Bryan, I don’t really want to hijack this thread but just a question. Do Jewish people still practice animal sacrifice or has that practice been abandoned? If it’s not praticed currently what is the reason for not practicing it anymore? And how do you reconcile that to the teachings of the old testament? I’m really curious about this. My apologies to the OP.
Is Islam always so “demanding”? I don’t know a lot about the religion, but are there strains of it that are more easy-going? For instance, I know a girl who is a muslim, but doesn’t wear the head dress or anything (I feel I’m showing my ignorance here - excuse me). Is it possible to have a version of Islam that requires as little commitment as everyday American Christianity?
Oh, hell, yes. I’ve got truckloads of chickens being delivered to my back door. I put in a conveyor belt just for that.
Just kidding. There is a strict method of killing animals in accordance with the Kosher dietary laws, but this isn’t considered “sacrificial”, merely the correct procedure to kill an animal before eating it. Urbanized Jews (and for that matter, urbanized everyone else) rely on modern supermarkets rather than the chipping block.
My guess is that the original practice was to appease God in order to get favour in area over which you had no control. In times past, you might sacrifice an animal in hopes of getting a better farm crop, or to ensure the health of your family, but these days we know that irrigation and medication will be far more effective, so the animal sacrifice gradually faded away as a pointless ritual.
That’s probably true of most religious rituals. You can light a candle for your sick child, or you can take him to a doctor. The latter action is clearly more effective, so the need for the former has faded.
That said, lighting a candle still has symbolic value. I have no problem with a parent lighting the candle and seeing the doctor.
I have to apologize again for the slight hijack here because I wasn’t specific enough in my question.
Bryan, what I was specifically concerned with was for the atonement of sins. In the OT an animal, actually two I think, was sacrificed as an offering. This being (I’m guessing here) either symbolic or temporary in the absence of the Messiah. So if the Messiah has not yet come how is this reconciled to the teachings of the OT in todays world. I understand about the dietary laws and the reasons for them.
Again apologies to the OP.
This page sums it up more neatly than I ever could. Some Orthodox Jews, it turns out, do practice a form of animal sacrifice to atone for sins, but it’s not without detractors:
The ritual persists in some circles, but much of the pointless cruelty has been expunged. Among more moderate Jews, the common Yom Kippur (day of atonement) ritual is simply not to eat that day.
Generally speaking, the writings of the Old Testament are widely (though by no means universally) viewed as symbolic rather than literal truths, so not a lot of Jews fret about “reconciling” modern practice with ancient ritual.
Jewish animal sacrifice can only be performed in the temple. Since there is no temple there is no sacrifice. Presumably, when the temple is restored then the sacrifices wll resume.
Jewish animal sacrifice has nothing to do with the Messiah. It was part of the covenant of Abraham.
The Jewish Messiah is not a “Savior,” or an “atoner” in any Christian sense of the word. The Jewish Messiah doesn’t pay for anyone’s sins and there isn’t any “original sin” in Judaism to atone for.
IANAJ, but according to the working rules for Jewish sacrifice, since the day in approximately 960 BC when Solomon dedicated the Temple, it has been illegal to offer sacrifice according to the Torah anywhere but at the Temple. Since the site of the Temple is currently occupied by a mosque, while the sacrifice portions of the Law are still considered “valid” in a legal standpoint, they are in abeyance owing to not having a location where they can be validly carried out. Zev or one of the other practicing Jews here will have to discuss what the Jewish understanding of atonement for sin in the absence of sacrifice is – my grasp of it is sufficiently colored by the Atonement of Christ (Christian doctrine) at a time when the Temple was still offering sacrifice that I am at a loss for any clear explanation.
As for the OP, perhaps the best explanation is that it is relatively easy to abide by a penal code that makes certain behaviors mandatory and others forbidden – so long as you always do the first and always abstain from the second, you’ve got no worries. On the other hand, having little obligations of the sort:
[ul][li]Be you perfect, as My Father in Heaven is perfect.[/li][li]You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength.[/li][li]You shall love your neighbor – meaning every single human being in existence – as yourself.[/li][li]Judge not, lest you be judged. For with the measure with which you judge, you too shall be judged.[/ul][/li]…having rules as effectively impossible to keep wholly as these is by no means “easy.” Take this very board – it’d be very tempting to take some total idiot and flame him, then buy a chicken for Fr. Jim to offer to God next Sunday in expiation for that flaming. Instead, I have to deal peacably and patiently with him – that’s what the rules say is my obligation to him and to God!
Thank you Bryan. [/hijack]
Thank you, memory sufficiently jogged.
I hate getting old.
So I set myself the following thought experiment:
Consider a hypothetical Religion Y, which is identical to Christianity except for the following additional requirements:
- You have to recite Leviticus 13 backwards every night before going to bed.
- You have to spin around clockwise three times and click your heels together before urinating, and then spin around counterclockwise three times afterwards.
- You’re not allowed to eat garlic, foods that begin with the letter B, and Froot Loops and Apple Jacks mixed together.
I would not switch from Christianity to Y, but I can actually imagine how its extra requirements might appeal to or benefit some people. Following them could help a person develop self-discipline and self-control. They could provide structure to one’s day and one’s life. They could serve to focus one’s mind on spiritual things and one’s duty to God. They could foster a sense of solidarity with others who follow the same rules.
But on the other hand, there are plenty of dangers. Following Y’s rules and rituals could distract a person from the more basic demands of Christianity (such as to love God and neighbor). They could be an additional burden on a life that was already too full of Dumb Things You’ve Gotta Do. They could make you feel superior to or look down upon other people who didn’t follow the rules. They could be perceived as arbitrary and nonsensical and could make the whole of your religion look arbitrary and nonsensical by association. And I’m sure there are others.
The OP has a point, in that “mere” Christianity has little in the way of specific rules or rituals that its followers have to obey in order to “be saved” or be a good Christian (including “going to church”). Many specific denominations and movements within Christianity do impose such rules and rituals. Roman Catholicism looks like a good example of this, to my outsider’s perspective, though their requirements and rituals are by no means all as arbitrary and meaningless as my Religion Y’s.
As has already been said by other posters, in terms of personal sacrifice, Christianity is (at least ideally) a supreme personal sacrifice, a giving over of one’s whole life and being to God. It’s not a part-time job where, once you’ve fulfilled your duties, you’re “off the clock” and can do whatever you feel like with the rest of your life. It’s a full time, 24/7 commitment, like joining the Army or being a parent or a husband/wife. And, like being a parent (or spouse, but not like being in the Army), there may not be a lot of specific things that every parent has to do in order to be a good parent and a good person, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy or for the lazy.
(Oh, and as far as spiritual laziness goes, is it relevant to point out that Sloth is one of the classic Seven Deadly Sins?)
This is no different than Islam. You are not “off thec clock” in Islam when you are not fulfilling the Pillars.“Islam” means “surrender.” It is no less a totality of surrender than in Christianity (or in any other religion for that matter). I would argue that this surrender is more meaningful in Islam because you are required to back up your faith with your actions.
The religion of Islam is activated by practice not by belief. The profession of faith (the Shahada) is meaningless without the other duties of prayer five times a day, fasting during Ramadan, giving alms to the poor, and (if possible the Hajj to Mecca. If you don’t practice those things, you’re not a Muslim, regardless of your belief.
I think it’s also important to mention that in the realm of other religions we tend to hear about the really devout people. No one’s going to use the example of a Buddhist sitting on his butt for a documentary.
Many Buddhists don’t seek after enlightenment, but will plant some incense at the temple and pray sometimes, and observe specific holdays. Same goes for Muslims, I know plenty who don’t pilgrimmage anywhere, and only observe the holidays in a mild sense. Rammadan becomes like lent for many of them.
Pentacostal Christians have a whole slew of additional practices and customs, including:
No listening to worldly music, no cutting hair short for women, no growing hair long for men, experiencing the ‘baptism of the holy spirit’ by speaking in tongues, ect. Baptists, in many churches, do not dance, do not drink, ect.
Franciscans engage in personal sacrifice to bring themselves closer to God, depending on the monastery this may include:
Eating bland, unseasoned food, drinking only water, living in a meager area(Those rooms are for sleeping/ praying only, trust me. Dirt, bed, Bible.). They take vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience.
Fasting for long periods may be included. There’s lots of stuff Christians can do if they so choose, by selecting the religious order that has the strict requirements they want.
A lot of people seem to think that all being a Christian requires is “declaring Jesus as your personal Saviour”, but then you don’t have to do anything-it’s all Faith alone.
Catholicism rejects that, and states that faith without works is meaningless. I’ve had several Protestants tell me that works are irrelevent in Christianity, but I reject this.
Ok, so their not Muslims, but they think they are 
On the contrary. I find that to tap into the Christian “belief system” to be very demanding. To take that leap of faith and forego all reason, so as to believe that mumbo-jumbo, nonsensical blather, is very exerting and taxing.
My Protestant interpretation of that is, if you have faith then good works will follow. Not that they must follow though.
My understanding of Catholicism is, if you don’t do good works than you don’t have faith.
Just my subjective opinion here, raised a Catholic early but rejected it later. I could be wrong as I’ve heard that has changed now, but I have no first hand knowledge of that. Feel free to correct me.
From what I’ve seen, many ascetic religions have a sort of “religious police” that kicks the asses of people who aren’t sufficiently, visibly pious. Much of the Islamic world has these. Israel has self-appointed Zealots. My old Catholic grade school had nuns with paddles.
Take anyone from such a strict environment and put him in a less-strict one, you’ll see a change. Take Smapdi out of Yemen and stick him in a booze-and-porn-selling convenience store, and I doubt he’ll be praying four times a day and abluting his feet. I know I took to public school like a duck takes to water.
Christmas trees and Easter eggs are “rituals”? I don’t think so.
That’s a gross caricature of what Christianity teaches. Nowhere are believers expected to “forego all reason.” In fact, the gospel of Matthew repeatedly appealed to Old Testament prophecies to support the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. Acts 17 depicts Paul reasoning with the non-believers in the synagogue and the marketplace, and Peter exhorts believers to provided a reasoned defense for the hope that is within them (II Peter 3:15). Nowhere does the Bible equate a “leap of faith” with abandoning all reason.
It’s a common strawman argument to say that faith means abandoning reason. This simply isn’t the case. Faith means that you accept something without proof, but nowhere does it say that you should do so with no evidence whatsoever.
Okay, call them “traditions,” though the distinction escapes me.
Unless you were trying to get unnecessarily nitpicky and claim that the trees and the eggs themselves aren’t rituals. Fine, the trees and the eggs are holiday symbols, but decorating the former and painting the latter are deliberate actions taken for symbolic value, i.e. rituals.