| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kevin
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:40 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
 |
|
"aine" <aine_nicneven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190515609.767184.114650@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Sep 22, 7:06 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190486327.708297.198560@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 10:53 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
So instead they concentrated on preaching Hellfire and
damnation - Patrick was an absolute lunatic on this sunject.
Patrick was no worse than any other Christian of the period.
But you are not denying he was a lunatic.? Whether he was no worse
than another is not important. He would have been the one lunatic at
the time and place. Right?
|
To judge from his own words, he does seem to have been rather more sane than
most Christians of the period. Oh, he had strong beliefs - his Letter to
Coroticus has him bollocking a British ruler for conducting slave raids on
Ireland - but strong beliefs don't necessarily make a lunatic.
I'd read Confession and make up your own mind:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/patrick/confession.toc.html
A few useful paras:
48. You know, as God does, how I went about among you from my youth in the
faith of truth and in sincerity of heart. As well as to the heathen among
whom I live, I have shown them trust and always show them trust. God knows I
did not cheat any one of them, nor consider it, for the sake of God and his
Church, lest I arouse them and [bring about] persecution for them and for
all of us, and lest the Lord's name be blasphemed because of me, for it is
written: 'Woe to the men through whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed.'
49. For even though I am ignorant in all things, nevertheless I attempted to
safeguard some and myself also. And I gave back again to my Christian
brethren and the virgins of Christ and the holy women the small unasked for
gifts that they used to give me or some of their ornaments which they used
to throw on the altar. And they would be offended with me because I did
this. But in the hope of eternity, I safeguarded myself carefully in all
things, so that they might not cheat me of my office of service on any
pretext of dishonesty, and so that I should not in the smallest way provide
any occasion for defamation or disparagement on the part of unbelievers.
Hmm! A missionary who shows trust to the heathens and is scrupulously
careful not to break the law or infringe local pagan social customs so that
the Church might not be defamed by his actions - most unusual for the
period. That sort of scrupulous honesty would probably be unusual today, to
judge from the actions of our politicians.
52. From time to time I gave rewards to the kings, as well as making
payments to their sons who travel with me; notwithstanding which, they
seized me with my companions, and that day most avidly desired to kill me.
But my time had not yet come. They plundered everything they found on us
anyway, and fettered me in irons; and on the fourteenth day the Lord freed
me from their power, and whatever they had of ours was given back to us for
the sake of God on account of the indispensable friends whom we had made
before.
My guess is that he had made friends with some of the brehons (i.e. druids
in charge of the law) - see next para. They'd be about the only folk who
could force the elite to return goods that they had appropriated, and even
then only by applying the law.
53. Also you know from experience how much I was paying to those who were
administering justice in all the regions, which I visited often. I estimate
truly that I distributed to them not less than the price of fifteen men, in
order that you should enjoy my company and I enjoy yours, always, in God. I
do not regret this nor do I regard it as enough. I am paying out still and I
shall pay out more. The Lord has the power to grant me that I may soon spend
my own self, for your souls.
The meaning is unsure, but probably something along the lines of paying for
a licence to preach. I.e. he had to pay the pagan brehons in order to be
able to preach. It's rather at odds with the later characterisation of him
by the Church.
As for the Letter to Coroticus, he reserves his ire for the British ruler
and his soldiers:
"Wherefore let every God-fearing man know that they (the soldiers of
Coroticus) are enemies of me and of Christ my God, for whom I am an
ambassador. Parricide! fratricide! ravening wolves that "eat the people of
the Lord as they eat bread!" As is said, "the wicked, O Lord, have destroyed
Thy law," which but recently He had excellently and kindly planted in
Ireland, and which had established itself by the grace of God"
http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1166.htm
Well, he might be a madman for telling a Christian British king where to get
off - it might have unfortunate repercussions, since the kings of the period
weren't above having opponents murdered (see Gildas for the various
behaviours of near-contemporary British kings) - but you can't really fault
his convictions. It's about the only place where he is seriously thundering
about Hell and Satan, and it's levelled at a Christian.
The standards of behaviour for British kings of the time might be
exemplified by Maelgwn Gwynedd. A bright lad, he was educated by Gildas for
the Church - but decided against it. There appear to have been accusations
of him indulging in sodomy whilst he was learning at the monastery, and he
appears to have been either thrown out or left. In one particular later
incident, he put his wife away in order to go off with another married lady
(her sister? trying to recall), then decided to tidy up loose ends by having
his wife and his lover's husband bumped off. Apparently people who got in
Maelgwn's way had a habit of winding up dead, including relatives. Gildas,
when denouncing Maelgwn, was safely in Britanny. Patrick is within reach of
Coroticus' soldiers - they've already raided his area.
Anyway, they don't make sex scandals like that anymore - makes you wonder
why folks were upset by Clinton and Lewinsky. :-)
There were considerably worse that the Irish might have had - which is why
the later Bishop of Armagh had to recreate Patrick as a sort of
ecclesiastical Rambo. The later Irish Church was rather embarassed by the
Patrick they had, so they had to recreate the Patrick they wanted.
Like I said, these are Patrick's own words - not the deeds attributed to him
by later ecclesiastical propagandists. Read them yourself and make up your
own mind. Was he a lunatic or not?
Kevin |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:23 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
On Sep 22, 10:46 pm, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sep 22, 7:06 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190486327.708297.198560@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 10:53 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
If Mairtin is a historian, then I'm Coco the clown.
When they say that Patrick "drove the
snakes out of Ireland" they actually mean that he drove the Druids
out !
Hardly controversial. I remarked on that over10 years ago.
This comes from Christian propaganda, for instance in the Bible
the Devil is portrayed as a snake/serpent in the Garden of Eden story,
The serpent is not the Devil, though the two are often conflated. Nowhere in
Genesis does it say that the serpent is the Devil and you won't find a
theologian to argue for that identification. The most they might say is that
in popular thinking, the serpent as the tempter, became identified with
Satan, even though the Bible does not make that equation.
OTOH you will always find some numbskull who took a correspondence course
with some Southern Baptist college and got a 'degree' in theology that isn't
worth the paper it is photocopied on - they'll argue that the serpent and
the Devil are one and the same. There arguments tend to be along the lines
of "well, what the Bible meant to say . . . " or "well, what the Bible
really says is . . . " They're the same folks who argue that the Bible is
the immutable Word of God, so why they go putting words into God's mouth is
beyond me. :-)
Ask 10 people who the serpent is in the Bible..10 people even pagans
would say the Devil. Even reading the Bible I was led to believe it
was the Devil so, maybe in direct sense it was not stated but they did
a great job of wordplay.
If I was going to bring it up, I would equate the serpent with the
Devil to appeal to the understanding of the masses.
In the middle here I am. I see your point yet I see Mairtins in saying
it the way he did.
The Church did however decide to have a go at converting people - not just
the Irish, but also the Saxons and other groups - but they really did
believe that they knew the truth and that they had an obligation to spread
the Word.
As for being unable to conquer the Irish any other way - the Romans never
tried. The most you got was, centuries earlier, Agricola considering that it
could be done with one legion. Other than that, the Romans don't appear to
have been very interested in the place. Incidentally, the Romans did have
heavy cavalry - cataphracti. Heavy cavalry wasn't an invention of the
Normans - the medieval European heavy cavalry developed from the Roman use
of cataphracti. In fact the Roman tactics seem to have been very much more
disciplined that the later tactics of medieval knights, and was often
supported by cataphract archers. They would therefore quite probably have
been more effective:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphracti
One such unit consisted of 2,500 Sarmatians stationed in Britain in the 2nd
century. They stayed there after their term of service ended.
A historian with an interest in the period would know all of this, and would
certainly research it if he was going to venture an opinion.
So instead they concentrated on preaching Hellfire and
damnation - Patrick was an absolute lunatic on this sunject.
Patrick was no worse than any other Christian of the period.
It comes through the literature time and again,
But you are not denying he was a lunatic.? Whether he was no worse
than another is not important. He would have been the one lunatic at
the time and place. Right?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Padraig the man knew the Irish ways and used then to demonstrate
Christianity to the Irish in ways they could accept. He had more truth
in him than the rest of the Church combined. Those two factors are
what led to his successes in Ireland. The Church did a number on
Padraig's life and teachings just like it did on Pagan tradition (not
to mention the Christ mythos). That is to say, it co-opted both to its
own puposes.
Padraig the man was not insane but the St. Patrick created by the
Church was crazy, insane and demonic in his anti-Paganess.
Searles |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:32 am Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
<odubhain@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1190571799.231391.38480@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Sep 22, 10:46 pm, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 7:06 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190486327.708297.198560@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 10:53 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
Patrick was no worse than any other Christian of the period.
It comes through the literature time and again,
But you are not denying he was a lunatic.? Whether he was no worse
than another is not important. He would have been the one lunatic at
the time and place. Right?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Padraig the man knew the Irish ways and used then to demonstrate
Christianity to the Irish in ways they could accept. He had more truth
in him than the rest of the Church combined. Those two factors are
what led to his successes in Ireland. The Church did a number on
Padraig's life and teachings just like it did on Pagan tradition (not
to mention the Christ mythos). That is to say, it co-opted both to its
own puposes.
Padraig the man was not insane but the St. Patrick created by the
Church was crazy, insane and demonic in his anti-Paganess.
|
About right in my estimation, but I thought Aine should read Patrick's words
for herself and make up her own mind.
Patrick comes across as a brave and intelligent man of his time, and
conscious of how much schooling he lost by spending time as a slave - he
says feels fairly inadequate by the side of more educated men. He seems to
have decided that he should spread his message by the example of his own
behaviour, and by telling people what he believed the truth was. It is
significant that there were no Christian martyrs in Ireland, probably partly
as a result of Patrick's approach and example, and possibly because he was
held to teach nothing new. The way he presented Jesus was probably
responsible for things like the conflation of Jesus and Lugh in the Senchus
Mor, where Jesus is spoken of in terms more usually seen used on Lugh.
Similarly, Patrick would have been emphasising The Truth - which, as
firenne, was a concept already apparent in indigenous Irish religion.
The upshot of explaining Christianity to the Irish in this way, and in
respecting indigenous laws, was that (contrary to Church propaganda)
conversion progressed by way of syncretism rather than replacement. The idea
that it was spread by replacement and persecution is, upon examination,
untenable, even though that is the official Church line in the texts - well,
they would say that, wouldn't they.  Of course, syncretism was rather
helped by the independence of the Irish Church, which independence continued
until the 12th century. Rome was therefore not in a position to enforce
orthodoxy - the whole point of the Strongbow invasion was to end the
independence of the Irish Church and enforce Rome's POV - or, as Rome put
it, "restore the faith, which had fallen to the ground in Ireland. Rome was
never happy with Ireland and the state of Christianity there.
The Church was even less happy, after Strongbow, with the filidh, and
regarded them as followers of the Antichrist and outright pagans. A few
years after conducting a pogrom against the Cathars in France, the pope gave
full inquisitorial powers to a pro-Rome Irish bishop, including the power to
call on the secular authorities in using military power to suppress or
reform the filidh. However, Ireland wasn't the south of France, the filidh
were an integral part of Irish society without which it would have
collapsed, and the bishop had to contend with a very public letter from the
Chief Poet stating this, claiming that the paganism in filidecht was the
gift of God, the the pope can't have given any such instruction, and if he
had, he was wrong because the Bible gave no instruction to reform the
'poetic art'. The result was a deafening silence from the Church -
presumably the bishop was led off to a darkened room and asked to sit there
quietly and think it all through. Nothing happened at all, and the
filidh went unreformed and unsuppressed.
After Patrick you've got pagans and Christians living side by side, and
people holding views that Rome thought highly heretical. There were still
highly pagan views being held by countryfolk as late as the 19th century -
not often recorded cos folks ignored them, but now and then there's a
mention, such as sheeogue (fairy doctors - they used trance to get answers
for healing folk) As for repression of witchcraft, well, the only case that
I can recall was Lady Alice Kyteller, and that was more about who controlled
power and land, and had no connection with indigenous pagan ideas. It also
only went the distance because an English bishop was involved.
Finally, come to think of it, there is the possibility that Patrick may not
have been his name, but a nickname he was given. You'd get to Patrick from
the Latin 'patricius', which is a title, along the lines of 'Father'.
However, what we can say it that the guy known as Patrick wrote Confessio
and Epistola, and possibly wrote a little prayer called the Lorica of St
Patrick. A lorica was a bit of Roman bodyarmour for protecting the chest and
abdomen.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:32 am Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
BTW Aine, you might compare Patrick's own words with Martin's unsupported
argument that, from Patrick onwards, druids were being carted off to be
burned. As I said at the time, there is no evidence of this at all. The man
who wrote:
". . . the heathen among whom I live, I have shown them trust and always
show them trust. God knows I did not cheat any one of them, nor consider it,
for the sake of God and his
Church, lest I arouse them and [bring about] persecution for them and for
all of us."
is unlikely to contenance druids being executed. Note that he remarks that
he would not consider cheating Irish pagans lest he "arouse them and bring
about persecution for them". I'd say that he had a very full understanding
of the consequences of conflict between pagans and Christians seen elsewhere
in Europe. To my mind, he was trying to find a better way than fire and
sword. That probably makes him the sanest man in Europe of his generation. I
can't think of any other Christian of his time, or afterwards, who wished to
avoid pagans being persecuted.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mairtin O'Druachain
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
On Sep 22, 12:27 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | "aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190449676.898303.41850@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 11:48 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 5:38 am, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190426696.641952.140340@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 5:22 pm, odubh...@comcast.net wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:36 pm, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Years ago my teacher said he was pretty sure that the Irish
Druids
were
called Dragons.
YES!! They were. Which is why I named my son Talon, for the
Dragon and
the Red Dragon is is birth spirit guide.
Druids may have been known as adders but not as dragons. Dragon
was a
nickname for Irish warriors. The Druids themselves liked to call
themselves "swineherds" (for obvious reasons). :-)
Either is good. He was born with the caul over his head and after
being checked out as healthy, the nurses and Doctor said except he
has
a long snake tongue.
As an infant he use to hang it out and point it. Damdest thing. To
this day he can whip that thing out and stick it up his nose. He
grosses people out in cold season.
Still I swear I saw they said Druids were Dragons. Would make sense
as
well why some Kings had Dragon banners if the Druids advised the
Kings? Or why so many references to waking the Dragons? I don't
know.
Most of us know that the Celts held the head as sacred. When in
battle, it was written (somewhere sorry) that they drank a bit
of
blood from the Fallen Warriors (I believe their own) from the
head to
take in the Fallen Warriors greatness and battle experience. A
bit of
their spirit.
Which is why I asked here somewhere recently but was never
answered,
if possibly this could be where the term Vampire came from or
Dracula?
Not sure how I put it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's not where the idea of vampires comes from. Drinking blood
from a
fallen hero or relative is an old Irish and European custom. It's
also
have bonds and oaths are instigated. Using the head as a drinking
cup
by Celts or drinking from a head is considered to be taking in the
soul or spirit of the fallen. That is why so many sacred wells are
said to have heads within them.
Think about it though. Even if Vlad tortured people or however the
Dracula story went to name him..the drinking of blood always falls
back to the thought of bats that do. As if it were never heard of
by
people that warriors did. If it was such an accepted practice back
then why is vampirism seen as so fictional?
Isn't a vampire feeding off the life force as a warrior did? I
really
think there is something that connects it all somewhere.
Hmm! I'm not sure that warriors could be said to feed off the life
force.
Kill, yes. Have rituals involving blood - maybe. But feeding off the
life
force for sustenance? That's something else altogether.
The earliest vampire related legends would involve the death of
newborns and
pregnant women - the usual way of characterising sudden, unexpected
fatal
illness. That turns up as a feature of a number of other vampiric
legends.
Then you've got the whole connection with the dead, which following
various
strands back to antiquity connects with ancient Greek ideas of the
forces of
chaos opposing the gods, which in Roman myth were responsible, via
the Roman
idea of witches (who obeyed neither the laws or gods or human
society), for
sudden unexpected death and plagues. The most notable Roman witch,
Erictho,
was effectively antilife - her very presence sterilised seeds. You
might say
that she sucked the life out of them.
Just a few notions off the top of my head - however, highly unlikely
in that
case to be connected to warriors, since warriors frequently used
things like
amulets invoking a deity's power to avert illness, death in battle
and so
on.
Celtic Sacrifice, Prayer, and Divination
By J. A. MacCulloch
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pC9NOmT2yKAJ:www.worldspiritualit...
Diodorus says the Irish ate their enemies, and Pausanias describes
the eating the flesh and drinking the blood of children among the
Galatian Celts. Drinking out of a skull the blood of slain
(sacrificial) enemies is mentioned by Ammianus and Livy, and Solinus
describes the Irish custom of bathing the face in the blood of the
slain and drinking it.[821] In some of these cases the intention may
simply have been to obtain the dead enemy's strength, but where a
sacrificial victim was concerned, the intention probably went further
than this. The blood of dead relatives was also drunk in order to
obtain their virtues, or to be brought into closer rapport with them.
[822] This is analogous to the custom of blood brotherhood, which also
existed among the Celts and continued as a survival in the Western
Isles until a late date.[823]
Aone, those classicists were describing the ancient Celts of Gaul, not
the Irish.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So the Gauls were the Head Kults?
Well, there are references in the sources to Irish warriors collecting
heads.
Kevin
|
Yes, to hang up outside their doors, but I don't thing it ever
happened - just more black propaganda against the Druids by the
missionaries as the mass prozelytizing of Ireland proceeded.
I simply can't understand how anybody swallows that monkish mythology
hook, line and sinker. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mairtin O'Druachain
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
On Sep 23, 9:32 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | BTW Aine, you might compare Patrick's own words with Martin's unsupported
argument that, from Patrick onwards, druids were being carted off to be
burned. As I said at the time, there is no evidence of this at all. The man
who wrote:
". . . the heathen among whom I live, I have shown them trust and always
show them trust. God knows I did not cheat any one of them, nor consider it,
for the sake of God and his
Church, lest I arouse them and [bring about] persecution for them and for
all of us."
is unlikely to contenance druids being executed. Note that he remarks that
he would not consider cheating Irish pagans lest he "arouse them and bring
about persecution for them". I'd say that he had a very full understanding
of the consequences of conflict between pagans and Christians seen elsewhere
in Europe. To my mind, he was trying to find a better way than fire and
sword. That probably makes him the sanest man in Europe of his generation. I
can't think of any other Christian of his time, or afterwards, who wished to
avoid pagans being persecuted.
Kevin
|
I never said that Patrick persecuted the Druids. He couldn't, they
were still too powerful in his time.
But his worlds did inflame and incite the horror, the exterminations
and the burnings that came afterwards, culminating in the Final
Extermination of the Irish Druid Order, at Kilkenny, in 597 A.D.
The Order was then gone, but Druids, hidden across Ireland lived on.
Outlawed, their names proscribed, under pain of death.
Let's not revisit all that now, Kevin.
People have all the information they require.
Let them decide for themselves.
People now have both sides of the story, the Druid side from me, the
Christian side from you -
There is no need for reinforcement where adults are concerned.
Please let them decide. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mairtin O'Druachain
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
On Sep 23, 8:32 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | odubh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1190571799.231391.38480@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 22, 10:46 pm, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 7:06 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190486327.708297.198560@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 10:53 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
Patrick was no worse than any other Christian of the period.
It comes through the literature time and again,
But you are not denying he was a lunatic.? Whether he was no worse
than another is not important. He would have been the one lunatic at
the time and place. Right?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Padraig the man knew the Irish ways and used then to demonstrate
Christianity to the Irish in ways they could accept. He had more truth
in him than the rest of the Church combined. Those two factors are
what led to his successes in Ireland. The Church did a number on
Padraig's life and teachings just like it did on Pagan tradition (not
to mention the Christ mythos). That is to say, it co-opted both to its
own puposes.
Padraig the man was not insane but the St. Patrick created by the
Church was crazy, insane and demonic in his anti-Paganess.
About right in my estimation, but I thought Aine should read Patrick's words
for herself and make up her own mind.
Patrick comes across as a brave and intelligent man of his time, and
conscious of how much schooling he lost by spending time as a slave - he
says feels fairly inadequate by the side of more educated men. He seems to
have decided that he should spread his message by the example of his own
behaviour, and by telling people what he believed the truth was. It is
significant that there were no Christian martyrs in Ireland, probably partly
as a result of Patrick's approach and example, and possibly because he was
held to teach nothing new. The way he presented Jesus was probably
responsible for things like the conflation of Jesus and Lugh in the Senchus
Mor, where Jesus is spoken of in terms more usually seen used on Lugh.
Similarly, Patrick would have been emphasising The Truth - which, as
firenne, was a concept already apparent in indigenous Irish religion.
The upshot of explaining Christianity to the Irish in this way, and in
respecting indigenous laws, was that (contrary to Church propaganda)
conversion progressed by way of syncretism rather than replacement. The idea
that it was spread by replacement and persecution is, upon examination,
untenable, even though that is the official Church line in the texts - well,
they would say that, wouldn't they. Of course, syncretism was rather
helped by the independence of the Irish Church, which independence continued
until the 12th century. Rome was therefore not in a position to enforce
orthodoxy - the whole point of the Strongbow invasion was to end the
independence of the Irish Church and enforce Rome's POV - or, as Rome put
it, "restore the faith, which had fallen to the ground in Ireland. Rome was
never happy with Ireland and the state of Christianity there.
The Church was even less happy, after Strongbow, with the filidh, and
regarded them as followers of the Antichrist and outright pagans. A few
years after conducting a pogrom against the Cathars in France, the pope gave
full inquisitorial powers to a pro-Rome Irish bishop, including the power to
call on the secular authorities in using military power to suppress or
reform the filidh. However, Ireland wasn't the south of France, the filidh
were an integral part of Irish society without which it would have
collapsed, and the bishop had to contend with a very public letter from the
Chief Poet stating this, claiming that the paganism in filidecht was the
gift of God, the the pope can't have given any such instruction, and if he
had, he was wrong because the Bible gave no instruction to reform the
'poetic art'. The result was a deafening silence from the Church -
presumably the bishop was led off to a darkened room and asked to sit there
quietly and think it all through. Nothing happened at all, and the
filidh went unreformed and unsuppressed.
After Patrick you've got pagans and Christians living side by side, and
people holding views that Rome thought highly heretical. There were still
highly pagan views being held by countryfolk as late as the 19th century -
not often recorded cos folks ignored them, but now and then there's a
mention, such as sheeogue (fairy doctors - they used trance to get answers
for healing folk) As for repression of witchcraft, well, the only case that
I can recall was Lady Alice Kyteller, and that was more about who controlled
power and land, and had no connection with indigenous pagan ideas. It also
only went the distance because an English bishop was involved.
Finally, come to think of it, there is the possibility that Patrick may not
have been his name, but a nickname he was given. You'd get to Patrick from
the Latin 'patricius', which is a title, along the lines of 'Father'.
However, what we can say it that the guy known as Patrick wrote Confessio
and Epistola, and possibly wrote a little prayer called the Lorica of St
Patrick. A lorica was a bit of Roman bodyarmour for protecting the chest and
abdomen.
Kevin
|
And the Letter to Corotacus. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mairtin O'Druachain
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
On Sep 23, 9:32 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | BTW Aine, you might compare Patrick's own words with Martin's unsupported
argument that, from Patrick onwards, druids were being carted off to be
burned. As I said at the time, there is no evidence of this at all. The man
who wrote:
". . . the heathen among whom I live, I have shown them trust and always
show them trust. God knows I did not cheat any one of them, nor consider it,
for the sake of God and his
Church, lest I arouse them and [bring about] persecution for them and for
all of us."
is unlikely to contenance druids being executed. Note that he remarks that
he would not consider cheating Irish pagans lest he "arouse them and bring
about persecution for them". I'd say that he had a very full understanding
of the consequences of conflict between pagans and Christians seen elsewhere
in Europe. To my mind, he was trying to find a better way than fire and
sword. That probably makes him the sanest man in Europe of his generation. I
can't think of any other Christian of his time, or afterwards, who wished to
avoid pagans being persecuted.
Kevin
|
High King Laoighaire shows himself to be much saner, level-headed, and
cultured than Patrick. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mairtin O'Druachain
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
On Sep 23, 9:32 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | BTW Aine, you might compare Patrick's own words with Martin's unsupported
argument that, from Patrick onwards, druids were being carted off to be
burned. As I said at the time, there is no evidence of this at all. The man
who wrote:
". . . the heathen among whom I live, I have shown them trust and always
show them trust. God knows I did not cheat any one of them, nor consider it,
for the sake of God and his
Church, lest I arouse them and [bring about] persecution for them and for
all of us."
is unlikely to contenance druids being executed. Note that he remarks that
he would not consider cheating Irish pagans lest he "arouse them and bring
about persecution for them". I'd say that he had a very full understanding
of the consequences of conflict between pagans and Christians seen elsewhere
in Europe. To my mind, he was trying to find a better way than fire and
sword. That probably makes him the sanest man in Europe of his generation. I
can't think of any other Christian of his time, or afterwards, who wished to
avoid pagans being persecuted.
Kevin
|
Fire and Brimstone, Patrick's Letter to Corocitus:
http://www.irishchristian.com/stpatrick/Coroticus.htm
Patrick was seriously "off his trolley". A man who knew no restraint,
who incited and inflamed passions. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mairtin O'Druachain
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
On Sep 24, 6:00 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sep 23, 9:32 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
BTW Aine, you might compare Patrick's own words with Martin's unsupported
argument that, from Patrick onwards, druids were being carted off to be
burned. As I said at the time, there is no evidence of this at all. The man
who wrote:
". . . the heathen among whom I live, I have shown them trust and always
show them trust. God knows I did not cheat any one of them, nor consider it,
for the sake of God and his
Church, lest I arouse them and [bring about] persecution for them and for
all of us."
is unlikely to contenance druids being executed. Note that he remarks that
he would not consider cheating Irish pagans lest he "arouse them and bring
about persecution for them". I'd say that he had a very full understanding
of the consequences of conflict between pagans and Christians seen elsewhere
in Europe. To my mind, he was trying to find a better way than fire and
sword. That probably makes him the sanest man in Europe of his generation. I
can't think of any other Christian of his time, or afterwards, who wished to
avoid pagans being persecuted.
Kevin
Fire and Brimstone, Patrick's Letter to Corocitus:
http://www.irishchristian.com/stpatrick/Coroticus.htm
Patrick was seriously "off his trolley". A man who knew no restraint,
who incited and inflamed passions.
|
AND there is still "The Smoking Gun", that Written Statement form
Oengus in 800 A.D. that "Guilty pagans are being carried away". |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
1X2Willows
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:40 am Post subject: Re: Hey Kevin ! |
|
|
"Kevin" wrote
| Quote: | "1X2Willows" wrote
"Kevin" wrote
[....]
since warriors frequently used things like amulets invoking a deity's
power to avert illness, death in battle and so on.
Sovereignty or translated "Genus Locii" are the only ones I can
think of, in said context. Never a so-called "deity".
Wheel symbols. Definitely the attribute of a god.
|
Know what you mean, I think, but dunno... I'd still hesitate to
employ such absolutes. Your respective research and inspiration
in honour (and I'll have to admit I still haven't read it all) but
isn't a wheel just a wheel sometimes? <puffing on cigar>
I mean... Take this one for example, just one of many out of
the 200-300'000 petroglyph depictions from Valcamonica
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/inora/discoveries_46_2b.html
and read the caption. Then dig deeper and try to find out why
anyone would come up with such an interpretation. Totally
baseless IMO.
No doubt wagons, carts and especially chariots meant power and
'social status' but amulets like the ones you mention could as well
have been worn for the same reason as "FORD TOUGH" TShirts
or NIKE caps are being worn today. Fashionable means of
identification with any given group. Occam rocks.
| Quote: | Mind you, genius loci was the term the Romans used when
they didn't know what to call the spirit or deity at a shrine.
|
That's why I said "translated" to mean the more modern definition.
Agathias of Myrina says of the Alamanni fighting among the troops of
Frankish king Theudebald they
"worship trees, rivers, hills and gorges as gods, and decapitate horses
and cows, and innumerable other animals, as if it were a holy rite".
Same applied to transalpine Gauls when first met by Roman forces.
The habit of using the words spirit and deity as if they were interchangable
seems to be a direct result of the old Interpretatio Romana on the western
scientific mind; even after all these Centuries. Spirit of place *was* the
focus of reverence and honouring; not just a place holder or analogy for
personified diety. Quite the other way 'round.
Dan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jim
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 12:40 am Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
"Mairtin O'Druachain" <DruidEire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190645597.821647.168950@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Sep 22, 12:27 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190449676.898303.41850@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 11:48 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 5:38 am, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:14 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"aine" <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190426696.641952.140340@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 5:22 pm, odubh...@comcast.net wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:36 pm, aine <aine_nicne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Years ago my teacher said he was pretty sure that the Irish
Druids
were
called Dragons.
YES!! They were. Which is why I named my son Talon, for the
Dragon and
the Red Dragon is is birth spirit guide.
Druids may have been known as adders but not as dragons. Dragon
was a
nickname for Irish warriors. The Druids themselves liked to
call
themselves "swineherds" (for obvious reasons). :-)
Either is good. He was born with the caul over his head and
after
being checked out as healthy, the nurses and Doctor said except
he
has
a long snake tongue.
As an infant he use to hang it out and point it. Damdest thing.
To
this day he can whip that thing out and stick it up his nose. He
grosses people out in cold season.
Still I swear I saw they said Druids were Dragons. Would make
sense
as
well why some Kings had Dragon banners if the Druids advised the
Kings? Or why so many references to waking the Dragons? I don't
know.
Most of us know that the Celts held the head as sacred. When
in
battle, it was written (somewhere sorry) that they drank a
bit
of
blood from the Fallen Warriors (I believe their own) from the
head to
take in the Fallen Warriors greatness and battle experience.
A
bit of
their spirit.
Which is why I asked here somewhere recently but was never
answered,
if possibly this could be where the term Vampire came from or
Dracula?
Not sure how I put it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
It's not where the idea of vampires comes from. Drinking blood
from a
fallen hero or relative is an old Irish and European custom.
It's
also
have bonds and oaths are instigated. Using the head as a
drinking
cup
by Celts or drinking from a head is considered to be taking in
the
soul or spirit of the fallen. That is why so many sacred wells
are
said to have heads within them.
Think about it though. Even if Vlad tortured people or however
the
Dracula story went to name him..the drinking of blood always
falls
back to the thought of bats that do. As if it were never heard
of
by
people that warriors did. If it was such an accepted practice
back
then why is vampirism seen as so fictional?
Isn't a vampire feeding off the life force as a warrior did? I
really
think there is something that connects it all somewhere.
Hmm! I'm not sure that warriors could be said to feed off the life
force.
Kill, yes. Have rituals involving blood - maybe. But feeding off
the
life
force for sustenance? That's something else altogether.
The earliest vampire related legends would involve the death of
newborns and
pregnant women - the usual way of characterising sudden,
unexpected
fatal
illness. That turns up as a feature of a number of other vampiric
legends.
Then you've got the whole connection with the dead, which
following
various
strands back to antiquity connects with ancient Greek ideas of the
forces of
chaos opposing the gods, which in Roman myth were responsible, via
the Roman
idea of witches (who obeyed neither the laws or gods or human
society), for
sudden unexpected death and plagues. The most notable Roman witch,
Erictho,
was effectively antilife - her very presence sterilised seeds. You
might say
that she sucked the life out of them.
Just a few notions off the top of my head - however, highly
unlikely
in that
case to be connected to warriors, since warriors frequently used
things like
amulets invoking a deity's power to avert illness, death in battle
and so
on.
Celtic Sacrifice, Prayer, and Divination
By J. A. MacCulloch
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pC9NOmT2yKAJ:www.worldspiritualit...
Diodorus says the Irish ate their enemies, and Pausanias describes
the eating the flesh and drinking the blood of children among the
Galatian Celts. Drinking out of a skull the blood of slain
(sacrificial) enemies is mentioned by Ammianus and Livy, and Solinus
describes the Irish custom of bathing the face in the blood of the
slain and drinking it.[821] In some of these cases the intention may
simply have been to obtain the dead enemy's strength, but where a
sacrificial victim was concerned, the intention probably went
further
than this. The blood of dead relatives was also drunk in order to
obtain their virtues, or to be brought into closer rapport with
them.
[822] This is analogous to the custom of blood brotherhood, which
also
existed among the Celts and continued as a survival in the Western
Isles until a late date.[823]
Aone, those classicists were describing the ancient Celts of Gaul, not
the Irish.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So the Gauls were the Head Kults?
Well, there are references in the sources to Irish warriors collecting
heads.
Kevin
Yes, to hang up outside their doors, but I don't thing it ever
happened - just more black propaganda against the Druids by the
missionaries as the mass prozelytizing of Ireland proceeded.
I simply can't understand how anybody swallows that monkish mythology
hook, line and sinker.
|
Most American Reconstructionist Druids have.
Jim |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:58 am Post subject: Re: Hey Kevin ! |
|
|
"1X2Willows" <spambucket@euro-celts.dot.com> wrote in message
news:fd93qm$ttg$1@news.albasani.net...
| Quote: | "Kevin" wrote
"1X2Willows" wrote
"Kevin" wrote
[....]
since warriors frequently used things like amulets invoking a deity's
power to avert illness, death in battle and so on.
Sovereignty or translated "Genus Locii" are the only ones I can
think of, in said context. Never a so-called "deity".
Wheel symbols. Definitely the attribute of a god.
Know what you mean, I think, but dunno... I'd still hesitate to
employ such absolutes. Your respective research and inspiration
in honour (and I'll have to admit I still haven't read it all) but
isn't a wheel just a wheel sometimes? <puffing on cigar
|
Sometimes it is - but not in this instance. The fact that this symbol is the
attribute of a god is very well tied down. That it is a god is definite -
that the wheel is an attribute of said god is definite. Only thing is,
though it is called a wheel symbol, a careful analysis and comparison with
real wheels shows that it isn't in fact a wheel. It's just that folks, being
unimaginative, decided that a cross in a circle looked wheel-like so it must
be a wheel.
| Quote: | I mean... Take this one for example, just one of many out of
the 200-300'000 petroglyph depictions from Valcamonica
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/inora/discoveries_46_2b.html
and read the caption. Then dig deeper and try to find out why
anyone would come up with such an interpretation. Totally
baseless IMO.
|
Hmm! Well, what you've got is a wheel and a probable horse. Not an unusual
combination - you get them on pre-Roman Iron Age coins. Connecting it to
Taranis is baseless, though you could say "Celtic sky god". Arguing that it
is transporting it is also baseless.
You'll have to go over to Wade's site and read my dissertation. I
covered some of this.
| Quote: | No doubt wagons, carts and especially chariots meant power and
'social status' but amulets like the ones you mention could as well
have been worn for the same reason as "FORD TOUGH" TShirts
or NIKE caps are being worn today. Fashionable means of
identification with any given group. Occam rocks.
|
Only problem is with the wheels=chariots= power equation is that the
earliest wheel symbols are Danish, and predate that culture having spoked
wheels. The Celtic version does not conform to the requirements of real
contemporary wheels - no match whatsoever. For good measure, the symbol is
also seen in pre-Columbian America, where they never had the wheel. The
American version instead describes the position of the sun through the
year - namely the rising and setting points at the solstices. A bit of
analysis of the Celtic 'wheel' indicates that it represents exactly the
same, and that's undoubtedly what the Danish ones represent, given that they
didn't have spoked wheels at all at that time - they hadn't even got north
of the Alps, so they would never have seen a spoked wheel.
From that you can easily go to it being a representation of the divine law
that orders the heavens, thus sorts out the order of the seasons, and thus
the agricultural year, and thus maintains society, none of which is a
million miles away from the notion in both Irish and Roman texts (and the
Vedas) that agricultural fertility increases, the seasons are maintained,
and society is happy if the ruler maintains the laws of the gods. OTOH if
the ruler does not do this, the weather is unseasonal, crops fail, plagues
stalk man and animal and society is in upheaval.
That particular interpretation of the wheel fits the data very well. As for
fashion statements - they tend to change within a matter of years. Folks
were using wheels as amulets and as religious votives for centuries - the
same pattern of wheel that's seen in religious iconography. to argue that it
was a fashion statement would be a bit like arguing that the Christian cross
is only a fashion statement. It may be in some cases - but for millions its
a religious symbol. This is another religious symbol, and it probably has a
longer continuous history than the cross - which is probably why the Irish
Church assimilated it.
| Quote: | Mind you, genius loci was the term the Romans used when
they didn't know what to call the spirit or deity at a shrine.
That's why I said "translated" to mean the more modern definition.
Agathias of Myrina says of the Alamanni fighting among the troops of
Frankish king Theudebald they
"worship trees, rivers, hills and gorges as gods, and decapitate horses
and cows, and innumerable other animals, as if it were a holy rite".
Same applied to transalpine Gauls when first met by Roman forces.
The habit of using the words spirit and deity as if they were
interchangable
seems to be a direct result of the old Interpretatio Romana on the western
scientific mind; even after all these Centuries. Spirit of place *was* the
focus of reverence and honouring; not just a place holder or analogy for
personified diety. Quite the other way 'round.
|
True - but we know what the locals called other spirits of place in their
own language, because we have inscriptions saying things like 'god' or
'goddess' in the local language.
People had gods - we know this. They're all over the place. Even in Irish
texts, you have folks saying things like "I swear by the god my people swear
by." There's no reason to suppose that the notion of a god was a Roman
introduction to Ireland - in fact, given that the same concept turns up in
the earliest stratum of the Vedas, which may well be Bronze Age according to
some estimations, it is probably an ancient concept as far as Indo-European
languages are concerned. It is certainly an ancient concept generally - it
turns up in Sumer. In short, neither the Romans, Greeks nor Egyptians
invented the idea.
You can't really say that they were only spirits, and the rest was Roman
misunderstanding or distortion, given the archaic nature of the concept, and
the fact that local people were chiselling 'god' or 'goddess' in their
indigenous language on bits of rock. The only thing that you can try and do
is find out how they understood gods and goddesses. Though don't be too
surprised at the concepts being very similar - the words from Celtic
languages, Latin and Sanskrit are etymologically cognate, as are names like
Dyaus Pitr, Jupiter and Zeus, to take Sanskrit, Latin and Greek examples.
Furthermore, Greek and Roman concepts of deity would have been leaking
across the border long before Celtic-speaking people were absorbed into the
Empire.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:12 am Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
"Mairtin O'Druachain" <DruidEire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190655111.131877.250510@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Sep 24, 6:00 pm, Mairtin O'Druachain <DruidE...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 23, 9:32 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
BTW Aine, you might compare Patrick's own words with Martin's
unsupported
argument that, from Patrick onwards, druids were being carted off to be
burned. As I said at the time, there is no evidence of this at all. The
man
who wrote:
". . . the heathen among whom I live, I have shown them trust and
always
show them trust. God knows I did not cheat any one of them, nor
consider it,
for the sake of God and his
Church, lest I arouse them and [bring about] persecution for them and
for
all of us."
is unlikely to contenance druids being executed. Note that he remarks
that
he would not consider cheating Irish pagans lest he "arouse them and
bring
about persecution for them". I'd say that he had a very full
understanding
of the consequences of conflict between pagans and Christians seen
elsewhere
in Europe. To my mind, he was trying to find a better way than fire and
sword. That probably makes him the sanest man in Europe of his
generation. I
can't think of any other Christian of his time, or afterwards, who
wished to
avoid pagans being persecuted.
Kevin
Fire and Brimstone, Patrick's Letter to Corocitus:
http://www.irishchristian.com/stpatrick/Coroticus.htm
Patrick was seriously "off his trolley". A man who knew no restraint,
who incited and inflamed passions.
|
Given that Coroticus' soldiers had just been slaying and carrying off Irish
Christians, I'm not surprised that he was inflamed. I would imagine many
people would have been besides themselves with anger under the
circumstances.
As for 'no restraint'? This about a man who wrote that he dealt with the
pagans honestly and did everything he could to avoid conflict, because of
the consequences for both the pagans and for the Christians in Ireland?
That's not restraint?
As for him inciting and inflaming passions in others - references.
| Quote: | AND there is still "The Smoking Gun", that Written Statement form
Oengus in 800 A.D. that "Guilty pagans are being carried away".
|
Only if you take two sentences from unrelated verses out of context and make
them mean what you want them to mean.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:14 am Post subject: Re: Hey Michael ! |
|
|
"Mairtin O'Druachain" <DruidEire@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190646202.429743.7680@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Sep 23, 9:32 pm, "Kevin" <laighl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
BTW Aine, you might compare Patrick's own words with Martin's unsupported
argument that, from Patrick onwards, druids were being carted off to be
burned. As I said at the time, there is no evidence of this at all. The
man
who wrote:
". . . the heathen among whom I live, I have shown them trust and always
show them trust. God knows I did not cheat any one of them, nor consider
it,
for the sake of God and his
Church, lest I arouse them and [bring about] persecution for them and for
all of us."
is unlikely to contenance druids being executed. Note that he remarks
that
he would not consider cheating Irish pagans lest he "arouse them and
bring
about persecution for them". I'd say that he had a very full
understanding
of the consequences of conflict between pagans and Christians seen
elsewhere
in Europe. To my mind, he was trying to find a better way than fire and
sword. That probably makes him the sanest man in Europe of his
generation. I
can't think of any other Christian of his time, or afterwards, who wished
to
avoid pagans being persecuted.
Kevin
I never said that Patrick persecuted the Druids. He couldn't, they
were still too powerful in his time.
But his worlds did inflame and incite the horror, the exterminations
and the burnings that came afterwards, culminating in the Final
Extermination of the Irish Druid Order, at Kilkenny, in 597 A.D.
The Order was then gone, but Druids, hidden across Ireland lived on.
Outlawed, their names proscribed, under pain of death.
Let's not revisit all that now, Kevin.
People have all the information they require.
Let them decide for themselves.
People now have both sides of the story, the Druid side from me, the
Christian side from you -
There is no need for reinforcement where adults are concerned.
Please let them decide.
|
They haven't heard the Christian side versus the druid side. What they've
heard is the account that can be substantiated with references versus the
account that can't. I've put up the links for them to go and have a look if
they want.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
