Thoughts on Samhain? [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

tmancour

October 16th 2005, 11:59 PM

I spend most of my day preparing for the trick-or-treat free-for-all. I usually have a cutsey Halloween supper, during which time we decorate the family altar with autumnal elements, candles, a burning cauldron, and pictures of passed on relatives. We set a place for the dead, tell a few stories about them, and explain to the kids the importance of the ancestral spirits, the lares. (I know, as a good Druid, I shouldn't be using the Latin term -- but my wife was a Latin geek in HS, so I'm pretty much stuck.).

Later on, after the kids have passed out, I complete my own personal meditation/ritual, which can be simple or elaborate, depending on how much I've been worn out by the kids. It usually involves "new year" resolutions, some scrying or other divination, and a good solid ritual for the dead. I use more or less the same one each year, but change it a little to suit the occasion.

Arion

draoi

January 8th 2006, 05:44 AM

Hail Mary

January 8th 2006, 10:39 AM

I engage in an old custom of serving a dinner plate to the dead.

In traditional Druid fashion we feast and drink until fat and drunk, and we leave a plate of food and cup of mead out in honor of the ancestors.

We really don't know much about traditional Druid fashions from the Druids themselves, do we? We have descriptions, but these are never from the Druids themselves, so the accuracy of the descriptions is questionable and the Druid's motives are unknown. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

Anyway, about the origins of the "holy day" well that is clear that the designation "holy day" itself comes from the early church . It is All Saints Day, All Souls Day, it is an obligatory feast day.

All Souls Day itself but was changed to November 1st specifically to replace samhain, but the origins of its designation as a "holy day" are pretty clear.

tmancour

January 8th 2006, 04:11 PM

We really don't know much about traditional Druid fashions from the Druids themselves, do we? We have descriptions, but these are never from the Druids themselves, so the accuracy of the descriptions is questionable and the Druid's motives are unknown. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

While you are technically correct, in that a pure historical account was never written by the druids and, therefore, all of their practices are shown through filter of their enemies, history, itself, is not the only factor informing our beliefs and practice. Remember that the Celtic hinterlands maintained pagan-holy days long after they were nominally converted to Christianity, and the frequently the same customs would be practicedfor centuries, long after their pagan origins were forgotten. Consider Morris dancers. And finally, remember that the oldest of the Irish monks -- who were extremely literate and prolific writers -- often gave a very thin veneer of Christianity to druidic custom. One doesn't have to look long to discover how thin.

Anyway, about the origins of the "holy day" well that is clear that the designation "holy day" itself comes from the early church . It is All Saints Day, All Souls Day, it is an obligatory feast day.

All Souls Day itself but was changed to November 1st specifically to replace samhain, but the origins of its designation as a "holy day" are pretty clear.

I guess my point is that there were "holy days" long before the Christians showed up, and that giving them a fresh coat of paint and a new saint's name did little to hide their pagan origins. The idea of the feast for the dead is found throughout the Celtic world, and it was no fast day. Feasting and drinking were pretty common Pagan celebrations.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

Straylight

January 8th 2006, 06:01 PM

Great band. The Misfits were better though.

draoi

January 14th 2006, 05:47 AM

…a pure historical account was never written by the druids and, therefore, all of their practices are shown through filter of their enemies…

I would disagree. While we have only accounts written by opponents that does not discount them as historical. These opponents are eye witnesses and there for can be considered accurate. If we must judge a source by its motives then the gospels must be discounted as being too favorable due to the apostles’ devotion to Christ. We cannot discount Caesar’s tale for being negative as an enemy any more than we can discount Mathew’s account for being positive as a friend.

…the Celtic hinterlands maintained pagan-holy days long after they were nominally converted to Christianity...
Also, the customs were preserved rather well in culture and in stories (i.e. the Ulster Cycle of myths).
…there were "holy days" long before the Christians showed up…

In fact, Samhain existed just before Christ’s birth, but All Hallows Eve didn’t come about until about the First Century AD.

…The idea of the feast for the dead is found throughout the Celtic world…

And it is from this that modern Halloween comes, not All Hollows Eve. The custom of dressing in costumes comes from early Ireland where it was done to scare off the spirits.

Feasting and drinking were pretty common Pagan celebrations.
Heck, look at Ailil and Maeve who threw nightly feasts in their war camp which usually ended in every warrior getting drunk as a skunk and someone taking Maeve home.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

Beannacht Duit Arddraoi Arion abu

It is always good to meet a fellow descendant of Dis. What type of druid do you consider yourself? Neo-, Reconstructionist, Traditional, Irish, British, Gaulish? Please feel free to email me for a chat. I often miss banter among fellow priests.

Edited at the poster's request.

Hail Mary

January 14th 2006, 10:47 AM

I would disagree. While we have only accounts written by opponents that does not discount them as historical. These opponents are eye witnesses and there for can be considered accurate. If we must judge a source by its motives then the gospels must be discounted as being too favorable due to the apostles’ devotion to Christ. We cannot discount Caesar’s tale for being negative as an enemy any more than we can discount Mathew’s account for being positive as a friend.

Perhaps a better comparison would be of the Roman's description of early Christians of the same time period. The Romans thought the early Christians were cannibals, arsonists, and people that argued incessantly. Well, maybe they were right about the arguing part. :smile: The Romans wanted to potray their enemies in the worst possible light. It would be like trying to understand Replublicans by the Democrats potrayal of them, or vice-versa.

tmancour's point about Celtic traditions being adopted within the church is pretty good, but I didn't think druids would voluntarily associate themselves with the church. :smile:

technomage

January 14th 2006, 11:37 AM

tmancour's point about Celtic traditions being adopted within the church is pretty good, but I didn't think druids would voluntarily associate themselves with the church. :smile:

Certainly they would--Druids were not all priests, though the priests came from the Druid caste. Druids were also lawyers, judges, bards (oral historians and poets), doctors, teachers, interpreters and seers.

I can't remember where I saw it, but there's at least one section of the Brehon Law that acknowledges the Druids in Ireland as late as the 9th century, and discusses their obligations in society. Now, that may just be a holdover from earlier versions of the law, but if they have Druids in 9th century Ireland (four centuries after the death of Patrick), then it certainly seems that the Druids were not exterminated, but were included as a vital part of post-Pagan culture.

Ryokan

January 14th 2006, 11:48 AM

Great band. The Misfits were better though.
Comparing most bands to the Misfits isn't really fair.

Straylight

January 14th 2006, 04:10 PM

Comparing most bands to the Misfits isn't really fair.

Well, it is in Samhain's case, seeing that Glenn Danzig started them both and redid alot of Misfit songs with the Samhain band.

Hail Mary

January 16th 2006, 12:45 AM

I can't remember where I saw it, but there's at least one section of the Brehon Law that acknowledges the Druids in Ireland as late as the 9th century, and discusses their obligations in society. Now, that may just be a holdover from earlier versions of the law, but if they have Druids in 9th century Ireland (four centuries after the death of Patrick), then it certainly seems that the Druids were not exterminated, but were included as a vital part of post-Pagan culture.

According to the legend, Patrick converted the last king of Ireland to Christianity, and this swept through the four fields near instantaneously. Right? But now that you mention it, there's really no way happened in this way.

But I the kings and chieftans converted fairly quickly right, so a druid without power, is not really a druid at all, is it? That's kind of what a druid was, the highest echelon of the societal caste right? You can't really have a lone druid out in the woods mumbling something about their old powers. Well, I guess you could, but this would only last one generation. After that, they're just crazy people in the woods mumbling.

tmancour

January 16th 2006, 12:35 PM

According to the legend, Patrick converted the last king of Ireland to Christianity, and this swept through the four fields near instantaneously. Right? But now that you mention it, there's really no way happened in this way.

But I the kings and chieftans converted fairly quickly right, so a druid without power, is not really a druid at all, is it? That's kind of what a druid was, the highest echelon of the societal caste right? You can't really have a lone druid out in the woods mumbling something about their old powers. Well, I guess you could, but this would only last one generation. After that, they're just crazy people in the woods mumbling.

Actually, the Druids were the professional class in the Celtic world. In addition to being priests/mystics, they were also the judges, lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, scientists, and politicians. Conversion to Christianity would not have eradicated these other roles for them, and no doubt there were plenty of druids who "converted" to the new flavor of mystical thinking that was Christianity without abrogating their responsibilities -- up to and including overseeing the sacrifice. When we think about "conversion" today, we tend to think of it as an all-or-nothing proposition, but there is ample evidence that the druids did not see it so; that they saw it as one more mystery to be initiated into. It was only after the eradication of the Celtic Church that what we think of as mainstream Christianity began to hold sway in the Celtic lands.

Arion the Blue

Ryokan

January 17th 2006, 11:41 PM

Well, it is in Samhain's case, seeing that Glenn Danzig started them both and redid alot of Misfit songs with the Samhain band.
Yes, but its not fair to compare Saboteur to Vertigo, and Alfred Hitchcock made both of those films.

Hail Mary

January 18th 2006, 01:09 AM

Actually, the Druids were the professional class in the Celtic world. In addition to being priests/mystics, they were also the judges, lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, scientists, and politicians. Conversion to Christianity would not have eradicated these other roles for them, and no doubt there were plenty of druids who "converted" to the new flavor of mystical thinking that was Christianity without abrogating their responsibilities -- up to and including overseeing the sacrifice. When we think about "conversion" today, we tend to think of it as an all-or-nothing proposition, but there is ample evidence that the druids did not see it so; that they saw it as one more mystery to be initiated into. It was only after the eradication of the Celtic Church that what we think of as mainstream Christianity began to hold sway in the Celtic lands.

I mostly agree with you, except towards the end when say there was some point in time when the Celtic Church was eradicated. It was never fully eradicated, there are still Celtic elements remaining in the Irish Catholic Churches (the circular crosses are a nice visual reminder of Celtic tradition). There certainly have been changes over the last 1600 years, but there were changes in the 1600 years before that too. The biggest change, of course, is the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm eventually getting around to my own conclusion that the closest you're going to get to the actual societal traditions of the druids, as practiced in every day life, is the Catholic Church and not any neo-Pagan organization.

Straylight

January 18th 2006, 01:25 AM

Yes, but its not fair to compare Saboteur to Vertigo, and Alfred Hitchcock made both of those films.

Heh, OK, fair enough. :thumb:

And my apologies to the others here. I didn't mean to derail your thread.

tmancour

January 18th 2006, 08:38 PM

I mostly agree with you, except towards the end when say there was some point in time when the Celtic Church was eradicated. It was never fully eradicated, there are still Celtic elements remaining in the Irish Catholic Churches (the circular crosses are a nice visual reminder of Celtic tradition). There certainly have been changes over the last 1600 years, but there were changes in the 1600 years before that too. The biggest change, of course, is the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm eventually getting around to my own conclusion that the closest you're going to get to the actual societal traditions of the druids, as practiced in every day life, is the Catholic Church and not any neo-Pagan organization.

And I have to disagree about that last bit. While the Church, especially in Ireland, still maintains a few of the druidic functions (a little law, moral philosophy, religion, education, some medicine and social functions). But that's a long way from the role the druids played in their society. Some important differences: druids could marry, and were encouraged to do so, which gave them a world-view profoundly different that celebate Christian clergy. There were druids outside of a hierarchy, which allowed for greater expression and a more equitable justice system. There are others.

Neo-Pagan druidry is, of course, very different from paleo-druids. But mentioning "neo-Pagan organization" comes dangerously close to oxymoron.

Arion the Blue

Hail Mary

January 19th 2006, 12:12 AM

Neo-Pagan druidry is, of course, very different from paleo-druids. But mentioning "neo-Pagan organization" comes dangerously close to oxymoron.

Exactly! Ancient druids were an integral part of the cohesiveness of society at large, much like the role of the church in Ireland now. That's why I think if you want to be closer to the beliefs of the ancient druids, its better to join the church.

tmancour

January 19th 2006, 08:30 AM

Exactly! Ancient druids were an integral part of the cohesiveness of society at large, much like the role of the church in Ireland now. That's why I think if you want to be closer to the beliefs of the ancient druids, its better to join the church.

LOL! You crack me up.

Reincarnation?
Magick?
Divination?
Non-text based theology?
Polytheism?
Goddess worship?

Which church has those?

Arion

Hail Mary

January 19th 2006, 08:54 AM

Hi, Before I launch into a littany of the responses, I admit the particulars of the religious beliefs of the druids (which are largely unknown to us) and Catholic beliefs are different. But we just spent 3 or 4 posts essentially coming to an agreement that the main beliefs of the druids appear to be societal in nature, it was their position in society which identified them, not their religious beliefs.

Reincarnation?
Resurrection!

Magick?
Transubstantiation

Divination?
Not sure about this one...

Non-text based theology?
Sacred tradition (Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox)

Polytheism?
Goddess worship?

Archangels, angels, and the communion of saints. These are opposed by Lucifer and his 'minions.' Since we believe in one God, by definition, we're not polytheistic. But if archangels (immortal powerful beings) existed in any other religion we would say they were polytheistic.

Which church has those?

Which church is rooted in society, like the druids?

technomage

January 19th 2006, 08:59 AM

LOL! You crack me up.

Reincarnation?
Magick?
Divination?
Non-text based theology?
Polytheism?
Goddess worship?

Which church has those?

Arion, you may not be aware of this, but the Druids existed as a class/caste within Ireland until at least 400 years after Patrick came through: they converted to Christianity, and are documented in the post-Christianization Brehon Laws. The beliefs you speak of are largely those of Neo-Pagan Druidry, and are NOT those of Paleo-Pagan Druidry: though there are some similarities, the Paleo-Pagan Druids who converted evidently did not consider these beliefs to be central to being Druids.

In that sense, you're not really a Druid: you're a particular type of Celtic Recon Neo-Pagan. Hey, I've got no problem with how you call yourself, but it's not a historically accurate view.

technomage

January 19th 2006, 09:01 AM

Divination
Not sure about this one...
A mystical relationship with the Creator.[/QUOTE]

Darth Executor

January 19th 2006, 11:18 AM

A mystical relationship with the Creator.[/QUOTE]

I thought divination was predicting the future.

technomage

January 19th 2006, 11:24 AM

I thought divination was predicting the future.
Broadly speaking, divination is meant to discover "God's/the Gods' will" on a certain issue. Instead of using clumsy tools and omens and signs to try to guess the will of the Creator, how much better is it to be in communion with the Creator and ask His will directly?

tmancour

January 19th 2006, 04:32 PM

Broadly speaking, divination is meant to discover "God's/the Gods' will" on a certain issue. Instead of using clumsy tools and omens and signs to try to guess the will of the Creator, how much better is it to be in communion with the Creator and ask His will directly?

Look, I grant that some of the institutions of paleo-druidism persisted after the Christian Conquest, but I maintain that the Druids stopped being Druids after they eschewed the religion of their ancestors. Monks, hermits, priests, sure. Druids? No. Yes, Brehon law continued, but Canon law was considered a more weighty precedent after the Conquest.

We know from Classical sources and from Celtic folklore that reincarnation was a fundamental belief of the paleo-Druids. In the Church only one dude ever was ressurected, and he skipped out before anyone could ask him anything about it.

And while the "miracle" of transubstantiation is certainly mystical in nature, it does not take the place of the huge variety of magico-religious traditions the paleo-Druids had at their disposal -- and then the Church persecuting anyone with the Druidic tonsure as the "tonsure of Simon Magus" certainly reduces the claim that the Celtic Church had within it many Druids.

Polytheism was an intregal part of druidism, as was goddess-worship, ancestor adoration, magick, and many other elements persecuted under the Church. The prohibition against textualizing the religion was universal, and I maintain that when the converts accepted the Gospel as such, they gave up their right to be called Druids.

When does a druid stop being a druid? Sure, the monks fulfilled some of the same social functions, but paleo-Druidism's religious and theological componants were vital, irreplaceable aspects of Druidism. Writing marginalia in Ogham while you're illuminating a Latin manuscript isn't enough to warrant the name. When they took up the Cross, they gave up their Druidry. When they cut down their majestic groves to build mean little chapels, they betrayed their ancestors. And when they turned away from the Goddess, (yes, I know, "the Goddess" is a Wiccan thing, modern perspective, yadda yadda yadda, but there is no doubt that the Druids acknowleged and worshipped goddesses, and recognized the essential nature of the Divine Feminine) and demoted Her to mere sainthood, they gave up a powerful and important aspect of Druidism. It may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but I shudder and despair to think how much was lost when they adopted the foreign religion.

After the Conquest, the only societal group that I could reasonably say maintained authentic druidic traditions were the Bards, and then the Normans came and messed that up.

As far as my own title, I call myself a druid -- and I am, indeed, a neo-druid with no pretensions of any kind of direct lineage or special knowlege -- because I seek to emulate the paleo-Druids in both their religious and societal positions. I am not trying to re-create; I am using them and their traditions, however I might ferret them out, as inspiration for my own religious and social actions. Sure, a lot is conjecture; but I think I can substitute a modern education and the knowlege it brings for much of the years of study a paleo-druid had to contend with. Times have changed.

I am a Druid because I walk the Path of Wisdom, not the Path of Faith, and I seek to bring back to the world a little bit of what was foolishly discarded so long ago.

Arion the Blue

technomage

January 19th 2006, 04:58 PM

Look, I grant that some of the institutions of paleo-druidism persisted after the Christian Conquest, but I maintain that the Druids stopped being Druids after they eschewed the religion of their ancestors.

Arion, that's actually not correct. "Druid" does not mean "priest of the Celtic religion," or even "Adherent of the Celtic religion." Druid is not a job title--it is a caste, associated with priesthood, yes, but also with teaching and adjudicating law, teaching in general, poetry as a means of honoring kings and remembering genealogy, seership, and counsel to the kings and chieftans of the various tribes. That means that one born to the Druid caste in modern culture could perform the jobs of being a priest, or a political spokesperson (believe me, it was a much more honorable job back then :lol:), or keeper of records, or general "cultural repository," regardless of their religion, and still be performing druidic functions.

Monks, hermits, priests, sure. Druids? No. Yes, Brehon law continued, but Canon law was considered a more weighty precedent after the Conquest.

Again, this is not correct: Canon law didn't really take precedence until the Celtic Church submitted to the Roman church (7th century), but even then, Brehon law was still used as "secular" law until the 1170s with the Norman invasion of Ireland.

We know from Classical sources and from Celtic folklore that reincarnation was a fundamental belief of the paleo-Druids.

Reincarnation? Sort of--we know they believed in an "afterlife," and that debts could be payed in the "next life." But we don't know if that "next life" was to be reborn on earth, or was some form of heavenly "afterlife."

Unfortunately, we have Iolo Morganwg and his contemporaries to blame for much of the confusion. Iolo was a brilliant Welsh poet ... but he was also an unabashed forger, who pulled many "Authentic Teachings of the Druids" directly from his imagination.

And while the "miracle" of transubstantiation is certainly mystical in nature, it does not take the place of the huge variety of magico-religious traditions the paleo-Druids had at their disposal

Of which we know ... what? Anything? Nothing. The only thing we know about paleo-Druidic "magico-religious traditions" is that they gave them up freely.

and then the Church persecuting anyone with the Druidic tonsure as the "tonsure of Simon Magus" certainly reduces the claim that the Celtic Church had within it many Druids.

Incorrect: the accusations of the "tonsure of simon magus" came from Saxon and Roman Christians who opposed the Celtic Church as an independant entity from Rome.

Polytheism was an intregal part of druidism, as was goddess-worship, ancestor adoration, magick, and many other elements persecuted under the Church. The prohibition against textualizing the religion was universal, and I maintain that when the converts accepted the Gospel as such, they gave up their right to be called Druids.

Arion, the only way you can do that accurately is to make the claim that Neo-Pagan Druidry somehow supercedes paleo-Pagan Druidry.

I am a Druid because I walk the Path of Wisdom, not the Path of Faith, and I seek to bring back to the world a little bit of what was foolishly discarded so long ago.

Less may have been discarded than you think, my friend. I see Wisdom not as a separate path, but as the via media between Faith and Reason.

Hail Mary

January 19th 2006, 11:59 PM

Look, I grant that some of the institutions of paleo-druidism persisted after the Christian Conquest, but I maintain that the Druids stopped being Druids after they eschewed the religion of their ancestors. Monks, hermits, priests, sure. Druids? No. Yes, Brehon law continued, but Canon law was considered a more weighty precedent after the Conquest.

You seem to equate celibate monks, hermits and priests with the church. Celibacy wasn't enforced until the 12th century, and the Druids wouldn't have to be priests, they could have any church position such as Eucharistic minister, deacon, liturgical reader, or simply the local patron of the church due to their societal position.

And while the "miracle" of transubstantiation is certainly mystical in nature, it does not take the place of the huge variety of magico-religious traditions the paleo-Druids had at their disposal -- and then the Church persecuting anyone with the Druidic tonsure as the "tonsure of Simon Magus" certainly reduces the claim that the Celtic Church had within it many Druids.

We really don't have the foggiest idea what the druids actually believed about these things. Beliefs such as these are transmitted upon society and not by text. You say as much yourself when speak of the bards and non-textual theology, but then you rely on text to support your ideas about their theology. Its just impossible to do this, that's why I'm saying the only remnants of the druids original beliefs have been captured in the people of the Catholic Church, the people of God.

Polytheism was an intregal part of druidism, as was goddess-worship, ancestor adoration, magick, and many other elements persecuted under the Church. The prohibition against textualizing the religion was universal, and I maintain that when the converts accepted the Gospel as such, they gave up their right to be called Druids.

Then why do you use text, not even written by the druids themselves, to try and describe their religious beliefs? Perhaps I'm becoming a little argumentative here, and if so, then I apologize, but do you see the inconsistency in what you're saying?

Its like reading the Book of the Dead from the ancient Egyptians. Yeah, we know they had a bunch of answers they had to give to the crocodile god as they crossed into the afterlife, but what the heck does that really mean? We don't have the foggiest idea because it was a religion that was lost and we're only left with the text.

I am a Druid because I walk the Path of Wisdom, not the Path of Faith, and I seek to bring back to the world a little bit of what was foolishly discarded so long ago.

You're a guy that calls himself a Druid, and I agree with Cup of M here, that it is just fine with me if you want to do that, but I certainly think my beliefs are closer to the original beliefs of the Druids than yours.

technomage

January 20th 2006, 12:42 AM

...but I certainly think my beliefs are closer to the original beliefs of the Druids than yours.

I won't even say "closer to." When I speak of Wisdom being the via media, I'm not making a distinction of which religion the "faith" follows, nor what philosophy the "Reason" gives credence to. But true Wisdom finds the balance between the two--whether the person calls on Christ or Herne, or relies on Idealism or Realism, we all have to find the balance between faith and reason.

For my part, I am persuaded that Christianity is the best path for me ... but Arion, I don't know if it's the best path for you. Perhaps it is--and if you ever decide you want to try it, let me know. But if you don't, that's cool, too, from where I stand.

Hail Mary

January 20th 2006, 01:12 AM

tmancour

January 20th 2006, 02:00 AM

I won't even say "closer to." When I speak of Wisdom being the via media, I'm not making a distinction of which religion the "faith" follows, nor what philosophy the "Reason" gives credence to. But true Wisdom finds the balance between the two--whether the person calls on Christ or Herne, or relies on Idealism or Realism, we all have to find the balance between faith and reason.

Interesting point. I shall ponder.

For my part, I am persuaded that Christianity is the best path for me ... but Arion, I don't know if it's the best path for you. Perhaps it is--and if you ever decide you want to try it, let me know. But if you don't, that's cool, too, from where I stand.

I appreciate that. As far as being a Christian -- been there, done that. The internal inconsistancies, the lack of a divine feminine, the denigration of sex, the lack of magick, the fatalism and the rampant hypocrisy of the Church poisoned that path for me. Jesus was a worthy avatar and teacher, but between Paul and Augustine they pretty much messed up what he was going for, IMO. Being a Druid -- a neo-Druid, if you insist -- has fulfilled me in ways that Christianity never could.

I suppose the one thing that gets under my skin is the subtle condesention I see when Christians look at the emerging Neo-Pagan religions. Sure, we aren't "real druids" in the classical sense, and few nowadays claim to be. Would the historical Jesus look at the modern Church and see the members as "real Christians"? Pat Robertson is a long way from the humble way of life of the Essenes that inspired him.

But we are breaking some new ground, culturally speaking. A decade ago I might have agreed that Wicca and the other Neo-Pagan traditions would forever be on the margins of society, but recent events have convinced me that we are representitive of an intriguing sea-change in the spiritual life of the Western World. If Orthodox and Catholic Christianity arose in conjunction with the sophistication of the Agricultural Revolution, and Protestant Christianity arose in conjunction with the Industrial Revolution, I feel that the Neo-Pagan and Earth Spirituality traditions have arisen in conjunction with the Information Revolution. It will be interesting to see what the religion does in the next decade -- providing we survive the current Evangelical tide.

Ah, well. I'm a druid because I say I'm a druid, and I'm the High Druid because no one else wanted the job. I draw my inspiration from my Celtic ancestors and their poets and priests, and that is sufficient for me. The kind of Druid I am doesn't feel the need for a lot of outside validation of my path -- I'm the only competant judge of who I am and what I mean.

Arion

technomage

January 20th 2006, 02:07 AM

You understand this is not exactly a little-o orthodox Christian belief, right? (Maybe this is another thread)

Well, I feel I can mention it here ... and no, it's not exactly orthodox. :blush:

I cannot, from my own knowledge or in good conscience, say that Christianity is the "One Way." In part, that's because of my prior experience as a Wiccan; in part, that's because I'm not a Biblical inerrantist. I hold the Bible as being authoritative for Christians, and certainly "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." I can say "Jesus is a way," but I cannot say "Jesus is the only way."

I can agree with your description of wisdom as the via media between faith and reason, I hadn't really thought of that before. Thanks and pearls to you!

But there's really no reason to abandon orthodox Christianity to get to your viewpoint. And I think this is something where the druids would agree with me because they were the keepers of the law, the druidic orthodoxy. It is within orthodoxy that we truly find our path to balance faith and reason, not only because its just one path, but it is the path of our ancestors.

*nods* I agree ... but I also have to remember that the various Celtic religions (there was more than one, and not all were "compatable"), or other pre-Christian paganism, are also the paths of my ancestors. And ... well, truth to tell, Arion is not "abandoning" orthodox Christianity. Indeed, to invite him to be Christian would be like inviting you to convert to Druidism: it would be exactly equal to asking you to "abandon" the path you understand as orthodoxy.

I can no more turn my back on that awareness than I could sprout wings and fly. If I ever do, I'll lose any "common ground" for any discussions with Arion.

technomage

January 20th 2006, 02:09 AM

I'm a druid because I say I'm a druid, and I'm the High Druid because no one else wanted the job.

Ha! Don't give me that bilge ... I remember the story of that party. :lol:

tmancour

January 20th 2006, 07:57 AM

Ha! Don't give me that bilge ... I remember the story of that party. :lol:

:blush: Well, there is that!

Arion

tmancour

January 20th 2006, 08:16 AM

And I think this is something where the druids would agree with me because they were the keepers of the law, the druidic orthodoxy. It is within orthodoxy that we truly find our path to balance faith and reason, not only because its just one path, but it is the path of our ancestors.

Um, gotta disagree with that, there. While the Druids were, indeed, keepers of Brehon law, that was civil law and not religious orthodoxy. While we don't know a whole lot about the beliefs of the Druids, scholars on the subject have tended to conjecture that Druidism, like its Indian counterpart, the Brahman of India, kept a religion of Orthopraxy ("right action") as opposed to Orthodoxy ("right belief"). If you study the Classical accounts -- which, while flawed, must be seen as having some elements of truthful observation about them -- you will see the importance that the Classical authors placed on the Druids presiding over sacrifice and other rites. When a religion is Orthodoxic, you find the emphasis is placed on adherence to its writings e.g. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. When a religion is Orthopractic, you find the emphasis is generally on proper adherence to correct ritual and personal reputation.

"Rites" doesn't, in this context, always mean specifically religious observations, but all personal socio-religious interaction -- what the Chinese call li. Note the idea of the gaes in the story of Cuchulain: he was given two socio-religious mandates, one to never refuse hospitality, and one to never eat the flesh of a dog. While this does not seem on the surface to have any religious significance when viewed through a filter of orthodoxy -- because his beleifs don't enter into it -- it is nonetheless a sincere and devout orthopractic religious ideal. When he violated his gaes of never eating dogmeat, because he obeyed the gaes about always accepting hospitality and was served dog's meat, he was put into a religious crisis and died as a result. His beliefs never changed.

The fact that Brehon law survived well into Christian times shows that it was not an orthodox religious law, but civil law. Where the original Brehon touched on pagan religion it was, as everything else, converted to Christianity -- even where civil ideas developed under an orthopractic pagan system, such as the swearing of oaths, conflicted with the orthodoxy of Christian belief. The Irish were good at that sort of contradictory melding of cultural elements, which is why a lot of other cultures thought that they were crazy.

Scholars are still out on that one.

Arion

Hail Mary

January 21st 2006, 06:02 PM

Um, gotta disagree with that, there. While the Druids were, indeed, keepers of Brehon law, that was civil law and not religious orthodoxy. While we don't know a whole lot about the beliefs of the Druids, scholars on the subject have tended to conjecture that Druidism, like its Indian counterpart, the Brahman of India, kept a religion of Orthopraxy ("right action") as opposed to Orthodoxy ("right belief"). If you study the Classical accounts -- which, while flawed, must be seen as having some elements of truthful observation about them -- you will see the importance that the Classical authors placed on the Druids presiding over sacrifice and other rites. When a religion is Orthodoxic, you find the emphasis is placed on adherence to its writings e.g. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism. When a religion is Orthopractic, you find the emphasis is generally on proper adherence to correct ritual and personal reputation.

I think you make a good point, and up until now I hadn't really thought of it along those lines. But druids were keepers of both beliefs and practices weren't they? Perhaps we could view their beliefs as a practice of some sort, but both their beliefs and practices are what distinguished them from other societies.

"Rites" doesn't, in this context, always mean specifically religious observations, but all personal socio-religious interaction -- what the Chinese call li. Note the idea of the gaes in the story of Cuchulain: he was given two socio-religious mandates, one to never refuse hospitality, and one to never eat the flesh of a dog. While this does not seem on the surface to have any religious significance when viewed through a filter of orthodoxy -- because his beleifs don't enter into it -- it is nonetheless a sincere and devout orthopractic religious ideal. When he violated his gaes of never eating dogmeat, because he obeyed the gaes about always accepting hospitality and was served dog's meat, he was put into a religious crisis and died as a result. His beliefs never changed.

I think its almost impossible to determine Cuchulain's beliefs without a Bard to guide us through the tribal interpretation of the story within contemporary events of the tribe.

The fact that Brehon law survived well into Christian times shows that it was not an orthodox religious law, but civil law. Where the original Brehon touched on pagan religion it was, as everything else, converted to Christianity -- even where civil ideas developed under an orthopractic pagan system, such as the swearing of oaths, conflicted with the orthodoxy of Christian belief. The Irish were good at that sort of contradictory melding of cultural elements, which is why a lot of other cultures thought that they were crazy.

Scholars are still out on that one.

:lol:

Mercuryrules

January 21st 2006, 09:32 PM

Actually, the Druids were the professional class in the Celtic world. In addition to being priests/mystics, they were also the judges, lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, scientists, and politicians. Conversion to Christianity would not have eradicated these other roles for them, and no doubt there were plenty of druids who "converted" to the new flavor of mystical thinking that was Christianity without abrogating their responsibilities -- up to and including overseeing the sacrifice. When we think about "conversion" today, we tend to think of it as an all-or-nothing proposition, but there is ample evidence that the druids did not see it so; that they saw it as one more mystery to be initiated into. It was only after the eradication of the Celtic Church that what we think of as mainstream Christianity began to hold sway in the Celtic lands.

Arion the Blue

Christianity was not just "one more mystery" to be initiated into, it was the Mystery that the initiated Celtic priests were primarily concerned with, finally come to full fruition.

The Initiates of these mysteries actually saw into the spiritual/elemental forces working in the earth, they saw that in a way the earth was actually in a kind of pain, as if striving to bring something to birth.

This is the reason for the profound spread of Christianity in that place, and its' strong cultivation and spread to the rest of europe via these Irishmen, that through this clairvoyant vision, those Celts at that time actually witnessed the Mystery of Golgothata, the birth of the Cosmic Sun Spirit of Christ into the Earth Sphere!

Christianity was anything but a "new flavour of mystical thinking" to these Initiates, and anyone who says so does out of a simple ignorance of the real occult facts.

Mercuryrules

January 21st 2006, 11:19 PM

OMG, I misspelled Golgotha. Sorry.

technomage

January 21st 2006, 11:22 PM

I think you make a good point, and up until now I hadn't really thought of it along those lines. But druids were keepers of both beliefs and practices weren't they? Perhaps we could view their beliefs as a practice of some sort, but both their beliefs and practices are what distinguished them from other societies.

We really don't know. It certainly makes logical sense that druids were keepers of the practices and beliefs ... but what little we know is so darn mutable and changeable. It's quite possible that the druids simply created practices based on the needs of the community at that particular time.

technomage

January 21st 2006, 11:30 PM

Christianity was not just "one more mystery" to be initiated into, it was the Mystery that the initiated Celtic priests were primarily concerned with, finally come to full fruition.

The Initiates of these mysteries actually saw into the spiritual/elemental forces working in the earth, they saw that in a way the earth was actually in a kind of pain, as if striving to bring something to birth.

This is the reason for the profound spread of Christianity in that place, and its' strong cultivation and spread to the rest of europe via these Irishmen, that through this clairvoyant vision, those Celts at that time actually witnessed the Mystery of Golgothata, the birth of the Cosmic Sun Spirit of Christ into the Earth Sphere!

Christianity was anything but a "new flavour of mystical thinking" to these Initiates, and anyone who says so does out of a simple ignorance of the real occult facts.

Hi, Mercury Rules,

A lot of what you're talking about dates back not to the Celts, but to the Victorian/Romantic-era reinvention of what the Celts "should have been."
It has little to do with actual history (though in that sense you're quite correct that it does deal with "occult facts," since the pseudo-history you speak of was the basis for a lot of the Victorian fascination with things Celtic).

Hail Mary

January 22nd 2006, 10:44 AM

I cannot, from my own knowledge or in good conscience, say that Christianity is the "One Way." In part, that's because of my prior experience as a Wiccan; in part, that's because I'm not a Biblical inerrantist. I hold the Bible as being authoritative for Christians, and certainly "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." I can say "Jesus is a way," but I cannot say "Jesus is the only way."

There's a lot in your paragraph on which to comment. :smile: From your posts that I've read so far, I don't think our beliefs are that far apart. But I believe the Bible is inerrant because it is defined to be so. If something looks kind of weird in the Bible, like the story of Jonah, then it IS true, by definition, but the way in which we find its truth may not be easy to identify. This concept I believe would be quite similar to the stories told by the bards, it wasn't the exact details of the story which are important, it is the way in which you find truth in them that is important.

I believe Jesus Christ IS - THE way, and while I'm very open-minded, I can't stray from orthodox Christianity or my whole belief system is violated and this really leads to utter destruction for me.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I believe this to be true, because I believe in the holy catholic and apostolic church, and the church teaches the Bible is inerrant. But the church also teaches that people who have not come to know the fullness of the gospel, through no fault of their own, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, proclaim in their own actions that Jesus Christ is the way.

So, is there another way besides Jesus? No! But I may not fully understand all of the ways in which Christ makes his way known to all of humanity.

Mercuryrules

January 23rd 2006, 06:44 AM

Hi, Mercury Rules,

A lot of what you're talking about dates back not to the Celts, but to the Victorian/Romantic-era reinvention of what the Celts "should have been."
It has little to do with actual history (though in that sense you're quite correct that it does deal with "occult facts," since the pseudo-history you speak of was the basis for a lot of the Victorian fascination with things Celtic).

Hello,

I'm not clear as to what you are saying. Are you suggesting that it's "pseudo-history" when I say the Celts had a living mytery culture?

Or do you dispute what I said about the being of Christ becoming the content of this mystery culture after the mystery of Golgotha?

technomage

January 23rd 2006, 09:11 AM

Hello,

I'm not clear as to what you are saying. Are you suggesting that it's "pseudo-history" when I say the Celts had a living mytery culture?

Precisely. First and foremost, Mercury, there is no such thing as a "Mystery Culture"--there are Mystery Religions, and depending on your definition Christianity may or may not be a Mystery Religion.

But as for the Celts, we do not know if they had an initiatory religion at all. That idea was invented by Iolo Morganwg in the late 18th-early 19th century. We have absolutely no historical evidence that it is true--but we have a heck of a lot of evidence that dear Iolo was a forger of the first water.

Mercuryrules

January 23rd 2006, 09:20 AM

[QUOTE=A Cup of Mystery]Precisely. First and foremost, Mercury, there is no such thing as a "Mystery Culture"--there are Mystery Religions, and depending on your definition Christianity may or may not be a Mystery Religion.

There certainly was such a thing as a mystery culture in times past. Entire cultures were guided out of the impulses derived in the mysteries, -science, art, and popular religion.

Its possible you have a limited understanding of what a culture is. Are you American? :lol:

technomage

January 23rd 2006, 09:26 AM

There certainly was such a thing as a mystery culture in times past. Entire cultures were guided out of the impulses derived in the mystery traditions, science, art, and popular religion.

Such as?

Mercuryrules

January 23rd 2006, 05:53 PM

Ancient Greece, Egyptian, Chaldean, Babylonian Cultures, among others.

technomage

January 24th 2006, 08:24 AM

Ancient Greece, Egyptian, Chaldean, Babylonian Cultures, among others.
Mercury, I'm beginning to think that when you say "Mystery religion," you mean something radically different than I do. I'm ... well, I'm also beginning to be persuaded that you may be drawing your history information from the teachings of an esoteric group, rather than actual history.

But no--these cultures you mention were far more interested in trade, agriculture, and war than they ever were in "mysteries." Like every other culture at that time, they had their religions, their priests, their wise men and their charlatans, but what you refer to as a "living mystery culture" has nothing to do with history. Mystery religions are not even documented as existing until well after Alexander's conquests--which means that all but one of the cultures you mention weren't even extant as an independant culture at all (all the areas from Babylon to Egypt were under Greek control).

draoi

January 24th 2006, 04:20 PM

I officially apologize for derailing this thread folks. I'm sorry I've turned an innocent question about holiday observance into a long winded discussion about what the druids did or did not believe and who the druids were or were not. The fact remains that we know what Celtic peoples (esp. Irish) did at Samhain (through their own myths and legends), and that is how I celebrate Halloween. I hope we can return to our regularly scheduled thread.

:argue::offtopic::argue:

technomage

January 24th 2006, 04:36 PM

tmancour

January 25th 2006, 08:53 AM

Draoi, the problem is that the above assertion is exactly the assertion that derailed the thread. The assertion that we "know" what the Celts did at Samhain is flatly false. Most of what we know is what the Victorians made up.

And I assert that it doesn't matter what the Celts did or did not do at Samhain. What matters is what Neo-Pagans do at Samhain, how the religion is evolving, and what customs are being developed in the here-and-now. Most Pagans I know are quite comfortable drawing inspiration from the ancients, but do not feel compelled to abandon their beliefs and practices just because there is no well-documented historical precedent for them.

What we truly know about any ancient culture is largely a matter of conjecture based on archeological evidence and highly suspect texts. As well-documented as even the ancient Hebrew, Mesopatamian and Egyptian civilizations are, the actual beliefs and practices of the actual peoples at an given time are speculative, at best.

I think we can safely say that Neo-Paganism as a religion has established itself beyond the possibility of vanishing overnight -- we've reached the kind of critical mass in numbers and culture that precludes a quick disappearance -- but the religion is still nascent, still developing. Yes, we look to the ancient Celts for inspiration, and yes the Victorian meso-Pagan occult lodges have also informed the development of our belief and practice, but that's okay. Modern Christianity is fed by a number of streams, from the original Hebrews, the Gospels, the Gnostics -- especially Manicheism -- Roman paganism, Mithraism, the Enlightenment thinkers, and various and sundry other sources. No one (well, maybe a few folks) derides them for their syncretism. I figure Paganism has another fifty years or so to go before it is truly well-established, and starts to mature.

Arion