geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Nov 4, 2005 11:55:38 GMT -5
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. You resist taking a clear thesis in specific questions. You deny 'pagan' buildings being re-operative for religious purposes whereas you see nothing wrong in christian buildings operating inside the same archaeological sites. The temples of the greeks were built to be religious buildings, not 'archaeological' sites. I haven't said anything about any 'pagans' having archaeological sites in their property. In fact, just like the nature of the religion is public, the sites themselves cannot be anything but public. Holding religious celebrations in a temple (the same religious celebrations that were held in antiquity) does not require owning the temple, or anything that has to do with it. If you need to see religious sites in property, you should look the way of the orthodox church of greece inc. They can build their own temples if they want to. Agreed. This does not contradict re-building the old ones. 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. The ceremonial typical does not define religious practice as a whole. Massively killing and eating animals is part of christian religious practice. Ceremonial sacrificing of animals is part of christian culture. 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. I cannot understand your persistence in animal sacrificing. It is in the free choice and good-consience of anyone to sacrifice an animal or not. Your idea of environmental determinism is noted. Your characterization is accepted. 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". Greek religion is the worship of the gods and goddesses. Religion is not a cloth to be changed so easily, in the time-frame of a few aeons and under the persecuting of imperial laws. Not any religion and most certainly - for a plethora of reasons - not the greek one. By your own reckoning, Greek religion is relative, being determined by the environment, whereas Science is universal. I never said religion equals science. Greek religion is relative because it became by observing the greek environment. Science is universal because it became by observing the environment. And, no, pagan Greek religion is not on par with science, because science is able to make falsifiable predictions, whereas Greek religion cannot. Oracles were doing just that. Î¿Ï Î´Ïναται Παλλάς Δι' ΟλÏμπιον εξιλάσασθαι λισσομÎνη πολλοίσι λόγοις και μήτιδι πυκνή. σοί δε τοδ' αυτις Îπος εÏÎω αδάμαντι πελάσσας. των άλλων Î³Î±Ï Î±Î»Î¹ÏƒÎºÎ¿Î¼Îνων όσα ΚÎκÏοπος οÏÏος εντός Îχει κευθμών τε ΚιθαιÏώνος ζαθÎοιο, τείχος ΤÏιτογενεί ξÏλινον διδοί ευÏÏοπα ΖεÏÏ‚ μοÏνον απόÏθητον τελÎθειν, το σε Ï„Îκνα Ï„' ονήσει.
|
|
geo
Full Member
hellene
Posts: 135
|
Post by geo on Nov 4, 2005 12:25:04 GMT -5
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. To describe what most of the Greeks did most of the time would require several hours off our precious big-city time. Instead we use the concentrated knowledge of renowed scholars to give a general trace of our own affiliations and beliefs. Theology is something every one can do, but no one can do religion.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 4, 2005 14:08:57 GMT -5
You resist taking a clear thesis in specific questions. You deny 'pagan' buildings being re-operative for religious purposes whereas you see nothing wrong in christian buildings operating inside the same archaeological sites. The temples of the greeks were built to be religious buildings, not 'archaeological' sites. An ancient polytheist would have the right to protest for any buildings changing their use. Modern neo-polytheists don't have that right, nor do they have any special rights of use for these buildings. The temples belong to the Greek state, so the Greek state through its elected officials is responsible to decide what uses for them are appropriate. Incorrect, for ancient pagans it was their religious duty to perform the proper sacrifices for each occasion, and most occasions called for an animal sacrifice of some sort. Only small fringe groups such as the Pythagoreans abstained from this practice. Sacrifices were integrated into the political and social life of the city states. For example, here is what a pagan site reports regarding the Anthesteria: "The rites started with a pig sacrifice and performed at night." www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/6670/doc/fest.htmlModern celebration of "Anthesteria": www.ysee.gr/index.php?type=d&f=anthesteria2005IN CONCLUSION: I have no problem with anyone following any religion they like and believing anything they want, unless they violate the laws. What I _do_ have a problem with is when people confuse neo-polytheism with ancient Hellenic polytheism, or when they claim that the two are related as different stages of a single tradition. At most, one can say that neo-polytheism is _inspired_ by ancient Hellenic polytheism, but it is clearly a different religion altogether and should be treated as such.
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Nov 5, 2005 19:35:53 GMT -5
If neo-pagans have balls and really want to act like the pagan Greeks, then they will carry out animal sacrifices. No, they will not. Neo-pagans can really act like the pagan Greeks and still don't carry out animal sacrifices. Sallustius' book is quite clear about that. The fact(?) that Sallustius was not an Hellene is of no importance in this case, since, when he speaks about the animal sacrifices not being carried in his days, he is not stating that he is against animal sacrifices - he is, indeed, observing a fact of his age. He states that, in his days, most of the Heathen Hellenes do not perform animal sacrifices. Now, unless Sallustius is a liar, or is referring to a bunch of «barbarians who adopted Hellenic Religion», it is clear that the last real pagan Greeks did not practice animal sacrifices anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Nov 5, 2005 19:39:23 GMT -5
You resist taking a clear thesis in specific questions. You deny 'pagan' buildings being re-operative for religious purposes whereas you see nothing wrong in christian buildings operating inside the same archaeological sites. The temples of the greeks were built to be religious buildings, not 'archaeological' sites. An ancient polytheist would have the right to protest for any buildings changing their use. Modern neo-polytheists don't have that right, nor do they have any special rights of use for these buildings. Yes, they do. Those temples were made to worship the ancient Hellenic Deities. Therefore, The worship of Those Gods can and should be allowed in those buildings. The contrary of that, is religious oppression and calls for an «Ayodhya» type of reaction on the Pagans' side.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 9, 2005 12:45:59 GMT -5
Now, unless Sallustius is a liar, or is referring to a bunch of «barbarians who adopted Hellenic Religion», it is clear that the last real pagan Greeks did not practice animal sacrifices anymore.Why did the Roman emperors of the Christian age ban animal sacrifices then? If they had already been abandoned, what would be the point of banning them?
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Nov 9, 2005 14:19:21 GMT -5
Now, unless Sallustius is a liar, or is referring to a bunch of «barbarians who adopted Hellenic Religion», it is clear that the last real pagan Greeks did not practice animal sacrifices anymore.Why did the Roman emperors of the Christian age ban animal sacrifices Probably, it was just a simple formality. Some few pagans could still practice animal sacrifices, but most of them did not. Those type of things don't end in a single day.
|
|