Blood & Religion - why?

[cloudy]

I was reading and came across something that provoked some thoughts.

Think for a moment of all the combined words, or expressions, we use all the time that contain "blood" : bloodshed, blood kin, finest blood, blue blood, by blood, etc.

Why? Why is it so important to us beyond the obvious? Here's the bit that started me thinking: What is the quintessential connection than binds all wisdom or superstition with blood?

The Roman gods demanded blood to be spilled in the arena and on altars.

The gods of the Aztecs demanded blood sacrifice.

The Lakota sun dance involves piercing, and the offering of flesh (metaphorically) to the Creator.

In taking holy communion, Catholics believe they are eating/drinking the transmuted flesh/blood of Christ.

And, the Crucifixion is one of the most reknowned blood sacrifices of all time.

Why? Why is it so universal? And because it is, are the differing religions really so far apart?

 

[gauchecritic]

easy out

One that you didn't include: Life blood.

I'm not being dismissive but that (to me) is what it is all about. Blood is life. On Arakkis (sp) the 'holiest' term is "water". The fedaykin (sp) accompanying Paul are amazed that he sheds tears for the dead. (Dune saga) Much the same thing really.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Blood, as in bloodlines, is also that mystic substance which differentiates blue bloods from the commonality. When a race could not show external superiority over their inferiors, they deluded themselves into believing it was contained in their blood.

Consider what a shock to the system it must have been, when it was discovered that blue blooded Caucasians could go on very nicely after a blood transfusion from a person from an inferior race!

 

[SeaCat]

Cloudy,

I think Gauche pretty much has it right.

I am willing to give to you my blood without which I can't live.

Cat

 

[Sunnie]

Why? Why is it so universal? And because it is, are the differing religions really so far apart?

No, they are not. There isn't a single system of mythology (INCLUDING the Christian mythos) that hasn't taken something from another system. Some mythologies are simply rewrites of others.

 

[Weird Harold]

Why? Why is it so important to us beyond the obvious? Here's the bit that started me thinking: What is the quintessential connection than binds all wisdom or superstition with blood?

"Blood of My Blood, Flesh of My Flesh"

"Blood is Thicker Than Water"

Those and similar sentiments are related to the only kind of practical immortality mankind has -- Children and Family.

For most of human existence, "blood" has been the carrier of inheritance rather than genetics. An offering of Blood is an act of subservience or submission that puts "personal immortality" in the hands of a higher power or joins a "family's fortunes" to a larger grouping in hopes of insuring the chance of survival.

The connection between blood and immortality goes back far beyond the development of civilization and possibly even beyond the origins of spirituality. The language is just very slow to adapt to new knowledge about EKG's and genetics that are more accurate indicators of life and inheritance.

 

[Dar~]

I like Gauche's example. The thing is that without blood you cannot live. Most religions associate the abilty to live with blood which was given them by a diety. Thats what I think at least*shrug*

 

[Halo_n_horns]

The "blood sacrifices" were pretty much a proof positive that the person or animal being sacrificed was actually being killed and having their essence offered up to the gods. That's why they didn't just get a good crack over the noggin. Bleeding them out insured death, whereas I'm sure that even a fatal blow to the skull would often leave the victim twitching for so long they were mistaken for still being alive.

Communion is purely romantic symbolism. All of those narcissistic God-groupies want feel like they were somehow there when a man, that left no proof of his existence, gave of himself to his followers.

Probably the most sigificant terminology that I've ever heard is "bloodline" or "blood lineage." From whom your are descended somehow makes you who you are now. We are all blank slates at the moment of birth, irregardless of lineage. So long as it sounds noble enough, or cool enough, or powerful enough, who we are told that we came from becomes the proper thing to embrace about ourselves, despite who one might become without ever having known that piece of information.

 

[English Lady]

Actually I was discussing the blood thing with a friend the other day. I was talking about "The Passion of the Christ" and the sheer volume of blood involved. There's a phrase that is often bandied around the Christian community, "Washed in the blood" (of the Lamb more often than not) and now when I hear it I feel a little isck to the stomach.


Halo. You may not see the point of communion but I do. To me, it's symbolism. It's being reminded of that sacrifice, human, blood sacrifice made for me. Gives me time to think, to thank, to-well commune!

(Btw i'm pretty sure it's fairly well accepted that Jesus did exsist, it's just his Deity which isn't proved. I may be wrong, it happens )

The fact that blood = life is probably what links it all together. It's something humans can associate with and is easy to understand. Blood (externally,let out from the body) = suffering, pain and death. All things that every human being experiences at some time or another.

 

[SummerMorning]

Blood - inside the body, in it's 'proper' place, symbolizes life by a process of simple mythological inversion, because the opposite:

Blood - outside the body, in the wrong place, usually means somebody is DEAD. The symbolism of blood-death is very direct, linking blood to life is a bit more indirect (you don't SEE it inside somebody, but you KNOW that if it's not 'outside' it must be 'inside' and he must be alive).

Now, why is blood so popular in religions? Quite a few sociologists from Durkheim on this way have argued, very believably, that religion is based on the experience of the sacred and that the sacred is nothing more and nothing less than the "ineffable feeling of human society" - to put it crudely, God is the Society you live in.

Now - the blood bit. People usually die most visibly because of VIOLENCE - hunting accidents, murder, war, childbirth, accidents. Most sociologists of religion (cf. Peter Berger 1969 The Golden Canopy) agree that in the end, Religion is "Human society banded together in the face of anomy and chaos" - DEATH is the greatest example of anomy and chaos.

Blood-death... the connection repeats itself, yes?

But back to violence - certain other sociologists (cf. Rene Girard, Mark Juergnesmeyer) believe that human society as such pretty much became AWARE OF ITSELF in acts of collective violence (the violent unanimity or the hunt, respectively) - since all collective violence is by its very nature POLITICAL it was the social polity that constituted itself in violence.

Now, going back to Durkheim:

1. if religion is society
2. and society becomes aware of itself in acts of collective violence
3. then religion is born of violence
4. and since violence means death and death is signified by blood
5. blood becomes a common religious symbol

That make sense?

 

[rgraham666]

My favourite authour has ruminated on this subject.

BLOOD [2] The most probable explanation for the fundamental practicality of women versus the endemic romanticism of men is that women, from twelve years old to their mid-fifties, must handle their own blood as it pours from their bodies one week out of every four.

The signs of male mortality are much more abstract. Only war guarantees them a regular confrontation with blood, which may explain the romance of organised volence.

Men have always presented themselves as clear-headed and practical versus the female who is enveloped in a romantic mist. This is an early and persistent example of the dictatorship of vocabulary.

The Doubter's Companion - John Ralston Saul

Too lazy to type in his first rumination on blood. Maybe later.

 

[oggbashan]

The Church does not shed blood

was the idea during the Middle Ages.

That is why witches and heretics were burned at the stake - by the secular authrorities.

Even some pagan religions objected to shedding blood directly. 'Pete Marsh' was strangled and drowned in a bog - no bloodshed. Some enemies were burned alive in wicker cages.

Even the ancient Egyptians resorted to live burials for heretics or criminals.

And how about monks and nuns walled up to die? The cases were very few but the impact was significant.

Blood is messy to clear up. During the French Revolutionary Reign of Terror, Carrier of Nantes devised his infamous 'Noyades'. An adapted barge was towed out to sea and sunk with dozens of people under the hatches. It was then refloated and reused.

The Nazis' Final Solution avoided bloodshed. Bullets cost money. Poison gas was cheaper with no blood split.

Avoiding bloodshed has religious and economic backing.

Og

 

[erise]

I think you might be overdoing it, people. Blood is a powerful symbol because it is a very tangible one. If you cut a hole in me, the first thing you see is blood. If I cough blood, I'm probably really damn ill. Blood is often very present at birth, and as mentioned, in menstruation. A pool of blood is a big, red warning sign of life and health in jeopardy. A little blood, proof that you're alive and able. A lot of blood, bad bad bad. That's why I think more than anything else is has become such a powerful icon of life force. Everything with it is a physical sign of some magnitude.

Another question that I on the other hand does not get. Why is the heart such a centerpiece in if not all so at least most cultures? It's an internal organ that mst people have never seen. Yet it is attributed with all our emotions and will. Why not the spleen instead? Or the brain, where they actually belong?

 

[Sunnie]

(Btw i'm pretty sure it's fairly well accepted that Jesus did exsist, it's just his Deity which isn't proved. I may be wrong, it happens )

Don't be too terribly sure.

 

[Guest]

I think you might be overdoing it, people. Blood is a powerful symbol because it is a very tangible one. If you cut a hole in me, the first thing you see is blood. If I cough blood, I'm probably really damn ill. Blood is often very present at birth, and as mentioned, in menstruation. A pool of blood is a big, red warning sign of life and health in jeopardy. A little blood, proof that you're alive and able. A lot of blood, bad bad bad. That's why I think more than anything else is has become such a powerful icon of life force. Everything with it is a physical sign of some magnitude.

Another question that I on the other hand does not get. Why is the heart such a centerpiece in if not all so at least most cultures? It's an internal organ that mst people have never seen. Yet it is attributed with all our emotions and will. Why not the spleen instead? Or the brain, where they actually belong?

My thought's exactly. As for the heart, it is the organ that pumps the blood of life. Even the ancient Egyptians knew of its pressence and its purpose, and i suspect it was known long before. When man first opened up an animal carcass he began to learn anatomy. When he opened a pig that was not yet dead he found a thumping organ spewing blood and "Bingo". But we have to remember that all of the writings of any religeon were written long after man first appeared. He had learned a lot by the time he started writing. But not enough to explain nature without the help of a "God".

The question I have been forced to ask is this. According to the bible, God created man from clay. But mentions nothing about seawater. It is a common fact that that all of the chemical compounds in sea water, in the same amounts, are found in the blood of every species. Yet the tale tells of man being made of earth and not sea.

 

[gauchecritic]

The question I have been forced to ask is this. According to the bible, God created man from clay. But mentions nothing about seawater. It is a common fact that that all of the chemical compounds in sea water, in the same amounts, are found in the blood of every species. Yet the tale tells of man being made of earth and not sea.

It seems to me that (apart from it being a translation) 'clay' is commonly used as a metaphor. Some while ago there was quite a religious furore (love that word) when some clerics decided that most things in the bible are actually metaphor rather than literal.

My reasoning behind it being metaphorical is the Jewish myth (who use the old testament I believe) that a being, man-made, of clay would be without a soul. Golem I think is the word.

Frankenstein's monster is a golem-myth. She probably stole it.

And the sea water thing? It's only common knowledge now. (not as common as you may believe either) it wasn't even knowledge then, let alone common.

Summer: I like Durkheim's logic (but then I'm sure Joe would be able to spot a billion fallacies in it) but it seems that the religion borne of blood is just another assimilation of age-old traditions (Christmas, Easter etc).

When a tribe becomes bigger than a simple family then the head man isn't the strongest but the one who can forecast the next meal. So now you get religion, which is politics.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Why? Why is it so universal? And because it is, are the differing religions really so far apart?

Universal because everyone's got blood, childbirth is bloody, death can be bloody, lack of blood and someone dies... etc. Real primitive stuff.

And, yes, many religions are lightyears apart even with a common tie to blood. It'd be like saying "are religions that use a holy book all that different from each other?"--well, yes, they certainly can be in doctrine despite a piece of flair being similar. Expand this to religions that identify with a symbol, or some observance on a similar time of year, or prohibitions on diet, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Guest]

And the sea water thing? It's only common knowledge now. (not as common as you may believe either) it wasn't even knowledge then, let alone common.

It was taught in Life Science (a precourser to Biology) when I was in Jr High School 30 years ago. That's a moot point however. What we are talking about is a description in the bible, "The word of God" as written down by men. Yaweh/Jehovah/Allah told these men what happened and they wrote it down. Surely an all powerful, all knowing diety could remember the simple ingredients he used to make his finest creation. Couldn't he?

 

[SummerMorning]

Summer: I like Durkheim's logic (but then I'm sure Joe would be able to spot a billion fallacies in it) but it seems that the religion borne of blood is just another assimilation of age-old traditions (Christmas, Easter etc).

When a tribe becomes bigger than a simple family then the head man isn't the strongest but the one who can forecast the next meal. So now you get religion, which is politics.

But Gauche, Durkheim's theory on religion applies precisely to the origins of religion! The religion born of blood - I assume you mean Christianity - is actually a composite, a synthesis if you will, of numerous other religions.

Just like every other religion... no religion is original, and as far as can be empirically proven, no religion is god given.

As to forecasting the next meal... well, it's not *quite* so simple. Usually you don't worship THE MAN, but THE GOD behind THE MAN (Even though both the "god" and the "man" are in fact social constructs - but no matter).

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Oh... because my coffee was cold this morning and I'm feelin' froggy:

Someone please give me a brief breakdown of Durkheim's theory and why it's important? It seems to be nonsense from what I'm gleaning.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Gauche got it spot on.

Blood is life. Lack of or loss of blood is death. It is also bright fucking red when oxidized because of the iron. This was all even more visible and powerful back in the old days when seeing people with blood coming out of them was common (injuries, deaths, births).

Considering the massive visibility and the ease it could be applied to the practice of religion (answering the questions of life and death), it is expected that it would be pervasive. When you have something bright that everyone has seen, which seems to control life (think to life without biology lessons) then it's going to be applied to any philosophy or religion on life, to oral tradition, and to mythology.

If we all bled out green tea then we would ask why green tea is pervasive in religion. It's really all more simple than we're making it out to be.

 

[SummerMorning]

Someone please give me a brief breakdown of Durkheim's theory and why it's important? It seems to be nonsense from what I'm gleaning.

'S not actually. It's quite meaningful.

The gist of it is that religion is based on the experience of the sacred, and the sacred being experienced is in fact the society itself.

As every social scientific theory, of course, it's scope is not completely universal - i.e. you will find examples that do not fit - but it is quite explanatory when you get into it. And yes, it comes in book format.

To go from society to individual Peter Berger's theory is quite useful as an addition to Durkheim's.

 

[gauchecritic]

As to forecasting the next meal... well, it's not *quite* so simple. Usually you don't worship THE MAN, but THE GOD behind THE MAN (Even though both the "god" and the "man" are in fact social constructs - but no matter).

Maybe I didn't put it right. Apparently to be a budhist you simply 'be' a budhist. You don't have to join anything, you don't have to go to church, just 'be' budhist.

Most people believing in the same thing doesn't make a religion. When you make rules about who or what to believe, then you have religion or more precisely a method of control ie politics.

An early tribe would wander about the plains (or near rivers if they wanted to become static and later extinct) and kill whatever was available or chase away animals that had already killed. These things were 'learned at their father's knee' or rather at their father's back as they tried to keep up and not get eaten by whatever they were hunting.

This tribe would starve if they couldn't find anything.

The tribes that didn't starve were the ones that 'learned' where the animals went and which ones were easiest to kill or frighten off. And the tribe that eventually communicated instead of taught by example passed on their knowledge more surely and with greater efficiency. The one or perhaps two people that could tell the tribe where the animals would be, on what day and at what time because they had labels for day and time and animals and weapons would actually become godlike.

If they knew where the animals were maybe they knew other things, like why fire burns or what that is that hangs in the sky at night instead of the sun. It doesn't matter if they don't actually know about things that can't be proven because the proof of things is demonstrated by their knowledge of where animals will be.

After all this it is the language user that will have the most influence on the tribe and only because he has language can he create religion. Without language, anything that happens (lightning, floods, drought, getting eaten by big cats) are things that merely happen. They have no cause, they have no consequence because there is no language.

Until you have language, there can be no religion. Until you can communicate there is no civilised society. Until you can predict the future there can be no God. And the first man that predicts the future (the next meal) is god.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The gist of it is that religion is based on the experience of the sacred, and the sacred being experienced is in fact the society itself.

As every social scientific theory, of course, it's scope is not completely universal - i.e. you will find examples that do not fit - but it is quite explanatory when you get into it. And yes, it comes in book format.

But... gist considered and everything, what is the actual argument? Short of that, it sounds like a theory much like others.

 

[cantdog]

Joe makes a great big request here. If you feel up to it, you will find Joe a good one to have such a discussion with. Just saying.

Joe, I'm not at all sure Summer Morning has English as a milk language. I would relish such a discussion, though, all the same.