Human Sacrifice

[Callisto]

Anyone that is "truly dangerous" is probably mentally ill, imv

A person can be mentally ill and still be competent, knowing and understanding full well their actions. Which means they also possess the capacity to realize this and seek out measures to keep themselves from being a danger to others.

Rehabilitative services? Mental health treatment.

What about those who can't be rehabilitated? They're competent and non-remorseful, what then?

 

[Callisto]

I've actually had to reconsider this, because as it turns out. Life in prison is cheaper then the death sentence.

"The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life-without-parole sentences as an alternative punishment."

Costs | Death Penalty Information Center

And in regard to the death penalty. I'd rather 9 criminals go free, then one innocent person be executed. (Referring to my early post about 1 in 9 being wrongfully executed).

It's "more expensive" because we allow repeated appeals and a mountain of legal gyrations. There are plenty of cases where there is zero doubt who committed the crime and yet the process is drawn out instead of the penalty being carried out within the same week of sentencing.

 

[Clara Tea]

So, in the same vain as my previous thread on animal sacrifice.

What makes human sacrifice wrong? And do we already do it in modern society?

I would say, yes, we do commit human sacrifice.

Any society that has the death penalty commits human sacrifice.

I am defining han sacrifice as follows: the killing of a person or person's to fulfill some ephemeral good/goal.

In the past human Sacrifice was often of captured warrior combatants, or willing participants. And these people were sacrificed in the name of the "greater good" and dedicated to the Gods.

I see no difference to that, and killing a criminal because of some transgressions. So that we can fulfill the ephemeral goal of "Justice", "order" and "law". Just like past sacrifices were for the ephemeral Gods.

These concepts are just as fleeting and morphic as the Gods themselves. Changing with society and it's desires. Just like the desires of the Gods change with the times.

Hawaiians, a couple of hundred years ago, killed newborn with blemishes. It had been common practice for royalty to marry royalty (ditto with European royalty), and that led to inbreeding and mutations. On an isolated island, in which mates are few and far between, inbreeding and mutation was a real threat to the population. If mutants were not killed, they could pass down their DNA to future generations. So, for ancient Hawaiians, genecide was a necessary but gruesome ritual.

Volcano sacrifices made sense (fire spewing hole with great power that shook the earth and made huge plumes of smoke and flying lava, and molton rock pouring out of the ground. . . no wonder they thought that the Gods were angry. Unlike the Christian God, theirs was tangible, threatening, and right in front of them.

It sort of made sense that the most tasty bits of food should be reserved for the all-powerful God(s). Similarly, the most desirable woman (unsoiled by sexual contact) should be a gift that any human male would want, and therefore would be a fitting gift to a fire-spewing God.

So far, the sacrificing Hawaiians make far more sense than Christians.

I would imagine that mutant kids in the past were allowed to live, and they passed down their mutations.

The giant skulls of Parnassus, South America, might have been mutations, rather than skulls deformed by strapping boards to infant's heads.

Are these real photographs, or a forgeries?

https://www.designcrowd.com/community/contest.aspx?id=1680438

This one (above) is artwork, so not real.

NEPHILIM SKELETONS FOUND! A Study into the theory that the Neanderthals were the Nephilim described in the Bible and other ancient writings

Apparently scientists also thought that biblical Nephilim (giants) were Neanderthals. (Website above).

The Giant Who Lives in the Melbourne Museum

According to the website above (New York Times, written in 2020), the giant human skull weighs 575 pounds.

 

[Clara Tea]

A person can be mentally ill and still be competent, knowing and understanding full well their actions. Which means they also possess the capacity to realize this and seek out measures to keep themselves from being a danger to others.


What about those who can't be rehabilitated? They're competent and non-remorseful, what then?

Rehabilitation doesn't work. However, criminals can always grab a bible and pretend to be holy and get lighter sentences.

Reverend Tex Watson is not to be trusted (member of the murderous Charles Manson Clan). Watson claimed that he killed because he thought that he'd have difficulty living up to his parent's expectations (college, etc). I don't think that Watson has ever changed his mind. . . he seems to still be a murderer at heart.

 

[The Hammer]

Hawaiians, a couple of hundred years ago, killed newborn with blemishes. It had been common practice for royalty to marry royalty (ditto with European royalty), and that led to inbreeding and mutations. On an isolated island, in which mates are few and far between, inbreeding and mutation was a real threat to the population. If mutants were not killed, they could pass down their DNA to future generations. So, for ancient Hawaiians, genecide was a necessary but gruesome ritual.

Volcano sacrifices made sense (fire spewing hole with great power that shook the earth and made huge plumes of smoke and flying lava, and molton rock pouring out of the ground. . . no wonder they thought that the Gods were angry. Unlike the Christian God, theirs was tangible, threatening, and right in front of them.

It sort of made sense that the most tasty bits of food should be reserved for the all-powerful God(s). Similarly, the most desirable woman (unsoiled by sexual contact) should be a gift that any human male would want, and therefore would be a fitting gift to a fire-spewing God.

So far, the sacrificing Hawaiians make far more sense than Christians.

I would imagine that mutant kids in the past were allowed to live, and they passed down their mutations.

The giant skulls of Parnassus, South America, might have been mutations, rather than skulls deformed by strapping boards to infant's heads.

View attachment 64955

Are these real photographs, or a forgeries?

https://www.designcrowd.com/community/contest.aspx?id=1680438

This one (above) is artwork, so not real.

NEPHILIM SKELETONS FOUND! A Study into the theory that the Neanderthals were the Nephilim described in the Bible and other ancient writings

Apparently scientists also thought that biblical Nephilim (giants) were Neanderthals. (Website above).

The Giant Who Lives in the Melbourne Museum

According to the website above (New York Times, written in 2020), the giant human skull weighs 575 pounds.

What's funny about the neanderthal but. Is they were smaller then we were, stature wise. They were stockier and stronger. But typically shorter then H. sapiens.

 

[The Hammer]

For me, krodha is the most difficult to quell.

Mada, krodha and kama for me. . .. what can I say, I'm a man of many faults.

 

[The Hammer]

A person can be mentally ill and still be competent, knowing and understanding full well their actions. Which means they also possess the capacity to realize this and seek out measures to keep themselves from being a danger to others.


What about those who can't be rehabilitated? They're competent and non-remorseful, what then?

Those that can't be rehabilitated are few and far between. I have mental health issues and sometimes my actions are not my own for instance.

 

[The Hammer]

Rehabilitation doesn't work.

I disagree.

 

[Balthazzar]

So, in the same vain as my previous thread on animal sacrifice.

What makes human sacrifice wrong? And do we already do it in modern society?

I would say, yes, we do commit human sacrifice.

Any society that has the death penalty commits human sacrifice.

I am defining han sacrifice as follows: the killing of a person or person's to fulfill some ephemeral good/goal.

In the past human Sacrifice was often of captured warrior combatants, or willing participants. And these people were sacrificed in the name of the "greater good" and dedicated to the Gods.

I see no difference to that, and killing a criminal because of some transgressions. So that we can fulfill the ephemeral goal of "Justice", "order" and "law". Just like past sacrifices were for the ephemeral Gods.

These concepts are just as fleeting and morphic as the Gods themselves. Changing with society and it's desires. Just like the desires of the Gods change with the times.

Humans have a knack for perverting the ways of justice, but that's not human sacrifice. What you're alluding to is capital "punishment". Punishment is punishment and capital punishment serves no great4r good aside from a loosing on earth the penal bonds of imprisonment. Then again, we're all prisoners here in one way or another. Safety is another matter altogether. Taking measures to help ensure safety serves a greater good.

Human sacrifice? Well, that's kinda how life is when we take on responsibility for our com mj unifies and future generations ... a lifetime of sacrifice, duty, and service. Death penalties? No. I'm not on board with that type of sacrifice. Defense? Yes. To protect, but nothing less or more.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would argue against this position for several reasons.

The first is that many cultures that practiced human sacrifice did not see it the way you are describing and it often happened to non-willing victims, such as the case in Norse communities as we can see from this horrific description:

“They laid him forthwith in a grave which they covered up for ten days till they had finished cutting-out and sewing his costume,” he writes, before revealing that a slave girl is then given the “honour” of following her master into the afterlife. The process continues with much drinking and merry-making, and the slave girl eventually compelled to have ritualistic sex with several men, who say: “Tell your master I did this out of love for him.”

Then, an old woman known as the “Angel of Death” takes control of things, supervising the preparation of the ship, and the recovery of the body from its brief grave, to be adorned in its final costume and then placed on the ship with rich foods and opulent ornaments. The slave girl, lolling and “bewildered” after drinking alcohol, is then introduced to the scene, and brutally stabbed to death by the “Angel of Death” with a knife."

They also strangled the girl as well. So she was raped, drugged and murdered, all on behalf of her master who wants her to continue as his slave in the afterlife.

I don't think this is in any way comparable to the death penalty. It's needless torture.

Or this,

In addition to slicing out the hearts of victims and spilling their blood on the temple altar, it’s believed that the Aztecs also practiced a form of ritual cannibalism. The victim’s bodies, after being relieved of their heads, were likely gifted to noblemen and other distinguished community members. Sixteenth-century illustrations depict body parts being cooked in large pots and archeologists have identified telltale butcher marks on the bones of human remains in Aztec sites around Mexico City.

This is clearly not the same as the death penalty. The death penalty comes with due process for criminals who are found guilty by evidence and reason, there's nothing ephemeral about it. The DP is a way of removing a criminal from one's community, meanwhile human sacrifice victims are often if not always innocent. Even the captured soldiers who are sacrificed would be innocent here. They have not been tried or given any kind of due process at all.

The reasoning is also different. Human sacrifice often arises from a desire to please a God, to prevent some kind of natural disaster and so on, or as a retainer sacrifice for kings and slave masters.

Secondly, ancient societies that had the death penalty did not see it as a sacrifice. The Romans would be a classic example; they worked tirelessly to obliterate the practice wherever they found it, they prided themselves on not having the ritual, and found it disgusting.

"In ancient Rome, human sacrifice was infrequent but documented. Roman authors often contrast their own behavior with that of people who would commit the heinous act of human sacrifice. These authors make it clear that such practices were from a much more uncivilized time in the past, far removed. It is thought that many ritualistic celebrations and dedications to gods used to involve human sacrifice but have now been replaced with symbolic offerings. Dionysius of Halicarnassus says that the ritual of the Argei, in which straw figures were tossed into the Tiber river, may have been a substitute for an original offering of elderly men. Cicero claimed that puppets thrown from the Pons Suplicius by the Vestal Virgins in a processional ceremony were substitutes for the past sacrifice of old men."

Other societies that abandoned the practice were Ancient Egypt in around 2,800 bce, Persia, Buddhist nations, Israel and others. By the Common Era most had abandoned it.

And yet these societies all had the death penalty. None of them conflated the two. It seems absurd to accuse the DP of being a sacrifice, when even those cultures which had it would not have seen it that way, and those who did use criminals for the sacrifices, such as Celts, would use innocents were there no criminals.

It's just not the same imo.

Best answer!

 

[Callisto]

Rehabilitation doesn't work. However, criminals can always grab a bible and pretend to be holy and get lighter sentences.

Reverend Tex Watson is not to be trusted (member of the murderous Charles Manson Clan). Watson claimed that he killed because he thought that he'd have difficulty living up to his parent's expectations (college, etc). I don't think that Watson has ever changed his mind. . . he seems to still be a murderer at heart.

Oh, don't get me started on the Manson lot. grrr....

I agree it doesn't work (or to be fair, rarely) for most who earn the death penalty. They're just biding their time, supposedly finding Jayzus, or laughably, want compassionate parole once the system has wastefully kept them alive for decades.

 

[Callisto]

Those that can't be rehabilitated are few and far between. I have mental health issues and sometimes my actions are not my own for instance.

I don't agree. I think once one weeds out the wrongly accused and those who were legally insane at the time of the crime, what's left over are the degenerates among us.

 

[The Hammer]

I don't agree. I think once one weeds out the wrongly accused and those who were legally insane at the time of the crime, what's left over are the degenerates among us.

I don't find any person a degenerate.

 

[Callisto]

I don't find any person a degenerate.

I guess that's where we've seen different things, I've found there to be plenty. There are many high-profile examples, pretty much any serial killer or mass murderer, for example. For each famous one, there are plenty more.

 

[The Hammer]

I guess that's where we've seen different things, I've found there to be plenty. There are many high-profile examples, pretty much any serial killer or mass murderer, for example. For each famous one, there are plenty more.

I've seen a lot of terrible things, and acts. But I don't find any one person irredeemable. Certain ideas and viewpoints sure. But the people that hold them are just people.

 

[Callisto]

I've seen a lot of terrible things, and acts. But I don't find any one person irredeemable. Certain ideas and viewpoints sure. But the people that hold them are just people.

So, using recognizable examples here, you think the likes of Joseph Mengele, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Harold "Dr. Death" Shipman were all redeemable?

 

[The Hammer]

So, using recognizable examples here, you think the likes of Joseph Mengele, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Harold "Dr. Death" Shipman were all redeemable?

I only know like three of those names. And yes, I think that with the right help, therapy, and medication they could very well have been productive members of society.

 

[Callisto]

I only know like three of those names. And yes, I think that with the right help, therapy, and medication they could very well have been productive members of society.

Which ones?

These were all high profile cases which means they drew the attention of several experts in the criminal and psychiatric fields. If there was any chance of rehabilitation, that would have been pursued as it would have elevated the career of any mental health expert to have rehabilitated someone who was, to be colloquial, the embodiment of evil.

 

[The Hammer]

Which ones?

These were all high profile cases which means they drew the attention of several experts in the criminal and psychiatric fields. If there was any chance of rehabilitation, that would have been pursued as it would have elevated the career of any mental health expert to have rehabilitated someone who was, to be colloquial, the embodiment of evil.

Manson, Gacy, Bundy.

 

[The Hammer]

If there was any chance of rehabilitation, that would have been pursued as it would have elevated the career of any mental health expert to have rehabilitated someone who was, to be colloquial, the embodiment of evil

I doubt it because our justice system is based solely on punishment. Rehabilitation wouldn't have even been considered in cases like theirs. Most would rather see them burn, so to speak.