Animal Sacrifices - are they ever ok?

[Thief]

Okay, I see that you are relying on Abrahamic tradition. Yes, why DID God in Genesis choose animal sacrifice over harvest? It would certainly seem that the biblical God wants animal, even human, sacrifice: his son is celebrated by followers who consume--whether in fact or in gesture--his body and blood. And with the exception of Jesus, in the Bible I recall no evidence at all (although I may well be mistaken on this) that what was sacrificed was a substitute for the one offering the sacrifice. Were Abel and Cain to have thrown themselves upon the altar, instead of the property they sacrificed?

Your speculation seems reasonable, but other speculations also seem reasonable, too; and there is scant evidence to support any, except how different peoples today approach sacrifice. Some may be trying to appease the hunger in the darkness, but others are saying, "Please, come join us in fellowship at the feast with the food you have provided" or "Let us honor your power and wisdom for your assistance in our journey through life" or "See, we have not forgotten you, and how you have contributed to our survival, as it has been since the founding of our line...." Indeed, there are many possible reasons for offering sacrifice. And many possible ways of offering sacrifice.

and let us not forget the part about denials.
according to some scripture....
I may enter and abide any home and house......even as they do!

except I may not partake of ANY thing offered to a god that is not the Almighty.

that might upset the head of house.
he might take it personally that I will not partake of sacrifice he has made in good faith (as he sees it)

 

[Nietzsche]

Ha!....not on your life......

too bad you can't ASK the animal......first!

Do you ask the animals you eat? If you do, can you tell me how, because if so I'll start asking my goats.

 

[Akivah]

Just a brief question. Obviously some religious preach crazy and even human sacrifice, while other like to cut off chicken heads. But, what about like sacrificing a goldfish? Your opinion?

When the Temple was standing, all sorts of things were sacrificed, such as money, choice wheat, doves, and perfume. If goldfish were available in Jerusalem 2500 years ago, they might've made a good sacrifice.

 

[Thief]

Do you ask the animals you eat? If you do, can you tell me how, because if so I'll start asking my goats.

I don't do animal sacrifice...
drifted away from Catholicism and that ritual of mass.

I do not believe blood letting atones anything.

I do believe blood letting for consumption is appropriate.
I have canine teeth.

animals have a reflex of fight or flight....
try getting close enough to a dear.....to ask....

cows don't seem to have enough mind....to ask...

pigs can be tricky.They can turn on you. Be carful as you approach....to ask....

 

[satanspriestess]

I personaly do not support at type of sacrifice.

 

[Riverwolf]

Why do you think already being destructive justifies you choosing to be more destructive then you have to be though?
Jw.

Key phrase: "have to be". Eating is something we have to do to survive, and while some people can live happily on a vegetarian or vegan diet, not everyone has the physical/mental health or financial means to do so. Furthermore, killing plants isn't really less destructive than killing animals, since they're also living things, and so there's not really an increase of destruction, as you imply, by eating meat.

 

[Riverwolf]

and you do so to appease your god?

The same way you "sacrifice" your money to "appease" your ISP.

sacrifice is a substitution.
something dies in your place.

so....you kill something because you're not worthy to stand before your god?

and killing an animal some how helps..............................................................?

Traditionally, ritual animal sacrifice is a communal practice, and involves keeping the entire community alive, not just one person.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Besides, we don't need to die to "stand before our Gods". I can "stand before" Tiw any time I want just by going outside and looking up.

 

[Riverwolf]

But plants don't have nervous systems and can't feel pain like factory farmed animals?

Neither do fish, turns out.

Properly performed, an animal sacrificed ritually won't feel any pain, anyway.

 

[Quintessence]

This is incorrect. Fish have a different way of perceiving pain, its just not the same as us.
However, you are still removing consciousness from a living being, which one is not doing when harvesting plants.

You never answered this post before.

Again, what does it this matter? Why is consciousness and a nervous system some sort of litmus test for being respectful towards something? Seems kind of arbitrary, and mostly downright speciest.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, by farming animals we need to feed them 16x the food we can harvest from them, making the mass farming we do destructive.
But you're right.

I wasn't trying to talk about destruction, I was trying to talk about suffering, just miss-articulated it

I do that a lot, so I understand. Thanks for the clarification.

Don't spew that "Not everyone has the mental/physical health" bull****.

I'd give more of it, since you've not successfully convinced me that it's BS, but doing so would derail the thread even more. We're not debating the ethics of vegetarianism vs. non-vegetarianism.

...and speaking purely from a supply perspective if we stopped farming meat at the vast rate we do we would have so much more food to eat and cost would go down.

I agree with you there, but factory farming is not the focus of this thread. I'm as against factory farming as you clearly are, and it's been said a few times, now, that ritual animal sacrifice is FAR more humane.

This is incorrect. Fish have a different way of perceiving pain, its just not the same as us.
However, you are still removing consciousness from a living being, which one is not doing when harvesting plants.

Then for you, the question isn't a matter of whether or not something is alive, but conscious/sentient?

That's fine. I have no problem with people who are wholly against eating meat also being wholly against ritual animal sacrifice.

 

[Nietzsche]

You never answered this post before.

Again, what does it this matter? Why is consciousness and a nervous system some sort of litmus test for being respectful towards something? Seems kind of arbitrary, and mostly downright speciest.

Wouldn't that be "Kingdomist"?

Well, if me being destructive towards plants means no feelings will be hurt and no pain will be received makes it the clear moral choice over animals. I don't get your argument. Should we stop eating completely? :/

Perhaps his point is that sustaining life involves suffering and destruction of some kind by default, and that it's only a matter of what sort of lie you want to tell yourself otherwise. Or I suppose in a less polite, and thus much more me-approved manner of saying "grow up".

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, if me being destructive towards plants means no feelings will be hurt and no pain will be received makes it the clear moral choice over animals.

As stated several times now, when properly performed, an animal being ritually sacrificed will not feel any pain or have any feelings hurt.

 

[Nietzsche]

That analogy doesn't really work. It's not a lie one tells them self.
One can cause significantly more suffering and take more sentient lives than needed or they cannot. One is clearly better than the other

Is that so? Tell me, what else do you do to prevent suffering? You clearly have electricity, so I assume you live somewhere with running water too. Why do you not live as our ancestors did? Without glasses, without medication, without anything but what you can grab in a hunter-gatherer life-style?

 

[dust1n]

Just a brief question. Obviously some religious preach crazy and even human sacrifice, while other like to cut off chicken heads. But, what about like sacrificing a goldfish? Your opinion?

However much damage I inflict on living beings, that's the limit or the standard. Anyone causing more suffering than I am is a terrible person. Anyone causing as little as me or less is a great person.

 

[Nietzsche]

Because I live in a system that requires citizens to do so. This post doesn't actually contribute to the discussion we were having, just de-railing it and trying to make some broad claim of hypocrisy.

Allow me to explain;

If i were to use the same type of claim in a different argument's context. You might see why that claim makes no sense.
Such as:
"We should reduce our carbon emissions and try to obtain more sustainable living? Tell me, what else do you do to to help the environment besides critique people? You probably own a car, and have electricity. How can you claim the populace should start having a more environmentally friendly system if you own and indirectly support some things."

and even if what I was saying did make me a hypocrite, that doesn't actually refute the point I was making, just attacking me as an individual.

It's not really about you being a hypocrite. Everyone is. It's about how little of a difference it really makes. Me sacrificing a single goat once every so often is doing nothing on any scale but the personal. It's an animal literally bred into existence for our purposes. Goats, cows, chickens only exist because we domesticated them. What we do with them is up to us. While that doesn't mean you should go out and cause as much suffering as physically possible to them, it does mean that they were bred to die. The only thing that differs is the method, and my method is at least allowing the little beastie a happy ending.

We're all going to die. Some of us sooner than others(especially if you keep this up). Until then, I will live how I see fit, beholden to no code but my own. I take the life of my sacrifice not because I think it's demanded of me, because it isn't. It's a gift. I wouldn't do it if it were a demand. I don't do well with orders.

The world is a cruel and painful place. Most of us know it first hand. The second bit is something I certainly do. If you really want to hold the few dozen or so dead goats that I will accrue in my lifetime against me, knock yourself out.

 

[Nietzsche]

However much damage I inflict on living beings, that's the limit or the standard. Anyone causing more suffering than I am is a terrible person. Anyone causing as little as me or less is a great person.

I really hope people who like this see the beautiful, beautiful barb hidden in it.

 

[Nietzsche]

Why should we continue breeding if they are only bred to die? Seems both unethical and immoral.

Because society is kind of built around our domestication of wild-life?

So just because something makes little difference we shouldn't bother?

Some things, yes. Some things don't really matter.

 

[Nietzsche]

But that doesn't mean it has to be

Do you have alternatives? Ones where the switch-overt won't, you know, cause the deaths of tens or hundreds of millions of poor people? And I don't mean "poor" as in "how sad they died" I mean "poor" as in "economically at the bottom of the totem pole". Because that's what sea-changes in civilization tend to do. Because most of the world isn't at middle-class levels.

The world is as it is for reasons, and not all of them are because of Captain Planet villains, after all.

Ending our factory farming of animals would free up enough primary plant based food to end world hunger. Is that not a worthy enough cause for you?

There is currently enough food on the planet for everyone. More than enough. The problem is getting it to the hungry. It's not that there isn't enough.

However, "worthy causes" to me? Gonna need to try harder. You can't appeal to my "sympathy for people". Same reasons you can't appeal to a dragon, really. They don't exist.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, if me being destructive towards plants means no feelings will be hurt and no pain will be received makes it the clear moral choice over animals. I don't get your argument. Should we stop eating completely? :/

Don't be ridiculous.

What I'm asking is why it matters that a species has some particular quality? Why do you only consider it a moral subject or worthy of respectful consideration only if it has some particular attribute? That's speciest (or, technically, as Nietzche pointed out, perhaps family-ist ).

 

[Riverwolf]

and, as I already said, that still means you are taking a sentient life that does not need to be taken.

That's for the community in question to judge.