|
Post by Lee on Oct 2, 2008 17:20:19 GMT -1
Why not just call yourselves Brythonic Heathens? personally i dont see heathen as beng in any way representative of my beliefs. heathenry is particularly associated with the anglo-saxon-norse etc systems. of which i have nothing much to do.
|
|
|
Post by oghma on Oct 2, 2008 17:40:12 GMT -1
Why not just call yourselves Brythonic Heathens? personally i dont see heathen as beng in any way representative of my beliefs. heathenry is particularly associated with the anglo-saxon-norse etc systems. of which i have nothing much to do. Yes, but "Heathen" has the same sort of meaning as "Pagan". There is no reason why it should only refer to working with one pantheon. From an outside perspective the two traditions, one Saxon/Norse and the other Brythonic, look and sound very similar. Just an observation.
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Oct 2, 2008 18:06:09 GMT -1
Heathen? Why? Why muscle in on the heathens? What have they done to us? (rhetorical question, I mean in the last 1000 years, obviously).
Brythonic pagan is fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by oghma on Oct 2, 2008 18:10:18 GMT -1
Heathen? Why? Why muscle in on the heathens? What have they done to us? (rhetorical question, I mean in the last 1000 years, obviously). Brythonic pagan is fine by me. Serious question: The latin origin of the word Pagan is not an issue? I'm not saying it should be, but I know that is why many heathens don't use it.
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Oct 2, 2008 18:15:32 GMT -1
I don't have a problem with it being latin. My ancestors were Brythonic Romano-Britons, who wouldn't have had a problem with it either (until they turned Christian).
What is the origin of the word "heathen"?? It is a Germanic word, therefore very un-Brythonic.
|
|
|
Post by oghma on Oct 2, 2008 18:21:21 GMT -1
I don't have a problem with it being latin. My ancestors were Brythonic Romano-Britons, who wouldn't have had a problem with it either (until they turned Christian). What is the origin of the word "heathen"?? It is a Germanic word, therefore very un-Brythonic. Talking of which...is there a Brythonic word for country-dweller? (Ther must be DUH!) Perhaps there may be some mileage in that?
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Oct 2, 2008 18:44:46 GMT -1
There has been a lot written about druidry, what it represents or what it is "assumed" to represent, and many people have felt a connection with this description, albeit one based on subjective reality, it has failed in any further tangible results in moving on from general agreement about what it should represent. OBOD have, of course, their material which is accepted by some, which is all well and good if you can "connect" to that sort of thing, but for me, I am more interested in how we can produce a spirituality that seeks to blow away hundreds of years of theology and misinformation by creating something that uses UPG to create SPG. It is from this SPG that we can create something that will stand up to the reasoning that is inherent in our gift of free will, for only a spirituality based upon reason can move us forward in sure steps.
RR
|
|
|
Post by oghma on Oct 2, 2008 19:05:05 GMT -1
There has been a lot written about druidry, what it represents or what it is "assumed" to represent, and many people have felt a connection with this description, albeit one based on subjective reality, it has failed in any further tangible results in moving on from general agreement about what it should represent. OBOD have, of course, their material which is accepted by some, which is all well and good if you can "connect" to that sort of thing, but for me, I am more interested in how we can produce a spirituality that seeks to blow away hundreds of years of theology and misinformation by creating something that uses UPG to create SPG. It is from this SPG that we can create something that will stand up to the reasoning that is inherent in our gift of free will, for only a spirituality based upon reason can move us forward in sure steps. RR UPG? Something Personal Gnosis? SPG? For something to be based on reason there has to be a premise at some point for the consequent reasoning to be based upon. For example my most sensible actions today were based on the premises that it is good for me to be alive and earning money. There is nothing inherently logical about that. What are the premises for this new tradition?
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Oct 2, 2008 19:35:57 GMT -1
UPG? Something Personal Gnosis? SPG? For something to be based on reason there has to be a premise at some point for the consequent reasoning to be based upon. For example my most sensible actions today were based on the premises that it is good for me to be alive and earning money. There is nothing inherently logical about that. What are the premises for this new tradition? You will probably take offence at this, though it not meant to be offensive, but those comments show a lack of spiritual understanding that is present here but not present in your thinking. You will no doubt say that you are merely speaking from an atheist viewpoint, all well and good, but if you do not know what UPG and SPG are, and they have been spoken about in TDN threads recently, then I would respectfully request you seek out the knowledge needed to make valid comments about them, instead of merely responding to posts in a manor that is intended to provoke reaction instead of making a positive contribution to the thread. CF members usually think out their posts before posting and it has resulted in some extraordinary threads. The reactive posting style you possess will add nothing to the progression of threads here, except for early closure. RR
|
|
|
Post by oghma on Oct 2, 2008 19:48:59 GMT -1
UPG? Something Personal Gnosis? SPG? For something to be based on reason there has to be a premise at some point for the consequent reasoning to be based upon. For example my most sensible actions today were based on the premises that it is good for me to be alive and earning money. There is nothing inherently logical about that. What are the premises for this new tradition? You will probably take offence at this, though it not meant to be offensive, but those comments show a lack of spiritual understanding that is present here but not present in your thinking. You will no doubt say that you are merely speaking from an atheist viewpoint, all well and good, but if you do not know what UPG and SPG are, and they have been spoken about in TDN threads recently, then I would respectfully request you seek out the knowledge needed to make valid comments about them, instead of merely responding to posts in a manor that is intended to provoke reaction instead of making a positive contribution to the thread. CF members usually think out their posts before posting and it has resulted in some extraordinary threads. The reactive posting style you possess will add nothing to the progression of threads here, except for early closure. RR I'm not sure that was entirely called for. I asked reasonable questions. As for my spiritual understanding, it might be best to not make assumptions about that yet. So then, and this is a genuine question, what are the premises upon which this reason-based spirituality is to be based upon?
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Oct 2, 2008 20:09:34 GMT -1
So then, and this is a genuine question, what are the premises upon which this reason-based spirituality is to be based upon? I have made some of my aspirations and hopes already on other threads. Others I have not spoken publically about yet, so for me, this is what Flag fen represents and I wish to speak to others at this time to see if we share common beliefs and hopes. When we have agreed to a common starting point, then it will be appropriate to elaborate further. And, no, this is not a cop out, but I will share more with the regular members on this site first, before entering in any further discussion with you. This is not meant to be insultive to you and I do not offer it as an insult, but my loyalty and confidence is with the regular members of this site first. If you presence is allowed to continue, and may I make this clear, that is not up to me, and you show yourself in a better light than I have witnessed before, then I may engage with you further, but that, I suggest, is largely up to you and how you choose to conduct yourself on this forum. RR
|
|
|
Post by oghma on Oct 2, 2008 20:26:07 GMT -1
Perhaps I might make some observations. As far as I can see the assumptions behind this initiative are:
1) It is desirable to return to the spirituality of pre-Roman Britain, arguably the last purely native religion of this land.
2) The only way to do this is to refer to the available evidence from the last known religion practiced in this island and to fill in the gaps with gnosis.
3) In order to do this it is necessary to disregard the religious history of these islands since 43 BCE, including previous attempts to revive said religion.
Is this a fair summary?
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Oct 2, 2008 20:30:24 GMT -1
No to all three. There is no substitute for taking the time to read previous threads.
RR
|
|
|
Post by oghma on Oct 2, 2008 20:43:32 GMT -1
No to all three. There is no substitute for taking the time to read previous threads. RR Do you recommend any in particular?
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Oct 2, 2008 20:58:10 GMT -1
Hi Oghma, Welcome to the Brython pages of this Fora.Thanks RR for holding the fort For something to be based on reason there has to be a premise at some point for the consequent reasoning to be based upon. For example my most sensible actions today were based on the premises that it is good for me to be alive and earning money. There is nothing inherently logical about that. Why do there have to be the human concepts of reason or logic involved in our relations to our gods, our ancestors and the spirits of the land? Who are we to question the methods of those whose existence spans many lives, many journeys? Perhaps I might make some observations. As far as I can see the assumptions behind this initiative are: 1) It is desirable to return to the spirituality of pre-Roman Britain, arguably the last purely native religion of this land. 2) The only way to do this is to refer to the available evidence from the last known religion practiced in this island and to fill in the gaps with gnosis. 3) In order to do this it is necessary to disregard the religious history of these islands since 43 BCE, including previous attempts to revive said religion. Is this a fair summary? No. You need to read around the debates on this more, and also visit the Brython Project's website. As a founder of Brython I can tell you that we recognise the many layers of spirituality that cover our land. It is not necessarily desirable to "return to the spirituality of pre-Roman Britain". It is essentially impossible to do so - you'll find no golden age reconstructonists here. More we wish to learn from the layers and create a modern British spirituality based upon the realities of the 21st century as well and the voices of our gods and ancestors. These layers include the Neolithic, the Bronze and Iron Ages, the Romano-British, the Picts and Caledones, the post-Roman British, the Saecsen and the Norse. Christianity, by its exclusive and monotheistic nature is difficult to include, but many of our folk ways and spiritual paths were integrated into early British Christianity so there is much to be learnt from them - look up the An Ceile De before you discard this thought. You will find no hippy druids with dreamcatchers and vedic incense here mate. This is hard, it is real and we recognise that for most of us the journey will not even bear any fruit in our present lifetimes. We are digging the foundations of a tribe, a community committed to revering the native gods, spirits and ancestors of these sacred isles. If that scares people - well good. It frightens the shit out of me.
|
|
|
Post by oghma on Oct 2, 2008 21:20:06 GMT -1
Why do there have to be the human concepts of reason or logic involved in our relations to our gods, our ancestors and the spirits of the land? Who are we to question the methods of those whose existence spans many lives, many journeys? Well you already know my take on that But one might stop to consider whether to a god 2+2 still equals 4. That sounds promising. That sounds even better. Had I not gone all atheist i beleive you would have found me here on the basis of that stateent alone. I would never disgard that thought. Christianities claim to be some kind of religious island has never been tenable. I knew that. Just watch the old linear thinking on that one. It doesn't scare me. It interests me. Sorry if that seems patronising, but having read "The Druids" it is fascinating to actually see such a development playing out live. Would it surprise you to know that I honour all the gods of my Ancestors? For me it is a mere detail that neither, in my view, can hear me do so, due to being dead in one case and fictional in the other.
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Oct 2, 2008 22:00:16 GMT -1
Talking of which...is there a Brythonic word for country-dweller? (Ther must be DUH!) Perhaps there may be some mileage in that? The Brythonic tribe known as the Cornovii, after the Romans left, referred to the rural area to the west of their central settlement of Viroconium (later moved north to Pengwern) as the Pagus. Afterwards known as Powys which is still the name of the area of Wales in which that territory lies. Given the length of the Roman occupation, and the fact that many Britons spoke Latin, 'pagan' should do very well.
|
|
|
Post by oghma on Oct 2, 2008 22:10:42 GMT -1
Talking of which...is there a Brythonic word for country-dweller? (Ther must be DUH!) Perhaps there may be some mileage in that? The Brythonic tribe known as the Cornovii, after the Romans left, referred to the rural area to the west of their central settlement of Viroconium (later moved north to Pengwern) as the Pagus. Afterwards known as Powys which is still the name of the area of Wales in which that territory lies. Given the length of the Roman occupation, and the fact that many Britons spoke Latin, 'pagan' should do very well. That is fantastic! Full circle then. Talking of which, I once started a discussions in which the word Pagus was suggested as being a good one for a piece of land on which Pagans of various traditions are able to practice and to set up their sacred spaces. This was in 2000 and the original Usenet discussion can be found here: groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.religion.pagan/browse_thread/thread/80e62ccc03eb11be/4359fd5008a7ae95?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=pAGUS#4359fd5008a7ae95
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Oct 3, 2008 6:16:06 GMT -1
personally i dont see heathen as beng in any way representative of my beliefs. heathenry is particularly associated with the anglo-saxon-norse etc systems. of which i have nothing much to do. Yes, but "Heathen" has the same sort of meaning as "Pagan". There is no reason why it should only refer to working with one pantheon. From an outside perspective the two traditions, one Saxon/Norse and the other Brythonic, look and sound very similar. Just an observation. Jez can jump in here and confirm - but if i recall correctly, heathen has its root as the term used by those involved in worship of scandinavian (clumsy generalisation i know - apologies) gods. its origins isnt in the general term like pagan but in a term far more specific. though they might look similar, they dont therefore justify the same name and more than a rabbit and a hare.
|
|