|
|
| Author |
Message |
vidar
|
|
Ancient Rituals
| 
Oct 9 18:20 UTC 1993 |
Viking worship of their gods involved a lot of chicken blood an a lot
of goats blood. We would spread the blood all over the temple walls to
worship gods. While this must have made quite a mess at least we weren't
using human blood. What are other pagan rituals like?
|
| 84 responses total. |
phaedrus
|
|
response 1 of 84:
|
Oct 11 12:50 UTC 1993 |
Tough question. There are as many styles of ritual, as there are Pagans.
OK, maybe not that many, but we could in no way talk about ALL other rituals.
I think basicly, a Craft ritual consists of cleaning the space, consecrating
the elements, casting the circle, inviting old friends, then celebration and
magik...
Many religions have blood sacrifice in thier past, and/or present. It never
ceases to amaze me that people are repulsed by this, but have no problem
munching on a big mac at lunch.
Do Norse traditions still practice blood sacrifice?
Blesings,
-phaedrus
|
vidar
|
|
response 2 of 84:
|
Nov 26 02:19 UTC 1993 |
I believe so, though not to Thor. Most of these rituals are for Odin and
Tyr. Mead is the sacrifice to Thor. Other gods, differnt rituals, you
know. My tegument is killing me! Yours in Pagan blood,
-The High Cleric of Loki
|
iggy
|
|
response 3 of 84:
|
Sep 20 12:37 UTC 1994 |
well, they *did* sacrifice humans.. but they were the enemies
captured in war who were going to be killed anyway.
much of the amimal sacrifice took place because they were going to
slaughter and eat the animals for food anyway.
vidar is correct, that mead and ale has been used in the place of blood, but
still sprinkled/splashed around the room and on the participants of the blot.
although i wouldnt go as far as to state that only certain alcohol
is sacrificed to certain deities.
|
brighn
|
|
response 4 of 84:
|
Sep 20 14:53 UTC 1994 |
In most cultures, sacrificing the enemy has been an act of honor towards the
enemy; only the most courageous and valiant in battle were so killed (if,
of course, they weren't killed in battle).
The only culture I can think of that has committed acts of human sacrifice
(er, I should say ritual murder, since sacrifice is giving something
*important* up) that has done so for something other than glorifying
the bravery of the enemy or sacrificing a voluntary victim has been the
Christian church... that was a bit too formalized and ritualized to call it
"just" capital punishment.
|
gerund
|
|
response 5 of 84:
|
Sep 20 18:31 UTC 1994 |
Replace Christian with Catholic.
|
variable
|
|
response 6 of 84:
|
Sep 20 21:30 UTC 1994 |
An interesting form of sacrifice was parcticed by the Tlingit
indians of southeast Alaska. When building a new house they
would take the strongest of their war prisoner/slaves and
toss them in the holes dug for the main posts. The posts
were then placed on tope of them and the hole filled in.
This was looked upon as an honor to the slaves( by the Tlingit
rather than the slaves, I'm sure) as their strength would
be distributed throughout the house and ensure the
structures longevity.
|
gerund
|
|
response 7 of 84:
|
Sep 20 21:56 UTC 1994 |
Utter uninformed unscientific stupidity.
I like it already.
|
kami
|
|
response 8 of 84:
|
Sep 21 00:55 UTC 1994 |
Brighn, my understanding is that the Celts practiced two forms of human
sacrifice: one was to send a message to the gods of the tribe, and the
"messenger" was a volunteer, well prepared and honourable. The other was
for raw power to propitiate the gods of the land/wild gods in times of
extreme trouble, and was anything warm and expendable- sheep, goats, slaves,
criminals, enemies, etc. Those were just knocked off and tossed in a hole.
|
bnm
|
|
response 9 of 84:
|
Sep 21 02:49 UTC 1994 |
So, shall we get off on a real side-track and talk about the sacred
king cycle? Like whether it exists or whether it just so happens
that English monarch seemed to die (or be helped to die) at seven
year intervals...
|
anne
|
|
response 10 of 84:
|
Sep 21 04:13 UTC 1994 |
What time periods are we talking for English kings? And is it when Egland
(er England) was a unified country, or under the influence of many kings?
|
kami
|
|
response 11 of 84:
|
Sep 21 04:35 UTC 1994 |
Anne, there is a popular theory that the king was tied to the land by a
sacred "marriage" rite with a sovereignty goddess which might be in the
form of a white mare, for example, if you go back far enough. As long as
he was the "rightful" king- umblemished, honourable, truthful, etc., the
land would prosper. If there was famine, it was his fault, so he must be
replaced , sacrificing himself (literally) for the good of his people and
the land. there is some thought that the period of sacred kingship lasted
seven years and at the end of that time the king must find a substitute if
he was still acceptable or else be the sacrifice for the land's renewal. An
example is Henry I (I believe), who was killed by an archer while out hunting
deer (I think. Shaky on detail.) in a manner and at a time which suggested
to proponents of this theory that he was fulfilling his part in the cycle.
In recent years, belief in this tradition is being challenged and the cycle
of the "dying and reborn king" as historical reality and integral to the
agricultural cycle of annual ritual is being questioned.
I'm not sure where I stand on this matter, since the tradition "works" in
creating a mythology and religion. Who says there is no evidence, what might
they be overlooking, and why mightn't they want it to be true? Or on the
other hand, what was the original evidence and how reliable is it?
|
gerund
|
|
response 12 of 84:
|
Sep 21 11:33 UTC 1994 |
The once and future king.
|
anne
|
|
response 13 of 84:
|
Sep 21 14:33 UTC 1994 |
I'm still really interested in the time period this takes place in.
|
gerund
|
|
response 14 of 84:
|
Sep 21 14:46 UTC 1994 |
Actually, not to drift, but so am I.
Unfortunately, along with THAT interest I have about a million others
and no real time to persue any of them... :(
|
dang
|
|
response 15 of 84:
|
Sep 21 15:36 UTC 1994 |
Well, _The King Must Die_ deals with this, but that is in ancient Greece.
(BTW, it is a really great book)
|
anne
|
|
response 16 of 84:
|
Sep 21 17:33 UTC 1994 |
I say I am interested in the time period because currently I am in a class
called Bristish history to 1688. And what is being discussed here is not
similar to what we are discusing in class. So I am curious to know when this
went on, and from there figureout if we skimed over it in class, or just
haven't gotten to it yet.
|
kami
|
|
response 17 of 84:
|
Sep 21 17:45 UTC 1994 |
I believe it may stretch back as far as the bronze age, I don't know before
that, but it goes forward, if the theory is valid, into the 13th century.
After that, I don't know. Certainly by the 16th and 17th centuries no one
would admit to any such beliefs or practices.
|
anne
|
|
response 18 of 84:
|
Sep 22 02:28 UTC 1994 |
hmmm, because we've been studying the reigns of kings, and so far there
isn't a pattern like anything mentioned here. I may talk to my prof though
she seems like a really cool lady.
|
brighn
|
|
response 19 of 84:
|
Sep 22 03:24 UTC 1994 |
#5: I was going to type Catholic when I remembered Salem, Mass. Christian
stays.
Kami, thanks. My facts have been sullied by the we-don't-do-sacrifices-
but-even-if-we-did-they'd-be-volunteers-because-they-always-have-been
pagans. Thanks for setting me straight, er, correct.
The class system has geenrated the concept of expendible humans several
times (numerous times) throughout history. Hitler could do what he did
with clear conscience because he just didn't consider Jews, Poles, Gays,
and Gypsies to be as human as he was (that, and he was a flaming loonie).
Similar situation in ancient Gaul and environs, I take it.
|
kami
|
|
response 20 of 84:
|
Sep 22 03:34 UTC 1994 |
the defining of "human" and "other" seems to have been damn near universal,
although different groups have different ideas of how to treat their
"inferiors". Actually, as far as I can tell, while the Celts had a definite
class system, it wasn't entirely rigid- one could move up or down by effort,
luck or marriage, and while kingship (for example) tended to be by blood, it
was confirmed by respect, so rank was not fixed in stone, either. And there
were different grades of slaves and tenant farmers and what not, with a
set "eric" or honour price, so they were not strictly expendable. We are
talking about extreme measures for extreme situations, sort of like the
infanticide practiced by the !Kung bushmen which got westerners so incensed:
left to themselves, they only had to practice it in extreme emergencies.
|
gerund
|
|
response 21 of 84:
|
Sep 22 09:38 UTC 1994 |
re #19- What does Salem Mass. have to do with being a christian?
I believe those folks were Puritians, and they certainly were not behaving
like Christians. Go get a good idea of what a Christian is before you
go using the term. I'm not sorry I'm yelling, either.
I'm sick and tired of Christianity being blamed for what certain factions did.
I believe you folks have had the same problems with people who think
Pagans must be Satan worshipping baby killers.
|
anne
|
|
response 22 of 84:
|
Sep 22 16:36 UTC 1994 |
Gerund- think of this though- those Puritans, and Catholics- CALL THEMSELVES
Christian. We don't call ourselves Satan worshipping Baby Killers.
|
brighn
|
|
response 23 of 84:
|
Sep 22 16:44 UTC 1994 |
Call down, Gerund. I'm not attacking Christianity in general.
But since you asked:
Pagans have never been Satan-worshipping baby killers. Never. Not once.
Modern day Satanists tend to dissociate themselves as much from Pagans as
Pagans do from them.
OTOH, people worshipping Christ have in the past committed some atrocities.
People who have worshipped Christ who have not committed these atrocities
are not to blame, surely, for these acts. But you must admit that the
acts occurred, and that they occurred at the hands of Christians, even if
you don't agree with their particualr brand of it.
You're being revisionist in your thinking.
We just got done saying that, while Pagans have never been Satanic child
killers, they HAVE committed acts of human sacrifice. I have never committed
an act of human sacrifice. But those who have gone before me have. I cannot
deny that. I need not hang my head in shame, either, because I haven't done
anything of the sort. But it happened, for whatever social reasons.
The Teutons were pretty sick and barbaric at times, too (Vidar, don't
flame me too, please? I include Odin in my personal pantheon).
To sum up: it is not fair to say that pagans are Satanic baby killers
because it isn't true. It is fair to say that Christian in the past
ritually killed heretics, because it is true.
I assume by your notes that you're saying that Catholics and Puritans
aren't Christians. That is a dispute for another conf, but in my
book they are.
|
brighn
|
|
response 24 of 84:
|
Sep 22 16:45 UTC 1994 |
(Anne, in her brevity, slipped in ahead of me.)
|