Dear F. Wesley Schneider,
I’ve not been paying much attention to the blog for awhile and recently decided to catch up on it, and I came across the entries about your Princes of Darkness—Book of the Damned, Volume 1.
First let me say, your Book of the Damned sounds really neat and I’m sure it will be a welcome addition to many people’s personal libraries.
What bothered me was this part of the interview:
Adherents possessed a kiln shaped like a bull, and put seven sacrifices into seven slots in the oven—one was an amount of flour, there were several animals, and the last was a human child. There was nothing inherently malevolent about this—nor particularly uncommon for the age—it was just the way they practiced their religion.
I can’t believe that you’d say that, Wes. I’ve never before heard someone try to excuse human sacrifices.
Even if such practices were not “particularly uncommon for the age” it doesn’t make them any better. They are evil and they are murder.It's interesting how in ancient history, when a large religion such as Christianity gained prominence in an area, the old gods were demonized. Moloch and Beelzebub are good examples of this.
I am not familiar with what went on at ceremonies to Beelzebub, but Moloch wouldn’t need to be “demonized”, he was pretty demonic on his own.
I’m not meaning to attack you or your views, I’m just stating my own.
---Theris Nordo Ichka
P.S. I just hope that your only reason for saying this was to start the messageboards moving.
|
While I agree with what you said, I'm in the mood to play devil's advocate. Just as you were not attacking Wes or his views, I'm not attacking yours, just trying to put a different spin on things.
the last was a human child. There was nothing inherently malevolent about this—nor particularly uncommon for the age—it was just the way they practiced their religion.
I can’t believe that you’d say that, Wes. I’ve never before heard someone try to excuse human sacrifices.
Even if such practices were not “particularly uncommon for the age” it doesn’t make them any better. They are evil and they are murder.
Wes never states any moral view on the sacrifice, he just states that it was common practice for many religions of the time. It was common enough that it is mentioned in the Bible (Abraham's test when he almost sacrifices his son)
Also, it was different time 2000+ years ago, both in science and morality. While I agree that under today's standards, this is a evil act, was it thought evil in the time that these religions were being worshiped, by those worshiping them? Maybe it was used as a way to end the suffering of the weak and those that were mortally wounded/maimed... while we have some idea of their practices few if any documentation exists that goes through the entire selection process of who would be sacrificed (at least not that I know of).
I'm not saying that it is probable that this is what happened. I'm also not saying that they were 'right' to worship in this way. I'm just saying that
1) It works as the basis for devil worship in my head
2) Morals are as much from upbringing as they are from common sense. Unnfortunatly many things that are not moral now were a long time ago
Maybe it was used as a way to end the suffering of the weak and those that were mortally wounded/maimed...
I make no claim to be an expert on ancient religions, but I do know that sacrifices were supposed to be, well, sacrifices, giving your god something of value, not a way to cull the weak animals of your herd that are worthless to you anyway. To give less than your best to your god is an insult.
In addition, the priests of ancient cults generally subsisted on a portion of the sacrifices brought (though not, let us hope, in the case of human infants) and were unlikely to accept sickly animals or unappetizing meat. That would be a good way to find yourself on the sacrifice list.
I must admit the part of the blog that bothered me was this statement.
It's interesting how in ancient history, when a large religion such as Christianity gained prominence in an area, the old gods were demonized. Moloch and Beelzebub are good examples of this.
Christianity did not arise until centuries after Moloch and Beelzebub's cults had been "demonized." I grant he said "religion such as Christianity," but still, the overall impression left is historically inaccurate.
I make no claim to be an expert on ancient religions, but I do know that sacrifices were supposed to be, well, sacrifices, giving your god something of value, not a way to cull the weak animals of your herd that are worthless to you anyway. To give less than your best to your god is an insult.
Tell that to the ancient Greeks. They even have a story about how they tricked the gods into accepting the fat and gristle of a sacrificed animal, keeping the yummy parts for the mortals, and because the gods accepted it the first time, it was allowed thereafter.
I’m not meaning to attack you or your views, I’m just stating my own.
---Theris Nordo Ichka
P.S. I just hope that your only reason for saying this was to start the messageboards moving.
So... you aren't meaning to attack him or his views, but you hope he was lying in the blog post?
I make no claim to be an expert on ancient religions, but I do know that sacrifices were supposed to be, well, sacrifices, giving your god something of value, not a way to cull the weak animals of your herd that are worthless to you anyway. To give less than your best to your god is an insult.Tell that to the ancient Greeks. They even have a story about how they tricked the gods into accepting the fat and gristle of a sacrificed animal, keeping the yummy parts for the mortals, and because the gods accepted it the first time, it was allowed thereafter.
Well, that's where the priests' portion came in. They did the same thing in the Old Testament. But the animal itself was expected to be desirable, as that's what the mortal (priests) ate. There's a difference between actually burning the unedible parts of the animal (as the gods only apparently like the smell anyway) while the priests eat the meaty parts, and bringing in a sickly animal that the priests can't eat in the first place. So the ordinary Joe Farmer was expected to "sacrifice," even if the priests weren't.
See, I see it as a way for the farmer to say, "get a job, you lazy priest!"
See, I see it as a way for the farmer to say, "get a job, you lazy priest!"
Which would generally go across as well for the farmer in ancient societies as telling an IRS agent, "Get a job, you lazy bureaucrat!" would in our time.
Or, alternatively, as well as talking back to a priestess of Lolth would go for your average male drow. :)
Now, once the farmers start to band together and get the backing of leading philosophers, things are very different. But that's several centuries away from Moloch and Baal.
really? Really? REAlly? REALLY? Yeesh.
I make no claim to be an expert on ancient religions, but I do know that sacrifices were supposed to be, well, sacrifices, giving your god something of value, not a way to cull the weak animals of your herd that are worthless to you anyway. To give less than your best to your god is an insult.Tell that to the ancient Greeks. They even have a story about how they tricked the gods into accepting the fat and gristle of a sacrificed animal, keeping the yummy parts for the mortals, and because the gods accepted it the first time, it was allowed thereafter.
I think you are referring to this story. (It always struck me though that the story’s moral, if you will, was NOT to cheat the gods.)
The Prometheus myth first appeared in the Greek epic poet Hesiod's (ca. 700 BC) Theogony (lines 507-616). He was a son of the Titan, Iapetus by Themis or Clymene, one of the Oceanids. He was brother to Menoetius, Atlas, and Epimetheus. In the Theogony, Hesiod introduces Prometheus as a lowly challenger to Zeus' omniscience and omnipotence. At Sicyon, a sacrificial meal marking the "settling of accounts" between mortals and immortals, Prometheus played a trick against Zeus (545-557). He placed two sacrificial offerings before the Olympian: a selection of bull meat hidden inside an ox's stomach (nourishment hidden inside a displeasing exterior), and the bull's bones wrapped completely in "glistening fat" (something inedible hidden inside a pleasing exterior). Zeus chose the latter, setting a precedent for future sacrifices; henceforth, humans would keep the meat for themselves and burn the bones wrapped in fat as an offering to the gods. This angered Zeus, who hid fire from humans in retribution.
Meh, fire is overrated. :)