Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Pagan Topic => Topic started by: Bubbles on February 01, 2017, 11:35:11 AM
-
Some places have legends about them and they also have an atmosphere even if sometimes it's subjective.
One of my favorite places is St Nectens Glen in Cornwall where there is a shrine where you can light a tea light and people write their wishes on the stones and either put it into the river.
Some of these places were originally pagan but were adopted by early Christians.
Some of these places look really interesting and seem to be rich in myths and legends.
Only been to a few, but they look interesting.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/timchester/20-magical-secret-places-in-britain-baqg?utm_term=.nkBvWxBYl#.bgxpgDWBO
-
This is St Nectans Glen.
http://www.st-nectansglen.co.uk
A very beautiful place.
-
The title here is Pagan places. In the same way that there are no holy, sacred, spirituall or divine places, there are no pagan ones.
All such are only human ideas, not realities
(I have not tried to see the picture.'
-
The title here is Pagan places. In the same way that there are no holy, sacred, spirituall or divine places, there are no pagan ones.
All such are only human ideas, not realities
(I have not tried to see the picture.'
Some places are more special to different groups of people. If those places were important to pagans of the past, like stonehenge, then IMO it's a " pagan" place.
Just like the Roman baths in Bath are associated with the Romans.
Places can have an identity, special for one reason or another.
If you don't see that, you are taking away the identity of the place.
How people perceive different places is relevant, look at the American Indian and their sacred lands.
People have been disrespecting their rights for years.
If you dismiss all those things Susan, you make everywhere very bland.
Some places have a character, an atmosphere, pagans seemed to have picked up and been sensitive to them.
Obviously a lot of people don't, which is why so many places in fond memory are disappearing under concrete and bricks.
It's such a shame.
But the modern world bulldozes it's way across people's memories regardless, turning nature into yet more suburbia.
🙁
If no one values these special spaces, no one will preserve them from the ever encroaching concrete.
Something I find very sad.
-
Interestingly, all across the world people share the concept of natural sacred sites, some of those people fall into the category of Pagan, and some don't.
This next link lists a few, plus that it is trying to save or preserve them for the people involved.
http://sacrednaturalsites.org/sites/
-
The title here is Pagan places. In the same way that there are no holy, sacred, spirituall or divine places, there are no pagan ones.
All such are only human ideas, not realities
(I have not tried to see the picture.'
You do not consider a church to be a sacred or holy place?
-
You do not consider a church to be a sacred or holy place?
Even if you think there's nothing in it, surely you recognise a cathedral as a Christian place, a mosque as a Muslim place and so forth, so there's no great stretch in acknowledging pagan places, I'd have thought.
-
Some places are more special to different groups of people. If those places were important to pagans of the past, like stonehenge, then IMO it's a " pagan" place.
for pagans, yes! :) For me, historical.
Places can have an identity, special for one reason or another.
An identity attached or assigned to them by people – obviously!If you don't see that, you are taking away the identity of the place.
Nothing I say or think alters the fact that a place itself does not have an identity.If you dismiss all those things Susan, you make everywhere very bland.
My views on the matter do not alter any place.Some places have a character, an atmosphere, pagans seemed to have picked up and been sensitive to them.
Only in the minds of those who think and believe they can sense something. It is always a personal, internal feeling. Others may agree that they share this.
Places of beauty and interest should be guarded and preserved as much as possible because that is good for all people, not just those who have fond memories of it; also for the sake of the ecology,. Etc.
-
for pagans, yes! :) For me, historical. An identity attached or assigned to them by people – obviously!Nothing I say or think alters the fact that a place itself does not have an identity.My views on the matter do not alter any place.Only in the minds of those who think and believe they can sense something. It is always a personal, internal feeling. Others may agree that they share this.
Places of beauty and interest should be guarded and preserved as much as possible because that is good for all people, not just those who have fond memories of it; also for the sake of the ecology,. Etc.
You sound like those who go to Stonehenge for Solstice, stoned, drunk, and then urinate and vomit on the stones as "they're only stones for fucks sake" - but suggest that you should, in consequence, be allowed, pissed and stoned, into a church and allowed to piss on the altar and all Hell is let loose!.
Sauce for the goose etc!
-
Owlswing
I will not bother to complain about that very unpleasant post.
for your information I have never in my life been drunk!
-
Owlswing
I will not bother to complain about that very unpleasant post.
for your information I have never in my life been drunk!
I think Pagans get a lot of disrespect or at least are not treated equally in the ideas of sacred space Susan.
So when you don't appear to respect it, they are a bit sensitive.
The church and Christianity hasn't always respected pagan space and in many ways still doesn't.
I don't think Owlswing really thinks you get drunk or do those things, but I think he is a bit sensitive ( sorry Owlswing 😉) about disrespect being shown to his own beliefs.
I don't think you intended disrespect, because I think that's just how you see it, but I think comes across that way because many religious people disrespect pagan sacred space.
You see things, literally.
What is being asked for, I think is an acknowledgement that others in the human world, have places that they feel are part of their identity in some way.
You don't have to believe the same things, but you could acknowledge those feelings exist.
I suspect Owlswing feels a church is more likely to get that from you, than Paganism.
🙂
-
I think you will agree that my posts did not show 'disrespect' for paganism; they were responses in a topic, presumably brought forward for some discussion.
-
I think you will agree that my posts did not show 'disrespect' for paganism; they were responses in a topic, presumably brought forward for some discussion.
Yes.
But I was discussing it from more a human perspective.
Not from a perspective that in the days of the dinosaurs there were no human sacred spaces.
It's true, because there were no humans to think about that ( although we don't know how dinosaurs felt)
I was coming at it from human history and human identity and feelings.
Art doesn't really exist either, but people enjoy discussing it.
A painting is really just a board with some marks on it really, but it's humans that make it more than that.
Religion is like art, a lot of it is about the human experience.
People can feel a bit miffed if you tell them their feelings and perceptions are irrelevant.
A bit like an artist would be miffed if you said it was all just bunch of lines and smudges and only in people's minds, which somehow would come across as lessening it.
Do you think human experiences have no value? If not scientifically accurate?
-
Owlswing
I will not bother to complain about that very unpleasant post.
for your information I have never in my life been drunk!
This shows just how little you understood of what I said!
Christians and the followers of other religious paths must be allowed to criticise paths they do not like but if they get criticised all hell gets let loose!
But please don't worry I will, in future, take note of your obvious thin skin and refrain from commenting on your posts!
-
This shows just how little you understood of what I said!
Christians and the followers of other religious paths must be allowed to criticise paths they do not like but if they get criticised all hell gets let loose!
But please don't worry I will, in future, take note of your obvious thin skin and refrain from commenting on your posts!
Why refer to Christians here? SusanDoris isn't religious.
-
Why refer to Christians here? SusanDoris isn't religious.
Because they are the worst offenders - even the atheists like to take a shot.
-
Because they are the worst offenders - even the atheists like to take a shot.
And other religions get criticised too. Indeed you are precisely doing that by using a comment by a non Christian to criticise the Christians on here. Better perhaps to treat people as individuals rather than make lazy generalisations?
-
Because they are the worst offenders - even the atheists like to take a shot.
-
Eh?
I feel awe when at places like Calanais, or Luxor - and the atmosphere at Abydos is almost palpable.
As you know, I'm Christian - committed, signed sealed and delivered - but I can feel the sense of worship in many places - whether built by man or God-created.
(As an aside, though, many churches and cathedrals leave me cold - or at least, looking for the loo)
-
You do not consider a church to be a sacred or holy place?
I did not see this question yesterday. And no, I do not consider a church to be a 'holy' or 'sacred' place. It is a building where many people who enter the building for whatever reason believe with faith alone, i.e. in their minds, that ... well, what do they believe is there? Do they believe a god of some sort is present? If so, that belief is entirely in their minds. Do you agree with that? If not, can you explain why?
I do not make these comments as criticism, as any kind of disrespect or however anyone might choose to interpret them. I use the 'show unread posts since last visit' option at the top of the page when I come to R&E and assume that new topics are there because those who post them are interested in others' views and ideas.
-
To a degree I agree with Susan here. Everything is meaningless until we give it meaning. So a pagan site is only pagan because a number of pagans and/or historians agree that it is so, whether that is because of its history, the fact it has been purpose built or because a few of them have adopted it as such. The same applies to Christian sites, Buddhist sites, etc.
A problem arises when some see that there is no need to respect another's sacred site. Not so long ago there was the very real upset caused to some in the pagan community by the uprooting of SeaHenge by English Heritage. My view on that is that now it is no longer in situ it is meaningless regardless of any spiritual beliefs I may hold - it's the equivalent of dismantling the chapel of St Cedd's brick by brick and sticking it in a museum. There has also been a campaign spearheaded by Emma Restall Orr to have the bones of pagans that aren't of any use to history or science stored in museums to be reburied with respect to their beliefs.
And I think this is perhaps the bigger picture - it's not about any one group's rights or beliefs, but a respect for the dignity of others and a respect for the beautiful and the precious. It is reminding me of the thread we had on sacredness - we need to remember that there are things that matter because if we don't, it is possible that those who would rape the planet and destroy our rights to be who we are will triumph.
-
Things mattering, though, depends on what you think matters. ISIS made an effort to destroy Palmyra because it could be argued to matter, and therefore its destruction was justified to them. Sacredness can be seen to be 'wrong' to others' ideas of sacredness.
-
Things mattering, though, depends on what you think matters. ISIS made an effort to destroy Palmyra because it could be argued to matter, and therefore its destruction was justified to them. Sacredness can be seen to be 'wrong' to others' ideas of sacredness.
I wouldn't say IS are big on respect.
-
I wouldn't say IS are big on respect.
That was NS's point I think - they're very big on respect for (their version/interpretation of) Islam - but nothing else. The sacredness to Buddhists of the Buddhas of Bamiyan - dynamited by the Taliban on the orders of Bin Laden - didn't matter to them because it wasn't their sacredness.
-
I wouldn't say IS are big on respect.
But I'm suggesting the reason they aren't is because of their concept of sacred. In a sense their destruction of Palmyra is much more respectful to the import of its meaning than those who would take tourists round it.
-
But I'm suggesting the reason they aren't is because of their concept of sacred. In a sense their destruction of Palmyra is much more respectful to the import of its meaning than those who would take tourists round it.
That may be taking it seriously, but it's hardly respect.
-
That was NS's point I think - they're very big on respect for (their version/interpretation of) Islam - but nothing else. The sacredness to Buddhists of the Buddhas of Bamiyan didn't matter to them because it wasn't their sacredness.
To an extent, I think though that the sacredness does matter but it conflicts with their idea of sacrednesd
-
But I'm suggesting the reason they aren't is because of their concept of sacred. In a sense their destruction of Palmyra is much more respectful to the import of its meaning than those who would take tourists round it.
Which is why I think respect for the sacredness of place to others is important for those of us who aren't religious nutters. If an oil company can't respect a First Nation's sacred land or historians a pagan henge, it makes anything, any place, the environment, potentially disposable. When there is such intolerance and hate in the world, we need every shred of tolerance, respect and let-and-let-live that we have. It's what makes life tolerable and it may be what stops us from destroying ourselves.
-
That may be taking it seriously, but it's hardly respect.
Surely taking something seriously, deeply seriously, is a exactly a form of respect? Much more so than someone wandering round 'doing' Palmyra?
-
Which is why I think respect for the sacredness of place to others is important for those of us who aren't religious nutters. If an oil company can't respect a First Nation's sacred land or historians a pagan henge, it makes anything, any place, the environment, potentially disposable. When there is such intolerance and hate in the world, we need every shred of tolerance, respect and let-and-let-live that we have. It's what makes life tolerable and it may be what stops us from destroying ourselves.
Oil companies don't hate, ISIS do. ISIS believe in the sacred.
-
To an extent, I think though that the sacredness does matter but it conflicts with their idea of sacrednesd
Maybe that is why they destroyed it. But there is also speculation that they were looking for treasure rumours to be buried on the site.
And quite frankly I think they destroy 'just because'.
-
Oil companies don't hate, ISIS do. ISIS believe in the sacred.
Oil companies often hate anything that stands in the way of profit.
And it's not just about hate, it it? It's about respect and tolerance.
-
Surely taking something seriously, deeply seriously, is a exactly a form of respect?
Yes - but destroying it isn't, IMO.
Much more so than someone wandering round 'doing' Palmyra?
But (aside from sulky teenagers dragged along against their will) someone wandering around has presumably chosen to go there out of their interest in it, because they want to see it - also a form of respect, I'd say.
-
Maybe that is why they destroyed it. But there is also speculation that they were looking for treasure rumours to be buried on the site.
And quite frankly I think they destroy 'just because'.
What does that mean? Why is it that you want to ignore their statements about why they act and then effectively make up something that appears to make no useful sense. The destruction of Palmyra was propaganda
-
Which is why I think respect for the sacredness of place to others is important for those of us who aren't religious nutters. If an oil company can't respect a First Nation's sacred land or historians a pagan henge, it makes anything, any place, the environment, potentially disposable. When there is such intolerance and hate in the world, we need every shred of tolerance, respect and let-and-let-live that we have. It's what makes life tolerable and it may be what stops us from destroying ourselves.
This ties in with some thoughts I've had (considered a thread on it) about whether a rise in active and engaged paganism might go some way toward fighting those who see only instrumental (meaning financial) value in nature as something to be used, a resource to be exploited. We're often told that paganism is a fast-growing religious stance after all. But I won't derail this thread by going further with that :)
-
Surely taking something seriously, deeply seriously, is a exactly a form of respect? Much more so than someone wandering round 'doing' Palmyra?
Destroying something because of religious superstition is fear based, not respectful.
Not all tourists just 'do' a place and even those that might arrive with that attitude may leave with something different.
-
Oil companies often hate anything that stands in the way of profit.
And it's not just about hate, it it? It's about respect and tolerance.
No, they really don't. They might not understand it but hate is a nonsensical term here. It could be argued that people who want their vague feelings of "sacredness' to override providing cheap affordable energy for people are incredibly hateful in their selfishness. Ethics are way more complex than this 'oil companies nasty' stuff.
-
Destroying something because of religious superstition is fear based, not respectful.
Not all tourists just 'do' a place and even those that might arrive with that attitude may leave with something different.
Fear is not unrelated to respect. We fool ourselves if we think differently. One of the groups takes the claims seriously, the other doesn't
-
Looks to me as though the insertion of the word vague is an attempt to belittle by diminishment the concept of sacredness. If a feeling is vague, it doesn't matter much if it's trampled on.
-
Fear is not unrelated to respect. We fool ourselves if we think differently. One of the groups takes the claims seriously, the other doesn't
Yeah, fearing the Lord hasn't led to hugely respectful consequences.
-
No, they really don't. They might not understand it but hate is a nonsensical term here. It could be argued that people who want their vague feelings of "sacredness' to override providing cheap affordable energy for people are incredibly hateful in their selfishness.
... except that we now know rather a lot about exactly what this "cheap, affordable" energy entails for the planet. If you want to call anything hateful and selfish, it's that.
-
Looks to me as though the insertion of the word vague is an attempt to belittle by diminishment the concept of sacredness. If a feeling is vague, it doesn't matter much if it's trampled on.
It's an expression of my feeling about it. But to be useful here the concept of sacredness has the burden of proof on those who think it is valyabldy, just like Alan Burns and his soul, so if it isn't a vague feeling what is it and what is it's worth?
-
As a matter of interest, Rhi, how do you think human remains should be treated - if their original place of interrment is no longer tenable as a repository, or, for that matter, if their original burial place is unknown?
-
No, they really don't. They might not understand it but hate is a nonsensical term here. It could be argued that people who want their vague feelings of "sacredness' to override providing cheap affordable energy for people are incredibly hateful in their selfishness. Ethics are way more complex than this 'oil companies nasty' stuff.
I do know a good deal about the oil industry - don't patronise me.
-
Yeah, fearing the Lord hasn't led to hugely respectful consequences.
lots of people who believe in the sacred disagree with your position on that, why are they wrong?
-
It's an expression of my feeling about it. But to be useful here the concept of sacredness has the burden of proof on those who think it is valyabldy, just like Alan Burns and his soul, so if it isn't a vague feeling what is it and what is it's worth?
We have an entire thread dedicated to just those questions kicking around somewhere in the catacombs.
-
I do know a good deal about the oil industry - don't patronise me.
then don't write nonsense about companies 'hating' things.
-
lots of people who believe in the sacred disagree with your position on that, why are they wrong?
You seriously need an answer to that?
-
You seriously need an answer to that?
it seems to be the issue you are not dealing with. Arguing that something, in this case the idea of sacredness', should be respected needs to cover what the idea of sacred covers.
-
As a matter of interest, Rhi, how do you think human remains should be treated - if their original place of interrment is no longer tenable as a repository, or, for that matter, if their original burial place is unknown?
It's a difficult one. A lot of the time even the correct rites aren't known. There was something on Newsnight ages ago about it, I'll have a rummage and see what I can find.
-
We have an entire thread dedicated to just those questions kicking around somewhere in the catacombs.
And we are, as we often do, revisiting discussions. Doesn't mean that the questions can't be asked again.
-
No it doesn't, but the fact that we already have a dedicated thread saves a lot of repetition.
-
No it doesn't, but the fact that we already have a dedicated thread saves a lot of repetition.
if you want to link to an answer to the question in the preexisting thread, please do so.
-
It's a difficult one. A lot of the time even the correct rites aren't known. There was something on Newsnight ages ago about it, I'll have a rummage and see what I can find.
Here you go. Good starting point.
http://www.honour.org.uk
-
if you want to link to an answer to the question in the preexisting thread, please do so.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11146.0
-
I ask because certain controversies arose when displaying ancient remains - e.g. Egyptian mummies. The waters in that particular area are very murky, given many injunctions on tomb stelae to visit the dead and offer them 'beer and bread for millions of years' (so much for the 'mummy's curse'! ) and the fact that the ancients had no compunction when it came to a state sponsored mass stripping of the Valley of the kings, the mummies beindg divested of their finery, and crudely re-wrapped, placed in makeshift coffins, a lable with their name stuck on them, and placed in several, unadorned, crude 'cache' tombs with no equipment for the afterlife. Is displaying these personages in a dignified, educational setting in the Cairo Museum any worse than the state in whiich their own state unceremoniously dumped them?
-
then don't write nonsense about companies 'hating' things.
It isn't. If it was I wouldn't have written it.
Ok, so a company in and of itself might not - it's just thing - but those responsible for how it operates as a corporation can and sometimes do.
-
I ask because certain controversies arose when displaying ancient remains - e.g. Egyptian mummies. The waters in that particular area are very murky, given many injunctions on tomb stelae to visit the dead and offer them 'beer and bread for millions of years' (so much for the 'mummy's curse'! ) and the fact that the ancients had no compunction when it came to a state sponsored mass stripping of the Valley of the kings, the mummies beindg divested of their finery, and crudely re-wrapped, placed in makeshift coffins, a lable with their name stuck on them, and placed in several, unadorned, crude 'cache' tombs with no equipment for the afterlife. Is displaying these personages in a dignified, educational setting in the Cairo Museum any worse than the state in whiich their own state unceremoniously dumped them?
It's a difficult one. My local museum has a couple of medieval skeletons on display and I don't like it. That feels horribly disrespectful to both their own beliefs - they were buried in a Christian burial ground - and the fact they were once humans who loved and were loved. Might be irrational but there we are.
-
We might feel that way, Rhi - and excavating the dead is never taken lightly - but did the ancients feel the same way? In many cases, we simply don't know - and projecting our natural unease onto a situation often is no answer. I remember too many years ago watching the uncovering of an individual who died around 3200 BC - a simple 'poor' person, skeletal remains covered wiith a woven grass and reed mat. Since many such burials are known from the vast Umm-el-Qaab Naqadda cemetary, the remains were photographed in situ and re covered. Some would see even this as desecration; others as science; a message from the past for us to interpret. Incidentally, if you want to see the remains I spoke of previously, found in the various cache tombs (plus KV 55 and 62), here's the site. You may need a strong stomach. http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages1/intro.htm
-
It isn't. If it was I wouldn't have written it.
Ok, so a company in and of itself might not - it's just thing - but those responsible for how it operates as a corporation can and sometimes do.
You did write that oil companies 'hate' stuff and now you say that's not actually what you think. And it was both 'right' and 'wrong' in some way.
-
You did write that oil companies 'hate' stuff and now you say that's not actually what you think. And it was both 'right' and 'wrong' in some way.
Oh come on. You know exactly what was being meant. Either this is argument for argument's sake or you just like to patronise. And quite frankly I've had enough of both.
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11146.0
So which post in the thread do you think covers the issue raised?
-
Oh come on. You know exactly what was being meant. Either this is argument for argument's sake or you just like to patronise. And quite frankly I've had enough of both.
I pointed out that what seemed to being meant was nonsensical, apparently that is 'argument for argument's sake'?