Human sacrafice, why has it been ubiquitous in early societies?

Didn't he go along with it to spare some petty thief?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

God sacrificing his only son is NOT, repeat, NOT the same thing as one human sacrificing another human to appease some pagan god.

And you think that's the same thing as a ritual sacrifice in order to appease some pagan gods?

I mean, hey, y'all can believe that if you want, or if you think that's the same thing, but I don't.

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Answer my question Baron Max, how are you redeemed as a Christian? Is cruxificition not a ritual execution or are you drawing the line at pagan? If others religions do it, it is sacrifice.

 

I don't think this is the religion forum, Joe. If you want discuss religious beliefs, go there. This is a thread about human sacrifice in early societies ...which ain't got nothin' to do with my personal beliefs.

The crucifixion of Jesus is not, by any normal definition of the term, a human sacrifice.

Baron Max

 

You are running away from the question Baron Max, because you know the answer is, by the blood of Christ. The crucifixion of Christ was a sacrifice.

See this link from the Vatican:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19881026en.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice


In Christian teaching, God became incarnate in Jesus Christ (trinitarian view) or sacrificed his first-born son (divine yet distinct from God for non-trinitarians) to accomplish the reconciliation of God and humanity, which had separated itself from God through sin (see the concept of original sin). According to a view that has featured prominently in Western theology since early in the 2nd millennium, God's justice required an atonement for sin from humanity if human beings were to be restored to their place in creation and saved from damnation. However, God knew limited human beings could not make sufficient atonement, for humanity's offense to God was infinite, so God sent his only Son to become the sacrifice of the everlasting covenant. In Christian theology, this sacrifice replaced the insufficient animal sacrifice of the Old Covenant; Christ the "Lamb of God" replaced the lambs' sacrifice of the ancient Korban Todah (the Rite of Thanksgiving), chief of which is the Passover in the Mosaic law.

The human sacrifice of Christ is part and parcel of the Trinity which is almost a universal protestant belief (Mormon excepted).

So to the point, human sacrafice was practiced by humans in all parts of the globle at one time or another.

 

Christians don't like to call it that, but in historical context, it's not that far fetched. There was a middle eastern tradition of the scapegoat, and animal sacrifices were commonplace. Even in the bible they talk about Moses being commanded to sacrifice his son. Jesus was a kind of philosophical replacement for all these kinds of sacrifices, so it was compelling as well as economical.

 

I'm not running away from anything. I've stated with emphasis that the crucifixion of Jesus was not, repeat, NOT a human sacrifice as described and noted in the OP. Simple, Joe. I've answered the question ....but my personal religious beliefs have nothing to do with it.

Baron Max

 

What kind of garbage is that, Spider? Are you actually telling me that the Roman Empire went along happily with such "playacting" so that the Christians could have their human sacrifice? What??

Baron Max

 

Your personal beliefs as always have everything to deal with the topic at hand. Did you not read the article from the Pope;

"The Redemptive Value of Christ's Sacrifice
General Audience — October 26, 1988
—    The sacrifice of Christ's human life had an infinite value "?

What the Pope is knot an authority on this issue? You know more now than the Pope? Did you not read the commentary on the Trinity? Did you not read the Old Testiment?

 

Why? What's with this obsession you have with my personal beliefs? It has nothing to do with "human sacrifice". Or, worse, if it does, then shouldn't you be asking about the personal beleifs of all of those historians that you believe so easily and trustingly? What are their personal beliefs, Joe? Did you ask when you read the books about human sacrifice?

It also doesn't matter what the pope said about anything!

The crucifixion of Jesus had nothing to do with human sacrifice, it was punishment for his crimes against the Roman Empire.

Baron Max

 

LOL, no one cares about your personal beliefs. What I do care about are the facts. Are you telling me there is a big conspiracy on the part of anthropologists to make people believe something false, specifically the roll of human sacrifice in early societies?

As for the Pope's opinion on sacrifice, he is only the head of the oldest Christian Church in the world. What would he know about gospels or Christianity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

He has dedicated his entire life to the church and the study of the gospels. What would he know about Christ?

 

No one was thinking of it at the time, of course criminals were executed all the time. But, the doctrine of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins that grew up around the legend, is identical to the psychology of animal and human sacrifice in the past.

 

Then why the fuck do you keep pestering me about it?????

Facts? What are they, Joe? Aren't you the one that posted this topic in the first place? Are you now telling us that you posted it, making claims that "all" early human civilizations practiced human sacrifice, ......and you did that without knowing the facts?? C'mon, Joe, who are you trying to kid?

No, it's not a "conspiracy", it's simply one group of people using earlier speculations as a basis for their own speculatons! Mostly it's the younger Ph.D.s building on the old Ph.D.s without knowing the facts. And, Joe, I won't tell you how often that "mistake" occurs in the academic fields of study. It's everywhere, it's everywhere!

And look, Joe, you've done it, too. You've taken what someone (or more than one) has written as if it's true, and you posted some comments/questions here about the topic. Now, when you're questioned about it, you revert to saying "What I do care about are the facts." What's up with that?

Joe, you can't believe everything that you read! And you damned sure can't take somethign that you read as if its "factual" when it might not be factual. Having it published in a book does NOT mean that it's factual.

(Now, if it's typed on the Internet, that means that it's factual and true and real and honest and ....well, everything else!)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

Yep, after-the-fact. But human sacrifices in "all early human societies" is pointedly concerned with the sacrifice all being above board and out in the open and pre-fuckin'-meditated. Big difference, don'tcha think?

Baron Max

 

Yes, that was the innovation made possible by literacy.

 

I believe it's to test our faith. Also it is to give the gods what another soul? In some religions I think some gods even eat the souls in some like Greek go to Underworld but you're offering them a gift basically for them to do what they will. And wasn't Jesus a sacrifice to die for all of the wrongs that humanity did right?

 

The question seems to contain the assumption that all cultures value human life, therefore something extreme must make people kill their own citizens. As it was then and as it is now, the cause is religion. Some religions cause people not to value human life. The earlier the society, the less educated the people were, the more superstitious, the more vulnerable they were to wacky religious notions.

 

Unless you can provide some substantiating evidence and facts, I must disagree with your assertion. Humans have been killing OTHER humans since there was such a thing as "humans" ....even before religion was ever invented.

Wars came about in the early days of civilization more for the rights to territory, land, than about religion. Wars also occured because one group didn't like what they other group looked like.

A lot of people try to make claims against religion as the causes of war, but I just don't buy that holier-than-thou bullshit. Religion didn't cause wars, people caused wars because they wanted something, usu. land, or becuase they wanted to protect something, usu. land.

Hey, Spider, can you name any war in history that was really, actually started because of religious beliefs or religious urgings or whatever religious reasons? Facts and evidence would be nice, but...

Baron Max

 

I agree that in most cultures there has been human sacrifice to gods. If you continue to read Genesis you will notice that God did not actually intend to have Isaac sacrifice his son. According to the Bible, God supplied a bull to sacrifice. Has there been human sacrifice in the United States history?