Worldviews of the ancients?

[Fiamma]

All right, so I'm taking this from some of the discussion on the thread about homophobia.

A few people are talking about adhering to the worldview of the ancient Greeks with regards to homosexual marriage, the idea of people who are sterile not being allowed to be priests etc...

So, slavery ownership was cool back in the day. But regarded as an atrocity now.

And women were generally treated like property. And that's kinda frowned upon now.

No one is trying to keep those aspects of the worldview of the ancients. "We know better" is what people tend to say now.

We know now that sterility is caused by medical issues, and is often treatable, and sometimes fully curable. (because I know someone's going to ask about this...by "treatable", I mean the medical condition is still there but can be managed and/or improved to the point where a child can be conceived and carried, and by "curable" I mean that something can be done to eradicate the medical issue altogether.) Don't we know better?

The views of people and society change over time. Do you really think that if the ancient polytheists were to have survived and continued in an unbroken line til today that their views would have stagnated back in the middle 400's BC? Do you think that they would have continued to require that all girls and women remain under the guardianship of their kyrios, seeing as women are, you know, weaker physically and intellectually? Probably not.

I think that it's logical to conclude that with a growing understanding of the scientific causes of things, that views would have eventually changed.

As for issues of things like homosexual marriage...being that certain kinds of homosexual relationships were allowed back in the day, my guess is that, had the ancient polytheists continued unbroken, they eventually would have allowed it, especially coming into the more modern times and moving away from the main purpose of marriage having to do with protecting property and bearing offspring and more towards the idea of romantic love and in many cases, raising a family. This is only speculation, we'll never know for sure, but I think it's logical.

But in the end, my point is this: people's viewpoints change over time, society changes. If the ancient polytheistic Greeks had continued to this day, it's extremely unlikely that everything would be exactly like it was back then.

Would you be willing to own slaves if you were in the economic place to do so? Do you think that women should remain under the care of their fathers and husbands for their entire lives? What about trade- do you think that we should forbid the export of all goods, with the sole exception being olive oil? Do you think that exile is a sufficient punishment for a murderer?

Why not? These were all views held in ancient Greece. If a true reconstructionist is required to hold to ancient views, then there should be no picking and choosing.

But that's silly. We don't do that anymore. Things change in time, we know better...whatever. So we hold no slaves now. Women are free and don't require a man's protection, we import many, many things besides olive oil, and murderers are given the death penalty or live the rest of their life behind bars.

If these things can change, why is it not possible for other views to change?

[Toby Stimpson]

Bravo, this was very well said.

I think you raise some great points and highlight the issue within reconstructionism of recreating religions enough within an extinct cultural context...while at the same time merging it with the values and beliefs of today.

This is one of the major issues, I feel, of any reconstructed path. Ultimatly a religion appears as evolved or devolved stages at different points in history. I feel that to really reconstruct a religion, it's necessary to be sensitive to time frames and what was appropriate at what times. This point should be true of any Recon because I think that it would be foolish to be mixing elements, just because they were once part of the same religion.

Ofcourse that being said... I feel that it may be easy for us to say 'change with the times'... but if a particular tradition of recons are formd and organized within a particular culture that may share cultural biases as norms, such as homophobia... then It no longer has to do with the recon tradition and instead becomes a social justice issue of today and now.

Great post Fiamma.

[green aventurine]

Both good posts, IMO.


All right, so I'm taking this from some of the discussion on the thread about homophobia.

A few people are talking about adhering to the worldview of the ancient Greeks with regards to homosexual marriage, the idea of people who are sterile not being allowed to be priests etc...

So, slavery ownership was cool back in the day. But regarded as an atrocity now.

And women were generally treated like property. And that's kinda frowned upon now.

...

Why not? These were all views held in ancient Greece. If a true reconstructionist is required to hold to ancient views, then there should be no picking and choosing.

...

If these things can change, why is it not possible for other views to change?

Yes, that's the kind of thing that sprang to my mind when I was reading David's thread. Also things like neither women nor slaves could vote in Athens, from what I remember, and why they didn't have an issue with women voting today (if Athens is relevant to Hellenic recon which I'm guessing it would be).

I also assume members from that group in David's thread (or people who insist that reconstruction involves adhering to the worldview of ancient Greeks) don't go dressed to work or to the shops like this:

http://cd7.e2bn.net/e2bn/leas/c99/schools/cd7/website/images/greek-ancient-greek-clothing-2.jpg






Ofcourse that being said... I feel that it may be easy for us to say 'change with the times'... but if a particular tradition of recons are formd and organized within a particular culture that may share cultural biases as norms, such as homophobia... then It no longer has to do with the recon tradition and instead becomes a social justice issue of today and now.

Great post Fiamma.

I don't really know anything about reconstruction as it's not my thing, personally, but there does seem, to me, to be an issue about where exactly you draw the line in reconstructing and the above quote was another thing that I thought as well, reading David's thread. I would imagine giving or denying women the right to vote would also be part of a social justice issue today and nothing to do with reconstruction, for me, anyway.

[David19]

All right, so I'm taking this from some of the discussion on the thread about homophobia.

A few people are talking about adhering to the worldview of the ancient Greeks with regards to homosexual marriage, the idea of people who are sterile not being allowed to be priests etc...

So, slavery ownership was cool back in the day. But regarded as an atrocity now.

And women were generally treated like property. And that's kinda frowned upon now.

No one is trying to keep those aspects of the worldview of the ancients. "We know better" is what people tend to say now.

We know now that sterility is caused by medical issues, and is often treatable, and sometimes fully curable. (because I know someone's going to ask about this...by "treatable", I mean the medical condition is still there but can be managed and/or improved to the point where a child can be conceived and carried, and by "curable" I mean that something can be done to eradicate the medical issue altogether.) Don't we know better?

The views of people and society change over time. Do you really think that if the ancient polytheists were to have survived and continued in an unbroken line til today that their views would have stagnated back in the middle 400's BC? Do you think that they would have continued to require that all girls and women remain under the guardianship of their kyrios, seeing as women are, you know, weaker physically and intellectually? Probably not.

I think that it's logical to conclude that with a growing understanding of the scientific causes of things, that views would have eventually changed.

As for issues of things like homosexual marriage...being that certain kinds of homosexual relationships were allowed back in the day, my guess is that, had the ancient polytheists continued unbroken, they eventually would have allowed it, especially coming into the more modern times and moving away from the main purpose of marriage having to do with protecting property and bearing offspring and more towards the idea of romantic love and in many cases, raising a family. This is only speculation, we'll never know for sure, but I think it's logical.

But in the end, my point is this: people's viewpoints change over time, society changes. If the ancient polytheistic Greeks had continued to this day, it's extremely unlikely that everything would be exactly like it was back then.

Would you be willing to own slaves if you were in the economic place to do so? Do you think that women should remain under the care of their fathers and husbands for their entire lives? What about trade- do you think that we should forbid the export of all goods, with the sole exception being olive oil? Do you think that exile is a sufficient punishment for a murderer?

Why not? These were all views held in ancient Greece. If a true reconstructionist is required to hold to ancient views, then there should be no picking and choosing.

But that's silly. We don't do that anymore. Things change in time, we know better...whatever. So we hold no slaves now. Women are free and don't require a man's protection, we import many, many things besides olive oil, and murderers are given the death penalty or live the rest of their life behind bars.

If these things can change, why is it not possible for other views to change?

I think you make a lot of sense, I'm sure there were a lot of things that were in the worldview of the ancient Greeks, but, I'm also sure, if they had survived to the present day, they'd have changed, just like all religions change their attitudes and worldviews to certain subjects, like Jews in their worldview and attitudes e.g. the fact that there is no Temple anymore, their views on homosexuality (only the most Ultra-Orthodox would hold that LGBT people deserve to be killed, and, incidently, that's the type of person that recently killed some people in a Tel Aviv Gay Youth center), their views on women, etc. (I know I kept using this example in my thread, but, it's the only one that I can think of as relevant, a ancient religion that has survived, while adapting and changing, to the present day, it's also one that I know more about due to my background).

Also, just a few centuries ago, it was alright for Americans to own slave, and just 50, or even less years ago, it was ok for white Americans and white people in most other countries, to treat black people like shit, things change.


Both good posts, IMO.



Yes, that's the kind of thing that sprang to my mind when I was reading David's thread. Also things like neither women nor slaves could vote in Athens, from what I remember, and why they didn't have an issue with women voting today (if Athens is relevant to Hellenic recon which I'm guessing it would be).

QFT.

[Philosophia]

Thank you for starting this thread. It's been a major issue that has stopped me from becoming a reconstructionist. A question that comes from this:

When does reconstructionism stop? Do we take all historical avenues, i.e. life, ethics, customs, etc. when reconstructing the religion?

[Tim]

@Fiamma

I'm wonder why you would post a thread like this here, when you have access to actual Ethnikoi, living in Greece, who can answer questions about authentic Hellenismos for you. Here it is just like another pile on anti-recon thread. This type of religion bashing would not be tolerated on MysticWicks' Abrahamic board, and I just don't understand why non-recons are allowed to come on the a recon section and attack recon methodology, beliefs, and practices.

[Twinkle]

Agreed, Tim. I'm not sure why non-Recons come on a Hellenic Recon forum with the sole intent of bashing our core beliefs and practices.

The sticky at the top of the Forums say that this is not allowed, and I've seen moderations that say religion bashing is not allowed.

If people don't like Reconstruction, simply don't come to this part of the Forum.

[Philosophia]

@Fiamma

I'm wonder why you would post a thread like this here, when you have access to actual Ethnikoi, living in Greece, who can answer questions about authentic Hellenismos for you. Here it is just like another pile on anti-recon thread. This type of religion bashing would not be tolerated on MysticWicks' Abrahamic board, and I just don't understand why non-recons are allowed to come on the a recon section and attack recon methodology, beliefs, and practices.

If you feel like reconstructionism is being attacked, report it. This is a public board and everybody is allowed in the recon section (as with other path forums). Personally, I don't see any bashing.

[Twinkle]

http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=113890

[Twinkle]

http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=113890

Of Particular note:


These threads are not for debate. We have a theology forum. These threads are to provide information and share information. I suggest if you are questioning another Path's principles then you do it in a more proper environment, such as the theology forum. We will not tolerate any abuse of any religion nor will we let this forum turn into a flame fest of people disagreeing with principles.

[Philosophia]

That's what the report button is for. I suggest you use it.

[Seren_]

If anybody sees any bashing going on, please report the posts and let the admins take a look at it :)

The reconstructionist forums are here to discuss the various reconstructionist paths. Most people who post here do tend to be reconstructionists but that doesn't mean that it's only for reconstructionists to post here. Anyone is welcome to post in the Recon subforums, so long as they stay respectful - just like anywhere else on the board.

[green aventurine]

A question that comes from this:

When does reconstructionism stop? Do we take all historical avenues, i.e. life, ethics, customs, etc. when reconstructing the religion?

Yes, I think these are important (and interesting) questions, IMO. :uhhuhuh:

Perhaps reconstructism just isn't a concept which is defined by a set of necessary and sufficient statements or rules (if that's the right way to express it) but it's more of a family concept (wittgenstein) so you might end up with two different groups of helenic recons, for example, who don't have much in common but both still consider themselves helenic recons.

[Twinkle]

Not really. You have either Recons, or those that want to be perceived as Recon, but do whatever they want.

[Philosophia]

Not really. You have either Recons, or those that want to be perceived as Recon, but do whatever they want.

How can you tell the difference?

[Tim]

It is an old and tired argument against recon methodology that has been addressed by just about every Reconstructionist group out there. This is not just for Hellenismos, but most other Reconstructionist Religions. Reconstructionists are not out there trying to bring back every aspect of the ancient world, we are reconstructing those aspects that are specifically religious. Slavery had no religious implication. The status of women, while in the culture as a whole was different, was on equal or greater standing within the religious aspects. I know Fiamma knows the answers to her original post. This is just a fictitious argument to allow people to try and poke holes in Reconstructionist practices because they just don't like the way we do things.

[green aventurine]

I think you make a lot of sense, I'm sure there were a lot of things that were in the worldview of the ancient Greeks, but, I'm also sure, if they had survived to the present day, they'd have changed, just like all religions change their attitudes and worldviews to certain subjects, like Jews in their worldview and attitudes e.g. the fact that there is no Temple anymore, their views on homosexuality (only the most Ultra-Orthodox would hold that LGBT people deserve to be killed, and, incidently, that's the type of person that recently killed some people in a Tel Aviv Gay Youth center), their views on women, etc. (I know I kept using this example in my thread, but, it's the only one that I can think of as relevant, a ancient religion that has survived, while adapting and changing, to the present day, it's also one that I know more about due to my background).

Also, just a few centuries ago, it was alright for Americans to own slave, and just 50, or even less years ago, it was ok for white Americans and white people in most other countries, to treat black people like shit, things change.

That's interesting and some good points, IMO.

[Twinkle]

If one is incorporating Neopagan elements or delineating from the worldview in such a way that it no longer *is* the worldview, then they are no longer practicing Reconstructionism, or authentic Hellenismos.

They are practicing something loosely based off the Ancient religion, or even electicism or Greek flavored neopaganism.

And that's fine. It's simply not Reconstruction. The slavery and women arguments really don't have much to do with the Reconstruction of the *Ancient Greek Religion and practice*

What we see a lot of times is people pissed because they can't have what they want and have Hellenismos be all inclusive.

[green aventurine]

How can you tell the difference?

I agree, I think it can be problematic.

[Philosophia]

It is an old and tired argument against recon methodology that has been addressed by just about every Reconstructionist group out there. This is not just for Hellenismos, but most other Reconstructionist Religions. Reconstructionists are not out there trying to bring back every aspect of the ancient world, we are reconstructing those aspects that are specifically religious. Slavery had no religious implication. The status of women, while in the culture as a whole was different, was on equal or greater standing within the religious aspects. I know Fiamma knows the answers to her original post. This is just a fictitious argument to allow people to try and poke holes in Reconstructionist practices because they just don't like the way we do things.


If one is incorporating Neopagan elements or delineating from the worldview in such a way that it no longer *is* the worldview, then they are no longer practicing Reconstructionism, or authentic Hellenismos.

They are practicing something loosely based off the Ancient religion, or even electicism or Greek flavored neopaganism.

And that's fine. It's simply not Reconstruction.

What we see a lot of times is people pissed because they can't have what they want and have Hellenismos be all inclusive.

Thanks for answering this. It was something that had been plaguing me for awhile.

[darkNight]

Would you be willing to own slaves if you were in the economic place to do so?

Absolutely, 100%... yes. There were a lot of cool slave owners who treated their slaves as family, caring for them emotionally as well as financially. Benjamin Franklin and Tommy Jefferson pop into mind. Though, of course there were some owners who were @$$e$, but I wouldn't be one of them.

Slaves, for the most part, had free housing and board, had excellent health care (after all, why spend the $ for one just to have them die in a year due to negligence?) and were educated (by owners who cared, and weren't scared).

Compare their lot to a "bean picker" or day laborer today? They get squat for income, then are expected to pay for their own room and board, they have clinics they can go to, but slaves had doctors (which actually made house calls), and regularly exploited on the job. I was doing day labor for a couple of days in Phoenix in the summer years ago, doing clean up on a construction site.

First day, they told me to pick up all this rebar which were laying out in the sun (keep in mind, summertime weather was routinely triple digits), yet failed to provide me with gloves. I sucked it up and did it, but came home with terrible blisters on my hands.

The next day, I was alone at the site, and they forgot to leave me with water.

All in all, I would have rather been Franklin's or Jefferson's slave.

---------------------------------
Edit, sorry, just reading the earlier posts now. I wasn't trying to down anyone's religion, just a sociological opinion.

[Tim]

Absolutely, 100%... yes. There were a lot of cool slave owners who treated their slaves as family, caring for them emotionally as well as financially. Benjamin Franklin and Tommy Jefferson pop into mind. Though, of course there were some owners who were @$$e$, but I wouldn't be one of them.

Slaves, for the most part, had free housing and board, had excellent health care (after all, why spend the $ for one just to have them die in a year due to negligence?) and were educated (by owners who cared, and weren't scared).

Compare their lot to a "bean picker" or day laborer today? They get squat for income, then are expected to pay for their own room and board, they have clinics they can go to, but slaves had doctors (which actually made house calls), and regularly exploited on the job. I was doing day labor for a couple of days in Phoenix in the summer years ago, doing clean up on a construction site.

First day, they told me to pick up all this rebar which were laying out in the sun (keep in mind, summertime weather was routinely triple digits), yet failed to provide me with gloves. I sucked it up and did it, but came home with terrible blisters on my hands.

The next day, I was alone at the site, and they forgot to leave me with water.

All in all, I would have rather been Franklin's or Jefferson's slave.

---------------------------------
Edit, sorry, just reading the earlier posts now. I wasn't trying to down anyone's religion, just a sociological opinion.

This is going off topic, and the slavery in America is decidedly different than the slavery in most ancient cultures, specifically Greece. But that is neither here nor there... slavery has no religious implication and not part of reconstruction. It's a moot point.

[darkNight]

I was answering the question as it was put forth, in light of "modern" views of slavery (18-19th century is pretty modern, imho).

I wouldn't be able to answer it based on what people thought of it in the ancient times. That would be like saying, "Do you think seizures are caused by demons", no because we now know better.

[Tim]

I was answering the question as it was put forth, in light of "modern" views of slavery (18-19th century is pretty modern, imho).

I wouldn't be able to answer it based on what people thought of it in the ancient times. That would be like saying, "Do you think seizures are caused by demons", no because we now know better.
The question was being asked in relation to Hellenic Reconstruction. Were you answering in that context? I see you list yourself as a "Christian Mystic."

[darkNight]

The question was being asked in relation to Hellenic Reconstruction. Were you answering in that context? I see you list yourself as a "Christian Mystic."


But in the end, my point is this: people's viewpoints change over time, society changes. If the ancient polytheistic Greeks had continued to this day, it's extremely unlikely that everything would be exactly like it was back then.

Would you be willing to own slaves if you were in the economic place to do so?

The thesis (as I understand it) was that society changes, so knowing what we know now, would slavery be acceptable?

I am not sure what my path has to do with the thesis, though Christian thought was a major component of Greek society from the 1st century onward. The same philosophy that was ingrained in earlier American society, even if Jefferson and Franklin were deists, the philosophy was entirely assimiliated into the society.

[Tim]

The thesis (as I understand it) was that society changes, so knowing what we know now, would slavery be acceptable?

I am not sure what my path has to do with the thesis, though Christian thought was a major component of Greek society from the 1st century onward. The same philosophy that was ingrained in earlier American society, even if Jefferson and Franklin were deists, the philosophy was entirely assimiliated into the society.
Nice selective quoting, but the ultimate thesis was regarding "If a true reconstructionist is required to hold to ancient views, then there should be no picking and choosing." Notice how this board is the Hellenic Recon board, and the OP was specifically about recon methodology? Your comment was of no practical value or meaning to this discussion.

[green aventurine]

Absolutely, 100%... yes. .


That's an interesting post, DN, although I hope if you ever do own slaves, you splash out and feed them something more nutritious than Funyuns - might I suggest onion rings :hahugh:

[darkNight]

Nice selective quoting, but the ultimate thesis was regarding "If a true reconstructionist is required to hold to ancient views, then there should be no picking and choosing." Notice how this board is the Hellenic Recon board, and the OP was specifically about recon methodology? Your comment was of no practical value or meaning to this discussion.

Ok, I didn't get that. The fact that it is a Hellenic Recon board does not exclude people from posting items of a general/universal nature.

I'm sorry if you didn't find it to have "practical value or meaning to this discussion", but I equally don't care.

[Tim]

Ok, I didn't get that. The fact that it is a Hellenic Recon board does not exclude people from posting items of a general/universal nature.
Sure, if it is in context and on topic.

[darkNight]

And that is where we differ, I feel it was general enough to be commented on. And considering you aren't even the OP, just relax, no skin off of you - even if it is out of context.

And for the record, I will post where and what I feel like (abiding MW's rules of course). And no MW Nazi is going to say different.

[Twinkle]

And that is where we differ, I feel it was general enough to be commented on. And considering you aren't even the OP, just relax, no skin off of you - even if it is out of context.

And for the record, I will post where and what I feel like (abiding MW's rules of course). And no MW Nazi is going to say different.


LOL. I like that.

It's difficult for a person not really familiar with Reconstruction to answer in a Recon perspective.

I hope that things are clearer, now.

If not, I'll be glad to offer anything that can help.

[darkNight]

Thanks, I am learning (abour reconstruction) as I go along. It is all good. Considering it is "just" MW (as opposed to getting diagnosed with a terminal disease, or something of consequence), not going to let it ruin my day. :)

[Caitlin.ann]

Is slavery in ancient Greek culture even relevant in Hellenic Reconstructionism? If not then why even mention it? I find the homosexual priest issue on the surface had relevance to the OP of the previous thread, however I fail to fathom what slavery has to do with Hellenic Reconstructionism in general. Maybe I'm just uneducated?

[darkNight]

Is slavery in ancient Greek culture even relevant in Hellenic Reconstructionism? If not then why even mention it? I find the homosexual priest issue on the surface had relevance to the OP of the previous thread, however I fail to fathom what slavery has to do with Hellenic Reconstructionism in general. Maybe I'm just uneducated?

The OP mentioned slavery.

[Twinkle]

Well, the simple answer is that slavery doesn't have anything to do with reconstructing religious practice.

That was the first problem with this thread. So - it took off from there, and those not familiar with Reconstruction went with the assumption that Recons are wanting to reconstruct every little piece of the Ancients.

It's simply not true and a rather crude attempt to invalidate and demean Recons and their practices and methodology.

[Caitlin.ann]

The OP mentioned slavery.

I know I should have quoted, but my point was primarily to the OP and whoever else wanted to answer. The other thread was regarding homosexuality in the preisthood in Hellenic Reconstructionism and a few members, defending their chosen path explained quite eloquently their views based on the ancient worldview regarding religion. As far as I understand it slavery was a social standard for the time and has next to nothing to do with religion so I am wondering where the relevance in the correlation to the other thread is. Which is why I stated "maybe I'm just uneducated"?

[Twinkle]

Sacredsin -

See my post above.

[darkNight]

Yeah, after I posted I thought perhaps you meant that to the OP.

After the last posts, wasn't sure though

:)

[Caitlin.ann]

Well, the simple answer is that slavery doesn't have anything to do with reconstructing religious practice.

That was the first problem with this thread. So - it took off from there, and those not familiar with Reconstruction went with the assumption that Recons are wanting to reconstruct every little piece of the Ancients.

It's simply not true and a rather crude attempt to invalidate and demean Recons and their practices and methodology.
Thank you for your input, Twinkle. I don't understand why some (not pointing anyone out) find it is ok to demean entire valid paths but are over zealous in defending others. Just something I've noticed.

[darkNight]

Sacredsin -

See my post above.

Asking out of ignorance, but why wouldn't it have to do with Hellenic Recon? It would seem to be a major component of Greek civilization. Even just on a historical level, not a modern one.

[Caitlin.ann]

Asking out of ignorance, but why wouldn't it have to do with Hellenic Recon? It would seem to be a major component of Greek civilization. Even just on a historical level, not a modern one.

I assumed Hellenic Recon had more to do with reconstructing the religion and less so the culture to the exact, but I'm not sure myself.

[Twinkle]

Asking out of ignorance, but why wouldn't it have to do with Hellenic Recon? It would seem to be a major component of Greek civilization. Even just on a historical level, not a modern one.

No. :)

Reconstruction deals specifically religious practice. Slavery has no place in our reconstruction of the religion.

It gets confusing, because the Greeks had no word for religion. The culture was so intertwined with worship that it can be confusing as to what was religious and what was not.

In this case, we know that slavery had nothing to do with religious practice.

[darkNight]

Ahh, because I know celtic recon still maintains the equality between the sexes, from what I've read.

----------
edit -

Ah, never mind, gender equality was ingrained into their religion, so I guess it would fit (celtic) wheras slavery wasn't related to religious practice. Got ya.

[Tim]

Asking out of ignorance, but why wouldn't it have to do with Hellenic Recon? It would seem to be a major component of Greek civilization. Even just on a historical level, not a modern one.
This has been repeated a number of times in the thread, slavery was a social standard, but had nothing to do with the religion. Reconstructionists are reconstructing the religion, not the whole culture and life.

[Tim]

Ah, never mind, gender equality was ingrained into their religion, so I guess it would fit (celtic) wheras slavery wasn't related to religious practice. Got ya.
I'm slow... glad to see you got it.:boing:

[darkNight]

Regardless of if the question on if we would own slaves should be in this post, the fact is it was asked.

I provided an answer.

If the post should be moved to "talk" or another forum, ok, still answering the question that was asked.

[Twinkle]

Ahh, because I know celtic recon still maintains the equality between the sexes, from what I've read.

----------
edit -

Ah, never mind, gender equality was ingrained into their religion, so I guess it would fit (celtic) wheras slavery wasn't related to religious practice. Got ya.


Not a problem. It can be confusing.

[SwordsFlameSong]

THREAD CLOSED PENDING FURTHER ADMIN REVIEW.

Infractions may, or may not be assigned based on review.

[~Elise~]

Question was asked and answered, multiple times. I'm leaving the thread closed with no infractions given.

ETA--Listen up, folks...I'm not going to repeat this. This is a RECON board, you DO NOT have the right to come in with your two cents telling them how it OUGHT to be in your worldview. It is what it is, you don't like it...then stay the hell out of the threads and out of the forum. Got a problem with that...then PM an admin (and not me, because you will get NO sympathy from me.)

[GEBS]

To add to what Elise said, if you are a repeat offender in this or any other Path forum you will be banned from that Path forum. The Path's section is supposed to be a safe haven for discussion of one's path without criticism or argument from others. We will strictly enforce this rule. If anyone has questions on this policy please send me a PM.