question on communicating w/ the divine
John Q
i had been thinking about (re)establishing contact with the divine for some
months, and now find that i will have some free time for a while. perhaps
this will be a good time to do more than think about it, and so perhaps now
is a good time to ask:
-- for those of you who believe in and communicate with one or more divine
beings, how did you first make contact with the same? did you find a time
or anything was instrumental in doing so? did you find that anything made
it more difficult? --
this is a difficult question to ask, because it entails facing the fact
that there may really be something there with which to communicate, which
raises some questions (the typically uncomfortable "why" type questions)
that could be avoided.
it is also difficult because the question "is it real or is it me?" means
more now as researchers studying both buddhist monks and catholic nuns, two
different extremes of religious thought, have found similar (and very
material) explanations for both cause and effect of what those studied
considered as spiritual experiences.
of course, nobody - certainly not myself - would want a nice experience
that turns out to be "just me." but if there is a real divine being that
can really be communicated with, my free time over the next few weeks may
be a time when this can happen. i'm just wondering about how from a wiccan
perspective people do this?
i am not saying that there is a god(dess), or more than one. but it is not
reasonable to state categorically that something *cannot* exist. *if*
something/someone like that exists, perhaps some contact can be made, and
this is why i am asking.
your friend,
john
Alan Young
<JohnQ_...@softhome.net> wrote:
> -- for those of you who believe in and communicate with one or more divine
> beings, how did you first make contact with the same? did you find a time
> or anything was instrumental in doing so? did you find that anything made
> it more difficult? --
I have a real talent for this. I let myself get vulnerable (certain herbal
substances can help a bit), and they just come out of nowhere and grab me.
> i am not saying that there is a god(dess), or more than one. but it is not
> reasonable to state categorically that something *cannot* exist. *if*
> something/someone like that exists, perhaps some contact can be made, and
> this is why i am asking.
There's no sense in making it a philosophical "what if..." question. And I
wouldn't even recommend trying to contact an anonymous "divine" that you
don't believe in, or have a social context for maintaining a relationship
with. At least, that's not what's worked for me.
There are techniques for doing this in shamanism, in Wicca, in the
numerous African-diaspora practices, etc. etc. You should find a religion
that appeals to you philopshically and/or socially, and start practicing.
--
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Always remember: your focus determines your reality.
Coyote...@aol.com
the Goddess and the God spoke to me, and told me, well, it's private. But it
was meaningful, and my life has moved in the direction that I was shown that
night.
I do crystal ball readings, and my caveat for those who wonder at what
I've Seen for them is that this is what the Fates have shown me. The three
Weavers also guide me in all aspects of my life.
I also used to think that I stood alone, undefended against the terrors
of the world, but have come to understand that while I had to fight the
little battles myself, which made me stronger, Nemesis and the Furies were
guarding against the larger threats. Now that I have become aware of their
presence, I find that my thirst for vengeance, so easy to satisfy, is less
important. I know that I may ask of the Goddesses their indulgence, to stay
their hand. Knowing that I can merely let them do as they will is far more
than enough for my revenge. Sometimes, the Goddesses take matters into their
own hands, however, and what am I to do about that?
I account myself a Latter-Day Son of Zeus, a stepson of that god, and
that I am looked out for. Ares and Athena are like as to my siblings, and I
heed their wisdom.
There might be a bit of arrogance in all of this, but these are my
connection to the divine. I consider myself very fortunate indeed, to have
the blessings of the Olympians.
In my craft name, I connect with the spirit guide that also aids me in my
live-path. I must be a truly hapless individual, to need such guidance.
Blessed be,
Sings With Coyotes
John Q
news:2qq77.184646$v5.17...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com:
> X-No-Archive:yes
>
> "John Q" <JohnQ_...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns90E8A6F68F328...@24.7.143.114...
>> it is also difficult because the question "is it real or is it me?"
>> means more now as researchers studying both buddhist monks and
>> catholic nuns, two different extremes of religious thought, have found
>> similar (and very material) explanations for both cause and effect of
>> what those studied considered as spiritual experiences.
>
> Really? Have you got any good links about this? Or even just the
> university or lab where they researched this? I haven't heard of this
> study and it sounds fascinating...almost as fascinating as the story in
> Wired last year about the Canadian neurophysicist studying near-death
> experiences.
it was discussed in an issue of newsweek last month, and also is mentioned
in this msn article:
_
_http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1674.51527
my wife mentioned to me that the research does *not* prove that what the
monks/nuns experienced was definitely not spiritual in origin, but i think
that a material explanation may be as reasonable as a metaphysical one.
johnq
p.s. - i like your site! your silly blurb under yes-this-is-for-real that
introduces your wicca link is actually very much why i am lurking here in
the first place! :)
> And I think I could use it on my web page, too...
>
> Frenchy
> Find the cure for the common religion! Deify yourself at Frenchy's
> Weird Religions Home Page: http://www.tftb.com/deify...
John Q
news:aayoung-2407...@d24.nas22.sonic.net:
> I have a real talent for this. I let myself get vulnerable (certain
> herbal substances can help a bit), and they just come out of nowhere
> and grab me.
if you wish you could elaborate on this. what is it like? how does it
make you feel?
> There's no sense in making it a philosophical "what if..." question.
> And I wouldn't even recommend trying to contact an anonymous "divine"
> that you don't believe in, or have a social context for maintaining a
> relationship with. At least, that's not what's worked for me.
for me it is in sort of the catagory of the seti project. i think i'm
motivated not by a "what if..." (that would be my more scientific wife's
reason if she wanted to do this <g>), but motivated more by a desperate
hope. i don't have proof whethe there is any deity with whom to commune,
but i do know 3 things:
1. i was very disappointed by experiences had as part of the christian
faith (long story, no reason to reopen that wound).
2. i still very much hope that there is a divine being to love and by whom
to be loved. as a christian i would have called it a 'god-shaped hole.'
it is a longing that my wife and other agonstics/former christians do not
share, at least not those whom i have asked.
3. and yet i am very afraid of just fooling myself into thinking i have
met something when there is really nothing there.
> There are techniques for doing this in shamanism, in Wicca, in the
> numerous African-diaspora practices, etc. etc. You should find a
> religion that appeals to you philopshically and/or socially, and start
> practicing.
very true! this is part of my reason for asking - research into
whether/how this faith perspective (wiccans) communes with their
dieties if they have such communion. as it stands, it does seem
quite serendipitous that i now find myself with abundant free time,
just when i need it. maybe now i could (re)discover god (Goddess,
or however said deity wants to be known, if it does exist).
maybe something will come of it.
john
<remove spam-block if you wish to e-mail me>
John Q
< a way cool picture of his current relationship with the divine>
yes! this is what i would like to (re)capture! if you like, i would be
very grateful if you could describe how this started (what did you do, what
did you avoid, etc), either as a post or by private e-mail if you wish.
> In my craft name, I connect with the spirit guide that also aids me
> in my
> live-path. I must be a truly hapless individual, to need such
> guidance.
i think you're just very, very fortunate to *have* such guidance, that
everyone needs! :)
john
<remove spam-block to e-mail>
nagasbeard
>
> i had been thinking about (re)establishing contact with the divine for some
> months, and now find that i will have some free time for a while. perhaps
> this will be a good time to do more than think about it, and so perhaps now
> is a good time to ask:
>
> reasonable to state categorically that something *cannot* exist. *if*
> something/someone like that exists, perhaps some contact can be made, and
> this is why i am asking.
>
> your friend,
>
> john
Hello John. I can't tell you how to contact the divine but I've some
thoughts on the spiritual journey that may help. The spiritual
journey is an inward path. Take the time you have and spend it
delving as deeply into your being as you are able. And if you
find yourself in a comfortable place you aren't deep enough. You
can go much farther than you think. Amaze yourself. Make this a
life long practice and you won't have to contact the divine, the
deities will find you.
I think of Wicca as the religion of ones own soul. After spending
a very long time on that inward journey (which still goes on) I
looked around for a system that matched what I found inside
myself and Wicca is (almost) a perfect match (I've still a long way
to go as any here will attest) and I find the depth of meaning
and symbolism in Wicca to be the most satisfying religious
experiance I've ever had. Go deep John. Go deep and then look
back out to find what mirrors your inner landscape. The deities will
be there waiting for you. That's what they do.
Let us know how it goes.
Blessings, John
Ok, so I think I just told you how to contact the divine. Who knew?;-)
Ventana
>
> i had been thinking about (re)establishing contact with the divine for
some
> months, and now find that i will have some free time for a while. perhaps
> this will be a good time to do more than think about it, and so perhaps
now
> is a good time to ask:
IMO contact with the divine shouldn't just be when you have some spare time.
It should be an integral part of one's life.
> -- for those of you who believe in and communicate with one or more divine
> beings, how did you first make contact with the same?
It comes to me sometimes spontaneously (in meditation, while driving, etc.),
sometimes by my setting up the conditions. I only ask for those *divine
beings* in my best interest and no intent to harm.
did you find a time
> or anything was instrumental in doing so?
When I was ready to release or receive. If these ideal conditions are set,
almost anything can be the channel for contact. Usually, there is no
turning back and would you want to anyway? Music is the channel I prefer
the most.
did you find that anything made
> it more difficult? --
Resistance and attachment to ego. Clinging with both hands to that which
has perceived value.
> this is a difficult question to ask, because it entails facing the fact
> that there may really be something there with which to communicate, which
> raises some questions (the typically uncomfortable "why" type questions)
> that could be avoided.
>
> it is also difficult because the question "is it real or is it me?"
Does it matter? I mean, if the *divine contact* helps you grow (and
possibly helps others too) what does it matter? What is reality anyway? We
are all part of the divine. IMO - analyzing things to death kills the
contact.
-V
Ventana
"Alan Young" <aay...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:aayoung-2407...@d24.nas22.sonic.net...
> In article <Xns90E8A6F68F328...@24.7.143.114>, John Q
> <JohnQ_...@softhome.net> wrote:
>
> > -- for those of you who believe in and communicate with one or more
divine
> > beings, how did you first make contact with the same? did you find a
time
> > or anything was instrumental in doing so? did you find that anything
made
> > it more difficult? --
>
> I have a real talent for this. I let myself get vulnerable (certain herbal
> substances can help a bit), and they just come out of nowhere and grab me.
And for those that live in a constant vulnerable state, drugs (herbal or
pharma) are used to achieve the opposite result - sealing the cracks. Also,
please be careful what you let in while under the influence of these
*substances*.
I also find connecting with the true spirit of others (and both parties
would have to be truly open to achieve this), I mean the kind that's real
heart felt, brings me the closest to the divine. Sometimes giving without
looking to receive, but just truly giving from your heart is also where I
feel the divine.
-V
Caillean McMahon
She actually communicated with me; at that time, though I hoped for any kind of
intercession or message; I certainly did not expect it, I was re-hashing a
problem in my head when She spoke up.
For which I am forever grateful and forever changed.....
Blessed Be!
Caillean `aSiobahn
Caillean McMahon
BB!
Caillean
John Q
news:WjL77.186784$v5.17...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com:
> Frenchy, who figures the Catholics are already half-Pagan anyway, and
> just in denial about it (No, mods, I am not dissing a religion! Even
> my ultra-Catholic friend agrees with me on this. Well, maybe not about
> the denial part. ;)
as a former seminarian, i can say with certainty that the r.c. church is
one of the most friendly to other faiths, because of something called
'synchretism.' basically, they walk into an new territory and look for
elements of the extant faith that mesh with catholicism and force other
pieces to fit, then invite the locals first to agree with the jesuits on
these points of concurrence and then to become baptised and join the club.
hence gods become saints, and pagan festivals are incorporated into, or
altered to fit with, the feasts or holidays of the church calander. we
fundamentalists were outraged at such a pragmatic strategy; but in
retrospect, i think they had no small of respect for the feelings of the
locals, at least as long as the locals towed the party line.
but the r.c. church never did assimilate wicca. my wife and i discussed
this and developed a theory. i'm not sure if it is appropriate for this
group, but you discuss such things as circumcision so here goes: the
church did not know how to respond to the sexual liberty allowed, even
encouraged, by the wiccans. they could find points of agreement for many
parts of the wiccan faith, but the christian suspicion of carnal pursuits
could not mesh with the sexual openness of the rival faith.
it is only a theory and i have no source documents to support it, but the
facts remain that the wiccans were quite unashamed of their sexuality and
the christians of that day had considerable hang-ups about their own. i do
hope such a discussion is not too forward for the group.
john
Rowan
John Q wrote in message ...
>...
>it is only a theory and i have no source documents to support it, but the
>facts remain that the wiccans were quite unashamed of their sexuality and
>the christians of that day had considerable hang-ups about their own. i do
>hope such a discussion is not too forward for the group.
>
>john
didn't exist then (unless you are thinking of the very recent past).
I am not well acquainted with the sexual mores of the European pre-Christian
cultures, but I find I struggle to imagine ones stricter than the Catholic
model.
BB
Rowan
Alan Young
<JohnQ_...@softhome.net> wrote:
> as a former seminarian, i can say with certainty that the r.c. church is
> one of the most friendly to other faiths, because of something called
> 'synchretism.' basically, they walk into an new territory and look for
> elements of the extant faith that mesh with catholicism and force other
> pieces to fit, then invite the locals first to agree with the jesuits on
> these points of concurrence and then to become baptised and join the club.
>
> hence gods become saints, and pagan festivals are incorporated into, or
> altered to fit with, the feasts or holidays of the church calander. we
> fundamentalists were outraged at such a pragmatic strategy; but in
> retrospect, i think they had no small of respect for the feelings of the
> locals, at least as long as the locals towed the party line.
So far, this seems to be historically accurate...
>
> but the r.c. church never did assimilate wicca. my wife and i discussed
> this and developed a theory. i'm not sure if it is appropriate for this
> group, but you discuss such things as circumcision so here goes: the
> church did not know how to respond to the sexual liberty allowed, even
> encouraged, by the wiccans. they could find points of agreement for many
> parts of the wiccan faith, but the christian suspicion of carnal pursuits
> could not mesh with the sexual openness of the rival faith.
<ROTFL> Wicca--Rival faith? My friend, Wicca was invented scarcely 60
years ago and has only been a blip on the radar of worldwide religion (if
that) for the past 10 -15. Just when was the RCC supposed to go about
syncretizing us?
> it is only a theory and i have no source documents to support it, but the
> facts remain that the wiccans were quite unashamed of their sexuality and
> the christians of that day had considerable hang-ups about their own. i do
> hope such a discussion is not too forward for the group.
Of *what* day, now?
As far as being too forward, wow, I hope not. I assume the modkin will let
you know when your explicit portrayals of our unabashed sexuality get too
steamy, but I'm afraid you're being a little too timid here, since I'm
having a hard time grasping your meaning.
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> As far as being too forward, wow, I hope not. I assume the modkin will let
> you know when your explicit portrayals of our unabashed sexuality get too
> steamy, but I'm afraid you're being a little too timid here, since I'm
> having a hard time grasping your meaning.
Modstaff. Modkin are the moderators for the *other* moderated Pagan
newsgroup.
Blessed be,
Baird
Gale
wrote:
><snip>
>Modstaff. Modkin are the moderators for the *other* moderated Pagan
>newsgroup.
Yes, seeing that term of Donal's (I believe you mentioned that was Donal's
concoction) always gives me these strange images --- one of the worst is of
a group of moderators sitting around a monitor knitting, with other diverse
"kin"folk on the periphery.
Modstaff is much better --- but it may also be why some folks believe you
are "primum moderator"; it does have part of your name in it.
Blessed Be,
Gale
modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated
original Tarot, poetry, fiction at
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html
Taliesin of Earthstar
wrote:
Oh, I don't know. I always though you should be called the "ModSquad."
(Grinning now. Ducking now. Running REAL FAST, now.)
J. Eiler / Taliesin of Earthstar
tali...@bellsouth.com
E_MAIL ADDRESS IS MUNGED: Change the "i"s to "y"s
to e-mail me.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Approved shaking left fist while clicking mouse with right hand. ;-) --- BB, Gale
John Q
> <ROTFL> Wicca--Rival faith? My friend, Wicca was invented scarcely 60
> years ago and has only been a blip on the radar of worldwide religion
> (if that) for the past 10 -15. Just when was the RCC supposed to go
> about syncretizing us?
i was thinking of the faith extant in the british isles in the 5th c. the
church of that time, coming from a context of stoic thought and heavily
influenced by augustine, had little love for the human body, and were
confronted by the painted savages (lat. "picti" or "picts") that the
confounded the romans in the prior 2 centuries (gonzales, _history of
christian thought_).
given the natives' resistance to the imperialism first of the roman empire
and later of the church of rome, it is most interesting that christianity
became the state religion of this region at all. it is certain that while
the priests of the christian god may have captured the minds of the
natives, it was the extant faith that still held their hearts (sybil leaky,
_witchcraft_).
--i think that was the name of the book; i read it when i was a child. she
tells of people attending mass to confess their rites of the night before
with no intent of stopping the "sinful" practice, thus appeasing the church
while still keeping their tradition. but unlike other cultures, witches
were eventually forced to give up their practices altogether (or go into
hiding). the only reason for this difference that i can see is the linking
of worship of the goddess with one's sexuality, whereas the church wishes
its priests and nuns to be considered asexual.
although another possibility occurs: the r.c. church learned from its
mistake with the wiccan natives, and that is precisely why they adopted a
practice of assimilation and absorbtion (hmmm...rather borg-like terms <g>)
rather than trying to obliterate any rival faiths. but we still have the
occurance, very early in the game, of european gods being made into saints.
it's kind of like the church said "you can keep your gods, we'll make them
into saints, all except for the goddess, whom you must reject."
of course, in the middle part of the middle ages, mariolatry came into its
own. the virgin was an asexual version of the goddess, and is perhaps as
close as the church will come to making a bridge between itself and those
who serve the goddess.
>> it is only a theory and i have no source documents to support it, but
>> the facts remain that the wiccans were quite unashamed of their
>> sexuality and the christians of that day had considerable hang-ups
>> about their own. i do hope such a discussion is not too forward for
>> the group.
>
> Of *what* day, now?
again, of early medieval times (cir. 400-600ad). i'm sorry i did not
specify. and also i may be mischaracterizing your faith. i assumed
modern wicca was a revisiting of what has been called "the old religion."
rather than a nascent faith, i thought of it as a very old faith that
simply is regaining adherents. given that the aggressive bibliocentric
religions - christianity and islam - have caused so much grief, it is
understandable that people would either adopt an athiestic perspective or
look elsewhere for god(dess).
> As far as being too forward, wow, I hope not. I assume the modkin will
> let you know when your explicit portrayals of our unabashed sexuality
> get too steamy, but I'm afraid you're being a little too timid here,
> since I'm having a hard time grasping your meaning.
ok, but some people who are subscribed here might not have appreciated the
topic to turn in the direction of sex at all. unfortunately, the mpaa
standard of decency is all too reflected in american culture. i haven't
been to england in over 10 years, but the people we knew there seemed at
least as bashful concerning the subject as we americans. of course, they
*were* christians... :)
john
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> I believe the correct term for "primum moderator" is "moderatrix". At
> least that's what I've used with the many mailing lists I once hosted for
> my employer.
Like a certain English poet and dramatist of some note, I have "little
Latin and less Greek." I am under the impression, however, that the
"-ix" suffix is the feminine version of the "-or" suffix.
Blessed be,
Baird
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> Yes, seeing that term of Donal's (I believe you mentioned that was Donal's
> concoction) always gives me these strange images --- one of the worst is of
> a group of moderators sitting around a monitor knitting, with other diverse
> "kin"folk on the periphery.
It was, and it was accepted with some reservations by the rest of us -
the reservations being much the same as you mentioned (except that my
image was of a quilting bee...).
Also, several of us thought it was too "cutsey."
Donal, however, was the prime mover behind the formation of srp and,
since at that time his server at brewich.com hosted the newsgroup, had
to be humored at least in the smaller things....
> Modstaff is much better --- but it may also be why some folks believe you
> are "primum moderator"; it does have part of your name in it.
Urk. Never thought of that one!
Blessed be,
Baird
Alan Young
<JohnQ_...@softhome.net> wrote:
> > <ROTFL> Wicca--Rival faith? My friend, Wicca was invented scarcely 60
> > years ago and has only been a blip on the radar of worldwide religion
> > (if that) for the past 10 -15. Just when was the RCC supposed to go
> > about syncretizing us?
>
> i was thinking of the faith extant in the british isles in the 5th c.
Ah, okay then, the Celtic tradition, not exactly "witchcraft", still less
"wicca", although Wicca has borrowed a bit from it.
> were eventually forced to give up their practices altogether (or go into
> hiding). the only reason for this difference that i can see is the linking
> of worship of the goddess with one's sexuality, whereas the church wishes
> its priests and nuns to be considered asexual.
It will take someone more knowledgeable than I to point out any Celtic
practices that did make it into the Church--certainly some of the holiday
traditions, if not anything specifically liturgical. But perhaps it's
because the British Isles were converted during a period when the RCC was
particularly prickly about orthodoxy, which may not have been true in
earlier centuries.
> although another possibility occurs: the r.c. church learned from its
> mistake with the wiccan natives, and that is precisely why they adopted a
> practice of assimilation and absorbtion (hmmm...rather borg-like terms <g>)
> rather than trying to obliterate any rival faiths.
I don't think this is the sequence, actually. Before Xianity became
dominant enough to start forcibly converting the Roman Empire, it
syncretised everything in order to gain converts--notably the cults of
Isis and Mithras.
> but we still have the
> occurance, very early in the game, of european gods being made into saints.
> it's kind of like the church said "you can keep your gods, we'll make them
> into saints, all except for the goddess, whom you must reject."
Well, isn't there a Ste. Brigit, of Ireland? And many early depictions of
the Madonna are virtually indistinguishable from contemporary images of
Isis with Horus. I'm sure there are many other examples; I'm not an expert
on this.
John Q
> Well, isn't there a Ste. Brigit, of Ireland? And many early depictions
> of the Madonna are virtually indistinguishable from contemporary images
> of Isis with Horus. I'm sure there are many other examples; I'm not an
> expert on this.
one very noteworthy example of this - was in a catholic church yesterday,
and they had a very ancient looking painting of the virgin, wearing her
traditional blue hood, this one covered with stars, and she stood upon a
crescent moon. i settled down and talked (silently) for a while, thinking
perhaps if she was real she might be able/willing to hear me.
Jackdaw
"Frenchy" <fre...@spam-me-not.com> wrote in message
news:_4q87.193701$v5.18...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com...
> X-No-Archive:yes
SNIP OF GOOD STUFF
> I stopped crying after that. I knew and felt that everything was going to
> be all right. I felt like a dam had been removed and all of a sudden,
good
> feelings rose to the surface again. I felt so calm.
>
> It didn't completely remove my depression, and I knew there was still
plenty
> of work to be done on my end to banish the fault once and for all. And I
> knew it would take time and wasn't going to happen overnight. But for
now,
> I could think more clearly because the Goddess had helped take some of the
> burden off me.
>
> And interestingly, just a few days later, something happened in my life,
out
> of the blue, almost as though to "test" me. The Goddess had thrown down a
> gauntlet. And I picked it up...
>
> It's a start.
>
> Frenchy
You keep on going Frenchy, good for you!
some folks call it "Casting out Demons" and you DID IT YOURSELF!!
Yourself.You, with help from the Lady.
Great!
(((((((((( HUG)))))))))
Cornish Jackdaw
Collector of facts, trivia & bright twinkly things.
And skulls and bizzare items and.............
Raven
| John Q <JohnQ_...@softhome.net> wrote:
<snip>
|> it is only a theory and i have no source documents to support it, but the
|> facts remain
[scratches head in puzzlement] How did unsupported theory become "facts"?
|> that the wiccans were quite unashamed of their sexuality and the
|> christians of that day had considerable hang-ups about their own.
|
| Of *what* day, now?
Oh, *that* part's obvious, Fathom: the days of Wicca as the Ancient Religion
of All Europe, when everyone, from the Emperors of Rome, to the Druids of the
British Isles, to the Greeks, to the Germans, all Cast Circles, and Summoned
Guardians of the Four Watchtowers, and Drew Down the Moon, and shared Cakes
and Ale, in that Golden Age when all Pagans Dwelt in Peace Together....
Or hadn't you noticed that lately history has become However We Wish It Was?
--
Raven | "Today's pagans are about nature, you know."
| -- Linda Mould, pontificating.
raven @ solaria.sol.net | "Who died and made you the pantheon?"
| -- Weazel, in reply.
Raven
| It will take someone more knowledgeable than I to point out any Celtic
| practices that did make it into the Church--certainly some of the holiday
| traditions,
Hallowe'en (Samhain), for one well-known example.
| if not anything specifically liturgical.
Private confessional was the Celtic practice, when Rome still used *public*
confession: one of the Celtic survivals when the sundered halves reunited.
| But perhaps it's because the British Isles were converted during a period
| when the RCC was particularly prickly about orthodoxy, which may not have
| been true in earlier centuries.
Not exactly. Patrick had only partial training when he went to Ireland,
and may never have read his contemporary Augustine of Hippo's books, which
established the justification of conversion by force. As a result, Patrick
and his successors converted peaceably by persuasion, and allowed Celtic
practices (e.g. private confession, front-tonsure, the sunwheel embedded
in the Latin cross to make the Celtic cross) to continue as part of what
became known as the Celtic Church, due to its lengthy loss of contact with
Rome. It was the Celtic Church that converted Ireland, Scotland, much of
previously-pagan Europe, and even Anglo-Saxon England north of the Thames.
Rome's missionary (a different Augustine) converted the southern tip of
England, and by that time there were so many differences -- including the
ways to calculate the date of Easter -- that the Council of Whitby had to
try reconciling them; this led to the gradual reabsorption of the Celtic
Church into the Church of Rome, though, as I said, some Celtic practices
were adopted by Rome.
I posted some cites and quotes on alt.religion.druid a few years back,
and a Google search on that NG, my ID, and "Celtic Church", should find them
-- I regret I don't have HTTP access right now; I'll post them when I do.
| I don't think this is the sequence, actually. Before Xianity became
| dominant enough to start forcibly converting the Roman Empire, it
| syncretised everything in order to gain converts--notably the cults of
| Isis and Mithras.
Yes indeed. Mithras was a men-only faith especially popular in the Legions,
and those men's wives often worshipped Isis. Then the Empire's adoption of
Christianity led to mass conversions, and a whole lot of assumptions moved
into the Church along with the new converts. Mithraism had iconic statues
in the grotto temples, and a hierarchical priesthood addressed as "Father",
while Jesus came from a no-graven-images faith and said "Call no man Father";
but which does the later Church resemble more? (See a little book on this
topic, titled "The Fellow in the Cap", author eludes my memory at this time.)
|> but we still have the occurance, very early in the game, of european gods
|> being made into saints. it's kind of like the church said "you can keep
|> your gods, we'll make them into saints, all except for the goddess, whom
|> you must reject."
|
| Well, isn't there a Ste. Brigit, of Ireland?
Brigid of Kildare was a real woman, founder of the abbey of Kildare,
converted (and later made a bishop) by Patrick, to the dismay of her
pagan father. Long afterwards, churchmen upset by the existence of
women clergy in the Celtic Church tried to claim Brigid was made a
bishop by *mistake*. If they could have hoped to claim she didn't even
exist, they would have, but her existence was too well established.
Only very recently has the Catholic Church declared her non-existent
and removed her from the calendar of saints. History's easier to
revise when the old records are neglected and forgotten.
| And many early depictions of the Madonna are virtually indistinguishable
| from contemporary images of Isis with Horus.
Again, small wonder.
People just adapted the customs they had, gave them a Christian veneer.
| I'm sure there are many other examples; I'm not an expert on this.
Not a bad summary, then. You got the basics right.
--
Raven | , "Y Gwir yn erbyn y Byd." (Welsh)
| "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil." (Irish)
raven @ solaria.sol.net | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
Shez
<aay...@sonic.net> writes
>It will take someone more knowledgeable than I to point out any Celtic
>practices that did make it into the Church--certainly some of the holiday
>traditions, if not anything specifically liturgical. But perhaps it's
>because the British Isles were converted during a period when the RCC was
>particularly prickly about orthodoxy, which may not have been true in
>earlier centuries.
Pagan practices and Celtic practise made it into the church, just think
of the Easter festivals,
Though for many years it was sanitised, May day the Maypole and the
girls dancing around it have been part of school and church celebrations
in England. And May day celebrations are world wide, going back to our
pagan ancestors. Everywhere it was a celebration of spring, and a
fertility ritual.
The may flower that was traditionally worn as wreaths on the dancers
heads, and wound into the ribbons of the maypole, is part of the old
Magick of this country, because its wild magick, it was unlucky to take
may blossom indoors, it was thought to cause disasters in a house.
The goddess Eastera, became the Easter celebrations, the Egg rolling on
Easter morning. And good luck went to the first egg to reach the bottom
of the hill. Eggs are tied in with spring and fertility.
Their are plenty of Celtic and pagan additions to the church,
Celtic art is fairly common in old Irish churches, But their are huge
amounts of pagan input into English churches, some of them more obvious
than others. If you look inside some of the very oldest and most
beautiful cathedrals and churches, you often find very pagan figures,
nymphs, and fauns, and green men,
Even some Saints came straight from pagan practice, St Bridget of
Ireland for instance, was once a goddess.
--
Shez, the Old Craft lady sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/shez/
francis freespirit
>i was thinking of the faith extant in the british isles in the 5th c. the
>church of that time, coming from a context of stoic thought and heavily
>influenced by augustine, had little love for the human body, and were
>confronted by the painted savages (lat. "picti" or "picts") that the
>confounded the romans in the prior 2 centuries (gonzales, _history of
>christian thought_).
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear .. another strange view of the past ..
--
francis freespirit
oxford, england
Scott Berry
news:1ex7iqn.1abhsoms6cj88N%ba...@newstaff.com...
--
Scott Berry, who thought Moderatrix was a Keanu Reeves film
Read Paying For Breakages at www.scottberry.uklinux.net
"Christians have been claiming for thousands of years that God is
everywhere.
Pagans actually *believe* it."
- Frenchy, alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Gale
<sc...@NAY-TO-SPAMsberry21.fsnet.co.uk>
<snip>
> >
>Exactly, as in 'Dominatrix', which is the word for a female dominoes player.
Are you suggesting you've taken the role of the domino?
John Q
news:3b629baf$0$42882$39de...@news.sol.net:
<a very impressive clarification of the situation in the british isles!!!>
that was very, very cool! wouldn't it have been awesome if the council of
whitby had ended differently. celtic practices like those you described
would have made for a happier britain! the opening of the supervisory
clergy to other females besides brigit of kildare would have made a greater
reconciliation between the church and the (druidic?) pagans, and perhaps
have allowed other changes in practice and doctrine. had this happened,
the possibilities would have been be far-reaching.
john
Baird Stafford
> "Baird Stafford" <ba...@newstaff.com> wrote in message
> news:1ex7iqn.1abhsoms6cj88N%ba...@newstaff.com...
<snip>
> > Like a certain English poet and dramatist of some note, I have "little
> > Latin and less Greek." I am under the impression, however, that the
> > "-ix" suffix is the feminine version of the "-or" suffix.
<snip>
> Exactly, as in 'Dominatrix', which is the word for a female dominoes player.
The male of which, by back-formation, would be spoken of as a "dominor?"
Blessed be,
Baird
stifling giggles....
Raven
| Patrick and his successors converted peaceably by persuasion, and allowed
| Celtic practices (e.g. private confession, front-tonsure, the sunwheel
| embedded in the Latin cross to make the Celtic cross) to continue as part
| of what became known as the Celtic Church, due to its lengthy loss of
| contact with Rome. It was the Celtic Church that converted Ireland,
| Scotland, much of previously-pagan Europe, and even Anglo-Saxon England
| north of the Thames. Rome's missionary (a different Augustine) converted
| the southern tip of England, and by that time there were so many differences
| -- including the ways to calculate the date of Easter -- that the Council of
| Whitby had to try reconciling them; this led to the gradual reabsorption of
| the Celtic Church into the Church of Rome, though, as I said, some Celtic
| practices were adopted by Rome.
I promised some cites and quotes previously posted on alt.religion.druid:
- - - - -
Sub-topic: Existence of the "Celtic Church"
Leslie Hardinge, _The Celtic Church in Britain_ (1973, London: S.P.C.K),
preface pp. xi-xiii, and introduction pp. 1-28:
[xi] The expression "Celtic Church", as used in this work, connotes
that group of Christians which lived in the British Isles before the
coming of the Italian mission of Augustine (A.D. 597), and continued
for about a century, or a little more, in an independent state. The
term "church" is a handy title for this body of believers, and has no
suggestion that they constituted anything of an organization with a
centralized government or an acknowledged head.
[xii] During the larger portions of the fifth and practically the entire
sixth century the Celtic Church was apparently cut off from Western
Christianity, and developed points of view which were different from
those of the broad stream of believers in Mediterranean lands. Subsequent
to their contact with continental Christianity at the very end of the
sixth century the Celts continued their independence until they were,
section by section, gradually absorbed by the Church of the Romans.
[xiii] That they held special doctrines and usages, differing in several
respects from those of Italian Christianity, is vouched for by the sources.
The weight of this evidence tends to underline the fact that there
existed fundamental and far-reaching diferences between the Celtic and Roman
Churches. ...
[19] Rome and its representatives were apparently unaware of the actual
beliefs and practices of Celtic Christians. It would seem natural, therefore,
that the Celts were also ignorant of the peculiar beliefs and practices of the
Roman Church. This fact is fundamental to all study of life and works of the
Celtic Christians. They had lived so long cut off from the Western Church....
- - - - -
Sub-topic: Did Christians slaughter, or *violently* convert, the Druids?
Ronald Hutton, _Pagan Religions in the Ancient British Isles_, p.263:
"From this tiny quantity of evidence, it can be suggested that the
conversion of Ireland was a notably peaceful affair."
Other writers are less hesitant. Thomas Cahill, in _How_the_Irish_Saved_
_Civilization_ (1995 Nan A. Talese/Doubleday, Anchor), states bluntly:
"Ireland is unique in religious history for being the only land
into which Christianity was introduced without bloodshed."
[p. 151 of the Anchor paperback edition, ISBN 0-385-41849-3.]
---
Relevant sections from Peter and Fiona Somerset Fry, A HISTORY OF IRELAND
(1988, Routledge; 1993, Barnes & Noble), hardcover, ISBN 1-56619-215-3:
Chapter 2: Celts and Christians
[34] The measure of [Patrick's] success is well shown by the fact that
the establishment of his church was not accompanied by martyrdom. Many
druids clung fast to their traditional beliefs long after Patrick's death,
but seem to have tried to resist the spread of Christianity by argument
rather than persecution. It was not so in other parts of Europe.
[35] Christianity was slow to advance in Ireland. There was no 'instant
evangelization', and when by the mid-sixth century the church had taken
root and was winning over druid opposition, what had emerged was...
[decentralized monastic rather than centralized diocesal organization].
[36] The monastery -- and by this we mean the whole community, not the
buildings -- maintained the best relations it could with neighboring _tuatha_.
Ancient law texts mention some _tuatha_ headed by abbots or bishops. Kings
often gave lands to new monastic creations or to existing communities, though
only by consent of the whole _tuath_, for land belonged to the _tuath_ not
the ruler. It was a kind of partnership gradually accepted even by the
druids once they saw the Christians were not out to destroy them and their
organization by violence but rather to try to convert them peacefully by
persuasion and compromise -- an example that later Christian 'missions' in
other parts of the world would have done well to follow.
[37] Monastic Christianity was gradually accepted by the _a/es da/na_
[the learned, i.e. druidic, class] who wanted to be part of the new
learning that went with it....
[43] The story of Ireland over the four centuries c. 400 to c. 800 is
widely described as having been a happy one, with only few important
political or military upheavals. (Of how many other medieval states
can that be said?) [end of quotes]
---
It might be worth noting a few of the notable persons who never were
converted to Christianity, and remained pagans to the end of their days,
according to MacManus, STORY OF THE IRISH PEOPLE, and Ellis, THE DRUIDS:
IRELAND. The High King, Laoghaire, son of Niall of the Nine Hostages, then
in the fourth year of his reign, first had Patrick arrested and brought to his
court for lighting a fire before the druids, then heard his preaching, and
(in the words of MacManus, p.115) "though Laoghaire's pagan faith was
unshaken, he was so far won by the man Patrick that he gave him the freedom
of his realm to preach the new faith where and to whom he would."
SCOTLAND. [Ellis, p.85] The ruler at the Picts at the time of the arrival
of Colmcille in Scotland was one Bruide Mac Maelchon (c. AD 556-584),
regarded as the first historical king of the Picts. Adomnan mentions
Bruide several times in his work and points out that he was never
converted to Christianity in spite of Colmcille's best efforts. ...
Colmcille came away from his first meeting... with a negotiated treaty
providing a safe conduct for Christian monks and missionaries travelling
through Pictish territory.
[86] Within the next century the Cruthin, or Picts, had become
Christian. They were one of the last Celtic peoples to adopt the
new faith. [end quote]
Had Christians been forcing conversions "on pain of death", would these
pagan kings have been left free, yet still let their people be coerced?
CORNWALL. [Ellis, 88] In spite of the countless _Lives_ of Cornish saints
there seem to be no accounts of conflicts between Christian missionaries
and Cornish Druids.
BRITTANY. Ellis also summarizes from Wrdistan's _Life of St. Guenole_ the
encounter between Guenole and a Druid at the deathbed and subsequent
mourning of King Gradlon of Kernev (Cornouaille):
[89] The tradition recorded by Wrdistan shows the Druids in sixth century
Brittany as having almost disappeared, as elderly adherents to a dead
religion. But, significantly, they are depicted with great sympathy. ...
[90] We are told that Guenole felt great sympathy for the Druid in spite
of a brief theological argument when the Christian saint offered to teach
him 'the Word of Life' and was rejected by the Druid who, pointing to the
blue sky, observed that when the time came for one or the other of them
to pass into the Otherworld either one might find 'perchance there is
nothing but a great mistake'. Guenole is scandalized. 'To believe is
to know,' he argued in Christian fashion. His compassion for the Druid
leads him to offer refuge in the abbey at Landvennec. The Druid declines
saying he prefers his woodland paths. 'Do not all tracks lead to the
same great centre?' is his parting shot. It is a philosophy that our
modern intolerant world finds difficult to accept.
The encounter with, symbolically, the last Druid of Brittany, written
by a Christian monk in the ninth century, is fascinating in that the
Druids are still held as worthy of respect by Christians, who display an
understanding and forbearance lacking in subsequent times. [end of quote]
---
John T. McNeill, _The Celtic Churches: A History, A.D. 200 to 1200_
(1974, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; ISBN 0-226-56095-3):
[9] Within the Roman Empire druidism was virtually suppressed well before
A.D. 100, but Ireland saw no suppressive imperial power that would destroy
the native professional classes. It was the coming of Christianity that
ended the supremacy of the Irish druids.
[73] In Ireland, as not in Britain and Gaul, the druidic culture was never
destroyed by force. While druidism as a religion yielded to Christianity,
bards and brehons continued to function. The bards were numerous and influ-
ential through early monastic times, and some of the saints were their pupils.
After his adoption of the monastic life, St. Columba went for instruction to
the bard Gemman and resided for a time with him in Leinster. Late in his life
he championed the cause of the Irish bards when their guild was under attack.
In Wales, too, the bardic tradition survived so strongly as to contribute in
the twelfth century to a newly affirmed national consciousness. In that
century Ireland saw a revived interest in bardic education.... The Irish
church never repudiated the early cultural heritage.... [end of quotes]
So British and Gallic druids had been violently suppressed by the Romans some
200 years before Rome's adoption of Christianity, and the remainder of that
culture, in Ireland, was "never destroyed by force", not even Christian force.
Except for the part of Britain north of Hadrian's Wall, which also Rome never
conquered, where was any place left for this "violent conversion" to occur?
Documentation from Ellis has already addressed the conversion of Scotland.
See also:
J.H.S. Burleigh, _A Church History of Scotland_ (1960, London: Oxford
University Press), chapters 1-4, pp. 3-37.
Oliver Davies and Fiona Bowie, editors, _Celtic Christian Spirituality:
An Anthology of Medieval and Modern Sources_ (1995, New York: Continuum
Publishing Company; ISBN 0-8264-0835-4).
Leslie Hardinge, _The Celtic Church in Britain_ (1973, London: S.P.C.K).
Mary Frances Cusack, _An Illustrated History of Ireland, from AD 400 to 1800_
(1868, see the 1995 paperback reprint from Bracken Books, ISBN 1-85891-378-0).
- - - - -
Again, since others have recommended Peter Beresford Ellis's THE DRUIDS
(1994, Constable & Co, London; USA edition 1995, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI)
for study by readers of alt.religion.druid, I'll cite it as an authority.
Introduction: Identifying the Druids. [all page numbers from USA edition]
[14] The Druids were no simple barbaric priests or priestesses. Indeed,
nothing in the accounts really suggests a priesthood nor does any Classical
writer call them priests or _sacerdotes_. This is not to say that some
Druids were not called on to oversee religious functions. I would suggest,
as many other scholars in this area have now done, that the Druids were the
parallel caste to the social group which developed in another Indo-European
society -- the Brahmins of the Hindu culture. They formed the intellectuals,
or learned class, of Hindu society and were deemed the highest caste. While
they had a priestly function, they were not solely priests. So, too, with
the Druids; they were a caste incorporating all the learned professions.
The caste not only consisted of those who had a religious function but also
comprised philosophers, judges. teachers, historians, poets, musicians,
physicians, astronomers, prophets and political advisers or counsellors.
Druids could sometimes be kings or chieftains, such as Divitiacus of the
Aedui, but not all kings were necessarily Druids.
[17] ... my argument is that the Druids were not entirely suppressed in the
Celtic lands under Roman rule as is commonly thought. ... On the contrary,
I believe that the Druids remained and adapted to the new culture.
[18] With the arrival of Christianity, the Druids began to merge totally
with the new culture, some even becoming priests of the new religion and
continuing as an intellectual class in much the same way as their forefathers
had done for over a thousand years previously.
[19] The adoption of Christianity in Ireland did not lead to the abolition
of the Druids but simply to their transformation.
[20] I believe that this transformation of the Druids occurred in other
Celic societies as well. ...
Druids were recognized by Irish law even after the introduction of
Christianity. [codifications of civil and criminal law...] The Druids still
had a place in these codices, which gives authority to the idea that they
were not suppressed nor did they disappear with the onset of Christianity.
[Ellis notes that this legal status remains unchanged in text dating to the
late 11th / early 12th centuries. This is around 600 years after Patrick.]
Chapter 8: The Wisdom of the Druids
[157] It is from Ireland that we have at least more tangible evidence of
a tradition of Druidic, or Bardic schools. Dr Douglas Hyde, in his
_Literary_History_of_Ireland_, points out that side by side with the monastic
schools of Ireland there flourished the more traditional `bardic'
institutions. `These were almost certainly a continuation of the schools
of the Druids,and represented something far more antique than even the very
earliest schools of the Christians....'
[158] The bardic schools, as a separate institution to ecclesiastical
schools, lasted until the smashing of the Irish intelligentsia in the
seventeenth century AD.
[pp. 160-161 discuss the alternatives which were found then: the Irish
Colleges in Paris, Louvain, Rome, and elsewhere; and the Hedge Schools,
illegal under the Penal Laws, which met secretly in secluded locations.]
[161] Eventually, as the Penal Laws were ignored or less strictly enforced,
the teacher would gather his pupils in a barn or cabin. It was not until
the nineteenth century that the restrictions were eased and the Irish
people could openly enjoy education again.
[196] The Brehon code [laws dating back to pre-Christian tradition] survived
in Ireland, in spite of regular attempts to suppress it by the English after
the conquest, down to the seventeenth century.
Chapter 9: Reviving the Druids
[251] The real Druid caste, like their Brahmin counterparts, did not
`disappear', but the generic term simply changed as the caste adapted
to new religious and cultural values. ... To sum up: the intelligentsia
remained but, after the rise of Christianity, were no longer called by
the general term Druids.
Today, however, the Druids have become romantic figures of a
`never-never' world.
[Ellis goes on to discuss the historical distortions and outright fantasies
promulgated as supposedly the "truth" about the druids and their religion.]
- - - - -
> I'd be interested in knowing your source for the idea that those of the
> Druid class had tonsures.
Several, but since other people also recommend Peter Beresford Ellis's
THE DRUIDS, I'll assume enough of them have access to a copy to confirm
my citation. In this 1995 Eerdmans (USA) hardcover, it's on pages 80-81.
In any other edition, please read chapter 4, "Druids through Celtic Eyes".
"The male Druids in Irish sources had a tonsure. It seems obvious that
the Druids of Britain also had a similar form of haircut although it is not
specifically stated. [snipping various interpretations of the shape of the
frontal shaving.... note detail below that British Celts DID wear it.....]
"When Christianity took hold among the Celts, this Druidic tonsure was
preserved and became the tonsure of the Celtic Christian religieux....
The most explicit description of the tonsure... describes it as shaven at
the front of the head, on a line from ear to ear, with the hair growing long
at the back. Of course, later Celtic Christian writers did not claim a
Druidic origin for this tonsure, arguing it was the tonsure of St John.
"The Roman opponents of the Celtic Church... argued it was the tonsure
of Simon Magus. [snipping a dutiful Roman-loyal writer's claim that Patrick
opposed this tonsure, and the rebuttal that Patrick himself accepted it...]
"The Celtic tonsure was one of the causes of argument during the
conflict between the Celtic and Roman advocates at Whitby in AD 664. The
Council of Toledo in AD 633 had already condemned the tonsure of the British
Celts, who had settled in Galicia and Asturias. However, it was still worn
in Brittany as late as the year 818....
"According to the _Annals_of_Tigernach_, the Roman tonsure was not
accepted at Iona until about AD 714. And beyond this time the British Celts
were still wearing the Celtic tonsure. How long the fashion lasted among
them is difficult to say. There are even some references to Culdees,
_Cele_De'_, Servant of God, an order formed by Mael Ruain, founder of the
monastery at Tallaght (d. AD 792), who are said to have worn the Celtic
tonsure, wandering Scotland as late as the fourteenth century AD."
- - - - -
[This reply to someone (who was upset about how the druids were converted)
was my entry into the thread, and led to my later posting the cites above:]
... My lady was always wryly amused about my performing for St. Patrick's Day
events (as I also do at Milwaukee's Irish Fest, the world's largest Irish music
event, 3rd weekend every August). <ad>
Occasionally, she'd chide me in bitter tones: "Don't you know who the
'snakes' were that Patrick drove out of Ireland? The pagans! This is a
celebration of religious intolerance!" I'd hear this at least once a year.
She had the image, as I suspect you also do, of the Inquisition sweeping
in to convert their trembling and terrified victims with fire and sword.
The thing is, that happened on the Continent, and in other areas colonized
from Europe, such as Latin America... but it didn't happen in Ireland.
Patrick didn't arrive with an army. He returned as a missionary to the land
he had earlier escaped as a young slave (captured from his home in Britain).
He knew the language and customs, so he went about speaking persuasively to
commoners and kings -- and druids -- with the power of words, not swords.
The druids themselves were persuaded. The symbol of the shamrock commemorates
one such occasion, when the druids were gathered around Patrick outdoors, and
one of them asked him how the Trinity could be three and yet one. For answer
he stooped and plucked a shamrock, held it forward, and displayed three leaves
on one plant. This made such a great impression, all disputing ended.
The druids became Christian priests. The old druidic tonsure, across the
front of the head, remained the tonsure of the Irish Church for years after,
eventually giving way to the Roman tonsure at the top and back of the head.
The old sunwheel, the quartered circle, was superimposed on the Latin cross
to form the distinctive Celtic cross with the circle around the intersection,
showing the complete immersion of the one religion within the other.
The Brehon Laws -- the old druidic legal codes -- were not discarded, but
finally compiled and edited in written form, under Patrick, and remained
in force until supplanted by the English invaders. One major change Patrick
*did* make (take a moment to recall his own history) was to outlaw slavery.
Not all druids converted. But there was no war between old and new faiths.
A conversation some years after Patrick, between a Christian priest and a
non-Christian druid, is still preserved, and it amounted to mutual sympathy
between two older men who had lost loved ones to time, with the priest (who
still had friends and followers) consoling the druid (who was now alone).
One of the best-known Irish saints after Patrick was Colmcille (Columba),
who was of royal blood, and could have claimed the throne of all Ireland
had he not renounced worldly power. Colmcille was educated by a druid,
that is, he himself went from druidry to Christianity, and not by force.
Years later, as a missionary in Scotland, when he worked cures, he would
explain: "Christ is my druid." His career didn't seem to be under duress,
save that he left Ireland when a king ordered him never to look on it again;
founded a monastery just over the horizon on Iona -- and when he did have to
return for a visit, he obligingly wore a blindfold all the time he was there.
(If Colmcille *had* been coerced, I assure you my blood would be boiling at it
to this day. As a member of Clan Donnachaidh [the Robertsons], I'm descended
from Colmcille's family, and I have a very fierce sense of family loyalty.)
Religious oppression came to Ireland with the Norman kings of England,
reached its height with Cromwell, lasted through the Penal Laws (which
denied property, education, and the benefit of law to Catholics), and
only ended when English rule was overthrown earlier this century. Yet
here the oppressed were not pagans but Christians -- Catholics -- being
subjected to incredible abuses by other Christians -- mostly Protestants.
I don't doubt that you've seen a lot of historical distortions here, often
twisted to suit the purposes of people with hidden agendas. I don't think
I have any axe to grind. I'm not a Christian, so I have no need nor wish
to whitewash any of the terrible things that *have* been done by Christians.
But, on the other hand, I have no need nor wish to see them or anyone else
be falsely accused, or falsely believed guilty, of crimes that never occurred.
There are two fairly thick books of Irish history that will confirm for you
what I'm saying; you may find both of them interesting.
Mary Frances Cusack, An Illustrated History of Ireland, from AD 400 to 1800.
Written 1868, available in a 1995 paperback from Bracken Books --
ISBN 1-85891-378-0
Seamus MacManus, The Story of the Irish Race, a popular history of Ireland.
Written 1921, updated 1945 and 1966, available in a 1990 hardcover from
Devin-Adair -- ISBN 0-517-06408-1
I seem to recall that Peter Beresford Ellis's THE DRUIDS, which has been
recommended elsewhere in this newsgroup, did discuss the conversions too.
One of Ellis's major points was that the druids were a social class, rather
than specifically a religion. They were the intellectual caste, serving
not only as priests but as scholars and lawyers. These functions survived
long after the conversion to Christianity. The druids didn't go away.
So please take some time to reconsider your feelings of bitterness, and
perhaps let them slowly ease away. Hard as it is to carry a grievance,
it seems doubly hard that you should do so needlessly, for atrocities
and oppressions that were not committed, not then, not by or to them.
-- Raven | "Bend with life, don't fossilize; rigid vision
| blinds the eyes; faith -- unchanging -- petrifies;
ra...@solaria.sol.net | frozen truths turn into lies; even God, imprisoned,
| dies." -- C. M. Joserlin, 1984
Jackdaw
"Raven" <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
news:7d8764ba.01072...@posting.google.com...
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
Very Large Snip for Bandwidth.........
> One of Ellis's major points was that the druids were a social class,
rather
> than specifically a religion. They were the intellectual caste, serving
> not only as priests but as scholars and lawyers. These functions survived
> long after the conversion to Christianity. The druids didn't go away.
>
> So please take some time to reconsider your feelings of bitterness, and
> perhaps let them slowly ease away. Hard as it is to carry a grievance,
> it seems doubly hard that you should do so needlessly, for atrocities
> and oppressions that were not committed, not then, not by or to them.
>
> -- Raven
Dear Ravan, thanks for that.
Facinating, I learned a lot.
( And before seven on a Sunday morning!)
--
Raven
| Yes indeed. Mithras was a men-only faith especially popular in the Legions,
| and those men's wives often worshipped Isis. Then the Empire's adoption of
| Christianity led to mass conversions, and a whole lot of assumptions moved
| into the Church along with the new converts. Mithraism had iconic statues
| in the grotto temples, and a hierarchical priesthood addressed as "Father",
| while Jesus came from a no-graven-images faith and said "Call no man Father";
| but which does the later Church resemble more? (See a little book on this
| topic, titled "The Fellow in the Cap", author eludes my memory at this time.)
Esmé Wynne-Tyson, MITHRAS: THE FELLOW IN THE CAP (Centaur Press, 1972).
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0900000791 (out of print)
Other books on Mithraism (or substitute the subject of your choice):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Subject=Mithraism
Notable among the books listed:
Franz Cumont, THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA (1950).
D. Jason Cooper, MITHRAS: MYSTERIES AND INITIATION REDISCOVERED (1996).
David Ulansey, THE ORIGINS OF THE MITHRAIC MYSTERIES (1991). [I think this
shortchanges Cumont, takes credit due him for recognizing the constellation
imagery of the Mithraic reliefs.]
This Christian website summarizes the argument *for* Mithraism's influence
on Christianity (with a good historical summary of how that argument grew),
then offers a rebuttal: http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_MMM.html
[begin quote]
Our walking papers are laid out for us by a leading proponent of that view,
Acharya S, who, in her magnum opus The Christ Conspiracy (118-120), lays out
over a dozen things that Jesus supposedly has in common with Mithras and, by
extension, Christianity allegedly borrowed to create the Jesus character.
They are:
1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was
attended by shepherds.
2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
3. He had 12 companions or disicples.
4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.
5. He performed miracles.
6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.
9. He was called "the Good Shepherd"and identified with both the Lamb and the
Lion.
10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos,"
"Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the
appearance of Christ.
12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said,
"He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be
one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement
or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words
to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra
is used instead of Christ."
16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were
conducted by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope,
who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"
[end quote]
Notice that the semi-anonymous author cited is not any of the major writers
listed as the scholars who originally argued for Mithraism's influence, but
a secondary writer who has compiled this list... carelessly.
Of these 16 claims, some are false, some are pointless, and some are phrased
in such a way that the phrasing can be picked apart (never mind the substance).
J.P. Holding, the webpage author, refutes the false, points out pointlessness,
and picks apart the phrasing. Set up the straw man, then knock it down again.
By such means I could prove that the United States of America doesn't exist:
quote every false historical statement ever made about it, then show that
those statements are false, thus their referent cannot exist. This itself
would be a fallacy, but that seems to pass for historical argument nowadays.
False, e.g.: Mithras = the Great Bull. (Mithras *slew* the Great Bull, that's
the central image of each Mithraic temple's decoration!) Born of a virgin.
(He sprang full-formed from virgin rock, not at all the same thing.) Traveling
and teaching, with twelve companions. (Two torch-bearers and a few animals
are shown in the reliefs; there's nothing about traveling or teaching.)
Buried and resurrected, called "Good Shepherd" and Lamb. (Nowhere claimed,
before this secondary writer asserts them. Not in Cumont, Wynne-Tyson, etc.)
Pointless: Master, Savior, immortality, miracles,... standard godhood stuff.
Phrasing: Lump four points in a sentence, two of which are false, refute the
two false ones, and then safely ignore the two true ones.
Take item #1, "Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his
birth was attended by shepherds." Only the date and the witnesses are in any
standard description of the birth of Mithras; the virgin and the cave are not.
Holding refutes the virgin and the cave, leaving the original points untouched.
Holding cannot deny that Mithraists used December 25 before Christianity did,
but in effect denies that *true* Christianity uses December 25 *at all*:
"'...the Dec 25 issue is of no relevance to us--nowhere does the NT associate
this date with Jesus' birth at all.' This is something the later church did,
wherever they got the idea from -- not the apostolic church...."
But that concedes the point. December 25 is not from the Bible, not from the
Church's own authorized Scriptures. The Church observes a Mithraic holiday.
That is pretty clearly a Mithraic influence on Christianity, but Holding tries
to shuffle it off, as the very first item in his rebuttal.
Likewise, the very last item, #16, "The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as
saying that Mithraic services were conducted by "fathers" and that the "chief
of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater
Patratus.'", lumps together several separate points, not equally central to
the issue, and Holding picks off the outliers (DID the supreme official always
live at Rome, even before the Romans adopted this faith? And if so, so what?
Rome was the center of the Empire; LOTS of faiths had high officials there)
without touching the core (Early Christianity didn't use "Father" as a title
for human beings, in fact Christ forbade it. This was a practice the later
Church picked up from Mithraism, again showing the influence of that faith).
I've seen this sort of pettifoggery used to deny that anyone was gassed by the
Nazis, and assorted other attempts at false history. It doesn't impress me.
But enjoy reading it, as an example of deft rhetorical footwork.
-- Raven.
Raven
> Brigid of Kildare was a real woman, founder of the abbey of Kildare....
The Catholic Encyclopedia entry about her has extensive details:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02784b.htm
St. Brigid of Ireland
(Incorrectly known as BRIDGET).
Born in 451 or 452 of princely ancestors at Faughart, near Dundalk,
County Louth; d. 1 February, 525, at Kildare. Refusing many good
offers of marriage, she became a nun and received the veil from St.
Macaille. With seven other virgins she settled for a time at the foot
of Croghan Hill, but removed thence to Druin Criadh, in the plains of
Magh Life, where under a large oak tree she erected her subsequently
famous Convent of Cill-Dara, that is, "the church of the oak" (now
Kildare), in the present county of that name. It is exceedingly
difficult to reconcile the statements of St. Brigid's biographers, but
the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Lives of the saint are at one in
assigning her a slave mother in the court of her father Dubhthach, and
Irish chieftain of Leinster. Probably the most ancient life of St.
Brigid is that by St. Broccan Cloen, who is said to have died 17
September, 650. It is metrical, as may be seen from the following
specimen:
Ni bu Sanct Brigid suanach
Ni bu huarach im sheire Dé,
Sech ni chiuir ni cossens
Ind nóeb dibad bethath che.
(Saint Brigid was not given to sleep,
Nor was she intermittent about God's love;
Not merely that she did not buy, she did not seek for
The wealth of this world below, the holy one.)
Cogitosus, a monk of Kildare in the eighth century, expounded the
metrical life of St. Brigid, and versified it in good Latin. This is
what is known as the "Second Life", and is an excellent example of
Irish scholarship in the mid-eighth century. Perhaps the most
interesting feature of Cogitosus's work is the description of the
Cathedral of Kildare in his day: "Solo spatioso et in altum minaci
proceritate porruta ac decorata pictis tabulis, tria intrinsecus
habens oratoria ampla, et divisa parietibus tabulatis". The
rood-screen was formed of wooden boards, lavishly decorated, and with
beautifully decorated curtains. Probably the famous Round Tower of
Kildare dates from the sixth century. Although St. Brigid was "veiled"
or received by St. Macaille, at Croghan, yet, it is tolerably certain
that she was professed by St. Mel of Ardagh, who also conferred on her
abbatial powers. From Ardagh St. Macaille and St. Brigid followed St.
Mel into the country of Teffia in Meath, including portions of
Westmeath and Longford. This occurred about the year 468. St. Brigid's
small oratory at Cill- Dara became the centre of religion and
learning, and developed into a cathedral city. She founded two
monastic institutions, one for men, and the other for women, and
appointed St. Conleth as spiritual pastor of them. It has been
frequently stated that she gave canonical jurisdiction to St. Conleth,
Bishop of Kildare, but, as Archbishop Healy points out, she simply
"selected the person to whom the Church gave this jurisdiction", and
her biographer tells us distinctly that she chose St. Conleth "to
govern the church along with herself". Thus, for centuries, Kildare
was ruled by a double line of abbot-bishops and of abbesses, the
Abbess of Kildare being regarded as superioress general of the
convents in Ireland.
Not alone was St. Bridget a patroness of students, but she also
founded a school of art, including metal work and illumination, over
which St. Conleth presided. From the Kildare scriptorium came the
wondrous book of the Gospels, which elicited unbounded praise from
Giraldus Cambrensis, but which has disappeared since the Reformation.
According to this twelfth- century ecclesiastic, nothing that he had
ever seen was at all comparable to the "Book of Kildare", every page
of which was gorgeously illuminated, and he concludes a most laudatory
notice by saying that the interlaced work and the harmony of the
colours left the impression that "all this is the work of angelic, and
not human skill". Small wonder that Gerald Barry assumed the book to
have been written night after night as St. Bridget prayed, "an angel
furnishing the designs, the scribe copying". Even allowing for the
exaggerated stories told of St. Brigid by her numerous biographers, it
is certain that she ranks as one of the most remarkable Irishwomen of
the fifth century and as the Patroness of Ireland. She is lovingly
called the "Queen of the South: the Mary of the Gael" by a writer in
the "Leabhar Breac". St. Brigid died leaving a cathedral city and
school that became famous all over Europe. In her honour St. Ultan
wrote a hymn commencing:
Christus in nostra insula
Que vocatur Hivernia
Ostensus est hominibus
Maximis mirabilibus
Que perfecit per felicem
Celestis vite virginem
Precellentem pro merito
Magno in numdi circulo.
(In our island of Hibernia Christ was made known to man by the
very great miracles which he performed through the happy virgin of
celestial life, famous for her merits through the whole world.)
The sixth Life of the saint printed by Colgan is attributed to Coelan,
an Irish monk of the eighth century, and it derives a peculiar
importance from the fact that it is prefaced by a foreword from the
pen of St. Donatus, also an Irish monk, who became Bishop of Fiesole
in 824. St. Donatus refers to previous lives by St. Ultan and St.
Aileran. When dying, St. Brigid was attended by St. Ninnidh, who was
ever afterwards known as "Ninnidh of the Clean Hand" because he had
his right hand encased with a metal covering to prevent its ever being
defiled, after being he medium of administering the viaticum to
Ireland's Patroness. She was interred at the right of the high altar
of Kildare Cathedral, and a costly tomb was erected over her. In after
years her shrine was an object of veneration for pilgrims, especially
on her feast day, 1 February, as Cogitosus related. About the year
878, owing to the Scandinavian raids, the relics of St. Brigid were
taken to Downpatrick, where they were interred in the tomb of St.
Patrick and St. Columba. The relics of the three saints were
discovered in 1185, and on 9 June of the following year were solemnly
translated to a suitable resting place in Downpatrick Cathedral, in
presence of Cardinal Vivian, fifteen bishops, and numerous abbots and
ecclesiastics. Various Continental breviaries of the pre-Reformation
period commemorate St. Brigid, and her name is included in a litany in
the Stowe Missal. In Ireland to-day, after 1500 years, the memory of
"the Mary of the Gael" is as dear as ever to the Irish heart, and, as
is well known, Brigid preponderates as a female Christian name.
Moreover, hundreds of place-names in her honour are to be found all
over the country, e.g. Kilbride, Brideswell, Tubberbride, Templebride,
etc. The hand of St. Brigid is preserved at Lumiar near Lisbon,
Portugal, since 1587, and another relic is at St. Martin's Cologne.
Viewing the biography of St. Brigid from a critical standpoint we must
allow a large margin for the vivid Celtic imagination and the glosses
of medieval writers, but still the personality of the founder of
Kildare stands out clearly, and we can with tolerable accuracy trace
the leading events in her life, by a careful study of the old "Lives"
as found in Colgan. It seems certain that Faughart, associated with
memories of Queen Meave (Medhbh), was the scene of her birth; and
Faughart Church was founded by St. Morienna in honour of St. Brigid.
The old well of St. Brigid's adjoining the ruined church is of the
most venerable antiquity, and still attracts pilgrims; in the
immediate vicinity is the ancient mote of Faughart. As to St. Brigid's
stay in Connacht, especially in the County Roscommon, there is ample
evidence in the "Trias Thaumaturga", as also in the many churches
founded by her in the Diocese of Elphim. Her friendship with St.
Patrick is attested by the following paragraph from the "Book of
Armagh", a precious manuscript of the eighth century, the authenticity
of which is beyond question: "inter sanctum Patricium Brigitanque
Hibernesium columpnas amicitia caritatis inerat tanta, ut unum cor
consiliumque haberent unum. Christus per illum illamque virtutes
multas peregit". (Between St. Patrick and St. Brigid, the columns of
the Irish, there was so great a friendship of charity that they had
but one heart and one mind. Through him and through her Christ
performed many miracles.) At Armagh there was a "Templum Brigidis";
namely the little abbey church known as "Regles Brigid", which
contained some relics of the saint, destroyed in 1179, by William Fitz
Aldelm. It may be added that the original manuscript of Cogitosus's
"Life of Brigid", or the "Second Life", dating from the closing years
of the eighth century, is now in the Dominican friary at Eichstatt in
Bavaria.
Mist
"John Q" <JohnQ_...@softhome.net> wrote
in message news:Xns90E8A6F68F328...@24.7.143.114...
> hello wiccan people,
Hello Mr John Q.
> i had been thinking about (re)establishing contact with the divine
for some
> months, and now find that i will have some free time for a while.
perhaps
> this will be a good time to do more than think about it, and so
perhaps now
> is a good time to ask:
>
The only good time for asking is when the heart is open for listening.
Pretty much sums up the whole topic really ;)
> -- for those of you who believe in and communicate with one or more
divine
> beings, how did you first make contact with the same? did you find
a time
> or anything was instrumental in doing so? did you find that
anything made
> it more difficult? --
Always have had contact, its just a matter of knowing it.
Yes watching clouds, reading rocks, the usual.
Yes worrying about it.
> this is a difficult question to ask, because it entails facing the
fact
> that there may really be something there with which to communicate,
which
> raises some questions (the typically uncomfortable "why" type
questions)
> that could be avoided.
>
Yeah the worry is a hassle.
> it is also difficult because the question "is it real or is it me?"
means
> more now as researchers studying both buddhist monks and catholic
nuns, two
> different extremes of religious thought, have found similar (and
very
> material) explanations for both cause and effect of what those
studied
> considered as spiritual experiences.
>
Is it Real. Is wot Real? All that stuff out there? I hope not, its
all so
tedious to be *really* Real. Am I real? Not likely, I think I'm even
more tedious. Are you Real? Have you anything facts to prove
that you are...probably best just to listen to music and see if there
is Real on the Inside, after all if "out-there" isn't real where are
you
going to get "facts" from. Lying in the warm water, listening to the
music thats -real-. no worries just good sound...
> of course, nobody - certainly not myself - would want a nice
experience
> that turns out to be "just me." but if there is a real divine being
that
> can really be communicated with, my free time over the next few
weeks may
> be a time when this can happen. i'm just wondering about how from a
wiccan
> perspective people do this?
>
The divine is -all- around you. If you're looking for a Divine Being
that
looks humanish (etc) but is awesome powerful and is Great Good/Evil.
Then [big secret spoiler] you're just looking to discover yourself.
Your
mind is already been hinting at it (from the very first post you
inspired
onto arwm), you could grab some Tarot or Runes and let them/others
show you this (probably after a bit of study on how to use the gear).
If you want to met other Divine Beings chances are you'll have to
acknowledge at least some of the Divine within Yourself (or
reach a point that the Goddess pulls it out of you.) If you are
willing to met non-human Divine Beings you may have to
ease up on your rigidity of perception on what constitutes Beings.
> i am not saying that there is a god(dess), or more than one. but it
is not
> reasonable to state categorically that something *cannot* exist.
*if*
> something/someone like that exists, perhaps some contact can be
made, and
> this is why i am asking.
>
Oh they're there alright. Most people spend there life busily
"not-looking"
If you really want to met the divine (or the Goddess) go to
an open group. But you may know see them or recognise them.
Or maybe you will. Its not important.
I think many here would agree it is more important what you
do with your life, and to spend that life improving quality of life
for your environment, humanity, fauna, flora, and yourself.
In seeking to improve yourself in a ethical manner, asking
deep questions of yourself and your circumstances, and
being willing to do the work to grow even when the going is
hard. Then the Gods/Goddesses will talk to you and
you will know their call....
> your friend,
>John
your nightmare,
....mist
francis freespirit
<JohnQ_...@softhome.net> writes
Yes, the Holy Mother of God is also the Queen of Heaven.
francis freespirit
>the Madonna are virtually indistinguishable from contemporary images of
>Isis with Horus. I'm sure there are many other examples; I'm not an expert
>on this.
The various representations of Orpheus surrounded by the charmed animals
becomes the representation of Jesus surrounded by the animals.
It's a common factor of roman religions. As they occupied new
territories they gave the local deities roman names. Many elements from
existing [pagan] religious beliefs and practices were absorbed into
early Christianity by this same simple process of changing the name.
Alan Young
<ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
> Oh, *that* part's obvious, Fathom: the days of Wicca as the Ancient Religion
> of All Europe, when everyone, from the Emperors of Rome, to the Druids of the
> British Isles, to the Greeks, to the Germans, all Cast Circles, and Summoned
> Guardians of the Four Watchtowers, and Drew Down the Moon, and shared Cakes
> and Ale, in that Golden Age when all Pagans Dwelt in Peace Together....
>
> Or hadn't you noticed that lately history has become However We Wish It Was?
hello, Raven. I'm tickled that you remember me by my three-years-ago
screen (and pen) name.
If not for such honored attention, I might take an inference that you
disdain my opinions. Thank you for your devotion to our dialogue.
I'm sure you understand my demurrer from the original poster's assumptions
along these lines; however, I will also demur from exaggerating his error
or making it a cause for humiliation.
Yes, i've noticed that history has become, ah, mutable. Must have
something to do with being on the cusp of the Aquarian Age.
Or to put it another way: as Magickians, we use our will to effect changes
in reality. I for one find laws of mundane time-sequence cause-->effect
too limiting. Sometimes the MAgickal act changes our attitude about the
past, and if the past only impinges on us by our memories, we can change
that.
Orwell said it well: "He [sic] who controls the present controls the past;
he who controls the past controls the future." Since *influencing* (I'm
*not* going for 'control') the future is certainly what we seek to do when
we work magick, influencing the past is a necessary part of the process.
Now, for me personally, influencing the part of the past I'm interested
doesn't require rewriting history for hundreds of years back. But if we as
a community of Pagans, or if we as an entire society are trying to bring a
more useful dominant paradigm into being, we *will* change past history
(i.e., History As We Know It). I deny that there is a single absolute
"true" history and that variable interpretations are wrong--just as I deny
that there is a single necessarily-true future. The present is *always* a
cusp of possibilities between comteting models for the future *and* of the
past.
Successful societies typically rewrite history to suit their own dominant
paradigms. Why should we decline to do so?
Richard Ballard
aay...@sonic.net (Alan Young) writes:
>Yes, i've noticed that history has become, ah, mutable. Must
>have something to do with being on the cusp of the Aquarian Age.
>
>Or to put it another way: as Magickians, we use our will to effect
>changes in reality. I for one find laws of mundane time-sequence
>cause-->effect too limiting. Sometimes the MAgickal act changes
>our attitude about the past, and if the past only impinges on us
>by our memories, we can change that.
>Orwell said it well: "He [sic] who controls the present controls
>the past; he who controls the past controls the future." Since
>*influencing* (I'm *not* going for 'control') the future is certainly
>what we seek to do when we work magick, influencing the past
>is a necessary part of the process.
<snip>
>Successful societies typically rewrite history to suit their own
>dominant paradigms. Why should we decline to do so?
>--
>
> 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
>Always remember: your focus determines your reality.
"Rewriting history" does *not* equate to "Living in the past".
In "1984" the Government was attempting to perpetuate an
unsuccessful and outmoded form of government.
My opinions.
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging, and security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Last book review: "Wicca For Men: A Handbook for Male Pagans ..."
Raven
| hello, Raven. I'm tickled that you remember me by my three-years-ago
| screen (and pen) name.
Do you mean you no longer use it, and wish me not to address you by it?
Readily agreed. I thought you were just posting from an alternate account,
the way SRP's moderator "Donal" occasionally posts as "Bill W Smith Jr".
| If not for such honored attention, I might take an inference that you
| disdain my opinions.
Not at all. I frequently *disagree* with your opinions, but why would I have
taken all that time replying to you so often if I merely *disdained* them?
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem
those who think alike than those who think differently." - Friedrich Nietzsche
| Thank you for your devotion to our dialogue.
You're welcome. I may not always reply, because Real Life (tm) has been just
a bit distracting of late. Please don't take it as a snub if that happens.
| I'm sure you understand my demurrer from the original poster's assumptions
| along these lines;
Of course.
| however, I will also demur from exaggerating his error
>From his later posts, it doesn't seem to have been much of an exaggeration.
It seems he actually believed that the Picts were Wiccan.
| or making it a cause for humiliation.
Humiliation? Hmmm... it's hard to guess when someone might feel humiliated.
Some are humiliated only when they feel themselves to have done wrong things;
some feel humiliated when *others* do wrong things. Some are humiliated by
gentle satire, and would have preferred a dry factual correction. Some are
humiliated by dry factual correction, and would have preferred more humour.
Trying to avoid shock/offense/humiliation to absolutely *everyone*, when you
post to a worldwide medium, is like trying to dress that way to walk in NYC:
you end up wearing a chadoor, because some people take offense at *anything*.
The very existence of this newsgroup offends those who feel that their own
religion is the only "True" one, and that all others are too evil to be borne.
Given that, you might as well aim for the level of the regulars, and let any
who have a problem with that speak up for themselves, the same way they do
when they don't know the Usenet conventions or abbreviations and have to ask
what "IMHO" or the ">" means -- at which point you can explain, apologize, or
whatever other response seems appropriate.
| Yes, i've noticed that history has become, ah, mutable. Must have
| something to do with being on the cusp of the Aquarian Age.
I would have put it as: "Must have something to do with what schools teach,
or rather *don't* teach, these days." Civics and logic, for example.
| Or to put it another way: as Magickians, we use our will to effect changes
| in reality. I for one find laws of mundane time-sequence cause-->effect too
| limiting. Sometimes the MAgickal act changes our attitude about the past,
| and if the past only impinges on us by our memories, we can change that.
There's been extensive discussion on other groups about the dangers of
"false history" and "false memory". For instance, the "recovered memory
therapy" that basically rewrites patients' childhoods from the ordinary to
the macabre, inserting "satanic ritual abuse" where it had not occurred,
is a cult mind-control scam, leaving patients dependent on the "therapist",
and alienated from all other possible sources of support... until their
insurance money (and anything they can extract from parents by lawsuit or
settlement) has run out, at which point they're dumped on the street to
make their own way, and some of them start recovering on their own, while
others may have committed suicide even while still in "therapy".
Changing your attitude about life can indeed empower you to do more and
better than you otherwise might have done.
Changing your factual beliefs about reality, to accord with new truthful
information, is at least as important. (Every child has to progress from
"Fire is pretty, so it will be fun to grab" to "Grabbing fire HURTS!"
Later this might be fine-tuned further, to "Grabbing fire hurts, UNLESS..."
or "Grabbing fire hurts, but sometimes it's worth accepting the hurt.")
Changing your factual beliefs AWAY from accord with reality, to something
already refuted by truthful information, is regress rather than progress.
It tends to hurt rather than help understanding of the world, and thus
the ability to function successfully within it.
The Historical Revisionists who deny the Holocaust are trying to change the
factual beliefs of people at large, to erase an event from history. (This
is known in ordinary language as a "lie".) If they were to successfully
propagandize the world, would the world be empowered by that, or the reverse?
| Orwell said it well: "He [sic] who controls the present controls the past;
| he who controls the past controls the future."
This was said on behalf of a dictatorship's propagandists, who were certainly
not trying to empower those whose beliefs they were working so hard to change.
Those who have fought to escape such dictatorships (the real-world variety,
as well as such fictional ones) have, on the contrary, desperately sought
to find the truth that was being concealed, denied, and demonized. This is
why the samizdats (underground text-distribution rings) were organized, not
to help distort or paint over reality, but to scrape the paint off again.
| Since *influencing* (I'm *not* going for 'control') the future is certainly
| what we seek to do when we work magick, influencing the past is a necessary
| part of the process.
Then seek to *correct* errors, *expose* lies, *undo* the falsifications of
history, don't just join the throng of those who *commit* them.
| Now, for me personally, influencing the part of the past I'm interested
| doesn't require rewriting history for hundreds of years back. But if we as
| a community of Pagans, or if we as an entire society are trying to bring a
| more useful dominant paradigm into being, we *will* change past history
| (i.e., History As We Know It). I deny that there is a single absolute
| "true" history and that variable interpretations are wrong--just as I deny
| that there is a single necessarily-true future. The present is *always* a
| cusp of possibilities between comteting models for the future *and* of the
| past.
|
| Successful societies typically rewrite history to suit their own dominant
| paradigms. Why should we decline to do so?
Orwell's real-world model for "1984" was the Stalinism of 1948. The other
major advocate of rewriting history was Adolf Hitler. They were successful
for a while, true. And where are they now? But their ultimate failure is
not the only reason I recommend not emulating them. Another would be, look
at all the damage they did in the process. Why shouldn't we decline to do so?
There's a whole school of thought, currently very active, in favor of your
approach. It's called "Post-Modernism". It includes such history-revisers
as the Recovered Memory Therapy movement. Its premise that there is no
objective reality, and that to change beliefs is to change reality itself,
constitutes (and institutionalizes) the very same regress I discussed above.
See http://www.nap.edu/issues/15.4/br_barbiero.htm
Here's an extended quote on the subject:
"If the Emperor is Naked, Then He is Naked:
The Problem with Post-Modernist Thought"
by William J. Matthews, Ph.D., August 8, 1998
http://goinside.com/98/8/emperor.html
In essence, the post-modernist position is that truth is only
relative and has no general application given that said truth is a
mere construction created by a given social context. As Fox (1996)
points out, such a statement even under the most cursory inspection
is paradoxical and falls prey to the same problem as that of our
ancient Cretan friend (whom you will remember told us that all
Cretans are liars). Since truth is only relative and subject to
various prejudices, the statement that "all truths are relative and
have no generalizability" is itself simultaneously relative and
absolute.
As such it offers us no reason to accept it. Relativism makes no
distinction (because for such folks there is none) between objective
verifiable knowledge and superstition (astrology, creationism,
"flat-earthers," to name but a few). It is deeply flawed as an
epistemology. It is, by definition, a direct attack on science,
scientific method, and critical rationality. This view would offer us
no way to distinguish between superstition and verifiable knowledge
and as such is both nonsensical and intellectually dangerous.
Philosopher John Searle points out that the anti-realist (anti-
realism being the epistemological underpinning of the post-modernist
position) confuses the epistemological with the ontological.
Ontological realism is a position virtually everyone takes
automatically, while anti-realism is incoherent. Levitt (1997) simply
states that realism is not so much a formal doctrine as it is the
unspoken ground of all discourse, all attempts at communication
(p.81), Any sincere declarative utterance is an attempt to give a
true account of something assumed to be real.
Thus, when the post-modernist says that science is just one of many
narratives (there implying science to be no more value than a
superstitious belief) he is absolutely stating that science,
scientists, narratives, logical positivism and superstition *exist*
(i.e. have a stable reality independent of any particular knower).
As such, the post-modernist is, malgre lui, as much an ontological
realist as any logical positivist. This is not an insignificant point
to be lightly considered and dismissed.
It speaks to the heart of the matter. [...]
Ultimately post-modernism and its equivalencies (social
constructivism, deconstructivism, etc.) offer nothing. Such a belief
system is nihilistic and not radically dissimilar to that which gave
rise in the past to unpleasant behaviors (e.g., Nazi mythohistorical
notions, Aryan science, etc.) and to current unpleasantness such as
Holocaust deniers (i.e., "since there is no historical fact, the
Holocaust is a (Jewish conspiratorial) narrative" (Crews 1996).
While most folks who would subscribe to post-modernist thought would
not be given to such extremism, the underlying principle of nihilism
remains. Science does not suggest an absolute paradigm, it offers
paradigms and shifts as described by Thomas Kuhn based on internally
consistent theories and falisifiable hypotheses subject to public
experience (empirical data).
[end quote] (and thanks to SAJ for those links and quotes.)
--
Raven | "He who does not bellow the truth when he
| knows the truth makes himself the accomplice
raven @ solaria.sol.net | of liars and forgers." Charles Peguy,
| _Lettre du Provincial_, 21 Decembre 1899
Raven
| hello, Raven. I'm tickled that you remember me by my three-years-ago
| screen (and pen) name.
Do you mean you no longer use it, and wish me not to address you by it?
Readily agreed. I thought you were just posting from an alternate account,
the way SRP's moderator "Donal" occasionally posts as "Bill W Smith Jr".
| If not for such honored attention, I might take an inference that you
| disdain my opinions.
Not at all. I frequently *disagree* with your opinions, but why would I have
taken all that time replying to you so often if I merely *disdained* them?
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem
those who think alike than those who think differently." - Friedrich Nietzsche
| Thank you for your devotion to our dialogue.
You're welcome. I may not always reply, because Real Life (tm) has been just
a bit distracting of late. Please don't take it as a snub if that happens.
| I'm sure you understand my demurrer from the original poster's assumptions
| along these lines;
Of course.
| however, I will also demur from exaggerating his error
>From his later posts, it doesn't seem to have been much of an exaggeration.
It seems he actually believed that the Picts were Wiccan.
| or making it a cause for humiliation.
Humiliation? Hmmm... it's hard to guess when someone might feel humiliated.
Some are humiliated only when they feel themselves to have done wrong things;
some feel humiliated when *others* do wrong things. Some are humiliated by
gentle satire, and would have preferred a dry factual correction. Some are
humiliated by dry factual correction, and would have preferred more humour.
Trying to avoid shock/offense/humiliation to absolutely *everyone*, when you
post to a worldwide medium, is like trying to dress that way to walk in NYC:
you end up wearing a chadoor, because some people take offense at *anything*.
The very existence of this newsgroup offends those who feel that their own
religion is the only "True" one, and that all others are too evil to be borne.
Given that, you might as well aim for the level of the regulars, and let any
who have a problem with that speak up for themselves, the same way they do
when they don't know the Usenet conventions or abbreviations and have to ask
what "IMHO" or the ">" means -- at which point you can explain, apologize, or
whatever other response seems appropriate.
| Yes, i've noticed that history has become, ah, mutable. Must have
| something to do with being on the cusp of the Aquarian Age.
I would have put it as: "Must have something to do with what schools teach,
or rather *don't* teach, these days." Civics and logic, for example.
| Or to put it another way: as Magickians, we use our will to effect changes
| in reality. I for one find laws of mundane time-sequence cause-->effect too
| limiting. Sometimes the MAgickal act changes our attitude about the past,
| and if the past only impinges on us by our memories, we can change that.
There's been extensive discussion on other groups about the dangers of
| Orwell said it well: "He [sic] who controls the present controls the past;
| he who controls the past controls the future."
This was said on behalf of a dictatorship's propagandists, who were certainly
not trying to empower those whose beliefs they were working so hard to change.
Those who have fought to escape such dictatorships (the real-world variety,
as well as such fictional ones) have, on the contrary, desperately sought
to find the truth that was being concealed, denied, and demonized. This is
why the samizdats (underground text-distribution rings) were organized, not
to help distort or paint over reality, but to scrape the paint off again.
| Since *influencing* (I'm *not* going for 'control') the future is certainly
| what we seek to do when we work magick, influencing the past is a necessary
| part of the process.
Then seek to *correct* errors, *expose* lies, *undo* the falsifications of
history, don't just join the throng of those who *commit* them.
| Now, for me personally, influencing the part of the past I'm interested
| doesn't require rewriting history for hundreds of years back. But if we as
| a community of Pagans, or if we as an entire society are trying to bring a
| more useful dominant paradigm into being, we *will* change past history
| (i.e., History As We Know It). I deny that there is a single absolute
| "true" history and that variable interpretations are wrong--just as I deny
| that there is a single necessarily-true future. The present is *always* a
| cusp of possibilities between comteting models for the future *and* of the
| past.
|
| Successful societies typically rewrite history to suit their own dominant
| paradigms. Why should we decline to do so?
Orwell's real-world model for "1984" was the Stalinism of 1948. The other
Rowan
Alan Young wrote in message ...
>...
>Successful societies typically rewrite history to suit their own dominant
>paradigms. Why should we decline to do so?
We should decline to do so, or at least do so deliberately, because we'll
want to leave out all the 'yucky' bits that we ought to be ashamed of and
learn from. Y'know, like the US helping the first Suharto regime hunt down
and kill communists. Or Parihaka, where the Brits slaughtered a bunch of
Maori who were practicing passive resistance. Or... etc etc.
BB
Rowan
Alan Young
<yj...@NOSPAM.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
Precisely. An excellent and succinct response.
Alan Young
ra...@solaria.sol.net (Raven) wrote:
> Alan Young <aay...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> | hello, Raven. I'm tickled that you remember me by my three-years-ago
> | screen (and pen) name.
>
> Do you mean you no longer use it, and wish me not to address you by it?
> Readily agreed. I thought you were just posting from an alternate account,
> the way SRP's moderator "Donal" occasionally posts as "Bill W Smith Jr".
No, I'm really not using "Fathom" anymore, except for--never mind the
exceptions. However, you may call me Hummingbear if you want to get
personal and cuddly. ;-)
> | Yes, i've noticed that history has become, ah, mutable. Must have
> | something to do with being on the cusp of the Aquarian Age.
>
> I would have put it as: "Must have something to do with what schools teach,
> or rather *don't* teach, these days." Civics and logic, for example.
That may be. However, having tried to teach school a bit, I've noted that
kids have more resistance to learning abstractions than I recall from my
studenthood. We can blame television, I suppose. But the role of
television in our culture is as much a symptom of our collective disease
as a cause.
>
> | Or to put it another way: as Magickians, we use our will to effect changes
> | in reality. I for one find laws of mundane time-sequence cause-->effect too
> | limiting. Sometimes the MAgickal act changes our attitude about the past,
> | and if the past only impinges on us by our memories, we can change that.
>
> There's been extensive discussion on other groups about the dangers of
> "false history" and "false memory". For instance, the "recovered memory
> therapy" that basically rewrites patients' childhoods from the ordinary to
> the macabre, inserting "satanic ritual abuse" where it had not occurred,
> is a cult mind-control scam, leaving patients dependent on the
"therapist",[snip]
>
> Changing your attitude about life can indeed empower you to do more and
> better than you otherwise might have done.
Of course. It's our job to select the model of the past that is most empowering.
> Changing your factual beliefs about reality, to accord with new truthful
> information, is at least as important. [snip]>
> Changing your factual beliefs AWAY from accord with reality, to something
> already refuted by truthful information, is regress rather than progress.
> It tends to hurt rather than help understanding of the world, and thus
> the ability to function successfully within it.
Okay. But History is not reality; it our *story* of the past. "The map is
not the territory." The past is far more complex than we can know. Even
the present is far more complex than we can know, and we are very
selective about what we perceive. So it's not much of a stretch to realize
that we can focus on different types of information in either case, and
come up with a different story, without defying reality.
> | Since *influencing* (I'm *not* going for 'control') the future is certainly
> | what we seek to do when we work magick, influencing the past is a necessary
> | part of the process.
>
> Then seek to *correct* errors, *expose* lies, *undo* the falsifications of
> history, don't just join the throng of those who *commit* them.
I doubt that you'll catch me joining any throng. :-)
> | Successful societies typically rewrite history to suit their own dominant
> | paradigms. Why should we decline to do so?
>
> Orwell's real-world model for "1984" was the Stalinism of 1948. The other
> major advocate of rewriting history was Adolf Hitler. They were successful
> for a while, true. And where are they now?
True, but those are not the only examples. Look at the many Indian tribes
in North America whose mythology is "we have alwyas lived here, the
Creator gave us this land" but they, too, came from somewhere else--and,
as increasing bits of archaeology reveal--violently pushed out earlier
occupants.
> There's a whole school of thought, currently very active, in favor of your
> approach. It's called "Post-Modernism". It includes such history-revisers
> as the Recovered Memory Therapy movement. Its premise that there is no
> objective reality, and that to change beliefs is to change reality itself,
> constitutes (and institutionalizes) the very same regress I discussed above.
Sorry, I'll have to bail on this point for the time being--although I
don't find your long quote terribly persuasive in itself, I'll need some
time to absorb "a whole school of thought" enough to defend it or
distinguish it from my own POV. Actually, my thoughts on the subject arose
from readings in quantum physics, and how the indeterminacy of quantum
operations is utilized by organic systems, including our own brain.
[references on request]
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> The past is far more complex than we can know.
A point that anyone who has kept a diary or journal for a number of
years may illustrate for him- or herself. The past is not *always* what
we remember....
<snip>
Blessed be,
Baird
culture.virus
rediscovering and exploring the early Celtic Church and it's monastic
traditions. There are dozens of books in print now devoted to the study
of the early Celtic Church. It is through my own high-level studies that
I have come to appreciate the faith of my Celtic ancestors both Xian and
pagan. And like Yowie, as my studies have continued, I see myself more
as a Christo-pagan or Xian with a pagan style. I would hope that there
comes a day soon when many more Xians can look upon those following the
"old gods" not as enemies, but partners in encouraging people to explore
their inherent spiritual drives.
I am culturevirus
Raven wrote:
>
> Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote:
>
snip of Raven's many wonderful references and quotes
Fenris
I think it is through being in touch with all of our emotions and knowing
ourselves as deeply as possible that we are closest to The Goddess. I
think it is, indeed, divine intent. And I've found that prayer for
personal growth/emotional healing for oneself and for others is amazingly
effective.
Best wishes,
Terry
--
To send friendly e-mail, replace "nospam" with "ttowne1"
and "emptymind" with "mindspring.