Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why I believe the ACTUAL REASON why most if not all ancient Civilizations commited Human/Animal Sacr

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 
When did HUMAN sacrifice ever do this? lol! That's a bit off.




posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by Bone75
 
When did HUMAN sacrifice ever do this? lol! That's a bit off.



I was referring to animal sacrifice. Forgive me for not stating the obvious...


Btw... Who Dat!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 

Starting @ 29 mins.


edit on 22-6-2012 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Certain deities MAY require BLOOD to stay manifested within this 3rd dimension. So they may have been keeping the deity hear in exchange for its POWERs influence on the land crops livestock. I call it blood formulas and I think wars of today do the SAME thing NO MATTER IF FROM WEST OR EAST OR SOUTH OR NORTH. Its just important to get the blood flowing into EA*RTH. Sometimes I wonder if there were special capture chambers/tubs present to collect the blood or the bodyparts ect. Thats my 3 cents



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 
Thanks! WHO-DAT! (Talk about blood sacrifices? lol)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 
The first mention of animal sacrifice as a pleasing aroma is with Noah, Sacrifices is integral to the story of Adam and Eve's Sons--a few stories even fall between that. So the way it's portrayed is not like Aroma was the first thing on God's mind.

Aroma comes up to 3 pages of use, while sacrifice comes up to 9 pages.

To make matters more bizarre: Aroma was talked about with baking bread as sacrifice. Then comes the wine as soothing aroma.

And in most cases, the sacrifice was actually eaten by the priests--and sometimes by the people as a whole, as part of a celebration. Seriously. Only the priest's sacrifice was to be wholly consumed by fire, because they were sacrificing their part of the meal. So this makes this pleasing aroma the basis for a BBQ get together---another instance of the God of the Party.


When going into the New Testament about whether or not to eat meat, it's talking about meat sacrificed to idols. The meat sacrificed to some random god would be sold cooked in the marketplace in most cities--and would often be the only form of meat city-dwellers got. In a lot of places, the priest is your butcher.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 

There may have been certain circumstances where there was a... practical use for sacrifice, ie... cannibalism, or simply use the animal as a food source. The blood goes to the gods and we get the meat. Kind of macabre, but common enough.

However, I think that human and animal sacrifice generally has far more to do with psychology manifested so commonly as to bleed (no pun intended) into anthropology. Most specifically the single victim mechanism. The sacrifice formally or informally helps ease tensions within the community, and when the community is under stress there is more of a need for this cathartic relief, which is why it is so common to see more sacrifices during times of social/economic/environmental/whatever upheaval.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by redhorse
 


Hell, even most Christians I know look at these sacrifices as things that were meant more for the humans sacrificing than for the God whom the sacrifice was made to.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
The way I've always interprested the sacrifices in the past is real simple. Basically, people died from a myriad of things in those days. The average lifespan was maybe 30 or 40 years. Lots and lots of babies died too. With so much misery around them they lived emersed (no) drenched (!) in fear. That's why they create belief systems. Their belief systems answer their unanswerable questions and gave life purpose. And in their faith they would sacrifice to show their conviction (and honor), otherwise their god doubts them and opens the floodgates to even more punishment and mayhem.

It's a similar reason that modern christians pray and go to church. It's a form of self-punishment. They want to show their conviction to the almighty force, so they will frequently make sacrifices. Not the type that spill blood, but the type that confirm their faith. Like praying rather than watching TV or reading the bible instead of reading the newspaper. If they fail to prove their conviction or their faith then they will suffer an eternity in hell. That's scary, but the real world is the actual origin of their faith. Remember, without the initial presence in reality of death and mayhem and unanswerable questions, there'd be much less foundation for the reasoning to seek out a belief in a higher power that can save you or answer all of your (painful and enduring) questions and give life purpose.

When they sacrifice the accompanying feeling of pain reassures them of their conviction. So pain inevitably becomes something that's a virtue to undergo. It's a badge to the rites of passage. Jesus' 40 days and 40 nights in the desert is a perfect example of this rites of passage.

We fear dying. We fear an eternity in hell. We use religion and sacrifice to cope with it. Ironically, pain makes everything feel more real even as it's the very thing that causes us to seek unreal things to resolve our questions. Because of self-doubt, we always strive to prove ourselves deserving of something greater than the pain of living: an escape, nirvana, freedom from fear, streets of gold.

In effect, a dream of something better becomes our addiction. Our way out. It's still true today. We don't die at 30 anymore, but we still die. Disease isn't killing us in massive waves as it once did, but it still kills. So fears still remain and coping mechanism still exist. Much of it remains the same.
edit on 22-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by redhorse
 


Hell, even most Christians I know look at these sacrifices as things that were meant more for the humans sacrificing than for the God whom the sacrifice was made to.


Yes, which is true; and because modern sensibilities are stripped of (some of) the convolution of using religion to justify what usually amounts to scape-goating culminating in violence many are able to see this.

Also, the Judeo-Christian god specifically made it pretty clear that he had no need for blood sacrifice, although with Christianity there have been notable periods where this sort of violence became the remedy again; The Spanish Inquisition, The Burning Times, etc... Even though The Passion of Christ played out that entire victim mechanism with alacrity and made it even more unnecessary, it still manifests even in Christianity from time to time. It seems criminally counter-intuitive to the dogma, but folks is folks, and the need is still there regardless.

These days however, we tend to crucify our victims in the media instead, and although the culmination is (usually) not as violent it seems to fill the niche, but we live in relatively peaceful times...



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing80s
 


most of the rest of the world had blood sacrifices & the burning of the corpse as the sacrifice.


but the Maya among a few others just killed the subjects in a ritual manner...
and the subjects(victims) were brought uo to be honored sacrifices, and there was no cannibalism involved
~witness the scores of mummified remains of kids with their skull crushed, up on the top of a mountain...~

my view is that the religious leaders, the Alpha's... before conquering Leaders and military Generals got the same status...
those Alpha's told the citizens of the community that obidence & servitude to the 'gods' would make the community a cohesive unit.... and mothers would strive to have their kid grow up to be selected as a 'sacrifice' candidate.
the mothers would bind the feet or skulls of their prospective 'honored child'..and in turn the community would pour out plenty of foods, jewlery, livestock or whatever was of value to thesefamilies for giving up their kid for sacrifice iat a future time.
all in all.... the Priests remained the Top-Dogs in a culture ruled by Kings, the broad spectrum of the civilization followed the approved 'Path' of loyalty, some to reward & others to a path of stability....


we can spin all the woo-woo's into that system we want... but it had to have a 'practical advantage' underwriting the taking of a life from within the community or it would never have worked....
edit on 22-6-2012 by St Udio because: tiepo



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 

The practical advantage is that faith gives us the courage to not just live, but overcome and grow. Without faith, people don't have the answers to protect them. I know that rationale people like to think that those who have strong faith do it for some material reason, but the reality is that people who have faith generally are more persevering and long lived. This is why atheism is so rare in the world and religion so prevalent. The reality we live in truly and starkly is hard; very painful.

What I'm saying is "the faithful" don't do what they do for money. Money just happens as a result of the increased courage and purpose. They don't have the big questions to ponder - life and death and disease and evolution and so on. Everything is answered. Money is so small compared to eternity in heaven! Relieving the mind of existential anxiety pays FAR MORE than $$$ ever will!!!

(read my previous post for a backdrop)

Agnostics and Atheists are frontier people; explorers. They're on the forefront of a wave of change. (there're many waves of change) I know this must seem like a joke, but I believe it. There's no greater challenge than to not have the answers. To not have a larger purpose that's clear and undisputed. Existential anxiety is the biggest monster and that's why so many people are faithful. If Atheism or Agnosticism truly are beneficial then they'll inevitably survive the test of evolution and will prosper and perhaps one day eclipse the strong presence of faith amongst the peoples.

There's no guarantee that this wave won't come crashing down and end abruptly. And perhaps it's like a drop of rain hanging from a roof edge. It resists, but eventually plummets. Maybe there'll always be people who turn away from faith and go it alone. But just like that rain drop, they can't break the rules and must, willingly or not, follow them. But maybe it'll survive in small amounts, who knows?

Maybe one day religion and (blind) faith will be history. But I doubt that. I think that the laws of the universe mostly dictate these things, not people. We're at the mercy of nature. It kills us and maims us and takes away what it wants. We're forced to cope. We yearn for a way out; something that gives us hope. But it'd be a mistake for me to say we're forever trapped in this universe because then I'd be guilty of blind faith too. I'll only say that I doubt we'll ever overcome these limitations and thus we'll always suffer adversity and always be pressured to look for a way out by turning to faith.

(also note that faith doesn't have to be christianity or judaism or islam or whatever.... it can be a simple belief that there's an after-life or that all is one and all dies as one. there're lots of faiths.)
edit on 22-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by Glass
 


And again, theoretically this was not ever something mystical but a very real and physical feeding of this entity posing as the 'LORD'. It is quite well known that this 'LORD' loved the 'sweet savour' of burnt flesh. Again, this was merely a custom put in place to feed these entities by force of guilt and fear of punishment. One was even cheeky enough to convince Abraham to sacrifice his own son until one of the 'good' guys stepped in. 'Good' meaning either another bad entity playing good cop OR it really was one of the good guys.


*Light Assassin*

Considering that Christ brought Light into the world, your name tells the world your mission.
Your lies concerning scripture do not go unnoticed.

"3Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU.” Genesis 22:3-5

Good guys, bad guys? Abraham knew that his son would not be a sacrifice because HE TRUSTED THE LORD, so your theory is dead in the water - therefore there is no fantasy 'good one' and 'bad one'. But as a *Light Assassin* I'm sure that you'll carry on leading people into further darkness.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
____________________

Jephthah (the judge of israel) offered his daughter as a burnt offering
because he could find no sage in Israel who would cancel his vow.
Sacrifices were used as 'price-tags', and also for torture :
Brazen-bull
Jephthah offered his daughter as a burnt offering

_____________________



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
I was expecting something along the lines of "satan tricked them into it" but I really am pleased with the direction most of the posters have taken this.

It's very interesting to say the least.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Actually, human sacrifice probably goes way, way back and, I believe, is the source of religion, not the other way around.

At a time when our ancestors consisted of nomadic tribes, everybody had to contribute. If someone didn't do his or her share, the whole tribe could die out. Imagine a heavily handicapped baby or an elder who could not even pick berries anymore. Feeding this person for more than a few months would cost the tribe dearly. They would even have to carry this person during their long treks. Quite a burden on the tribe (and I'm saying this in a practical sense).

The elder person would understand this and would probably willingly give up their lives for the survival of the tribe. But a baby? The heavily handicapped baby would never grow into a contributor and would represent a burden on the tribe for 50, 60, 70 years (when you clean up the historical crap, there is no evidence that our lifespan has had any significant increase, once you exclude deaths between the ages of 0 and 10).

So the only logical thing to do is to kill the baby. But who will do it? Even in these primitive societies, I'm sure there would not have been a lot of volunteers and the person who did the deed would carry it with him or her the rest of their life. Even if everybody understood and agreed on why it was done.

I believe that after a while, in order to make these deaths more bearable, religion was invented as a kind of moral justification. And by naming a priest, you had someone who could slay the child without having to bear the guilt. From this, religion grew and expanded.

Sacrifices of prisoners and enemies were done for the same reason; if you can't feed them, they'll end up being the death of you. Animal sacrifices probably grew out of this. As civilizations grew, there were no more need to sacrifice humans, but to keep up the rituals, animals were used instead.

It's all practical really when you think about it.



posted on Jun, 23 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ajmusicmediaI think you and I are on the same page about the origins of sacrifices, I'm even tempted to have my femal pastor read this topic as well because of the additional information to hear what she has to say about it. But I really liked what you said.
 


In addition this has brought up another topic that goes hand in hand with this. With sooo many people confused about religion and believing that it's causing all this harm and homicide since the dawn of man, I have another idea that I've been mulling on about.

What if we were tricked to believing in the WRONG GOD? What if GOD and SATAN are reversed and we don't know it? Are we supposed to take it at face value that SATAN is evil and the ruler of Hell and all BAD people go there, if there is such a place? If some of these ancient traditons that Levitcus or early hebrews had us believing in KABALS warshiping GOD (SATAN), than maybe there has been some intentional messing around with our lowly human souls, confusing us into believing the wrong things claiming they are holy and the wrong things claiming they are sinful. What if Jesus was sent from HEAVEN by GOD(SATAN) to put us back in line with the new testament instead of worshipping these evil sacrificing Jewish KABALS? And that as blashphemous as this sounds Jesus was representing the TRUE GOD we call LUCIFER or maybe some Diety COMPLETELY DIFFERENT trying to put us on thr right track. I mean look at the contradictions between the OLD and NEW Testament. So I'll repeat myself simply, how do we know that some of us practicing Christians are worshiping the TRUE GOD and not the FALSE GOD?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


........right then. Or maybe, just maybe, Abraham had that little something called pre-meditation and he didn't want to alert the others that he was about to take his son up a mountain and kill him?!?

Somehow I just don't think the conversations back then were so casually brutal that you could get away with saying 'Honey, just going up the hill to kill our son' therefore he had to avoid raising suspicion.

Yes, good guys, bad guys...maybe the same entity....maybe different entities. Still will not convince me it is the all creator of this universe. It seems more like a false god. In fact any God demanding worship under the threat of destruction or taking any one particular side surely is flawed and therefore false.

As for my name. I see what you are trying to do Whoknows100. Who knows that you know 100 things of utter unimportance so when you do the only do is who is who knows who knows 100.



posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
This is also something i've wondered on for a long time. There has got to be a huge difference between animal and human sacrifices. A previous poster laid out a very believable scenario for animal sacrifice, where it is a "penance" or "fine" for doing wrong ... that sounds reasonable. A means of shifting the natural "blame" that follows bad deeds. We know this: what goes around goes around, clearly the ancients believed this too, and sacrifice was a method of stopping the karmic circle.

But to go from there to sacrificing one's children for anything is a massive leap. If anything, the sacrifices above would protect one's children from karmic consequences. The baal worshipping tradition of throwing babies into super hot ovens is well documented, and utterly inexplicable. While animal sacrifice was to atone for the past and "correct" it, sacrificing one's own children would be an opposite, to gain favour for the future perhaps, either personally or for the tribe.

Curious that humans could so easily take a positive, cleansing idea, and twist it firstly from past to future, and then assume that if a white goat is favourable to "gods", surely their firstborn would "work" even better?

Curious too that this concept of sacrifice is pushed by all of the sun cults and occult groups, including wicca. Christianity accepts the concept as valid, although teaches that we are no longer bound by those rules, since Jesus became a sacrifice on our behalf. Now standing alone that seems bewildering, but seen in the light of the history of sacrifices, it takes on an eery significance.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
 

... *Light Assassin*, Considering that Christ brought Light into the world, your name tells the world your mission.

Nonsense, you cannot be sure about the name's exact significance. It could also mean: "Fighter FOR the light"


Your lies concerning scripture do not go unnoticed.

I think Light Assassin's contribution to this threat, for example post by LightAssassin, are 100 percent accurate. The lies must come from elsewhere ...





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join