|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Glastonbury resident antiquarians and festival,. |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jul 31, 2013, 11:51
|
||
|
Astralcat wrote: Mustard wrote: Astralcat wrote: Mustard wrote: Astralcat wrote: Mustard wrote: Astralcat wrote: This is one example of many. When I was researching the subject I was amazed at how many 'anomalies' are suppressed: http://pleistocenecoalition.com/steen-mcintyre/Nexus_article.pdf Can't see anything in that article about Glastonbury being a chakra, or any evidence relating to what the druids believed. That's because I was referring to suppressed archeology, and not Glastonbury and the Druids. That subject is well documented in itself, and much is known about Druid law as it part of a larger universal mystical knowledge system. I'm pretty sure you said "Glastonbury IS a chakra" ;) Nothing is known about druidic lore. Anything we surmise is entirely speculative. It's very easy to make grandiose statements like "... it part of a larger universal mystical knowledge system", but much harder to back up such statements with old-fashioned things like facts and evidence. Seeing as the druids left NO WRITTEN RECORDS, it's rather hard to see what your source for this assertion would be. Other than speculation, of course. Not that I have any problem with speculation. If you want to say "druidic lore COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN part of a larger universal mystical knowledge system", then hey, go right ahead. State it as fact, and you're no different to any other religious zealot passing off personal belief as incontrovertible truth. What a curiously dull and soulless place the world would be if we ignored all oral tradition, folk memory, myth and legend and just relied on your 'hard evidence' alone. Not for me, that's for sure, and as for being a religious zealot ? Nah. That unnecessarily insulting comment says far more about you than me. Oral tradition is marvellous, and it provides wonderful material for speculation about all kinds of things. But it is not reliable evidence, and it does not allow us to make definitive statements about what the druids believed. We can't even be certain that any oral traditions descend from druidic teachings or beliefs. So like I said... speculate. That's fine. Definitive statements however, like "druid law is part of a larger universal mystical knowledge system" are factually inaccurate. Stating personal beliefs as fact is a hallmark of religious zeal. Speaking of which, I don't believe I called you a religious zealot. I said that passing off personal beliefs as fact makes you no different to a religious zealot. That's not an unreasonable position, is it? Zeal is defined as: "fervor for a person, cause, or object; eager desire or endeavor; enthusiastic diligence; ardor." The fact that you're so quick to take that as an insult, and try and use it as a means of undermining a rational and reasonable argument says more about you than it does about me ;) You really are a curious fellow. " You're no different to any other religious zealot ". Hmm. If something is not different to something then what does that imply ? That is obviously a rather insulting comment, deliberately so. As for written records, of course there are none, but quite a lot of information can be gleamed from bardic sources and Celtic legend. It's suprising what you can discover. Anyway, I shall leave you to your arguments, rational or otherwise. Ah, the old internet trick of incomplete quoting, and/or quoting out of context. I remember it fondly ;) You missed a bit. Allow me to assist: "STATE IT AS FACT, AND you're no different to any other religious zealot passing off personal belief as incontrovertible truth." (added emphasis, for clarity). That's not an insult. It's reasonable assertion. Passing off personal spiritual opinions as definitive truth is religious zeal. If you choose to take that as an insult, then that really does say more about you than it does about me. Make it personal if you feel that's an easier course than rational discussion ;) "...but quite a lot of information can be gleamed from bardic sources and Celtic legend. It's suprising what you can discover." Yes, absolutely. We can glean a lot of material that allows us to speculate about what the druids may have believed. But we can't glean any actual facts, that would allow us to state anything as definitive truth. Fact and speculation. Two very different things.
|
|||
Astralcat 742 posts |
Edited Jul 31, 2013, 11:59
Jul 31, 2013, 11:58
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Astralcat wrote: Mustard wrote: Astralcat wrote: Mustard wrote: Astralcat wrote: Mustard wrote: Astralcat wrote: This is one example of many. When I was researching the subject I was amazed at how many 'anomalies' are suppressed: http://pleistocenecoalition.com/steen-mcintyre/Nexus_article.pdf Can't see anything in that article about Glastonbury being a chakra, or any evidence relating to what the druids believed. That's because I was referring to suppressed archeology, and not Glastonbury and the Druids. That subject is well documented in itself, and much is known about Druid law as it part of a larger universal mystical knowledge system. I'm pretty sure you said "Glastonbury IS a chakra" ;) Nothing is known about druidic lore. Anything we surmise is entirely speculative. It's very easy to make grandiose statements like "... it part of a larger universal mystical knowledge system", but much harder to back up such statements with old-fashioned things like facts and evidence. Seeing as the druids left NO WRITTEN RECORDS, it's rather hard to see what your source for this assertion would be. Other than speculation, of course. Not that I have any problem with speculation. If you want to say "druidic lore COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN part of a larger universal mystical knowledge system", then hey, go right ahead. State it as fact, and you're no different to any other religious zealot passing off personal belief as incontrovertible truth. What a curiously dull and soulless place the world would be if we ignored all oral tradition, folk memory, myth and legend and just relied on your 'hard evidence' alone. Not for me, that's for sure, and as for being a religious zealot ? Nah. That unnecessarily insulting comment says far more about you than me. Oral tradition is marvellous, and it provides wonderful material for speculation about all kinds of things. But it is not reliable evidence, and it does not allow us to make definitive statements about what the druids believed. We can't even be certain that any oral traditions descend from druidic teachings or beliefs. So like I said... speculate. That's fine. Definitive statements however, like "druid law is part of a larger universal mystical knowledge system" are factually inaccurate. Stating personal beliefs as fact is a hallmark of religious zeal. Speaking of which, I don't believe I called you a religious zealot. I said that passing off personal beliefs as fact makes you no different to a religious zealot. That's not an unreasonable position, is it? Zeal is defined as: "fervor for a person, cause, or object; eager desire or endeavor; enthusiastic diligence; ardor." The fact that you're so quick to take that as an insult, and try and use it as a means of undermining a rational and reasonable argument says more about you than it does about me ;) You really are a curious fellow. " You're no different to any other religious zealot ". Hmm. If something is not different to something then what does that imply ? That is obviously a rather insulting comment, deliberately so. As for written records, of course there are none, but quite a lot of information can be gleamed from bardic sources and Celtic legend. It's suprising what you can discover. Anyway, I shall leave you to your arguments, rational or otherwise. Ah, the old internet trick of incomplete quoting, and/or quoting out of context. I remember it fondly ;) You missed a bit. Allow me to assist: "STATE IT AS FACT, AND you're no different to any other religious zealot passing off personal belief as incontrovertible truth." (added emphasis, for clarity). That's not an insult. It's reasonable assertion. Passing off personal spiritual opinions as definitive truth is religious zeal. If you choose to take that as an insult, then that really does say more about you than it does about me. Make it personal if you feel that's an easier course than rational discussion ;) "...but quite a lot of information can be gleamed from bardic sources and Celtic legend. It's suprising what you can discover." Yes, absolutely. We can glean a lot of material that allows us to speculate about what the druids may have believed. But we can't glean any actual facts, that would allow us to state anything as definitive truth. Fact and speculation. Two very different things. (I edited my previous post). Anyway, speculation is essential and allows us to piece together enough information to regard it as good as or close to 'fact' where appropriate. Facts alone, important as they are, do not always do full justice to what we are investigating. They have to be linked and expanded in the process. Also, we haven't touched on metaphysical knowledge or 'fact'.
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jul 31, 2013, 12:24
|
||
|
Astralcat wrote: Anyway, speculation is essential and allows us to piece together enough information to regard it as good as or close to 'fact' where appropriate. Facts alone, important as they are, do not always do full justice to what we are investigating. They have to be linked and expanded in the process. Also, we haven't touched on metaphysical knowledge or 'fact'. I totally agree. Speculation is absolutely important, which is why I've consistently said that I have no problem with it. The mistake only arises when speculation is passed off as fact. Like "Glastonbury IS a chakra". If it's a chakra, then prove it. Otherwise, that statement is no different from any other religious belief... like "Jesus DID rise from the dead". Why not adopt the far more reasonable position of stating "I BELIEVE Glastonbury is a chakra? It's certainly possible to speculate about what the druids believed, but given the absence of any verifiable evidence, it's impossible to state with any degree of certainty what those beliefs were. We can have an interesting discussion about what they MIGHT have been, but that's as far as it goes.
|
|||
|
woosh 35 posts |
Jul 31, 2013, 13:41
|
||
Namaste my friend
|
|||
|
woosh 35 posts |
Jul 31, 2013, 13:48
|
||
Beautiful
|
|||
|
woosh 35 posts |
Jul 31, 2013, 14:08
|
||
I thought the point was in fact how we can possibly know druids were present and recognised glastonbury as an extremely important site within the landscape,. perhaps they overlooked it !!
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Edited Jul 31, 2013, 14:32
Jul 31, 2013, 14:10
|
||
|
woosh wrote: Namaste my friend Katanga my friends.
|
|||
|
woosh 35 posts |
Jul 31, 2013, 14:14
|
||
It was however important enough for joseph of aramathea himself to come to england and stake claim to this particular site in the name of christianity over paganism
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Jul 31, 2013, 14:15
|
||
|
woosh wrote: I thought the point was in fact how we can possibly know druids were present and recognised glastonbury as an extremely important site within the landscape,. perhaps they overlooked it !! Or if 'The Druids' (TM) were disperate groups with wildly differing beliefs and only bought together under the umbrella term for ease of reference by invading, note scribbling armies (The Romans) Or any other possibility, because we don't know anything about them really. Perhaps they played netball.
|
|||
|
woosh 35 posts |
Jul 31, 2013, 14:16
|
||
I wont insult you, ok
|
| Pages: 31 – [ Previous | 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
