Sacred Sacrifices—Part 2

Let me turn to another type of sacrifice that my dictionary defines: ”An act of giving up something valued for the sake of acquiring something else regarded as more important.” This is another kind of sacrifice that seems to have gone out of favor these days. When I was young, people often purchased things from the store on so-called “lay-away plans.” You picked out something you desired, put some money down, and the store stashed the object in the back room. You made payments as you were able, until the purchase price was met and it was yours. Such a concept of delayed gratification is literally unknown today, as credit card companies encourage you to have whatever you want now—as long as you pay them usury charges of 22% or more on the balance.

In an classic experiment in 1970, Walter Mischel, a researcher at Columbia University, conducted a study in which young children were placed at a table upon which one marshmallow sat. The experimenter told the child that she had to leave the room for a few minutes. If, while she was gone, the kid could refrain from eating the one marshmallow in hand, a second marshmallow would be rewarded upon her return. The kids were filmed through a one-way mirror, and the torment they went through is hilarious to watch.

Mischel then followed the kids over the next decade or two. What he showed was that those kids who demonstrated self-control and won the second marshmallow were later more successful in life. Delayed gratification brought them greater achievement. As in the above dictionary definition, they were able to give up something of value (a single treat) to acquire something of greater value (two treats).

Michael Foley, in his book The Age of Absurdity: Why Modern Life Makes it Hard to be Happy, addresses this issue in a bit different manner. He describes Mischel's marshmallow experiment and uses it to make the point that if we can resist the desire for immediate gratification for anything (even yummy marshmallows), we have a better chance of achieving long-term fulfillment in our lives. He points out that fulfillment is hard work and that many people in modern society do not really want to do the hard work, because our culture teaches us that our desires can easily be satisfied with little effort.

So we no longer sacrifice—either in the sense of slaughtering an animal to the gods or by exercising self-control and delaying gratification. In either case, sacrifice is giving up something desirable today (like that delectable marshmallow beckoning me) for a bigger reward tomorrow. It calls for planning and letting go an immediate satisfaction for a happier future. It calls for hard work. Not many people are willing to wait.

Sacred Sacrifices—Part 1

I found myself thinking recently about the ancient practice of sacrifice—whereby our deep ancestors made offerings to the gods, in the hope that the sacrifice would please them and they'd in turn grant the entreaties made in their name. There are countless examples of our forebears making oblations to their gods.

Why sacrifice? Those ancients did not understand how most natural events came about. Beneficial happenings—such as good rains, victory in battle, and good health—were believed to be delivered by the gods. Likewise, harmful happenings—disease, earthquakes, and floods—were also dispatched by the gods. The ancients believed that the gods could be helpful or harmful; it depended on their mood. In order to curry favor or placate them, the ancients often engaged in elaborate sacrificial ceremonies.

But what does it really mean to sacrifice? It has a wide variety of connotation—depending on the topic and the situation. My dictionary defines sacrifice as no less than six kinds of events: (1) an act of offering to a supernatural figure, in the way of slaughtering an animal (or person!) or surrendering some possession; (2) an act of giving up something of value for the sake of acquiring something else regarded as more important; (3) Jesus offering himself for the redemption of mankind; (4) a chess move, whereby one offers an opponent a piece, for strategic or tactical reasons; (5) in baseball, a bunt that puts the batter out, but advances one's team's base runner; (6) in bridge, a bid that is made with the belief that it would be less costly to be defeated, than to allow your opponents to make their contract. Those various definitions surely cover a lot of sacrificial ground!

Returning to our deep ancestors' sacrifices to the gods in exchange for favorable circumstances: their acts were essentially based on an ignorance of the natural world. An ancient Greek philosopher (Epicurus, 5^th century BCE) and a later Roman poet/writer (Lucretius, 50 BCE) both put forth the argument that earthquakes, floods, and bountiful growing seasons were not due to the capriciousness of the gods. They were natural happenings. In fact, these sages reasoned that the gods had better things to do than either bedevil or bless humans. Hence, they counseled that sacrifices were for naught. It was a fool's errand to appeal to the gods. Don't waste your prize goat.

However, their message fell on deaf ears, as humans continued to make sacrifices. Why? It is quite natural for us to conceive of storms, drought, and diseases as events far larger than ourselves—events that must be caused by a super being. Thus people carried on with the practice of offering something of value to the powers that be. Many acts of sacrifice demand our giving up something we really value—otherwise, it's a hollow deed. So our forebears came to choose the most perfect of their animals to slaughter. In the case of Abraham, he was even ready to kill his own son, to please God!

I wonder how the sacrificial ceremony and its aftermath might have played out differently, for those living in polytheistic versus monotheistic cultures. For example, in ancient Greece or Rome, people often selected one of many gods to be their personal deity. They had an altar in their home, with icons and other paraphernalia relating to their god of choice. The family developed ceremonies and appropriate sacrifices to their private god.

I wonder what did they do when their offering seemed to be spurned? “Hey, I killed my prize goat and we still had a crappy harvest!” Did they conclude that their sacrifice was not up to snuff and thus select two perfect goats next time, or did they get pissed off at their god and decide to worship another one? They had a sizable pantheon to select from.

Then along came monotheism, introduced by the Hebrews. Now there was only one God to sacrifice to. I wonder what did the monotheists did, when their sacrifices failed to deliver the goods? They were not afforded the opportunity to switch deities. They either had to embellish the next sacrifice, or conclude that God works in mysterious ways and muddle on. Luckily, humans later came to understand that many good and bad events indeed are natural happenings that do not call for sacrifices for which one will be granted favors or to be spared from tragedy. The hope of influencing events lives on, however, in the form of prayers offered for favors.

More on sacrificing next time...