Quote Originally Posted by Arjos View Post
Afaik for example among the Karthadastim, it was perceived as something of a duty, for whoever happened to hold an elected office or power, to sacrifice either themselves or their own children. For it was thought to be an act that really reached the divine sphere and could "fix" extremely negative situations...

All in all I find quite "empty" to ask such moral/ethical interrogatives, when the contemporaneous (read "of the ancients") values are mostly unknown to us...
Another example are the Eriloz, who killed their elders, because they found them to be liabilities for the whole community. What is reasonable for one, is unthinkable for another etc...
Hmmmm? he whole question of kathadastim 'child sacrific' is somewhat...up in the air. Strange that the enemies of Rome should be seen as the purveyors of sacrifice while...Rome sacrificed enemies quite liberally (crucifixion, feeding 'enemes' of Rome to beats in the arena...)

What strikes me as odd is the idea that human beings would act counter to human nature. The people that Rome, for example, were willing to 'sacrifice' were...enemies of Rome. The few occasions when Germanic tribes are known to have contemplated sacrifice have been with enemies (the allies of Caesar who represented him to the Seuvi, for example)

What strikes me as odd is that we would simply believe the Roman's version of 'enemies' behaviour in spite of their obvious hypocrisy and in spite of more recent knowledge of such as even primate behavior...almost as if...we'll believe anything the Romans say about how their perceived enemies behaved.

What I think is empty is the idea that groups of people would, without reasonable excuse, act as inhuman. The whole point odf the story of Abraham is... that such behaviour (being willing to sacrifice one's own child) is.. counter to human nature. The story of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac has power precisely because it stands against everything any reasonable human being would expect in their life.