Wild speculation

[Thomas]

Having said that, when we looked at Sacrifice on my course, there was much made about how ubiquitous the word is ... how the concept of sacrifice exists in all cultures, in all times and all places ... its deep in there in human nature ... it's part of what makes us what we are, so deep in there that no-one can explain it adequately, although offer plenty of examples, it never quite boxes the whole thing up satisfactorily.

 

[Thomas]

One of my particular likes is how Israel reworked the Flood Myth.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh, itself a reworking of older epic poems, the gods have created humans to labour for them. As a result of the gods-inflicted flood to destroy rebellious humanity, they are dyiing of hunger. The hero who survives the flood in an ark sets out a banquet for the gods, who fall on the feast with ogiastic zeal ...

... the Biblical reworking has Noah raise and altar and make an offering of clean animals to God.

The view of 'god' has changed radically between the earliest and latest tellings, but sacrifice is still there.

 

[Thomas]

Back on the 'most Christians' thing – most know, surely they must know – that Christ died for us, died for our sins, and soi on ... if not, then either they were badly taught, or weren't paying attention ... but from my experience of RC and Orthodox, we do rather bang on about it, quite a lot.

And most critics of Christianity use it to berate us with ...

Do they think about it, ie can they reason it philosophically? No. Don't need to, nor will such insights make them any better Christians.

 

[juantoo3]

Depends on the church I suppose.
This AM I went to an Anglo-Catholic (Episcopal) church. Today was the feast of the Corpus Christi, so some good long while was spent on ritual and they discussed the theology of the Real Presence, etc. And how early Christians were accused of cannibalism.
What I can say though, is no matter how much I hear and read about the theology, I don't understand about the sacrifice, its necessity or its efficacy.
Try as I might, I guess I simply don't have the ears to hear, eyes to see, heart to understand.
I understand a great many things, or I think I do.
But I don't understand about the sacrifice, to whom the sacrifice was made, and to what effect.

And I still don't understand how wil's not understanding (or possibly mine?) proved/validated your point.

The point proven is that the subject is seldom taught, therefor lay people relying on "the pulpit" never seem to learn.

I love Wil, he and I go back about as far as Thomas and I. I know Wil *usually* means well.

My (perhaps?) misunderstanding of the Unitic (Wil's word) religion is that it combines all, but in the process it loses what Thomas calls "tradition." To believe in everything is to believe in nothing. Any remnant of wisdom teaching is whitewashed into meaninglessness.

I think in general that a lot of Western "application" of Buddhist wisdom falls into the same trap. So often the wisdom teachings of many faiths are diluted in modern interpretations, losing grasp of the original intent.

Blood sacrifice is an ancient tradition. I've asked here in the past only to hear crickets....why? What is the purpose of blood sacrifice?

Because G!d said so? On any other subject, I can find a better justification than simply "G!d said so." What's up with blood sacrifice?

The life is in the blood. That may seem like an overstatement of the obvious, but is it, really?

When was the last time you looked your supper in the eye and took it's life so that you could live?

 

[juantoo3]

More and more, I understand that generally, when 'most Christians' is said here, it means other than Catholic, Orthodox, etc. I think it means America. I really don't know.

Could be, given that I've only experienced "church" here stateside.

RCs call it the Sacrifice of the Mass. That's what the Liturgy of the Mass is all about. That's what the Eucharist is, its' what He said.

Personally, I don't think we understand it any better now than we did in the first century. So we write screeds about it, and there are theories, going all the way back to Irenaeus, and he going back to Paul.

John's entire Gospel was a kind of 'Don't you get it?'

Reminders, yes, especially with the RC and related churches that offer communion regularly. The reminder is there.

But what is the essence of what it all means?

Now in Christianity, beginning with Jesus and the Last Supper, we have bloodless sacrifice...once and done for all time, with regular reminders.

So, how about in Haiti where blood sacrifice is still offered? In Haiti, where the population is said to be 90% Catholic and 100% Voodun...blood sacrifice is still routinely practiced. Why? What is the purpose? What is the significance? What is the result? What is the effect?

 

[juantoo3]

Back on the 'most Christians' thing – most know, surely they must know – that Christ died for us, died for our sins, and soi on ... if not, then either they were badly taught, or weren't paying attention ... but from my experience of RC and Orthodox, we do rather bang on about it, quite a lot.

And most critics of Christianity use it to berate us with ...

Do they think about it, ie can they reason it philosophically? No. Don't need to, nor will such insights make them any better Christians.

That's what I'm talking about...we are reminded, often, of the substitution...not of the fact.

That's not clear either...

We are told, often, that Jesus is our sacrifice. Well and good, but what does that mean? Your sins are forgiven...OK, that's nice - how? How does the sacrifice of the Son of G!d erase sin? What of blood sacrifice *ever* erased sin?

 

[juantoo3]

Having said that, when we looked at Sacrifice on my course, there was much made about how ubiquitous the word is ... how the concept of sacrifice exists in all cultures, in all times and all places ... its deep in there in human nature ... it's part of what makes us what we are, so deep in there that no-one can explain it adequately, although offer plenty of examples, it never quite boxes the whole thing up satisfactorily.

Indeed, sacrifice is ubiquitous across ancient history, across cultures. What is it about spilling blood that translates into a religious experience?

You dabble with esoteric knowledge...think about it from that perspective.

 

[juantoo3]

Why the Paschal Lamb?

Why not a dove, or an ox? Why not a "meat" offering of bread and wine?

Why not the scapegoat?

 

[Thomas]

What do you think it means?

 

[RJM]

What is it about spilling blood that translates into a religious experience?

The giving of a valuable life and possession to God -- a valuable animal from the herd -- the surrender of passing material attachments to the eternal power of spirit -- it never was about the blood. That is the very corruption of the meaning of sacrifice, imo. But are we going to have to keep labouring the point here?

 

[Thomas]

But what is the essence of what it all means?

You keep asking that ... I'm not sure what you expect ... what kind of answer you want.

What does the average Christian think? They don't question it, they accept it in the hope, and the faith, that the All-Encompassing Love envelopes them.

Are they then at fault for not questioning? No. Can you provide the prefect answer? I doubt it, but I would love to hear it if you can.

It seems, and I am fully prepared to accept I am wrong, you want the average Christian to be a philosopher, a theologian, to have answers for the deep and difficult questions ... I'm sorry, but we don't ... we cannot match your intellectual skills ... and in the end it falls back on 'faith' and 'hope' and 'trust' and 'belief' which I know are intellectually unfulfilling ... but I am sorry, at the present moment that's the best I can do.

Do I think the average Christian ever doubts? Actually, yes, I do think that. I might be romantic, or naive, but I believe they doubt, and then go on, again carried forward by the promise that they are not wrong.

The collapse of faith is when it all breaks down.

The collapse of Faith is a Dark Night of the Soul.

I think few, a precious few, could endure that dark night and face the dawn unbroken, steadfast in their resolve.

And nowhere, in Scripture, do I think God calls for such from us – unless it's in our make-up to go there.

Now in Christianity, beginning with Jesus and the Last Supper, we have bloodless sacrifice...once and done for all time, with regular reminders.

So, how about in Haiti where blood sacrifice is still offered? In Haiti, where the population is said to be 90% Catholic and 100% Voodun...blood sacrifice is still routinely practiced. Why? What is the purpose? What is the significance? What is the result? What is the effect?

C'mon, you know that's no kind of argument.

 

[juantoo3]

- it never was about the blood.

There are more ancient cultures than I can count that would disagree...

 

[juantoo3]

you want the average Christian to be a philosopher, a theologian, to have answers for the deep and difficult questions ... I'm sorry, but we don't ... we cannot match your intellectual skills ... and in the end it falls back on 'faith' and 'hope' and 'trust' and 'belief' which I know are intellectually unfulfilling ... but I am sorry, at the present moment that's the best I can do.

Aw, c'mon now. There's a bit of philosopher and theologian in everyone who visits this site...particularly yourself.

C'mon, you know that's no kind of argument.

Why? Voodun is but another nature religion, with roots in Africa that are still active as well.

And "modern" blood sacrifice is not limited to these examples.

Point being, there's something to it, something that is not easily or readily dismissed by "thinking" it away.

Even so, merely reviewing the various sacrifices of the Old Testament - G!d's Word - should provide significant clues to where I am pointing.

 

[Thomas]

Aw, c'mon now. There's a bit of philosopher and theologian in everyone who visits this site...particularly yourself.

OK, but then as we understand I'm only speaking for myself.

Point being, there's something to it, something that is not easily or readily dismissed by "thinking" it away.

Ah, d'you mean why does the idea of sacrifice not go away ... ?

Then I'm with you.

Even so, merely reviewing the various sacrifices of the Old Testament - G!d's Word - should provide significant clues to where I am pointing.

OK. I'll have to think about that ...

 

[RJM]

There are more ancient cultures than I can count that would disagree...

It is nevertheless a perversion of the sacrifice of Abraham, imo

Aztec and other New World cultures are quite recent, relative to Abraham, and I'm not sure the practice of blood sacrifice for its own sake, as anything else but a perversion of the 'true' meaning of sacrifice, can be found in ancient Chinese or Indo/Iranian or Egyptian or older aboriginal cultures?

Point is, whatever the expression of it, blood sacrifice was always a corruption?

 

[juantoo3]

It is nevertheless a perversion of the sacrifice of Abraham, imo

Aztec and other New World cultures are quite recent, relative to Abraham, and I'm not sure the practice of blood sacrifice for its own sake, as anything else but a perversion of the 'true' meaning of sacrifice, can be found in ancient Chinese or Indo/Iranian or Egyptian or older aboriginal cultures?

Point is, whatever the expression of it, blood sacrifice was always a corruption?

Who corrupted whom?

The first acknowledged sacrifice in the Bible was in the Garden of Eden, when G!d took animals to clothe ha-Adam and Eve. Cain slew Abel because Abel's sacrifice was acceptable, Cain's offering of vegetables was not. That was only the beginning of blood sacrifice in the Bible.

Why do you think the Temple was so central to the Jewish identity? It wasn't a church or cathedral...it was a factory scale slaughterhouse for blood sacrifice.

What is it about blood sacrifice that ties into religious experience? Once one grasps what that actually means, only then can one fully appreciate just what Jesus did.

 

[juantoo3]

OK, but then as we understand I'm only speaking for myself.

I would expect no less. I appreciate your insight far more when you are not hobbled and chained.

 

[juantoo3]

Ashes of the Red Heifer

The burning of the red heifer with its blood, the crimson that was combined with it, and the red color of the animal itself may allude to the power of blood to overcome the power of death which threatens both the sanctity and the existence of the Israelite camp (cf. Ex. 12:22–23). While blood is mostly a source of purity, innocent blood that has been shed is a pollutant. In such a case, the red of the heifer might be seen as symbolic of the sin (cf. lsa. 1:18) that caused the death, which is banished from the camp.

Red Heifer

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

 

[RJM]

The first acknowledged sacrifice in the Bible was in the Garden of Eden, when G!d took animals to clothe ha-Adam and Eve.

I don't interpret 'coats of skin' that way

Cain slew Abel because Abel's sacrifice was acceptable, Cain's offering of vegetables was not. That was only the beginning of blood sacrifice in the Bible.

Ok. I need to read that part again

Why do you think the Temple was so central to the Jewish identity? It wasn't a church or cathedral...it was a factory scale slaughterhouse for blood sacrifice.

And that interpretation is the very corruption of the true meaning of the sacrifice of Abraham?

What is it about blood sacrifice that ties into religious experience? Once one grasps what that actually means, only then can one fully appreciate just what Jesus did.

He came to fix the corruption of Abraham's sacrifice and restore the true meaning?

 

[Cino]

Why do you think the Temple was so central to the Jewish identity? It wasn't a church or cathedral...it was a factory scale slaughterhouse for blood sacrifice.

To add context, in antiquity, most temples were slaughterhouses. Greek/Roman religion required you to offer certain animal parts to the gods. You only ate meat of animals slaughtered according to the correct rules and rituals.

This presented difficulties for minority groups, then as now. The New Testament has passages where the problem of "meat offered to idols" is discussed.

Nowadays, this is mostly shifted to regulated industry, but there is the regular outcry when it becomes known that slaughter is not performed properly... over here in Europe, we had "chlorine chicken" in the news for months, a few years back...

This topic goes deeper than religion, I often feel. "Grub first, then ethics", from a different perspective