MovieChat Forums > The Mists of Avalon (2001) Discussion > The old religion depicted in the book?

The old religion depicted in the book?


Was it really based, or have roots in, paganism? I've read the book a number of times, and am just curious about what religions were practiced at the time? From what i understand, theres not a lot of information. any help would be great.

Renee
My very randomness astounds people!
I hate Reality shows, thats not reality!

reply

WELL, this happens to be my feild of expertise. I study theology.

That said, the "old religion" in the book, an subsequntly in the movie, was actually Wicca, which is a new Religion which purports to be an old one.

The truth is, Wicca began in the 1950's and is base don pld, Romantic notions formed in the 19th and earlu 20th century, logn agoio discredited by real Scholarship.


The Religion of the Brittish peopel in the 5th Century was predomenantly Christian, of the Catholic variety. Most adhered to Roman Rite Cathaolisism, while a few still adhered to the older Celtic rites, which developed whent he firts Christains came ot Brittain. They share dmost of the same Doctrines however.


The Pagans where either Romans or Celts.

Few remained that wheren't Convered to Christianity at ths time, and those who wheren't fell into the two above Categories of Paganism. Paganism isnt a singule religion but a description for several beleif systems involving polytheism and traditional cults.

The ROmans had a compelxe mythology largley lifted frm the Greeks, involving Jupiter (Wose life was merged with Zeus) and the Olympian gods.

The Mythology is rich and layered, and epxores intence thrmes, with many permutations, hwoever there never was a uniform parttern of owrhip and many cults (Old sense here, nto liek today) where dedicated to their own path, and worhsipped usually a single god. IE, the cult of Appolo.

Prayers where usually offere din Temples or at Shrines to variosu gods, with incence burnt and sacrifices played. Those where standardised and ritualised but not put on a set date like in Christianity, wich usually worhsips on a Sunday, or Judaism, which worships on a Saterday. Peopel attended the Temles usually rnadomly with the exception of a few Holy Days should you have a Patron god.


The ROman Culture was a malke dominated one which had no real singular Goddess, over all, and whose general culture of people treated women as infirior to men.

The Celts where worse and treated women as property. THey also had no real standardised evrsiosn of the myths,a nd often worhsipped haphazardly the variosu spirits of natural things or places.

Worhsip was usually by mean of appeasing a god or spirit whose domain you had entered.

Like the Romans they may have had patron gods they focuse don mor ehtna others, but little is known of the Celts.

You can look both up online.

Suffice to sya, neither of them acted much liek the Pagans in Mists.

reply

Seeing as Wicca was popularized in 1954 and is a neopagan religion, I am going to have to disagree. While Bradley borrowed greatly from the neopagan revival in the development of her novel, we actually do not know much about the Druids. In fact, the sources that we do have are riddled with bias and, as Bradley points out, incorrectly state that the Druids performed human sacrifice and cannibalism. It is impossible to know for certain, so Bradley takes poetic liberties. Also, the previous poster has grossly overestimated the influence of Christianity in the 5th century. At the start of 5th century, many pagan temples were being refurbished. Of course, Sub-Roman Britian was officially Christian, but the Christian presence in Britian was actually developed as a replacement of paganism. In fact, most Christian churches were built over pagan temples or close to those sites. Religions and religious rule are rarely as simple as the previous poster makes it seem. Just because the Roman Empire was officially Christian does not mean that all of the individuals inhabiting Britian well before the Roman invasion would have suddently changed their beliefs. Think about it--if the United States were suddenly invaded by a huge tribe of...Wiccans...tomorrow we all wouldn't wake up Wiccan. We would hold on to our beliefs and slowly integrate the two dominate cultures over a long period of time. Any other suggestion ignores the definate anthropological evidence that we have from Sub-Roman Britain.

reply

Seeing as Wicca was popularized in 1954 and is a neopagan religion, I am going to have to disagree.



Wicca wasnt popularised in 1954, it was created then. Nothign like it existed prior tot he 1950's.



While Bradley borrowed greatly from the neopagan revival in the development of her novel, we actually do not know much about the Druids. In fact, the sources that we do have are riddled with bias and, as Bradley points out, incorrectly state that the Druids performed human sacrifice and cannibalism. It is impossible to know for certain, so Bradley takes poetic liberties.



But, we do know he Druids performed Human Sacrifices, as we have actually found the Ritually slin bopdies in bogs iN England and Wales. The fact is, we may not know a whole lot abotut he Druids, but we do know enough to knwo that tnere worhsip was nothign liek Mists of Avalon, and that they where a male-only Prioetshood. There wher eno Female Druids, the Druids did not worhsip a signel female divinity nown as "The Goddess", and the Druids did not celebrate the Holidays like Beltaine in the fashion of the book.

The Druids where a Celtic male Priesthood. You can read of them in Enclyclopedias or online from credible spruces.


Also, the previous poster has grossly overestimated the influence of Christianity in the 5th century.



No, I haven't. By the 4th Century England had been largley CHristainised. It'd be hard ot beelive that only 100 years later CHistaiity woudl lack infleunce.





At the start of 5th century, many pagan temples were being refurbished.



Such as? And what Pagan Temples existed in Brittany at the time?

The Druids had noTemples, so they had to be Roman.




Of course, Sub-Roman Britian was officially Christian, but the Christian presence in Britian was actually developed as a replacement of paganism.



No it wasn't. Brittain was CHrisainised mainly due to Missionary efforts, and the firts Christains managed to get to Brittain around the middle of the first Century. THe movement didnt really take off till around the 300's though, and then settled. THis is where the Celtic Churhces originated.

At that time, many Pagans still existed in Brittany but where eager to Emrbace Christianity by all reports, and it is in this time that many Great gain ehrre made for the Church, including its first Martyr, St. Alban, who died in I beleive 309 AD. This is the 4th Century, and his death, as wella s his witness of the Faith beore in the face of Certain death, lead to many conversions to Christendom. In fact,. Brittain was a hotbed of Christianity before ROme herself.

Incidentlaly, Rome started to become Christain in 315 AD with the conversion fo Emperor COnstantine, but by this time we had Celtic Churches already flourishign in Brittain, and a massive upsweep as the result of the story of St. Alban just a few years before.


Granted, this doesnt mean all Brittany was CHristain, but it was a sizable portion that was.

So Im afraid you are mistaken.

All one needs to do to confirm this is read a History book on the topic.



In fact, most Christian churches were built over pagan temples or close to those sites.


No they wheren't. Nor could they have been because there simply wheren't that many Temples. THe Celts didnt build Temples and most of the CHuhces where simply erected wherever the Missionaries went. IE, St. Augustines CHaple was built in Canterbury where he met with Aelfric, and the land was donated to him by Aelfric. There is no evidence it was ever a Pagan Temple, and inf sc it was liekly unused Farmland.

I dount yo can find any Ancient British Churhc built on top of a Pagan Temple in England.




Religions and religious rule are rarely as simple as the previous poster makes it seem. Just because the Roman Empire was officially Christian does not mean that all of the individuals inhabiting Britian well before the Roman invasion would have suddently changed their beliefs.



No one said it would, but Brittain had been invaded before Christianity took hold in the Empire, and spread to Brittany in waves, gradually eroding the less defined Paganism. As noted, Celtic Paganism was never a formalised Religion with consistant doctrine uniting it as a body and was mianly broken into local traditions, and was all but lost by the middle of the 5th Century due to the Missionary work of Christains already in Brittain, who had the advantage of a coherent and consistant belief system.

Incedentlaly, all the people who lived in Brittany well before the Romans invaded had died out long before the time When "Mists Of Avalon " is set. To the Authros credit she never claims otherwise, but you do, as you seem to depict the Roman COnquest of Britain as beign soemwhat recent to the events described in the book, when in fact it occured soem 500 eyars earlier. In fact, Brittain had larglry been abandoned by Rome by the time of the story of King Arthur and he Roman Empire had begun to decline. Thats why its Kings had so much Autonomy.







Think about it--if the United States were suddenly invaded by a huge tribe of...Wiccans...tomorrow we all wouldn't wake up Wiccan. We would hold on to our beliefs and slowly integrate the two dominate cultures over a long period of time. Any other suggestion ignores the definate anthropological evidence that we have from Sub-Roman Britain.



But no one ever said Brittian became Christain after the Romans invaded. Brittain became Christain because of Gradual missionary work, which was largley completed by the mid 4th century.

Your history is also very skewed if you think the Roman Invasion of Brittain is what lead to the Christainisation, and that Christainity was meant as a way for the Romans to replace British paganism. Rome Conquered Brittain in 43 AD. At this time, Christianity had barley gotten started in a backwater provence called Palistine, and had only a few thousand adherants scattered accordd the medeteranian. It was no infleunce on Rome at all.

In fact, the famous Hadrians Wall that officially ended Roman Impirial expansion was built in 122 AD, by which time Chrisainity was a noticable Religion which suffered periodic persecutions by local Roman Governors form time to time, but yeilded no official influence.

To say that he Romans wanted to Instill Christainity in order to repalce Paganism in the 5th century AD is to forget that the Romans had already occupied Brittain for 500 years before they supposeldy began this proccess.

Otherwise, if this isn't what you mean, then how do you justify your comments about Christianity being meant o replace Paganism and your claim that if the US was conquered by Wiccans people would still have their beleifs and it'd take a logn time to adjust the two domenant cultures? Is 500 years not long enough?


reply

You have clearly missed some fundamental aspects of history:
1.) It is extremely biased and silly documents written by Roman soliders about what Druids did and did not do were fabricated mostly out of fear and were embellished for the sake of securing the Christian religion's status in England.
2.) Roman, as an adjective, does not merely describe Roman forces. It describes cultural aspects as well.
3.) You obviously haven't used "encyclopedias" or "books" to research Druidic culture as any historian will tell you that we know virtually nothing about them. Most anthropologists agree that the "slain Druidic sacrifices" that you are talking about are the stuff of ambiguity at its best.
4.) We do not know enough about Druids to state that they were a male-only priesthood.
5.) Goddess worship was once extremely popular. The reason that the books you read do not include it is because of a largely sexist attitude adopted by those who write books AND due to the fact that Christians destroyed most of the cultural artifacts associated with Goddess worship.
6.) You are ALMOST CERTAINLY going to find conflicting historical reports. So, neither you nor myself are completely right in these instances. Get over it. I am merely suggestion that you are using a very small, single-minded view of history. To be a historian, you must embrace and at the very least acknowledge that your view could be mistaken. History gets rewritten. Deal with it.

reply

If all the books and artifacts on Goddess worship have been destroyed, then what maked you so sure that such a religion DID exist? =/ What makes you so sure that said books and artifacts ever existed in the first place?

http://www.fanfiction.net/~kaeti

reply

have you ever seen the old statue of the "mother". http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.uvm.edu/~iwd/images08 /venuswillindorflarge.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.uvm.edu/~iwd/%3FPag e%3Dww.html&usg=__2nhlVAKut6aM-h_2_iqVa_0cHi0=&h=1496&w=81 2&sz=196&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=ZLvsOs8iJphgOM:& amp;tbnh=150&tbnw=81&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfat%2Bwoman%2Bstatue%2 6hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1

I highly doubt the Amazons worshiped a male god.

reply

Yes, but we only have mythological references to the Amazon, no historical data pointing to their actual evidence...
As to the Venus of Willendorf and others: they are indeed probably images of goddesses (fertility? life? Nature?). That doesn't mean we have any idea of the kind of cult or worship they were given, nor that such a cult existed. We have artefacts for that period, not liturgy.

"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."

reply

They may not have worshipped a male god, but as the Poster above said, we don’t really know if they even existed. Worse, worshipping a female deity doesn't mean they worshipped The Goddess as understood by Wicca. IE, they could have worshipped Artimis, but still acknowledged the existence of other gods in the Pantheon of the Greeks such as Zeus. This would make them Henotheistic, as opposed to Monotheistic.

In fact, even cultures we know celebrate a Feminine goddess, such as some tribes who venerate the earth as Female ( And contrary to Wicca, some venerate the Earth as male) still don’t share specific traits of the Wiccan Faith. IE, many do not call her “The Goddess”, and few celebrate the Holidays or follow the Reed.

With the Amazons its worse, for No evidence suggests their beliefs coincided with Wicca at all.

reply

It's nice to see someone posting to these boards that isn't completely ignorant about history. What we know about Celtic religion and by extension their male priesthood, the Druids, is based almost entirely on biased Greco-Roman descriptions. Make no mistake: These descriptions are historically significant but we must understand the thinking that went into the presentation of these data. Did the Celts practice human sacrifice? Probably but then they weren't alone in doing this. Germanic tribes for example sacrificed captives and this has been archaeological proven to have occurred after the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in 9 CE. Historians and Classicists agree that Greco-Roman sources are highly biased in their descriptions of all barbarian groups but their information on the Druids is especially unreliable. For some reason, the Romans in Britain were terrified of the Druids and in AD 60, the Roman general Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, determined to break the power of the Celtic druids, attacked the island utilizing his amphibious Batavian contingent as a surprise vanguard assault. This occurred almost precisely on the day that Boudica, the great Celtic female warrior chieftain led the last Celtic up rising against Rome.

Roman religion was syncretic; meaning that as they conquered people they added local deities to their pantheon of worship. The Roman goddess Diana (Greek goddess Artemis and pre-Greek Demeter) were most unusual in that they had no officially recognized male counterpart (husband, spouse, companion). It's been established that Demeter long pre-dated Classical Greek, even Middle to Lake Bronze Age Mycenae. Marija Gimbutas equated Demeter with Earth Mother worship she traced back to the Lake Paleolithic Period (The Venus of Willendorf) and others to pre Homo sapiens sapiens of the Middle Paleolithic as represented by the Venus of Berekhat Ram. Gimbutas argued that Demeter represented the 'Old Religion' of Europe, the religion and the culture that dominated Europe until it was nearly obliterated by the Kurgan Invasions of the Late Neolithic-Copper-Early Bronze Age c 3,000 to 5,000 years ago. These invasions replaced the old religions some of which were Earth Mother based with the pantheon of gods and goddesses most of us know from the popular literature. Instead of a loving Earth Mother who gave life, there was an angry male sky god who through thunderbolts. Gimbutas also argues that the replacement of female deities occurred simultaneously with the change from large matriarchal to patriarchal societies, and the demotion of women to second class status virtually everywhere.

In Celtic Britain however, the veneration of women and the mother goddess while of denigrated significance compared to pre-Celtic Britain remained a very significant aspect of pre-Christian Celtic religion. The Celts certainly never enslaved their women and there is sold evidence to suggest that the ruling class of Celtic Britain was matriarchal in character. The Celtic pantheon certainly was dominated by male gods but it surprise; an Earth Mother goddess existed and she was very important, as important as Demeter, Artemis, and Diana were to the Greco Romans.

Interestingly, the significance of the female diety and women generally did not end with the Roman invasions or the adoption of Christianity throughout the empire. Why this is remains a hot debated subject with some arguing that matriarchal societies were were never significant. The significance of women in Celtic and Roman Britain presents numerous problems, especially for theological historians. Celtic Christians firmly believed that their religion did not arrive with Roman legions but was established at Glastonbury c 45-50 CE by Joseph of Arimathea by pre-Pauline Judeo-Christian, which if true places Christianity ahead of Rome in the foundation sequence. It is here that we begin to see a clear divergence between normative Church teachings and those of traditional Celtic Christians. Given the belief by some that Jesus venerated women and highly valued their opinions (these people argue that Mark Magdalene was in fact an actual disciple), beliefs that were largely obliterated by the teachings of Paul, and, if Christianity really did arrive in Britain before it was brought there by the Romans, this helps explain one of the more significant and purposefully overlooked divergences between Roman and Celtic Christianity; a divergence that the Roman church worked hard to end with the Synod of Whitby in 64 CE: The matriarchal character of Celtic Christianity. The matriarchal character of Celtic Christianity also helps explain why it was so quickly adopted by the Celtic British.

In closing let me just say emphasize that you;re right: History and archaeology and not the static disciplines we were taught about in high school. These disciplines are rewritten but not without significant debate and bloodletting. And yes indeed, there are disagreements, some of which never seem to end. These disagreements are especially prevalent in maters concerning religion. Religion is based largely on belief: One either accepts belief or not. In history and science, belief has no official roll. One's thinking should be based on demonstrable facts not beliefs. Unfortunately, when history/archaeology and religion interact, there are problems. I find the complete lack of objectivity on the part of the true believer unhelpful and offensive because this interferes with the object of true scholarship, which is the collection and interpretation of facts. Beliefs are scholastically studied in philosophy and theology departments, and I wish people would try to keep belief out of history.

reply

"No they wheren't. Nor could they have been because there simply wheren't that many Temples. THe Celts didnt build Temples and most of the CHuhces where simply erected wherever the Missionaries went. IE, St. Augustines CHaple was built in Canterbury where he met with Aelfric, and the land was donated to him by Aelfric. There is no evidence it was ever a Pagan Temple, and inf sc it was liekly unused Farmland."

I think you would find Aelfric to be Germanic and not Brythonic Celtic. There are some evidences taht there was a few Germanic temples in England (which only existed after the coming of the English from continental Europe, before that it was simply Britain), especially in the Kingdom of Northumbria, however, the English, like all Germanic people, prefered to hold rites in nature, at the streams and in the groves.

Likewise, most Celts prefered to hold rites in groves also. The Brythons didn't really have anthropomorphized gods, unlike most Celts, but they likely had similar customs.

"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"

reply

Zarove
'I dount yo can find any Ancient British Churhc built on top of a Pagan Temple in England'

Notwithstanding that the word is doubt, how about the church on top of Glastonbury Tor, Brent Tor church in West Devon, Buckfast Church above the town of Buckfatleigh, again Devon, Sancreed Church in Cornwall to name just 4 churches that are definitely built on the remains of earlier pre-Christian places of worship. Oh and also all these places were not under direct Roman control being either in the middle of swamp or beyond the last Roman outpost of Exeter. Some people would say there are parts of Cornwall that have never been Christianised lol but that's all a matter of perception..

reply



Cran-


'I dount yo can find any Ancient British Churhc built on top of a Pagan Temple in England'

Notwithstanding that the word is doubt,


I am Dyslexic.


how about the church on top of Glastonbury Tor, Brent Tor church in West Devon, Buckfast Church above the town of Buckfatleigh, again Devon, Sancreed Church in Cornwall to name just 4 churches that are definitely built on the remains of earlier pre-Christian places of worship.


You do realise I specifically said “Temples” right?

The whole point was that the Celts did not Build Temples, the Romans did, but none of the Roman Temples were converted into Churches in England. What you are discussing is a lot different, especially since it should be obvious they’d build Churches in Sacred Places considering those Sacred Places were often miles long and encompassed whole Villages. Churches are Built where people live because otherwise people wouldn’t be able to access them.



Oh and also all these places were not under direct Roman control being either in the middle of swamp or beyond the last Roman outpost of Exeter.


But, they were Christianised, and, again, those places often included places people actually lived.

If I am a Pagan, and my people have declared that a place that’s 3 square miles is Sacred, yet people still live in the vicinity, and later Christians Turn up, would it really be that odd that they’d, you know, build a Church there of the Converts? And assuming I Didn’t try to drive them out because I didn’t want my people converted, supposing we were Agreeable ( Which happened surprisingly often in England) would I be upset that they build a Church for he Christian Villagers which just happens to sit in the same Three Mile Radius?



Some people would say there are parts of Cornwall that have never been Christianised lol but that's all a matter of perception..


Those people never Met our Dear Archbishop., Rowan Williams. He’s Welsh though so may try to reclaim Cornwall for them… oh and he’s a Druid so maybe there is something to this merging stuff after all…

reply

@ZAROVE

You are misinformed. Wicca was most certainly NOT created in 1954.That would be impossible.

It was introduced publicly by Gerald Gardner in 1954, though he did release a fictitious book on the subject in 1949. It roughly coinciding with when Britain repealed the Witchcraft Act of 1736 in 1951.

Gardner, a British civil servant returned to Britain from overseas postings in the mid 1930s and became involved in occult groups and finally the New Forest Grove in 1939. So Gardnerian Wicca's genesis is sometime between 1939 and 1954. New Forest Grove is thought to have it's own genesis sometime in the early 1930s and it's rituals based on British folk traditions. The New Forest Grove is suspected of being an offshoot of the Order of Woodcraft Chivalry scouting group.

How much he added to what he learned from the New Forest Grove group from his prior occult activities and experiences or if he simply released what he learned from the group without embellishment is up for debate. The evidence points to him embellishing it a great deal.

reply

"That said, the "old religion" in the book, an subsequntly in the movie, was actually Wicca, which is a new Religion which purports to be an old one.

The truth is, Wicca began in the 1950's and is base don pld, Romantic notions formed in the 19th and earlu 20th century, logn agoio discredited by real Scholarship."

Not only that but ''Wicca'', the word ands its related words and descendants (witch), have their basis in the Germanic heathenism of England, not of the Brythons. The Brythons also would all be Christian and teh only aspects of their old religion would remain in their folklore just as the aspects of Germanic heathenism remains in English folklore (such as Herne, probably from ''Herian'', another name for Woden and Weyland the Smith, originally the Germanic god of blackmiths).

Also ''Wicca'' is pronounced ''Witcha'' and is the Old English term for a male witch (a female witch was called a ''wicce''). So, 'Wicca' should actually just be called 'Wiccecræft', the craft pertaining to the witches.

"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"

reply

Wicca today is more about folk magick and blending the Gardnerian vesion. Scott Cunningham always made sure to point out that Wicca itself isn't the resurrection of an ancient Goddess-worshipping faith- and he was one of the most celebrated Wiccan authors out there. Not all Wiccans/Pagans believe this fantasy, feministic side of Wicca.

Well where'd ya lose him? It's not like he's a set of car keys...

reply

Red-

Wicca today is more about folk magick and blending the Gardnerian vesion. Scott Cunningham always made sure to point out that Wicca itself isn't the resurrection of an ancient Goddess-worshipping faith- and he was one of the most celebrated Wiccan authors out there. Not all Wiccans/Pagans believe this fantasy, feministic side of Wicca.


Yeah and I’ve just met some Wiccans a few Months back who don’t want to bash Christianity for all the evil Christians did to them in the Burning Times, and realise that’s all rubbish.

Its always good to know that there are some rational people out there.

Mind you, there are insane repeated ideas in any group, IE, the Christians who think Muslims worship a moon god, but its always good to know there are more balanced persons of such groups.

reply

Muslims worshiping the moon god is not something moronic Christians actually believe, they just say that because they don't want to admit that Allah and Ha'El (''YHWH'', ''Adonai'' etc.) are actually just the same god; the original sky-father of the Proto-Semite religion, El.

Formerly KingAngantyr

reply

Allah is definitely a Semitic word that has it's ultimate root in the Hebrew El, probably via the Aramaic Eleh. Coincidentally though the same spelling used for Eleh is also sued of a word that means Curse.

We identify him with the Pre-Isalmic Moon god because like him he had 3 daughter with the Sun goddess. And because they use the Crescent Moon as their symbol.

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

reply

''And because they use the Crescent Moon as their symbol.''

There are some instances of crescent moons with the Arabs, however, most of that came via Ottoman influence and probably was derived from a Tengriist symbol or a Byzantine one.

Also the idea that Allah is the moon god doesn't hold for Allah existed in Arabic mythology, hence the name (which is also used by Arabic Christians and Arabic Jews, which predates the usage by the Arabic Muslims, as Islam amongst the Arabs was came about after a great many had converted to either Christianity and Judaism, though some worshiped their own brand of Semitic mythology) means ''The God'' as the Hebrew ''Ha'El'' does.

Indeed, Allah did have three daughters in the pre-Islamic beliefs of the Arabs, however, these are not compatible with Islam and it is worse noting that the Semitic god ''El'' was usually depicted as a father (''god - the father'') in all Semitic religions and thus the ancestors of the Hebrews shared this belief with the ancestors of the Islamic Muslims, before the rise of their respected faiths. Before Abraham, the Hebrew people didn't believe in one god, but they gradually were drawn to henotheism, before they converted to the religion that became Judaism as we know it today.

And if we are to presume that ''Allah'' is separate from the Hebrew god simply because it was a named used by a different deity, or in reality a different view of the same Semitic deity, then we might as well say that English speakers who worship ''God'' are worshiping Woden, who bore that as a name before the conversion to Christianity... yet it simply meant ''a/the god''.


Formerly KingAngantyr

reply

The 3 daughters are mentioned in the Koran.

Allah being a word for a Monotheistic God does NOT mean it must be referring to the Hebrew God. All the aspect of Islam were in pre Mohamed Arabic culture.

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

reply

''The 3 daughters are mentioned in the Koran.''

They are not Allah's daughters in Islam nor are they considered deities. Islam is a monotheistic faith and Allah has no children, which is why Jesus is seen as the great prophet and messiah but not the ''son of god''.

''All the aspect of Islam were in pre Mohamed Arabic culture.''

Wrong! It mostly descends from Christianity, hence the fact that the Koran is mostly an examination of the Bible and the inclusion of Jesus as prophet and messiah of Allah, with some elements of the older Arab faith remaining, just as Judaism contains elements of the pre-Abrahamic faith that they had, and Christianity is partly blended with European (especially Greco-Roman) mythologies. Islam is not unique in this regards.

Formerly KingAngantyr

reply

Isalm's Judeo-Christian aspects are superficial, however pervasive they may be.

And yes Catholic Christianity is simply Roman Paganism in Christian dressing.

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

reply

''Isalm's Judeo-Christian aspects are superficial, however pervasive they may be.''

Not really. It mostly comes from Christianity.

''And yes Catholic Christianity is simply Roman Paganism in Christian dressing.''

And protestantism is just from it but without the idolatry or, in a more positive way, the fun rituals and imagery. Neither are anything like the original religion and I'd say that Orthodox would be.

Formerly KingAngantyr

reply

Mainstream Protestantism yes, I'm an Independent Baptist, we only acknowledge The Bible as divine authority.

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

reply

You live in a very Jewish manner and hold services in Greek?

Formerly KingAngantyr

reply

No, the Levitical Laws were supplanted at the Cross.

I use mainly the KVJ but I do study the Greek and Hebrew.

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

reply

And because they use the Crescent Moon as their symbol.


This was actually only adopted as a Muslim symbol due to the power and fame of the Ottoman Empire (the most impressive Muslim state at the time). The Ottomans like many if not the vast majority of Turkic peoples used it due to it being an old symbol in Turkic culture. Arabs did occasionally have a moon symbol on statues depicting their lunar deity as one would expect but the use of the crescent moon and star by Muslims is very late in Islamic history.

"The game's afoot!"

reply

Regretfully, there isn't much in your response that is correct but then your bias is clearly state in your first sentence. First, the old religion discussed in the book has nothing to do with Wicca but Wicca makes a convenient whipping post with which to use to denigrate that which you and your kind could never hope to understand. Wicca itself is a modern religion that is based on a much old religion. How old? Belief in an Earth Mother, a Mother Goddess, can be traced archaeologically to the Upper Paleolithic Period and is recognizable by figurines the oldest of which is the Venus of Willendorf, which dates to c 24,000 to 22,000 years ago. It's possible belief in an Earth Mother predates the human species because a figurine comparable in form to the Venus of Willendorf has been found in the Golan (the Venus of Berekhat Ram) dating to the Middle Paleolithic Homo erectus. One of the key questions in the archaeology of religious development was the connection, if any, between the earliest figures of the Earth Mother, and comparable figures found in Neolithic cultures, in particular Göbekli Tepe, Çatal Hüyük, Sumer, and the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Anyone seriously interested in the subject should read any of the works of Marija Gimbutas, who is responsible for resurrecting interest in the archaeological study of the Earth Mother and much of modern Wicca is based on her popularization of the Old Religion. a good start would be Marija Gimbutas (1982) The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe: Myths and Cult Images, University of California Press (ISBN 978-0-520-04655-9), (1989) The Language of the Goddess, Harpercollins (ISBN 0-06-250356-1), and (2001) The Living Goddesses, University of California Press (ISBN 978-0-520-22915-0). These three books represent the a summation of Gumbutas' life's work and they are approachable for the non-professional. Anyone not familiar with her work won't understand the latest scholarship on the 'old religion.' Other useful authoprs worth reading are James Frazer (The Golden Bough), Jane Ellen Harrison and Robert Graves.

Along with Gimbutas, these individuals advanced the idea of goddess worship in ancient Europe and the Aegean that was descended from Pre-Indo-European Neolithic matriarchies. Gimbutas in particular argued that the thousands of female images from Old Europe represented a number of different groups of goddess symbolism, notably a "bird and snake" group associated with water, an "earth mother" group associated with birth, a "stiff nude" group associated with death, as well as other groups. Gimbutas maintained that the "earth mother" group continued the paleolithic Venus of Willendorf figural tradition, and that traces of these figural traditions are represented in the historical traditions as the goddesses of historical period cultures. Gimbutas' Kurgan Hypothesis, entertains the notion that traditionally matriarchal societies of Old Europe and the Old Religion were disrupted by the expansion of male-dominated Indo-European speakers from southern Siberia. These invaders brought with them the set of Gods that we've come to know well. We see them in the religions of Egyptian Middle and New Kingdoms, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hittites, Phoenicians, Etruscan, Cannaites, Hebrews, Greeks, Celts, and Romans. The Old Religion, if it survived at all, was represented by the Goddess Diana or an equivalent deity, and the spouses of the male gods. According to Gubutas' research, the subjugation of matriarchal Old Europe by the patriarchal outsiders was the beginning of the marginalization of women in western culture. For anyone that's interested, modern Wicca represents an attempt to return women to their rightful place in scheme of things. In mu opinion, this isn't such a bad idea.

So, the Old Religion of the book and the film isn't Wicca.

When the Romans began their conquest of the British Isles in the 1st century CE, they encountered tribes of Celts, with which they had known for almost 500 to 600 years. They fought a major war with the Celts c 100 CE, which essentially destroyed the ability of the Celts to invade Italy. The Celts however, were not native to Britain. The Celtic migration to Britain did not begin until the 6th century CE. The oldest evidence for Hominid odccupation on Britain has been found at Pakefield on the Suffolk coast representing a settlement of hominini in Britain c 700,000 BC. A shinbone belonging to "Boxgrove Man", a member of the species Homo heidelbergensis was found at Boxgrove Quarry, West Sussex and this is the oldest human bone found in Britain, dating to c. 480,000 BCE. Evidence of Neanderthal occupation has been found at La Cotte de St Brelade in the island of Jersey dated to c. 250,000 BCE and Neanderthals are thought to have appeared in the rest of Britain around 130,000 BCE and were the dominant Hominid species until their disappearance from the archaeological record c. 30,000 BCE. A skull found in Swanscombe in Kent and teeth found at Pontnewydd Cave in Denbighshire are examples of remains found with distinct Neanderthal features. The oldest evidence for anatomically modern humans does not appear in Britain until 29,000 years ago but it's likely they co-existed with Neanderthals but we simply have yet to find evidence for this occupation. There is no reason to thin these earliest Hominids held beliefs markedly different from their central European relations, which might place worship of the Old Religion in Britain to the earliest Homon sapiens sapiens or perhaps pre-Homo sapiens sapiens occupation. At this point, we don't know about their religious beliefs.

We have considerable data available on Celtic religious beliefs but we must use written information with care because it was provided to us by men with significant boas against Celts: Greeks and Romans. The Celtic period in Europe is called the La Tene Period, named after the first and oldest major Celtic settlement found in Switzerland. Celtic polytheism was perhaps one of a larger group of Iron Age polytheistic religions of the Indo-European family and it comprised significant geographic and chronological variations, although behind this variety, broad structural similarities can be detected allowing there to be a basic religious homogeneity amongst the Celtic peoples. The Celtic pantheon consisted of numerous recorded theonyms, both from Greco-Roman ethnography and from epigraphy. Among the most prominent are Teutatis, Taranis and Lugus. Figures from medieval Irish mythology have also been identified by comparative mythology, interpreted as euhemerized versions of pre-Christian Insular deities. The most salient feature of Celtic religion as reflected in Roman historiography is their extensive practice of human sacrifice (typically captives). According to Greek and Roman accounts, in Gaul, Britain and Ireland, there was a priestly caste of magico-religious specialists and law givers known as the druids, little is definitely known about them beyond the fact that the Romans were terrified of them asa class and exterminated them on the island of Anglesea in Wales. Following the Roman Empire's conquest of Gaul (58–51 BCE) and southern Britannia (43 CE), Celtic religious practices began to display elements of Romanisation, resulting in a syncretic Gallo-Roman culture with its own religious traditions with its own large set of deities, such as Cernunnos, Artio, Telesphorus. It would be reasonable to argue that by the time the Romans abandoned the island in the late 4th century CE. Something that is rarely acknowledged, is the degree that British Celts appear to have retained what is presumed to be evidence of pre-Celtic influence. This influence is a significant matriarchal structure, especially among Celtic leadership. Celtic warriors were often led by a female chieftain and chieftains of groups was often females. The fact is that woman retained a degree of significance in British Celtic culture that was not common in mainland groups and it is this influence that largely formed the basis for neo-Celtic paganism including Wicca. Britian Celtic females were not held as property. In fact, I;ve read no evidence in any of the available histories that suggest that was the case in any Celtic land. Woman held the same standing in mainland Celtic societies as they did in Christian societies. I would remind Zarove that women could not own property in Britain until after the mid-19th century and they were little more than property until they were able to become gainfully employed and own property.

Roman religion was highly syncretic and rather that require conquered people to give up their gods, they adopted them into their pantheon. The Roman pantheon was large. The primary focus of personal worship was ancestor worship with the emperor as the principal man-god. Early Christianity itself was syncretic, with a basis in Hebrew and significantly modified by at least two Hellenistic religions: Sol Invictus and Mithrism. This of course will be rejected by Christian theologians who continue to hang onto their fantasy land (actually no more or less a fantasy land then other religions of the period).

Christianity came early to Britain and the British can lay claim to one of the oldest churches, perhaps the oldest church, documented outside of Palestine (the ruins of the oldest church at Glastonbury is archaeologically dated to the first century). Unlike our friend suggests, Britain was Christianized BUT its Christianity was not Catholic in the purely Roman sense; it took on a rather unique flavor called Celtic Christianity. Celtic or Insular Christianity refers broadly to a form of Christianity that was common across the Celtic-speaking world during the Early Middle Ages (England, Wales, lowland Scotland, Cornwall, Ireland, Jersey, and Brittany). Celtic Christianity is thought by some scholars as a distinct Celtic Church uniting the Celtic peoples and distinguishing them from the Roman Catholic Church. Normative theologians would argue that Celtic Christianity was simply a set of distinctive practices occurring in those areas. Catholic scholars conveniently reject the former noting that that there were certain traditions and practices used in both the Irish and British churches but not in the wider Christian world. These included a distinctive system for determining the dating of Easter, a style of monastic tonsure, a unique system of penance, and the popularity of going into "exile for Christ". They purposefully ignore the importance of woman in the priesthood and what some would argue was a clearly matriarchal society, and, that it took the Synod of Whitby (664 BC) of to reconcile the two. Contemporary church scholars may wish to downplay the significance of this Synod but at the time there was some question whether Celtic lands would continue to recognize primary of Papal rule. Women held a particularly significant place in the Celtic church and that was lost with the Synod.

In my opinion, the Old Religion presented in Mists of Avalon depicts a p re-Celtic matriarchal focused-religion, a religion that never quite died out in Britain until the Roman church finally killed it in 664 CE. Women were held in generally high regard in Celtic lands until the Roman church overcame the objections of Celtic Catholics and then women were assigned to their proper roll as subjects of their husbands and sinners from birth. Frankly, I take a decidedly objective view on all religions because they are all created by humans and non is superior to another. But if I were to chose to follow a religion, I'd prefer to follow one based on a loving Earth Mother whose wishes were interpreted by women rather then a religion based on an angry, perpetually pissed off (white) sky god who wears a flowing white robe with a big G on his pocket and who relegates women to a secondary roll to men because they are blamed for the fall of man. Give me a break. lol

reply

Just about everything has it's roots in Paganism. But ti's more like what Wiccans an other Celtic themed Neo-Pagan believe then the ancient Britons.

Archeological discoveries have revealed that the Drudic religion was really not very Goddess centric at all.

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

reply

''Archeological discovered have revealed that the Drudic religion was really not very Goddess centric at all.''

True! Very true, indeed!

Formerly KingAngantyr

reply