Fighting for Muslim women's Rights--BBC story

[cathy]

Cain and Abel

I think part of the Hebrew myth of Cain and Able was about Cain doing "womens' work" which was not as "important" as men's work, plus was punishable because he was stepping out of his male role. (This is an opinion, not a fact, but one that makes sense in view of the clearly defined roles in that society.)

Interesting, I never heard this theory before. Cain was angry because God did not find his offerings as pleasing as he found Abel's. My Bible Lit prof. suggested that this indicated the God of the Old Testament wanted to steer his people into animal husbandry as their primary mode of food production in preference over agriculture.

From King James Bible, Genesis 4:1-16 (incidentally, this story is found in the Koran as well)

- - - - - - -
Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
- - - - - - -

Cathy

 

[Aisha Azar]

Women's work, etc.

Interesting, I never heard this theory before. Cain was angry because God did not find his offerings as pleasing as he found Abel's. My Bible Lit prof. suggested that this indicated the God of the Old Testament wanted to steer his people into animal husbandry as their primary mode of food production in preference over agriculture.

From King James Bible, Genesis 4:1-16 (incidentally, this story is found in the Koran as well)

- - - - - - -
Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
- - - - - - -

Cathy

Dear Cathy,
I did study religion as I spent many years truly looking hard for answers to questions like "Who are we? Why are we here? What does God want from us? etc, etc. This also took me into various sociological studies, mythology, history, etc, and in the end I noted that most societies have women as tillers of the soil or gatherers, and men as hunters (or pillagers), with SOME overlap but often not much in patriarchal societies. It set me to wondering about the Cain/Able story and what it's multiple messages might be. I often seem off the beaten path, (like in many of my ideas about the dance, LOL). I have even sat with a couple of Jesuit priests by the hour discussing such stuff, only to find that often they have their own interesting takes on things!! I just think we need to look a little deeper and see what else might be there besides what we have always believed to be true especially in the larger scheme of things. As I said, the Cain/ Able thing is an opinion of my own. I have never heard this theory before, either....)
Regards,
A'isha

 

[Shanazel]

It is an interesting theory. Women were primarily the agronomists because growing crops was a job they could do while watching children, along with things like weaving, cooking, etc. I can see where a man interested in crops (girl stuff) v. animals (he-man stuff) might be looked at askance at certain points in history and legend.

 

[masrawy]

SabaH El Kheir Ya Mahmoud,

Firstly, I feel the desire to defend Cathy here.

I have always enjoyed Cathy's posts as she questions everything and adds food for thought beyond the superficial. I admire anyone who can stick their head above the pavement and do this. It is about a personal desire to learn and understand rather than attack.

What followed this interesting news report was a very general discussion about why and how sexism came about, and no place has been blamed in one area.

With regards to how Islam is practised, I am not sure that finding a religious centre and joining them is such a good idea? :think:

Something like this should come recommneded or introduced by a friend.

My husband was advised not to go to the Mosque when he moved to the UK as there are 'strange people around'. He was advised by other Egyptians whom had lived in the UK as they had not liked it.

He dismissed this entirely and went to find the Mosque. 3 weeks in he decided not to go anymore. He felt it was not the Islam he knew and understood from Egypt. My brother in law lives in London and is experiencing similar things. The cultural triggers were not present and the delivery was so different he was afraid it was not real somehow. He didnt like the tone and attidude of some of the guest speakers. He felt they were not qualified enough, and would not accept anyone who had not trained at Azhar.
He considers himself to be very knowlegable about his religion and wont allow anyone to preach to him.

Many people perhaps do not know the difference?

You cannot assume that all people think the same and come from the same postition. One church is different from another in every country too etc.

You know very well that most things are open to abuse and anyone can add their own spin onto anything.

I have studied the Arts and Islam with the Arts Council of Britian. It was all led by Muslims, I have also been to on various training courses led by the Islamic Institute to study youth work with young Muslim people.

The idealogy and cultural differences here in the Muslim UK are very different from that in Egypt. It is very influenced by the dominating culture here which is Pakistan, in Liverpool it is also Yemeni.

I was a trustee for the Liverpool Arabic Club for years.

We had representatives on various council groups for local government.

The representatives would report back often feeling annoyed that there were other Muslims present painting a very different picture from them.
This was very common.
In other words, you cannot visit and befriend one group and take everything they say as 'it'.

It is a valid experience and perspective, but not the only one.

Interpretations and culture do differ from country to country and this does appear to be about interpretation.

If I have had one valuable lesson in life then it is this....question everything.

Sabah el nour 3albanour ya set Caroline,

firstly, I have exercised today for the first time the ignore list ...
I do find Cathy a formidable opponent and an avid reader but I do question her intention, looking for only for the negatives what came across to me. I crossed the road with her before and it was her way or the highway. She asked questions but when she didn't like the answers, she questioned my background and why I am here. I responded with grace but she just spit and walked away.
I'll be honest with you, I don't understand people who put themselves in a box and then wonder why we're there.Okay, enough ranting

Anyway, I do understand what's your husband and brother-in-law have been through since I have very similar experience. I did not mean for anyone to join a mosque. I was saying, go find for yourself ... question everything. We became slave to Google as our only source of knowledge and forgot the human interaction.
Best regards to you and your family~Aw sabah el kheer bellal~Mahmoud

 

[lizaj]

I think it's easier for people and the media to label it a religious factor than truly going into depth also I think it allows them to forget that not even a century ago our society held pretty much the same traditions to the ones we now view as 'oppressive or uncivilised' such as arranged marriages or female rights to vote. In fact the big turning point for women's rights was WWI and WWII. For England it wasn't until the 1870's that abuse was grounds for divorce (before that a man had the right to come after a abused wife and 'kidnap' her back home)

I recently saw a news story that Britain has changed the laws regrding domestic abuse and homicide and one aspect was that it refused to allow men to basically claim nagging as an legitimate excuse for spousal abuse or murder :shok:- people forget the West still has far to go to reach equality but I think it uses Islam and other cultures as an excuse to boost itself. I mean in the UK there's no right to freedom of speech unless you are in speakers corner nor do we have a written constitution....

Sita

and we are not even citizens..don't forget...we are subjects!

 

[Sita]

Oh Masrawy you doubter of the mighty Google :naghty: next you'll be doubting the credibility of Wikipedia :shok:

Also just to add to what Caroline said I think at the moment in the UK at times any discussion about Islam and women - draws on so many stereotypes that even some Muslim women (at least some of my acquaintance) are withdrawing from discussions because they're sick to death of having to be placed as Defender of something that they shouldn't need to defend or deal with uninformed assumptions. Particularly when having to deal with presumptions of Western superiority.

And some interfaith groups seem to be more about who is right than just learning or exchanging ideas...one example was the monotheists ganging up on the others (because they didn't want a pagan head of committee or something)

Sita

 

[Sita]

and we are not even citizens..don't forget...we are subjects!

So True !! (blood filling with leftist rage grrr...):doh::doh::wall::wall:

Sita

 

[lizaj]

So True !! (blood filling with leftist rage grrr...):doh::doh::wall::wall:

Sita

For a nation who managed very neatly to get rid of a monarch...we have done very badly.
Then the French go and make a better job of it!!!!!!!!!:doh:

But hey if we have a thicko head of state .at least we didn't vote them in!:lol:

 

[masrawy]

Wikipedia ... What??

Oh Masrawy you doubter of the mighty Google :naghty: next you'll be doubting the credibility of Wikipedia :shok:

Also just to add to what Caroline said I think at the moment in the UK at times any discussion about Islam and women - draws on so many stereotypes that even some Muslim women (at least some of my acquaintance) are withdrawing from discussions because they're sick to death of having to be placed as Defender of something that they shouldn't need to defend or deal with uninformed assumptions. Particularly when having to deal with presumptions of Western superiority.

And some interfaith groups seem to be more about who is right than just learning or exchanging ideas...one example was the monotheists ganging up on the others (because they didn't want a pagan head of committee or something)

Sita

Actually, my IP is blocked from editing in Wikipedia ... I don't waste my time there anymore.
As for Muslim women is being looked at by the West as weak, stupid, abused by someone and don't even know how dressed. To their standards, of course imagine if the Westerner women been told continuously that she's forced to wear this or that ....

 

[Shanazel]

Firstly, I feel the desire to defend Cathy here.

I have always enjoyed Cathy's posts as she questions everything and adds food for thought beyond the superficial. I admire anyone who can stick their head above the pavement and do this. It is about a personal desire to learn and understand rather than attack.

What followed this interesting news report was a very general discussion about why and how sexism came about, and no place has been blamed in one area.

Caroline expressed what I wanted to say myself. Cathy is a seeker of deeper understanding. Sometimes that means not accepting statements at face value, and sometimes that is construed as negativity when it is simply thoroughness.

 

[cathy]

Thanks, Shanazel. Good to know not everyone sees me as pointing out only the negative. There is a great deal that I admire about Arab and Muslim culture. Raks Sharki! The music--nearly all of it! The oud! Farid al Atrache! Geometric art patterns! The call to prayer! The beauty of Arabic script! The invention of algebra! The Taj Mahal!

I do find Cathy a formidable opponent and an avid reader but I do question her intention, looking for only for the negatives what came across to me. I crossed the road with her before and it was her way or the highway. She asked questions but when she didn't like the answers, she questioned my background and why I am here. I responded with grace but she just spit and walked away.
I'll be honest with you, I don't understand people who put themselves in a box and then wonder why we're there.Okay, enough ranting

Anyway, I do understand what's your husband and brother-in-law have been through since I have very similar experience. I did not mean for anyone to join a mosque. I was saying, go find for yourself ... question everything. We became slave to Google as our only source of knowledge and forgot the human interaction.

Not sure there is any point in my responding to Mahmoud, assuming it is I who have been placed on his ignore list (should I take that as a compliment?!? :think. But I agree about questioning everything, and also about the value of direct human interactions. I do a lot of questioning in person too!

Might I suggest that you actually attend one of the shows that Tarik has invited you to, rather than hiding behind YOUR computer and suggesting he wear his dance costume to a Halloween party?!? Would you go to a Halloween party dressed as a photographer? Would you think that was funny?

As far as human interactions go, I went to Egypt for the first time this past summer. I can't go as often as you do. And as someone who has worked her whole adult life in academic and reference publishing, I think I can safely say that I understand the difference between a well-researched source and turning to Google for answers. I actually haven't posted any links to Wikipedia or anything I found on Google, if you will notice. BBC and The New York Times are newspapers with very high reputations, as far as newspaper reputations go. Granted, that is only so far! I question them too.

Mahmoud, I did not respond to you further on the "Dance Career in Egypt" thread not because I was running away but because I was satisfied by your answer and had nothing more I felt needed to be said about it.

I am limited insofar as I cannot read or speak Arabic. So I can read only sources written in English (or French at a stretch) and therefore my perspective will be limited. But I really do seek to understand.

I don't believe that sexism as expressed in the Middle East is a function of Islam, though some even there see it that way. As far as I can tell it predated Islam by a great deal. From what I can tell, conditions for women in the Middle East have improved a lot in the past 100 years and I am very glad about that.

I am not saying there is no sexism in the West--of course there is, plenty of it—though things have improved for women in the West too.

I want to know what actual women in the Middle East want. I am aware that they may not define happiness or choice the same way I do.

Cathy

 

[masrawy]

Not a big deal ...

Hey guys,
No need to defend anybody I just expressed my doubt about the intention of the author of this post. Since the posts was just thrown in as a news partial no comment or even a Question. :think:
I turned my ignore list, I don't have to see her posts and I'm not telling her what to do. It's as simple as that so don't make a big deal out of it, cause it's not.

 

[Caroline_afifi]

Hey guys,
No need to defend anybody I just expressed my doubt about the intention of the author of this post. Since the posts was just thrown in as a news partial no comment or even a Question. :think:
I turned my ignore list, I don't have to see her posts and I'm not telling her what to do. It's as simple as that so don't make a big deal out of it, cause it's not.

Ya Am,

It's not a big deal...it's a discussion! :lol:

Sometimes when we learn about something 'different', we have to deal with what we see as the biggest differences first.
Or at least the things that jump out at us the most.

Muslim life in the UK has until quite recently been a very closed community.

When 'Nadey al Cul' was set up in Liverpool back in 1996, our aim was to bridge the Arab and non Arab community of Liverpool.

This was how the Arab Arts festival was born, the Arts proved to be the most fruitful and positive way to bring people together.

There is a need generally for more intergration and interaction but people need a forum to say exactly what is on their mind and explore the issues they are interested in.

This needs to be a safe forum where everybody needs to feel listened to and not judged. There are still very few places in the UK where this interchange can happen. Where else can this happen?

Last year I was providing training to youth workers in 'Muslim youth work'.

The main topics raised were all those which are percieved to go against equality (which for most should be a principle of life).
What people eat and drink and do in their spare time was fairly low on the agenda. The delegates needed most all all a space to question their current knowledge and understanding and gave examples.

My co-worker in the training was a disabled Egyptian guy called Khaled Shalaby (who was famous for being the first disabled person to swim the English channel).

Khaled was patient, calm and understanding and made everyone feel at ease.
This approach allowed the particpants to feel ok enough to face some of their feelings around these issues and challenge them.

It only takes one defensive person in the room to send everyone retreating back into their shell.

We all get passionate and impatient, and online I do it more than in life because I dont see the person before me.

We have something valuable going on in this forum, lets keep it going... lets continue to explore and debate important issues.
Let us create an atmosphere which allows this to continue without insult.
Let us continue to challenge ourselves and others but in a way which doesnt exclude people.

 

[Farasha Hanem]

Interesting, I never heard this theory before. Cain was angry because God did not find his offerings as pleasing as he found Abel's. My Bible Lit prof. suggested that this indicated the God of the Old Testament wanted to steer his people into animal husbandry as their primary mode of food production in preference over agriculture.

From King James Bible, Genesis 4:1-16 (incidentally, this story is found in the Koran as well)

- - - - - - -
Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
- - - - - - -

Cathy

Hi, Cathy and A'isha, I hope you ladies don't mind if I chime in a bit. A'isha, that is an interesting theory; I've never heard of that one, either. Since you have studied many religions and human sciences, you are probably better educated than I am (I did take sociology in high school, but our teacher was, well, not a very good teacher, because one could sleep in his class and still get a "B" average... ). Anyway, since I'm sure you've studied Christianity, you're probably already familiar with what I'm about to put forth. From my understanding of the Christian Bible (and King James is the version I use), the reason why God was displeased with Cain's sacrifice was because the representation of what the sacrifice meant was not met in his offering of the fruit of his labor. The animal sacrifices in O.T. times represented the future event of Christ sacrificing His life, His body and blood, as an atonement for the sin nature of mankind. According to Christian theology, all of man's efforts to earn or work his way to Heaven will never be sufficient enough, because God is holy, and man's sinful nature causes all his efforts to become "good enough" for Heaven to never meet the standards of God's holiness. So God Himself provided the means by sending His sinless Son to pay for our sins. The offering of Cain represents man's vain efforts to earn Heaven. Like I said, though, you are more than likely already familiar with this info, but I hoped you didn't mind me throwing it out there, since I didn't see it represented in subsequent posts.

 

[Makeda Maysa]

Interesting, I never heard this theory before. Cain was angry because God did not find his offerings as pleasing as he found Abel's. My Bible Lit prof. suggested that this indicated the God of the Old Testament wanted to steer his people into animal husbandry as their primary mode of food production in preference over agriculture.

From King James Bible, Genesis 4:1-16 (incidentally, this story is found in the Koran as well)

- - - - - - -
Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
- - - - - - -

Cathy

It's interesting to read about what folks think about Bible stories when they are taken as literature. This is a thought-provoking theory.

What I have always believed is that God's problem was not with Cain's sacrifice, but with his heart. Abel's offering was not more pleasing because it was meat - it was more pleasing because he gave God the best of what he had. Cain's offering was not pleasing because he gave God the leftovers. Abel honored God rightly and Cain just gave Him a cursory sacrifice.

 

[cathy]

Hi, Cathy and A'isha, I hope you ladies don't mind if I chime in a bit. A'isha, that is an interesting theory; I've never heard of that one, either. Since you have studied many religions and human sciences, you are probably better educated than I am (I did take sociology in high school, but our teacher was, well, not a very good teacher, because one could sleep in his class and still get a "B" average... ). Anyway, since I'm sure you've studied Christianity, you're probably already familiar with what I'm about to put forth. From my understanding of the Christian Bible (and King James is the version I use), the reason why God was displeased with Cain's sacrifice was because the representation of what the sacrifice meant was not met in his offering of the fruit of his labor. The animal sacrifices in O.T. times represented the future event of Christ sacrificing His life, His body and blood, as an atonement for the sin nature of mankind. According to Christian theology, all of man's efforts to earn or work his way to Heaven will never be sufficient enough, because God is holy, and man's sinful nature causes all his efforts to become "good enough" for Heaven to never meet the standards of God's holiness. So God Himself provided the means by sending His sinless Son to pay for our sins. The offering of Cain represents man's vain efforts to earn Heaven. Like I said, though, you are more than likely already familiar with this info, but I hoped you didn't mind me throwing it out there, since I didn't see it represented in subsequent posts.

Animal sacrifice prefiguring Christ's sacrifice....no I hadn't heard that, except insofar as Jesus was the "lamb of God" and we also have phrases such as "sacrificial lamb." I always wish the Biblical stories and parables had more to them by way of explanation. Wouldn't it be useful if God had said, "Abel, I prefer your offerings over Cain's because ________"??

Concerning the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, I read one theory that Jesus meant "I am the Son of God" to mean "we are all the children of God and should love one another accordingly" but that his followers could not deal with this potentially much more radical message that all humans are equal. So they had to make a "sacrificial lamb" out of him and keep him on a much higher plane, so to speak.


P.S. This also makes me think about the way Jesus supposedly "fulfilled the law" of the OT and thereby in some respects freed the people from the letter of the law. I know animal sacrifice is quite common in the OT and obviously became less common in the Christian era, but was it an actual OT law? I don't think it is in the Ten Commandments......I wonder when it became less popular. Hhhmmm Food for thought!
Cathy

 

[cathy]

It's interesting to read about what folks think about Bible stories when they are taken as literature. This is a thought-provoking theory.

What I have always believed is that God's problem was not with Cain's sacrifice, but with his heart. Abel's offering was not more pleasing because it was meat - it was more pleasing because he gave God the best of what he had. Cain's offering was not pleasing because he gave God the leftovers. Abel honored God rightly and Cain just gave Him a cursory sacrifice.

This theory also makes sense. Cain acted in bitterness and jealousy after God's judgment. Maybe he had a chip on his shoulder before even making the offering. Hhmmm. Now I think I should go back and look at more of Genesis to see whether there are any clues.

 

[Aisha Azar]

Cain/Abel

Hi, Cathy and A'isha, I hope you ladies don't mind if I chime in a bit. A'isha, that is an interesting theory; I've never heard of that one, either. Since you have studied many religions and human sciences, you are probably better educated than I am (I did take sociology in high school, but our teacher was, well, not a very good teacher, because one could sleep in his class and still get a "B" average... ). Anyway, since I'm sure you've studied Christianity, you're probably already familiar with what I'm about to put forth. From my understanding of the Christian Bible (and King James is the version I use), the reason why God was displeased with Cain's sacrifice was because the representation of what the sacrifice meant was not met in his offering of the fruit of his labor. The animal sacrifices in O.T. times represented the future event of Christ sacrificing His life, His body and blood, as an atonement for the sin nature of mankind. According to Christian theology, all of man's efforts to earn or work his way to Heaven will never be sufficient enough, because God is holy, and man's sinful nature causes all his efforts to become "good enough" for Heaven to never meet the standards of God's holiness. So God Himself provided the means by sending His sinless Son to pay for our sins. The offering of Cain represents man's vain efforts to earn Heaven. Like I said, though, you are more than likely already familiar with this info, but I hoped you didn't mind me throwing it out there, since I didn't see it represented in subsequent posts.

Dear Farasha,
Your theory is one that was often presented at Catholic school as well, and is as reasonable as any other in the light that if such an event actually took place, none of us was there and therefore none of us knows! I feel that the Old Testament is really about Hebrew theology as opposed to Christian theology, since they do not see Christ as the One they are awaiting. Cain actually DID offer the fruit of his labor and the problem becomes that his work was somehow not good enough to make God happy, with there being various religious, sociological, psychological theories on why this might have been. Since God designed the human body, why does he not recognize that it is just as needful of fruits and vegetables as it is is meats and that therefore, the sacrifice was just as valid in human terms in a time when that food could have fed someone fresh or dried for future use? Christians who take communion now do not roast a sheep. They eat unleavened bread and drink wine... all stuff from vegetables and fruits. I wonder how a God feels about that....

There are also so many books and writings that were not included in the Bible, and some of them see the whole God/Jesus, thing in a very different way than what we have left of the Bible now, especially in the New Testament. Not long ago I read the Gospel of St. Thomas, which puts a more metaphysical spin on it all than do some of the other Gospels. And it does stress Cathy's point about Jesus thinking we are all "Sons of God", if you will, not that they do not ever go around talking about any of us being "Daughters of God". I do not know if this is a male chauvanist trait as in Paul not liking that women were equal in the eyes of Jesus and so he changed it, or if it is a situation of later translations, or if it is how Jesus saw it, or if the one pronoun suffices for us all and has nonspecific gender as Mahmoud has explained happens in writings in the Qur'an. Many Apocryphal writings have Jesus seeing women and men as equal...)
I think I need a nap.......
Regards,
A'isha

 

[Farasha Hanem]

Animal sacrifice prefiguring Christ's sacrifice....no I hadn't heard that, except insofar as Jesus was the "lamb of God" and we also have phrases such as "sacrificial lamb." I always wish the Biblical stories and parables had more to them by way of explanation. Wouldn't it be useful if God had said, "Abel, I prefer your offerings over Cain's because ________"??

Concerning the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, I read one theory that Jesus meant "I am the Son of God" to mean "we are all the children of God and should love one another accordingly" but that his followers could not deal with this potentially much more radical message that all humans are equal. So they had to make a "sacrificial lamb" out of him and keep him on a much higher plane, so to speak.


P.S. This also makes me think about the way Jesus supposedly "fulfilled the law" of the OT and thereby in some respects freed the people from the letter of the law. I know animal sacrifice is quite common in the OT and obviously became less common in the Christian era, but was it an actual OT law? I don't think it is in the Ten Commandments......I wonder when it became less popular. Hhhmmm Food for thought!
Cathy

The OT law was more than just the Ten Commandments. The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain the OT laws, and there are indeed laws for animal sacrifice. I'll have to do a bit of research when I'm not so tired.

A'isha, I got up this morning to work on the Bollywood costume I'm making, but I'm finding that I didn't get enough sleep last night. Wouldja mind scooching over? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Sorry for being so tired at the moment, A'isha. I always enjoy reading your posts, picking your brains, and reading your take on things.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

 

[cathy]

The OT law was more than just the Ten Commandments. The books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy contain the OT laws, and there are indeed laws for animal sacrifice. I'll have to do a bit of research when I'm not so tired.

Hi Farasha,

Yes I know about the other books of the OT but am not closely acquainted with all the details of Jewish law (though I did read at a bar mitzvah recently in the Torah sitting there in the --reform--temple that YHWH made some of his people eat their own babies as a punishment! :shok. What I was specifically wondering about is when the practice of animal sacrifice died out in the early Christian practice. Whether it was abandoned in the first century AD or later.

I think Communion is celebrated with bread and wine because that's what Jesus used at the last supper? Another thing to look up. Further to my previous point, I think most of the parables of Jesus are taught as metaphors but the "I am the Son of God" was interpreted at least by some quite literally along with "this is my body" and "this is my blood" sayings.

There are a lot of cannibalistic overtones in it all.