|
Post by Lee on Sept 21, 2009 12:12:48 GMT -1
To give up materially would, for me, be far less of a sacrifice than my time. The idea of a material sacrifice is, IMO, more akin to earlier times, whereas today's more materialistic mass produced consumer economy makes materials in an abundance, therefore lessoning the impact. I believe this is a sure sign that the context has changed dramatically. As to the impact of sacrifice in terms of human life, this isn't so clear cut in my view, I am sure there are still cultures out there that probably do still indulge in such a thing, however, I am aware that living in a relatively wealthy society, my viewpoint can only be from context of the lifestyle I experience, so therefore, may not be completely accurate. RR people have always been materialistic. hence why the accumulation of wealth whether it be gold, land of cattle has been a driving force for millenia. ok, so time is the big one for you. given the choice, which would consider the bigger sacrifice; 2 hours or £100?
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Sept 21, 2009 12:33:59 GMT -1
£100 every time. That's a couple of days work! 2 hours, what is that? £15-£20? no contest. even if you follow the religion of "time is money", the money will win.
I've given up hours and hours to go picking up litter in the river. I don't consider that sacrifice, I consider that duty. However, giving up a days work to go litter-picking - yeah, I would consider that sacrifice. Because that's less food on the table, bills that can't be paid. (However, I would also consider it duty, making the sacrifice worthwhile)
|
|
|
Post by potia on Sept 21, 2009 12:48:58 GMT -1
Do you think giving up control over some aspect of yourself (e.g. allowing a deity to possess you to some extent or another) would fall in the offering/devotion/sacrifice spectrum of things? If so where?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 21, 2009 12:50:39 GMT -1
exactly it teg.
i guess RR we could ask, would you give up 14 hours in one stint? now, would you give up a 14 hour shift?
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Sept 23, 2009 13:58:20 GMT -1
exactly it teg. i guess RR we could ask, would you give up 14 hours in one stint? now, would you give up a 14 hour shift? I think this whole thread has shown that the context with which sacrifice is considered has changed. The definitions made here are (in the main) the classical context and I don't dispute their interpretations. However, sacrifice for earlier generations probably involved more of an element of repayment of debt to deity for continuing to provide the systems which held the key for their continued existence. Today, humanity has created it's own ecosystems by which to feed itself and that element of debt is no longer in the same context. Therefore, I would suggest the nature of sacrifice has altered as well. As to the answer to your question, Lee, I would much rather give up a 14 hour shift any time, but this is because my perspective has changed and the fact that I am older than you, means that I am less willing to waste my time experimenting but prefer to try to prioritize what's left of my alloted time. Of course, by doing this, I will create some hardship, giving up shifts is not a position I am able to do, however, I am now less inclined to view everything in the materialistic sphere than I once did. I also find myself wondering why a deity existing in another sphere of physicality, would derive benefit from the depositing of a physical object here? I know that it would be viewed as an example of a form of exchange of both physicality and symbolism, but is that the crux of what actually defines sacrifice and not necessarily the quantity? TBH, sacrifice is a concept I have always had problems with. RR
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 23, 2009 15:29:59 GMT -1
I think this whole thread has shown that the context with which sacrifice is considered has changed. The definitions made here are (in the main) the classical context and I don't dispute their interpretations. However, sacrifice for earlier generations probably involved more of an element of repayment of debt to deity for continuing to provide the systems which held the key for their continued existence. Today, humanity has created it's own ecosystems by which to feed itself and that element of debt is no longer in the same context. Therefore, I would suggest the nature of sacrifice has altered as well. i agree, things have changed dramatically in the world and our reliance on 'nature' and the unknown forces to look favourably on us is pretty much gone in our lives. that said, in essence sacrifice was all about exchange; one thing for another. this i dont think has changed even if the desired coutcome has. i might not need for crops to be good or for cows to give birth to strong calves, but the essential trade off between offering something in order to get what i want is still the same. 2000 years ago the thing that you wanted might neccessitate a cow being killed or chucking your finest torc inot the bog - both of whcih can be considered costly and a unit of wealth to a man back then. today wealth is largely financial as we no longer keep cattle or amass gold. As to the answer to your question, Lee, I would much rather give up a 14 hour shift any time, but this is because my perspective has changed and the fact that I am older than you, means that I am less willing to waste my time experimenting but prefer to try to prioritize what's left of my alloted time. Of course, by doing this, I will create some hardship, giving up shifts is not a position I am able to do, however, I am now less inclined to view everything in the materialistic sphere than I once did. I also find myself wondering why a deity existing in another sphere of physicality, would derive benefit from the depositing of a physical object here? I know that it would be viewed as an example of a form of exchange of both physicality and symbolism, but is that the crux of what actually defines sacrifice and not necessarily the quantity? TBH, sacrifice is a concept I have always had problems with. RR
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Sept 23, 2009 16:37:46 GMT -1
giving up shifts is not a position I am able to do, Which is the essence of the nature of the sacrifice. Giving up the shift you cannot give up *is* the sacrifice, not choosing to give up what is convenient.
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Sept 23, 2009 19:51:41 GMT -1
I tend to think: imagine being told your mother/sister/wife/son needs an operation to save their life. You have to sell EVERYTHING you own to fund it. Would you? Of course you would. even if it meant you selling your house and sleeping on someones sofa. You'd do it without thinking twice.
Same with pagans in history: if the only thing your tribe owns, their fortune, is the torc around your chief's neck and the best sword of his warrior, but you feel that the only way to eat next year is to offer them up, you do it. Even if it financially ruins the tribe. Of course there will be regret, but some things are more important.
Even during wartime: WWII - people went to war, fought and died, gave the most valuable thing they had - their lives. It had to be done, you could um & arr but you did it anyway. OK, that's not pagan, but there is a reason they say they "gave the ultimate SACRIFICE". You gave yourself to save your family.
I don't consider meditating for a hour a sacrifice. Or pouring some beer over a tree. That's an offering, maybe, a libation, but not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is one of those words that shouldn't be waved about lightly (even though I did when I called giving up work a "sacrifice". Is it, really? Depends on culture I suppose)
|
|
|
Post by megli on Sept 23, 2009 20:22:40 GMT -1
I tend to think: imagine being told your mother/sister/wife/son needs an operation to save their life. You have to sell EVERYTHING you own to fund it. Would you? Of course you would. even if it meant you selling your house and sleeping on someones sofa. You'd do it without thinking twice. Same with pagans in history: if the only thing your tribe owns, their fortune, is the torc around your chief's neck and the best sword of his warrior, but you feel that the only way to eat next year is to offer them up, you do it. Even if it financially ruins the tribe. Of course there will be regret, but some things are more important. Even during wartime: WWII - people went to war, fought and died, gave the most valuable thing they had - their lives. It had to be done, you could um & arr but you did it anyway. OK, that's not pagan, but there is a reason they say they "gave the ultimate SACRIFICE". You gave yourself to save your family. I don't consider meditating for a hour a sacrifice. Or pouring some beer over a tree. That's an offering, maybe, a libation, but not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is one of those words that shouldn't be waved about lightly (even though I did when I called giving up work a "sacrifice". Is it, really? Depends on culture I suppose) I suppose 'sacrifice' only has meaning in this religious sense when you believe that a god is a kind of superperson who can do things you can't. The war image is a useful one, I think. If you go off to fight a war and 'make the ultimate sacrifice', then you are giving your life so that others---your kin and fellow-citizens---may get or continue to have a better quality of life. But this action of yours DIRECTLY works towards the outcome (or potentially/ideally does), albeit infinitesimally in the case of most individuals. That is, parachuting into occupied France and killing some Nazis before getting shot did actually help a little bit with the ultimate goal of defeating Nazism. When people talk about the waste of war, what they mean is the loss of life---the sacrifice---without any useful consequences coming from it. But in religious sacrifice, the mechanism of connection between the sacrificial action and the desired outcome is a metaphysical one----a divine being of some kind, presumably with enough power and awareness to listen and act on your behalf. That is, you throw a torc into a lake to persuade the goddess Dubnolinda (or whatever) to keep those nasty Romans from invading, or you slit a pig's throat in a furrow so that Ambaxtonos will keep away the barley blight this year. For the whole rationale of sacrifice to have any point to it, you have to believe that these gods can do things you can't ---that they magically can send a plague on the Roman legions camped in gaul, or keep barley healthy by preventing a wet summer; or (as I've said to Lee), and to give a modern example, belenus can only help you get a job if Belenus a) exists b) has divine power over the job market and c) can be bribed into action by you 'giving something to him' by throwing your valuables in the river. Bringing in the analogy with war again would mean being faced with nazi invasion in 1940 and instead of fighting, cutting your own wrists in a bog as an offering to a protector deity. It's certainly the ultimate sacrifice, but, god, how pointless it would be, compared with laying down your life as part of a good military strategy directed towards a specific goal. I personally can't imagine any sacrifice of the second type meaning much to me personally. Call me crushingly unimaginative, but I can't help noticing that no one sacrifices pigs to Amaethon any more; and yet we still all eat, and people ate all through those centuries when no one believed in Amaethon at all. My conclusion: don't worry about it, you can't do much about it anyway, whatever it is, and at least you'll have one extra pig and can have a slap-up pork supper. ;D So, I submit: sacrifice to deity makes little sense unless we are working within a strongly theistic system in which the gods are literally externally existent superbeings, who also literally control matters on earth like enemy movements, weather fronts, and job interviews, and who are sufficiently interested in what we could offer them, or by the energy released by us depriving ourselves, to be pressed into action on our behalf. I suppose we could look at the thing that is changed by sacrifice as the person themselves, but then sacrifice is blending into a kind of magic.
|
|