> De : Croman mac Nessa <[log in to unmask]>
> Objet : Re: Druid - Magus
> In a message dated 6/15/02 8:08:23 AM Central Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>> << As far as I know, the texts we possess are much later that the conversion.
>> So they had little to do with it. In this way, I am afraid that they were
>> more black & white than grey. >>
> "The conversion" was a very lengthy process

Of course. I would even add that it is a perpetual process, as even
Christianity in evolving : so so have to discard old practices and implant
new ones.

> which I don't believe was ever
> completed totally in Goidelic-speaking countries, nor for that matter even in
> some Goidelic-speaking individuals.

I don't agree with that as you may have guess from my previous mails ! How
can you define a complete conversion, on what grounds. I think we have to
take up this question from a different angle. First, there are different
ways of being Christian, depending of your position into the Church and more
generally into the Society (you don't expect the same behaviour from a
bishop and a fisherman). Second, even where Christianity is dominant, it
does not have what I call the "monopoly of the sacred". It means that there
are areas where Christian thoughts may have an influence, but is not
completely in charge of the sacred. An example is kingship, where a king can
be anointed, but he also has his own share of the sacred (that is to say his
ability to be not as every other human is), coming from his genealogical
inscription, or his particular birth, etc. But this non-specificaly
christian part of the sacred is not to be defined as pagan neither. It comes
generally from what anthropologists (as I am) would call temporarily the
"universal rules of the sacred". For example, there is not an unlimited
number of ways to create a mediator (between gods and men for example) :
special birth, rituals... This is why there are similarity between a saint,
a priest, a shaman or a druid for example. But it does not mean also that
they are strictly one and a same character : we have to keep in mind
similarities as well as differences.

In a friendly way,