Britain recognizes Druidry as religion for first time, gives it charitable status

[Wyn]

In this regard Catholics remind me of Muslims: they're rather intolerant of people who hold views they consider "inferior".

The concept of inferiors and superiors is best associated with Judaists and Calvinists. And of course, we needn't discuss Calvinist intolerance.

[Loki]

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

That's a rather uncivilized interpretation of the meaning of the word.

[Murphy]

That's a rather uncivilized interpretation of the meaning of the word.

That is because the meaning of the word has been completely warped by the humanistic-relativist agenda.

[Wulfhere]

You must forgive me for being sceptical.. but I simply don't believe it. Northern European paganism is the religion of the barbarian. That in its self should show that there is no true depth to it. It is much like African or Amerindian paganism in this regards.

There is nothing to develop because the high point of the theology has been and went and its watermark was.. well disappointing.

There are many other pagan faiths to choose from though. Some that don't require reconstruction, such as the Hindu philosophies or Taoism etcetera. And these are faiths and philosophies with depth enough to rival Catholicism.

Why not go with one of them?



We're? You'll be a Christian by the time your 40 Psy ..

And you've taken Chesterton out of context. See The Everlasting Man to see Chesterton's view on what paganism was and is.



I think you've missed my point. The reason I haven't had the chance is because they are so rare and far between .



Any real continuity? Any real seriousness in it? Aren't most "pagans" today simply Gothic teenagers "rebelling" against society?

+++Any real continuity? Any real seriousness in it? Aren't most "pagans" today simply Gothic teenagers "rebelling" against society?+++

Yes, the Druid orders have an unbroken, documented lineage from the 18th century. Yes, they are indeed serious. And no, most Pagans are not Gothic teenagers. You really are trying to argue from a position of profound ignorance here.

+++There is nothing to develop because the high point of the theology has been and went and its watermark was.. well disappointing.+++

Paganism is developing all the time.

+++There are many other pagan faiths to choose from though. Some that don't require reconstruction, such as the Hindu philosophies or Taoism etcetera. And these are faiths and philosophies with depth enough to rival Catholicism.

Why not go with one of them?+++

Because they are foreign. Just like Christianity.

Germanic Paganism is as indigenous as the English are to England, and Celtic Paganism is as indigenous as the Welsh are to Wales.

[Wyn]

Paganism in general is not alien to Britain, and Indo-European Paganism is not alien to either the Celts or Anglo-Saxons.

Who knows. The Scandinavians were not always worshiping Odin. For how long the Angles etc had been worshiping Woden when they came to the island of the Britons, who knows.

[RoyBatty]

The concept of inferiors and superiors is best associated with Judaists and Calvinists. And of course, we needn't discuss Calvinist intolerance.

Or secularist intolerance

[Groenewolf]

Yes, the Druid orders have an unbroken, documented lineage from the 18th century. Yes, they are indeed serious.

I think he is talking about going a bit further back. Besides that the ancient druids where the intellectual elite of Celtic society and the present form is pretty much disconnected from such a sociological context. It is like reducing Catholicism to monks and nuns.

And no, most Pagans are not Gothic teenagers. You really are trying to argue from a position of profound ignorance here.

I agree here. However this is the idea portrayed by the mass media. They focus on them and people who think the oer linda book is the real thing. By doing this they make sure most people do not take the more serious paganism serious.

No they weren't? The Romans were crucifying, burning and tossing every Christian they could get their hands on to the lions.

Not every Roman emperor was like Nero trowing Christians to the lions. Some where relatively more tolerant then others. Most of course saw Christianity as a treat to the Divine order that was the basis of the Roman Empire. Or in the light of the fact that they did not sacrifice to the emperor and therefore could be seen as not loyal.

In that they did not originate here and were imported by invaders.

He is a descendant of those invaders.

[Electronic God-Man]

You must forgive me for being sceptical.. but I simply don't believe it. Northern European paganism is the religion of the barbarian. That in its self should show that there is no true depth to it. It is much like African or Amerindian paganism in this regards.

LOL.

PS. Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism are still around because Christianity and Islam haven't managed to replace them yet. Proselytizers and conquerors were too busy getting rid of European, Amerindian and African paganism. I wouldn't say it's much of a mark of Christianity's superior beliefs and depth.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Wynfrith
Neopaganism, druidry, "heathenry" etc. is only tolerated because it is so impotent. If it actually had th chance of threatening the current (or new) order and reducing the power of the established forces then it would be attacked, like certain other groups.

As has been pointed out there are indeed plenty of flakes and hippy dippy’s in Paganism. Personally I doubt I would have much in common with or much time for the average modern “druid”. I’ve seen enough “Pagans” to know the losers who live in a fantasy world, back to nature types who really don’t have a clue what nature is and would shit themselves if the reality intruded on their fluffy bunny ideas, assorted “progressives” and political reactionaries.

Makes it all the harder to be taken seriously but there are groups out there trying to do just that.

Originally Posted by Eóin
Northern European paganism is the religion of the barbarian. That in its self should show that there is no true depth to it.

A non sequitur.

Whilst your statement is erronous, you are correct that the Heathen heroic age is unashamedly “barbaric” from the Christian perspective. The Christian who wrote Beowulf had the problem of how to write of a man who in every way was the epitome of the “barbarian” but who had to be made a follower of Christ; then again perhaps it wasn’t a problem for him, the warrior aristocracy of Anglo-Saxon England were drawn to the Old Testament for a reason and Jesus was far from the sandel wearing lentil eater, a 1st century John Lennon, that “progressive” Christians would have him be…. Not more than fifteen miles from where I live an Anglo-Saxon helmet was unearthed displaying a Christian cross and the Pagan symbol of the boar much used by Germanic and Celtic warriors. Followers of Christ in old England and the Celtic lands were just as “barbaric” as the Pagan, but of course we “civilised” folks of a future age view the past how we want to see it.

Of course Heathenism is “modern” reconstruction is neither desirable nor possible. I’m a 21st century urbanite, not a 6th century Anglian farmer or 9th century Viking raider. Naturally I have my own prejudices and influences. My own Heathen creed is a blend of Old English and Icelandic literature, Tolkienism (Tolkien knew more about the “spirit of the North” than most Heathens and he was Catholic) and Nietzschean thought. I could easily point out a hundred and one Christians who couldn’t defend their faith from a simple attack because they have never thought about what they believe they just follow, as above I can easily point out hippy dippy Pagans, saying a system doesn’t have depth is just asinine. Pagan thought has many rich forms in many eras.

[Psychonaut]

You must forgive me for being sceptical.. but I simply don't believe it. Northern European paganism is the religion of the barbarian. That in its self should show that there is no true depth to it. It is much like African or Amerindian paganism in this regards.

It may seem like that because our growth was unnaturally stunted in the pre-philosophical years by the conversions. Had it developed, unmolested, we would, no doubt, have done so along similar lines that the branches of the IE tree not snipped did. As our Indian cousins show us, IE polytheism lends itself quite nicely to philosophical systems of infinite depth and complexity.

There is nothing to develop because the high point of the theology has been and went and its watermark was.. well disappointing.

Just wait and see. The future will prove you wrong. Next year will be a high point for sure.

There are many other pagan faiths to choose from though. Some that don't require reconstruction, such as the Hindu philosophies or Taoism etcetera. And these are faiths and philosophies with depth enough to rival Catholicism.

Why not go with one of them?

As has been pointed out, they are not ours. I would doubt that Daoism can even be fully comprehended without fluency in Chinese. It is so completely and utterly alien that even describing it in English proves incredibly difficult.

Why not go with one of them?We're? You'll be a Christian by the time your 40 Psy ..

I think you've missed my point. The reason I haven't had the chance is because they are so rare and far between .

Well, then hold off on making sweeping pronouncements until you do. Arguing from ignorance leads to bad conclusion.

Any real continuity? Any real seriousness in it? Aren't most "pagans" today simply Gothic teenagers "rebelling" against society?

Ditto the last point. Meet some before passing judgment.