Pagan places

[Bubbles]

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

[Bubbles]

This is St Nectans Glen.

http://www.st-nectansglen.co.uk

A very beautiful place.

[SusanDoris]

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.'

[Bubbles]

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.

[Bubbles]

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/

[Owlswing]

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?

[Shaker]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Owlswing]

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!

[SusanDoris]

Owlswing

I will not bother to complain about that very unpleasant post.

for your information I have never in my life been drunk!

[Bubbles]

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.

🙂

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Bubbles]

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]

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!

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Owlswing]

Why refer to Christians here? SusanDoris isn't religious.

Because they are the worst offenders - even the atheists like to take a shot.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Anchorman]

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)

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Rhiannon]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Shaker]

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.