The Metaphysics of Animal Sacrifice

reply to post by MischeviousElf


what the op mean in fact but didnt dare to say it, is jesus justification to that will of god by giving himself body as an offrande for everyone in the name of god kingdom glory
jesus words were clear in those terms, drink my blood and eat my flesh, u will b invited one day to the table where u would see jesus next to his god chair to share their meals god meals
all the delices of gods, divines tastes in torturing the depth of any free sense and force it to enjoy being servant to their wills

Firstly it is not THE reason, it is a rationalisation on the part of the priests - the real reason lies with the entities who find such an offering attractive - this is no different to a voodoo priest killing chickens as a bribe for spirits to make his spells work.

And the 'great divide' is not between the animal and the divine, it is between biological imperatives and social norms.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist

I meant ignorant in the sense of antiquated.

So by ignorant you mean old.

It is 'primitive' by definition

You realize the principle of this action is the same as that which governs all other ritual: 'as above so below'...Call it "sympathetic magic" if you prefer, the fact is, this world is nothing more and nothing less than a window into the spiritual world.

Jews stopped making animal sacrifices when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70 CE, and replaced the practice with prayer.

Maybe I should have posted the last part of that statement. Correct, The Rabbis of the post 2nd Temple period, because the temple was destroyed, and the temple being the only place where sacrifices could be offered, suspended the sacrificial service. But a deeper, or, concomitant factor, was the corrosive influence of Hellenism on the Hebraic mentality, which caused the temple service and the act of sacrifice to become profaned, done in the same manner and for the same reasons, or the same lack of respect for the life taken, as in Pagan society.

People who know very little of the Torah metaphysics really don't understand the difference between Hebraism and Hellenism, but they are worlds apart. Indeed, the one obviates the other, as God cannot dwell where He is not wanted.

You, and everyone here for instance cannot look past the fact that an animal is being killed. Instead of seeing this world as being a means to connect with the creator, and animal sacrifice, a commanded form of connection between man - the focal point of creation - and God, you reduce creation to being some homogeneous or relativistic drama where man and animal and all things are completely equal, without metaphysical purpose or meaning in the grand cosmic scheme of things.

It is not 'antiquated' of primitive. That is just Hellenism verses Hebraism. The former is based on a moral relativism, and thus a proclivity to question everything and allow nothing a fixed metaphysical station relative to the absolute.

In the same way, as reflected in Hebraic legend, Lilith, the primordial feminine before the creation of Eve, refused to be under Adam in copulation. This reflects, primarily, the pagan predilection for the world of Chaos or prima materia, which refuses to acknowledge the creational context where the masculine becomes the giver and the feminine the receiver. Lilith, not wanting to be at the bottom, is the basis for the Hellenistic perspective: Man, does not want to receive divine directive from God. They refuse to heed the metaphysical laws and processes imprinted within creation, and instead, like the Egyptians and Babylonians before them, look past creation, to the undifferentiated chaos and void, where the feminine and masculine are completely one but beyond the context of the multiple, which means beyond how the feminine and masculine energies relate within the sphere of creation itself.

That is the ultimate difference between Hebraism and Hellenism. The former, unlike all other religious philosophies (as in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) gives priority to the one within creation, while the others give priority to the one beyond creation, and beyond the multiple, which causes the multiple to lose all objective significance relative to the absolute.

However, I still call it a primitive and 'ignorant' practice because the practitioners were absent of information.

What information is "absent"?? The only thing of relevance is the fact of a creator who created the world. Modern science does nothing to undermine this. And indeed, it can never change that reality.

meant literal sacrifice has since been discontinued because they realized it is a primitive practice.

I would recommend you supplement your knowledge of metaphysics. Read some Frithjof Schuon, Rene Guenon, Blavatasky, Manly P Hall. This will at least expose you to the type of thinking that typifies esotericism.

Kabbalah, which far deeper, in my opinion, because the Hebrew language is deeper and more meaningful than any other, would open your eyes to the statistical plausibility of Hebraism, the Torah, being more central and focal to mankind than you would probably think.

Notice that the Jews have always been outcast. Why do you think that is? I've already outlined it for you. They are theologically at odds with everyone else. Irreconcilably at odds. At least Christianity and Islam meet at the same fundamental 'unitive ground', as does Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism etc, but Judaism has a fundamental aversion to their basic assumption: that the absolute obviates the temporal.Hence, Judaism is entirely time and memory oriented.

reply to post by dontreally

I would recommend you supplement your knowledge of metaphysics. Read some Frithjof Schuon, Rene Guenon, Blavatasky, Manly P Hall. This will at least expose you to the type of thinking that typifies esotericism.

Blavatasky I have read(Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled) which blew my mind by the way, the others I will explore, thanks for the suggestion
But do these esoteric figures support sacrifice?

spec
ETA: Guess I should say I am familiar with some esoteric studies rather than 'versed' in.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

Firstly it is not THE reason, it is a rationalisation on the part of the priests - the real reason lies with the entities who find such an offering attractive - this is no different to a voodoo priest killing chickens as a bribe for spirits to make his spells work.

You're confusing cheap demons who demand blood - the life force - with the essence of creation.

The essence of creation is sacrifice. This world is the symbolic manifestation of the spiritual worlds.

As I explained in a later post in this thread, creation is ever moving, as a natural process, towards higher levels of being. The inanimate sacrifices its life force to the vegetable, the vegetable sacrifices its life force to the animal, and the animal sacrifices his life force to the man. Because man is also partly animal, he sacrifices the animal - the physical projection of the principle - to God, and by doing so, sacrifices his OWN BEING to the divine, raising his being a step higher, to the angelic, and towards perfect unity with God.

Thus, a 5 fold progression, Inanimate -> Vegetable -> Animal -> Man -> God. Each level raises the level below it to a higher level, and man, raises all the level to God.

This is also the sociological argument of the Torah; instead of the basis of scarcity, as in Hellenism (our systems of law, sociology etc, are all based on Greek thought), the basis of the Torah is surplus, which is why man sacrifices a part of himself - the animal, to the divine.

reply to post by speculativeoptimist


I appreciate the respectful reply.

Blavatasky I have read(Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled) which blew my mind by the way

I have more respect for Guenon and Schuon than Blavatasky.

Blavatasky, Hall, and the other theosophical writers have a nasty habit of talking about 'secret schools' and a secret council of elect who guide mankind to impress their readers. This comes off to me as propaganda, though some people - who are naive in my opinion - take it as a revelation of truth.

I'm just saying. If you're gonna be skeptical about what I'm saying, you should sure as hell be skeptical of the myths of HP Blavatasky.

Although, to blavataskys credit, she is clearly very well learned in esoteric philosophy, although in regards to Kabbalah, and Judaism, like her protege, alice bailey, she had nothing accurate or nice to say.

But do these esoteric figures support sacrifice?

Of course not. I mean only to say by recommending them the type of thinking that is important and necessary in order to appreciate my argument.

I think most of those writers I recommended were vegetarians. Indeed, many Rabbis are vegetarians. The sole allowance they give to meat eating is for this commandment - Mitzvah, where the physical symbol of the animal, which is a symbol primarily, and only secondarily a living being entitled to life, is sacrificed to God as a symbol of mans intention to sacrifice his lower animal nature to God.

This is not a game. There is an energetic transformation of the vital energies of the animal, which the person who sacrifices is IDENTIFIED WITH, that causes a similar energetic transformation within his unconscious being - the animal aspect in him, becomes transformed, and directed towards the divine.

The vital energy of the animal becomes the potential energy within the individual that motivates him towards spiritual service of God. This is the point of the service. Hence, if the intention is not there, the act becomes incredibly profane, and indeed, according to Jewish law, if an animal is not sacrificed with proper intention or according to proper ritual, it is MURDER.

I'm afraid I don't follow the subtleties of the discussion, but I have always been puzzled by the story of Cain and Abel where one offers grain and the other offers an animal. I was wondering if this is related. In general when I used to read the OT it seemed that information was missing as though they assumed the reader understood the basics of these ideas already.

reply to post by cloudyday

but I have always been puzzled by the story of Cain and Abel where one offers grain and the other offers an animal. I was wondering if this is related.

That's a good question.

There are multiple ways to interpret that verse. In one sense, God commanded Cain and Abel to offer him their CHOICEST products; Abel gave him a first born ram, the choicest and indeed most valuable thing he possessed, while Cain offered to God a stack of flax. The former gave God what was most valuable to him, while the latter avoided offering something he highly valued i.e. livestock.

This, on a literal level, shows who was more committed to God, and who was willing to part with more.

On an esoteric level, the ram symbolizes the highest aspect of the animal soul, corresponding to Aries, the first sign of the Zodiac, which is the first and most primal power of the animal-vital soul. Abel, which means 'vapor' in Hebrew, refers to Abels own estimation of himself. He saw himself as nothing more then the breath of God, therefore, he offered to God what was Gods to command. Cayin conversely comes from the root Quf-Nun-Heh, which means "to acquire". Cain is the possessive and egoistic type who refuses to let go of what he imagines to be his.

While Abel was willing to give everything, perhaps, too much, Cayin was only willing to give what wouldn't cost him anything.

The entire narrative needs to be analyzed in order to reveal its secrets.

וַיְהִי, מִקֵּץ יָמִים; וַיָּבֵא קַיִן מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה, מִנְחָה--לַיהוָה.

It helps to understand Kabbalistic concepts to know how to interpret this. In the beginning of this verse it says "miketz hayamim', which literally means "from the end of the days", the days being a reference to the completed act of creation. It is from here, post creation, after the fact of creations existence, that Cain bases his understanding. Then it says Cain brought from the fruit of the ground. The Torah uses the word 'haadama' instead of the typical haaretz. HaAdamah refers to the feminine side of creation (Adam is the masculine, Adamah, with a Heh at the end, is feminine), and it is from here, from the sense of "self consciousness" that Cayin - possessiveness, draws his offering. This is the 'fruit of the land'.

It's also interesting, as the Ari (Rabbi Isaac Luria) points out, that Cains sacrifice, which is explained by Rabbinic tradition to be flax, grows on one stock with pods one opposite the other, which is the Rabbinic allusion to a type of Gnostic philosophy, where good and evil is made equivalent. Similarly, as if to vouch the claim of the Rabbis, Gnostics often consider Cayin to be their spiritual 'forefather', or primordial archetype.

In general when I used to read the OT it seemed that information was missing as though they assumed the reader understood the basics of these ideas already.

You really need to know Hebrew to appreciate the deeper ideas in the Torah.


And just for the sake of understanding both sides, this is Abels

וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם-הוּא מִבְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ, וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן; וַיִּשַׁע יְהוָה, אֶל-הֶבֶל וְאֶל-מִנְחָתוֹ

It's interesting that in the first verse, the word "wa'yavi" is used to refer to Cains bringing out an offering, whereas in this verse, the feminine 'hey'vi' is used. This could refer to Cains sacrifice being motivated by a masculine decisiveness (yod is masculine), perhaps, assuming that God wanted the world to be as Cain experienced it to be, and so Cain with a spiritual assertiveness offered something he felt God would want, whereas with Abel, the verses use of the 'heh' (feminine) refers to Abels submissiveness to Gods command.

Then it says Abel gave the firstling of his flocks, and the fat thereof. The fat always refers to pleasure. Fat is the most pleasurable aspect of meat. In other words, Cain offered his own pleasure, his pleasure for life, to God, indicating that his pleasure would be in God himself.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by cloudyday

 

but I have always been puzzled by the story of Cain and Abel where one offers grain and the other offers an animal. I was wondering if this is related.

That's a good question.

There are multiple ways to interpret that verse. In one sense, God commanded Cain and Abel to offer him their CHOICEST products; Abel gave him a first born ram, the choicest and indeed most valuable thing he possessed, while Cain offered to God a stack of flax. The former gave God what was most valuable to him, while the latter avoided offering something he highly valued i.e. livestock.

This, on a literal level, shows who was more committed to God, and who was willing to part with more.

On an esoteric level, the ram symbolizes the highest aspect of the animal soul, corresponding to Aries, the first sign of the Zodiac, which is the first and most primal power of the animal-vital soul. Abel, which means 'vapor' in Hebrew, refers to Abels own estimation of himself. He saw himself as nothing more then the breath of God, therefore, he offered to God what was Gods to command. Cayin conversely comes from the root Quf-Nun-Heh, which means "to acquire". Cain is the possessive and egoistic type who refuses to let go of what he imagines to be his.

While Abel was willing to give everything, perhaps, too much, Cayin was only willing to give what wouldn't cost him anything.

The entire narrative needs to be analyzed in order to reveal its secrets.

וַיְהִי, מִקֵּץ יָמִים; וַיָּבֵא קַיִן מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה, מִנְחָה--לַיהוָה.

It helps to understand Kabbalistic concepts to know how to interpret this. In the beginning of this verse it says "miketz hayamim', which literally means "from the end of the days", the days being a reference to the completed act of creation. It is from here, post creation, after the fact of creations existence, that Cain bases his understanding. Then it says Cain brought from the fruit of the ground. The Torah uses the word 'haadama' instead of the typical haaretz. HaAdamah refers to the feminine side of creation (Adam is the masculine, Adamah, with a Heh at the end, is feminine), and it is from here, from the sense of "self consciousness" that Cayin - possessiveness, draws his offering. This is the 'fruit of the land'.

It's also interesting, as the Ari (Rabbi Isaac Luria) points out, that Cains sacrifice, which is explained by Rabbinic tradition to be flax, grows on one stock with pods one opposite the other, which is the Rabbinic allusion to a type of Gnostic philosophy, where good and evil is made equivalent. Similarly, as if to vouch the claim of the Rabbis, Gnostics often consider Cayin to be their spiritual 'forefather', or primordial archetype.

In general when I used to read the OT it seemed that information was missing as though they assumed the reader understood the basics of these ideas already.

You really need to know Hebrew to appreciate the deeper ideas in the Torah.


And just for the sake of understanding both sides, this is Abels

וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם-הוּא מִבְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ, וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן; וַיִּשַׁע יְהוָה, אֶל-הֶבֶל וְאֶל-מִנְחָתוֹ

It's interesting that in the first verse, the word "wa'yavi" is used to refer to Cains bringing out an offering, whereas in this verse, the feminine 'hey'vi' is used. This could refer to Cains sacrifice being motivated by a masculine decisiveness (yod is masculine), perhaps, assuming that God wanted the world to be as Cain experienced it to be, and so Cain with a spiritual assertiveness offered something he felt God would want, whereas with Abel, the verses use of the 'heh' (feminine) refers to Abels submissiveness to Gods command.

Then it says Abel gave the firstling of his flocks, and the fat thereof. The fat always refers to pleasure. Fat is the most pleasurable aspect of meat. In other words, Cain offered his own pleasure, his pleasure for life, to God, indicating that his pleasure would be in God himself.

Thanks, that make a bit more sense. I never understood what God had against farmers like Cain. But it sounds like Cain could have been cast as a herder who sacrificed a diseased unclean animal or something.

That brings up another question on sacrifice: What is the story behind clean versus unclean animals?

reply to post by cloudyday

What is the story behind clean versus unclean animals?

Everything in creation, according to the esoteric philosophy, is a symbol.

Chewing the cud is a metaphor for self reflection. Just as the food is brought up from the stomach and chewed upon, so too, ones deepest feelings (the stomach, or gut area, is always associated with the conscience or ones inner feelings about something) are brought up to the mind (the mouth, in the head) and reflected upon, before they're once again ingested. Chewing the cud thus reflects the spiritual dynamic of the conscience, where one reflects (brings up the food), and considers, before he acts.

Cloven hooves, on the other hand, reflect external separation. The legs of animals are associated with action - since it is with this organ that they move. (similarly, man's hands and legs are associated with action). Separated hooves symbolizes the distinction within action. Thus, separated hooves combined with chewing the cud symbolizes right action - conscience.

This is what Hebraism has always been about - the importance of conscience, and right action.

Animals which possess both cloven hooves and chewing the cud, such as cattle, sheep, antelope, deer, and goats, possess the spiritual attributes which strengthen the spiritual qualities God seeks man to possess.

This is also why pigs are so detested by Jews. Pigs have cloven hooves - the aspect relating to action and appearance, but they do not chew the cud - the aspect associated with feelings and conscience. Pigs are thus the physical symbol of a hypocrite. In addition, pigs don't have the neck range to look upwards, something noted by ancient philosophers, indicating that they're spiritual vitality cannot raise one upwards, but on the contrary, causes on to feel heavy and stubborn (if you're spiritually sensitive and eat pork, which "coincidentally" also has more parasites then any other meat, you are likely to feel very egotistical i.e. animalistic, afterwards). They are also, pardon the pun, pigs. Just as the hypocrite, the pig rolls in his own filth without a shred of self consciousness.

As the saying goes, you are what you eat.

How amazingly true that is!

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by cloudyday

 

What is the story behind clean versus unclean animals?

Everything in creation, according to the esoteric philosophy, is a symbol.

Chewing the cud is a metaphor for self reflection. Just as the food is brought up from the stomach and chewed upon, so too, ones deepest feelings (the stomach, or gut area, is always associated with the conscience or ones inner feelings about something) are brought up to the mind (the mouth, in the head) and reflected upon, before they're once again ingested. Chewing the cud thus reflects the spiritual dynamic of the conscience, where one reflects (brings up the food), and considers, before he acts.

Cloven hooves, on the other hand, reflect external separation. The legs of animals are associated with action - since it is with this organ that they move. (similarly, man's hands and legs are associated with action). Separated hooves symbolizes the distinction within action. Thus, separated hooves combined with chewing the cud symbolizes right action - conscience.

This is what Hebraism has always been about - the importance of conscience, and right action.

Animals which possess both cloven hooves and chewing the cud, such as cattle, sheep, antelope, deer, and goats, possess the spiritual attributes which strengthen the spiritual qualities God seeks man to possess.

This is also why pigs are so detested by Jews. Pigs have cloven hooves - the aspect relating to action and appearance, but they do not chew the cud - the aspect associated with feelings and conscience. Pigs are thus the physical symbol of a hypocrite. In addition, pigs don't have the neck range to look upwards, something noted by ancient philosophers, indicating that they're spiritual vitality cannot raise one upwards, but on the contrary, causes on to feel heavy and stubborn (if you're spiritually sensitive and eat pork, which "coincidentally" also has more parasites then any other meat, you are likely to feel very egotistical i.e. animalistic, afterwards). They are also, pardon the pun, pigs. Just as the hypocrite, the pig rolls in his own filth without a shred of self consciousness.

As the saying goes, you are what you eat.

How amazingly true that is!

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

That is interesting. I suppose Jews must consider eating a form of sacrifice if the sacrifice is supposed to release the true spiritual aspects of the animal to benefit the human in some way. That explains the concern about dietary rules. Also it helps explain how truly confrontational Jesus was by calling people hypocrites and telling them it isn't what goes into the mouth but what comes out that makes a person unclean. He wasn't merely reminding people of things they should have known and had forgotten; He was directly attacking this belief system that you're describing. On the other hand the Eucharist is probably based on very similar ideas to these ideas about sacrifice.

reply to post by cloudyday

He was directly attacking this belief system that you're describing.

He most likely was, and that's precisely why I reject Christianity...

It's Gnosticism. And since people are generally confused as to what is meant by Gnosticism, it is a philosophy that seeks to stamp out the importance of the particular - in this case, the equal importance of the food we eat.

Jesus would probably argue that a pig is as kosher as a cow. And he would say this because once one is connected to the Godhead, one can then believe - incorrectly - that everything in creation becomes nullified before it.

Also, while I agree that it's very important that what comes out of the mouth - your words, be very good, it does not follow at all that what goes into the mouth, what foods you eat, is unimportant.

In fact, it's a reflection of your spiritual commitment and discipline to be able to restrain yourself from eating impure foods - impure because they impart, in a very real way, the spiritual qualities inherent in the animal. Thus, if you're going to eat meat, stay away from pork. And when eating meat, in particular, keep yourself focused and aware on the spirituality present in the food, as well as a feeling of thanks.

As much as I can appreciate Jesus' words of love and mercy, he is wrong. All traditions which teach the obviation of the particular-moral, are wrong.

As the Talmud says, you must unite the yichud elyon - the higher unity (the absolute) with the yichud tachton - the lower unity (the particular). Meaning, you must be connected to God in the way Jesus prescribed, but you must also be aware of the particular, of Gods movement and presence in the distinctions in the world, and the EQUAL importance for man to avoid the impure and absorb the pure. This is how Gods presence in the world is strengthened and fortified, instead of undermined by a philosophy which ignores the particular, and so destroys the vessel (as in the kabbalistic 'breaking of the vessel'), which means, the stultification of society.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by cloudyday

 

In fact, it's a reflection of your spiritual commitment and discipline to be able to restrain yourself from eating impure foods - impure because they impart, in a very real way, the spiritual qualities inherent in the animal.

And the flesh also contains the fear and ultimate horror of the murder. Also their broken sanctity of respecting all of Gods creation and force - Life, ego and wickedness of the practitioner trying to gain something by trying to be intellectual and rational about causing suffering on one of gods creations.

As much as I can appreciate Jesus' words of love and mercy, he is wrong.

Why because you say so and some black magic practitioners dressed up as Rabbis carrying on traditions the Eqyptians gave them?

Kind Regards,

Elf

Do Not Kill as you god said.

Do Not take other Gods (animal sacrifice lower earth bound spirits and some mischevious demons)

All major religions are against treating animals as humans or having humans be like animals. Look at Buddhism for example, where it is considered a grave offense to behave like an animal and where reincarnating as one is seen as punishment for bad deeds in the previous life (I specifically mention Buddhism because so many "new-agers" think thats its "different" than western Religions).

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Look at Buddhism for example, where it is considered a grave offense to behave like an animal

Exactly Skyfloating. This "separation" is used as an excuse for mankind to take what he wants from nature, to see himself as both intellectually and spiritually above any animals.

It is the exact point the OP makes, and many more in lower magic or such like as an excuse to be able to do these acts.

But the very point you make, that to kill an animal for pleasure for it is not worship (of any positive aspect anyhow) is then placing the practitioner of any event at an Animal level in mind and emotions. To not have "compassion" to not respect the life in others is an Animal trait.

To use this "man" is above "animals" as an excuse to behave like an animal, and discard in the moment of murder, and also attempting some personal gain from doing so looses that very "Human Blessing" or difference at that moment.. when it is dressed up as some kind of logical and natural act, is Hypocracy of the highest order. But that is just my personal opinion.

Kind Regards,

Elf

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by cloudyday

 

He was directly attacking this belief system that you're describing.

He most likely was, and that's precisely why I reject Christianity...

It's Gnosticism. And since people are generally confused as to what is meant by Gnosticism, it is a philosophy that seeks to stamp out the importance of the particular - in this case, the equal importance of the food we eat.

Jesus would probably argue that a pig is as kosher as a cow. And he would say this because once one is connected to the Godhead, one can then believe - incorrectly - that everything in creation becomes nullified before it.

Also, while I agree that it's very important that what comes out of the mouth - your words, be very good, it does not follow at all that what goes into the mouth, what foods you eat, is unimportant.

In fact, it's a reflection of your spiritual commitment and discipline to be able to restrain yourself from eating impure foods - impure because they impart, in a very real way, the spiritual qualities inherent in the animal. Thus, if you're going to eat meat, stay away from pork. And when eating meat, in particular, keep yourself focused and aware on the spirituality present in the food, as well as a feeling of thanks.

As much as I can appreciate Jesus' words of love and mercy, he is wrong. All traditions which teach the obviation of the particular-moral, are wrong.

As the Talmud says, you must unite the yichud elyon - the higher unity (the absolute) with the yichud tachton - the lower unity (the particular). Meaning, you must be connected to God in the way Jesus prescribed, but you must also be aware of the particular, of Gods movement and presence in the distinctions in the world, and the EQUAL importance for man to avoid the impure and absorb the pure. This is how Gods presence in the world is strengthened and fortified, instead of undermined by a philosophy which ignores the particular, and so destroys the vessel (as in the kabbalistic 'breaking of the vessel'), which means, the stultification of society.

I don't want to bombard you with questions, but if you have time I would be curious how the Jewish traditions define a human and what they think about an afterlife (if any). Maybe that question is too broad. It's interesting that Christianity came out of Judaism, but we have such a shallow understanding of it (at least I do).

Originally posted by Skyfloating
All major religions are against treating animals as humans or having humans be like animals.

They just forgot what they mean by what they say. As soon as a human thinks they're in any way better or more worthy, they're lost forever.

reply to post by MischeviousElf

And the flesh also contains the fear and ultimate horror of the murder.

Yes, if the animal died in fear, it contains the fear.

Jewish law actually takes this into account. Thus, the animal is to be treated with love and respect to avoid killing it in a state of fear and shock.

Amazingly, and one wonders if this is a matter of divine providence, animals considered kosher, such as cattle, sheep, and goats, have their main axillary artery running through the bottom, as opposed to the top and bottom (as in the case of an unkosher animal like a pig) of their neck, so when that artery is cut the animal loses consciousness immediately.

Also their broken sanctity of respecting all of Gods creation and force - Life, ego and wickedness of the practitioner trying to gain something by trying to be intellectual and rational about causing suffering on one of gods creations.

Let me ask you a question. If God commanded sacrifice for the reasons described in this thread, would you oppose it?

I think if you look over my arguments in favor for this practice through this thread, you would be hard pressed to prove the immorality of the act, since a) creation is a symbol, b) the way of creation is sacrifice, the inanimate giving up its life force to the vegetable, the vegetable to the animal, the animal to man, and man, through the Temple ritual, sacrifices his own animal, symbolized by the kosher animal to be sacrificed, to God, bringing himself and all of creation to the level of the divine, c) special care is taken so the animal doesn't die with fear or in pain, d) the animal is eaten, nothing is wasted, e) the very spiritual vitality of the animal, it's life essence (Nefesh, in Hebrew), becomes the motivating energy of the individual who brought the sacrifice, towards a deeper service to God.

Since everything is energy, and all of us in any case return to the source who brought us forth, it is entirely justified for God to ask man to sacrifice one of his creatures - a lamb, or a cattle, etc - to raise man - who is the MICROCOSM OF CREATION (meaning, the animal is actually already a part of him) and the animals, the vegetables, and the earth, towards the divine.

If it was done for any other reason, without any of the respect and regard that is shown, I would like you consider it an act of brutality. But I think this is much different than what is generally thought.

Why because you say so and some black magic practitioners dressed up as Rabbis carrying on traditions the Eqyptians gave them?

Firstly, Jesus' own philosophy accords with that of Egyptians. If you knew anything about ancient Egyptian religion (for instance, check out gerald masseys 'egypt, the light of the world'), you would know that the crux philosophy of Christianity derives from it.

It really is disgusting, and proof of how completely shallow minded you are, to call Rabbi's 'black magic practitioners'.

There is a very marked moral difference between this service and that performed by voodoo and other pagan witch doctors who DO sacrifice to spirits and demons which have nothing to do with rectifying one's own spiritual situation relative to God.

Do Not Kill as you god said.

Yes, do not kill. That is a general rule.

If one takes that rule to the extreme, one wouldn't kill even if someone were to come to kill you. Thus, do not kill, does not apply when it comes to self defense.

Similarly, do not kill animals, except for the rituals prescribed in the Torah.

In Kabbalistic literature, it is speculated that animal sacrifice is only valid for the period where man's animal soul remains uncorrected, after which the practice will be discontinued.

Makes sense to me.

reply to post by prevenge


I am aware we play God at all times in all places we inhabit. This extends to everything that must be killed in order that you and I survive, not decompose or get infected with disease. It extends to anything we choose to live at the expense of anything else. This world is a death orgy.

reply to post by MischeviousElf

It is the exact point the OP makes

What is the 'exact point' the OP makes? That I think man can take what he wants from nature?

You got that from what I wrote?