Finn
Philosopher
Posts: 153
|
Post by Finn on Jun 23, 2007 11:15:11 GMT -5
Wait, what exactly are we talking about sacrificing here? Humans? Wild animals? Domesticated animals? Bananas? How is it being done? Is it humane? Is it respectful? Does it really matter? The nature of a sacrifice is that it is either painful/costly to the practitioner, or it is has been demanded in barter or tribute by the entity/force being sacrificed unto. What we are talking about would vary a great deal. So I suppose we could be talking about any of the things you mention. As to your other questions: 1. Define what "humane" means? 2. Define what respectful means? I'm not entirely certain non-human entities care much about "humane" morality. Respect is also somewhat subjective. But I'm interested in hearing your definitions. So it is ok to sacrifice non-humans because they are lesser? If we accept sacrifice as a legitimate practice, excluding humans can only be done theologically if you are setting humans apart and above all else. In the great chain of being, you are making the Christian argument that all the world belongs to us for use as we wish but or peers are exalted like us and thus immune. And, ummm... in regards to your final comment, adorable animals also get a pass? That is an interesting line in the sand.
|
|
|
Post by stormcat on Jun 23, 2007 11:41:07 GMT -5
You know Finn in your response to me about the inhumanity of man, I missed the whole over population dilemma. My husband and I were talking about this the other day. How we are going to need a huge devastating diaster to right the world of over population. I can feel it's just waiting outside the current sphere. He was in complete agreement with the statement, until I posed the question of how and where. Naturally he picked the third world, an assumption most people would make. But they forget "it" will travel globally, following the path of least resistence. Children, elderly, chronically ill people, and then will start on the healthy adults. It could if virulent enough knock out half the population. No he didn't like the thought of our children and grandchildren succumbing to the bug. Shoe hurts on the wrong foot, who's to say what the right foot is.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Anastasia on Jun 23, 2007 12:17:34 GMT -5
Should we or shouldn't we? Is it wrong or right? Wait, what exactly are we talking about sacrificing here? Humans? Wild animals? Domesticated animals? Bananas? How is it being done? Is it humane? Is it respectful? Unless it's done very carefully, humanely and with a great deal of respect and reverence I'd say it's wrong. And it's not humans. Or adorable baby raccoons. lmao.... Mike are you trying to save the Raccoons b/c they are your totem? Tribes and clans that had totems would not kill or harm their totems in anyway as, that would be seen as sacriledge...
Though, there were occasions, which tribal elders would call for a feast in which the totem animal would be killed and eaten so that tribesmen could absorb the virtues that were identified with the animal, and, to strengthen the ties between the tribes people and the animal..
"The eating of the bear or other animal, the sprinkling with its blood, and the general ritual in which the participants shared its flesh, or dressed and disguised themselves in its skin, or otherwise identified themselves with it, was to them a symbol of their community of life with each other, and a means of their renewal and salvation in the holy emblem. And this custom, as the reader will perceive, became the origin of the Eucharists and Holy Communions of the later religions."
|
|
|
Post by divsky on Jun 23, 2007 12:54:30 GMT -5
Seeing as how the question of this debate is "wrong or right" that puts it in the field of ethics. Now you're talking about bartering with another human's life. I'm pretty sure almost anyone can agree that is ethically wrong. As far other animals, well.. Not at all. I'm not saying we're above nature, nor below it, but part of it. It is natural for humans to kill some animals just as it's natural for wolves to kill deer. We use their meat for food and their skins and fur for warmth. We kill pests in our habitats because they are our enemies and spread disease. So I find it is acceptable for us to kill some animals. It's my belief though that killing other humans is not natural. We are a societal species and we depend on eachother for survival. And I'm not here to argue whether or not the killing of other people is ethical, it's fairly well accepted that it is not. Now like I said it's natural for us to kill some animals. It's not natural for us to be sadistic or cruel about it. Thus if an animal is to be used in ritual I find it inappropriate for us to be sadistic or cruel to it. That's what I'm talking about with being humane. The object being sacrificed should not suffer more than it needs to. Causing needless suffering is something else I believe to be ethically wrong. As for respect.. you're right. It is very subjective. But I think most people can recognize it if they're being disrespectful to the animal they're sacrificing. But it's not something that can be easily defined. Baby raccoon says "Please don't kill me mister!"
|
|
|
Post by Lady Anastasia on Jun 23, 2007 13:07:51 GMT -5
Baby raccoon says "Please don't kill me mister!" lmao..... that's adorable
|
|
|
Post by stormcat on Jun 23, 2007 14:34:21 GMT -5
Baby Raccoon says, "Someday I shall harvest your garbage and eat your Cat, be nice to me!" lol He means it too!!>^oo^<
|
|
|
Post by Lady Anastasia on Jun 23, 2007 14:58:52 GMT -5
Baby Raccoon says, "Someday I shall harvest your garbage and eat your Cat, be nice to me!" lol He means it too!!>^oo^< omgs.... roflmao...
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Jun 23, 2007 15:12:50 GMT -5
Baby Raccoon says, "Someday I shall harvest your garbage and eat your Cat, be nice to me!" lol He means it too!!>^oo^< LoL, Stormy...I have to agree with him on quite a bit of what he has written though. In fact I was very impressed with it and it was what inspired my post on myspace: I posted this topic on PaganMystics and have now had many good responses there as well. I think one of the most interesting was one where it was mentioned that Julius Caesar spoke on how the Celts viewed human sacrifice. The Celts would usually kill criminals of war and of the tribe in a sacrifice which IMHO would be about on the same level as putting to death a murderer today. It was a religious thing for them to do, the life was sacrificed to the gods, first to give it back to a higher power, and for the betterment of the tribe. Today we feel we have become more civilized I suppose, so we drive by and blow 12 year old girls away with automatic machine guns, or stab the pizza guy so we don't have to pay. Gangs war and grown men rape and murder babies with no thought as to what they're stealing from the world. Ritual sacrifice has become rare, but in this truth it's value has only grown. As Finn said on PM while we're comforted in the knowledge that people aren't being carved up on blocks anymore, this isn't something which has managed to lower the body count. Ritual sacrifice was and is a way of showing reverence for life. There was a time when the taking of a life had great meaning, now it is no more than the cost of a bullet, or a trip to the store.
|
|
|
Post by divsky on Jun 23, 2007 16:06:45 GMT -5
Baby Raccoon says, "Someday I shall harvest your garbage and eat your Cat, be nice to me!" lol He means it too!!>^oo^< Today we feel we have become more civilized I suppose, so we drive by and blow 12 year old girls away with automatic machine guns, or stab the pizza guy so we don't have to pay. Gangs war and grown men rape and murder babies with no thought as to what they're stealing from the world. I hate to break this to you, but murder and war are not modern inventions. In fact they've been around for a long time. I've got no statistics for you but I strongly believe that murder rates today are far less than they were 1000 years ago. And honestly, I think life does mean more now than it did several hundred years ago. It used to be rare for a child to live to the age of 18. Many died in their first year of life. Modern medical treatment means it's a true rarity for people to die at a young age from common illnesses. In fact I think just the opposite of what you're trying to say is true. It's not life that has become meaningless to us. It's death. Death has become an unfortunate side-effect of life that we try to ignore at all costs. Something that we steal away to white hospitals and alienate from our daily lives. Something that we try our hardest not to think about. And granted I think this is something unfortunate.. I don't think human sacrifice is the best way to fix this problem.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Anastasia on Jun 23, 2007 21:47:48 GMT -5
I hate to break this to you, but murder and war are not modern inventions. In fact they've been around for a long time. I've got no statistics for you but I strongly believe that murder rates today are far less than they were 1000 years ago. Hmmm.... I don't think so.. That's flawed... I would think that life was far more precious then as compared to now... It was celebrated when a child lived past infancy... When a mother didn't die while giving birth... Modern Medicine, while making life spans much longer, it's not really the same... lol... I don't think that human sacrifice is the answer... But, I do see what both Finn and John are saying about it... Hell... Right off the top, I'd say we're already practing it... look at the death penalty... Hell, look at Texas, the war.... lol, just instead of the pagans doing the sacrificing, it's the christians and the government... I think that we should sacrifice Pedophiles... The thought makes me smile....
|
|
|
Post by stormcat on Jun 23, 2007 22:29:14 GMT -5
Hey, you just had to throw Texas in there didn't you! ;D Them thar's fightin' words missy. >^..^<
|
|
|
Post by Lady Anastasia on Jun 24, 2007 1:26:32 GMT -5
Hey, you just had to throw Texas in there didn't you! ;D Them thar's fightin' words missy. >^..^< lol... dont' hurt me Stormy... I didn't mean it in a bad way... Just that, Texas don't fuck around, and, they kill peoples with the death penalty, pretty damned quickly... Runs and hides under desk
|
|
|
Post by Senbecc on Jun 24, 2007 2:07:59 GMT -5
I hate to break this to you, but murder and war are not modern inventions. In fact they've been around for a long time. I've got no statistics for you but I strongly believe that murder rates today are far less than they were 1000 years ago. First of all, this I would imagine would have quite a bit to do with population. No one has said that war and murder were "new inventions", I think it's cute that you'd say this to a reconstructionist. Oh no, the Celts would take the heads of those they killed to steal their "power" and decorate their forts after a battle, however even actions like this was seen as something highly spiritual. Yes it is very easy to convince ourselves that in our modern society of "go to work come home go to work come home" that our world has changed. The simple fact is that it has gotten worse. There wouldn't be any statistics from such times, but the world today is one of mass destruction and mass genocide, I would be interested in any showing of anything such in the ancient times of any culture. The ways of doing the killing may seem Barbaric to us today, but at least then it always had some higher purpose than a car, or what could be gained from breaking into a house and stealing from some one's dresser. Firstly that is probably the most unfair analogy that could have possibly been made on the subject, and secondly what does it have to do with the subject? Yes modern medical practice has changed but are we the better for it? Pumped full of chemicals from birth to death, told we need their chemicals yet they are held just out of reach by their un payable prices, the rich are given what is needed, and the poor are turned away. Is this more civilized then? Under the laws of Celtic cultures this would have been a crime of the most severe nature. Rich babies are taken care of while those of the poor are often left to die simply because they have no money. Is this anymore "civilized" than someone who would just murder a baby? If so I'd be interested in knowing how. Um, well death can be a bit hard to ignore, but OK. Steal away to white hospitals? You're going to have to be more specific. In theory this is a nice clean idea, while murdering pedophiles, mass rapists, and serial killers live high on the hog on the tax dollars of the family of their victim's you and I can sit with our consciouses clear that we don't condone sacrifice.
|
|
Finn
Philosopher
Posts: 153
|
Post by Finn on Jun 24, 2007 11:00:54 GMT -5
Seeing as how the question of this debate is "wrong or right" that puts it in the field of ethics. Now you're talking about bartering with another human's life. I'm pretty sure almost anyone can agree that is ethically wrong. As far other animals, well.. I don't agree with you. I don't think it is ethically wrong. Human beings barter with the lives of other human beings all the time. We always have. Explain why it is ethically wrong? This would hold more water if the natural world wasn't full of examples of animals fighting and killing their own rivals within species. Our closest relative, the Chimpanzee, for example, wages war on other troups. They will suddenly, and to us thus far without explanation, group up and go after another troup to destroy them. Within species, the younger, stronger depose the older. Lions eat the young of rivals they have driven off. In fact, killing the young of your own species which was fathered (or mothered in some cases) by others is quite common. Mother Nature is a harsh mistress. Ethics relate to a consistent policy and a lack of hypocrisy. Morphing social morals into ethics has been a ongoing battle and problem facing man. It is where religion clashes with logic. For example, here is an interesting ethical question: Is it more ethical to test harmful medicines and cosmetics on innocent animals than it would be to test them on say, convicted criminals? One set is innocent. The other is not. The animals don't even give us a true test as they aren't human. One could argue that we torture them without purpose. Really? It isn't natural? Then why have human beings been doing it since time began? You are making the argument, based soley on personal belief, that violence and murder is an unnatural act. The bulk of the evidence (from nature and science) is that it is part of being human. We are indeed a society. Societal position is enforced by many tools, one of which is violence, aggression, and killing. It is "accepted" by people that we PRETEND that killing other people isn't ethical. It is the politically correct thing to say. However, in application human beings (even enlightened nations) make a regular habit of killing directly, indirectly, or by standing by and letting it happen. So ACTUAL ethics, the only ones that carry weight, are measured in action. The ethical standards of a people is what they DO... not just what they SAY. I'm not sure what could be crueler than taking some being's life. The end result is death. I know when I finally die, I want it to be slow and painful. That way in my final moments, I will remember what it was like to be alive. Human beings do all sorts of things, cruel and kind. Animals do too. Most of us have watched a cat torment a mouse that it fully intends to kill. Sometimes they don't even eat them. Unless you are willing to admit that YOU place humans above other animals in the cosmic order, your argument doesn't hold water. It only applies if humans hold a different place in the universe. If we do not, then we are governed by the same morals and morays as our fellow animals. They can? Then you should be able to define what YOU mean by it. Glittering generalities like "respect," "humane," "love," and so on are useless terms. They don't mean anything because their meaning varies to each person. I, for example, respect spider sand snakes. I realize I can get bitten. I treat them gingerly because I RESPECT their ability to hurt me. Respect and fear have a common origin. They are in fact, the same meaning. You respect something that can cause you distress if you choose not to respect it. It is a word that came about because nobodly likes to admit they are afraid. It is saving face word. You should "respect" women, and treat them fairly because if you don't the rest of us will HURT you. Likewise, disrespectful treatment of women isn't going to get you very far. It is cause and effect.
|
|
Finn
Philosopher
Posts: 153
|
Post by Finn on Jun 24, 2007 11:15:13 GMT -5
First of all, this I would imagine would have quite a bit to do with population. No one has said that war and murder were "new inventions", I think it's cute that you'd say this to a reconstructionist. Oh no, the Celts would take the heads of those they killed to steal their "power" and decorate their forts after a battle, however even actions like this was seen as something highly spiritual. I was wondering where he got the "modern" invention thing too. No one made that argument. In fact, my assertion is that human beings have been waging war and killing each other from the start. The difference was the value of a life and the meaning in the act. Heh. You left out that the heads were often treated in lime and then tossed in the middle of the battlefield against foes so they could see what happened to their relatives who made the same mistake. We appear to be no the same page with this. Yep. And I would argue the primary cause is overpopulation. Yes. I've always found it horrible that we keep the worst kind of human scum alive and healthy (with better health care than most of us enjoy) at taxpayers expense. I've always felt that such people should be eliminated in a useful way, like harvesting their organs so they can give back to the society they injured. The simple truth is that "Law" serves society, while "Justice" serves the individual. It is great when the two are on the same page, but sadly this is rare.
|
|