Is it true that Druids were basically northern Pythagoreans?

Is it true that Druids were basically northern Pythagoreans?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Gnostic, we are gnostics.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      They were ooga boogas, where did these meme of a philosophical druid priesthood come from?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Asterix most likely

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Asterix's druids are either cuckoo or inept wizards though not philosophers.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            They were ooga boogas, where did these meme of a philosophical druid priesthood come from?

            The Druids ran academies of natural philosophy. People from all around continental Europe sent their sons to study under them.

            You only try and shit on them because they make you feel insecure.

      • 1 week ago
        Radiochan

        no

        celtic romanticism
        the druids were famous for never writing anything down

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >the druids were famous for never writing anything down
          You mean for never having writing transmitted through the Christian age of repression.

          • 1 week ago
            Radiochan

            No, they actively prevented anyone from writing anything about their knowledge down, it was transmitted from druid to acolyte orally

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Evidence for claim? Remember that the oral transmission method is a Christian cope from the 19th and 20th centuries. We know the Christians were book burning and destroying local knowledge for millennia.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Not that namegay, but it's true that esoteric truths are not revealed to the general public, and that would explain why no written evidence of them survives.
            That doesn't mean the Druids were nothing more than illiterate shamans though

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            It was anti-Druidism. Nothing more. The entire thing about oral transmission is complete conjecture.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            "Gravity is a israeli spook, everyone knows that the unsupported appendages on a stonework are the strongest parts will be the last to fall off due to wear and erosion."

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >No, Patrick, noses and fingers don't just randomly fall off stone statues.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            why the nose? were all the Christians who supposedly did that from israeli origins?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >The entire thing about oral transmission is complete conjecture.

            You're an idiot with no real connection to indigenous European religion.

            Imagine shitting all over the chosen method of instruction and transmission of information used by actual pagans.

            You will never know their secrets, sucks to be you.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Might is right! Impose your way of life on the inferior brownoids!
            >Christians used might to defeat and humiliate pagans? Oh vey evil Christians why do they persecute me so

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            is right! Impose your way of life on the inferior brownoids!

            wtf I love Christianity now!

          • 1 week ago
            Radiochan

            Caesar recorded that Druids were taught via exclusively oral means and it could take up to 20 years for one to complete his studies and that it was meant so that no outsiders could know what they knew. So

            Not that namegay, but it's true that esoteric truths are not revealed to the general public, and that would explain why no written evidence of them survives.
            That doesn't mean the Druids were nothing more than illiterate shamans though

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Sweet! Where's that citation?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            frick off shill

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            https://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/civil.1.1.html

            >Report says that in the schools of the Druids they learn by heart a great number of verses, and therefore some persons remain twenty years under

            In fairness (and not wanting to be spoon fed like a big baby) I have found the thing you mention. While it is a good find, it does not exclude written transmission, merely that they remember their verses by heart. Let the record show that this is not merely a Christian invention of recent times.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Solid W by the way, I love to see actual references to actual authorities on this board. We need more primaries discussed here

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            you're an idiot

            the Druids got along quite well with the Christians in Britain q

            both were persecuted by Rome, and Christianity was established in the first century

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          ...That is not so, there were golden tablets found with runic writings in England post-Roman invasion. So we can assume that they were attempting to create their own writing system.

          • 6 days ago
            Radiochan

            that's anglo saxon futhark

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Piss off, the Celts weren't Africans. They had a textile industry, iron weapons, gold coins and towns like Alesia

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Wasn't there a book on the most common names of IE cities and Alesia was one? I wonder what happened to the others...

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          > They had a textile industry, iron weapons, gold coins and towns like Alesia
          Africans hadd all those things

          “In this Kingdom of Kongo they make cloths of palm-leaf as soft as velvet, some of them embroidered with velvet satin, as beautiful as any made in Italy; this is the only country in the whole of Guinea where they know how to make these cloths.”

          -Duarte Pacheco Pereira, 15051

          Corroborating earlier Portuguese accounts about the quality of Kongo’s cloth, Italian priests of the capuchin order who visisted Kongo in the early 17th century compared Kongo’s cloth with the best in their own lands, which was at the time, the best in Europe. It was in this context that an Italian visitor named Antonio Zucchelli who in 1705 reached Kongo’s province of Soyo, remarked about their textiles that “they are well woven , and well worked, as colorful as they are, they have some resemblance to the Velvet of opera, and they are strong and durable.”

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Piss off, the Celts weren't Africans. They had a textile industry, iron weapons, gold coins and towns like Alesia

            Costumes for special occasions consisted of various wrappings of layers of lengthy plaited wrappers decorated with vibrant patterns and colors. According to an 18th century account, Raffia cloth was made into long coats resembling togas, velvets, brocades, satins, taffetas, damasks, sarcenets as well as bags and other accessories.10Cloth was not just used for clothing, it was also used lavishly for wall hangings and carpets/mats in houses.

            Textiles served as main currencies for Kongo's rulers and elites to build and maintain personal networks of patronage. Rulers hoarded all sorts of raffia cloth in their treasury houses along with imported cloth brought to them by European traders but originating from diverse regions, especially India. They collected plain weave cloth as tributes and fines and used it as gifts stipends to officials and clients, and they kept stores of luxury cloth to adorn their palaces and courts. "the luxury market therefore absorbed raffia products from different origins as well as overseas imports from Europe or from west Africa none of which directly replaced another"

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Pythagoras had a bat shit cult that got him killed.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Literally every piece of attestation we have from the Greeks and Romans.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          nah, that's bullshit

          just because you aren't aware of the continuing traditions through late antiquity and the early medieval period doesn't mean they didn't exist

          you just privilege Greek and Roman sources because that's exactly what establishment Victorians did to snuff out nascent British nationalism inspired by the American and French revolutions and by their own ancient histories

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous
    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      wiccan tier larper

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Have you ever considered that people can have actual convictions?

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >my convictions are a deeply held historically unverifiable larp

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >If you meditate and get results it's a larp, the real thing is pretending to be a medieval peasant without the subservience

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      Why do people conflate paganism and Gnosticism so much? Ancient Gnostics certainly wouldn't have seen themselves as pagans in the same way as Greco-Roman polytheists.

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        Because Christianity is a low-IQ religion so when confronted with real religions all they can do is trot out St. Yabbadabbadoupolis the archincelite of Mt. Pederasticon's criticisms of Yaldabaothabidisethian Gnosticism. If confronted about how this obviously doesn't describe the religion that they're actually being confronted with they can throw a temper tantrum as a distraction.

        • 6 days ago
          Anonymous

          >Because Christianity is a low-IQ religion so when confronted with real religions all they can do is trot out St. Yabbadabbadoupolis the archincelite of Mt. Pederasticon's criticisms of Yaldabaothabidisethian Gnosticism

          This is the best string of words I've seen on this board in a long time, unironically

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Pythagoreans were orphics

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It’s true that druids inspire more unfounded bullshit than few other topics in the history of Europe. I’m glad the Romans saved us from revivalist LARPers almost 2000 years later by wiping the druids out so thoroughly that there’s virtually nothing to base a LARP on.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Why do pagan revivalists make you so absolutely enraged that you're glad that some cool ancient religious ideas got wiped out?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Because I am an Irish expat in Canada and I’m tired of new age astroslags asking me about Morrigan Le Fae or if I’ve ever met a Druid or some asinine shit.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          And why does that make you so livid that you came into this thread to tell us that you're glad the history isn't recorded?

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Because that would provide resources to legitimise this kind of gay LARPing

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but people just make shit up about Druids with no basis in reality. Like the claim they are gnostic. Considering I directly descend from them I see it as a huge insult

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      They didn't get them all you know.

      Read some Welsh literature sometime, the bardic tradition simply continued.

      >inb4 le oral tradition maymay

      bards did that through the entire historical period

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah the bardic tradition continued but it was divorced from its pagan beginnings and Christian undertones gradually injected themselves into old lore. Old Bardic epics like the Mebanogion or the Fenian Cycle only came to be put to ink in medieval times by which they were already saturated with Christian ideas in the same way the Norse sagas were, and arguably to a greater extent. At a certain point bards in Ireland were singing straight up fanfics about Saint Patrick rescuing Cú Chullain from limbo.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >was divorced from its pagan beginnings
          The frick no it wasn't.

          "Pagan" is just a Latin word, man.

          >Christian undertones
          so what
          these two things are not mutually exclusive

          if you know anything about the spread and nature of insular Christianity in Britain from the 1st century through on till the Roman legions abandoned Britain you'd have realized this already

          >only came to be put to ink
          completely irrelevant

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            > "Pagan" is just a Latin word, man
            So are half the words in English. It’s still applicable to the pre-Christian inhabitants of Britain and Ireland
            > these two things are not mutually exclusive
            A text can’t endorse two religions at the same time. At the time of writing it had long since been understood that the gods therein are not really gods but at best nature/ancestor spirits more akin to Kami than polytheistic deities and some had been reimagined altogether not as gods or even as spirits but as Christian Saints of probably completely folkloric origin, like St. Brigid. The only Celtic mythology we have any significant record of is thoroughly saturated with Christian influence.
            > completely irrelevant
            Bro, if the texts we have we attained after a 1000 year long oral tradition like a never ending game of telephone they are going to have filtered through innumerable generations of Christians for whom the pre-Christian era was as far removed from them as they are from us. By the time the extent textual versions were actually put to ink they had long since been the preserve of bards and nations that knew there was only one God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And the omnipresence of such themes makes actual Celtic bardic literature utterly unusuable as any substitute for a holy text, forcing would be new age revivalists to cope with the indignity of making shit up.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >text can’t endorse two religions at the same time
            lmao
            you just don't get it
            put down the autism for a second and see that these are not "endorsements" of religion but instead represent a mode of cultural transmission of information and teaching narratives

            >At the time of writing it had long since been understood that the gods therein are not really gods but at best nature/ancestor spirits more akin to Kami

            Source?

            >like a never ending game of telephone
            You know, I really detest people to pretend this is a fair analogy.

            These traditions are not a fricking parlor game played out over the course of a few minutes.

            A disciple spends *months* with his master learning every one of his sacred lines by rote, until it is completely automatic in recall. This forms the essential core of the chain of transmission.

            If everyone in a game of telephone spent a month teaching each successive person to memorize what they told them with sophisticated heuristics and endowed the message with a critically important religious motive, you'd get the same thing at the end that you started with every time.

            It's actually more rigorous than simply writing things down. Anyone can edit a script, and then the original content is lost because it didn't exist in memory, only a fragile slip of paper. This is why the druids shunned writing for their sacred knowledge, it could fall into the wrong hands and be lost.

            Just as has happened countless times before. Writing is more susceptible to corruption and loss than something memorized by rote. Druids didn't select this mode for no reason, they wanted to protect their knowledge and it worked.

            >bardic literature utterly unusuable as any substitute for a holy text
            Laughable.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Only it’s by design not intended for any kind of religious education as that was the role of a Druid and not a bard. The role of Bardic songs is a combination of entertainment and history, they incorporate allusions to their spiritual environment insofar as it is a piece of the history and story of the tales and as the spiritual environment changed so too did the shape given to the Bardic tradition. It is like trying to reconstruct Greek paganism entirely on the basis of a Bowdlerised early modern adaptation of Homer.
            > Source
            In the Fenian cycle when Oisin comes home from Tir na nOg, immediately is converted to Christianity and declares there is only one God before dying and going to heaven. That is a pretty clear and unambiguous endorsement of Christianity and the power of the Christian god in the cultural psyche of contemporary Ireland compared to the capricious and relatively not-almighty deities of our pre-Christian ancestors.
            > These traditions are not a fricking parlor game played out over the course of a few minutes.
            If they were they would be more reliable, because instead they’re played out over the course of centuries. Who else spent months, even years, even decades learning the lore of their people as verbatim line by line? The Hebrew and early Christian priesthoods along with their israeli counterparts
            but we can be certain from study of the history of the Biblical text, from the days of historical Israel to the the consolidation of the Christian canon that a litany of details came to be changed, inserted or dropped altogether throughout the centuries. To the point that we can be certain that at one point the Israelites worshipped Yahweh as part of a pantheon before evolving into a different religion that would itself split in a multitude of different directions. Guess what? The textual content of different versions tends to be aligned to the traditions it passed through.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >they were they would be more reliable

            You can't memorize an entire epic cycle like the one the Illiad is a part of in a few minutes. It would be infinitely less reliable.

            That's why it takes months, if not years.
            Are you one of those people who think Homer just invented the Illiad?
            You do realize they had their own tradition of oral transmission that Homer drew upon, right?

            >else spent months, even years, even decades learning the lore of their people as verbatim line by line

            see above
            this number includes early Buddhists, American Indians, Abos, and many others I am less familiar with

            >not intended for any kind of religious education

            Do you have any reason why the teachings of the Druids and those of the early Christians were somehow incompatible? Because the available evidence suggests they got along with them much better than they did the Romans.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            No I think Homer is a semi-mythical figure to whom the oral tradition of the epics is attributed but given the content of the texts and the scant little archaeological evidence we have found of the Peloponnesian war we can be utterly certain that the Illiad is about as historically accurate as Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure and that the Greek bards were an extremely imaginative people. Fundamentally writing information down had to be invented because this kind of oral tradition just naturally lends itself to exaggerations, interpolations and omissions.
            > Do you have any reason why the teachings of the Druids and those of the early Christians were somehow incompatible?
            Yes, the 1st commandment is that thou shalt have no other gods before me and the druids were, as a matter of profession, devotees of a god besides that one. This doesn’t mean amity is impossible between one religion and another.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >scant little archaeological evidence we have found of the Peloponnesian war
            >Homer is a semi-mythical figure

            Oh my fricking God.

            [...]

            Get out. You have completely lost the plot. The Peloponnesian War happened, the sack of Melos happened. Thucydides did not make it all up.

            Archaeology is subject to survivorship bias just like history is. It's not perfect, and doesn't give us a complete picture of the past. Moreover, the field has been burdened by stupid academic assumptions about how people lived in the past since the very start.

            I take the old antiquarians more seriously than some archaeologists.

            That's why the classics are completely invaluable for the context they provide. Without them archaeologists would be grasping in the dark without a single clue as to what they are uncovering.

            >Fundamentally writing information down had to be invented because this kind of oral tradition just naturally lends itself to exaggerations, interpolations and omissions.

            Implying you can't lie when you write things down. Interpolations are part of textual criticism.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Did it happen? Yeah? Is the account we are given in the epics accurate? Frick no, as if that wasn’t obvious from all the superheroic shit that happens in them. Valuable for their insights into the cultural world that created them, not reliable sources of military history.
            > Implying you can't lie when you write things down
            Of course you can. But having an extent body of textual editions allows you to compare and identify interpolations, omissions and revisions. This is impossible with oral traditions and a good reason it was dropped as an essential evolution to a modern society.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >superheroic shit that happens in them

            Athena literally fought Ares. That's not a metaphor or anything.

            >not reliable sources of military history

            So the boar tusk helms aren't a completely accurate description that has since been corroborated by archaeological finds?

            Achilles' shield didn't have a suspended boss?

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Athena and Ares do not exist.
            > So the boar tusk helms aren't a completely accurate description that has since been corroborated by archaeological finds?
            So a Bronze Age siege lasted 10 years? Mind you this a a siege of a city archaeological evidence indicates was nowhere near as grand in wealth and scale as the Troy of the Iliad and was actually too irrelevant for pre-modern Homeric scholarship to believe it could be the same Troy. A 10 year siege in those conditions is about as credible as the Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years surviving on mana, without even to touch the dubious content that fills this time frame.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Athena and Ares do not exist.

            A bold claim. I'd love to see you prove it.
            Just as I d love to see you prove beyond all doubt that Homer was not real.

            >siege lasted 10 years
            Imagine a siege taking a long time.
            Oh wait, you don't have to imagine. There are many, many examples.

            >archaeological evidence indicates

            Schliemann detonated what we guess was the evidence with dynamite.

            Again, archaeology is not the end all be all of the past. Stop idolizing them.

            >about as credible as the Israelites wandering the desert for 40 years

            Cool, a rhetorical fallacy.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            > A bold claim. I'd love to see you prove it.
            Their followers got BTFO by Constantine and his successors so clearly their prayers won them no strategic acumen or favour in battle. Therefore we can be certain Athena and Ares in particular definitely do not exist, or at least are incapable of the power demonstrated in the Illiad.
            > Homer was not real.
            Homer probably was real. But we can be certain of virtually nothing about him besides that he was a Greek man that lived as a wandering Poet. He probably came from Chios, he probably articulated the approximate first versions of the Iliad and probably the Odyssey too. For all we know he could even be a narrator devised by another poet for the purpose of the story in the same vein as Ossian.
            > archaeology is not the end all be all of the past.
            Right, but if something supposedly happened, you’d think we’d find some amount of evidence that it happened? Because enough has been found to discover that the Trojan city-state power simply never existed and that the historical Troy could only have been a rather minor settlement on the Anatolian coast? Even accounting for the idea it would have been utterly devastated that would also leave no small amount of evidence. That alone casts huge amounts of doubt on the historicity of the Iliad when the antagonising civilisation it describes could not possibly have existed as it is described. Neither then could the siege been as grand as it is described when it would have had to be so much smaller in scale. Who would have though? A story transmitted orally since the Bronze Age would be exaggerated as frick?

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >You can't memorize an entire epic cycle like the one the Illiad is a part of in a few minutes.
            Oral tradition doesn't work via memory but rather by recreating the poem as a unique telling subject to morphogenic constraints so as to minimize errors. Professional poets (as in "oral transmission technicians") can absolutely "memorize" an entire poem in one sitting.

            >Do you have any reason why the teachings of the Druids and those of the early Christians were somehow incompatible?
            Well for starters the Druids would have rejected the supremacy of the israeli people and their culture as absurd. Also we know that they taught reincarnation, which Christians reject for like six different reasons. They were also polytheists, so there's that. Not that it matters because Continental druidry had been wiped out by the time that Constantine started forcing Christianity upon the Romans, and they came to blows almost immediately in Ireland. The reason that the syncreticism that lead to Celtic Christianity came about was that the Vatican had very little power in Ireland (from what we know of what the Papacy actually though of Ireland's theological situation they absolutely despised it, which is why they sanctioned and aided in the Norman destruction of Gaelic Ireland).

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Oral tradition doesn't work via memory

            That's actually the entire way it works.

            >recreating the poem as a unique telling subject to morphogenic constraints

            Cool word salad.

            >"memorize"

            You're projecting your own cognitive weaknesses onto people in the past who didn't suffer from this chronic forgetfulness.

            Learn heuristics and your retention *will* improve.

            >israeli
            You mean the Judeans? There were more Israelites than just them you know.

            >they came to blows almost immediately in Ireland
            Not really. This is something you need to assert because the truth of the matter is far more nuanced.

            >Celtic Christianity

            Hilarious that you're still applying this exonym to people who never used it as an endonym. Try referring to them as the ancient British church next time, because that's more accurate. Because it's not just Ireland, it's what we call Wales and Scotland too.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Takes offence to “Celtic” and then calls Ireland British in the same sentence as a preferable alternative
            Do it again, Caesar.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Uh, anon I hate to break it to you but Christianity was introduced to Ireland from Britain.

            That means these Irish monks descend from the early British church. And they themselves made no bones about it.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            There was no one “British church” either, neither did “Celtic Christianity” have an episcopal centre besides (ostensibly) Rome. At best you can argue there was a Gaelic rite that was distinct from the mainstream Roman rites of the South of Britain but even then Scottish and Irish Christianity diverge pretty much immediately after Columba, with the Isles providing a certain amount of buffer. But even then the idea either of them constituted a separate church from Rome is unviable and something contemporaries would have vehemently denied.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >no one “British church” either
            Nah. They were all in communion with one another. In fact, there is great evidence of diplomatic ties of Britain with Byzantium through the so-called "dark ages".

            >episcopal centre
            Cool Romanism. Too bad the ancient British church enjoys episcopal primacy over the Isles.

            Did Peter or one of his successors found the British church? Or was it one of the other disciples mentioned in the NT, who arrived on those shores during the 1st century? Someone like Aristobulus.

            > A bold claim. I'd love to see you prove it.
            Their followers got BTFO by Constantine and his successors so clearly their prayers won them no strategic acumen or favour in battle. Therefore we can be certain Athena and Ares in particular definitely do not exist, or at least are incapable of the power demonstrated in the Illiad.
            > Homer was not real.
            Homer probably was real. But we can be certain of virtually nothing about him besides that he was a Greek man that lived as a wandering Poet. He probably came from Chios, he probably articulated the approximate first versions of the Iliad and probably the Odyssey too. For all we know he could even be a narrator devised by another poet for the purpose of the story in the same vein as Ossian.
            > archaeology is not the end all be all of the past.
            Right, but if something supposedly happened, you’d think we’d find some amount of evidence that it happened? Because enough has been found to discover that the Trojan city-state power simply never existed and that the historical Troy could only have been a rather minor settlement on the Anatolian coast? Even accounting for the idea it would have been utterly devastated that would also leave no small amount of evidence. That alone casts huge amounts of doubt on the historicity of the Iliad when the antagonising civilisation it describes could not possibly have existed as it is described. Neither then could the siege been as grand as it is described when it would have had to be so much smaller in scale. Who would have though? A story transmitted orally since the Bronze Age would be exaggerated as frick?

            >if something supposedly happened, you’d think we’d find some amount of evidence that it happened
            not necessarily

            there are a great many things that happen which we have no evidence at all for
            happens every single day

            >would have had to be so much smaller in scale
            Archaeologists have a real bad habit of pretending the lower bound of an estimate is actually the upper bound. As if there couldn't possibly have existed more people than what we have evidence of.

            Evidence provides a minimum estimate, not a maximum.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            > They were all in communion with one another
            Yeah, because they were all in communion with Rome. If you are seriously suggesting that in the dark ages, at the height of the influence of the Irish church on continental Europe, that the two were not in communion, you need to have a think.
            > Britain with Byzantium through the so-called "dark ages".
            I do not mean to alarm you but Byzantium was also ostensibly in communion with Rome for the entirety of the so called dark ages and furthermore Byzantium retained diplomatic ties with various western nations at every point of its existence.
            > Too bad the ancient British church enjoys episcopal primacy over the Isles.
            Is this some kind of Anglican LARP? The Dark Age clergymen of Britain and Ireland conceived of themselves utterly as in being in communion with Rome and likewise Rome viewed the Isles as their jurisdiction, which was accepted.
            > there are a great many things that happen which we have no evidence at all for
            Elaborate.
            > Evidence provides a minimum estimate, not a maximum.
            If we’re better off without evidence to get a maximum estimate I’m thinking we’re better off with the minimum estimate.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >they were all in communion with Rome
            and Alexandria

            >in the dark ages
            we've been over this

            >alarm
            there is proof the Welsh had diplomatic relations and trade with the Byzantines

            the Byzantines sent envoys

            >better off
            better off...

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >and Alexandria
            Proof?
            > we've been over this
            I missed the part where you explained how Ireland and Rome were not in communion despite this being the all time historical peak of Ireland exporting clergymen to mainland Europe to join and establish communities in service of the Roman church in its Carolingian heartlands.
            > there is proof the Welsh had diplomatic relations and trade with the Byzantines
            Did you blank out before reading my argument because that is not any kind of counter.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            I am done entertaining your pretense.

            [...]

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            >That's actually the entire way it works.
            No it isn't, I told you how it works. They know the events and reproduce it via fixed units subjec tto morphogenic constraints. They aren't memorizing anything.

            I don't really care about the rest of your seething and coping because you'll never be a woman and conceded on those grounds.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >A text can’t endorse two religions at the same time.
            In a literal sense it can, however. The Irish scholars would extoll the virtues of Hebrew and the supremacy of Judaism in Latin, but then turn around and say that the israelites were dumbfricks and only the study of Irish lore and religion could make you wise.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >The only Celtic mythology we have any significant record of is thoroughly saturated with Christian influence.
            On that note, I think it is worth mentioning, that Judeo-Christian mythology was saturated with Greek pagan mythology. Where Yahweh was portrayed in the likeness of Zeus, Satan was portrayed as Pan, Angels as Nika, Cherubs as Putti, and the entire religion was saturated by Greek philosophy.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >divorced from its pagan beginnings
          Singing the same myths as their pagan ancestors, just modified to fit the Christian religion isn't exactly a clear split with the past anon

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            He doesn't know that so-called "paganism" was highly syncretic from the beginning and they saw nothing wrong with including the themes of other cultures into their own legends. Those other cultures eventually included Christianity.

            For them, every other instance of cultural borrowing is fine. But as soon as you see Christian content you have to throw everything out and pretend their traditions were lost forever just as soon as they met Christians.

            They weren't some purity obsessed autismos like the kind you find in academia and basket weaving forums.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Right, it’s the mark of the Christianisation of a culture and its folklore with it. The culture has not died, it has found a new religion and given old myths new meaning. But you can’t put the genie back in the bottle, neither can you take the Christ out of the Bardic literature.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Has anyone read this?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      source on any British or Gaulish person in antiquity calling themselves "Celts"

      I don't think you have one. Just Greeks who called them that. Welsh never called themselves "Celts"; their name was "Cymry".

      lrn to endonym

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >okay so you have a source
        >and you have literally every piece of archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data
        >but do you have THIS?
        You've never touched a woman so I don't really care what schizo theory you're positing this week.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          So you don't have a source, and everyone you call a "Celt" actually has a specific word *in their own language* they used to refer to their people.

          They didn't use a Greek word that foreigners used to identify them.

          >archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data
          hilarious

          wheres that "linguistic" endonym "Celt" in any of the extant Celtic languages again? Because it just doesn't exist.
          You really don't give a damn about what "Celts" themselves have to say, you're only interested in what foreigners say about them.

          get educated

          https://katherinemcdonald.net/2015/12/17/celtic-and-the-celts/

          https://i.imgur.com/NDt1z9O.jpeg

          shills are MAD ITT

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        ? It's just the common name to refer them nowadays, homosexual. Like that Agammenom's mask which isn't depicting him ackshually

  5. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    >only came to be put to ink in medieval times

    By the way, these surviving records are just the earliest ones we have access to.

    Not the earliest ones to have ever existed, that authors who's work actually did survive had personal access to.

    Most of it was lost during the English conquest of Wales, when the private archives and genealogies of the myriad Welsh nobility were deliberately burned to attack their legitimacy. There were other incidents too, like the burning of the Library at Glastonbury.

    That's a big reason why we have so few records from the so-called "dark ages". Things were written down at the time, but lost in the millenia that followed.

    This pattern of delegitimization through historical erasure would reiterate itself over and over again through the centuries, down through to the present day. In this very thread too no less.

    It's happened before, will happen again. It is happening.

  6. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    The Druids of Britain were initiated into the Secret Mysteries by the Phoenician navigators, who spread their doctrines around the known world.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >this clown again
      Kudos for being such a dedicated troll. Shame for being this mentally ill and obnoxious to an unseen before degree.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Other way around.

  7. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Yes

  8. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    The druids were the diaspora of the Amalekite vampire wizards who escaped their destruction by the hands of the Israelite army.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Amelekites, vampires, and ancient Israel are entirely fictional. You are insane.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        This is been debunked so hard by so many different people that I'm not gonna take your comment seriously.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          You've got me. Vampires are real.

  9. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    There's absolutely no archaeological evidence that the battle of Kadesh ever happened.

    Just some inscriptions. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

  10. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    According to Mircea Eliade (who is probably one of the most important writers for neo-pagans in general). Ancient Dacian druid "Zalmoxis", was a student and servant of Pythagoras. Because of this, Zalmoxis was able to travel to Egypt and other distant lands to learn astronomy and other arts. He than earned a divine status among barbarians. Aside from this, there are accounts of druids and philosophers and logicians and Buddhists traveling and sharing knowledge in the kingdom of Bactria. So in my view, everyone could learn from anyone freely. The role of druids, and other wise men, was primarily to raise generations in the correct way. This is why Neo-Platonism is used as a cornerstone to Neo-Paganism. The part where mysteries takes place is essentially when even thought wise men created us a system to live by and logic to support it by, they still know, there are other possibilities and ways of thinking.

  11. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, like always northern albino baboons steal and rip off everything from Medgods.

  12. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    "My druid is Christ, the Son of God."

    - Saint Columba, founder of the abbey on Iona

  13. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Lovely elicitation attempts, but there are no dumb villagers or 16 year olds here. As mentioned before Christianity - IS paganism. It was even called so by Romans. What you believe in - are pre-Christian European values, and we "pagans" do not dispute them. All you need to do is to remove the joos from the narrative, and that will be the end of the problem. Your days of the week are already derived from Pagan days of the week, your holidays already derive from pagan holidays and customs. You will not be able to make this world a dull institutionalized "heaven". That is a Communist narrative - and it failed, just as much as you keep failing. Let's be honest, European Christianity is in a way spiritual progression to paganis,m. But it was NOT developed naturally. It did not naturally progress as human wisdom. It is a result of conquest and oppression. I can see, that most likely people who come to shit on neopagans most likely real priests (who also come here for the shota/e-girl toons) or missionaries. Here is what you look like most likely:

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      >Christianity - IS paganism. It was even called so by Romans.
      Hilarious.

      It was the Christians who called the Romans who worshipped their Emperor pagan.

      Pagan is Latin for "civilian". As opposed to "Miles", which means "soldier" and is how Christians referred to one another.

      Christians think about their calling in terms of service to God, the Lord of Hosts. Which is why they call the church on earth the "Church Militant". Everyone outside the church is "pagan", because they are non-combatants in the spiritual war against the principalities.

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        That doesn't change anything. Judaism developed from polytheistic religion. Is that not so? Whether you like it or not, you will ALWAYS be connected to Joos. You will always have to call their motherland your "spiritual motherland". No matter what reasoning you will come up with, you are basically forever stuck between two cultures. There are million sof people who dislike Christianity...simply for the fact of what it is and it has nothing to do with "flower power generation". "liberals", etc. There is a definite certain level of unlikability in your religion. Again, I hate to draw this parallel, but just like Communism - you will not force everybody to like it. You do not have the most perfect ideology, you do not have the prettiest art, and you do not build the most beautiful buildings - because not everyone likes those designs. Not everyone likes your stories about Abrahams or Jacobs. Not everyone likes to be persuaded after they are visibly annoyed by you. To be frank, if push comes to shove, I would gladly accept Islam, because it seems far more attractive than Christian.

        • 6 days ago
          Anonymous

          rent free

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        Pagani means villager, moron.

        • 5 days ago
          Anonymous

          aw, did the commonly known facts about why we call non-Christians pagans trigger your feefees
          qq

          • 5 days ago
            Anonymous

            aww, did you find a flaw in one of my sentences C:
            here take this cross shaped popsickle and shut the f up

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *