LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives


CELTIC-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L Home

CELTIC-L  May 1999

CELTIC-L May 1999

Subject:

Re: Fw: Tripartite deity

From:

Jacquelyn Kestner <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Jacquelyn Kestner <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 15 May 1999 12:09:41 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (156 lines)

----- Original Message -----
From: Gil Hardwick <[log in to unmask]>



> That those remaining in what you refer to as "the Celtic lands" being
> "pretty devout Christians" is not relevant to Celtic belief,

I don't mean to be argumentative....but I find this really, well, absurd.
This sentance basically says the belief of a people has nothing to with
their belief.

 especially
> since the Church was instrumental in forcing the diaspora on religious
> grounds.

This isn't accurate. First the term the "the Church" can be defined as the
entire body of Christ-every person on the planet who identifies themeselves
as Christian or, more commonly, to refer to the Catholic Church. Given these
definitions "the Church" did not force any diaspora of Celtic populations.
Perhaps, and only perhaps, the arguement might be applied to
Ireland--unfortunately, in order to do so you would have to ignore every
other factor of cultural unease. In Scotland and Wales, "the Church" meaning
the Catholic variety, didn't play represent the largest portion of the
population at the time of the Dispora (Wild goosing, whatever).


 Apart from the early Celtic Church long since subsumed in the
> Roman and Anglican faiths by Spanish and Anglo-Saxon invaders, there
> is little to suggest that Christianity is any more Celtic than that, as
> I have already argued, Celts have taken it up. So what?

Then you have argued inacurrately. There are a great number of traits
inherent in the faith of  Welsh, Gaelic and Irish Christians today---little
of which has anything to do with nature or pre-Christians goddesses. We have
only to look at the similarities in the languaged used by these groups to
describe their religious expression to see the similarities. However, I do
agree Christianity itself isn't Celtic--the religion certainly developed as
a sect of Judiasm. Once the religion spread, just like any other religion,
adherents adapted the tenants of the faith to suit their own cultural needs.

Also, in regards to Spanish and Anglo-Saxon invaders----I would appreciate
being enlightened as to when Spanish people invaded the Western Isles,
Ireland and Wales. I would also be interested in when Anglo-Saxons invaded
the Western Isles. I would understand a reference to Viking invaders---for
certainly there were many and the cultural fingerprints remain today. But
Spanish and Anglo-Saxon invaders haven't popped up in any of my studies.
Quite the opposite, in fact. There were several monsteries of the early
Celtic church located in Spain, and through out the Contient. The
Benedictine order is, of course, of Spanish origin, but I'd be hard pressed
to call them invaders, and they didn't really get established in Scotland
and Ireland pretty late.

> And no, I have not discounted a bunch of 12C Christian monks, merely
> pointed out to you that their manuscripts only represent their own point
> of view, not those of their countrymen. I remind you that Christianity
> is a Middle Eastern religion derived from the Laws of Moses. Moses was
> a Jew (nothing against Jews) raised in the Egyptian royal household.

And your point is? Are you trying to say that the ideology of a Jewish sect
could not be adopted by non-Jews? If so, you may want to look
around----every person who call themselves Christian or Muslim has done just
that. Or that cultures can't assimilate new ideas and beliefs?

> I have no argument whether it is good or bad, merely relate facts.

What facts?


> >And who exactly has said that they didn't?
>
> No idea . . .
>
> >No.  There is a very set list of what a true Catholic believes, much of
> >which is dictated by the Pope.  It is a sin to disagree with the Pope
> >according to the Catechism.  So, while a Catholic may disagree with the
> >Pope, he or she is encouraged to confess that disagreement & atone for
it.

I'm sorry, but that represents what is know as "high" church doctrine. (The
terms high church and low church are commonly used in the study of religion
to separate the established doctrines of the hierarchy of the churches
versus the actual beliefs of the adherents.) We have only too look at Sinead
OConnor-now an ordained as a Catholic priest, to see that not all people
identifiying themselves as Catholic espouse the doctrines of the
Pope....based on her interview and the Bishop's interviews I doubt they have
confessed or asked for atonement for her ordination.

> Oh, a TRUE Catholic. Not being a Catholic at all, I don't give a fig
> what the Pope thinks, preferring to trust my own judgement.

This statement is personal in nature and not academic in any respect: Gill,
I personally don't care what you believe; however, if any religion is to be
sustained or acquire adherents there must be a core ideology to attract
people. Saying I believe my own judgment doesn't attract anyone---unless, of
course, you contend you are the founder of a faith, such as Jesus, Mohammed,
the Brahim. You pretty much have to explain your beliefs if you want people
to understand and respect what you believe....if you don't care what we
think, don't bring it up.

> >Funny, most religions define their beliefs pretty rigidly.  And they
> >have no problem pinning them down. "I believe in God, the Father, the
>Almighty, Creator of Heaven & Earth" sounds pretty specific to me.
>
> Sorry, "religions" do nothing of the sort. Church assemblies of one
> order or another come together periodically to do this; that is, it
> is PEOPLE who write this sort of stuff down, while their followers in
> turn chose to believe it.
>
> Granted, you may well have thought intelligently about what you want
> to believe, and made a conscious, informed decision to take what has
> been written by somebody else to be your belief.
>
> Fine. No problem.
>
> We ourselves are as free to commune directly with God, or the Goddess,
> or whoever, to chose NOT to believe in what other people as fallible
> as we are chose to write. Good grief, I write heaps, but I would be
> appalled to find anybody taking it up as their belief.

Then if you don't care to share your faith, why do you keep bringing it up?


> For my part, personally, my belief has nothing to do with what gets
> written at all. I repeat, the attempt to fix belief by writing it down
> is of Mosaic origin, not Celtic. Celts and non-Celts alike have been
> arguing and warring over that for millenia now.

Beliefs were written down long before the time of Moses. The Celts may or
may not have written down beliefs----we assume not, but then that assumption
just might be overturned with the discovery of a new inscription. Such a
discovery changed the way Egyptologists looked at mummification.


> >Have you ever even talked to a Theologian of any faith? Most belief
>systems, including some Pagans ones, are pretty well laid out.
>
> I am a theologian myself, as a core part of my anthropology. I am in
> regular contact with others. Most belief systems have had a very great
> deal written about them, but let me assure you (again) that what is
> written is not the belief except in the particular case where persons
> chose to take up what has been written as their belief.

Written versus non written really has little to do with the establishment of
belief systems. Whether the tenets are written down or not, a faith must
have tenets which separate it from other belief systems. In fact, we have
only to look at the Highlands in the early modern period to see that
non-literate communities were able to share and propogate their faith
without written word. (Neil, help me with the date---wasn't the first Gaelic
Bible sometime around 1705? ) Some communities were able to obtain scraps of
the Bible-when I say scraps I mean torn pieces that  might consist of as
little as one verse. If they were very fortunate, once a year or so, a
minister or one of the Men would come to the village and read that scrap to
them. Otherwise, they relied on memorization and basic understand of their
faith.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2019
December 2018
September 2018
March 2018
January 2018
December 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
August 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
February 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager