Worldviews of the ancients? Let's try this again.

[Fiamma]

Okay, first, for the record, I checked with an admin before I started a new thread.

Second, let me be clear: my intention is not recon-bashing. At all. I do not call myself a Hellenic recon, but it is an important topic to me and a majority of my personal practices are in fact reconstructionist. (And if you wish to discuss this, it's a separate topic for another thread.)

Now I'm going to start out with a question- a different question than last time: Do you believe that the gods and the religion of the ancient Greeks was intertwined and inseparable from all aspects of life?

I ask this because if you do, then all of the questions I asked previously regarding things like laws forbidding all exports with the exception of olive oil, owning slaves, holding all women under the protection of their father or husband are all points that are intertwined and inseparable from the religion.

I point this out because I know that at least one of the most uh, stringent objectors, to my previous post have indicated elsewhere that they believe this, and if it's all inextricably intertwined, how is is okay to forgo some details and not others?

Now if you don't believe this, that the religion and every aspect of life was completely connected and intertwined, then I can see the argument of differentiating religious views with cultural views.

To that, I still have an extremely hard time believing that the religious views of the ancient people would never have changed, and that the religion would never have changed because people and culture don't get flash-frozen in time. As Youngsoulrebel pointed out here (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=4007636&postcount=91), other religions that have survived through history such as Judaism and Hinduism have changed and adapted. The ancient Greeks were equally human, and they had changes while they survived, so why would that not have continued?

I hope my intentions this time were clear enough, however if there are any further questions as to my thoughts or meaninsgs, I would really appreciate it if someone would ask and allow me the opportunity to answer before things get out of hand.

[~Elise~]

Keep posts relevant to the topic and be respectful...

Keep your opinions of how it ought to be somewhere else.

[Tim]

To that, I still have an extremely hard time believing that the religious views of the ancient people would never have changed, and that the religion would never have changed because people and culture don't get flash-frozen in time. As Youngsoulrebel pointed out here (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=4007636&postcount=91), other religions that have survived through history such as Judaism and Hinduism have changed and adapted. The ancient Greeks were equally human, and they had changes while they survived, so why would that not have continued?
It's called Reconstructionism because that is what it does. Other religions may be "inspired by" (such as NeoDruidry) and therefore not a reconstruction. Reconstructionism requires adaptation into the modern world. Modernization means the Ancients did it this way, and asking how can we do it without losing the intent, symbology, and meaning.

I used this example on another forum... I was recently watching a History Channel documentary on ancient weapons, and the word used to describe historians and engineers who build replicas of ancient items was reconstructionist. These individuals meticulously study ancient texts and archaeological evidence, then build these weapons (as best they can) to very exact specification using very specific methods. If you were told you were going to see a reconstructed crossbow from the First Century, and a guy showed you an Excalibur Exomax Crossbow, would you accept that as a reconstruction? Of course not.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Your intentions have been clear each time, and I'm sorry a dick landed in the mashed potatoes like it did. :(

Cultures, and by proxy, the religions associated with them, adapt and change as progresses are made. When I first learned of Hellenic reconstructionism, it seemed very clear to me that the point behind it all wasn't "let's reconstruct things exactly the way things were done at this time period by these people" but instead the point was "let's assume this religious culture's traditions survived unbroken, and assume that most, if not all the progresses that exist today would exist as they do now; how would this religious culture look and behave now?"

Cultures that don't adapt to progresses die out -- that's just the way it's always been. If even the Amish have adapted to social and technological progress in their own way, then I find it highly disturbing that some people seem content to defend or outright advocate what amounts to little more than historical re-enactment while contradictly calling it "a living religious culture".

[Tim]

Well there you go Fiamma, those are the two main points of view on this topic. You can agree or disagree with either one. Most people seem to fall into one of these two camps, at least in the US. One side defines reconstruction as speculating what the religion may have become, and creating a system around those theories. The other opinion, which is one I agree with, is that reconstruction is the actual reconstruction of the religion, which falls in line with published opinions of the World Counsel of Ethnic Religions and Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellenes (YSEE is a founding member of WCER, but I'm sure you already know that). There is a third, more hard core Traditional stand that does not allow any adaptation, but there are very few of those. I hope that cleared things up for you.

[Tim]

I will reiterate a point, which was answered on the other thread but you still seem fixated on. Reconstruction is only concerned with the religious aspects of the culture. Issues such as laws forbidding exports, the owning of slaves, and the social status of women are irrelevant and moot.

[Intonsus]

Okay, first, for the record, I checked with an admin before I started a new thread.

Second, let me be clear: my intention is not recon-bashing. At all. I do not call myself a Hellenic recon, but it is an important topic to me and a majority of my personal practices are in fact reconstructionist. (And if you wish to discuss this, it's a separate topic for another thread.)

Now I'm going to start out with a question- a different question than last time: Do you believe that the gods and the religion of the ancient Greeks was intertwined and inseparable from all aspects of life?

I ask this because if you do, then all of the questions I asked previously regarding things like laws forbidding all exports with the exception of olive oil, owning slaves, holding all women under the protection of their father or husband are all points that are intertwined and inseparable from the religion.

I point this out because I know that at least one of the most uh, stringent objectors, to my previous post have indicated elsewhere that they believe this, and if it's all inextricably intertwined, how is is okay to forgo some details and not others?

Now if you don't believe this, that the religion and every aspect of life was completely connected and intertwined, then I can see the argument of differentiating religious views with cultural views.

To that, I still have an extremely hard time believing that the religious views of the ancient people would never have changed, and that the religion would never have changed because people and culture don't get flash-frozen in time. As Youngsoulrebel pointed out here (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=4007636&postcount=91), other religions that have survived through history such as Judaism and Hinduism have changed and adapted. The ancient Greeks were equally human, and they had changes while they survived, so why would that not have continued?

I hope my intentions this time were clear enough, however if there are any further questions as to my thoughts or meaninsgs, I would really appreciate it if someone would ask and allow me the opportunity to answer before things get out of hand.

I personally believe that the religion of the Anicent Greeks was intertwined in every level with their and our daily lives.

Now your post makes sense to this level, however it does not sink deeper into what, why, and how.

The religion that intertwined with daily life does not mean that the religion, at all times, was followed in a manner of virtue, the lack of virtue, vice, was also part of the religion, vice plays a great role.



As for what reconstructionism is, its a religious practice, where a religion is taken from where it was left of and brought to the time being.

It is not assuming what the religion would be like today if it was not stopped. Whoever does this, in the least offensive way, is a fool, for when you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME. The possibilities of what could have happened are endless, but one thing is certain, none of those possibilities happened. So, logically speaking, whoever worships in this manner is practicing a fantasy, fictional, historically-based religion.

Simple math really, heres an example of all possibilities:

Dead Old Religion + Adapting it to modern times = Revived Old Religion (Reconstructionism)

Dead Old Religion + what would have happened if it survived to this day = Historically-Based Fictional Religion or if you prefer New religion based on Old religion (NeoPaganism).

Dead Old Religion + practicing, but not adapting religion to modern times = Dead Old Religion.

[Fiamma]

It's called Reconstructionism because that is what it does. Other religions may be "inspired by" (such as NeoDruidry) and therefore not a reconstruction. Reconstructionism requires adaptation into the modern world. Modernization means the Ancients did it this way, and asking how can we do it without losing the intent, symbology, and meaning.

I am not talking about neoDruidry here. Why drag that in?


I used this example on another forum... I was recently watching a History Channel documentary on ancient weapons, and the word used to describe historians and engineers who build replicas of ancient items was reconstructionist. These individuals meticulously study ancient texts and archaeological evidence, then build these weapons (as best they can) to very exact specification using very specific methods. If you were told you were going to see a reconstructed crossbow from the First Century, and a guy showed you an Excalibur Exomax Crossbow, would you accept that as a reconstruction? Of course not.

I could also say that I had a house that burned down, and when it was rebuilt, it was from the same blueprint but I made sure all the wiring was up to code, added a few skylights, a jacuzzi bathtub, changed the front door and some of the interior lighting, put some hardwood flooring where there was previously carpet and bought some snappy new drapes. It's essentially the same house, with some details updated and adapted.

That aside, I don't see replicating a single item (or rebuilding a burned-down house) as particularly analogous to reconstructing a living, breathing religion. That weapon doesn't change. But people do. The ancient Greek polytheists changed over time, and they would have continued to change. Can one be absolutely certain that any given viewpoint in modern times might have been eventually adopted by the Greeks as times changed? No, but I have a very hard time believing that at least some views wouldn't have changed somehow.

But I guess if your idea of reconstructionism is confined to strict-as-physically-possible replication, then I guess we have a stalemate.

[Intonsus]

@Fiamma

Nope, that would not be considered the same house. Your house before it burned down might be 80 some years old. However the house built from the remains of the old house or in place of the old house will either be listed as a "new house" or a renovated house.

However we are not arguing architecture and real estate so lets move on.

As I stated before, because you are adding an unidentifiable variable to your understanding of the religion you are forging it into a new religion based on an older one, which is NeoPaganism, and theres nothing wrong with that, if thats what you want to follow then thats what you follow, heck if you wanted to worship Sesame Street characters as a pantheon its fine. As long as you dont label worshiping the Sesame Street pantheon as Asatru. The same goes for the terms NeoPagan and Reconstructionist. Label yourself true.

Reconstruction is:
The act or result of reconstructing.

Reconstructing:
to re-create in the mind from given or available information: to reconstruct the events of the murder.

From given or available information, not from what ifs and hypothetical situations.

[Fiamma]

As I stated before, because you are adding an unidentifiable variable to your understanding of the religion you are forging it into a new religion based on an older one, which is NeoPaganism, and theres nothing wrong with that, if thats what you want to follow then thats what you follow, heck if you wanted to worship Sesame Street characters as a pantheon its fine. As long as you dont label worshiping the Sesame Street pantheon as Asatru. The same goes for the terms NeoPagan and Reconstructionist. Label yourself true.

Clearly, you did not read my initial post where I very explicitly stated that I do not call myself reconstructionist.

Don't lecture me about labeling myself.



Reconstruction is:
The act or result of reconstructing.

Reconstructing:
to re-create in the mind from given or available information: to reconstruct the events of the murder.

From given or available information, not from what ifs and hypothetical situations.

Hey...look, the dictionary gives other definitions too!

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reconstruct

reconstruct
–verb (used with object)
1. to construct again; rebuild; make over.
2. to re-create in the mind from given or available information: to reconstruct the events of the murder.
3. Historical Linguistics. to arrive at (hypothetical earlier forms of words, phonemic systems, etc.) by comparison of data from a later language or group of related languages.


re·con·struct (rē'kən-strŭkt')

1. To construct again; rebuild.
2. To assemble or build again mentally; re-create: reconstructed the sequence of events from the evidence.
3. To cause to adopt a new attitude or outlook: a diehard traditionalist who could not be reconstructed.

[zombi]

Cultures, and by proxy, the religions associated with them, adapt and change as progresses are made. When I first learned of Hellenic reconstructionism, it seemed very clear to me that the point behind it all wasn't "let's reconstruct things exactly the way things were done at this time period by these people" but instead the point was "let's assume this religious culture's traditions survived unbroken, and assume that most, if not all the progresses that exist today would exist as they do now; how would this religious culture look and behave now?"

This pretty much encapsulates my view of what reconstructionism is/does. Religions & cultures adapt -- look at Judaism, Christianity, or Hinduism. I'm certain that individuals practicing these religions NOW are not practicing in the exact same manner as people did hundreds of years ago. And why would they? The spirit and "main idea", if you will, of those religions remains the same.

So that's what we look for with the ancient religions we're reconstructing -- the main idea, the thesis statement, the spirit of those religions & traditions. Obviously it's important to take into account and understand the traditions and daily ritual, etc, as they were done then, but it's equally as important to consider with all of society's changes & such how those traditions and practices would've changed. It's like how mass is not required to be in Latin any more; it's still mass, and it's still Roman Catholic. But it's evolved?

[Twinkle]

Guessing what a religion would be like if it had never been interrupted would not be Reconstruction of that religion, imo...unless you were using selective logic...or maybe just taking one big guess.


It would mean trying to prove a bias, with no objective checks and balance, based mostly on what *we want* rather than *what is*, and therefore, would have no ultimate point except to create a whole new religion, and not a Reconstruction of the Old.

Adaptation does not mean creating something entirely new.

[Tim]

I am not talking about neoDruidry here. Why drag that in?
It was brought up to compare and contrast the differences in approaches. Moving on...

With regard to pretending like we know what would have happened if the religion survived. Have you ever read alternative history fiction? It plays the game of "what if".... what if the American Revolution failed... what if America never entered WWII... what if, what if, what if. At the end of the day, it's not reality. Its fiction.

Creating a religion based on a fictional history probably is a great creative writing exercise, but it is not based on anything actual.

This takes us to what Twinkle said in the other thread... there are Reconstructionists, and then there are people who claim to be Reconstructionists but do whatever they want. Those people create personal religions based on feeling and intuition... creating a religion based on what they want, rather than a historical reality. They may claim that is based on "what if" the religion survived, but the best it would ever be is what they hoped the religion would have turned into had it survived.

[Twinkle]

I'm not sure what the criteria would be to even do this whole "logical progression" thing. Reconstructing the "spirit" of the Ancients? How does one do that?

What separates it from a personal spirituality?

[Fiamma]

As I stated before, because you are adding an unidentifiable variable to your understanding of the religion you are forging it into a new religion based on an older one, which is NeoPaganism, and theres nothing wrong with that,

Oh, and by the way, you don't know what I am or am not doing in my religious practice, I would really appreciate your not making assumptions.


if thats what you want to follow then thats what you follow, heck if you wanted to worship Sesame Street characters as a pantheon its fine. As long as you dont label worshiping the Sesame Street pantheon as Asatru.

*sigh* we're not talking about something so utterly ridiculous as this. We're talking about details of an existing religion and questions of things relevant to the religion and whether those things should remain as they were 2500 years ago, or if there should be room for change in some such views in modern times. You know, things like...if a person is pretty enough to be a priest.

[Twinkle]

I'ts a valid question, though. What are the parameters? And who makes them? If it's up to each individual that equates to a personal spirituality and not a reconstruction of an ancient religion.

[~Elise~]

Keep posts relevant to the topic and be respectful...

Keep your opinions of how it ought to be somewhere else.



This is NOT happening. Last warning before the thread is closed.

[Intonsus]

Clearly, you did not read my initial post where I very explicitly stated that I do not call myself reconstructionist.

Don't lecture me about labeling myself.


Wasn't lecturing you, theres a personal you and a general you, care to guess again on which one I was using, since the first guess was wrong?




Hey...look, the dictionary gives other definitions too!

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reconstruct

reconstruct
–verb (used with object)
1. to construct again; rebuild; make over.
2. to re-create in the mind from given or available information: to reconstruct the events of the murder.
3. Historical Linguistics. to arrive at (hypothetical earlier forms of words, phonemic systems, etc.) by comparison of data from a later language or group of related languages.


re·con·struct (rē'kən-strŭkt')

1. To construct again; rebuild.
2. To assemble or build again mentally; re-create: reconstructed the sequence of events from the evidence.
3. To cause to adopt a new attitude or outlook: a diehard traditionalist who could not be reconstructed.


Oh! Does it really! Here I was thinking that there was only one defenition of the word!.... Now apart from the sarcasm, do you find anything helpful or relevant to the topic in the other defenitions? If so please explain in a detailed way how so, because unfortuanetly I'm kind of slow at these things.


Oh, and by the way, you don't know what I am or am not doing in my religious practice, I would really appreciate your not making assumptions.

[~Elise~]

Wasn't lecturing you, theres a personal you and a general you, care to guess again on which one I was using, since the first guess was wrong?




Oh! Does it really! Here I was thinking that there was only one defenition of the word!.... Now apart from the sarcasm, do you find anything helpful or relevant to the topic in the other defenitions? If so please explain in a detailed way how so, because unfortuanetly I'm kind of slow at these things.


Disrespectful to other members of MW. Since a general warning was already given to not be so, and this is the third warning in this thread. I'm closing it. topic is now closed and no more threads on this please or they will be closed and poster given a vacation.