Blood Sacrifice and the Abrahamic Idea of GOD

[William]

In a recent thread the reader was informed by a Christian member that the GOD of Hebrews was anti-human sacrifice and that was part of the lesson Abraham had to learn re the story of Abe being willing to sacrifice his son for his GOD and being prevented from carrying out the deed at the last moment.

It was pointed out to the member that if this were the case, then we have some problems trying to dovetail the idea of an entity who is anti-human sacrifice, with the central Christian belief that the same being allowed Jesus to be sacrificed for all of mankind, because this is what the GOD wanted.
The Christian member withdrew from the debate at that point, but the hard questions still have to be answered.

What is it about the idea of any being who demands and approves of animal sacrifice to 'atone' for human sin whilst also - through the act - declaring the demands of said being as a sign of dedication and worship to the idea of that type of GOD, that people find so attractive?

Could it be that the whole idea of this type of GOD has naturally enough formulated through largely a meat-eating culture?

[William]

[Replying to post 6 by bluethread]

No, that is a conflation of two different concepts. The bread and the wine, refer to specific elements of the Pesach seder. The bread is a specific piece of matzah(bread of affliction) that is broken during the seder, and the cup is the third Chodesh cup (the cup of redemption, or the promise) that is blessed at the same time. The sacrifice in the seder is the Pesach lamb.

So it isn't about the symbolism of eating flesh and drinking blood then?

My question remains ignored, but I will ask it again anyway.

My question is "Could it be that the whole idea of this type of GOD has naturally enough formulated through largely a meat-eating culture?"

Bearing in mind of course the symbolism, even in relation to martyrdom. The idea of dying for a particular idea of GOD.

That is pretty much the idea. However, what you call "as horrific and despicable as many in today's day and age have come to understand it", I call denial.

So you are saying that the history of Christendom wherein horrific and despicable deeds occurred - and people refusing to see them as good or wholesome acts dedicated to the service of a particular idea of GOD - is 'denial'?

Life is full of all kinds of unsavory things...

Does this mean that one should accept without question, despicable acts done in the name of the GOD of the meat-eaters? And that those who question the moral aptitude of the perpetrators are 'in denial'??

Life is 'full of all kinds of unsavory things' therefore 'it is only natural that the GOD allegedly responsible for us being here in the thick of it, should expect people to act unsavory and should be expected to act unsavory???

Actually what you say is somewhat surprising to me, because I have often seen you correct others for making overly blanket statements. Perhaps it is the meat-eaters who are in denial because they find it so darn 'unsavory' to have to kill other things in order to simply exist while they constantly are in a state of preparation for possibly being called upon to be martyrs?

Of course, existence on this planet being 'full' of the unsavory leaves no room for the savory. What is left but martyrdom?

However, that does not stop them from happening. It just allows the general public to go about their lives in ignorant bliss.

So, you claim that Christendoms atrocities are really 'the work of GOD' and people can't see that because they are in denial about the nature of the planet and circumstances in which they exist, and being in denial means they are powerless to stop them from happening, because they prefer to 'go about their lives in ignorant bliss'. That is so convoluted.

...and many privileged people in technological societies have come up with means of avoiding confronting those things.

Christians may be regarded as the 'privileged people in technological societies' who have come up with means of avoiding confronting the historical atrocities of Christendom by convolution it in the way you are in the example you give by way of explanation. It is like watching and hearing a child blame others for its own actions.

I am then naturally enough left wondering just who is in denial.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I do believe that the Ruach HaChedosh does indeed direct one in living a sacrificial life.

That was an invitation for you to add you comments to the mix re that thread.

As to 'living a sacrificial life' that is of course the natural order of things anyway, since we are all in the process of dying. All you are saying is that this Holy Ghost wants to direct the individual to die for the meat-eaters idea of GOD, by 'getting real' and 'not living in denial' and 'understanding that the life experience on planet earth is fully unsavory'.

Are we to see ourselves as captives suffering the affects of Stockholm Syndrome, in which we have learned to find things to love about nature????

This is precisely why we have such attitude regarding life on earth from so many
believers in the Abrahamic idea of GOD...that they can state such things as DPMartin did in post #3;

so no matter how violent and bloody it may seem, its irrelevant to Him. seeing God wiped out all flesh that walked on dry ground back when Noah was alive, what would possess people to think God ought to value their lives in the flesh that will end no matter what.

Apart from the fact that there is no evidence for such a catastrophic event which most definitely would have left its mark, the idea that we live in a totally unsavory predicament in which the GOD doesn't care, basically justifies the follower of such an idea of GOD, to not care either.

Thus it is so easy to convince the believer that there hope is in heaven, because earth is just unlovable. To love it is to love the unsavory.

Here's the thing though. I don't see that this is what Jesus was saying.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 6 by bluethread]

No, that is a conflation of two different concepts. The bread and the wine, refer to specific elements of the Pesach seder. The bread is a specific piece of matzah(bread of affliction) that is broken during the seder, and the cup is the third Chodesh cup (the cup of redemption, or the promise) that is blessed at the same time. The sacrifice in the seder is the Pesach lamb.

So it isn't about the symbolism of eating flesh and drinking blood then?

Yeshua, at His seder, compared the breaking of the Afikomen to His body being "broken", though none of His bones were broken. He also applies the cup of redemption or promise to himself by calling it the "new covenant" in His "blood". That would be idiomatic of His life.

My question remains ignored, but I will ask it again anyway.

My question is "Could it be that the whole idea of this type of GOD has naturally enough formulated through largely a meat-eating culture?"

Bearing in mind of course the symbolism, even in relation to martyrdom. The idea of dying for a particular idea of GOD.

I would not say that the whole idea of Adonai is naturally formulated that way. However, I would say that I think Adonai set up the sacrificial system the way He did because it is the most impactful to human culture, and that would include the fact that humans are omnivores. It might be important to note at this point, that there were also grain offerings. Regarding the last, one is not dying for a particular idea of a deity. One would be living unto death, in accordance with the philosophy established by a particular deity for His people.

That is pretty much the idea. However, what you call "as horrific and despicable as many in today's day and age have come to understand it", I call denial.

So you are saying that the history of Christendom wherein horrific and despicable deeds occurred - and people refusing to see them as good or wholesome acts dedicated to the service of a particular idea of GOD - is 'denial'?

No, I am saying that viewing those things as horrific and despicable is to live in denial. Until modern times the killing and eating of animals was a common part of nearly all human life, with the exception of those who could afford to get someone else to do the killing for them.

Life is full of all kinds of unsavory things...

Does this mean that one should accept without question, despicable acts done in the name of the GOD of the meat-eaters? And that those who question the moral aptitude of the perpetrators are 'in denial'??

Life is 'full of all kinds of unsavory things' therefore 'it is only natural that the GOD allegedly responsible for us being here in the thick of it, should expect people to act unsavory and should be expected to act unsavory???

Actually what you say is somewhat surprising to me, because I have often seen you correct others for making overly blanket statements. Perhaps it is the meat-eaters who are in denial because they find it so darn 'unsavory' to have to kill other things in order to simply exist while they constantly are in a state of preparation for possibly being called upon to be martyrs?

Of course, existence on this planet being 'full' of the unsavory leaves no room for the savory. What is left but martyrdom?

If one wishes to live a life without being involved in the killing and eating of animals, then that is fine. However, that is a rarity in human history. Even if one were to choose not to be a "meat-eater", survival required one to engage in the practice of killing. That said, even though we live in a world full of unsavory things, that does not mean that we are all martyrs. Martyrdom requires commitment to a cause. One who simply blunders through life engaging in unsavory acts whenever the need arises is not a martyr, he is merely a survivor.

However, that does not stop them from happening. It just allows the general public to go about their lives in ignorant bliss.

So, you claim that Christendoms atrocities are really 'the work of GOD' and people can't see that because they are in denial about the nature of the planet and circumstances in which they exist, and being in denial means they are powerless to stop them from happening, because they prefer to 'go about their lives in ignorant bliss'. That is so convoluted.

No, I am claiming that those who claim that the tenets of the Scriptures are atrocities because they incorporate behaviors that have been common to mankind throughout history, but are rejected by the gentile class today, are living in denial and going about their lives in ignorant bliss. They do not realize how privileged they are to be able to avoid the facts of life, that a great number of the worlds population must deal with on a day to day basis.

...and many privileged people in technological societies have come up with means of avoiding confronting those things.

Christians may be regarded as the 'privileged people in technological societies' who have come up with means of avoiding confronting the historical atrocities of Christendom by convolution it in the way you are in the example you give by way of explanation. It is like watching and hearing a child blame others for its own actions.

I am then naturally enough left wondering just who is in denial.

I am not denying anything. I am admitting that the world is a violent and unsavory place, and one must face that fact and address it in one's lifestyle and philosophy.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I do believe that the Ruach HaChedosh does indeed direct one in living a sacrificial life.

That was an invitation for you to add you comments to the mix re that thread.

As to 'living a sacrificial life' that is of course the natural order of things anyway, since we are all in the process of dying. All you are saying is that this Holy Ghost wants to direct the individual to die for the meat-eaters idea of GOD, by 'getting real' and 'not living in denial' and 'understanding that the life experience on planet earth is fully unsavory'.

Are we to see ourselves as captives suffering the affects of Stockholm Syndrome, in which we have learned to find things to love about nature????

This is precisely why we have such attitude regarding life on earth from so many
believers in the Abrahamic idea of GOD...that they can state such things as DPMartin did in post #3;

so no matter how violent and bloody it may seem, its irrelevant to Him. seeing God wiped out all flesh that walked on dry ground back when Noah was alive, what would possess people to think God ought to value their lives in the flesh that will end no matter what.

Apart from the fact that there is no evidence for such a catastrophic event which most definitely would have left its mark, the idea that we live in a totally unsavory predicament in which the GOD doesn't care, basically justifies the follower of such an idea of GOD, to not care either.

Thus it is so easy to convince the believer that there hope is in heaven, because earth is just unlovable. To love it is to love the unsavory.

That is an interesting take on DP's part and your reaction is equally interesting. However, I was under the impression that we were discussing the sacrifices and how they relate to our day to day lives, not the justifications for the flood. That said, see yourself any way you please, but as I said before martyrdom is not just dying. It is living unto death in accordance with a set of principles. If your set of principles involves not killing and/or eating animals, then, by all means, live that out and eventually die as a martyr to that cause. I personally am called to a different set of principles.

Here's the thing though. I don't see that this is what Jesus was saying.

Well, it is my understanding that Yeshua was an orthodox rabbi, lived in accordance with HaTorah and taught His talmudim(disciples) to do the same.

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by bluethread]

Yeshua, at His seder, compared the breaking of the Afikomen to His body being "broken", though none of His bones were broken. He also applies the cup of redemption or promise to himself by calling it the "new covenant" in His "blood". That would be idiomatic of His life.

So by your original statement and the above, the reader can surmise that it is not symbolic of eating broken flesh and drinking spilled blood?

"Could it be that the whole idea of this type of GOD has naturally enough formulated through largely a meat-eating culture?"

I would not say that the whole idea of Adonai is naturally formulated that way.

What. You cannot see a theme therein?

However, I would say that I think Adonai set up the sacrificial system the way He did because it is the most impactful to human culture, and that would include the fact that humans are omnivores.

Well not to forget the important initial sacrifice, which we are informed the GOD carried out himself. as witnessed by the first human couple. Bearing in mind that the story is that humans first ate fruit of the trees, this deviation of diet appears to be quite the radical shift...

It might be important to note at this point, that there were also grain offerings.

Where might these grain offerings sit in the metaphor? Is that the bread sandwiching the meat?

Regarding the last, one is not dying for a particular idea of a deity. One would be living unto death, in accordance with the philosophy established by a particular deity for His people.

(I can assume then you are among those who believe the bible is the 'word of GOD'?)
Why do you believe the bible is 'the word of GOD'?

Clearly here you believe that the particular deity established the philosophy for the people. Clearly all the signs show it is much more likely to be the other way around.

No, I am saying that viewing those things as horrific and despicable is to live in denial.

How can any deny that the killing of animals is not horrific? Some do even argue that it is a despicable practice and give good evidence to support their assertions.
On top of that we have more recent scientific evidence which links the farming and slaughter of beasts of the fields with pollution and the climate changes taking place, which seems to be largely ignored/denied by the meat eating population, who by and large make up a large percentage of the supporters of Abrahamic religions.

Until modern times the killing and eating of animals was a common part of nearly all human life, with the exception of those who could afford to get someone else to do the killing for them.

So you are saying then that the denial has to do with the convenience of modern living (which most every Christian and Jew partake of) which allows for the consumer to get their meat without having to think about the processes involved?

If one wishes to live a life without being involved in the killing and eating of animals, then that is fine. However, that is a rarity in human history. Even if one were to choose not to be a "meat-eater", survival required one to engage in the practice of killing.

Specifically the difference being that plants are not considered to be animals, and taking the fruit of the tree isn't killing the tree.

That said, even though we live in a world full of unsavory things, that does not mean that we are all martyrs. Martyrdom requires commitment to a cause. One who simply blunders through life engaging in unsavory acts whenever the need arises is not a martyr, he is merely a survivor.

In light of how this interaction has unfolded, I am hearing you justify unsavory acts as long as they are done by people who believe they are acting in accordance with alleged divine command. It is obvious that a blood-lust is derived from the practice of slaughter and consuming of animals which - as has been pointed out - is adequate evidence for the likelihood that the Abrahamic idea of GOD is primarily an invention of meat-eaters.

Being that humans are at the top of this meat-eating chain, one can see why bullies and murderers often if not always are slotted into top dog positions. Alpha males and females forcing the world to follow them or be slaughtered. Either way, prepare to be slaughtered. And this theme naturally enough rolls over into their ideas of GOD. And they can justify this by simply saying, as you have said..."We live in a fully unsavoury world'! What else would you expect!"

There a clear reason why there is a bull monument outside Wall Street.

Also, re Jesus as a sacrifice to a GOD you claim abhors human sacrifice, your argument being that it was not the GOD which wanted the sacrifice but the son of the GOD who wanted to be the sacrifice, appears to fall on its face, given that Jesus was clear in his message that he did nothing of his own volition but was there to do 'the will of his father who sent him.' Also to note evidence which contradicts your argument, that Jesus specifically wanted 'the bitter cup' to be taken from him - that his father would have a change of mind/heart and not want him to go through with it...(like apparently the GOD of Abraham you defend, who stayed Abe's hand from doing the deed.)


Also something you appear to have overlook in the 'shuffle'.
There is only one law.

No, I am claiming that those who claim that the tenets of the Scriptures are atrocities because they incorporate behaviors that have been common to mankind throughout history, but are rejected by the gentile class today, are living in denial and going about their lives in ignorant bliss. They do not realize how privileged they are to be able to avoid the facts of life, that a great number of the worlds population must deal with on a day to day basis.

Ah - I see you used the word 'gentiles' in regard to those who are in denial. Perhaps then it can be argued that the atrocities committed by Christendom were done so by Jewish Christians, who - believed as you do - that the LAW must be upheld because it is the will of a GOD which truly only Jews really understand?

In that, your argument appears to be that 'gentiles' got all namby-pamby about that idea of GOD and sugar-coated him into some loving being who had changed his mind/heart about witches and adulterers etc, but this only lead to people indulging in those foul practices with impunity because no one and their laws were there to say otherwise.

I am not denying anything. I am admitting that the world is a violent and unsavory place, and one must face that fact and address it in one's lifestyle and philosophy.

In doing so, you are saying that the GOD of this world is your GOD, correct?

My own theology and philosophy recognizes this GOD. I call her the Earth Entity. However I do not call her First Source. She is an aspect of the Galactic Entity Consciousness, who is herself an aspect of the Universal Entity Consciousness, who is an aspect of The First Source Consciousness, who is the Entity being who never had an experience of a beginning.

Your GOD, the GOD of this world, is who I refer to as 'The Local GOD'.

That said, see yourself any way you please, but as I said before martyrdom is not just dying. It is living unto death in accordance with a set of principles. If your set of principles involves not killing and/or eating animals, then, by all means, live that out and eventually die as a martyr to that cause. I personally am called to a different set of principles

What I die for will be the pursuit of Truth. That is my agenda. In that, I understand the Earth Entity as a 'GOD in the making' who has made her fair share of mistakes and is evolving as are her Children. Some, unfortunately, hold on to the old because they believe the old ways and their GOD are unchanging. They believe that might is right and people who thrown stones at them in protest at their harsh inhuman treatment need to be shot dead.
"Loving Thy Neighbor" is for the namby-pamby gentile Christians who have their heads in the sands of denial and cannot 'see' the GOD of this world requires the sacrifice of thy neighbor for the good of the main herd. 'His' chosen ones.

Here's the thing though. I don't see that this is what Jesus was saying.

Well, it is my understanding that Yeshua was an orthodox rabbi, lived in accordance with HaTorah and taught His talmudim(disciples) to do the same.

Yep. I am seeing this clearly is the case. Hopefully the reader in general does too.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 12 by bluethread]

Yeshua, at His seder, compared the breaking of the Afikomen to His body being "broken", though none of His bones were broken. He also applies the cup of redemption or promise to himself by calling it the "new covenant" in His "blood". That would be idiomatic of His life.

So by your original statement and the above, the reader can surmise that it is not symbolic of eating broken flesh and drinking spilled blood?

Yes, it is not symbolic of that. It is symbolic of partaking of the affliction of Yeshua and acknowledging that His life is the fulfillment of the Promise of our redemption. That is what is symbolized by those to elements of the Pesach Seder.

"Could it be that the whole idea of this type of GOD has naturally enough formulated through largely a meat-eating culture?"

I would not say that the whole idea of Adonai is naturally formulated that way.

What. You cannot see a theme therein?

I can see that as a cultural factor, but seeing the sacrificial system as simply designed to reinforce a cultural preference for eating meat misses a lot of the lesson being taught through the sacrificial system.

However, I would say that I think Adonai set up the sacrificial system the way He did because it is the most impactful to human culture, and that would include the fact that humans are omnivores.

Well not to forget the important initial sacrifice, which we are informed the GOD carried out himself. as witnessed by the first human couple. Bearing in mind that the story is that humans first ate fruit of the trees, this deviation of diet appears to be quite the radical shift...

Well, that is not directly stated, but is inferred by context, i.e. where did the skins to cloth them come from and how did Cain and Avel know to bring sacrifices. However, I will do you one better with regard to eating meat. It isn't until Noach that we see a reference to meat being given as a food source. That could be seen as a radical shift, however, the move out of GenEden and then the flood also constitute radical shifts in environment. That said, again, it is important that there is a lot more going on here than simply the killing of animals.

It might be important to note at this point, that there were also grain offerings.

Where might these grain offerings sit in the metaphor? Is that the bread sandwiching the meat?

No, it represents the fruit of one's labors, or more literally, as the rabbinic blessing says, appreciation for what Adonai has brought forth from the earth.

Regarding the last, one is not dying for a particular idea of a deity. One would be living unto death, in accordance with the philosophy established by a particular deity for His people.

(I can assume then you are among those who believe the bible is the 'word of GOD'?)
Why do you believe the bible is 'the word of GOD'?

Clearly here you believe that the particular deity established the philosophy for the people. Clearly all the signs show it is much more likely to be the other way around.

You definitely like to ask the big questions. One could very well see it as a human construct. However, speaking of radical shifts, even if HaTorah were simply a human construct, it would have been a radical shift from the covenants of the time. It speaks of a deity that dwells among His people and expects them to govern themselves, rather than one that is embodies a human ruler that enslaves them.

No, I am saying that viewing those things as horrific and despicable is to live in denial.

How can any deny that the killing of animals is not horrific? Some do even argue that it is a despicable practice and give good evidence to support their assertions.
On top of that we have more recent scientific evidence which links the farming and slaughter of beasts of the fields with pollution and the climate changes taking place, which seems to be largely ignored/denied by the meat eating population, who by and large make up a large percentage of the supporters of Abrahamic religions.

It is impactful, at least more impactful than killing plants and eating them. However, the view you propound is a construct of the modern technological urban era. Just some 100 years ago, the dense nutrition provided by meat was a very important supplement to fruits, vegetables and grains that were much more labor intensive to produce and much less portable. If one wishes to live according to that philosophy, then that is fine. However, you are calling for yet another radical shift in how ne defines human existence.

Until modern times the killing and eating of animals was a common part of nearly all human life, with the exception of those who could afford to get someone else to do the killing for them.

So you are saying then that the denial has to do with the convenience of modern living (which most every Christian and Jew partake of) which allows for the consumer to get their meat without having to think about the processes involved?

Correct, and also the convenience of modern living that allows the vegetarian to have a much more diverse diet than ever before.

If one wishes to live a life without being involved in the killing and eating of animals, then that is fine. However, that is a rarity in human history. Even if one were to choose not to be a "meat-eater", survival required one to engage in the practice of killing.

Specifically the difference being that plants are not considered to be animals, and taking the fruit of the tree isn't killing the tree.

No, by survival I mean the threat of violence and disease from nature.

That said, even though we live in a world full of unsavory things, that does not mean that we are all martyrs. Martyrdom requires commitment to a cause. One who simply blunders through life engaging in unsavory acts whenever the need arises is not a martyr, he is merely a survivor.

In light of how this interaction has unfolded, I am hearing you justify unsavory acts as long as they are done by people who believe they are acting in accordance with alleged divine command. It is obvious that a blood-lust is derived from the practice of slaughter and consuming of animals which - as has been pointed out - is adequate evidence for the likelihood that the Abrahamic idea of GOD is primarily an invention of meat-eaters.

By unsavory, I am referring to human reaction in modern technological society. I do not think that a lack of empathy is directly associated with the killing and eating of animals. Though the killing and abusing animals for entertainment can make one less empathetic, I do not see that in the humane killing of animals for other purposes. In fact, the implication in the sacrifices is the one is to empathize with the animal.

Being that humans are at the top of this meat-eating chain, one can see why bullies and murderers often if not always are slotted into top dog positions. Alpha males and females forcing the world to follow them or be slaughtered. Either way, prepare to be slaughtered. And this theme naturally enough rolls over into their ideas of GOD. And they can justify this by simply saying, as you have said..."We live in a fully unsavoury world'! What else would you expect!"

There a clear reason why there is a bull monument outside Wall Street.

The problem with that argument is that a falling economy is symbolized by a bear. Though I really do not care to psychoanalyze Wall Street, I think the imagery of the Bull and the Bear is more to symbolize the chaotic nature of the Stock Market. Regarding the concept of control by bullies in a free market, psychologist Jordan Peterson contests that, contending that in order to stay in power, the human alpha must share power and allow the beta to win some 30% of the time. Plus human society is so diverse that there are a multiplicity of hierarchies to choose from each vying with each other to dominate society over time.

Also, re Jesus as a sacrifice to a GOD you claim abhors human sacrifice, your argument being that it was not the GOD which wanted the sacrifice but the son of the GOD who wanted to be the sacrifice, appears to fall on its face, given that Jesus was clear in his message that he did nothing of his own volition but was there to do 'the will of his father who sent him.' Also to note evidence which contradicts your argument, that Jesus specifically wanted 'the bitter cup' to be taken from him - that his father would have a change of mind/heart and not want him to go through with it...(like apparently the GOD of Abraham you defend, who stayed Abe's hand from doing the deed.)

You are misunderstanding my point. This might be because of the RCC doctrine that is dominant in western society. Yeshua's sacrifice was not "the Passion". It was the entirety of His life unto death. Yes, Yeshua was submissive to Adonai in the course of events, but the focus on the death as the focal point is to misunderstand the nature of the Pesach. The Pesach incorporates the life of the lamb, the sacrifice and the Seder.

No, I am claiming that those who claim that the tenets of the Scriptures are atrocities because they incorporate behaviors that have been common to mankind throughout history, but are rejected by the gentile class today, are living in denial and going about their lives in ignorant bliss. They do not realize how privileged they are to be able to avoid the facts of life, that a great number of the worlds population must deal with on a day to day basis.

Ah - I see you used the word 'gentiles' in regard to those who are in denial. Perhaps then it can be argued that the atrocities committed by Christendom were done so by Jewish Christians, who - believed as you do - that the LAW must be upheld because it is the will of a GOD which truly only Jews really understand?

In that, your argument appears to be that 'gentiles' got all namby-pamby about that idea of GOD and sugar-coated him into some loving being who had changed his mind/heart about witches and adulterers etc, but this only lead to people indulging in those foul practices with impunity because no one and their laws were there to say otherwise.

No, I was referring to the gentle class. I was not pointing out anything about them being the ways of the nations. Sorry, for the misspelling.

Sorry, this is a very long post and I can not get to it all now. I'll try to get to the rest later.