NationStates Jolt Archive

This post is questioning why, in my country at least (britain), religious education only teaches the well know religions, i thought the point of it was to eliminate prejudice, Paganism and Satanism are religions constantly thought of as evil by those who havnt studied them.
Your thoughts please.

if we wanted to teach every crack heads religion we would of made it compulsory for all schools to teach R.E as it stands we only teach the major ones because they will come in use in the real world

And Satanism is some mumbo-jumbo invented by a guy who made millions off it during the counter-culture height whereas paganism is not one specific religion and manly holds sway with feminists and wannabe wizards *goes on to insult more religions*

if we wanted to teach every crack heads religion we would of made it compulsory for all schools to teach R.E as it stands we only teach the major ones because they will come in use in the real world

And Satanism is some mumbo-jumbo invented by a guy who made millions off it during the counter-culture height whereas paganism is not one specific religion and manly holds sway with feminists and wannabe wizards *goes on to insult more religions*

paganism is far older than christianity and islam.
Satanism in its real sense (according to wiki) is simply a hedonistic religion that comes close to Taoism, rather than the worship of an evil false god.
(Thats Luciferianism)

paganism is far older than christianity and islam.

He never said it wasnt.
He said it encompasses many religions.


Satanism in its real sense (according to wiki) is simply a hedonistic religion that comes close to Taoism, rather than the worship of an evil false god.
(Thats Luciferianism)

Hes referring specifically to Levayan Satanism.
and his definition is entirely accurate.

He never said it wasnt.
He said it encompasses many religions.



Hes referring specifically to Levayan Satanism.
and his definition is entirely accurate.

Fair enough.

This post is questioning why, in my country at least (britain), religious education only teaches the well know religions, i thought the point of it was to eliminate prejudice, Paganism and Satanism are religions constantly thought of as evil by those who havnt studied them.
Your thoughts please.

Satanism and wicca aren't really the stuff that's had an impact on mankinds history, so what's the point of teaching our children about it?

If you don't get education about the ancient religions of greece, rome and europe, you should switch schools.

paganism is far older than christianity and islam.

and my broken fan is older than my kettle your point would be what exactly that things with little use in the modern world tend to be old?

Satanism in its real sense (according to wiki) is simply a hedonistic religion that comes close to Taoism, rather than the worship of an evil false god.(Thats Luciferianism)

yep Satanism has Gods from the points on a compass and various bullshit like that the principle is very much based on the book of Satanism written by...yes you guessed it the same guy who made millions off it by getting Satanists to send money to him at which point he sent back an “I am a Satanist” card

A very credible religion indeed….

edit: I'm quite cranky today aren’t I….

I can't say for sure about the UK, but I have a sneaking suspicion they aren't taught largely because neopaganism is really a quite new recreation and Satanism was only thought up in the 1950s.

give it a coupla centuries. When we're looking at families who've been Pagan for generations, and when people stop automatically identifying as culturally Christian (70% of Brits call themselves Christian, yet only 44% say they believe in "God" and almost no-one attends church), then I think a return to the true religion of our ancestors will become feasible.

paganism is far older than christianity and islam.

Paganism as it is practiced today is a reconstruction or recreation of the old religions. It is highly romanticised and quite syncritic, with many very modern ideas tossed in. It should not be confused with the old dead pagan religions.

Satanism in its real sense (according to wiki) is simply a hedonistic religion that comes close to Taoism, rather than the worship of an evil false god. (Thats Luciferianism)

No.... Taoism and Satanism are not close at all in their belifes.

give it a coupla centuries. When we're looking at families who've been Pagan for generations, and when people stop automatically identifying as culturally Christian (70% of Brits call themselves Christian, yet only 44% say they believe in "God" and almost no-one attends church), then I think a return to the true religion of our ancestors will become feasible.

Paganism as practiced today (more properly called neopaganism) is emphatically not "the true religion of our ancestors". It is a syncritic religion overlayed with the trappings of the old.

Paganism as it is practiced today is a reconstruction or recreation of the old religions. It is highly romanticised and quite syncritic, with many very modern ideas tossed in. It should not be confused with the old dead pagan religions.



No.... Taoism and Satanism are not close at all in their belifes.


Yes it is. well... certain cults of Satanism at least. Definately the Taoist-Satanists comprising of roughly a third of all registered satanists.

Satanism and wicca aren't really the stuff that's had an impact on mankinds history, so what's the point of teaching our children about it?

If you don't get education about the ancient religions of greece, rome and europe, you should switch schools.

Exactly so on all accounts. (Although I'd say neopaganism to spread the net wider than just Wicca.)

Paganism as practiced today (more properly called neopaganism) is emphatically not "the true religion of our ancestors". It is a syncritic religion overlayed with the trappings of the old.

No different from our distant cousin spirituality, Hinduism - Hinduism as it is practiced today is also emphatically not the religion as it was practiced thousands of years ago. The rituals peformed, the Gods worshipped, many of them are completely different. But that doesn't mean it isn't the ancestral true religion of India. It has evolved and changed over time just like any other natural system. It is only the dogmatic religions that view change as something to be scared of.

SNIP

actually you will find that many Brits see themselves as more agnostic of the variety that believe that there is one God but he isn’t too bothered about religion and no Paganism will never make a comeback much like new wave

actually you will find that many Brits see themselves as more agnostic of the variety that believe that there is one God but he isn’t too bothered about religion and no Paganism will never make a comeback much like new wave

exactly! they're agnostic because christianity has finally been realised as the cult/scam that it is. The problem is that people still automatically assume that they are "Church of England" when they are clearly not. And Paganism will clearly make a comeback by definition - Pagan religions are the ethnic religions of cultural groups. If a cultural group loses all outside dogma a native spirituality will inevitably arise. Human beings are naturally religious, there is no way to stop it. It may take centuries, may take millenia, but we will eventually all be pagan again.

No different from our distant cousin spirituality, Hinduism - Hinduism as it is practiced today is also emphatically not the religion as it was practiced thousands of years ago. The rituals peformed, the Gods worshipped, many of them are completely different. But that doesn't mean it isn't the ancestral true religion of India. It has evolved and changed over time just like any other natural system. It is only the dogmatic religions that view change as something to be scared of.

ah but Hinduism has always had the one thing that makes it so the holy trinity (were else have I heard that hmmm...) Paganism has not never had that or any universal custom or belief

And distant cousin WTF!

Yes it is. well... certain cults of Satanism at least. Definately the Taoist-Satanists comprising of roughly a third of all registered satanists.

Some Satanism may be co-opting some Taoist trappings, but that's significantly different from what you are claiming. Satanism, as you yourself pointed out, is a hedonistic religion. It's all about self indulgence and individual will. That is almostr the polar opposite of Taoism.

ah but Hinduism has always had the one thing that makes it so the holy trinity (were else have I heard that hmmm...) Paganism has not never had that or any universal custom or belief

And distant cousin WTF!

read the Vedas, the oldest Hindu scriptures (infact so old that they technically aren't scriptures, they're epic poems that were composed before writing existed in India). No mention of Brahma or Shiva, and Vishnu is only mentioned in passing. The trinity did not exist then. And Hinduism is related to European religions through their common ancestor the ancient Proto-Indo-European religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion).

No different from our distant cousin spirituality, Hinduism - Hinduism as it is practiced today is also emphatically not the religion as it was practiced thousands of years ago. The rituals peformed, the Gods worshipped, many of them are completely different. But that doesn't mean it isn't the ancestral true religion of India. It has evolved and changed over time just like any other natural system. It is only the dogmatic religions that view change as something to be scared of.

No, you didn't catch what I was meaning. Neopaganism is essentially a mish mash of modern Romantisist ideas, overlaid with the trappings of the traditional pagan religions, which have not been followed for 100s or 1000s of years (or, in the case of Wicca, never existed at all).

Yes, Hinduism as practiced today has evolved. But it never ceased to be practiced and died out as the western pagan religions did. It is not an attempt to reconstruct dead religions along the lines of moderist ideas.

actually you will find that many Brits see themselves as more agnostic of the variety that believe that there is one God but he isn’t too bothered about religion and no Paganism will never make a comeback much like new wave

We can only hope about the latter...

No, you didn't catch what I was meaning. Neopaganism is essentially a mish mash of modern Romantisist ideas, overlaid with the trappings of the traditional pagan religions, which have not been followed for 100s or 1000s of years (or, in the case of Wicca, never existed at all).

Yes, Hinduism as practiced today has evolved. But it never ceased to be practiced and died out as the western pagan religions did. It is not an attempt to reconstruct dead religions along the lines of moderist ideas.

tbh, i agree, that is the case with most Pagans. But the version of Paganism i practice is far more focused on scholarly reconstructionism, as is that of quite a few other Pagans. I can only hope that as time comes on our more... youthful and exuberent sister religions will come to see things our way. ;)

exactly! they're agnostic because christianity has finally been realised as the cult/scam that it is.

*hands tin foil hat* people have known that for a long time ignorance is bliss though and its no different than any other religion (and paganism is very much a scam)

The problem is that people still automatically assume that they are "Church of England" when they are clearly not.

If the majority use a word to describe something else then it becomes the new word to put it simply the church of England is defined by people not the church itself

Plus they still believe allot of the things that it involves though most of it is Protestantism

And Paganism will clearly make a comeback by definition - Pagan religions are the ethnic religions of cultural groups. If a cultural group loses all outside dogma a native spirituality will inevitably arise.

Too bad the Anglo-Saxons (that already had the cultures ever so Romanized) are dead though along with there culture British culture now consists of a blend of immigration, stuff stole off the Romans in the days of our Empire and American cultural influence (see Jedi religion)

Plus lots of new shit that we’ve developed like Beatle mania *waits for religion*

Human beings are naturally religious, there is no way to stop it. It may take centuries, may take millenia, but we will eventually all be pagan again.

So your saying either:

A) Agnosticism isn’t a religion

Or…

B) Paganism is the one true faith that all Englishmen hold deep down

tbh, i agree, that is the case with most Pagans. But the version of Paganism i practice is far more focused on scholarly reconstructionism, as is that of quite a few other Pagans. I can only hope that as time comes on our more... youthful and exuberent sister religions will come to see things our way. ;)


So you're into the old custom? ásatrú?

If the majority use a word to describe something else then it becomes the new word to put it simply the church of England is defined by people not the church itself

Plus they still believe allot of the things that it involves though most of it is Protestantism
I think when we're looking at 70% of people saying they're Christian and yet only 44% saying they believe in God, then you can't really honestly say that those people still believe alot of what the CoE preaches.



Too bad the Anglo-Saxons (that already had the cultures ever so Romanized) are dead though along with there culture British culture now consists of a blend of immigration, stuff stole off the Romans in the days of our Empire and American cultural influence (see Jedi religion)
Do you speak English? There you go then. The Anglo-Saxons are not dead, our culture still exists here. And the Anglo-Saxons invaded after the Romans left Britain, I don't know where you're getting that stuff about "stealing" culture from Romans. Also 9% immigrants, many of which speak English, is not cause for claiming a complete replacement of our culture imo.



So your saying either:
A) Agnosticism isn’t a religion

Or…

B) Paganism is the one true faith that all Englishmen hold deep down

both :)

So you're into the old custom? ásatrú?

30 some odd years is old now?

The trinity did not exist then.

so because they were not included you assume that they were not worshipped?

And Hinduism is related to European religions through their common ancestor the ancient

so you didn’t get to the second line of your source that seems to mention the words "hypothetical religion"

tbh, i agree, that is the case with most Pagans. But the version of Paganism i practice is far more focused on scholarly reconstructionism, as is that of quite a few other Pagans. I can only hope that as time comes on our more... youthful and exuberent sister religions will come to see things our way. ;)

Please inform us which version you practice.

So you're into the old custom? ásatrú?

Pan-Indo-European reconstructionist. So I get to do the Wiccan pick-and-choose thing, but from a scholarly perspective ;) I incorperate elements of primarily Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, Greek, and of course Hindu beliefs and rituals into my faith. That's why i mentioned the link to Hinduism earlier, it's a very important thing to me that the religions share this ancient ancestry.

Hinduism - Hinduism as it is practiced today is also emphatically not the religion as it was practiced thousands of years ago. The rituals peformed, the Gods worshipped, many of them are completely different. But that doesn't mean it isn't the ancestral true religion of India. It has evolved and changed over time just like any other natural system. It is only the dogmatic religions that view change as something to be scared of.

Yes and no. Hinduism as practiced today has many additions/"evolutions"/changes etc but still has preserved many stuff from ancient times.

read the Vedas, the oldest Hindu scriptures (infact so old that they technically aren't scriptures, they're epic poems that were composed before writing existed in India). No mention of Brahma or Shiva, and Vishnu is only mentioned in passing. The trinity did not exist then.

That is the western view. The vedas are not the primary/oldest scriptures for the largest group of Hindus -the Vaishnavas - it is the Shrimad Bhagavatham.

The "trinity" does not exist then or now. The "trinity" is again a western concept/understanding of Hinduism. In Vaishnavism, there are infinite universes with each universe having a Bhrahma. A far cry from "Brahma - the creator" with an equal status to Vishnu and Shiva as implied by the word "trinity".

so because they were not included you assume that they were not worshipped?
Those scriptures were the oldest Hindu scriptures and are the basis of Hinduism itself. So yes I assume they were not worshipped yet at that stage, I don't think Hindus would have refrained from mentioning something so important.


so you didn’t get to the second line of your source that seems to mention the words "hypothetical religion"

Hypothetical does not mean "non-existent". The Indo-European hypothesis is hardly on shaky ground, linguistic and archeological evidence are pretty clear on it's factual status.

Yes and no. Hinduism as practiced today has many additions/"evolutions"/changes etc but still has preserved many stuff from ancient times.



That is the western view. The vedas are not the primary/oldest scriptures for the largest group of Hindus -the Vaishnavas - it is the Shrimad Bhagavatham.

The "trinity" does not exist then or now. The "trinity" is again a western concept/understanding of Hinduism. In Vaishnavism, there are infinite universes with each universe having a Bhrahma. A far cry from "Brahma - the creator" with an equal status to Vishnu and Shiva as implied by the word "trinity".

you're just proving my point - there are many intepretations and sects and ideas in Hinduism, precisely because it is non-dogmatic. It is as you describe with Vaishnavas, but for Shaivites, or Smarta, or the Ayyavazhi, the "trinity" concept or the Vedas or the Bhagavad take on yet another different meaning.

I think when we're looking at 70% of people saying they're Christian and yet only 44% saying they believe in God, then you can't really honestly say that those people still believe alot of what the CoE preaches.

does it matter? and I question the question wording of these "sources"

Do you speak English? There you go then. The Anglo-Saxons are not dead, our culture still exists here. And the Anglo-Saxons invaded after the Romans left Britain, I don't know where you're getting that stuff about "stealing" culture from Romans. Also 9% immigrants, many of which speak English, is not cause for claiming a complete replacement of our culture imo.

Our culture? Our you an escaped mental patient? And language =/= culture

Also we stole huge parts of the Roman empires culture throughout history as was the European thing (everyone wants to be Roman)

And immigration has hugely effected our culture if you’ve ever walked through a city market you will see

both :)

A) that’s grossly offensive to millions of people

B) are you a member of the BNP or something? I highly doubt anyone can claim Anglo-Saxon ancestry (especially with my Norman ancestry having its way with them:p)

Our culture? Our you an escaped mental patient? And language =/= culture

Also we stole huge parts of the Roman empires culture throughout history as was the European thing (everyone wants to be Roman)

And immigration has hugely effected our culture if you’ve ever walked through a city market you will see
language is a part of culture. And, like I mentioned before, change does not mean we aren't still who we always are. Us incorperating elements other cultures does not mean that we stop being English. I fail to see why believing in the existence of culture makes me a mental patient.


B) are you a member of the BNP or something? I highly doubt anyone can claim Anglo-Saxon ancestry (especially with my Norman ancestry having its way with them:p)

ancestry?! who said anything about ancestry? I was talking about culture, not genetics. Why are you so interested in my ancestry? Are you a member of the BNP?

30 some odd years is old now?

No. It's the name of the religion, "gamli siður" = "old custom".

The religion is older than 30 years old. The "churches" are not.

Those scriptures were the oldest Hindu scriptures and are the basis of Hinduism itself. So yes I assume they were not worshipped yet at that stage, I don't think Hindus would have refrained from mentioning something so important.

they mentioned one of the Gods and since they are all supposedly one that means that they are all mentioned

Hypothetical does not mean "non-existent". The Indo-European hypothesis is hardly on shaky ground, linguistic and archeological evidence are pretty clear on it's factual status.

face facts you worship a religion that might not of even existed in the first place so your kind of taking a big gamble here and explain to me how in a (possibly) pre-wheel society a religion by the definition of the word can exist in England and India

they mentioned one of the Gods and since they are all supposedly one that means that they are all mentioned
Vishnu is not mentioned as one representing three, he is mentioned specifically as a younger brother of Indra, another God in the Vedas who is mentioned far far more often. It was only later that Vishnu eclipsed Indra and was associated with Shiva and Brahma in some traditions; although, as has been pointed out, many Hindus do not believe this simplified "trinitarian" viewpoint even today.


face facts you worship a religion that might not of even existed in the first place so your kind of taking a big gamble here and explain to me how in a (possibly) pre-wheel society a religion by the definition of the word can exist in England and India

The spread of Indo-European cultures and languages is often attributed to either the wheel or agriculture. And it was not the same religion by the time it reached England, but it did share an ancestor with Hinduism. I don't pretend to practice the original Indo-European religion, I just find it interesting and incorperate the common elements among European and Indian traditions into my own.

language is a part of culture. And, like I mentioned before, change does not mean we aren't still who we always are. Us incorperating elements other cultures does not mean that we stop being English. I fail to see why believing in the existence of culture makes me a mental patient.

no saying "we are who we always are" as though there is a British spirit of some sort does and we always have been an land of immigration so we never had a culture to begin with just a mixture like every other peoples that has ever existed

ancestry?! who said anything about ancestry? I was talking about culture, not genetics. Why are you so interested in my ancestry? Are you a member of the BNP?

No saying crap like “our ancestors” and are deep down culture is pretty much what the BNP trumps when they can’t talk about genetics

no saying "we are who we always are" as though there is a British spirit of some sort does and we always have been an land of immigration so we never had a culture to begin with just a mixture like every other peoples that has ever existed
...saying crap like “our ancestors” and are deep down culture is pretty much what the BNP trumps when they can’t talk about genetics

I'm sorry you feel this way. I know it's hard to believe, but culture is not some pure ideal only held up by racists and nationalists, it is living and breathing around us. It is impossible for a human being to not have a culture, and any group will have a common one. Immigration and mixing has only added to our culture, it hasn't detracted from it.

Vishnu is not mentioned as one representing three, he is mentioned specifically as a younger brother of Indra, another God in the Vedas who is mentioned far far more often. It was only later that Vishnu eclipsed Indra and was associated with Shiva and Brahma in some traditions; although, as has been pointed out, many Hindus do not believe this simplified "trinitarian" viewpoint even today.

Sources?

The spread of Indo-European cultures and languages is often attributed to either the wheel or agriculture. And it was not the same religion by the time it reached England, but it did share an ancestor with Hinduism. I don't pretend to practice the original Indo-European religion, I just find it interesting and incorperate the common elements among European and Indian traditions into my own.

Oh this is to do with faming (hypothetically of course) being discovered in the middle east right (hence why we have sheep, pigs and all things English :p) well I for one highly doubt this theory even with the Genetic information that all people have Arab in them (DK is goanna hang himself when he reads this) it doesn’t take into account the fact that many peoples were booming before this supposed time and agriculture offers the only explanation

I'm sorry you feel this way. I know it's hard to believe, but culture is not some pure ideal only held up by racists and nationalists, it is living and breathing around us.

Prove to me that deep down I have a British culture is there some kind of Pagan test I can do where I'm asked questions that I shouldn’t know the answer too?

To those who "pick-and-choose" parts of their religion:

What do you believe you stand to gain? If you're takng bits of different religions and beliefs, do you honestly believe any of it is true?

Sources?
off the top of my head:

Rig Veda 1:155:
2...Indra and Visnu, when ye come with all your might.
That which hath been directed well at mortal man, bow-armed Krsanu's arrow, ye turn far aside.
3 These offerings increase his mighty manly strength: he brings both Parents down to share the genial flow.
He lowers, though a son, the Father's highest name; the third is that which is high in the light of heaven.
and

Rig Veda 1:156
5 Even he the Heavenly One who came for fellowship, Visnu to Indra, godly to the godlier
It's kinda unclear in the first hymn, but Indra and Vishnu are said to have the same parents and father. And in the second Vishnu is described as "godly", wheras Indra is "godlier". There are other hymns where its clearer (though not much, the Vedas are notoriously complex), but like I said Vishnu is barely mentioned in the Vedas so its hard to find.

Oh this is to do with faming (hypothetically of course) being discovered in the middle east right (hence why we have sheep, pigs and all things English :p) well I for one highly doubt this theory even with the Genetic information that all people have Arab in them (DK is goanna hang himself when he reads this) it doesn’t take into account the fact that many peoples were booming before this supposed time and agriculture offers the only explanation

I have no idea what you're talking about. The Indo-European hypothesis itself is based primarily on language however, not genetics. The fact that the languages of North India and Europe were related was noticed centuries before we started to have any solid idea as to where their common ancestor came from. The agriculture thing is the "Anatolian hypothesis" proposed by archeologist Colin Renfrew that linked Indo-European languages with the spread of farming at the beginning of the neolithic. What sources do you have for a "booming of peoples" before this time?

Prove to me that deep down I have a British culture is there some kind of Pagan test I can do where I'm asked questions that I shouldn’t know the answer too?

If you are British, the odds are you're gonna have a British culture. And as for the paganism thing, I take the long view. All peoples everywhere, before the advent of evangelical religions such as Christianity and Islam, practiced pagan beliefs. I view these practices as essentially biologically inherant in humanity. So as long as human beings exist, the likelyhood is that these beliefs, in some form or another, will arise again. I'm talking thousands of years here. Like i said, long view :D

Paganism as practiced today (more properly called neopaganism) is emphatically not "the true religion of our ancestors". It is a syncritic religion overlayed with the trappings of the old.

Neither is Christianity.

When's the last time a christian has gotten nailed to a tree for being a subversive? How many of them give away all their stuff and give their money to the poor? How many of them wear long hair and sandals?

Sure we had the hippies, but they weren't very Christian except for living like he told us to, minus the monogamy.

To those who "pick-and-choose" parts of their religion:

What do you believe you stand to gain? If you're takng bits of different religions and beliefs, do you honestly believe any of it is true?

Yes. Just like fundamentalists believe that some parts of their religion are true and some parts are irrelevant, even though every word if divinely inspired truth.

OK, they use the loophole of "moral law" versus "ceremonial law."

i.e.
washing your hands before you eat - ceremonial
not being gay - moral
not eating pork - ceremonial
not taking drugs - moral (even though not prohibited)
drinking wine - ceremonial
not drinking wine - moral
not wearing different colors - ceremonial
not voting democrat - moral
giving money to the poor - ceremonial
giving money to the rich - moral
opposing the death penality - ceremonial
opposing abortions - moral

If you are British, the odds are you're gonna have a British culture. And as for the paganism thing, I take the long view. All peoples everywhere, before the advent of evangelical religions such as Christianity and Islam, practiced pagan beliefs. I view these practices as essentially biologically inherant in humanity. So as long as human beings exist, the likelyhood is that these beliefs, in some form or another, will arise again. I'm talking thousands of years here. Like i said, long view :D

Have you been to England lately? Not very British at all anymore. Now Australians. They're British. :D

Neither is Christianity.

When's the last time a christian has gotten nailed to a tree for being a subversive? How many of them give away all their stuff and give their money to the poor? How many of them wear long hair and sandals?

Sure we had the hippies, but they weren't very Christian except for living like he told us to, minus the monogamy.

Show me the time period in which Christianity did not exist for 600+ years. The last of the old pagans converted in the 14th C.

The point, yet again is that paganism is a set of dead religions. Neopaganism is a syncritic mish mash of the trappings of the old pagan religions overlaid on modern romanticist ideas.

Christianity as practiced today is related the Christianity of old. Neopaganism is only superficially related to old paganism.

Christianity as practiced today is related the Christianity of old. Neopaganism is only superficially related to old paganism.

This is why trivia like ritual and dogma are ultimately meaningless. I venerate two archetypes best described as 'pagan' - two archetypes who literally reached out and contacted me. I've also been glancingly, fleetingly connected to a third archetype who would probably be considered by most to be "capital-G God".

ah the pagan subject angers me.

usually when people tell me they are a pagan, i automatically hate them. why? cause around the 17th/18th centuary a group of people reinvented paganism and made up alot of stuff to gain money. most pagans know very little about paganism.
someone told me yesterday that the egyptian gods was thier favourite pagan gods. which stupid cause the word pagan was made up by the romans to describe the religion of the celts. cause it was very different to the "classical" gods. pagan meaning "peasant or farmer".

although being a proper pagan does impress me. i have found a few that are true to the beliefs. i personally, follow irish druidism, only cause cause it is practicall for me. i've studied the subject since i was only wee and i've done it in collage. little like things ritualls are pretty insignificant. it i was going to summerise the tradition, i would state like this, "be cool, people will like you and good things will happen". simular to karma.

as someone said earlier, devil whorship was mde up by the church to burn pagans. satanism was made up by anton salvidor leevay in the 50's. its a philosophy that confuses me. when they say "hail satan", they are actually refaring to anton.

Because both neo-Paganism and Satanism are practiced by such tiny minorities of the populations in major countries that they're of little effect. Quite frankly, to a public school system, they really don't matter.

for most european countries it is important cause it is a part of our history. in my collage there are more pagans than jews.

This post is questioning why, in my country at least (britain), religious education only teaches the well know religions, i thought the point of it was to eliminate prejudice, Paganism and Satanism are religions constantly thought of as evil by those who havnt studied them.
Your thoughts please.

In any case, Satanism is a fabrication of undereducated aspiring rebels, and has no genuinely religious merits. However, paganism, in its genuinely Celtic, Hellenestic and Semitic incarnations, is taught at various points in primary and secondary education. Admittedly it is not to the same extent as the contemporary world religions, however, this is to be expected.

for most european countries it is important cause it is a part of our history. in my collage there are more pagans than jews.
To say that it's important because it's part of your history is not justification to teach it in a modern religion class. Instead it would belong in a historical class, and it would deal with it in a European History class.

To say that it's important because it's part of your history is not justification to teach it in a modern religion class. Instead it would belong in a historical class, and it would deal with it in a European History class.

aslong as its taught somewhere. it could fit into most subjects, matrhs and physics including(i'm not explaining that, dont ask, too long to type).

Because both neo-Paganism and Satanism are practiced by such tiny minorities of the populations in major countries that they're of little effect. Quite frankly, to a public school system, they really don't matter.

And honestly, I wouldn't want people to teach neo-Paganism. So many people are so ignorant of its beliefs and practices that it would probably end up just being more fodder for anti-Pagan tirades by fundies and other troublemakers. And, the last thing I'd want is for neo-Paganism to be lumped together with Satanism or other beliefs, because they are totally different.

In fact, I wouldn't want anyone teaching any religious beliefs to my kids except in a strictly historical or cultural sense. There's too much room for misinformation, and there's no guarantee that the teacher will present the material in an unbiased form.

And honestly, I wouldn't want people to teach neo-Paganism. So many people are so ignorant of its beliefs and practices that it would probably end up just being more fodder for anti-Pagan tirades by fundies and other troublemakers. And, the last thing I'd want is for neo-Paganism to be lumped together with Satanism or other beliefs, because they are totally different.

In fact, I wouldn't want anyone teaching any religious beliefs to my kids except in a strictly historical or cultural sense. There's too much room for misinformation, and there's no guarantee that the teacher will present the material in an unbiased form.

Agreed.

Satanism, Paganism and the Old religions.
This post is questioning why, in my country at least (britain), religious education only teaches the well know religions, i thought the point of it was to eliminate prejudice, Paganism and Satanism are religions constantly thought of as evil by those who havnt studied them.
Your thoughts please.

Teaching "old religions", i.e. the religion of Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Levantians, would of course be a danger to the established religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Simply because just one more thorough look would instantly reveal that the latter religions are merely poor copies of the former and were completely fabricated out of these, including the fabrication of the biblical god out of a number of deities that were worshipped long before Jews or Israelites even existed.

a
although being a proper pagan does impress me. i have found a few that are true to the beliefs. i personally, follow irish druidism, only cause cause it is practicall for me. i've studied the subject since i was only wee and i've done it in collage. little like things ritualls are pretty insignificant. it i was going to summerise the tradition, i would state like this, "be cool, people will like you and good things will happen". simular to karma..

I'd have to agree. Reconstructionism, which is what I and a fairly small number of others follow, is a lot more intensive than other forms of paganism; we do a lot of reading and research to accurately reconstruct ancient traditions. The religion we follow is as close to the original as possible since it tries to reconstruct the process to the methods described in ancient texts and other sources.

This post is questioning why, in my country at least (britain), religious education only teaches the well know religions, i thought the point of it was to eliminate prejudice, Paganism and Satanism are religions constantly thought of as evil by those who havnt studied them.
Your thoughts please.

Because they can't teach every religion.

Duh.

ah the pagan subject angers me.

usually when people tell me they are a pagan, i automatically hate them. why? cause around the 17th/18th centuary a group of people reinvented paganism and made up alot of stuff to gain money. most pagans know very little about paganism.
someone told me yesterday that the egyptian gods was thier favourite pagan gods. which stupid cause the word pagan was made up by the romans to describe the religion of the celts. cause it was very different to the "classical" gods. pagan meaning "peasant or farmer".

although being a proper pagan does impress me. i have found a few that are true to the beliefs. i personally, follow irish druidism, only cause cause it is practicall for me. i've studied the subject since i was only wee and i've done it in collage. little like things ritualls are pretty insignificant. it i was going to summerise the tradition, i would state like this, "be cool, people will like you and good things will happen". simular to karma.

as someone said earlier, devil whorship was mde up by the church to burn pagans. satanism was made up by anton salvidor leevay in the 50's. its a philosophy that confuses me. when they say "hail satan", they are actually refaring to anton.

Let us know when you get around to the ritual hanging of the human sacrifice.... Then I'll believe you follow Druidism, and not the neopagan mish mash calling itself Druidism.

I'd have to agree. Reconstructionism, which is what I and a fairly small number of others follow, is a lot more intensive than other forms of paganism; we do a lot of reading and research to accurately reconstruct ancient traditions. The religion we follow is as close to the original as possible since it tries to reconstruct the process to the methods described in ancient texts and other sources.
Apart from the fact that the faiths in question were largely passed down through the oral tradition and are hence unverifiable...

Give me Chaos Magick any day. At least we make no claims to being some kind of "old faith". And I'd much rather work with the A-Team than the Goddess.

As for Wicca... Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1953. :D

Reading this whole thread makes me glad to be an atheist.

Apart from the fact that the faiths in question were largely passed down through the oral tradition and are hence unverifiable...


That's why we are only Reconstructionists...there's only so much we can achieve with the information available. Thankfully, the Greeks and Romans were quite well educated and wrote a lot down so we can reconstruct a good portion of their beliefs and infer upon the rest. However, there are some things we just plain don't know and probably never will.

However, there are some things we just plain don't know and probably never will.

That's true of every religion, though some try to hide it.

Ultimately, one either has to live with it or have faith that one's god(s) will ensure that one does not stray too far from the correct path.

Originally Posted by Call to power
actually you will find that many Brits see themselves as more agnostic of the variety that believe that there is one God but he isn’t too bothered about religion and no Paganism will never make a comeback much like new wave
We can only hope about the latter...

Why?

*hands tin foil hat* people have known that for a long time ignorance is bliss though and its no different than any other religion (and paganism is very much a scam)
<snip>

You seem pretty sure of this. What makes paganism a scam?

Is it just because neo-paganism is a new religion? Well, sure, many people who claim to be involved with new or rediscovered religions are scam artists, but Christianity was a new religion once. Should nobody be following that because it's a scam, since it didn't always exist? Why not let the new religions go through the test of time?

Also, I'd like to point out that neo-paganism is not the only paganism in the world. There are host of polytheistic religions in the world that get lumped under the heading "pagan." They are very ancient and have been in continuous practice in their native lands for pretty much all of recorded history, in places such as Africa, South America, Oceania, Asia, and North America. Taken together -- and having to do a little math with the various groups listed at www.adherents.com -- we can say that there are at least 200 million - 300 million active pagans/polytheists in the world today, not even including Hinduism.

So, if we understand "paganism" to be a kind of religion, rather than a specific single religion, then I do not think you can legitimately claim that it is either new or a scam.

Apart from the fact that the faiths in question were largely passed down through the oral tradition and are hence unverifiable...

Give me Chaos Magick any day. At least we make no claims to being some kind of "old faith". And I'd much rather work with the A-Team than the Goddess.

As for Wicca... Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1953. :D

:D

Satanism: practicing evil since 1966. :D

One point: All religions are man made, therefore it really doesn't matter what you chose to call your beliefs/gods etc or how you perform your sevices and/or rituals, as long as you harm no one. A point lost on even the most "peacefull" beliefs.

Show me the time period in which Christianity did not exist for 600+ years. The last of the old pagans converted in the 14th C.

The point, yet again is that paganism is a set of dead religions. Neopaganism is a syncritic mish mash of the trappings of the old pagan religions overlaid on modern romanticist ideas.

Christianity as practiced today is related the Christianity of old. Neopaganism is only superficially related to old paganism.

This is not really accurate.

First of all, the numbers at adherents.com indicate that pagan religions are far from dead. Certain specific pagan religions of the ancient past may be, but pagan religions have not been entirely supplanted by monotheistic sky & book worship yet.

Second, I would suggest that modern Christianity is also only superficially related to its original form. Citing change as proof of illegitimacy is not really fair. If some Christians decided to go back to the home worship and sexual equality of clergy that were practiced in the first century of Christianity, would you say they were making up a fake religion because no Christians have worshipped that way for over 1500 years?

And by the way, the last of the old pagans WHERE converted by the 14th century? The old native paganism was still alive and practiced in Eastern Europe until the middle of the 19th century. Social scientists reported similar pockets of survival in Britain and Greece. To this day, the Czechs, the Scandanavians, the British, the Germans, the Romanians and Bulgarians all practice seasonal pagan religious rituals in full knowledge that they are pagan rituals, without any attempt to Christianize them.

And finally, how do we define conversion? I don't know if you ever hung out with hardcore European Catholics of the old school, especially in Italy or Eastern Europe, but that saints thing... Well, take it from a polytheist, that conversion doesn't seem to have gone too deep.

For instance, the pagan Slavs were ancestor worshippers, primarily. Did you know that Saints Ludmila and Vaclav, the patron saints of the Czech people and nation, respectively, were in life the last pagan rulers of the Czechs; Ludmila was the queen and Vaclav was her son (this is not the same Saint Vaclav who is also Good King Wenceslas; that was a later king). They were both murdered by the younger son, whose name nobody seems to remember, who became the Czechs' first Christian king by those murders. Basically, the Czechs just deified them, as usual for ancestor worshippers. You should see how they dote over their cemeteries over there, especially at Easter, decorating them with the same magical tools they use in the spring pagan festivals they still celebrate (has to do with spanking; don't ask). Yeah, they converted. Sure they did.

And honestly, I wouldn't want people to teach neo-Paganism. So many people are so ignorant of its beliefs and practices that it would probably end up just being more fodder for anti-Pagan tirades by fundies and other troublemakers. And, the last thing I'd want is for neo-Paganism to be lumped together with Satanism or other beliefs, because they are totally different.

In fact, I wouldn't want anyone teaching any religious beliefs to my kids except in a strictly historical or cultural sense. There's too much room for misinformation, and there's no guarantee that the teacher will present the material in an unbiased form.

Total agreement here.

This is not really accurate.

First of all, the numbers at adherents.com indicate that pagan religions are far from dead. Certain specific pagan religions of the ancient past may be, but pagan religions have not been entirely supplanted by monotheistic sky & book worship yet.

Don't put words in my mouth. I've not said all paganism is dead. Just the old Western pagan religions are dead and gone. (Several primal-indigenous religions are still living, but we both know that's not what's being discussed here.)

To quote your own source:
Though it has roots in primal ethnic religions, Neo-Paganism is something distinct, clearly drawing much of its identity from Gardnerian principles introduced in the 1930s. Neo-Paganism is distinct from the primal ethnic religions of ancient pre-industrial societies just as Buddhism has roots in, but is distinct from, Hinduism. So we are including Neo-Paganism on this list because the most recent sociological work in the field indicates it is a distinct religion, and because it is increasingly significant.

Second, I would suggest that modern Christianity is also only superficially related to its original form. Citing change as proof of illegitimacy is not really fair. If some Christians decided to go back to the home worship and sexual equality of clergy that were practiced in the first century of Christianity, would you say they were making up a fake religion because no Christians have worshipped that way for over 1500 years?

I'm not citing change as proof. Neopaganism is not old Western paganism. It's modern romanticism in the trappings of old Western paganism.

And by the way, the last of the old pagans WHERE converted by the 14th century? The old native paganism was still alive and practiced in Eastern Europe until the middle of the 19th century. Social scientists reported similar pockets of survival in Britain and Greece. To this day, the Czechs, the Scandanavians, the British, the Germans, the Romanians and Bulgarians all practice seasonal pagan religious rituals in full knowledge that they are pagan rituals, without any attempt to Christianize them.

Source.

And finally, how do we define conversion? I don't know if you ever hung out with hardcore European Catholics of the old school, especially in Italy or Eastern Europe, but that saints thing... Well, take it from a polytheist, that conversion doesn't seem to have gone too deep.

For instance, the pagan Slavs were ancestor worshippers, primarily. Did you know that Saints Ludmila and Vaclav, the patron saints of the Czech people and nation, respectively, were in life the last pagan rulers of the Czechs; Ludmila was the queen and Vaclav was her son (this is not the same Saint Vaclav who is also Good King Wenceslas; that was a later king). They were both murdered by the younger son, whose name nobody seems to remember, who became the Czechs' first Christian king by those murders. Basically, the Czechs just deified them, as usual for ancestor worshippers. You should see how they dote over their cemeteries over there, especially at Easter, decorating them with the same magical tools they use in the spring pagan festivals they still celebrate (has to do with spanking; don't ask). Yeah, they converted. Sure they did.

The co-opting of the trappings of a relgion does not translate into it's survival. The same goes for neopaganism.

And just to make totally clear what I'm on about, here are two definitions from a neopagan:
“Paleopaganism” or “Paleo-Paganism” is a general term for the original polytheistic, nature-centered faiths of tribal Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas, Oceania and Australia, when they were (or in some rare cases, still are) practiced as intact belief systems. Of the so-called “Great Religions of the World,” Hinduism (prior to the influx of Islam into India), Taoism and Shinto, for example, fall under this category, though many members of these faiths might be reluctant to use the term. Some Paleopagan belief systems may be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. There are billions of Paleopagans living and worshiping their deities today.

“Neopaganism” or “Neo-Paganism” is a general term for a variety of movements both organized and (usually) nonorganized, started since 1960 c.e. or so (though they had literary roots going back to the mid-1800’s), as attempts to recreate, revive or continue what their founders thought were the best aspects of the Paleopagan ways of their ancestors (or predecessors), blended with modern humanistic, pluralist and inclusionary ideals, while consciously striving to eliminate as much as possible of the traditional Western monotheism, dualism, and puritanism. The core Neopagan beliefs include a multiplicity of deities of all genders, a perception of those deities as both immanent and transcendent, a commitment to environmental awareness, and a willingness to perform magical as well as spiritual rituals to help both ourselves and others. Examples of Neopaganism would include the Church of All Worlds, most heterodox Wiccan traditions, Druidism as practiced by Ár nDraíocht Féin and the Henge of Keltria, some Norse Paganism, and some modern forms of Buddhism whose members refer to themselves as “Buddheo-Pagans.” Neopagan belief systems are not racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. There are hundreds of thousands of Neopagans living and worshiping their deities today. As “Neo-Paganism,” this term was popularized in the 1960’s and 1970’s by Oberon Zell, a founder of the Church of All Worlds.
http://www.neopagan.net/PaganDefs.html

The interesting question raised there is that of what the author terms "meso-paganism". I'd consider most of what he classifies as meso-pagans to be new religions superficially related to the old, but not all.

Note: as always, when speaking of the old Western paganism being dead, I do not mean the African, Asian, or others.

One point: All religions are man made, therefore it really doesn't matter what you chose to call your beliefs/gods etc or how you perform your sevices and/or rituals, as long as you harm no one. A point lost on even the most "peacefull" beliefs.

Harm is already done by lying.

Harm is already done by lying.

And what religion would ever do such a thing? :rolleyes:

And what religion would ever do such a thing? :rolleyes:

First and foremost those that are based on the stories about the alleged belief of Abram in the fabricated biblical god. That includes Judaism, Christianity, Islam, with all their denominations and sects.

Arn't all Gods fabricated?

First and foremost those that are based on the stories about the alleged belief of Abram in the fabricated biblical god. That includes Judaism, Christianity, Islam, with all their denominations and sects.

Ya don't Say?

I did point out that all religions are man made, right?

Arn't all Gods fabricated?

We simply do not know that. However, we do know about the fabrication of the biblical god as well as about the protagonists of this fabrication.

someone asked for a source of certain european countries knowingly practising ancient pagan rituals despite proclaiming themselves devoutly christian... I, as a romanian citezen, can certify that in rural Romania folk traditions which involve harvest rituals and such, are practised as readily as going to church (eastern orthodox denomination mostly) on sundays, and most of these practices have not been in any way christianised.

(and before you asked yes I have parteaken in such practices on a couple of ocasions)

someone asked for a source of certain european countries knowingly practising ancient pagan rituals despite proclaiming themselves devoutly christian... I, as a romanian citezen, can certify that in rural Romania folk traditions which involve harvest rituals and such, are practised as readily as going to church (eastern orthodox denomination mostly) on sundays, and most of these practices have not been in any way christianised.

(and before you asked yes I have parteaken in such practices on a couple of ocasions)

Well, the way most Christians celebrate Christmas is pretty un-Christian.

Well, the way most Christians celebrate Christmas is pretty un-Christian.

Still is sweet, though. I LIKE PRESENTS! (and the christmas cake isnt bad either.)

Still is sweet, though. I LIKE PRESENTS! (and the christmas cake isnt bad either.)

But what if this heretic way to celebrate Christmas will in the end make every Christian go to hell? Would that not be hilarious? :eek:

But what if this heretic way to celebrate Christmas will in the end make every Christian go to hell? Would that not be hilarious? :eek:

After making life hell for the rest of us by assuming that we either are christian, or just going through a phase, I wouldn't say hilarious. I would say "just desserts" however.

First and foremost those that are based on the stories about the alleged belief of Abram in the fabricated biblical god. That includes Judaism, Christianity, Islam, with all their denominations and sects.

Actually, the God of Judaism wasn't so much fabricated by Abraham as he was an evolution of previous beliefs. Specifically, the concept is a descendent of Ahura Mazda (the one uncreated creator of all) of Zoroastrianism, who in turn is a combination of earlier Persian/Babylonian deities. If you go back far enough, the original concept for "god" was a personification of the (more often then not destructive) forces of nature.

When viewed in this light, religion is something of an absolute among humans. Every culture ever discovered, even the most isolated, has some concept of a higher power derived from nature and causality. The anthropomorphic personifications are merely superficial trappings of a much deeper concept that everyone still recognizes today.

Essentially, when a modern atheist who's "higher power" is that which science has revealed to us and an ancient pagan who's higher power is a personification of nature both look at, for example, the changing of the seasons, they are looking at the exact same thing. The only difference is the names.

Actually, the God of Judaism wasn't so much fabricated by Abraham as he was an evolution of previous beliefs. Specifically, the concept is a descendent of Ahura Mazda (the one uncreated creator of all) of Zoroastrianism, who in turn is a combination of earlier Persian/Babylonian deities. If you go back far enough, the original concept for "god" was a personification of the (more often than not destructive) forces of nature.

When viewed in this light, religion is something of an absolute among humans. Every culture ever discovered, even the most isolated, has some concept of a higher power derived from nature and causality. The anthropomorphic personifications are merely superficial trappings of a much deeper concept that everyone still recognizes today.

Essentially, when a modern atheist who's "higher power" is that which science has revealed to us and an ancient pagan who's higher power is a personification of nature both look at, for example, the changing of the seasons, they are looking at the exact same thing. The only difference is the names.

I never said that the god of Judaism was fabricated by Abraham. It was fabricated by much later folks who only projected their own beliefs into Abraham.

:D

Satanism: practicing evil since 1966. :D

Shamanism: Trancing out, getting high and speaking in tongues since before Woodstock. :D

Let us know when you get around to the ritual hanging of the human sacrifice.... Then I'll believe you follow Druidism, and not the neopagan mish mash calling itself Druidism.

human sacrifice? can i see your photos of this happening? anybody around you know at these times that wittnesed any of this?
things like hanging, drowning, burning and cutting of heads, were more likely were done out of punishment and not thier religion, this based on legends, folklore and remains found.

human sacrifice? can i see your photos of this happening? anybody around you know at these times that wittnesed any of this?
things like hanging, drowning, burning and cutting of heads, were more likely were done out of punishment and not thier religion, this based on legends, folklore and remains found.

I'm basing my thoughts on this subject on both the historical and archeological records.

For example Lindow Man:

Lindow Man

Roman accounts describe the Britons as a superstitious people who performed savage religious rituals, including human sacrifice. They talk of a powerful and mystical order of Druids, who worshipped in oak groves and cut down mistletoe with golden sickles. What evidence is there for these mysterious Celtic figures that seemed to wield such authority?

One compelling clue was found in the rural north-west of Britain. Lindow Common is a Cheshire peat bog – and an ancient crime scene: in 1984, the remains of a man were found embedded in the peat. Forensic science revealed that, when he died between AD 50 and AD 100, he had been brutally murdered. But it was the nature of his injuries that made archaeologists consider the role of Druids and the purpose of ritual sacrifice in Celtic Britain.

‘Lindow Man’ was found in what had been a pond, naked except for a band of fox fur around his arm. First, he received terrible head wounds from a blunt instrument. Then he was garrotted. It’s not known whether the cord found round his throat was used to strangle him or to break his neck, because that was also broken. In addition, his throat was cut, and it appears that he was allowed to bleed.

And then if that didn’t actually kill him, he had been placed face down in the pool of water to make sure. Elsewhere in Iron-Age Europe, water was considered a special place in which to make offerings to the gods. Lindow Man’s location in water implies that this was a ritual killing.

The contents of Lindow Man’s stomach gave clues to his identity. Examination revealed grains of mistletoe pollen mixed in a grain cake. According to the British Museum’s Dr J D Hill, ‘We know from one of the ancient writings that the mistletoe was sacred to the Druids. Since mistletoe pollen was found in Lindow Man’s stomach, people have always wanted to associate him with the Druids.’

The man died just as the Romans invaded Britain. Did local Druids sacrifice an important person in a desperate final act to appease the gods? ‘Imagine you’re being conquered by the Roman army,’ says Dr Hill. ‘This may well be exactly the time when you’re pleading with the gods for help against the invaders. It’s possible that he was a Druid. Certainly if you look at his fingernails, for example, you see that this person did no hard labour before he died. Human sacrifice is an extraordinary step to take, but it’s clearly one that was fairly often taken in Iron-Age Britain.’

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/c-d/celts06.html

The sources I find attempt to rebut this are... lax at best. For example: http://www.summerlands.com/crossroads/library/human_sacrifice.htm

someone asked for a source of certain european countries knowingly practising ancient pagan rituals despite proclaiming themselves devoutly christian... I, as a romanian citezen, can certify that in rural Romania folk traditions which involve harvest rituals and such, are practised as readily as going to church (eastern orthodox denomination mostly) on sundays, and most of these practices have not been in any way christianised.

(and before you asked yes I have parteaken in such practices on a couple of ocasions)

Nomanslanda
New Member

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: warwickshire, england

I remain skeptical. Show me a reliable source, not some doubtful personal anecdote.

I'm basing my thoughts on this subject on both the historical and archeological records.

For example Lindow Man:



http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/c-d/celts06.html

The sources I find attempt to rebut this are... lax at best. For example: http://www.summerlands.com/crossroads/library/human_sacrifice.htm

you are basing your views on something the romans wrote down. which isnt great. it is know that the romans have lied about other cultures in thier "historical" records. like about the group etruscans.

Actually, the God of Judaism wasn't so much fabricated by Abraham

of course not - abraham is a mythological invention himself

you are basing your views on something the romans wrote down. which isnt great. it is know that the romans have lied about other cultures in thier "historical" records. like about the group etruscans.

What part of "both the historical and archeological records" did you miss?

What part of "both the historical and archeological records" did you miss?


from what i have studied says otherwise. and i'm not going to source something from the internet. the internet is terrible to get accurate information on paganismm, other than collage web sites.

from what i have studied says otherwise. and i'm not going to source something from the internet. the internet is terrible to get accurate information on paganismm, other than collage web sites.

As opposed to what you've given? (nothing)

As opposed to what you've given? (nothing)

what do you want me to do?
get your address and post you some books?
i'm not wasting my time getting my old collage books and sending them to you or looking up the correct spelling of thier names to tell to go to the libary.

what do you want me to do?
get your address and post you some books?
i'm not wasting my time getting my old collage books and sending them to you or looking up the correct spelling of thier names to tell to go to the libary.

Sources, huh, what are they good for?

Don't put words in my mouth. I've not said all paganism is dead. Just the old Western pagan religions are dead and gone. (Several primal-indigenous religions are still living, but we both know that's not what's being discussed here.)
Well, I wish we would be more specific about who we are talking about and not use the word "pagan," which is quite general, to refer only to one group while simply ignoring the existence of all the others to whom the word also applies. Neopagans and Wiccans are not the only pagans in the world, and paganism in and of itself is not a scam.

To quote your own source:



I'm not citing change as proof. Neopaganism is not old Western paganism. It's modern romanticism in the trappings of old Western paganism.
I have not denied that. Neopaganism is a new religious trend and it will either grow over time into a mature spiritual system or it will not. In my opinion, however, being new does not automatically invalidate it or qualify it as a "scam." It does invalidate some neopagans' claims to an ancient lineage, but they are hardly the only religion that claimed to be old when it was still new.

Source.
First, over 35 years of studying multiple sources, many of which are out of print or were never put on the web, and which overlap so much that I could not possibly pick out which fact came from which book within the scope of this discussion. The sources are cultural histories, national histories, political histories (I like history :)), translations of Roman primary documents (hello, Tacitus and Plutarch), as well as works on comparative religion (Campbell, Gimbutas, other authors), and anthropological studies of European myth and folklore (I especially recommend The Beast Within (Adam Douglas) and Vampires, Burial and Death (Paul J. Barber, research associate Fowler Museum of Cultural History, UCLA) (but don't read that one on an empty stomach)). I read all these as research for my artwork and writing. None of it is arcane or secret. You could easily google the phrases in my paragraph to see if I am right or wrong.

Add to this, personal experiences with people in Italy and the Czech Republic, where I was able to see the beliefs in action and talk to people about them.

Also, you might like to google information about the Bulgarian Kukeri festival (many photos available from many sources) and Easter Monday in the Czech Republic (most of the info on that is from travelers commenting on how weird it is).


The co-opting of the trappings of a relgion does not translate into it's survival. The same goes for neopaganism.

No doubt.

But I like the way you are still assuming that neopaganism is the only paganism in play here. I don't know that that has been stipulated here. The cultural features I listed are in no way neo. Neopagans do not do these things. But according to the Romans, the pagan Europeans did. And I am here to attest that they still do.

When Europeans deck their halls with bows of holly at Christmas time, that is the co-opting of the trappings of another religion and it does not equate to a survival of paganism.

When gangs of men armed with braided willow whips go from house to house in small Czech towns, beating and whipping every woman they can find until she gives them either a drink or a painted egg, in order to ensure the fertility of the women, because any woman who does not get her spring time flogging will "dry up," that is not Christians co-opting the trappings of another religion in order to celebrate Christ.

When those same, formerly ancestor-worshipping Czechs then decorate the graves of the dead with those same whips and eggs and pray TO THE DEAD in their Christian churches for fertility in people, animals and crops, you tell me who is co-opting what? Has Christianity co-opted the trappings of paganism? Or have pagans co-opted the trappings of Christianity?

Originally Posted by Nomanslanda
someone asked for a source of certain european countries knowingly practising ancient pagan rituals despite proclaiming themselves devoutly christian... I, as a romanian citezen, can certify that in rural Romania folk traditions which involve harvest rituals and such, are practised as readily as going to church (eastern orthodox denomination mostly) on sundays, and most of these practices have not been in any way christianised.

(and before you asked yes I have parteaken in such practices on a couple of ocasions)

Nomanslanda
New Member

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: warwickshire, england
I remain skeptical. Show me a reliable source, not some doubtful personal anecdote.

You remind me of my brother. He also just simply rejects any statement or information that contradicts the argument he is trying to promote, without actually addressing the statement to see if it can legitimately affect his argument. Why would Nomanslanda lie about such a thing? Why would I lie about my experiences? Why would anyone make up such specific lies about such obscure things?

Whatever. I have already given you suggestions as to where to look for more data to challenge either us or yourself.

But there's one question you still haven't answered (I think it was you I asked this of):

Someone here said something about paganism never coming back to Europe, and you said you hoped that was so.

I asked in response to that, Why? Why would it be a bad thing if Europeans decided to take up paganism again? Forget about approximate recreations of old religions. What if Europeans decided to take up a new paganism? Why would that be any worse a decision than when they decided to take up a new monotheism, back in the day?

First, over 35 years of studying multiple sources, many of which are out of print or were never put on the web, and which overlap so much that I could not possibly pick out which fact came from which book within the scope of this discussion. The sources are cultural histories, national histories, political histories (I like history :)), translations of Roman primary documents (hello, Tacitus and Plutarch), as well as works on comparative religion (Campbell, Gimbutas, other authors), and anthropological studies of European myth and folklore (I especially recommend The Beast Within (Adam Douglas) and Vampires, Burial and Death (Paul J. Barber, research associate Fowler Museum of Cultural History, UCLA) (but don't read that one on an empty stomach)). I read all these as research for my artwork and writing. None of it is arcane or secret. You could easily google the phrases in my paragraph to see if I am right or wrong.

Add to this, personal experiences with people in Italy and the Czech Republic, where I was able to see the beliefs in action and talk to people about them.

Also, you might like to google information about the Bulgarian Kukeri festival (many photos available from many sources) and Easter Monday in the Czech Republic (most of the info on that is from travelers commenting on how weird it is).




No doubt.

But I like the way you are still assuming that neopaganism is the only paganism in play here. I don't know that that has been stipulated here. The cultural features I listed are in no way neo. Neopagans do not do these things. But according to the Romans, the pagan Europeans did. And I am here to attest that they still do.

When Europeans deck their halls with bows of holly at Christmas time, that is the co-opting of the trappings of another religion and it does not equate to a survival of paganism.

When gangs of men armed with braided willow whips go from house to house in small Czech towns, beating and whipping every woman they can find until she gives them either a drink or a painted egg, in order to ensure the fertility of the women, because any woman who does not get her spring time flogging will "dry up," that is not Christians co-opting the trappings of another religion in order to celebrate Christ.

When those same, formerly ancestor-worshipping Czechs then decorate the graves of the dead with those same whips and eggs and pray TO THE DEAD in their Christian churches for fertility in people, animals and crops, you tell me who is co-opting what? Has Christianity co-opted the trappings of paganism? Or have pagans co-opted the trappings of Christianity?

Excellent - thank you. That's what I'm looking for.

You remind me of my brother. He also just simply rejects any statement or information that contradicts the argument he is trying to promote, without actually addressing the statement to see if it can legitimately affect his argument. Why would Nomanslanda lie about such a thing? Why would I lie about my experiences? Why would anyone make up such specific lies about such obscure things?

Why would I expect you two toi be lying? Becasue people do so regularly in my experience, especially here.

Whatever. I have already given you suggestions as to where to look for more data to challenge either us or yourself.

Again thank you.

But there's one question you still haven't answered (I think it was you I asked this of):

Someone here said something about paganism never coming back to Europe, and you said you hoped that was so.

I asked in response to that, Why? Why would it be a bad thing if Europeans decided to take up paganism again? Forget about approximate recreations of old religions. What if Europeans decided to take up a new paganism? Why would that be any worse a decision than when they decided to take up a new monotheism, back in the day?

:confused: Ah! No, that was New Wave that I hoped wasn't going to make a revival. Sorry for any confusion.

Excellent - thank you. That's what I'm looking for.
I hope you enjoy looking the stuff up. I have a collection of photos from Bulgaria that are amazing. Unfortunately, my computer blew up recently. I'm on a loaner right now and don't have access to my files, or I would have posted some for you.

Why would I expect you two toi be lying? Becasue people do so regularly in my experience, especially here.
You should try to keep better company. I, for instance, never lie about anything other than what I think of my friends' boyfriends and whether their new pants make them look fat.

Again thank you.
Truly, take a moment and look up those Kukeri. And get into the Italian cult of saints a bit. You'll never think of Europeans quite the same.

:confused: Ah! No, that was New Wave that I hoped wasn't going to make a revival. Sorry for any confusion.

Oh. Nevermind. :)

This post is questioning why, in my country at least (britain), religious education only teaches the well know religions, i thought the point of it was to eliminate prejudice, Paganism and Satanism are religions constantly thought of as evil by those who havnt studied them.
Your thoughts please.
Satanism is the dumbest idea ever thought up... "Hey, let's take their devil and claim that he is the one we should worship!" And Paganism is too diffuse and varied to be taught effectively.

What's a collage book?

I wish there was more information on some of those old religions, especially the Celtic one. There's very little information on it. A lot comes from the Romans, and I don't trust them, since the Romans were actively trying to wipe out the Celtic religion (wouldn't you if you saw it as a form of resistance in one of your empire's vast conquests?).

The Norse religion is pretty well documented as far as those things go.

Wicca and Laveyan Satanism... they kinda... I don't know... amuse me. But if that's what people want to believe in, then whatever. Who am I to judge?

I remain skeptical. Show me a reliable source, not some doubtful personal anecdote.

well for some wiki examples (i'm not in the mood to look for more stuff):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%83lu%C5%9Fari
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/hora/ (but damn the background is annying:P)

This post is questioning why, in my country at least (britain), religious education only teaches the well know religions, i thought the point of it was to eliminate prejudice, Paganism and Satanism are religions constantly thought of as evil by those who havnt studied them.
Your thoughts please.


That's coz for the most part they are made up micky mouse conglomerations that have not yet had the time to be seen by the majority as real.
Anyhoo Satanism isn't a religon, and I'm sure that you already know what I think of that!:D