Presents for the gods

fibi ducks

Active Member
I can see that making offerings to the gods could be a good idea - if they are very powerful and better to have as friends than as enemies. But if someone made an offering, would they need to be giving it with good will - or would it also work fine to just go through the motions? I wonder if anyone knows any stories that relate?
 

LegendofJoe

Active Member
I can see that making offerings to the gods could be a good idea - if they are very powerful and better to have as friends than as enemies. But if someone made an offering, would they need to be giving it with good will - or would it also work fine to just go through the motions? I wonder if anyone knows any stories that relate?
I remember reading about how Indra, the king of the gods in Vedic mythology, was extremely jealous about receiving his offerings of soma: the alcoholic beverage that was given to him in ancient India. It is what gave him his power and immortality. I might be wrong, but I think as long as he had this, he did not care if your heart was not in it.
 

Travis

Member
I think the idea of giving offerings to gods or the Supreme Deity doesn't really make sense. Every thing including the offerings we are offering belongs to Him, not us.
 

LegendofJoe

Active Member
Beautiful. Thank you very much.
No problem.
There is another story from Greek mythology as to the origins of sacrifice. When it came time for Zeus to choose what he wanted as a sacrifice, Promethius advised mankind to present Zeus with two choices. Choice one consisted of the meat wrapped in skin, the other consisted of the bones wrapped in fat. Zeus chose the fatty sacrifice because it looked meaty. This is how humans were able to enjoy the meat for themselves. For helping mankind so much Promethius was tied to a rock where an eagle daily ate his liver.
When I wa s in Mexico I learned of the sacred ball game that was played there. The captain of the winning team was sacrificed to the gods. I've heard alternately that it was the captain of the losing team that was sacrificed. At Chichen Itza his body was thrown onto the temple of Kulkucan.
I like to think that it was the winner that was sacrificed; the gods might get angry if they were given the loser.
 

fibi ducks

Active Member
Hello Travis, and thanks for your answer. I should say that the gods I'm thinking of are not all encompassing, but rather they are very important and powerful people. But none of them is an overarching god who owns everything. In my mind I am comparing them to the wealthy clients I would like to attract as a craftsperson. Without them my livelihood disappears, so I want to keep them happy. But the power relationship often feels uneven. And returning to the point, although each one is wealthy, none of them owns everything. So this is the way I am thinking of the gods. But with a one single overarching god, well, perhaps all this would not make sense in that context.
 

fibi ducks

Active Member
Hi Legend of Joe -
there seem to be two strands running concurently here -
1. the Olympian gods only eat ambrosia, so presumably all they get from a sacrifice is the good odour of the burning meat.
2. the Prometheus deal, where it seems that Zeus gets some of the body, even though just the fat and bone.
I don't offer any solution to this, I'm just pointing it out as a possible paradox.
 

LegendofJoe

Active Member
Hi Legend of Joe -
there seem to be two strands running concurently here -
1. the Olympian gods only eat ambrosia, so presumably all they get from a sacrifice is the good odour of the burning meat.
2. the Prometheus deal, where it seems that Zeus gets some of the body, even though just the fat and bone.
I don't offer any solution to this, I'm just pointing it out as a possible paradox.
Hi fibi ducks
I think you hit the nail on the head when you stated that the gods are not all encompassing. They are powerful beings that we want on our side. I remember when I used to hang out with some neopagan friends of mine. They explained that the pagan gods are not all powerful, but a type of being that has more power than humans. In order to supplicate them we have to cajole them to get them to do things for us. One way is through sacrifice.
The paradox above is kinda strange. I have not read enough anthropology to help answer it.
 

RLynn

Active Member
The ancient Hebrews offered animal sacrifices to Yahweh. Nowadays I think they just do token offererings.
 

fibi ducks

Active Member
No problem.
There is another story from Greek mythology as to the origins of sacrifice. When it came time for Zeus to choose what he wanted as a sacrifice, Promethius advised mankind to present Zeus with two choices. Choice one consisted of the meat wrapped in skin, the other consisted of the bones wrapped in fat. Zeus chose the fatty sacrifice because it looked meaty. This is how humans were able to enjoy the meat for themselves. For helping mankind so much Promethius was tied to a rock where an eagle daily ate his liver.
When I wa s in Mexico I learned of the sacred ball game that was played there. The captain of the winning team was sacrificed to the gods. I've heard alternately that it was the captain of the losing team that was sacrificed. At Chichen Itza his body was thrown onto the temple of Kulkucan.
I like to think that it was the winner that was sacrificed; the gods might get angry if they were given the loser.
Hi Legend of Joe-
I missed the point of the Prometheus story you gave.
That is - that the humans made an offering to Zeus, but clearly without generosity of spirit. And then when Zeus noticed, he doesn't seem to have had vengence on them. All the same, I smell a rat with this story - I mean, is Zeus really so fair minded and restrained? Of course I'd be impressed if he was.
 

fibi ducks

Active Member
The ancient Hebrews offered animal sacrifices to Yahweh. Nowadays I think they just do token offererings.
I'm Jewish but have almost no idea of the religion. But some of my family do. If I get a chance I'll ask them what is done these days.
 

indianaj

New Member
As far as the Greek gods are concerned, the best way to describe them is as jealous, selfish, imperfect brats with powers. The Greeks made their gods very, very human. As far as offerings are concerned, they were meant to appease the gods so that they gave good crops, didn't start plagues and so on. The only where I heard it mentioned that the people who didn't give wholeheartedly were punished is in the bible.
 

LegendofJoe

Active Member
Hi Legend of Joe-
I missed the point of the Prometheus story you gave.
That is - that the humans made an offering to Zeus, but clearly without generosity of spirit. And then when Zeus noticed, he doesn't seem to have had vengence on them. All the same, I smell a rat with this story - I mean, is Zeus really so fair minded and restrained? Of course I'd be impressed if he was.
I don't think the humans necessarily lacked generosity. It was the dawn of humanity and Promethius wanted to give us an edge. It was he that advised us to trick Zeus so that we can have the nourishing meat for ourselves. It is the same reason why he stole fire from heaven to give to us.
Zeus actually did punish us by creating the first woman: Pandora. He gave her a box with all of the world's ills and told her not to look in it.
Knowing that women could not be trusted she would eventually look inside and release misery on mankind.
He then took vengeance on Promethius by chaining him to a rock and having his liver eaten daily by an eagle.
Zeus? fair minded and restrained? I'm sure you are not surprised. It is also upsetting to see how the ancient Greeks viewed women.
BTW, guess what the gender is of most monsters in Greek myth.
 

fibi ducks

Active Member
Thanks Legend of Joe. I've never had a perspective on the gender aspect of the greek myths, i think because i always tried to learn them by imagining they might be literally true. But I'll follow this lead and think of the different monsters - whether they are male of female. Cheers
 

fibi ducks

Active Member
The ancient Hebrews offered animal sacrifices to Yahweh. Nowadays I think they just do token offererings.
I finally found out about this by asking my sister in law.
The Jews certainly offered sacrifices before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. But the one and only altar of the Jews was in that temple, and no sacrifices have been made since the destruction. Prayers are for Jews explicitly a substitute for sacrifice. And many of them point out - within their text - what sacrifice they are in place of. In the future, it is said (!) that the temple will be rebuilt, and once that is done, sacrifices will be resumed (and I guess the prayers may be dropped). (I can't say this without mentioning that to do so would mean demolishing the Dome of the Rock, which I think is the third holiest Muslim site, and so would perhaps trigger a world war. Fortunately nobody has tried to do this so far. Long may it remain so.)
 

Libros

Member
There are several types of offerings, and each culture in this forum regarded them differently depending on their context and incentive.

A regularly scheduled ritual sacrifice, for example, was done on designated days to appease the deity. There may be no reason for doing so other than it is the day dedicated to the deity, and to not sacrifice could anger him or her. Commonly these sacrifices are done by the religious institution. In some examples, such as Mesoamerica, the royalty's blood sacrifice was considered the highest and richest form of offering, so bloodlettings from the nobility were regular. "Going through the motions" is strongest in this case; it's not a case of desire, it has to be done to ensure survival.

A votive offering would be given to not only appease but with the expectation of reward. In giving of yourself, you hope to be given in return. A common votive offering today is tossing a penny into a fountain to make a wish, for example. Votive offerings not only include material goods but also actions taken in their name. Curse tablets in classical religion, for example, were bought or made and offered with the expectation of an action taken against the target. Malice could easily be in your heart, and you would hope the god recognized your offering to project that malice.

A thank offering, sometimes connected to a tithe, is a portion of goods set aside for the deity. There is no expectation of return, but is the person's way of expressing gratefulness beyond mere words, to give of his material bounty. The most generous of spirit could be an unscheduled tithe, but recorded instances of this, giving to the deity at an unprescribed time and without duty or desire for reward, is rare.

Sometimes sacrifice doesn't take the form of goods but duty. In the Incan religion, for example, the temple grounds had a plot of sacred land dedicated to the god, the food from which supplied the priesthood. It was every commoner's family's duty to farm the land for a certain period of time every year as an act of devotion. This was considered very good will, donation of time as well as wealth, and was one of a commoner's greatest opportunities to serve the gods other than being sacrificed.

Naturally, most of the material goods from the sacrifices became the property of the religious institution, unless they were destroyed in offering, such as burning, burying or drowning. It was most likely up to the priesthood to determine whether the generosity of one's offering indicated their level of devotion.
 

fibi ducks

Active Member
Hi Libros,

it took me a while to digest what you wrote here, thanks for the post.
The first type that you describe - scheduled offerings to appease the deity, put into my mind the situation with modern payment of tax. If I don't pay, the government will give me pain. If I pay, no-one will thank me. And if I pay my tax with good-will no-one will notice. I don't see why I couldn't feel the same way about scheduled offerings to a god or goddess.

You also mention offerings becoming property of the religious institution. I don't mean to pick apart a casual phrase, but there is something interesting here that I'd like to know more about. I can imagine two types of arrangement with cult property - in one, and this seems more natural to me - all property of the cult would be property of the deity. (Say the temple and everything in it belongs to the god, whose house it is). Or the other arrangement would be that the institution is not property of the god, but has been set up to facilitate cult practice.This is more complicated as an arrangement, and I think there would need to be a reason to set things up this way.

Ok, so-
Given that most people today don't believe in the old gods, its natural for us to think it odd that anything was ever their property - how could it have been if they didn't exist? But I would like to know how the ancients saw this, and I guess they would have said that the property was owned by the god, and only incidentally by the institution.
i'm just rambling really. any6 response welcome...
 

Libros

Member
Pick apart by all means!

It's certainly a challenge to view these practices from the perspective of the ancients. We don't believe in such gods, so there's an urge to believe such fervour and dedication is wasted effort. But to the ancients, property was valuable to them, and giving it up to the religious institution in the name of the god, or the god himself, was a sign of humility and devotion. We're all taught to share our things as kids; maybe this is just an advanced form of it. This is what also links ancient religious practices to modern ones. If we don't believe in today's gods, we have equal disdain for sacrifices given to them, such as offering plates in Church services.

Yes I use religious institution loosely. By it I usually mean everything other than the deity that is holy, and the people who control it the pretext of being holy, usually sacred grounds and a priesthood.

The scheduled offerings are certainly like taxes. It's not a question of will, it's of duty. Certainly the level of fervour could be favoured by the RI, but its emphasis is not on the attitude, just fulfillment of routine. The more fervent and extravagant the sacrifice, the more favourably it might be recognized by the RI, but the importance is that it happens. A smaller sacrifice is better than none at all, but a minimal contribution is expected.

Here is a very superficial comparison regarding offerings. Offerings typically become property of the deity or the RI. Goods that are specifically unusable to humans would be destroyed in dedication to the god. To use cannibalism as an example. a human heart is burned in fire and considered enough to satisfy an Aztec god. But the goods useful to humans become property of the RI, to be used or distributed as it sees fit. The rest of the sacrificial victim's body, useless to the gods, is divided and fed to the priesthood or the citizens as nourishment.

It's easy to think of holy property in civilizations that had room for buildings set aside for worship. In indigenous groups, for example, the sacred ground to be the entire earth, not a space set aside for it. The RI could be a single figure like a shaman or holy person, who operates on behalf of the gods. His daily needs are supplied by material goods from the group, and in return he beseeches the gods for their protection. It's a system of exchange with holiness layering it.

All of this also emphasizes the power that a priesthood can have. Dozens of examples from ancient history to contemporary, from ancient to modern religion, demonstrate the influence that appeasing an RI in the name of a god carries.
 

fibi ducks

Active Member
Thanks Libros, I can see you have clear views on this subject.
I am wondering whether you have an example you'd give of a religious institution that owns property independant of the god or gods that it serves. If you do I'd really like to know about it.

I do have a memory of the role of the Roman kings - before the days of Republic - included the maintenance of good relations between Rome and the gods. But I have an idea he was independant - not a direct servant of any god. Maybe he was an independant religious institution then? (Or Rome was - with him at its head?)
 

fibi ducks

Active Member
" We don't believe in such gods"

I am an agnostic on the existence of gods in general. And so - obviously - I have to take into account the possibility that they did or do exist.
 
Top