Greco-Roman faiths past and present

[Favonius Cornelius]

Romans themselves would say they had a religio while some of the weird stuff coming out of the Orient, like cheap astrology, was superstitio. But the Romans are quite dead so I suppose they are not here to defend their beliefs.

 

 

Not exactly, there are still a few of us who actively practise the religio romana. I know of some individuals who are avid reconstructionists (i term them as neo-classical reconstructionists) they try to practice the Roman religion in the old ways, using the old techniques. Most of their knowledge of how to do this comes from written sources from the time.

 

 

 

So...these people you know, they practice animal sacrifice?

[Zeke]

Very few Pagans nowadays practice animal sacrfice. Maybe in the third world nations like in Papua New Gueina where they worship nature spirits but in the Recontructionists in the United States and Europe don't generally do animal sacrfice. First off it's too messy, second off if your a squemish person killing animals isn't you thing. And third off why would you sacrfice animals of the gods are pleased with other types of offerings.

 

I personally offer mostly flowers, coins, incense, and other little assorted trinkets. In my opinion the gods could care less on what your offering them, being that thier immortal and all powerful I don't think they care much for money. They like the fact that your thinking about them and praising them for ruiling the universe justly. That is just how I see it.

 

As it is shown in the Aztec Pagan Religion, the gods did not end the world when blood sacrifice stopped......(Or maybe they did.) Mexico is one of the poorest nations and the water that once held Tenochtiulian the capital of the Aztec Empire is so polluted that no one can drink it. So in the end the gods had their revenge on the counquring Conqueisdors. But I personally don't sponser killing humans or animals to appease the gods. I think it is this misconception about having to do sacrifice to be a Pagan that makes any form of Paganism undesirable. That an all the lies spread about it by other iggnorant religious groups.

 

Zeke

Edited November 22, 2005 by Zeke

[Tiberius Sylvestius]

I personally offer mostly flowers, coins, incense, and other little assorted trinkets. In my opinion the gods could care less on what your offering them, being that thier immortal and all powerful I don't think they care much for money. They like the fact that your thinking about them and praising them for ruiling the universe justly. That is just how I see it.

 

 

That's pretty much my musings on the topic entirely. I generally stick to libations, incense and a few candles, sometimes i add food anything from fruit to chocolate. I too think the gods are genuinely glad of the recognition and in return will help you, it's mutually beneficial.

 

Blood sacrafices are not necessary as i would see it but i'm not a reconstructionist. Generally i think most reconstructionists stick to the non blood rites, although there may be followers out there that do sacrafice things occasionally, who knows. But i'd argue it's not essential. I'm presuming i'm right in thinking Jews don't sacrafice sheep these days and then smear the blood on the four corners of an acacia wood altar? There's a whole section in the Old Testament about religious rituals that must be observed to honour the Lord. But as i stated in my previous post religions progress and change with the times.

 

 

Although i agree almost completely with Zeke i would have to ponder upon whether gods are truely all powerful or not? The god Odin (of the Norse), was forever in a quest for knowledge and gave his left eye to learn more, suggesting that he was not omnipotent. In the Iliad, Zeus has to be kept uptodate with what is going on in the battle below by way of messengers. Likewise the gods hide secrets from one another, suggesting they might not be all knowing. Still powerful though.

[Lost_Warrior]

I don't believe the Gods are "all knowing" OR "all powerful" because if they WERE, wouldn't there only need to be one of them? The all work together and they do just fine

 

As for offerings, I know some people do still practice blood sacrifice (Santaria does though they are not pagan) however I stick with milk, crackers, and flowers from my garden (the edible kind!)

[Tiberius Sylvestius]

I don't believe the Gods are "all knowing" OR "all powerful" because if they WERE, wouldn't there only need to be one of them? The all work together and they do just fine

 

 

Yep that just about sums it up for me! (I just went the long way around... as usual).

 

 

The bit about them working together, which i have interpreted to mean as different aspects of religion [i.e deities] working together to form a greater 'whole'. [Tell me if i've interpreted this wrongly]. Well i haven't made my mind up about that. Depends if you're a soft polytheist or a hard polytheist.

 

Soft polytheists (and this includes some minor obscure Christian sects), believe that gods are all facets of the same diamond. So in a Christian sense the father, the son and the Holy Spirit are separate entities in their own right. Like a hand is different from a foot, but they are part of a bigger whole, like a foot and a leg are part of a body. Thus they are different and can work with or against each other but are inseparable from each other... unless someone gets out a big knife. I think i'm right when i say Hindu beliefs are along this line, most New Age religions too, every deity is part of the force of nature. The Romans generally took this line of argument, i.e Greek Hermes was interchangable with Roman Mercury.

 

Hard Polytheists believe that every god is totally independent of all the other gods and they are free to do as they will, there is no greater 'being' produced when they all come together, it's just a bunch of gods in a room together. This is generally what the Greeks believed, Hermes was Hermes, Mercury was a whole different god. Sure they might have similarities but they are fundamentally not the same.

 

 

 

I fall somewhere between the two. I generally am a hard polytheist believing it is not necessary for the gods to work together (it may be benefitial to them), but it serves no great purpose. However, i believe that several gods may be actually the same god that has manifested itself differently in different places. So Hermes is the same as Mercury, it's one god that meant different things to the people of Greece than he did to the people of Rome. Kind of like the Christian divide, Catholic/Protestant, you wouldn't argue they were different gods but they are not worshipped quite the same and are thought of differently.

[Pantagathus]

I don't believe the Gods are "all knowing" OR "all powerful" because if they WERE, wouldn't there only need to be one of them? The all work together and they do just fine

 

One of the keys to understanding polytheism in general is how the connection between humanity and divinity was perceived. The underlying theme was always that there was an element of divinity in humanity and an element of humanity in divinity. Which of course makes them individually fallible and all bound by the natural order (~Logos~).

 

You will find this theme throughout humanity

Edited November 22, 2005 by Pantagathus

[Tiberius Sylvestius]

I'd agree with you there Pantagathus.

 

Another question of despair that monotheism raises is the classic; "Why does God let bad things happen in the world?" (Is it; Divine ineffablity, God is not Omnipotent, or God has a funny sense of humour?)*

 

*I jest of course.

 

But it has lead to centuries and centuries of debate that will never end.

 

 

With Polytheism it's just "well yeah you know god Y is not all he's cracked up to be, you should try goddess X instead next time). Polytheism leads to eternal hope, there's countless deities out there to try if you draw blank with one of them.

 

However, conversely monotheism has the advantage of comfort with regards to death. The afterlife is quite clear, be good, go to Heaven, be bad then don't. If someone dies you have reassurance that you'll meet them again one day in the next world.

 

Polytheism comes from so many schools of thought and so many religions, some of which are very obscure about what happen when you die that if someone dies they might go one place, whilst when you die you might go somewhere else or get reincarnated as someone else. If reincarnation is the way then they might be reincarnated as someone in India and you might come back as a tree in Alaska, for all anyone knows. Not a great deal of comfort in that.

[Pantagathus]

However, conversely monotheism has the advantage of comfort with regards to death. The afterlife is quite clear, be good, go to Heaven, be bad then don't. If someone dies you have reassurance that you'll meet them again one day in the next world.

 

Ah, Christianity and Islam yes.... Judaism, no

 

The hope of the afterlife is found all over the place and the Greeks & Romans embraced the concept of heaven & hell well back into the mists of antiquity...

 

[Favonius Cornelius]

If you are following Roman or Greek pagan religion and are one of these reconstructionists, I don't see how you can say animal sacrifice is not necessary. Yes, you certainly don't need to sacrifice a chicken every morning, but there are major holidays that must be attended to with animal sacrifice. I completely disagree with the idea that the gods do not care about what you sacrifice to them (for Roman and Greek). It was a vital part of the religion that if you did not follow the protocol exactly as specified, which includes appropriate sacrifices, you risk their anger. Though the gods could indeed be petty, I don't think that is the whole reason behind the desire to perform the complicated rites exactly. I think it had more to do with the idea of a secret formula that delves into the nature of the universe, than the petty whims of a god.

[Pantagathus]

Though the gods could indeed be petty, I don't think that is the whole reason behind the desire to perform the complicated rites exactly. I think it had more to do with the idea of a secret formula that delves into the nature of the universe, than the petty whims of a god.

 

That is an extremely accurate remark Favonius... especially in the framework of the various 'Mystery Cults'

[Tiberius Sylvestius]

If you are following Roman or Greek pagan religion and are one of these reconstructionists, I don't see how you can say animal sacrifice is not necessary.

 

 

But i'm not a reconstructionist (heck i even use English rather than Latin), so it's not a point i have to sit and dwell upon and consider. I've had pleasing results without having to resort to sacrifice, maybe if i sacrificed it would be better but it's a road i'm not going to go down myself. Too squeemish, don't like blood. I hate killing house flies let alone a cow.

 

As for the Reconstructionist stance on this (i know some recons that don't do animal sacrifice), but i leave it to them to figure a way out of that one!

 

 

As for Greek/Roman views on the afterlife there are i believe a few accounts of where you go, some to the Elysian Fields, others to Hades, some as lost spirits never to find their final rest. Since the Romans adopted so many religious cults though; Mithras, Egyptian, Celtic etc. what happens to you when you die is more flexible. I heavily favour the idea of reincarnation myself (as much as i hope this is not the one as i don't want to be around when the world ends!)

[Lost_Warrior]

Just for the record, I'm what you would call a "hard polytheist"

 

A note on the animal sacrifice thing, I think it's more important to consider not the type of thing sacrificed, but the value of it. For the Romans, sacrificing a cow or a goat or whatever was giving up something that they needed. It had great value to them and therefore was a great sacrifice. Now, it wouldn't be the same. Most people are not dependant on livestock for their lives and families. Maybe we should be sacrificing computers instead (just not Windows 95, that would anger the Gods)

[Pertinax]

The cow was not a valuable thing in Rome-it produced only milk ( not flesh) and who on earth drinks that except barbarians ? Veal was the only real flesh from cattle, oxen were motive power otherwise.(a culinary aside).

 

Originally Romans were reluctant to eat meat as their stock were so useful, sheep for wool , goats for real milk( for cheese making) and others for carting and working the land.Beasts of burden are tough and chewy. Only the pig lives to be eaten, its meat at that time and place was by far the fleshiest and most succulent.A devout man had to offer from his own stock,establishing a link between men and gods via the soul of the beast rising to heaven and bringing a report of the world .To the Romans animals had soul or rather were with "anima", a priest killing a beast lead to the deity absorbing the liberated anima and being fortified by it.The flesh was shared in a solemn feast with great fuss and preparation involved so the Gods were aware of the effort made.

Male animals to male deities , female to female, black to the underworld ,white to the heavens. Animals were specific to Deities-the donkey to Priapus for reasons of lustihood,Mars recieved a horse,though this did not exclude other beasts or a joint sacrifice (which was most pleasing). .

 

The gist is-valuable items only because the Gods know! So a PC with XP office edition and some plasma screen tvs burnt on top of a pyre of ipods and nokia phones ,perhaps with some dvds around the edge.

 

Lost Warrior knows the thoughts of the deities! Fear Her! (note gender)

Edited November 22, 2005 by Pertinax

[Lost_Warrior]

The gist is-valuable items only because the Gods know! So a PC with XP office edition and some plasma screen tvs burnt on top of a pyre of ipods and nokia phones ,perhaps with some dvds around the edge.

 

Lost Warrior knows the thoughts of the deities! Fear Him!

 

I'm female LOL

 

It somewhat surprises me that Romans did not eat meat that much...veal is IMO disgusting...Though I did not know that thing about the souls of the animals...very enlightening. It wouldn't have occurred to me that the deity may draw strength from the absorbed animal's soul because, well, I believe in reincarnation so I guess I just didn't think about it.

[Pantagathus]

Animals were specific to Deities-the donkey to Priapus for reasons of lustihood...

 

Hehehe.... And for embarassing Priapus and giving away his intent to rape Lotis...

 

Kinda funny that the ithyphallic little bugger was also the parton of sailors...