LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives

CELTIC-L Archives













By Topic:










By Author:











Proportional Font





CELTIC-L  May 1999

CELTIC-L May 1999


Re: Onward Christian? soldiers


"Mag.phil. Raimund Karl" <[log in to unmask]>


Mag.phil. Raimund Karl


Fri, 21 May 1999 10:08:04 +0200





text/plain (404 lines)

Graeme Bailey wrote:

> Before fantasising on the fairies, Stonehenge, old poems, and dancing
> in the moonlight, my understanding is mixed with some caution
> that there is on record in these Celtic lands centuries of strife,
> mind-boggling years of war, cold, conquest, oppression, slavery,
> and the sheer harshness of man's inhumanity to man...

Which is, however, nothing exceptional in human history, christian or

> This is the spread of Christianity among the pagans
> while the church was still young, before Constantine and his
> questionable life and methods, before the long philosophical
> speculations about how many Gods were involved, one or three...
> before the great schism... and the slide into the 'dark ages'

And how can you separate the chuirch before and after that periods? In
fact, the early christians were blamed by the Roman authorities to
sacrifice children, stir up revolution and so on... - all of this sounds
not so peaceful at all. Of course, you can claim that that's been only
propaganda by it's enemies, but why might not the same be true for pagan
cults, about which almost all we have is propaganda by their enemies?

> or before the church in Europe became involved in the politics
> of Europe or the messy and bloody business of keeping the
> moslems, Huns, Avars, Mongols etc out of *Ireland*

Actually you seem to have a pretty wrong picture about most of those
peoples, again taken from accounts of their enemies. Actually, as far as
one can say from the available material, in fact all those people and
religious groups you mention were, at the time of their advances into
europe, quite tolerant and openminded, as long as those they tried to
conquer didn't defend themselves. All of them, even the Muslims, allowed
their subjects to follow almost any religion they liked and killed only
those who offered resistance - christians, on the other hand, have a
long history of killing those they conquered because they had a
different religion or even only because they looked different, going as
far as that during the crusades they killed <emphasis> all <end
emphasis> the inhabitants of Jerusalem, christians, Jews and Arabs
alike, because the christians would go to heaven anyways, and the others
would burn in hell.
In the evidence we have, is the absolute fact that most of
Europe for one reason or another become Christian,
and the early stories show that mostly the conversion was
a peaceful process, in contrast to the moslem conquest...

> From the early church we have most of our evidence for
> what the pagans believed. Cutting down sacred Oaks,
> destroying idols, stopping animal and human sacrifices...

Actually, we have much more evidence what the various kinds of pagans
believed than what you present us here, even though most is from early
christian sources in fact. And these present us with much more than cut
down sacred trees, destroyed idols and stopped animal and human

And, even more, what is bad in sacred oaks, idols of gods (you will find
plenty in all catholic churches, for instance!) or even animal or human
sacrifices? Today, a basically christian country like the United States
still commits criminals to capital punishment - which is nothing than
human sacrifice, to bring the criminal to a higher court, namely gods,
who will condemn the criminal, supposedly, to burn in hell eternally -
else it would be no punishment at all! So if the Celts did the same with
criminals, what's worse with that practive than the very christian
capital punishment of even today?

> It seems hard to separate the known history of the Gaels
> from the mostly Christian chroniclers and influences?
> Is it possible?

To a good deal, yes. And what we find out is that actually there's
little indication of mass human sacrifices in most pagan religions.

> Come on Raimund :-)
> I just meant that Christianity is just about *everywhere* on Earth...
> it has proven to be satisfying, logical and acceptable
> to most races, tribes and cultures, historical and contemporary...

I'm sorry, I don't get what that argument should say - the same is true
for all the world religions, and apparently, given the upsurge of
esoteric and neopagan belief system in most of the western world during
the last century or so, seems also to be quite true for those. So, do
you want to say that all religions, given the possibility to expand,
expand over most of the world and proove to be satisfying, logical and
acceptable to most people or what?

> If you read my messages, I have tried to explain coherently?
> that I believe it is the *written* word that keeps 'checks and balances'
> on religion...

I'm sorry, but absolutly the same is claimed by Jehova's witnesses, with
some of which I often have very interesting discussions about their
belief system, as it is by the Catholics, the Protestants, the Orthodox
christians and actually almost any other christian splitoff.

> ie renewed interest in the original greek manuscripts
> after the fall of Constantinople in 1452 led to 'protestantism'
> a good example of how the written word
> influenced people to action after realising
> that 'worldliness' has crept into the original doctrine...

Sorry, but this is a very doubtable analysis. And even more, if you look
at the early protestants, you will see that Calvin himself was
responsible for the first trial and burning of heretics in "his"
Protestant sect - hardly an indication that these groups are less prone
to killing for religious motives.

>>> Is this true? Do people kill as part of true Christian doctrine,
>>> or in spite of it?
>> Depends upon what variant of christianity you follow. The crusaders
>> killed as part of the true christian doctrine at their time.
> Killing was *never* a part of 'true Christian Doctrine'.

As I said, this depends on what variant of christianity you follow. And
as the Old Testament is part of almost every christian group's bible,
killing <emphasis> is actually part of true christian doctrine <end
emphasis>. See the nice little stories in the old testament about
stoning people to death for various "crimes", as already quoted in my
other mail.

> Maybe you don't know?

I know pretty well. I have grown up as a catholic, have served as an
altar boy for over 15 years, was a good part of my early life very
active in the church and learned a lot there. Since I left church (and
with good reasons, you can believe me), I have been participating in a
religious discussion group where we have members of many faiths,
including Jehova's Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, Muslim's,
Scientologists, Buddhists, practicing Magicians in the Crowley
Tradition, Neo-Pagans, Taoists, and some Agnostics like me. I'm
wellversed with what they tell about their respective belief systems,
and have read a lot of literature about it.

> Perhaps you should read all this stuff again with an open mind... ?

I've read that some times, in some differing translations, and with a
quite open mind. Actually, a lot of what's in it is quite nice, but you
can as easily find the opposite!

> You need to be fair in your criticism of Christianity...

I am fair, I am judging it by the fruits it has produced, and what I see
is mass murder, destruction, imperialism and opression for more than
1000 years! Tell me, what more should I need? I don't want to say that
the ideas of the person named Christ were a bad thing, but what has come
of it speaks a language of its own. Of course it is possible to corrupt
every ideology, but only few pagan ideologies seem to have produced such
violent and merciless results.

> I am not justifying the behaviour of the crusaders,
> but think of the moslem armed conquests, the invasion of Europe
> stopped by a confederation of tribes under Charles the Hammer in Southern
> France,the centuries of armed resistance in Spain and the Balkans,
> the devastation of North Africa and the Middle East,
> the invasion of Sicily and lower Italy,

Actually, at the times of that conquest, it probably was better to live
as a christian under Muslim rule (which was absolutely possible) than to
live in christian Europe. The Muslims commited much less atrocities and
had a much more tolerant worldview than it's contemporary christian

> even the sack of Rome by the Moslems,
> the slaughter of those whose refused to convert to Islam..

Sorry, when did this happen? You seem to be dreaming!

> In spite of all these things, I don't have anything but love
> for *all* people, moslems, Hindu or animist, as God himself does...
> it's what they *do* that can and must be judged right or wrong...

But why against Christian standards, why not against their own? This
implies an inherent superiority of christian ethics, which as such isn't
true if you don't subscribe to a christian belief system.

>> As much or not as those in christianity. There's no reason to assume
>> that one is superior to the other.
> I don't follow this reasoning... you are saying that paganism is
> not superior to Christianity, or vice versa?

Yes, you've got it!

> ie that they are morally the same?.

No, but that they operate under different moral systems, which however
cannot be classified as superior or not to one another. To classify
them, you would need to make moral judgements, that would nesessiate a
universally superior moral system, and this simply doesn't exist, or, to
put it that way, there exists no indication that such a universally
superior moral system exists.

> Surely then the extra benefits of Christianity should tip the balance
> in Christianity's favour?

Which extra benefits? I see none!

> ie some percentage of a nominally Christian population
> should actually hold to its principles, ie actually believe it and be
> a blessing to both friend and foe, ie perform good works, work
> for peace and harmony, literacy and education etc etc

Whereas Celtic population would try to uphold the social system, work
for the common good, keep up peace and order inside and keep up
education etc etc etc. There are not many differences in this, actually,
and actually, as history seems to document, the Celtic system worked
better, at least in regard to producing less violence on a grand scale.

Of course, all of this is still underlying a value judgement based on
your own (christian) moral concepts, if we would look at this applying a
pagan Celtic moral concept to it, it would as much tip the scales in
favour of Celtic paganism as Christian moral concepts do tip the scales
in favour of Christianity. This is nothing other than applying your own
bias to the material, not an openminded approach.
>> They were definitly neither secret nor shameful, at least if we can
>> reconstruct anything at least partly correct of pagan Celtic religion -
>> which we actually can.
> Didn't Caesar say that the Druids didn't put their religious beliefs
> down in writing?

So what? So seemingly they preferredoral tradition, what's the problem
with it?

> Weren't ceremonies held in dark groves and involved blood and death?

Weren't early christian ceremonies held in secret places and allegedly
involved blood and death? So early christian beliefs were shameful, I

Even more, who says that blood and death are something bad per se? We
all feed on death, even strict vegetarians do so, so why should it be
bad to offer dead things or animals, or even humans (especially if they
are condemned criminals), to the gods? Only by applying biblical moral
concepts to this this is bad, but not a priori!

>> Didn't 'Runes' mean 'secret'?

Runes aren't Celtic!

> What of these 'gods'?
> Badb *war* goddess (In Gaul Cauth Bodva 'War fury')
<snipped a lot about wargods and similar>

So the Christian god does not strike down the enemies of his people? He
does not drown thousands of Egyptians in the Sea? He does not aid David
in his fight with Goliath? So ain't the Christian god a god of war as
well? Aren't, even today, the weapons of christian armies blessed by the
christian priests of the respective country?

> 'the Head of Bran' the decapitated 'wonderful' head of Bran...etc

Jesus Christ, who was killed and returned from the dead three days
after, stayed with his followers for a while and then was raised to

Bran the Blessed, who had his comrades decapitate him after he had been
poisoned with deadly poison, the severed head which continued to live
and entertained his comrades for a while until he finally was buried in
teh middle of Britain to ward off all it's enemies?

Where is the great difference?

> I understood these Gods were placated with sacrifices?

Waht means they were placated? Does not the biblical God strike his own
people with death, plague, horrible enemies that attack them if they do
not placate him by presenting the correct sacrifices (bread and wine and
communion in christianity, varius offers in Judaism)? I'm sorry, but
where is the difference, except in the form of the offer?

>>> 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 ...
>> Do we?
> this quote from Patrick is an example of
> Patrick's Christian love opposed to paganism....
<snipped the quote>

But what does this tell us, other than that christianity worked activly
to destroy the pagan religion of Ireland? It still isn't superior
therefore, it only is different!

>> And why not, actually? If it is adopted for the modern situation, what's
>> wrong in praying to Lugh or the Dagda or the Morrigan or Boand? As long
>> as modern pagans don't sacrifice humans?
> Don't you see the dangers in awakening active participation in
> demonology?

What is demonology in it? What are demons? If you only for a second look
beyond your christian bias, why should the adoration of pagan gods be
demonology? Even more, are the other world religions demonology as well?

> At its worst, he people at Carthage
> ritually killed their own children at somewhere between 1 and 10 per week
> for a thousand years... the description we have was the children's
> head's were stroked to comfort them before throwing them in the fire...

a) what has Carthargo to do with Celtic paganism, and b) what sources do
you have that show that the above claim is right. I know nothing that
could be interpreted that way from the excavations at Carthargo!

> It's at least comforting that you don't agree that the modern
> 'pagan' should go that far, ie that these practices were evil and wrong?

No, I don't think that this practices were evil and wrong per se. I
personally am opposed to killing people, because I think that we have
better ways to solve our disputes, but if somebody tries to kill me I
still will defend myself and if necessary kill the attacker without
having any moral problems with it.

I also oppose capital punishment, but if a nation decides to allow it,
so be it, and if it is allowed, why not sacrificing those condemned
criminals to the gods instead of simply killing them? I see no

>> If they are happy with it, whyshould this be wrong?
> Raimund!!!!????

What's your problem with it?

>>> 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...
>> This would interest me, too. I've never heard of anything like this. In
>> what sources is this in?
<snipped the quotes>
And are these Christian sources or idependent sources?

>> Like which? I know of not a single pagan group that did what you
>> describe here.
> Black Huns? White Huns? Avars? Magyars? Petchenegs? Cumans?
> Hsiung Nu? Genghis Khan? Timur Leng?

I'm sorry, but no. None of them did destroy those for of love for
destruction as far as we can say, or even less because they were
commanded to do this by their religion, but as acts of war. The same and
much worse things apply to wars fought by christians. As such, if you do
ascibe these acts to their pagan religion, you have to do the same for
Christianity with the atrocities commited by it's followers, in the case
of christianity even in it's name!

> Talking about wholesale murder, Julius Caesar did a pretty good
> job of genocide when he felt like it (the Veneti for example? )
> And the Vandals got themselves a lasting reputation :-)

Yes, but again, he did not do this because his pagan religion or it's
clerus commanded him to do so, but for practical political reasons. As
such, Casear is a pretty good example as to why Christianity seems to
have behaved much worse in that regard than pagan religions usually have

And actually, the Vandals did nothing especially bad - read some serious
literature about them and don't believe the horror stories ascribed to

>> So why do you think that the atrocities commited by pagans were
>> requirements of their religious systems? That they did not commit such
>> atrocities in spite of their religions, like you claim to be true for
>> the christian faith? I really don't see the logic behind your argument!
> My point was that most pagan societies *glorified* war,
> whereas Christianity is a force for love, peace and forgiveness...

Actually, there's little indication that most pagan societies glorified
war - it rather seems as if to most pagan societies, war was seen as
something that happened sometimes, a force not uncommon in the human
world, and therefore had a deity or deities covering that aspect of
human life. They glorified it no more or less than Christianity did
during most of it's history, from at least the Dark Ages onwards up to
the last or even this century. Thus, again, I can see little if any


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]>
Internet: <>

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Search Archives

Search Archives

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


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



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