Graeme Bailey wrote:
> Other religions have the teaching that nothing is real, it is all illusion...
> and yet other religions teach that you 'create' your own reality...
> these are actually *contradictory* world-views?
> ie *all* these religions can't be true.
> So *some* must be lies, delusion, deception...
Why? This strictly depends if you adhere to a concept of strictly dual
logic. If our dreams shape the world, for instance, all concepts can
very well live besides each other without necessarily making one true
and the other not. Or, so to say, the Buddhists, the Christians, the
Jews and the Pagans all could be right, at least for themselves.
And, even more, who says that any religion has to be true, that not all
of them are only parts of a greater truth, seen and interpreted by
limited humans in ways fit for themselves?
> clearly then you do not really *believe*
> that hell is real and that you *could* actually be going there...?
> Wouldn't it be wiser to avoid the possibility in case it's true? :-)
No, as if you only follow the christian god out of fear of going to
hell, you will go there anyways, as he wants you to believe in him, not
just accept him because of fear, at least that's what the bibke seems to
> The final issue that should be mentioned is whether
> suburban 'paganism' really is what the ancient Celts *believed*...
> Julius Caesar says that all the Gauls believed they descended from
> 'father Dis' an infernal god, a kind of Pluto
> or the God of Death and the Night...
The question, however, is, if Caesar understood what the Celts he asked
told him - I doubt he really tried to understand Celtic Religion, and as
such a concept of the otherworld where the gods "live" probably was
something he could have interpreted that way.
Even more, it might be a literal translation he might have recorded -
after all, Caesar did not speak Gaulish, as far as we can say - and his
translators (probably Celts themselves not extremely well versed with
the Roman mythology) could well have translated the title "God father"
to latin "dis pater", not knowing that this actually was a byname of a
> so they counted time by nights and not days...
As did the Jews, in fact.
> That sacrifice of human lives was offered for all sorts of things
> "The Gauls are extremely superstitious...so persons suffering
> from serious diseases, as well as those who are exposed to the perils
> of battle, offer, or vow to offer, human sacrifices...
> they believe that the only way of saving a man's life is to
> propitiate the god's wrath by rendering another life in its place..."
Again, a quote that needs to be interpreted. First, here we definitly
hear the Roman propaganda machinery speaking. Second, even though we
know that the Celts sacrificed humans at times, archaeology tells us
that this at least did not happen on a regular basis, but, much more
likely, only in "matters of immense importance", as we know from other
Roman sources. Third, sacrificing humans was a good Roman practice as
well, still, even though rarely, being practiced as late as the 3rd
century AD in Rome. One should be very careful with such passages and
not take them at face value.
> ".. if the circumstances of a man's death are suspicious,
> they examine his widow under torture, as we examine slaves...
> if her guilt is established, she is consigned to the flames and
> put to death with the most cruel torments..."
Which, however, immediatly follows a passage that says:
Caesar, DBG VI,19.1-2
Whatever sums of money the husbands have received in the name of dowry
from their wives, making an estimate of it, they add the same amount out
of their own estates. An account is kept of all this money conjointly,
and the profits are laid by: whichever of them shall have survived [the
other], to that one the portion of both reverts together with the
profits of the previous time.
Which is quite contradictional with what follows after it which you have
quoted. So, obviously, the usual method was not to kill the wife but
rather let her inherit the joint property (something which also has to
be read with a grain of salt, but nonetheless also in the same source).
<snipped some more Caesar
> Note that historical evidence of this type of
> example 'paganism' is found in India,
> Greece, Europe, Egypt, Mesopotamia, America, China ...
> Can this sort of revolting stuff be 'good'?
Hmm, and if we look at Christianity, do we find better behaviour? I
doubt! I could quote you similar atrocities being commited in the name
of Christ from the wars of Charlemagne up to the Spanish Inquisition.
Now, tell me, can that sort of stuff be "good"?
BTW, note that I am an agnostic, not a pagan! But if you insist on
counting up atrocities, Christianity will be somewhere in the top ten in
regard to atrocities commited in its name.
RAY - Mag.phil. Raimund KARL
Universität Wien, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte
A-1190 Wien, Franz Klein Gasse 1
E-Mail: <[log in to unmask]>
Visit the Celtic-L Resources Page at
Privat: A-1120 Wien, Hasenhutgasse 7-11/9/4
Tel/AB/Fax: (+43 1) 8103629 oder mobil: (+43 676) 3048830