Human sacrifice to gods

[Dancefortwo]

What's up with this notion that  gods need to have things slaughtered and sacrificed to them.  It's common theology all around the world   What is it about humans that they think their (imaginary) god needs this?   Stuff like sheep, goats and humans are sacrificed.  Furthermore, I don't see any difference between Aztec human sacrifice and the sacrifice of Jesus.  It's the same thing.  Jesus is basically child sacrifice all gussied up. 

Comments?  Thoughts?

[Alan V]

Good question. I hadn't thought about this issue before.

Here is my best guess. Once believers assume an all-powerful, perfect God exists, they would have to wonder why he doesn't help them out a bit more. So I wonder if the idea of sacrifice arises from that. People figure they have to give something to get something. They naturally wouldn't sacrifice themselves since they are the people who are seeking the benefit from the exchange. So they sacrificed something they prized instead.

I would also guess that this idea works the same when people believe in multiple gods rather than a single God, except they would have no reason to assume the gods would even be interested in them without offering something first.

Anyway, I guess those are the kinds of rationalizations which follow from certain assumptions. They don't really have to make sense, they just have to make a good story and become ritualized or approved by some sort of authority to be perpetuated.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I sent a text to Isaac.

[jerry mcmasters]

Good question.  I hadn't thought about this issue before.

Here is my best guess.  Once believers assume an all-powerful, perfect God exists, they would have to wonder why he doesn't help them out a bit more.  So I wonder if the idea of sacrifice arises from that.  People figure they have to give something to get something.  They naturally wouldn't sacrifice themselves since they are the people who are seeking the benefit from the exchange.  So they sacrificed something they prized instead.

I would also guess that this idea works the same when people believe in multiple gods rather than a single God, except they would have no reason to assume the gods would even be interested in them without offering something first.

Anyway, I guess those are the kinds of rationalizations which follow from certain assumptions.  They don't really have to make sense, they just have to make a good story and become ritualized or approved by some sort of authority to be perpetuated.

Yeah it's likely one of the early and universal understandings that humans came up with was something akin to "You can't get something for nothing."  They're just applying that to cause-effect loops in a way that to them seemed "reasonable."

[Minimalist]

What better way for the priest-class to keep the commons under control?

There is no god but politics is real enough.

[Dancefortwo]

I wonder if it doesn't have it's origins in the prehistoric hunting of animals who essentially sacrifice their life to keep a human life alive and this idea was later transfered onto the gods.  Whadddya think?

[Dānu]

It's a form of magic, likely originating out of the beliefs about the nature of blood and its intimate relationship with life, which in history has been seen as miraculous, mysterious, inexplicable and having roots in the supernatural.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I wonder if it doesn't have it's origins in the prehistoric hunting of animals who essentially sacrifice their life to keep a human life alive and this idea was later transfered onto the gods.  Whadddya think?

Burnt offerings to the gods left the meat on the grill for the fat-ass priests.

[Dancefortwo]

I wonder if it doesn't have it's origins in the prehistoric hunting of animals who essentially sacrifice their life to keep a human life alive and this idea was later transfered onto the gods.  Whadddya think?

Burnt offerings to the gods left the meat on the grill for the fat-ass priests.

I don't know if prehistoric man had priests or priestesses but I was thinking in terms of the painted caves in France which depict  animals being hunted.  I wonder if they felt that the animal was sacrificing it's life to them and later things got twisted around and humans felt they needed to sacrifice themselves to their god. 

Whatever the case may be,  sacrifice is in almost all religions. Christianity's Jesus isn't all that special or different, despite what they claim.

[Alan V]

Human sacrifices were once popular at building dedications and before wars as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

Human sacrifice has been practised on a number of different occasions and in many different cultures. The various rationales behind human sacrifice are the same that motivate religious sacrifice in general. Human sacrifice is intended to bring good fortune and to pacify the gods, for example in the context of the dedication of a completed building like a temple or bridge.

In ancient Japan, legends talk about hitobashira ("human pillar"), in which maidens were buried alive at the base or near some constructions to protect the buildings against disasters or enemy attacks, and almost identical accounts appear in the Balkans (The Building of Skadar and Bridge of Arta).

For the re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs reported that they killed about 80,400 prisoners over the course of four days. According to Ross Hassig, author of Aztec Warfare, "between 10,000 and 80,400 persons" were sacrificed in the ceremony.

Human sacrifice can also have the intention of winning the gods' favour in warfare. In Homeric legend, Iphigeneia was to be sacrificed by her father Agamemnon to appease Artemis so she would allow the Greeks to wage the Trojan War.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, God's hungry and wants some barbecue. Makes sense to this Texan.

[Paleophyte]

What's up with this notion that  gods need to have things slaughtered and sacrificed to them.  It's common theology all around the world   What is it about humans that they think their (imaginary) god needs this?

Standard abusive relationship response. Maybe if I offer him a cheese sandwich he won't hit me with lightning anymore.

Jesus is basically child sacrifice all gussied up.

Gussied up?!? Read that bit about Abraham and Isaac's Father-Son trip up Mt. Moriah again.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Jesus is basically child sacrifice all gussied up.

Gussied up?!? Read that bit about Abraham and Isaac's Father-Son trip up Mt. Moriah again.

I agree with her that it's gussied up, in the sense that Your God Has Sacrificed His Own Son For You, Mortal. Abraham pulled back from the act; his god went through with it. I wonder sometimes if that's an accident, or an artifact of some ancient scribe with an ax to grind.

No matter the provenance, the clear message seems to me to be that no sacrifice could meet his ... but that we should try anyway.

[Minimalist]

Except the fucker really wasn't dead.  Kind of defeats the whole "sacrifice" scam.

[Bucky Ball]

"It was important that The Sacrifice of Natasha Romanoff was the ultimate step that was required in order for the Avengers to obtain the Soul Stone. When the Red Skull informed Black Widow and Hawkeye that they must sacrifice something that they love, the two fought over who would be the one to die, each wanting themselves to be the one, resulting in Black Widow being the casualty."

There is all kinds of nonsense about a just god requiring a commensurate price to be paid (sacrifice) in Christian theology.
I suspect it probably all started with some sort of good weather offering. There were a lot of cultures which practiced sacrifice and child-sacrifice.
It would be interesting to know what is the oldest confirmed archaeological evidence of it.

[Paleophyte]

Jesus is basically child sacrifice all gussied up.

Gussied up?!? Read that bit about Abraham and Isaac's Father-Son trip up Mt. Moriah again.

I agree with her that it's gussied up, in the sense that Your God Has Sacrificed His Own Son For You, Mortal. Abraham pulled back from the act; his god went through with it. I wonder sometimes if that's an accident, or an artifact of some ancient scribe with an ax to grind.

NT god maybe. OT god was all about the sacrifices on the altar. I suspect that the whole Abraham and Isaac tale was partly a holdover from older gods and partly trying to say, 'Look, our dude doesn't demand human sacrifice. Very progressive!'

No matter the provenance, the clear message seems to me to be that no sacrifice could meet his ... but that we should try anyway.

What that time god rented himself to himself cheap for the weekend in history's most epic anger management failure?

[airportkid]

You have to laugh at the perfidy of human sacrifice; that it pretended to offer to the gods that which we deemed most valuable, a fellow human, when those who were slain on the altar were never kings or ministers, in the hope the gods wouldn't notice they were being offered stale porridge instead of rare sirloin - an attempt to fool these gods who were believed to be all knowing.  The unintended irony is that the sacrifices probably did occasionally "serve up" people who genuinely were among the best examples of humanity - erudite, compassionate, wise - but who would never become kings and ministers because the rogues (as they do to this day) monopolize those seats.  Perhaps the gods were keen to this irony, and let mankind pat itself on the back for "successfully" deceiving them.  Gods always get the last laugh, especially the non-existent ones who successfully deceive mankind otherwise 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Apparently, in soime early civilizations, kings were sacrificable. But then learned to appoint a temporary king who ruled in a limited fashion for a short time, and then was sacrificed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_king

The sacred king, the human embodiment of the dying and reviving vegetation god, was supposed to have originally been an individual chosen to rule for a time, but whose fate was to suffer as a sacrifice, to be offered back to the earth so that a new king could rule for a time in his stead.

Can we sacrifice Donald J. Trump already?

[Minimalist]

"God", if there were a "god" would be insulted by such a "sacrifice."

[Szuchow]

What's up with this notion that  gods need to have things slaughtered and sacrificed to them.  It's common theology all around the world   What is it about humans that they think their (imaginary) god needs this?   Stuff like sheep, goats and humans are sacrificed.  Furthermore, I don't see any difference between Aztec human sacrifice and the sacrifice of Jesus.  It's the same thing.  Jesus is basically child sacrifice all gussied up. 

Comments?  Thoughts?

It may be that religion was thought about differently back then and gods were seen as more relatable and not averse to doing something for a right price. Look to Roman religion and it's theme of do, ut des (I give so you will give back). In that light it does not seem strange.

[Dancefortwo]

Except the fucker really wasn't dead.  Kind of defeats the whole "sacrifice" scam.

Yabut, "he suffered for our sins".   According to the legend Jesus was flogged and hung up on a stick because we're such awful people.  It's only when we accept Jesus' painful sacrifice that we can consider ourselves worthy of god's love.  It's astoninshing how much much S & M there is in Christianity.

[mordant]

Theologically this is referred to as "substitutionary atonement". Once you accept that there is a sin / guilt problem then there has to be a mechanism for god's judgment to be "satisfied". This is posited as necessary because if god either allowed sin among his people or "condoned" it, he would be guilty himself ... plus, justice demands it.

The OT sacrificial system would have you slit the throat of a lamb, the most pathetic and innocent creature conceivable, to which your personal guilt would then be transferred. This system, quite apart from the mystical / magical assertions, would have a certain psychological effect on the participant. Imagine yourself taking a widdle wamb to die in terror and fear for YOUR sins. It would tend to increase your self-loathing and your efforts to be as blameless as possible. Assuming you gave a fuck in the first place. Sociopaths, then as now, got a free pass.

The NT system envisions Jesus as the "lamb of god" taking away the sins of the entire world, but like Lucy and her football, not quite, not really. Only if you trust him, for pure enough reasons, and in the right way, and so forth. And even then it's not like your life gets any better in exchange for it. You feel both less and more guilty, and any real reward is deferred to the afterlife. You still struggle with your "sin nature". You're spared an actual creature from your own farm or bought with your own money being sacrificed explicitly in your stead. You're spared the pilgrimage to the temple to do the deed. You're spared in theory the need to do it more than once, even symbolically. But you still are in the endless cycle of fighting your inherent nature, repenting, renewing your commitment, and failing anyway.

All of this is a product of the notion of sin which is completely bogus anyway. In reality humans are flawed, with various deficits of empathy and cognition, always struggling to be more empathetic and rational, and it's not overseen by god but by our own conscience and by society. Self-flagellation and propitiating sacrifices don't help matters. We help each other and ourselves. That is all. No religion or clergy or deity required to help you with it. If anything they perpetuate the problem. Imagine what would happen if everyone or most everyone actually achieved sinlessness and maintained it. What use would the church be? So they don't want or contemplate any truly effective solution to the problem of the human condition. They have simply weaponized the human condition for their own enrichment.

[Minimalist]

Theologically this is referred to as "substitutionary atonement". Once you accept that there is a sin / guilt problem then there has to be a mechanism for god's judgment to be "satisfied"

Yes, yes, yes!

This is precisely why I have (slightly) more respect for fundies than cherry-pickers.  The fundies are morons who think that absurd myths are real but at least they are fully cognizant of the fact that without those myths the whole story collapses like a house of cards.  Without the "fall of man" the whole fucking jesus story is meaningless.

[Dom]

Meat used to be like gold, and your livestock was the most precious possession, and of course your offspring was even more valuable to you.

They are the things that hurt most.

[Bucky Ball]

Theologically this is referred to as "substitutionary atonement". Once you accept that there is a sin / guilt problem then there has to be a mechanism for god's judgment to be "satisfied"

Yes, yes, yes!

This is precisely why I have (slightly) more respect for fundies than cherry-pickers.  The fundies are morons who think that absurd myths are real but at least they are fully cognizant of the fact that without those myths the whole story collapses like a house of cards.  Without the "fall of man" the whole fucking jesus story is meaningless.

They were once apocalyptic Jews who thought the end was immanent. Then it didn't happen ... not when the temple was destroyed, not when Jerusalem was destroyed. So, now what ? Invent something. "Salvation". The role of a messiah was never to save anyone from sin. They invented the "fall" to keep the new cult going. So they invented "original sin". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin