Sacrifice

[The Hammer]

In modern times, human sacrifice is almost universally condemned as a barbaric practice that violates basic human rights.

Soldiers fighting in wars, however, often end up killing enemies, much like the Vikings did, though it is not considered human sacrifice.

Do you think there is a basic difference between killing an enemy in modern warfare and the sacrifice of an enemy in ancient combat?

 

[Spirit of Light]

In modern times, human sacrifice is almost universally condemned as a barbaric practice that violates basic human rights.

Soldiers fighting in wars, however, often end up killing enemies, much like the Vikings did, though it is not considered human sacrifice.

Do you think there is a basic difference between killing an enemy in modern warfare and the sacrifice of an enemy in ancient combat?

No, killing is killing.

 

[Ella S.]

Which particular practice are you talking about when you refer to enemy combatants being sacrificed?

 

[JustGeorge]

In modern times, human sacrifice is almost universally condemned as a barbaric practice that violates basic human rights.

Soldiers fighting in wars, however, often end up killing enemies, much like the Vikings did, though it is not considered human sacrifice.

Do you think there is a basic difference between killing an enemy in modern warfare and the sacrifice of an enemy in ancient combat?

I don't know.

I remember years ago, an soft spoken gentleman I knew on another set of forums wrote up a bit that said he had had to come to terms that war would never end for good, and he called it God's Harvest(and wrote a hauntingly beautiful song about it, that still makes me teary eyed to recall).

I can't help but think of it when I read of wars... people cut down(often, in the prime of their lives) to serve some purpose that often isn't... purposeful.

You could argue that today's participants in wars are willing, but that often isn't true. Many are forced, and/or on the defense. And while many victims of past human sacrifice were unwilling, some were.

Both are gory, horrifying, and unacceptable, in my opinion.

 

[NArdas]

It's a basic human right, who has any right to condemn it?

And no, we haven't progressed much. Yeah we might have emails, and youtube and such but at the end of the day we don't stray too far from our genetic limitations.

 

[rational experiences]

The book teachings said as God had given human life supported presence holy hosts.... it owned no sin. We did not think incorrectly.

Family humans a self species live mutually by behaviour. Families produce due to sex innate variances of self expression.

How trade came about. Dress fabric designs varied. Pottery varied artefacts varied.

Food was everywhere. We had no machines. Family trade was real trade.

No need for corrupt violence as we lived at peace as our species type.

The memory said human's were herbivores first and not meat eaters. Proven by our instinct to think eating animals cruel.

We didn't age we owned an eternal human life that simply fell asleep as death.

Our truth.

When dinosaurs star fall returned our brain minds changed. We became more savage and groups of young men behaviours against the elders was challenged.

Young men demanded leadership.

Was the exact reason in human history that a choice to become purposefully powerful was introduced.

So sacrifice of life was always taught evil.

Only civilisation leadership control greed said you must coercively fight for me. Many times threat to their family made them go to war.

So humans thought and said if we sent only the leaders who want to fight then war would stop. As they don't want their human life killed. If we claimed human rights equal rights to live your given life.

As it's holy. Mother and father's first memories say so.

Once fighting a fight in a ring sent each warrior to fight for a trade status. As war was a known evil.

We know we're wrong. We know our behaviour is evilly chosen as humans as we all own first memory.

 

[rational experiences]

It's a basic human right, who has any right to condemn it?

And no, we haven't progressed much

If human behaviour changed so did all bio species chemical life change.

Returned Jesus healed baby life not sacrificed man life said all stable animal and human babies were consciously peaceful.

Changed behaviour consciousness by Christ taught.

 

[NArdas]

If human behaviour changed so did all bio species chemical life change.

Returned Jesus healed baby life not sacrificed man life said all stable animal and human babies were consciously peaceful.

Changed behaviour consciousness by Christ taught.

I see reality everyday and none of them require me a filter

 

[rational experiences]

I see reality everyday and none of them require me a filter

I see reality everyday and memory says once it was different for humans.

You can't strive to regain what we lost unless you are made aware that we lost it.

As a human teaching a human says I'm advised because advice pre existed to advise.

The nastiness of retorts is based on self superiority always. What you have now you don't want removed.

Is why we human argue. If you claim being made aware is of no purpose then you know we own no future life or hope.

As it's invention by human as the sciences that greedy humans don't want to give up.

Science human theory is ahead in time as predictions claiming why I know you'll all be destroyed by my human predictive nature.

I see my baby adult human self as a machine position or an alien. Says the adult thinker.

Is why we teach human truth like it or not. It gives us an opportunity to assess past life bad choices.

 

[The Hammer]

Which particular practice are you talking about when you refer to enemy combatants being sacrificed?

Sacrifice typically means to a God/Higher Purpose

 

[Ella S.]

Sacrifice typically means to a God/Higher Purpose

Could you give some examples of cultures that sacrificed enemy combatants, their methods of sacrifice, and the rationale for said sacrifice?

 

[The Hammer]

Could you give some examples of cultures that sacrificed enemy combatants, their methods of sacrifice, and the rationale for said sacrifice?

BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: The Practice of Human Sacrifice

 

[rational experiences]

If you ask the house man ...I typed human mind of a theist about science the Satanism.

Did science come about by his man life sacrifice?

Hmmmm he says yes...star fall sacrificed my mind human body I learnt science. I got powers of God myself by that wisdom.

Okay good on you science human history.

 

[Erebus]

In modern times, human sacrifice is almost universally condemned as a barbaric practice that violates basic human rights.

Soldiers fighting in wars, however, often end up killing enemies, much like the Vikings did, though it is not considered human sacrifice.

Do you think there is a basic difference between killing an enemy in modern warfare and the sacrifice of an enemy in ancient combat?

If we're talking about instances in which enemy soldiers are sacrificed after being taken captive, then yes I would say there's a difference.

If you kill an enemy soldier in the field, you're killing somebody who might have been trying to kill you or those around you. If you kill an enemy captive, you're killing somebody who is essentially helpless. This is one of the reasons why the practice of killing prisoners of war is so heavily condemned today.

 

[MikeF]

In modern times, human sacrifice is almost universally condemned as a barbaric practice that violates basic human rights.

Soldiers fighting in wars, however, often end up killing enemies, much like the Vikings did, though it is not considered human sacrifice.

Do you think there is a basic difference between killing an enemy in modern warfare and the sacrifice of an enemy in ancient combat?

IMO

Human sacrifice, the killing of a person on religious grounds, to appeal to, or gain favor from a fictitious entity, is always wrong and has nothing to do with reasons or justification for killing in secular warfare.

Killing in warfare outside of religious reasons is often wrong from the instigator of the conflict, often necessary by a defender, and ideally, best to never having the whole bloody process begin in the first place.