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.

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

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

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.

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.

Replace Christian with Catholic.

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.

Utter uninformed unscientific stupidity.
I like it already.

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.

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...

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?

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?

The once and future king.

I'm still really interested in the time period this takes place in.

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... :(

Well, _The King Must Die_ deals with this, but that is in ancient Greece. 
(BTW, it is a really great book)

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.

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.

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.

#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.

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.

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.

Gerund- think of this though- those Puritans, and Catholics- CALL THEMSELVES
Christian.  We don't call ourselves Satan worshipping Baby Killers.

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.

(Anne, in her brevity, slipped in ahead of me.)

What you call yourself and what you are can be two different things.

Brighn, Vidar now lives in Malaysia and is no longer on Grex.

Re 25 - True enough, but remember, we have plenty of Satanists
and Setians who run around calling themselves "pagan", so we
get it too.  And I know perfectly well the Catholics and
Puritans and (I think) Mormons and all kinds of people call
themselves Christian.  So why should we take your definition
as the correct one, when they apparently fit their own
definitions of Christianity?  (Not a flame or a yell, that's
a very serious question.)

Pagan is not clearly defined.  Christian is.  A Christian is one who 
believes in the teachings and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.  A Satanist
(Gerund sit down for a second), in as much as they worship the construct
of evil developed by Christians, is a Christian.   If you want to further
add that a Christian should actually FOLLOW the teachings of Jesus of 
Nazareth (a fair addendum, and one I will grant), you should remember that
these teachings are, in some places, contradictory, and you are bound to
disagree with others on which mutually contradictory beliefs to follow.
That dispute does not make you a Christian and your opponent something 
else.

A little clarification.  I never said catholics and puritians were
not Christians.
I *did* however say that PARTICULAR catholics and puritians did NOT
lead Christian lives, or behave as Christians.
A Christian is one who follows Christ.  The Christian's goal is to
do his master's will.  This hardly makes a Satanist a Christian.
You are confusing the RELIGION of Christianity and the constucts of it with
the Christian, who has no religion but rather a RELATIONSHIP to Jesus.
Perhaps my terms are not universally accepted as I present them, and I
suppose you are free to define Christian any way you want to based
upon your experience with those who call themselves Christians, but there
is none-the-less the Christian ideal and that ideal is oneness with Jesus.
A Christian is literally an imitator of Christ.  Unfortunately most
professed Christians miss that many times, myself included.
Please give me some examples of the contradictory beliefs.  It is my
thought that what appears contradictory to you is merely because you
do not understand what you have read.

the christian god, satan and jesus are all part of the same
pantheon unique to christianity.
odin,thor,tyr,freya..etc are part of the same pantheon unique to asatru.
i'm sure the celtic gods are unique to them too.
this could go on and on.. what  my point is, is that
pagans and heathens cannot be satinists because  satan is
unique to christianity.

well, the only ones that arent exactly unique are the roman gods
who were plagerized from the greeks. but, still far from christianity.

<ahh, i love a bit of drift>

I'd have to agree with Rob 100%! I don't think Christianity is clearly defined.
To say that it is one that follows the teachings of Christ is a little vaugue.
By the Protestant and even Catholic definition it's different. So...
The same is true of Pagan, denominatoinal differences are dramatic. And the
ones screaming the loudest, "he's ot a *real* Pagan", is usually the biggest
crackkpot! crackpot!

Christianity what can I say all religions are violent such concentrated faith
always tends to make people a little blind to the freeddom of others to believe
live and exists as the will All religions have sacrificed at one point but some
of these

sacrifice it is rather sickening) I am I have life to forgive or condemn as I
wish.  If you don't believe christianity clearly defined what is the bible.  Tu
 shall not suffer a witch to live.

Old Testemant law.  New Testement grace.
I won't explain what that means to me, because right now I've obviously
biten off more than I can chew.  I'll admit, at least being hear keeps
me on my toes.
I've tried as best I can to explain the difference between a religious
pantheon of Christianity and BEING a Christian.
Unfortunately I'm apparently not coming across because my use of certain
words is not the use that most of you are used to.  (A lot of use, huh)
At any rate I guess no one buys what I'm saying, so I'll let it go.

re: #30- NOW WAIT A MINUTE (Kami waxes pedantic)- ok, I agree with your
"Christian Pantheon, more or less, although it's pretty damn sloppy; what
about the idea of the trinity? the relationship with the shekhina/holy spirit?
where does the mother of god fit in?
I believe that Asatru is a modern word made to fit a range of people who
are reviving (?) the worship of Norse/Saxon/Teutonic deities and relevant
practices as best they can.  Once again, you are oversimplifying: there
are "generations" or "layers" in that pantheon, too- relationships between
the gods and between sets of older and more recent gods, etc.
And the Celts, too, had rather complex sets of deities, representing subsequent
waves of invasion, relationships between the tribe and the land, the tribe
and its history, and also differing by location since there was a very strong
association with local land spirits and natural features. 

The same is true of the Roman religions- plural: there was the indigenous
religion, archaic, land based, found among the farmers, with its own 
priesthood and seasonal celebrations.  Then there was the state religion,
largely "stolen from the Greeks", which was promulgated by the ruling class
and which supported it.  In this case, there was hardly any interaction 
between the deities of the two systems, much as was the case in early 
Medieval Europe; the common folk, sometimes joined by priests and nobles, 
celebrated the old customs that maintained the crop cycles, etc. while the
nobles and sometimes their dependents went to church and were educated in
Christian virtues and customs. 

ok, so who slipped in ahead of me at 33, and was it relevant?
<g>

Gerund, you are keeping others here "on our toes", too.  Thanks. 

re: #32- sera, I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here?  It sounds like
you are refuting the idea of any inconsistency in the teachings of Jesus as
passed on in the Bible?  It looks as if you were, but the phrase you followed
with "You shall not suffer a witch to live", is a case in point: it is well
known to be a HORRIBLE translation; the word used as  "witch" is better
rendered as "poisoner of wells".  And that's just one statement, not a rule
or ideal or teaching which appears elsewhere in another form which might be
understood differently.  This in no way invalidates the teaching, it is true
of all great (and complex) teachings/religions, and is part of what keeps
the "priesthood" in business :)  

Also, while "all religions sacrificed", etc., and most no longer do practice
any kind of blood sacrifice, the *concept* of sacrifice- self sacrifice,
giving, etc. is very valid.  Right, Phaedrus? 

Sera, PLEASE type more slowly and carefully- it is very hard for me to follow
your logic without more punctuation and shorter lines (ok, I'm guilty of
the long lines, too.). I don't think Chris Bartlett's voice synthesizer
will be able to handle it at all.  Sorry to be picky.

hmm.. i still dont understand your objection to my response, kami.
it seemsd as if we were saying pretty much the same thing.. perhaps
i was unclear and you misunderstood? <iggy scratches her head>

Kami- thanks for mentioning the VERY BAD translation of 'thou shall not 
suffer a witch to live'
I was going to- but it was mentioned for me.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss