Sacrifice

[Milfoil]

It's been a part of pretty much every religion. It is still a part of some belief systems and it takes many different forms. In the past there has been everything from human sacrifice, through animals and plants but do you think it is still necessary?

Why did our ancestors think that killing a human or an animal and offering it to a God/dess would curry favour of that deity?

With human sacrifice, history would seem to show that all those civilisations were brought down by natural disasters, whether volcanoes with the Minoans or flooding and drought with the Myans and Nazca so clearly the sacrifice didn't work and I have to wonder at whether these societies were brought down by a greater force to stop these kinds of sacrifice??? I also sometimes wonder if the human sacrifice did not originate with a person willing to self sacrifice their own life so that they could commune with the Gods from the other side and help their people, a bit like Christ sacrificing himself on the cross.

Many of the cultures I have researched still offer sacrifices by killing animals. In our hunter-gatherer past, the relationship between the hunter and hunted was much more complex, respectful and spiritual than today's supermarket packaged meat culture. The prayers offered to the spirit of the animal hunted asking, pleading for the spirit of that animal to sacrifice itself so that the humans could eat and live. The honouring of that sacrifice through ceremony when the hunter returned with his catch and the gratitude prayers over the prepared meat are all much more understandable when in context. Those who still live nomadic lives, herding and tending flocks of animals still do this but the hunt has evolved into mutual and respectful arrangement of co-dependance. The animals are tended, protected and honoured but the price for that is that some will be sacrificed and eaten.

Today many people look upon sacrifice of flesh as inhumane, unnecessary, inappropriate or worse but what are your thoughts? Do you offer any kind of sacrifice when doing certain spiritual work? If so, what do you offer and why?

 

[Zephyros]

I think it would be walking on thin ice to suggest that certain cultures were destroyed by "God" because we think they are wrong.

The concept of a sacrifice is a potent one, transcending "theoretical" spirituality. The "scapegoat" is of biblical origin, where the Israelites "loaded" all their sins onto a goat and then cast it out or sacrificed it (also, replace goat with Christ and you get the same idea under a different name).

However, although the nature of sacrifices have changed, one can still find echoes of it to this day. Followers of Zoroaster in Iran and India still use "towers of silence" on which bodies of the deceased are placed to be eaten by vultures. After the destruction of the Second Temple, Jewish law proscribed that in lieu of that altar, the dinner table was to be a substitute with specific items and foods recreating the Temple services. The tradition of "sacrificing" a turkey on Thanksgiving is a very ancient idea, although divorced from spiritual connotations, but the "religious" aspect in this case in nationalism. The wafer and wine are symbolic of human sacrifice.

My point is that it is not for us to always judge other societies by our own standards, whether they existed in the past or present, since ritual sacrifice (and even real animal sacrifice) is still practiced, but it is important to understand its reasons and mechanics. When an offering was brought to the Temple in Jerusalem, it wasn't burned to a crisp, but rather it was eaten by the priests. Nothing was wasted and the animal was humanely killed because of kosher dietary laws which prohibit the suffering of the animal. If you also think about the fact that the average person in those times was probably mostly vegetarian since meat was expensive and probably unhealthy, you actually get a far more humane society where an animal has special significance and its sacrifice and consumption would be a special and solemn occasion.

In any case, it still is better and more humane than the free killing we have in any case, mountains of animals die every day to satisfy the need for a commodity people don't think or care about. A cow probably looks like a patty and pigs are just disembodied ribs running around.

As to more "modern" forms of sacrifice, they still exist. Sex Magick uses a form of "ecstatic sacrifice," and Crowley himself spoke of sacrificing "hundreds" of "children" in a year. Islam has a form of sacrifice in which a rich person is obligated at least once in his lifetime to sacrifice a large animal, giving the proceeds to the poor (by "many people" I guess you left out a billion and a half Muslims). In Greece, animal sacrifice is still practiced by Christians, also in Israel before the Day of Atonement. Hinduism practices it widely.

In fact, just looking at the Wikipedia article, it seems animal sacrifice is almost like eating insects: most of the world does it, but it is deemed abhorrent only by the West.

 

[Milfoil]

I think it would be walking on thin ice to suggest that certain cultures were destroyed by "God" because we think they are wrong.

While I agree with you in principle, I still think about it and wonder . . . All the human sacrifices didn't stop the problem or change it so were they appropriate or necessary? Did sacrificing life of any kind pay a sufficient price to buy the favour of the Gods? It's not a case of judging the beliefs or decisions of another culture but a genuine question as to whether any kind of life sacrifice is appropriate. If it is, why don't we continue it? If it isn't necessary or appropriate then perhaps it is our own selves, our time, energy, selflessness and compassion that are? I'm not so much saying that they ARE wrong but looking at the historical evidence of all cultures to answer the question of whether sacrificing a living thing has use or merit .

The concept of a sacrifice is a potent one, transcending "theoretical" spirituality. The "scapegoat" is of biblical origin, where the Israelites "loaded" all their sins onto a goat and then cast it out or sacrificed it (also, replace goat with Christ and you get the same idea under a different name).

However, although the nature of sacrifices have changed, one can still find echoes of it to this day. Followers of Zoroaster in Iran and India still use "towers of silence" on which bodies of the deceased are placed to be eaten by vultures. After the destruction of the Second Temple, Jewish law proscribed that in lieu of that altar, the dinner table was to be a substitute with specific items and foods recreating the Temple services. The tradition of "sacrificing" a turkey on Thanksgiving is a very ancient idea, although divorced from spiritual connotations, but the "religious" aspect in this case in nationalism. The wafer and wine are symbolic of human sacrifice.

My point is that it is not for us to always judge other societies by our own standards, whether they existed in the past or present, since ritual sacrifice (and even real animal sacrifice) is still practiced, but it is important to understand its reasons and mechanics. When an offering was brought to the Temple in Jerusalem, it wasn't burned to a crisp, but rather it was eaten by the priests. Nothing was wasted and the animal was humanely killed because of kosher dietary laws which prohibit the suffering of the animal. If you also think about the fact that the average person in those times was probably mostly vegetarian since meat was expensive and probably unhealthy, you actually get a far more humane society where an animal has special significance and its sacrifice and consumption would be a special and solemn occasion.

Honour and respect for the Spirit of an animal is to be greatly encouraged but is there a difference between prayer and supplication to the Spirit of the animal to ask that IT sacrifice its life so that we may survive and killing an animal to offer it AS a sacrifice so that our prayer for something or our honour of a deity is satisfied? There seems to be a vast difference to me which I am trying to fathom out.

In any case, it still is better and more humane than the free killing we have in any case, mountains of animals die every day to satisfy the need for a commodity people don't think or care about. A cow probably looks like a patty and pigs are just disembodied ribs running around.

As to more "modern" forms of sacrifice, they still exist. Sex Magick uses a form of "ecstatic sacrifice," and Crowley himself spoke of sacrificing "hundreds" of "children" in a year. Islam has a form of sacrifice in which a rich person is obligated at least once in his lifetime to sacrifice a large animal, giving the proceeds to the poor (by "many people" I guess you left out a billion and a half Muslims). In Greece, animal sacrifice is still practiced by Christians, also in Israel before the Day of Atonement. Hinduism practices it widely.

In fact, just looking at the Wikipedia article, it seems animal sacrifice is almost like eating insects: most of the world does it, but it is deemed abhorrent only by the West.

I agree about animal sacrifice being an intrinsic part of belief and religious practice all over the world but this is why I ask the question. Just because it has been or still is done, what does it actually achieve? Are these religions carrying on something from their ancient past that has morphed into something else? Are we doing something just because it has always been done that way; without question? To question something doesn't necessarily mean to judge.

Fasting is also a part of virtually all belief systems, it has a greater sense of sacrifice in many ways than killing. I wonder if the sacrifice of an animal owned is more like giving charity or offering something of value? The difference between an offering and a sacrifice is a distinction which is often blurred.

 

[Richard]

Human sacrifice is an absolutely vital component of Christianity. At the Roman Catholic celebration of the Mass/Eucharist, there is a symbolic reenactment of the sacrifice of the God-Man, followed by the eating of his "very flesh" by the communicants. It is considered a heresy to deny that the real flesh of the Christ (created by theurgistic alchemy) is being consumed.

There seems to be a very deep need in the human psyche for some sort of animal or human sacrifice. The actual sacrificial acts may be outlawed, but I believe that they will merely be replaced by symbolic or magical substitutes.

 

[Milfoil]

But the human sacrifice in Christianity (Jesus dying on the cross) was, we are told, a voluntary act of self sacrifice. This is different from taking the life of another surely?

I do agree though that the concept of a flesh sacrifice is prevelant in many religions. It seems to have much older origins than the religions themselves.

 

[Zephyros]

I'm not saying you're wrong Milfoil.

While I deplore any kind of cruelty to animals, and obviously people, I still do see a sacrifice as a real manifestation, the "special effects" of religion, if you will. Fasting is another important aspect, but sometimes self-flagellation isn't what is needed, and the flames of a pyre serve to show believers what the Godhead is. Personally I don't agree with any organized religion, but I can see the logic of such an act, especially as with the Jewish Kapparoth and the Muslim Haj offering, the sacrifice is not wasted as the animal goes to the poor afterwards.

If we go a little further to modern times, every magickal act has a price, something that must be given in order for your Will to be exacted. This can be a transference of energy, or a sacrifice. The sacrifice need not be an animal; in Japan offerings such as cigarettes and whiskey are used many times as offerings to ancestors. Anything that shows your faith, such as the circling of the Kaaba, could be a form of sacrifice. Besides, I don't think it is up to us to judge if it does any good, since we have our own spiritual beliefs that also may or may not do any good.

Also, it is important to understand where these cultures are coming from. God told Adam he could eat from any tree in the garden, and to name the beasts. Later on, Noah receives the same instruction, but with the addition of eating animals. By saving them, Noah asserted Man as the dominant species under which all others serve. This isn't very PC, but according to the Bible, which I don't agree with, the purpose of animals is to serve man. Echoes of this are apparent everywhere; the goat-headed Baphomet is the sin-laden goat of the Israelites.

 

[Debra]

I think it's the ancient, collective interpretation of the profound shared grief of our ancestors when women die in childbirth. That's the first loss to the tribe, the woman dead, and the gain, the baby that lives anyway. The model of intentional sacrifice is men dying in defense of the tribe, fighting animal predators or other people.

After that I think you start asking for volunteers and killing hostages as sacrifices.

 

[a_gnostic]

...It is considered a heresy to deny that the real flesh of the Christ (created by theurgistic alchemy) is being consumed...

That's a novel way to understand what's actually going on there. I don't believe that applies to the Protestant Communion ceremony, but it's a fascinating consideration.

 

[Debra]

Also, the history of our species is that we were until recently prey. That's from Barbara Ehrenreich's book "Blood Rites" and knocked my socks off--I think she's right about almost everything.

The predator that's busy eating Bob isn't paying attention to the rest of us. RIP Bob, and thank you. "He died and we live" becomes "He died so we live." It seems very logical.

 

[Richard]

That's a novel way to understand what's actually going on there. I don't believe that applies to the Protestant Communion ceremony, but it's a fascinating consideration.

That's true. Most Protestants don't buy the doctrine of transubstantiation at all. They generally think it is superstitious nonsense. Lutherans are sort of halfway on the issue. The Episcopal/Anglican church more-or-less leaves it up to the individual, but officially it is not one of their beliefs. I'm not sure about other catholic churches, such as Greek Orthodox.