Tag Archives: paganism

Star Craft.

Anatomical Man, Les Très Riches Heures du duc ...

Image via Wikipedia

My Life for Ire.

For the last few days, an amusing little news report has caught the attention of a large number of believers and non-believers alike; apparently the Zodiac, and therefore all astrology, is inaccurate, according to the research of an astronomer from Minnesota.[1] Because we didn’t know that astrology was hocus pocus nonsense already. In fairness, the relevant point being made by the Minneapolitan is that the moon’s gravity has such an effect on the earth that the Zodiac used by astrologers is one month out of sequence with reality, and, as a bonus inconsistency, they are also ignoring a 13th sign. The original article which brought this to light does mention that astronomers and astrologers have known of this disparity for decades, but have remained silent on the issue as, well, it hardly matters, does it? It’s astrology, who cares?

What is your major malfunction?

I thought little of this debate, it is nonsense after all, until I came across several articles which essentially hope to calm the fears of believers[2]; their signs, contrary to the hurtful words of the bad scientist man, have not changed, according to the helpful and foresight-gifted astrologers, who are in no way economically dependent on sustaining a system of belief which has no true predictive properties but still manages to draw a good deal of money from the gullible. The general theme was one of “Don’t worry”, which should have been followed immediately by “all this Zodiac stuff is an edifice carefully constructed, yet still utterly meaningless, from monkey filth, and the monkey who made it is lying to you”, but, sadly, all the reports clamour to point out “you star-sign hasn’t changed”. Because that’s the key piece of information to take from the debate. A Leo is still a Leo, and has all the inherent attributes of a Leo gifted to them by the stars, because Western astrologers follow a tropical system. Point missed; well done Media. This is a non-story; the first article was entertaining, and possibly illuminating to some, but to allow astrologers to retort grants them a level of credibility they should not be given.

Science, it works…

Nicolaus Copernicus portrait from Town Hall in...

Image via Wikipedia

Astrology and astronomy were one and the same thing for most of human history, just as chemistry was once alchemy, and medicine was witchcraft. But then, things changed; the Enlightenment took hold. From ill-conceived half-truths and unsupported conjectures we derived theories and facts; we separated the chaff from the wheat, the nut from the shell. It was a defining point in human history.The valuable stuff that made the cut became science, the detritus became fashionably ‘alternative’. Reason and academic rigour were born and gave rise to the modern scientific, secular, world. Nonsense masquerading as science has survived both on the fringes of society, and in popular culture, in tabloids, and, increasingly, on the Internet. Copernicus hammered the first nail in the coffin of geocentric religion with his heliocentric model of the solar system, and, building on that, it was eventually discovered that we live on a small planet in the middle of nowhere in a very big somewhere. After hundreds of years suffering under the tyranny of Ptolemy’s unchanging modal of the universe, which the astrologers still adhere to like barnacles, a new system emerged which used observation, mathematics, and reason to design a modal which had true predictive value. Conveniently, when Copernicus and his ilk carved the pith of nonsense from the flesh of facts, they not only shook faith in a supreme deity to its core, they also divided astronomy from astrology. Taking data, building a theory, and then testing it through observation, and then of course refining the theory, provided us with a neat and practical modal of how the universe worked, which is far more useful than making stuff up based on broad generalities and coincidence. Astronomers dumped everything else, everything that made no sense, that couldn’t be proved, that couldn’t be falsified. Stars are enormous balls of gas and fire, they don’t care if you were born in July, they can’t predict if that Libra you met online is the person you have been waiting for, they won’t give you next week’s lotto numbers, and they don’t want you to be happy. Stay out in the sun too long and you’ll see how much a star likes you.

Unnecessary Atavism.

This minor conflict between astrologers and astronomers is indicative of a larger issue. People believe in astrology, a lot of people; one would be too many. It is a strangely popular ailment, it appears in countless newspapers and magazines. On the other hand, it is not as insidious as religion, and there’s a church, synagogue, mosque, or some kind of temple in every city and village in the world. Astrology is not unlike alternative medicine, except I’ve never heard of anyone dying from astrology. It doesn’t appear to be a ‘bad thing’. Astrology in the same vein of tedium as tarot reading and ghosts, superstitions which endure, but still not as damaging as other such nonsense, like creationism and faith-based ‘science’, which seem to be increasing in popularity. This may be a response to the increasingly secular and rational world we live in, another omen of which is the rise in religious conservatism and extremism. There is a war on science waged by ignorance, and astrology is an accessory to this crime. You may think I am exaggerating the dangers of this zodiac fantasy, but it is a symptom, an awkward itch, of a greater and ever more virulent disease; the trend towards the alternative, no matter how daft it is. It’s one thing to read your star-sign in the paper for fun, or the Bible as literature, another thing entirely to actually believe it; chicanery paraded as fact is to be regarded with contempt. Fairies and star-signs, humans and dinosaurs living side-by-side, a ‘museum’ dedicated to Noah’s Ark, homeopathic ‘remedies’, ghost-hunters on TV, men in dresses who pontificate about morality, conspiracy theorists; delusion and ignorance are laying claim to the world, and they must be resisted, and driven back to the abyss.

A Subtle Heresy.

As a final note, if you are a member of any of the major Christian faiths (and probably Judaism and Islam too, but I’m not entirely sure), and you believe in astrology, you are a heretic. Astrology is paganism, possibly even borderline idolatry. According to the Bible, astrologers are bound for Hell, Isaiah 47:13-14 “Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from [these things] that shall come upon thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame…”. On the other hand, the three Magi were astrologers, so clearly the Bible has mixed views on the issue. Either way, one’s a myth and the other is a superstition, and it doesn’t really matter which is which.

Ceterum autem censeo, religionem esse delendam.

[1] http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/style/113100139.html

[2] http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/no-your-zodiac-sign-hasnt-changed/

There are many, many more such articles and posts decrying this radical idea of astrology not being true… I do quite like the sarcastic tone of this one though –


Stolen Holidays.

Yule Thieves.

Christmas is a funny thing; it is supposed to be a celebration of the birth of the son of the Christian god, but in reality, for most people, it is an orgy of consumerism and gluttony, which aren’t very Christian concepts. But neither is Christmas. It is, in effect, a pagan winter festival that has had Christian decorations draped upon it; a polytheist tree wrapped in monotheist tinsel. Christmas wasn’t celebrated by the first Christians, or even the second ones; not until the 4th century do we find records of the adherents of this peculiar new Jewish cult regarding the birth of their Messiah as something worth celebrating. Indeed many Christians thought that celebrating one’s birthday was a barbarous thing, particularly Origen, one of the most influential Christian theologians of Antiquity and the Middle Ages. But the time of year was already a cause for celebration before the posthumous popularity of a certain Galilean. The Romans, and many of the folk they conquered, celebrated ‘Saturnalia’ in the depths of winter, a festival of lights and feasting, where houses were covered in green-leaved branches, people were allowed time off work, and bonfires were lit. Sound familiar? Or what about the Northern Europe winter festival called Yule (or Jul), where houses were adorned with candles, animals were slaughtered, great feasts were organised, and vast quantities of beer was drunk? Jealous (possibly) of all this good clean pagan fun, the Christians jumped on the idea, and hijacked it for their own purposes.

Do you know When Jesus was born? Answers on a Postcard, Addressed to “The Pope, The Vatican, Italy”.

The Bible has very little to say about the birth of Christ; only two of the Gospels even bother give an account of that oh so special event, and they provide very little detail, and even then they don’t agree on what actually transpired (if it did), except, of course, for the crucial headline event. The best part about Jesus’ birthday is that no-one knows when it really is; nothing in the Bible even hints at when it could be, which, for a work of revelation and prophecy, is a bit ironic. Before the 4th century, the different Christian factions believed Christ to have been born in March, April, or May. And even then, the year is wrong, all thanks to a monk named Dionysius Exiguus who couldn’t do his math very well; Jesus was born sometime between 6 and  4 Before Himself, not on Year 1.

One Festival to Rule Them All…

In the West, the first mention of Jesus’ birthday is in the mid-4th century in a Roman calendar of sorts, and it declares it to be the 25th of December, a date that was soon adopted throughout the Roman Empire. Which may appear to be a bit random, since Eastern Christians seemed to prefer the idea of a spring or summer birthday. Interestingly, the 25th of December was already commemorated by many pagan Romans, such as that most crucial of Christian Emperors, Constantine, as the birthday of Sol Invictus, the sun-god (where’s a Catholic priest with no understanding of history or linguistics when you need one?).  It also happens to be around the time of the winter solstice, a time venerated in many other non-Christian religions. To co-opt one was to co-opt them all. It’s only a theory, but it seems quite reasonable to suggest that Christmas was invented to appeal to Roman pagans in particular, since they ran the world in those days, and they already had a long tradition of celebration around the 25th of December. Of course theology was later tacked on, the lengthening of the days is symbolic of the light of Christ and such, but the ‘birthday’ of the Christian Messiah has always lived in the shadow of what Christmas is really about; having a good time with friends during the darkest period of the year (in the Northern Hemisphere anyway), drinking and eating, and having a party.

Bring out Your Dead.

The Christians also swiped Hallowe’en from those rascally pagans, who had a thing for equinoxes and solstices. The early Christians seem to have been equally fond of plastering their notions over pre-existing conditions, and Hallowe’en is no different. This was, and continues to be, an essentially pagan, and particularly ‘Celtic’ (not in the sense of an ethnic group, but as a linguistic family which may have shared cultural practices) celebration, probably called something akin to Samhain (‘Sow-an’ not ‘Sam-hain’ as a certain American supernatural TV series claimed), which Christians sneakily sidled up to with ‘All Saints’ Day’, followed swiftly by ‘All Souls’ Day’ and all of a sudden it’s a harmless party-time for children, drunk students, and immature adults (don’t get me wrong, certain aspects of maturity are over-rated).

Bye-bye, mister Nazarene pie.

The one major celebration the Christians didn’t steal from the pagans was Easter (just when you think you have them figured out, they go and change their game to keep you guessing). No, they stole it from the Jews, though, in fairness, the Christ-lovers do have a legitimate claim on it. Unlike his birthday, we have a better idea of when Jesus was killed, because he had become important enough to take notice of by then. He (if he existed, and I reckon he may well have, but without the magic tricks) was crucified sometime in the month of Nisan, possibly on Friday the 15th, at the beginning of, or during, Passover. Which you might think is a good deal of detail, except Jewish months move. Unlike the Roman/Gregorian/Modern calendar, which is solar, the Jewish one is lunar, so the months are not always in the same place every year. The 15th of Nisan provided the early Christians with a bit of an issue; the date of Christ’s execution wandered around a bit. Theologically, some preferred the Paschal celebration to come after the vernal equinox, the world was ‘brighter’ after the death of the Galilean, and others didn’t care, believing that they should celebrate the event on the correct date, even if it happened to fall on the wrong side of the equinox. Of course the pagans also celebrated the vernal equinox as a time of rebirth and renewal, a happy coincidence with the Christian message. The Christians didn’t steal Easter, and, to a certain degree, pagans seem to have successfully inserted their notions into the Paschal celebrations; the term ‘Easter’ comes from a pagan goddess, and bunnies, eggs, and chocolate have very little to do with the vicious scourging of a Jewish reformist.

What have we learned, then? Ignore religion and enjoy the party; life doesn’t last very long, and then you are dead.

Ceterum autem censeo, religionem esse delendam.

Temporal Inconsistency.

Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth.

I loathe historical anachronism, I really do. My disdain for it rivals that of my hatred for the pseudo-Celtic intellectual defecations which litter the shelves of many a high-street bookshop. It drives me up the wall. My particular disgruntlement concerning anachronism is based around the imposition of values. Sure, I often use modern examples to explain past events, use modern phrases to elucidate ancient concepts, and current events as mirrors to the past, but in a tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic, if not cynical, fashion. This isn’t academic scholarship, and I would hope that those (very few) who read these little works appreciated the tone and aims of my efforts, but I do my best to refrain from outright anachronism. I do not impose my values on others (though I reserve the right to not approve their inane comments on my tiny corner of the Internet), and I endeavour to not impose my values on the past.

For Example.

I have often heard and seen people balk at the more bloody exploits of the Romans, TV documentaries refer to Imperial conquests as cruel and vicious, and read comparisons of modern American exploits in the Middle East to the grand designs of those pesky centurions from Latinum. Yes, by modern standards the Romans were savage in conquest, cruel in victory, and bloodthirsty in celebration, but, by their standards, that was an exemplary mode of living. A human life was, essentially, worth less; birth and death rates were very high, slavery was ubiquitous, execution was used as a form of military discipline, diseases could strike down the healthy just as easily as the weak, and any number of random events could end a person’s life prematurely, which itself was, more often than not, limited to forty or fifty years. Yes, by modern standards, what the Romans did to large swathes of Europe, North Africa, and the Near East was ethnic cleansing or genocide, but to them, it was business as usual. This may seem callous on my part, to readily dismiss the conquest, execution, and enslavement of tens of thousands, if not millions of people, but, while I do find it reprehensible on a moral level, we cannot judge the past by the standards of the present. That was the way the world worked in those days; the Persians, Egyptians, and any other empire you care to mention did the same whenever they conquered a new territory, and don’t think that this was just a pagan eccentricity; there are several lengthy passages in the Bible where the Israelites annihilate several other peoples during the various expansions of their kingdom (under Joshua, and several of his successor judges, an under the kings Saul and David), but that was okay because ‘god said so’. The belief in implausible fantasies has allowed the commission of many fetid acts and gruesome deeds, the results, and repercussions, of which litter history, and are still apparent in the world today.

A Carpenter’s Bias.

Sometimes when I raise this issue, I must suffer the bland retort that Christianity changed all this, what with its Bee Gee charismatics, and general hippy ethos of make love not war. Yes, the early Christians were more keen on spilling their own blood than that of others, but once they realised that Jesus was not coming back, along with the fact that the Romans got on-board with the whole ‘Son of God’ thing, and that there was money to be made, the tune promptly changed. Christ was introduced to many converts by the point of a sword, or, later, the barrel of a gun, and, more recently, and in arguably a more cruel fashion, as a condition of receiving aid and charity. Christians were, and continue to be, just as good at ethnic cleansing and genocide as the pagan Romans (and I think we all know that to be a horribly true fact), and the capturing, selling, and owning of slaves by good and loving Christians only ended relatively recently in the West (though one could easily construct an argument illustrating the West’s economic enslavement of the much of the rest of the world). Society seems to have rather quickly forgotten how near atrocity is to our peaceful lives, such that we can feel safe in passing moral judgment on the past.

All too Human.

Humanism, not Christianity, is what changed the moral standards of the West. The value of a human life was found to be in life, not in the illusory everlasting nonsense of an ‘afterlife’. The drive to end slavery came not from faith (though it did eventually jump on the bandwagon) but from reason, and the greatest atrocities of our times were committed by religious or cultish autocrats. Our moral standards are a recent convention, and as such we can judge the recent past by our standards; we can be baffled by the horrors that man inflicted upon man in any age, but we only have the right to judge those who have lived since the Enlightenment (to varying degrees). It is equivalent to calling Ancient Egyptians idiots for not comprehending atomic theory, or mocking the Aztecs for not inventing the transistor.  The Roman economy was based on conquest and slavery, and their entertainment would make Abu Ghraib seem positively pleasant. The Vikings’ idea of a good time was getting drunk, eating lots, and rape and pillage, and the same was true of many Medieval peoples. These were vile deeds, but they were also vile times; a judgment on the past, admittedly, but someone like you or I, or the vast majority of people, would number among the dead, enslaved, or raped in such a world. But yet we cannot, in academic honesty, judge people who lived before Rousseau, Kant, or Paine, before the rise of Reason, before Enlightenment. They lived in a time of abject faith and mundane cruelty; if anything, they should be pitied.