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?

[Zzyzx]

.

It appears to me from the visceral responses on this thread, that just discussing animal sacrifice is impactful. My experiences with gutting fish have left a clear impression on me. I can just imagine the aversion I would have to an activity, if I were required to place my hand on a lambs head, kill it and watch it being cut apart and sacrifices right before my eyes, because I had performed that activity.

As one who has done a lot of hunting and fishing I chuckle at those who are squeamish about killing and processing food animals. Do they think that grocery store meat is manna from heaven? Are they not aware that millions of animals are killed every day to become people food (and pet food)?

According to The Humane Society of the United States approximately two billion cattle, chickens, ducks, hogs, sheep, lambs and turkeys were killed for food in the United States in 2015. [does not count fish] http://animalrights.about.com

This calls to mind the time a vegetarian tried to preach to me the (his) horror at the thought of animals being killed. I pointed to his shoes and asked 'Leather'? They were. One sermon shot all to heck.

That said, I consider burnt sacrifices to appease 'gods' to be a waste of resources for silly reasons.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 61 by Zzyzx]

As one who has done a lot of hunting and fishing I chuckle at those who are squeamish about killing and processing food animals.

Might as well share my own gruesome story. I was young, less than 10 years old. I forget exactly how old. One Christmas or birthday (again, can't remember which), I got a videoscope, which was a children's toy of basically a microscope attached to a screen. It could go as high as 50x magnification if I remember.

Anyway, being the geeky science kid I was back then and someone who apparently had no remorse...I took one of my two pet goldfish that had just died and dissected him. I remember putting an eye on my scalpel and showing my parents.
Of course, the younger sister had to go one step further and take my other goldfish and dissect him while he was still alive.

This calls to mind the time a vegetarian tried to preach to me the (his) horror at the thought of animals being killed. I pointed to his shoes and asked 'Leather'? They were. One sermon shot all to heck.

Nature itself is a system of murder. Every living organism gets its food by eating other organisms. I suppose plants are an exception given that they absorb water and nutrients from the soil, and also sunlight, but even then, trees that grow tall and block sunlight from other plants in their shade will kill them.
This is why I disagree with vegetarians or vegans, if the sole or main reason they are such is "it's wrong to kill animals".
I can agree with them that our industrial scale slaughter of animals to meet public demand for meat has a lot wrong with it, I have seen videos where animals are basically tortured, but the underlying premise of "wrong to kill animals" I disagree with.

[marco]

I can agree with them that our industrial scale slaughter of animals to meet public demand for meat has a lot wrong with it, I have seen videos where animals are basically tortured, but the underlying premise of "wrong to kill animals" I disagree with.

Well while I eat animal corpses I feed birds in my garden and observe that some animals are more intelligent and more compassionate than some humans. I suspect Christ had little time for dogs, from what he has to say, but then perhaps dogs had little time for Christ.

I think it would be a holy and generous gesture to sacrifice those who want to get to God quickly and violently, rather than burning bulls and birds. They could be allowed the sacrificial observation as they burn that God is immense.

[tfvespasianus]

I can agree with them that our industrial scale slaughter of animals to meet public demand for meat has a lot wrong with it, I have seen videos where animals are basically tortured, but the underlying premise of "wrong to kill animals" I disagree with.

I agree with you in general in that, yes, I don’t have a hard-line about killing animals in a general sense, especially with respect to animals deemed livestock.
It’s somewhat tangential, but since industrial agriculture was brought up, I was reading about chick culling recently. In the U.S. though accurate number are difficult to come by, it’s probably something on the order of >100,000,000/year male chicks (from specific ‘egg-laying’ breed chickens) that are killed when it’s determined that they are male. One of the methods of killing them is maceration, though they do get suffocated and electrocuted as well.

Take care,
TFV

[bluethread]

That said, I consider burnt sacrifices to appease 'gods' to be a waste of resources for silly reasons.

Again, my position isn't that the sacrifices are to appease Adonai, they are object lessons.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 60 by marco]

Rather than get in the weeds regarding whether or not you believe that animal sacrifice is impressive, let me just point out that even the jaded hunter keeps trophies as memorials. So, animal sacrifice as a memorial is really no more outlandish than trophy hunting.

[FinalEnigma]

The only part of religious sacrifices that offends me is if (since) the animal is burned completely and thus wasted. A mild roasting should suffice – and provide food for the hungry.

The point of the burnt offering is that it exemplifies the utter wastefulness of rejecting Adonai's ways. If it were not burnt completely, one would be saying that one does not have to keep all the law, i.e., the hungry do not have to. That is not an acceptable excuse, because there are plenty of other provisions for the hungry.

Arguments such as this somewhat baffle me coming from Christians. (my apologies if your Christianity is an unwarranted assumption)

I think Zzyzx has the right of it in this case, both from his secular perspective, as well as a religious one. Virtually none of God's commandments are absolute.

I imagine a scenario where a man is preparing to make an animal sacrifice, and a poor woman and her hungry, malnourished children come to him and ask "Please sir, we are starving. May we have this animal to eat?"

And then he says "No. this animal must be sacrificed according to the law, and even the hungry are bound by the law, so I cannot give this animal to you to eat."

...And then Jesus would walk up and tell this man to feed the poor family.

There have been multiple times when sects of Jews or Christians have been chastised for becoming overly legalistic, and multiple times in the bible where Jesus himself instructed people to act counter to the strict interpretation of the laws for the good of the people.

Everywhere in Jewish tradition, helping your fellow mankind and improving the world is held as the highest fulfillment of God's commandments, even when that requires violating other commandments. For example, you may not work on the Sabbath, but if you are a doctor out for a hike on the Sabbath, and you come across an injured man, you must help him, because saving his life is more important than strict adherence to the law.

And if you look at Christian teachings, as I said, every time there was a choice between absolute strict adherence to the law and just plain helping people, Jesus chose to help people.

Under Jewish teachings, this is the logically necessary choice. I can not speak with certainty about Christian teachings, because there are some strange interpretations out there, but I think this would be consistent for Christian teachings as well.

[bluethread]

I imagine a scenario . . .

This is a red herring. The burnt offering is a Temple sacrifice, there would be no poor women wandering around as it was being sacrificed. Also, as I stated before, there are plenty of commandments related to provision for the poor.

[FinalEnigma]

I imagine a scenario . . .

This is a red herring. The burnt offering is a Temple sacrifice, there would be no poor women wandering around as it was being sacrificed. Also, as I stated before, there are plenty of commandments related to provision for the poor.

If sacrificing and burning to ash a livestock animal literally in front of this poor woman who is begging to eat the food is the wrong decision, then why would it be the correct decision if the woman is begging for food out in the market instead of in the temple?

I don't think the fact that the poor women is two blocks down the road has any bearing on the relevance of my argument.
If God commands that you help your fellow man, I do not think that building walls around yourself so that you cannot hear their pleas abrogates your duty to help them.

[bluethread]

I imagine a scenario . . .

This is a red herring. The burnt offering is a Temple sacrifice, there would be no poor women wandering around as it was being sacrificed. Also, as I stated before, there are plenty of commandments related to provision for the poor.

If sacrificing and burning to ash a livestock animal literally in front of this poor woman who is begging to eat the food is the wrong decision, then why would it be the correct decision if the woman is begging for food out in the market instead of in the temple?

I don't think the fact that the poor women is two blocks down the road has any bearing on the relevance of my argument.
If God commands that you help your fellow man, I do not think that building walls around yourself so that you cannot hear their pleas abrogates your duty to help them.

The poor woman is provided for. I suppose your mother packed up the leftovers and shipped them off to China every day, right? You are aware that the money spent maintaining all of those memorials in DC could also be given to the poor? Come on, this is such a hackneyed argument.