0
Speaking for myself and from my own views. Being a Roman Catholic maybe I'm "biased" , but the the truth is though I dont really care for modern "heathens" or "pagans". These are basically neo-pagan, occult and new age hippy types. Sure you get the few decent folks which maybe they want to legitimately hark back to their ancestors religion. But unless they can trace a direct line to true non-converted descent going back atleast 800 years ago or more, then I do doubt their authenticness or that they're being even respectful or honorable to the gods. So are they really practicing the religion of their "ancestors"?
In another topic you had some Odinist politician from NY including blacks and other non-European elements into the "religion". That to me is sad, but whatever.
Its all about authenticity and continuation of the ancient ones, not just being a rebel or hip. I mean those religions went extinct and its secrets have been lost forever. So where are they getting this stuff from? Nobody in there right mind in 2009 can seriously believe that the gods exist as actual entities. The only possible polytheism is a metaphorical Jungian-like appreciation of the Gods as symbols. But how the hell do you worship the Sun for example? There is no "intelligible Sun". The Sun is what happens when a mass of hydrogen gas of appropriate mass finds itself under the pull of gravity.
I truly doubt most people will be willing to kill an animal, a child or adult human being for the gods in todays world or somehow find a loophole around existing laws to justify such acts of barbarism and cruelty. Its not even just a matter of breaking a neck or putting a bullet in a head, but more often than not, the methods to inflict death were quite deliberate and gruesome and not altogether painless. So the method of the act itself needed to be done correctly. We're talking ritual animal or human sacrifice here, which there is a huge difference between ritual animal sacrifice and eating meat. The fact of the matter is one would need to be conducting these things to be truly "Pagans" , otherwise they're forgeries and charlatans. Its not a pick an choose scenario.
I still haven't seen any justification for the reluctance of most modern pagans to perform animal sacrifices. In any case, this still doesn't explain why sacrifices are not carried out today. Presumably, if the neo-pagans reinstated festivals, they will accompany it with ritual sacrifices of bulls, etc. I would applaud such a decision in reality, since it would show that they are real_ reconstructionists, but I seriously doubt that we will see regular sacrifices from neo-pagans any time soon. Of course, the reluctance to perform sacrifices is in itself a product of the Christian nature of the West which has outlawed animal sacrifices for so many centuries, replacing them with the bloodless eucharistic sacrifice. And human sacrifice is obviously illegal thanks to a civilized legal system. But, of course, neo-pagans cannot admit that it is Christian culture that has made them squeamish about sacrificing animals, so they have to invent rationalizations for this reluctance.
Incidentally, Roman emperors of the Christian age banned animal sacrifices.
*Actually for neo-pagans the same argument applies to human sacrifices since that is what 'authentic' . They face now modern moral sensibilities, traditions and laws. I doubt they have the balls to slaughter another human being to appease some deity in coldblood, if they do then personally I think these people should be slaughtered themselves. Today we have laws partially taken from Christianity and also of Common Law which is itself based on Roman Civil Law. Infact the the Romans outlawed human ritualistic religious sacrifice after their conquest of Gaul, which they considered as a barbaric practice .
-Caesar's Gallic Wars, 58-50 BCRome did not seek to impose a particular set of religious beliefs on the peoples she conquered, and the local gods were often incorporated into the Roman pantheon, usually in associated with a Roman god. It was extremely rare for Rome to persecute or attempt to crush a religion it encountered in the provinces, but druidism proved to be the exception and Julius Caesar began the attempt to eradicate it. Druids had considerable influence in Gallic society that was not just confined to religion: They also had a political role and could be highly influential wth their tribes. The fiercely anti-Roman Aeduan aristocrat and druid Dumnortix was able to wield considerable power, and Caesar was clearly concerned that he might attempt to seize control. The principal reason for Rome's condemnation and persecution of druidism, though was its association with human sacrifices.
All the Gauls are very superstitious, so people with serious illness an those about to enter the dangers of battle make a promise to burn human beings as sacrifices, and the druids officiate at these sacrifices...When they have decided to fight a battle, they promise to dedicate the spoils that they capture in battke Mars. If they are victorious they burn the captured animals and pile p the other spoils at one point(Caesar, Gallic War)
The shrine at Ribemont-sur-Ancre in Picardy appears to illustrate this sacrifice of warriors defeated in battle quite clearly. The dismembered remains of over 200 people, mostly young men, were arranged around a central area, along with captured weapons just as Caesar described. The site was in use from the 3rd Century BC but may have continued until the Roman conquest. The poet Lucan described how Caesar ordered the destruction of th shrine at Marsellies whch displayed the skull of sacrificed victims. Such shrines have been excavated at Roquepertuse, Glanum and Entrement in southern France. To roman Sensibilities human sacrifice was 'barbarous" and it was inappropriate to to bury the dead within the province of shrines, so druidism was outlawed, human sacrifice was banned and the shrines destroyed.
By Kate Gilliver
But, who the hell today will stands arms erect marveling at the sun? Sure it is a magnificent wonder, but that is not the basis of a religious experience. The religious experience is based on what is beyond human control and understanding. For an ancient man, the Sun was beyond understanding and was worshipped, but for modern man it is perfectly understood. Modern man cannot marvel at the sun in the same way as ancient man, because for us the Sun is no mystery. It is still impressive, but doesn't cause quite the same emotional response.
I'll stick with Roman Catholicism which has been the religion of my ancestors as they officially adopted it over 1,000 years ago and its an important partve my culture and upbringing, more than say Zeus is.
_________________________________
Runic is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_alphabetThe origins of the runic alphabet are uncertain. Many characters of the Elder Futhark bear a close resemblance to characters from the Latin alphabet. Other candidates are the 5th to 1st century BC Northern Italic alphabets: Lepontic, Rhaetic and Venetic, all of which are closely related to each other and descend from the Old Italic alphabet.
The triskelion or triple-spiral symbol is found on a number of neolithic sites, from the Eastern Mediterranean all the way to Ireland. It is not a "Irish" or "Celtic' symbol, it predates them by thousands of years. Moreover, Britain is not the sole Megalithic area nor the origin of the "megalithic stonehenges":
Oldest Astronomical Megalith Alignment Discovered In Egypt By Science Team dated to 6,500 years to 6,000 years ago:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0403081524.htm
Anatolian hill-top neolithic site whose circles of huge decorated T-shaped stones are at least 5,000 years older than any other monumental structure ever found.
http://www.eurasianet.org/department...p120908c.shtml
The 6,000 Year Old Maltese Temples - the World's Oldest Man Made Structure!
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ds_oldest.html
Not sure why some of you guys want to conflate Celtic with Germanic in Britain for. I mean its cool if you like those groups and maybe identify with them for various reasons. But they werent the same thing nor synonymous to eachother. The Britons and Germanics were blood enemies, and thats not getting into the Picts among others.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Trog
Bookmarks