|
Post by Lee on Dec 10, 2008 23:27:03 GMT -1
next month on the last day of the month, you get paid. on that day you pop to the bank and draw every penny out and head to the jewellers where you pay for the ring you ordered. 24ct gold, some nice gems and the letters 'NOD' engraved into it. you then jump onto a train and head to Lydney where upon the banks of the Severn you stand. you throw the ring into the river with some words and then get back onto the train and arrive home.
you then begin contemplating how you will survive the next 31 days without a penny to your name, food to buy, bills to pay etc.
time is only a sacrifice if you are giving up something of value, it is all good and well putting aside 2 hours a week towards deity, but unless you are giving up something important you would otherwise be doing during that time then it is meaningless. if you life carries on as normal but with two hours of faffing about or relaxing in front of the TV now given to deity - what exactly have you lost? Top Gear? Coronation Street?
|
|
|
Post by sehnga on Dec 11, 2008 8:16:53 GMT -1
This is an interesting conversation.
Let me start by stating that I would never participate in animal sacrifice in this day and age; and that is a purely personal preference. I also will not eat particular animals for personal reasons.
Is there some justification that I am not aware of regarding ancient Brythonic practices of sacrifice requiring blood/death, or is this attitude a general extrapolation of assumed barbarism (by our current definitions) and passing, second-hand historical mention in a handful of writings?
I am wondering if blood sacrifice might have much more to do with human psychology than the gods.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Dec 11, 2008 8:36:41 GMT -1
This is an interesting conversation. Let me start by stating that I would never participate in animal sacrifice in this day and age; and that is a purely personal preference. I also will not eat particular animals for personal reasons. Is there some justification that I am not aware of regarding ancient Brythonic practices of sacrifice requiring blood/death, or is this attitude a general extrapolation of assumed barbarism (by our current definitions) and passing, second-hand historical mention in a handful of writings? I am wondering if blood sacrifice might have much more to do with human psychology than the gods. IIRC correctly, there is archaeological evidence to support human sacrifice (in that the causes of death match those described in texts referring to sacrificial procedure), though on a scale much less than that reported by the Romans, and indicative of the sacrifice of criminals and enemies (which kind of makes sense to me in a society with unpredictable resources)... there is also mention of sacrifice in some of the old Irish tales... I found www.worldspirituality.org/celtic-sacrifice.html quite interesting, though I suspect a tad distorted in places, with an over reliance on Roman sources... I've seen it suggested that it wasn't the Romans who spread anti-celt propaganda, but the Celts/Druids etc who deliberately over exaggerated their blood thirstiness and tendency to ritually torture and sacrifice enemies in order to undermine bravery, and the Romans lapped it up... who knows?
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Dec 11, 2008 12:09:45 GMT -1
Is there some justification that I am not aware of regarding ancient Brythonic practices of sacrifice requiring blood/death, or is this attitude a general extrapolation of assumed barbarism (by our current definitions) and passing, second-hand historical mention in a handful of writings? There is archaeological evidence of sacrifice, from animals through to human and arguments for and against at all points between depending on your viewpoint/bias. If they didn't, AFAIK it would just about make our Brythonic ancestors the only civilisation that didn't. I am wondering if blood sacrifice might have much more to do with human psychology than the gods. Would be interesting for you to expand on why you think that.
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Dec 11, 2008 17:55:28 GMT -1
In the book Gods of the Celts, Miranda Green mentions a pit found with a spike covered with blood. I can't remember if it was human or animal, but I'm sure it was human.
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Dec 11, 2008 19:04:16 GMT -1
'Dying for the Gods' by Dr Miranda Green. Best book on the subject.
I think personally that human sacrifice was more ritualised execution overseen by certain members from the druid class.
|
|
|
Post by sehnga on Dec 12, 2008 0:21:16 GMT -1
'Dying for the Gods' by Dr Miranda Green. Best book on the subject. I think personally that human sacrifice was more ritualised execution overseen by certain members from the druid class. That's also my opinion; I seem to remember something about the infamous wicker man rituals using repeat criminals, etc. Can't recall the source, however. It seems to me that any relationship with the gods ultimately is determined by human perceptions/concepts; indeed, it is all we have to work with. One could make an argument that perhaps we are guided by the gods in our determinations, but I won't digress into that possibility at the moment. When one contemplates the concept and value of sacrifice, it would seem to be quite subjective and influenced by ones current cultural environment, albiet with some historical/traditional influences. I could probably put forth a fairly reasonable argument that if the old gods truly required blood sacrifice, and this essentially ceased a couple of thousand years ago, then they could be gone or 'starved' to death. I could also ask why entities not of the physical plane would want the energy of death or blood; what purpose it could possibly serve them. These thoughts, however, cannot by their nature have an answer, nor do I pose them as true questions, I am more musing aloud than anything else. I think it is we who solely assign value to sacrifice, and the psychology driving the concept of sacrifice seems to be a continuous thread throughout human history; only the forms change. The anthropologist Edwin James summed it up - to paraphrase badly - as an act of life-giving to negate a negative, or to assure a positive outcome. Hence blood or death, I suppose - although my modern mind finds killing something to "provide life" a bit ironic; although I can imagine how this may have been viewed differently by much earlier cultures. Given this personal viewpoint, I do think the intent matters a great deal regarding sacrifice today, and I do not think killing a sentient being is required or necessary to establish a relationship with gods. One might even ponder, however briefly, if this act might attract a being you might later regret attracting - if one believes in the existence of such beings. If this isn't brilliant opinion, it's because my husband has for some unfathomable reason found it quite amusing to disturb me constantly while I was trying to write this. I think I need to go bite him now. ;D
|
|
|
Post by aelfarh on Dec 12, 2008 1:50:41 GMT -1
I'm really with you on this one sehnga. I think the main purpose of sacrifice is to give something of great value to get a favour of the gods in return, being to please them and show respect, a specific favour, or to keep the universe in motion. Old civilization tought that what better gift than a life. A lot of civilitations around the globe has taken that as the biggest honour, to be sacrificied to the gods. But later, as civilization start to develop and social structures became more sophisticated, some how it was not a really good idea to kill each other, so they start to kill animals. For a XXI century people, even to kill animals without a very good reason seems like not a good idea at all. But still the idea of sacrifice something is present and valid. But unless I get a god standing in front of me asking to kill someone, I see no reason to think that other sacrifices that doesn't involve blood are less valid to them
|
|
|
Post by sehnga on Dec 12, 2008 2:35:18 GMT -1
Well, there have been some interesting thoughts put forth in this thread - including one where the 'sacrifice' is ultimately changing you. I have wondered if, in ancient cultures, life may actually have been viewed as less valuable than we esteem it today. This thought springs from the assumed younger mortality rates, conflicts/wars, accidents, hunting/travel deaths, etc. I have thought that by age twenty, an average person quite likely had already buried numerous friends, family and foes; perhaps death was viewed as much more a normal part of life rather than something to be staved off as we typically see it today - this would certainly have given those peoples a different perspective on human/animal sacrifice, don't you think? If by chance a god appeared in front of me and demanded that I kill someone, he'd best be prepared to answer some very probing questions. ~edited for additional thought
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Dec 12, 2008 10:42:01 GMT -1
I'm really with you on this one sehnga. I think the main purpose of sacrifice is to give something of great value to get a favour of the gods in return, being to please them and show respect, a specific favour, or to keep the universe in motion. As a point of interest, the few things I've read (and that Horizon recently on "Time") suggest a reversed order... that first and foremost, our oldest ancestors sacrificed because they believed they actively partook in in the cycles of the cosmos, and that their sacrifices fed and sustained those cycles, so that sacrifices to a sun god were not to propitiate but to sustain and partake... (I use the term our in the braodest sense of all humanity)... the worldview and their place within it would have been very different... and only more recently the need to propitiate Though I guess if sustaining failed to work a natural response might be to assume the object of your sacrifice is angry and to pile the bodies on... so the boundary becomes blurred... who knows... not me :-)
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Dec 12, 2008 13:57:26 GMT -1
If by chance a god appeared in front of me and demanded that I kill someone, he'd best be prepared to answer some very probing questions. At risk of sounding like a drama queen (and I thought long and hard about responding to this at all), I will beseech all that I hold sacred that this never happens to you... there was a very good reason Zeus took on the form of a swan when visiting Leda... the presence of the Gods can do a thing to a person... your whole sense of reality cannot but change and the significance of what they say and how you respond... I believe a disciplined training can prepare you for that, but very few in our culture have that training, I'm damned sure I don't... In my past life I was a mental health nurse working in regional secure units and I nursed several people who had killed on the instruction of Gods, devils and other spirits, including one who had cut her daughter's throat on the instruction of Jehovah, in the belief that she (the baby daughter) would ascend to Jehovah as a swan... her beautiful baby swan child was with her when she came to us, and we made her "well" again... no greater punishment could have been visited upon her by man nor Gods... I still cry when I remember her moment of realisation... They do not knock on the door, cough politely, and then say, by the way, kill so and so for me.
|
|
|
Post by sehnga on Dec 13, 2008 8:23:57 GMT -1
Are you saying that you believe these people were told by actual gods/demons to kill?
|
|
|
Post by jez on Dec 13, 2008 9:02:31 GMT -1
Are you saying that you believe these people were told by actual gods/demons to kill? It's what Yahweh does best, in the old testament... -- The point being, /they/ believed it. And is their belief any less real than our beliefs when our gods speak to us? This is the reason for the distrust of UPG and the sharing of experience. I am not suggesting that it is equivalent, one person writing a book saying the gods told me that druids did this, and another person saying, the gods told me to sacrifice my child - but if the people concerned had shared their experiences, then we would be less likely to get cr*p written or acted upon... -- Jez
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Dec 13, 2008 12:16:48 GMT -1
Are you saying that you believe these people were told by actual gods/demons to kill? No, my beliefs regarding the non-existence of mental illness are far more complex than that and this is probably not the place for them (though if one were to place any credence in Julian Jaynes' theories [The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind], then aspects of the experience of someone labelled psychotic today and of someone experiencing dialogue with the gods 2000 years ago plus would likely be indistinguishable) What I'm saying is that, if a God or Goddess appeared to you now and demanded sacrifice, it wouldn't be like a telephone call... unless you were trained for that moment, your whole reality model would be reshaped in an instant, and you cannot know how you will react The rest, Jez said so much better than me
|
|
|
Post by sehnga on Dec 21, 2008 5:29:43 GMT -1
Sorry to be so late responding to this.
I cannot say with certainty, no - but I do believe that noone can make you do something that is against your very nature, that is repugnant to you on such a basic level that it doesn't require conscious thought or will. Any gods that would choose me for such a thing would also have to have the ability to control me completely, and if we go that far in our speculation, than we don't matter at all, and are simply puppets. I don't recall any of our passed down lore alluding to much more than perhaps tricking people into something - so I can't say that I imagine they control us. Even the Judeo-xtian god who claimed omipotence and all-power could not force anyone to do anything they didn't want to do.
|
|
|
Post by pencoed on Sept 19, 2009 1:09:12 GMT -1
Hi,
to my mind a sacrifice is something only *you* - the person - can make, because your life is the only thing that you really possess to give. For me this boils down to sacrificing time, which is a little bit of my life, and once offered can never be reclaimed.
sincerely,
pencoed
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Sept 19, 2009 5:41:43 GMT -1
to my mind a sacrifice is something only *you* - the person - can make, because your life is the only thing that you really possess to give. The manipulation of the lifeforce of another through the sorcerous act is something that has been going on for a *long* time, in many differnet cultures. For me this boils down to sacrificing time, which is a little bit of my life, and once offered can never be reclaimed. Of what value, to anyone other than yourself, is your time? Of what comparative value is the time you offer to your god as opposed to time you may spend watching tv, listening to the radio, crocheting, snowboarding or any other thing you enjoy? Why is simple time a sacred act?
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Sept 19, 2009 11:32:42 GMT -1
Hi, to my mind a sacrifice is something only *you* - the person - can make, because your life is the only thing that you really possess to give. For me this boils down to sacrificing time, which is a little bit of my life, and once offered can never be reclaimed. sincerely, pencoed I thought that the ancient forms of sacrifice were more to do with making a contract binding. Certain members of the druid class had to be present, to make sure the ritual/sacrifice was carried out correctly in order to make it 'legal' with the Gods. Similar to a solicitor drawing up a legal contract between varies parties. I have to agree with LR, that giving up a bit of time is a bit weak to be classed as sacred time. It's a modern excuse & a lazy way out. Is it not also a way to ignore the past because that seems too extreme for todays sentimentalities? On a personal note, The Gods I feel demand far more than just a bit of time.
|
|
|
Post by clare on Sept 19, 2009 17:44:19 GMT -1
Paganism is the poster child of so many of the things we say we oppose. Sacrifice becomes simple, the individual defines ‘my own truth’, we decide what is and what isn’t powerful.
Blood is powerful. The sight and smell of blood creates physiological and unconscious change in humans and other animals. Taking life, it goes without saying, is powerful. I’m against organised hunting but watching a lurcher chase a rabbit or a cat or a hare is powerful. A conscious being becomes aware that its life is urgently at risk and that is more powerful than I hope any of us will ever know. How much more powerful, then, to swallow your fear and submit to death? How powerful might it be to prepare yourself to and then to actually garrotte a man – something that takes strength and intent – to cut his throat, ditto. The hot blood flowing over your hands, the smell of his shit, the sounds and struggle of his dying.
Adam, your description of the mother being forced to shift her awareness from the prophetic, ecstatic, transformation of her child to insane homicide is very powerful and very terrible. There’s a tendency to read this kind of narrative in a particular way, as a kind of childish, mawkish morality tale. Those of us who say we want relationship with the old gods will guess at the power that flowed through that mothers arms as she cut her baby’s throat, the rapture she would have felt and we will withstand the force of these and other feelings, including the feeble judgements of feeble people. If you really can only feel fear or repugnance then a/ you’re kidding yourself and b/ you’ve swallowed new age paganism whole.
|
|