If your slave master wasn't a christian, you wouldn't be a christian.

reply to post by ntech


Thanks for this link! Regardless of your opinions on the "prophecy" angle on this, the concept that the Celts might have came out of Israel is very interesting.

The only thing is, how did we evolve straight blonde hair and such pasty whiteness in such a short time?

I dunno ... I'm still in the process of doing my own ontological research, however this link has provided very intriguing food for thought.

Got news for you slick, I have never been a slave nor have any of my ancestors. Your resumption is insulting. If you want to make a thread about Celts and Romans then you need to put that in your thread title and you need to document it with names, dates and battles. My ancestors have always found the best way to deal with people who would enslave us is to kill them. Worked for them, works for me.

reply to post by debris765nju


Glad to hear that your ancestors evaded the enslaving of 1 million Celts when Julius Cesar conquered them.

He also killed another million, crucifying 2000 of them a day.

All hail Cesar eh?


Now there were many others who were not enslaved (and your ancestors mya very well be a part of them, however they had their religions removed from them and replaced with the names of Roman Gods under a false syncretism.

Sorry, but that's how it went down.

The real questions is about the organic nature of your religion. Is it a synthetic religion, one that did not originate organically from your own genetic community? Or was it one which was given to you by invaders?

If it was given you by invaders, then it is not yours.


[edit on 10-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]

[edit on 10-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
I can understand how it might sound as such, but a romanticism would carry with it a desire.

What you need to understand is that what is happening within me right now is not a desire for something else, merely an awakening to the fact that Christianity came to my ancestors through their conquerors.

The Celtic history merely is a contributing factor to this. The real romantic relationship I am having right now is with my beliefs. They are now free of the tyranny of a belief system which just does not belong to my people.

I disagree with the idea that romanticism would carry a desire. A desire for one thing or another might be one conclusion that comes all this, but ultimately 'romanticism' is an idealised perspective on something.

But how is all this news or a revelation? For you to be seeing this as some kind of epiphany you'd have needed to have some investment in Christianity in the first place and, in turn, it's impossible to have any kind of investment in Christianity without knowing that it's a middle eastern religion. Whilst I can't remember exchanging posts with you in the past, I've seen your posts 'around' as it were, and you seem an intelligent man, I'm struggling to understand how this is such a revelation or news: even the most tenuous understanding of history or religion shows that this is how culture works.

Once again, you would be right if I was desiring some sort of "replacement" religion. I'm experiencing and celebrating the removal of a the false religion handed to my people by their conquerors.

The only selectivity I'm exhibiting is in selecting no longer to assume a faith which was given to my ancestors by their captors.

I'm wondering whether what you've said here is really the case. Not in the sense of your lying to me but perhaps aren't aware of how enamoured you appear to be. It's bizarre that you claim to not be involved in a selective process and yet you have consciously selected to use the celts as the 'oppressed victims' here; look at your previous posts in this thread.

Asatru? I'll look into that...

To be honest it seems rather natural to me. Racists would assume one race and set of characteristics is better than another. You can clearly identify those characteristics both physically and psychologically which generally typify peoples without being a racist.

But again, what might seem "natural" to you, isn't scientific or perhaps even "natural". In fact, this use of "natural" doesn't seem too different from a lot of the stuff spouted by 'cardiac celts' who claim to hear the green fields of Ireland/highlands of Scotland (delete as applicable) calling out to them across immense oceans and hundreds of years of history.

This avenue of thinking is a nonsense because one has to draw lines and be very selective about deciding what is 'natural' in the first place. It's never actually 'natural'. Our histores are a continuum but where you choose to say 'my roots are here' on that continuum is informed by lots of things and is never actually 'natural' per se.

Asatru has a reputation in the 'neo-pagan' community because, for various reasons, there's more people with an ethnocentric take on religion than elsewhere. Unfortunately for them, history and genetics don't really work too well with claiming that their roots lie in 'northern tribes people'. Their roots, along with everyone else's, lie much farther back and in much warmer, non-European, non-Aesir/Vanir worshipping communities. For whatever reason - and occasionally, the reason is obvious - they draw the line at a particular point, usually some brief window of history of a few hundred years, to say "that's where my roots are".

Also, even Asatru belief (as it is understood now) doesn't give 'racial' preference much weight as Asatru is no different from other religions that has a creation myth. Ask and Embla are the first humans in Asatru and all humanity is born from them; black, white, yellow or brown. Similarly, Lif and Lifþrasir, will perform a similar role following Ragnarok. Not much room for racial purity there.

Another issue about 'northern tribes' and Christianity that often is problematic is that often there was no conquering at all, but rather voluntary conversion. With regards to pagan 'vikings' often this was a career or PR decision. Look at Rollo's agreement with Charles the Simple: Rollo was the aggressive force raiding Charle's Frankish land (now France), part of the deal that was struck was that there'd be at least some token conversion and it was that those particular Norseman exploited to no ends in their transition to Normans and their eventual control of much of Europe through intermarriage &c. Any belief in Odin came secondary to the allure of gold, castles and land.

Look at Iceland's conversion to Christianity in 1000, after several measures to force Christianity on the Icelandic people ultimately it came down to voting and measures of compromise and appeasement.

Often, on a smaller scale, personal conversions came down - as with today - through specific circumstances: I never thought we'd get through this fog bank until Gunnbjorn prayed to this god that his Irish slave had been jabbering about. I'd spent all yesterday asking Thor for help and then, shortly after Gunnbjorn got off his knees, the fog started to lift. There's obviously something in it so, I threw my hammer over the side as soon as the boat started moving again." This is no different than modern-day examples where non-church-goers pray to Jesus as a last resort for their cancer-stricken son, and then become evangelical because, at the last minute, the cancer goes into remission.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm hardly a Christian apologist, but often the idea of a conquering Christianity that levels all that it comes into contact with is often pretty wide of the mark. Often the beliefs of these 'Northern tribes' weren't as important to them as many claim, and were readily given-up if the opportunity arose.

Once again, specifics do not matter. The only thing that matters is that my peoples of Northern Europe had their religion replaced with one which did not originate from their own psyches and environmental situation.

Of course specifics matter in this! You are talking about these idealised 'celts' (who are idealised, if only because first-hand material is so scant on them, particularly when it comes to belief) as if they are your origins, your ancestors, your roots - genetic or spiritual. Why then, throughout this thread, have you chosen to frame this discussion in terms of 'celts vs Christian'? What about the people before the celts? In Britain, for example, there's several known cultures that existed the celts who are likely to have language, belief, and technology culture that was 'superseded' by any supposed 'celtic' culture. Why, until I raised this point, have not acknowledged these kinds of prior people? They are more your roots and not the people you've consciously selected and mentioned in this thread.

You talk about their 'psyche'? How do you know what their psyche was? You can't seriously be claiming not to romanticising this and yet claim to know what their 'psyche' was. The celts were a relatively primitive Iron Age culture, whilst there might be some things that you can appreciate - such as aspects of art, or perhaps a couple of elements regarding what is thought to be their belief system and so on - but that's very removed from knowing what their psyche was.

True, which is why those are only the contributing factors as to my new found liberation. One thing that is not in dispute, is that Christianity did not originate from the tribes of Northern Europe.

But, up until now, you seem to have put great store in a celtic alternative - and you have because you've made much of this thread this about a Romano Christian culture 'conquering' an idealised celtic one - and yet you really don't know where the much of celtic culture, whether it's belief or technology &c, actually originated.

Whether you acknowledge it or not, you are being very selective where you want to draw the line in all this.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


Thank you for commenting and extending the discussion further.

I do understand, that from the outside perspective, it appears I'm idealizing the Celts. And I have to agree that I am currently "caught up" with exploring the history and cultures. That much is indeed true.

Additionally I am also caught up with the fact that Christianity is not native to my peoples. Now, I don't have to know what their psyche was in order to know that Christianity did not originate with them.

Your references to the Norse (which I'm still unraveling the relationship betwixt the norse and the celts) is a clear case of how a culture can legitimately adopt a foreign religion. And I take no umbrage with with that.

Also, let me state that if I were African American, I would be saying the exact same thing. Once again, my own northern european roots don't play as much a part in this as the fact that Christianity did not originate with my ancestors.

And that is the central piece to this. Yes I do realize that traditions change and mold over time given their environmental changes etc. However I place great stock in those genetic and psychic (in the terms of a psyche, not supernaturalism) pools which existed in relative isolation for great periods of time.

For example, all of my family look the same, act the same, carry similar psychological inclinations, carry the same traits as diseases and in their mental abilities and weaknesses. The differences lie where marriages have taken place with peoples from other cultures and children born to them.

On my Mothers side, it has been Norwegian marriage as far back as I can trace it. My great Grandfather came from Oslo and the 5 generations prior to him were all Norwegian marriages. Because of this, I have many of the dominant phenotypical characteristics associated with Norwegians, this includes health related issues as well as mental inclinations.

On my Fathers side, It's primarily English with dash of Irish and Scottish several generations back. And again, it was my Great Grandfather who came over from Yorkshire. I also recognize the English that effects me phenotypically.

The key here, is that through researching my own family as far back as I can on both sides, I find that the dominant traits have stayed the same, and both sets of dominant traits appear in me as well.

This process has truly helped me to understand myself much better than before. Many of my traits which are simply incompatible with most people I encounter, are wholly compatible with those from the same genetic pools.

Yes, I have extrapolated the differences in physical and mental inclinations from a gene pool into differences in spiritual compatibilities with other religions as well. That is the limb upon which I am climbing.

And yes, I do note that the Celtic Brand of Christianity is very different from the Roman brand of it, or even the Coptic brand of it, and I owe that to the genetic canvas of my forebears upon which it was grafted. Which is why I say, to those who are practicing it according to their lineage, good on you.

However, even though all life is supposed to originate in Africa, I don't carry African traits physically or mentally, as far as I can tell. The genetic code of my peoples "vegetated" for a long long time in very different climatic conditions than those of the African tribes or the Middle Eastern Tribes. And because of this, certain phenotypical traits have become dominant in my genetics, physically and mentally.

The thesis of my post is not Celt vs Christian, (although I am currently caught up in researching the Celts). My thesis is this:

1. If physical and mental dispositions are passed genetically, then so are religious dispositions.
2. If the current religion being practiced by a people is in conflict with their genetic pre-dispositions, then by all means they have the right to throw it off and understand the religious inclinations of their forebears.
3. Understanding these ancestral inclinations comes from first studying ones family and their traditions/inclinations. Secondly it comes from studying the collective heritage of ones less immediate ancestors where information can be found.

and 4th, and the biggest here, is my belief that the shamanic nature of a people is directly related to their genes, and thus any alien shamanic system applied to them will cause great conflict or at the very least obscure elements of their own archetypal nature which are given to them.

Carl Jung said it best when he said "The goal of the psychoanalyst is not to make a Jew a Christian, but to make the Jew a better Jew."

He also said that we should not go digging in the attics of our conquerors or those we have conquered for a religion which fits us, but to find that one which belonged to our fathers and mothers.

Are there holes in this? Sure... but I believe you can see the grain of truth from which my correspondence originates.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Get over yourself.....We are not all descended from the Celts, We are not all interested in Italian history nor Catholicism. You might find this hard to believe but some of us are native born americans, We are the people that were here before Columbus arrived. The Cherokee people had their own system of goverment, their own money, their own written language, trade routes and tribal communication.
It is true many Cherokee were killed or displaced...but not all. The eastern band of the Cherokee are still alive, well and independent.

The whole discussion involves loaded terms.

Of course Rome won the whole world, and that cannot be denied. But where was Rome around 100bc? Who were the Mycenaean and post-Thera cultures of old? How did Rome take all of it?

There is a cultural war going on, and I am glad for your efforts to sketch it, HunkaHunka. In fact, there is a lot of funding which sits and waits for persons like yourself to bring these issues up and then they'll come to life if only to shoot you down.


Now when your original post is describing what the druids did in relation to human sacrifice, you are mentioning their belief in reincarnation as being why they didn't care about jumping off a cliff, because it was like, sport.

I am wondering if this ESPN commercial communicates what you meant to describe?



Ha ha, that always gets a laugh out of me. Here's another...



[SIDENOTE: How sad that somebody removes the ESPN part from the end of these commercials. As a result, some You Tubers think these clips are real when they are just truly brilliant commericals for a sports network in the USA, called ESPN]

And so one can picture similarly that the Druid bar-que parties might be quite spirited, with some married men getting so drunk that they jump into the bonfire and roast, even though they have a family, the spirit moves them to recycle themselfs, so to speak? Something like that? I am kidding of course. Probably only single males would be slaughtered.

But I do think that there is a key question here: How does one deal with the problem of reincarnation making people WANT to self-terminate? That is to say, OP's point seems to be that a bloody civilization would be better?

The Futurama suicide booth is probably already iconic. And I am wondering if such suicide booths did exist, would there be right-to-lifers and priests outside them, telling people not to self-terminate? Also, would these people blocking the suicide booths be Druid, Christian or what?

I am certain that humans want to die with dignity, regardless of their belief in the afterlife. Death with dignity seems to be the point. Everybody wants that, right?

reply to post by smallpeeps


When I think of cultures which remove the fear of death (at least consciously) I also think of Suicide bombers. They feel they have many lovely young untouched women waiting for them, and so, not only is it a great sacrifice for their "cause" but also their fears are allayed to some degree because of what they believe is waiting for them.

In Norse peoples, it was considered a curse to say "may you die of old age". Hence dying in a glorious battle was much preferred, if one were to die.


back on topic though, Rome had only recently outlawed human sacrifices themselves when they called this out as a characteristic of the Celts which was considered "barbaric". I hardly see the human sacrifice as unique to druids as it was practiced the world over.



[edit on 11-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by ntech

 

Thanks for this link! Regardless of your opinions on the "prophecy" angle on this, the concept that the Celts might have came out of Israel is very interesting.

The only thing is, how did we evolve straight blonde hair and such pasty whiteness in such a short time?

I dunno ... I'm still in the process of doing my own ontological research, however this link has provided very intriguing food for thought.

How did we evolve the blond hair and pasty whiteness in just a short time? Intermingling of course. They came as conquering hordes predating the Romans and did what was traditional to conquered peoples.

They killed the men and took the women and children...Imagine all those short stocky middle eastern types when they saw those tall blonds.

And the gene pools mixed. Plus a lot of that European mix is environmental. Less sun the whiter the skin. Better nutrition means taller people.

For the religious bent of the reference in my previous post it is based on the prophesies of Genesis. Abraham was promised his offspring would be as numerous as the sand grains of the seashore or as the stars in the sky.
And in Genesis 48 and 49 Jacob/Israel prophesied that his offspring would be nations in the distant future. And the tribe of Ephraim would be a multitude of nations. Even with Christanity the basic theory behind Romans 11 is that a Christian is an adopted Israelite irreguardless of a person's genetics.

So it all winds up that most European types probably have a trace of Israelite in them.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by ntech]

[edit on 12-5-2009 by ntech]

reply to post by ntech


Actually, if you read the creation myths of the Celts, you will find the red and blonde hair as being part and parcel of who they are. Now perhaps SOME israelites bred with the Celtic or megalithic cultures in the area, but that doesn't make the Celts descendants of Israel.

Now, I'm not saying they are or not, I'm saying I haven't seen enough evidence yet.

Slave masters?

Let me get this straight...are you saying that the only reason Christianity is alive is because the conquered and enslaved everyone who converted?
or are you just taking a small piece from history and attempting to apply it as a general statement, to match a quote from a rapper?

Yes, some people were converted to christianity by force, we all know that.
But the generalized statement you made in the OP is obviously incorrect, as many cultures are in fact NOT christian, and christianity is not the largest religeon.

The truth of Pre-Roman, European Religion has been suppressed. It is very difficult to find information about it. Some people think that the Roman Empire failed. I disagree, through the Vatican the Roman Empire successfully conquered the whole of Europe, and everything between Tierra Del Fuego, and the Hudson bay.

If you don't believe me, just check to see how much money is flowing into the Vatican from nearly all points on the globe on a daily basis.

I must say that the Catholic church is the biggest, most corrupt, and evil institution that has ever existed on the face of the Earth.

I was raised Christian(not catholic), and while I think the Bible is a good moral guide on how to live, I believe that most of the really important parts are stashed in the secret library at the Vatican. I would no longer consider myself to be a Christian, all religions have one goal, which is to enslave the followers, and take their money, just like a casino, or a carnival.

Originally posted by Ninja-san

But the generalized statement you made in the OP is obviously incorrect, as many cultures are in fact NOT christian, and christianity is not the largest religeon.

Interesting, I was under the impression that Christianity is the largest religion (1.9-2.1 billion) followed by Islam (1.3 billion).

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by ntech

 

Actually, if you read the creation myths of the Celts, you will find the red and blonde hair as being part and parcel of who they are. Now perhaps SOME israelites bred with the Celtic or megalithic cultures in the area, but that doesn't make the Celts descendants of Israel.

Now, I'm not saying they are or not, I'm saying I haven't seen enough evidence yet.

Well here is a piece. From that original post.
www.tomorrowsworld.org...

The Scots preserve the story of their Scythian origins in the most famous document in Scottish history, the Declaration of Arbroath. This declaration was written in 1320 and signed by Robert the Bruce and his nobles. In it is the statement that the Scots "journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea… they came twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea [ca. 250bc], to their home in the west where they still live today." The original of this ancient letter, called by many "Scotland’s most precious possession," is on display in a glass case in the Register House in Edinburgh. To the parchment is attached the seals of the 25 subscribing Scottish nobles.
Thus we see that the ten tribes of Northern Israel were uprooted from their homeland in the eighth century before Christ, and transported to a different area by their captors. Losing their identity, they became known to history by a variety of names. Cymri, Celts and Scyths are but a few. Today, guided by ancient records, we can trace the migrations of these peoples from the Black Sea to the British Isles and northwestern Europe.

Also here is a link to that Declaration of Arbroath that was mentioned.

www.constitution.org...

The Scots started out as Scythians. Not to mention that document also mentions that they dwelled awhile in Spain as well. So thats a start anyway.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by ntech]