Rethinking My Beliefs
As readers know I am not at all a religious person. The belief system I find closest to my view of life is Druidism. Now Druids have suffered a lot from the negative spin put on their role in history by early Christian public relations consultants. There is no evidence they sacrificed virgins, put people in wicker men or did unspeakable things to goats – and anyway so long as the goats did not mind, where is the problem?
The Druids and their successors the Celtic Christians were not big on God, not in the least Jesusy (Jesus, like Robbie Williams had to reinvent himself a couple of times before he really took off – something to do with Angels for them both I think.) The things Druids prized above all were learning and creativity. Apart from that all you had to do was live in harmony with nature. This is the philosophy I found appealing.
Now, after coming across a very informative website yesterday, I find I may have been wrong about the Druids and will have to rethink my position. To my absolute horror I learned that the Druids invented THE MULLET, the hairstyle so beloved of British soccer stars and American truck drivers (and Billy Ray Cyrus.)
The Celtic church was less centralised than the Roman church, being somewhat more monastic than heirarchical, and also used a different way of calculating the date of Easter. Some of these monasteries were headed by women, including Abbes Hilda of Whitby who hosted the Council of Whitby, where it was decided to join with the Roman church and the rest of Europe.
There is debate among historians as to how distinct the Celtic church was from other forms of Christianity of its time, but there are some unique elements nonetheless. One unique feature of the Celtic church was the cut of the tonsure, which was bald in the front and long in the back, unlike the Benedictine tonsure, which is short all around with a bald spot in the centre. The Celtic Christian art of illuminated manuscripts, such as the beautiful Book of Kells, is another uniquely Celtic contribution to Christianity. Its symbol is the Celtic Cross, a cross with a circle around its centre.
A good site to read on Druid beliefs
But if you just want the bit about the mullet, go to page 5 and read the paragraph on Celtic Christianity (which contains some shocking revelations for Christians) Open minded people who have only ever been aware of the Christian calumnies against the European pagan beliefs will be surprised at hom much Christianity stole from the beliefs and learning of the Druids.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 24
Personally, I find all religions about the same. I love the way you put this.
Back in the 60's, I was the 3rd boy in my high school to grow my hair long. Needless to day, I took a lot of heat for it. I said: "Jesus had long hair..." but they we're buying it.
Historic convention has it that Druids had no written language, but if fact they had several. One was based on using the names of trees as names of letters. It is quite fascinating.
And they stole the 'Holly and the Ivy' - oh and Wassail and lots, lots more!
I can do this.
THE MULLET
My daughter IS doing this. I would publish a picture of her new haircut if I didn't value my life.
Hey Ian,
There is quite a bit in quite a few religions, philosophies, sciences that are quite appealing. I see no need to limit oneself to following the precepts and rituals of any previously organized corporation of faith. We are marvelously free to choose our belief systems, ways of organizing truth, or what have you. Now, that's learning and creativity!
Peace,
libramoon
Unfortunately the early Christian movement was hijacked by the Roman government and Romanized. What I mean by this is that the Roman hierarchy was imposed on the church. Under the Romans there was a dual and parallel hierarchies, one to control physically and the other to control spiritually. For example, the church could excommunicate a whole community, thus preventing them from participating in the rite of Holy Communion. This prevented them from having their sins forgiven and thus destined for hell.
Through all of this a kernel of Truth remained active in the church - I call it the church within the church - that continued the teaching of universal love that Jesus taught. By the way, universal love includes love of creation.
The Reformation, by the way, was initiated by Christian Mystics. Martin Luther was a Christian Mystic, actually. But as these things happen, the law pushers - the self-righteous - are a powerful group and they take over. It is the law pushers - the bunch of woman hating nutters that you are referring to - not the real followers of the teachings of Jesus.
If you pay attention, there is a very quiet reformation occurring in the Christian movement - the Christian mystics are once again gaining strength.
As for the Druids - and other northern European indigenous religions. By and large these people were "converted" by conquest. An army showed up and planted a flag and declared these lands to be Christian. For others, it was the politically correct thing to do. So, no true conversion took place. In most situations a layering of so-called Christian traditions were simply layered over existing practices. Eventually mixed traditions were shared among the various groups (like the Christmas tree - this has been understood for centuries - you've provided no new information) and a relatively uniform set of traditions have been established that we now call Christian.
Actually, Christmas is pretty much irrelevant to me. It is a tradition that I participate in, as it does have some redeeming values, but if were eliminated - no big deal.
The point I'm making is that to be a Christian is to learn to love and serve others. Christian mystics share this understanding with mystics from all other major religions. The traditions that are so visible are simply decorations, that too often become distractions.
I, by the way, am a Christian mystic.
I'm impressed. A Christian with some idea what it is really about You would not be a Unitarian by any chance would you?
Historically "the jews" are very much an invention of The Roman Empire. There were many sects in the area the Romans called Palestine (modern Israel, Lebanon and parts of Jordan and Syria.) Most troublesome were The Pharisee.
Most of the sects were Zoroastrian in origin and their God, Ormazd or Ahuru Mazda, was a sun god similar to Saturn, principal God of the Roman Sol Invicta cult.
Though the Romans hated the Pharisees, for some reason they feared the Essene, a peaceful cult with its roots in Brahminism & Buddhism. Perhaps their non materialistic lifestyle threatened the Empire which was built on trade and consumerism.
We know little of the man Saul of Tarsus reinvented as Jesus of Nazareth except that he was a member of the highest caste among the Essene, a Nazari (the town of Nazareth was not built at the time) and the son of a high ranking priest, a ho tekton - not a carpenter but a "master of the craft (your guess what that means is as good as mine, basically he was a Magi.)
Looking at your core philosophy I cannot see why you claim to be a Christian. The heart of Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Islam and Jainism are based on the ideals of universal love and service to the comunity. Being a Christian historically means being obsesed with dogma, creed and hierarchy. And of course Chistianity specifically forbids mysticism (apart from the Catholic monastic orders.)
You say I have provided no new imformation, yet usually when I post on religious matters the majority of coments from Chistians insist that I am lying, I made it all up and I am a Devil worshipper. So what I say is not only new but quite shocking to them.
The complaint I and many of my friends have against Christianity is that none of you can ever agree what it ius to be a Christian and yet all the fragmented and mutually hostile sects insist they are the only ones whose understanding of the message is correct.
the druids were very disorganised :-)
There is no reason to limit oneself other than that most "faiths" explicitly forbid followers from learning of other faiths. Paganism like Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism is not a faith but a belief system.
Everyone has the right to believe what they wish to. I just get irritated with Christians because they are so eager to tell me I must believe what they believe.
The other great thing about Druidism or any kind of paganism is you get to dance skyclad (bare) at midnight. This is not a lot of good to people like us as we both have enough trouble walking, but its nice to know we could if we were able.
No dear, I'm not that kind of Druid, I don't do silly hats. Funny you should mention Ken Barlow though, my Boggart Blog friend sallyontour mentioed the very same thing and provided a picture to prove she has seen him there. Go here which is the same post (I'm cheap OK,) and open up the comment.
I saw him there, too..... but it must have been at least 10 or more years ago! I wonder if he's still a member of the strange modern ones?!
Jesus (Yeshua) was an historical figure. The weight of historical evidence is in favor of this conclusion. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus includes passages about Jesus in his published works (93 CE). The Roman historian Tacitus makes reference to him (Christos) and You may be right in saying that Jesus was an Essene – he certainly was a mystic. His name and teachings are important aspects of both the Christian and Muslim traditions.
Like the existence of Jesus there are arguments about the existence of Moses. Did a man named Moses really exist? Or, is the Moses story a mosaic (interesting word) of stories? The same, I suppose could be said of Jesus. The point that is important to me it is not the physical accuracy of the stories of Jesus but of the teachings that his name carries.
The same could be said of Buddhism. Did Gautama Buddha really exist? Or, is he a composite? Does that make the practice of Buddhism any less?
And, where does the Paul of Tarsus reinvent into Jesus come from? That is a new one for me. Paul of Tarsus was a Jew and a Roman citizen – not an Essene. His name indicates that he was actually born in Turkey. His language was Greek he wasn't even comfortable with Hebrew – the language that Jesus used was Aramaic. Having said that, some believe, as you, that Paul was an Essene and that as the rich people took over the Christian movement the real Paul's writings were replace by the writings that we see today – this explains why some of the writing attributed to Paul do not seem to follow the teaching of Jesus – in particular your reference to "a bunch of woman hating nutters." Although there are some excellent arguments around Paul's statements that fundamentalists used to disenfranchise women.
You are correct that the tradition of Jesus' father being a carpenter is probably incorrect – most likely a stonemason. And, there are those who think that his parents were not really Joseph and Mary at all – that these names were made up in order to parallel the tradition of Moses. The Gospels were actually structured to follow the Jewish annual liturgy – and in fact are thought to be more liturgical than historical.
What I would like you to understand about Christianity is that there are basically two kinds (it's probably more complex than that). The fundamentalists or, shall we say legalists. These people need to view the world in black and white and seem only able to deal with issues in simple terms. Then, there are us mystics who love the grey areas and view the world as complex. There is actually a psychological development aspect to this. Refer to moral development – Lawrence Kohlberg. Some people have difficulty moving from Level 2 (Conventional) – accord and conformity, authority and social-order – to Level 3 (Post-Conventional) – social contract orientation, universal ethical principles. Ancient mystics argued that these levels of moral thinking are not available to most people until after age 40 – and even then they often remain stuck in tradition. Thus, most adults are stuck at level 2. I am one of the few lucky ones and began my Post-Conventional journey when I was yet a teenager.
And, no I am not a Unitarian – although I intuitively understand where they are coming from. In fact, many Christians from traditional denominations grow out of Level 2, out of the traditional Christian thinking and move over to the Unitarians. Others, like myself, find like-minded thinkers within our traditional denominations. I am a Lutheran. Martin Luther, the father of the Reformation, was a Christian mystic.
The weight of evidence on Jesus is that he did not in fact exist. The only reference to such a person is in the Roman Imperial Annals which note that after an uprising in Palestine a sect leader proclaimed as The Messiah by hios followers had been executed. Josephus is not reliable, he mixes myth, legend and richly embellished history constantly. Tacitus is more reliable but the myth of The Christ he refers to is a Greek myth. In fact the "holy scriptures" were written in Greek, there was no Hewbrew language (nor in fact a Hebrew nation) The Dead Sea Scrolls throw a very different light on the whole story.
Interesting you should mention the Samaritans or Samarians. They were not a Jewish outpost as Christian writers would have us believe, but in fact the Phoenicians, an advanced trading civilisation with a Hellenic culture based in hedonism. They used the Greek language. The Essene were also Greek speaking and regarded the people of Judea as ignorant savages.
Unfortunately the whole Christian faith is based on falsehoods and misrepresentations so all your arguments stand on very shaky foundations.
I recommend The Shadow of Solomon and The Magdalene Bloodline by Laurence Gardner for a historically accurate version of the origins of Jewish belief. Barbarians by Terry Jones provides a history of the middle east including the way the Roman Empire having adopted Christianity as its official religion, completely rewrote history to fit the late Roman political agenda. Both are very disparaging about the Christian version of events which are totally at odds with the versions of the five great civilisations that dominated the area, The Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Phoenicians. It is strange they never mention this great nation that ruled the lands "from the River of Egypt to the banks of The Euphrates." Not a word, not even a hint, no acknowledgement that David or Solomon or the rest ever existed. The Book of Esther BTW is just the story of Ishtar and Marduk, the Babylonian version of Isis and Ra, Cronos and Rhea, Dagda and Morrigan.
Or if you prefer to read online, here's a website that sets out the historical facts and religious falsehoods.
Ask Why - The History of Christian and Jewish Beliefs
This is a massive book that really goes into every aspect of the Judeo Christian tradition. The authors however are not as sensitive to the feelings of Christians as Gardner.
I have never heard Martin Luther described as a mystic before, if fact I think the general consensus is that his religious philosophy is based on his finding a lawyer's loophole that appears to release people frrom the obligation to obey God's law to the letter. This was somewhat more acceptable than the doctrines of his contemporaries Calvin or Zwingli, but the Druids, Greek pagans, Egyptians and Persians were tolerant of human imperfectiond 3000 years before Luther got there.
You may find inspiration in the Christian teaching; for myself Winston Churchill said it all when he said "Whenever I read The Bible I can't help thinking God, what a shit God is.
BTW Zoroastrianism is perhaps 11,000 years old but was reformed by the propher Zarathustra around 600 BC, the same time Ezekiel is reputed to have reformed Judeaism. Strangely the names Zarathustra and Ezekiel mean more or les the same thing when translated from Farsi and Aramaic.
And Terry Jones played Jesus's mum in The Life of Brian. :-)
But the website I linked to is a very good, if highly detailed, deconstruction of both the old and new testaments.
Ian, is there any rule that we can't dance bare at midnight with canes or wheelchairs? I bet not.
No but out in the fields and on the hills, the ground tends to be less than ideal for naked wheechair dancers.