I'm not sure of whether you have studied Christian theology?
Especially in order to compare it to the evidence we have for
At 02:31 AM 19-05-1999 +0100, Gil wrote:
>At 07:05 PM 5/18/99 -0400, Jacquelyn Kestner wrote:
><...>but I am saying we need to be careful making
>>assumptions based on lack of evidence.
>Let me point out to you all *AGAIN* (SOB!), that Christianity is but
>a variant of the Mosaic tradition which arose in the Middle East; that
>is, the tradition derived from Mosaic Law.
Not quite a variant, the Jewish law and prophets,
covering roughly the beginning of time to 400 BC
told of a Messiah, Jesus Christ who would come...
and that He would be rejected...
Jesus came, was not what the
Jewish Scribes and Pharisees,
(the keepers of the Jewish law and traditions) had expected,
and so Jesus was killed (by the Romans)
Jesus declared that the law had been ineffective,
that no-one had been found justified under the law..
that there was a new covenant that came into effect at his death...
He explained that mankind's freedom to choose *good or evil*
had resulted in sin and death, and that the love of God for mankind
was shown in that God had mercy on his creation,
and although existing in the form of God
had had emptied Himself, had become man in the body of Jesus...
and was willing to die as the last sacrifice...
the One-for-all human sacrifice to save mankind from sin....
>There is nothing new in Christianity about humility, love, compassion,
>and all the rest of it. <...>
Why should the nature and existence of virtues change with time?
On the other hand there seems to be mountains of evidence
that this Christian message was is and will be accepted by all
types and cultures and races all around the world...
and was accepted very early by the Gaels
ie it has shown itself satisfying and true as a 'universal' religion
>All the traditions derived from Moses,
>on the other hand, seek spiritual enlightenment by biblical exegesis;
>through books and manuscripts.
Not just reading, it is necessary to *do* it...
I think also the love of the truth is what is at work here,
ie to study the written word in order to maintain sound doctrine
in opposition to the forces of the 'dark side' :-)
>They put their own kinsmen to the sword
>in establishing that tradition; not
>through love or compassion, but in blood.
Is this true? Do people kill as part of true Christian doctrine,
or in spite of it?
What is new about killing, death, and factionalism?
What of paganism, is there war and murder in these systems,
and is it justified?
What of the Aborigines? Did they ever kill, rape or torture?
What of pointing the bone? Raiding for women?
Is murder, rape or warmongering justified if you are an Aborigine?
>For me to accept the argument that Celtic belief is Christian,
My understanding is that the actual beliefs of the Celtic pagans
were 'secret' therefore probably shameful, and that at an early time,
before most of the written evidence, there was a distinct history
of Christianity as a force opposing the Celtic idolatry...
We have written evidence of this ...
Now it might be interesting to see and try to deduce what pagan
Gaels believed, but for the love of God let's not start *doing*
the paganism again...
>The Celtic tradition is plainly distinct from the Mosaic tradition. It
>has its own structure, content and mythology quite readily identifiable
>from those arising in the Middle East.
There may be parallels though,
with Babylonian, Iranian, Egyptian influences
eg Isis / Osiris cults, Hercules / CuCullain,
Mithraism, Aphrodite / Astarte, Mercury, Mars, etc
and the other Indo-European gods of thunder, wind, fire etc...
The evidence suggests no real uniform codified system of belief?
>There are only SOME Celts who
>seek inspiration through studying books and manuscripts,
But the written word is just about the only way to communicate
across the time-barrier :-)
How can you ask an ancient Celt what he believes?
Don't forget that Julius Caesar was a very gifted man,
tough, unsentimental, who had Celts for allies,
who interviewed traders for their descriptions
of places and conditions before his invasion of Britain,
and who had to make some very hard
decisions on which his own life and the lives of his men depended...
His description of the Gauls was quite different than his description
of the Germans, and this hombre had quite few years of 'hands-on'
Celtic studies :-)
While clearly an exceptional man, he was still the earliest eye-witness
of the Celts in Britain, and of the tribal wars, Druids, beliefs and politics
of the European Celts apart from some pretty vague stuff from
Herodotus and others?
>It can be clearly demonstrated that the more they do that, the further
>remove they take themselves away from the natural environment into the
>domain of codified texts and symbols,
mmm I'm living in the primeval tropical rainforest, 70 km from
the nearest city..... and my feet are actually touching the environment :-)
and what of Patrick, Columba etc, did they only read and write,
did they ever go out into the real world?
What of Christian singing, praying, feeding the poor, burying the dead,
comforting and visiting etc... is all this other Christian stuff removed
What of the documentary evidence that the Roman pagans wrote:
that the Christians were shaming them by doing good works, looking after
widows, feeding the poor, and burying the dead etc...
>What is interesting, on the other hand, is the closer people are to
>the land, the more pagan their habits and outlook, the less they are
>accepted as Christian.
Are there not Christians in Africa, Syria, Lebanon, Asia and
other places where people still touch the ground :-)
Do you have to be a farmer to be a pagan?
What of the pagan kings? What of the destroying pagans who
wrote nothing, built nothing, and just went on rampaging campaigns of
>It is not literacy as such, but the extent of
>people's reliance on text and symbols for their spiritual illumination
>which is the distinctive feature of Christianity.
What of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam? No holy books?
>Celts, like anybody else, also accept Buddha, Confucious and Lao Tzu.
>That neither makes Celtic belief Buddhist, or Confucian, or Taoist.
Does this mean that Celts are people who can accept these religions,
ie become converted, I don't understand this point?
>It can as easily be argued that the Christians
>are so loud in their proclamations of love and compassion,
>in order to cover all the blood
>shed throughout their history,
This is again just a matter of the people who call themselves
Christians, and who then use that holy name as an excuse for killing
show by their actions that they are grossly deluded?
The Inquisition, the genocide in Central America, the Crusades...
these are not Christian events, ie there is nothing in Christianity
that could justify these crimes...
>I can't find mention of Moses anywhere in the
>Celtic sagas, whereas for Jews and Christians he is central.
I have a problem with this statement...
I understood the Lord your God, the Lord is ONE
who revealed himself to Moses as (I AM that I AM)
to be central to the Jews, who will not pronounce His Name....
and the Lord Jesus Christ
("before Abraham was I AM...
unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins..")
to be central to Christianity?
Graeme M. Bailey <[log in to unmask]>
Graphics, 2D/3D and Fine Art especially Portraits
see Portrait examples at
or the general page which includes paintings, 3D, illustration at