• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Paganism and (bad) History

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
In recent weeks I've been relooking over some basic Pagan materials, and study course outlines for people interested in studying. I was actually a bit disturbed to find that there is little emphasis on studying or understanding history, and worse, many courses and basic books are presenting a revisionist history that was shown to be patently unscholarly as truth.
Many of the early publications are still on recommended reading lists, which is good, but these lists often don't give the caveat that the history and other things are outdated. Even more recent books, like The Spiral Dance, and many 101 books written by SRW and Buckland give their audiences the impression that the myth of the matriarchy is true, that Wicca is a surviving underground cult, and even that Wiccans were killed during "the burning times". Even Graves' The White Goddess, an appalling work of historical inaccuracies, is recommended over the works of Ronald Hutton.

I think that a lack of emphasis on learning these things is detrimental to Paganism, and part of the reason there is the misconception that Paganism is silly, and full of unserious gits looking for attention.

Am I alone in my feeling that lack of emphasis on learning history hurts the Pagan image?
 

BFD_Zayl

Well-Known Member
I feel the same way you do, inaccurate transcriptions being reccomended to be read as fact, usually not a good thing.
 

Mike182

Flaming Queer
i've found that learning the history of branches of Paganism has deepened my understanding of them and furthered my ability to practice them... i do think it's a real shame that most of the books on the shelf in the occult/new age/neo pagan section are desperately lacking the historical substance.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
i've found that learning the history of branches of Paganism has deepened my understanding of them and furthered my ability to practice them... i do think it's a real shame that most of the books on the shelf in the occult/new age/neo pagan section are desperately lacking the historical substance.

And, not only that, but most of the time people looking to learn are being encouraged to learn their mythology and history from New Age books, and not from the history section. I don't even want to imagine how many people think they're getting all they need to know about Celtic lore and culture from an Edain McCoy book.

Do you think it's symptomatic of a culture that is valuing work less and less (as Diane Sylvan put it, "We are willing to go to college for many years to study a profession or trade, but we want to be priestesses of the Divine right away")? I think that's more likely than actually not wanting to value scholarship.

It also leads me to my personal objection to the idea that "ancient is better". A lot of the people who purport the Burning Times myth are the same people who thumb their nose at Christianity and think that the more ancient a religion is, the better it is.

I think there is a growing movement away from all this, though.
 

Mike182

Flaming Queer
And, not only that, but most of the time people looking to learn are being encouraged to learn their mythology and history from New Age books, and not from the history section. I don't even want to imagine how many people think they're getting all they need to know about Celtic lore and culture from an Edain McCoy book.

Do you think it's symptomatic of a culture that is valuing work less and less (as Diane Sylvan put it, "We are willing to go to college for many years to study a profession or trade, but we want to be priestesses of the Divine right away")? I think that's more likely than actually not wanting to value scholarship.

It also leads me to my personal objection to the idea that "ancient is better". A lot of the people who purport the Burning Times myth are the same people who thumb their nose at Christianity and think that the more ancient a religion is, the better it is.

I think there is a growing movement away from all this, though.

it's just like what i was talking to a friend of mine about with regards to University. the original idea for university was that you come along, you spend most of your time in a library over classical books, and then you get together with other academics and discuss your findings in those books.

today, we are encouraged to read the overview that someone else has written for the overview that someone else has written about the classical texts, standing on the shoulders of giants sadly means that we are out of touch with the original works, which in my view is not what it should be about...
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I have to admit a lack of historical accuracy is more than a bit annoying to deal with. I'll also admit that I'm a bit biased as I'm often in a group who's history is frequently bungled.


wa:do
 

kreeden

Virus of the Mind
I have mixed feelings on this topic . Spiritualism is all about finding one's own connect with Life , or the Divine { or whatever one wishes to call it } . And history is very subjective .... But on the other hand , that doesn't mean that each of us should run out , write our own history and then try to pass it off as being the " true " history ...

Mike , the advanage of reading other people's opinions on a subject is that you get to see different views . Assuming that one doesn't read just one person's view and consider that Law . Yes , I agree that one should read the orginal work , to have a bases upon which to compare other's views . But then they should also read other's views on the orginal , just to pick up on something they have missed and to get a broader view or understanding .

Yea , we live in a " fast food " culture .... :(
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
I realize that history is not always accurate. And, I think that's definately something that has to be considered. But, I have a problem when people are unwilling to do necessary research for themselves, and worse, tell others that they don't need to do this research.
More to the point, it upsets me that so many modern authors and Pagans tout certain theories, such as those of Margret Murray, which have been shown by her contemporaries in history and anthropology to have no considerable merit whatsoever.

I think that people have a responsibility to be educated about certain things, like the history of their religion. To ignore this, and continue to publish discredited research is worse than being misinformed - it's being intellectually dishonest.
 

Mike182

Flaming Queer
Mike , the advanage of reading other people's opinions on a subject is that you get to see different views . Assuming that one doesn't read just one person's view and consider that Law . Yes , I agree that one should read the orginal work , to have a bases upon which to compare other's views . But then they should also read other's views on the orginal , just to pick up on something they have missed and to get a broader view or understanding .

Yea , we live in a " fast food " culture .... :(


oh i agree, getting those broader ideas and opinions is great, i fully support that! it's just that too often i find people are mistaking that for having an actual understanding of the initial text or subject. that was what i was moaning about lol :)
 

kreeden

Virus of the Mind
:) And I agree ... and in all honestly most admit that I am guilty sometimes myself ... Like I said , we live in a fast food sociaty ... :(
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
:) And I agree ... and in all honestly most admit that I am guilty sometimes myself ... Like I said , we live in a fast food sociaty ... :(

I think everyone is guilty of it sometimes. We are a product of our cultures, ultimately.
But, it's like my friend Daven has said - there's a difference between having bad information, and being unwilling to question that information.
 

kreeden

Virus of the Mind
:) True enough . And worst still , trying to convince others that it is the only true information ... But then , wars have been fought over such stupidity ....

So , the three of us more or less agree . Now what ? :) I have a friend , several actually , who are very much like what we are talking about . I have tried to point different things out to them , but will they listen ??? Do they want to listen ?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I do feel learning the history is somewhat important. It does help in understanding things, and can lead to a deeper connection.
I also feel that the "burning times" being mentioned in countless books does cause needless tension between Christians and Pagans. I know a few Pagans who hate Christians, and when I ask them why, "The Burning Times" is almost always the answer. Hopefully this experience is very limited though.
 

kreeden

Virus of the Mind
Thank you Mike . :) It is good to have the time to drop by and see all of you .

Luke , the answer may be " the Burning Times ", but I have to wonder if that is what they mean or if they are saying that they didn't think that most Christians have changed ? Not saying that they haven't , just wondering about that answer . It really isn't logical to hate someone for something that happened before they were born , and something that was done to other before you were born ... Besides , most burnt were Christian ...

But that is the problem , isn't it ? Logic doesn't seen to come into play ...

I have a friend , who is telling me that " Yahweh " and " Jehovah " were two Gods who fought a war agaisnt each other some 35000 years ago .... No matter how much I try to explain that the two names are translations of the Tetragrammation , and that the name Jehovah only became common with the King James Bible ... It all falls upon deaf ears ... Her " teacher " tells her different , and that is how it is .

So what is the good of history if a person doesn't believe it ?
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
To me clinging to bad history is a symptom of someone who is uncomfortable with thier faith. If they need a lie to feel superior to other faiths, then they need to take a good look at why they believe in the religion.

Luke , the answer may be " the Burning Times ", but I have to wonder if that is what they mean or if they are saying that they didn't think that most Christians have changed ? Not saying that they haven't , just wondering about that answer . It really isn't logical to hate someone for something that happened before they were born , and something that was done to other before you were born ... Besides , most burnt were Christian ...
the fact is NO Pagans were burnt (some Jews and some Muslims yes, but no "pagans")... they hate in part because of a bad history lesson. Or they use bad history as a justification of thier hate.

No one would argue that holocaust denyal isn't a problem. Its bad history.

wa:do
 

kreeden

Virus of the Mind
Or they use bad history as a justification of thier hate.

Kind of the point I was trying to make PW . :)

And you make a very good point about the appearent need to feel superior in their beliefs ... The group that I refer to talk about love , in such a hateful way .... BTW , they aren't Pagan , but the changing of history does apply .
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Luke , the answer may be " the Burning Times ", but I have to wonder if that is what they mean or if they are saying that they didn't think that most Christians have changed ? Not saying that they haven't , just wondering about that answer .
I have taken as they think Christians haven't changed much since.

Or they use bad history as a justification of thier hate.
Sad but true.
 

bflydad

Member
the fact is NO Pagans were burnt (some Jews and some Muslims yes, but no "pagans")


I have never heard that asserted before. I have heard that the number is more in the tens of thousands than the millions that most Pagans argue; however I have never heard the number as zero.

Yes, many people accused of witchcraft were not witches but nothing I've heard suggests that none were. Do you have any sources to back this up?
 

bflydad

Member
More to the point, it upsets me that so many modern authors and Pagans tout certain theories, such as those of Margret Murray, which have been shown by her contemporaries in history and anthropology to have no considerable merit whatsoever.

I guess I would distinguish between the layity and "clergy" or elders. I completely agree with you that authors and those who teach others need to the historical truth of what they are saying. However, I disagree that all Pagans should read Hutton, Clifton, Pike, etc. I think it is ok to say, for instance, "I'm Wiccan and I believe in nature and the God and Goddess and ..." without having to quote historical sources on it.
 
Top