31 October, 2010

Druids Committed Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism?

Thankfully modern day Druids have left these practices in the dark past!

Druids Committed Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism?

20 comments:

  1. It's still not known for sure whether the Keltoi practised human sacrifice or cannibalism, but if they didn't they weren't alone, and I can certainly understand the Romans' fear of such. But the Romans had not much room for criticism in that department, themselves, did they, with their endless circuses? Pot meeting kettle and all that. Modern Druids do not practice such sacrifices, although the Romans do...they just call it "Communion." At least, as I understand it...

    ReplyDelete
  2. You do realize the brutal Roman Empire you're trying to link the Catholic Church with were actually pagans and ruthlessly persecuted the early church? If anything their barbaric nature says more about paganism than it says about Catholicism.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paul, if you're going to butt heads with me about whose religion is more savage, come forward in history by a few centuries and make excuses for the Crusades. Then explain Savonarola. Torquemada. Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger.

    Do you or do you not drink the blood and eat the flesh of the man you call your god?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Even better lets come forward in history about 500 years to the present day. Who's sporting a logo on her avatar that celebrates the taking of more human life in a single day in the U.S. alone than the 300 year history of the inquisition? Human sacrifice is alive and well but the gods have new names.

    And in answer to your last question, yes we do drink Christ's blood and eat his flesh in the guise of bread and wine. What's your point?

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Who's sporting a logo on her avatar that celebrates the taking of more human life in a single day in the U.S. alone than the 300 year history of the inquisition?"

    I have no idea. Who?

    "...yes we do drink Christ's blood and eat his flesh..."

    Modern day cannibalism. The Druids, if they ever actually did practise cannibalism, got past it a long time ago. That's the point.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Saint Patrick was a young man when he was kidnapped by pirates and later released. The experience helped to convert him to Christ. Patrick went to evangelize Hibernia (Ireland) around 400 A.D. He very courageously went to the headquarters of the Druid priests. He did convert many of the people of Hibernia to christianity. Patrick was not a Roman Catholic. He was just a simple believer who spread the gospel. (salvation by faith) It wasn't until about 1100 A.D. that Rome sent a monk to Ireland to establish monasterys and bring Ireland under the authority of Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  7. LOL! I suggest you call the police and report the crime. Love the nip and tuck you did on my answer.
    Not only did Druids get past human sacrifice years ago, they also got past paganism. Thats why we barely know anything of their practices. The religion died. That said its enjoying a recent revival from newagers seeking out ancient religions to fill the spiritual vacuum.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  8. A little more information about the dear saint, Patrick.

    "Where was it (the church) for the 1500 years preceding them(Reformation christians) appeared on the scene", some would ask? Had God abandoned his Church to error for over a millennium?

    In fact, God had not abondoned his people. An example of God's grace is Saint Patrick. Patrick was kidnapped by pirates and through that experience was converted to Christ. He travelled to Hibernia (Ireland) around 400 A.D. where he shared his simple faith in Christ. He was not a Roman Catholic because Romanism had not gone to Ireland until around 1100A.D.
    Patrick very bravely confronted the Druid priests headquarters. Many formerly pagan people on Ireland were converted through Christ and they built schools. Patrick obtained permission from the King to go about Ireland preaching the gospel so that people could be converted by faith; he did not seek to have the King create a state religion as Constantine had done in the Roman Empire. He knew that would create a false church of pagans. He knew true conversion by the work of the Holy Spirit was necessary. He wished to teach the true gospel so that people were genuine believers in Christ. About 400 years later, the Vikings invaded Ireland and killed as many of the christians as they could find.
    Several centuries later, Rome sent a monk to Ireland to establish monasteries and bring Ireland under the control of the Roman Church, and of course institute it's system of priests dispensing the grace of God through the sacraments. If you wish to read about Saint Patrick, I suggest Google. Words such as Saint Patrick history or Saint Patrick in Ireland, Saint Patrick and the Bible, etc. You may get more than one view. You will have to search carefully to find the true Saint Patrick, not the one decked out with a papal mitre and all the trappings. It is doubtful he dressed like that. You can also find Saint Patrick's confession of his faith. He was a simple believer who believed in salvation by faith.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wayne, Patrick was an ordained bishop. Rome had the only game in town, as far as ordinations went. If he was not a Roman Catholic, what do you suppose he was? And I've never heard of a Druid headquarters. Pagans were tribal, not centrists. And we still are.

    Irish monasteries had already been established from around the fifth century -- and from them comes the world's most incredible insular decorative art like the Book of Kells and the Ardagh Chalice -- until early in the twelfth century, when Rome decided to establish a diocesan system, instead. But I challenge anyone to stand anywhere in Ireland and declare that anyone has any authority beyond what the Irish themselves will allow...right, Tim? ;D

    ReplyDelete
  10. STG: Thomas Cahill, in his book "How the Irish Saved Civilization" disagrees with you.

    Actually, Lady Janus has the history correct. I'm afraid you've been shown up by someone who claims not allegiance to our Christian faith! (BIG, BIG, GRIN - meaning 'no offense intended!)

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lady Janus,

    You may wish to read about this history of Saint Patrick on the link:
    http://www.reformation.org/saint-patrick.html

    I have read some similar reports about Saint Patrick on other websites.
    You may have been reading the common account of Saint Patrick which is an RC account. It is natural that that would be their account since they have held Ireland for nearly the past 1000 years.

    Several points: Saint Patrick lived from 373 to 465 A.D. He was born in a place which is now part of Scotland.

    The headquarters for the Hibernia Druid priesthood at the time Patrick went to Ireland was at a place called Tara Hill in the eastern part of Hibernia (Ireland today).

    I will quote a part of this article:
    Historic truth, moreover, requires that we should distinguish between these two very different sets of institutions, which are often made to pass under the same name, that is, between the schools of the sixth and seventh centuries, and the Benedictine monasteries, which were obtruded upon and supplanted than in the twelfth and thirteenth. Till times long posterior to Patrick no monk had been seen in Ireland, and no monastery had risen on its soil. On this head the evidence of Malachy O'Morgain is decisive. Malachy, Archbishop of Armagh, was one of the earliest perverts to popery among the Irish clergy, and he was one of the main agents in the enslavement of his native land. His life was written by his contemporary and friend, the well-known St. Bernard of Clairvaux in France. This memoir lifts the veil and shows us the first monks and monasteries stealing into Ireland. "St Malachy, on his return to Ireland from Rome," says St. Bernard, "called again at Clairvaux . . . and left four of his companions in that monastery for the purpose of learning its rules and regulations, and of their being in due time qualified to introduce them into Ireland." In all countries monks have formed the vanguard of the papal army. "He, (Malachy) said on this occasion," continues St. Bernard, "They will serve us for seed, and in this seed nations will be blessed, even those nations which from old time heard of the name of monk, but have never seen a monk." If the words of the Abbot of Clairvaux have any meaning, they imply that up till this time, that is, the year 1140, though Ireland was covered with institutions which the Latin writers call monasteries, the Irish were ignorant of monks and monkery. And this is confirmed by what we find Bernard afterwards writing to Malachy:—"And since," says he, " you have need of great vigilance, as in a new place, and in a new land that has been hitherto unused to, yea, that has never yet had any trial of monastic religion, withhold not your hand, I beseech you, but go on to perfect that which you have so well begun." This evidence is decisive of two things: first, that monasteries, in the modern sense of the term, were unknown in Ireland till the middle of the twelfth century, when Malachy is seen sowing their seeds; and second, that the ancient foundations were not monasteries, but schools. (History of the Scottish Nation vol. II, chapter 18). Unquote

    Stone monasteries were not built in Hibernia until Malachy O'Morgain, the RC monk went there around 1140A.D.

    Further
    "After his death, Saint Patrick was NEVER canonized by Rome, or officially declared a saint by the Vatican. The first Hibernian to be canonized was "Saint" Malachy. Malachy, who lived from 1094 to 1148, visited Rome in the year 1139, to receive official Papal sanction to his work of destroying the Congregation founded by the faithful Saint Patrick. Unquote

    Saint Patrick never was a Roman Catholic and never was made a saint by canonization.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Paul, modern day Druids are not "newagers" by anyone's stretch of the imagination. But if you don't know anything about them, I do, as do the modern practitioners.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "You may have been reading the common account of Saint Patrick which is an RC account. It is natural that that would be their account since they have held Ireland for nearly the past 1000 years."

    Oh, this is really sad, Wayne...Armagh county -- which is where Patrick did most of his teaching, is in the province of Ulster -- that's Northern Ireland. In case you've been missing out on the news for the past five hundred or so years, that's officially a Protestant territory. What do you think all the Troubles are about?

    As for where he was born, it was somewhere in what is now Britain, but the precise location is a mystery. A lot of historians think that he may have been Welsh, since the Welsh and Irish languages are more closely related than Scots and Irish (yes, even though the modern Irish were originally from Scotland). But there was another Pagan-born bishop wandering all over the Irish map at the time -- Palladius -- and the two of them get confused with one another on a regular basis. Are you sure you're not thinking of him, instead of Patrick?

    As for the "Druid headquarters," there wasn't any such thing. Tara was a focal point for religious and spiritual influence, but that was because it was the seat of the High Kings, not because the Druids had a headquarters. Keltoi were tribal -- they mostly did not have any headquarters of any kind. Tara was chosen as the seat of High Kings because of Lia Fail. Had the stone not been there, another site would have been chosen.

    And I don't know how you came by your source, but if I were you, I'd do a very thorough check on its provenance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wayne:

    You are reading Reformation history, and St. Patrick was not a Reformer, so the Catholic sources are likely to have more detail and accuracy. I would expect a Catholic version of the Reformation to differ from yours.

    Re St. Patrick: "His experience as a slave had a profound effect on the young man. Before his slavery, he was not particularly religious. But when he returned home, he began studying for the priesthood. When his studies were complete, he returned to Ireland in March 433. There he did mission work among the people who had enslaved him for six years. Known for his compassion for suffering persons and for his endless zeal, St. Patrick was appointed Bishop of Ireland. He died there on Mar. 17, 461."

    For more detail and authority try here:
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11554a.htm

    It is true that St. Patrick was never CANONIZED, but as there was no process for formal canonization in the first millenium, he was merely found on the first list of saints, and accepted as such. Certainly, his life is that of a Saint.

    Lady Janus seems to have far less bias in her research than you do. I wonder why that is Wayne.

    Perhaps, she does not have the animus to things she does not particularly choose as her own beliefs, but more curiosity and detachment. I do not detect in her communication a need to be right all the time.

    Mayhaps, she does not have the childhood woundedness from the Catholic Church that you seem to exude. Many of us were wounded in our youth by Catholics, in some way or another, but it really needs to be separated from considering that those who hurt us were really representative of the Church at large.

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lady Janus, Tim, Michael,

    Lady Janus says "Wayne, Patrick was an ordained bishop. Rome had the only game in town, as far as ordinations went. If he was not a Roman Catholic, what do you suppose he was?"

    How do you know? Have you seen any proof? There may be far more myth and legend behind the so-called "history" of Saint Patrick I have seen on the internet than anyone can imagine.

    Is it possible saint Patrick could have been a simple christian without being a follower of the RCC? How much of the "history" of saint Patrick is believable and how much should be taken with a grain of salt? How much of it has been embelished in the last 1600 years?

    I am just saying there is more than one side to the story about saint Patrick. Most of it is probably impossible to prove. Not everyone believes all the claims about Saint Patrick.

    Michael,
    You gave me a link and said:
    For more detail and authority try here:
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11554a.htm

    That is a Roman Catholic online encyclopedia Michael. Why would I accept that as an "authority" on Saint Patrick any more than you would accept any references I gave you from Boettner, non-RC websites, or any other sources?

    Do you accept the claims about the weeping statue of Mary we seen on the news these days from central or eastern Canada? It is no suprise many believe it is legitimate. I see on the news people are going there in droves now.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Tim,

    "STG: Thomas Cahill, in his book "How the Irish Saved Civilization" disagrees with you"

    Don't you think that book title sounds a little vain? Did they really save civilization?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Wayne:

    You really lack the skill to withdraw gracefully from your own specious claims, when they are proven false.

    If you read the Catholic sites that I have presented to you, you will find copious details that are all referenced and backed up, either about the history of St. Patrick, or about Catholic teaching. They are written to present history, and to present authentic Catholic teaching, not an agenda.

    Instead, you quote Boettner, who we proved recently was a liar, and now trot out a Reformation site, that self proclaims to be the Information Superhighway to Heaven, and then fire up a comment that a book entitled, "How the Irish Saved Civilization" sounds vain.

    The Cahill book, by the way, was about the role that the Irish had in preserving the so-called Western culture that the Huns and Germanic tribes were set on destroying, with the Roman Empire. What the Irish did at that time was act as scribes, copying all the literature they could get their hands on, while the conquering tribes set out to burn and destroy it.

    That is what Cahill means about saving civilization. But, you would have had to do about 5 minutes of research, none of it on Catholic sites, to have known that.

    The Catholic Church does not need to disprove allegations of others, just to present the facts as it understands them, and it has reams of library grade materials to do so from.

    You and others are free to accept them as they are, or challenge them if you see fit. As I said weeks ago, quoting Daniel Moynihan, you are welcome to your opinions, just not to your own facts.

    As to the weeping statue of Mary, which is about 120 miles down the road from here, in Windsor, Ontario, I stand with the Diocese of London, which stated that it made no claims as to the veracity of the things seen there. This is the usual Church stance on the unusual things that occur from time to time. It waits, like Gamaliel, for time to prove them to be efficacious, or not.

    However, the Church has accepted the appearance of the Blessed Virgin on numerous occasions throughout history, largely because she always points those who have experienced her presence to Her Son, and Saviour. She takes no pride in herself. She consistently calls people to lives of prayer, fasting, scripture reading, and to the Eucharist and Confession, none of which is likely to lead to their eternal damnation.

    You, of course, do not have to believe these accepted appearances, which are too many to name here. But, you would be a fool to try to deny that which you cannot understand just because of your own prejudices. If these apparitions draw people to Christ, then they surely are not of the devil.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "How do you know? Have you seen any proof?"

    LOL...Wayne, Wayne, Wayne...the Roman church invented ordination. And bishops. How do we know? History. Might be worth your while to give it a read, sometime...

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Don't you think that book title sounds a little vain? Did they really save civilization?"

    Well, if you think education plays any part in progress, yes, they did. The Irish invented the modern universtity, open access to both men and women, and a classless society when it came to education -- anyone who wanted to learn could go to school.

    Tim, I think I might have that same book around here, somewhere, in one of my many bookshelves.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lady Janus, Michael,

    Lady Janus,
    "LOL...Wayne, Wayne, Wayne...the Roman church invented ordination. And bishops. How do we know? History. Might be worth your while to give it a read, sometime.."

    I just could not let this slide past. It might suprise you but I have spent some time, now and then, reading certain parts of church history. I have an excellent church history book called "Christianity Through the Centuries" by Earle E. Cairns.

    Church history may be broken down into several time periods in a general sense because of major events that occurred in history.

    The Roman Catholic Church did not exist anything like we know it today in the early centuries. During the period from 100 A.D. to 313 A.D. the old Catholic imperial church was not the same institution as the Roman Catholic Church which developed over a period of centuries. There were a number of local churches which grew out of the apostolic age, but the development of the primacy of the Roman church and the Roman bishop occurred over a period of time. Cyprian and Jerome did a lot to promote the primacy of the Roman see to other ecclesiatical authorities. There were a number of practical reasons why this evolution of church authority took place.

    The supremacy of the Roman bishop to the point where he became the supreme Pope of the church was a later development which occurred between 313 A.D. and 590 A.D. Although each church had it's own bishop, the idea developed that Rome deserved special honour because it was claimed that the bishop of Rome was in line of succession from Peter. (an interpretation of a verse in the Bible which Protestants reject) This, plus many other factors led to the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church in the early centuries.

    So to get back to your main point "the Roman Church invented ordination...and bishops". NO, absolutely not. Ordination and bishops is something taught in the New Testament long before the Roman Church even existed as we think of it. Presbyters, (ministers)or bishops ordained christians to become bishops, elders (ministers) and deacons in the New Testament.

    I have read a number of websites concerning Saint Patrick and it is unclear if or how Patrick became a bishop or whether he was an evangelist. There are differing accounts. Unfortunately, limited evidence concerning Patrick exists today. He did write several items which we have. One is his declaration (confession) of faith. This gives a good idea of what Patrick believed.

    The important point is that Patrick did receive a call from God to evangelize Ireland and did in fact go there and do that. Whether or not he was ordained a bishop does not change the fact that Patrick had a born again experience and he was personally called by God for a special task.

    Michael,

    I am not trying to be pugnacious but simply trying to state what I believe. You are incorrect in saying Loraine Boettner lied about anything. I have studied that and gone to great lengths to explain to you that Boettner name several early church fathers that did not speak about auricular confession, that is, the secret confession to a priest in a confessional, where one receives penance and absolution. The websites you referred to quoted some of these early church fathers as referring to confession to God and to other believers, if warranted, but not the auricular confession practiced by the RCC.

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics