What's wrong with the Druids?

you goof, You are very wise my friend, you may be a single Mum currently un-employed, but you are one smart cookie

Sakhaiva wrote:

Gorm_Sionnach wrote:
..... the acceptance of human sacrifice ranges from the one I've expressed to they didn't do it at all, to it does not mater WE don't do it. I think it is something which people simply have to come to terms with if they desire any sort of authentic understanding of it, however as per the religious reasons I explained above, from that perspective, they were not understood in their culture to have been problematic.

True - anyone who attempts to practice a historical belief system will have to cope with the problem that our value system, today, does not match that of the ancients... or does it?


You know Gorm, this whole topic brought to my attention something I've thought little about till now; regarding the ugly nature of human sacrifice, the problem isn't that it used to be done. The problem is that we (as a society) still do it; we call it the "death penalty"

I was reading that it actually costs more to kill an inmate than to keep them alive their whole life... so, then, what is the point of taking a life? How is it different than historical forms of human sacrifice? Isn't the current myth of 'ridding ourselves of a *bad* person to somehow cleanse society' just another version of the ol' scapegoat trick?

Interesting notion to face....

I've heard it argued that its inhumane to cage a human; and that the death penalty should be considered a mercy killing.

Davelaw wrote:

Sakhaiva wrote:

Gorm_Sionnach wrote:
..... the acceptance of human sacrifice ranges from the one I've expressed to they didn't do it at all, to it does not mater WE don't do it. I think it is something which people simply have to come to terms with if they desire any sort of authentic understanding of it, however as per the religious reasons I explained above, from that perspective, they were not understood in their culture to have been problematic.

True - anyone who attempts to practice a historical belief system will have to cope with the problem that our value system, today, does not match that of the ancients... or does it?


You know Gorm, this whole topic brought to my attention something I've thought little about till now; regarding the ugly nature of human sacrifice, the problem isn't that it used to be done. The problem is that we (as a society) still do it; we call it the "death penalty"

I was reading that it actually costs more to kill an inmate than to keep them alive their whole life... so, then, what is the point of taking a life? How is it different than historical forms of human sacrifice? Isn't the current myth of 'ridding ourselves of a *bad* person to somehow cleanse society' just another version of the ol' scapegoat trick?

Interesting notion to face....

I've heard it argued that its inhumane to cage a human; and that the death penalty should be considered a mercy killing.

Depends on how you do it.

I never really considered the death penlty a form of human sacrifice, at least not as it is now. There is no religious or spiritual meaning behind it, it is for wholly secular reasons.

Aren't you supposed to sacrifice the best of what you have instead of the worst?

gillyflower wrote:Aren't you supposed to sacrifice the best of what you have instead of the worst?

That's how I always understood it.

gillyflower wrote:Aren't you supposed to sacrifice the best of what you have instead of the worst?

Well there is some inkling to the notion that in Celtic cultures, prisioners (of war/ criminals) were likely to have been used as sacrifices, but there isn't much textual evidence to make a definite assertion, though it is assumed to be correct for the most part. In such a circumstance, the sacrifice of any human would do, as humans were composed of the necessary materials so to speak. Not to be confused with other forms of offerings, where the best was given.

You give your best, as in the most physically perfect. That doesn't mean you sacrifice your most sweet natured mare, but rather the killer stallion (physically perfect, but not really something you want around).

Sacrificing a war captive or a criminal does the same, giving the gods one of matchless strength, while serving the needs of the people as well. As this sacrifice doesn't get eaten, there must another way its sacrifice will strengthen the folk, and that can be by removing a threat either from within, or without.

Did the ancients often sacrifice the King or war chief for the life of the tribe?

The norse did, I don't know how often the Celt used to. The sacrifice of the king was a serious one, given when the survival of the people was threatened by blight of sea, field and flock.

The king with his Huscarls, bright with arm rings of gold and spendid weapons would go down to the sea, or to the sacred grove, and the king would hang himself, being struck through by his spear to hang as a sacrifice, as did Odin hang on the tree sacrificed to himself.

This would be the magical equivalent of nuclear weapons, used only in the direst of necessities when all else had failed. To put it into perspective, when crops failed in 390BC and again in 60BC the tribes responded by pushing southwards, driving the Celts and Slavs south and East respectively. When even migration failed, sacrifice was the last hope turned to. Even war with Rome was considered a better choice.

I think recent archeology has shown that some of the Bog dwellers in various parts of Europe would bury someone obviously of high rank under what was speculated to be stressful circumstances-drought , invasion etc...

Davelaw wrote:Did the ancients often sacrifice the King or war chief for the life of the tribe?

There does seem to be some relation between the Celts and Norse in this aspect, although more is related to the Gauls, as opposed to the Gaels.

Unfortunately I'm in the process of moving, and all my books are packed away...