| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
 |
|
| In the centre of the courtyard stood an ancient tree (an oak, if I remember correctly), from the branches of which hung a number of ropes. - The guide enquired of his audience whether anybody could guess their purpose. - He then explained that they were used to tether the bull. |
A practical application indeed...ropes hanging from an oak tree has a nordic ring as in the Odin legend, is the oak native to the Med? Ropes may have been ribbons/flags once (cf. Chinese/Tibetan/Siberian shrines to 'spirits') which were, and still are, a means of communication with the ancestors and gods.
| The lucky beast in question had been selected as a calf the previous year, together with a local child who reigned as 'king' for the year. |
The bull is one of the most recognised symbols of virility. Is it only in Spain where the bull is physically rather than metaphorically killed? Rather reminiscent of a rite of passage, proving one's manhood by usurping the reigning authority. Or proving one's strength in combat. The newer, watered-down, version might be Queen of the May.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| I certainly hope that doesn't include alcoholism. Mind you, if it did it would add a whole new relevance to my avatar! |
We're rather fond of Dionysius, Chad. You could be our resident god of the grape and grain.
Shamanistic lore includes an oblation to the spirits, they sprinkle a few drops up into the air before knocking back the vodka.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| berniegreen wrote: | | It follows then that we should reappraise Christianity (as it is practised) from top to bottom in the light of that insight. |
I'm not defending any one paradigm over another. I just want to make you aware that what appears obvious -- that Christianity adopted a number of Pagan rituals to make itself more palatable -- isn't necessarily so, though it is universally stated. It is just as reasonable to speak of Pagans adopting various Christian overlays in order to continue with their established traditions. I believe we may see this in evidence in the various Caribbean creoles and in Rastifarianism.
But this is not the only alternative interpretation available. In fact, it isn't the one to which I am most sympathetic.
How did the current paradigm evolve? It is, in fact, a secularized version of an older, Christian paradigm.
The Christian view for long ages past was that human beings lived as ignorant heathens until the Son of God appeared and, through the preaching of the Gospel, the civilized world was gradually converted to Christianity. Secular scholars did away with the miraculous version of this tale but maintained the same arc of history; human beings practised various expressions of polytheism until Christianity came along and converted the western world to a Hellenized brand of Judaism.
But over time, scholars began to uncover many of the strange parallels between Christianity and certain polytheistic religions understood to have preceded it -- parallels that were once more widely known but had been forgotten or suppressed. This new data did not alter the historical paradigm. The new data was instead incorporated within the model, despite the fact that the prevailing understanding was established largely in ignorance of this information.
So where pagan belief and ritual was seen to be echoed in Christianity, the repetition was explained as the latter's adoption of the former; Christianity had come along as an alien force, encountered alternate belief and practice, then incorporated these within the faith -- to make itself more palatable to the converted.
This is the prevailing view to this day.
But recent scholarship, in certain circles, has pushed the paradigm about as far as it can go; for it seems now apparent that nothing present in Christianity cannot also be found in some pagan precedent. Christianity has become little more than a polyglot of incorporated and adopted belief, stirred into a soup base of Jewish mystic monotheism.
I say different. I say that this model just won't hold up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
admin
Librarian
|
|
|
|
berniegreen wrote:
I find the model of paganism or polytheism continuing but masquerading as Christianity pretty convincing. It explains the heated battle over the doctrine of the Trinity and the defeat of Arianism. A clash, the ferocity of which has always amazed me.
Ishmael wrote | But this is not the only alternative interpretation available. In fact, it isn't the one to which I am most sympathetic. |
My mind boggles. Enlighten us, pray.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
admin
Librarian
|
|
|
|
Chad wrote:
Bernie wrote: | I find the model of paganism or polytheism continuing but masquerading as Christianity pretty convincing. |
This is pretty much what I was trying to convey earlier when I wrote:
| I think what we see around the Mediterranean is people carrying out the traditions they have always engaged in. -- They were simply inherited by 'modern' Christianity when it became the established religion of the Roman Empire (whenever that was). |
My first stab at it, when I mentioned 'adoption and adaption' was simply me being lazy and lacking the eloquence to express my thoughts clearly. ... I will have to be more careful with Ishmael on the lookout for stray paradigms (he can be quite scary when he finds one) and I too would love him to enlighten us with his alternative interpretation but I suspect that may be one for another time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Just by the by, can we please stop referring to Christianity as monotheistic. Traditional Christianity (ie Catholicism and Greek Orthodox) is completely polytheistic. 'God' is merely the chief-god (like Zeus) in a cast of characters that runs from top-ranking gods like Jesus, Mary and Satan, through middle-ranking gods like archangels and the apostles to low-order bits and bobs like saints, demons and (since infallibility was declared) the Pope.
Protestantism is, in practical terms, monotheistic as is Islam and Judaism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
admin
Librarian
|
|
|
|
berniegreen wrote:
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Just by the by, can we please stop referring to Christianity as monotheistic. Traditional Christianity (ie Catholicism and Greek Orthodox) is completely polytheistic. 'God' is merely the chief-god (like Zeus) in a cast of characters that runs from top-ranking gods like Jesus, Mary and Satan, through middle-ranking gods like archangels and the apostles to low-order bits and bobs like saints, demons and (since infallibility was declared) the Pope. |
This completely worries me. Undoubtedly the Trinity is a polytheistic concept but, it seems to me, that the typical Christian devotee thinks of Saint Joseph, say, as a "superior" person in heaven who can intercede and ask God to do things but not in the same way that a Hindu thinks that Ganesh or Hanuramam is an actual God who can do things themselves.
| Protestantism is, in practical terms, monotheistic as is Islam and Judaism. |
As long as they profess belief in the "Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost" they, says I, are polytheistic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
admin
Librarian
|
|
|
|
Chad wrote:
berniegreen wrote: | This completely worries me. Undoubtedly the Trinity is a polytheistic concept but, it seems to me, that the typical Christian devotee thinks of Saint Joseph, say, as a "superior" person in heaven who can intercede and ask God............ |
This completely worries me.
The entire Christian concept of sainthood -- as entities to which people should pray and devote themselves -- seems very odd to anybody not brought up in that belief system.
In fact all the old religions of the Roman Empire went in for the practice of elevating 'persons' into positions of heavenly authority. Isn't this just an example of carrying on the tradition?
As to whether this is monotheism or polytheism, what the hell, neither has any more validity than the other. So let's just call it theism and tar them all with the same brush.
After all, as Mick said:
| Applied Epistemology is against all -isms. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
It's no use spouting dogma, Bernie, the proof is in the pudding not what it says on the packet.
| Undoubtedly the Trinity is a polytheistic concept |
Wrong! The whole point of the Trinity is to try to present a monotheistic front. And it's why all the early Big Splits were on this very point. For instance, Arianism said Jesus is mortal and merely a God-given prophet -- the exact same stance as Mohammed in Islam. But orthodox Christianity just rolled the Godhead into a ball and presents Jesus as the cut-out. Do you know anyone who has actually prayed to the Holy Ghost?
But the whole thing kept falling down for the reason that generally speaking polytheism is preferred to monotheism. People find the One-God Principle just does not fit their needs. He's too distant; he's an intellectual abstract. They want 'gods' they can actually use for everyday purposes.
| it seems to me, that the typical Christian devotee thinks of Saint Joseph, say, as a "superior" person in heaven who can intercede and ask God to do things but not in the same way that a Hindu thinks that Ganesh or Hanuramam is an actual God who can do things themselves. |
Again, you're mistaking minor points of technical dogma for reality.. You pray to the Virgin Mary herself, to her actual statue (just as you do to Ganesh). Not Joseph of course, a very minor deity, unless you happen to be a carpenter.
| As long as they profess belief in the "Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost" they, says I, are polytheistic. |
Again, you are quite wrong because it always comes down to a simple question of psychology. Monotheism is austere -- because The Creator Of The Universe is impossibly far away for most people's tastes. Polytheism isn't -- there's a god to help you look for something you've just lost.
You have to judge each sect individually. Most Protestant sects are big on the Devil ie they are dualistic. This is really monotheistic because otherwise you have to allow the Creator God to do wicked things. And so long as it stops there, no (monotheistic) harm done. But as soon as you summon St George rather than confront the devil all on your ownsome....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| As to whether this is monotheism or polytheism, what the hell, neither has any more validity than the other. So let's just call it theism and tar them all with the same brush |
This won't do at all. We are not interested in tarring people with the same brush, we are interested in tarring them with differently coloured tars. And pray don't forget atheism is an -ism too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| berniegreen wrote: | | This completely worries me. Undoubtedly the Trinity is a polytheistic concept... |
How funny. Things you do not doubt -- and the very things I hold as false.
One of our associates, with whom I am collaborating on a book project (if we can ever decide which one we are writing) might succeed in proving to you that the trinity is, of all Catholic doctrines, the one most essentially monotheistic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
Atheism my arse - - this is my kinda religion.......
| Shamanistic lore includes an oblation to the spirits, they sprinkle a few drops up into the air before knocking back the vodka. |
.......but make mine a large, single malt, if that's o.k.
Bugger -- just realised shamanism is an -ism too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Bugger -- just realised shamanism is an -ism too. |
Shamanism doesn't really count as an -ism since it is not a religion, so you might get away with it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | It's no use spouting dogma, Bernie |
There is "belief" which signifies a collection of views and opinions based on observation (which may always, of course, prove faulty) and there is "belief" which is the result of faith, without the need for evidence. In contemporary English "dogma" refers to the latter.
Not my hobby, that.
| Undoubtedly the Trinity is a polytheistic concept |
Wrong! |
Correct - in a sense. What I should have said is that the Trinity is a polytheistic concept dressed up to look like monotheism.
| Arianism said Jesus is mortal and merely a God-given prophet -- the exact same stance as Mohammed in Islam. |
Wrong! Bishop Arius maintained that God gave Jesus divine power to use on his behalf without making him divine. Islam, on the other hand, claims no divine powers at all for The Prophet (in fact it would be a blasphemy to do so), solely that he was the chosen channel for God's communication.
| But orthodox Christianity just rolled the Godhead into a ball and presents Jesus as the cut-out. |
Just too facile!! The Trinitarian argument is that Jesus has a dual nature, both human and divine and that the three elements are both separate and united.
| Do you know anyone who has actually prayed to the Holy Ghost? |
All Christians do it every time they pray.
| People find the One-God Principle just does not fit their needs. He's too distant; he's an intellectual abstract. They want 'gods' they can actually use for everyday purposes. |
Do you suppose that this is what is the problem with the Jews and the Arabs?
| You pray to the Virgin Mary herself, to her actual statue (just as you do to Ganesh). |
I grant that - among Catholics, but not, I think, among other flavours.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Bernie, you must get used to looking a little deeper than the norm. Actually I think your basic problem is you cannot resist parading knowledge, whether it fits or not.
Arianism said Jesus is mortal and merely a God-given prophet -- the exact same stance as Mohammed in Islam.
Wrong! Bishop Arius maintained that God gave Jesus divine power to use on his behalf without making him divine. Islam, on the other hand, claims no divine powers at all for The Prophet (in fact it would be a blasphemy to do so), solely that he was the chosen channel for God's communication. |
You're just repeating dogma again. And by the way when I accuse(d) you of speaking dogma I don't mean you are being dogmatic, I mean it literally, you are repeating dogma (ie the Church's version).
Look at your paragraph again. That is exactly what a Jesuit would say. But the true meaning is the sociological one, the psychological one, not the theological one. The Arians wanted Jesus to be like Mohammed ie someone completely earthly, someone you can completely identify with. It's entirely a matter for angels-on-pinheads to decide whether you call him divine or not.
Do you know anyone who has actually prayed to the Holy Ghost?
All Christians do it every time they pray. |
You see! You've done it again. Yes, of course every Christian names the Holy Ghost in his prayers every day [remember, I urged you not to say things that everybody over the age of six knows] but the question is whether the devotee is actually praying to The Holy Ghost or not. I say not. Nobody can envisage a...duh...I can't even describe it in words much less pray to it. The devotee is praying to the Virgin Mary, or Jesus or even (if they want it big, big, big) God himself. But not the Holy Ghost.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
