GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Der-draigen
Marcionites.

Got it in one.

Had to be Irenaeus; but I always thought Jerome was way more curmudgeonly

Jerome was, as you said, but I was thinking of Hippolytus of Rome, who wrote the Philosophoumena, or Refutation of All Heresies.

What's wrong with believing that one's own religion is the truest one -- without killing those who disagree, of course If I didn't think my own religion was the truest and the best, I'd believe something else or I'd believe nothing at all.

Absolutely, and I probably wasn't as clear as I should have been. Let me try again. Boundaries are certainly necessary in everything in life, including religion; we define the content of things by their form (and vice versa, but let's not go there, right now). I can perfectly understand someone who defines their belief as the One True God. Where I have a problem is when they look at me and define my beliefs as heresies, falsehoods, and grave errors that are utterly wrong, and possibly evil.

But isn't that very thing a vital part of spiritual growth and practice? -- grasping for the divine, trying to arrive at whatever knowledge we can about Who we worship and why?

Yes, but not with my reasoning mind: I don't think I can ever understand the dimensions of godhood with my intellect. The former is entirely beyond the latter. I can only intuit it, strive for it with that part of myself, and attempt to experience it in some infinitetesimally slight part at this time. I can understand more about the universe I'm a part of, but I can't quantify my knowledge of godhood. If I tell somebody else that God must be worshipped on this day of the week, in these rituals set down in this book, chosen under divine guidance, I am putting limits on God. If I tell them, God is like this, has these qualities, I am putting limits on God. God is limitless, at least as I perceive things.

Originally posted by fable
Jerome was, as you said, but I was thinking of Hippolytus of Rome, who wrote the Philosophoumena, or Refutation of All Heresies.

Yeah, that's why I thought it was Irenaeus, because he wrote Against Heresies.

Where I have a problem is when they look at me and define my beliefs as heresies, falsehoods, and grave errors that are utterly wrong, and possibly evil.

Weeeelll....I may very well think that, but I'm not going to burn down your house and kill you because of it

Like I said -- I think anyone who chooses to believe in a particular faith/ritual/what-have-you, thinks to a certain extent that other beliefs are incorrect. I think that's natural. What's wrong is to beat people up over it.

IMO it is possible to think that a certain belief system is incorrect, while at the same time respecting the person, engaging in conversation and debate with them, and listening for whatever wisdom may be gained from the exchange.

Yes, but not with my reasoning mind: I don't think I can ever understand the dimensions of godhood with my intellect. The former is entirely beyond the latter.

You're right; but don't you think that the intellect can be a tool, at least?...for example, engaging in debate in order to try to reach a greater understanding of the Divine?...

Originally posted by Der-draigen
Weeeelll....I may very well think that, but I'm not going to burn down your house and kill you because of it

Heh! That's appreciated.

IMO it is possible to think that a certain belief system is incorrect, while at the same time respecting the person, engaging in conversation and debate with them, and listening for whatever wisdom may be gained from the exchange.

I suppose that at one level, I feel that their religion is wrong, because obviously I believe otherwise. But at another level, I don't see anything wrong in any religion, provided the worshipper has truly chosen it rather than had the religion chosen for them. Fwiw, I think religious belief isn't something you can be handed by a guardian. It comes from within and without, or it doesn't come at all.

You're right; but don't you think that the intellect can be a tool, at least?...for example, engaging in debate in order to try to reach a greater understanding of the Divine?...

I'm sorry, but no. Hey, remember: you're talking to a guy who sits in a ritual circle with consecrated weapons, and either focuses on emotions or nothing at all. The only way I could see the intellect used as a tool for understanding the divine is against itself, as in some Eastern exercises for short-circuiting logic.

Or did you mean to place the mind at the service of some other religious subject in debate?

Originally posted by fable
Or did you mean to place the mind at the service of some other religious subject in debate?

I don't mean that a person can make a connection with God through the intellect; I mean that through logical debate people can develop ideas about God that can lead to a greater understanding of Him and His nature and being. Like we're doing here

For example, simply looking at an anatomy chart and seeing the masterful design of the human body, can bring a person closer to its Designer; but you use the intellect to look at the chart.

But no, I don't believe that God can be loved or connected to through the intellect. Love, not intellect, pierces the Cloud of Unknowing.

Originally posted by Der-draigen
For example, simply looking at an anatomy chart and seeing the masterful design of the human body, can bring a person closer to its Designer; but you use the intellect to look at the chart.

I think I see what you're saying: the intellect provides the springboard, and then you jump off. That's probably why I don't think debates would help: they're just people pushing words at each other, and scoring points. But to focus on a design to go within it, you need to first know what that design entails. Then you can let it go.

But no, I don't believe that God can be loved or connected to through the intellect. Love, not intellect, pierces the Cloud of Unknowing.

Have you ever read CS Lewis' "The Four Loves?" I'm not a big fan of his, but I've really enjoyed this thoughtful little work. Some of it is sexist, but by and large it's really quite good.

Originally posted by fable
I think I see what you're saying: the intellect provides the springboard, and then you jump off.

Yes, that is what I'm saying exactly

That's probably why I don't think debates would help: they're just people pushing words at each other, and scoring points.

Sometimes yes, but not always. It's the difference between trying to achieve mutual understanding and genuinely pursuing wisdom, or trying to convert people.

Have you ever read CS Lewis' "The Four Loves?" I'm not a big fan of his, but I've really enjoyed this thoughtful little work. Some of it is sexist, but by and large it's really quite good.

No, never read that one. I'll keep it in mind for some light summer reading

Originally posted by fable


As I said above -- the early Irish church was very respectful of women. Grant you, they had been pagan; but their culture was such that women's rights were not automatically stamped down when Christianity came to the country. That happened when Rome placed its implacable boot on the Celtic neck.

You clearly know much about this. Where, in your opinion, does the extreme male/female dichotomy in Ireland derive from? By that, I mean the way in which quite a few of the men and women of the country seem to regard the other sex as another race, and not a very pleasant one. I've seen it in Irish films, literature, drama, poetry, and in the attitudes of my brother-in-law, third-generation Irish, who seems to be always sneering at and making fun of "female" characteristics which belong entirely to his own stereotypes. I find this wariness of the other sex even in the pre-Christian folklore, so I can't believe it just came over with the RCC. [/b]

I'd like to have a go at answering this, if I may......

To start with, I'm not entirely sure about a wariness of the other sex in pre-Christian folklore. Queen Maeve might have been a thoroughly unpleasant person, but no-one questioned her authority on account of her being female (at least that I'm aware of) I can think of a few more examples, but they'd take a while to explain, and I can't remember specifics off hand.
Certainly in early Christian times, the same respect for women remained - for example, in Irish there are two words for "Mary", one (Máire) for ordinary use, and one (Muire) reserved exclusively for the virgin Mary. Then of course, there's Brigid, as has already been mentioned, and various other holy women.
During the reformation in England, whilst Catholicism was repressed in Ireland just as much as elsewhere (especially under Lizzy the 1st), Ireland of course remained staunchly Catholic, and one reason for this, in my opinion, was the reduced stature afforded to Mary in the Protestant faiths.
Personally, I think the male/female dichotomy is a fairly recent phenomenon, and it's dead or dying at the moment. I think the reaon it happened at all is that during the British occupation, the two main bastions on which our national identity, and thus resistance to outside rule, was based were language and the Catholic religion. In order to preserve the latter, there was necessarily a doctrinal convergence with Rome.
When independence was achieved, since post-famine attempts to revive the Irish language had been only mildly successful, the emphasis on the importance of the Catholic church was greatly increased, mainly as a way of affriming independence. This meant, most importantly, that the Church, and the various religious orders, were essentially put in charge of running Irish schools, which were, by most accounts horrible, dreary, depressing institutions, which left most of their pupils with immature, distorted views of the opposite sex. To this day, most schools in Ireland are sinlge-sex, and a majority have religious orders involved somewhere along the line.
At the same time, the authority and respect accorded to the parish priest was enormous, with denunciations from the pulpit and fire and brimstone sermons being common. The influence of this lives on - less than a decade ago, divorce was illegal. Abortion still is. Thus, women were routinely misunderstood and misrepresented.
But, again that is thankfully changing.

Does that answer your question?

@Beowulf: Awesome post, thank you for that information. I think that's basically what I was trying to say as well, I just didn't have the details

Originally posted by Beowulf
During the reformation in England, whilst Catholicism was repressed in Ireland just as much as elsewhere (especially under Lizzy the 1st), Ireland of course remained staunchly Catholic, and one reason for this, in my opinion, was the reduced stature afforded to Mary in the Protestant faiths.

Very, very interesting...

Personally, I think the male/female dichotomy is a fairly recent phenomenon, and it's dead or dying at the moment. I think the reaon it happened at all is that during the British occupation, the two main bastions on which our national identity, and thus resistance to outside rule, was based were language and the Catholic religion. In order to preserve the latter, there was necessarily a doctrinal convergence with Rome.

Wasn't there a doctrinal convergence with Rome prior to British occupation, though? Didn't that all start with the Synod of Whitby?...

At the same time, the authority and respect accorded to the parish priest was enormous

From what I've learned of the subject, this was because the priest was constantly putting his life in danger by saying the Mass, during the era of the Penal Laws. This in turn led to an attitude of "we're not supposed to actually participate in the Mass, that's the priest's job and he's risking his life for it, so let him to his job and don't interfere." Have I been instructed correctly on this?...

Interesting stuff, @Beowulf--thanks for posting it. I still recall, though, some passages in Celtic folklore that placed men and women squarely on opposite sides: Deidre and her ability to order men about to her own liking; and wasn't there a curse put on one of the Irish Kings and his men, due to their taunting of a woman heavy with pregnancy? As I recall, they had to fall ill one day out of the year, helpless in birth pangs. (Not a bad thing to wish on my brother-in-law, come to think of it. But I'll resist.) There are several others, but I can't recall them at the moment. I don't think they show a culture at war with itself, but there is a certain...well, manner of viewing the other sex as though they entering an unknown creature's lair, and sniffing about for signs of danger. There's none of the joyous, open equality of the old Kievan-Rus' myths, at least, not to my knowledge.

But if my knowledge on this is flawed, say on. It won't be the first time, and I'm willing and eager to learn.

@DD - The way I see it, while there was convergence with Rome on theological issues prior to the Liz 1 era, it was more of an abstract thing, whereas during the occupation, absolute doctrinal loyalty to Rome became a badge of defiance against the English.

Certainly during the "mass rock" age of Irish catholicism, the priest was risking his life to say mass, but during the early years of independent Ireland the attitude of complete obedience to, and respect for, the priest continued. For example, whilst Eamon de Valera wrote our constitution, it's known that the archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid, had considerable influence over it's contents.

@fable - I think you have a good point there, but the myths are so open to interpertation, it's difficult to say either way. Someday I'd love to read them in the original Irish, or failing that, sit down and read Lady Gregory's english translation through.

Another possible cause of the male/female divide is the "Irish mammy", a truly formidable, no nonesense, domineering creature. If an Irish mammy said "jump", it was a very foolish son who didn't say "how high?" I'm not sure how common they actually were, but they are certainly a cultural archetype in Ireland, and a mother like that would be one damn good reason for a man to have skewed views of the opposite sex. If you're not already familiar with the works of John B. Keane, I'd recommend them for accurate, witty and superbly written portaits of the Irish mammy and other dead/dying archetypes of rural Irish culture.

And finally, no offence to your brother-in-law, but he does seem to be hopelessly out of date and/or immature. Roughly how old is he?

Originally posted by Beowulf
@DD - The way I see it, while there was convergence with Rome on theological issues prior to the Liz 1 era, it was more of an abstract thing, whereas during the occupation, absolute doctrinal loyalty to Rome became a badge of defiance against the English.

Certainly during the "mass rock" age of Irish catholicism, the priest was risking his life to say mass, but during the early years of independent Ireland the attitude of complete obedience to, and respect for, the priest continued. For example, whilst Eamon de Valera wrote our constitution, it's known that the archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid, had considerable influence over it's contents.

Right, thanks

Don't know if there is anything of interest for this forum, but I found this site whilst looking for info on Egyptian legends.

A number of older references can be downloaded from the site - modern one's have links to Amazon.

This has been a fascinating thread, Fable.

Originally posted by Beowulf
I think you have a good point there, but the myths are so open to interpertation, it's difficult to say either way. Someday I'd love to read them in the original Irish, or failing that, sit down and read Lady Gregory's english translation through...

And finally, no offence to your brother-in-law, but he does seem to be hopelessly out of date and/or immature. Roughly how old is he?

He's now roughly my age, or around 50. His conduct has improved slightly over the years. (My sister has worn him down a bit, at least in public.) But frankly, I've seen similar behavior--sometimes more subdued, sometimes just as blatant--from second- and third-generation Irish immigrant families in the US. Of course, this is just personal observation, hardly a matter of scientific polling, but I've been surprised by the uniform antagonism of the sexes towards one another that I've seen.

Perhaps it's economic/social class-oriented, as well. His background was poor, and workingclass families in the Industrial UK of the early 20th century could well have developed exaggerated family structures due to the terrible pressures placed on all members of the family: the awful working conditions, the absence of any schools, medical, unions, legal recourse, the appallingly early death rates, and the quick and easy access to booze as the only means of dealing with insufferable conditions. We may be seeing, in the Irish nuclear family I've described, a slowly dying method of relating between the sexes which was at best a reaction to existing in hell, and at worst a means of bringing some of that hell, home.

What with getting a few inquiries PM'd to me after starting a recent thread, I thought it might be time to revive this old one. It was intended to explain how the core of Xmas religious observances actually started long before Christianity; but being elastic, can be miraculously expanded to include everything Wiccan and witcherly. Here's most of the first post:

First off, the solstice season was chosen as the time for Christmas by Western church leaders in the 4th century CE. There is no internal evidence in the bible suggesting that Jesus was born at that time, but by overlaying the holiday on top of a very popular pagan celebration, Christians were making it easier for non-religionists to "transition" to the new, um, cult.

The Solstice, though, was celebrated for several thousand years prior to the appearance of Christ, with much the same connotations attached. For example, the Egyptian god of life/sacrifice Osiris was entombed on December 21st; at midnight, priests emerged from his inner shrine before the populace, holding a picture of an infant, crying out "The Virgin has given birth, the light is waxing upon us!"

The Ancient Romans, true to the syncretic nature of their religious practices, permitted an extraordinary number of religions to be worshipped in Rome. Emperor Aurelian created a single holiday for all of them as an example of the unity of these religious views, called "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun," on December 25th. Its worshippers individually worshipped Dionysus, Helios, Baal, Attis, Osiris, Perseus, Theseus, Orpheus, Zeus Zagridis, Seth-Orpheus, Hercules, or Mithra.

Most of our current Christmas symbolism derives from the pagan cultures of Northern Europe. Red, green and white were the colors that the Druidic Celts used at this time of year. Modern pagans who follow these traditions (and pagans, being heterodox, tend to mix traditions), often refer to the Solstice as Yule, or Wheel--symbolizing the turning of the year, the ivy of the waning year giving way to the oak of the waxing--and it lies between the October 31st festival of Samhain, the New Year, and February 2nd, Imbolg, the quickening of spring, the return of the Goddess from the underworld.

I realize that all this will probably sound sappy to some, and intellectual to others, but it's really just a matter of the traditions you hold. A Christian trying to explain the idea of a god being born as a human yet remaining a god would probably sound a little odd to some folks, too, if they aren't previously exposed to it. It's really just what you're used to, and what you favor.

If you want to ask anything about Wiccans, witches, or various other pagans, I'll do what I can. Just don't spam, please.

[QUOTE=fable]What with getting a few inquiries PM'd to me after starting a recent thread, I thought it might be time to revive this old one. It was intended to explain how the core of Xmas religious observances actually started long before Christianity; but being elastic, can be miraculously expanded to include everything Wiccan and witcherly. Here's most of the first post:

First off, the solstice season was chosen as the time for Christmas by Western church leaders in the 4th century CE. There is no internal evidence in the bible suggesting that Jesus was born at that time, but by overlaying the holiday on top of a very popular pagan celebration, Christians were making it easier for non-religionists to "transition" to the new, um, cult.

The Solstice, though, was celebrated for several thousand years prior to the appearance of Christ, with much the same connotations attached. For example, the Egyptian god of life/sacrifice Osiris was entombed on December 21st; at midnight, priests emerged from his inner shrine before the populace, holding a picture of an infant, crying out "The Virgin has given birth, the light is waxing upon us!"

The Ancient Romans, true to the syncretic nature of their religious practices, permitted an extraordinary number of religions to be worshipped in Rome. Emperor Aurelian created a single holiday for all of them as an example of the unity of these religious views, called "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun," on December 25th. Its worshippers individually worshipped Dionysus, Helios, Baal, Attis, Osiris, Perseus, Theseus, Orpheus, Zeus Zagridis, Seth-Orpheus, Hercules, or Mithra.

Most of our current Christmas symbolism derives from the pagan cultures of Northern Europe. Red, green and white were the colors that the Druidic Celts used at this time of year. Modern pagans who follow these traditions (and pagans, being heterodox, tend to mix traditions), often refer to the Solstice as Yule, or Wheel--symbolizing the turning of the year, the ivy of the waning year giving way to the oak of the waxing--and it lies between the October 31st festival of Samhain, the New Year, and February 2nd, Imbolg, the quickening of spring, the return of the Goddess from the underworld.

I realize that all this will probably sound sappy to some, and intellectual to others, but it's really just a matter of the traditions you hold. A Christian trying to explain the idea of a god being born as a human yet remaining a god would probably sound a little odd to some folks, too, if they aren't previously exposed to it. It's really just what you're used to, and what you favor.

If you want to ask anything about Wiccans, witches, or various other pagans, I'll do what I can. Just don't spam, please. [/QUOTE]

I'll have to read through the rest of this older thread, but I've always found that amusing myself. "No, no, Christians started those holidays, Christmas is a Christian holiday". Well, yes, it is and they did, but it's a marketing/conversion tool. Just like the commercials during a football game.

I have my own religion, and I guess you could lump me into a pagan group because of it. I worship my own way, and choose to honor those I worship on whatever days I so happen to choose to do so. It's always disturbed me that so many people attach a holy presence to such...materialistic and economic based holidays. Worshipping a diety to me at least, is a personal thing between yourself and that deity. Theres no need to bring gifts, or books, or what not into it. It's a communion between yourself and that being, you shouldn't need any readings or items to help with that. At least thats my view. There's no translation errors from thousands of years ago, or corruption by greedy officials, just you, your religion and who you worship. That goes with you everywhere and defies the need for a temple, or alter or religious readings. It's all inside you, no matter where you are.

I don't really do solstice things. More like, embracing any form of extreme changes in nature. Strong storms, or blizzards and such, I simply wander about in and enjoy them. A simple way to express my acceptance of the changing of the seasons. Going from wandering about in the sun to wandering around in the middle of a hail storm will do for me. There's no dates, weather is variable so when it happens, it happens.

Well, in what I know about wicca I can help too... a bit, of course.

There is a list of resources, and even good forums to search.

Old thread, but not too old. So I figured I'd see if anybody else had any quesitons about pagan solstices, or pagans in general. I'm not an expert, but hey, practicing pagan for over forty years, initiated witch 27 years ago. You pick up a few things over time.

You, not expert?

Anyway, maybe I can help at a few, very few, things, and Fable may complete any lack of style my limited knowledge has

(Fable, have I told you I found a GF who seems very likely to become a lil witch by my side? )