Why did the Abrahamic religions eschew human sacrifice?
Indigenous religions of Scandinavia, Mesoamerica, Britain, Lebanon, Peru, and even India incorporated some degree of sacrifice, in which people would kill themselves or be killed out of religious devotion. The story of Abraham suggests that human sacrifice was very familiar to the ancient Jews, and was perhaps once practiced in Judea.
Could the lack of human sacrifice in the Judaic faiths have encouraged their very fast proliferation throughout the Roman and Arab Empires, and eventually throughout the greater European and Islamic spheres of influence? Why did Judaism so staunchly oppose any religious killing?
>>517415
>Could the lack of human sacrifice in the Judaic faiths have encouraged their very fast proliferation throughout the Roman and Arab Empires, and eventually throughout the greater European and Islamic spheres of influence?
I doubt it. Judaism itself never really spread, but Christianity did; and very quickly. I would look into differences particular to Christianity if you want to explain rapid proliferation.
>Why did Judaism so staunchly oppose any religious killing?
At a very, very shaky guess, probably because Canaan never really supported the same kinds of population levels that other Middle East polities did, so they didn't have lots of people to sacrifice on altars. But no idea really.
>>517415
But that begs the question: what did the Jews consider "human"
Evidence shows that they didn't see Gentiles as human, I believe the Talmud refers to them as "Animals in human form"
>>517440
I mean "Judaic religions" to mean any Abrahamic faith.
>>517450
If ancient Jews truly believed goyim to be animals, why would they be so uncomfortable sacrificing them?
Parts of the Talmud are certainly disdainful of non-Jews, but a reference to them being "like animals" is certainly not characteristic of the broader view of goyim among the religion. The Talmud is so weighty and oftentimes contradictory (understandable, given its hundreds of authors and centuries of development) that each and every citation must be taken with a hefty shake of salt and a critical eye.
>>517557
What on earth made you reply to this obvious /pol/ b8
>>517450
>Evidence shows that they didn't see Gentiles as human, I believe the Talmud refers to them as "Animals in human form"
It does not. The usual "Citation" for this is Yevamoth 98a, which does not in fact say that, it's polemic statement is that Egyptians are considered legally fatherless, because promiscuity there is so widespread that nobody's really sure who anyone's father is.
http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_98.html
>>517541
>I mean "Judaic religions" to mean any Abrahamic faith.
But that's just it. The Abrahamic faiths didn't universally spread widely. Christainity and later Islam did, but Judaism itself didn't.
Since all three equally condemn human sacrifice, the reason for the spread of the later two is probably something else.
Too bad the Jews were held captive all the time, otherwise their culture would have been definitive
>>517415
No one should be sacrificing anyone
I wonder what went through their minds back then
>>517562
Fight ignorance whenever you see it. I probably won't convince that poster that no, Jews dint unilaterally view gentiles as subhuman, but I could convince lurkers to be more critical of /pol/ dishonesty.
>>517564
Judaism didn't spread because prostylizing is explicitly prohibited.
>>517576
Our morals simply aren't universal.
>>517576
Human sacrifice is based on the meme that human life is objectively worth more than animal life so when they sacrificed people they did it as an offering to a god but in reality this god wouldnt see humans are anything but talking matter utterly worthless compared to it.
>>517450
>Evidence shows that they didn't see Gentiles as human, I believe the Talmud refers to them as "Animals in human form"
Here's documented evidence of this.
http://funnyjunk.com/Oy+vay+shut+it+down/movies/5786566/
