One of the things I have wondered about lately is what happened when the Spanish stopped the Aztec sacrifices. I mean, I know what happened historically with Cortes and the conquest of Mexico, but what I want to know is the part the history books don't tell.
The premise behind the Aztec sacrificial system is that unless captives were offered up on the high altars and their hearts torn out still beating the sun would not rise. How such a story came to be, and why people bought into it, I have no idea. But by the time of the Spanish conquest, human sacrifice was big business. Even the Spanish, no strangers to blood and cruelty, were appalled by its scale. And they put an end to it.
What I want to know is what happened that first night when the knives were put down and the remaining captives led away. Did the people cower in their houses anxiously awaiting the dawn? How they must have rejoiced to see the first rays of sunlight! And how did they feel about being lied to by their priests? Remember, the sun cannot rise unless . . . But the sun did rise even though no one had been sacrificed.
The Aztec religion made an assumption about the nature of reality that could be easily proved or disproved. As we all know, they were wrong. Not just a little wrong. And thousands upon thousands died because of this false view of reality.
The assumption underlying Christianity is that there was a revolt among the angels, led by the one who would become Satan, and that this Satan then tempted Adam and Eve, leading to original sin. And because of that we have all kinds of miseries on this earth. Now I find it interesting that the story of Satan's revolt and fall is not to be found in one place in the Bible unlike the story of Adam and Eve, but is pieced together from verses scattered here and there, and who knows if they even are in context.
I was talking with someone after church one day about intelligent design versus evolution, and I brought up the guinea worm, a particularly nasty piece of work if there ever was one. It was not a benevolent mind that designed the guinea worm and other parasites, I said. So where did all these assorted nasties come from? She said with a straight face that Adam's Fall changed creation and allowed these things to emerge. A mutation then? Yes, she said. Well, there are two problems with that. One is, if you are talking mutations, you are talking evolution. Evolution is simply descent with modification. Secondly, where is the scientific evidence for this mutation? If creation changed abruptly with Adam and Eve's eating the fruit, there should be physical evidence, DNA evidence, across the board. Because mutations can be tracked. But I have not heard of any universal mutation. To me the whole Adam and Eve, original sin business sounds like a spell. Like something out of Tolkien or Harry Potter or the ancient myths.
We have been studying Paul's Letter to the Ephesians in small group and are about to start the chapter that talks about putting on the armor of Christ, the breastplate of salvation, etc. Which is an image in serious need of updating--the riot gear of salvation, the personal protective equipment of righteousness, anyone? I pointed out last week when we were discussing the family roles in Ephesians that every one of them dealt with superior-subordinate relationships (husbands/wives, parents/children, masters/slaves), not relationships among equals. We had quite a lively discussion on wounded relationships, but that wasn't what I was getting at. I plan to have some more questions regarding the nature of this warfare that Paul is encouraging his readers to suit up against. Things along the line of I'm new to this, please explain.
Because if Paul is starting from a premise that is faulty, there are some real consequences. Last week, while we were waiting for rehearsal to begin, somehow I got into a religious discussion with another cast member who is also agnostic. And she said to me, "Did you ever read 'The Spiral Staircase'?" OMG, I said to her, yes, I have! You know the part where Karen is having these strange spells and all the other nuns think it is something demonic or that she is just asking for attention? She said yes. I said, "the minute I read that I thought, girl, you need to get to a neurologist! Because this sounds a lot like temporal lobe epilepsy!" Well, Karen, no longer a nun, finally does see a neurologist and it is temporal lobe epilepsy, but by then the damage has been done, emotionally, spiritually, relationship-wise, and possibly even physically. This is what starting from a false premise and never checking to see if it is true can do. Christianity has even had its human sacrifices to protect the community. Unfortunately it is not so easy to determine whether Christianity's underlying premise is as false as the Aztecs'.
The premise behind the Aztec sacrificial system is that unless captives were offered up on the high altars and their hearts torn out still beating the sun would not rise. How such a story came to be, and why people bought into it, I have no idea. But by the time of the Spanish conquest, human sacrifice was big business. Even the Spanish, no strangers to blood and cruelty, were appalled by its scale. And they put an end to it.
What I want to know is what happened that first night when the knives were put down and the remaining captives led away. Did the people cower in their houses anxiously awaiting the dawn? How they must have rejoiced to see the first rays of sunlight! And how did they feel about being lied to by their priests? Remember, the sun cannot rise unless . . . But the sun did rise even though no one had been sacrificed.
The Aztec religion made an assumption about the nature of reality that could be easily proved or disproved. As we all know, they were wrong. Not just a little wrong. And thousands upon thousands died because of this false view of reality.
The assumption underlying Christianity is that there was a revolt among the angels, led by the one who would become Satan, and that this Satan then tempted Adam and Eve, leading to original sin. And because of that we have all kinds of miseries on this earth. Now I find it interesting that the story of Satan's revolt and fall is not to be found in one place in the Bible unlike the story of Adam and Eve, but is pieced together from verses scattered here and there, and who knows if they even are in context.
I was talking with someone after church one day about intelligent design versus evolution, and I brought up the guinea worm, a particularly nasty piece of work if there ever was one. It was not a benevolent mind that designed the guinea worm and other parasites, I said. So where did all these assorted nasties come from? She said with a straight face that Adam's Fall changed creation and allowed these things to emerge. A mutation then? Yes, she said. Well, there are two problems with that. One is, if you are talking mutations, you are talking evolution. Evolution is simply descent with modification. Secondly, where is the scientific evidence for this mutation? If creation changed abruptly with Adam and Eve's eating the fruit, there should be physical evidence, DNA evidence, across the board. Because mutations can be tracked. But I have not heard of any universal mutation. To me the whole Adam and Eve, original sin business sounds like a spell. Like something out of Tolkien or Harry Potter or the ancient myths.
We have been studying Paul's Letter to the Ephesians in small group and are about to start the chapter that talks about putting on the armor of Christ, the breastplate of salvation, etc. Which is an image in serious need of updating--the riot gear of salvation, the personal protective equipment of righteousness, anyone? I pointed out last week when we were discussing the family roles in Ephesians that every one of them dealt with superior-subordinate relationships (husbands/wives, parents/children, masters/slaves), not relationships among equals. We had quite a lively discussion on wounded relationships, but that wasn't what I was getting at. I plan to have some more questions regarding the nature of this warfare that Paul is encouraging his readers to suit up against. Things along the line of I'm new to this, please explain.
Because if Paul is starting from a premise that is faulty, there are some real consequences. Last week, while we were waiting for rehearsal to begin, somehow I got into a religious discussion with another cast member who is also agnostic. And she said to me, "Did you ever read 'The Spiral Staircase'?" OMG, I said to her, yes, I have! You know the part where Karen is having these strange spells and all the other nuns think it is something demonic or that she is just asking for attention? She said yes. I said, "the minute I read that I thought, girl, you need to get to a neurologist! Because this sounds a lot like temporal lobe epilepsy!" Well, Karen, no longer a nun, finally does see a neurologist and it is temporal lobe epilepsy, but by then the damage has been done, emotionally, spiritually, relationship-wise, and possibly even physically. This is what starting from a false premise and never checking to see if it is true can do. Christianity has even had its human sacrifices to protect the community. Unfortunately it is not so easy to determine whether Christianity's underlying premise is as false as the Aztecs'.
