 |
 |
Caroline et al Really interesting discussion - not sure if i will ever get any work done today : ) I agree in part but even so - when the neo-pagan makes it up based on intuition - giving a god or goddess some new content - aren't they acting very much like ancient pagans - who also gave completely unhistorical spins to existing deities - isn't this the way religions develop? And doesn't it show how much like the classical pagan we are - and also the vitality of pagan belief? "love and do what you will" Mogg (self-confessed compulsive researcher) i David, > > Yes, I agree with what you've said below. And I'm not saying "Pagans > must be historically-correct and always look to the past" but that if > one is going to be citing a "Pagan history" from the past - which is > very much a part of Paganism today, referring to "the past" - and > talking about gods and other supernatural beings *from past ancient > socieites*, the least one could do was to actually research those > deities from within the deities' own cultural and historical contexts. > Not to say that the way particular deities were perceived by mortals > stayed the same throughout their [the deities'] entire 'lifetimes" > back in pre-Christian times, or that the everyday ancient pagan > bothered to "research" their deities either, but I'd have thought that > if people today were actually interested in "ancient Pagan deities" > the least they could do was to exert themselves on a bit of research > regarding those deities - or else to be truthful and say "Actually, I > can't be bothered doing that, I'm just going to make it up", rather > than make up stuff and not admit it? > > Which sort of reminds me of how Golden Dawn members used to scry the > aethyr for the components of missing parts of rituals if they couldn't > construct them from research. Which is fine... if you believe that you > can obtain such material from that source. I certainly believe you can > obtain *material* from scrying, but whether it is historically > authentic ritual components, I'm feeling mroe sceptical about that. > > ~Caroline. > >>> I do find the blinkered approach to historical critique was a > significant limiting factor. When people dealt with this upfront and > engage with why and how they are making these distinctions it is much > more honest and leads to better ritual practice. I really love how > Thorsen does this in Asatru actually where he acknowledges its > constructed nature and then has a discussion on how we engage with the > past both in terms of literal history and where and how we can make > our depatures. Its a very honest and authentic way to approach the > issue of historicity I think and claims to historical authenticity and > connection to the past lie at the heart of the very idea of > contemporary Paganism.<< >