|
|
Post by Dienekes on Oct 20, 2005 12:50:26 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. One thing is certain, modern pagans don't practice anything that remotely resembles ancient paganism. They have no temples, they don't perform sacrifices, they have no oracles, no mysteries. Their movement is an outgrowth of nature-loving Romanticism of the 19th century, and not of ancient religion which has long been extinct. |
|
omegaspan
Full Member
????? ??????? ??????, ??????? ??????
Posts: 211
|
Post by omegaspan on Oct 20, 2005 21:07:59 GMT -5
They have no temples, they don't perform sacrifices, they have no oracles, no mysteries. About the temples, they are right that the Christian Churche's wish was for them to be destroyed. As for sacrifices, no one speaks about original blood sacrifices returning to practise, and as we know from the late antiquity the larger part of organised religion were practising non-bloody sacrificing, instead they used offerings: milk, honey, a portion of the harvest etc. Sacrificial religion was used in the years of Homer and it declines gradually, since. Oracles and mysteries are some things i wont discuss right now. Well, now you re using the Orthodox Church's rotten retorics. Do you also believe Adamantios Korais was a 'worthless romantic Westerner' as our Church implies, or that he honestly wanted to educate the Christian massed under the Ottoman Empire? This phrase is true concerning the mainstream mass of the people. But those who are really involved are taking part in it originally, not by reading hell knows what. If people actually knew it wouldnt have to be like that for the large masses. The Church is doing equal amount of damage by alienating these people, cause maybe you prefer to identify to the Church as an international Romios, but all these 'paganistic' stuff are not that, they are at least half of our ethnic tradition. |
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Oct 21, 2005 11:54:50 GMT -5
Obviously, the question to be answered here is: Was christianity adopted freely by the greek people, or was it imposed on them? The second arguement is backed up by strong historical evidence, while as far as i know this is not the case with the first. The imperial codices are very important clues as they represent the legal system of a society, but they are not the only clues. A long sequence of historical events stands in agreement. A sequence that begins in 324 ad (with the banning of the local cult of Artemis in mount Athos by Constantine) and continues to the 6th century (when byzantine cronographer I. Malalas writes: "To the capitol (Constantinople) they arrested hellenes and after they showed them to common view, they burned at kynigio their books, their statues and the portraits of their miserable gods"). In 692, the penthekti synod declares a prohibition of festivities such as the ancient attic feast of Anthesteria, which means it was still celebrated. It seems the rising of christianity in greece was always a matter of legal banishment/replacement of the traditional greek polytheism. 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. Gemistos was not raised a 'pagan', but dont forget that he was born and raised in the capital, Constantinople, not the country-side. Also, ideas cannot be banned, outlawed or killed, and here, it's not only about ideas but about Idealism itself. Platonic ontology cannot be put to extinction by monks, apologists and emperors who did their mothers' or confessors' bidding. So it was, that a constantinopolite of high intelligence, given a proper classical paideia, became a platonist that could reverse the fate of hellenism from its 400-year slavery to the offspring of mongol nomad clans. 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. I agree. The laws could never extinguish the traditional religion, but they succeeded on turning the majority of people away from it. 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. Really, if there had been a free adoptation of christianity by the athenians, what was the need for platonic Academia to be closed by imperial decree? Indeed, all the institutions of a great civilization cannot be undone in a few years. I was not talking about that on previous posts, but of that period which modern christian apologists assume the adoption of christianity was happening willfully by the people. Because it's obvious that with decrees such as those of Constantios, free will stops being the issue. One thing is certain, modern pagans don't practice anything that remotely resembles ancient paganism. They have no temples, they don't perform sacrifices, they have no oracles, no mysteries. Their movement is an outgrowth of nature-loving Romanticism of the 19th century, and not of ancient religion which has long been extinct. This type of argueing is not consistent when coming from christians. 'Pagans' have no temples because christians sought into it. It's like someone who demolishes your house and then claims you cannot be the rightful owner of a non-existent house. Same for oracles and mysteries. Eleusinean mysteries were ended by an army of gothic bushmen, guided by christian monks and induced by christian imperial eunouchs. The Church is doing equal amount of damage by alienating these people The church is doing what interests them more. Like a cosmopolitic ideology it has no country and nation. It's an organization parasitic on the bodies of countries, and its sole purpose is the prolongation of its own welfaring. |
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Oct 23, 2005 11:05:28 GMT -5
Is it true that many modern pagans are promoting old religion as a form of nationalism rather than actually practicing it? 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. Right on the mark. |
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Oct 23, 2005 11:26:41 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. One thing is certain, modern pagans don't practice anything that remotely resembles ancient paganism. They have no temples, they don't perform sacrifices, That's not accurate. Modern reconstructionists try to practice ancient religions as similar as possible to what use to be done in the remote past. Neither oracles nor mysteries are important to the practice of the ancient traditional worship of the main Deities. Actually, the interest for the pre-Christian past started to be manifest in the Renaissance, in the XIV century - by then, it was the most well known European past that was being revived, i.e., the Greco-Roman heritage. Later, the Celtic and Germanic, and, also, Slavic and Baltic memories started to awake, and that was the ethnicist part of Romanticism. Indeed, the old practices were extinct, but not the Gods, Who are Immortal - and thus, Their voice is now being listened again, getting stronger year after year. |
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Oct 23, 2005 11:55:03 GMT -5
I agree. The laws could never extinguish the traditional religion, but they succeeded on turning the majority of people away from it. Really, if there had been a free adoptation of christianity by the athenians, what was the need for platonic Academia to be closed by imperial decree? Indeed, the laws have some importance and can mantain a given folk submitted for a long time. It is something similar to what is happening today with racism and raacialism - it is basically forbidden in most parts of Europe, and yet, it is still alive in lots of people's minds, but not strong enough to be represented in political parties, because the establishment does not allows it. The ruling politicians and the owners of the midia, state several times that the folk is anti-racist - but if they aren't afraid of the folk's real opinion about the issue, why do they have to forbid the racist political alternative? So, would it be right for a future historian to say that political correct ideology annihilated racism in the West at the end of the XX century? Not really. This commentary above is not aimed to talk about politics, but just to give an example of how the laws can be relevant for the future of a given folk. Precisely. Again, a political example - internationalist ideologists state that one can not desire to expell the non-Europeans of Europe because there are already too many non-European immigrants in Europe - but it was they, the internationalists, that created that situation. quote author=omegaspan board=philosophy thread=1125529118 post=1129860479]The church is doing what interests them more. Like a cosmopolitic ideology it has no country and nation. [/quote] Quite right. However, most of the Christian churches, if not all, usually use the title «national» in order to make believe that they represent the nation, and thus, that Christianity is «the national religion». They do it in Greece, and also in Russia, and in Spain, in Itally as well, and also in Portugal. It's sheer dishonesty, but to them everything is correct if it's for the victory of Christ against any other possibility of religious creed. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Oct 23, 2005 23:17:47 GMT -5
That's not accurate. Modern reconstructionists try to practice ancient religions as similar as possible to what use to be done in the remote past. Show me one picture of a group of modern reconstructionists sacrificing an animal at an altar. It is not up to you to decide what is important and what is not. Oracles and mysteries were a central part of ancient religion. I'm sorry to break it to you, but the Gods don't exist. The Sun is a G-class star made mostly of helium and hydrogen, it is not a "God". Today, the Gods can be viewed only poetically, no one can believe in their literal existence. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Oct 23, 2005 23:35:54 GMT -5
Obviously, the question to be answered here is: Was christianity adopted freely by the greek people, or was it imposed on them? The second arguement is backed up by strong historical evidence, while as far as i know this is not the case with the first. This is a false dilemma. As I said above, some Greeks adopted Christianity voluntarily, some Greeks adopted it out of calculation (because it was the new status quo), and some adopted it because pagan practices had become illegal. It is not an either-or question. It means that the laws which outlawed paganism were not vigorously enforced, if three centuries after Christianity became the official religion, there were still pagans in the Empire. Gemistos' system is very far from classical Greek religion. It is a mix of Greek, Christian and oriental influences. He invented a new religion, he did not restore the old one. The Academy is not representative of the general Greek or Athenian population. It was an intellectual institution with an international student/professor body. The point is that modern polytheists don't practice anything resembling authentic ancient polytheism. Even if Christians were 100% responsible for the demise of ancient polytheism, that does not alter the fact that ancient polytheism _did_ decline, and its practices have stopped. So, there is no continuity between ancient polytheism and modern polytheism. I personally have no problem with anyone following whatever religion they like. I only object to the idea that modern polytheism, an invented, non-traditional religion represents "authentic" Hellenism, while Christianity does not. No matter what one thinks of it, Christianity has been the traditional religion of Greeks for many centuries, just like various ancient polytheism was the traditional religion before that. But, modern polytheism is a new religion _inspired_ by the ancient one, it is not a continuation of it. Of course, it is _possible_ (however unlikely) that modern polytheism may replace Christianity, and over many generations may become a new traditional religion. That, however, does not alter the fact that it is not a continuation of the ancient religion, and that at present it is an ideology and not a traditional religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Oct 24, 2005 5:14:19 GMT -5
That's not accurate. Modern reconstructionists try to practice ancient religions as similar as possible to what use to be done in the remote past. Show me one picture of a group of modern reconstructionists sacrificing an animal at an altar. First, there is no need to sacrifice animals when one wants to reconstruct ancient rituals (at least, for the Roman and the Hellenic cases). Also, you can search yourself on the internet for the word «Reconstructionist». And it is not important to you to decide what is important and what is not. Specially, because you are a Christian. Not really. There was no obligation to consult Dodona or Delfos in order to practice the traditional religion of the city. As for the mysteries, they concerned a given type of religiosity, of pre-Hellenic root, different and independent from the worship of the great Deities of the city, such as Zeus, Athena, Hera, Apollon, etc.. Is there any reference in the Iliad to the Goddesses and Gods of the mysteries? Not many. And that's for Greece. Because in Rome, the mysteries were foreign. I'm not sorry to tell you that you have absolutely no authority of any kind to determine what exist and what does not exist beyond (and before...) the sky. That's the material aspect of the Sun. As for the Gods, They are incorporeal. So, beyond the material aspect, the Sun is a sign of the Divine Light - and in the Sun, there is a Divine presence. That's pagan theology. Read Julian. Moreover, the Sun Itself (Helios, Sol) was never too important in the Indo-European religions, except as an attribute of important Gods. Wrong again. The Gods can indeed - and should, I say - Be seen as having a literal existence, independent of people's minds, as there is no proof of the contrary. |
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Oct 24, 2005 5:58:45 GMT -5
It means that the laws which outlawed paganism were not vigorously enforced, if three centuries after Christianity became the official religion, there were still pagans in the Empire. So, you say that the laws can be effective in erasing a given religion. Is that it? Also, what the Christians do today is not what they use to do two thousand years ago. Does that mean that the Christians of today are not real Christians? What about the protestants? Actually, it didn't. It «was» declined by Christianity. In the last years of Pagandom, there was no real sign of religious decline. In fact, Christianity does not represent any ethnic tradition at all. Not even the Jewish one, which is the closest. How much time of practice does a religion need in order to considered a traditional religion? |
|
omegaspan
Full Member
????? ??????? ??????, ??????? ??????
Posts: 211
|
Post by omegaspan on Oct 24, 2005 5:58:55 GMT -5
Today, the Gods can be viewed only poetically, no one can believe in their literal existence. Only poetry can save the Human Race.. Exactly what we need. An ideology. When traditional religions pass their deadline of expiration, and become corrupt and detached from the people, and materialismus takes the upper hand, the people will seek refuge naturally to the ever-existing platonic World of Ideas, thus seeking a new ideology....that will restore their health. |
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Oct 24, 2005 7:20:34 GMT -5
When traditional religions pass their deadline of expiration, and become corrupt and detached from the people, and materialismus takes the upper hand, the people will seek refuge naturally to the ever-existing platonic World of Ideas, thus seeking a new ideology....that will restore their health. And from that superior realm of the Essences (of the Gods, after all...), the timeless spiritual liquor will flow, renewing the spiritual life of Europe. |
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Oct 24, 2005 8:47:28 GMT -5
Show me one picture of a group of modern reconstructionists sacrificing an animal at an altar. My opinion on animal sacrifices is that we modern people are too 'full' (hortatoi) to sacrifice an animal. I'm sorry to break it to you, but the Gods don't exist. The Sun is a G-class star made mostly of helium and hydrogen, it is not a "God". I fail to see where being a g-class star negates being a god. Doesn't that strip the physical world of its godly qualities? Are there no godly qualities in this world then, in your opinion? This is a false dilemma. As I said above, some Greeks adopted Christianity voluntarily, some Greeks adopted it out of calculation (because it was the new status quo), and some adopted it because pagan practices had become illegal. It is not an either-or question. Ok i'll re-make the question to be more precise: Was christianity adopted freely by the majority of greek people, or was it imposed on them? Majority-minority is an either-or question. It's a question about power balances in the circles of authority, their motives, their practices and how they come to shape everyday reality (in which either-or questions do emerge). And beyond that, it's a philosophical discussion concerning the very nature of us, our european kin and such of the rest world that is toiling under the reign of universal religions. It means that the laws which outlawed paganism were not vigorously enforced, if three centuries after Christianity became the official religion, there were still pagans in the Empire. Perfectly natural that 3 centuries after Christianity became the official religion pagans still existed. 'Pagans' shall exist as long as there are people living close to nature. Hellenic religion is something the nature (environment) of hellas dictates to people. It's the natural way of living in a given environment and it comes from the inside to the outside. If someone went to a desert tribe and tried to make them worship a sea-god would they listen to him? No, because their way of living doesnt include the sea. Similar is the case of monotheism in Europe. Also bear in mind that in those times, central authority did not have the means to totally impose its way on people. There was minimal infrastructure, slow rates of information flow, little means of transportation etc. Christianity was spread faster in the urban centres, because there people's interaction with authority was more direct. Gemistos' system is very far from classical Greek religion. It is a mix of Greek, Christian and oriental influences. He invented a new religion, he did not restore the old one. Firstly gemistos makes philosophy, not religion. Ethnical religion cannot be 'made' by one man, but is shaped by an Ethnos through millenia of years. Secondly, I wouldn't call it 'very far'. The structure and basic principles are based on platonic philosophy. Making new philosophical systems (that nevertheless are based on fundamental elements, like the perpetuality of kosmos) is perfectly greek. Philosophical schools of thought were called 'aireseis' (heresies) in ancient greece and were perfectly legitimate. The Academy is not representative of the general Greek or Athenian population. It was an intellectual institution with an international student/professor body. That is correct, but it does not explain why academia was closed by imperial decree. The point is that modern polytheists don't practice anything resembling authentic ancient polytheism. That is wrong. Our knowledge on what a ceremony was like is enough to reconstruct it. Ploutarch in 'Vioi Paralliloi' (Parallel Lives) describes rather accurately the ceremony that was taking place at Plataies, in memory of those who had fallen on the battle (mnimosynon). Today we speak the same Orphic hymns, offer the same offerings and above all, honour the same heroes. Something that, judgeing by the absolute desolation that reigns in places like the tombes of Salamis and Plataies, those who like to be called 'ellino-christians' are not so eager to do. To the rest i have already commented. I want to thank diinekes, tautalos and omegaspan for keeping this discussion in a high level. I only complain that the great pan has not yet posted a poem of his.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Oct 30, 2005 1:58:56 GMT -5
My opinion on animal sacrifices is that we modern people are too 'full' (hortatoi) to sacrifice an animal. But: (a) the sacrifices are for the gods, so it doesn't matter whether or not the people are 'full' or not, and (b) the ancient Greeks were well-fed too, but they did sacrifice animals. The sacrifice of an animal is the central religious practice of ancient religion. We can be awed by the sun, but we don't have to call it a "god". The ancients deified things that were important to them, and which they could not explain. Now that we have an almost perfect understanding of how the sun works, we can still marvel at it, but we can't really consider it divine. It's no different than a nuclear explosion or a falling rock, subject to the same set of rules. Christianity was adopted by some by conviction, and by others by convention. Very few people became Christian by force. This "nature-loving" ideal is a Romantic myth, it is not authentic ancient religion. Yet, there were Greek pagans all over the Mediterranean and Asia, in very different environments, and there were also non-Greek religions practices in Greece. In fact, Greeks have practiced a non-pagan religion (Christianity), and our neighbors living in a similar environment practice another non-pagan one (Islam). So, I see no connection between the Greek environment and Greek pagan religion, as the latter was practiced in non-Greek environments, and the former was host to non-pagan religions. Well, the basic religious ritual of the Ancient Greeks was the ritual sacrifice of an animal at an altar. We have enough information to reconstruct this ritual for sure, but I have not seen any modern practitioners perform it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Oct 30, 2005 2:06:21 GMT -5
Not really. There was no obligation to consult Dodona or Delfos in order to practice the traditional religion of the city. As for the mysteries, they concerned a given type of religiosity, of pre-Hellenic root, different and independent from the worship of the great Deities of the city, such as Zeus, Athena, Hera, Apollon, etc.. Is there any reference in the Iliad to the Goddesses and Gods of the mysteries? Not many. You are misinformed. There was a great need to consult the oracles. In fact, most citizens and cities always consulted the oracles before undertaking any serious decision. All Greek colonies were founded after consulting an oracle. The mysteries were very important too. That is why everyone took part in them, and most initiates reported that they were a life-changing experience. This is why neo-paganism is doomed, because it is focused on some external aspects (hymns, etc.), avoids some aspects that are no "fun" (e.g., animal sacrifices, divination by inspecting the guts of the sacrificial victim), and is almost completely ignorant about the mystical/esoteric aspects of ancient religion (oracles/mysteries). |
|
