|
|
Post by Tautalos on Oct 30, 2005 13:02:10 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. What is known for sure is that the ancient religion could still be practiced without sacrificing animals, as Sallustius tells in his masterpiece «On the Gods and the World», written in the fourth century a.d.. But we can see the presence of the Divine in it. Like Julian said, «Plato calls Gods to the visibles, the Sun and the Moon, the stars and the sky, but these are only images of the invisible Gods: the Sun, that shows himself to our eyes, is the image of the inteligible Sun that does not appear to us (...)» in «Against the Galileans», a book written in the fourth century as well (since Julian died in 363). Yes, we can. We can see that the Divine is in it. And so? Many became Christian by force; and many became Christian by politics, without knowing the real meaning of Christianity. One way or another, it is religion, based on the essential - the worship of the ancient Gods. This is beyond the concepts of «ancient» or «new» - the Gods are eternal and the worship of These Gods can assume different aspects, according different eras. |
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Oct 30, 2005 13:13:03 GMT -5
There was a great need to consult the oracles. In fact, most citizens and cities always consulted the oracles before undertaking any serious decision. That's a different matter. It is obvious that, if they had the oracles available, they would obviously consult them. But there was no mandatory rule to either consult the oracles or just giving up the religion. That would be absurd. People consulted oracles for their own convenience, not because the Gods would be mad at them if they didn't do it. Everyone? Weren't they secret? Was there any religious law to initiate everybody? I don't think so. Also, the main Deities of the mysteries were Demeter and Dionysos. Interestingly enough, They were not even mentioned neither in the Illyad nor in the Odissey. This external aspects were the essence of religion, specially in Rome. And are not needed as well, as one can see by reading Sallustius. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Oct 31, 2005 3:09:31 GMT -5
What is known for sure is that the ancient religion could still be practiced without sacrificing animals, as Sallustius tells in his masterpiece «On the Gods and the World», written in the fourth century a.d.. Sallustius is hardly an authority on what Hellenic religion was all about. He was a barbarian from the time of paganism's decline. Of course, people are free to follow him or anyone else for that matter, but let's not call that Hellenic polytheism. I hate to break it to you, but there is no "intelligible Sun". The Sun is what happens when a mass of hydrogen gas of apporpriate mass finds itself under the pull of gravity. No one can seriously believe in 2005 that the Gods exist as actual entities. The only possible polytheism is a metaphorical Jungian-like appreciation of the Gods as symbols. |
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Nov 1, 2005 14:26:15 GMT -5
But: (a) the sacrifices are for the gods, so it doesn't matter whether or not the people are 'full' or not The sacrificed animal is eaten just like animals that are eaten by people. The parts of the animal that cannot be eaten are burned at the pyre (olokautoma). Omiros (with the language of a poet) says the gods are pleased by the rising smell of roasting meat. The meaning of a sacrifice is to give back from those given to you, to repay. Today goods are not given to men, but rather seized by men and exploited to an unnatural degree. We modern big-city people are the products of this system and it would be rather hypocritical to feel that kind of 'religious' gratitude, save to further filling the slaughterhouse with animals. But this is my opinion of course. I'm not a vegetarian, i eat meat if not very oftenly, as i always watch my diet. 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. This marveling is in the core of religion. Observing the light-phasma of a ball-shaped nuclear reactor 150 million km away does not keep us from marveling (as omiros says) at the shield-bearer who rises in defiance of darkness. Chemically analyzing fragments of CaCO3 and MgCO3 does not keep us from marveling in sight of the beauty of the marble statue. Putting under our microscopes molecules and organic compounds does not keep us from marveling at the phenomenon of life. Logic and knowledge do not have to contradict the notion of the term 'religion'. This marveling is the cause of polytheism, and not the "lack of knowledge that the ancients had for nature", which is as romantic a myth as the one you attribute to us. 'The ancients' (the greeks) had about 3 thousand river and lake gods and godesses and i dont think they could not explain how a river or a lake works. Christianity was adopted by some by conviction, and by others by convention. Very few people became Christian by force. Outlawing is imposing by force. Outlawing opens the road to destroying and persecuting. Some historically affirmed destructions by christians are: 1. The demolition of the Asklepeion of Athens (450 ad- the ruins of the byzantine church that was built on the site are dated to the same period, as does the 'modification' of nearby Parthenon to a church). 2. The spoilage of the ancient temple of Palaiopolis at Kerkyra (found at the place, the inscription IG IX.1 no.721 reads: "With royal faith to accompany me through my passions, for You most highly blessed, this holy church I built / destroying the yards of temples and the altars of Hellenes / from his humble hand, Iovianos dedicates this gift to a King"). 3. The demolition of he temple of Zeus at Nemea (prof. Miller showed that most of the temple's columns and wall-blocks were used as building material for the nearby christian basilica). To these must be added the huge 4th century limekiln that was found at Samothrake, in which many parts of the sacred site's buildings and temples were melted into lime. The practice of melting marble into lime was common and expanded well into the years of turkish occupation, and over to the most remote regions of greece. The 'easy' christian practice of ruining sacred hellenic sites, has been the 'transformation' of the temple into a church. This was preceded by the desecration of the sacred site by the method of burying dead: christians used to bury their dead within the temple's vicinity, something that to the traditional faith was considered 'miasma' and caused the site to be sacred no more. In Athens alone, such cases were the temple of Ifaistos at Thisseion ('modified' into church of 'st. george' with its entrance reversed from east to west), the temple of Demeter and Kore near Illissos river (made into church of 'panagia tis petras'), the monument of Thrasillos ('panagia spiliotissa'), the Erechthion (made into 'church of holy trinity' in 7th cent. ad), the Parthenon ('panagia atheniotissa'), as well as the sacred caves around acropolis like that of Pan ('saint athanasios'). This "nature-loving" ideal is a Romantic myth, it is not authentic ancient religion. Ancient religion is the worship of nature. Yet, there were Greek pagans all over the Mediterranean and Asia, in very different environments, The general environment is that of north-eastern mediterranean. There is minor environmental difference between the hellenic peninsula and asia minor (Ionia) or southern italy. and there were also non-Greek religions practices in Greece. Always inside the frame dictated by religious tolerance and under the laws of the polis. In fact, Greeks have practiced a non-pagan religion (Christianity), and our neighbors living in a similar environment practice another non-pagan one (Islam). Exactly. As non-pagan, universal religions, christianity and islam have no connection to their environments. 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. Animal sacrifices were made in the greater festivities. The 'basic' of the offerings were fruits, milk, honey, wine, various pies etc. 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. You're right, oracles were consulted when important decisions needed to be made. This hasn't got much to do with common religious practice though. 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). The oracles, the mysteries and what you call ancient religion were themselves developed over time. So logically, that which you call neo-paganism, may develop in a similar way. You may say that times have changed, but still one cannot keep times from changing. People always looked to the past to guide themselves into the future. Sallustius is hardly an authority on what Hellenic religion was all about. He was a barbarian from the time of paganism's decline. Of course, people are free to follow him or anyone else for that matter, but let's not call that Hellenic polytheism. Sallustius is serious neoplatonism. Having a non-greek descent (if by 'barbarian' you imply that) does not hinder someone from philosophein and theologein. Nevertheless philosophy and theology do not identify to religion and mythology. No one can seriously believe in 2005 that the Gods exist as actual entities. The only possible polytheism is a metaphorical Jungian-like appreciation of the Gods as symbols. Define actual entities. If jung is an actual entity and he 'made' 'the symbols', then can we say that the opposite is possible too? |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 1, 2005 21:56:42 GMT -5
A few points:
1. I still haven't seen any justification for the reluctance of modern pagans to perform animal sacrifices. First of all, I don't see where you get the idea that animals were sacrificed only in major religious holidays (read the Iliad if you think otherwise). In any case, this still doesn't explain why sacrifices are not carried out. Presumably, if the neo-pagans reinstitute e.g., the Olympic festival, they will accompany it with ritual sacrifices of bulls, etc. I would applaud such a decision, since it would show that they are _real_ reconstructionists, but I seriously doubt that we will see regular sacrifices from neo-pagans any time soon. Of course, the reluctance to perform sacrifices is in itself a product of the Christian nature of the West which has outlawed animal sacrifices for so many centuries, replacing them with the bloodless eucharistic sacrifice. But, of course, neo-pagans cannot admit that it is Christian culture that has made them squeamish about sacrificing animals, so they have to invent rationalizations for this reluctance.
2. Marvelling is not in itself religious. I marvel at the Space Shuttle going into space, but I don't worship it or have religious feelings towards it. It is a magnificent wonder, just as the sun is a magnificent wonder, but that is not the basis of a religious experience. The religious experience is based on what is beyond human control and understanding. For an ancient man, the Sun was beyond understanding and was worshipped, but for modern man it is perfectly understood. Modern man cannot marvel at the sun in the same way as ancient man, because for us the Sun is no mystery. It is still impressive, but doesn't cause quite the same emotional response.
3. "Outlawing" is not black or white. There are shades to "outlawing". In recent years, smoking has been outlawed or marginalized, and smokers are in decline, but this doesn't mean that smokers are under persecution. Many have decided to abandon smoking voluntarily and intentionally, a few have had run-ins with the law or the authorities when they smoked when/where they were not supposed to, and the great majority is moving towards a non-smoking behavior because this is the new normative behavior of society.
4. Ancient religion is _not_ the worship of nature. Of course, ancient peoples worshipped various phenomena which they did not understand, but they had _nothing_ like the Romantic sentimental environmentalism of modern people.
5. The environment is _not_ correlated with religion. For example, Cyprus is much more similar to Israel climatically, yet one was Hellenic pagan and the other was monotheistic. Even the Hebrews lived among people with extremely different religions than their own, and the Greeks lived among people with different religions throughout the Mediterranean and Black Sea and all the way to India.
6. Oracles _were_ important to ancient Greek religion. Consulting an oracle was not like going to a psychic today, but was a religious act of the highest significance. Of course, modern neo-pagans may develop their own oracles and mysteries, but the point is that these are not a continuation of the ancient ones. The ancient oracles and mysteries are lost forever.
7. If we want to understand what Hellenic polytheism was all about, we will definitely not rely on the opinions of a single late pagan of barbarian descent that happened to write in the Greek language, but we will see what the Greeks actually thought and did while they were pagan. And, the conclusion is clear, that with the exception of the Pythagoreans, the Greeks had always held animal sacrifice as the central part of their religious practice.
8. Actual entities are entities which exist independent of consciousness. Electrons and trees for example, exist even if there is no human mind to perceive them. "Gods" don't have that kind of existence, but can only exist as concepts within a conscious mind. The human mind creates Gods, ideas, languages, etc. but it doesn't create stars, rocks, animals, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Nov 1, 2005 22:08:41 GMT -5
<<ritual sacrifices of bulls>>
Dienekes ,don't they still practice this age old tradition on Crete today?
My stance on the ancient gods,was that their where just archaic Kings or shamans that where deified by later generations.Alot of ancient theorist and philosophers questioned the very existence of their own gods during their day aswel.
In order to be true with paganism,you would also have to startup the Human sacrifices and bestiality...I dont support such insanity!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Nov 2, 2005 0:11:52 GMT -5
What is known for sure is that the ancient religion could still be practiced without sacrificing animals, as Sallustius tells in his masterpiece «On the Gods and the World», written in the fourth century a.d.. Sallustius is hardly an authority on what Hellenic religion was all about. He was a barbarian from the time of paganism's decline. No, he wasn't. He was a genuine practitioner of the traditional Hellenic Polytheism - and is certainly more of an authority on the matter than any contemporary Historian. Also, Paganism was not in decline. Yes, let's call that Hellenic Polytheism, for that is the worship of the Hellenic Deities according the contemporary rituals of that time - not «reconstructions». I don't hate to break it to you, but you have absolutely no authority or even credibility to state what exists or do not exists in the superior realms of the Being. Yes, many people can seriously believe that the Gods exist as actual entities, unless you are implying that the Hindus don't believe in their own Gods... Also, if nobody could believe that the Gods are actual entities, therefore, nobody could believe that Jesus and the rest of the Holy Trinity really exists outside of «Jungian models», isn't that right? |
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Nov 2, 2005 0:44:01 GMT -5
But, of course, neo-pagans cannot admit that it is Christian culture that has made them squeamish about sacrificing animals, so they have to invent rationalizations for this reluctance. They don't have to «invent» too much, really. Actually, most of the Christians in the West still eat lots of meat everyday, while in India most of the Hindus don't accept the killing of animals - not based in any Christian dogma, but on Hindu concept of ahimsa, i.e., compassion for all living things. Also, the Roman king-priest Numa, great organizer of the Religio Romana, disallowed the public rites with animal sacrifices. I guess Numa Pompilius, second king of Rome, was a Christian but didn't know. That's the difference between an original, sacralized view of reality, and a later, de-sacralized sense of existence. It is not about being beyond understanding, it's about having the Sacredness in it. A stone, a river, a tree, were not much of a mistery for the ancient men, and yet, they «were worshipped» as well (actually, it was never worship of things, but of the Divine in those things). Yes, we should rely on Sallustius opinion, because his Hellenic Polytheism was a natural continuation of the national Hellenic religion, i.e., a natural evolution of the Religion, before the pagan belief was supressed by force. Oh, two exceptions already... So, a Christian tells to contemporary Pagans: «Look, if you want to be recognized as real Pagans by me, you ought to follow the ancient choice that I tell you to follow, not that one that you prefer». Quite convinient. There was never, ever, any proof that the Gods did not have that kind of existence. Thus, your claim is absolutely baseless. I never heard of any God created by human minds. Of course that super-heroes don't count. |
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Nov 2, 2005 12:14:38 GMT -5
First of all, I don't see where you get the idea that animals were sacrificed only in major religious holidays From classical athens. Presumably, if the neo-pagans reinstitute e.g., the Olympic festival, they will accompany it with ritual sacrifices of bulls, etc. I would applaud such a decision, since it would show that they are _real_ reconstructionists, but I seriously doubt that we will see regular sacrifices from neo-pagans any time soon. If we talk on absolute terms i agree, the proper reconstruction of olympic games should include sacrificing bulls to zeus. But it should also include the removal of christian churches from the vicinity of hellenic sacred sites or the demolition of such buildings that embody building material from greek temples. Would you (as a christian) stand behind this as well? But, of course, neo-pagans cannot admit that it is Christian culture that has made them squeamish about sacrificing animals, so they have to invent rationalizations for this reluctance. It's not about any christian culture but about keeping a good-consience. Plutarch (the arch-priest of Delfoi was against animal killing) described good-consience in 'On the eating of flesh': “I deprecate not thy necessity (if such there be), but thy wantonness. Kill me for thy feeding, but do not take me off for thy better feeding.”Also, what is christian culture? It's common practice all over greece that every time the christian jesus is born or ressurected thousands of animals- lambs, pigs, cows, chicken, turkeys are killed and roasted. Can this be called a sacrifice? Besides, animal sacrifices are in the core of christian culture. The old testament is filled with them and even in the new testament, when jesus was born his parents sacrificed a couple of pigeons (luke 2:24). I marvel at the Space Shuttle going into space, but I don't worship it or have religious feelings towards it. If you equalize marvelling at the sun with marveling at the space shuttle then you're right. There are shades to "outlawing". In recent years, smoking has been outlawed or marginalized, and smokers are in decline, but this doesn't mean that smokers are under persecution. If you equalize smoking or alcohol prohibitions with the outlawing of hellenic religion then you're also right. Perhaps you need to read the codices.Ancient religion is _not_ the worship of nature. What are your arguements to support this thesis? Worship of nature is basic orphic theology. There are hymns to the sun, the moon, to each of the four winds, to the sky, the night, the sea, the earth, the stars, the clouds, the ocean and to nature herself (ymnos fyseos). The environment is _not_ correlated with religion. For example, Cyprus is much more similar to Israel climatically, yet one was Hellenic pagan and the other was monotheistic. Cyprus is an island near the nothern coastline of east mediterranean. Also, the mediterranean shores of middle east had always been inhabited by polytheists, if not settlers from greece then local followers of polytheistic cults, including hellenism. If we want to understand what Hellenic polytheism was all about, we will definitely not rely on the opinions of a single late pagan of barbarian descent that happened to write in the Greek language, Your above view of sallustios is definitely biased. Sallustios, Porphyrios, Iamblichos, Proclos were all highly educated urban polytheists, neoplatonic representatives of a continuous 1000-year old tradition of dedicated philosophic thought. If you want to understand what Hellenic polytheism was all about then you need to read Hellenic mythology, in which task writings like 'peri theon kai kosmou' will prove very helpful. Actual entities are entities which exist independent of consciousness. Electrons and trees for example, exist even if there is no human mind to perceive them. "Gods" don't have that kind of existence, but can only exist as concepts within a conscious mind. The human mind creates Gods, ideas, languages, etc. but it doesn't create stars, rocks, animals, etc. Your anthropocentric thesis is separating the effect from the cause. Your perceiving of gods as complex procedures of the mind does not include the causes of those procedures. Gods did not emerge in human mind out of nothing but were (and are) resembled in the natural world, in the world of stars, rocks, animals etc. Through accumulating experience, humans can perceive certain ways of their surrounding nature, its laws, its patterns. Then this knowledge is organized into symbols and made into mythology and religion. Mythology and religion would not exist without the organizing human thought, but the gods would. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 2, 2005 22:50:34 GMT -5
Your opinion is noted. Of course I would not accept modern neo-pagans destroying Christian churches. I don't think that neo-pagans should have special rights over archaeological sites and materials. Greeks have never been vegetarians. In ancient times, animals were killed sacrificially and eaten, while in Christian times they were killed without any religious ceremonies. No different than the ancient festivals involving large-scale state-sponsored sacrifices and feasts. No, because it has no religious meaning. It is a celebration accompanying a religious occasion, it is not a religious act. Christian culture is not the Old Testament. The Old Testament also has polygamy and incest, but these practices have always been outlawed in the Christian church. Christian liturgical practice has never included the ritual sacrifice of animals. The shuttle is much more marvellous. Hellenic polytheism was of course a complex phenomenon. Many of its practices, such as animal sacrifices, the inspection of sacrificial victims, astrology, and other superstitions can certainly be considered as bad habits similar to smoking. Orphism was a peripheral phenomenon. Orphism was not part of the mainstream of Greek religion. THe whole world was inhabited by polytheists, by that reckoning there is nothing special about the Greek environment. And, Cyprus has a climate that is more similar to the Levant than to the Balkans. Every one of them a barbarian of the years of decline of polytheism. The laws of nature are discovered by science, not by the ad hoc personification of various natural and psychological phenomena. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 2, 2005 23:03:03 GMT -5
Oh, two exceptions already... So, a Christian tells to contemporary Pagans: «Look, if you want to be recognized as real Pagans by me, you ought to follow the ancient choice that I tell you to follow, not that one that you prefer». Quite convinient. Being a vegetarian does not make one an ancient pagan. The Pythagoreans were vegetarians, but not every vegetarian is a Pythagorean. No one today can be a Pythagorean, because Pythagoreanism is extinct and its secrets have been lost forever. So, this is not a matter of claiming that way A or B is authentic, but that both A and B have been lost forever. |
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Nov 3, 2005 5:47:03 GMT -5
Oh, two exceptions already... So, a Christian tells to contemporary Pagans: «Look, if you want to be recognized as real Pagans by me, you ought to follow the ancient choice that I tell you to follow, not that one that you prefer». Quite convinient. Being a vegetarian does not make one an ancient pagan. Being a vegetarian does not prevent one from being an ancient pagan. The Pythagoreans were vegetarians, and ancient pagans like any other. It's indifferent. The best of it was not lost forever - Sallustius' thought. |
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Nov 3, 2005 14:03:42 GMT -5
Of course I would not accept modern neo-pagans destroying Christian churches. I don't think that neo-pagans should have special rights over archaeological sites and materials. Religion-related sacrifices were in par with religion-related buildings. You accept and motivate the revival of sacrifices, whereas you characterize the sacred sites 'archeological', and reject their reconstruction as religious buildings. How original would that be, the sacrifices to the gods without the temples to the gods? Do you also characterize christian churches built in the vicinity of the sacred sites as 'archeological'? If yes, do you support that they're rendered inactive for religious practices? No different than the ancient festivals involving large-scale state-sponsored sacrifices and feasts. Agreed. No christian culture here. No, because it has no religious meaning. It is a celebration accompanying a religious occasion, it is not a religious act. Religious meaning is all over it. It is part of the religious day and it's part of christian religious practice. In such days christian fasting comfortably ends and the eating of all food (and in all quantities) is permitted. Religious practice cannot be separated from religion, just like devouring those cattle cannot be separated from not eating oil and wine on wednesdays and fridays. Christian culture is not the Old Testament. The Old Testament also has polygamy and incest, but these practices have always been outlawed in the Christian church. Christian liturgical practice has never included the ritual sacrifice of animals. So the discussion is not about christian culture after all, but about what the christian church is outlawing. Then it's not exactly 'reluctancy' that keeps the 'neo-pagans' from performing sacrifices but fear, as the outlawing continues to this day. We agree. Hellenic polytheism was of course a complex phenomenon. Many of its practices, such as animal sacrifices, the inspection of sacrificial victims, astrology, and other superstitions can certainly be considered as bad habits similar to smoking. Even so, smoking prohibitions do not include defamation, imprisonment, penal labour, corporeal punishment, loss of civil rights, confiscation of property, exile, death. Orphism was a peripheral phenomenon. Orphism was not part of the mainstream of Greek religion. The conversation is not about orphism. In the ceremony that Ploutarch describes orphic hymns were spoken. If you need, there are also Homeric hymns of the earth, sun and moon. Present your view, that traditional religion "is _NOT_ the worship of nature" with arguements. THe whole world was inhabited by polytheists, by that reckoning there is nothing special about the Greek environment. Polytheism is a general term. Religion (and civilization as a whole) differentiates according to environment. Hellenic polytheism <> germanic polytheism as hellenic environment <> germanic environment. And, Cyprus has a climate that is more similar to the Levant than to the Balkans. is more of a cultural term invented in the west. Taking the levant as a whole, cyprus is indeed more similar to 'the balkans'. Cyprus varies somewhere between terrestrial mediterranean and arid mediterranean, having summers that resemble the latter and winters that resemble the first. On the other hand, the mediterranean coastline of middle-east still holds on terrestrial mediterranean (mainly to the north) but this rapidly changes while moving south and east into desert climate. Plus, it is not an island. Both cyprus and middle-eastern coastline were homes to polytheistic cults. This was not the case with middle-eastern inland. Every one of them a barbarian of the years of decline of polytheism. According to the definition of ethnos, to be greek is to have greek descent, religion, language and ethics. They lacked greek descent. You lack greek religion. You are no more greek than them and they are no more barbarian than you. Polytheism never declined. It was persecuted. The laws of nature are discovered by science, not by the ad hoc personification of various natural and psychological phenomena. Science is discovered by observing nature, the exact same procedure that discovered greek religion (at least). |
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Nov 3, 2005 14:42:50 GMT -5
Religious practice cannot be separated from religion, just like devouring those cattle cannot be separated from not eating oil and wine on wednesdays and fridays. And meet on fridays, because of Jesus' death. |
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 3, 2005 20:47:53 GMT -5
Religion-related sacrifices were in par with religion-related buildings. You accept and motivate the revival of sacrifices, whereas you characterize the sacred sites 'archeological', and reject their reconstruction as religious buildings. Incorrect. I don't "motivate" neo-pagans to perform sacrifices, I simply state that they should have temples and perform sacrifices _if_ they want to resemble ancient Greek pagans. Of course there is no question of Christian churches or archaeological sites being given to neo-pagans, since these are not the property of neo-pagans. They can build their own temples if they want to. Last time I checked, cattle is not killed by cutting its throat by a priest while the onlookers shout and the blood is not collected in the altar. If you don't "get" the difference between ritual animal sacrifice and eating meat, then I can't quite explain it to you. Incorrect. No one is outlawing the killing of animals. Neo-pagans could very well congregate and perform animal sacrifices if they wanted to. People kill animals every day all over Greece, so animal-killing is not illegal. If neo-pagans have balls and really want to act like the pagan Greeks, then they will carry out animal sacrifices. Otherwise they're just full of hot air. Your idea of environmental determinism is noted. I don't lack Greek religion; Greeks changed their religion several centuries ago. I don't acknowledge any stage in the religious development of Greece as "authentically Greek". In any case, the point is that if we want to speak of ancient Greek pagan religion in general, we must speak of what most of the Greeks most of the time did, and not nitpick some ideas from some Greek speakers of barbarian origin from the late period of paganism. By your own reckoning, Greek religion is relative, being determined by the environment, whereas Science is universal. And, no, pagan Greek religion is not on par with science, because science is able to make falsifiable predictions, whereas Greek religion cannot. |
|
