Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] other rituals

Expand Messages
  • David S. Bratman
    - we now return you to our regular programming - ... And many other Jews would wish to have nothing to do with this (and not just because trying to rebuild the
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 21, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      - we now return you to our regular programming -

      On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 Stolzi@... wrote:

      > > Jews also have long since ceased performing blood sacrifices, and do not
      > > claim a specific divine revelation for this change.
      >
      > Ah, but isn't that because the Temple in Jerusalem - sole authorized site -
      > is not currently in existence? I believe many Orthodox in Israel say the
      > sacrifices would be resumed if there were a Temple.

      And many other Jews would wish to have nothing to do with this (and not
      just because trying to rebuild the Temple would be a political error of
      the first magnitude).

      And in the meantime, since the destruction of the last Temple, Judaism has
      developed all kinds of new traditions - starting with "rabbis" -
      unmentioned in Scripture and unauthorized by specific divine revelation.

      > The slap for rudeness is probably deserved; I apologize. But is "squeamish"
      > an insult, or just a description? I'm squeamish myself abt a lot of things.

      It's one thing to call yourself squeamish. It's another thing to call
      somebody else that, and even more of another thing to identify it as the
      guiding principle behind their religious rituals.

      David Bratman
    • LSolarion@aol.com
      In a message dated 09/20/2000 10:34:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mwinslow@firinn.org writes:
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 7, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 09/20/2000 10:34:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
        mwinslow@... writes:

        << I know you're teasing a bit here, Mary (thus the smiley), but I wonder how
        this is diff't than the Christian ritual of the Lord's Supper where we
        substitute wine (or even grape juice) for the blood of Christ.>>

        Sorry to bring up an old post; I've been away for awhile, and we know how
        they do pile up...
        The difference is, of course, that the bodily blood of Christ was never drunk
        at the Lord's Supper. Even when Jesus instituted it, He used wine. Whether He
        did anything to it is a major area of dispute which I, following Lewis, have
        no intention of getting into.
        The interesting point to me is the universal (except for Santeria and
        variations) Neo-Pagan avoidance of animal sacrifice, which was such a central
        feature of ancient Paganism. Not that I want them to revive it, by any means;
        I just think it sheds an interesting light on the phrase "the Old(e)
        Religion." Often they invoke the alleged continuity when it seems impressive,
        and drop it when it's inconvenient.

        I guess the point is it's easy to misunderstand the silliness of a ritual
        when
        you're not intimate with the /why/ of the ritual. After all, to some, we
        Christians are cannibalistic in that we eat the body of our god -- almost.
        <g>
        >>

        As I recall, the ancient Pagans had a problem with that doctrine as well. In
        fact, many of Jesus' own followers left Him because of it.
      • LSolarion@aol.com
        In a message dated 09/20/2000 5:15:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes:
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 7, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 09/20/2000 5:15:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
          dbratman@... writes:

          << some
          Protestant denominations may have been founded on claims of a new divine
          revelation, but I believe most were based on their founders' conscience
          and an awareness of the needs of the community, and the neo-pagans can say
          the same.) >>

          I believe most Protestant denominations were founded on interpretations of
          Scripture concerning certain issues. Neo-Pagans, on the other hand, pride
          themselves on neither possessing nor needing any revelation beyond that of
          their own wishes. That's why so many belong to "traditions" they made up
          themselves.
        • David S. Bratman
          ... This is what I meant in an earlier post when I referred to judging neo-pagans by inappropriate Christian standards. Other religions (not just paganism) do
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 7, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sat, 7 Oct 2000 LSolarion@... wrote:

            > In a message dated 09/20/2000 5:15:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
            > dbratman@... writes:
            >
            > << some
            > Protestant denominations may have been founded on claims of a new divine
            > revelation, but I believe most were based on their founders' conscience
            > and an awareness of the needs of the community, and the neo-pagans can say
            > the same.) >>
            >
            > I believe most Protestant denominations were founded on interpretations of
            > Scripture concerning certain issues. Neo-Pagans, on the other hand, pride
            > themselves on neither possessing nor needing any revelation beyond that of
            > their own wishes. That's why so many belong to "traditions" they made up
            > themselves.

            This is what I meant in an earlier post when I referred to judging
            neo-pagans by inappropriate Christian standards. Other religions (not
            just paganism) do not depend on divine revelation: which I said before, so
            I'm not sure why you're reiterating it. I read your reptition of this
            point and the way you use it to contrast Christianity with neo-paganism as
            highly critical of the latter, but I could be wrong.

            "Found[ing a denomination] on interpretation of Scripture" is what I meant
            by "based on their founders' conscience." In Christianity one filters
            one's conscience through Scripture (or possibly vice versa), and that's a
            wholly appropriate and admirable thing to do - in the Christian tradition.
            When Luther said "Here I stand: I can do no other," he was describing his
            own conscience's position on Scriptural interpretation and, more to the
            point, about its expression in then-current Christian practice. But other
            religions don't work that way: they have conscience, but not Scriptural
            interpretation.

            In paganism, there are two factors: first, that accurate information on
            how the pagans of old conducted their rituals is hard to come by (much of
            what information we have comes from non- and even anti-pagans, and can't
            always be trusted), and second, that neo-pagans are simply under no
            theological obligation to re-create everything their ancestors did, even
            if no modern civil barriers stand in the way.

            I myself belong to a branch of Judaism called Liberal Judaism, which
            includes the majority of American Jews. In contrast to the Orthodox, who
            follow all the 613 commandments and Talmudic interpretations thereof,
            Liberal Jews decide for themselves and/or as groups which commandments
            make sense under modern circumstances, and ignore the ones that they
            consider don't. (The branches of Liberalism, Conservative and Reform,
            are distinguished not by theory, but by whether they tend to follow more
            or fewer of the commandments.)

            So any criticism of neo-pagans for following their own wishes instead of
            revelation, if it doesn't give them any credit for having consciences on
            the subject, would also apply to my religion. So I am cautiously curious
            about what you meant here.

            David Bratman
            - not responsible for the following advertisement -
          • Paul F. Labaki
            Peace, Paul Labaki ... After all, to some, we ... Some of us believe that is precisely what we do. Different strokes for different folks, but Catholics
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 10, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Peace,
              Paul Labaki

              > In a message dated 10/7 LSolarion@...

              >

              After all, to some, we
              > Christians are cannibalistic in that we eat the body of our god -- almost.


              Some of us believe that is precisely what we do. Different strokes for
              different folks, but Catholics (including yours truly) should admit that
              however civilized we have become -- or think we are -- ours is an ancient
              religion and most of our doctrine and practice is based on beliefs that have
              been held since shortly after the time of Christ. The power of the
              eucharist is as primitive as it is timeless.

              Peace,
              Paul
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.