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: *Gaelic* Good and Evil?

From:

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

Reply-To:

Mag.phil. Raimund Karl

Date:

Sun, 30 May 1999 20:37:46 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (485 lines)

Graeme Bailey wrote:
>
> Should I have used the example from the Iliad, the scene is remote,
> but the plot is similar? ie Similar ceremonies must have happened
> from pre-800 BC to 922 AD?

No! Again, the greeks of the Illiad and the Rus on the Volga are as
separate as the Rus and the Irish Megalithic tumuli are. That people, at
some times at some places, buried their dead under tumuli, and that in
some cases maybe there were human sacrifices is something I am very
willing to believe. But that's not in the slightest an indication that
those practices are related in any way.
>
> Please note: My thinking in these
> whole series of questions was like this...
> 1. Some people today are attracted by the novelty of 'paganism'
> even to the extent of reviving what they believe to be these ancient
> religions.

Yes, and so what? Again, you fail to show what the problem is with this!

> 2. They don't seem to realise that these religions had some very ugly
> features.

And, what do you conclude from this? Christianity had some very ugly
features as well, and in fact still has. Again, the Old Testament is
full part of modern Christian tradition, and contains plenty of very
ugly things.

> 3. We have relatively scant *written* evidence for the pagan beliefs
> of the early Celts, compared to an absolute mountain
> of written evidence for the Christian faith.

And what makes written evidence preferable to other evidence? If you do
not assume that the Bible is inspired by a god of any kind, there's no
difference between the different kinds of evidence.
>
> I am still waiting for someone to try to convince me of
> the reason why any of these pagan religions should be re-introduced,
> or even what features of any were desirable and 'good' ?

No one wants to convice you. However, there's a plain and simple reason
why any of those pagan religions should be introduced: If somebody wants
to believe in one of them, he shall be happy with it.

And almost any pagan religion we know of actually contains lots of very
desireable features.
>
> You agree the Iliad was written sometime before 800 BC?

Well, one can discuss this, but let's say the tale originated somewhen
in the time around 800 BC most probably.

> In it are pagan religious ideas which are curiously similar
> to what we know of the early Celts?

Yes and no. There are similarities, but not really significant ones.

> eg war with religious overtones,

No. I don't see a religious overtone for the war described in the
Illiad. The war, at least at the human end, is motivated by very mundane
reasons. The Greeks don't go to Troy because the Trojans believe in
"evil Demons" or "idolatrism", but the go to Troy for practical
political reasons.

> the afterlife,

Not at all. The typical Greek afterlife is a very unpleasant realm.
Typical Celtic afterlife beliefs either talk about a happy otherworld or
about rebirth.

> burial customs including human sacrifice,

Not at all. We have no indication at all that Celtic burial practices
included human sacrifice.

> burial mounds, chariots,

Material culture tells us nothing about belief system. Or are Christians
especially bad people because their practice of inhumation burial
(typical also for Skythians, where human sacrifice at the burial is
documented) and because they drive cars (like Adolf Hitler did)?

> religious motives surrounding fighting,

As does Christianity. One of the most often told stories in my christian
religion classes at ground school was the one of David killing Goliath!
There are a lot of other similar stories in the bible!

> cauldrons,

Again, see the point about material culture telling nothing about
beliefs above.

> 'Gods' frequently involved in human affairs etc.

Again, this also is true for the christian god. You seemingly even
believe that this god created a universe in which Demons and other
perverted creatures roam that can corrupt your soul, and if you fall for
their cunning tricks you are going to burn in hell forever. You also
will believe that he grants miracles, which again are direct involvement
in human affairs. This your god intervened that directly that people
lost his life through his actions - such direct interventions are very
rare in teh stories about pagan godesses or gods.
>
> Notice I am *not* saying I believe the various pagan societies
> to be the *same*, just that there are some *features* that are
> apparently very similar...

Which are also to be found in christianity, actually, at least as many
as between each and any of those pagan societies.
>
> I was trying to suggest that Christianity in its original form
> unpolluted by later doctrines... is *fundamentally*
> different from these pagan religions...

Not at all, at least as far as I can see.
>
<snipped lengthy quotes from the Illiad>
> (Back to the funeral :-)
> the fire is then symbolically put out with wine,
> 'with tears in their eyes, they collected the bones of their
> dead comrade in a golden vase, sealed it with a double layer of fat...
> and a large mound is made, surrounded with a
> stone revetment..."
> (Notice archaeologists... burial mounds, bones in jars...:-)

Yes, a nice and probably very fitting description of a funeral with
cremation, except for the dead Trojans - we find Urn graves, as
described in this instance, even under burial mounds, but seldom with
reamins of more than a single person.

But again, even if such a practice was carried out in the past, it is
nowhere clear in that passage you quote that any part of this funeral as
carried out is based on religious motives and concepts. It still might
be as "genuinely greek pagan religion" as the witchhunts are "christian
religion".
>
> On the question of scholarly infallibility,
<snipped>
> and not derived from elsewhere as the scholars previously thought.

Living in one of the former centres of the Urnfield culture, and having
learned a lot about it in varius lectures at the university here and on
actual excavation of such "urnfield cemeteries", I do not understand a
word you say. Perhaps you could be more precise what you mean?
>
> Come to think of it, about scholars sometimes being wrong,
> anyone remember the Piltdown man?

Of course scholars can be wrong, but what's the point?
>
> About the geographic limits of Celtic cultures
> and territories in approx 200 BC?
> Didn't they stretch from Ireland to Turkey,
> from Scotland to Northern Italy, even to the Iberian peninsula?

Yes, and so what?

> Didn't the ancient authors from Rome, Greece etc refer to these
> Celts, and wouldn't this imply some reciprocal knowledge
> or influence or exchange of ideas as well as trade goods?

Definitly there was some knowledge, but the question is how much actual
knowledge that involved. Most of the "ancient authorities" that wrote
anything about the Celts never visited "Celtic" territories, nor did
they probably speak much with people who knew much about the Celts. This
is clear from the topoi used frequently to describe people living in a
certain area. Greek geography, for instance, refers to the East Goths in
the Black Sea area as Skythians - because in greek geography, everybody
living northeast to the Greeks is a Skythian. As such every Celtic noble
warrior you will find on ancient statues will be fighting naked - even
though we know that at least the rich Celtic nobles even had chainmail
suits.

> When I read about the Celts, don't the authors continually compare
> things from different areas, even from different times?

Of course they do, but those doing it in a serious way only do so after
having established a valid cultural connection based on a number of good
arguments. You, on the other hand, take isolated messages and compare
them without even attempting to understand the cultural significance of
those practices in the different cultures.
>
> My original theme was about *relative* values,
> eg the 'glorification of peace, love and mercy'
> versus *various* pagan examples of the glorification
> of war, and the killing of people for various reasons,
> eg for religious reasons,
> fun, sport, entertainment ans service in the afterlife etc

Well, and I again tell you that all of this depends upon what you define
as "good" and "evil". To one person, it may be "good" that if a criminal
rapes and kills his elder daughter to offer his younger one as well
(consistent with the exapmle with the one and the other cheek), while to
another person it may rather be "good" to kill that criminal.

Even more, again you compare the "idealized christian message" with
pagan examples of glorification of war and killing. I can give you,
however, an equal number of "idealised pagan messages" that can be
compared with christian examples of glorification of war and killing.
This is what I call prejudiced. Christianity is good, regardless what
atrocities it's followers commit and have commited. Paganism of any sort
is evil, regardless what messages the specific pagan Religion might
contain. This is what you say, or at least imply!
>
> >I even would agree with you that what has come of it was not what
<snipped my own stuff>
> >what was written down in the bible.
> <...>
> The question of Christ's intentions can be found
> by actually *reading* them in the New Testament :-)

No, I'm sorry. The New Testament was not written by Jesus himself, and
actually it is doubtable that the larger part of it was written by
people who actually were eyewitnesses to the events that are described,
and did not know Jesus personally.

And even if it were, read the New Testament and you will read there: "Do
not think I have com eto bring peace, I have come to bring the sword!" -
So, his intentions were to stir up revolution and bring war, I suppose -
or are this not his own words, then?
>
> I have read quite a lot though, and possibly for many years longer
> than yourself... :-)

Well, this may be true, but I doubt that you have read more than the
average coffetable-books. This is actually the only explanation I have
for why you think such surface generalisations and comparisons you make
could have any validity.

> eg your comments on the most important book of history
> show that you have only superficial understanding of what
> is actually contained in the New Testament,?

I doubt that it is the most important book of history. I even doubt it
is the most influential book of history. And I have more than but
superficial understanding what is described in this book, if it's
historical accuracy is in question, and actually also about the
"religious" parts of it, because I know a lot about religions and their
development. However, if it is the faith which you mean with
"understanding", you are definitly right.

> or do you have a bias in this area?

Well, definitly. I have been raised in a very christian environment, as
such I definitly am biased in this area. For instance, my personal moral
is definitly to a large degree built on those "christian moral values"
you think to be good. It is sometimes very hard to get rid of this bias
and accept that different societies have different conceptions of what
is good and what is "evil", and that there is no reason to assume why my
morality is superior to their's.
>
> >From what you have written, I bet you've never read a
<snipped>
> >only such by an extremely biased author.
>
> This looks almost like a sweeping generalisation?
> Almost like 'bias'...

It is, however, an analysis of your statements, not a bias.

> what is wrong with asking questions about
> horrible pagan customs, even if they're pure Celt?

I have no problem with it. I personally find human sacrifice something
horrible, too. But I still see no reason to assume that I, my values, or
my morality is superior to those of other peoples, because I find
something horrible. I also find it horrible to eat insects, however,
some people seem to like them. Is my taste superior to theirs? No! It's
different!
Even more, in regard to neo-paganism, what is horrible in revering
Celtic gods, as long as such pagans don't practice human sacrifice? You
have claimed that revering such gods is revering dead idols and demons -
if someone claimed the same about your christian god, wouldn't you
consider such a statement a severe insult?

> I was trying to illustrate that many
> practices from the past were undesirable...

Undesireable to whom? In some cases, we cannot even be sure if they were
undesireable even to the victims themselves, even less the society in
general. Isn't it just that they are undesireable to you and your
worldview, and thus you think them to be "evil"?
>
> >Thus, you miss the knowledge
<snipped>
> >system.
>
> In the example of Genghis Khan, how much knowledge do you
> need???? to form a strong opinion that his 'values' should not be
> praised, or his social, ritual or other habits should not be
> emulated...

Why? There are great praises about him that exist as well. In the same
line of reason, you could say that the allied Forces in WW I were evil
because they are depicted that way in the German literature between WW I
and WW II! For the Mongols, Genghis Khan was a great leader who brought
them many good things. To simply take the accounts of various defeated
opponents or their court historians and say you don't need more
knowledge to judge his actions is like saying because Clinton has
ordered to bomb Yugoslavia you need nothing more to judge that he is an
evil war criminal and his values should not be praised! You always need
more knowledge about a situation than the legends and rumors about it.
>
> I have said (quite a few times),
> that I do *not* condone
> the behaviour of those who have committed terrible deeds in
> either pagan cultures, or in the name of 'Christianity'...
> this is the point...
> call this 'POINT A'

And I have understood this quite some time ago, so you don't need to
retell it every second mail!
>
> that the words of Christ, and his apostles are written down, and
> therefore are a safeguard against those who would pervert them,
> and a safeguard against new and strange doctrines...
> call this 'POINT B'

Why then are different translations available? This your point B simply
is not true - it can easily be documented that there exist differing
translations of the new testament! Thus, they are not safeguarded
against those who would pervert them! Or have you read the New Testament
in the Aramaic original?
>
> >I do not think it is correct or acceptable
> >to say that what we think is "superior". It is different, and more to
> >our liking, but it is not <emphasis> the sole solution<end emphasis>
> >forhuman interaction.
>
> Well, the words of Christ summing up the way to live and behave
> are pretty hard to beat?

Well, depends on whom you ask!

> Love God with all your heart etc , and love your neighbour as yourself...
<snipped>
> "The parable of the Good Samaritan"

And exists in almost any belief system I have heard of.
>
> This story illustrates plainly Christ's message that one's neighbour
<snipped>

And again, this is not Jesus only message! There are other statements in
the New Testament as well, statements that are a lot more militaristic.
>

> >Again, there's no reason to automatically assume that this is because of
> >"religious" ideas.
>
> I didn't assume it 'automatically'...
> The following are not my words, but come from
> the literature about the Celts produced by 'scholars'?
> (maybe even some archaeologists? ):
>
> >From The Goddodin...
> "They loved fighting ... in the attack.
> The men who would not flee bore no shame."

You should note, however, that these Celts that produced this texts were
good early christians!
>
> The 2nd century BC Nicander of Colophon
> noted that the Celts practised divination at the tombs of their
> dead warriors...
<snipped>
> (This implies that their gods required blood, ie lives,
> and would be satisfied with the substitutes,
> or the promise of the substitutes?)

Again, I quote witchhunts to you, crusades and other things, I will
agree immediatly with you that the Celtic gods required blood if you
agree with me, based on the same logic, that the christian god required
blood!
>
> "certain shared cultural features, like the custom of head-hunting
> which was also practised by the Scordisi ... prove that ideas were
> exchanged ... a torc from Cibar Varos is the earliest Celtic object
> from Thrace..."

And, so what? They took the heads from their fallen enemies, a good
practice also carried out by christian kings and their armies when they
conquered enemies! The christian kings displayed them on the town walls,
pierced on spears, the Celts took them home! I see no difference that's
of any importance!
>
> In my untutored opinion, the sacrifice of a living person
> whether 'because of religious ideas' or not, is either murder,
> or just sheer hypocritical murder... take your pick :-)

Well, my pick is that as much more than it can be documented that this
human sacrificies were carried out for pagan religious reasons by
pagans, it can be documented that witchhunts and crusades were carried
out for christian religious reasons by christians. And yes, all of it is
murder!
>
> >Most christian cultures of the last two millenia
> >actually glorified war in a very similar way than those pagan cultures
> >you mentioned did.
>
> exaggerating? 2 millenia?
> see 'POINT A' and see 'POINT B' :-)

??? What's the exaggeration? Yes, two millenia! And what makes you the
expert on the original message of christianity? Why should I believe
your point a and b more than I believe Pope Urban II when he called the
christians of Europe to free the holy lands with fire and sword?
>
> >And again, I do have to note that a good deal of christians, even such
> >that are theologians, will say something quite contrary to what you say.
>
> see 'POINT A' no exceptions for murder
> even if it is called 'Christian' murder
> and 'POINT B' later doctrines are *not* Christian , :-)

I know enough theologians that do not base their quite violent picture
of christianity on later doctrines, but only on the bible! As such,
point B is worthless - obviously it can be understood in different ways
than you do!
>
> <...>
> >The point I wanted to make is that all of those people you
> >mentioned in fact were not interested in crushing heretics or converting
> >heathens at all cost (even at the cost of the lives of those who
> >wouldn't want to convert), but were rather tolerant in regard to
> >religious beliefs.
>
> Doesn't the story of the 40 beautiful girls sacrificed on
> Genghis Khan's grave *mean* anything to you?
> Have you no spiritual discernment? No moral fibre?
> No conscience?

And what does the story of hundredthousands of innocent women being
burned during the witchhunts mean to you? In fact, I care more for the
beautiful and less beautiful witches than I care for the 40 beautiful
girls at Ghengis Khan's grave, even more because, as I said, I do not
see a such immediate religious motivation for the killing of the 40
beautiful girls than I see for the killing of more than hundredthousand
women!
>
> Get real! Why will you not say that this behaviour
> is at least 'wrong' if not 'disgusting'?

To me it is disgusting, but that doesn't make it universally disgusting!
When will you get that point? It may be disgusting to me, it may be
disgusting to you, but there may be people who don't find it disgusting!
Now why should my taste in regard to killing people be superior than
theirs?
>
> >Those people either wanted to conquer or to get money
> >or valuables out of their neighbours, but in no were bothered about
> >which religion somebody had.
>
> War, Rape, Kidnap and plunder, but no concern about God?
> No plea of 'self-defense'?
> The statement of yours about 'They just just wanted...'
> is sufficient to justify these patterns of behaviour?

What's this nonsense about justifying these patterns of behaviour? I
don't say that they are right for me, and I don't wnat to live with
such. But I do not insist that they are wrong for everybody, especially
not because of a moral superiority that allows me to judge other's
actions based on soem "universal laws" which may or may not exist!

RAY
________________________________________________________________________

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: <http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a8700035>
________________________________________________________________________

Visit the Celtic-L Resources Page at
<http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a8700035/celtrese.html>
________________________________________________________________________

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


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