Religious Syncretism and Heathenry

[Treffie]

Yes, they should be fucked because they strayed from their true deities. That's only fitting for those that leave their true deities.

That's kinda bizarre - the VAST majority of Celts have never followed paganism. Even these days when followers of Christianity are dwindling, they still outnumber Pagans 1,000/1.

[Argyll]

That's kinda bizarre - the VAST majority of Celts have never followed paganism. Even these days when followers of Christianity are dwindling, they still outnumber Pagans 1,000/1.

I honestly hope you are not talking about Celts in history.

[Baron Samedi]

Argyll,

Do you mean 1) that syncretism is inappropriate for yourself, and that you urge others to reconsider syncretism, or 2) syncretism is so offensive that you demand everyone else avoid it, and take grave offense at any attempt to open up the question?

Two problems have been raised about ethnic purity in pantheons one acknowledges: 1) that individual heathens today may have roots in multiple traditions, ie Celtic and Germanic (Aemma and me), and 2) that the original pantheons were themselves the products of cultural conflict and collision, and were not as coherent as nineteenth-century Romanticists believed (Osweo).

You raised a serious argument of your own, that there might be some important incompatibilities between the pantheons which could be dangerous to glibly wish away.

I see that, while the arbitrary, fanciful combinations of traditions by the fluff-bunny Wiccans strike me as silly and counter-spiritual, full reconstruction is impossible. But, I do want to know what scholars know with reasonable certainty based on archaeological and literary evidence, and what is a recent fantasy based on someone's personal vision.

In my own religious practice, I take the discoveries of scholars seriously but I also let myself be guided by my own visions. I do not accept claims of visions of others that are confused with, and asserted as, facts that scholars have established. Scholars have found evidence against the very Romanticist views of pre-Christian Europe that originally inspired a lot of us. Inconvenient discoveries, I think, should be taken especially seriously.

Now, is it better to have this discussion in a spirit of listening and learning from each other, or is it better to attack those who disagree, and express hostility towards real friends who take the risk of stating heartfelt feelings that may differ from yours?

I understand his confusion.

I kinda used to be there. Nowadays I really just don't give much of a fuck when it comes to structure or whatever... The spirits will either talk to you or they won't, but it's up to you to make the first step.

Whether Celt, Germanic or whatever.

It's just good just to have a spirit in the first place The rest comes later...

Argyll, what is your Celtic focus? Briton, Gaulish? Gaelic?

[Argyll]

Argyll,

Do you mean 1) that syncretism is inappropriate for yourself, and that you urge others to reconsider syncretism, or 2) syncretism is so offensive that you demand everyone else avoid it, and take grave offense at any attempt to open up the question?

The first point is what I'm aiming at. I'm really trying to steer people away from combining different pantheons because that would create cultural tension and, in my mind, would contribute to multi culturalism and the blurring and blending of different cultures.

Two problems have been raised about ethnic purity in pantheons one acknowledges: 1) that individual heathens today may have roots in multiple traditions, ie Celtic and Germanic (Aemma and me), and 2) that the original pantheons were themselves the products of cultural conflict and collision, and were not as coherent as nineteenth-century Romanticists believed (Osweo).

I can understand the feeling of belonging to different cultures (I sort of am, but not exactly, i.e. that I'm pan-British), but on a spiritual level, I believe you should stay close to one pantheon because they are truly seperate things.

You raised a serious argument of your own, that there might be some important incompatibilities between the pantheons which could be dangerous to glibly wish away.

That's one of my main points. For all we know, there could be (and have been and no doubt have been) cosmic wars between gods of different pantheons (and inter pantheon wars). To just blindly accept and worship deities from different pantheons could result in a disastorous spiritual affair.

I see that, while the arbitrary, fanciful combinations of traditions by the fluff-bunny Wiccans strike me as silly and counter-spiritual, full reconstruction is impossible. But, I do want to know what scholars know with reasonable certainty based on archaeological and literary evidence, and what is a recent fantasy based on someone's personal vision.

In my own religious practice, I take the discoveries of scholars seriously but I also let myself be guided by my own visions. I do not accept claims of visions of others that are confused with, and asserted as, facts that scholars have established. Scholars have found evidence against the very Romanticist views of pre-Christian Europe that originally inspired a lot of us. Inconvenient discoveries, I think, should be taken especially seriously.

Full reconstruction is probably impossible unless the gods themselves intervene. However, I also don't feel it is a good idea to blend and mix other faiths as it could make a fuller reconstruction a lost cause in that certain traditions, rites, etc could be lost due to that blending. Sometimes, this syncretism seems almost selfish to me (in a bad way).

Now, is it better to have this discussion in a spirit of listening and learning from each other, or is it better to attack those who disagree, and express hostility towards real friends who take the risk of stating heartfelt feelings that may differ from yours?

It is. But I tend to be naturally hostile to this sort of thing, so I'm sorry if I came off as attacking anyone (which I wasn't, really). I just have extremely strong feelings for this. But, it also seemed to me that I was being cornered by other users on here so that I couldn't get a point across.

Argyll, what is your Celtic focus? Briton, Gaulish? Gaelic?

Brythonic and Gaelic. Seeing as I come from the British Isles only, I truly (and I'm being very serious) only feel a true connection to the British Celts, though the Gauls are Celts themselves (I still feel a conncection towards them). The gods there (Gaul) are really just the British gods with different names (Brigantia obviously is Brighid).

[Osweo]

The gods there (Gaul) are really just the British gods with different names (Brigantia obviously is Brighid).

Gauls had Brigantia, and Britons too. Exactly the same spelling and everything. In Ireland, Ptolemy located a tribe of Brigantes, indicating that exactly the same was seen there too.

Modern Irish 'Brighid' is just a development of a very similar name. *Brigindu or the like. Ultimately, the name is identical.

Bride, Bridget, Breint, Bregenz, Brigand and Briancon are all from the same name, just subject to the twists and turns of linguistics.

[Argyll]

Gauls had Brigantia, and Britons too. Exactly the same spelling and everything. In Ireland, Ptolemy located a tribe of Brigantes, indicating that exactly the same was seen there too.

Modern Irish 'Brighid' is just a development of a very similar name. *Brigindu or the like. Ultimately, the name is identical.

Bride, Bridget, Breint, Bregenz, Brigand and Briancon are all from the same name, just subject to the twists and turns of linguistics.

Of course, I was just showing that the only difference in the deities is their spelling.

[SaxonCeorl]

Is it not possible that all of heathenry is just that, a syncretic religion?

I think modern variants of heathenry have no choice but to be at least somewhat syncretic if they wish to develop any sizeable body of beliefs and/or practices.* This is due, of course, to the loss of detailed, specific evidence for the exact practices of each tribe.

For example, let's look at Anglo-Saxon heathenry. Although we know many things about what the pre-Christian English nation would have believed and practiced, we now have no hope of determining the exact importance they placed on each god or ritual. We can't know all of the slight differences that would have been found in East Anglia, Kent, Wessex, etc. We can't know the exact elements of marriage and funeral rituals, meal prayers, minor superstitions, etc. Often you'll see references to the Icelandic Eddas in order to fill gaps; this is necessary, if not ideal.

The bottom line is, you can't practice exactly as your ancestors would have practiced because we don't have the evidence required to determine exactly how they would have practiced. So, various broader Germanic beliefs must be syncretised together in order to form a workable system for modern folk (this probably applies to non-Germanic paganism as well).

*I'm speaking more about syncretism within macro groups, such as within the larger realm of Norse/Germanic heathenry.

[Aemma]

I think modern variants of heathenry have no choice but to be at least somewhat syncretic if they wish to develop any sizeable body of beliefs and/or practices.* This is due, of course, to the loss of detailed, specific evidence for the exact practices of each tribe.

For example, let's look at Anglo-Saxon heathenry. Although we know many things about what the pre-Christian English nation would have believed and practiced, we now have no hope of determining the exact importance they placed on each god or ritual. We can't know all of the slight differences that would have been found in East Anglia, Kent, Wessex, etc. We can't know the exact elements of marriage and funeral rituals, meal prayers, minor superstitions, etc. Often you'll see references to the Icelandic Eddas in order to fill gaps; this is necessary, if not ideal.

The bottom line is, you can't practice exactly as your ancestors would have practiced because we don't have the evidence required to determine exactly how they would have practiced. So, various broader Germanic beliefs must be syncretised together in order to form a workable system for modern folk (this probably applies to non-Germanic paganism as well).

*I'm speaking more about syncretism within macro groups, such as within the larger realm of Norse/Germanic heathenry.

Nice post and all true, Sax. I guess I was wondering more about a more pan-European type of syncretism. To put it another way and to use your terminology, how "macro" (or even "meta-") can we faithfully go?

[Belenus]

Interesting thread.

I've had occasion to think about this issue a lot lately.

I'm a Celt with a pre-Celtic Atlantid phenotype. I probably also have some distant Viking ancestry from the time of the Viking settlement of Ireland (though that is unfortunately impossible to confirm or rule out completely). In any case, I'm a mix of indigenous western European and Indo-European (Celt). The old megalithic religion belongs to my bloodline just as much as does the Celtic pantheon and druidic arts. There is also, as I said, the chance that I have some old claim to the Nordic tradition, though it would be a small one.

I'm something of a reformed Traditionalist. I think it's important to trace all branches of the Indo-European pagan religion back to the earliest source we know of (i.e. Proto-Indo-European spirituality), for that is the fundamental core and basis for all later derivations in belief. However I accept that, as peoples develop, their spiritual feelings change and perhaps they come into accords with new spirits and deities, which must be honoured.

Christianity I consider a foreign, anti-European, and subversive religion, the best aspects of which were essentially disguised pagan traditions. I owe no allegiance to the Semitic tyrant and I have turned my back on those ancestors of mine who sought to appease an oppressive and hostile spirit in our homeland. The only aspects of Christianity that have some footing in my sense for the divine are those submerged pagan strains, such as the great Arthurian grail mysteries.

These days my beliefs tend to be somewhat syncretic. I consider it at least acceptable for different branches of the Indo-European tree to adapt their specific pantheons to each other when the need arises, as they all stem from a common source and are composed of basically the same archetypes. Paganism has always been an evolving, natural, and dynamic religion, a reflection of the communal soul of those who adhere to it. I think a degree of hybridity is okay, though of course sticking to tradition and your own kind is a perfectly reasonable rule of thumb.

Presently I live in Germany. My wife is German. I feel that when I worship the gods and roam the forests here, I should at least pay some sort of respect or homage to the ancient Germanic spirits of this land. Also, any children I have will be Celtogermanic, and my wife is wholly Germanic, so perhaps I should at least develop some sort of accord with Germanic spirits.

At the same time I'm trying to reconcile my Celtic and pre-Celtic heritage, which is difficult due to the lack of knowledge we have inherited about both cultures, but especially the latter.

In any case, there's a lot to consider.