[oofnik]

Child sacrifice hooks into some very deep and dark aspects of human psychology that we have yet to unpack. There is a reason that this practice crops up in various civilizations seemingly independently, and it is not a pretty one - at least not by contemporary moral sensibilities.

It is impossible to understand the biblical narrative of the binding of Isaac, for example, without addressing the context in which such a narrative was popularized and eventually codified into a sacred text.

[lelanthran]

> Child sacrifice hooks into some very deep and dark aspects of human psychology that we have yet to unpack.

Maybe not. Humans first do something practical, and then use rituals and tradition to justify it.

Here's an alternative scenario:

In an age where abortion had a higher chance of killing the woman than childbirth, this was the only practical abortion.

It's only after the fact that it gets justified as a sacrifice demanded by the gods.

And once the practice is accepted, the next step is to forcefully sacrifice the children of your political enemies, i.e. the woman is not making the choice here.

[ffgjgf1]

Greeks and Romans had almost bo qualms about infanticide though. It was no less acceptable than abortion is nowadays.

They only had issues with ritualizing the process or killing older children..

[causi]

Is there an objective reason to find infanticide worse than abortion, besides cultural mores? It's worse for the performer, certainly, because you have to look at it before you kill it, but a newborn doesn't have any more personality than a fetus.

[Detrytus]

Well, I think abortion should be allowed until the child is 18. Basically, if parents think their child is a disappointment they should be allowed to cut their losses and start over. /s

[Eisenstein]

If an infant is able to survive outside of another person without being hooked up to modern medical equipment I would say there is a very big difference between it an something which cannot.

[causi]

If an infant is able to survive outside of another person without being hooked up to modern medical equipment I would say there is a very big difference between it an something which cannot.

What happens when we invent artificial wombs? It isn't that far away.

[Eisenstein]

Awesome, you should get on that.

[ChainOfFools]

or men having children, which would both be a highly desirable option for society as well as completely knocking the (specious) women's rights/controlling (specifically female) bodies argument out from the equation.

[ChainOfFools]

Would it be acceptable to you to surgically remove the arm of, say, a 10 week old fetus, on the grounds that it is not able to survive outside the womb and therefore is just a piece of the mother's body at that point?

[Eisenstein]

What would be the point of doing that? Let's go for something more relevant: would it be acceptable to you for me to force you to give a pint of blood every day to keep alive someone in a coma who could not live but for your blood?

[gordian-not]

That’s not the only practical abortion, abortion existed in ancient times too. However, even after birth there were easier methods, infant exposure was common and is far easier for parents than sacrifice

[jollyllama]

>Humans first do something practical, and then use rituals and tradition to justify it.

take this and combine it with sibling

>And I think the conclusion of the Phoenicians was that people get away with, and are even rewarded for doing evil things, because the gods are into that sort of stuff.

and then you get my theory.

[vintermann]

"Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed, and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors, and they have no comforter. And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun."

That is from Ecclesiastes 4. The author was talking about the problem of evil - power was on the side of the oppressors. People were being evil, and getting away with it.

There's this idea that "the problem of evil" is, why does God permit this? I think that's too convenient. When people are being evil, and getting away with it, that's a problem not just for people who believe in a good God, but for people who believe goodness matters.

And I think the conclusion of the Phoenicians was that people get away with, and are even rewarded for doing evil things, because the gods are into that sort of stuff. The gods are sickos, so you're pretty much screwed, but get their attention with a ritual act of cruelty, and you might get a share of their power.

[transducers]

`Ibn Arabi has a splendid take on the entire affair. I read it in Toshihiko Izutsu’s Sufism and Taoism and it blew me away. In the Qur’an, the Muslim scripture, the story is touched upon, with an angel arriving just in the nick of time to tell Abraham to cease:

“””And when they had both submitted and he put him down upon his forehead, 104. We called to him, "O Abraham. You have fulfilled* the vision." Indeed, We thus reward the doers of good. Indeed, this was the clear trial. And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice”””

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_in_Islam#Sacrifice

*Ibn Arabi has this as “you have believed the dream”.

“”” Then when the boy reached the age to work with him, Abraham said, “O my dear son! I have seen in a dream that I ˹must˺ sacrifice you. So tell me what you think.” He replied, “O my dear father! Do as you are commanded. Allah willing, you will find me steadfast.” ”””

In Izutzu [1] we read how Ibn Arabi, a very influential Muslim mystic-saint, had read the narrative as Abraham being still in thrall of the illusion of materiality (“the world”) and reading the signs of God literally. This vision then, a great trial, was entirely designed to knock sense into him, awakening him to a higher consciousness.

[1]: https://traditionalhikma.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Sufi...

[transducers]

Relevant matter is in page 22 of the pdf. Prior matter touches on the metaphysical framework informing Ibn Arabi’s discourse.

[ffgjgf1]

Abandoning/exposing infants (especially girls) was very widespread in the ancient word. It’s possible that ‘sacrifice’ was just a way to justify it through some ritual.

This didn’t really change untill the chirch started equating it with murder.

[c00lio]

Disgust against child sacrifice and most human sacrifice was a Roman sensibility, long before there was any church or christianity.

[baryphonic]

The Romans claimed this about themselves, but I'm not sure they're completely credible, at least about human sacrifice. The Roman Triumphal parade, for instance, included marching captured prisoners of war (often numbering in thousands), who would be led through the triumphal route up to the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. There, the prisoners would be executed. The Romans may have claimed that they weren't committing human sacrifice, but this seems hard to believe, given that the soldiers were killed on the grounds of the temple of their chief god, literally honored with the title "best and greatest."

On the whole, the Romans were quite enlightened compared to the other brutal civilizations of the ancient world, being governed more by law than superstition, but they still had these quirks that wouldn't be eradicated till Christianity replaced the state religion.

[c00lio]

One needs to be very careful about which things to label human sacrifice. It is possible to be very "inclusive" there. One popular example is the expression "sacrificed on the altar of progress", and the works of philosophers such as Adorno and Horckheimer on the topic, who argued that human sacrifice just takes a different form in modern civilisation, but is still present e.g. as victims of car traffic, suicides from depression or industrial accidents. Imho, this only serves to hinder any kind of productive discussion because things tend to be not comparable in any way if terms are _that_ mushy.

I'd define anything as human sacrifice that the culture performing the act would label thus. E.g. we, as a modern civilization, don't call an abortion, war or execution "human sacrifice", so it isn't. The Romans didn't consider executing prisoners as such, because the prisoners were just subhuman and it was just an execution, so it isn't. The Carthagians seemed to think they were doing a human sacrifice, so yes, they were.

[baryphonic]

> One popular example is the expression "sacrificed on the altar of progress", and the works of philosophers such as Adorno and Horckheimer on the topic, who argued that human sacrifice just takes a different form in modern civilisation, but is still present e.g. as victims of car traffic, suicides from depression or industrial accidents. Imho, this only serves to hinder any kind of productive discussion because things tend to be not comparable in any way if terms are _that_ mushy.

I'm not talking about car (or chariot?) accidents here, I'm talking about literally thousands of people being executed on the grounds of a temple dedicated to Rome's chief god. Certainly people died in the Circus Maximus, and that is just sporting accident. I wouldn't even call gladiatorial combat human sacrifice, since it was mostly an entertainment spectacle in a more brutal time.

We're talking about Romans taking prisoners captured in war, marching them to one of the most significant religious locations within the sacred boundaries of the city, and executing them.

My issue with just trusting the ancients is that they sometimes aren't trustworthy. It's very possible that Rome didn't admit this was human sacrifice because Roman culture condemned human sacrifice, and kind of turned a blind eye to the ethics of this ritual.

[c00lio]

No. Human sacrifice, in the definition I have given, has a clearly defined purpose (which I didn't state, because I thought this was implicit): Winning favour with the god(s). That only works in any religion I know of if you declare the purpose of making a sacrifice before the gods in some way.

The Romans did this through the ritual of immolation, where the animal was marked as a sacrifice by spreading mola (wheat spelt) and salsa (salt) on it. No immolation, no sacrifice. If they killed someone without immolation, to them it didn't have the purpose of pleasing the gods and thus wasn't human sacrifice. Edit: "immolation" in this context might be somewhat different in the english meaning. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mola_salsa for what I mean.

A lot of religions (don't know about the Roman in that aspect) also frown upon the intent of a sacrifice being impure: If you do the sacrifice with more than just the goal of pleasing God, e.g. to additionally get rid of that obnoxious goat/cock/person/..., then God won't be pleased.

[jollyllama]

There's a clear in-group/out-group distinction, though.

[baryphonic]

Why not just kill them on the Campus Martius, then? Or in the middle of the Forum? Or even on the steps of the Senate house, to symbolize the supremacy of Roman state institutions?

It's not the killings of prisoners themselves - those were common throughout the ancient world, alongside slavery. It's the fact that they killed them at the temple to the chief god.

[AlbertCory]

Carthāgō dēlenda est

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est

[ffgjgf1]

Yeah, I’m talking about infanticide specifically in that case.

[gordian-not]

In ancient religions, and especially Canaanite there was a great emphasis on bringing your best offerings to god, best fruits, most expensive wine and top meat.

It will be unusual that for children the unwanted ones suddenly are considered a good offering

[ffgjgf1]

> It will be unusual that for children the unwanted ones suddenly are considered a good offering

Seems like a win-win for me. The child is suddenly no longer unwanted but your ‘most prized possession’.

To be serious I’m not necessarily claiming that sacrifice was a direct alternative to infanticide just that there might have been some links and generally the fact that infanticide was quite widespread made sacrifice a bit more palatable.

[bombolo]

And until they started to take care of the unwanted ones.

[webnrrd2k]

Maybe it started by people sacrificing what they considered most valuable to them -- their children.

Or maybe it started in a time of famine or other stress, where the young children were likely to die anyways. The reasoning of it seem to be 1.) Sacrifice your child and maybe make a god bring rain or otherwise change the situation. Or 2.) Do nothing and the kid dies anyway, and the famine (or whatever) continues.

[thworp]

Carl Jung had some interesting ideas on this topic, his book "Psychology and Religion" is a very thought-provoking work.

[tingle]

Patrick Tierney's "The Highest Altar" [1] develops a very similar thesis, with first-hand experience by the author.

Wikipedia provides some material on child sacrifice by the Incas in e.g. [2] and [3].

[1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-10-08-bk-201-st... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plomo_Mummy [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Llullaillaco

[scns]

> It is impossible to understand the biblical narrative of the binding of Isaac

Huh? It is quite easy to understand for me.

Abraham and Sarah were childless and Sarah was infertile/too old DRC. Abraham prayed for an heir and miraculously Sarah gives life to Isaac.

Yahwe demands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, the most precious "thing" he has, to test his belief.

Since Abraham does as he is told, a angel stops him from killing Isaac in the last second.

Then he is promised by Yahwe his descendants that his descendants will be plentiful.

A myth/fairy tale IMHO but to each the most. Dawkins said that the god from the old testament is one of the most vile characters humans ever made up. To sick/tired to give examples, there are many.

[ffgjgf1]

> Dawkins said that the god from the old testament is one of the most vile characters humans ever made up.

That’s just pure demagoguery. There are plenty of examples of much crueler cults we just don’t have as many surviving texts describing their practices.

Compared to someone like Huitzilopochtli Yahweh was pretty chill…

[f154hfds]

The story is much deeper than you give it credit:

1. God promises Abraham that his descendants will be numerous as 'stars in the sky'

2. Abraham and Sarah have 1 kid in their old age: Isaac, the only chance for God to fulfill the promise

3. God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, his compliance indicates his faith in God's promise (that it can happen outside of his control, and beyond his knowledge)

4. God stops it and provides a 'ram in the thicket' as substitute, note the sacrifice still occurs.

5. Sacrifice is required to save the Israelites in Egypt from the angel of death, Passover begins.

6. We see a whole system and culture of sacrifices instituted in the tabernacle and later the temple as a method of 'atonement'

7. Jesus presents himself as the ultimate atonement or 'propitiation', closing the circle

Essentially in the Bible sacrifice is integral to the entire story, beginning to end. In some ways the story of the sacrifice of Isaac is a peek into the nature of justice and how in the Biblical God's conception of justice wrongdoing must be paid for by blood, just not necessarily the blood of the perpetrator themselves. All members of Israel are responsible for providing their sacrifices indicating that no one is free from guilt providing the backdrop for Christianity's pessimistic take on the nature of Man.

[boomboomsubban]

>Huh? It is quite easy to understand for me.

Imagine if someone came up to you tomorrow and said "God talked to me and told me I also need to sacrifice my child." You'd assume they were crazy, hopefully to the point of calling the authorities.

It's impossible to look at that story from a modern context and think Abraham's actions are remotely right or rational. Why would anyone trust a god who does that? But if child sacrifices are a somewhat common thing, Yahwe looks like the good god who doesn't actually make you kill your kid, just asks that you're willing to kill your kid.

[csomar]

North Africa / Fertile Crescent are not as fertile as say the Nile or the deep European forests. There are also much less rivers in these civilizations. My guess is that this was a measure of population control as the natural death rate was not high enough for the region. Since there was no birth-control method, the only method left is to kill the kid.

It's a good idea to disguise this as "child sacrifice" as in the "GOD" asked you to do this. Kind of make you at ease with the decision and execution since you'd not do it on your own.

But hey, that's just my guess and am a random dude on the Internet.

[gamblor956]

North Africa / Fertile Crescent are not as fertile as say the Nile or the deep European forests

North Africa and the Fertile Crescent are great examples of climate change.

They're deserts now but they were lush fertile lands several thousand years ago. The Nile floodplain was also substantially larger and more fertile than it is today.