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]

.

Please provide support for the statement that the skin was "given to the priests".

Glad to help with Bible study

The animal for this sacrifice could be a young bull, lamb, goat, turtledove, or young pigeon; but it had to be a perfect and complete specimen. The type of animal chosen for this sacrifice seems to be dependent on the offerer's financial ability. The one bringing the offering was to lay a hand upon the animal so as to identify that the animal was taking the person's place and then to kill it. The priest then collected the blood and sprinkled it around the altar and the sanctuary, and the worshiper cut up and skinned the animal. If a bird was brought, the priest killed it. After the priest arranged the various parts on the altar, the entire animal was burned as a sacrifice. The only portion that remained was the hide, and the priest received it (Leviticus 7:8 ). The one who made this sacrifice did so to restore the relationship with God and to atone for some sin. When Araunah offered to David his threshing floor, oxen, and wood without cost so that David could sacrifice, David refused. His explanation was that he could not offer burnt offerings that cost him nothing (2 Samuel 24:18-25 ).
http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/ ... mber=T5431

[Zzyzx]

.
I have not followed this thread or read all the posts.

Killing animals does not offend me at all (I am not a vegetarian). Almost all domestic livestock are killed – including milk cows, sheep, goats. Those we see grazing contentedly in a pasture will very likely end their life in a slaughterhouse and be turned into food for humans or their pets.

Horses are an exception in the US since we have emotional attachment to them. Other nations are not squeamish about eating horse meat.

If one kills an animal for 'sacrifice' that is no more 'horrible' or 'cruel' than other killing. Have you ever visited a slaughter house? I have. That is where the meat in grocery stores comes from. Paying someone else to do the killing may be genteel and removed, but it is still killing (perhaps akin to contract killing).

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.

[bluethread]

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.

[catnip]

Just to be clear, I'm not a vegetarian. As I said previously, I'm not disturbed as much by the animal being killed as I am by God deeming it a means to worship Him.

The killing of innocent life as a means of worship is disturbing to me. I actually find it interesting that Christians just write it off.

The fact that animal sacrifice is law in the OT is a sign of a primitive God and a red flag that this came from the ideas of man rather than divinely inspired.

Christians don't just "write it off". It simply is not of any import either for Christians today or for most Jews today. But it never was a part of the Christian religion.

Just think, most of our ancient ancestors practiced some sort of ritual sacrifice--even of human sacrifice. Think of the bog people that have been found. Should we have to explain that? It is meaningless to us, even horrifying. Some ritual human sacrifices were even eaten in some parts of the world.

[JehovahsWitness]

.

Please provide support for the statement that the skin was "given to the priests".

Glad to help with Bible study

The animal for this sacrifice could be a young bull, lamb, goat, turtledove, or young pigeon; but it had to be a perfect and complete specimen. The type of animal chosen for this sacrifice seems to be dependent on the offerer's financial ability. The one bringing the offering was to lay a hand upon the animal so as to identify that the animal was taking the person's place and then to kill it. The priest then collected the blood and sprinkled it around the altar and the sanctuary, and the worshiper cut up and skinned the animal. If a bird was brought, the priest killed it. After the priest arranged the various parts on the altar, the entire animal was burned as a sacrifice. The only portion that remained was the hide, and the priest received it (Leviticus 7:8 ). The one who made this sacrifice did so to restore the relationship with God and to atone for some sin. When Araunah offered to David his threshing floor, oxen, and wood without cost so that David could sacrifice, David refused. His explanation was that he could not offer burnt offerings that cost him nothing (2 Samuel 24:18-25 ).
http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/ ... mber=T5431

Thank you Zz; I appreciate your posts because you at least know how to present a reference. I had overlooked that passage and appreciate your bringing it to my attention.


Thanks again,

JW

[marco]

The point of the burnt offering is that it exemplifies the utter wastefulness of rejecting Adonai's ways.

That's a far-fetched reason for killing a prize animal. People err - they don't "reject" 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.

You have expertly demonstrated that we can justify anything if we find the right words. We can use this sort of reasoning to make a virtue of a vice. What happened to forgiveness? Does there have to be a concentration on what people do wrong rather than what they manage to get right?

[bluethread]

The point of the burnt offering is that it exemplifies the utter wastefulness of rejecting Adonai's ways.

That's a far-fetched reason for killing a prize animal. People err - they don't "reject" Adonai's ways.

Yes, and the cumulative effect of those errors is very wasteful. Therefore, in order to remind us of this and encourage us to avoid such errors, there is a complete sacrifice.

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.

You have expertly demonstrated that we can justify anything if we find the right words. We can use this sort of reasoning to make a virtue of a vice. What happened to forgiveness? Does there have to be a concentration on what people do wrong rather than what they manage to get right?

One can also fault anything if one leaves out the words that undermine ones point, i.e. "That is not an acceptable excuse, because there are plenty of other provisions for the hungry." You have not shown how burning up an animal as a symbolic act is a vice. So, this is not making a virtue out of a vice. The sacrifices are about pointing out what one does wrong, however, the Scriptures do talk about the things people do right. This thread just happens to be about sacrifice. Regarding forgiveness, the sacrifices are about the recognition part of that process, there is also restitution and reformation.

[marco]

The point of the burnt offering is that it exemplifies the utter wastefulness of rejecting Adonai's ways.

That's a far-fetched reason for killing a prize animal. People err - they don't "reject" Adonai's ways.

Yes, and the cumulative effect of those errors is very wasteful. Therefore, in order to remind us of this and encourage us to avoid such errors, there is a complete sacrifice.

I think you have over-reached yourself in finding justifications. It is absurd to regard the burning of an animal as a "reminder." It may instil fear of God but it doesn't remind anyone of anything.

All we do, since we are human, is subject to error and God constructed us that way. There is no need to sacrifice animals to show that we were made imperfect. Lighting a bonfire to proclaim our human ascendency over the flaws we have would be more meaningful.

Incidentally, I am glad I am not sitting on your side of this argument.

[bluethread]

I think you have over-reached yourself in finding justifications. It is absurd to regard the burning of an animal as a "reminder." It may instil fear of God but it doesn't remind anyone of anything.

All we do, since we are human, is subject to error and God constructed us that way. There is no need to sacrifice animals to show that we were made imperfect. Lighting a bonfire to proclaim our human ascendency over the flaws we have would be more meaningful.

Incidentally, I am glad I am not sitting on your side of this argument.

More meaningful to whom? 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.

[marco]

More meaningful to whom? It appears to me from the visceral responses on this thread, that just discussing animal sacrifice is impactful.

But not necessarily because an animal was killed; the visceral response is probably due to the slaying of animals to appease God.

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.

Well that is a generous sentiment but equating your refinement with the brutality of old nomads does not validate your point. I can perhaps see the element of punishment: an excellent beast was taken away and killed. And this confronts us with the absurdity of slaughtering animals, not for food, but just to feel God's punishing hand on our heads.