Animal sacrifice; when is it okay?

[godnotgod]

As I understand it, in Medieval Europe, an entire community would plant wheat, harvest it, process it into flour, and bake it into bread, as a communal contrition for sin. This is far more intelligent than the ritualistic and superstitious blood sacrifice of animals, especially the Jewish idea of the animal taking the place of humans for human sin; IOW, a scapegoat. Of course, this practice was ultimately seen as inadequate and unpleasing to God, and so the ultimate sacrifice had to be made: God himself in the flesh, as Yeshua. Pretty sick, actually, but all done under the auspices of Holy Authority, which makes it OK. Complete human garbage from the ignorant mind of man.

 

[godnotgod]

I found your argument to be well thought out and the conclusions logically drawn. I guess I need to change my position...

The 'logic' behind animal sacrifice is erroneous to begin with, and has no place in the spiritual development of the human being. From the POV of psychology, this is transference of the load of guilt and shame onto a scapegoat, the practice going back to about 4000 BC in Greece, when a goat was banished into the wilderness, representing community sin.

Instead of transference of guilt and shame onto some poor defenseless and innocent animal, why not dig down deep into oneself and come face to face with one's own causes in order to resolve them once and for all. As 'Jesus' said: "Go and sin no more"

It wasn't the poor animal who is responsible for your infractions; it is none other than you. Have the courage to square with it and you will be free.

 

[Enoch07]

I've heard various arguments about this. Many practitioners of African-American religions make use of this. Scriptures from traditional religions seem to approve or appropriate it to the point where new religious movements have used such content to discredit them.

I've heard people say this was okay only if you plan to eat the animal and put the inedible parts to use somehow. I think I can agree with this veiw because destruction should be for beneficial, creative or recreational purposes. Never just for destruction's sake.

If an animal is to die, it must have a purpose. It's only respectful. I feel the same about human deaths. I'm likely to be an organ donor or a donor to science after my death. In fact I would want that to happen if entirely possible.

I've also heard people say it's not okay at all because animals don't deserve to die. I would agree with this except carnivores kill innocent critters all the time. If animals don't deserve death, why is it they kill on their own terms? What makes us better than the other animals?

We somehow think we live in a world of glory when animals are treated like objects in factory settings and the road to death is simply the road of suffering. Animals are just as likely to die from exhaustion and disease in a factory as they are from actual slaughter. And we are better than the starving dwindling wolves whose powerful maws make quick work of an elder rabbit that probably would have become irreversibly sick in the following week? Should the animals resort to plant diets like many humans have consciously decided to partake in?

How do you feel about animal sacrifice? What are your arguments?

Also, I forgot to mention before; supposedly some people claim there is a "right way" to kill for sacrifice (minimal suffering). Why would suffering be important to the ritual? How does suffering of a lack thereof change anything?

From my understanding animal sacrifices are not to be eaten. It would defy the purpose of the sacrifice, because you would not be giving up anything if you did in turn eat the animal.

Disclaimer: I am only listing the reasoning of some people who do believe in animal sacrifices.

Personally I believe if an animal is to be killed then every part of that animal should be used for a purpose. Even if you just compost what is non edible, to make fertlizer. So needless to say on a personal level I disagree with animal sacrifice for this reason.

 

[SomeRandom]

If it's eaten and done humanely then whatever. I eat meat so it's not as if I can say anything against it without being hypocritical.

 

[Tumah]

The 'logic' behind animal sacrifice is erroneous to begin with, and has no place in the spiritual development of the human being.

This appears to be an opinion instead of an argument.

From the POV of psychology, this is transference of the load of guilt and shame onto a scapegoat, the practice going back to about 4000 BC in Greece, when a goat was banished into the wilderness, representing community sin.

This doesn't seem to have any relevance to the sacrificial system in Judaism.

Instead of transference of guilt and shame onto some poor defenseless and innocent animal, why not dig down deep into oneself and come face to face with one's own causes in order to resolve them once and for all.

It doesn't seem like you have much knowledge of the Jewish sacrificial system. For one thing, the minority of sacrifices in Judaism are for sins (out of 7 categories, one category and a part of another category). Most of them have nothing to do with sin.

The ones that did have to do with sin are not for repentance, they help for atonement. Before the animal is sacrifices, the owner is required to lean on the animal and recite confessionary prayers and repentance. The sacrifice is meant to help him recognize the severity of his sin by impressing on him that essentially, he is the one that deserves to be slaughtered, but is given a second chance by sacrificing his possession in his place.

With the exception of larceny, sacrifices can only be brought for unintentional sins and no one's standing on your back to bring them, because no one knows what you've done. That means that pretty much the whole process is coming from a voluntary desire to rectify one's mistake.

As 'Jesus' said:

"Go and sin no more"

What a novel idea... really wise...

 

[Tumah]

From my understanding animal sacrifices are not to be eaten. It would defy the purpose of the sacrifice, because you would not be giving up anything if you did in turn eat the animal.

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

 

[SalixIncendium]

I personally never understood how ending the "life" of another being as an offering to some anthropomorphic transcendent god gains one any favor with that god or oneSelf. One is giving nothing of themselves to their deity, while forcing another being to give their "ultimate sacrifice."

Back when I felt it was important to make an offering or sacrifice to the Divine, I began by leaving trinkets such as coins or stone on the ground beneath trees, etc. When I came back later, I saw that no deity had come by and picked up these offerings and put them to use, which brought me to the realization that what I was "sacrificing" was useless. It was only be giving up of myself something a god would have absolutely no use for. It was then that I began "sacrificing" money to buy wild bird food and other wildlife treats, donate to the ASPCA, HSUS, Red Cross, ACS, and other charities that would benefit. I saw this as more of a "sacrifice" to my god (bear in mind my non-dualistic view of divinity) than leaving useless crap under a tree, let alone sacrificing the "life" of another.

But I digress. If one feels it's necessary to end a "life" as a sacrifice to some transcendent god, I'd be more than willing to offer my opinion on how to to about doing so...

ETA: I'm not defining 'sacrifice' as taking the "life" of an animal for sustenance. I'm defining it as taking a life for religious purpose.

 

[Enoch07]

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

Hmmm to be honest ,I did not even consider that tradition when forming my opinion originally.

Though taking that into considerstion now. Yes, I would consider it a sacrifice.

 

[David1967]

I think animal sacrifice in the old testament was nothing more than a way for lazy priests to get a free meal. God is spirit and therefore would not need physical sustenance. It was a scam.

 

[Kapalika]

When ISN'T animal sacrifice okay, should be the question.

Darn it, now I'm hungry.

Also who says you have to eat it? If you don't, there are plenty of critters who will be than happy to feast on what remains when you toss it. If I were to sacrifice something and feed it to my pets, would that be worse than if I had eaten it myself? Something is still getting fed.

After all, some animals are over populated and can devastate crops or negatively affect your local eco-system. 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.

 

[Kapalika]

I think animal sacrifice in the old testament was nothing more than a way for lazy priests to get a free meal. God is spirit and therefore would not need physical sustenance. It was a scam.

Then how do you explain Abraham told to sacrifice his son?

 

[David1967]

Then how do you explain Abraham told to sacrifice his son?

I can't. He heard a voice that said kill your son.

 

[idav]

Nope, not all animal sacrifices are equal, not even plant sacrifices.
Genesis 4
3And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.in process…: Heb. at the end of days
4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:flock: Heb. sheep, or, goats
5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

What Yahweh needs are all first born. Please. Thanks.
Exodus 13
2“Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal.”

 

[godnotgod]

This appears to be an opinion instead of an argument.

It's an argument: show me how animal sacrifice is in any way efficacious for anything. It is completely based upon belief, and has no logic whatsoever, except a kind of twisted logic, as any valid basis. The opinion is that animal sacrifice actually does something. It does nothing except to cause suffering and death to the animal, and feed the ego of the believer.

This doesn't seem to have any relevance to the sacrificial system in Judaism.

In the case of sin, the Jewish sacrificial system is one of transference of guilt and shame onto the animal, the animal being the scapegoat. Same psychology as my example.

It doesn't seem like you have much knowledge of the Jewish sacrificial system. For one thing, the minority of sacrifices in Judaism are for sins (out of 7 categories, one category and a part of another category). Most of them have nothing to do with sin.

The ones that did have to do with sin are not for repentance, they help for atonement. Before the animal is sacrifices, the owner is required to lean on the animal and recite confessionary prayers and repentance. The sacrifice is meant to help him recognize the severity of his sin by impressing on him that essentially, he is the one that deserves to be slaughtered, but is given a second chance by sacrificing his possession in his place.

With the exception of larceny, sacrifices can only be brought for unintentional sins and no one's standing on your back to bring them, because no one knows what you've done. That means that pretty much the whole process is coming from a voluntary desire to rectify one's mistake.

One need not kill defenseless innocent animals to rectify one's mistake. Buddhists don't practice animal sacrifice, and find a way to face and overcome their transgressions and to correct their causes once and for all. Why can't you? Let's face it: The Jewish system of animal sacrifice has to do with the pagan, idolatrous, and superstitious BELIEF that the blood is the life-force. It's just an assumption, that's all, and has nothing to do with reality.

What a novel idea... really wise...

Yes, you might like to examine this principle a bit closer, and take responsibility for your transgressions, instead of slaughtering poor animals in the name of your God.

FYI, when the teachings of Yeshua are stripped of the overlay of Mithra's pagan doctrines, we find no doctrine of blood sacrifice, no virgin birth, and no bodily resurrection. Yeshua was a Nazarene, a sect of the Essenes, which had ties to the Buddhist community from the Far East via the Essene sects in Greece and Egypt known as the Therapeutae, monks which emerged from the Theravada Buddhiststs which King Asoka sent out to the West. Yeshua's original teachings were breath-based, not blood-based.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The 'logic' behind animal sacrifice is erroneous to begin with, and has no place in the spiritual development of the human being. From the POV of psychology, this is transference of the load of guilt and shame onto a scapegoat, the practice going back to about 4000 BC in Greece, when a goat was banished into the wilderness, representing community sin.

Instead of transference of guilt and shame onto some poor defenseless and innocent animal, why not dig down deep into oneself and come face to face with one's own causes in order to resolve them once and for all. As 'Jesus' said: "Go and sin no more"

It wasn't the poor animal who is responsible for your infractions; it is none other than you. Have the courage to square with it and you will be free.

As usual you are an expert on everybody else's religion and with so little effort, too.

 

[Sanzbir]

It's obsolete. It was for detaching from your material possessions, back in an age and culture where wealth was measured in livestock.

Wealth is no longer measured in livestock.

So the meaning and potential benefit of the practice is lost.

 

[BSM1]

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?

.

Good point. Why not just humanely harvest the nuggets off the chickens and let them live.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I actually made a post on this a while back, on another forum.

In today's society, the act of sacrifice is looked upon with confusion, ire, or misconception and pacification. With the later, we see things being called a "sacrifice", when it's something trivial and non-committal as "I'm giving up drinking soda for a whole week."

Sacrifice, in the purest of terms, is the act of giving something up for good. For this reason, animal sacrifice (or even blood sacrifice) is among the greatest acts of sacrifice to an ása. They are sacrifices in that once the life is given, it cannot be reclaimed. It is not a loan or casual discard; it is a serious and impacting loss of assets, life, or even time and effort, given with the intent of full claim on end of the Æsir.

With animal sacrifice, one is giving up one of your livestock in honor to an ása, either to petition for easy weather or simply as a gesture of fealty. For petitions, a positive result is not guaranteed.

Hunting can also be seen as a form of animal sacrifice, though it follows a different theme. Rather than you giving up one of your animals, the hunter acknowledges their claiming of both an individual life, and a life under guardianship of an ása or vættir. Rather than giving a full sacrifice, we honor and recognize a sacrifice that we have taken, and a portion of that claim is given back in thanks to the Æsir or vættir. This same form of sacrifice is utilized for things such as crop harvest and lumbering.

With blood sacrifice, an individual gives a portion of their blood for a given end, usually for wards or forms of seðir that involves crafting. While the body regenerates blood naturally, the act is still a sacrifice in that you have given a part of yourself that you won't get back for a given purpose. What's more, blood sacrifice (or blood magic) is seem as powerful through proper in that your essence (and your wyrd) is now tied to the object or intent that you have made. Sometimes such a sacrifice is taken by the Æsir, without us giving it--small cuts or such in the crafting of an object.

Sacrifices are also given on the small scale. When we make a meal, especially at large gatherings, a portion of the good is given to either a particular ása, our to the land vættir in general. Alcohol - typically mead - is often given as a sacrificial offering to the Æsir or vættir on blóts or simbuls.

Glossary
●Ása (plural Æsir): A god, feminine being ásynja (pl. ásynjur). Though two tribes - the Æsir and Vanir - they are collectively referred to as Æsir--similar to "mankind".
●Vættir: Spirits, of either men or the land.
●Blót: A small ritual or dedication.
●Simbul: A more serious and sacred ritual, e.g. those that would be held at a temple.
●Wyrd: Fate, pronounced "weird".

This is the type of answer I was looking for. Thank you for this.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

In Judaism, although we aren't presently allowed to perform sacrifices, the sacrificial system remains and we await (and pray for) the circumstances that will return it to its practical application. Of the three (plus one exception) categories of sacrifices (dividing by consumption), only one of them is actually burnt completely on the altar. Of the other two, only the suet, kidneys, a part of the liver and - in the case of a sheep - the tail are burnt on the altar. The rest of it is eaten by the priest, the owner or both (depending on the sacrifice).

From my perspective, sacrificing the animals is beneficial for everyone: the animal, the owner and sometimes other nations (eg. the holiday of Tabernacles when 70 animals are sacrificed over the duration of the holiday for the benefit of the 70 nations). The animal itself is elevated from the mundane to the holy and the person is elevated through the fulfillment of the positive commandment. Everyone's a winner.

I don't think this is wasteful, because this is a fulfillment of the purpose of the animal to the greatest extent. There's nothing above that.

Can you explain the burning a little bit more? Why is it important to burn at least part of the animal after a sacrifice?

 

[SabahTheLoner]

Care to rephrase?

.

There are more animals that suffer from poor conditions while waiting to be slaughtered by machines than animals who are taken care of before becoming the farmer's or neighbor's roast. Anyone who has seen a industrial farm and then went to a traditional farm will notice that the animals are happier. Happiness actually contributes to how the meat tastes, so the meat of an animal killed quickly in a calm, unstressed state will taste better than one literally thrown into a machine after living in an overcrowded area. The stress hormones make the quality poorer.