“Read the article denying that the Aztecs committed human sacrifice, and then read the Wikipedia article that surveys the research. Then read the article about Tezcatlipoca. Doesn’t the denial article seem rather thin in its evidence (to put it kindly)?” - Veith
- About
- Forum
- Account
Discussion
NewMy son is a fan of studying
My son is a fan of studying Aztec history. He encountered the “never happened” argument at one point but is pretty convinced that it did now. Funny how the guilt of certain peoples is being expunged from history when others (as terrible, disgusting, etc. as it obviously was) is being magnified. The moral outrage in our society has the wonderful adverse effect of providing opportunities for sharing the gospel as people wonder how people can be this evil.
NewOk, then....
It wasn’t ritual human sacrifice, it was an act of war that just happened to be done at the pagan temples, according to this “scholar”. Certainly the fact that the murders were done by priests at temples does not indicate that these ritual murders had anything to do with Aztec religion.
Somehow I am reminded of the man behind the curtain as I read this. Pay no attention to what you obviously see, I’ve got a workaround that makes it seem far less obnoxious.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
NewSimilar attempts to deny
Similar attempts to deny Canaanite child sacrifice as biblically portrayed fell afoul of the mass graves full of violently butchered children archaeologists have since uncovered.
I suspect that this revisionism will eventually meet the same fate.
Still, those dissertations don’t write themselves.
NewThat's the ticket.
What Andrew noted in bold. Nobody gets a Ph.D., tenure, or that big promotion by retaining the null hypothesis. You’ve got to come up with something new, even if your hypothesis is really well suited only for growing tomatoes and cabbages. May we all lack this sort of creativity!
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.