Feeding the Spirits | Spiritwork | Forums

liryen said:

I hope you don’t mind my thoughts on this, as a vegetarian. It’s really interesting!

Not at all. I’m a carnivorous-leaning omnivore, myself. 🙂 By the way, just for sake of clarification, what do you mean when you say vegetarian? I find there are a lot of forms of vegetarianism… some include fish as a meat, some don’t. Others won’t touch milk or cheese because the enzymes used in them are byproducts of animal slaughter. Others are fine with milk and cheese, but won’t touch eggs… you get the idea. On a related note, apart from what you actually eat, do you use animal products such as leather?

Couldn’t this sustenance take different forms, besides food?

To some extent, yes. Votive candles and incense work too. But it’s a question of both energy (a sacrifice of hand-prepared food tends to give somewhat more energy than candles or incense, and a living sacrifice vastly more energy) and what I suppose would be the spiritual equivalent of a balanced diet. Candles and incense might make a good snack for a deity, but would they really suffice as a meal? Judging by historical traditions, I’d have to say probably not.

Even the Abrahamic deity seems unsatisfied by a vegetarian diet, judging by Genesis 4:3-5: “So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell.”

Well, it’s a very controversial subject. I think violence/sacrifice in paganism is much like kink in sex, in that people have different comfort levels and limits…and of course there are a few who will maintain that it’s wrong wrong wrong, and I can understand why it’d upset many people.

See, to me, being neopagan and being upset by the idea of animal sacrifice seems much like someone agreeing to be the submissive in a D/s relationship, and then being upset when the Dom expects you to actually submit. IMO, it’s not about limits, it’s actually somewhat about the nature of the relationship. It’s no new revelation that the worship of many (I’d even say most) gods has historically involved animal sacrifice. Nearly all of the “popular” pagan deities that neopagans worship have had animal offerings made to them in the past. To try to substitute with incense, flowers, candles, etc. strikes me as along the same lines as substituting a simple hematite ring for a gold wedding ring. The two signify drastically different relationships between giver and receiver.

Historians and others who study these things would have their own explanations. They would obviously chalk it up to superstitious belief, and I have a foot in both worlds because I believe in all the gods and in magic, but also in all the laws of science and the human tendency to error. This is where plenty of neopagans would mention that since our culture has changed (animal sacrifice is no longer common or widely accepted in the West, despite the continued practice of hunting for food or sport), it isn’t required to be a valid devotee or practitioner. And it isn’t.

Of course, the reason our culture has changed with respect to animal sacrifice is quite simple: Christianity became domininant. In Christian theology, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was the last sacrifice required by God. This replaced the animal sacrifice required by the Old Covenant. So I would say that, if modern Western culture has not influenced you enough to make you a Christian outright, it is very unlikely to have provided a theological basis for still being pagan but not making animal sacrifices.

But I think you’re actually on to something, and I’d happily explore it if not for my personal ethics.

That’s fair. 🙂

I’m on PETA’s mailing list, so receive regular updates from Ingrid Newkirk that are usually headed things like: “Urge Congress to Stop Poisoning Monkeys!” or “Watch Our Top 10 Most Shocking Videos!”. I don’t really do any of that stuff, to be fearfully honest, although I did “Take a Stand Against Nestea’s CruelTEA to Animals!” a couple of weeks ago through a form letter to Nestlé CEOs.

I find most of PETA’s warnings to be vastly overstated. In the Nestea instance, for example, as far as I can tell Nestea wasn’t involved in animal testing of their product in any of the cited cases. They donated to researchers in various areas of study, including diabetes, who were engaged in clinical studies of the effectiveness of tea extracts on certain conditions. As someone with a family history of diabetes, and who has worked for two disease-related nonprofits whose research into treating and curing their respective diseases does involve animal testing, I’m really in no position to condemn such studies.

As I’m sure everyone who may be reading this already knows, PETA has their own set of ethical reasons for veganism, often citing cruelty and health ramifications.

Certainly. Of course, PETA somewhat has its own idea of cruelty. While it claims that it is not in favor of the confiscation of animals who are well cared for, it also paints this picture of such well-cared for animals: “Even in ‘good’ homes, cats must relieve themselves in dirty litterboxes and often have the tips of their toes amputated through declawing. Dogs often have to drink water that has been sitting around for days, are hurried along on their walks, if they even get walked, and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet.” But I admit I’m veering somewhat off-topic, and I think we’d both prefer it if this didn’t degenerate into a general discussion of animal rights or the relative merits of vegetarianism vs omnivorousness.

Although those are definitely some of the concerns that keep me so dedicated to this diet, I also have my own code. I think it’s always been there, but I first chose to honor it by becoming a vegetarian in early 2007 (which, coincidentally, was around the same time as a peer’s suicide). It’s a set of either prejudices or rules that goes something like this:

1. I must not eat meat. If I do, I should go through a cleansing period of fasting before returning to a vegan diet.

I’m a little unclear on what is being “cleansed” by the fast that would not also be cleansed by the vegan diet itself. Is it intended as a penance?

2. I must not drink blood, although I may donate and swap it.

“Swap” it?

I do donate mine (not in the medical sense, since Red Cross’s guidelines would still exclude me based on my sexuality), and I’ve drunk some of my own blood before but never anyone else’s. I can really only think of two people whose blood I’d be at all interested in drinking currently, and both of them are on the list of people I’d be willing to donate blood for, though neither are on the list of people I actually have donated blood for.

3. I must not kill, except to put a dying thing out of its misery or in combat where the intent is to kill one’s opponent.

My own equivalent code is simply to kill quickly and cleanly. When I was much younger, my family used to volunteer at an Avian Rehabilitation Center. During that time, when I was still in sixth grade, I learned to kill rats and mice prior to feeding them to injured birds of prey. You have to, or they can attack the bird in the close proximity of their cages and with the advantage of the bird already being wounded.

In the case of this ritual, the animal involved was a food-grade rabbit; it had been raised specifically to be food, not a pet, and if it hadn’t been used in this ritual it would have been used as food by someone else. (It is still being used as food as well in this case; the meat has been frozen and someone who has more experienced than I do with cooking rabbit is preparing it this week.) Its throat was slit neatly, and it bled out rapidly and died cleanly, so that satisfies my own morals in this area.

4. I must not keep deceased animals for decorative purposes, although practical objects and ritual tools are alright.

I’m not sure I understand the distinctions you’ve drawn here. Especially why keeping parts from an animal as ritual tools would be fine, but the death of an animal as part of a ritual offering would not be.

5. I must not regularly deal with human remains except for the newly deceased and/or intact corpses for purposes of honor or burial, etc.

While I don’t have any pieces of human remains as part of my tools, altar pieces, etc. I don’t have any prohibition about having them. In fact, I’d consider it a means of honoring the deceased.

6. Cremate the dead, especially me.

Heh, I’d rather be cryogenically frozen. Doubt I’ll be able to afford it, though, so cremation is my second choice. It has less to do with any taboos on my part, and more to do with an irrational fear of worms. If it weren’t for that, I think I’d probably opt for a ground burial, but worms creep me the hell out. Yes, I know it’s silly. I never used to be afraid of them, I’d let them crawl on my hand when I was young. Then, when I was about six or so, an older playmate informed me that worms were baby snakes. I knew they weren’t. I knew she was making it up. But I was never able to look at them the same way again, even after getting over my fear of snakes. *shrugs* At this point, I just live with it.

I don’t think it stems from a fear of death, because I respect death very much as a fundamental part of the natural cycle, but it seems to be something, at least at first glance, about the physical flesh remaining intact. I don’t fully understand it. Maybe it’s just a personal taboo, or a hangover from some past life, but I feel like it probably runs deeper than that and I don’t think any deity would ask me to break it.

I can’t speak to where or how it might have originated, but I’m not so sure about no deity asking you to break it. Maybe the deities you work with wouldn’t, but I think it would very much depend on the individual deity. For example, if you followed the Egyptian deities they might have a large problem with the idea that the dead should be cremated. In Egyptian belief burning the body destroys the Ka, the part of the soul that provides the vital spark. Cremation would be a greater murder than physical death.

I assume that it would be best to ask him first whether he would still find an animal sacrifice acceptable?

Is there any theological basis to think that he wouldn’t? I mean, it’s a little like asking Pan if he’s still into sex despite modern Western culture being more sexually repressed, or asking Hermes if he’s still the god of thieves despite modern Western culture condemning theft. What basis is there for abandoning the practice, other than the modern sense that it’s “icky” or simply belongs in a superstitious past? And if you take the latter stance, how can you then be pagan: wouldn’t the gods themselves also belong in that superstitious past?

Er, well, nothing. I think I could stand being around for an animal sacrifice as long as it happens quickly, the animal isn’t caused undue trauma (and I think some of them could sense the fact that they’re about to die), and I get to pass on eating it. But for the same reasons I can’t do that, I couldn’t be a participant; an onlooker, maybe, but I couldn’t hold it or anything (except maybe beforehand to comfort).

Just FYI, in case you’re ever in the position to do so, holding an animal raised for food generally wouldn’t comfort it. They’re not pets, they haven’t been socialized to enjoy human touch the way pets have been. Holding the animal during the sacrifice isn’t to comfort it, it’s to prevent it from struggling (and possibly hurting itself) and to ensure that the cut is quick and clean and in the proper place to ensure a fast and easy death.

Nor can I say that I like the idea of appeasing the every whim of these spirits, because I’m not pledged to them or otherwise affiliated in any way, and the acts I described earlier break my personal code.

*nods* I’d be very careful, then, before getting involved with any pagan deities. Do some research and see what their worship has traditionally involved. Make sure it wouldn’t violate your code. IMO, too many people just assume that the Gods no longer want such things, without any theological justification for why they suddenly would have stopped desiring their traditional offerings. We’re simply supposed to believe, according to much of modern neopaganism, that the very gods who created predator and prey have abruptly all gone vegan.

But I don’t hold it against you or anyone else who participates in and even enjoys animal sacrifice. 🙂 (But don’t tell PETA.)

I’ll just tell the other one. (People Eating Tasty Animals).

Ayaka Inu said:

Okay, now I have calmed myself a bit, you are correct, killing for food is fine, I hunt, and in essence I am a carnivore, but if one is not in direct need of food, then I disagree with killing.

Strictly speaking, no one in Western society is really in “direct need” of animals as food unless they’re starving and have no access to other foods. The rest of us could all choose to be vegetarian like Liryen. Since you’re living in Canada and obviously have enough money for a computer and internet connection, but choose to hunt and be “a carnivore”, it seems that you don’t disagree with killing all that much in actual practice.

On the subject of sacrificing  an animal one has purchased, I use your statement, humans are animals as well, but slavery, the ownership of another life, was abolished, animals may not be the same as us, but no species is the same, if we don't agree with slavery, than we should not claim ownership of any fellow animal.

Slavery is not the ownership of “another life”, it’s the ownership of another human. It could perhaps reasonably be extended to the ownership of another intelligent life. But extending it to all animal life effectively renders the word meaningless. All animals are not created equal.

On the note of my bias, I will admit, I am biased, but for good reason, not just the tragedy of my last life, but the killing of my sister in this one.

That’s a rationalization of your prejudice against humans, not a reason for it. Assuming your account of your past life actually happened as you remember it, and actually took place on this world, it would have had to take place thousands of years ago. Even just two thousand years ago there were only 150 million humans on the planet. There are now 6.7 billion, more than 60 times that number. Out of those 6.7 billion, how many have actually done you harm, in that life or this one? How many were involved in the death of your people, or your sister? To judge 6.7 billion humans by the actions of a few is never for good reason.

To summarize, with the exclusion of my bias, humans are animals,

Correct, they are. That’s a simple, scientific fact.

no life form has the right to own another no matter how much they worked to claim them

While that may be your opinion, you’d really have to take it up with the first animals to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..estication

and killing is fine when done out of necessity, but if it for ritual, and the participants are not currently in need of food to survive, killing should be avoided.

You appear to have a rather broad definition of “out of necessity”, since you live in a modern Western culture with modern amenities like supermarkets but choose not to live a vegetarian lifestyle despite clearly having money to spend on the luxuries of a computer and Internet access. Again, why is simply killing and eating an animal preferable in any way to sacrificing and then eating the same animal?

It is not so much killing I have a problem with, it is the fact that people disrespect the dead by making it a ritual

I think it’s very obvious that you’ve never seen a ritual animal sacrifice in real life, if you think that it in any way disrespects the dead. Hunting as commonly practiced in Western culture tends to be far more disrespectful, with even those hunting for meat all too often drunk and irreverent. Ritual sacrifice, as practiced in most traditions, explicitly honors the animal being killed.

and that they did not earn the kill, they never hunted it, they instead took the defenseless like cowards.

Hunting is not the only way to “earn” a kill. A farmer earns their kill by raising the animal, providing food and shelter, etc. for it. The farmer has been responsible for the animal’s well-being from birth till death. This is more work than any hunter has ever had to put into their hunt. If the farmer then chooses to sell the animal to someone else, they in turn have earned their kill by the fee they paid the farmer for the animal. Modern culture generally introduces a few more middlemen between the farmer and the final purchaser, but the principle remains the same.

Essentially, as in nature, if one wishes to take a life, they must defeat that life, hunt it, and take it down themselves.

Even “in nature”, that’s not true. It’s not exactly a mystery that predators often go after the sick and the lame. They take advantage of illness and injury, rather than “defeating” their prey. They also often steal kills made by other animals. And social animals, like primates, acquire meat in still other ways:

Question: How do chimpanzees obtain meat at a successful hunt?

Conclusions:

Hunters – Capture, sharing according to hunting effort.

Hunters and nonhunters – Scrounging, begging, intimidation, reciprocal exchange, kin-based sharing.
The Mind of the Chimpanzee

So it seems humans, as primates, are quite in line with their natural instincts in this regard.

Natures gives its all for us, but we barely work to repay her, we do whatever we can to be lazy and skip out on the hardships we are supposed to endure, and in the process we create more hardships, not just for other animals, but for ourselves, and innocent people like my sister.

I don’t know what happened to your sister, but if you think animal farming is either being lazy or skipping out on hardships, you must not know much about it. Nor is engaging in reciprocal exchange to obtain the food produced by such farmers being lazy or skipping out on hardships; you still need to work to acquire the money or other goods used to make that exchange.

liryen said:

Which is fine. I know tons of meat-eaters, including everyone in my family besides me, so please don't think this was meant as a criticism of your habits or anyone else's.

I didn’t take your post that way.

Not really, no. I still have a few pairs of leather shoes, but other than those I can't think of anything else I have around that comes from teh animals. I find that most things don't.

You must shop at different places than I do, then.  Even setting aside obvious items such as leather products or various foods, I can still think of quite a few animal products around the home: from water filters and paint or inks which use bone char, to wool and silk clothing, to lotions which use lanolin… our houses are generally full of things derived from animals.  It can be hard to really get away from them all.

So what about all the pagans who aren't currently offering living sacrifices to their patrons but claim to have good relationships with them?  I haven't heard most people saying that their god is asking for animal sacrifices. 😛

How many modern pagans have ever asked their gods if they wanted such sacrifices, and at the same time really been prepared to take “yes” as an answer?  I’d be willing to bet very few of the ones opposed to animal sacrifice have. So much of modern paganism has been influenced by Christianity, the New Age movement, and Wicca… all of which tend to view animal sacrifices as wrong.  So various justifications have sprung up for not engaging in it in the wider pagan community, many of which really tend to boil down to either “it would make us look bad to the Christians” or “that’s too icky”.  But there are strong traditions of animal sacrifice continuing, from the Afro-Carribean traditions (Santeria, Vodou, etc) to Hindus, to some groups of modern Asatruar, Celtic Reconstructionists, and most likely others that I’m not aware of.

(smiles softly). That story always made me feel indignant when I was little. In my mind then, Cain's offering was a gift of love, and it seemed more appropriate for him to bring the crops he'd cultivated than to give YHWH two of the same thing. But that was ancient Judaism. I'm just not seeing a connection here. Plz to Enlighten me nao. 🙂

It was to demonstrate that the lore of deities wanting blood offerings is pretty much universal. It’s a point that even Judeo-Christian tradition agrees with pagan tradition on.

And to me, that seems like glossing over all the (neo)pagans who don't make regular sacrifices. Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with statements like this if the people making them had always been involved with the practice they espouse, but they don't get to play holier-than-thou and say “those people are fakes and lamers, and I'm a Troo Pagan because now I do xyz and I have Seen the Light!!”

It's fine to be of the opinion that that everyone who doesn't sacrifice animals isn't really pagan, but to be fair one has to include themselves on the List of Fake Pagans for all the years that they practiced before this became their latest fetish. Nothing else is honest or respectable

I don’t believe I ever said that those who don’t practice animal sacrifice were “fake pagans”. I said that those who call themselves pagan and are upset by the idea that the gods may desire and even expect animal sacrifice are acting like they’re surprised, like it’s something that was just sprung on them out of nowhere. But you’d have to be extremely ignorant of historic pagan practices to not know about it.

This is the first time I’ve participated in a ritual sacrifice. I’ve never had the opportunity before, I’ve never known anyone knowledgeable about both the spiritual and practical aspects of it before to walk me through it, nor did I have a good source for food-grade live animals before. But I’ve also never gone around being upset by the idea the gods may demand animal sacrifice in my time as a pagan, so I don’t think I’m being a hypocrite in condemning those who are upset by the very idea.

I think I've lost you again. To me, it's the intention that counts, and a ring is no less dear if it's made of tin foil or gold. But you might laugh at what I value as jewelry! Or more specifically what I’d value from a relationship that matters.

I was trying to go with an analogy that most people in our culture would understand; the difference between the kind of ring you give to your partner as a wedding ring, and the kind of ring you might give to a child to play with. Intention is nice, but it takes much more effort to get the wedding ring than the hematite ring. It’s also a gift that will last longer; hematite rings tend to break quickly, while gold rings can be passed down to future generations. There’s just a very different relationship implied by the two offerings, whatever the giver’s intent may have been.

Oh, it's just one of those silly little things. You know, when you and someone else cut your finger or hand and rub them together to become “family”? That.

Oh, ok! I think of that more as mixing than swapping, so I really didn’t know what you meant at first.

Hey, I never said I fully understand it, either. I guess it's because it's possible to find animal bits out in the woods, but I wouldn't want to actually kill one.

Ok, I can understand that.

Yes, but nobody believes that anymore. I find it hard to imagine that modern Kemetics would see a cremation as murder, even if I were Kemetic I certainly wouldn't…

“Nobody believes that anymore”? One could make the same argument about the Egyptian deities themselves, then. What would the theological basis for discarding the belief be?

There's always room for some UPG. 🙂 I just don't think of animal sacrifice when I think of Frey. I doubt very many people do at all. Since his image has changed, I'd want to get the facts directly from him instead of basing my worship on hearsay from others. Even you. As they say, “People give nothing so freely as advice.”

Fair enough. But would you actually be open to him saying “Yes, I’d love for you to slaughter a boar in my name and prepare one as a ritual feast, it’s been ages since anyone has offered!”? Would you be willing and able to go out, obtain the animal, learn how to properly and humanely kill it and prepare it, and then actually do the deed? From what you’ve said of your personal taboos, I find it hard to imagine that you would. So it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t think of animal sacrifice when you think of Frey. If you actually interact with him (I don’t know which gods you work with), he might even shield you from that side of himself rather than risk traumatizing you. It’s not like the old gods can afford to lose the few worshippers they still have these days. And UPG is also very prone to reflect one’s personal biases. There’s a reason why groups like Celtic Reconstructionists rely upon a set of rules regarding UPG informing their practices, the first of which is: “No UPG should contradict known facts about the associated culture, and no practices based only on UPG should stand as more than modern inventions.”

Well, not necessarily. Gods exist on many worlds, but I'd be rather surprised if animal sacrifice was a part of the elven culture I was a part of. What do you remember about that, if anything?

Very little. Of the three gods I do remember on Alorya, though, each of them was a physical present entity. The Dragon was definitely bargained with; I don’t know if she was sacrificed to as well. I’m not even sure how many elves, outside of members of my own family, worshipped her. I don’t believe I did, though I certainly didn’t deny her reality. The other two… nobody was really sure they were gods, exactly. But they were older than the memory of elves, and there were whispers about them. I’m fairly certain those two weren’t sacrificed to, or worshipped in any conventional sense. More feared, really… the reaction was not dissimilar to how humans tended to treat cunning men/witches/etc in the post-Christian era where they were still respected and gone to when in need, but also somewhat shunned.

Ah, brainfart then. For some reason I was thinking of a rather domesticated kind of animal, but that might not be so strange considering all the deer in our area who will come up to some houses and generally be quite social. (And no, before you ask they're not rabid).

I suspect deer these days are actually going through the process of self-domestication. It’s so much easier for them to obtain food, there are even parks that have started putting out food for their deer herds, and by staying close to human homes and parks they’re generally in areas where hunting is not allowed. I’d also guess we’ll start seeing more and more male deer with short, or even no, antlers as this progresses; the ones with large antlers are still prized by hunters, so natural selection would favor their eventual loss.

We're simply supposed to believe, according to much of modern neopaganism, that the very gods who created predator and prey have abruptly all gone vegan.

Well, who knows?

After thousands of years of blood offerings by pagan traditions around the world, it just seems somewhat unlikely that the gods would all wake up one day and unanimously decide that they’re not into that anymore. Especially since this, just coincidentally, serves to bring those deities more in line with Western cultural values. And, equally coincidentally, most of the ones saying that they have are just as squicked out by the idea of personally slaughtering animals for food without the ritual aspects. Call me crazy, but that looks a little like bias to me.