geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Oct 13, 2005 12:35:53 GMT -5
As i said, religion is an integral part of Ethnos. Thus, an Ethnos may not change its religion without changing its substance. Rapid change of religion usually occurs when the Ethnos loses its sovereignity, f.e by an invasion from a hostile Ethnos with a different religion which is then imposed on the conquered.
To reply to the 'time warp' argument, we say that the change from polytheism to monotheism did not undergo the social processes required for a smooth, natural change and a real adoptation of monotheism by the Greek Ethnos, because: 1. the time it took was too short 2. the Ethnos was not sovereign, being subjected to roman and then turkish occupation, thus not capable of performing this internal change
In addition to the above, and THIS is where the 'time wharp' argument fails not only actually but also presumably, monotheism was imposed on the Greek Ethnos by law and force of arms, thus any assumption that monotheism would replace (or 'improve' as some like to say) the Hellenic polytheism, is void.
As for tautalos, i would say it's yet another sign of the times, that we have come to teach the portugese football and they've come to teach us logic....
|
|
omegaspan
Full Member
????? ??????? ??????, ??????? ??????
Posts: 211
|
Post by omegaspan on Oct 13, 2005 15:49:20 GMT -5
Tautalos you dont know very well what it is you re talking about. The situation is more complicated than you d like to think. First you should ask yourself, who are the people that "worship" the Gods in todays Greece and do they indeed perfom that worship religiously or not. What are their motives, what are their goals. I dont mean to sound like a god damn f*cking police investigator here, but let me give you a hint:
Many of the current self-proclaimed Greek Pagans are in fact not religious people at all. They are ON THE CONTRARY atheists former communists and anarchists. What they adopt from Ancient Greece is the mater-nature aspect, somehow connecting it to their own dialectic materialism, the religion of the communists and the soviet union! But as you probably know, in Ancient Greece there were also other schools of thought and religion that were monotheistic in their own sense, that did not pay too much attention to matter, etc.
So, the large, almost infinite variety of ancient greek thought provides everyone with what they want to think is the most characteristic of ancient greek thought! A nazi will say it is the spartan way of state sacrifice and honour and war, a materialist will say its nature and the gods as representations of nature, a christian will say its plato and aristotele cause some of their theories resemble some of the christian dogmans, or should i say were indeed taken from these two famous philosophers and made christian along with many other aspects of prechristian religions of the meditteranean.
These are some of the things you should consider if you would like to be fully informed on the issue, and i m revealing all this inside information to you because i see you really have pure feelings towards the Gods...haha
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Oct 15, 2005 15:18:13 GMT -5
Many of the current self-proclaimed Greek Pagans are in fact not religious people at all. They are ON THE CONTRARY atheists former communists and anarchists. First of all - do you have any proof of that? Any statistic, any collective poll, any type of deep study on such people? If they were real and assumed materialists, they would be losing time with rituals and alike... nor would they be fighting in the name of their faith. Second - many people in our western societies were raised up as matherialists (if not in theory, at least in practice) or, at least, as agnostics. That does not mean that such people cannot just cease being materialist, does it? Third - it is not easy to bring back an entire Nation to an ancestral religion. It cannot be done in one generation only. Yes, I do believe that many of the so-called pagans of today's society (not only in Greece) are actually Nature-worshippers and not much more, but, throughout the last decades, a genuine interest for the Gods Themselves has been growing and growing. As for the issue of monotheism vs. polytheism, that's a different matter alltogether. One can be a monotheist and a pagan at the same time - though it is relatively rare, it's not impossible, as it already happened in the past. But now, answer this - would a particular philosophical thought, of a given Hellenic philosopher, be more representative of Hellas than the traditional religion of the entire folk (from Athens, Sparta, Mykenai, etc.), and, also, of some philosophers as well (Plato standed for the traditional religion, the worship of Zeus, Athena, Apollo, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Oct 15, 2005 15:51:09 GMT -5
As i said, religion is an integral part of Ethnos. Thus, an Ethnos may not change its religion without changing its substance. Rapid change of religion usually occurs when the Ethnos loses its sovereignity, f.e by an invasion from a hostile Ethnos with a different religion which is then imposed on the conquered. Well, in Greece there was no invasion that caused the change of religion. Greece had been a part of the Roman Empire before, during and after the Christian conversion period. Well, it depends on what you mean by smooth. Polytheism and monotheism co-existed in Greece for several centuries. Certainly the Roman administration occasionally took measures against early Christians, and subsequently the Christian Emperors took measures against pagans. Some converted because they liked the new religion, some converted because they were afraid, and some converted because they wanted to align themselves with the new status quo. Roman and Turkish occupation were not the same thing. In the 4th century, Greeks were Roman citizens. Citizenship had been extended to all parts of the Roman Empire. Of course, the Roman Empire was autocratic -but so was almost every state since the beginning of time, with the brief interlude of the Greek democracies- but Greeks within the Empire were not disadvantaged compared to other ethnic groups. By contrast, in the Turkish occupation, Greeks and other Christians were second-class citizens. I would be very interested in seeing any evidence for Greeks ever expressing the feeling that they were "occupied" during medieval or even late antique times by the Romans. In fact, when they were pagans, the Greeks almost never revolted against the Romans; or did so very rarely and for regional problems. This is especially true in Imperial times. The opposite would be expected if Greeks felt like were occupied by an oppressive power, as for example in the case of the Ottomans, who _were_ viewed as oppressive conquerors, and thus had to deal with frequent revolts and the final establishment of a Greek state.
|
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Oct 17, 2005 10:59:41 GMT -5
Cosmopolitic (cosmopolitan) or universal are called the ideologies that strive to be expanded universally. To achieve this, they must reject from their belief-systems all accounts on ethnical attributes and designations. Ethnical designations separate and categorize people when a universal ideology unifies and equalizes them, oftenly dividing them in two opposite totals. Thus, the universal ideology is hostile towards traditional, ethnical world-views, as well as other universal ideologies. A christian is a christian no matter if he's islander or kenyan, a proletarian's a proletarian no matter if he's french of indian, a capitalist's a capitalist no matter if he's chinese or american. Many of the current self-proclaimed Greek Pagans are in fact not religious people at all. They are ON THE CONTRARY atheists former communists and anarchists. What they adopt from Ancient Greece is the mater-nature aspect, somehow connecting it to their own dialectic materialism, the religion of the communists and the soviet union! That is true. Let me make your knowledge a little more 'inside' though. Those people are mainly aged leftists who find it difficult or impossible to reject the ideology that brought them up. They logically choose to fuse it with hellenism instead. They keep the old communist/atheist dislike towards christianity/religion (which merely resembles one universal ideology fighting another for the monopoly) and enrich it through its historical and ideological opposition with hellenism. They also adopt from hellenism its deep humanitarian stance which they usually make into a flag. The leftist drawing of ideas from hellenism goes as back as marx and elgels whereas other ideologies (from anarchism to national socialism) also took what they liked at times. I find those things not bad into themselves, but they can be misleading when done for the wrong reasons, and MOST ANNOYING when the fight between universal ideologies is brought by those people inside ethnical grounds. Well, in Greece there was no invasion that caused the change of religion. Greece had been a part of the Roman Empire before, during and after the Christian conversion period. It didnt neccesarily need be. An integral part (religion) of another nation invaded and dominated ours. Hollywood hasnt invade india, though there's a bollywood there (ethics). England hasn't invaded Liberia, Botswana, Gambia, Namibia, Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia though those nations have made english their sole official language. Well, it depends on what you mean by smooth. Polytheism and monotheism co-existed in Greece for several centuries. Idealism is not monotheism just like the parmenidian and platonian 'on' is not the 'one god' of monotheism. As much as christianity drew on platonian ontology, the remaining differences more than tell them apart. Also the orphic worship of bacchus was not monotheism. The long theological tradition of orphic hyms to the gods makes that obvious. Monotheism existed nowhere amongst the ancient world, with one exception, and that's not greece. Roman and Turkish occupation were not the same thing. In the 4th century, Greeks were Roman citizens. Citizenship had been extended to all parts of the Roman Empire. Of course, the Roman Empire was autocratic -but so was almost every state since the beginning of time, with the brief interlude of the Greek democracies- but Greeks within the Empire were not disadvantaged compared to other ethnic groups. By contrast, in the Turkish occupation, Greeks and other Christians were second-class citizens. In general i agree. We have to be careful though, the states were not sovereign as most had a roman garrison, obeyed the roman law and payed taxes. Syllas was revisiting the Athenian constitution to suit roman needs, and Neron was winning the Olympic games in an way which insulted all the athletes that had strived and won in the past. Roman occupation was seen as (and was) inevitable after the long wars that devastated the population (oligandria, oliganthropia). This small land had stopped the march of an empire, rose an offensive against it which expanded over Asia and decimated its remaining power in a 20 year long civil war, all in a few centuries.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 17, 2005 19:10:20 GMT -5
Liberia was founded by US blacks.
|
|
omegaspan
Full Member
????? ??????? ??????, ??????? ??????
Posts: 211
|
Post by omegaspan on Oct 17, 2005 20:39:03 GMT -5
Many of the current self-proclaimed Greek Pagans are in fact not religious people at all. They are ON THE CONTRARY atheists former communists and anarchists. What they adopt from Ancient Greece is the mater-nature aspect, somehow connecting it to their own dialectic materialism, the religion of the communists and the soviet union! That is true. Let me make your knowledge a little more 'inside' though. Those people are mainly aged leftists who find it difficult or impossible to reject the ideology that brought them up. They logically choose to fuse it with hellenism instead. They keep the old communist/atheist dislike towards christianity/religion (which merely resembles one universal ideology fighting another for the monopoly) and enrich it through its historical and ideological opposition with hellenism. They also adopt from hellenism its deep humanitarian stance which they usually make into a flag. The leftist drawing of ideas from hellenism goes as back as marx and elgels whereas other ideologies (from anarchism to national socialism) also took what they liked at times. I find those things not bad into themselves, but they can be misleading when done for the wrong reasons, and MOST ANNOYING when the fight between universal ideologies is brought by those people inside ethnical grounds. . Well let me advance it even further and give you an enlightened inside opinion on some of the modern greek pagans. Growing up with multicultural, nationless, proletarian ideals, after 3 decades of life they finally decided it was about time to pay some god damn f*cking respect to the ground they walk on=their homeland. Being brainwashed of course for three decade is not something you can overcome easily, so instead they tried to fit Greek ideals into their leftist or ultra-left ideologies, or they tried to fit their ultra leftis ideologies into Greek ideals! The result is what can be named as a materialist nature scientific paganism, under which hide the everlasting communist ghosts.... I m not saying that they re not right in many things they say or that all these things werent a part of ancient life, but its far from reaching the ancient wisdom....
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Oct 17, 2005 21:48:34 GMT -5
When I spoke about the co-existence of monotheism and polytheism for several centuries, I was referring to the co-existence of Christianity and ancient Pagan religion. It is these two religious worldviews that co-existed for a long time until Christianity finally replaced Paganism. My point was that the conversion to Christianity was a gradual process.
|
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Oct 18, 2005 10:42:57 GMT -5
I find the interference equally annoying whether it's coming from the 'left' or the 'right'. Proper patriotism is a pure feeling, critical opinion and rational thinking dont have 'sides' and 'colours'. Those who misappropriate and adopt for themselves such notions as humanism and freedom are the real fascists, no matter if they always use to characterize others as such. When I spoke about the co-existence of monotheism and polytheism for several centuries, I was referring to the co-existence of Christianity and ancient Pagan religion. It is these two religious worldviews that co-existed for a long time until Christianity finally replaced Paganism. My point was that the conversion to Christianity was a gradual process. Christianity and ancient religion 'co-exist' from then to the present day. The matter is how they 'co-exist'. Regarding ancienty, cristianity was enforced by law over all roman occupations. As soon as it gained influence inside the imperial administration, edicts hostile to the traditional religion were released succesively by one emperor after the other. These edicts were especially targeted on hellenism ('hellenizein'-following the greek way, is specificaly mentioned as descriptive of 'paganism') because of the central place it held geographically, standing between middle-east and europe, but also due to its advanced philosophical extensions that were at the time used succesfully against christian dogmas by gentiles such as the neoplatonists. We have the notorious "De paganis, sacrificiis et templis" chapter (CTh.16.10) inside the Theodosian code of laws (438 ad) which contains 25 condemning articles to the traditional religion, the earliest dating at 320 ad by emperor Constantinos. The expressions used here by the emperors (or the commissions that composed them) are obviously polemic. Then we have the same-titled chapter 1.11 in the Justinian code of laws (529 ad) this time with 10 articles (2 of them in greek language) and with expressions that are really hateful and extreme. English translation of Iustinian code 1.11. Read under "CONCERNING THE PAGANS, THEIR SACRIFICES, AND THEIR TEMPLES". Greek translation of both Theodosian 16.10 and Iustinian 1.11, including the 2 greek articles of the latter. The prevailing of christianity was a rapid procedure and an 'inside job', done mainly on the upper classes of imperial administration. Other than this, and if we exclude the proselytizing of the ignorant masses of the poor and the slaves by the weapon of fear (the 'imminent end of the world' was used oftenly in early christian rhetorics), there was no smooth replacement of the traditional ways. When apostle paul visited athens in 51 ad, no one had heard of christianity before - it is written in the christian text that the athenians were wondering "ôß í èÝëïé óðåñìïëüãïò ï ôïò ëÝãåéí;" (what does this gossiper want to say?). From that time to the time of the first imperial edicts there are less that 3 centuries, a very short time for a nation to change its religion, during which we also cannot say if christianity was indeed being adopted by the greek people.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Oct 18, 2005 17:16:31 GMT -5
A few points:
1) Christianity and paganism did not co-exist from ancient times until today. Paganism became extinct. The modern manifestations of paganism (neo-paganism, heathenism, dodecatheism, etc.) should not be equated with ancient polytheism. They are not manifestations of an ancient tradition which co-existed with Christianity (in however diminished form) since antiquity.
We should differentiate between real traditional paganism tht has survived from antiquity (e.g., the Zoroastrians of Iran) in diminished form, and the re-invention of paganism that occurs in some Christian nations.
2) Christianity and paganism did co-exist for several centuries. Three+ centuries passed from the emergence of the first Christian communities to the adoption of Christianity as a state faith in the Roman Empire. Even after that event, pagans continued to exist for several centuries until their traces are lost. So, while the rate of Christianization was not constant, it is inaccurate to speak of Christianization as pertaining to the events around the time of Theodosius and Constantine only.
|
|
Dean
Full Member
Truth Before Ego
Posts: 245
|
Post by Dean on Oct 18, 2005 19:15:14 GMT -5
I'm no expert on religion, but didn't Christianity adopt some pagan elements, i.e. the personification of God, Christ and saints in art? When you attend a Greek Orthodox church you see the pictures of Christ and the saints painted on the ceiling and walls. It's forbidden for Jews to personify God in art. How would Christ react, being a Jew, if he went to a Christian church and saw the paintings of himself, God and the saints?
I read sometime that there was a battle in Byzantine times between iconoclasts (people who wanted to purge the church of depictions of divine figures) and iconodouls (people who wanted to keep the depictions in churches).
I wonder if Christianity was easier to adopt by ancient peoples if they could incorporate what they were very accustomed to and revered--the depiction of their gods in art.
|
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Oct 19, 2005 14:34:38 GMT -5
According to the first point:
We have scarce evidence of christian presence in Mani (southern Pelloponese) and its nearby territories up until the second half of 10th century ad, when the monk Nikon metanoite arrived there to proselytize the population. He met resistance from the locals and founded two christian churches. Then around 1400, the polytheist and platonic philosopher Georgios Plithon choosed the same place for his residence after leaving Constantinople. In his epistle to byzantine emperor Manuel Palaiologos he differentiates using the name 'hellenes' (while in the vast majority of byzantine writings the name 'graikoi' was used) and he writes on behalf of a people: "ÅóìÝí ãáñ ïõí ùí çãåßóèå ôå êáé âáóéëåýåôå ¸ëëçíåò ôï ãÝíïò, ùò Þôå ç öùíÞ êáé ç ðÜôñéïò ðáéäåßá ìáñôõñåß." "We over whom you are ruler and king are of Hellenic decent, as our language and our traditional paideia testifies."
Today the traditional religion is quite alive in its popular form (laiki morfi), through a multitude of customs. F.e: at the start of spring, in villages all around the continent and the islands, erotic songs are sung at 'Karnavalia', feasts which replaced the ancient celebrations of dionysos and pan. The bigger of those feasts are held in Tyrnavos and nothern Euvoia. The scoptic nature of those songs is condemned by the church and last year, popular traditional singer Domna Samiou was sued by an arch-vicar from Mesologgi, for singing those songs on a tv broadcast. In most folkish festivities that you may look, there exists an altered survival of a pre-christian custom and ethic.
In any case, the traditional greek religion has survived and evolved through the years in that given margin, left by christianity itself. Therefore the arguement that present 'neopaganism' cannot (morally) be a continuation of the 'ancient polytheistic religion', is not consistent when used by christians. If it wasn't for christianity there would be no 'neopaganism'.
According to the second point, i showed in my previous post that
a. As soon as 341 ad, imperial decree issued by Constantios B' son of Constantinos dictates: "Let the false belief be stopped and the madness of sacrifices be banned immediately. And if someone breaks the law of the divine emperor, who is our father, and the command of our grace, and dares to offer a sacrifice, let him be punished by the penalty that suits him."
Does that look like co-existence?
b. The first christian communities (in european soil) did not appear sooner than the ending of 1st century ad.
Therefore whatever presumed period of peaceful co-existence is limited to around two-and-a-half centuries.
|
|
|
Post by Hairless on Oct 19, 2005 22:57:59 GMT -5
Just a question since I have limited knowledge about pagan/neo-pagan movements in Europe. Is it true that many modern pagans are promoting old religion as a form of nationalism rather than actually practicing it? I know it may be difficult to determine people's motivations and how they actually feel, but is that a trend people have noticed? I ask only because I have seen that claimed several times but without much supporting argument.
|
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Oct 20, 2005 9:30:24 GMT -5
Is it true that many modern pagans are promoting old religion as a form of nationalism rather than actually practicing it? I understand that by 'nationalism' you mean a type of 'supremacism', black, white, or some other colour. Let me add to this the various types of schauvinism that you find in most societies, but mostly in those of 'developed', 'western' countries. In this aspect what you did see is correct. But you also need to know that the term nationalism is not descriptive of the above. Having to do with one's nation is not only something positive and noble but can be a real matter of survival, at times when people, nations and civilizations are pushed more and more into the large melting pot. As for practicing, as tautalos showed today's traditionalists do practice their religion.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Oct 20, 2005 12:42:59 GMT -5
The survival of paganism from ancient to modern times is a MYTH. The fact that there were some pagans in Laconia in the 9th century doesn't prove that paganism continued from ancient to modern times. Gemistos _became_ a pagan, he was not brought up a pagan; he was not part of a pagan tradition. He is no different than the modern neo-pagans who try to revive an extinct religion.
As for the laws outlawing paganism, they have no bearing on whether Christianity and Paganism co-existed. For example, there have been laws outlawing drugs for a century or so, but that has not led to the extinction of drug use. There have been laws against homosexuality, but that doesn't stop homosexuals from existing.
Pagans and Christians co-existed in Greece at least from the 1st century (when the first Christian communities were established) to the 6th one (when the Academy was closed). So, no, the conversion to Christianity was not abrupt, but lasted several centuries, from the time that Greece was ~100% Pagan to the time when it was ~100% Christian.
|
|