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?

[JehovahsWitness]

This doesn't have to do with being a vegetarian, why does God an "omnipotent" being need blood sacrifice?

Additionally, this isn't about lunch the offerings were burnt and not to be given as food. It is a waste of life. This isn't the only instance of senseless violence towards animals.

Most sacrifices were indeed eaten. Only one catagory of the many were not to be eaten (whole burnt offerings) most of the others were eaten at least in part by the priests and/or the offerer.

I took it that the OP was objecting to the taking of the life of an animal, that was merely an assumption on my part. Otherwise, if there are some justifiable reasons to kill an animal (for example for food) can God be one of those reasons? In Jewish culture the answer was yes.

The reasons for animal sacrifices are religiously quite involved but fundamentally, the believer holds all life belongs to God and he ultimately has the right to say what can and cannot be done with it. The non-believer obviously cannot, even intellectually, accept the concept of ownership of life, so naturally cannot accept this notion.


JW

[marco]

I don't have the time to look any print resources which is usually my preference, but loathe as I am to cite it, Wikipedia does state in its entry under 'korban':

"Offerings were often cooked and most of it eaten by the offerer, with parts given to the Kohen priests and small parts burned on the altar of the Temple in Jerusalem. Only in special cases were all of the offering given only to God, such as the case of the scapegoat.[4][5]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban

Which is jibes with what I was trying to recall and also I think makes a bit more sense. After all, again if we compare modern 'food waste' to that of ancient society I think we come off a bit worse.

This is true. Food sacrificed was often eaten but not sacrifices known as BURNT OFFERINGS. The animal was burned completely, except for the hide that was removed and given to the priest.

There is no sense in what was required by God. The best animals were to be slaughtered; nothing lame or old. God had good taste. Special provisions were made for the poor who couldn't possibly offer a bull, for example. They might instead kill a dove.

Sacrifices were made to Yahweh which did not get consumed. Jesus of course wasn't eaten but is said to have been offered as a sacrifice but it is unclear why or by whom.

[theophile]

[Replying to marco]

Sacrifices were made to Yahweh which did not get consumed. Jesus of course wasn't eaten but is said to have been offered as a sacrifice but it is unclear why or by whom.

Jesus was indeed "eaten." You can't confuse the cross with the communion. The true sacrifice of Jesus (where he is eaten) is in the Passover meal, not the crucifixion. He is the sacrificial Passover lamb... His body and blood were given there as food (metaphorically of course) to save us all from death, just as in the original Passover.

The "why" or "by whom" is easy.

Why? To save us of course. Because he loves us and wants us to live. We all have needs and Jesus gave of himself so that we could live.

By whom? By himself of course. There is no communion unless it is voluntary at heart. This is in accordance with God's will but it is ultimately Jesus' will that he be given up to others.

[tfvespasianus]

Food sacrificed was often eaten but not sacrifices known as BURNT OFFERINGS.

So, to be clear, some of us are not making a blanket condemnation of the sacrificial system per se, but rather a certain kind of sacrifice which is helpfully delineated in all caps. And it is this type of practice that is exceptionally barbaric because it involves a god. I hope to get back to this if it is still a live issue, but I would note that we are living during a period of ‘mass extinction’ (see I dunno google under news ‘mass extinction) during which animal life is under particular stress in terms of populations for reasons that are in large part due to our cultures abstractions. If we would like to compare intentions versus results (which are generally more meaningful to those impacted) it would be something.

Take care,
TFV

[JehovahsWitness]

Food sacrificed was often eaten but not sacrifices known as BURNT OFFERINGS.

So, to be clear, some of us are not making a blanket condemnation of the sacrificial system per se, but rather a certain kind of sacrifice which is helpfully delineated in all caps. And it is this type of practice that is exceptionally barbaric because it involves a god.

Yes, I think that about sums things up. If it is for the person (even though he could go have a loaf of bread and doesn't need to kill the animal to survive) killing an animal is fine. If it's for God (even though he doesn't need to have the animal killed to survive) its bad.

Bob good; God bad.

[marco]

Jesus was indeed "eaten." You can't confuse the cross with the communion. The true sacrifice of Jesus (where he is eaten) is in the Passover meal, not the crucifixion. He is the sacrificial Passover lamb... His body and blood were given there as food (metaphorically of course) to save us all from death, just as in the original Passover.

Thanks for that, theophile. What you describe in no way illustrates a sacrifice, even in metaphor.

Why? To save us of course. Because he loves us and wants us to live. We all have needs and Jesus gave of himself so that we could live.

By whom? By himself of course. There is no communion unless it is voluntary at heart. This is in accordance with God's will but it is ultimately Jesus' will that he be given up to others.

You can jump in and save a person from drowning but metaphorically offering your flesh and blood is saving nobody, except in further metaphor. Should we be metaphorically happy at being metaphorically saved?

And can a lamb self-sacrifice? Is all this not carrying the idea of sacrifice to absurd lengths? Where I come from it would be called suicide.

[theophile]

[Replying to marco]

Thanks for that, theophile. What you describe in no way illustrates a sacrifice, even in metaphor.

Umm, why not?

Are you saying that in the original Passover there was not the sacrifice of a lamb?

Are you saying that in the Passover meal, when Jesus offers his body and blood to his disciples, that this is not symbolic of that same sacrifice? That Jesus is not the lamb that is "slaughtered" here?

It seems pretty obvious to me...

But what is sacrifice? It is an offering. It is more precisely a non-self-interested offering for the sake of others. A purely disinterested act. (If there is self-interest involved, i.e., the expectation of personal gain, then it is not a sacrifice.)*

That is what Jesus does symbolically through communion and manifestly through the previous acts of his life. All that healing and feeding of the world stuff where Jesus gives himself to others with no expectation of return. His life is one big active sacrifice, symbolically captured by his words during the Passover meal, telling his disciples to "eat and drink" of him and "remember"... (i.e., "Hey guys, what I'm saying here is what I've been doing all along, right? See the connection?...")

But hey, you tell me.

You can jump in and save a person from drowning but metaphorically offering your flesh and blood is saving nobody, except in further metaphor. Should we be metaphorically happy at being metaphorically saved?

Yes, it is symbolic in the meal. Jesus isn't actually eaten there. But that doesn't change my point...

You said originally that Jesus is said "to have been offered as a sacrifice" but did not understand why or by whom. My assumption was that you tied his sacrifice to the cross. That that was the sacrifice of Jesus. I too can not look at the cross and see any reasonable sacrifice. But I can look at the communion and see one there that is symbolic of Jesus' whole life to that point of self-giving to others, i.e., his own body and blood.

My point was that if you shift your focus from the cross to Jesus' words in communion, which are symbolic of his life up to that point, maybe you will see the sacrifice that is Jesus and understand both the why and "by whom" of it. As you say here, maybe you will see Jesus' many acts of saving people throughout his life symbolically represented in his words of communion, i.e., "eat and drink of me now in memory, i.e., as a symbol, of my life to date..."

And can a lamb self-sacrifice? Is all this not carrying the idea of sacrifice to absurd lengths? Where I come from it would be called suicide.

Of course not. Two things I want to say to this though:

The bible does give human qualities to animals (and other things in the world, like rivers, seas, the earth itself). That said, I don't think that's what we see happening in the case of animal sacrifice. More likely, the animal is seen as a possession, i.e., as a part of the person that the person wholly controls. Not separable in its own right (which is problematic of course, and we can talk about why that is).**

So the sacrifice of an animal is really the sacrifice of the person. It is them giving something that they care about. Part of themselves for the sake of others.

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...

Perverted, yes, but I don't think it hits the absurdity you're suggesting here of a lamb "self-sacrificing" itself.


*Note 1: There are of course many cases of self-interested sacrifice, i.e., giving something with the expectation of self-gain, but these would not be true sacrifices but a perversion of the life that Jesus wants us to remember. Just think of the satan questioning Job's interests in living this life - the satan claims that Job's motivations are purely self interested, and so Job needs to prove otherwise...).

**Note 2: This "possession" and "control" of things is a fallen mentality. i.e., I don't think it has any place in the biblical end state (or beginning) but was introduced through the fall. Living in a fallen, sinful world means living in a world where we live out of self-interest and strive for control (i.e., we do the opposite of the sacrificial life that Jesus shows us and wants us to remember).

So in a fallen world (which is basically chapter 1.3 onward in the bible!!) we would see this perverted, fallen behavior where a person can "own" another, be it an animal or human being (slave, child, etc.). And sacrifice that creature through that ownership.

But that is a perverted state that we need to change. (Look at us today: we still haven't changed it. Look at how we treat animals, women, and our own children in some cases. As possessions. As things we completely control... No different from all these perverted acts we see in the bible, all instigated by that fall where God says quite clearly to Eve that Adam is now going to take control of her... And not in a good way.)


Sorry for going on so long.

[jgh7]

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.

[marco]

Sorry for going on so long.

You didn't. You gave a full explanation which I appreciate.

Are you saying that in the original Passover there was not the sacrifice of a lamb?

Are you saying that in the Passover meal, when Jesus offers his body and blood to his disciples, that this is not symbolic of that same sacrifice? That Jesus is not the lamb that is "slaughtered" here? It seems pretty obvious to me...

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

That is what Jesus does symbolically through communion and manifestly through the previous acts of his life. All that healing and feeding of the world stuff where Jesus gives himself to others with no expectation of return.

You over-dramatize. 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.

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...

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.

So in a fallen world (which is basically chapter 1.3 onward in the bible!!) we would see this perverted, fallen behavior where a person can "own" another, be it an animal or human being (slave, child, etc.). And sacrifice that creature through that ownership.

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.

[marco]

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.

It is a sign that Yahweh has been given the interests and appetites of his nomadic creators. He gets angry, jealous, hurt, vicious.... and he loves the smell of Noah's burnt offerings. As if the maker of the Andromeda Nebula and the Magellanic Clouds and the planet Jupiter would sniff with pleasure at the carcase of a burning bull!