Paganism

[UltraViolence83]

Doubtful? I'm just saying that it's very possible our society could have a very different view on ethics and morality in the future. No one knows for sure, but what the hell would happen if Rael was made a martyr? Or Gerald Gardner? (the guy who invented modern Wicca, friends with Aleister Crowley.) Over the years, people tend to blow things way up...Hell, if we are a large spacefaring civilization a millenium from now, Neil Armstrong could be the next Christ. LOL!

[haas mark]

Show me where I said not possible, PLEASE...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Mike, the definition of eco-friendly Native American civilizations really depends on which ones. Native-American is really a pretty big range when you think about it; I mean, it technically includes the Mesoamerican cultures and the Mississippians, and the construction of stone pyramids and massive cities on artificial islands with interconnecting causeways or even cities with a population of 50,000 like Cahokia built out of mud and wood for the most part are going to massively change the local landscape.

The Mayans, Teotihuacán, etc - There are arguments that many of these civilizations collapsed due to overstraining their local resources, which suggests overpopulation, massive consumption and deforestation, etc. They basically worked to the very limits of their technology, and then not having access to the wheel or many good herding animals, scraped the land in the area around their cities to death, and splat, or so the theory goes. Regardless of its accuracy, they were definitely changing the landscape in a considerable fashion.

Even herding societies do (which all the Plains Indians were by the 19th century, I want to note for the guy who called them "hunter-gatherers"), as they, of course, herd domesticated animals and can get quite large herds of them going about and disrupting the natural patterns of the life in the area. Typically they're more destructive to agrarian civilization, though, and usually violently: One recalls Temujin's famous temptation to reduce northern China to horse pasture. When one thinks about the amount of territory thus required to sustain a viable herding society, the scale of displacement becomes clear.

I'd call it that only hunter-gatherer societies avoid enviromental disruption to a great degree. Most native-americans did have these prior to the reintroduction of the horse in the Americas, but of course there was civilization too.

One thing to think about is that civilization is not really so much enviromentally destructive - despite what I've been cataloging - as enviromentally modifying. I'd argue, and it has been argued, that a lot of diversity can and does exist inside of areas affected by human habitation; and that the concept of biosphere diversity is a questionable one. Do we really need it?

Certainly, we change the world, but at the same time the world also adapts to us.. And has forced us to adapt.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

As for Paganism, let's be ambivalent for a moment about any kind of religion. The Aztecs, in less than a century and a quarter of Empire, slaughtered up to two million tribute-sacrifices it has been estimated. One time an event was staged to celebrate the consecration of a new temple:

They butched 80,400 prisoners in their Great Temple, to Huitzilopochtli, in a mere four days. The templ had four convex tables for sacrifice, arranged so that the victims could easily be kicked down the pyramid after their hearts were cut out, turning the process into a veritable assembly line, and companies of fresh executioners were periodically brought in to relieve the exhausted.

Using obsidian knives, in this method they maintained a killing rate of approximately fourteen victims per minute over a ninety-six hour period, which exceeds the daily record at either Auschwitz or Dachau.

Remember. They fought enemies, and on defeating them, forced these conquered vassals to give them a tribute in sacrificial victims for this slaughter. The heir of a Texcoco noble who wrote a history after the conquest, estimated that one out of every five children of the tributary states was sacrificed - Hardly a Spanish guesstimate. In fact, the number is insensibly huge, and is reduced a more manageable 20,000 a year by some Spanish authorities.

This, incidently, is why I am willing to forgive Hernan Cortez of a lot of what he did in overthrowing these bastards, but I digress.

I chose the Aztecs as the most extreme "Pagan" example of religious mass slaughter.

However, there have been others in history. Ranging from simple burials of victims along with rulers, to the refusal to accept the surrender of a city, and instead commit to sack, due to the demand of the Gods, to the practice of suttee in India. Or the Tuggee cult in India, which, yes, did exist, and probably killed a few tens of thousands in a multi-hundred year history. Or, let's not forget fanatical Taoist rebellions in China like the Yellow Turbans... Not quite pagans, but rather not monotheists, indeed?

And so the list goes on.

Religio motivates the mind to wonder and cruelty alike, no matter the form.

[Frank Hipper]

They butched 80,400 prisoners in their Great Temple, to Huitzilopochtli, in a mere four days. The templ had four convex tables for sacrifice, arranged so that the victims could easily be kicked down the pyramid after their hearts were cut out, turning the process into a veritable assembly line, and companies of fresh executioners were periodically brought in to relieve the exhausted.

Seeing as how that is four times the usual, and belived exaggerated, estimate, I'm extremely curious as to your scource. And where did you hear that there were four killing stones arranged around the Templo Mayor? The sheer logistics of hauling and disposing of that many corpses in the time alotted lends no credence to this number.

Remember. They fought enemies, and on defeating them, forced these conquered vassals to give them a tribute in sacrificial victims for this slaughter. The heir of a Texcoco noble who wrote a history after the conquest, estimated that one out of every five children of the tributary states was sacrificed - Hardly a Spanish guesstimate. In fact, the number is insensibly huge, and is reduced a more manageable 20,000 a year by some Spanish authorities.

Of course it's not a Spanish guesstimate, it's an apologist's inflation. Texcoco was a member of the Triple Alliance, and during the final days of conquest, they allied with the Spaniards. Of course, this Acolhua nobleman's son wasn't about to pine for the good ol' days, especially not with a Spanish priest breathing down his neck while he wrote his account. And don't forget, we're talking about someone who was newly converted to catholicism, of course he's going to paint them in as bad a light as possible. I've read that Nezahualpili, the king of Texcoco at the time of the Templo Mayor's dedication(the event being discussed) DID make disparaging remarks as to the numbers sacrificed, but don't forget, we're not talking about Aztec soldiers raiding towns for victims, but prisoners taken in war. A formal, ritualized form of warfare that was practiced throughout Meso-America throughout it's history.

I chose the Aztecs as the most extreme "Pagan" example of religious mass slaughter.

No one can argue THAT.

[InnerBrat]

The problem with making judgements about the Aztecs is because most of the evidence that would help learn us learn more about their religion was destroyed for blasphemy by Conquistadors.
There are two extreme opposing ideologies that colour anyone's view of a civilisation as obscured to observation as the Aztecs - the Ethnocentric view, which is 'my society is great, all others practice cannibalism', and the overly PC 'ethnocentricism is evil, and pagan societies have a lot to teach us - cannibalism is a myth' (see Audin's The Man Eating Myth)

Neither is true to the extreme, but so little actual eveidence has survived in the case of the Aztecs, that it's really just conjecture, mostly.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

They butched 80,400 prisoners in their Great Temple, to Huitzilopochtli, in a mere four days. The templ had four convex tables for sacrifice, arranged so that the victims could easily be kicked down the pyramid after their hearts were cut out, turning the process into a veritable assembly line, and companies of fresh executioners were periodically brought in to relieve the exhausted.

Seeing as how that is four times the usual, and belived exaggerated, estimate, I'm extremely curious as to your scource.

All the prisoners of "four years of wars" were sacrificed it was said, which if we follow Zumarraga's estimate would be 80,000. Another possibility - I'm going to check - Is that the source erred on the number of killing stones and that was the cause of the increase. In the first, it is a high estimate, and the second, of course, incorrect in favour of twenty thousand.

The sheer logistics of hauling and disposing of that many corpses in the time alotted lends no credence to this number.

Well, you have a city of a quarter million people, and you can make them climb up it. If you can get gravity to take them most of the way down, it really depends on how far it is to the drink; water transportation really helped them when it came to logistics for all sorts of things. I tend to try not to underestimate agrarian civilizations, the less so when placed next to bodies of water.

Of course it's not a Spanish guesstimate, it's an apologist's inflation.

Touche.

Texcoco was a member of the Triple Alliance, and during the final days of conquest, they allied with the Spaniards. Of course, this Acolhua nobleman's son wasn't about to pine for the good ol' days, especially not with a Spanish priest breathing down his neck while he wrote his account. And don't forget, we're talking about someone who was newly converted to catholicism, of course he's going to paint them in as bad a light as possible. I've read that Nezahualpili, the king of Texcoco at the time of the Templo Mayor's dedication(the event being discussed) DID make disparaging remarks as to the numbers sacrificed, but don't forget, we're not talking about Aztec soldiers raiding towns for victims, but prisoners taken in war. A formal, ritualized form of warfare that was practiced throughout Meso-America throughout it's history.

Yes, though of course it wasn't entirely staged contests - The Aztecs on several occasions got serious and entered cities as I recall, and they took prisoners when they did. It of course was not the norm. They were, though, enforcing a tributary empire, and that was ultimately their first concern. Short, perhaps, of religio, which to them was quite sufficient and to this discussion is central.

Certainly Aztec civilization was a brilliant achievement, and one cannot but admire their western Venice, marvelous beyond all measure in Europe at the time, populous to an extent that would demand travel to the realms of the Sultan Suleyman, or the Ming Chinese. And done without metal or the wheel, or any worthwhile domesticated animals to speak of.

However... It was also a bloody theocratic autocracy with a death toll which depending on the high and low ends you might choose to use gets its self in the same general range as Pol Pot's - if over a much longer time span - and they did use stones.

Just putting things, in this case Paganism, into perspective.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The problem with making judgements about the Aztecs is because most of the evidence that would help learn us learn more about their religion was destroyed for blasphemy by Conquistadors.

Well, why shouldn't we assume that the conquistadors recorded things accurately? They themselves were not churchmen, and they were heirs to a long western tradition - which had recently blossomed along lines which would progress into all that we speak of now - of historical rationalism.

Heck, when less than a thousand men and women (There were several conquistadoras in Cortez's force) can obliterate an entire Empire, an entire civilization, then you don't need to propagandaize. The raw magnitude of the feat stands as your legacy. Cortez should justly be remembered alongside Alexander, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon.

This doesn't change the fact that extreme brutalities were committed. Julius Caesar was probably responsible for the deaths of well in excess of a million souls over his military career. You could say Cortez exceeded that, but only if you blame him for smallpox, which was probably brought over by the expedition sent to stop him anyway.

Ah well, I digress. Essentially, I think that we have more than enough to judge their culture by. Not just the writings of the Conquistadors, but of survivors who could relate the affairs, after the conquest.

They were a brilliant people, a creative and artistic people, organized into a theocratic autocracy, who were limited by their lack of metal and their lack of domesticated animals and their lack of the wheel. Despite these limitations they did incredible things, creating a civilization with organizational skills and with innovative engineering solutions which allowed for urban concentrations exceeding anything the Christian world had at the time. Their art, can still take the breath away.

They were also brutal, in their war, their conquest, and in the chilling cold-blooded slaughter of tens of thousands to appease to their Gods and inspire terror in their vassals. A sort of mind-numbing brutality that makes one wonder if such a civilization is really like our's; and yet, when we realize how easy it is for even very distinctly western civilizations to deviate into mass murder, for a culture to develop it naturally -- Frighteningly possible.

Ultimately it is impossible to put the moral balance one way or the other. Cortez marched in and killed probably hundreds of thousands and annihilated a civilization. The Spanish as a whole introduced diseases which killed millions. In the process they relieved the tributary states of the Aztecs from the burden of sacrifices, merely to impose a different form of tribute.

Give Cortez his due as a Great Conquerer and move on; that is all I can say of moral judgements on an affair nearly five hundred years dead. Of course, people never shall.

[Darth Wong]

The problem with making judgements about the Aztecs is because most of the evidence that would help learn us learn more about their religion was destroyed for blasphemy by Conquistadors.

Well, why shouldn't we assume that the conquistadors recorded things accurately? They themselves were not churchmen, and they were heirs to a long western tradition - which had recently blossomed along lines which would progress into all that we speak of now - of historical rationalism.

You've got to be kidding me. Are you seriously suggesting that although they were massively indoctrinated in church dogma, they were necessarily impartial observers because they were not technically churchmen? Europeans of that era demonstrated a complete inability to recognize or take any interest (apart from plundering and murder) in any culture other than their own.

Heck, when less than a thousand men and women (There were several conquistadoras in Cortez's force) can obliterate an entire Empire, an entire civilization, then you don't need to propagandaize. The raw magnitude of the feat stands as your legacy. Cortez should justly be remembered alongside Alexander, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon.

Or Hitler and Stalin.

Give Cortez his due as a Great Conquerer and move on; that is all I can say of moral judgements on an affair nearly five hundred years dead. Of course, people never shall.

Why don't we refer to Hitler or Stalin as Great Conquerors, then?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You've got to be kidding me. Are you seriously suggesting that although they were massively indoctrinated in church dogma, they were necessarily impartial observers because they were not technically churchmen? Europeans of that era demonstrated a complete inability to recognize or take any interest (apart from plundering and murder) in any culture other than their own.

That's an interesting statement. Analysis of other cultures, for good or ill, has been one of the strong points of western civilization throughout its history.

Also, consider the timing - 1520. That was when the Catholic Church was quite weak, Luther was breaking away, and all hell was breaking loose in Europe. The Renaissance had occured, there was an active humanist movement in the Church (Different from what you would think of humanism, but it was reformist from the Papal Monarchy of the Middle Ages, certainly).

To view the 16th century Church as monolithic and totalitarian would be incorrect. It was in truth an organization desperately trying to maintain power; thus the increase in persecutions, and the efforts of its foes to consolidate saw them using the exact same tactics.

In such a climate of strife and confusion, of course, one did have to watch what they said but there was hardly a coherent party line.

One should also not think of the Conquistadors as uneducated or incapable of rational observation. Cortez himself had at least some exposure to the classics, and a knowledge of latin.

As for knowledge of other cultures, that had been steadily increasing since the crusades - during which Europeans were indeed ignorant, but were exposed to other cultures, a state in which they were progressively moreso ever since, especially the Italian trading cities, and then Iberia.

Portugal had already been exploring down the African coast for some time now, and the Spanish, of course, had a very good knowledge of the Muslims - indeed, intimate. Their hatred was not of ignorance but rather the sort that comes from close proximity, which was what made the reconquista so brutal.

Europeans were in the court of the Sultan, Catholics were in Orthodox Russia, and Marco Polo's tales were simply the most fabled of many reports of traders who had gone to the far east already.

The climate as it existed by this point allowed for rational inquiry in a time where the Church was being fragmented and controlled by the State, and States vied with each other in a progressively centralized form.

I think it is reasonable to say that in general the historical record of this era maintains the tradition of Thucydides and ought be considered on individual merits.

Or Hitler and Stalin.

What makes a Great Conquerer different than a monstrous tyrant? Interesting question. One could place Alexander the Great alongside Hitler, surely; there's even been an attempt. Of course, Hitler lost and Alexander won...

Success does matter a lot in our culture, doesn't it? Hannibal - He gets in by virtue of Cannae, by the audacity of his attack. Napoleon? The sheer majesty of his figure towers over Europe, the history of the endless victories.

Stalin also died in bed, but his victories were not as blatant as those of others, and undone in living memory.

Napoleon, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Hernan Cortez - All responsible intentionally or unintentionally for millions of deaths and intentionally for at least hundreds of thousands. Hannibal also intentionally for hundreds of thousands, perhaps some more we can find a way to tack onto that if we want to raise them up together.

And yet of those - Even Cortez to a decent degree - They are all so renowned! If the Greeks are right, if there is no afterlife except in having your deeds and your name remembered, then they have all gained a place in it, because we still talk about them, and the more often the better.

Perhaps even the most stupid of American louts and the meanest Afghani goatherd would have had in common the knowledge of one world leader before 9/11; his name would be Alexandros Magnos, the Divine Achilles, favoured of Apollo, the Golden Haired youth who conquered the whole world, by ancient reckoning....

More than two thousand three hundred years after he died. Good god; what's a million lives for that sort of fame? The question is not serious of course. We may have no desire for that brand of eternity, but it has driven many.

I suppose it all comes down to a matter of cultural perception as to if such men are remembered as conquerers or slaughterers. I think, though, that in the case of Cortez he ought be given his due. We glorify men who have done worse than take down a civilization which did the things the Aztecs did; and his motives were purely selfish, they could have been worse.

[Zoink]

To view the 16th century Church as monolithic and totalitarian would be incorrect. It was in truth an organization desperately trying to maintain power; thus the increase in persecutions, and the efforts of its foes to consolidate saw them using the exact same tactics.

Increases in persecution and attempts to consolidate power means the church of th 16th century is totalitarian and monolithic. IE. They are attempting to directly invlove themselves and control their subjects; and bring 'renegade' sects under one unified control. The presence of disgruntled subjects and sects is only a measure of their success, and in part can be attributed to a rebelion against totalitarian and monolithic nature of the church.

One should also not think of the Conquistadors as uneducated or incapable of rational observation. Cortez himself had at least some exposure to the classics, and a knowledge of latin.

Invasion, theft, and genocide is not an indicator of rational thought.

And yet of those - Even Cortez to a decent degree - They are all so renowned! If the Greeks are right, if there is no afterlife except in having your deeds and your name remembered, then they have all gained a place in it, because we still talk about them, and the more often the better.

So are Cortez and his actions rational because he is simply giving into a base instinct of self preservation? Yet, at the same time he is unable to grasp the concept of what that base instinct is in realty trying to do (prevent death) and compare that with what he was actually doing (comforting oneself with the illusion of immortality).

[Stravo]

[quote="The Duchess of Zeon Also, consider the timing - 1520. That was when the Catholic Church was quite weak, Luther was breaking away, and all hell was breaking loose in Europe. The Renaissance had occured, there was an active humanist movement in the Church (Different from what you would think of humanism, but it was reformist from the Papal Monarchy of the Middle Ages, certainly).

However, Spain saw itself as the true defender of the CATHOLIC faith and church at this time so the church's influence may have been weakening in Europe (and even that is debatable since Luther spent much of his time fleeing Papal assasins [that's right folks...PAPAL ASSASSINS ]) In spain at least the Church was firmly entrenched and the Spanish were its firmest believers. When you have a nation that launches the Inquisition in order to keep teh Church strong, there is no humanist movement there to play off of. Spain was a bastion of the Catholic faith. The Conquistdaors were good Catholics and such they saw things through that worldview or prism.

Later on as the Conquest of the Americas went into full swing, the Conquistadors through their government asked the Church whether it was OK by the faith to enslave Indians. The Church's response: Indians have no souls so go ahead and enslave them and maybe they can be saved by working for the greater good of Christendom. (IRONIC considering that the core believers of the Catholic faith in the Americas are the descendants of those same Indians but then again the Catholic church has never been too picky about its believers.)

To view the 16th century Church as monolithic and totalitarian would be incorrect. It was in truth an organization desperately trying to maintain power; thus the increase in persecutions, and the efforts of its foes to consolidate saw them using the exact same tactics.

YES. But in Spain the Church WAS monolithic and totalatarian..Conquistadors come from Spain...hence the world view dominant in their lives and actions. These were not innocent men who made a few mistakes, this was calculated genocide and enslavement of a race that was inferior to their own and it is very clear in the writings of the day.


One should also not think of the Conquistadors as uneducated or incapable of rational observation. Cortez himself had at least some exposure to the classics, and a knowledge of latin.


No, they were mostly religious fanatics or zealots. Spain was breeding them by the bushel at the time. After all the Reconquista was won through their unswerving faith in God that they would crush the infidel hordes of Allah.


<snip>Portugal had already been exploring down the African coast for some time now, and the Spanish, of course, had a very good knowledge of the Muslims - indeed, intimate. Their hatred was not of ignorance but rather the sort that comes from close proximity, which was what made the reconquista so brutal.


NO, the Reconquista was so brutral because it was a war to a) reclaim land lost to an invader b) that had DEEP religious overtones c) and consumed whole generations in the strife.

The muslims were seen as the infidel hordes that were holding onto CHRISTIAN lands. Was there a secular overtone as well? Certainly, the Iberian lords were trying to consoplidate their power and teh muslims were slowly weakening. Do not paint the Spanish as being touched by these humanistic and pluralistic brushstrokes that you're painting the rest of Europe with...the tales of Christian baby's blood in Mahtza balls as an ingredient and the other horrid tales of Jewish attrocities originated around the Jewish slums of Spain. (For those who read the Cantebury tales there is a fine example of this in one of them where it talks about a child murdered by evil Jews.) So the Spanish are pretty much the xenophobic religious zealots that we know and love from the American conquest.


Europeans were in the court of the Sultan, Catholics were in Orthodox Russia, and Marco Polo's tales were simply the most fabled of many reports of traders who had gone to the far east already.

The climate as it existed by this point allowed for rational inquiry in a time where the Church was being fragmented and controlled by the State, and States vied with each other in a progressively centralized form.

Maybe in Europe BUT not in Spain, not with a band of men that were told that their enemies and potential vassals had no souls and thus they were acting with the full will and consent of God. And you ignore the fact that the Conquistadors not only brought plague and death but priests as well to convert those that they conquered. Where is the broad world view, the tolerance, the tradition of Thucydides?

I think it is reasonable to say that in general the historical record of this era maintains the tradition of Thucydides and ought be considered on individual merits.

[Spoonist]

The masters of digression has skillfully deflected the topic yet again...



->verilon
Since english isn't my native language I don't know how to say this without sounding harsh, but here it goes anyway.

So you are calling yourself a pagan?
Then after that loose affiliation you start critisizing other pagans since they are not as pure as your "celtic" tradition?

Let me give you a tip. Don't call it paganism. The only real defenition of paganism there is, is that you have defined yourself as not being a believer in the hebrew god. That's it, nothing more.
You could check it out in all the religious dictionaries there are.
The most common pagans are Hindus.
So if we are talking probabilities then if you are claiming to be a pagan then you're most probably a Hindu.

Now if you really wish to have peoples honest opinions you should make some claims that are true for you as a celtic apprentice. Then see what people think of those.

But let me start you of with a few questions:
Are you celtic with a druidic/gaelic/shaman/christian/norse/neo or traditional denomination?
Do you believe in sacrifices? (Intrinsic to celtic traditions)
Which fairies do you believe in? What powers do you attribute them?
What rituals do you think are the most important?
Which days do you consider holy and why?
etc

Without this information you will never truly know our opinion of your faith since you yourself has not defined it for us!

It is sort of someone saying that he is a christian and what we think about christianity. Then when people critize creationism, he says that they have no clue because he doesn't believe in creatiosm.

[haas mark]

The masters of digression has skillfully deflected the topic yet again...

So it has.

->verilon
Since english isn't my native language I don't know how to say this without sounding harsh, but here it goes anyway.

So you are calling yourself a pagan?

Yes.

Then after that loose affiliation you start critisizing other pagans since they are not as pure as your "celtic" tradition?

Partly. Partly because I am sick of people just following trends that they don't really know what they are about. I myself am new to the pagan tradition, but I know that is where i belong, that that is where my heart is. I have read some on it, and it gets interesting, I am continuously researching what I'm doing.

Let me give you a tip. Don't call it paganism.

Well, I refuse to call it Wicca, something entirely different. Paganism is not defined except by dictionary as not believeing in the Hebrew god.

The only real defenition of paganism there is, is that you have defined yourself as not being a believer in the hebrew god. That's it, nothing more.

See above.

You could check it out in all the religious dictionaries there are.
The most common pagans are Hindus.
So if we are talking probabilities then if you are claiming to be a pagan then you're most probably a Hindu.

Whatever.

Now if you really wish to have peoples honest opinions you should make some claims that are true for you as a celtic apprentice. Then see what people think of those.

But let me start you of with a few questions:
Are you celtic with a druidic/gaelic/shaman/christian/norse/neo or traditional denomination?

I couldn't tell you right off the bat. Like I said, I knwo that I am pagan in the respect of a Celtic tradition, but what sort of denomination I don't know.

Do you believe in sacrifices? (Intrinsic to celtic traditions)

Not entirely... There are certain rituals that require the cutting of oneself, sometimes of another. THis also depends on the magick one is performing.

Which fairies do you believe in? What powers do you attribute them?

Faeres as in what? Guardians? Keepers? Elaborate.

What rituals do you think are the most important?

I have not studied long enough to know anything of importance, yet

Which days do you consider holy and why?
etc

Each religion has its holy days (holidays) but I'm not sure what they are yet. I haven't yet learned the pagan calendar.

Without this information you will never truly know our opinion of your faith since you yourself has not defined it for us!

That is true, hence my earlier post that I should have explained earlier. But I thought it might have been obvious what I meant. Guess I was wrong in that assumption.

It is sort of someone saying that he is a christian and what we think about christianity. Then when people critize creationism, he says that they have no clue because he doesn't believe in creatiosm.

Am I saying that you have no clue? No. I just wanted opinions. I'm not trying to start shit here.

[kojikun]

kojikun: definitely a possibilty, but I doubt it is a reliable theory.

Atleast it explains why the universe makes absolutely NO sense (all that relativity and quantum shit)

[Johonebesus]

You do realize that neopaganism has next to nothing in common with ancient pagan beliefs, don't you? The druids did not believe in vague magical principles or an impersonal mother-earth. They had pantheons of personal gods comparable to the Olympians and the Aesir. Unfortunately, though many knew Greek letters, the Druids refused to write down their secrets, even the names of their gods. Many Celtic idols have been found, especially in Gaul, but when they have any name at all, it is Roman, even if the style and depiction is clearly not Roman. A few names have been preserved, like Lugh and Manannàn, but almost all details of Druidic cult practices and, more importantly, beliefs have been lost. Most neopagan beliefs come from overly-romanticized 19th century reconstructions, which are more fantasy than fact. Unless you offer ritualistic prayers and sacrifices to personalized gods with specific provinces, your paganism has very little to do with pre-christian paganism.

I am not trying to be offensive. I do not know what exactly you believe, and of course you are free to believe whatever you want. I just get irritated when I hear neopagans going on about how they are continuing the ancient earth worshiping traditions of the Druids. That's just rubbish.

[UltraViolence83]

Show me where I said not possible, PLEASE...

I think I misinterpreted what you meant on the last page. Tired when that I wrote. Sleep I needed....

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I know this isn't covered a whole lot, but I want to know people's opinions on it.

I tend to view the various forms of paganism as being just as valid as any of the major religions.

Now that isn't exactly praise, per se, given that I'm an atheist and it is my belief that religion in general is a hokey shell-game.

[haas mark]

You do realize that neopaganism has next to nothing in common with ancient pagan beliefs, don't you? The druids did not believe in vague magical principles or an impersonal mother-earth. They had pantheons of personal gods comparable to the Olympians and the Aesir. Unfortunately, though many knew Greek letters, the Druids refused to write down their secrets, even the names of their gods. Many Celtic idols have been found, especially in Gaul, but when they have any name at all, it is Roman, even if the style and depiction is clearly not Roman. A few names have been preserved, like Lugh and Manannàn, but almost all details of Druidic cult practices and, more importantly, beliefs have been lost. Most neopagan beliefs come from overly-romanticized 19th century reconstructions, which are more fantasy than fact. Unless you offer ritualistic prayers and sacrifices to personalized gods with specific provinces, your paganism has very little to do with pre-christian paganism.

I am not trying to be offensive. I do not know what exactly you believe, and of course you are free to believe whatever you want. I just get irritated when I hear neopagans going on about how they are continuing the ancient earth worshiping traditions of the Druids. That's just rubbish.

I never said I would follow Druidic tradition, and I understand that you are just trying to explain your opinion, but I'm just saying that many people follow many different forms of paganism, and I don't know exactly what it is that I follow.

[Frank Hipper]

I never said I would follow Druidic tradition, and I understand that you are just trying to explain your opinion, but I'm just saying that many people follow many different forms of paganism, and I don't know exactly what it is that I follow.

Pantheist, Verilon. Pantheist.

[Johonebesus]

I'm curious now. I realize you have not decided exactly what you believe, but what are your general beliefs? You said something about magic and cutting yourself. Do you believe in magic and elves? Why do you believe what you believe? What attracts you to such very young religious traditions?

[haas mark]

I'm curious now. I realize you have not decided exactly what you believe, but what are your general beliefs? You said something about magic and cutting yourself. Do you believe in magic and elves?

There ar emany types of magickal people that I believe in. As I am training under my boyfriend, I don't know a whole lot yet, because we have only talked about stuff, not really done much studying or training.

Why do you believe what you believe?

Why do Christians believe what they believe? Or Hindus? Or Muslims? Or Buddhists?

What attracts you to such very young religious traditions?

I'm not sure what you mean, here.

[Boba Fett]

I know this isn't covered a whole lot, but I want to know people's opinions on it.

So paganism...

Don't look for it in a library!

The word "pagan" has been used several times across the history and not just for idol-lovers, shaman guided, etc. folks but for almost any kind of people.

The trick is that everyone can say it to another person who doesn't share his belief.
For an example in the middle age everyone said that the turkish invaders in Europe were pagans...
The turks said catholics are pagans...

It only depends on the point of view.

I could say everyone is pagan who doesn't believe in me, since I only believe in myself.

...and here we arrived to an important word, TOLERANCE!

Because of our lack of tolerance we used to mark other persons with words like "pagan".
That's idiotic.

On the other hand the word "pagan" has a "negative" sound...
It's somehow discriminating.

[Spoonist]

->Boba Fett
You are talking about the word "heathen" not "pagan".
The turks called the catholics heathens etc.

->Verilon
Again no insult intended.
But if you don't know anything about the religion in question then you shouldn't claim to be a follower just yet. Wait until you have gained more knowledge.

Paganism is not defined except by dictionary as not believeing in the Hebrew god.

Except by dictionary? I don't get it. You just can't make up new meanings for words and expect people to accept them. I'm confused.
Please read:
http://www.mhaille.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk ... ticles.htm

Faeres as in what? Guardians? Keepers? Elaborate.

Guardians and keepers, sound much like guardian spirits and keepers of power. Both are New-Age, not celtic.
Fairies as in Tir-na-nog, as in Firbolgs, as in Fomorians, as in the Hunt led by Hern or Cernunnos, as in leprechauns, as in Pooka, as in grogoch, as in merrows, etc.
As in dieties or supernatural beings, or more specific natural creatures with magic powers.

Each religion has its holy days (holidays) but I'm not sure what they are yet. I haven't yet learned the pagan calendar.

First there isn't a pagan calender since pagans are a collection of different pantheonic religions each with it's own calender.
The celtic traditional holy days (not holidays) usually reside around the lunar cycles, the equinoxes and the solstices of more importance are:
Samhain
Imbolc
Beltain
Lughnasadh(sp?)



By your lack of knowledge in celtic tradition and culture mixed with your will to call yourself a celtic pagan, I take it that you are an american teenager? (Please let me be wrong!)

[HemlockGrey]

Back on the originial topic, I find anyone who claims to be able to bend the laws of time and space to be slightly addled.