|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:03 am
Iryn I think the thing that amuses me the most about your post reagun is your preamble. We don't even know you, how can you even say that you are unwelcome? Because I get a lot of flack, sometimes downright abuse, for being a hard-liner. Iryn If you feel your temper cannot be kept still then feel free to have a tantrum. I'm not really prone to tantrums, more swearing effusively. Iryn I will address some issues you seem to have with me personally though if you would like: You misinterpret me. My issues are not with you as a person. Iryn I had thought this matter was settled. It was a case of mistaken intent. When I saw the title "she really put her foot in it now" I assumed the "she " was myself and that she was calling in some sort of "witch hunt". Pardon the phrase. She explained it was not, thus the matter was dropped. It was not that she was questioning the title that was the problem. The problem was that it had seemed she was trying to start a flame war. This was most definitely not the case. I'm sure you can understand how careful we have to be with subjects like this to make sure that it is an actual debate rather than a troll looking for a good time. My humble apologies. Iryn Assuming malice is just prudent when Gaia is full of trolls and thoughtless people who find great joy in disturbing the peace. It's not malice that I assume. It's ignorance, not the wilful ignorance merely "not knowing". Iryn I don't particularly care how my skills mount up to yours. As a Druid, you really should. I tried to handle this as though you were. Issuing challenges like this is exactly the kind of thing Druids did in their spare time. They were a lot more insulting about it than I have been, but I'm not a Druid. I am but a humble priest. *grin* Iryn *shrug* In regards to my use of english grammar. I apologize. English is not my first language, granted I feel I use it well enough. Also I suffer from a terrible disability...I am imperfect. ^O^; Yes, I realize it is ever so shocking. I'm sorry, but if you're not perfect, you have no right being a druid. We all know they never made any mistakes and they were perfect 100% of the time. Iryn The term druid as a spiritual path is offensive to anyone who is a Celt? Are you talking about ancient Celts? Modern ones don't seem to have a problem with it. My husband is Welsh and prodly follows the path as well. If it's the ancient Celts you speak for. I wouldn't know. I don't know any personally. All of the Celts I know, and I am one myself (a Gael to be precise) find the term offensive. Iryn The mother tongue theory is a popular one. I don't have any of my books on hand to cite some examples but you should be able to find a bit on it in most textbooks dealing with the prehistoric. I remember the text I had for my Middle Eastern studies class made mention of it. I still have the text. I can pm you the bib. info on it once I have it again. Definitely an interesting read. Thanks, I remember pulling the proto-language Iryn I don't have a degree in anthropology. I have a degree in Archaeology. There is a large difference between the two fields. I was referring the the gaelic language. Please, for the love of all that's Holy, stop calling it the "gaelic" language. The Celtic language is split into two super-categories, p-Celtic (Welsh, for example) and q-Celtic (Irish [or Gaeilge, if you want to be more correct] and Scot's Gaelic). Referring to the language as Gaelic, without the Scot's bit, is incredibly offensive particularly to Irish people.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:12 am
Oh my. Am I the only one who see's the amusing nature of what is degrading into a flame war in a Druid's guild? I should hope not. Alas, I only very quickly speedread this, as the animousity inherint to the nature of what is no longer a discussion but an arguement to get "One up" on the others is a little unbearable at the moment thanks to some current situational circumstances.
We can only do the best we can as reconstructionists. Only go from what we know. But anyone who's had a little life experience knows that we all walk our own paths (No, I'm not suggesting you haven't had any, just covering bases and rambling) and that to strictly adhere to ideals to a letter often leads to either fanatacism or worse yet, an unnaccessable religion. We all take what we feel is right from this, whether it is all of it or none. Live the hard line, or slide and take as you want. It's all a personal choice.
As for whether Druid is appropriate, I think it is. There are no old Druids left. This is the new wave. Druidism is now what we make it. Whether true to the old ways or not, that is the fact of it. We need an easy way to define ourselves. Something that people can easily grasp, and get a general gist of just from the name. I mean, this is almost a childish as the whole reccurring "You cannot be a Goth, you didn't sack Rome" or "Are you architechture?" thing that gets thrown around Gaia. It's silly. Meanings can change, and whilst we aren't trying to, by force of necessity it is.
In the end, whilst specifics and ritual are wonderfull, the ideal and passion is what matters. Does it matter what a person calls themself if they believe in something with passion, and have an ideal for making themselves and the world around them better as a result? Some of us are everything a Druid is said to be, others are only partially. But they identify themselves with it, and make themselves better. I'll take someone being happy and content with life whilst practicing a "Bastardised" version of druidry than a bitter squable about whether a name is appropriate.
Anyway, does it matter what we decide? People will call themselves what they want. Make the decision for yourself, and keep it that way unless somebody asks. Tell those who want to know what you think, not tell people what they should think. 'Cause trying to force views on people will only cause trouble. That's how holy wars start. That's how WWII started. Extreme examples, I know. But effective ones no less, don't you think?
How about we all just make peace, and maybe admit that this topic is just a little too hot-button amongst us to be handled at the minute? It's not like it'll ever be possible to come to a consensus on an issue like this anyway. We as a whole are just to broad in raising and and background to have the same ideas down to a letter.
Well, that's my two cents. Now can we put down the duelling rapiers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 1:15 pm
GeoffTate101 Anyway; we all know that the Druids passed everything down by word-of-mouth, and when the religion died out of the mainstream, no one was talking about it anymore. What's to say that there wasn't someone, somewhere secretly teaching someone the ways of the druid? I'm not saying that's true, and I have no sources to quote, but just think about it! oh, i have thought about it. but since ADF focuses on scholarship to back up the ritual aspects and practice, generally we do need some kind of proof that something is accurate. no group or practice which claims to be an unbroken line can offer up any kind of proof that satisfies that burden. GeoffTate101 How else would we have what little information we do have on the druids unless something like that were happening. comments made by multiple people (historians) over time, as well as archaelogical and anthropological data. GeoffTate101 As I said before, I'm a very eclectic person, so it's really hard for me to give a title to what I follow; especialy when it comes up in normal, everyday conversation. I've got stuff from everywhere! Native American Shamanism, Wicca, Greeko-Roman, I'm sure there are some Druadic beliefs thrown in there, and some philosophies of the easten religions, but I still have no title for it all. part of me has to wonder where this need for a title for everything came up...not saying that you stated this, just an observation brought on from many conversations. GeoffTate101 It's obvious that you all have a set path for what you believe in. Meaning to say that its way more directed and focused than mine is, so why not give a fitting title to it? by no means am i saying it's more directed or focused, or even a set path. yes, there are some things that are relatively agreed upon, but there is a great deal of difference within ADF itself. i agree that in order to attract those who are like-minded, a suitable label would be helpful, but is 'druid' that label? if we cannot define what 'druid' entailed, fully, way back when, then how can we effectively 'evolve' that meaning? GeoffTate101 Of all the things that one could believe in and follow, say yours follows most closely to the druadic religion, why not call yourself a druid then instead of going off on a long boring tangent on how, though it follows as close as possible to it, you technically aren't Druid because of circumstances of the past. because we don't know how close it follows the druidic path. Wulfston We can only do the best we can as reconstructionists. Only go from what we know. which is precious little. i'm not saying we're doing a bad job at being reconstructionists. i'm not saying our practices as recontructionists aren't valid. i consider my spirituality very valid, for me. i'm questioning the label attached to it. Wulfston As for whether Druid is appropriate, I think it is. There are no old Druids left. This is the new wave. Druidism is now what we make it. i find this method of thought disturbing. one could adopt this way of thinking and justify then calling oneself Wiccan without being initiated, which would be wholly inaccurate to the title. ADF concentrates on scholarship. that is one of the prime drawing features of this organization. to off-handedly rebuke what our scholarship says about what the druids were to adopt the title for ourselves demeans that concentration. Wulfston We need an easy way to define ourselves. Something that people can easily grasp, and get a general gist of just from the name. why? why do we need an 'easy' way? i don't consider 'easy' to be concurrent with perseverance. Wulfston I mean, this is almost a childish as the whole reccurring "You cannot be a Goth, you didn't sack Rome" or "Are you architechture?" thing that gets thrown around Gaia. It's silly. Meanings can change, and whilst we aren't trying to, by force of necessity it is. when we don't know the initial 'meaning' of the word, and then claim to practice in the ways those before us did (which is specifically stated occasionally in ritual and in literature), we hold ourselves up to an older 'meaning' of the word. Wulfston In the end, whilst specifics and ritual are wonderfull, the ideal and passion is what matters. Does it matter what a person calls themself if they believe in something with passion, and have an ideal for making themselves and the world around them better as a result? if they happen to stress accuracy in the historical sense, then yes, it does matter if only to avoid hypocrisy. otherwise, i only see the need for a label to attract like-minded individuals, essentially give a beacon for some to find us. after that, i would prefer the titles and labels be left at the crossroads. Wulfston Some of us are everything a Druid is said to be, others are only partially. no one is what a druid was. hence my argument. Wulfston But they identify themselves with it, and make themselves better. how can one make themselves better by adhering to hypocrisy as well as snubbing their nose at all those before them who have endured great lengths to earn the right to claim that title? Wulfston I'll take someone being happy and content with life whilst practicing a "Bastardised" version of druidry than a bitter squable about whether a name is appropriate. i am in no way questioning the rites taking place. i am not claiming that they are less valid than another faith. i belong to ADF, am in the process of completing my dedicant's program, regularly attend saturday rituals as well as high days, attend business meetings for the grove, and participate in rituals where i am able. i wholly believe in the cosmology put forth and proposed by ADF. since we are a scholarly neo-pagan religion, in order to continue on with some credit, we must acknowledge the lack of 'rights' to a title that cannot be wholly defined, as Skip Ellison, Ian Corrigan, and Kirk Thomas have all done (Archdruid/author, continuing contributor/author, and Vice-Archdruid respectively). Wulfston Anyway, does it matter what we decide? People will call themselves what they want. Make the decision for yourself, and keep it that way unless somebody asks. i am a resident of M&R. frequently, we get many people who claim to be Wiccan without ever having spoken to a coven, let alone being initiated by one. half of these people don't acknowledge that Gardner created the religion. i do not suffer ignorance for very long, and specifically abhor willful ignorance. allowing these people to continue on would be advocating their ignorance and encouraging their lack of knowledge. aside from the fact that i adhere to scholarship, i cannot advocate raping a religion/culture just because someone feels too attached to a title to give it up because they don't fit the criteria. Wulfston Tell those who want to know what you think, not tell people what they should think. that is the nature of debate, or at least to present an argument. Wulfston That's how holy wars start. That's how WWII started. Extreme examples, I know. But effective ones no less, don't you think? WWII was not a holy war, and it was moreso of a continuation of WWI because Germany was stuck with the bill and there was much animosity from Germany due to that. Hitler merely directed that anger to wherever he wished.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:49 am
phoenix shadowwolf Wulfston We can only do the best we can as reconstructionists. Only go from what we know. phoenix shadowwolf which is precious little. i'm not saying we're doing a bad job at being reconstructionists. i'm not saying our practices as recontructionists aren't valid. i consider my spirituality very valid, for me. i'm questioning the label attached to it. Well then don't call it that. No-one can control you. Nor can you control anyone else. If it stinks to you, change. I've found that most changes are spearheaded by those leading by example, anyway. Wulfston As for whether Druid is appropriate, I think it is. There are no old Druids left. This is the new wave. Druidism is now what we make it. phoenix shadowwolf i find this method of thought disturbing. one could adopt this way of thinking and justify then calling oneself Wiccan without being initiated, which would be wholly inaccurate to the title. ADF concentrates on scholarship. that is one of the prime drawing features of this organization. to off-handedly rebuke what our scholarship says about what the druids were to adopt the title for ourselves demeans that concentration. Well, I'm not rebuking anything. We aren't claiming the old title. We are claiming a new one, reforged from the old. Well... I am, anyway. Wulfston We need an easy way to define ourselves. Something that people can easily grasp, and get a general gist of just from the name. phoenix shadowwolf why? why do we need an 'easy' way? i don't consider 'easy' to be concurrent with perseverance. Nor do I. But how are we supposed to be reasonably identified to people looking for something like this if it requires a confusing 45 minute explanation each time? Wulfston I mean, this is almost a childish as the whole reccurring "You cannot be a Goth, you didn't sack Rome" or "Are you architechture?" thing that gets thrown around Gaia. It's silly. Meanings can change, and whilst we aren't trying to, by force of necessity it is. phoenix shadowwolf when we don't know the initial 'meaning' of the word, and then claim to practice in the ways those before us did (which is specifically stated occasionally in ritual and in literature), we hold ourselves up to an older 'meaning' of the word. Do we? To use the previous example, the Goth scene does enjoy the dark brutality of the nether-regions of humanities psyche, and is transfixed by Gothic architecture. So are we associating heavily with the older meaning, but not claiming to be part of it... But hey, my interpretation. I'm probably wrong, being a fresh faced young'un and all. Wulfston In the end, whilst specifics and ritual are wonderfull, the ideal and passion is what matters. Does it matter what a person calls themself if they believe in something with passion, and have an ideal for making themselves and the world around them better as a result? phoenix shadowwolf if they happen to stress accuracy in the historical sense, then yes, it does matter if only to avoid hypocrisy. otherwise, i only see the need for a label to attract like-minded individuals, essentially give a beacon for some to find us. after that, i would prefer the titles and labels be left at the crossroads. Wait, didn't you just a second ago rebuke me for saying that a simple label for to easily identify us was a bad thing? Well, curious as to what youre trying to say... Or whether this is just crossfire from earlier arguements... Wulfston Some of us are everything a Druid is said to be, others are only partially. phoenix shadowwolf no one is what a druid was. hence my argument. SAID to be. We can model as best we might. That's all. Wulfston But they identify themselves with it, and make themselves better. phoenix shadowwolf how can one make themselves better by adhering to hypocrisy as well as snubbing their nose at all those before them who have endured great lengths to earn the right to claim that title? Well... If that's what you think we're doing, then fine... I always just saw it as following our own beliefs, styled upon theirs. We don't snub them. All I've seen is respect. Heh, imitation is the highest form of flattery, so I'm told... Wulfston I'll take someone being happy and content with life whilst practicing a "Bastardised" version of druidry than a bitter squable about whether a name is appropriate. phoenix shadowwolf i am in no way questioning the rites taking place. i am not claiming that they are less valid than another faith. i belong to ADF, am in the process of completing my dedicant's program, regularly attend saturday rituals as well as high days, attend business meetings for the grove, and participate in rituals where i am able. i wholly believe in the cosmology put forth and proposed by ADF. since we are a scholarly neo-pagan religion, in order to continue on with some credit, we must acknowledge the lack of 'rights' to a title that cannot be wholly defined, as Skip Ellison, Ian Corrigan, and Kirk Thomas have all done (Archdruid/author, continuing contributor/author, and Vice-Archdruid respectively). But we have EVERY right to claim that title. As a particular strain OF that title. We are a religious subcatagory. We are in no way "Old Order" Druids. That is not Our Claim. We are a new order, basing itse;f as best possible off an old order. In my humble opinion anyhow, I cannot tell you what to think. Wulfston Anyway, does it matter what we decide? People will call themselves what they want. Make the decision for yourself, and keep it that way unless somebody asks. phoenix shadowwolf i am a resident of M&R. frequently, we get many people who claim to be Wiccan without ever having spoken to a coven, let alone being initiated by one. half of these people don't acknowledge that Gardner created the religion. i do not suffer ignorance for very long, and specifically abhor willful ignorance. allowing these people to continue on would be advocating their ignorance and encouraging their lack of knowledge. aside from the fact that i adhere to scholarship, i cannot advocate raping a religion/culture just because someone feels too attached to a title to give it up because they don't fit the criteria. Ahh, but I said it's best to keep it to oneself unless asked. I doubt they keep it to themselves, as you were obviously informed. However, if they annoy you, how many more would they be annoying? They'll soon get the idea that no-one is impressed with their pseudo-religious babble. People don't change thanks to a few stinging words. You've successfully vented anger, and made an enemy. That's about it. As long as said person can manage to keep their mouth shut, even if they think said religion is about wearing funny hats, then it doesn't matter. And when a person rants without any knowledge, it soon becomes apparent that that's the case, even to the uninitiated. You don't need to cut them down. People do it themselves. Wulfston Tell those who want to know what you think, not tell people what they should think. phoenix shadowwolf that is the nature of debate, or at least to present an argument. Well, I'd say a debate is to rather challenge another persons viewpoint or standing in an effort to achieve a better understanding themselves, but I do get what you mean. However, this seemed better suited as in internal matter for the OP. A debate with ones self on the idea. Because, well, like I said it's a rather hotbutton issue. And issue highly unlikely to be resolved. We may as well attempt to argue with a stone. It'll get each of us just as far. Wulfston That's how holy wars start. That's how WWII started. Extreme examples, I know. But effective ones no less, don't you think? phoenix shadowwolf WWII was not a holy war, and it was moreso of a continuation of WWI because Germany was stuck with the bill and there was much animosity from Germany due to that. Hitler merely directed that anger to wherever he wished. Hehe. No implication that WWII was a Holy War. Just that it was started for many the same reasons. Germany Actually wasn't stuck with the bill, either. They were initially, but were freed of their debt a few years afterwards when they fell into pretty bad default. Germany was actually making a booming economic recovery. Hitler just played off of that famous German national pride, after dusting it off a bit from WWI. Anywho... I feel myself being dragged into this and put closer to the center. So, in my own interests of self preservation, I'll bow out. I've said my piece, defended it somewhat, and now feel inclined to leave before things get any more hostile towards my poor self.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:39 pm
Let me ask you something, just so I can get this straightend out for my sake. Do you believe yourself to be a Druid in all the sense that the word has today? If so, then why are you debating this? If you don't think yourself to be a Druid, don't call yourself one and let the others who do think they're as Druid as they can possibly be in todays society call themselves what they will. Why start an inqusition of their faith simply because of a name? It's been said countless times before, but I'll say it again. Times change, and one cannot expect to fole the old ways word for word and not get aressted. meaning to say, if a ritual calls for a sacrificed lamb, someone today cannot as readily do it as the could back in olden times. We, as the pagan society, can only do the best we can with what we have, and quabbling over a name will only diminish what little footing we do have. I fyou think it's wrong to call yourself a Druid, then don't, but that doesn't mean that other people who follow that path are going to have the smae qualms. Live and let live, I say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:13 pm
Wulfston Well then don't call it that. No-one can control you. Nor can you control anyone else. If it stinks to you, change. I've found that most changes are spearheaded by those leading by example, anyway. actions outside of this debate aside, the change you are suggesting is exactly what i'm attempting here. partially by seeing the justification people use when they call themselves this particular label. Wulfston Well, I'm not rebuking anything. We aren't claiming the old title. We are claiming a new one, reforged from the old. Well... I am, anyway. what meaning are you attaching to this word? by what right do we hold this word? further, would you then advocate someone, say 200 years from now, taking up the label "Wicca" (assuming the practice and religion have long died out and no written records have been left from a Wiccan coven, merely non-oathbound material) regardless of the fact that they do not meet the criteria for a Wiccan? Wulfston Nor do I. But how are we supposed to be reasonably identified to people looking for something like this if it requires a confusing 45 minute explanation each time? what aspect of Druidry do we convey? where do you derive your definition? how did you derive your definition? what's wrong with calling ourselves neo-pagans? what's wrong with saying that our religion is earth-based, particularly focusing on celebrating deities, nature and our ancestors? Wulfston Do we? To use the previous example, the Goth scene does enjoy the dark brutality of the nether-regions of humanities psyche, and is transfixed by Gothic architecture. So are we associating heavily with the older meaning, but not claiming to be part of it... But hey, my interpretation. I'm probably wrong, being a fresh faced young'un and all. dictionary.com handles i believe the evolution of the word quite nicely in their history - found here. Wulfston Wait, didn't you just a second ago rebuke me for saying that a simple label for to easily identify us was a bad thing? i didn't question about the need for a label for others who are interested to find us, but rather your phrase 'we need an easy way to define ourselves'. realistically, i don't see too many simple or easy things about this path. yes, i agree that a certain label will help those who are searching, but how can we justify the use of the current word? what definition does it meet that accurately defines our beliefs, practices, rules - for all the organizations that claim this word? Wulfston SAID to be. We can model as best we might. That's all. but when do we finally recognize the model is not the original, and thus needs its own name? Wulfston Well... If that's what you think we're doing, then fine... I always just saw it as following our own beliefs, styled upon theirs. We don't snub them. All I've seen is respect. Heh, imitation is the highest form of flattery, so I'm told... but people aren't quite imitating by declaring themselves by the name of the intellegistan class. in a sense, it is claiming to be part of that class, meanwhile never fulfilling the requirements to earn that degree. Wulfston But we have EVERY right to claim that title. As a particular strain OF that title. how do we derive from the original if we cannot trace that derivation? the Druid practice died. three hundred years ago, people liked the term and the romanticisms attached to it, and so decided to create something entirely apart from what the original term meant. Wulfston We are in no way "Old Order" Druids. That is not Our Claim. it is of some organizations who claim to be Druids. Wulfston We are a new order, basing itse;f as best possible off an old order. yet we don't know that old order. we can't reliably say what they did and didn't do, except for guess based on biased literature and voiceless artifacts and sites. yes, i realize that as reconstructionists, that is our duty, to guess when in doubt. but do Hellenic reconstructionists claim to be cultists of the old order of Mithras? do they claim induction into the Eleusian Mysteries? do they claim to be the Oracle of Delphi? do they claim to be a Vestal Virgin? Wulfston People don't change thanks to a few stinging words. You've successfully vented anger, and made an enemy. That's about it. depends on who the words are comming from. i'd say that TeaDidikai (M&R regular) changed thanks to some stinging words from her Baba. i've changed thanks to some stinging words from my mother. Wulfston As long as said person can manage to keep their mouth shut, even if they think said religion is about wearing funny hats, then it doesn't matter. if they are encouraging others in that manner, it does. those who claim to be Wiccans, without being initiated into a lineaged coven, is tantamount to someone claiming to be a Catholic priest without going through seminary. Wulfston And when a person rants without any knowledge, it soon becomes apparent that that's the case, even to the uninitiated. You don't need to cut them down. People do it themselves. yet Silver Ravenwolf continues to sell, even from 'reputable' stores and websites. GeoffTate101 Let me ask you something, just so I can get this straightend out for my sake. Do you believe yourself to be a Druid in all the sense that the word has today?no one has yet to define what it 'means' today. aside from that, i would request justification for that 'meaning'. GeoffTate101 If so, then why are you debating this? If you don't think yourself to be a Druid, don't call yourself one and let the others who do think they're as Druid as they can possibly be in todays society call themselves what they will. i'm asking for justification. i'm asking for verification. i'm asking for derivation. GeoffTate101 Why start an inqusition of their faith simply because of a name? i'm not starting an inquisition of their (our) faith. i'm not saying it's less or more valid than anything else. the title is what i'm concerned about. is it accurate? what right do we have to elevate ourselves to that ancient level? what certification can we provide that might come close to that level, and does it still meet it? why do we insist on this specific title? why can't a new one be made? GeoffTate101 It's been said countless times before, but I'll say it again. Times change, and one cannot expect to fole the old ways word for word and not get aressted. i'm not proposing that we start to follow living sacrifice again, and i didn't state that anywhere. yet, given that it was such an integral part of the Druid practice, what grounds do we have to annialate it? if we don't like the inherent practice to the title, why can't we just create a new one? as a teacher, one is under the obligation to be an authority figure and guide a certain course. if someone doesn't like the part where they have to critiqe/compliment someone's work, can they honestly do away with that practice and still be a teacher? GeoffTate101 We, as the pagan society, can only do the best we can with what we have, and quabbling over a name will only diminish what little footing we do have. i'd imagine misrepresenting and allowing those unqualified of said titles would be even worse. how does debating a title diminish the foothold we have?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:22 pm
Debating a title will creat discord, and possibly tear it apart. Just as ther have been seperations within the Christian church. As to the stuff about live sacrifices, that was just an extream example of the things that change in a religion. Earlier in the thread, suggesting that instead of just Druid, the title Neo-druid was used, but I believe it was turned down for some reason or another. Now, why would druid be used in the first place? Simply because that's what it follows the closest to. It's deffinetly not Taoist, or Buddhist, or Christianity, but it is, however, very close to Druidism. Now, I fear that I'm going to go the way of the dodo in this argument, because I'm getting worked-up more than is good for me. It was informative, to say the least, but will, ultimately, never be settled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:57 pm
GeoffTate101 It's deffinetly not Taoist, or Buddhist, or Christianity, but it is, however, very close to Druidism. how is it close to Druidry if we don't know the whole of what Druidry encompassed? could someone please define what makes Druidry (using today's 'meaning') stand out from any other neo-pagan religion, and what characterizes 'Druidry'? as well as what that characterization is based on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:40 am
phoenix shadowwolf lately, i have been questioning the validity of using the word 'druid' as a title, including, but not limited to, using it as a label for someone belonging to ADF, OBOD, Keltria, etc (read, groups that define themselves as 'druidic'). for one. the druids were a caste in the celtic culture, compromising the lawyers, the priests, the scholars, the historians, the judges, the bards, often the teachers, and generally the intelligista. how many of us who claim the title of 'druid' actually fill all of these categories? as well as being certain roles in celtic life, they had to be a celt. what does that mean? it means having been raised in the celtic environment. either they were born in one of the many places known to be inhabited by the celts and raised in that culture, or they were raised in the culture in a remote area. another point. to be a druid, when they were at their prime, one would have had to school for many many many years. i imagine it fairly comparable to the present requirement for schooling (elementary school, middle school, high school, optional post-secondary). however, the druids were supposed to have very keen memory, and essentially be able to spout off all the stories/myths of their clan, and irish druids had to be able to spout off the brehon laws as well. how this caste was passed down was by oration. very few things written down by the celts remain, and fewer by the druids. there are no texts written by the druids as to what they practiced and what they believed. all we have to go on is what those outside of the culture, mostly romans, viewed as druidic practices. even those are thoroughly drenched in ethnocentrism. the druidic tradition was passed on by word of mouth, hence why memory was so cherished. there is no line of unbroken druidry. the druids either converted or died off, having been eventually outlawed in some areas to practice druid rites. who then, could be left to teach the next druid if they died out? these thoughts have come about after much soul searching and discussion. i've talked it over with a few other celtic recons (a few of which can claim celtic descent due to being raised in the culture) and some other ADF members. i'm not trying to say practices and beliefs aren't valid. but rather, is the name some of us go by appropriate and actually conveying our spiritual path? This is actually a point I've tried to make with people studying different paths. Make yourself absolute positive you are claiming a title you actually fully deserve through the work you do and the beliefs you take up. A Jew wouldn't call himself a Catholic. A Buddhist wouldn't claim Hinduism. Pagan faiths in general have gone though a huge resurgence and reformation in the last 20 years and probably will continue to grow and change for the next 40+ more. Reclaimists and recontstructualist of druid and shamanism are also giving them a good work over. The best way to figure it all out is to read what is already known and make the decisions for yourself where you fit in, or if you actually fit in with something else not even connected. I think it might actually help to study a little about the sources of information as well. I know one of the largest sources (or at least the most well known) is from Julius Cezar who actually had a great deal of respect for the Celtic peoples. His advisors and informants, unfortunately, didn't. I still think there is a large amount of confusion and uncertainty about how much came from Julius and how much came from his informants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:04 pm
phoenix shadowwolf GeoffTate101 It's deffinetly not Taoist, or Buddhist, or Christianity, but it is, however, very close to Druidism. how is it close to Druidry if we don't know the whole of what Druidry encompassed? could someone please define what makes Druidry (using today's 'meaning') stand out from any other neo-pagan religion, and what characterizes 'Druidry'? as well as what that characterization is based on? I may be way off here because I'm still rather new, until recently I was a Christian. Is it not close to the information that has been collected? Of course there are many things unaccounted for, but those are the things we are trying to pursue and learn. Why concern yourself with the fact that we aren't there yet? Why not take a step back and look at what we are attempting. I don't believe anyone has claimed that Druidism had a set of perfectly drawn guidelines, trying to follow the path means reconstructing, exploring. Stop focusing on one leaf and learn to take a forest for the trees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:40 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:35 am
Mark_Neverwinter Is it not close to the information that has been collected? i might have a knock-off of Tommy Hilfiger, from the same material, same design, same ink, etc. but if it's not made by Tommy, then it's not a Tommy Hilfiger product. in no way am i saying the faith/practice is invalid. Mark_Neverwinter Of course there are many things unaccounted for, but those are the things we are trying to pursue and learn. Why concern yourself with the fact that we aren't there yet? because we're claiming a title that says we are. Mark_Neverwinter Why not take a step back and look at what we are attempting. I don't believe anyone has claimed that Druidism had a set of perfectly drawn guidelines, trying to follow the path means reconstructing, exploring. Stop focusing on one leaf and learn to take a forest for the trees. when this perverbial forest is only made up of 4-5 trees, it's not a forest. it's a stand of trees. if there are leaves that are withered and decaying, or appear diseased, on one tree, there's a chance that it's spread to the others, and therefore in a matter of years, one will have dead trees. yes, we are attempting to reconstruct a faith. we are attempting to bring back facets of belief. yet considering we do not have access to the whole, or even want to reinstate the whole, how are we justified in claiming a title to which we only know parts? it's like trying to spell 'title' when we've only collected 'i', one 't', and 'l', but because of the modern day, we've thrown out 'l'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:45 pm
Did druids that were in training know all there was to know? No, they didn't. Personaly, I know I'm still learning, as well as we all are. Right now there is only so much information available, but as more becomes available, we shall learn that aswell and progress on our path. Also, does not the word path prove that it is a journy? We just don't know where the end of our journy lies because we don't know how much there is to learn.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:45 am
Mark_Neverwinter Did druids that were in training know all there was to know? No, they didn't. and do we have proof that they were called Druids? do we have a trainer to guide us in the proper training and attain whatever title they were given? Mark_Neverwinter Personaly, I know I'm still learning, as well as we all are. Right now there is only so much information available, but as more becomes available, we shall learn that aswell and progress on our path. until then, how do we possess the right to use their title? Mark_Neverwinter Also, does not the word path prove that it is a journy? not when it regards this title. for one, it was designating a specific caste. it would be like claiming to be a lord when one has not the land to govern or the privilege put upon them. for another, it designates certain skills and job functions. can we honestly claim all of those functions? i'm not trying to belittle anyone who can't, but if we can't perform those functions, then we shouldn't call ourselves by that title. kinda along the same lines, if you can't pass med school, you can't call yourself a doctor. Mark_Neverwinter We just don't know where the end of our journy lies because we don't know how much there is to learn. i'm not questioning the journey. i'm questioning what people are calling the journey, specifically when they claim rights to a title that was earned in a specific way that is now lost to us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:43 pm
By saying we fall short is implying perfection on the part of past druids.
People are not perfect, so by holding us to a standard of perfection, you are implying that all the past druids knew everything, 100% of everything that there was to know. I doubt that was the case, so why hold us to that standard?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
