It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Metaphysics of Animal Sacrifice

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   

According to the Ramban (Nachmanides), the primary purpose of the sacrifice was that by being involved in the slaughter of an animal, the person bringing it would also experience vicarious death. When the Cohen-Priest slaughtered the animal and burned it on the alter, the person bringing it would feel he himself had been killed and burned for having gone against the will of God. Furthermore, God gave man the power of intellect so that he might be able to perfect himself. When a person sins, it is as if he has rejected his God-given intellect. Since the main thing distinguishing a man from the animals is his intellect, when a person sins he is actually identifying with the animals. For this reason, an animal must be sacrificed.

On a deeper level, man consists of two elements, the animal and the divine; and these two elements are in constant conflict with each other. While the divine in man pulls him towards the spiritual, the animal in his draws him toward the physical and the mundane. When a person sins, he must therefore bring an animal as a sacrifice. By being an offering to God, the animal itself is elevated. The animal in man, which caused him to sin, is then brought back under the subjugation to the divine. – Aryeh Kaplan, Jerusalem: The Eye of The Universe, pg. 109


Does anyone here have a problem with this explanation?

Let it be understood, that this is THE REASON, and not a belated 'rationalization', for animal sacrifice in Hebraic society.

This is also referred to by one of the church fathers, if I remember correctly, Jerome.

So, is there something morally wrong about this? It does after all weaken the argument of liberals and pro-animal rights activists who think animal slaughter is done for some primitive reasons.

On the contrary. The deepest idea man can ever know is that this world is a metaphysical reflection of a higher world - the conceptual-abstract realm of archetypes. Thus, animals are the living representation of the animal principle in man, since all of creation is replicated in man in microcosm. Therefore, when man lowers himself beneath his divinely elevated station, as possessor of a divine intellect and reason, he offers up the animal, both in himself, and the physical incarnation of the principle, as an offering to God, as a symbol of the subjugation of his animal nature to the divine principle.

Much deeper than what were usually taught, eh?
edit on 3-1-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

Well that's an interesting angle I suppose.


By being an offering to God, the animal itself is elevated. The animal in man, which caused him to sin, is then brought back under the subjugation to the divine.

Although I find the logic a bit ignorant and superstitious, one could say it's a win win in this way of thinking I guess, for the time era pertained.
Now to digress...
Other tribes have offered sacrifice as appeasement to or gratitude for their god also, and some with the expectation of something beneficial, as in rain for crops or strength in war too.
Now what about the Satanist that sacrifice animals? How does this play out in their religious perspective?


edit on 3-1-2012 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   
I recall a recent article in the news about Mark Zuckerberg getting caught sacrificing a goat and explaining his actions to the public as a personal interest in animal husbandry.

www.reuters.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I have a big problem with it. It is quite twisted. At best it's the product of a less-evolved mentality.

If you're willing to destroy innocent creatures simply for your spiritual path, your path is one of selfishness and darkness. Hunger for progression, salvation and/or appeasment of a God is just as animal as the so-called animals. One is not elevated or cleansed but taken further realm of basic impulse to put one's own desires ahead of others.

But, what sort of "god" have they been serving? I hope they figure it out soon.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

Yeah really strange when they were really prophetic rehearsals of Messiah...
...no deep metaphysicals at all, just illustrative.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



On a deeper level, man consists of two elements, the animal and the divine; and these two elements are in constant conflict with each other. While the divine in man pulls him towards the spiritual, the animal in his draws him toward the physical and the mundane. When a person sins, he must therefore bring an animal as a sacrifice. By being an offering to God, the animal itself is elevated. The animal in man, which caused him to sin, is then brought back under the subjugation to the divine. – Aryeh Kaplan, Jerusalem: The Eye of The Universe, pg. 109


Who is responsible for this conflict in man?

----

If God does exist, I doubt he would take pleasure in seeing one of his creations destroying another one of his creations for "spiritual" reasons. How can a God of Love and Creation condone the murder of innocent animals for spiritual growth? It doesn't make sense for those able to engage in critical thinking.


edit on 3/1/2012 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


on the contrary it is much worse then ever statement trying to justify animal sacrifice, only evil wills like u would of course reply o yea great more we advocate lies more we are becoming eternal livings absolutely too
why not, it is funny how u always mean to wait for liars replies, ready to justify it as a repentence
completely the lie of it from u, who wants to hear what a liar say

anyway, it is worse bc u r meaning to justify the whole concept as if it can b right
while statements usually about those biblic quotes wouldnt dare say that but focus on relative justifications concerning objective powers given to men from god or to god from men so focus on meaning god/men relation being alive

to prove that it is of lies and to, is the fact u mean
humans could more efficiently realize a clear objective free value move if what is meant is the divine value in them, u cant mean what is more from realizing what is less, while u r surely giving life to less when u mean it existing, u r objectively considering their free conceptions livings



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


on the contrary it is much worse then ever statement trying to justify animal sacrifice, only evil wills like u would of course reply o yea great more we advocate lies more we are becoming eternal livings absolutely too
why not, it is funny how u always mean to wait for liars replies, ready to justify it as a repentence
completely the lie of it from u, who wants to hear what a liar say

anyway, it is worse bc u r meaning to justify the whole concept as if it can b right
while statements usually about those biblic quotes wouldnt dare say that but focus on relative justifications concerning objective powers given to men from god or to god from men so focus on meaning god/men relation being alive

to prove that it is of lies and to, is the fact u mean
humans could more efficiently realize a clear objective free value move if what is meant is the divine value in them, u cant mean what is more from realizing what is less, while u r surely giving life to less when u mean it existing, u r objectively considering their free conceptions livings



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I think it doesn't matter if the people performing the sacrifice think they have a good reason. For example the Phoenicians thought they had good reasons to burn their babies under certain circumstances. If parents started doing that today, then they would get life imprisonment.

It is a question of freedom of religion versus protecting the innocent. Most governments think it is o.k. to slaughter certain animals for food, so they can't complain about slaughtering them for religious reasons (as long as it is done at least as humanely as a slaughter house). There is research into growing artificial meat in the laboratory, but the prices are still too high.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


if what is not superior can b killed who is gonna kill inferiors that lives from killing?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by absolutely
reply to post by cloudyday
 


if what is not superior can b killed who is gonna kill inferiors that lives from killing?


That touches on a good point. If humans think than can kill animals like chimpanzees for medical research because they aren't as smart, and if science tells us that we share 99% of the DNA with a chimpanzee, then it is only a matter of time before we start cloning severely retarded humans specifically for medical research.

That's why we need to treat animal life with the same respect as human life.
edit on 3-1-2012 by cloudyday because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Much deeper than what were usually taught, eh?
edit on 3-1-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)


Well, maybe some, but not me.

As a Palero I have done many animal sacrifices myself for much the same reason the Jews do it in the temple. The animal being sacrificed takes the place of the human involved by taking their "imprities" on themselves and into death, leaving the human clean and pure once more.

I stress that I did these things as a Palero.

It is absolutely bunk of course, outside the realm of Palomayombe.

What is impure in a world that goes according to the divine will of the creator?

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 




Although I find the logic a bit ignorant and superstitious, one could say it's a win win in this way of thinking I guess, for the time era pertained.


A bit ignorant? Maybe you should expand your reading into esoteric philosophy and mysticism. There's not a religion on earth that doesn't subscribe to the axiom 'as above so below', and nothing - no 'discoveries' in science, will ever change the scientific validity of that truth.



Now what about the Satanist that sacrifice animals? How does this play out in their religious perspective?


You don't see the moral difference between sacrificing in order to get something out of an archetypal-demon principle, and sacrificing as a way to come closer to the source of all?

In the former, the animal isn't treated as it is in its fundamental being; the animal isn't some detached particularity living out its life without any causative thread linking it back to its source and animating principle. The animating principle of the animal is its animality, and this is a basic, ancient, principle, that all physical things are the manifestation of the principle which vivifies it.

In the case of a satanist sacrificing an animal, no thought is given to the animals fundamental purpose in this world; the animal isn't respected because the satanist has no respect for the relationship between cause and effect, the vivifying principle and its earthly manifestation. His sacrifice, from its core, is designed to elicit an effluence of divine energy for some selfish and egoistic purpose, and not as an expression of self nullification before the absolute cause, therefore, the animal dies in vain, in vanity, because it's animating energy becomes squandered by selfishness, and not elevated through an act of humility and deference for the absolute.

It's a shame so few people have the mental or spiritual capacity to appreciate the magnitude of this concept.

Ah well.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 





If God does exist, I doubt he would take pleasure in seeing one of his creations destroying another one of his creations for "spiritual" reasons.


Does not man destroy the grass he walks on? The Gnostics went to such a degree to preserve the life of all things by not even walking on grass, to avoid killing insects and smaller creatures.

What about the animal kingdom itself? Do not animals consume each other? Isn't that 'barbaric'???

There is a fourfold process throughout creation. In the kingdom of living organisms as well, there is a 4 fold distinction: Inanimate, Vegetable/plant, Animal and Human. The Vegetable feeds on the inanimate, thereby raising the inanimate to a higher state of being. The inanimate 'sacrifices' its energies for the sake of the vegetable. So to, the animal (lower animals, in particular) feed on the vegetable, raising the vegetable to the animal level. The vegetable 'sacrifices' its energies for the sake of the animal kingdom. And again, man eats animals, whereby the animals (as in their soul, invested in their physical flesh) become elevated to the level of man, sacrificing its vital energy for the sake of elevation.

When man engages in the above ritual, he too partakes in this process within creation. He sacrifices his own animality, symbolized by the animal, to God, raising himself and all of creation with him, to the level of the divine - to the angelic.

But in the case of man, there is a kicker: intention. The milieu of his being lies in his intellect. Man raises and lowers himself based on his intentions. If he acts like an animal, and eats like an animal, he lowers the animal and creation around him. All the energies - which are found in microcosm in his being - are lowered because of this action.

All mankind is low today because of the gross Hellenism that see's eating meat as nothing more than eating meat.

In Hebraism, the act of eating, indeed, everything one does, is elevated by a spiritual, and not mundane, intention. Therefore, by elevating the animal in man by seeking to root everything back to the absolute, man raises creation with him through the meats or plants he eats, in humility, and thanks, back to its absolute cause.
edit on 3-1-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by cloudyday
 


First, just to comment on artificial meat: THAT Is disgusting. The sheer thought of it makes me cringe. Knowing how unhealthy other artificial substitutes for real things are, would you be willing to eat artificial meat? I wouldn't.

As for your comments on animal sacrifice, of course, the animals are eaten. Nothing is wasted. God allows sacrifice for the sake of ingestion, and not sacrifice for the sake of killing the animal.

Depending on the day, or the type of ritual sought, the animal is either eaten by the levite-cohanim, or by the devotee bringing the animal.

I'm having trouble figuring out this lack of distinction people are making between killing an animal for food, killing an animal for some cheap pagan ritual, and killing an animal for the reasons described in this thread.

edit on 3-1-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
just bc superior powerful freedom suggest to do smthg that could allow u to confirm getting smthg out of it for u as a free sense existing, doesnt make those suggestions metaphysical facts nor absolute reference to cause and effects

u know very well as it is obvious in all terms of perspective and sense, that killing is the way of creation to mean oness life as the exclusive existence possessor, so sacrifying an animal or a son is meant in the same idea to glorify god life only through possessing all freedom rights in all existence facts shapes and forms

even marriage is the same idea for animals and humans, killing freedom rights of true objective existence in forcing it to look like as a thing object fully one possessed

what is meant being possessed is not metaphysical, it is absolutely physically relative, from the concept of will that by definition can never b objective nor absolute thing

what kill relative reference cannot be an absolute one
god lives from absolute free pretense by destroying totally and globally the notion of relative fact, so any objective reality

like nature lives from being only relative that it destroyed itself relation to absolute freedom reference concept or notion even of nothing

it is all about rejecting to consider truths existing objective absolute and relative perspectives value for more profits in pretending being the exclusif existing true, that is what is upthere calling it divine say exactly what u r inferior to that realm even



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


The artificial meat has the additional advantage of reducing greenhouse gases. So like it or not, we will probably all be vegetarians or eating artificial meat before long. At that point, society might be in a moral position to prohibit animal sacrifice as a reasonable restriction on freedom of religion - just like we would not allow human sacrifice even though many ancient religions thought it was necessary.



The scientists extracted cells from the muscle of a live pig and then put them in a broth of other animal products. The cells then multiplied and created muscle tissue. They believe that it can be turned into something like steak if they can find a way to artificially "exercise" the muscle.

Scientist Grow Artificial Meat



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by The1Prettiest1One
I have a big problem with it. It is quite twisted. At best it's the product of a less-evolved mentality.



that's probably why it stems from .. less evolved times.. back when it was practiced.. and no longer practiced now... as far as I know.

on the same point.. do you (prettiest one) ..eat meat? If you do.. do you go to the store and find clean cut wrapped shiny packets of meat with no face on it to bring home to consume or do you go find an animal and kill it and take it home to eat? either way.. compare both those versions with the one the OP brought up.. and see which one had more intention and meaning behind it. was one merely slaughtered as a number in a giant grinder with no thought put into it's value as a lifeform... these are things to think about.

after thinking about it.. which one is the most twisted and less evolved?



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



A bit ignorant? Maybe you should expand your reading into esoteric philosophy and mysticism. There's not a religion on earth that doesn't subscribe to the axiom 'as above so below', and nothing - no 'discoveries' in science, will ever change the scientific validity of that truth.

I do consider myself somewhat versed in various esoteric philosophies and mysticism, so these practices are not unfamiliar to me. I meant ignorant in the sense of antiquated. It is 'primitive' by definition, as in it is no longer practiced because it is of long ago. Jews stopped making animal sacrifices when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70 CE, and replaced the practice with prayer. The so above as below may be true, but not all religions partake in sacrifice.



You don't see the moral difference between sacrificing in order to get something out of an archetypal-demon principle, and sacrificing as a way to come closer to the source of all?

Both yes and no




It's a shame so few people have the mental or spiritual capacity to appreciate the magnitude of this concept.

I do appreciate the magnitude of the concept as described for the Hebraic tradition, and found it quite interesting and educational. However, I still call it a primitive and 'ignorant' practice because the practitioners were absent of information. I did not mean or my post to be a 'slammish' one, I just meant literal sacrifice has since been discontinued because they realized it is a primitive practice.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Does it not say in your law?




Thou shalt not kill. (Elf Exodus 20 v5)

Thou shalt not kill. (Elf Deuteronomy 5v17)

1

I see not distinction of killing animals being OK but humans not?

Is it not just the interpretation, twisting, mixed with old Magic and pre Abrahamic religions Pagan rituals, that is seen today in an later religion, that is at about the same stage of its "evolution" for want of an better phrase as Judaism was when these were first "preached" and practiced, modern interpretation found here: Fatwah or as seen in world history here : The Inquisition.

I say that really deep down we all know the "origin" "source" whatever your "god(s)" may be when we see these practices, and events is not manifest, pleased, in harmony with, liking or supportive of such things.

That in fact people do in thought, word and action, the opposite of what that source of their faith is all about, the golden rule if you like, the bedrock of all these faiths has been attacked and undermined by such actions and distortions above, it is hypocracy of the highest kind and not in any way building up merit, good karma, heaven after or 100 virgins in paradise, in fact the opposite.

Now this is not saying there may be metaphysical or "magic" to such actions, ceremonies as the OP describes, however if you think you are getting to the "God" vibe by sacrificing an animal (for that sake alone, you kill the animal and pour its blood on some altar or whatever the dynamics, and want and "effect" from that something in return...rather than seeing it as sacred and offering it as an sacrifice whilst you eat it, kill it use it for survival)

Well you may as well get an old crystal analogue radio set from the 1930's and try and tune into digital NSA transmissions from their most secret bird.

That is not conjecture its fact, its not an "Belief" of mine or woo laa laa way out there. I know from personal experiences this is true.

Every life in this universe is precious, is sacred full stop.

Anyone doing this or considering this is certainly performing worship, but its very earthbound and just above, and maybe even devil worship itself.

How anyone thought their "life" could get better, by taking "Life" and getting "Light" after creating "Dark" I never quite worked, out who would fall for it except those raised in very zealous and closed environs.

IMHO any attempt to rationalise these practices, into something they are not is just twisting further again the very first piece of twisted prose. An attempt to maybe be comfortable with that part of your beliefs, to put them into frameworks that seem acceptable.

Kind Regards,

Elf




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join