Whose idea was blood sacrifice anyway?

Post Reply New Topic

When I was growing up the minister often used to intone "without the shedding of blood there is no sacrifice or forgiveness of sins" or something to that effect. We also heard so much Abraham taking his son Isaac up a mountain intending to sacrifice him because he heard his God telling him so, only to be reprieved from it at the last minute and using a ram caught in a bush instead. (so why did there need to be any sacrifice - human or animal?)

Blood sacrifice of some ind or another is found in Judaism (animal sacrifice - especially sheep and cattle- OT); Christianity (substitutional sacrifice of Jesus) as well as in the ancient religions of Baal, Dagon, Moloch etc (often child or virgin sacrifice). Hinduism (suttee etc). Many religions seem to have or have had this element, with notable exceptions such as Buddhism.

Where did this all start? Was it a superstition from aeons ago, where people felt guilty if they didn't make some kind of blood sacrifice to some imagined higher power in order?

Is this a barbaric part of the primitive human psyche?

Thoughts on this?

The ancient Sumerians are the oldest documented culture that I know of who practiced human sacrifice. They would bury servants with kings, and there is the possibility that they may have done it in times of war or catastrophic weather. I would say the practice was probably a show of power or a scale to balance out precised wrongs( eye for an eye)

It could be the fact humans live a bloody lifestyle what with the consumption of meat and fights with other humans. When one human wins, he feels it is because an unseen force helped him and the corpse of whomever he kills becomes the "blood sacrifice."
It could have started this way, perhaps.
Same with hunting. Catching an animal to eat was very difficult in antiquity. People felt blessed whenever they accomplished it so they might felt obligated to share with what they perceive as gods and goddesses that help them or to appease nature so she doesn't do them in. They give these forces of nature and unseen perceptions a portion of the goods. It can even be crops and whatnot, or money. People will still sacrifice part of the pocketbook to God.

Vampires.

My take is a Christian one. So of course many will have a different view.

Symbol of the Christ blood atonement to come.

I'd say the first was just after Adam & Eve took of the tree of the knowledge of Good & Evil(Free will of not Good). Sin entered in them, the Holy Spirit exited, they lost the white radiance.( like Moses had after seeing the backside/trail of God when getting the commandments.)
That's when they knew for the 1st time they were naked & covered themselves with leaves.

God killed a lamb to cover their nakedness.

There are many instances showing the coming crucifixion & of course the devils perversion such as Molech & arguably Abortion today.

http://suvacobhikkhu.wordpress.com/siam-part-2/

When humans were terrified by the local volcano erupting (for example) they assumed the volcano was an angry god. They assumed that the gods were interested in the same things that they were interested in. So they would try to appease the angry gods by dumping food into the mouth of the volcano. Bushels of grain, chickens, cattle.

If that didnt work they would up the ante, and toss nublile young virgin lasses into the volcano. If you were around back then, and didnt know squat about plate tectonics, would you have come up with any better ideas? Probably not.

The practice was found all over the world so everyone is either coming up with it independently or carried it with them when they left Africa. Either way hunter gatherers would have had it. It's probably initially a way of repaying the gods for a successful hunt. They felt lucky and they had extra meat.

It was my idea! Hehe just kidding!

From the Judeo/Christian perspective....

The cost of sin is death. From the very beginning, something had to die so that sin could be "covered" (e.g., skins to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness).

From then to the crucifixion of Christ, it was about blood being shed so that the sinner did not have to be put to death. Christ ends the practice because perfect blood was offered without sin as an atonement for imperfect men with sin.

Also research "the law of sin and death."

This.

Also keep in mind that in the Judeo-Christian perspective, there's nothing magical about shedding blood to atone for sin. It's only a requirement that God's chosen visibly acknowledge the unworthiness of all humanity in relation to God's mercy. God doesn't NEED our sacrifices.

Similarly, Abraham didn't NEED to sacrifice his son, nor did God ever intend for him to. God had already told Abraham that his line would continue through Isaac, so this meant one of two things: Either God would provide a substitute, or God would raise up Isaac after his death. Abraham's willingness to follow through with sacrificing his own rightful heir simply demonstrated the fullness of Abraham's faith and obedience to the will of God. It shows that Abraham was worthy to be called the father of nations and the father of God's chosen people.

That's all it is. It also prefigures Christ. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his only "legit" son. God was willing to sacrifice His son. Abraham trusted in God to provide a substitute or resurrect his son. God provided a substitute for us AND gave us the resurrection. Abraham placed his faith in God's promise of what He was going to do; Christians place faith in what God has already done.

Tangential, I know, but I love it!

Almost forgot…

Blood sacrifices were only part of it. There were only certain instances in which the entire carcass was intended to be consumed. In some religions, it was believed that the god ate the food that was given to it. In ancient Hebrew religion, the sacrifices doubled as a means of keeping the priests and Levites fed. Certain celebrations might have tribal representatives communing with the priest class in one massive barbecue buffet. Even in NT times, Christians were warned to avoid eating meat offered to pagan gods. Paul's solution was "don't ask don't tell," meaning you aren't guilty if you are unaware of meat being sacrificed to other gods and sold in the market. But if you are TOLD that meat is sacrificed to pagan gods, it could be seen as disrespectful to other cultures early Christians were trying to convert. You'd be eating meat dedicated to gods while at the same time telling people those gods don't exist. It's a cultural slap in the face. It wasn't about taking part in pagan ritual, because Christians wouldn't be participating if they had no knowledge of where it came from or how it was used. This differs from Daniel in the OT, which involves someone being coerced into pagan observances.

But, anyhow, the way sacrifices were handled involved slaughtering an animal and dealing with the carcass. In the Bible, it is written that we don't eat the fat since the fat belongs to God (cool, since fat is flammable). So organs and entrails were handled in specific ways that basically involved getting rid of them in such a way to reflect ceremonial cleanliness. Blood was poured onto the ground, which signified returning life to the ground from which it came ("its life is in its blood"). But the meat could be eaten after it was "offered" on the fire, which is another way of saying the meat was cooked.

If you look at in an ancient context, it doubles as a sanitary way of dealing with meat intended for human consumption and waste by-products. Inedible parts and blood would be disposed of in such a way that the scent wouldn't attract wild animals and cause a dangerous situation for the slaughterer. "Offering" meat on a fire both made the meat safer to eat and presented an opportunity to ask a deity for a blessing. In many Christian homes, families give thanks to God for food and ask a blessing. If you wanted to do it the "proper" way in a modern context, you'd do this when the animal is slaughtered; however, the difficulty of this means a compromise by giving thanks and asking a blessing when meat is placed on a heat source to be cooked. An electric stove does not use fire as a heat source, so in my opinion the ideal would be to use charcoal or wood on an outdoor grill. I'd think natural gas would be suitable as an indoor alternative as a symbol of divine presence, but, honestly, these kinds of things just aren't relevant to my spirituality!

So, the short version would simply be the ritual of blood sacrifice is just a way of preparing food for human consumption while giving thanks back to the Creator who provides it.

God, just like Satan, loves blood. Hey wait, so do I? Where's my kiszka?

It came from a priesthood with a taste for barbecue.

one thing I agree with you on AP
It always pisses me off when people assume Buddhism is somehow above stuff like this, as with all religion it has a long and bloody past.

I was talking to a mate at the pub about this last week. We came to the conclusion that It would have been noticed by early humans that grain would grow and thrive from the carcass of some hunted beasts that had fed on wheat. It could be that the great shift to agricultural societies developed from this observation. As people became more sophisticated in understanding agriculture this process would have taken on a more symbolic and religious significance and from there people as usual with religious misinterpretation of natural phenomena f****d it up royally.