Does all of Christianity operate under a shared delusion?

[Mister Emu]

Would you call someone jumping infront of a bullet to save someone human sacrifice?

 

[sojourner]

I'll repost it for you. Since you missed it the first time.

Excerpts from “The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt” by Hyam Maccoby, pp. 101~103

It may be objected that the above definition has left no room for a distinction between a human sacrifice and a martyr. The Christian religious history is full of martyrs, starting with Stephen, and it might be (and sometimes is) argued that Jesus was simply the first of this line of martyrs. But a martyr means a ‘witness’, and the reason for the death of martyrs is that they witness to some truth that they hold dearer than their lives. The truth for which the Christian martyrs died was the saving power of the Crucifixion of Jesus. It would be meaningless to say that this was the truth for which Jesus himself died. An act cannot witness to itself. Socrates can be called a martyr, for he died rather than renounce his philosophical beliefs. But, if he deliberately chose to die so that his death might shield the people of Athens from the consequences of their sins, this would be an act of sacrifice, not of martyrdom. Of course, there can be some overlapping between the functions of sacrifice and of martyrdom. Martyrdom is quite commonly venerated as also having some of the quality of a sacrifice. It is believed that the martyr’s suffering has a protective effect on believers, and (in Christianity) that he partakes in and renews the mystery of the Crucifixion. The one case, however, in which this overlap does not and cannot occur is that of the original sacrifice itself, for without it, there would be no Crucifixion for the subsequent martyrs to participate in.

…..
To substantiate this view from the Gospels, one would have to demonstrate that there were some beliefs which Jesus advocated in the face of dangerous opposition and which he was prepared to die for rather than renounce.

What were these beliefs for which Jesus was prepared to die? If we say that it was his belief in his own divinity, then we are back in the vicious circle of reasoning. For the belief in Jesus’s divinity, as expressed in the Gospels, is inextricably bound up with his sacrificial role. It was not simply as the Son of God that Jesus came into the world (imagine a Christianity in which Jesus declared himself to be the Son of God and lived on to a ripe old age!), but to enact the soteriological role of the Son of God who dies and is resurrected and acts as a ‘ransom for many’. We cannot say, then, that Jesus was a martyr who died for his belief in the necessity of his own martyrdom.

…..
All such facts or theories are irrelevant to our present task, which is to examine the Christian myth, a myth that is not about the death of a reformer or religious patriot, but about a cosmic sacrifice.
​

Such a death would be entirely empty of content. To ‘give an example of how to die’ when there was no reason why he should die would not be a good example at all, but a pointless suicide. Good men may certainly choose to die, very often by violent deaths; but only when there is something to die for.​

Once again, **sigh**, the author misses the whole point of Christian soteriology.
Christian soteriology is not the same as that of other religions. That's why Christianity is a separate and unique religion. Jesus didn't die "for his beliefs." Jesus could not "recant" who he was. Jesus' death was not a witness to anything other than the stiff-neckedness of the sanhedrin, the cowardice of Pilate, and the cruelty of the Roman regime.

Once again, it is not the death of Jesus that saves us. It is not the spilt blood of Jesus that saves us. We are saved by the very act of God becoming one of us in the person of Jesus. We are saved because God, in experiencing a human death, showed us that we also had power over death, thus freeing us from its bonds. This is a completely different type of soteriology from that of other religions, where the "savior" has to be sacrificed in order to appease a god.

The layers of meaning inherent in Christian soteriology and in the crucifixion are many. None of which have anything to do with a "necessary blood sacrifice."

Christ could very well have lived to a "ripe old age" and it wouldn't change anything about the theology, other than the metaphors we use.

 

[yuvgotmel]

Once again, **sigh**, the author misses the whole point of Christian soteriology.
Christian soteriology is not the same as that of other religions. That's why Christianity is a separate and unique religion. Jesus didn't die "for his beliefs." Jesus could not "recant" who he was. Jesus' death was not a witness to anything other than the stiff-neckedness of the sanhedrin, the cowardice of Pilate, and the cruelty of the Roman regime.

Once again, it is not the death of Jesus that saves us. It is not the spilt blood of Jesus that saves us. We are saved by the very act of God becoming one of us in the person of Jesus. We are saved because God, in experiencing a human death, showed us that we also had power over death, thus freeing us from its bonds. This is a completely different type of soteriology from that of other religions, where the "savior" has to be sacrificed in order to appease a god.

The layers of meaning inherent in Christian soteriology and in the crucifixion are many. None of which have anything to do with a "necessary blood sacrifice."

Christ could very well have lived to a "ripe old age" and it wouldn't change anything about the theology, other than the metaphors we use.

**sigh**

Must I repeat what you have said before concerning eating the flesh and and drinking the blood of Jesus?

Or....Should I quote you concerning how the "sacrifice of Jesus" made everyone "good enough for heaven" (as you wrote)?

**sigh**

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

Look, if it isn't obvious by now, then it should be: that we are getting no where. You will not be able to convince me that you do not believe in human sacrifice, when your words have clearly (at least to me) depicted the primitive belief and practices of human sacrifice.

Therefore, there is nothing more to discuss with you on this matter.

 

[sojourner]

when your words have clearly (at least to me) depicted the primitive belief and practices of human sacrifice.

Herein lies the crux of the whole disagreement.

My words clearly depict to you the primitive belief and practices of human sacrifice.

Obviously, I have failed to clearly communicate what the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross means for the Christian. All I can do is reiterate that it is neither the blood nor the act of the sacrifice that save. The blood and the sacrifice carry meaning for us inasmuch as they are seen as symbolic of God pouring God's abundance out to us. But God is capable of doing that in any number of ways.

What is common between Christian soteriology and ancient, pagan soteriology is the aspect of sacrifice, however, in the case of ancient, pagan sacrifice, we find that it is precisely the spilt blood and the ritual act that are efficacious. And the sacrifice victim was usually forced into it, adding the dimension of terror.

In the case of Christian soteriology, the sacrifice was a selfless act given by an individual -- not a selfish act perpetrated upon an individual. And the whole sacrifice "thing" is not seen to be efficacious -- it serves only as a "type" by which we can visualize God's pouring out of abundance.

In essence, what Christian soteriology does is to take the base action of blood sacrifice and elevate it to a higher expression, not of appeasement, but of selfless love.

In any case, Christianity does not suffer from the mass delusion that spilling the blood of Jesus appeases God's wrath.

 

[Nein]

That's why Christianity is a separate and unique religion.

I understand that Christanity is a seperate religion, however I am not following the unique aspect of this. Isn't it feesable to say that perhaps Christanity maybe a variety of other religious "thoughts." combined to make this?

Just a question, mean no offense.

Blessed Be.

 

[Nein]

By the way sorry for the typos. A wee bit chilly down here. :drool:

Blessed be

 

[yuvgotmel]

Herein lies the crux of the whole disagreement.

My words clearly depict to you the primitive belief and practices of human sacrifice.

Obviously, I have failed to clearly communicate what the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross means for the Christian. All I can do is reiterate that it is neither the blood nor the act of the sacrifice that save. The blood and the sacrifice carry meaning for us inasmuch as they are seen as symbolic of God pouring God's abundance out to us. But God is capable of doing that in any number of ways.

What is common between Christian soteriology and ancient, pagan soteriology is the aspect of sacrifice, however, in the case of ancient, pagan sacrifice, we find that it is precisely the spilt blood and the ritual act that are efficacious. And the sacrifice victim was usually forced into it, adding the dimension of terror.

In the case of Christian soteriology, the sacrifice was a selfless act given by an individual -- not a selfish act perpetrated upon an individual. And the whole sacrifice "thing" is not seen to be efficacious -- it serves only as a "type" by which we can visualize God's pouring out of abundance.

In essence, what Christian soteriology does is to take the base action of blood sacrifice and elevate it to a higher expression, not of appeasement, but of selfless love.

In any case, Christianity does not suffer from the mass delusion that spilling the blood of Jesus appeases God's wrath.

That is exactly what I explained before (in the excerpt below, which is reposted). That is exactly how the natives among the South American tribes of Chile and Peru, who still practice human sacrifice, view and conceptualize the practices of human sacrifice.

Excerpt from Patrick Tierney’s book “The Highest Altar: Unveiling the Mystery of Human Sacrifice,” pp. 278~280

“Of course,” Don Eduardo said. “Obviously. That’s what the guys who perform human sacrifice are trying to do with the souls of the victims. They want to control the disembodied soul and make it into a guardian spirit who will serve them.”

Don Eduardo maintains that such entities are “thought-forms” trapped by the minds of magicians, for good or evil. As an example of “positive thought-forms” Don Eduardo mentioned Jesus and Buddha. “A thought-form like Jesus or Buddha can go on for eternity. As long as people think of Jesus, it’s like continually charging a battery. But if people forget him, then, like others before and since, he’ll be dissolved. …”
​

The author continues to quote Don Eduardo, as Eduardo explains a particular human sacrifice in that local town, which was also publicized in their newspaper.“…Now Clemente Limachi is a thought-form that people are charging up where you work. By praying to him, they are giving him greater potential. They believe he’s a saint which means they’ve made him a necessity. He’s been crystallized into a deity, a high power.”

….

Don Eduardo continued, “Now, what’s the purpose of a sacrifice? In an ultimate sense, it’s the sacrifice of man, the microcosm, to the universe, the macrocosm. A sacrifice is a channel between the microcosm and the macrocosm. The channel is always the same, yet between the past and the present there are many accidents, many uncertainties. So the disembodied soul of the sacrifice is a channel between the living present and the dead past. I believe that the soul of a sacrificial victim, if he is fully aware of this great honor, can become such a cosmic channel. In the case of the Moches, there is a beautiful painting of a warrior whose heart is being torn out. You can see from the look of peace on the warrior’s face that his mind has transcended the pain. ….”
​

 

[sojourner]

I understand that Christanity is a seperate religion, however I am not following the unique aspect of this. Isn't it feesable to say that perhaps Christanity maybe a variety of other religious "thoughts." combined to make this?

Just a question, mean no offense.

Blessed Be.

None taken.

No. Christianity is not an amalgam. (Baha'is can speak to this better than I) The Baha'i faith is more like an amalgam, I believe. (Plz correct me if I'm wrong! I don't know all that much about that faith.)

It is the very aspect of how we view sacrificial love as opposed to sacrificial obligation that sets us apart from other religions in our soteriology.

 

[yuvgotmel]

I'm saying that the Orthodox (the Romanian Church is one local church within the whole Orthodox Church - we're all, Russians, Greeks, Serbs etc. in communion, all have the same faith) do not believe that God sacrificed His Son in order to pay for our sins, which is the view you said all Christians adhered to. I'm saying that we see the entire Incarnation as reconciling man to God and through man the whole of creation and that we se the Resurrection in particular as defeating the power of death over man. As we sing in the paschal hymn, 'Christ is risen from the dead trampling down death by death'. That's not substitutionary atonement by a long chalk and, in fact, is by far the older understanding. As for the Crucifixion, we see it as Christ's self-sacrifice that would bring about the possibility of the Resurrection and, hence, salvation. The method of death, however, would be irrelevant. Is that what you wanted to know? Clearly as we do not hold to the doctrine you claimed we do, your group of all Christians is missing somewhere in the region of 250 million - at least.

James

This is the Romanian Orthodox creed...
http://www.stmaryro.org/en/default.asp?contentid=704

THE CREED
I believe in One God, Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not created, of one essence with the Father, through whom all things were made.
For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became Man. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and He suffered and was buried. On the third day He rose according to the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets.
In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I expect the resurrection of the dead; and the life of the age, to come. Amen.
​

http://www.romanianorthodoxchurch.com/index.cfm?pkLink_ID=17

For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became Man. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and He suffered and was buried.
​

 

[Nein]

Sojour-

Perhaps I was asking in the wrong way. My Pardons. I gather my question was more in a general context of how Christanity was unique. Perhaps words used I could see but maybe not the full context and or meaning.

I mean, i view the bible from the standpoint as it is a collection of variety of other religions. Just the words are different. I was just wondering about that. My pardons if i was a bit to general with asking.

*drinks her hot coco*

Blessed be

 

[sojourner]

That is exactly what I explained before (in the excerpt below, which is reposted). That is exactly how the natives among the South American tribes of Chile and Peru, who still practice human sacrifice, view and conceptualize the practices of human sacrifice.

Excerpt from Patrick Tierney’s book “The Highest Altar: Unveiling the Mystery of Human Sacrifice,” pp. 278~280

“Of course,” Don Eduardo said. “Obviously. That’s what the guys who perform human sacrifice are trying to do with the souls of the victims. They want to control the disembodied soul and make it into a guardian spirit who will serve them.”

Don Eduardo maintains that such entities are “thought-forms” trapped by the minds of magicians, for good or evil. As an example of “positive thought-forms” Don Eduardo mentioned Jesus and Buddha. “A thought-form like Jesus or Buddha can go on for eternity. As long as people think of Jesus, it’s like continually charging a battery. But if people forget him, then, like others before and since, he’ll be dissolved. …”
​

The author continues to quote Don Eduardo, as Eduardo explains a particular human sacrifice in that local town, which was also publicized in their newspaper.“…Now Clemente Limachi is a thought-form that people are charging up where you work. By praying to him, they are giving him greater potential. They believe he’s a saint which means they’ve made him a necessity. He’s been crystallized into a deity, a high power.”

….

Don Eduardo continued, “Now, what’s the purpose of a sacrifice? In an ultimate sense, it’s the sacrifice of man, the microcosm, to the universe, the macrocosm. A sacrifice is a channel between the microcosm and the macrocosm. The channel is always the same, yet between the past and the present there are many accidents, many uncertainties. So the disembodied soul of the sacrifice is a channel between the living present and the dead past. I believe that the soul of a sacrificial victim, if he is fully aware of this great honor, can become such a cosmic channel. In the case of the Moches, there is a beautiful painting of a warrior whose heart is being torn out. You can see from the look of peace on the warrior’s face that his mind has transcended the pain. ….”
​

But we don't seek to control the soul of God in Christ's sacrifice. We don't "make the diembodied soul into a guardian spirit who will serve us." Rather, Christ sends us the Spirit freely. And we serve him -- not the other way 'round.

Jesus is not just a "thought-form." Jesus is God incarnate, who cannot be "trapped" by us in any way.

In our theology, humanity is not sacrificed to the Divine. Rather, it's the Divine that gives itself freely to us -- not to master, but to love. The sacrifice is a channel, but only inasmuch as it affirms the abundance of God to us.

That's why I said in the first place that this stuff has no basis in the reality of Christian theology. The author does not understand Christianity.

 

[yuvgotmel]

Sojourner wrote:

But we don't seek to control the soul of God in Christ's sacrifice. We don't "make the diembodied soul into a guardian spirit who will serve us." Rather, Christ sends us the Spirit freely. And we serve him -- not the other way 'round.

Jesus is not just a "thought-form." Jesus is God incarnate, who cannot be "trapped" by us in any way.

In our theology, humanity is not sacrificed to the Divine. Rather, it's the Divine that gives itself freely to us -- not to master, but to love. The sacrifice is a channel, but only inasmuch as it affirms the abundance of God to us.

That's why I said in the first place that this stuff has no basis in the reality of Christian theology. The author does not understand Christianity.

T.S. Eliot understood it to be human sacrifice too....

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Excerpt from “The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt” by Hyam Maccoby, p.98~106

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In the latter cases, however, there was another factor at work, namely that to kill a god, or to assist a cosmic process of death and rebirth, is something different from killing a fellow human being. It is therefore possible to disguise from oneself, in an ecstasy of cosmic participation, what one is actually doing. This particular kind of disguise has been very powerful in Christian worship. It is very rare indeed for Christian believers to regard the death of Jesus as belonging to the history of pagan human sacrifice (a notable exception was T.S. Eliot, one of the few adherents of Christianity who have understood fully its affinities with rites of pagan sacrifice). While a Christian is accustomed to thinking of Jesus as both man and God, when he thinks of the atonement aspect of the Crucifixion, he attends to the divine aspect of Jesus; the thought that Jesus was a human sacrifice thus never enters his mind, or, if it does, is fended off with the thought, ‘But Jesus was not a man, he was God.’ While thinking of the actual death of Jesus, however, he attends to the human aspects—his pitiable sufferings, and the wickedness of his human enemies; he becomes a man done to death by evil-doers, not a god suffering cosmically. Thus the thought that Jesus was a human sacrifice (or rather that his death functions as one in the mind of the worshipper) is overlooked, or, if momentarily evoked, dismissed as too barbaric to be relevant. We have therefore the phenomenon of a religion in which human sacrifice is more central than in any religion known to us (so much so that the Aztecs, who rivalled Christianity closely in this respect, found the doctrines of Christianity very familiar and unremarkable), but which nevertheless repudiates human sacrifice as an alien an outdated notion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is necessary, therefore, to dwell somewhat on the place of sacrifice in Christianity and to bring out its full meaning. It must be stressed that the definition of a human death as a sacrifice depends on the use to which it is put religiously. It does not depend on historical proof that the worshippers or their ancestors actually participated in an openly acknowledged rite in which a human being was put to death for the purpose of founding a tribe or a religion, or to save the tribe from extinction or external torture after death, or to ensure the continuance of the agricultural cycle (all these possible reasons are really variations of each other, though which of the variations is select as basic is a matter of taste). As we have seen, it is very rarely that the community that benefits, or think it benefits, from human sacrifice acknowledges responsibility for performing it. It much prefers to ascribe the death to accident or malevolence beyond the control of the community. The means by which the death took place, whether human or even non-living, is in some way ostracized or repudiated. But, if death is regarded as having saved the tribe, then we are in the presence of human sacrifice.[/FONT]
​

 

[yuvgotmel]

Sojourner...

This could go on all night and tomorrow and the next day and the next week and the next year and the next decade. ALL of Christianity suffers under the delusion of human sacrifice.

Even the Romanian Orthodox Church's creed includes that Jesus was sacrificed for the people. ....

There is nothing more to argue.

 

[Mister Emu]

You never answered my question...

Would you call one jumping in the path of a bullet and dieing, to save another, human sacrifice?

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner wrote:


T.S. Eliot understood it to be human sacrifice too....

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Excerpt from “The Sacred Executioner: Human Sacrifice and the Legacy of Guilt” by Hyam Maccoby, p.98~106

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In the latter cases, however, there was another factor at work, namely that to kill a god, or to assist a cosmic process of death and rebirth, is something different from killing a fellow human being. It is therefore possible to disguise from oneself, in an ecstasy of cosmic participation, what one is actually doing. This particular kind of disguise has been very powerful in Christian worship. It is very rare indeed for Christian believers to regard the death of Jesus as belonging to the history of pagan human sacrifice (a notable exception was T.S. Eliot, one of the few adherents of Christianity who have understood fully its affinities with rites of pagan sacrifice). While a Christian is accustomed to thinking of Jesus as both man and God, when he thinks of the atonement aspect of the Crucifixion, he attends to the divine aspect of Jesus; the thought that Jesus was a human sacrifice thus never enters his mind, or, if it does, is fended off with the thought, ‘But Jesus was not a man, he was God.’ While thinking of the actual death of Jesus, however, he attends to the human aspects—his pitiable sufferings, and the wickedness of his human enemies; he becomes a man done to death by evil-doers, not a god suffering cosmically. Thus the thought that Jesus was a human sacrifice (or rather that his death functions as one in the mind of the worshipper) is overlooked, or, if momentarily evoked, dismissed as too barbaric to be relevant. We have therefore the phenomenon of a religion in which human sacrifice is more central than in any religion known to us (so much so that the Aztecs, who rivalled Christianity closely in this respect, found the doctrines of Christianity very familiar and unremarkable), but which nevertheless repudiates human sacrifice as an alien an outdated notion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is necessary, therefore, to dwell somewhat on the place of sacrifice in Christianity and to bring out its full meaning. It must be stressed that the definition of a human death as a sacrifice depends on the use to which it is put religiously. It does not depend on historical proof that the worshippers or their ancestors actually participated in an openly acknowledged rite in which a human being was put to death for the purpose of founding a tribe or a religion, or to save the tribe from extinction or external torture after death, or to ensure the continuance of the agricultural cycle (all these possible reasons are really variations of each other, though which of the variations is select as basic is a matter of taste). As we have seen, it is very rarely that the community that benefits, or think it benefits, from human sacrifice acknowledges responsibility for performing it. It much prefers to ascribe the death to accident or malevolence beyond the control of the community. The means by which the death took place, whether human or even non-living, is in some way ostracized or repudiated. But, if death is regarded as having saved the tribe, then we are in the presence of human sacrifice.[/FONT]
​

Look at the last sentence. We do not regard that Christ's death saved us. Period.

This author does not know what he is talking about with regard to Christian theology.

 

[yuvgotmel]

I am not Orthodox, but I don't believe the Creed has to be read that way

Aside, you never answered my question...

Would you call one jumping in the path of a bullet and dieing, to save another, human sacrifice?

No, I would not call "jumping in the path of a bullet" in order "to save another" as human sacrifice. However, if you are trying to imply what I think you are, then you should read post #112 in this thread.

It says, in brief: [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"But, if death is regarded as having saved the tribe, then we are in the presence of human sacrifice." [/FONT](in quoting Hyam Maccoby).

 

[yuvgotmel]

Unless you have since recanted what you wrote earlier, then the last sentence is perfectly fitting.

If Jesus died on the cross to expiate the sin of all the world, then, by his sacrifice, we are made acceptable, or good enough, for heaven.

 

[Mister Emu]

So at what point in numbers does it become human sacrifice?

Hypothetically...

We have a small tribe of 20 people, and they are gathered about a live grenade, and I jump on it... thus saving the tribe... do we have human sacrifice there?

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner...

This could go on all night and tomorrow and the next day and the next week and the next year and the next decade. ALL of Christianity suffers under the delusion of human sacrifice.

Even the Romanian Orthodox Church's creed includes that Jesus was sacrificed for the people. ....

There is nothing more to argue.

Maybe SOME of the Christian community suffers under the delusion of human sacrifice, but not ALL by a long shot. You just don't get to pass that kind of judgment on us. You're entitled to your opinions, but then...so are the rest of us.

The creed reads:
"...For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried."

But that doesn't carry the implication that you seem to think it does.

Might I suggest that the delusion does not lie in the Christian viewpoint, but in the opinions of those "pundits" who do not understand Christian theology?

 

[yuvgotmel]

So at what point in numbers does it become human sacrifice?

Hypothetically...

We have a small tribe of 20 people, and they are gathered about a live grenade, and I jump on it... thus saving the tribe... do we have human sacrifice there?

Let me ask you this....

Does your "hypothetical" situation include rituals of:

--communion (whereby the tribe commemorates your deed by eating your flesh and drinking your blood)
--praying to you as a "messenger" between you and "god" (i.e. a father, or whatever)
​

And did the tribe SELECT you to begin with to be the one to "sacrifice" for them?

Will you be venerated as a "god" after your death?

There are more attributes, but you get the gist....

Here is a list of common traits for human sacrifice. (This is not an all-inclusive list, but it is pretty good for starters.)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The human sacrifice meme (in all beliefs from all parts of the world), for the purposes of atonement, goes something like this:[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] A group of people choose a victim for their ritual. Usually the sacrifice is a child, a member of royalty, a person of a warring tribe, a strong male, or a parentless or unwanted child (or another member of the society who is undesirable). [/FONT]
2. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The group then collectively heaps their sin onto the victim through mockery and torture during the ritual.[/FONT]
3. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]During such rituals, it is common for the participants to be “covered in the blood” of the sacrifice. The blood of the sacrifice is considered to have magical healing and atoning properties.[/FONT]
4. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Once the victim is dead, the victim is thereafter prayed to as a saint, god, or messenger. That is done to raise the spirit of the dead into “eternal life” by remembering the person, their death and sacrifice. It is also for the purposes of reminding the victim to take their message to the higher “deity(s)”.[/FONT]
5. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Furthermore, in some ceremonies, it is common to partake of the victim’s blood and/or flesh.[/FONT]
6. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] It is even common to establish a symbol, location or belief structure surrounding that sacrifice in order to keep the sacrifice valid and alive through remembering.[/FONT]
7. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Also, it was/is considered that the location of the ritualistic killing is done in an important area. Often this would mean a mountain or a hill, such as seen with Abraham or Golgotha[/FONT]