Sacrifice

[Rhiannon]

What about Abraham being prepared to offer Isaac up as a sacrifice, would he have eaten his remains?

Don't think God asked Abraham to make Isaac into a kebab.

[Rhiannon]

"self sacrifice".
Christ being the self who is the one and only sacrifice.

How is that different to what Floo asked you? And for whom is the sacrifice a necessity?

[Dicky Underpants]

So what do you understand about the progression of thought in the OT with regards to animal sacrifice? How do you think that 'evolved' into the human sacrifice' of Jesus? Do you think that accurately reflects Jewish ideas about sacrifice or can you see a different influence in there?

Rhiannon

Can't say I'm likely to be as well informed as your Jewish elder, but the OT itself does present different strands of thought on the matter of sacrifice, and though Leviticus and Ezekiel seem to think it is a sine qua non of all Jewish life, there are a number of texts which directly oppose this, and suggest that the whole rigmarole is just window dressing, and a diversion from what humans should really be directing their attention to.

The first relevant text is from Jeremiah:

[21] Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh.
[22] For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
[23] But this command I gave them, `Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.'

Jeremiah 7

The translation is not too clear, but to me it seems to be saying "perform your sacrifices if that sort of thing makes you happy, but I never commanded any such thing in the first place. I asked you to act righteously".

The second is from Isaiah, which is quite clear:

[11] "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
 says the LORD;
 I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
 and the fat of fed beasts;
 I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
 or of lambs, or of he-goats.
[12] "When you come to appear before me,
 who requires of you
 this trampling of my courts?
[13] Bring no more vain offerings;
 incense is an abomination to me.

Isaiah 1

And the third from Micah even clearer:

[6] "With what shall I come before the LORD,
 and bow myself before God on high?
 Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
 with calves a year old?
[7] Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
 with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
 Shall I give my first-born for my transgression,
 the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"
[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good;
 and what does the LORD require of you
 but to do justice, and to love kindness,
 and to walk humbly with your God?

Micah 6

All these, as far as I can see regard the notion of sacrifice as total irrelevance, especially if the Hebrews continued to commit evil (okay, there's another discussion about "what's evil"?")


Then along comes Christianity, with the particular influence of St Paul and St John, who then decide to reinstate the notion of sacrifice, with Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, (though St Paul seems rather more taken with the idea of the story of the potential human sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, which could be seen as re-instituting an even more primitive and obnoxious idea). Traditional Christianity seems to have been stuck with notion of Christ's 'sacrifice' in one form or another down the ages, the most appalling and ultimately ludicrous being the 'penal substitution atonement' - God sacrificing a bit of himself to himself. In whatever form I've seen this notion presented, it seems a great nonsense to me, even in the idea of Jesus' death somehow allowing humanity to become reconciled to God.
Jesus died for various reasons, largely to do with his being seen as a social nuisance, no doubt. He was heroic to put his money where his mouth was, but I can't see any meaning in the rest of this turgid theologising.

[trippymonkey]

MMM
Doesn't it all sound like so many childish threats from a weak, feeble & needy creature, eh

[Spud]

What about Abraham being prepared to offer Isaac up as a sacrifice, would he have eaten his remains?

The animal sacrifices were symbolic. I mean, why would God say to sprinkle the blood on the North side of the altar? They must have been pointing ahead to something - Isaac included. One view is that Isaac was spared because he was not "without blemish", as the animals chosen had to be. Isaac was a sinner. Only Jesus was without sin, so only he could take the punishment for someone else's sin.

[Shaker]

The animal sacrifices were symbolic.

The animals thought otherwise.

[Sriram]

The animal sacrifices were symbolic. I mean, why would God say to sprinkle the blood on the North side of the altar? They must have been pointing ahead to something - Isaac included. One view is that Isaac was spared because he was not "without blemish", as the animals chosen had to be. Isaac was a sinner. Only Jesus was without sin, so only he could take the punishment for someone else's sin.

How can sacrificing (killing) any thing remove our sins?    If Jesus is still alive somewhere, how was he 'sacrificed'?

Sacrificing animals probably arose (ignorantly) from the need to sacrifice our animal nature, which is the foundation of the concept of sacrifice. The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities.   

[Spud]

Sriram,
Genesis says it arose from the need to cover our nakedness. Leaves being insufficient, an animal had to shed blood so it's skin could be used.
Re Jesus: imagine someone is in debt and can't pay. Another person who is in debt to the same lender cannot help the first person. But someone who has no debt of his own is able to bail the first person out.

[Spud]

How can sacrificing (killing) any thing remove our sins?    If Jesus is still alive somewhere, how was he 'sacrificed'?

Sacrificing animals probably arose (ignorantly) from the need to sacrifice our animal nature, which is the foundation of the concept of sacrifice. The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities.

In my degree course, we talked about how we would define spirituality. The lecturer said that it's basically an awareness of other people and their needs, and of a Creator, as opposed to always having our own agenda in mind.

[floo]

Sriram,
Genesis says it arose from the need to cover our nakedness. Leaves being insufficient, an animal had to shed blood so it's skin could be used.
Re Jesus: imagine someone is in debt and can't pay. Another person who is in debt to the same lender cannot help the first person. But someone who has no debt of his own is able to bail the first person out.

None of that makes any sense at all!

[Rhiannon]

Rhiannon

Can't say I'm likely to be as well informed as your Jewish elder, but the OT itself does present different strands of thought on the matter of sacrifice, and though Leviticus and Ezekiel seem to think it is a sine qua non of all Jewish life, there are a number of texts which directly oppose this, and suggest that the whole rigmarole is just window dressing, and a diversion from what humans should really be directing their attention to.

The first relevant text is from Jeremiah:
 
Jeremiah 7

The translation is not too clear, but to me it seems to be saying "perform your sacrifices if that sort of thing makes you happy, but I never commanded any such thing in the first place. I asked you to act righteously".

The second is from Isaiah, which is quite clear:
Isaiah 1

And the third from Micah even clearer:
Micah 6

All these, as far as I can see regard the notion of sacrifice as total irrelevance, especially if the Hebrews continued to commit evil (okay, there's another discussion about "what's evil"?")


Then along comes Christianity, with the particular influence of St Paul and St John, who then decide to reinstate the notion of sacrifice, with Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, (though St Paul seems rather more taken with the idea of the story of the potential human sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, which could be seen as re-instituting an even more primitive and obnoxious idea). Traditional Christianity seems to have been stuck with notion of Christ's 'sacrifice' in one form or another down the ages, the most appalling and ultimately ludicrous being the 'penal substitution atonement' - God sacrificing a bit of himself to himself. In whatever form I've seen this notion presented, it seems a great nonsense to me, even in the idea of Jesus' death somehow allowing humanity to become reconciled to God.
Jesus died for various reasons, largely to do with his being seen as a social nuisance, no doubt. He was heroic to put his money where his mouth was, but I can't see any meaning in the rest of this turgid theologising.

Excellent post, Dicky, and very much what I was thinking of. My friend was very keen to point out how Jewish thought (whether youvtake that to mean their understanding of God's wishes or something else) had moved on beyond sacrifice to living an obedient and God-filled life.

[Rhiannon]

In my degree course, we talked about how we would define spirituality. The lecturer said that it's basically an awareness of other people and their needs, and of a Creator, as opposed to always having our own agenda in mind.

That's just one (slightly odd) definition, Spud. Others are available.

[Spud]

That's just one (slightly odd) definition, Spud. Others are available.

It's quite similar to this from post 31, though:
"The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities."

[Shaker]

It's quite similar to this from post 31, though:
The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature

Good luck with that.

[floo]

It's quite similar to this from post 31, though:
"The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities."

Hmmmmm!

[Rhiannon]

It's quite similar to this from post 31, though:
"The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities."

And you equate that with a form of selflessness, of forgetting your own needs. Sriram would probably say it means self-mastery - not the same thing. You've projected your understanding onto his words.

[Nearly Sane]

In my degree course, we talked about how we would define spirituality. The lecturer said that it's basically an awareness of other people and their needs, and of a Creator, as opposed to always having our own agenda in mind.

I didn't know they offered degree course in mince.

[Sriram]

It's quite similar to this from post 31, though:
"The basis of all spirituality (common to all religions) is about eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities."

Agreeing that selflessness is an important part of spiritual development....how does sacrificing animals to rid ourselves of sin amount to selflessness??!!  It is actually selfishness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agreeing that selflessness is an important part of spiritual development....how does sacrificing animals to rid ourselves of sin amount to selflessness??!!  It is actually selfishness.

At some point livestock was currency. People still put money into the collection. That's true of religion and I would imagine the BHA and NSS. I'm sure many atheists parted with their £5.99's for a copy of 'The God Delusion' hoping for a 'blessing' from it in whatever sense.

[Shaker]

I'm sure many atheists parted with their £5.99's for a copy of 'The God Delusion' hoping for a 'blessing' from it in whatever sense.

Goodness knows I enjoy a drink as much as the next Freddie Flintoff but don't you think it's a bit early, Vlad?

[Udayana]

In societies where human, animal or personal sacrifices are undertaken these are essentially ritual ceremonies performed intentionally for the supposed spiritual benefit of the people taking part or their tribal group.

Even if the events played out as given in the NT, I fail to see how execution for blasphemy or sedition following a trial can possibly be deemed as anything equivalent.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Goodness knows I enjoy a drink as much as the next Freddie Flintoff but don't you think it's a bit early, Vlad?

Oh come on, don't tell me you didn't expect at least a little trill when you had a copy of ''The Master'' in your hand.

[Shaker]

Oh come on, don't tell me you didn't expect at least a little trill when you had a copy of ''The Master'' in your hand.

Only because I got my copy a little cheep.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only because I got my copy a little cheep.

BOGOF?

[Shaker]

No, Waterstones.