• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does YHWH desire blood sacrifices?

Chase200mph

Member
Wrong

Moses has no historicity and his legends roots can be traced bcak to literary circles roughly 700 years after the hebrew culture existed

Agreed, no history and no historicity, Moses never existed because there is no evidence of any Moses to be found. There never was a mass Exodus; the Ten Commandments are from the Egyptian Book of the Dead spell number 125….
It doesn’t take much understanding to realize that Moses is a fabrication that doesn’t appear in any historians historical documentations because he never was.
Shall we discuss how there were no recorded followers of Christ until and after the bible was created some 300 years after the claim of his birth, life and death. How history doesn’t recognize any of the apostles (maybe with the exception of Paul who had a dream 300 years later as well?) as having lived during this time. That the story of Jesus is a plagiarism…. : ) I bet the faith will not correspond to either of us with anything sourced. ;)
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Shall we discuss how there were no recorded followers of Christ until and after the bible was created some 300 years after the claim of his birth, life and death.

I dont think its a good idea because you seem not to know the vlaid history surrounding the creation of the early gospels.

We have plenty of evidence of yeshuas religious movement and its followers. more so then historical yeshua actually.

150 AD you had Marcion already putting known collections of script together.

the synoptic gospels were written by followers of the movement within 70 years of his death.






How history doesn’t recognize any of the apostles (maybe with the exception of Paul who had a dream 300 years later as well?)

false






How history doesn’t recognize any of the apostles as having lived during this time.

False

they did.




maybe you confuse the unknown authors of scripture for said statement.
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
Nice try...but Cain's effort is shown first...then Abel's.
Not so fast. All it says is that they both brought offerings. Cain's just happens to be mentioned first. That, in no way implies that Cain thought of it first. Just that it was viewed first.
Abel had to slaughter what he was offering. Slaughtering takes more time, effort, and thought, than simply puillng plants out of the ground. It is entirely possible that Cain saw what Abel was doing and decided to beat him to the punch. Thereby not fully understanding the motive behind Abel's motives.
 
Last edited:

Walkntune

Well-Known Member
So I've reached listening to Leviticus from the audio of the New World Translation... and I find it quite atrocious that this Divinity demands sacrificing animals, sprinkling their blood, and burning them for Eir satisfaction. Why does YHWH even demand this?

Even when Christians say that Jehovah's Son, Jesus Christ, completed this need for sacrificial offerings, it still comes back to why the heck Jehovah would require them in the first place.

In my religion, Krishna says that even a leaf, flower, fruit or a little water (of which we can share and partake) is acceptable to Him, for He partakes in the love and devotion of that offering, and not the substance. And yet, Jehovah's blood offerings are quite ghastly to me. What was the purpose of expiating sins through the killing of animals? :cover:
Life only comes from life.Just as you have to eat seomething to live which means something dies, so it is also in the spirit realm. They run parallel.
 

not nom

Well-Known Member
Agreed, no history and no historicity, Moses never existed because there is no evidence of any Moses to be found. There never was a mass Exodus; the Ten Commandments are from the Egyptian Book of the Dead spell number 125….
It doesn’t take much understanding to realize that Moses is a fabrication that doesn’t appear in any historians historical documentations because he never was.
Shall we discuss how there were no recorded followers of Christ until and after the bible was created some 300 years after the claim of his birth, life and death. How history doesn’t recognize any of the apostles (maybe with the exception of Paul who had a dream 300 years later as well?) as having lived during this time. That the story of Jesus is a plagiarism…. : ) I bet the faith will not correspond to either of us with anything sourced. ;)

you gave no sources yourself either ^^
 

Caladan

Agnostic Pantheist
I guess for me, the problem is that I could not wrap my head around Middle-Eastern culture's common slaughtering of animals and the usage of blood in particular ways (besides the grain, wine, and other kinds of offerings), such as placing it on the right earlobe, and the right thumb, and sprinkling it all about the altar, while eating some of the fat, and burning the rest of it, making a pleasant odour before Jehovah.
I think the issue is that you need to be more accepting of the ethnography of the near east and of other cultures in history in general. the slaughtering of animals has been much more widely common than what you call 'the middle east'. as I have already pointed, slaughter and sacrifice have been practised by any culture from the Norse, to the Jews, Greco-Roman cultures, Egyptian culture and many many more. it was practically a global practice, and I don't think you put any thought of the origin and cultural background of this practice.
it would be sad if we all thought that non meat eating Vedic culture is the end of culture and history.

also there are practices, again, which I have already pointed in this thread, which would really be frowned upon today, such as human sacrifice, practised by anyone from the Norse, Egyptians, Aztec and Mesopotamians.
religion and ethnographic investigation does not end (nor start) with the way we idealize the world, which if we really think about it can be highly subjective and not fitting for all people or cultures or even geographical locations.
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Not so fast. All it says is that they both brought offerings. Cain's just happens to be mentioned first. That, in no way implies that Cain thought of it first. Just that it was viewed first.
Abel had to slaughter what he was offering. Slaughtering takes more time, effort, and thought, than simply puillng plants out of the ground. It is entirely possible that Cain saw what Abel was doing and decided to beat him to the punch. Thereby not fully understanding the motive behind Abel's motives.

Don't be so slow ( and I still stand by my previous post).

The topic title and this discussion should be aimed at God.

Does He really desire spilled blood....and why?

And the dialog with Cain does indicate...it was not so much the sacrifice...
as it was 'something else'.
'Something' about Cain's effort fell short.
And then God wants to know of Cain...
'why are you angry?'

I suspect this topic is much more to what we do...
about drawing the attention of God.
and why we believe such things.

God takes notice?.... when we shed blood?
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
Don't be so slow ( and I still stand by my previous post).

The topic title and this discussion should be aimed at God.

Does He really desire spilled blood....and why?

And the dialog with Cain does indicate...it was not so much the sacrifice...
as it was 'something else'.
'Something' about Cain's effort fell short.
And then God wants to know of Cain...
'why are you angry?'

I suspect this topic is much more to what we do...
about drawing the attention of God.
and why we believe such things.

God takes notice?.... when we shed blood?
I do believe I just said that. I shall say it again.

The motives behind the sacrifice. Not the sacrifice, itself. But the motives behind it.
That is the whole thing about all sacrifices. Be it animal, vegetable, mineral, or prayer. The "why" you do it is much more important than that you do it.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I do believe I just said that. I shall say it again.

The motives behind the sacrifice. Not the sacrifice, itself. But the motives behind it.
That is the whole thing about all sacrifices. Be it animal, vegetable, mineral, or prayer. The "why" you do it is much more important than that you do it.

So...reviewing from post #34.....

We can finally get over the suggestion of rivalry between the brothers?
who went first...it was Cain....then Abel....?
It was your suggestion...but not to the point.

It is then correct to proceed from post#34, and move on to ...'why'.

Do you have a suggestion...why would God take notice when blood is spilled?
In what way should Man make such practice?....for the remission of sin?

No mention is made...What the two brother were attempting to resolve.
But sin is mentioned as something that could happen...waiting at the door.

Mind you...sin was once thought to be tangible.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Go back to Genesis.
Cain made an offering of 'the fruit of the ground'.
Abel made an offering of his 'flock and the fat thereof'.

Animal sacrifices had begun and were favored over vegetation.
Why?...the book does not say.
Actually, the Torah says: "In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to the Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock." The Rabbis note the emphasis on the quality of what was given relative to what was available to give. To use this verse to argue a preference for animal sacrifices is little more than shallow eisegesis.
 

Rakhel

Well-Known Member
So...reviewing from post #34.....

We can finally get over the suggestion of rivalry between the brothers?
who went first...it was Cain....then Abel....?
It was your suggestion...but not to the point.

It is then correct to proceed from post#34, and move on to ...'why'.

Do you have a suggestion...why would God take notice when blood is spilled?
In what way should Man make such practice?....for the remission of sin?

No mention is made...What the two brother were attempting to resolve.
But sin is mentioned as something that could happen...waiting at the door.

Mind you...sin was once thought to be tangible.
M-O-T-I-V-E. Motive is what is important. Not what you sacrifice. How many times does this have to said.
The blood is nothing. The meat is nothing. The vegetables, the grain, nothing.
You can go before a priest weekly, confess your sins, and do 100 Hail Mary's and it would mean nothing if your motives weren't pure.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
Actually, the Torah says: "In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to the Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock." The Rabbis note the emphasis on the quality of what was given relative to what was available to give. To use this verse to argue a preference for animal sacrifices is little more than shallow eisegesis.
Perhaps this could read, "In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to the Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock." The Rabbis note the emphasis on the quality of what was given relative to what was available to give."

There also seems to be some emphasis on the firstfruits rather than some shabby old vegetables.
 

sandy whitelinger

Veteran Member
M-O-T-I-V-E. Motive is what is important. Not what you sacrifice. How many times does this have to said.
The blood is nothing. The meat is nothing. The vegetables, the grain, nothing.
You can go before a priest weekly, confess your sins, and do 100 Hail Mary's and it would mean nothing if your motives weren't pure.
Yet God is quite clear on what to sacrifice and when.
 
Top