"We're Not Out To Hurt Anybody."

[Druweid]

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.

I never said Caesar was trying to demonize the Celts. I said he was trying to demonize the Druids, and he had clear reason for doing so. Read further:

Caeser knew that if he had to face the entire Celtic nation as a single force, the Roman army would have no chance whatsoever of defeating them. But he also knew that he didn't have to take such a risk. As Steezie pointed out, the Celtic nation was comprised of many, many Celtic tribes who often disagreed and quarreled with each other. Caeser exploited this, turning tribe after tribe against each other, and then using his trademark strategy of "divide and conquer" to defeat them. But still, being brilliant as he was, he knew that if there was even the remotest possibility of a person or group uniting a number of the larger tribes, he would have to prevent it quickly and decisively. At that time, and from his perspective, the one group capable of doing that was the Druids. No other person or group held a similar level of authority or respect over most, or possibly all, the tribes.

Now, consider that Caesar himself did not have a great deal of information about the Druids (or if he did, he published very little of it). If it came to light that he was concentrating military force on a group that might turn out to just be a group of scribes and philosophers, it would have negative effects on his reputation with the Roman Senate and/or Roman people. No matter how sure Caesar was about who the Druids were, why take the chance? A little propaganda goes a long way.

Just my thoughts,
-- Druweid

 

[Secundulus]

Caeser knew that if he had to face the entire Celtic nation as a single force, the Roman army would have no chance whatsoever of defeating them. But he also knew that he didn't have to take such a risk.

This is true. But he accomplished this by buying the alliances of several tribes.

As Steezie pointed out, the Celtic nation was comprised of many, many Celtic tribes who often disagreed and quarreled with each other. Caeser exploited this, turning tribe after tribe against each other, and then using his trademark strategy of "divide and conquer" to defeat them.

Agreed. Caesar was a brilliant strategist.

But still, being brilliant as he was, he knew that if there was even the remotest possibility of a person or group uniting a number of the larger tribes, he would have to prevent it quickly and decisively. At that time, and from his perspective, the one group capable of doing that was the Druids. No other person or group held a similar level of authority or respect over most, or possibly all, the tribes.

I agree with this also. The Druids were the ruling class. I imagine that this, more than any revulsion at their sacrificial practices, was the reason they were eliminated.

Now, consider that Caesar himself did not have a great deal of information about the Druids (or if he did, he published very little of it). If it came to light that he was concentrating military force on a group that might turn out to just be a group of scribes and philosophers, it would have negative effects on his reputation with the Roman Senate and/or Roman people.

This I disagree with. The Romans were not especially concerned with whether they were conquering aggressive tribes or passive ones. They were interested in conquest and spreading the empire.

Anyway, the druids were far from peaceful. As you said earlier, they comprised many tribes who were constantly at war with each other and with the Germans. At one time they stood at the gates of Rome and would have sacked the city had they not been bought off in gold.

No matter how sure Caesar was about who the Druids were, why take the chance? A little propaganda goes a long way.

Had the matter of human sacrifice been propaganda, I would expect he would have given it more attention than two sentences.

I'm not accusing any modern druids of human sacrifice anyway. I just think that people who want to derive their druidic heritage from the original druids ought to be honest about what they were.

This is what they were not - peace loving nature worshipers who danced in harmony around fires at night.

This is what they were - the ruling class of the Celts who were indisputedly a warlike and aggressive people.

 

[clarksided]

I only know one pagan, and she's awesome. A bit odd, though.

 

[ReverendDG]

"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.

the question really should be asked, did he see it for himself or hear it from someone else?
this sounds like a story to make the druids look insane, not fact

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

they did practice human sacrifice, but theres no evidence other than this one instance for the wickerman
lindow man is a good example, but human sacrifice was not common.

 

[StarCannon]

When it comes down it, I find that christianity did a lot of human sacrificing when they burned all of those supposed heretics in the middle ages.

In fact, all christianity was at that point was dictate, burn, ransack new lands, torture and starve the inhabitants.

For centuries christianity festered like an open plague bubol in europe, then had the virulant tenacity to spread to asia, africa. and the americas. just like a virus without a cure, christianity has spread through out the world and infected the souls of millions.

 

[Druweid]

...The Druids were the ruling class. I imagine that this, more than any revulsion at their sacrificial practices, was the reason they were eliminated.

I believe there are mistakes in this statement, but first, let me establish one thing relevant to this entire discussion.

We have almost nothing in the way of verifiable information regarding the Druids, due to the noticable lack of written histories. Most of that which is accepted as true has been extrapolated from archeological evidence, anthropoligical study, and literary studies. For example, the story "The Iliad," is a work of fiction, but nonetheless reveals a great deal of factual information regarding the Greek culture.

Now, that having been said; while it is conceivable that, from Caesar's POV, the Druids could have been perceived as a ruling class, or potential ruling class, there is no evidence to support that they were, or even tried to be. In matters of law, culture, and religion, there is a great deal of evidence to indicate the variety of practices among the various Celtic tribes. Given the disparity, and the understanding that the Druids were not tribal, but a society unto themselves, it is highly unlikely that the Druids *dictated* for the tribes, but rather, learned the laws and customs of each tribe, and then acquiesced to the desires of each of those tribes.

Specfically, consider the Irish Celts. While there may be question as to the practice of human sacrifice among the Gauls, there is no indication whatsoever that the Irish Celts ever practiced such a rite, and in fact, were very likely opposed to any form of capital punishment. We know that there were Druids in Ireland, so the inference is that they did not believe in human sacrifice at all.

This is quite specifically why I stand on the belief that human sacrifice, if it existed, was the practice of the individual tribe, not the Druids themselves. The Druids would have been asked to *preside* over such a practice due to their knowledge of ceremony, not their personal approval. This would compare to a military chaplain giving a Jewish blessing to a Jewish soldier dying on the battle field; it has nothing to do with the faith of the chaplain, and everything to do with the religion of the soldier.

This I disagree with. The Romans were not especially concerned with whether they were conquering aggressive tribes or passive ones. They were interested in conquest and spreading the empire.

I wasn't talking about the Romans, I was talking about Caesar. Even then, reputation was important, and how is a military leader veiwed when he attacks libraries before military camps? Anyway, this is all theory on my part, but I'm reasonably certain it figures in somehow.

Anyway, the druids were far from peaceful. As you said earlier, they comprised many tribes who were constantly at war with each other and with the Germans. At one time they stood at the gates of Rome and would have sacked the city had they not been bought off in gold.

Please do not confuse Celts with Druids, they are two different things. As far as anyone has been able to determine, the Druids no longer belonged to a tribe once designated as a Druid, they were a group unto themselves. And thus far, no evidence exists to indicated that the Druids themselves united in opposition to anyone.

Had the matter of human sacrifice been propaganda, I would expect he would have given it more attention than two sentences.

Non sequitor. You can tell a little white lie, or a big fat whopper, neither is truth. Quantity is not a reliable indication of truthfulness.

I'm not accusing any modern druids of human sacrifice anyway. I just think that people who want to derive their druidic heritage from the original druids ought to be honest about what they were.

This is what they were not - peace loving nature worshipers who danced in harmony around fires at night.

This is what they were - the ruling class of the Celts who were indisputedly a warlike and aggressive people.

You are welcome to believe such things, but I've yet to see anything in the way of reliable information to support these claims.

Regards,
-- Druweid

 

[Secundulus]

When it comes down it, I find that christianity did a lot of human sacrificing when they burned all of those supposed heretics in the middle ages.

In fact, all christianity was at that point was dictate, burn, ransack new lands, torture and starve the inhabitants.

For centuries christianity festered like an open plague bubol in europe, then had the virulant tenacity to spread to asia, africa. and the americas. just like a virus without a cure, christianity has spread through out the world and infected the souls of millions.

It seems the pagan attitude hasn't changed much in the last 2000 years.

 

[Steezie]

It seems the pagan attitude hasn't changed much in the last 2000 years.

Cannon has a point. The Church DID execute many people for heresey. Wars started by the Church in the name or religion killed probably millions of people.

Acknowledging these things is not wrong nor is it blaming modern Christians for anything.

 

[Dysnomia]

Another important point to make is that modern Paganism is just that--MODERN. The movement is called neo-Paganism because it is a modern interpretation and modification/recreation of some of the centuries-old practices without transplanting all aspects part and partial.

The best example I can think of is in the runic alphabet called the Elder Futhark that was in use by the Norsemen and in modern times have been revived by the Northern Tradition. All 24 of the characters are included, but because of present interpretations of chaos and absolute possibility modern practioners have also adopted an entirely blank rune, bringing the total up to 25. Religion does evolve over time (oh noes! I used the E-word!) and you can see it in the Christian churches across the world (divorce is no longer an offense with the penalty of death, for example).

 

[Secundulus]

Cannon has a point. The Church DID execute many people for heresey. Wars started by the Church in the name or religion killed probably millions of people.

Acknowledging these things is not wrong nor is it blaming modern Christians for anything.

OK, By that logic then I am sure you will post in agreement to this:

When it comes down it, I find that Pagans did a lot of human sacrificing when they burned and killed all of those Christians for 300 years.

In fact, all Paganism was at that point was dictate, burn, ransack new lands, torture and starve the inhabitants. Look at Rome.

For centuries Paganism festered like an open plague bubol in europe, and in the Americas where Pagan natives hunted down their fellows to offer as living human sacrifices to their Gods. Then Christianity came and exterminated these vile practices in Europe and in the Americas.

 

[Dysnomia]

Watch the flames, people. That was not exactly constructive.

 

[Secundulus]

No it wasn't constructive at all. But I do find it interesting that my post is commented on while the other, equally as non-constructive, gets a free pass. Not only that, but others posted in support of that flaming post.

Why do people that hate Christianity so much want to post on a Christian forum at all? There are many Pagan forums after all.

 

[Dysnomia]

Too many flames and the thread gets shut down. One is tasteless and I would think that others would know better than to post more gibberish. You're quite right about the first post being non-constructive, but one can hardly go nuts after every flame and you had the misfortune of continuing a bad trend.

You need to explain how you are so intimate with people, though, that you know they "hate god." I'm a very devout Pagan and I post on CF to learn from people and to debate things I disagree with. I'm also the president of the Pagan and Wiccan Support Group at my college and am a regular member of the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship at the same college. Some of are here because we really do want to learn.

 

[Steezie]

OK, By that logic then I am sure you will post in agreement to this:

When it comes down it, I find that Pagans did a lot of human sacrificing when they burned and killed all of those Christians for 300 years.

Can you substantiate this?

In fact, all Paganism was at that point was dictate, burn, ransack new lands, torture and starve the inhabitants. Look at Rome.

Pagan Greece, Rome, and Egypt also gave you the roots of much of Western civilization. Christian Europe also engaged in much of the same behavior.

For centuries Paganism festered like an open plague bubol in europe, and in the Americas where Pagan natives hunted down their fellows to offer as living human sacrifices to their Gods.

Can you substantiate this claim?

Then Christianity came and exterminated these vile practices in Europe and in the Americas.

By exterminating the people, that...doesnt seem much different than what you claim happened.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

OK, By that logic then I am sure you will post in agreement to this:

When it comes down it, I find that Pagans did a lot of human sacrificing when they burned and killed all of those Christians for 300 years.

Hehe, honestly much of the "Christian persecutions" was grossly over exaggerated much like the witch trials. Not nearly many christians were killed as one has been led to believe and it wasn't a continuous thing. It happened periodically and to few people at a time. Just saying..

In fact, all Paganism was at that point was dictate, burn, ransack new lands, torture and starve the inhabitants. Look at Rome.

As Steezie said.

For centuries Paganism festered like an open plague bubol in europe, and in the Americas where Pagan natives hunted down their fellows to offer as living human sacrifices to their Gods. Then Christianity came and exterminated these vile practices in Europe and in the Americas.

Oh puh-leese! The Christians did heinous things as well. No one said any religion is innocent, but Christianity sure as heck isn't blameless itself. And you forget, before Judaism, everyone was Pagan.

 

[Druweid]

No one said any religion is innocent, but Christianity sure as heck isn't blameless itself. And you forget, before Judaism, everyone was Pagan.

Sacredsin, you are in good company. This was quoted from Benjamin Franklin over 200 years ago:

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."
​

Also, From former President George Washington, in a letter to Sir Edward Newenham, dated June 22, 1792

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause; and I was not without hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy of the present age would have put an effectual stop to contentions of this kind."
​

When it comes right down to it, such persecutions were a lot less about religion, and much more about human ignorance and prejuduce. Being in a minority has often been a position of being unpopular, often to the point of persecution, completely regardless what constituted the minority and majority.

The same goes for so-called religious wars. I have said it many times; most, if not all, such wars were for power, money, and/or real estate. Religion was only a catalyst to motivate the masses.

To bring up evils of the distant past is little more than a red herring, and only serves to show that we haven't learned a d**ned thing from our past mistakes. Let's drop the sensationalism and get back to a real discussion.

Respectfully,
-- Druweid

 

[Secundulus]

Can you substantiate this?

There are multiple sources of information and this is not disputed by any historians. The Christians were killed because they refused to make sacrifices for the Roman Emperor who the Romans had deified.
Look up the following:
The Persecution of Nero (64 AD)
Domitian (c.90-96)
Trajan (98-117)
Hadrian (117-138)
Marcus Aurelius (161-181)
Septimus Severus (202-211)
Maximus the Thracian (235-251)
Decius (249-251)
Valerian (257-260)
Diocletian / Galerius (303-311)

Pagan Greece, Rome, and Egypt also gave you the roots of much of Western civilization.

Of course

Christian Europe also engaged in much of the same behavior.

Yes

Can you substantiate this claim?

Look up the Aztecs and the Maya.

By exterminating the people, that...doesnt seem much different than what you claim happened.

No, but then I'm not the one imagining my roots in a group of nature worshipers who lived in peace and harmony.

 

[eldermike]

Huh? Am I angry at God too?

I am not sure, are you currently on a strange journey?

 

[elijah115]

http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/18352084.html

Unfortunately there is still far too much ignorance out there about Pagans and Wiccans in general. Many people actually still believe that we sacrifice children to the gods in the graveyards. I'm sorry and I hate to tell you this but it's not true! Wiccans do not engage in any kind of animal or human sacrifices whatsoever.

The ignorance that exists about Pagans and Wiccans is just saddening. Another ignorant myth about Wiccans is that we worship the devil. Hate to tell you this but we don't even believe in the devil!

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

I think you need to go back to the drawing board and think about what you are saying for a while before trying to make this appeal.

First, Pagans are not mainly composed of Wiccans. Wiccans are only a proportion of Pagans. Of that proportion, you only represent the subproportion with an internet connection.

Paganism includes every religion on planet earth that is not monotheistic and that does not acknowledge in spirit and truth the one true God.

It doesn't matter what you practice if cumulatively it is disobedient and rebellious to the will of God (i.e. God himself). I.e. it doesn't matter how you disobey and rebel, what matters is that you disobey and rebel.

What appears erroneous is your averment (in substance) that wiccans materially represent all pagans. I come from West Africa and over there, there are pagans that do still use human sacrifice and that still do practise disturbing acts. If you think this watered down "internet pop" subset of paganism is a major issue, you really haven't opened up a newspaper and read about real paganism (outside of the US and Hollywood).

Perhaps there are people who are ignorant about Wicca, but ignorance about Wicca does not translate to ignorance about Paganism.

Lastly why do you want christian to stop being ignorant about Wicca. In the grand scheme of things, it isn't really a priority to me as a christian. Being more christ like is what's important and I can't imagine wasting time to learn about what I'm not going to practice.

 

[Fuzzy]

Lastly why do you want christian to stop being ignorant about Wicca. In the grand scheme of things, it isn't really a priority to me as a christian. Being more christ like is what's important and I can't imagine wasting time to learn about what I'm not going to practice.

Self-preservation in a game of semantics and synonyms.

If I tell someone I'm a witch, then there's whatever onus and background
that word has in the audience's culture. Someone who engages in ritualistized mutilation and sacrifice for magical expression is not the same as someone who lights a sage wand, sprinkles saltwater, and casts a spell.
Yet both are "witches."

It's along the same lines as specifying which type of Christian you are.