/his/ be straight with me. Were "Wicker Men" a real thing? Did Pagans really burn people alive inside wicker statues to appease their gods?
Well they certainly did things more fucked up than that, that we know of.
I wouldn't be surprised at all.
>>84493
Its doubtful and the source is of dubious origins.
Also for all the evils the Romans accused the Celts of they'd done plenty themselves and would go on doing them, hard.
>>84493
maybe not that very act but im sure they had equally cruel things they did
>>87060
Tie you to a tree, pull out your intestines and wrap them around the tree.
>>87060
The Norse ritual of the blood eagle comes to mind. Granted it was a special form of punishment and not just done for the sake of it. Also, the ancient Greeks has the bronze bull
>implying all pagans wanted to burn people alive in the name of their gods
There are many different branches of paganism. And don't get paganism confused with actual polytheism.
But yes some probably did do something similar. Be it burning at the stake or burning in general.
>>84493
Christians did it without the statue, so how is that surprizing?
No fedora.
>>90639
and what about incans and mayans, the sacrifces people to their gods to man. in comparision to old ancient civilizations we are just a bunch of fucking fags
>>90794
>but the incans???
>but the Mayans???
Since you obviously didn't read all of my post ill Tl;Dr it for you
>some pagan cultures did most didn't.
In a lot of cultures the only human sacrifices to gods were the men who fought in the wars they had. Most of the time, if not always to their war gods.
And this really only deals with the subject of burning so far, unless you would like to elaborate the threads main purpose to full out human sacrifices.
>OP asks "Did the druids really do this thing?"
>Thread replies "Maybe, but OTHER PEOPLE DID SO MUCH WORSE"
>>90566
>>90631
First of all, the bronze bull was just a singular case of punishment, it had nothing to do with religion. Secundo, all this bullshit about Norse shrines where they supposedly made human sacrifices was written in one book by christian priest called Adam of Brema as a propaganda material against pagans
ITT: no one understands pagans.
It's about trade with the divine, you trade a life for something in return, like the grace or favour of the divine. The more horrific and impacting the ceremony, like ripping a heart out or hearing the cacophonous screams of many men burning to death in a wickerman, the more impact the ceremony would supposedly have and thus better luck.
This is literally how pre Christians thought.
Remember to say thank you to Jesus tonight
To answer op, yes, yes they did, but like anything in which the effect is mostly psychological, moderation is key and I doubt they'd do it too often, or else the ceremony would lose its meaning.
>>90631
The Norse actually hung their human sacrifices, it was to honour Odin who was hung (noose) from a tree for several days.
And the bull was a Phoenician/Carthagian thing, specifically a sacrifice to Moloch/Melek or whatever variation there of, and it wasn't just human sacrifices, it was baby sacrifices. As in, baby in bull, roast baby. This gives a very unique spin to the exodus story and kind of explains why Moses cracked the shits, a very understandable reaction imo.
Greeks didn't do blood rituals, although they had oracles who did interesting things with drugs. The oracles acted as a centralised authority, kind of like having an insane empress whom everyone followed, but the people weren't quite enlightened enough to realise was controlling the entirety of Greece. She would decide who went to war with who and she would collect taxes.
>>84493
I see no reasons to doubt it desu, it's not anymore cruel than a death at the stake and wicker men are still routinely burned during winter festivities from Italy to Sweden, from Spain to Russia.
>>91607
>This is literally how pre Christians thought.
>Remember to say thank you to Jesus tonight
Yeah and the god of the New Testament thought it was a good idea to blood/human sacrifice himself for something he knew was going to happen generations previously.
>>92056
If that's what you think, I think you're severely not getting the whole "died on the cross" thing to be honest.
