"We're Not Out To Hurt Anybody."

[Secundulus]

It would help if some Pagans did not claim to be Druids, renewing their history form the writings of Caesar's Commentaries. http://www.crystalinks.com/druids.html

The problem is that they ignore that small fact the Julius Caesar recorded. The Druids practiced human sacrifice by burning alive men and women in wicker idols.

They put living people inside these wicker idols and then set them alight to appease their Gods.

Why do some pagans want to connect themself to this practice.

The fact is, that the Druid's practices were so deplorable that they are the only Pagan religion ever prohibited and destroyed by the Pagan Romans. And the Romans were renowned for their religious tolerance.

 

[Steezie]

It would help if some Pagans did not claim to be Druids, renewing their history form the writings of Caesar's Commentaries. http://www.crystalinks.com/druids.html

The majority of us understand that while some ideas that we have go way back, our religion is a fairly modern idea. Dont paint all of us with the same brush

The problem is that they ignore that small fact the Julius Caesar recorded. The Druids practiced human sacrifice by burning alive men and women in wicker idols

Julius Caesar said a lot of things, some of them true, some of them....embellished. I've read his histories and he takes creative license rather frequently, especially with the Gauls, Celts, and Britons (Most of whom he hates with a passion)

They put living people inside these wicker idols and then set them alight to appease their Gods.

Catholics eat the body and drink the blood of their god.

Why do some pagans want to connect themself to this practice.

Why do some Catholics practice pretend cannibalism?

The fact is, that the Druid's practices were so deplorable that they are the only Pagan religion ever prohibited and destroyed by the Pagan Romans. And the Romans were renowned for their religious tolerance.

**Snort** I love people who read a Wiki and think they know history. The Romans hunted down the Druids because the Druids were often the leaders of anti-Roman resistance pre-Christianity. Post Christianity, they were hunted for religious reasons. Romans were not renowned for their religious tolerances

 

[Druweid]

What can be done about the ignorance about Pagans and Wiccans in general?

We do what we do. This, in part, is why we are here.

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist."

You might as well be saying "The greatest trick Santa Claus ever pulled was convincing adults he doesn't exist," it would be just as relevant.

Really? How many soup kitchens do Wiccans run? How many drug and alcohol rehab centers have you built? How many thrift stores have you established so the poor can buy inexpensive but good-condition clothing?

Just about every Pagan event I have attended has asked for a donation of canned or dry goods which is then given to the local food pantries. As far as public thrift stores that are openly Pagan? True to the OP, if there wasn't such a stigma associated with the term Pagan, you would likely see quite a few of them. One day, though, you will see more than a few.

How many missionaries do you have currently overseas or even in your own backyards to proclaim the good news of Christ Whom you say you "follow"?

Pagans and Wiccans do not proselytize.

Being angry at God sure takes people on strange journeys.

Indeed, and how do you choose to explain those of us with no anger or emnity whatsoever? Or are you presuming I *must* be angry at God, since you are unable to conceive of any other explanation?

So the Wiccan "Rule of Three", does not apply?

Perhaps it does, perhaps it does not, it seems to me each individual would have their own reasoning.

Your assumptions are grossly out of line with facts. Only 40% of present day Christians were "born into it." The remainder were raised either in a non-Christian or non-participatory home.

Please quote your source. A cursory glance at the statistics at adherents.com clearly show that approximately 75% of people in the US identify themselves as Christian. You statement seems way out of proportion with that statistic.

So are your assumptions about participation and activity in the church. And FYI, as of 2006, Christianity was again the fastest-growing religion in the world, outpacing Muslim converts by well over 20%. Wicca? Its not even big enough to measure.

Again, please cite your source.

It would help if some Pagans did not claim to be Druids, renewing their history form the writings of Caesar's Commentaries.

This from "Wikipedia: Gallic Wars"

This military campaign is painstakingly described by Julius Caesar himself in his book Commentarii de Bello Gallico, which still is the most important historical source. This book is also a masterwork of political propaganda, as Caesar was keenly interested in manipulating his readers in Rome (emphasis mine).

Many historians are quite aware that Caesar embellished extensively concerning the Druids, as he had a vested interest in demonizing them as much as possible. At your request, I will happily supply more sources. And since your comments are based on a work of fiction, I politely refuse to reply further, but thank you just the same.

Regards,
-- Druweid
</IMG></IMG>

 

[Secundulus]

**Snort** I love people who read a Wiki and think they know history. The Romans hunted down the Druids because the Druids were often the leaders of anti-Roman resistance pre-Christianity. Post Christianity, they were hunted for religious reasons. Romans were not renowned for their religious tolerances

Sorry Bud, I don't depend on wiki for my history. I have read Caesar's commentaries first hand to see what they say.

You can accuse him of propaganda all you want and live in your pretend druidic fantasies. but in the end, you don't have any proof for any of what you say.

But if you think you do have some evidence, then post it for critical review.

 

[Steezie]

Sorry Bud, I don't depend on wiki for my history. I have read Caesar's commentaries first hand to see what they say.

Reading the histories isnt enough. You dont seem to understand their intention and the climate for which they were written. They were written to glorify Caesar and vilify the Gauls and Celts, making him seem the glorious Roman champion of civilization over the ravenous, blood-thirsty cannibal barbarians.

You can accuse him of propaganda all you want and live in your pretend druidic fantasies. but in the end, you don't have any proof for any of what you say.

But if you think you do have some evidence, then post it for critical review.

It is commonly accepted by historians that it was common practice for generals and rulers to write about thier own triumphs in a greatly elevated fashion.

If you compare his accounts to the accounts of people such as Tacitus, you'll find that while Tacitus doesnt write favorably about the Celts and Gauls, his accounts are nowhere NEAR as gruesome as Caesars and paint a slightly more realistic picture

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Hmm..what can I add?

 

[Futuwwa]

Being angry at God sure takes people on strange journeys.

Huh? Am I angry at God too?

 

[Avatar]

Huh? Am I angry at God too?

Not yet, but you will be...

 

[Fuzzy]

Same stuff, different day.

ETA: And by that I mean semantics games over who's a "True Christian" and who's not, poorly documented citations,
and threads where half the participants don't follow the thread being moved.

Grump.

 

[Druweid]

Sorry Bud, I don't depend on wiki for my history. I have read Caesar's commentaries first hand to see what they say.

Really? And would you consider the writings of Hitler to better understand the Jews? Essentially, that is exactly what you are doing.

You can accuse him of propaganda all you want and live in your pretend druidic fantasies. but in the end, you don't have any proof for any of what you say.

Yes I do, thank you very much. Here's one piece, from "A Brief History of the Druids" By Peter Berresford Ellis, (c) 2002, pp. 154-155:

The deduction one is really drawn to is that the idea of widespread human sacrifice among the Celts was mere Roman propaganda to support their imperial power in their invasion of Celtic lands and destruction of the Druids.

Additionally, we can argue that we have more evidence of human sacrifice occuring widely both in Greek and Roman civilizations. Unlike Celtic literary tradition, Greek literature is full of traces of human sacrifice customs, particularly the slaughter of young virgins before a battle. The best known historical example is the mass ritual sacrifice of Persion prisoners before Salamis in 480 BC. Among the Romans, there are many specific references to human sacrifices, notably in 228 BC and during the Second Punic War to propitiate wrathful war deities. Livy himself records that the Romans made human sacrifices after the defeat of Cannae in 216 BC.

By all means, continue to ask, and I will continue to supply, I still have more.

Now, perhaps YOU can post something of some academic value?

Regards,
-- Druweid

 

[sidhe]

The best thrift store where I lived in North Georgia was run by pagans. They had to move every couple months when someone threw a fit, but - unlike the Christian stores - they didn't inflate their prices to support other "ministries." They charged enough to pay their rent, and that was it. Also had a homeopathic clinic inside, that was also free-to-cheap.

Similarly, there's an awesome baby consignment shop in Lavonia, GA, run by a VERY pagan woman. She charges exorbitantly for designer items and high-end supplies, which she procures new. The used items are always beyond reasonable, and she's willing to negotiate prices if there's something a woman needs for her child that she can't afford. She's got a play area in her store for kids. Wonderful, wonderful woman.

So...that's two services offered by pagans I know of, in a very conservative Christian community.

By contrast, the Christian food pantry up there will refuse to serve you if they see you smoking. Nevermind the number of people who smoke to stave off hunger because they don't have food...you smoke near their building, you don't get food.

 

[Druweid]

The problem is that they ignore that small fact the Julius Caesar recorded. The Druids practiced human sacrifice by burning alive men and women in wicker idols.

They put living people inside these wicker idols and then set them alight to appease their Gods.

Again, from "A Brief History of the Druids" By Peter Berresford Ellis, (c) 2002, pp. 152-153

But what is the basis for such conjectures? The basis is that the 'human sacrifice' report of the Romans is accepted without question. The authors argue:

"Their (the Celts) penchant for human sacrifice shocked even the Romans, inured as they were to the horrors and carnage of the amphitheatre. Surrender to an enemy never figured largely in the Celtic order of battle. Prisoners of war, as we learn from Julius Caesar, were usually sacrificed to the gods. Caesar reports how captives were burnt in giant wicker cages..."​

Caesar, with due respect to him, says nothing of the kind. On the subject of sacrifices he says criminals were chosen in the first place. References to Celts not taking prisoners of war, found in other classical writings, could well have been a warning to Greek or Roman soldiers not to contemplate surrender and making them fight without quarter. But that's as maybe. And, as we have seen, the 'wicker man' report was not even an original one by Caesar, but a rehash of Poseidonios. (emphasis mine)

-- Druweid

 

[Secundulus]

Again, from "A Brief History of the Druids" By Peter Berresford Ellis, (c) 2002, pp. 152-153



-- Druweid

Right, Caesar said that they burned criminals, and if there were not enough criminals then they picked some other people.

He never said anything about burning prisoners of war. Actually, I have never even read that anywhere.

His descriptions of how the Gaul treated Roman prisoners of war are no worse than his description of how the Romans treated their prisoners.

Caesar describes the Romans treating prisoners differently on different occasions. This treatment included execution, enslavement, cutting off of hands, and occasionally setting them free. The treatment given depended on the psychological effect he was trying to achieve.

In the Commentaries, he does not even spend any effort trying demonize the Celts. He writes one chapter to describe the cultures of the Celts and the Germans and simply mentions the practice of human sacrifice as a fact in one paragraph. That he doesn't spend any effort to elaborate upon it and does not accuse the Germans of a similar practice, weakens the argument that he was inventing this as a justification for his conquests.

 

[cerad]

By contrast, the Christian food pantry up there will refuse to serve you if they see you smoking. Nevermind the number of people who smoke to stave off hunger because they don't have food...you smoke near their building, you don't get food.

Smoking to stave off hunger? Never heard of that before. Why not just buy food instead of cigarettes?

 

[sidhe]

Smoking to stave off hunger? Never heard of that before. Why not just buy food instead of cigarettes?

Nicotine is an appetite supressant. When you have $2.50 to your name, you can get a pack of cheap cigarettes and eat less of the minimal food you do have, and stretch the cigarettes out over about a week, or buy some small bit of food that likely won't last the week.

Alternately, if you don't have ANY food, at that point it's better not to notice being hungry than to tease yourself with a box of cereal and no milk, or eating a pound of ground beef.

Until you've found yourself in that position, it's hard to explain. But nicotine functions well as an appetite supressant.

 

[Secundulus]

Reading the histories isnt enough. You dont seem to understand their intention and the climate for which they were written. They were written to glorify Caesar and vilify the Gauls and Celts, making him seem the glorious Roman champion of civilization over the ravenous, blood-thirsty cannibal barbarians.

I understand perfectly their intent. And I appologize for the remark about druidic fantasies. That was uncalled for.

However, given the entirety of the Commentaries the part about human sacrifice was mentioned only in passing and only in one paragraph. This is hardly the method one would expect if his intention was to use this to demonize the Celts.

He justifies his actions by the Celts abrogating treaties they had with Rome. Their religion does not really enter into this equation.

In the same chapter that he describes Celtic religious practices he also describes the German culture and religious practice. Nowhere does he attempt to ascribe human sacrifice to the Germans. Realize that during this campaign he was fighting Germans as well as Celts.

It is commonly accepted by historians that it was common practice for generals and rulers to write about thier own triumphs in a greatly elevated fashion.

This is true. Generally this involves elevating the numbers of enemies involved or exagerating the heroism of the General's armies.

If you compare his accounts to the accounts of people such as Tacitus, you'll find that while Tacitus doesnt write favorably about the Celts and Gauls, his accounts are nowhere NEAR as gruesome as Caesars and paint a slightly more realistic picture

Tacitus is not a valid example because his histories began with Caesar Augustus and extended for about 100 years. His histories were not concerned with the Celts. In fact, since they did not attempt to brand the Germans with human sacrifice lends credence to Caesar's account.

 

[tammym1972]

Not yet, but you will be...

lol too funny.

 

[Steezie]

I understand perfectly their intent. And I appologize for the remark about druidic fantasies. That was uncalled for.

Its cool, just remember, "treat others as you would wish to be treated".

However, given the entirety of the Commentaries the part about human sacrifice was mentioned only in passing and only in one paragraph. This is hardly the method one would expect if his intention was to use this to demonize the Celts.

If you read the work in its entirety, it paints Celts and Gauls in a very bad light in general.

He justifies his actions by the Celts abrogating treaties they had with Rome. Their religion does not really enter into this equation.

Not entirely true, the Celts had no real central government or leader with whom Rome could make treaties with so they had to play politics among the dozens of Celtic tribes. They expected that all the Celts would follow a treaty made with one tribe, which of course did not happen. Caesar cited the breaking of treaties because he KNEW that not ALL the Celts had agreed to certain treaties because they were all separate entities unto themselves but he painted them as one distinct people who had simply ignored treaties at will to justify his military action.

In the same chapter that he describes Celtic religious practices he also describes the German culture and religious practice. Nowhere does he attempt to ascribe human sacrifice to the Germans. Realize that during this campaign he was fighting Germans as well as Celts.

Reading back through the De Bello Gallico I dont see too many references to the German OR Celt's religion, can you point out the section specifically where he talks about that?

This is true. Generally this involves elevating the numbers of enemies involved or exagerating the heroism of the General's armies.

As well as demonizing the people themselves. Read some of what Tacitus has to say about the Gauls. Better yet, read accounts of Boudica written by the Romans and you'll see what I mean

Tacitus is not a valid example because his histories began with Caesar Augustus and extended for about 100 years. His histories were not concerned with the Celts. In fact, since they did not attempt to brand the Germans with human sacrifice lends credence to Caesar's account.

His histories cover a war with the Germans under Tiberius, it gives great insight into how many Romans saw "barbarians". This is the "Annals"

 

[SallyNow]

I really wish my real-life contact with self-identifying Pagans and Wiccans is as positive as my contact with Pagans and Wiccans on the 'net.

Sadly, many of the Wiccans and Pagans I know in real life stumbled on the beliefs not through deep soul-searching or history research, but because they were enticed by the idea of spells and spirits that can hurt those who have hurt them.

When you have had several Wiccan friends say they use spirits to harm others, when you have several Wiccan friends tell you that all other beliefs besides Wicca is just a phase on the way to becoming Wiccan, it's hard to keep positive.

But thankfully I know that isn't the norm. And thankfully, I've been able to learn a little bit about different incarnations of Wiccan and Pagan beliefs throughout the past millenia.

And thankfully there's the 'net where I can see positive forms of Wicca and Paganism, and not just the I'm-in-it-to-protect-myself-and-harm-those-who-I-dislike folks who are in deep psychological pain. I know at least one who was (and still is) in great need of psychological treatment for diagnoised but untreated illnesses, and that they grabbed on to the nearest branch they could find. That happened to be religion, and the religion just happened to be Wicca. It could have been anything else, and I should not hold that against other Wiccans.

So thank-you for posting this thread, because I think a lot of people have negative feelings towards Wiccans that really aren't justified. And I know I need a reality check once in a while, because my experiences that I have do not represent the norm nor the wider world around me. They just happen to reflect what I've seen. And most likely I haven't had my eyes open enough.

 

[Secundulus]

Reading back through the De Bello Gallico I dont see too many references to the German OR Celt's religion, can you point out the section specifically where he talks about that?

"caes.gal.6.16": [6.16] The nation of all the Gauls is extremely devoted to superstitious rites; and on that account they who are troubled with unusually severe diseases, and they who are engaged in battles and dangers, either sacrifice men as victims, or vow that they will sacrifice them, and employ the Druids as the performers of those sacrifices; because they think that unless the life of a man be offered for the life of a man, the mind of the immortal gods can not be rendered propitious, and they have sacrifices of that kind ordained for national purposes. Others have figures of vast size, the limbs of which formed of osiers they fill with living men, which being set on fire, the men perish enveloped in the flames. They consider that the oblation of such as have been taken in theft, or in robbery, or any other offense, is more acceptable to the immortal gods; but when a supply of that class is wanting, they have recourse to the oblation of even the innocent.

"caes.gal.6.21": [6.21] The Germans differ much from these usages, for they have neither Druids to preside over sacred offices, nor do they pay great regard to sacrifices.

As well as demonizing the people themselves. Read some of what Tacitus has to say about the Gauls. Better yet, read accounts of Boudica written by the Romans and you'll see what I mean

Boudica was a Celt.

His histories cover a war with the Germans under Tiberius, it gives great insight into how many Romans saw "barbarians". This is the "Annals"

Yes, they thought very little of barbarians. But they only recorded the Druids in Gaul as performing human sacrifice.