Animal Sacrifice: Why turn a blind eye?

[jgh7]

There are detailed rules in the Old Testament for conducting animal sacrifice both as a means of praise to God and as a means of seeking forgiveness/atonement for sins.

I view animal sacrifice as barbaric nonsensical cruelty to animals. The notion that forgiveness or worship of God are linked to killing an animal is disturbing.

How do Christians reconcile the rules of animal sacrifice in the OT? They eventually were phased out, but they certainly existed for a long time when the OT was in effect (thousands of years perhaps).

To me, this is enough to completely dismiss Christianity from a religious standpoint. I will not partake in a religion whose God once condoned animal sacrifice. I mean, my common sense tells me it's disturbing to the point that it would be silly to partake in such a religion.

Questions:

Do you view animal sacrifice as barbaric/cruel/disturbing?
If yes, then doesn't this mean that the bible God is barbaric/cruel/disturbing since He approved of it and had detailed rules for it written in the OT?

[theophile]

[Replying to marco]

Declaring that wine is your blood doesn't constitute a sacrifice. Having yourself killed may do.

Again, symbolic. Key word here. And you don't need to die for something to count as a sacrifice. Giving anything of oneself in an act of non-self-interested offering is a sacrifice.

Dispute that definition. If you can't, communion fits it perfectly (symbolically). Jesus' life to that point fits it perfectly (at least in story).

Many others have devoted their lives to the service of others - and not a mere 3 years. I think Father Kolbe's unselfish volunteering to die in someone else's place, with no hope of immanent resurrection, is a real sacrifice. I don't see this as less than Christ's. In fact I don't see the purpose of Christ's sacrifice because there is no obvious return to beneficiaries.

I don't see service such as this as any less than Jesus'. When did I ever make such a claim? Jesus is not the only one capable of sacrifice. Nor were his sacrifices superior to those of others...

One of my main points about the communion was Jesus' words to "remember." There's a lot of meaning in this. He is symbolically giving himself to others here, and so we could see him asking in a self-interested way that he not be forgotten. More importantly I think he is calling the disciples to see in this symbolic act how he lived his whole life (or sure, the last 3 years of it) and to do likewise.

As he tells them elsewhere, they will do even greater things than he, just like the example you raise... All of this is in perfect keeping with what I'm saying.

Abraham comes over as rather cold, especially in his treatment of his concubine and his other son. Taking Isaac as his possession and thus having the right to kill him may accord with local thought but it should not have prominence in a text that sets standards for humanity. The command to murder Isaac, of course, is evil.

I can't disagree. The bible is an extremely dangerous text the way that it approaches things and risks being perceived.

I had a professor once who tried to show that in a fallen world, we perceive things through that lens. Through a glass darkly, so to speak. Through the opposite of rose-colored glasses...

He tried to make this case for Abraham especially - who lived in a fallen world. Thus what Abraham hears God ask for is not necessarily what God asks for. Living in a fallen world where local custom was to treat children as possessions, and to practice child sacrifice, that is what Abraham hears God asking for...

I'm not saying this is correct, because God is clearly testing Abraham's faith in an extreme way, but there is something really important to the idea...

When reading the bible, anything that is not speaking of the beginning or end-times is in the context of a fallen world, where things are necessarily twisted by sin and perceived more darkly than they are. This includes God's words.

(So either we can take a more nuanced approach and try to see / hear more clearly, or we can simply conclude that God is a murderous, nomadic demigod as you describe elsewhere - which creates endless contradiction with what God is purported to be.)

And did Christ, by his sacrifice, do anything to prevent the Aztecs sacrificing humans, or was his offer just a local one for some Middle Eastern tenants? In what way has Christ changed the "fallen world." What applied BC applies AD.

Bit of an unfair question, no? Jesus is a story in a largely Middle Eastern - European tradition. And if we don't "remember" as Jesus calls us to, whose fault is that? Not Jesus' surely.

The fact that we still treat animals (etc.) as possessions is all on us. If Jesus' sacrifice failed to move the needle, that's due to our own unwillingness to listen.

That said, I do think he moved the needle. The example you cite, Father Kolbe, can you deny that he had no inspiration from Jesus? Or countless others like him? ...

[marco]

Again, symbolic. Key word here. And you don't need to die for something to count as a sacrifice.

Symbolism surpasses real sacrifice in that it can be called whatever we want and it can take on any dimensions. It's called cheating.

I don't see service such as this as any less than Jesus'. When did I ever make such a claim? Jesus is not the only one capable of sacrifice. Nor were his sacrifices superior to those of others...

That's a surprise. So what are all the hymns about? Jesus is a long way down in the queue of humanitarians? Should we not, then, be speaking of someone higher in the queue?

I can't disagree. The bible is an extremely dangerous text the way that it approaches things and risks being perceived.

I had a professor once who tried to show that in a fallen world, we perceive things through that lens. Through a glass darkly, so to speak.

It is the function of a professor to find erudite explanations. If we accept the case of a "fallen world" we can go along with anything; so your professor expended little erudition.

Jesus is a story in a largely Middle Eastern - European tradition.

At least the fables of Aesop or Phaedrus have universal relevance. One gets the impression that Jesus did things for "all people" and if indeed he was heaven-sent, then his opus should have applications for all people that on earth do dwell.

That said, I do think he moved the needle.

But in what direction? Burnings, torture, slaughter across the globe! All in his name. Yes, people misunderstood but it can be argued then that his heavenly mission went badly wrong. Success is measured by the fruits it bears. If we deal only in arithmetic, then, helped by Spanish steel, he was largely successful.

And even here on this forum, listen to the variety of Christian voices all discordantly singing their own hymns.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 17 by theophile]

This holds with Abraham and Isaac as well. Isaac is like a possession that Abraham is called to sacrifice and can sacrifice because Isaac is his possession...

I'll have to make note of this line, if ever you and I debate slavery and the Bible, or what exactly the Bible teaches is the value of a human life.

[1213]

...Do you view animal sacrifice as barbaric/cruel/disturbing?
If yes, then doesn't this mean that the bible God is barbaric/cruel/disturbing since He approved of it and had detailed rules for it written in the OT?

I think it was originally peoples idea to sacrifice animals, not something that God really demanded. However, I accept that people kill animals and eat them, so I don’t know how I could say it is wrong to kill animals for God, if it is ok to kill them for people.

[bluethread]

Symbolism surpasses real sacrifice in that it can be called whatever we want and it can take on any dimensions. It's called cheating.

This is as good a places as any to jump in. Symbolism is not cheating, otherwise punitive damages in a modern court cases would be cheating. The purpose of the sacrifices was to make an impression on the person making the sacrifice and anyone witnessing it. The fact that they have made an impression on you, and others on this thread, shows that they are indeed effectual.

One gets the impression that Jesus did things for "all people" and if indeed he was heaven-sent, then his opus should have applications for all people that on earth do dwell.

I don't get that impression, nor do I see the logical necessity for a deity to support egalitarianism. In fact, many of Yeshua's parables point out that there is not equality in the kingdom of heaven, i.e "many are called, but few are chosen".

[theophile]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

This holds with Abraham and Isaac as well. Isaac is like a possession that Abraham is called to sacrifice and can sacrifice because Isaac is his possession...

I'll have to make note of this line, if ever you and I debate slavery and the Bible, or what exactly the Bible teaches is the value of a human life.

Please do. But don't lose the context. I was very clear in the post that this is a fallen attitude toward animals, women, children, etc.

It is not part of the beginning or end state but is what happens in a fallen world through sin: animals, women, children, etc, become possessions.

To think that God is in any way for this would be a mistake, and as I tried to explain above would be to view God's designs through a mirror darkly. It would be to twist them into something they are not, as Abraham does here (living as he does in a fallen world, and hearing God's words through the distortions that his environment causes).

[OnceConvinced]

Do you view animal sacrifice as barbaric/cruel/disturbing?

Yes.

If yes, then doesn't this mean that the bible God is barbaric/cruel/disturbing since

Yes

He approved of it and had detailed rules for it written in the OT?

Indeed.

One may try to use the example of killing animals as food to be just as barbaric, but we as humans need the nutrients. God in no way needs animals to be killed for his wellbeing. In fact he doesn't need it at all. God is quite capable of forgiving a human being without the need for a bloody barbaric sacrifice. Well he should be... unless he really is barbaric and bloodthirsty.

[Talishi]

I think it was originally peoples idea to sacrifice animals, not something that God really demanded.

"An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee." -- God.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 22 by marco]

Symbolism surpasses real sacrifice in that it can be called whatever we want and it can take on any dimensions. It's called cheating.

I'm not tracking. The true sacrifice of Jesus is the life that he lived as depicted in the gospels. He lived a life of communion (giving himself to others in a non-self-interested way, i.e., sacrifice). He symbolizes this with his words at the Passover meal with his disciples. It's called a teaching. A summary of his way that he wants his disciples to remember and take up themselves... I get the real thing is what matters. I'm not trying to "cheat."

That's a surprise. So what are all the hymns about? Jesus is a long way down in the queue of humanitarians? Should we not, then, be speaking of someone higher in the queue?

Go ahead. I don't think Jesus would mind as it's not about "singing hymns to the humanitarians." Pretty sure that's not what Jesus was after (think of teachings where it's better to give in secret, i.e., no self-interest). He's not like Achilles wanting to be remembered down the ages in song. The remembrance that Jesus calls for is that we follow the way that he showed us. Not that we proclaim him as the first and only and greatest.

Again, he told his disciples that they would do even greater things than he did.

At least the fables of Aesop or Phaedrus have universal relevance. One gets the impression that Jesus did things for "all people" and if indeed he was heaven-sent, then his opus should have applications for all people that on earth do dwell.

Were we discussing the universality of the Jesus-story? I missed that. I thought the topic was [animal] sacrifice, on which I've only heard one claim from you: symbolism isn't as good as the real thing. Okay, I agree with that.

But in what direction? Burnings, torture, slaughter across the globe! All in his name. Yes, people misunderstood but it can be argued then that his heavenly mission went badly wrong. Success is measured by the fruits it bears. If we deal only in arithmetic, then, helped by Spanish steel, he was largely successful.

You are the one who raised a Christian priest who acted in noble ways. I don't think he was the only one inspired by the life of Jesus.

[marco]

This is as good a places as any to jump in. Symbolism is not cheating, otherwise punitive damages in a modern court cases would be cheating.

Well of course it depends on what I was talking about whether the use of symbolism is, as I said, "cheating." I meant simply that if a person offers symbolic blood instead of the real thing, this can hardly be called a sacrifice. It is "cheating" in the sense that, when you compare this to someone who sacrifices life, then indeed it is a sham sacrifice. Obviously, in general, symbolism isn't cheating and your digression is an irrelevance.

One gets the impression that Jesus did things for "all people" and if indeed he was heaven-sent, then his opus should have applications for all people that on earth do dwell.

I don't get that impression, nor do I see the logical necessity for a deity to support egalitarianism. In fact, many of Yeshua's parables point out that there is not equality in the kingdom of heaven, i.e "many are called, but few are chosen".

I am interpreting Christianity as she is advertised. Christ's labours pertain not merely to the anonymities he cured but his words and message have universal relevance. I believe this is true. In other words, Christ arrived to help mankind - how remains a mystery, but I think that was his plan. I agree some special groups think he came for maybe seventeen folk assembled in somebody's kitchen or to give invitations to a cross-section of the world's changing population (144,000 males, perhaps) but we can safely disregard this as nonsense.

I wasn't suggesting Jesus was a Marxist.