Greatest I am wrote:Scott Mayers wrote:
Hi Greatest I am,
I haven't heard from you for a while on the Skeptic form. It's nice to see you still going.
On your question, I don't know if you saw my "
Theory on Sacrifice" I referred to from the Skeptic site, but this helps make sense of how or why this really CAN be justified in the past in a powerfully rational way.
I argued that sacrifice in those days acted as the only means to rationally assure contractual treatises by the methods I outlined there. It still holds today but we frown on allowing what one values most significant if it involves another person, or even sometimes other 'scapegoats' involving animals.
I'll summarize how I see it relates to this here.
In the past, there was no actual way to assure different tribes or groups could assure contracts (promises) were made between them. Agreements between any two people or groups lack meaning if both groups cannot demonstrate their faith to comply to agreements. But, people have learned that when we demonstrate a willingness to each sacrifice something of intrinsic value and in a way that it does not benefit the other by doing so, the sacrifice acts to bind any agreement with the most power, especially if each or one of the two parties are capable of later gaining something by breaking such agreements.
Since one's own children to most even today represent the most significant value, such sacrifices prove most productive even though it doesn't benefit the 'object' of sacrifice. I don't recall David's child as being sacrificed but
do remember Isaac being offered up as Abraham's proof to show his faith in God, though. There, God was able to save Isaac at the last moment since the acts carried out by Abraham literally demonstrated his faith as he appeared that he was assured to carry this through. This could not be done between real people though as it would imply that they had the power of God to interpret one's mind without carrying forward with the sacrifice.
So how does this help with your question here?
Not at all since we know from the girl baby killing in many cultures that value boys more will regularly kill their babies so your intrinsic value comment is false.
This is an improper application of 'sacrifice' with regards to the origins I'm suggesting. The kind of 'sacrifice' I argued that originated the ritual within latter religious formation dealt only between real people, not sacrifices to gods. But nowadays, even in our society, sacrifice is not sincere 'sacrifice' since often they are merely less valuable tokens or "scapegoats". A scapegoat is a stand in for the original sacrificial function and is NOT actually a sincere sacrifice in the extreme sense. It is symbolic and actually the object of sacrifice through scapegoats is often picked to be an object of lesser significance or value if real. The animal used to literally represent certain value if and where people absolutely sacrificed it as a loss. This later evolved into a ceremonial 'cooking' and feast afterwards. The sacrifice of those girls you may be referring to may simply indicate the devolution of some original sacrifice. Note that the Judaeo-Christian sacrifices often noted sacrifices to the first-born children as this was initially of the highest virtue. In an interesting twist, however, the story in Genesis often opted for the second child in ironic contrast to most other groups. Perhaps this was their first means to overcome the original power of the real sacrifices used to assure contracts.
Now if you would have said that the ones making the deal would put their lives on the line you would have a point.
In the cases in the O.P. we see the innocent being punished and not the guilty and that goes against all major legal systems as those seek to punish the guilty and not the innocent.
That policy of punishing the guilty is what would have to be refuted and I do not think it can be and there is no evidence that blood was required or desired for ancient contracts.
I think the above explained this and I expand on the justification on the link I provided. Original contracts that would involve sincere sacrifice in the way I laid out would have been rationally recognized by as the perfect assurances of loyalty to ones' agreements. This still operates especially within groups like street gangs who demand an initiate to do some crime in order to demonstrate a sincere sacrifice that binds them to the group as a co-conspirator. If you kill someone, for instance, and leave the vital evidence in the hands of the other members as they do with you equally, this are assurance and insurance policies for breaching the trust. These methods really do have powerful effect and why it is not far fetched to interpret the past as actually recognizing and practicing this.
Sacrifice becomes less favorable as civilization evolves with the technology to assure contracts in alternate ways, like writing. Also refer to my original religious theory I link to with regards to how temples originated as contractual meeting places of tribes. This is another evolutionary example that evolved into becoming more sacred and less secular. The secular understanding of the original temple concept is what those like the Jesus Christs (that is, the ones who declare "I am the king of man anointed by God" = "Je_su(i)s Christos") falsely presumed were 'sacred' and why they were rebuffed and considered nuisances.
The Christian Jesus discredited the Temple in Jerusalem precisely because the original function of them was to provide legitimate contracts being bound through the acts of real sacrifices (even though by then they devolved to using animals) AND to the insincerity (and vulgarity) it represented to the new interpretations vs old. Thus the Jesus character represented himself as a sacrifice in that he knew by causing disruption, it would ultimately assure his capital punishment. His martyrdom was intended to 'prove' to others very powerful indeed as it cemented the faith in all those following who became Christians! This proves it works even if it was a fabrication or indirect attribution via story-telling of other real people from the past.
Circumcision was also a likely devolved ritual that originated in actual castration. Eunuchs represented the means to subdue as a person that was likely observed to also make them more subservient as women [lack of the testosterone for physical strength] and the devolution to mere circumcision, though still interpreted 'bad' today by some, is actually relatively harmless by contrast.
I wouldn't concern yourself with trying to defeat the Western style religions on the basis of the past rituals of sacrifice since that actually originated regardless or even without original religion. The differing tribes that would attempt this in the past would have had often distinct religious beliefs and so the sacrifices could not originate in devotional negotiations between people and gods (because they didn't necessarily share the same gods).