American Gods : Sacrifice

The book seems to view sacrifice as a necessary element of worship/religion/Gods . . . do you agree?

Reading much of the book during Lent (and the lead-up to Lent) got me thinking about the many theories of Atonement. I definitely have problems with the idea that God requires blood sacrifice and/or that Jesus died for my sins . . . but I still consider myself a Christian. This book brought all those arguments up again for me . . .

In all fairness, it takes the idea of sacrifice very liberally. It can also be the sacrifice of time, and so on, and I guess that's a thing that's almost unavoidable to 'sacrifice' in the case of worship. If we take religion to be something organized (and not simply believing in something), than I'd say most people also sacrifice time to it.

I have a problem with any religion that advocates blood sacrifice. It is more understandable in ancient religions because superstition was so much more rampant then. But I don't believe in Original Sin, either, so just call me a heathen.

This book certainly brought up interesting concepts about religions.

This book is dealing with ancient religions for the most part, and blood sacrifice has always been at the heart of ancient religions, whether human or animal. Done in different ways at different times, sometimes literally, sometimes symbolically.

Life is in the blood. So the idea that there is no true sacrifice until blood has been given in some form, is the idea of the the dedication of life, completely, to a deity.

I don't think it matters whether we agree, it's what it was/is for many people. I am very glad that at this place and time I am not required to kill either animals or people to prove my devotion to my God. It is an individual choice of faith. But I think it is important to understand what it has been in the past, and what it still is in some areas. It is a community of belief, and if one person stops participating, they put the whole village at risk.

My question is why the human fascination with/invention of gods who require blood sacrifice?

Just saying "that's the way it was" doesn't work for me . . . Does that mean it's somehow "unnatural" to believe in a loving, compassionate god?

>6 LucindaLibri: I think it's a way to try to stay in control. If you give something up (sacrifice), you're buying something else (like luck or prosperity or something). I don't know why it has to be blood, but maybe we instinctively feel there should be a balance, so you can't sacrifice a vegetable and expect to get anything good in return?

>6 LucindaLibri: Does that mean it's somehow "unnatural" to believe in a loving, compassionate god?

No, but Gaiman is writing of a polytheist world. For polytheists, no one God is all anything. Some Gods are loving and compassionate, some are demanding and brutal (which could be said of the Old Testament God, for example, who certainly took sacrifices including blood sacrifices).

>7 zjakkelien: so you can't sacrifice a vegetable and expect to get anything good in return

Actually many past and contemporary religions use vegetable sacrifice. Hindus offer ghee (ok, dairy not veg, but not blood), Santerians (for all their blood-thirsty reputation) offer many fruits and vegetables. Contemporary Druids throw olive oil on the fire.

What's offered is what is pleasing to that particular Deity. Eggplant is a favorite of one, raw meat and iron railroad spikes a favorite of another. The wrong offering can leave the Deity huffy, which is not conducive to gaining that Deity's patron/matronage.

However, the other piece of the offering puzzle is. what are you asking for? Is going to the grocery store for a pear or a plum a sacrifice for you, or just another item on the shopping list? At a deep level, a sacrifice only makes sense if it's an actual sacrifice. For example, I have a friend who gave up HFCS for Lent, and she's struggling with it. I gave up HFCS fifteen years ago, so if I were to announce, "I'm giving that up for Lent!" it would be meaningless. Same with a gluten-intolerant person giving up gluten as a sacrifice. That's not an offering.

Big issues require bigger sacrifices. In Africa, you might have to give a pig or a cow, which has a major impact on the family. In America, it's money that's the equivalent sacrifice. We don't give our priests produce or livestock, we give them cash, because, face it, money is really, really important to us.

Among those who offer animals, they are extremely careful about when, why and how they do it. They use divination to ask the Deity what s/he wants. It's rare that it's a critter, and if it is, there's something major that needs the Deity's intervention. The life energy is the most valuable thing you can give the Deity (and yes, usually the sacrificial animal is eaten afterwards).

I learned a lot about this from an acquaintance of mine, Philip Neimark, who wrote Way of the Orisa. He said, "If it's between saving the life of your child or a rooster, which are you going to pick?" Literally, issues of life and death.

>8 PhaedraB: Actually many past and contemporary religions use vegetable sacrifice.
Yes, I do know that. I was just trying to illustrate why someone would sacrifice blood instead of something else. I was using vegetable as an example of something that is worth less than blood, but clearly that all depends on your perspective.

The idea that you can't get something for nothing, that there must be an exchange- is consistent throughout pretty much EVERY mythology in the world. If you want something big, you have to give something important- and what's more vital than your lifeblood?

To me, this concept is extremely appealing- it offers a sense of balance to the world.