PDA

View Full Version : Halloween Costumes



Esther_Helena
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 08:21 AM
http://www.lrpstore.com/dept.asp?dept_name=Lord+of+the+Rings

Almost makes me wish I was a guy...I'd look rather odd in a Boromir costume :P

I love Halloween :D

btw, does anyone know where I could get elf ear tips, that are NON latex... grrr...:cuss


Sooo... anyone else dressin' up, or dressing thier kids up?

Stríbog
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 08:56 AM
Sorry, but this LOTR crap is getting old. I've seen far too many losers (think "comic book guy" on the Simpsons) dressing up in those costumes and playing with foam swords. Get lives already.

I do love Halloween, though. Not sure what I am going to be this year. Definitely something to piss off the 'Amurikins.'

The Blond Beast
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 10:31 AM
By celebrating Halloween, you're playing right into the hands of the ZOG/NWO/Illuminati/Freemasons/International Jewish Financiers. :P

Esther_Helena
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 12:19 PM
who cares. If you're in America, you celebrate Free Candy... I like it b/c I can go to the Renaissance Festival in my costume, and no one stares at me like, "what the hell"

I never said I was going as anything from Lord of the Rings...waaay to cliche. Nevermind about the elf ears...

Vestmannr
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 04:39 PM
I don't know what this year myself - last year my kids dressed up as animals (a cow and a cat.) Its what they wanted. Of course, Halloween isn't Jewish - it is Catholic. I'll go to the feast of All Saints, *and* have my Halloween party. Its the European/Christian way to remember one's ancestors. Dressing up is just fun - they even have a Sauron suit out there now. ;)

Good reading on Halloween: http://www.illusions.com/halloween/

Stríbog
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 05:00 PM
Of course, Halloween isn't Jewish - it is Catholic. I'll go to the feast of All Saints, *and* have my Halloween party. Its the European/Christian way to remember one's ancestors.

Actually it's Celtic pagan (Samhain) but I won't get into another argument about what 'Celtic' actually means. ;)

Vestmannr
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 05:13 PM
Actually it's Celtic pagan (Samhain) but I won't get into another argument about what 'Celtic' actually means.

Read the link I provided: Halloween and Samhain have no direct connection to one another. Halloween comes from the Church of Rome, and was placed at that point on the calendar because of issues in Italy. Italians didn't celebrate Samhain. In any case, nothing of Halloween's celebrations is similar to the way Samhain was celebrated in pre-Christian times. Go ahead, read the article above on Halloween by the Folklorist Bethancourt. The connection of Halloween with Samhain was created by anti-Catholic Fundamentalist American Christians to attack an American practice that had everything to do with a festival entirely American in its celebration, with roots in a European religious festival normally celebrated by a Mass.

Esther_Helena
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 09:51 PM
actually this is probably what I'll be wearing around Halloween. These photos are about 5 years old.

Vestmannr
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 10:01 PM
actually this is probably what I'll be wearing around Halloween. These photos are about 5 years old.

Nice! I like :D If I can't afford anything else, I'll just put on my leine, breacan feile, and carry around my sword.

She-Wolf
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 10:26 PM
Halloween is meant to be a pagan spiritual time.

Vestmannr
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 10:40 PM
Impossible! The term Halloween is entirely Christian. Halloween is 'Hallow E'en' , Holy Evening - it is the Vigil of All Saints (All Hallow's Eve.) Samhain by the Old Calendar falls would fall around Nov. 11th, almost two weeks after Halloween.

The Sarum usage of the Roman rite contains the old Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Christian material for the Vigil of All Saints (a modern English way of saying Halloween.) If need be I can post the liturgical material for Halloween as it was celebrated on that day. Nothing 'pagan' about it.

Evolved
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 10:48 PM
Halloween is one thing I will miss about the US. They don't celebrate it here. :(

She-Wolf
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 11:13 PM
Impossible! The term Halloween is entirely Christian. Halloween is 'Hallow E'en' , Holy Evening - it is the Vigil of All Saints (All Hallow's Eve.) Samhain by the Old Calendar falls would fall around Nov. 11th, almost two weeks after Halloween.

The Sarum usage of the Roman rite contains the old Anglo-Saxon and Celtic Christian material for the Vigil of All Saints (a modern English way of saying Halloween.) If need be I can post the liturgical material for Halloween as it was celebrated on that day. Nothing 'pagan' about it.
It was a pagan celebration. I'll post something on this later on.

She-Wolf
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 11:20 PM
The Irish English dictionary published by the Irish Texts Society defines the word as follows: "Samhain, All Hallowtide, the feast of the dead in Pagan and Christian times, signalizing the close of harvest and the initiation of the winter season, lasting till May, during which troops (esp. the Fiann) were quartered. Faeries were imagined as particularly active at this season. From it the half year is reckoned. also called Feile Moingfinne (Snow Goddess).(1) The Scottish Gaelis Dictionary defines it as "Hallowtide. The Feast of All Soula. Sam Fuin = end of summer."(2) Contrary to the information published by many organizations, there is no archaeological or literary evidence to indicate that Samhain was a deity. The Celtic Gods of the dead were Gwynn ap Nudd for the British, and Arawn for the Welsh. The Irish did not have a "lord of death" as such. The Celts were a pastoral people as opposed to an agricultural people. The end of summer was significant to them because it meant the time of year when the structure of their lives changed radically. The cattle were brought down from the summer pastures in the hills and the people were gathered into the houses for the long winter nights of story- telling and handicrafts.

The Celts believed that when people died, they went to a land of eternal youth and happiness called Tir nan Og. They did not have the concept of heaven and hell that the Christian church later brought into the land. The dead were sometimes believed to be dwelling with the Fairy Folk, who lived in the numerous mounds or sidhe (pron. "shee") that dotted the Irish and Scottish countryside. Samhain was the new year to the Celts. In the Celtic belief system, turning points, such as the time between one day and the next, the meeting of sea and shore, or the turning of one year into the next were seen as magickal times. The turning of the year was the most potent of these times. This was the time when the "veil between the worlds" was at its thinnest, and the living could communicate with their beloved dead in Tir nan Og.
The Celts did not have demons and devils in their belief system. The fairies, however, were often considered hostile and dangerous to humans because they were seen as being resentful of men taking over their lands. On this night, they would sometimes trick humans into becoming lost in the fairy mounds, where they would be trapped forever. After the coming of the Christians to the Celtic lands, certain of the folk saw the fairies as those angels who had sided neither with God or with Lucifer in their dispute, and thus, were condemned to walk the earth until judgment day.(3) In addition to the fairies, many humans were abroad on this night, causing mischief. since this night belonged neither to one year or the other, Celtic folk believed that chaos reigned and the people would engage in "horseplay and practical jokes".(4) This served also as a final outlet for high spirits before the gloom of winter set in. During the course of these hijinks, many of the people would imitate the fairies and go from house to house begging for treats. Failure to supply the treats would usually result in practical jokes being visited on the owner of the house. Since the fairies were abroad on this night, an offering of food or milk was frequently left for them on the steps of the house, so the homeowner could gain the blessings of the "good folk" for the coming year. Many of the households would also leave out a "dumb supper" for the spirits of the departed.(5) The folks who were abroad in the night imitating the fairies would some- times carry turnips carved to represent faces. This is the origin of our modern Jack-o-lantern.

Celtic religion was very closely tied to the Earth. Their great legends are concerned with momentous happenings which took place around the time of Samhain. many of the great battles and legends of kings and heroes center on this night. Many of the legends concern the promotion of fertility of the earth and the insurance of the continuance of the lives of the people through the dark winter season. Animals were certainly killed at this time of year. This was the time to "cull" from the herds those animals which were not desired for breeding purposes for the next year. Most certainly, some of these would have been done in a ritualistic manner for the use of the priesthood.
Folk tradition tells us of many divination practices associated with Samhain. Among the most common were divinations dealing with marriage, weather, and the coming fortunes for the year. These were performed via such methods as ducking for apples, and apple peeling. Ducking for apples was a marriage divination. The first person to bite an apple would be the first to marry in the coming year. Apple peeling was a divination tosee how long your life would be. The longer the unbroken apple peel, the longer your life was destined to be.(9) In Scotland, people would place stones in the ashes of the hearth before retiring for the night. Anyone whose stone had been disturbed during the night was said to be destined to die during the coming year.
When the potato crop in Ireland failed, many of the Irish people, modern day descendents of the Celts, immigrated to America, bringing with them their folk practices, which are the remnants of the Celtic festival observances.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5452/hallorig.html

Vestmannr
Friday, September 24th, 2004, 11:54 PM
The problem is that Halloween does *not* have roots in Samhain. Halloween began as a feast of the Roman Church in Italy, not in Gaelic territory nor in response to Gaelic pagan religion. The fact that it falls on the same day has more to do with the universality of seasonal change, and the connection of cold with death. Winter being the beginning of the 'dying season' in any area that had winters more than mild. Halloween - established by a Roman council in Rome. Samhain - Gaelic beginning of winter feast. Neither is related to the other.

The idea that 'Celtic pagan survivals' existed in Irish Catholic culture is unproven, and *highly* unlikely. Especially considering that the Potato Famine Irish had been stripped of native Irish Catholic practices and replaced it with Franciscan/Dominican Continental practices with devotion to Sacred Heart, Lourdes, Novenas, and all the things one would have never found in Irish Catholicism circa the 1500s, 1200s, 900s, or 600s.

If you'd read the link provided, you'd notice that Rowan Moonstone's 'Fluff-Bunny Wicca' version of history is critiqued as well. ;)

She-Wolf
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 12:27 AM
The info was taken from the recourses below that page. The same info comes from other sites, the same stuff. Halloween itself is actually pagan, not Xtian and some Christians refuse to celebrate it because of it's pagan origins. Regardless of the exact name and date, the season of the spirit was celebrated throughout Europe.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 03:03 AM
The info was taken from the recourses below that page. The same info comes from other sites, the same stuff. Halloween itself is actually pagan, not Xtian and some Christians refuse to celebrate it because of it's pagan origins. Regardless of the exact name and date, the season of the spirit was celebrated throughout Europe.

The truth is Halloween incoporates both Pagan and Christian elements.

It's true some Christians refuse to celebrate Halloween but it's not because they are objecting to its pagan origins. It's because they think some aspects of Halloween are "Satanic".

Anyways I'll probably be a Viking this year. In years past I have gone as a Christian Knight(Templar),Robin Hood,Spider Man, and Super Man.

Gentilis
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 03:19 AM
Impossible! The term Halloween is entirely Christian. Halloween is 'Hallow E'en' , Holy Evening - it is the Vigil of All Saints (All Hallow's Eve.)
Actually Halloween is "All Hallow's Eve", which is the eve of All Hallow's Day (November 1st).

All Hallow's Eve has nothing to do with All Saint's Day, other than the fact they represent the collision of two cultures.

Don't forget, in its campaign to convert pagan populations to christianity the catholic church transformed their local gods into saints and build early churches on sacred pagan ground. The policy of the day was assimilate what you can't destroy.

Halloween, with its emphasis on the supernatural and the macabre, marks a revival of the pagan feast of the dead -- in an albeit commercialized form. :D

Vestmannr
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 05:32 PM
The info was taken from the recourses below that page. The same info comes from other sites, the same stuff. Halloween itself is actually pagan, not Xtian and some Christians refuse to celebrate it because of it's pagan origins. Regardless of the exact name and date, the season of the spirit was celebrated throughout Europe.

You still aren't recognizing the illogic of that idea. Samhain was *Gaelic*, Halloween is *Roman* - Halloween was imported along with Roman liturgical books from Italy to Britain and Ireland, and not the other way around. Samhain had no influence on the Roman Church's decision to place All Saints at that point in the calendar. In fact, Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr pointed out that the main reason for Roman placement of All Saints and All Souls on that day was because of the oral tradition of it being the same date as Noah's deluge. When Rome founded the practice of Halloween, it was not in reference to any Roman pagan feast either - the Roman religion not being exactly concordant with the Gaelic. (Samhain isn't even universally Celtic, but only Gaelic.)

By the way 'Xtian' is meant to be an offensive term, but like Xmas actually is being very respectful as it points back to the Hellenic origins Xristos/Christ as in the Chrisma/Labarum = XP or Chi Rho. ;)

Groups that don't celebrate Halloween tend to be either: a) Protestant, which are another religion separated from Christianity, or b) Eastern Orthodox because the Eastern liturgical tradition placed their feast for the departed in the spring. Some modern bishops of the anti-Western party have told their people not to participate in Halloween, meaning the modern American drunken/drugged bash reveling in witches and vampires. American Halloween, unlike Halloween still celebrated by Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Western Orthodox, has nothing to do with Samhain, and is only indirectly descended from real Halloween - it is something rather that came out of urban squalor in places such as Baltimore. Read the link. :)

rusalka
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 06:50 PM
actually this is probably what I'll be wearing around Halloween. These photos are about 5 years old. I love the costume, Elistariel. Where'd you get it?

If I had the means to find it here I'd go around with the lady or the warrior costume. However even if they were available the real deal folk costumes cost about a couple thousand dollars, so.

I do have the dagger though! :)

Gentilis
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 08:36 PM
You still aren't recognizing the illogic of that idea. Samhain was *Gaelic*, Halloween is *Roman* - Halloween was imported along with Roman liturgical books from Italy to Britain and Ireland, and not the other way around.
I seems you are too fixated on the origins of the word Halloween.

Its like saying that Custar's last stand was fought against Punjabi warriors, because they are called "Indians". ;)

Look at the follwing customs and superstitions associated with the celebration and then tell me with a straight face they are christian in origin. :D

Charms, curses and divination:
- a rabbit's foot is good luck if the rabbit was caught on Halloween night at midnight
- if you see a falling star on Halloween, it is a sign your sweetheart is a witch
- a baby born on Halloween will be bewitched
- on Halloween night a girl who looks over her shoulder into a mirror will see the face of her future husband
- on Halloween cracking whips on hilltops keeps evil at bay

Bizzare transformation and disappearances:
- cows talk to each other and people on Halloween
- on Halloween wives and babies run the risk to being aducted for a year and a day
- on Halloween magical doors appear in tree trunks and boulders

Supernatural creatures, spirits and pagan deities:
- on Halloween goblins leave the swamp to pursue wrongdoers
- putting salt in your hair on Halloween will keep the faeries from running off with you
- on Halloween put extra food on the table for the souls of the dead to eat
- on Halloween the buning bonfires (bone fires) was supposed to warm the dead before winter and keep away evil
- blackberries were picked up until Halloween, after which wood spirits would defile and contaminate them



Samhain had no influence on the Roman Church's decision to place All Saints at that point in the calendar.
"All Hallow's Eve, or Hallowe'en was originally a festival of fire and the dead and the powers of darkness. It is the evening of 31 October, the night before the Christian All Hallow's Day commemorates the saints and martyrs, and was first instroduced in the 7th century. Its date was changed from 13 May to 1 November in the following century, probably to make it coincide with and Christianize a pagan festival of the dead."
-- Encyclopedia of Magic and Supersition

So, the church was not able to suppress the pagan beliefs in spite of Reformation, which attempted to quash the notion of the dead returning.

If, as you maintain, Halloween is of roman catholic origin, why is it the only day according to superstition on which the help of the "devil" can be invoked for the purpose of divination?

Vestmannr
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 09:19 PM
Its like saying that Custar's last stand was fought against Punjabi warriors, because they are called "Indians". ;)

Of course not, because we have extensive records of the origins of Halloween. It is quite simply as practiced an American 'folk' holiday based upon the Christian feast. The Christian feast has *no link* to Gaelic pagan practice.


Look at the follwing customs and superstitions associated with the celebration and then tell me with a straight face they are christian in origin.

Real Christianity has always had some folkish practices associated with it, depending upon region. If I read the Biblical book of Tobit, I can see burning a fish's gall will drive away a demon. 'Folk practices' of magic have always been part of the 'unofficial' practice of the Christian faith (particularly 'Catholic' or 'Orthodox').


"All Hallow's Eve, or Hallowe'en was originally a festival of fire and the dead and the powers of darkness. It is the evening of 31 October, the night before the Christian All Hallow's Day commemorates the saints and martyrs, and was first instroduced in the 7th century. Its date was changed from 13 May to 1 November in the following century, probably to make it coincide with and Christianize a pagan festival of the dead."
-- Encyclopedia of Magic and Supersition

Yes, and they should have had a better entry. "Probably to make it coincide" - though there is no evidence for any such pagan festival at the time in Rome, nor do the Church documents establishing the feast reference any such pagan festival. Even if it did, it again would be a practice of 'saining' - which the Church did when it took the altar of a folk, and consecrated it to God (which accompanied the willing conversion of the people at that time.) A common practice in those days. Most Christian feasts have such folkish practices surrounding them - connected to omens of good or ill fortune concerning money, love, war, weather, agriculture, etc. This entry shows influence from the writings of Alexander Hysslop.


So, the church was not able to suppress the pagan beliefs in spite of Reformation, which attempted to quash the notion of the dead returning.

Again - there is no direct evidence of Halloween (which is not the Feast of All Saints, but the *Vigil* of All Saints on the night before) having origins in any such pagan feast. It wasn't an issue of suppressing pagan beliefs, and the Reformation sure has nothing to do with it either. Halloween would have been considered 'Papist' by the Reformers (as it was, along with Christmas, and every other custom of the Church.) The fact is, all material claiming pagan origins for Halloween comes *entirely* from Protestant (Reformation) anti-Catholic polemics. There is no historical evidence, folklore, or otherwise for Halloween as anything more than a Christian feast entirely. The notion of the dead returning is *entirely* Catholic/Orthodox - as meeting the Saints (the dead) was a common occurence (and sometimes the damned as well, 'ghosts' who were trapped in the intermediate state). On Mt. Athos today the monks *still* often meet with and speak with saints whom have died hundreds of years past.


If, as you maintain, Halloween is of roman catholic origin, why is it the only day according to superstition on which the help of the "devil" can be invoked for the purpose of divination?

Because the 'devil' is an entirely Christian figure. :) Pagans don't have 'the devil' in their religion or folklore, only Christians do. Every religion has an exoteric (outward) side, and an esoteric side (hidden) - much of folkish practices and other anomalies (that often turn into heresies) have their origins in the esoteric side, especially when exaggerated, or perverted.

She-Wolf
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 09:54 PM
You still aren't recognizing the illogic of that idea. Samhain was *Gaelic*, Halloween is *Roman* - Halloween was imported along with Roman liturgical books from Italy to Britain and Ireland, and not the other way around. Samhain had no influence on the Roman Church's decision to place All Saints at that point in the calendar. In fact, Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr pointed out that the main reason for Roman placement of All Saints and All Souls on that day was because of the oral tradition of it being the same date as Noah's deluge. When Rome founded the practice of Halloween, it was not in reference to any Roman pagan feast either - the Roman religion not being exactly concordant with the Gaelic. (Samhain isn't even universally Celtic, but only Gaelic.)
It doesn't matter because modern Halloween, regardless of it's origin, the name and what particular day it falls upon is a pagan celebration felt at this time of year.


By the way 'Xtian' is meant to be an offensive term, but like Xmas actually is being very respectful as it points back to the Hellenic origins Xristos/Christ as in the Chrisma/Labarum = XP or Chi Rho. ;)
Thanks for telling me but I already know that. Saying "Xtian" meant no offence from here, it was quicker to type :) and I'm sure you didn't mean any offence by calling a Wiccan "fluffy bunny"



Groups that don't celebrate Halloween tend to be either: a) Protestant, which are another religion separated from Christianity, or b) Eastern Orthodox because the Eastern liturgical tradition placed their feast for the departed in the spring. Some modern bishops of the anti-Western party have told their people not to participate in Halloween, meaning the modern American drunken/drugged bash reveling in witches and vampires. American Halloween, unlike Halloween still celebrated by Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Western Orthodox, has nothing to do with Samhain, and is only indirectly descended from real Halloween - it is something rather that came out of urban squalor in places such as Baltimore. Read the link. :)
I read the link thanks. I'll post more on this later...

Vestmannr
Saturday, September 25th, 2004, 10:05 PM
It doesn't matter because modern Halloween, regardless of it's origin, the name and what particular day it falls upon is a pagan celebration felt at this time of year.

Sure it matters - because modern Halloween is *still* both a Western European Christian 'holyday', and a secular American celebration. That neo-pagans coopted it for their own religion based upon Fundie Prot Romaphobic literature shouldn't spoil their fun. ;) The Christians will still have the Vigil of All Saints/Halloween, and the Americans (Christians and Secular) will have their Halloween parties - the only two with the 'continuation' of a tradition. So, the pagans can have their festival - but as long as they understand that it is a new holiday they have based upon a Gaelic festival unrelated to Christian/secular Halloween, and based upon a particular Protestant revision of the Christian holyday.


Thanks for telling me but I already know that. Saying "Xtian" meant no offence from here, it was quicker to type :) and I'm sure you didn't mean any offence by calling a Wiccan "fluffy bunny"

Sure, but Xtian *does* have a specific usage in neo-pagan circles (including folk who call themselves Reconstructionists, Luciferians, Satanists, Pagans, Heathens, etc.) - it is meant to be derogatory, and comes from the anti-Christianism that so many neo-pagans do have (which has been rightly criticised within their own group, including the acknowledgement that the 'Burning Times' never existed, and that the folks 'burnt' were Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox - not 'Wiccans'.) I think it is because the great majority of neo-pagans come from either Protestantism, or from Protestant majority cultures (in the case they grew up Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, etc.)

Fluff Bunny is an inside joke in neo-pagan circles. I was sure that someone would get the reference, as the dependence upon Protestant anti-Catholic polemics for 'information' on a pagan past is part of what makes a 'fluff bunny' (as well as a belief in 'the Burning Times' or some utopian ancient Matriarchal society worshipping the 'Goddess' and living in harmony with nature until the 'boys' showed up and starting eating meat, shackling women, and saying Mass. ;) ) I was, after all, a Druid for awhile after I left the Protestants.



I read the link thanks. I'll post more on this later...

Excellent. At least we are discussing this. Usually I'm having this conversation with the Jerry Falwells and Black Prots and Jews screaming about how I'm 'an evil pagan' for following Halloween or going to Mass/Liturgy.

gorgeousgal2k2
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 12:30 AM
I once went as a vampire. I used to love Halloween. :)

I'm not sure whether I'll do anything for it this year. I've always wanted to dress up as a banana. :D maybe this time I'll get my chance.

Gentilis
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 02:30 AM
If I had the means to find it here I'd go around with the lady or the warrior costume. However even if they were available the real deal folk costumes cost about a couple thousand dollars, so.
The dancing couple are dressed in what appears to be traditional Georgian costumes.

If you wanted to get an original costume not expensive you'd have to travel to Tbilisi (Tiflis) during Tbilisoba.

You can also buy a kinjal (traditional dagger) there, but you might have trouble getting it out of the country. :|

TisaAnne
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 02:49 AM
Growing up, I never really "did" Halloween....My mother thinks it is Satanic, so it wasn't really incouraged....And, Halloween is my brother's birthday, so we always just did the cake and ice-cream bit.

Besides, I am a hopeless candy fanatic and could never possibly limit myself to one day of sucrose-laden indulgence...For me, everyday is candy day :D

rusalka
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 02:52 AM
The dancing couple are dressed in what appears to be traditional Georgian costumes. They are Abkhazian costumes actually, but Georgian and Abkhaz folk dresses are very similar (the men's head gear and the symbols on women's overcoats are different). In the second picture the woman is wearing a psh'i (prince) war costume. My father's side is from the Caucasus, Abkhaz-Adyghe.


If you wanted to get an original costume not expensive you'd have to travel to Tbilisi (Tiflis) during Tbilisoba. Which would be rather challenging, but I would love to. I have a lot of Georgian friends in the US but none of them seem to travel to their homeland.


You can also buy a kinjal (traditional dagger) there, but you might have trouble getting it out of the country. :| Now that I do have. :) My great-grandfather's kinjal is, albeit very old, still intact. My father keeps it though, not I. Very few people were able to take their kinjals out of the country during the exile as the Ottomans made them throw their weapons to the sea (which was a blow to the dignity of the men, of course). My great-grandfather did manage to bring it with him, however.

Home come you know so much about Georgian culture?

Gentilis
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 04:53 AM
The fact is, all material claiming pagan origins for Halloween comes *entirely* from Protestant (Reformation) anti-Catholic polemics.
"As so often happened, popupar belief and custom was given a new guise acceptable to the Church and made to serve a religious purpose. Although Protestantism undermined this position, many of the age-old associations of the season retained their vitality, and the least religious abservances survived within living memory"
-- Page 123. Welsh Folk Customs by Trefor M. Owen

Repeat after me: paganism and pagan beliefs pre-date christianity.:headbang

"Nos Galan gaeaf, All-Hallows Eve, was the weirdest of the three nights during the year; on it spirits walked abroad. It was believed tha on this eve the ghost of a dead person was to be seen at midnight on every stile; and until quite recently country children woul be afraid to go out of the house alone on this evening. In some parts of Wales the wandering ghosts took the form of a ladi wen [white lady], while in other parts, mainly in the north, it was the hwch ddu gwta [the tail-less black sow] which put terror into the hearts of men. The apparition of the black sow, in fact, was closely associated with one of the oldest Calan gaeaf customs, namely that of lighting bonfires after dark."
-- Page 123-24. Welsh Folk Customs by Trefor M. Owen

All your talk of protestants and catholics is laughable. To suggest that Halloween superstitions trace their origins back to chritianity is patently absurd. Your argument are based on nothing more than ignorance and religious chauvinism. :academic

Allow me to share something with you. On the welsh side of my family there was an aunt four generations past whom everybody kept quiet about. It turns out she was a witch, and a member of an coven no less! She wasn't a misguided christian; she was the last practing member of an indigenous religion which traces its origins back to the days of the druids.



There is no historical evidence, folklore, or otherwise for Halloween as anything more than a Christian feast entirely.
:evil
Halloween draws its lore of werewolves, fairies, brownies, elves, leprechauns, will-o'-the-wisps, little people, bugbears, banshees, witches, demons, goblins, hobgoblins, etc. from pagan sources. Period.

Long before Boniface IV, Gregory III, or Gregory IV entered the scene, my ancestors were observing "Nos Galan Gaeaf", a rite of druidic origin which means in welsh "night before winter". It was a pagan ritual that predated the introduction of christianity to Britain.

I wholeheartedly recommend you look beyond your christian sources and open you mind to the facts about the pre-christian beliefs of early Europeans.

Have a look at the following titles:

Witchcraft & Magic - The Supernatural World of Primitive Man. Arthur S. Gregor. Charles Scriber: New York, 1972

A Historical Account of the Belief in Witchcraft in Scotland. Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe. Gale Research Company, Book Tower: Detroit, 1974

Witchcraft and Supertition Record in the South-Western Distric of Scotland. Maxwell Wood. E.P. Publishing Limited: 1975

Strange Customs: How did they begin? The origins of the unusual and occult customs, superstitions and traditions. R. Brash. David McKay Company: New York, 1976

Highdays and Holidays. Margaret Joy. Faber and Faber: London, 1981

Welsh folk Customs. Trefor M. Owen. William Lewis Ltd.: Cardiff, 1974

The book of Holidays Around the world. Alice Van Straalen. E.P. Dutton: New York, 1986

British Goblins: Welsh Folklore, Fairy Mythology, Legends and Traditions. Wirt Sikes. E.P. Publishing Ltd.: Yorkshire, England 1973

The Customs and Ceremonies of Britain - An Encyclopaedia of Living Traditions. Charles Kightly. Thames and Hudson Ltd.: London, 1986

Celtic Folklore - Welsh and Manx. John Rhys. Benjamin Bloom, Inc.: New York, 1972

Esther_Helena
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 06:37 AM
my grandmother made the costume. I can't sew a stitch.

Zyklop
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 07:58 AM
This Halloween celebration might be very funny and authentic in America but seeing it spreading over to Europe makes me throw up :puke
The commerce promotes this stuff since some years over here and it looks as if it finally gets more and more attractive to the hedonist society. Now you can see verandas and balconies decorated with pumpkins everywhere, even in small villages. What an idiotic consumer mentality. If you ask anyone about Yul- or Summer solstice celebrations, which are traditional since 3,000 years, nobody knows what you are talking about.

Tifilis
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:13 AM
If you wanted to get an original costume not expensive you'd have to travel to Tbilisi (Tiflis) during Tbilisoba.

That is way too hard. The only way from here to get to Tbilisi is by the Russian aircompany of Aeroflot, who got the highest crash statistics in the world. Or taking the train from Helsingfors(Helsinki, Finnish capital), change train in first S:t Peterburg, and then change another time in Moscow, and then in Vladikavkaz. Or you could simply walk :D .

Vestmannr
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 04:30 PM
Repeat after me: paganism and pagan beliefs pre-date christianity.:headbang

According to St. Augustine, Christianity has always existed - 'paganism' may predate the organization of the Church, but still the practice of Samhain is in the wrong place to be the root of Halloween. *There is no direct connection between the two.* Much of what folk call paganism today was simply incomplete Christianity before the advent of the Christ.


All your talk of protestants and catholics is laughable. To suggest that Halloween superstitions trace their origins back to chritianity is patently absurd. Your argument are based on nothing more than ignorance and religious chauvinism. :academic

Yet we know that is exactly what happened. It is not a case of 'religious chauvinism' and definitely not of ignorance. I've *been* neo-pagan, Protestant, etc. - my religion is decided by what the truth is, and not vice versa. I wouldn't be where I am religiously today except for what I discovered in my own and other's research. Halloween superstitions are 'folkish', and they have roots in Christianity - yes. For people whom the services of the Church *are* their only catechism, such ideas developed - many of them entirely based upon Christian concepts.


Allow me to share something with you. On the welsh side of my family there was an aunt four generations past whom everybody kept quiet about. It turns out she was a witch, and a member of an coven no less! She wasn't a misguided christian; she was the last practing member of an indigenous religion which traces its origins back to the days of the druids.

Rubbish! There is no such thing as 'hereditary witches' with a continuous history. For that matter, I *am* still a Druid. Being a Druid is a matter of *caste*, not religion, and of heredity. The Druids were a proto-Christian faith, which is why they accepted it *whole*. Thus, the ArchDruids became the Archbishops of Britain. Go to Caldey Island off Tenby, ask the monks there what happened to the Druids... they simply became the Celtic Church, completing and correcting their own beliefs and practices according to the Christ (whom the Druids had foretold.) The idea of an 'indigenous witch religion' is entirely based upon the writings of Margaret Murray. Murray has long been categorized as 'pseudo-science'. There was no 'pre-Christian witch cult.'



Halloween draws its lore of werewolves, fairies, brownies, elves, leprechauns, will-o'-the-wisps, little people, bugbears, banshees, witches, demons, goblins, hobgoblins, etc. from pagan sources. Period.

Rather, those things are not 'Halloween lore', but folklore of a Christian people. Period.


Long before Boniface IV, Gregory III, or Gregory IV entered the scene, my ancestors were observing "Nos Galan Gaeaf", a rite of druidic origin which means in welsh "night before winter". It was a pagan ritual that predated the introduction of christianity to Britain.

Yes, but the 'how' they celebrated, and whether it was a 'pagan ritual' in the way that modern neo-pagans mean it is a whole other matter. The fact is that the 'pagans' of that period became Christians *willingly* because it completed their system of belief. And - Halloween entered their calendar with no reference to 'Samhain' or 'Nos Galan Gaeaf' Nos Galan Gaeaf continued *alongside* Halloween as a New Year's festival, not as a basis for Halloween - and neither as a replacement for the other. It can only be considered a 'pagan ritual' in the broadest sense in any case, as the festival was particularly *secular* - if it was specific to a religion, the Church would have done something about it. However, nothing was done.


I wholeheartedly recommend you look beyond your christian sources and open you mind to the facts about the pre-christian beliefs of early Europeans.

Been there, done that - as I've noted, most 'christian sources' have it wrong as they depend upon Hysslop and his ilk. The 'facts about ..pre-christian beliefs of early Europeans' are that we have little facts at all. The fiction of a Paleolithic religion's survival as a 'Celtic religion' that then survived 'hidden' until modern times is just that - a *fiction*. The few neo-pagans who are *not* anti-intellectual know better, and understand that the roots of the entire neo-pagan movement are with Gardner, who made up his experience with the 'New Forest Coven', but rather received his inspiration from Crowley.


Have a look at the following titles:

I'm familiar with all of those works. Most of them are dealing in *folklore* which is not the same as *religion*. Pagan religion is something quite distinct from folkish superstition. In any case, a few of the sources noted are from the Victorian period in thought, meaning that they postulate a Romantic notion of the folklore, and 'create' many things out of whole cloth (much as Iolo Morganwg did.) I'm quite in touch with my own Celtic roots - which is why I know - the modern 'Druidic' movement has no ritual, theological/ontological/teleological roots in 'pre-Christian' religion and dates only to 1717 *at the earliest.* And, that the 'old' Druid religion only survives in one place - in Episcopal Apostolic Catholic Orthodox religion of the Anglican/Celtic tradition (thus, Anglo-Catholics, Roman Catholics of those regions, and Western Rite Orthodox.)

Stríbog
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 07:37 PM
This is the place to get halloween costumes for the ladies... :D

http://www.threewisheslingerie.com/

She-Wolf
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 07:39 PM
To Frontiersman,

I noticed that site you refer to is American Christian supported/recognised by CNN and church media. You say Halloween isn't a true spirituality and you keep harping on about the Roman Catholic "All Saints" and then you go onto say that it isn't really pagan, and paganism is "incomplete christianity"!!! :-O No such thing as heridary witches? Most of them were killed during the witch hunt times, and it's evident that family members can pass down certain traits.

I've not finished yet, I'll return with more stuff.

AryanKrieger
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 07:55 PM
[QUOTE=Frontiersman]Sure it matters - because modern Halloween is *still* both a Western European Christian 'holyday', and a secular American celebration. That neo-pagans coopted it for their own religion based upon Fundie Prot Romaphobic literature shouldn't spoil their fun. ;) The Christians will still have the Vigil of All Saints/Halloween, and the Americans (Christians and Secular) will have their Halloween parties - the only two with the 'continuation' of a tradition. So, the pagans can have their festival - but as long as they understand that it is a new holiday they have based upon a Gaelic festival unrelated to Christian/secular Halloween, and based upon a particular Protestant revision of the Christian holyday.

Regradless of the time of year most Aryan cultures have an equivalent to this festival which is rooted in our pre-Christian past.To suggest otherwise is to lack knowledge or to be disingenuous.


Sure, but Xtian *does* have a specific usage in neo-pagan circles (including folk who call themselves Reconstructionists, Luciferians, Satanists, Pagans, Heathens, etc.) - it is meant to be derogatory, and comes from the anti-Christianism that so many neo-pagans do have (which has been rightly criticised within their own group, including the acknowledgement that the 'Burning Times' never existed, and that the folks 'burnt' were Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox - not 'Wiccans'.) I think it is because the great majority of neo-pagans come from either Protestantism, or from Protestant majority cultures (in the case they grew up Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, etc.)

So you are saying that there were no persecution and executions of pagans in Europe? Is that what you and Mother Church are alleging?

Fluff Bunny is an inside joke in neo-pagan circles. I was sure that someone would get the reference, as the dependence upon Protestant anti-Catholic polemics for 'information' on a pagan past is part of what makes a 'fluff bunny' (as well as a belief in 'the Burning Times' or some utopian ancient Matriarchal society worshipping the 'Goddess' and living in harmony with nature until the 'boys' showed up and starting eating meat, shackling women, and saying Mass. ;) ) I was, after all, a Druid for awhile after I left the Protestants.

Strange that I have never encountered this expression until you used it here!
It seems that you cant seem to make your mind up! Protestant? Druid? Catholic? Have you "tried" Odinism yet?
Contrary to your assertin there is evidence of a matriarchal civilisation amongst Old Europeans prior to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans[Gimbutas].

Taras Bulba
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 07:58 PM
Halloween itself is actually pagan, not Xtian and some Christians refuse to celebrate it because of it's pagan origins.

And who are these Christians? Those Evengelical nimwits who know absolutely squat about the Christian faith? :eyes

As for Halloween being "pagan", I believe Frontiersman addressed this issue very well. In fact I just posted in the thread about Celtic Christianity about how neo-pagans are trying to de-emphasize the Christianity of Europe as some kind of gloss over for paganism, and how its totally bogus from a historical and even theological viewpoint. This certainly fits well into that topic.

Vestmannr
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:03 PM
I noticed that site you refer to is American Christian supported/recognised by CNN and church media. You say Halloween isn't a true spirituality and you keep harping on about the Roman Catholic "All Saints" and then you go onto say that it isn't really pagan, and paganism is "incomplete christianity"!!! :-O No such thing as heridary witches? Most of them were killed during the witch hunt times, and it's evident that family members can pass down certain traits..

Yes, the site I referred to *has* been recognized by educated Christians, and many educated Pagans as well. CNN recognized it for being 'newsworthy' - the author is a professional folklorist.

As for Halloween being a 'true spirituality' - there is no system or religion called 'Halloween'. The American Halloween is a secular holiday. Its roots are in the Church feast of Halloween with the folkish activities alongside (exoteric and esoteric.) And yes, some 'pagan' faiths were 'incomplete christianity'... such was the stance of many of the Celtic saints, St. Augustine, Origen of Alexandria, and others.

As for 'hereditary witches' - historically we know there is no such thing. Claims of modern 'hereditary witches' are ahistorical, simply some tall tales and marketing. Those in the pagan community who have educated themselves have noted that this is so: there is no continuity in any sort of 'Witch cult'. The same goes for the 'Burning Times' - those witch hunts weren't burning any pagans, they were burning Christians, Christian heretics, and folk falsely accused. Marginalized folk were targets - it should be noted that these 'witch hunts' only happened in Western Europe, and occured alongside the emergence of the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation. http://wicca.timerift.net/burning.html - have a look, real pagan common sense on the 'Burning Times' myth.

As for 'family traits' - sure. I was born on Lughnassa, my grandfather at midnight on Samhain - we have the sean foresnai. That doesn't make us 'witches' - many Christian saints had the same ability, doesn't make us saints either (we have to work for that!)

Taras Bulba
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:04 PM
Regradless of the time of year most Aryan cultures have an equivalent to this festival which is rooted in our pre-Christian past.To suggest otherwise is to lack knowledge or to be disingenuous.

Oh yes, since there was a festivel around the same time as Halloween that must mean the bad old Christians stoled it from the pagans. :eyes



So you are saying that there were no persecution and executions of pagans in Europe? Is that what you and Mother Church are alleging?

Oh dont start with this. Religious persecutions were a part of paganism as well. Need we forget that Caesar Augustus persecuted astrologers because of his personal disgust with the practice. Oh well, guess Dostoevsky was right when he stated that Roman Catholicism was more Roman than Catholic. :eyes




Contrary to your assertin there is evidence of a matriarchal civilisation amongst Old Europeans prior to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans[Gimbutas].

LOL! Like what? Almost all literature supporting this position is absolute feminist BS(and not to mention much of it is written by Jews, what a coincidence!). Although I guess there is one thing I like about the typical argument about how the bad old Christians imposed patriarchy on the matriarchal pagans; Christianity held bring a sane social order to Europe!

She-Wolf
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:10 PM
Halloween comes from Ireland and it was called Samhain, to celebrate the time of the dead. It's been celebrated in the British Isles and Ireland for centuries, and then it migrated to America where it became what it is today, with commericalised stuff that goes with it. Of course, Christians think it was theirs!

Stríbog
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:12 PM
When did the Christinsanity cabal at Skadi grow so large? I can remember when Milesian and Tara's Vulva were the only Soldiers of YHWH here.

AryanKrieger
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:14 PM
And who are these Christians? Those Evengelical nimwits who know absolutely squat about the Christian faith? :eyes

As for Halloween being "pagan", I believe Frontiersman addressed this issue very well. In fact I just posted in the thread about Celtic Christianity about how neo-pagans are trying to de-emphasize the Christianity of Europe as some kind of gloss over for paganism, and how its totally bogus from a historical and even theological viewpoint. This certainly fits well into that topic.
It is readily acknowledged by real academics that xtianity not only did not succeed in extinguishing Aryan heathenism and its store of knowledge but that heathenism,especially Germanic heathenism heavily influenced xtianity and its practices and has done so for 1,000-1,500 years.It wasnt a one way exchange.
I draw your attention to "The Germanisation of Early Medieval Christianity" by James C.Russell.

Vestmannr
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:24 PM
Regradless of the time of year most Aryan cultures have an equivalent to this festival which is rooted in our pre-Christian past.To suggest otherwise is to lack knowledge or to be disingenuous.

There was no such feast in Rome at the time that Halloween was established. "Aryan" is an outdated and incorrect term to begin with (Aryans are in South Asia, not in Europe.) And most importantly, European cultures were not all 'copies' of each other - Frazer's 'Golden Bough' was mistaken in its idea that similar elements in various cultures had the same roots and were 'equivalent'.



So you are saying that there were no persecution and executions of pagans in Europe? Is that what you and Mother Church are alleging?

Persecutions? Only in the case of post-Schism Roman Catholicism and the conquest of the West Slavs and Balts. For most of history, persecutions were far more pagan (and Jewish) persecutions of Christians - in some instances, the execution of a pagan cum 'modern hero' was an after effect of that pagan personality's extreme persecution of Christians (like the philosopher Hypatia, where neo-pagans tend to quote only *part* of the story - leaving out Hypatia's connection to the Jews in Alexandria,and involvement with them in the mass murder and persecution of Christians.) Many of those given as examples were simply Christian heretics, like Priscillian, who was not executed by the Church but by the Roman government for issues unrelated to their heresy (in Priscillian's case, it was for treasonous acts and disturbing the peace, his execution at Magnus Maximus - the Celtic Emperor's orders, and was *protested* by the Church, especially by St. Ambrose of Milan.)


Strange that I have never encountered this expression until you used it here!
It seems that you cant seem to make your mind up! Protestant? Druid? Catholic? Have you "tried" Odinism yet?
Contrary to your assertin there is evidence of a matriarchal civilisation amongst Old Europeans prior to the arrival of the Indo-Europeans[Gimbutas].

I'm not surprised you haven't heard the term ... Reconstructionists and others who take a much more academic approach to their paganism are those who tend to use the term. For more: http://wicca.timerift.net/index.html

As for making my mind up, I'm done: I'm 'home' as a Celtic Christian of the Western/English rite in the Orthodox Catholic Church. I was raised Protestant, was a Druid, hung out with Odinists and Asatru (no need for me to be one), never was a Roman Catholic, became a Protestant minister with a Hebraist sect, then an Old Catholic, a Continuing Anglican, then Western Orthodox - where I'll stay til my death. It was a spiritual journey to 'find the path', now that I've found it I can complete it.

As for Gimbutas - she had some good points, but her postulation of a 'Feminist Europe' is so much politicizing, and misinterpretation of data. 'Pictish' matriarchy was not so much a matriarchy, as a system of inheritance for men - adopted according to the Irish chronicles as part of a treaty with the Irish on the part of the Picts. Thus, in Pictish society a woman was 'tied' to a piece of property. To own the property, the man married the woman - and the children inherited from the mother. Women were part of the property then, and a form of 'title deed' - and the relation through the female side linked them to the Irish (noting that 'Pictish' areas of Scotland are genetically no different than other parts of Gael-dom.) That is just one example - or the attempt to make artifacts like the 'Venus of Willendorf' into idols of some Mother Goddess, when most likely they were not religious artifacts at all, but more likely a sort of fertility talisman, or pornography. I'm guessing Robert Graves 'the White Goddess' is to be yet another text 'given as proof'? Gimbutas, Graves, and Murray have been replaced in modern anthropology because their theories did not pass peer review - they are considered 'fringe', 'outdated', and especially sloppy and misleading. The idea of a 'Matriarchal Utopia' in Ancient Europe is just so much fantasy writing a la Jean Auel. I believe that the idea of Matriarchal societies has been pretty well handled in other threads by Pushkin/Taras Bulba on this forum.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:33 PM
It is readily acknowledged by real academics that xtianity not only did not succeed in extinguishing Aryan heathenism and its store of knowledge but that heathenism,especially Germanic heathenism heavily influenced xtianity and its practices and has done so for 1,000-1,500 years.It wasnt a one way exchange.
I draw your attention to "The Germanisation of Mediaeval Christianity".

Yes I know about that book. And the Germanization of Christianity is highly overblown by the author. Germanization did not effect many areas of Christendom, mainly the East. An intersting enough it was the Germanized Christianity that was first to fall to liberalism and eventually Marxist "liberation theology". So much for the theory that Germanization "saved" Christianity.

In fact this is what Yggdrasil has to say about this:


http://home.ddc.net/ygg/cwar/pillar4.htm

It is no accident that the Protestant Reformation/Revolution began in Germany.

The Catholic notion of forgiveness was insupportable. Sin was immortal and could not be forgiven - ever!

Salvation could come only if each German nailed himself to a cross and perished for his sins.

Religions spread and flourish not because of their historical or theological truth, but because they are consistent with the pre-existing evolutionary psychology of the adopting group.

As Christianity drifted northward from the Mediterranean it changed in fundamental ways.

The dual code - amity and forbearance toward ones own kind and enmity towards competing groups was a given among all of Christ's contemporaries in the Eastern Mediterranean.

In Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, Christ is speaking to his followers and announces a very stringent moral code of turning the other cheek and walking the extra mile. He uses the word "brother" throughout to make clear that this code of amity is to be applied to within-group relations. It is a code of amity so demanding that only the most committed would join, thus reinforcing group boundaries. He announced a code of sexual morality so stringent as to guarantee the genetic separation of the group for generations.

In contrast to the mosaic law with its jealous god and collective guilt and punishment, the concept of sin announced by Christ was purely individual, for violation of the rules of amity that govern within-group relationships.

Central to this notion of individual sin for breach of an exacting code of in-group amity was the expansive and generous notion of forgiveness, allowing a group member to remain within the group despite breaches of that exacting code.

Christ's code for dealing with the competing out-groups - the Pharisees (followers of the Babylonian Talmud) and Levites - both of which are attempting to kill him and his followers - is equally clear.

In Matthew 23 he calls them the "sons of hell" - the very personification of evil. When he encounters them in public Christ is deceptive and evasive, answering them with riddles and questions - ever mindful of the boundaries between speech that will allow him to continue his mission and speech that might get him killed prematurely - before he was ready to sacrifice himself for the individual sins of his followers and to reinforce their group identity.

Christ inhabits a multi-cultural world, a world of competing tribal groups seeking to displace and kill their rivals.

All of this was clearly understood by Christians for the first three centuries following Christ's death. The stringency of the moral code applicable to within-group relations was carefully balanced by the generous notions of forgiveness - all isolating mechanisms which conferred a practical survival advantage upon being Christian during the decline of the Roman Empire.

But as Christianity moved North, Matthew 23 became utterly incomprehensible.

The conspicuous lack of any reference by Christ to forgiveness of Pharisees and Levites would have been interpreted by any native of the Levant as compelling evidence that they were competing and hostile tribes at war with Christ and his followers. But as Christianity moved North, Pharisees and Levites were transformed from permanently hostile racial enemies into temporary aggregations of individuals possessed of erroneous thoughts.

And as individual states of mind are transitory, the existence of Pharisees and Levites hundreds or thousands of years earlier could have no contemporary relevance.

Christ's rants about Pharisees and Levites came to appear as inconsistent with the Sermon on the Mount, and Christianity became obsessed with translation to attempt to shed light on these inconsistencies.

The critical words "neighbor" "alien" "sojourner" and "brother" are used hundreds of times and their meaning is absolutely clear from the context, if one is willing to see it. Accurate translation is not the problem.

Similarly, the extent to which Christ was repudiating vast tracts of the Old Testament as "laws of men" in his testy and evasive exchanges with his tribal enemies became incomprehensible to the linear thought patterns of the northern European.

The Christ who advocated turning the other cheek in Matthew 5 became completely inconsistent with the violent and aggressive Christ who grabbed a whip and drove the money changers from the temple by force in John 2, 15. Once you understand that Christ operated under the dual code, then the inconsistency disappears.

But once you recognize that Christ lived according to the dual code, then if you are a Christian, you must adopt the dual code yourself, and that is a difficult stretch for our Northern Europeans.

Sin and forgiveness also changed as Christianity moved North.

Sin was no longer the violation of rules that applied to relations within an extended group based on blood relations, but became violations of an abstract and universal code similar in its reach and operation to Newtonian laws of physics.

Sin was not conditional and local but cosmic and eternal, with the scream of its offense extending to the very edges of the universe - and the memory of violation of Christ's law surviving in the vast and expansive universe for an eternity.

Likewise forgiveness became problematic and irrational. It was transformed from the emotional reaction one would expect from an uncle or cousin, anxious to reaffirm the values of the group and strengthen that group by rehabilitating a valuable member, into something unbounded by any human experience.

How could one atone for violation of an abstract and universal truth without eternal and boundless suffering and sacrifice? What Catholicism had taken for granted for centuries became ever so problematic to the Northern European mind.

The problem we face is not with Christianity, but with our own evolutionary psychology


So yes we can blame the "Germanization" of Christianity for much of you pagans despise about the faith. In fact I do believe the source you mentions even argues that the notion of using violence and launching crusades against the infidels were products of this Germanization; wheras before Christian doctrines of warfare revolved around defense. Hmmmnn...........interesting.

And I can quote a source debunking the argument that Christian notions of chivalry derive from German paganism. Nope, you find the basic arguments for chivalry in Paul's Epistles and among the writings of the Church fathers.

As for the survival of heathenism, I've already dealt with this when concerning the Celtic tradition. Most of what Christianity absorbed was really more cultural than theological when one looks more closely. This is what we Christians call inculturation, that is we adapt Christianity to the local cultural traditions. This goes all the way back to the early church; when Roman Christians were not required to circumscise.

And as I mentioned in the Celtic thread, the syncretisitc viewpoints have been overemphasized by many writers in order to try to protray Christianity as nothing more than a gloss over for paganism. Although it is interesting that the early syncretist theories actually tried to protray paganism as a proto-Christian faith. This quote from Dietrich Eckart probably explains this position best(in regards to German paganism):

"In Christ, the embodiment of all manliness, we find all that we need. And if we occasionally speak of Baldur, our words always contain some joy, some satisfaction, that our pagan ancestors were already so Christian as to have indications of Christ in this ideal figure."
--Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin: A conversation with Adolf Hitler 1924


So this attempt to de-Christianize European Christianity is bogus plain and simple!

Vestmannr
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:35 PM
It is readily acknowledged by real academics that xtianity not only did not succeed in extinguishing Aryan heathenism and its store of knowledge but that heathenism,especially Germanic heathenism heavily influenced xtianity and its practices and has done so for 1,000-1,500 years.It wasnt a one way exchange.
I draw your attention to "The Germanisation of Mediaeval Christianity".

Who are these 'real academics'? lol As for James C. Russell's work - it applies only to one distinct part of Early Medieval Christianity, and says nothing much more than Fr. John Romanides of U. of Thessaloniki had wrote: that there was a 'Frankish-Barbarian' perversion of the Christian faith that led to the Schism and eventual subversion of the Western Church. Russell's work is still under review, and is not yet the majority or accepted view of Medieval Christianity. Romanides' theory online here: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_do ctrine.01.htm which has been rightly criticized for being unfair towards Charlemagne and the Frankish/Germanic peoples. In any case, the influence of Medieval Germany upon the rest of Christianity was minor - German Medieval Christianity was *far* more influenced by the Irish (and English, who were influenced by the Irish) through the "Schottenkloster". It is a fact that the missionaries were able to find some concordance in Germanic pagan belief with Christianity to help explain the faith - particularly with the Irminsul. The relief at the Externsteine pretty much is an illustration of this relationship, however. No doubt what was left of the old Germanic religions was absorbed and corrected by the Church as it did in every land.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:36 PM
When did the Christinsanity cabal at Skadi grow so large? I can remember when Milesian and Tara's Vulva were the only Soldiers of YHWH here.

Do you deliberately spell my screen-names incorrectly? :eyes

AryanKrieger
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:37 PM
Oh yes, since there was a festivel around the same time as Halloween that must mean the bad old Christians stoled it from the pagans.

:eyes

Practically everything in European xtianity has been stolen from the heathen Germanic peoples of Europe.Mother Church realised that the force of the sword alone was not sufficient in maintaining its jealous and vicious hold on the people and so it had to "borrow" many customs,beliefs and practices from the heathens to make its religion appear remotely palatable to Ario-Germanic man."The Heliand" and "The Dream of the Rood" are obvious examples of how Mother Church tried to appeal to the Germanic warrior instinct within heathen man.
I drwa your attention to the brilliant piece of scholarship by James C.Russell-"The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity".



Oh dont start with this. Religious persecutions were a part of paganism as well. Need we forget that Caesar Augustus persecuted astrologers because of his personal disgust with the practice. Oh well, guess Dostoevsky was right when he stated that Roman Catholicism was more Roman than Catholic. :eyes


I think that you will find that the Germanic heathen of yesteryear and today is far more tolerant towards different beliefs than Mother Church.




LOL! Like what? Almost all literature supporting this position is absolute feminist BS(and not to mention much of it is written by Jews, what a coincidence!). Although I guess there is one thing I like about the typical argument about how the bad old Christians imposed patriarchy on the matriarchal pagans; Christianity held bring a sane social order to Europe!
Not a very learned comment to make was it?So Gimbutas was a Jewess was she?

Vestmannr
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:43 PM
When did the Christinsanity cabal at Skadi grow so large? I can remember when Milesian and Tara's Vulva were the only Soldiers of YHWH here.

Its not a cabal, and I'm not a 'Soldier of YHWH', though I am a Milites pro Christi. Consider me a 'Grail Knight', like Lohengrin. ;)

Interesting you follow Theosophy. I was wondering if you were aware of the connection of Theosophy and the Theosophical society with the Independent Catholic movement (particularly the "Liberal Catholic Church")? Charges of Theosophy were also leveled against the Parisian School of the Russian Orthodox (the Sophiologists of St. Serge's in Paris, France - Bulgakov, Berdyaev, etc.) and their offspring the L'ECOF (Le Eglise Catholique Orthodoxe Francais). I haven't seen proof of that, but I've heard that both groups were quite deep in Theosophy.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:51 PM
Not a very learned comment to make was it?So Gimbutas was a Jewess was she?

Ever heard of Eisner's The Chalice and the Blade ? Thats the most famous and popular book out there proposing this theory of ancient matriarchies in Europe.



Practically everything in European xtianity has been stolen from the heathen Germanic peoples of Europe.Mother Church realised that the force of the sword alone was not sufficient in maintaining its jealous and vicious hold on the people and so it had to "borrow" many customs,beliefs and practices from the heathens to make its religion appear remotely palatable to Ario-Germanic man."The Heliand" and "The Dream of the Rood" are obvious examples of how Mother Church tried to appeal to the Germanic warrior instinct within heathen man.
I drwa your attention to the brilliant piece of scholarship by James C.Russell-"The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity".

How nice of you to repeat yourself! :eyes



I think that you will find that the Germanic heathen of yesteryear and today is far more tolerant towards different beliefs than Mother Church.

As the Catholic writer GK Chesterton once stated "Tolerance is a virtue to those who dont believe in anything."

And this certainly applies to many aspects of paganism, since Christianity thrived in many areas because of the shallow nature of paganism. Paganism often relied more on rituals than on actual doctrine(as many neo-pagans themselves admit). Rituals are nice, but by themselves they cannot fufill the true spiritual quest.

Christianity had the advantage because of its intolerance. We're already seeing the poision that "tolerance" is imposing on our societies. Hell the pagans were more tolerant of the Jews than the Christians, who often demanded their blood. Hitler once countered the argument that the NS are intolerant by saying something along the lines of "Yes indeed, we are intolerant! We have one belief and we will fight for it to the bitter end!"

Ah, yes the typical Christian attitude! Pagans are incapable of such fanaticism because of the nature of their faith, its too tolerant for that. Little wonder Himmler based the SS on the Christian Teutonic Knights, for the SS were NS crusaders. That would've made sense to their Christian ancestors but not their pagan ones.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 08:53 PM
Its not a cabal, and I'm not a 'Soldier of YHWH', though I am a Milites pro Christi. Consider me a 'Grail Knight', like Lohengrin. ;)

I remain a Kozak at heart, true and faithful Ukrainian warriors! :)



Interesting you follow Theosophy. I was wondering if you were aware of the connection of Theosophy and the Theosophical society with the Independent Catholic movement (particularly the "Liberal Catholic Church")? Charges of Theosophy were also leveled against the Parisian School of the Russian Orthodox (the Sophiologists of St. Serge's in Paris, France - Bulgakov, Berdyaev, etc.) and their offspring the L'ECOF (Le Eglise Catholique Orthodoxe Francais). I haven't seen proof of that, but I've heard that both groups were quite deep in Theosophy.

Also the Christian philosopher Vladimir Solovyev was highly influential in the development of Theosophy.

The Blond Beast
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 09:02 PM
I remain a Kozak at heart, true and faithful Ukrainian warriors!

You fancy yourself a "Kozak"?

AryanKrieger
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 09:03 PM
There was no such feast in Rome at the time that Halloween was established. "Aryan" is an outdated and incorrect term to begin with (Aryans are in South Asia, not in Europe.) And most importantly, European cultures were not all 'copies' of each other - Frazer's 'Golden Bough' was mistaken in its idea that similar elements in various cultures had the same roots and were 'equivalent'.

I am not overly concerned with the mythology and customs of the Romans but the Ario-Germanic peoples.
As far my use of the term "Aryan" is concerned you may be afraid to use this because of academic pressure and the legacy of WWII but I have no such fear.It is an ancient term and its useage in connection with the Indo-Aryan language group is only 1 aspect of how the word may be used.
I don`t feel that this is an appropriate place to discuss the issue.It would require a thread of its own.




Persecutions? Only in the case of post-Schism Roman Catholicism and the conquest of the West Slavs and Balts. For most of history, persecutions were far more pagan (and Jewish) persecutions of Christians

I see so you do not regard the forceable conversion of northern Europe under xtian kings and emperors as being a significant form of persecution?

- in some instances, the execution of a pagan cum 'modern hero' was an after effect of that pagan personality's extreme persecution of Christians (like the philosopher Hypatia, where neo-pagans tend to quote only *part* of the story - leaving out Hypatia's connection to the Jews in Alexandria,and involvement with them in the mass murder and persecution of Christians.) Many of those given as examples were simply Christian heretics, like Priscillian, who was not executed by the Church but by the Roman government for issues unrelated to their heresy (in Priscillian's case, it was for treasonous acts and disturbing the peace, his execution at Magnus Maximus - the Celtic Emperor's orders, and was *protested* by the Church, especially by St. Ambrose of Milan.)

Again,I am not concerned with the events of southern Europe.


I'm not surprised you haven't heard the term ... Reconstructionists and others who take a much more academic approach to their paganism are those who tend to use the term. For more: http://wicca.timerift.net/index.html

I have never encountered the expression but then again the heathens that I am familiar with are all Odinists and to us it is a living expression of our Folk Soul and not merely a matter of armchair speculation or cyber debate.

As for making my mind up, I'm done: I'm 'home' as a Celtic Christian of the Western/English rite in the Orthodox Catholic Church. I was raised Protestant, was a Druid, hung out with Odinists and Asatru (no need for me to be one), never was a Roman Catholic, became a Protestant minister with a Hebraist sect, then an Old Catholic, a Continuing Anglican, then Western Orthodox - where I'll stay til my death. It was a spiritual journey to 'find the path', now that I've found it I can complete it.

As for Gimbutas - she had some good points, but her postulation of a 'Feminist Europe' is so much politicizing, and misinterpretation of data. 'Pictish' matriarchy was not so much a matriarchy, as a system of inheritance for men - adopted according to the Irish chronicles as part of a treaty with the Irish on the part of the Picts. Thus, in Pictish society a woman was 'tied' to a piece of property. To own the property, the man married the woman - and the children inherited from the mother. Women were part of the property then, and a form of 'title deed' - and the relation through the female side linked them to the Irish (noting that 'Pictish' areas of Scotland are genetically no different than other parts of Gael-dom.) That is just one example - or the attempt to make artifacts like the 'Venus of Willendorf' into idols of some Mother Goddess, when most likely they were not religious artifacts at all, but more likely a sort of fertility talisman, or pornography. I'm guessing Robert Graves 'the White Goddess' is to be yet another text 'given as proof'?

I am familiar with his work but I see no reason to quote from "The White Goddess" as we are straying off the point which is the debate concerning Halloween.

Gimbutas, Graves, and Murray have been replaced in modern anthropology because their theories did not pass peer review

This is the great weakness of academia-"peer review[pressure]".Very few academics have the backbone or moral fibre to go against the flow.
Those that do are outcast from that select little club.

- they are considered 'fringe', 'outdated', and especially sloppy and misleading. The idea of a 'Matriarchal Utopia' in Ancient Europe is just so much fantasy writing a la Jean Auel. I believe that the idea of Matriarchal societies has been pretty well handled in other threads by Pushkin/Taras Bulba on this forum.
Again we are straying from the point or was that your intention?

Vestmannr
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 09:23 PM
I am not overly concerned with the mythology and customs of the Romans but the Ario-Germanic peoples.
As far my use of the term "Aryan" is concerned you may be afraid to use this because of academic pressure and the legacy of WWII but I have no such fear.It is an ancient term and its useage in connection with the Indo-Aryan language group is only 1 aspect of how the word may be used.
I don`t feel that this is an appropriate place to discuss the issue.It would require a thread of its own.

It has nothing to do with 'fear' or 'academic pressure' - it has to do with the fact that the word 'Aryan' is Sanskrit, and has nothing do do with European history or pre-history. That, and I don't need flawed etymologies - for instance, one could make a far better case for Ireland coming from Greek "Eirene" - peaceful isle, than 'Aryan-land'. Such is the evidence for the use of the word 'Aryan'. I do understand the use of the word in German NS circles - they can use it there. It has nothing to do with Anglophones, however.


I see so you do not regard the forceable conversion of northern Europe under xtian kings and emperors as being a significant form of persecution?

Again, there were no 'xtian kings'. There were Christian Kings and Emperors, but much of Northern Europe became Christian because of popular conversion (Britain particularly) - the few that were otherwise (such as Charlemagne and the Saxons, or St. Olaf in Norway) were just 'business as usual'. The various cults of the native Germanic superstitions had been at war with each other previously - Irminsul and Odinists hotly contested each other. Christianity entered the fray and won, nothing out of the usual. It was truly neither 'forced conversion' nor persecution. Those who argue for a forced conversion cannot provide examples of just *how* one forces religious belief - especially not with a large population. The truth is that most folk made their conversion upon very pragmatic principles upon the success of the religion, and for a smaller more committed group because they had sought it out.


Again,I am not concerned with the events of southern Europe.

Europe is as Europe does.


I have never encountered the expression but then again the heathens that I am familiar with are all Odinists and to us it is a living expression of our Folk Soul and not merely a matter of armchair speculation or cyber debate.

Yes, I'm familiar with the idea: 'its in our blood', 'listen to your blood', etc. However, historically I can say there have been no Odinists for at least hundreds of years, if not a millenium or more. A 'living expression' if one accepts the idea that religion is encoded in the DNA and self-manifesting. I would make it akin to the Baptist idea of 'soul competency', which is what they believe the ability of each human soul to rightly respond to God and interpret Scripture correctly. It is your belief, so - there you have it. Good luck with it - I find nothing to convince me of such a position.


I am familiar with his work but I see no reason to quote from "The White Goddess" as we are straying off the point which is the debate concerning Halloween.

Yes, of course - and I'll get back on point. The reason for mentioning it, however, was to give a 'heads up' that such writings are considered the 'loony fringe' now that they have had time to be tested. They weren't accepted 'right out' in their day either - except amongst a certain group that had political reasons to (particularly the nascent Feminist movement.)


This is the great weakness of academia-"peer review[pressure]".Very few academics have the backbone or moral fibre to go against the flow.
Those that do are outcast from that select little club.

Such anti-intellectualism is startling. 'Peer review' has nothing to do with 'herd behavior' - it has to do with naked exposure of ideas to the prodding tools of logic, science, evidence, and proof. By far most academics *do* have backbone (you should see how many fist fights I've witnessed even!) - academics aren't 'yes men', in fact they are some of the most egotistical brats I know (but, there you have it... I'm one too ;) ) - the 'select little club' only exists in cults. The mainstream demands proof, and is a dynamic 'event' - being static would be the more likely proof of outside control. So, all in all, peer review is *necessary* and important, to keep religious nut jobs like Graham Hancock, Oral Roberts, Nigel Pennick, or the 'Creationists' from hijacking civilization.


Again we are straying from the point or was that your intention?

Sure, but it seems the topic is related. However, 'Halloween' is not Germanic in origin, nor Gaelic (or Brythonic) it is Roman Christian in origin, and unrelated to the Roman pagan religion of the time.

Maybe I'll dress as Charlemagne this year, and cut down folk's trees for the 'trick' ;)

Vestmannr
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 09:32 PM
Also the Christian philosopher Vladimir Solovyev was highly influential in the development of Theosophy.

Aye, and by extension Vladimir Lossky, Georges Florovsky, Alexander Schmemann, John Meyendorff - St. John Maximovitch had been pastor over the L'ECOF group, but he was contrary to the Sophiologists and the Parisians .

She-Wolf
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 09:51 PM
http://www.celticspirit.org/samhain.htm

Christianity came AFTER the season's celebration, and adopted it.

AryanKrieger
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 09:53 PM
It has nothing to do with 'fear' or 'academic pressure' - it has to do with the fact that the word 'Aryan' is Sanskrit, and has nothing do do with European history or pre-history. That, and I don't need flawed etymologies - for instance, one could make a far better case for Ireland coming from Greek "Eirene" - peaceful isle, than 'Aryan-land'. Such is the evidence for the use of the word 'Aryan'. I do understand the use of the word in German NS circles - they can use it there. It has nothing to do with Anglophones, however.

"Aryan" and its variants are to be found in Persian,Old Irish and German.To confine the term to the Indo-Aryan language group is simplistic and as I have already said one application of the term.Frankly if Aryans wish to call themselves Aryans then surely that is their natural right to do so.
By all means start a thread debating this term but let us please not deviate from the point of THIS thread which in case you have forgotten is Halloween.


Again, there were no 'xtian kings'. There were Christian Kings and Emperors, but much of Northern Europe became Christian because of popular conversion (Britain particularly) - the few that were otherwise (such as Charlemagne and the Saxons, or St. Olaf in Norway) were just 'business as usual'. The various cults of the native Germanic superstitions had been at war with each other previously - Irminsul and Odinists hotly contested each other. Christianity entered the fray and won, nothing out of the usual. It was truly neither 'forced conversion' nor persecution. Those who argue for a forced conversion cannot provide examples of just *how* one forces religious belief - especially not with a large population. The truth is that most folk made their conversion upon very pragmatic principles upon the success of the religion, and for a smaller more committed group because they had sought it out.

And what was the colonisation of Iceland all about then if not primarily a means to escape the intolerance of dictatorial xtian Nowegian kings?



Europe is as Europe does.



Yes, I'm familiar with the idea: 'its in our blood', 'listen to your blood', etc. However, historically I can say there have been no Odinists for at least hundreds of years, if not a millenium or more.

Then how do you explain people such as I and the organisations that we are a part of?

A 'living expression' if one accepts the idea that religion is encoded in the DNA and self-manifesting. I would make it akin to the Baptist idea of 'soul competency', which is what they believe the ability of each human soul to rightly respond to God and interpret Scripture correctly. It is your belief, so - there you have it. Good luck with it - I find nothing to convince me of such a position.

I accept Jungs theory of the Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious.You are probably familiar with his essay on Wotan?



Yes, of course - and I'll get back on point. The reason for mentioning it, however, was to give a 'heads up' that such writings are considered the 'loony fringe' now that they have had time to be tested. They weren't accepted 'right out' in their day either - except amongst a certain group that had political reasons to (particularly the nascent Feminist movement.)



Such anti-intellectualism is startling. 'Peer review' has nothing to do with 'herd behavior' - it has to do with naked exposure of ideas to the prodding tools of logic, science, evidence, and proof. By far most academics *do* have backbone (you should see how many fist fights I've witnessed even!) - academics aren't 'yes men', in fact they are some of the most egotistical brats I know (but, there you have it... I'm one too ;) ) - the 'select little club' only exists in cults. The mainstream demands proof, and is a dynamic 'event' - being static would be the more likely proof of outside control. So, all in all, peer review is *necessary* and important, to keep religious nut jobs like Graham Hancock, Oral Roberts, Nigel Pennick, or the 'Creationists' from hijacking civilization.

Nigel Pennick is one of the most respected writers on esoteric subjects and brings a level of scholarly analysis which is sadly lacking within the field of Runelore.


Sure, but it seems the topic is related. However, 'Halloween' is not Germanic in origin, nor Gaelic (or Brythonic) it is Roman Christian in origin, and unrelated to the Roman pagan religion of the time.

The Celtic and Germanic worlds had equivalents to Halloween which you will be aware of and yet ignore.

Maybe I'll dress as Charlemagne this year, and cut down folk's trees for the 'trick' ;)
Hmm,please keep your hands off my Irmunsul please!:D

Vestmannr
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 10:49 PM
http://www.celticspirit.org/samhain.htm

Christianity came AFTER the season's celebration, and adopted it.

You can keep repeating it, but it won't make it true. ;) Christianity came *before* Halloween began - Halloween began in *Rome* as the Feast of All Saints for those of the Latin rite. Halloween did *not* begin in a Celtic territory, nor was it began as a response to a Celtic celebration falling on the same day. Seasons are universal human experiences, of course some of them are going to fall on the same date - same way I wouldn't insist that someone younger 'stole' my birthday for being born on the same day.

Vestmannr
Sunday, September 26th, 2004, 11:15 PM
"Aryan" and its variants are to be found in Persian,Old Irish and German.To confine the term to the Indo-Aryan language group is simplistic and as I have already said one application of the term.Frankly if Aryans wish to call themselves Aryans then surely that is their natural right to do so.
By all means start a thread debating this term but let us please not deviate from the point of THIS thread which in case you have forgotten is Halloween.

The point is Halloween, yes - but we are speaking of supporting arguments now as well. In any case, the usage of Aryan regarding Northwestern Europeans is still based more on a bit of fancy and the early years of anthropology - IOW, when errors were common. That the Sanskrit term 'arya' has cognates in Celtic and Germanic languages is true - however, that does not necessarily mean that there was some 'Aryan' ancestral people for them all. I do understand that the term is important to those who have a political adherence to 20th c. German Nationalist Socialism.


And what was the colonisation of Iceland all about then if not primarily a means to escape the intolerance of dictatorial xtian Nowegian kings?

For that question I would referyou to The New History of Scotland, vol. 1, "Warlords and Holy Men - Scotland AD 80 -1000" by Prof. Alfred P. Smyth, from the U. of Kent. Specifically, to chapter 5, "Vikings: 'Warriors of the Western Sea." published 1984, by Edward Arnold Ltd., London.

I would be willing to have this discussion in another thread, but I will give a short synopsis. The first Icelandic settlers were from the Hebrides, and were *Christian* - they settled mostly the SW area. They were followed by some folk who had *reverted* to heathenism in the Hebrides (very common in the Hebrides at that time). The cult of St. Columba was in evidence there (and continued into modern times.) It was only later Icelandic tradition that attempted to revision their settlement as being directly from Norway, rather than from the Norse colonies of the Scottish Hebrides and Ireland (Dublin.) The Norse settlement in Iceland, having the cult of St. Columba there from as early as the 880s, and from what we can tell now - continuous Christian activity at least in the southwest of Iceland since the days of the Irish papar.


Then how do you explain people such as I and the organisations that we are a part of?

I would say that it is a new religious expression co-opting the identity of a dead ancient religion, and primarily formed as a counter-cultural reaction against modern society. Nothing wrong with that - just, pretending to actually be the original religion or a continuation thereof is simply dishonest.


I accept Jungs theory of the Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious.You are probably familiar with his essay on Wotan?

Yes, but I'm afraid I'm not one of Jung's cultists. I do find him particularly interesting - his essay on UFOs and modern religion is helpful as well. And, even if he did supply a method for me to critique literature for a grade - I don't think he is the 'state of the art' as regards psychology anymore. Of course there is 'ancestral memory', and some of what he means about the integration of the anima and animus may be true, as well as that about archetypes and dreams. BTW, when I dream I *am* Wotan most of the time - I don't have my 'self-identity' in my dreams, but am Odin. Hehehe.


Nigel Pennick is one of the most respected writers on esoteric subjects and brings a level of scholarly analysis which is sadly lacking within the field of Runelore.

Yes, on esoteric subjects, and respected by occultists - however, he isn't as regards history, theology, or archaeology.


The Celtic and Germanic worlds had equivalents to Halloween which you will be aware of and yet ignore.

Yes, but 'equivalent' does not prove source or origin - far from it! Halloween *still* has a Roman Christian origin without any reference to any pagan feast. It isn't a matter of ignoring, it is simply that Halloween began in a place far away from Celtic and Germanic culture. Again, too many Protestant apologists and their children the Neo-pagan apologists, depend on the flawed methodology of Fraser's 'The Golden Bough' - because something occurs at the same time, has some external similarities, or occurs later in the same place - does not *prove* origin or relatedness.


Hmm,please keep your hands off my Irmunsul please!:D

Heh - its not *your* Irminsul. If you are an Odinist, then you would be the natural enemy of the Irminsul religion, as well as that of Nerthus or Freyr. ;) In any case, as I look at the relief from the Externsteine I see the message that the old German Christians wanted us to see - the Irmensul tree is not 'cut off' - it assists in taking down Christ for the cross, providing a step for St. Joseph of Arimathea, and bowing down before the Apostle John, the patron of the far Western Church (Gallican/Celtic). ;) BTW, you do know the Dream of the Rood belongs properly to those of Dumfries and Galloway - it is historically connected to that area, and especially through the Ruthwell Cross. It was simply an honest interpretation within the culture - which was proper for Christianity. Too many try to make it out like they were 'duping' folk, or 'robbing' rather than simply illuminating what was already there.

Stríbog
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 12:40 AM
Do you deliberately spell my screen-names incorrectly? :eyes

Damn, you're a quick one. Give the man a cigar. Is everyone in Detritus as smart as you are?

She-Wolf
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 12:50 AM
You can keep repeating it, but it won't make it true. ;) Christianity came *before* Halloween began - Halloween began in *Rome* as the Feast of All Saints for those of the Latin rite. Halloween did *not* begin in a Celtic territory, nor was it began as a response to a Celtic celebration falling on the same day. Seasons are universal human experiences, of course some of them are going to fall on the same date - same way I wouldn't insist that someone younger 'stole' my birthday for being born on the same day.
Halloween is based on Samhain, whether you Xtians agree or not. It doesn't matter what day it falls on. October the 31st is November Eve. It may have something to do with the fact it combined with your All Saints day but undoubtedly the festive season is about ghosts and the dead, no Xtian involved at all. Next you'll be debating that Christmas Day isn't really based on a pagan celebration :P.

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 12:56 AM
Next you'll be debating that Christmas Day isn't really based on a pagan celebration :P.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.10docs/16-10pg12.html

Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals.

Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Son” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.

She-Wolf
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 12:58 AM
OMG here we go :oanieyes

Vestmannr
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:02 AM
Halloween is based on Samhain, whether you Xtians agree or not. It doesn't matter what day it falls on. October the 31st is November Eve. It may have something to do with the fact it combined with your All Saints day but undoubtedly the festive season is about ghosts and the dead, no Xtian involved at all. Next you'll be debating that Christmas Day isn't really based on a pagan celebration :P.

Well, first off - you aren't speaking to any 'Xtian's' - no such thing exists. Christmas is a Christian feast, no relation to Lupercalia. Any such claims are not based on either ecclesiastical history or anthropology of the Christian churches - but again upon Protestant anti-Roman propaganda (which is also anti-pagan.) The simple fact is that Samhain has no connection with 'Halloween' - no Celtic folk ever celebrated a pagan 'Halloween' - the term is entirely that of a Christian feast, and applies only to that Christian feast and by extension to an American secularisation of that Christian feast. That is probably one of the most anti-intellectual characteristics of the fluff-bunnies: that so many of their beliefs are derivative of Protestant polemic and apologetic, and have no other basis. This is so much so, that many of us consider that 'Wicca' and many other 'pagan' movements might as well be considered a heresy of Christianity (ie, Christianity with a 'consort' goddess, and removed from its historical context.) Ultimately, the arguments for a Halloween connection with Samhain have their origin entirely with folk like Alexander Hyslop and his 'Two Babylons' book attempting to prove the 'pagan' origins of the 'Papists'.

No doubt one could see a real Animist or pagan (like a Hindu) as having some credibility and validity on the basis of their own beliefs - but if this is all that Western/Northern European neo-paganism can offer - some regurgitated Fundie tracts (Jack Chick anyone?), why should any of us take it seriously?

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:05 AM
Speaking of Wicca, I always love reading their accounts about how the main goal of the Inquisition was to stamp out the old witch religion. Really? Funny you only find this in books written by Wiccans and not other people who write about the Inquisition. Also its pretty hard to stamp out a religion that didnt exist at the time.

Vestmannr
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:06 AM
Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Son” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.

Yes, and add to that the fact that 'Old Christmas' as celebrated in Britain and America is the same as 'Old Calendarist' Christmas of the Orthodox Churches - January 6th. So, modern December 25th is nearly two weeks before 'real' Christmas - so, which one is the 'pagan' December 25th? Gregorian or Julian? :D (Same with Halloween and other feasts - if Samhain today is Oct. 31st, then it is some two weeks before Halloween, or 'Old Halloween' as us Traditionalists celebrate it.)

Vestmannr
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:17 AM
Speaking of Wicca, I always love reading their accounts about how the main goal of the Inquisition was to stamp out the old witch religion. Really? Funny you only find this in books written by Wiccans and not other people who write about the Inquisition. Also its pretty hard to stamp out a religion that didnt exist at the time.

http://www.geraldgardner.com/index/essays.shtml

You might find these essays interesting. Gardner began with the vagante Old Catholic movement (the English version of the Utrechtine Old Catholics) - then through his association with the Rosicrucians (esoteric Christians) and the O.T.O. (originally esoteric Christian movement related to Anglicanism) he met with Crowley, from whom the basic structure of Wicca took shape. He did invent his fanciful meeting with the 'Wica' of New Forest, but the outline is all there. 'Thelema' and the Vagante Catholic movement birthed the 'neo-pagans' - and every neo-pagan/satanic modern movement has either its origin or inspiration in Gardner or Crowley.

Another very interesting essay: http://www.meta-religion.com/Spiritualism/Wicca/satanism_and_wicca.htm

Added: I should say, that not much of higher criticism has been applied to emerging religions in the neo-pagan movement. I've been dabbling a bit on my own. The same goes for 'dialogue'. I find what little has been written on Christianity from various pagan/heathen perspectives is extremely deficient in its understanding of Christianity as regards history, practice and belief. Generally, from the other direction, Christians could care less - and most still have a vague view of neo-pagans that is most likely to be informed by the sensationalist media.

I'm trying to rig up something to scare the kiddies in my yard. I'm thinking something in the tree - like a hanged man that will move and make noise at an appropriate moment. ;)

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:20 AM
So basically they're a bunch of pissed-off Christians?

Vestmannr
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:29 AM
So basically they're a bunch of pissed-off Christians?

Well, not all of them. :) A number of them are from Jewish backgrounds - including one of the major figures of the 'neo-Druid' movement. I've actually met an ex-Muslim neo-pagan as well. But, the great majority tend to either be ex-Protestant, or to a lesser extent ex-nominal-Roman Catholics - I have not met many ex-Eastern Catholics in the movement. Generally, the neo-pagan movement is very Jewish friendly, and as I've noted - very closely tied to the Holocaust industry (the Burning Times myth is a derivation of this very thing.) The one exception is the Asatru or Odinists, who tend towards anti-Jewish belief (speaking generally.)

The odd thing about the vagante Catholic movement is how much members cross back and forth with the different occultic groups: Theosophical, Rosicrucian, Satanist/Luciferian, Wiccan, Neo-Pagan, Druidic, High Ritual Magick, Gnostic, etc. Check out http://www.ind-movement.org ... I believe the social construction and the types of personalities involved tend to be the same whether in the 'Independent Catholic' movement, various 'House Church' type Protestant groupings, and neo-Pagan/Heathen or Occultic groups.

I'm going to give out candy instead of 'healthy snacks' this Halloween. It is parent's fault if they don't teach their children discipline and hygiene! That, and I like these chocolate eyeballs they have at the store... I can pretend they are my eyes and pop them out into the children's candy sacks. :D

Stríbog
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:32 AM
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.10docs/16-10pg12.html

Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals.

Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Son” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.

First of all, it is Feast of the Unconquered SUN. Birth of the Unconquered Son would just be the Christian Christmas. :eyes Second of all, it was only finally officialized that late, and had been practiced by centurions since they came into contact with Mithraists during their excursions along the frontier of the Eastern Empire.

If Jesus even existed, and the Biblical account is to be trusted, it is likely he was born in October, given the description of where the shepherds had their flocks and what they were doing at the time of his birth.

The fact is, Roman Catholics encouraged many pagan instutions, such as the date of Christmas, the Christmas tree, Easter eggs and rabbits, to make Christinsanity more appealing to pagans. Of course, the principled pagans who did not submit were put to the sword by fine human beings like yourself. At least it's finally dying out. It's been 2000 years too long, but it's finally dying, especially among whites. Soon your only Catholic brethren will be brown hordes from Aztlan and turds from Africa who combine Catholicism with Voodoo. :P

Stríbog
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:36 AM
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/Mithraism/mithraism_and_christianity_i.htm

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/Mithraism/mithraism_and_christianity_ii.htm

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:37 AM
Well, not all of them. :) A number of them are from Jewish backgrounds - including one of the major figures of the 'neo-Druid' movement. I've actually met an ex-Muslim neo-pagan as well. But, the great majority tend to either be ex-Protestant, or to a lesser extent ex-nominal-Roman Catholics - I have not met many ex-Eastern Catholics in the movement. Generally, the neo-pagan movement is very Jewish friendly, and as I've noted - very closely tied to the Holocaust industry (the Burning Times myth is a derivation of this very thing.) The one exception is the Asatru or Odinists, who tend towards anti-Jewish belief (speaking generally.)

Indeed, which is why I think pagans need to stop talking about how screwed-up Christianity is. Your end of the forrest isnt much better!



I'm going to give out candy instead of 'healthy snacks' this Halloween. It is parent's fault if they don't teach their children discipline and hygiene! That, and I like these chocolate eyeballs they have at the store... I can pretend they are my eyes and pop them out into the children's candy sacks. :D

LOL! Yes, parents dont want to take responsibility anymore. There was an evengelical neighbor I had who used to pass out mini New Testaments on Halloween. Even as a Christian I find that pathetic!

Stríbog
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:38 AM
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/CarPaga.html

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:39 AM
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/Mithraism/mithraism_and_christianity_i.htm

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Ancient_religions/Mesopotamia/Mithraism/mithraism_and_christianity_ii.htm

"During a period of time running roughly from about 1890 to 1940, scholars often alleged that primitive Christianity has been heavily influenced by Platonism, Stoicism, the pagan mystery religions, or other movements in the Hellenistic world....most Bible scholars regard the question a dead issue."
--Ronald Nash The Gospels and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought? pg. I

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:42 AM
"It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases the influence moved in the opposite direction. In what T. R. Glover aptly called "the conflict of religions in the Early Roman Empire," it was to be expected that the hierophants of cults which were beginning to lose devotees to the growing Church should take steps to stem the tide. One of the surest ways would be to imitate the teaching of the Church by offering benefits comparable with those held out by Christianity. Thus, for example, one must doubtless interpret the change in the efficacy attributed to the rite of the taurobolium. In competing with Christianity, which promised eternal life to its adherents, the cult of Cybele officially or unofficially raised the efficacy of the blood bath from twenty years to eternity."
--Bruce M. Metzger Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian

Vestmannr
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:55 AM
First of all, it is Feast of the Unconquered SUN. Birth of the Unconquered Son would just be the Christian Christmas. Second of all, it was only finally officialized that late, and had been practiced by centurions since they came into contact with Mithraists during their excursions along the frontier of the Eastern Empire.

First off, no it wouldn't - because Roman Imperial authority did not equate nor control Christianity. Same with Constantine the Great making Sunday a legal holiday in the Roman Empire - he wasn't dictating to Christians, but making the Empire 'Christian friendly'. In fact, it is very likely that his initial conversion was not only by influence of his Celtic mother, but from his already Christian Gothic and Gaulish troops. ;) The other fact - Christmas was already a Christian custom, as were many other elements of the Christian calendar. Later Councils would only make them universal or collate the various feasts onto one single date. Again, there are issues in using Protestant sources for the history of Christianity as their polemics often got in the way of rational thought.


If Jesus even existed, and the Biblical account is to be trusted, it is likely he was born in October, given the description of where the shepherds had their flocks and what they were doing at the time of his birth.

More Protestant anti-Roman rubbish. They can't even agree on their 'alternative date' - some say September, October (usually those trying to connect the 'birth in the manger' with Sukkot - nevermind the account specifies Roman taxation as the reason for the travel to Bethlehem, *not* a Jewish festival.) Others try the same silliness and try to place it in the late spring. The fact is that in Palestinian husbandry, they don't have 'barns' and hay to quarter the animals throughout the year. They simply have upper pastures and lower pastures - animals are grazed throughout the year. From the Evangelical record, no season can be specified as it does not mention either time of year, which pasture, etc. - the only indication even of date is the taxation of Augustus Caesar. Scholars are not in agreement as to the actual date. However, the Christian community did keep an oral tradition of the event, which was taken into consideration as to the placement of major feasts both for Christ and His Mother.


The fact is, Roman Catholics encouraged many pagan instutions, such as the date of Christmas, the Christmas tree, Easter eggs and rabbits, to make Christinsanity more appealing to pagans. Of course, the principled pagans who did not submit were put to the sword by fine human beings like yourself. At least it's finally dying out. It's been 2000 years too long, but it's finally dying, especially among whites. Soon your only Catholic brethren will be brown hordes from Aztlan and turds from Africa who combine Catholicism with Voodoo. :P

No facts there - the date of Christmas is Christian, not pagan. 'Easter eggs' have their origin in two events - the effog of the Paschal seder (symbolizing the Temple), and the miracle of St. Mary Magdalene before the emperor when the egg turned red in her hands. This is why the Eastern Churches preserved the custom that the Easter eggs are normally *red*. Rabbits is another issue - we might have a 'sanctified' custom there, either way the association of rabbits with Easter is quite late - though it might simply be tied to the fact that the rabbits are giving birth around that time. I'm guessing someone is depending again on Hyslop's 'Easter comes from Eostara' rather than the historical account that 'Easter' derives from "Eastern Holy-day" referring to Jerusalem and the place of the Ressurecton - the East.

As for dying out - don't be too quick. Christianity is still one of the fastest growing religions in the world (matched only by Islam.) It is true that certain derivatives of Christianity are dying a just death: particularly liberal Protestant denominations. The explosion in the Third World is typically Pentecostalist and 'Indigenous sects' of Protestantism. However, Catholicism is growing in most countries - and Orthodoxy is exploding in growth, whether in Russia or the West. In the UK, most Christian sects are atrophying - because they left behind their Christianity. Orthodoxy in the UK has a 150% growth rate per year (Charismatics a 54% growth rate) - in the USA the growth rate is similar. This is typically *amongst Whites* as well. The 'falling away' from Christianity has leveled off, and many are simply reentering into the historic Christian religion rather than derivative sects. So - don't expect Christianity to do anything but stay around, and grow ... it's the reality of the situation.

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 01:57 AM
The fact is, Roman Catholics encouraged many pagan instutions, such as the date of Christmas, the Christmas tree, Easter eggs and rabbits, to make Christinsanity more appealing to pagans. Of course, the principled pagans who did not submit were put to the sword by fine human beings like yourself.

Which is it, did Christianity destroy paganism or did it incorporate it? You pagans never seem to agree. :eyes

And things like the christmas tree, easter eggs, etc are very irrelevant in the grand schemes of things. Does having a christmas tree, doing the practice of easter eggs, etc make one a pagan? Indeed this is the main fault of paganism, since it often lacks an actual doctrine it relies entirely on its rituals. Thus if the Christians start practicing those things, it must mean they stole it. Nevermind that a Christian can still be a Christian without a christmas tree, easter eggs, etc.(thus making this argument utterly irrelevant, since if Christianity did "steal it" it was largely for aesthetic and cultural reasons and not theology). But apparently paganism doesnt have that advantage, since its notorious for its lack of a theology, which is probably why it failed in the end.



At least it's finally dying out. It's been 2000 years too long, but it's finally dying, especially among whites.

And whats your proof of this hmmmn? All I ever hear to prove this is that people are not going to church. WOW! Theres a difference between being a churcher-goer and being a believer. Plus you seem to be totally ignorant of the revival of christianity in the post-Soviet world.



Soon your only Catholic brethren will be brown hordes from Aztlan and turds from Africa who combine Catholicism with Voodoo. :P

If that true, its because Europeans themselves are dying off, not because Europeans are no longer believing. Indeed this is the one aspect of Philip Jenkin's argument you never hear; he argues that the main focus of Christianity is moving to the third world due to a large extent because Europe's population continues to decline while the third world continues to grow. Jenkins also notes the revival of Christianity in Eastern Europe, but the population decline is still there. Although many still maintain that Europe will still remain the intellectual center of Christianity even as it spreads further into the 3rd world.

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 02:10 AM
As for dying out - don't be too quick. Christianity is still one of the fastest growing religions in the world (matched only by Islam.) It is true that certain derivatives of Christianity are dying a just death: particularly liberal Protestant denominations. The explosion in the Third World is typically Pentecostalist and 'Indigenous sects' of Protestantism. However, Catholicism is growing in most countries - and Orthodoxy is exploding in growth, whether in Russia or the West. In the UK, most Christian sects are atrophying - because they left behind their Christianity. Orthodoxy in the UK has a 150% growth rate per year (Charismatics a 54% growth rate) - in the USA the growth rate is similar. This is typically *amongst Whites* as well. The 'falling away' from Christianity has leveled off, and many are simply reentering into the historic Christian religion rather than derivative sects. So - don't expect Christianity to do anything but stay around, and grow ... it's the reality of the situation.

Good work. Many people have noted the extrodinary growth of traditionalist Christianity in the post-Soviet world. In fact I recently read an article in Russian Life talking about how the Orthodox church and its teachings are going to be incorporated and play an important role in Russian education. So just by looking at Eastern Europe we can refute the myth that Christianity is dying in Europe. But as Jenkin states in his book(which ironically is often referred to as a source pointing to Christianity's demise in Europe) the problem is not necessarily that Christianity in Europe is dying, the big problem is that Europe itself is dying. Less Europeans mean less European Christians; more Third Worlders mean more Third World Christians. This is the part most people seem to ignore in Jenkin's book.

Vestmannr
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 02:13 AM
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/CarPaga.html

This link is to an outdated text circa 1920s - influenced again, by Protestant polemics. Pretty good if one is trying to make Fundie Prots out of us (Clap your hands if you love Cheeses! Praise Cheeses!). ;)

The other links provided are also either to outdated scholarship, or the *Far* from mainstream 'historical Jesus' crowd. Price, Shorto, and such are typical of folk like Pagels, Crossan, Funk and their ilk - generally in the pay of the Hebraists and their 'Noahide' idea, pushing Gnosticism and 'alternative Christianities' a la Spong. For every Koester at Harvard, we can raise one a Ervin from Harvard, or a Deschene from Brown, etc. Even the 'Jesus Seminar' school of Claremont U. has real scholars like Dr. Tarzi to match the rather un-academic scribblings of the 'historical Jesus' neo-Gnostics. (How un-academic? Considering the 'historical Jesus' movement is centered around the work of the Jesus Seminar, which *voted* for which statements they believed were truly attributable to Jesus based upon ... *feeling*.) The basic gist is the portrayal of Jesus as simply a Jewish teacher, and the Christian Christ as an invention of Paul based upon Pagan Mystery religions. There is a sort of 'circle jerk' of these 'Christianity is pagan/the Christian Jesus didn't exist' types in academia at present, yes - however they are far from mainstream and are not going unchallenged. There is some severe problems with their methodology, assumptions, where they start from, and in many cases what they accept as sources. At this point I'd shelve their books along with works by Baigent, Leigh, and Hancock. ;) 'Conspiracy Theory' type stuff.

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 02:15 AM
This link is to an outdated text circa 1920s - influenced again, by Protestant polemics. Pretty good if one is trying to make Fundie Prots out of us (Clap your hands if you love Cheeses! Praise Cheeses!). ;)

Getting back to what I posted above:

"During a period of time running roughly from about 1890 to 1940, scholars often alleged that primitive Christianity has been heavily influenced by Platonism, Stoicism, the pagan mystery religions, or other movements in the Hellenistic world....most Bible scholars regard the question a dead issue."
--Ronald Nash The Gospels and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought? pg. I



The other links provided are also either to outdated scholarship, or the *Far* from mainstream 'historical Jesus' crowd. Price, Shorto, and such are typical of folk like Pagels, Crossan, Funk and their ilk - generally in the pay of the Hebraists and their 'Noahide' idea, pushing Gnosticism and 'alternative Christianities' a la Spong. For every Koester at Harvard, we can raise one a Ervin from Harvard, or a Deschene from Brown, etc. Even the 'Jesus Seminar' school of Claremont U. has real scholars like Dr. Tarzi to match the rather un-academic scribblings of the 'historical Jesus' neo-Gnostics. (How un-academic? Considering the 'historical Jesus' movement is centered around the work of the Jesus Seminar, which *voted* for which statements they believed were truly attributable to Jesus based upon ... *feeling*.) The basic gist is the portrayal of Jesus as simply a Jewish teacher, and the Christian Christ as an invention of Paul based upon Pagan Mystery religions. There is a sort of 'circle jerk' of these 'Christianity is pagan/the Christian Jesus didn't exist' types in academia at present, yes - however they are far from mainstream and are not going unchallenged. There is some severe problems with their methodology, assumptions, where they start from, and in many cases what they accept as sources. At this point I'd shelve their books along with works by Baigent, Leigh, and Hancock. ;) 'Conspiracy Theory' type stuff.

Philip Jenkins refutes many of these scholars in his book Hidden Gospels: How the Quest for Jesus Lost Its Way.

Stríbog
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 04:44 AM
As for dying out - don't be too quick. Christianity is still one of the fastest growing religions in the world (matched only by Islam.) It is true that certain derivatives of Christianity are dying a just death: particularly liberal Protestant denominations. The explosion in the Third World is typically Pentecostalist and 'Indigenous sects' of Protestantism. However, Catholicism is growing in most countries - and Orthodoxy is exploding in growth, whether in Russia or the West.

Yes, and all the growth is in 3rd world countries among savages who randomly decided to add Christ to their pantheon of earth spirits and voodoo effigies.

Here's how the list of church attendance looks, in percentages:

Nigeria 89
Ireland 84*
Philippines 68
N. Ireland 58*
Puerto Rico 52
South Africa 56
Poland 55
Portugal 47*
Slovakia 47
Mexico 46
Italy 45*
Dominican Republic 44
Belgium 44*
U.S.A. 44
Turkey 43
Peru 43
India 42
Canada 38*
Brazil 36
Netherlands 35*



Venezuela 31
Uruguay 31
Austria 30*
Chile 25
Argentina 25
Britain 27*
Spain 25
Solvenia 22
Croatia 22
Hungary 21*
France 21*
Romania 20*
South Korea 14
Switzerland 16
Australia 16
Lithuania 16
W. Germany 14
Czech Republic 14*
Bulgaria 10*
Ukraine 10



Taiwan 11
Moldova 10
Georgia 10
China 9
Armenia 8
Azerbaijan 6
Serbia 7
Montenegro 7
Belarus 6
Latvia 5
Denmark 5*
Norway 5
East Germany 5
Sweden 4
Iceland 4*
Finland 4
Estonia 4
Japan 3
Russia 2

http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/1997/Dec97/r121097a.html

So much for Orthodoxy's rapid growth, LOL. One of the few good things (perhaps the only good thing) Communism did was to eradicate the Christ plague.

Notice that the whitest, most Nordic/Baltic countries are the least Christian. :D

Stríbog
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 04:45 AM
This link is to an outdated text circa 1920s

If something from the 1920's is an outdated text, what does that make the Bible? LOL

Gentilis
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 06:15 AM
Much of what folk call paganism today was simply incomplete Christianity before the advent of the Christ.
Do you have any sources to back this up? By incomplete christianity are you implying that there was a messianic component to paganism?


I've *been* neo-pagan, Protestant, etc. - my religion is decided by what the truth is, and not vice versa.
I've read all your posts to date on the subject and I can say without reservation that you are a religiously biased man, drawing on religiously biased sources to bolster a religiously biased interpretation of the past. :idolize


There is no such thing as 'hereditary witches' with a continuous history.
Just as there is no such thing as 'hereditary jews' with a continuous history? :naughty


Rather, those things are not 'Halloween lore', but folklore of a Christian people. Period.
"Nos Galan Gaeaf" was a rite of druidic origin, it had no ties whatsoever to christianity.


Yes, but the 'how' they celebrated, and whether it was a 'pagan ritual' in the way that modern neo-pagans mean it is a whole other matter.
No offense, but I could care less about what neo-pagans or contemporary christians believe. My perspective on the matter is purely anthropological.


The fact is that the 'pagans' of that period became Christians *willingly* because it completed their system of belief.
Your use of the word "willingly" really betrays your christian bias. Ever hear of the term forced conversion? History is rife with examples of everybody from Jews to Inuits being forced to convert to christianity.

The original Druids were wiped out by successive campaigns by the Roman Empire and then the Roman Catholic Church, so that by the year 1,000 of the Common Era, Druidism as an intact belief system had vanished from Western Europe.

Furthermore, I fail to see what monotheism and messianism could possibly have to do with the druidic belief system? A story about some poor stiff getting nailed to a cross spreads out of the middle-east and you expect me to believe it somehow ties in with things like nature worshiping and polytheism? :sway

Stríbog
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 07:12 AM
I'm so tired of the kindergarten-level rhetoric among Christian racialists. "Jews hate Christianity, therefore Christianity is true and good for Europeans."
Jews hate Islam, too, does that mean Islam is also true and good for Europeans?

Vlad Cletus
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 07:51 AM
Halloween is an event I look forward to. As all of Autumn has magnificent events to await.

It's likely that I'll wear a head piece which is military-related.

She-Wolf
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 12:39 PM
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.10docs/16-10pg12.html

Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals.

Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Son” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.
Pagan origins of Christmas, especially 25th December. Winter Solstice was celebrated throughout the pre-Christian world.

The date of 25th December has older roots going back since the ancient Egyptians, when that day was celebrated every year as the divine birth of the Son of the Goddess Isis. It was a day of feasting and parties. The winter solctice was celebrated in pre-Christian pagan Roman times. That was called Saturnalia, honouring the agriculture god Saturn's birth. In northern Europe the winter solstice was called Yule. Yule was the symbol of Mithras, the god of the sun who was born during mid winter. The term "Yule" stands for wheel in an old language, and a wheel is an ancient pagan symbol of the sun. Pope Julius I decided that the birth of Christ should be held on December 25th as the pagan celebration was strong in Rome, and in that way Christianity adopted the Winter Solstice spiritual feeling.

She-Wolf
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 12:56 PM
Speaking of Wicca, I always love reading their accounts about how the main goal of the Inquisition was to stamp out the old witch religion. Really? Funny you only find this in books written by Wiccans and not other people who write about the Inquisition. Also its pretty hard to stamp out a religion that didnt exist at the time. May I draw your attention to the book "Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology" by Russel H. Robbins (1988) which is a heavy A-Z catalogue of detailed reports and cases of witch trials and executions from various countries. What the State and the church were responsible for in those centuries was a persecution against all those who were regarded as witches and heretic, folkish, pagan, anti-State/anti-church and anyone who was accused by others of doing something the State didn't agree with. It wasn't just "witches" who were executed even though that name was also used as a tag, (similar thing today when people accused of racism are instantly arrested by the police, even if they weren't). In those times fanatics intimidated people to confess over thought crimes of "devil worship" using instruments of barbaric torture.
I got my reading sources from history books and the above, not from anything Wiccan or new age. The church and the State didn't want people having anything to do with the "old ways" or links with the ancient secrets. There is much evidence in history to know that the Church established itself violently.

Gentilis
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 03:39 PM
The church and the State didn't want people having anything to do with the "old ways" or links with the ancient secrets. There is much evidence in history to know that the Church established itself violently. As the saying goes: "history is written by the victor".

We actually know very little about the sacred lore of the ancient Celts because it was oral in nature. What we do know is based on vestigial elements that have survived in the form of folk lore combined with the known body of archeological data.

Ironically, accounts given by religious or historical scholars over the centuries give us more insights into their own prejudices than any known facts about the oral teachings of the Celts.

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 04:01 PM
I'm so tired of the kindergarten-level rhetoric among Christian racialists. "Jews hate Christianity, therefore Christianity is true and good for Europeans."
Jews hate Islam, too, does that mean Islam is also true and good for Europeans?

If anything is "kindergarten-level rhetoric" it's that coming from you!

Christianity has been an European faith for 2000 years, within 20 years of Christ's death it arrives in Europe. In fact Peter, the first Pope, made his residence in Rome and ever since then thats been the center of Christianity.

Almost any Christian theologian worth mentioning was European. All the great developments in the faith of Christianity occured in Europe. A great number of Europeans and especially Europeans involved in Folkish movements are Christians. To ignore all these facts is simply to live in childish denial!

Prof. Revilo P. Oliver probably explained it best!


http://www.stormfront.org/whitenat/religion.html

It is a fact, which Christians will regard with satisfaction and some atheists may deplore, that Western civilization in the sense that the great majority of the people belonging to it (though never, at any time, ALL of them) believed implicitly in the truth of the Christian revelation. That religious unanimity was for a long time so nearly complete that, after the fall of the Roman Empire and the evanescence of hopes for its restoration, we of the West regarded our religion as the bond that united us and distinguished us from the rest of the human species.

During the Middle Ages, our ancestors occupied the greater part of Europe, and, until they discovered the American continents, they lived only in Europe, but despite that geographical unity, they did not generally refer to themselves as the Europeans. For all practical purposes, furthermore, our ancestors belonged to the same division of the White race: they, like the true Greeks and the true Romans before them, were all members of the great race that we now call Indo-European or Aryan, but they had in their languages no word to designate their blood relationship and biological unity. Thus, when they referred to the unity of which they were always conscious as something transcending the constantly shifting territorial and political divisions of Europe, they called themselves Christendom. And for many centuries that word was adequate and misled no one.

For many centuries the West was Christendom and its civilization was indubitably Christian: that, whether you like it or not, is an historical fact. There is a complementary historical fact that was less obvious at the time and that even thoughtful men overlooked or tried to ignore until the events of the past two decades made it indubitable: Christianity is a religion of the West, and, for all practical purposes, ONLY of the west. It is not, as its polemical adversaries so often charge, a Semitic cult, for it has never commanded the adhesion of any considerable number of [Semites], and it is not, as Christians once generally believed, a universal religion, for experience has now proved that it cannot be successfully exported to populations that are not Indo-European.

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 04:05 PM
Yes, and all the growth is in 3rd world countries among savages who randomly decided to add Christ to their pantheon of earth spirits and voodoo effigies.

That in large part has to do with the fact the Third world has the greatest population growth! :eyes



Here's how the list of church attendance looks, in percentages:

Irrelevant.



Notice that the whitest, most Nordic/Baltic countries are the least Christian. :D

They're also the ones facing the greatest population decline!

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 04:18 PM
May I draw your attention to the book "Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology" by Russel H. Robbins (1988) which is a heavy A-Z catalogue of detailed reports and cases of witch trials and executions from various countries.

And what are those reports? And can I also add how many? Since Kamen notes that on average the Inquistion executed 4 people per year on a 300 year basis. David Hunt I believe notes that the largest number ever executed by the Inqusition was 12 sometime in the 1400's. The Inquisition had the lowest execution rate of any court in Europe.



What the State and the church were responsible for in those centuries was a persecution against all those who were regarded as witches and heretic, folkish, pagan, anti-State/anti-church and anyone who was accused by others of doing something the State didn't agree with.

And your point is what? That was a feature of Roman pagan times. Caesar Augustus persecuted Astrologers and I can mention what his unlce Julius did to the Druids. I guess the Orthodox have a point when they say that the Inquisition was nothing more than a left-over from pagan times.




It wasn't just "witches" who were executed even though that name was also used as a tag, (similar thing today when people accused of racism are instantly arrested by the police, even if they weren't). In those times fanatics intimidated people to confess over thought crimes of "devil worship" using instruments of barbaric torture.

Henry Kamen and other historians have long disputed this myth. In fact the Inquisition was set up to prevent these abuses by secular powers when dealing with herectics. David Hunt even notes how the Inquisition was probably the only court in Europe where a defendent was allowed an attorney to aide in his defense.




There is much evidence in history to know that the Church established itself violently.

Yes, but thats true about any religion. I'd like to know of major faith in the world that doesnt have blood on its hands. Even Buddhism had religious fanatics who carried on terrorist campaigns; same with the Sikhs, Islam, even Pagans were known for their brutality. So why Christianity is singled out is beyond me.

Although as I said many of the figures about the Inquisition are strongly challenged by recent investigations by historians, and this is especially true with the opening of the Vatican archives.

Taras Bulba
Monday, September 27th, 2004, 04:20 PM
If something from the 1920's is an outdated text, what does that make the Bible? LOL

Thats a ridiculious thing to say. The Bible is a text dealing with spiritual truth, historical inquiry is a totally different thing. :eyes

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 12:35 AM
And what are those reports? And can I also add how many? Since Kamen notes that on average the Inquistion executed 4 people per year on a 300 year basis. David Hunt I believe notes that the largest number ever executed by the Inqusition was 12 sometime in the 1400's. The Inquisition had the lowest execution rate of any court in Europe.

Well isnt that mighty neighbourly of the xtian church to have executed so few people in the name of a god of "love"?



And your point is what? That was a feature of Roman pagan times. Caesar Augustus persecuted Astrologers and I can mention what his unlce Julius did to the Druids. I guess the Orthodox have a point when they say that the Inquisition was nothing more than a left-over from pagan times.

What has a Roman Emperor,pagan or not to do with the persecution of northen European heathens by the xtian church?We are I may remind you talking about northern Europe.




Henry Kamen and other historians have long disputed this myth. In fact the Inquisition was set up to prevent these abuses by secular powers when dealing with herectics. David Hunt even notes how the Inquisition was probably the only court in Europe where a defendent was allowed an attorney to aide in his defense.

How "reasonable"!:D



Yes, but thats true about any religion. I'd like to know of major faith in the world that doesnt have blood on its hands. Even Buddhism had religious fanatics who carried on terrorist campaigns; same with the Sikhs, Islam, even Pagans were known for their brutality. So why Christianity is singled out is beyond me.

Has it anything to do with the fact that it is xtianity along with its fellow desert religion Islam which has been responsible for more bloodshed over the last 2,000 years-all in the name of "love" than any other ideology? Odinists as well as other heathens feel no overwhelming desire to force their views upon others and psychologically terrorise children with threats of "hell fire" to enforce conformity.

Although as I said many of the figures about the Inquisition are strongly challenged by recent investigations by historians, and this is especially true with the opening of the Vatican archives.
Well I find that heart warming.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 01:44 AM
Has it anything to do with the fact that it is xtianity along with its fellow desert religion Islam which has been responsible for more bloodshed over the last 2,000 years-all in the name of "love" than any other ideology?

Im specifying that Christianity is not the only religion with blood on its hands. And care to provide some evidence that Christianity is responsible for more deaths than anyother religion.



Odinists as well as other heathens feel no overwhelming desire to force their views upon others and psychologically terrorise children with threats of "hell fire" to enforce conformity.


No, you do it to plunder their wealth and such. Isnt that what you did to the monks at Lindesfahre?

The Blond Beast
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 01:53 AM
Thats a ridiculious thing to say. The Bible is a text dealing with spiritual truth, historical inquiry is a totally different thing. :eyes

Even more ridiculous than lending credence to a series of myths and exaggerations?

2000 years ago, Jesus needed sleight of hand to persuade the ignorant and obtuse; today he needs only his myth. ;)

Vestmannr
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 04:55 PM
Yes, and all the growth is in 3rd world countries among savages who randomly decided to add Christ to their pantheon of earth spirits and voodoo effigies.
http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/1997/Dec97/r121097a.html

So much for Orthodoxy's rapid growth, LOL. One of the few good things (perhaps the only good thing) Communism did was to eradicate the Christ plague.

Notice that the whitest, most Nordic/Baltic countries are the least Christian. :D

Actually, those figures are from the early 90's - before the recent burst of activity in Russia, where nearly half the population is now Orthodox. The figures I quoted were from the UK circa 2000. So, it is true that some sects are dying out - but the Christians *are* growing. The idea that Christ is being 'added to pantheons' in the third world is contrary to the evidence. Typically the 'African Indigenous churches' tend towards a Zionist idea, not towards voodoo. This is also true for the Pentecostals, which are the major growing Christian sect in the third world - again, not a 'mixed' religion nor syncretist. In 'White' countries, it *is* the Orthodox who are growing, and the Roman Catholics to a lesser extent depending upon which country. The important thing is, however: the Orthodox/Catholic lifestyle is the one that best preserves European culture and genetics.

Vestmannr
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 04:57 PM
If something from the 1920's is an outdated text, what does that make the Bible? LOL

The Bible is part of a Tradition. :) It is also something *quite* different than 'academic writing' - none of the Scriptures are 'academic writings'.

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 05:02 PM
The Bible is part of a Tradition. :) It is also something *quite* different than 'academic writing' - none of the Scriptures are 'academic writings'.

That is very true: they are JEWISH holy books for JEWISH people written by JEWS for JEWS about a JEWISH tribal "god" and a JEWISH weakling that died a miserable death on a cross[that is if you believe it actually happened].

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 05:27 PM
That is very true: they are JEWISH holy books

"This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression. Judaism is not the religion of the Bible."
--Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser Judaism and the Christian Predicament p. 59


JEWISH weakling that died a miserable death on a cross[that is if you believe it actually happened].

Nice ad hominem charade you got here, I sincerly doubt you could've handled half the stuff Christ dealt with when he was on the cross.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 05:30 PM
Even more ridiculous than lending credence to a series of myths and exaggerations?

Myths that are meant to explain something; this is no different than what peoples in Europe did with their myths.

Vestmannr
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 05:33 PM
Do you have any sources to back this up? By incomplete christianity are you implying that there was a messianic component to paganism?

Absolutely - are we quietly 'shuffling off' Mithras, Osiris, Baldur, Lugh and Mabon? Don't hide them back in the closet now! We *know* that the Pagans were expecting. :) Part of the local Tradition in many areas includes that of an expectation of the Christian faith. It was handed down in Britain (as well as recorded) that the Druids had received signs of the coming of God as a man from the East. Hence, when the Blessed Bran Archdruid of Britain converted while a captive of pagan Rome, and returned with the first bishop of Britain - Aristobulus (in AD 63). That is the British tradition. The idea is called a 'Redemptive' religion, which is easily incorporated into a 'Redeeming religion'. It is notable that there were *no* Christian martyrs at the hands of 'Druids' throughout history, nor any Christians who martyred 'Druids' - the persecution of both groups was through Roman paganism, which no doubt accelerated their 'synthesis.'



I've read all your posts to date on the subject and I can say without reservation that you are a religiously biased man, drawing on religiously biased sources to bolster a religiously biased interpretation of the past. :idolize

Yes, and you'd be lying - I'm not 'religiously biased'. I give credit where it is due, and I use solid academic sources. By far, my sources are *not* religious. The great bulk of my sources are not Orthodox either - I do see that your charge *is* however your own approach to the subject. ;)



Just as there is no such thing as 'hereditary jews' with a continuous history? :naughty

Well, it is an absurdity. Even those in modern Witchcraft know better than to believe claims of 'hereditary witches'. There was and no is continuous 'witch cult', no history of experience with any such religious cult - as there has been with Jews.



"Nos Galan Gaeaf" was a rite of druidic origin, it had no ties whatsoever to christianity.

Nos Galan Gaeaf is a Welsh folk event parallel to Halloween - it is not a 'rite of druidic origin' as there was no *Druid religion.* The Druids were a caste, and often were of various different religious sects. They were recognized by contemporaries as being a sort of monotheist, but who that 'one god' was depended upon the tribe. Ultimately, we should say rather that the Celts and their Druids were 'superstitious' more than religious.



No offense, but I could care less about what neo-pagans or contemporary christians believe. My perspective on the matter is purely anthropological.

Belief of groups is part of anthropological study, whether modern or ancient. Speaking from an academic point of view - Margaret Murray's claim of a 'witch cult', matriarchal societies, and Gardner's claim for modern witches being a continuation of Celtic/Paleolithic religion were all proven wrong by the early 1970s in academic circles. No legitimate anthropologist of this day and age would make a claim of matriarchy, witch cults, or a continuous European pagan religion.



Your use of the word "willingly" really betrays your christian bias. Ever hear of the term forced conversion? History is rife with examples of everybody from Jews to Inuits being forced to convert to christianity.

Which are propaganda - they were not 'forced conversions'. If a person converts, they do so willingly. Where is your evidence of 'forced Jewish conversions'? The Spanish marranos? Those who did not convert left freely for Italy. Those who did were not 'forced' but made the decision on pragmatic concerns. Some of their ancestors reverted, but otherwise those who converted themselves did not always regress. There is a phenomenon in every religion that a certain percentage of converts do 'go back' - however, it is based on personal decisions. One cannot 'force' conversion at the point of a sword.



The original Druids were wiped out by successive campaigns by the Roman Empire and then the Roman Catholic Church, so that by the year 1,000 of the Common Era, Druidism as an intact belief system had vanished from Western Europe.

Far previous to 1,000 of AD. "Common Era" is a religious term, created and pushed by Jewish folk. The attempt to insert it as an 'academic term' is purely part of the attempt of Jews to control the public discourse. 'AD 1000' and '1000 BC' are still the proper usage and terms, as one can find in the Oxford manual of style and Hart's. It is true that the *pagan* Roman Empire attacked Druids at what is today Anglesey. However, there was no 'campaign' by the Roman Catholic Church 'against' druids. The Welsh records, and the local tradition of the people is that the druids *became* the Christian clergy of the region. Druidism was never an 'intact belief system' - as it was neither a belief, nor a system but a caste of people of varying belief systems. Christian bards, ovates, and druids exist even in Medieval Welsh writings - terms all applied to Christian (catholic/orthodox) Saints. A good example is St. Illtyd, called a 'magus' in Insular Latin texts - much as the Scottish 'wizard' Michael Scot would later be called (he actually was a Catholic bishop, assigned to Cashel in Ireland for one week.) As for the date that 'Druidism' disappeared, it would be quite early for Britain - as the system was entirely Christian according to Medieval Welsh texts before the Roman persecutions of Christians in Britain. Only in Scotland and Ireland did native religions survive longer, and not much beyond the Patrician mission in Ireland, nor the Columban mission in Scotland. By the time of the Anglo-Saxon settlements, the Anglo-Saxons *were* the pagans (along with the Picts) - by the time of the first Viking raids, there were no pagans in all of Britain/Ireland. By the time of the Norman Conquest, they were all Christians as well. The fact is that Christianity was simply a more successful religion - and that the folk willingly converted. (The idea of 'forced conversions' in Heroic Age 'barbarian' societies is nuts in any case - they simply would have fought back, as they did with the Viking's at a certain period. The 'blood eagle' was performed on more than a few Christians in the Hebrides.)


Furthermore, I fail to see what monotheism and messianism could possibly have to do with the druidic belief system? A story about some poor stiff getting nailed to a cross spreads out of the middle-east and you expect me to believe it somehow ties in with things like nature worshiping and polytheism? :sway

The idea of 'nature worship' and a 'Druidic religion' is purely the invention of 18th c. Romantics. Rather, the native cults of the Celts (miscalled 'Druidic') were tribal cults based upon ancestor worship, just like amongst the Germanics. Contemporary descriptions of their native religions describe a vast mosaic of differing beliefs and practices all in competition with one another. However, they all had some common threads - and yes, monotheism and messianism are *both* witnessed to by pagan Classical writers, as well as later Christian writers. Dagda Ollathir is only a bit removed from the Christian God. Lugh Samildanac is a 'Christic' figure, as is Mabon, Cu Chulainn, even Mannanan. The Christianity that came *worked* and was able to supress most of the tribal warfare while allowing those people to remain with their own identity.

To be honest about it, one has to look at successful religions: 'pagan' religions (Animism, Shamanism, Heathenism, etc.) have not been successful. Hinduism is the closest to a pagan religion that we could consider successful - but in light of those other religions that have successfully taken root in India, and the short geographical/cultural range of Hinduism - it isn't successful. Judaism is successful for its 'in group'. Historically, successful religions include Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism - all of which have some great similarities.

She-Wolf
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 05:34 PM
Christianity is a branch of Judaism, it was considered a "Jewish religion for the non-jews".

Vestmannr
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 05:38 PM
Christianity is a branch of Judaism, it was considered a "Jewish religion for the non-jews".

By modern revisionists, Deconstructed Protestants and some Roman pagans. However, since Christianity since its incarnation has been 'anti-Jewish' in origin, even the Jews rightly argue against a 'Jewish origin' for Christianity. (They are right!) The Hellenic origins of Christianity seem to have a much more solid case - making Christianity *truly* European in the strictest sense. ;)

Evolved
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 05:47 PM
Halloween is not anti-Christian. Where in the Bible does it say we cannot recognize the darkness within ourselves? According the the Bible we are born in a state of sin. Perhaps Christians should have a holiday where they are allowed to revisit their pre-saved, sinful selves for one evening and the next evening give thanks to Jesus for making them see the light. A religious excuse to party one's ass off..

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 05:53 PM
By modern revisionists, Deconstructed Protestants and some Roman pagans. However, since Christianity since its incarnation has been 'anti-Jewish' in origin, even the Jews rightly argue against a 'Jewish origin' for Christianity. (They are right!) The Hellenic origins of Christianity seem to have a much more solid case - making Christianity *truly* European in the strictest sense. ;)
There is nothing remotely anti-Jewish about Christian doctrine or the 27 books of the New Testament. You are forgetting that Christianity has entirely Jewish antecedents and all of the first Christians were of Jewish origin along with the apostles.
Did not Paul emphasise that the gentiles are the "wild vine" grafted onto the "natural vine", the Jews? Did not Christ also say that "Salvation is of the Jews"?
Christian doctrine and belief has weakened Aryan man and his heroic warrior aspect by the elevation of the weak,the ignoble and the foolish at the expense of the strong,the noble and the wise.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 05:53 PM
Christianity is a branch of Judaism,

Really? Jewish scholar Joshua Jehouda disputes such a notion declaring that "it links in one breath two ideas which are completely irreconcileable, it seeks to demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and cold or black and white, and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion to a basis on which some, nevertheless, are endeavouring to construct a civilisation."(l'Antisemitisme Miroir du Monde pp. 135-6)

And he isnt the only Jew who denies the connection with Christianity:

"...you will notice the great difference between the Jewish and Christian religions. But these are not all. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other. ...we emphasized that there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian religion. There is not any similarity between the two concepts."
--Rabbi Maggal (President, National Jewish Information Service) letter, 21 August 1961


it was considered a "Jewish religion for the non-jews".

By whom? By 132 AD even the Romans considered Christianity a seperate religion from Judaism. And this "jewish religion for non-jews" is an oxymoron.

Oh well.

"Despite the ostensible merging of Judean and Jew even in certain New Testament passages and by the rabbis who became rulers of Palestine in the third century and continued to use Hebrew and Aramaic more than Greek, the roots of Christianity were not Jewish. Christianity did not derive from the Judaism of the pharisees, but emerged like Judaism from the wider Judean milieu of the first century. Both Christians and Jews stemmed from pre-70 Judean-ism as heirs of groups that were to take on the role of primary guardians or interpreters of scripture as they developed on parallel tracks in relation to each other."
--Robert and Mary Coote Power, Politics, and the Making of the Bible

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 06:06 PM
There is nothing remotely anti-Jewish about Christian doctrine or the 27 books of the New Testament.
:eyes I dont even know where to begin to refute this nonsense!



You are forgetting that Christianity has entirely Jewish antecedents and all of the first Christians were of Jewish origin along with the apostles.

XXX....wrong. The Apostles were Galileens which even the Bible admits is a land of gentiles. I even read a book about the influence Jesus had on the development of Judaism and it admitted that during the Macabees period the Jewish religion was imposed on the gentile Galileens. But the Judaism that arosed in Galilee was significantly different from that in Judea. Galileen Judaism was heavily influenced by Hellenism and this earned them nothing but contempt from the orthodox Judeans.

"It is known that Jesus and his teachings enlisted their first following among the Galilean provincials who were despised by the Jerusalemites for having yielded more than others to foreign influences. "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" they said. These humble folks of Galilee, though much attached to the Judaic rites and customs, in which respect they were perhaps stricter than the Jerusalemites, were ignorant of the Law and were therefore despised by the haughty doctors of Judea. This scorn likewise followed the first disciples of Jesus, some of whom, besides, belonged to the disreputable classes, such as e.g., the publicans."
-- Bernard Lazare, AntiSemitism: Its History and Causes pg. 30

So this notion that Christianity arosed out of Judaism or that the Apostles were Jews can only be made on flimsy grounds. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the Jewish population in Galilee was significantly small; Galileens were largely Cannanites, Phonencians, and yes even GREEKS!

In fact is it a well known fact that there was strong Greek(Hellenic) influences on Christianity from the very beginning. Even scholars who insist on Christianity's Jewish origins admit this:

"It is precisely these Jewish origins of Christianity that draw our attention toward Hellenism in the larger sense, in its cultural and intellectual dimensions. The mindsets, the way of thinking, the literary products of the first Christian centuries bear witness to the meeting that had already taken place between Hellenism and Judaism. A process of Hellenization began with the Greek translation of the Torah, the Pentateuch, and continued with the works written directly in Greek, like the Book of Wisdom. It grew more vigorous in Alexandrian Judaism, owning to contributions by authors such as Aristobulus and especially Philon; the latter consciously adapted Greek philosophical concepts to his understanding of the Bible by means of allegory, producing a theology, a cosmology, and an anthropology that profoundly influenced the first church fathers."
--"Hellenism and Christianity" from Greek thought : a guide to classical knowledge edited by Jacques Brunschwig and Geoffrey E.R. Lloyd, with the collaboration of Pierre Pellegrin ; translated under the direction of Catherine Porter. page 859

So if Christianity grew out of Judaism, it grew out of a form of Judaism more influenced by Greek thinking than anything Talmudic.


Did not Christ also say that "Salvation is of the Jews"?

I like to know where he saids that!



Christian doctrine and belief has weakened Aryan man and his heroic warrior aspect by the elevation of the weak,the ignoble and the foolish at the expense of the strong,the noble and the wise.

Nevermind that chivalry arosed out of Christianity and that concept certainly did not weaken European masculinity but enhanced it. Oh and dont give me the typical argument that chivalry was simply absorbed by thr Christians from German warrior ethics.

“Because we associate chivalry with courtliness and the “civilizing” impulse, many have assumed that the triumphant figure of Christ was a survival of Germanic culture and it was gradually replaced by a human-centered, more emotionally resonant representation of the Passion. The militant spirit of Christianity was not a pagan survival, however, but a commonplace of monastic literature. Here is the opening paragraph of the Benedictine Rule, developed by St. Benedict in the early sixth century, long before Christianity made headway in the Germanic territories of northern Europe:


“Listen, my son, to your master’s precepts, and incline the ear of your heart. Receive willingly and carry out effectively your loving father’s advice…To you, therefore, my words are now addressed, whoever you may be, who are renouncing your own will to do battle under the Lord Christ, the true King, and are taking up the strong, bright weapons of obedience.”

Behind such expressions we hear the words of St. Paul calling Christians to don “the armor of Christ” (Eph. 6:10-18, for example). But in the Rule the thinking is refined and adapted to the formation of a brotherhood. Obedience has become a weapon; renouncing one’s will enables one to “do battle” under Christ. The Rule was probably known in Anglo-Saxon England already in the seventh century and shows that Christianity did not depend on Germanic paganism for an appreciation of martial metaphors.”
--Allen J. Frantzen Bloody Good: Chivalry, Sacrifice, and the Great War pg.33-4

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 06:18 PM
The Hellenic origins of Christianity seem to have a much more solid case - making Christianity *truly* European in the strictest sense. ;)

"Still, one fact must be stressed. Christianity has had a strong tie to Hellenism from the beginning, in that it was spread by means of Greek. The oldest Christian writings, including the authentic letters of Paul, were written in Greek. Whatever may have been the linguistic form of oral tradition and underlying sources of the canonical Gospels, these, too, were composed in Greek. The choice is not limited to the mission of the "Apostle to the Gentiles". It is inherent in the usage of communities that produced the texts that were later canonized as a cherent set, the New Testament. The Jews of the Diaspora were speakers of Greek. They adopted the koine, the language of communication throughout the Orient from the time of Alexander's conquests. Galilee was strongly marked by Hellenistic civilization, and even in Judea, Greek was widespread.”
--"Hellenism and Christianity" from Greek thought : a guide to classical knowledge edited by Jacques Brunschwig and Geoffrey E.R. Lloyd, with the collaboration of Pierre Pellegrin ; translated under the direction of Catherine Porter. page 858

Its also been noted by many scholars the strong Greek influence in the Gospels. So much so that its believed that at least one of them(Luke's Gospel) was actually written by a Greek Christian.

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 07:08 PM
:eyes I dont even know where to begin to refute this nonsense!

I see so do I take that as an admission of defeat?


XXX....wrong. The Apostles were Galileens which even the Bible admits is a land of gentiles.

Incorrect, this was a hevily miscegenated area of Mischling Jews.

I even read a book about the influence Jesus had on the development of Judaism and it admitted that during the Macabees period the Jewish religion was imposed on the gentile Galileens. But the Judaism that arosed in Galilee was significantly different from that in Judea. Galileen Judaism was heavily influenced by Hellenism and this earned them nothing but contempt from the orthodox Judeans.

If you are trying to make out a case for Galileans being Aryans forget about it:you are on swampy ground.

"It is known that Jesus and his teachings enlisted their first following among the Galilean provincials who were despised by the Jerusalemites for having yielded more than others to foreign influences. "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" they said. These humble folks of Galilee, though much attached to the Judaic rites and customs, in which respect they were perhaps stricter than the Jerusalemites, were ignorant of the Law and were therefore despised by the haughty doctors of Judea. This scorn likewise followed the first disciples of Jesus, some of whom, besides, belonged to the disreputable classes, such as e.g., the publicans."
-- Bernard Lazare, AntiSemitism: Its History and Causes pg. 30

So this notion that Christianity arosed out of Judaism or that the Apostles were Jews can only be made on flimsy grounds. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the Jewish population in Galilee was significantly small; Galileens were largely Cannanites, Phonencians, and yes even GREEKS!

All mixed up into one repugnant multicultural melting point.Is that your motive? The advancement ofa multicultural agenda under the cover of Jewish Christianity?

In fact is it a well known fact that there was strong Greek(Hellenic) influences on Christianity from the very beginning. Even scholars who insist on Christianity's Jewish origins admit this:

"It is precisely these Jewish origins of Christianity that draw our attention toward Hellenism in the larger sense, in its cultural and intellectual dimensions. The mindsets, the way of thinking, the literary products of the first Christian centuries bear witness to the meeting that had already taken place between Hellenism and Judaism. A process of Hellenization began with the Greek translation of the Torah, the Pentateuch, and continued with the works written directly in Greek, like the Book of Wisdom. It grew more vigorous in Alexandrian Judaism, owning to contributions by authors such as Aristobulus and especially Philon; the latter consciously adapted Greek philosophical concepts to his understanding of the Bible by means of allegory, producing a theology, a cosmology, and an anthropology that profoundly influenced the first church fathers."
--"Hellenism and Christianity" from Greek thought : a guide to classical knowledge edited by Jacques Brunschwig and Geoffrey E.R. Lloyd, with the collaboration of Pierre Pellegrin ; translated under the direction of Catherine Porter. page 859

So if Christianity grew out of Judaism, it grew out of a form of Judaism more influenced by Greek thinking than anything Talmudic.

Paul goes to great lengths as do the gospel writers to point out that the birth,life and death of the Nazarene were in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.



I like to know where he saids that!

JOHN 4:21-23



Nevermind that chivalry arosed out of Christianity and that concept certainly did not weaken European masculinity but enhanced it.

Chivalry grew predominately out of the Ario-Germanic warrior figure and had absolutely nothing to with your "turn the other cheek" Jewish Christian mentality.

Oh and dont give me the typical argument that chivalry was simply absorbed by thr Christians from German warrior ethics.

You may not like it but it is true.

“Because we associate chivalry with courtliness and the “civilizing” impulse, many have assumed that the triumphant figure of Christ was a survival of Germanic culture and it was gradually replaced by a human-centered, more emotionally resonant representation of the Passion. The militant spirit of Christianity was not a pagan survival, however, but a commonplace of monastic literature. Here is the opening paragraph of the Benedictine Rule, developed by St. Benedict in the early sixth century, long before Christianity made headway in the Germanic territories of northern Europe:

Haha,hardly an unbiased INDEPENDANT source is it?


Behind such expressions we hear the words of St. Paul calling Christians to don “the armor of Christ” (Eph. 6:10-18, for example).

Meant figuratively not literally.

But in the Rule the thinking is refined and adapted to the formation of a brotherhood. Obedience has become a weapon; renouncing one’s will enables one to “do battle” under Christ. The Rule was probably known in Anglo-Saxon England already in the seventh century and shows that Christianity did not depend on Germanic paganism for an appreciation of martial metaphors.”
--Allen J. Frantzen Bloody Good: Chivalry, Sacrifice, and the Great War pg.33-4Allowing oneself to be spat upon ,flogged and nailed to a tree is not an example of a martial outlook.

Allenson
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 07:09 PM
A religious excuse to party one's ass off..


Something that athiests and we wicked godless heathens can do whenever we so wish. ;)

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 07:47 PM
I see so do I take that as an admission of defeat?

Is it just me, or do pagans always try to claim victory when its perfectly clear their positions are being shot down one by one, and especially when done using quotes from scholarly sources(something you have not done in the least).

Nice try at claiming victory, I've faced down more elaborate arguments than the ones you spout.




Incorrect, this was a hevily miscegenated area of Mischling Jews.

Read the book of Macabees, it clearly states Galilee is a land of Gentiles.



If you are trying to make out a case for Galileans being Aryans forget about it:you are on swampy ground.

Nice straw man. Although it is well known Greeks did live in Galilee and one of the Gospels mentions Jesus preaching to Greeks.



All mixed up into one repugnant multicultural melting point.Is that your motive? The advancement ofa multicultural agenda under the cover of Jewish Christianity?

Its become obivous you dont even understand what my argument was.....and you're the one stroking your ego about me being defeated.



Judaism none the less and Paul goes to great lengths as do the gospel writers to point out that the birth,life and death of the Nazarene were in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.

And as I already pointed out(using a quote from a Jewish scholar) JUDAISM IS NOT THE RELIGION OF THE BIBLE!



JOHN 4:21-23
What he seems to be stating is that under the old ways salvation came from the Jewish people but the time will come when all true in spirit will worship God. So not entirely that convincing. Also I suspect this another issue of translation for its been noted that most words that come off as "Jew" is a result of a mistranslation of the original Greek word which has no religious connotation but refers to a person living in the Judea region(hence a white Greek pagan living in Judea falls under this category).


Chivalry grew predominately out of the Ario-Germanic warrior figure

Apparently scholarly quotes have no effect on your thinking for I already refuted this! :eyes



and had absolutely nothing to with your "turn the other cheek" Jewish Christian mentality.

You clearly dont know what "turn the other cheek" means.



You may not like it but it is true.

Excuse me, you're the one denying truth here.



Haha,hardly an unbiased INDEPENDANT source is it?

Obviously you cant stand the fact that militarist rhetoric and notions were part of Christianity long before the German conversion. Do I need to get into the just war theories that appear as early as the 2nd century?



Meant figuratively not literally.

No not really and Frantzen explains this to great length. You do realize that Paul wrote that it was for good reason that the soldier carries a sword, that the state is ordained by God to wield the sword of justice, and that it is a Christian's duty to defend his country in times of war. Im sure you were well aware of all this were you? Oh and did you know the first Roman convert to Christianity was a soldier? Did all this somehow manage to escape your notice? Christianity was never a pacifist religion.



Allowing oneself to be spat upon ,flogged and nailed to a tree is not an example of a martial outlook.

LOL! You dont even get the understanding of the crucifixtion. Christ was doing battle with Satan and because of Christ's self-sacrifice, Satan and his evil forces were subdued. The crucifixtion was constantly protrayed as a spiritual battle between good and evil;and this had a profound effect on the development of chivalry. As Franzten makes perfectly clear, a knight's ultimate goal was to be like Christ and sacrifice himself for the greater good. To deny Christianity's role in chivalry's development is to deny simple facts; which you seem so willing to do.

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 08:22 PM
Really? Jewish scholar Joshua Jehouda disputes such a notion declaring that "it links in one breath two ideas which are completely irreconcileable, it seeks to demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and cold or black and white, and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion to a basis on which some, nevertheless, are endeavouring to construct a civilisation."(l'Antisemitisme Miroir du Monde pp. 135-6)

Stating a Jew as a source?!? You dont think that the Jew has a vested interest in maintaining the fiction that there is little or no link between xtianity and Judaism?

And he isnt the only Jew who denies the connection with Christianity:

Well of course he isnt!

"...you will notice the great difference between the Jewish and Christian religions. But these are not all. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other. ...we emphasized that there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian religion. There is not any similarity between the two concepts."
--Rabbi Maggal (President, National Jewish Information Service) letter, 21 August 1961

The xtian faith is the daughter of Judaism and that is an indisputable fact whether you like it or not. Xtianity simply would not exist without Judaism and also remember that the majority of the xtian scriptures are also in the Jewish bible also.
Xtianity and its entire lunar spirituality and slave mentality is Jewish in ESSENCE and that is the important fact to grasp.
People such as yourself who deny the obvious must have a hidden agenda in promoting the fiction that xtianity has no Jewish roots.
Surely it would be better for a race and a people that they honour the gods of their ancestors and not the fairytales of a hooknosed desert tribe?


By whom? By 132 AD even the Romans considered Christianity a seperate religion from Judaism. And this "jewish religion for non-jews" is an oxymoron.

Oh well.

You are missing the point which is xtianity has its roots in Judaism and the Jewish people. It matters not how it subsequently developed.

"Despite the ostensible merging of Judean and Jew even in certain New Testament passages and by the rabbis who became rulers of Palestine in the third century and continued to use Hebrew and Aramaic more than Greek, the roots of Christianity were not Jewish. Christianity did not derive from the Judaism of the pharisees, but emerged like Judaism from the wider Judean milieu of the first century. Both Christians and Jews stemmed from pre-70 Judean-ism as heirs of groups that were to take on the role of primary guardians or interpreters of scripture as they developed on parallel tracks in relation to each other."
--Robert and Mary Coote Power, Politics, and the Making of the Bible
What have Jewish fables to do with the Ario-Germanic Folk?

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 08:38 PM
Once again, we see AryanKrieger making deseperate attempts to keep his arguments alive.


Stating a Jew as a source?!? You dont think that the Jew has a vested interest in maintaining the fiction that there is little or no link between xtianity and Judaism?

Lets just say Im following the advice of Uncle Adolf in Mein Kampf:

"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself."

So even Hitler knew that much of the best damning evidence came from Jews themselves. A fact you seem to lack understanding of.



The xtian faith is the daughter of Judaism and that is an indisputable fact whether you like it or not.

I've refuted this time and time again. You even try to fluff a scholarly quote that directly states Christianity's roots were not Jewish. :eyes

Again turning to Uncle Adolf:

[The Jews'] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine."



Xtianity simply would not exist without Judaism and also remember that the majority of the xtian scriptures are also in the Jewish bible also.

No they're not! The Jewish religion is founded on the Talmud, which directly states that the oral tradition(talmud) is greater than the scriptures. Whats even more interesting about the scriptures is that the Jews had to completely rewrite and edit them into the Jamnian canon in order to make Talmudic teaching acceptable to the scriptures. Ironically it was Christians who preserved the original scriptures.




Xtianity and its entire lunar spirituality and slave mentality is Jewish in ESSENCE and that is the important fact to grasp.

You clearly show off your desperation as I have clearly debunked this!



People such as yourself who deny the obvious must have a hidden agenda in promoting the fiction that xtianity has no Jewish roots.

You're the one denying the obvious and simply cant stand the fact that your rantings are debunked one after the other in so many topics. Hell you couldnt even back up your assertion about the authenticity of Hitler's table talks, which scholars now know many parts of it are forgeries. You couldnt back up your argument about the SS being staunchly paganist, except with pathetic elitism. I quoted a scholarly source about how Himmler's paganism and anti-Christianity have been blown out of proportion(hell even one of Himmler's secretaries recorded him stating that he had nothing against Christianity in of itself). And now you cant even back up your constant knee-jerks against Christianity. If you wish to be such a sore loser, thats your business!



Surely it would be better for a race and a people that they honour the gods of their ancestors and not the fairytales of a hooknosed desert tribe?

I do honour the god of my ancestors, and I already put you in your place when you tried claiming I dont love my people because of my faith. Are you seriously going to try to repeat that mistake again?


You are missing the point which is xtianity has its roots in Judaism and the Jewish people. It matters not how it subsequently developed.

You miss the obvious point that it does not and you cannot stand the fact I've debunked you so many damn times!

In all honestly I think this debate is over. Aryankreiger is making this look more like a soap opera than a real intellectual discussion.

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 09:11 PM
Once again, we see AryanKrieger making deseperate attempts to keep his arguments alive.



Lets just say Im following the advice of Uncle Adolf in Mein Kampf:

"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself."

So even Hitler knew that much of the best damning evidence came from Jews themselves. A fact you seem to lack understanding of.

"By their fruits you shall know them"-not by their words,although you seem quick to accept the testimony of Jews.
On that basis I suppose you accept the testimony of the Jews who supposedly escaped the "ovens" and lived to tell the tale?



I've refuted this time and time again. You even try to fluff a scholarly quote that directly states Christianity's roots were not Jewish. :eyes

I do not accept the testimony of a Jew,"scholar" or not.Odin deliver us from "scholars"!

Again turning to Uncle Adolf:

[The Jews'] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine."

Anyone who espouses scholarly virtues should at least state a source for their qoutes.



No they're not! The Jewish religion is founded on the Talmud, which directly states that the oral tradition(talmud) is greater than the scriptures. Whats even more interesting about the scriptures is that the Jews had to completely rewrite and edit them into the Jamnian canon in order to make Talmudic teaching acceptable to the scriptures. Ironically it was Christians who preserved the original scriptures.

I repeat the "scriptures" are part of the word hoard of the Jews and the Aryan race has no business in sullying his spirit and mind with them.




You clearly show off your desperation as I have clearly debunked this!



You're the one denying the obvious and simply cant stand the fact that your rantings are debunked one after the other in so many topics. Hell you couldnt even back up your assertion about the authenticity of Hitler's table talks, which scholars now know many parts of it are forgeries. You couldnt back up your argument about the SS being staunchly paganist, except with pathetic elitism.

As far as the SS is concerned I gave you my explanation that the leadership of the Order was heathen beyond doubt.Any real xtian would have no problem in accepting my argument but unfortunately White Nationalists who still cling to their childhood superstitions try to justify their religion rather than relinquish it. Take that step-I did.
I also need to remind you that I have family connections to the SS.

I quoted a scholarly source about how Himmler's paganism and anti-Christianity have been blown out of proportion(hell even one of Himmler's secretaries recorded him stating that he had nothing against Christianity in of itself).

Well thats it then! If one of Himmler`s secretaries says so then it must be correct!:D Now who is being desperate?

And now you cant even back up your constant knee-jerks against Christianity. If you wish to be such a sore loser, thats your business!

There is nothing "knee jerk" about my assessment of xtianity.



I do honour the god of my ancestors, and I already put you in your place when you tried claiming I dont love my people because of my faith. Are you seriously going to try to repeat that mistake again?

So you honour the original gods of your ancestors then? How do you reconcile this with your xtian beliefs?


You miss the obvious point that it does not and you cannot stand the fact I've debunked you so many damn times!

No you havent-all you do is quote Jews.

In all honestly I think this debate is over. Aryankreiger is making this look more like a soap opera than a real intellectual discussion.
I accept your admission of defeat.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 09:17 PM
Since Aryan Krieger is not able to make any intelligent arguments, Im not even bothering answering them. As the Book of Proverbs states "Wisdom is too high for a fool to understand", so I wont waste my time arguing with them. In fact after Im just placing him on ignore, no point in reading any more of his rants.

If AryanKrieger is so desperate to masturbate to his own ego about how Im defeated, by all means he can do so. It only makes himself look ridiculious. The gallery can decide for themselves who came out the victor.

She-Wolf
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 09:25 PM
Christians have so far in this thread (which was originally about Halloween costumes) bashed the festive spirit of Halloween, Samhain, the time of the dead, by saying that it doesn't have any meaning and that it's a Christian celebration and that pagans are "incomplete Christians." They argue that Samhain and Halloween are seperate, denying the fact that both celebrations were linked in ancient pre-Christian Europe and combined. The truth is Christianity has nothing to do with Halloween!

Later the Xtians have denied that the mass persecutions over the centuries, particularly in the Middle Ages ever happened. When I and others provided links and sources, the Xtians fobbed it off by saying it's too modern, too scholarly and too "Fluffy Bunny" but all they've done is quoted from similar sources, modern, scholarly and puritan Xtian faith supported/recognised by such corporate brainwashing media as CNN (who by the way aren't "news worthy" with regards to its censorship, backing of Bush and Blair, promotion of multiculture and PC).

It was okay for the Xtians to quote sources but not okay for the pagans. Then the Xtians denied that Christianity has any root from Jewish faith, when it's a fact that Christianity comes direct from Judaism. The Xtians have been cornered, and they don't like it and are reverting to insults. Well I'm going to enjoy Halloween a.k.a Samhain and celebrate the pagan time of year, non-commercial and without influence from Xtianity :D

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 09:31 PM
Later the Xtians have denied that the mass persecutions over the centuries, particularly in the Middle Ages ever happened. When I and others provided links and sources, the Xtians fobbed it off by saying it's too modern, too scholarly and too "Fluffy Bunny" but all they've done is quoted from similar sources, modern, scholarly and puritan Xtian faith supported/recognised by such corporate brainwashing media as CNN (who by the way aren't "news worthy" with regards to its censorship, backing of Bush and Blair, promotion of multiculture and PC).

Excuse me but Henry Kamen is an atheist and he highly disputes the numbers of people killed in the inquisition and he bases much of his findings on the Vatican archives.




It was okay for the Xtians to quote sources but not okay for the pagans.

Much of the sources quoted by pagans were outdated.



Then the Xtians denied that Christianity has any root from Jewish faith, when it's a fact that Christianity comes direct from Judaism.

A "fact" that is easily refuted and even Newsweek in 1992 did an article about how this notion is bogus and only supported by people who know little about either faith.



The Xtians have been cornered, and they don't like it and are reverting to insults.

Pagans sure do love masturbating to their egos trying to claim victory where none exists. It's a bad habit of you people!

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 09:31 PM
Frozen Dice,

You have expressed things far more eloquently than I ever could have done.:)

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 09:38 PM
Excuse me but Henry Kamen is an atheist and he highly disputes the numbers of people killed in the inquisition and he bases much of his findings on the Vatican archives.

You are very selective with your sources-I wonder why you are such an apologist for Mother Church?
It is a fact of history[consider the Crusades and the Teutonic Knights/Knights Templar] that the church has the blood of millions on its stained conscience.Masageing statistics is the favourite past time of politicians.




Much of the sources quoted by pagans were outdated.

Really? Which ones?



A "fact" that is easily refuted and even Newsweek in 1992 did an article about how this notion is bogus and only supported by people who know little about either faith.



Pagans sure do love masturbating to their egos trying to claim victory where none exists. It's a bad habit of you people!No we will leave the obsession with sex to catholic priests in the cloister and confessional booth.

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 09:46 PM
I wonder why you are such an apologist for Mother Church?

Well lets see, maybe because IM CATHOLIC! :eyes



It is a fact of history[consider the Crusades and the Teutonic Knights/Knights Templar] that the church has the blood of millions on its stained conscience.

Name me one world religion that doesnt have blood on its hands. As I said, you "Odinists"(in actuality Odinism has little if anything in common with Norse paganism) went around Europe pilaging, looting, and massacring; all the while you people glorify it and all(about how brave and tough you were). People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

In fact you pagans whine about the "burning times" very much like how Jews whine about the Holocaust. A confirmation of an earlier statement I made about paganism being nothing more than a euro-centric form of Judaism.



Really? Which ones?

Read through the thread. :eyes

AryanKrieger
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 09:54 PM
Well lets see, maybe because IM CATHOLIC! :eyes

That will explain your obsession with masturbation then.
Btw I thought that you were ignoring me? Or is this a love-hate thing then?:D



Name me one world religion that doesnt have blood on its hands. As I said, you "Odinists"(in actuality Odinism has little if anything in common with Norse paganism) went around Europe pilaging, looting, and massacring; all the while you people glorify it and all(about how brave and tough you were). People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

Yes but we didnt kill people for religion but for land and loot.

In fact you pagans whine about the "burning times" very much like how Jews whine about the Holocaust. A confirmation of an earlier statement I made about paganism being nothing more than a euro-centric form of Judaism.

Well I think you would find that a Jew would not be particularly welcome at a folkish Odinist blot! I cant say the same about a xtian church though considering that millions of xtians give their active and passive support to Israel and their illegal occupation of Palestine.



Read through the thread. :eyes
I have but I am not THAT bored.

Gentilis
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 08:47 AM
Absolutely - are we quietly 'shuffling off' Mithras, Osiris, Baldur, Lugh and Mabon? Don't hide them back in the closet now! We *know* that the Pagans were expecting. Expecting what exactly? Please make an effort to qualify your statements. In what way does the Nazarene Joshua relate to your impressive list of gods?


Part of the local Tradition in many areas includes that of an expectation of the Christian faith. You can't seriously expect to get away with a mumbo-jumbo statement like that without providing some background details.


It was handed down in Britain (as well as recorded) that the Druids had received signs of the coming of God as a man from the East. You neglected to mention that those who claimed to have recorded the oral traditions of the Druids were christian converts. How convenient, eh?

Besides, Josh wasn't from the continent, nor was he in a position to go anywhere since his "God as a man" body had been nailed to a cross down south where the date palm trees grow.
:crucified


Hence, when the Blessed Bran Archdruid of Britain converted while a captive of pagan Rome, and returned with the first bishop of Britain - Aristobulus (in AD 63). That is the British tradition. The idea is called a 'Redemptive' religion, which is easily incorporated into a 'Redeeming religion'. Big deal. Had the Hari Krishna's gotten a hold of ol' Bran first he'd be banging a tambourine and handing out flowers.


Yes, and you'd be lying - I'm not 'religiously biased'. I give credit where it is due, and I use solid academic sources. ... who in turn draw upon christian sources. Again, how convenient.


Well, it is an absurdity. Even those in modern Witchcraft know better than to believe claims of 'hereditary witches'. There was and no is continuous 'witch cult', no history of experience with any such religious cult - as there has been with Jews. A few points, if you will:
1 - Traditions are by definition hereditary.
2 - My ancestor was branded a "witch" by the christians in her midst, so if you have a axe to grind over the word take it up with your fellow christians.
3 - Absence of proof doesn't mean something never existed -- especially during times of cultural genocide. (Have you forgotten: you're a christian for Christ's sake -- you guys use that argument all the time)
4 - Unlike yourself, I don't presume to reconstitute the past on the basis of ideology or religious fervour.



Nos Galan Gaeaf is a Welsh folk event parallel to Halloween - it is not a 'rite of druidic origin' as there was no *Druid religion.* The Druids were a caste, and often were of various different religious sects. They were recognized by contemporaries as being a sort of monotheist, but who that 'one god' was depended upon the tribe. Ultimately, we should say rather that the Celts and their Druids were 'superstitious' more than religious. Ultimately, I would say yet again you are injecting your religious bias into the discussion. Where did you get this kooky idea that ancient Druids were monotheists? Sources please.



Which are propaganda - they were not 'forced conversions'. If a person converts, they do so willingly. Tell that to the survivors of the Armenian genocide -- that is, if you don't mind getting punched in the face. :box


The idea of 'nature worship' and a 'Druidic religion' is purely the invention of 18th c. Romantics. The worshiping of water deities is one of the best documented aspects of ancient Celtic culture. The practice of making religious offerings has been substanciated by numerous sacred artifacts retrieved at the bottom of wells and other bodies of water.

Christians have not been able to disassociate them from their origins within the ancient pagan beliefs of the Celts. Even their names belie their pagan origins. Sacred wells dedicated to St. Bridget in Ireland derived their name from the earlier pagan goddess Brigid. In Wales the prefix "Gwen" was added to the holy well of Gwenhudw to disguise its original pagan name for a female water deity.

Here's a good site complete with bibliography:
http://www.lundyisleofavalon.co.uk/mythology/sacred%20sites.htm

Gentilis
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 09:07 AM
Then the Xtians denied that Christianity has any root from Jewish faith, when it's a fact that Christianity comes direct from Judaism.
I wonder if they even know the name of Jesus' sky daddy? "Lord" and "God" are merely titles/designations. If it ain't Yahweh, as with the Jews, then what is it?


The Xtians have been cornered, and they don't like it and are reverting to insults.
So far I've been branded a liar and a nut... after what I've just written, maybe I'll get promoted to heretic.:D

Stríbog
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 09:26 AM
I wonder if they even know the name of Jesus' sky daddy? "Lord" and "God" are merely titles/designations. If it ain't Yahweh, as with the Jews, then what is it?

Eloi... Adonai... wait, crap... this line of reasoning doesn't help the Christians' arguments either. ;)

Taras Bulba
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 02:13 PM
Tell that to the survivors of the Armenian genocide -- that is, if you don't mind getting punched in the face. :box

What are you talking about? the Armenians peacefully accepted Christianity, in fact it was the first Christian state.

The Armenian genocide was something done to them by Muslim turks!

Gentilis
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 05:50 PM
What are you talking about? the Armenians peacefully accepted Christianity, in fact it was the first Christian state.

The Armenian genocide was something done to them by Muslim turks! Precisely my point.

During the genocide, the Turks imposed their Islamic faith on Armenians survivors in exchange for sparing their lives. Those who refused to convert were executed. It is a widely accepted, documented fact.

Here in Montreal, I personally know of one family within the Armenian diaspora who survived by converting to Islam. They have since changed their family name back to its original Armenian appellation.

I use the example of Armenians because it is still in living memory -- and therefore the most direct and intellectually honest way of discrediting Frontiersman's assertion: "If a person converts, they do so willingly."

If you prefer to keep this within the realm of Christianity, we can certain take a look at the dirty tricks and terror tactics Christian missionaries used to discredit and alienate indigenous belief systems...

Taras Bulba
Friday, October 1st, 2004, 12:22 AM
If you prefer to keep this within the realm of Christianity, we can certain take a look at the dirty tricks and terror tactics Christian missionaries used to discredit and alienate indigenous belief systems...

Like what? It's a well known fact that Christianity wherever it went adopted itself to the native culture.And contrary to what pagans say, this wasnt some real-politik decision to incorporate what they couldnt destroy; but as Adrian Hastings points out in his book The Construction of Nationhood it's at the heart of Christianity itself. We see this aspect of Christianity within the time of the Apostles.

Christianity adopts itself to native cultures, Islam does not. In fact the 1540 Muslim apologetics Anqasa Amin denounces Christianity for this very fact.

I explained this greater length here:


http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=153450&postcount=21

Ironically you give the very reason why Christianity fosters nationalism; its willingness to adapt to native cultures. Christianity seeks to Christianize native cultures. Islam seeks to destroy them. I have already given what happened in Egypt as a clear example of this.

It may seem ironic to many pagans here that the main institution in Egypt that sought to preserve(and still does to this very day) the old culture and language of Egypt was none other than the Coptic church(Egypt's native Christian church). The Coptic church to this day still upholds the practice of mummification and the traditional language is used in the Coptic liturgy.

Just from Egypt alone we can see the difference between the Christian and the Islamic approaches to national cultures. Christianity seeks to Christianize them(while also preserving its traditions), Islam seeks to destroy them. Therefore its not ironic that many of the major leaders of Arabic nationalist movements were Christians. In fact as Hastings pointed out, Arab nationalism enjoyed its greatest support and success in Arab countries with significant Christian populations. Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria all have a significant Christian populations. Anyone who claims Christianity is anti-nationalist can see a clear refutation of which in the Middle East. In fact in Lebanon, Christianity was staunchly based around Christianity.

" is in every way in principle far more politically universalist and excerises in consequence a religious restraint upon nationalism which Christianity has often failed to do. This does not, of course, mean that Muslim societies cannot develop into nations, only that their religion does not help them do so, directing them instead towards different social and political formations."
--Adrian Hastings [i]the Construction of Nationhood pg. 201


"Christianity has of its nature been a shaper of nations, even nationalisms; Islam has not, being on the contrary quite profoundly anti-national.....Nations are not constructed by Islam but deconstructed. That is a fact of history but it is a fact dependent upon theology. Recognition of it should make it all the clearer that the construction of nations within the Christian world was not something independent of Christianity but, rather, something stimulated by the Christian attitude to both language and the state......Arab 'nationalism', like Turkish or Egyptian 'nationalism', dates only from the twenty years or so before the First World War, a time when the impact of European thinking was at its highest and most uncriticised point in the Middle East. It was essentially a western, Christian-rooted, concept quite foreign to Islam, one closely linked with secularisation - as also with the presence of a considerable native Arab-speaking Christian population, notably in Egypt and Palestine."
--inbid pg. 187; 201;202

Gentilis
Friday, October 1st, 2004, 04:32 PM
It's a well known fact that Christianity wherever it went adopted itself to the native culture. And contrary to what pagans say, this wasnt some real-politik decision to incorporate what they couldnt destroy
They did indeed incorporate what they could not destroy, but it wasn't a function of careful, methodical proactive planning -- the church simply had no choice in the matter.

Let us not forget: it wasn't until October 31, 1992 -- barely a decade ago -- that the Roman Catholic Church finally removed the verdict of heresy against Galileo -- a man whose ideas they sought to destroy. Do you think they had a choice?

Taras Bulba
Friday, October 1st, 2004, 07:27 PM
They did indeed incorporate what they could not destroy, but it wasn't a function of careful, methodical proactive planning -- the church simply had no choice in the matter.

Actually they did! The Apostles and the early church leaders of the first century(just a decade or so after Christ's death) debated this exact issue. This was the first great controversy within the faith: could somebody celebrate Christian truth within the context of their own cultural traditions or would they have to adhere to Hebrew customs. It was determined that Hebrew customs only applied to Hebrew Christians; Roman customs applied to Roman Christians, etc. In other words, Christianity was to be celebrated within the context of local cultural traditions. This has been the staple of Christian opinion on the matter ever since!

Now as for the age-old and tired argument "they incorpated what they couldnt destroy". Apparently what the church couldnt "destroy" seems to be largely elements that in the grand theological schemes do not matter the least. Easer eggs, christmas trees, etc; are not exactly going to register much on any radar screens.

So I doubt it was a case of what the church couldnt destory as to more of what the Church didnt consider important enough to destroy, or more probable what the Church incorporated out of aesthetic appreciation. You pagans seem to think we Christians are cultural philistines, which we are not! We saw and appreciated the many aesthetic qualities in pagan rituals. But these aesthetic qualities alone does not make it pagan, christian etc.




Let us not forget: it wasn't until October 31, 1992 -- barely a decade ago -- that the Roman Catholic Church finally removed the verdict of heresy against Galileo -- a man whose ideas they sought to destroy. Do you think they had a choice?

Not Galileo again! :eyes

Chesterton was right when he said that there should be a tax on using Galileo's name, for it might force people to try to find another scapegoat(that or do more research on the man). Galileo was never tried because he said the earth removed around the sun, in fact the Church encouraged research into that possibility even since Copernicus(a Catholic priest btw) first proposed that. Now it should be noted that Galileo was as much rejected by fellow scientists as by any theologian. In fact it was largely because of accusations from fellow scientists that got Galileo into trouble.

Now Galileo's punishment was significantly light even for the day, house arrest. Yet even one of the Inquisitors at Galieo's case refused to sign the condemnation. Yet it was the decision of a local court that had no bearing on the church as a whole. As J. L. Heilbron, author of The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals As Solar Observatories, the content and significance of Galileo's trial was more inquisitorial rather than theological. In fact if the Churc's intent was to suppress scientific research, it failed miserably; because research into the sun contuined as if nothing happened, and in a further irony(well to those who think Galileo's case represents the Church's hostility towards science) many of the greatest researchers into the solar system were none other than men of the church.

So basically the Church admitted it error in inquisitioral matters concerning Galileo(since alot of politics was involved in his trial), it never admitted it was wrong on the issue of the Sun and the Earth; it simply had no need to.

Gentilis
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 11:32 AM
So I doubt it was a case of what the church couldnt destory as to more of what the Church didnt consider important enough to destroy, or more probable what the Church incorporated out of aesthetic appreciation. You pagans seem to think we Christians are cultural philistines, which we are not! Actually, I'm not a pagan. Read my profile.

As a matter of personal curiosity, are you a supersessionist? :idolize

Past history aside (and I still maintain the powers you ascribe to your faith are superficial at best), do you belive the Church currently has the power to destroy cultures at will -- or at the very least those elements that don't conform to dogma? If so, what do you suppose they should do about that traitorous pop culture phenomenon, Madonna? And don't tell me that old :censored is being spared for aesthetic reasons. :puke


Now Galileo's punishment was significantly light even for the day, house arrest. Yes, all things considered, it must have been a great relief to him to know that he wasn't going to be burnt alive at the stake.
:onfire


Yet even one of the Inquisitors at Galieo's case refused to sign the condemnation. Actually, three of the ten Cardinals who sat on the Commission did not sign the judgment. They obviously knew it was a load of crap and the Church was making a mistake.

So basically the Church admitted it error in inquisitioral matters concerning Galileo (since alot of politics was involved in his trial), it never admitted it was wrong on the issue of the Sun and the Earth; it simply had no need to.
In 1989, when the Galileo space probe was launched into space, the charge of heresy against Galileo was still intact. This fact alone, made the Church look archaic and foolish. Contrary to what you may believe, the Vatican had no choice but to admit it was out of touch with reality and repent. :fpope:
:idiot

Aistulf
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 12:31 PM
Not sure if anyone posted this yet :)



http://www.x-entertainment.com/halloween/2004/september26/top.jpg
http://www.x-entertainment.com/halloween/2004/september26/ani1.gif


[Source (http://x-entertainment.com/halloween/2004/september26/)]

Taras Bulba
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 06:21 PM
Past history aside (and I still maintain the powers you ascribe to your faith are superficial at best), do you belive the Church currently has the power to destroy cultures at will -- or at the very least those elements that don't conform to dogma?

Directly no, indirectly it has that potential. The Inquisition stopped operating by 1730 and didnt officially end untill the 1960's when it was reorganized into a advisorary council.



If so, what do you suppose they should do about that traitorous pop culture phenomenon, Madonna? And don't tell me that old :censored is being spared for aesthetic reasons. :puke

Nice try at a knee jerk pal. Are you suggesting that Madonna is on the same level as folk traditions like easter eggs? :eyes



Yes, all things considered, it must have been a great relief to him to know that he wasn't going to be burnt alive at the stake.
:onfire


Not everybody convicted by the inquisition was burned at the stake. Henry Kamen notes that most people convicted by the inquisition were placed under hourse arrest for one or two years officially, but it often never lasted more than a few months. Then most people under house arrest were actually allowed to go freely during the day and were only required to stay home at nightime. So overall, the Inquisition was the most lenient court in Europe at the time. It also had the lowest execution rate of any court in Europe, executing an average of 3 people per year over a 300 year basis. So Galileo had a very very very low chance of being burned at the stake anyways.





Actually, three of the ten Cardinals who sat on the Commission did not sign the judgment. They obviously knew it was a load of crap and the Church was making a mistake.

Well there you have it!



In 1989, when the Galileo space probe was launched into space, the charge of heresy against Galileo was still intact. This fact alone, made the Church look archaic and foolish. Contrary to what you may believe, the Vatican had no choice but to admit it was out of touch with reality and repent. :fpope:
:idiot

You're the one denying obvious facts. Philip Sampson in his book Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization notes that the modern conception of Galileo and the nature and impact of his trial is largely a distortion invented by leaders of the Enlightenment to justify their attacks on the church.

The Church had no problems arguing that the earth revolved around the sun, but you could so only as theory. Galileo argued it was fact, but had no direct evidence to back this up. Further was Galileo's method of arguing his case. In other words, the incident was not about religion vs. science but as William R. Shea argues it "was the result of the complex interplay of untoward political circumstances, political ambitions, and wounded prides."("Galileo and the Church")

Stríbog
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 06:24 PM
Chesterton was right when he said that there should be a tax on using Galileo's name

Can you quote anyone besides Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, and Church leaders?

AryanKrieger
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 06:29 PM
Why is it that when we start talking about pagan celebrations such as Halloween that the xtians have to turn it into an exercise in justfying their millenia long slaughter of pagans in the name of their god?

Cant we get back on topic please? :topic

Taras Bulba
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 06:30 PM
Yes, I can quote several people. I've quoted plenty of people on all sorts of topics. Nice try at provocation :eyes

Taras Bulba
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 06:32 PM
Speaking of Pagan rituals and festivels:

“We tend to think only in terms of ‘pagan survivals’ within the Church. We do not often give attention to the adaptation, by non-Christians, of Christian rituals….A lively process of the borrowing of rituals between pagans and Christians appears to have taken place in both directions. Pagan communities borrowed Christian signs and rites. The sign of the Cross would be made sacrificial banquets. The names of Christian angels and saints would be shouted at the solemn toasts around the table. Above all, monks and clergymen came to offer services which non-Christian ritual specialists had previously provided.”
--Peter Brown The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity AD 200-1000 Pg.153

So if Christianity "stole" from paganism, paganism did likewise from Christianity. It should be noted that by the 4th century AD, paganism was heavily Christianized and was very different from classical paganism. Ive already noted about how Julian the Apostate fitted into this picture.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, October 3rd, 2004, 07:21 PM
Now getting back to the argument about Christianity incorporating what it couldnt destroy:

“The sense of a pagan past which had been irrevocably defeated led to a certain tolerance of legacies from the classical world. Pagan monuments had lost their power to disturb Christians. To take a small example: the statues of Augustus and Livia continued to stand in the civic center of Ephesus, but they now had the sign of the Cross discreetly carved on their foreheads…..Yet Eastern Christians were undisturbed by the existence in their midst of considerable pockets of paganism.”
--Peter Brown The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity AD 200-1000 Pg.149

So basically Christians were not even disturbed about these folk pagan traditions carrying on; by then the society was already significantly Christianized.

Krampus
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 03:31 AM
Has anyone ever dressed up like Jesus for Halloween? :D

Allenson
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 04:06 PM
Has anyone ever dressed up like Jesus for Halloween? :D


A friend of mine went as the Uni-Bomber once. That's pretty close, don't you think? ;)

Taras Bulba
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 04:42 PM
My friend went as Osama bin Laden on the Halloween just after 9/11.

svartabrandr
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 04:46 PM
I am told someone at my old high school went as hitler one halloween.

Taras Bulba
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 05:01 PM
Let me guess, he got expelled or suspended? I actually thought of doing that one time, that or Himmler. But common sense kicked in and I decided against it.

svartabrandr
Monday, October 4th, 2004, 05:33 PM
I know they made him take it off. I am not sure if they took it further.