Why does YHWH desire blood sacrifices?

[Chase200mph]

chase please learn how to use the quote function

No thank you....

 

[Buttons*]

Yes, but this is highly debated with, whether the animal sacrifices where metaphorical, or a misunderstanding of the word 'ashvamedha'. Furthermore, Vaishnavism is apart from Shaktism - Hinduism is a misnomer, as it is more of an umbrella of different religious systems under a common culture or language of shared terminology.

I am a Vaishnava, and have completely different beliefs, goals, meditations, Scriptures, etc. than Shaktas who engage in blood sacrifices in villages and become possessed by 'Durgadevi' while drinking blood from live animals. As far as Indian religions go, Vaishnavism, and maybe Shaivism, as well as Jainism and Sikhism do not engage in animal slaughtering. Lord Vishnu has never the slaughtering of animals in sacrifice unto Him, or people for that matter.

... and so it wouldn't make sense that Biblical orders for slaughter could be metaphorical as well? I see a cherry picker

In any case, it's odd that you're asking, "Why must this be the case for a belief?" when it's not really the case anymore - and many Indian beliefs also have a shared history with this ritual (metaphorical or not) but that's not the case anymore.

*shrug*

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I still would like to know what is exactly wrong with a pastorialist people sacrificing an animal to their gods as a tribute when they wanted to eat meat. I have a feeling what is a issue here is meat eating

 

[Buttons*]

I still would like to know what is exactly wrong with a pastorialist people sacrificing an animal to their gods as a tribute when they wanted to eat meat. I have a feeling what is a issue here is meat eating

Well, as a Gnostic, when you kill, you're forcing the light to stay within the cycle of the prison realm... well according to Manicheanism anyway.

What kind of Gnostic are you? PM me?

 

[outhouse]

I still would like to know what is exactly wrong with a pastorialist people sacrificing an animal to their gods as a tribute when they wanted to eat meat. I have a feeling what is a issue here is meat eating

its not a meat eating issue as most of us do.

these were not large fancy BBQ's to feed the masses.

Your talking about something that evolved in different stages within the temple.


This was not just a burning of leftovers to please a deity

 

[CynthiaCypher]

its not a meat eating issue as most of us do.

these were not large fancy BBQ's to feed the masses.

Your talking about something that evolved in different stages within the temple.


This was not just a burning of leftovers to please a deity

Animal sacrifice didn't develop from temple worship, it developed from pastorialism. Even hunter/gatherer societies dedicated their kills to their gods as tribute.

 

[Gaura Priya]

... and so it wouldn't make sense that Biblical orders for slaughter could be metaphorical as well? I see a cherry picker

In any case, it's odd that you're asking, "Why must this be the case for a belief?" when it's not really the case anymore - and many Indian beliefs also have a shared history with this ritual (metaphorical or not) but that's not the case anymore.

*shrug*

I practice Vaishnavism. I believe Hinduism in actuality did not exist as a one religion as most Westerners are apt to think. If you think that Hinduism was some super religion that existed as one big entity in the past, that is grave ignorance of the original term 'Hindu'. It simply never existed in the Vedic literatures.

Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism, as far as I know, never sacrificed meat and sprinkled blood for their God. God never asked for it. In Shaktism, Kali does desire blood, and therefore the religion gives some allowance for goat slaughtering. Having read parts of the Guru Granth Sahib, and reading Vaishnava Scriptures, there is barely, if any, reference to God desiring any form of animal or blood ritual.

My problem is that blood sacrifice is utilised all throughout Judaism and Christianity's theology. In Christianity, which I am readily accustomed to, God needed a sacrifice to be the Be-All-End-All of blood sacrifices. This implicitly tells me that God had originally desired blood offerings in the first place.

Now with just the Tanakh, the Torah itself gives a completely long list of performing the ritual sacrifice, and the theme of blood and seed pervade throughout the entire Tanakh. Towards the end with the prophets, they say that Yehovah actually did not desire them, but desired mercy. Now some Jews have given some harmonisation, which I find acceptable to me. However, if just taken to plain reading, it seems that God desires blood in the beginning.

He asks for these sacrifices, he kills those who improperly perform them, and the burnt offering (of fat and blood) was a pleasant odour to Yehovah? It just does not seem right that a God of love would allow a part of His own creation to suffer for someone else's sins. From plain reading, these animals were utilised as sin-carriers, and not all the meat was eaten, but was burnt for Yehovah.

You may claim that this is just about eating meat; that is not necessarily the case. It's the fact that these poor animals become literally scapegoats for sin. After the blood is sprinkled outside the altar, much of it was burnt.

"And the skin of the bullock, and all its flesh, with its head, and with its legs, and its inwards, and its dung, even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire: where the ashes are poured out shall it be burnt."

-- Leviticus 4:11, ASV

My problem is not why it occurs anymore, but why did God desire spilled blood in the first place.

 

[Gaura Priya]

and many Indian beliefs also have a shared history with this ritual (metaphorical or not) but that's not the case anymore.

*shrug*

Many? You need to change that. I know many 'Indian' beliefs and only a select few would even consider eating meat (Shaktism), or human flesh (aghoris), let alone slaughter. Our understanding of 'historical Hinduism' is completely coloured by that Aryan Invasion Theory and the idea of an 'Aryan race;' misconceptions that Western scholars still believe are true.

Just like the existence of the caste system; the original conception of varnashrama dharma became seen as birth-based when originally it was based on one's qualities; this is the same with the purushamedha and ashvamedha.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Again, it doesn't matter.

Do you pray because you have to? Do you pray longer than the person sitting next to you thinking G-d will listen to you more because of it?

Praying and making an atonement for sin are not related.

 

[Buttons*]

I practice Vaishnavism. I believe Hinduism in actuality did not exist as a one religion as most Westerners are apt to think. If you think that Hinduism was some super religion that existed as one big entity in the past, that is grave ignorance of the original term 'Hindu'. It simply never existed in the Vedic literatures.

I realize that the blanket term is not truly descriptive. There are so many niche groups within India that it would be impossible to seriously believe that "Hinduism" is an appropriate term - however, for the sake of simplicity, I mentioned that, so you can save your energy in explaining that - I get it. It's ok. Maybe it didn't exist in vedic literature... exept for that ritual where a large group of the spiritual leaders (read: including kings) would ride into the desert to chase a horse, and then sacrifice the animals upon return. (Not to worry, I shall look this ritual up for you. I know it exists in my texts at home.)

Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism, as far as I know, never sacrificed meat and sprinkled blood for their God. God never asked for it. In Shaktism, Kali does desire blood, and therefore the religion gives some allowance for goat slaughtering. Having read parts of the Guru Granth Sahib, and reading Vaishnava Scriptures, there is barely, if any, reference to God desiring any form of animal or blood ritual.

Except for the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Icchantikas are definitely on the kill list! (But the text goes back and forth on this one, saying everything can be saved... and on the other side of the coin saying that Icchantikas must die.)

My problem is that blood sacrifice is utilised all throughout Judaism and Christianity's theology. In Christianity, which I am readily accustomed to, God needed a sacrifice to be the Be-All-End-All of blood sacrifices. This implicitly tells me that God had originally desired blood offerings in the first place.

What about the tale within the Mahaparinirvana sutra that explains the Buddha's birth: As his mother was giving birth, she burst into flames, and the boy magically escaped the fire. This does not follow general Buddhism scripture, but it's worth a mention, I think. It is not a case that this was required by any god, but the fact that it was an amazing miracle that was told with blatant high esteem (if you read the scripture) tells me that this was "ok." So is your problem with Judeo-Christian tradition simply that it was required, rather than the fact that it happened throughout history? (Assuming these things are not metaphors. If they are, I still find them problematic, and just as orientalist as any other western interpretation. "Oh, it's other... so it must have been special, a metaphor for something higher..." whether or not this was the case. Orientalism covers both ends of the stick, ignorance that praises and ignorance that damns.

Now with just the Tanakh, the Torah itself gives a completely long list of performing the ritual sacrifice, and the theme of blood and seed pervade throughout the entire Tanakh. Towards the end with the prophets, they say that Yehovah actually did not desire them, but desired mercy. Now some Jews have given some harmonisation, which I find acceptable to me. However, if just taken to plain reading, it seems that God desires blood in the beginning.

Then that's your personal take on it, whether or not it's metaphorical. No one can change your mind about how you read something, and I am not going to try and change it either. I still find your argument problematic, though.

He asks for these sacrifices, he kills those who improperly perform them, and the burnt offering (of fat and blood) was a pleasant odour to Yehovah? It just does not seem right that a God of love would allow a part of His own creation to suffer for someone else's sins. From plain reading, these animals were utilised as sin-carriers, and not all the meat was eaten, but was burnt for Yehovah.

Who ever said he was a God of love? I mean, looking through history I think you're picking a pretty silly battle, because most ancient traditions engaged in this kind of behavior, and even if they didn't, there was usually a call for extreme asceticism - why would a God want anyone to suffer?

why did God desire spilled blood in the first place?

You know the reason that is given in the Bible, you just don't agree with it. That's perfectly fine, no one has to really agree here. If you take the religion at face value like you're claiming to do, with historical rather than metaphorical implications, then you should probably take the whole thing in context. In context, the Bible tells you why. I think that should satisfy you, if you are genuinely curious.

 

[Buttons*]

Many? You need to change that. I know many 'Indian' beliefs and only a select few would even consider eating meat (Shaktism), or human flesh (aghoris), let alone slaughter. Our understanding of 'historical Hinduism' is completely coloured by that Aryan Invasion Theory and the idea of an 'Aryan race;' misconceptions that Western scholars still believe are true.

Just like the existence of the caste system; the original conception of varnashrama dharma became seen as birth-based when originally it was based on one's qualities; this is the same with the purushamedha and ashvamedha.

I would say you're not completely exempt from that bias, just because it's positive doesn't make it the reality of the situation. And, knowing Western scholars myself, many are trying to steer away from that kind of thinking... Check out Edward Said's work on "orientalism."

 

[Buttons*]

Here's at least one article for ya. Citations included in the text.

Paradox of the Indian Cow:

 

[Levite]

Praying and making an atonement for sin are not related.

They are in Judaism.

 

[Gaura Priya]

I would say you're not completely exempt from that bias, just because it's positive doesn't make it the reality of the situation. And, knowing Western scholars myself, many are trying to steer away from that kind of thinking... Check out Edward Said's work on "orientalism."

Of course I'm not completely without bias, as any person would be. However I've looked upon both sides of the coin when it came to the idea of these meat-eating Aryan race, and concluded that there is no such thing as an Aryan race, neither did they invade and create a proto-Hinduism that we know of today. Arya in the Puranas and other Vaishnava Scriptures have always meant 'one who is noble' or 'one who follows Vedic culture.' It never referred to a race of Indo-Europeans who somehow invaded the Dravidians.

The Manu Smrti as it has quoted, was never really taken seriously or even quoted until the coming of the British. The Laws of Manu and their existence have still been debated on whether this was for all peoples or merely local custom for one part of early Indian society.

Hinduism never existed as a monolithic one religion as the article already touts. However, it quotes from translators such as Wilson whose work of the Rig-Veda are now in scrutiny as being archaic, and in necessity of a fresh translation. Reading Wilson's Rig-Veda is like reading the Quran in the eyes of Sale.

But I digress; even in such texts where the allowance of animal sacrifices are given to Shakta Dharma, the so-called Vedic ashvamedha has been debated to even whether such sacrifices were widely practiced, or whether they have always been metaphorical and later made literal. This differs greatly from the text of the Torah where God Himself makes His desire known with blood and animal sacrifices.

 

[Buttons*]

Of course I'm not completely without bias, as any person would be. However I've looked upon both sides of the coin when it came to the idea of these meat-eating Aryan race, and concluded that there is no such thing as an Aryan race, neither did they invade and create a proto-Hinduism that we know of today. Arya in the Puranas and other Vaishnava Scriptures have always meant 'one who is noble' or 'one who follows Vedic culture.' It never referred to a race of Indo-Europeans who somehow invaded the Dravidians.

The Manu Smrti as it has quoted, was never really taken seriously or even quoted until the coming of the British. The Laws of Manu and their existence have still been debated on whether this was for all peoples or merely local custom for one part of early Indian society.

Hinduism never existed as a monolithic one religion as the article already touts. However, it quotes from translators such as Wilson whose work of the Rig-Veda are now in scrutiny as being archaic, and in necessity of a fresh translation. Reading Wilson's Rig-Veda is like reading the Quran in the eyes of Sale.

Dually noted. Debatable, but most likely for another thread.

But I digress; even in such texts where the allowance of animal sacrifices are given to Shakta Dharma, the so-called Vedic ashvamedha has been debated to even whether such sacrifices were widely practiced, or whether they have always been metaphorical and later made literal.

Does it matter? Some people take a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, saying that acts like circumcision and animal sacrifice actually mean some other spiritual sacrifice in order to get in touch with God. There are so many Judaic scholars who constantly debate the Bible, and continue to do so! It's one of the things that makes that religion so unique. I suggest that if you're curious about what Judaic scholars say about it, that you find a Bible that includes different interpretations throughout the text. (In the margins, it's fascinating how some things have been interpreted.) That should more accurately answer things for you, if you are serious about reading up on it.

If you're just in disgust about what the Judaic god does, we got your message.

This differs greatly from the text of the Torah where God Himself makes His desire known with blood and animal sacrifices.

Perhaps. Anyway, you have the answers to your question in front of you if you pick up a Bible, talk to a Rabbi, or actually read it in context. You may not like the answers, you may disagree with them entirely but they are right there in black and white. Go look 'em up. It's not really a matter of debate.

 

[Gaura Priya]

I realize that the blanket term is not truly descriptive. There are so many niche groups within India that it would be impossible to seriously believe that "Hinduism" is an appropriate term - however, for the sake of simplicity, I mentioned that, so you can save your energy in explaining that - I get it. It's ok. Maybe it didn't exist in vedic literature... exept for that ritual where a large group of the spiritual leaders (read: including kings) would ride into the desert to chase a horse, and then sacrifice the animals upon return. (Not to worry, I shall look this ritual up for you. I know it exists in my texts at home.)

Kshatriyas did indeed eat meat,and this is shown in literatures such as the Ramayana. However, if one assumes a literal position, the partaking of meat, as well as it's sacrifice, was not a common or daily custom, and in the very Mahabharata and Ramayana itself is given verses that promote a more vegetarian way of life. Just as Manu had written, wine, women and flesh are not sins in themselves, but there is a great reward in their abstention.

Except for the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Icchantikas are definitely on the kill list! (But the text goes back and forth on this one, saying everything can be saved... and on the other side of the coin saying that Icchantikas must die.)

What about the tale within the Mahaparinirvana sutra that explains the Buddha's birth: As his mother was giving birth, she burst into flames, and the boy magically escaped the fire. This does not follow general Buddhism scripture, but it's worth a mention, I think. It is not a case that this was required by any god, but the fact that it was an amazing miracle that was told with blatant high esteem (if you read the scripture) tells me that this was "ok." So is your problem with Judeo-Christian tradition simply that it was required, rather than the fact that it happened throughout history? (Assuming these things are not metaphors. If they are, I still find them problematic, and just as orientalist as any other western interpretation. "Oh, it's other... so it must have been special, a metaphor for something higher..." whether or not this was the case. Orientalism covers both ends of the stick, ignorance that praises and ignorance that damns.

What I love about reading on religious practices throughout history is their considerable evolution. I just seek to desire to know, not necessarily to attack; I'm genuinely sorry if it appears that way.

For example, the idea of tilaka in Hinduism, I personally believe, was an evolution from using chandana (basically, clay paste) as a coolant during the hot summer. You will see chandana sometimes on older people in India completely smeared over their forehead. This eventually became what was called tilaka as the religions became individualised and formalised in India. According to Vaishnavism, the U-shaped tilaka marking was revealed by God Himself to His followers. However, they also are unique because the distinctions create a way of knowing which school or denomination one belongs under, as well as giving some metaphysical meaning to the shapes and lines of the tilaka.

Then that's your personal take on it, whether or not it's metaphorical. No one can change your mind about how you read something, and I am not going to try and change it either. I still find your argument problematic, though.

I guess most of what we always believe in terms of religion will always be individual. I'm not seeking to change my mind, but I do seek to try to understand why.

Who ever said he was a God of love? I mean, looking through history I think you're picking a pretty silly battle, because most ancient traditions engaged in this kind of behavior, and even if they didn't, there was usually a call for extreme asceticism - why would a God want anyone to suffer?

That's the thing. I do not believe that 'most ancient traditions' engaged in that kind of behaviour. While some tribal cultures practiced human cannibalism, others did not. While some had a panentheistic world view, others were naturally monist. I don't see it as a battle but for me, as an internal dialogue to what I DID take at face value as a former Christian, without investigating the reasons for it. 'Bible-believing' Christians, unlike Jews, believe that the Bible is for the entirety of humankind, and not just for a region or particular people.

My desire to tackle this troubling subject is out of desiring to know. Growing up Christian, for example, I took the Trinity at face value. But having grown older, I no longer subscribe to the idea that the Trinity was ever Biblical in the first place.

You know the reason that is given in the Bible, you just don't agree with it. That's perfectly fine, no one has to really agree here. If you take the religion at face value like you're claiming to do, with historical rather than metaphorical implications, then you should probably take the whole thing in context. In context, the Bible tells you why. I think that should satisfy you, if you are genuinely curious.

This is why I was satisfied with Levite's answer, coupled that with Caladan's answer of the regions and cultural attributions to ritual animal sacrifice to please God.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Dually noted. Debatable, but most likely for another thread.

Does it matter? Some people take a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, saying that acts like circumcision and animal sacrifice actually mean some other spiritual sacrifice in order to get in touch with God. There are so many Judaic scholars who constantly debate the Bible, and continue to do so! It's one of the things that makes that religion so unique. I suggest that if you're curious about what Judaic scholars say about it, that you find a Bible that includes different interpretations throughout the text. (In the margins, it's fascinating how some things have been interpreted.) That should more accurately answer things for you, if you are serious about reading up on it.

If you're just in disgust about what the Judaic god does, we got your message.


Perhaps. Anyway, you have the answers to your question in front of you if you pick up a Bible, talk to a Rabbi, or actually read it in context. You may not like the answers, you may disagree with them entirely but they are right there in black and white. Go look 'em up. It's not really a matter of debate.

I probably will. I have yet to visit a synagogue, and I have always wanted to visit an Orthodox Jewish one. n__n

 

[InChrist]

A couple of articles on the subject, if you are interested.





Why did God require animal sacrifices in the Old Testament?

Answer: God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). Animal sacrifice is an important theme found throughout Scripture because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). When Adam and Eve sinned, animals were killed by God to provide clothing for them (Genesis 3:21). Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to the Lord. Cain's was unacceptable because he brought fruit, while Abel's was acceptable because it was the “firstborn of his flock” (Genesis 4:4-5). After the flood receded, Noah sacrificed animals to God (Genesis 8:20-21).

Continue article: Why did God require animal sacrifices in the Old Testament?


Why did the sacrificial system require a blood sacrifice?

Answer: The whole of the Old Testament, every book, points toward the Great Sacrifice that was to come—that of Jesus’ sacrificial giving of His own life on our behalf. Leviticus 17:11 is the Old Testament’s central statement about the significance of blood in the sacrificial system. God, speaking to Moses, declares: “For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life.”

Continue article:
Why did the sacrificial system require a blood sacrifice?

 

[Rakhel]

Praying and making an atonement for sin are not related.

Since when?

 

[Thief]

So far...everyone seems to think God wants blood....
But no one is saying why?

There's plenty of scripture to indicate God never did.

Did anyone really answer my viewpoint about Cain and Abel?
I think not.
The practice took hold without God's command.
What do you think was really happening there?