Depends on what you tell your children about Santa Claus. A poor red-herring comparison, notgod.

 

[Tumah]

Judaism hasn't sanctioned any material sacrifice (including animals) for over 2000 years.

Just under. The Temple was destroyed 1,947 years ago in 70 CE.

 

[Skwim]

Yes. The McNuggets feed someone.

Yup.

For a parallel with religious animal sacrifice, consider trophy hunting: the killing is done as a hobby, not for subsistence, and the animal doesn't get used for a useful purpose afterward.

Not to defend hunting, but I believe most hunted animals do get used for food.

.

 

[Tumah]

Yup.

.

I just want to know if this means that the doctors had to pump two hundred chicken nuggets out of two kids, or four hundred chicken nuggets out of two kids, when these kids eventually ended up there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not to defend hunting, but I believe most hunted animals do get used for food.

.

... which is why I specified trophy hunting.

 

[Mohsen]

Is killing a chicken so as to make Chicken McNuggets any more humane or virtuous than killing a chicken as an offering to one's demanding god?

.

Badabing badaboom.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

I would much rather sacrifice by giving to the needy, human or otherwise. Besides the usual money (sometimes to the point I'm stuck come bill time), my Mom and I also believe in giving the local wildlife and any humans around extra stuff from her garden.

 

[Skwim]

... which is why I specified trophy hunting.

Arrrgh!

.

 

[godnotgod]

Your belief is based on your own beliefs.
My belief is based on the Torah.

No, the Torah is based on belief; my input is based upon what I SEE, not what I THINK, and thought, as we all know, is what is required to formulate a belief.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

... which is why I specified trophy hunting.

And compare ritual sacrifice to a hobby. Think what you will of the practice, but it's incredibly ignorant and careless to compare a ritual practice with significant meaning and weight to the practitioners to a goddamn hobby.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And compare ritual sacrifice to a hobby. Think what you will of the practice, but it's incredibly ignorant and careless to compare a ritual practice with significant meaning and weight to the practitioners to a goddamn hobby.

I think it's completely appropriate to call religion a hobby.

If you think this is "ignorant and careless," then maybe you don't realize just how important and meaningful people's hobbies can be.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I quite realize how meaningful a hobby can be. "Important" defeats the purpose of something being a hobby, as they are by definition distractions of pleasure from work or responsibility. I would hardly ever define any religion as nothing more than a "hobby".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I quite realize how meaningful a hobby can be. "Important" defeats the purpose of something being a hobby, as they are by definition distractions of pleasure from work or responsibility.

I disagree strongly.

I would hardly ever define any religion as nothing more than a "hobby".

I wouldn't describe most hobbies as "nothing more than a hobby."

 

[Maponos]

So you think the animal is more concerned with comfort and his legacy than actual survival?

I hardly see the difference between slaughtering an animal for food than as a sacrifice, except that the sacrifice is treated honorably whereas the slaughtered is not.

 

[Valjean]

Good point, but the result is the same, regardless of the attitude of the killer, and I doubt the animal appreciates the difference.
I look at both alternatives as theft of a life that is not ours to take.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Nothing is "ours to take," but we take it anyways.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The poor, poor carrot, ripped violently from its home in the soil, chopped up, sliced, peeled, sometimes frozen and then cooked.

We cannot live a life without killing. Our antibodies even do it without us knowing about it.

 

[Valjean]

The poor, poor carrot, ripped violently from its home in the soil, chopped up, sliced, peeled, sometimes frozen and then cooked.

We cannot live a life without killing. Our antibodies even do it without us knowing about it.

But a carrot doesn't have the qualities than entitle a sheep or goat to moral consideration.