jenniferreid

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Exploring what Ronald Hutton thinks about druidry? #11633
    jenniferreid
    Participant

    Druid is just a word – the definition of the word is what we choose to give it – and in the case of the word druid there is not one definition. If you consider them as spiritual tribal leaders of Celtic tribes then you cannot really have them involved in the building of Stonehenge -as this we know was built earlier than what we choose to define Celtic as. Were there spiritual leaders involved in the decision to build stone henge – almost certainly – but we shouldn’t call then druids if we define druid as Celtic spiritual leaders! Would the organisers of stone henge have held similar view on the nature of the world and the spiritual as the spiritual leaders of the Celtic(by modern definition) tribes – who knows. It seems likely given the link to the evidence of the importance of heavenly objects – but two groups could see celestial objects as important but have VERY different spiritual paths.

    in reply to: Exploring what Ronald Hutton thinks about druidry? #11631
    jenniferreid
    Participant

    I finished reading this book 2 days ago and found it very interesting. The conclusion seemed to me to be that societies view on what druids were depends far more on the society at the time then any reality about what/who druids may have been originally. So rather than druids describing a distinct historical group it is a word used to define a current societies view of the ancient past. The druids described by the ancient Romans may be as illusionary in a way as Iolo’s triads, based on a different societies opinions – in the Roman’s case a different culture, in Iolo’s case a different time. There may well never have been a distinct group of people who have ever fitted any of the descriptions given of “the druids”. It could be they were the tribes leaders – so nowadays that might be the equivalent of Boris Johnson, the Queen or maybe our local town counsellors . Or they may have been the communities spiritual leaders – so the Arch Bishop of Canterbury perhaps. I think that is what I found most interesting about the book, the way the term druid has changed and evolved – so our current spiritual nature respecting meaning of druidry bears little resemblence to the society leads role, or the barbaric human sacrificers, or any of the other roles that have been taken through history under the name of druid.
    If we want an answer to what the religious leaders (one way to define druids) were like or what they did in ancient Briton pre Roman invasion the honest answer has to be that we really don’t have a clue!

    in reply to: Druidry as a religion v. Druidry as a Fellowship #11628
    jenniferreid
    Participant

    I do not think modern druidry can be considered a religion, and I do wonder if we should even think of modern druidry bearing any resemblance at all to the original druid practices since most are not leaders of their local society or leaders of groups in religious rituals. I think modern druidry is more of a fellowship of people who have a high degree of respect for the natural world and believe that there is some spiritual element to the natural world.

    in reply to: Blood Sacrifice: a hoax, fake history #10123
    jenniferreid
    Participant

    We have no real evidence as to what the ancient druids did. All we know is through the biased writings of conquorers. It is likely they did perform some form of animal sacrifices – just because most cultures in that era did – but the truth is we simply do not know.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)