From what I understand smallpox wiped out most of them [The Aztecs].
Though, it's rather obvious the conquistadors were largely in it for conquest and not for much else. That being said, things were not fluffy and gentle back then, and any civilization which boasted about its cannibalism and living human sacrifices (84,000 people to dedicate a pyramid?) was obviously dedicated enough to the devil to deserve some retribution.
You don't commit living sacrifices of that many people to demon gods without building up some weighty spiritual heft against you in the heavens.
And generally disease is often seen as divine retribution. People nowadays don't like to hear it, but scripture is full of it, and apparently even the Aztecs viewed it as such.
44 comments
So, they brought them on themselves, is that the way your world works? Well, newsflash. No matter what customs they had, Aztecs offered hospitality and conquistadors returned the favor with blood, burnings and diseases. And did they realy have to burn all of Aztec libraries?
"You don't commit living sacrifices of that many people to demon gods without building up some weighty spiritual heft against you in the heavens."
And the Spanish Inquisitors the conquistadors brought with them were better?
"Though, it's rather obvious the conquistadors were largely in it for conquest and not for much else."
Gee, what was your first clue?
"You don't commit living sacrifices of that many people to demon gods without building up some weighty spiritual heft against you in the heavens."
You believe in Karma, then? PAGAN! TO THE RACK WITH YOU!!!
@Lucilius, #990964
Darn, beaten to it...
Considering that it was the Spaniards who introduced smallpox and STDs to the Aztecs and wiped them out, I'd say we know who's the culprit in this story.
And the Aztecs weren't cannibals, sonny.
Conquest often means killing the men, raping the women, and lay waste to everything else. Nothing fluffy and gentle with that, you are absolutely right about that.
That figure of 84000 people is probably grossly overrated, today's experts think that 2000 is a more likely number. Btw, how many people is the US government killing with the Death Sentence each year? How many is the US army killing around the world? What's the difference between human sacrifice and war?
The Vikings did human sacrifice as well, or rather the people coming right after them, they kept bondsmen (practically slaves), which they sacrificed to Thor or Oden from time to time. Doesn't make it more right, or wrong for that matter. Just a case of "we did it in the past, found it to be wrong, stopped doing it, and got more civlized in the process".
"disease is often seen as divine retribution"
Only by the retarded and/or insane.
"scripture is full of it."
Now we agree on something.
Maybe back then, but nowadays most people see disease as a result of bacteria and viruses.
This is why people take medicine when they get sick rather then just sit around and pray. Usually. And guess what, the ones that do just sit around the pray have a much higher chance of dying from a disease.
And generally disease is often seen as divine retribution.
No, disease is more seen like "shit happens".
You know, the whole "bad things happen to good people" thing? Maybe you missed the memo.
"any civilization which boasted about its cannibalism and living human sacrifices ... was obviously dedicated enough to the devil to deserve some retribution. "
But wait, doesn't God prefer blood sacrifices? Animal and human? I hear he just loves the smell of burning flesh, after all.
Exodus 13: 1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal."
Wouldn't that make Him a "demon god" too?
"apparently even the Aztecs viewed it as such."
If they did, it's only because disease is kind of a universal problem of life, and they, like pretty much everyone else at the time, had no idea what really causes it. Problems with smallpox and the like were simply an unforeseen consequence of the people not being exposed to, and thus having no immunity to, diseases that didn't exist where the people carrying them took them.
The Aztecs no more believed in your God and "the devil" than you believe in Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca. The diversity of the many world religions should be a clue to you really. But then I imagine you haven't actually put a lot of study into the actual belief systems of others, since you prefer to frame them in terms of yours.
A bunch of diseased and deranged Catholics; their murdering, raping, infecting, and plundering, is not divine retribution.
It is really a shame that Napoleon never got to finish off your fucking church.
[ That being said, things were not fluffy and gentle back then, and any civilization which boasted about its cannibalism and living human sacrifices (84,000 people to dedicate a pyramid?) was obviously dedicated enough to the devil to deserve some retribution.]
So human sacrifice deserves retribution from YHVH, eh? Then explain the daughter of Jephthah, who ended as a burnt offering to YHVH. Then explain Jesus, who was crucified, as a sacrifice to YHVH.
image
Uh huh.
Btw, is that 80,000 sacrifices number accurate?! Holy shit. How did they support a population doing that?
Nvm. Appears they were inflating the numbers...I wondered!
For example, for the reconsecration of Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan in 1487, the Aztecs reported that they sacrificed 84,400 prisoners over the course of four days, reportedly by Ahuitzotl, the Great Speaker himself.
However, most experts consider these numbers to be overstated. For example, the sheer logistics associated with sacrificing 84,000 victims would be overwhelming, 2,000 being a more likely figure. A similar consensus has developed on reports of cannibalism among the Aztecs.
The Catholic Church rejected the notion of collective retribution for sin at the Council of Trent, 1545-63; i.e. about the same time as the Spanish Conquest of Mexico.
What that means is that the notion that God punishes whole communities for the sins of some of their peers has been condemned as heresy for nearly 500 years. Why, otherwise, would the victims and perpetrators of human sacrifice suffer smallpox alike? So in the opinion of your own church, you're a heretic and unless you are burned at the stake before dying, you will go to hell.
Which is one of countless reasons why I strongly suspect you're all talking rubbish.
"You don't commit living sacrifices of that many people to demon gods without building up some weighty spiritual heft against you in the heavens."
Well, according to your precious Babble, all sins are equal, so I'm apparently going to the same hell and getting the same amount of torture and punishment just for being gay.
"You don't commit living sacrifices of that many people to demon gods without building up some weighty spiritual heft against you in the heavens."
Your god didn't seem to have any problem wiping out whole cities for the smallest of slights or sometimes no reason whatsoever.
Still, it must have gone badly for them when Pizarro broke his solemn vow of non-violence, friendship and diplomatic discourse to spend the day hacking down their army 300 fleeing Aztecs per lying, murdering conquistador.
Also, please explain HIV+ babies without sounding like a total dick.
So when Columbus brought smallpox to the Native Americans, it was divine retribution for not worshiping Jesus.
Even though they had never heard of Jesus?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.