I find that reading the accounts of the Celtic, North Americans to be so helpful as another way of 'seeing' in contrast to the ones which I was taught stemming from Christianity. The pictures of the force of life and the cosmos is definitely more of understanding our place and role within the larger picture of life, including nature, and it is often embraced a more ecological approach and it is less about relating to an outside force, who may punish us. Even though I read many worldviews, including those within Eastern philosophy, I find the perspectives which you speak of to be a source of inspiration.

Personally, I am all for exploring and drawing inspiration from any system. As long as we don't romanticize and mythologize historical fact. At the end of the day, it may be argued that all systems have good sides and bad sides.

But how do we define 'the spirituality of the Celts'?

You speak of romanticising and I wonder how much any system of belief involves this because we may fall in love with ideas and become attached to them. Also, the area between history and mythology is blurry. It is hard to know how much is which in thinking about ancient systems of belief. Is Atlantis a romantic mythology, based on the writings of Plato, or based on any reality?

I don't wish to shift from the topic of the free spirit potentiality of traditions such as the North Americans, but it is easier to get accurate knowledge because we can find these systems in the world today and in the study of anthropology. I think that it is worth looking at other cultures as much as it is important to look at the past, in order to open up the imagination to the widest scope of possible options for understanding life and the symbolic dimensions.

I think that it is worth looking at other cultures as much as it is important to look at the past, in order to open up the imagination to the widest scope of possible options for understanding life and the symbolic dimensions. — Jack Cummins

Sure. Nothing wrong with opening up the imagination. I am simply saying that, ideally, imagination should not be substituted for attested historical fact.

In other words, a distinction should be drawn between what we subjectively prefer a spirituality to be (or to have been) and the historical reality of what that tradition actually was based on the historical evidence.

In any case, I think it would be useful to start with a definition of "Celtic/North American spirituality".

Ecstatic :death: :flower:
... not 'spiritual' (i.e. supernatural)
... not 'mystical' (i.e. magical)
... not cultic (i.e. totalitarian)
... not 'religious' (i.e. theocratic, priestly pyramid-schemer)

"When you believe in things
that you don't understand
then you suffer ..."

When you believe in things that you don't understand you suffer .... — 180 Proof

Quite possibly, you suffer even more when you believe in things that you deliberately misunderstand ....

Patriarchy, God, and being institutionalized by what we are told is the kingdom of God — Athena

What you are "told" is not Christian "dogma" - assuming here that you mean the major branch of Christianity - Catholicism - - but rather the "misinterpretation" of the "non-practicing Catholic" masses.

In any case, the concept of "institutionalization" can only be applied to secular cases - for example, the institution of the church which, even though it is comprehended by a structure focused on the metaphysical, it exists on the secular plane - and not to hierocratic cases - as for example, the "Kingdom of God" or even the Trinity - for such definitions do not apply to "God".

[OBS: I do not intend, with my argumentation, to build a case for Christianity, I am referring only to your misconception that, "by having worldly structures applied in its cosmogony and theology, Christianity would have pejorative and undesirable traits compared to the Celtic and Native-American mythologies."]

Good thing I ain't "deliberately misunderstanding" ...

Might you have any thoughts on this? — Athena

Jesus didn’t come out of the experience as an all-conquering emperor.

Jesus didn’t come out of the experience as an all-conquering emperor. — Wayfarer

On the third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

A statue of him in every village in the Western world, worshipped at once a week, if not more. All who didn't worship at said statues in the New World summarily beaten, hanged or put to the sword by his followers.

In what way exactly did he not come out of the experience as an all-conquering emperor?

Edit - this should be in the 'God 'n that' category which I usually have switched off to avoid this very response (but it's done now).

In what way exactly did he not come out of the experience as an all-conquering emperor? — Isaac

By being reviled, rejected and crucified to death in agony. What society makes of that is another matter.

What society makes of that is another matter. — Wayfarer

If you're claiming that Jesus was just a man (ie he didn't spend only a tiny fraction of his existence in pain, the vast majority of it ruling over all mankind), then what society makes of it is the only matter. Other than that - some bloke got crucified. So did thousands. Nothing more than a statistic.

But I don't do religious threads...have at it to your heart's content. I shan't interject again.

It depends on how "real" you wish to attribute the non-human entities and spirit(s) said belief systems revolve around. As I would guess you are doing now, you can easily have a philosophical discussion while dismissing them as more "ideas", constructs, or placeholders for ideas we create as opposed to a what many believe, true actual beings that may or may not influence the world we live in. That changes things quite a bit.

For example, you could say a "god" or "spirit" is more of a zeitgeist of human society, a man-made construct divine in the sense that indeed it has power over any one of us. If one group or town challenges another to battle, they are invoking this "god of war" but if they instead pray for peace they are appeasing and placating this god (or perhaps invoking an opposing god, say "god of peace") and "they" battle per se. It's a stretch but metaphors are allowed and such are still considered non-theist philosophy. Your civilization can appease or act on the instructions of a "god of wealth", which assuredly involves being prosperous, but perhaps being too prosperous would anger this god, invoking wrath. Ie. your people become too rich and everyone just starts getting lazy and before you know it doesn't know how to do anything anymore and falls like a tree to a group you outnumber 10 to 1.

On to more traditional theist beliefs, yeah. They're as real as the screen you're reading these words from. Some are good, some are tricksters, some people believe there is only one creator, others believe this not to be the case. God(s), false gods, spirits, good, bad and all things in between. Depending on who you ask of course. So as a theist, how does one know what to believe? The consensus between major religions would be prayer and humility. How can you learn if you don't listen? Why would you be helped if you don't deserve it? But again, it depends who you ask.

We are exploring what that has to do with liberty and being free souls versus being institutionalized. A spiritual notion is we are free spirits having a human experience. This spirit is connected with the force of life, our planet, and all life on it, rather than the external Father, Son, and Holy Ghost of Christianity and the Roman Empire. — Athena

Free soul or not, you reside in a very physical body, burdened by physical needs that must be met and influenced, if not controlled completely by primal instinct that only becomes more insatiable and savage when said needs are unmet. Due to this, I'd kindly suggest that perhaps your argument of "either or" is somewhat of a false dichotomy. Just a smidgen.

If everyone is running around, being free, meeting their physical needs along with various, often unreasonable and decadent wants, somewhere down the line someone's liberty is going to be restricted. That is the definition of being institutionalized. Being in a confined system (life) being told what to do (instinct) with no say over the external or "overarching, unchanging, otherwise unreachable" authority that makes the rules (biology).

So, one could suggest the divine rule over all mankind (free spirits while we're in our physical bodies here) thus ensuring true liberty for all from an omniscient being is not only highly preferable than otherwise but is truly the only escape from institutionalization of not just not the body but most of all the mind. Sure if you're lucky and never have a problem in this life perhaps you won't ever realize its importance, but if that ever happens to not be the case, one would begin to appreciate the notion- and rather quickly, I presume.

In conclusion, who freakin' knows. I just do my best to try and not be a douche and hope for the best. If I'm not mistaken that's pretty much the summary of 95% of all religion anyhow.

I know that you are definitely not trying to make a case for Christianity or Catholicism, but I come from the perspective of having been socialised within these traditions. The secular and institutionalized aspects have such implications stemming from the masses and the hierarchy of the Church. It is extremely authoritarian and this applies to other mainstream religions, especially the Islamic religion.

I think that this leads to people often exploring alternatives ranging from people simply rejecting all forms of religion or spirituality, to looking for alternatives within other cultures. Of course, it is possible to end up seeing them in an idealistic way which may be so different from the experiences of the people living in the midst of such systems of ideas. But, one aspect which I believe that it is important in all free spirited approaches is the emphasis on personal experience of the numinous.

This can occur within the context of any cultural context but it often follows a more shamanic conception of experience, which is about the experiences of the lower and upper realms of consciousness, with a view to the enhanced individual experiences and insights for culture. I believe that idea systems within the Native American, Celtic and other systems adopt more of a shamanic model, with more of an emphasis on transforming this life as opposed to the way in which mainstream religions often present rigid dogmas and doctrines concerning salvation and ideas of a reward in a life after this one.

but I come from the perspective of having been socialised within these traditions. — Jack Cummins

Set yourself free! If you like, want, and can...

I believe that idea systems within the Native American, Celtic and other systems adopt more of a shamanic model, with more of an emphasis on transforming this life as opposed to the way in which mainstream religions often present rigid dogmas and doctrines concerning salvation and ideas of a reward in a life after this one. — Jack Cummins

I hear Jim Morrison talking here. "Mr Mojo Risin"...

Might you have any thoughts on this? — Athena

Yes. The Celts, Native Americans, and others will rapidly kick out an impostor.
Their spirituality might seem "more true", "more natural", but they will never accept you as an equal member unless you were born and raised by them. And even then there's no guarantee.

But how do we define 'the spirituality of the Celts'? — Apollodorus

A hodge-podge of stuff an outsider can safely dabble in, flirt with, never committing to it.

A hodge-podge of stuff an outsider can safely dabble in, flirt with, never committing to it. — baker

"Outsider"? You mean there are modern insiders to Celtic spirituality?

"Outsider"? You mean there are modern insiders to Celtic spirituality? — Apollodorus

Theoretically, yes.

But my point is that one cannot choose to become a member of those cultures and spiritualities mentioned in the OP. One can read books about those cultures and spiritualities, and think "Oh, how cool, I'd like to be like that as well", but that has no bearing on whether one will actually be accepted as a member into those cultures (and some of them are gone anyway). A such, one can never properly conduct their spiritual practices or make sense of the world they do.

By being reviled, rejected and crucified to death in agony. — Wayfarer

Pulchrum est pro fide mori!

Edit - this should be in the 'God 'n that' category which I usually have switched off to avoid this very response (but it's done now). — Isaac

Thank you for your concern but my take on this is more cultural/political. Some of the other post will bring that out. I really don't want this to be another God does/doesn't exist thread nor do I want it to be about Jesus. However, about the kingdom. :brow: Why are people in a democracy talking about a kingdom instead of principles of democracy and how did it feelto be a Celt or Native American before Rome and kingdom spread?

But my point is that one cannot choose to become a member of those cultures and spiritualities mentioned in the OP. One can read books about those cultures and spiritualities, and think "Oh, how cool, I'd like to be like that as well", but that has no bearing on whether one will actually be accepted as a member into those cultures (and some of them are gone anyway). A such, one can never properly conduct their spiritual practices or make sense of the world they do. — baker

Thank you for drawing out the meaning I wanted this thread to have. You kind of hit a nerve by "that has no bearing on whether one will actually be accepted as a member into those cultures". :groan: Can we get beyond being accepted or not, a very serious Jewish, Christian, Muslim, concern and get in touch with our feelings? Mother earth gave me life and she will receive me when I die, no matter what I believe or do, and that has cultural and political ramifications. How much can we control people who do not fear being rejected or punished by a Father?

Why are people in a democracy talking about a kingdom instead of principles of democracy and how did it feel to be a Celt or Native American before Rome and kingdom spread? — Athena

Obviously, we can't know what Ancient Celts felt. But who says that Celts did not have kingdoms?

Apparently, pre-Christian Iron Age Celtic social structure was based on class and kingship:

In the main, the evidence is of tribes being led by kings, although some argue that there is also evidence of oligarchical republican forms of government eventually emerging in areas which had close contact with Rome. Most descriptions of Celtic societies portray them as being divided into three groups: a warrior aristocracy; an intellectual class including professions such as druid, poet, and jurist; and everyone else.

Celts - Wikipedia

And, of course, they practiced slavery like everyone else.

know that you are definitely not trying to make a case for Christianity or Catholicism, but I come from the perspective of having been socialised within these traditions. The secular and institutionalized aspects have such implications stemming from the masses and the hierarchy of the Church. It is extremely authoritarian and this applies to other mainstream religions, especially the Islamic religion.

I think that this leads to people often exploring alternatives ranging from people simply rejecting all forms of religion or spirituality, to looking for alternatives within other cultures. Of course, it is possible to end up seeing them in an idealistic way which may be so different from the experiences of the people living in the midst of such systems of ideas. But, one aspect which I believe that it is important in all free spirited approaches is the emphasis on personal experience of the numinous.

This can occur within the context of any cultural context but it often follows a more shamanic conception of experience, which is about the experiences of the lower and upper realms of consciousness, with a view to the enhanced individual experiences and insights for culture. I believe that idea systems within the Native American, Celtic and other systems adopt more of a shamanic model, with more of an emphasis on transforming this life as opposed to the way in which mainstream religions often present rigid dogmas and doctrines concerning salvation and ideas of a reward in a life after this one. — Jack Cummins

I find you so amazing because although we don't really know each other, you seem to pick up on exactly what I want to talk about and say it better than I do. That socialization and what it does to us!

"It is extremely authoritarian and this applies to other mainstream religions", :scream: And so is the military and the labour intense industry from the beginning of the industrial age, and the New World Order, and Billy Graham doing a Christmas show telling us in the US that God wants us to send our son's and daughter's into the war that should not have happened. A war supported by the Christian right. The world is gearing up to have a serious conflict over the control of world resources and trade routes. My spirit is greatly disturbed by our like of concern for the mother and all else but our material spirations. And than there is this matter of liberty. What does that feel like?

"This can occur within the context of any cultural context but it often follows a more shamanic conception of experience, which is about the experiences of the lower and upper realms of consciousness, with a view to the enhanced individual experiences and insights for culture" You touched my soul and I could not have said that better.

Apparently, pre-Christian Iron Age Celtic social structure was based on class and kingship: — Apollodorus

That is an excellent point. The old world order was family order and from there the position of the father and the mother really matters! Is the woman an equal or under the male head of the household? We used to be very sensitive to goddesses representing the life force and wisdom and Justice and Liberty. Athena is the goddess of Liberty and Justice as in the Statue of Liberty who holds a torch and a book, the symbols of enlightenment, and the Lady of Justice who holds a scale and sword. But our liberation of women has not carried the spirit of America, an icon that goes with Liberty and Justice. Under our Father in heaven, liberation has meant to be as a man, not to be as a mother! I need to shade the meaning of what I am saying. Rome is about power and glory, it is not about the mother and liberty.

The Christian Kingdom and the empire of Rome became one and the same thing and the Celts said they do not only enslave others but also themselves. That is required for power and glory and that is not what the early Greeks had nor what the Celts had. Rome gave the family power and glory but this is not liberty, and Jewish consciousness began transforming from nomads who shared the land equally, to farmers with the man in the house the representative of God, owning the family plot and slaves. The is not how the mother orders life. This is not just a dis on men, but it totally changes our understanding of life and how we organize ourselves. Do we live in fear of God organized by a hierarchy of authority and power, or do we live with the spirit of freedom and liberty and rejoicing in our individual power and glory?

Ancient Celtic religion, commonly known as Celtic paganism, comprises the religious beliefs and practices adhered to by the Iron Age people of Western Europe now known as the Celts, roughly between 500 BCE and 500 CE, spanning the La Tène period and the Roman era, and in the case of the Insular Celts the British and Irish Iron Age. Very little is known with any certainty about the subject, and apart from documented names, which are thought to be of deities, the only detailed contemporary accounts are by hostile Roman writers, who were probably not well-informed.

Ancient Celtic Religion - Wikipedia

If so little is known about Celtic religion, I wonder how much is known about Celtic spirituality?

If so little is known about Celtic religion, I wonder how much is known about Celtic spirituality? — Apollodorus

Because it is not that limited. Jack Cummins presents a more universal understanding of spiritualism and social organization before the Father in Heaven replaced the mother. He speaks the shaman cultures that do not separate us from the creator and life force, as the God of Abraham religions hold us separate from God and our mother earth life force. It is not just the Celts but just about everyone before Zeus swallowed Metis, Athena's mother and goddess of wisdom.

Zeus and Metis is the story of patriarchy consuming matriarchies and the story of Cain and Able is about the transition from herding to farming.

Do we live in fear of God organized by a hierarchy of authority and power, or do we live with the spirit of freedom and liberty and rejoicing in our individual power and glory? — Athena

We do not know that there was no hierarchy in Celtic society or that there was no fear of deities and other supernatural forces.

Plus, an empire cannot be organized in the same way as a small nomadic tribe.

I think more complex societies tend to be more hierarchical than less complex ones. Humanity cannot revert to nomadism.

Jack Cummins presents a more universal understanding of spiritualism and social organization before the Father in Heaven replaced the mother. — Athena

Unfortunately, there are no Ancient Celts available to confirm that this was their actual view. After all, they never put their beliefs into writing.

And I don't think Christianity holds us separate from God. It is for the individual believer to hold themselves as far or as near to God as they choose.

In any case, Christianity teaches its followers to see the Spirit of God in his Creation and states that the human body is the temple or dwelling place of God:

Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God? (1 Cor. 6:19)