"Searles O'Dubhain"
wrote in message
news:jJSdnfwD09aDSxrVnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@comcast.com...>
> The Druids were a noble class of the Celts who included priests in their
> ranks.
An elite group which reserves education and leisure for itself alone while
its people slave away for generations in squalor and hardship, pathetically
grateful for the crumbs falling from their masters' tables. Ah yes, the
"noble class".
No wonder it couldn't compete against the Romans, who distributed the
benefits of its wealth a little more generously among its citizens. A
century or two of co-existence, and *poof!* No more Druids.
>>> Evil is anything that violates honor, breaks a law or is against the
>>> codes of living (usually expressed in the traditional tales though also
>>> codified in the Brehon Laws among the Irish).
>>
>> So evil is anything forbidden by the Brehon laws? Are you aware that
>> those laws have been heavily edited by the Christians from the time of
>> St. Patrick forwards? Patrick himself is credited with being the first
>> to codify the Brehon laws, since many Gaels and Gauls considered it
>> profane to actually write down their laws, and by his own admission he
>> left out anything that "clashed with the law of God".
>
> I'm aware of the history of the Irish and the Brehon Laws. Of course they
> were edited by Padraig and the Church.
Then you're not really following the Brehon laws at all but a Christian
reconstruction of them.
> This doesn't mean that they were negated or that traditional Pagan
> practices and beliefs did not continue.
Right up until the English killed all the Brehons, thus destroying any oral
tradition at all. All that's left today are the Christian codexes.
> One must be aware of the pluses and minuses in everything.
Indeed one must.
>> As in everything else, the morality of the Druids is based on a poorly
>> remembered and substantially romaticized version of pre-christian
>> culture.
>>
>
> You are now stating nothingbut opinion without giving a single valid
> example to substantiate what you've just stated.
We have just agreed that the Brehon codexes are expurgated, anything in them
which volates the tenets of the Catholic Church was expunged by Padraig.
That's not just *my* opinion but the opinion of the vast majority of
historians. It is a single example and it's valid. However, since
truthiness is a belief held despite evidence, not because of it, you choose
not to perceive the valid example I gave.
>> So it would be incorrect for anyone to behave differently from your idea
>> of how an ancient Druid might have behaved?
>
> It would be incorrect for a person to act against the traditions without
> having the power of truth in their actions.
Pretty slippery. Wopuld you say that whatever one can convince oneself of
automatically becomes the "truth" and permits one to ignore any inconvenient
laws or even the tenets of one's own religion? If not, how is truth
determined?
> You seem to think that you can put words in my mouth but aren't really
> having much success. I haven't said anything even close to what you've
> suggested.
I'm asking questions, not misrepresenting what you say.
