RevRenee
Founder-Wehemu
Reged: 06/12/01
Posts: 2727
Loc: Racine Wisconsin
|
|
Em hotep all,
<bow>
Many interesting conversations about scholarship are happening on the candidates list (Per Ankh's lists for those training for the Priesthood in the Kemetic Traditional Religion)
I wanted to begin a conversation on the public KOL boards as well. One Kemetic website suggested that doing research on the old faith is simple and really does not require training or degrees ..rather, the writer suggests just follow the writers 5 simple rules and go for it.
I must say as a professional scholar I had to shake my head. Following her instructions would yield AT BEST a high school book report. Yet as interest in our faith grows..(by "our faith her I mean both specifically Kemetic Traditional Religion of Per Ankh and those who wish to be true to the ancient faith and take academic scholarship as a central way of understanding that faith) this issue needs more explicit discussion.
I will make a series of posts on scholarship and scholarly approaches to the study of Ancient Egyptian Religion. The first one is aimed at clearing up the most common misconception......
That is that the way to "Truth" in scholarship is through the collection of facts.
Student: Misconception? So you guys don't care about facts--you ask
Rev Renee: Oh we care very much...but we care more about Truth and Meaning
Student: How can you have truth without facts?
Rev Renee: You can't.
Student: Now I reqally don;t get it
Rev Renee: Consider a Court Case. In a trial the goal is to reach the "truth" correct
Student: Why Yes..And that is why they debate the facts
Rev Renee: Actually the "facts" or "evidence" is not in question during the trial. Think about how it works
The Prosecution and the Defense must first enter into evidence "facts" they believe to be relevant to the court case. By the time the trial has begun both Prosecutor and Defense have the SAME evidence with which to work.
Student: Whoa..that's really weird..wouldn't the same evidence lead to the same conclusion
Rev Renee: ever watch Perry Mason or Matlock or Law and Order or the practice
Student ..Not Perry Mason you must be old!
Rev Renee..Perhaps I am old..perhaps not:)
Student: Laughs. Well it is true that at the trial the evidence has been agreed upon. But they sure do not come to the same conclusions
Rev Renee: Right.
The prosecutors job is to put the facts together into a story in favor of a guilty verdit
The defense to do the same in favor of an innocent verdict
So what does the jury do?
Student: Choose which story is true
Rev Renee: Right. Since they have one set of evidence and two stories their job is to decide which story best FITS the evidence
Student: OK so what does this have to do with the study of Ancient Egyptian Religion?
Rev Renee: Well we have a certain set of "evidence" or "data" . And what we do to understand the religion is make a similar judgement about the meaning of that evidence and how it all best fits together.
Since our goal is to LIVE the ancient faith..today....we are more concerned with the skills involved in evaluating which story fits..than the skills involved in gathering the archeological evidence.
While some Egyptologists have studied this issue (Jan Assman Erik Hornung and John Baines most notably) many are more archeologists than scholars of religion, religious experience, theology or culture. Their training is more on the level of hearings around admissibility of certain facts than around questions of meaning.
In fact in a recent book Jan Assman takes this tendency on directly and suggests that it is erroneous.
That book is
The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the time of the Pharohs
It is by far not Assmann's easiest read. It is much easier..and takes a lot less training to gather and spit put "facts" than it is to be rigorous and scholarly in what you do with those facts. You can do the first using a few simple guidelines. The second takes years of training and cannot be understood in a few weekends 
Often those taking the fact based approach are shocked to hear that three of the best sources all disagree with one another on interpretation of "facts".
Yet kemetic groups tend not to even present these differences but instead present a single picture based on whichever scholars story they feel suites them..and disregard those who do not.
I am talking about differences among the likes of Assman and Hornung and Baines (not pseudo scholars or alien theorists or even what are consider "alternative" scholars of Ancient Egypt like Bauval)
Instead I want those of our members who wish to engage scholarship to be able to look at the texts of these great scholars and be able to understand how each authors Point of view results in a different explanation...and each has SOME truth..and some limitations. And I want them then to have a basis to make sense of the differences and what those tell us about Ancient Egypt and our knowledge of Ancient Egypt.
Student: I'd rather gather facts..this seems so BIG I mean how would I ever learn..and I want to worship Netjer
Rev Renee: You only need the training if that is your call.
We have little patience for those who claim it to be their call but then do not bother to put in the time energy and money it takes to get the training.
However we do not believe one needs to be a scholar or have a huge collection of facts to be Kemetic and worship Netjer.
Like all great faiths they need an understanding of the faiths worldview and practices and approach to organization
Thats enough for this installment:) Please feel free to ask questions or make comments. But I must go
Matlock just came on TV..
And hey in Matlock the defense and prosecution always end up on the same side (and I am still waiting for those two to get married!)
Senebty!
--------------------
Rev Renee Levant, Hemet Sekhmet & Aset
Founder & Wehemu & Educational Director
Per Ankh: The Traditional Religion of Ancient Egypt
http://www.per-ankh.org
Edited by RevRenee (04/03/04 07:33 AM)
|
Lilairen
KOL
Reged: 02/20/03
Posts: 323
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
Hotep! *bow*
A friend of mine has been known to say "Truth is a statement about the insides of people's heads."
Facts are the things that one can point at, and arrange in layers, but the way that people deal with them isn't something that can be -demonstrated-.
You can get Mysteries, of course, that have ways of bringing about the same truths in the heads of bunches of people in a consistent way. (I was in a discussion a while back with a Canaanite recon who was trying to deal with the possibility of recreating one of the Mysteries of her religion; she wasn't sure it was possible, because she didn't know if she had enough facts to arrange the facts properly to cause the truth to happen for the participants.)
I snagged _The Mind of Egypt_ a while back and found it a terrific read (if the sort of thing I had to take a break every page and a half of to let my mind drain), and I have Hornung's _Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt_; what else would you recommend? What of Baines's stuff?
Senebty! And thanks!
--------------------
Daughter of Het-Herw and Khnum, Beloved of Set and Wepwawet
Chatting with: Anpw, Djehuty, Bast, Nebet-Het, and Sekhmet
|
RevRenee
Founder-Wehemu
Reged: 06/12/01
Posts: 2727
Loc: Racine Wisconsin
|
|
Em hotep Lilarian
<bow>
Well I would actually recommend you read some of the works that are not merely Egyptological:)
The really good folks like Assmann and Hornung are stepped in theology, comparative religion and philosophy or religious studies.
I'd start here:
Paul Ricoeur, Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative and Imagination, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1995.
Somehow Lilarian I suspect you may have already read this
Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
There are many directions to go all really helpful toward reading about Ancient Egypt ..for OUR purposes...Living the religion as faithfully as possible to the original spirit.
Also you can bug Andy. He taped me on I forget if it was the "why we do not say we are reconstructionists" tape or a tape on "Theological Method and Hermeneutics" ..in any case I give a brief rundown of the issues Christian, Jewish and Buddhist theologians have had to address in understanding the past and its impact and meaning for their living faith today. It too would be a nice easy to comprehend overview of some really complex ideas.
In Egyptiological Area
Assmann's Search For God in Ancient Egypt
Along with Hornungs: The One and the Many
and then read Baines article on the one and the many in this collection
One God or Many: Conceptions of Divinity in the Ancient World edited by Barbara N Porter
His article is (also red the into to the book
then come back here and complain and ask if these guy really read one another when they critique on another (chuckling) and we can sort through the hiarious differences
On Baines... An article that is really fun if you enjoy Hornung and assman on the nature of the Ancient Egyptian Gods would be:
Egyptian Deities in Context: Multiplicity, Unity and the Problem of Change Pages 9-78 (published 2000)
An often skipped must read for kemetic scholars.
There are many good works as one of our guests pointed out and many new works coming out right now specifically on Ancient Egyptian Religion
The books I cited under Book Recommendations...are some of the stronger IMNSHO of the emerging Egyptologists. The one on Blessings and Curses includes on of the best overviews on Ma'at I have seen anywhere. She is not theologically or philosophically inclined but does look at some contemporary ways of understanding "religion" as a basis for her examination of the archeological evidence and texts of blessings and curses.
Very Best
--------------------
Rev Renee Levant, Hemet Sekhmet & Aset
Founder & Wehemu & Educational Director
Per Ankh: The Traditional Religion of Ancient Egypt
http://www.per-ankh.org
|
WabAndy
Wab Priest
Reged: 12/31/02
Posts: 453
Loc: New Hampshire
|
|
Quote:
Also you can bug Andy. He taped me on I forget if it was the "why we do not say we are reconstructionists" tape or a tape on "Theological Method and Hermeneutics" ..in any case I give a brief rundown of the issues Christian, Jewish and Buddhist theologians have had to address in understanding the past and its impact and meaning for their living faith today. It too would be a nice easy to comprehend overview of some really complex ideas.
It is infact on "Theological Method and Hermeneutics" but is not edited yet - I have to do some work on it to make it ready for distribution - if there's interest I'll try to do it on tuesday (which I suspect will be my first opertunity to do so)
Take care,
Andy
--------------------
Andy Dolph, Wab Priest Aset-Hethert
Per Ankh The Traditional Reigion of Ancient Egypt
|
Lilairen
KOL
Reged: 02/20/03
Posts: 323
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
M hotep! *bow*
Thank you much!
*scurries around adding books to her to-acquire list* 
--------------------
Daughter of Het-Herw and Khnum, Beloved of Set and Wepwawet
Chatting with: Anpw, Djehuty, Bast, Nebet-Het, and Sekhmet
|
RevRenee
Founder-Wehemu
Reged: 06/12/01
Posts: 2727
Loc: Racine Wisconsin
|
|
Em hotep:)
<bow>
One thing that will be coming in future months will be some of our seminarians doing presentations on some of these works;-)
--------------------
Rev Renee Levant, Hemet Sekhmet & Aset
Founder & Wehemu & Educational Director
Per Ankh: The Traditional Religion of Ancient Egypt
http://www.per-ankh.org
|
Shepen
KOL
Reged: 03/19/03
Posts: 364
Loc: Davenport, IA
|
|
Dumb question time...why do we not say we are reconstructionists? 'Cause that's how I identify myself. Can I still call myself a Recon in the same breath as Per Ankh member?
--------------------
See my blogs:
The Poppy Garden
Shepen's Yahoo 360 Profile
|
WabSandie
Senior Wab Priest /Ritual Coordinator
Reged: 04/11/02
Posts: 898
Loc: Austin, TX, USA
|
|
Em hotep! *bow*
That's not a dumb question!
To the best of my understanding, the goal of reconstructionists is to recreate or reconstruct the ancient ways. While we are interested in learning as much as we can about the ancient ways and in adopting the worldview and culture of the ancients, we also realize that we live in the modern world. We have resources available to us that the ancients did not; there are things the ancients had that we don't; we live in a different place; there are things the ancients did that would not be appropriate in our day and age, and there may be ways to better bring the worldview and culture of the ancients alive in our own lives that don't involve rehashing word-for-word and step-by-step the old ways.
We are very much into scholarship and into learning as much as we can about the old ways. However, we're not bound and tied by the old ways. We live the culture and worldview of Ancient Egypt in our own time and place, letting the knowledge and wisdom of the ancients nourish and inform us. But we can offer things that Netjer likes that weren't available in Egypt; we can do Rite in English. Rather than sticking only to the past, we bring the past into the present and live it fully.
Does that make sense? Maybe one of the Revs., Wab Jen, or one of the Priest Candidates can help me make more sense.
Senebty!
Wab Sandie
--------------------
Senior Wab Priest of HetHert-Sekhmet --|<>]
Per Ankh: The Traditional Religion of Ancient Egypt
www.per-ankh.org
|
WabAndy
Wab Priest
Reged: 12/31/02
Posts: 453
Loc: New Hampshire
|
|
Em Hotep,
*bow*
To add to what Wab Sandie said - I think not only is it not a dumb question, but a question that comes right to the heart of who we are as a temple and what Per Ankh is about.
So here's my $0.02 to add to Wab Sandie's -
We share with reconstructionist traditions a tremendous interest and respect for scholarship about the ancients - but the key difference is what we DO with what we learn.
We are very much focused on the meaning of what the ancients did, rather then the actions themselves.
So what we want to do in our practice is to use actions that work for us as modern people to create the same meaning that the ancients created from what they did. We can start that by looking to the ancient practice - and starting with an experiment (in thought only or in acutality) of trying an ancient practice and seeing first if it would have the same meaning for us that it did for the ancients, and second if it's a practical thing to include in our faith. In ancient temples the rites went on all day - that's not something many of us could do. The Wab Priesthood served a few months of the year in the temple and worked a "normal" job at home the rest of the year - once again, that's not something many of us can do.
So the question is, how are we, as people living in the modern world serve Netjer the best that we can - and one of the basic ideas on which Per Ankh is based is that the way we serve Netjer best is to practice in a way that maintains the meaning of the faith - the world view - and so long as the world view is congruent then we can cary out that practice in ways that work well in modern life.
I hope that helps. This is a very important conversation, so let's keep talking about it!
Take care,
Andy
--------------------
Andy Dolph, Wab Priest Aset-Hethert
Per Ankh The Traditional Reigion of Ancient Egypt
|
Lilairen
KOL
Reged: 02/20/03
Posts: 323
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
Quote:
To the best of my understanding, the goal of reconstructionists is to recreate or reconstruct the ancient ways. While we are interested in learning as much as we can about the ancient ways and in adopting the worldview and culture of the ancients, we also realize that we live in the modern world. We have resources available to us that the ancients did not; there are things the ancients had that we don't; we live in a different place; there are things the ancients did that would not be appropriate in our day and age, and there may be ways to better bring the worldview and culture of the ancients alive in our own lives that don't involve rehashing word-for-word and step-by-step the old ways.
My basic feeling -- as someone who knows a fair number of recons at this point -- is that there is a spectrum, and that defining "reconstructionism" as only referring to the people who are trying to do an exact replication not only doesn't describe the movement as a whole but hardly describes -anyone-. (One of the strictest, most hardcore Hellenic recons I know grumpily snapped "It has always accepted that ancient religions are going to change when they are applied to the modern day" when accused of slavish devotion to exact reconstitution of ancient ways.)
This is what I wrote to a recon discussion forum a few weeks ago, in response to someone asking "How much can something be adapted before it stops being reconstruction?" (edited slightly for clarity on one sentence):
From where I sit, I see two things: first, that all reconstructions are running on incomplete data, and second, that all reconstructions have to address the question of the differences between the world of the ancients and the modern world.
My practice has to accomodate the facts of the modern world as well as the facts of the ancient: I cannot join into the great city-wide celebrations of my gods, because those festivals do not exist; nor can I replicate the majority of the common house rituals, because they are swept away under history. What I can do is try to find the underlying logic of what was done by the ancients and find things that can be done that are consistent with those forms.
And there we get into a judgement call: What places need to be looked at this way? What is consistent with the underlying truths? How do we believe the ancients would have dealt with the situations they never faced, and how do we believe their practices and beliefs would have changed?
I think the extreme ends of this spectrum both have their failure states. I think it's very easy to fall into either rejecting all adaptations knee-jerkingly or discarding everything difficult, unfamiliar, or complicated as outdated or unsuitable to the modern world knee-jerkingly. I think that in the middle there is a broad selection of healthy approaches for reconstruction, from the conservative to the adaptionist.
My major criterion is thought. Is whatever change or whatever interpretation grounded in what is known in the factual sense? Is personal gnosis being substituted for lore/archaeology/whatever unreasoningly? Are people clear on what changes are and why they're being made? And then the judgement call again: are those changes consistent with the whys of what was?
--------------------
Daughter of Het-Herw and Khnum, Beloved of Set and Wepwawet
Chatting with: Anpw, Djehuty, Bast, Nebet-Het, and Sekhmet
|
Shepen
KOL
Reged: 03/19/03
Posts: 364
Loc: Davenport, IA
|
|
Hmm, this is becoming a very interesting conversation; I am seeing the definition of Reconstructionism in a new way. I shall remember this as I write my Kemeticism article. Non-kemetics I hang out with are primarily recons, so I have always identified with them. In fact, reading recon stuff made me want to be kemetic in the first place. I guess that experimantation and carrying some things into the future mark the difference between recon and non-recon, like that netjer energy photo thing that Andy ( I think) was doing.
--------------------
See my blogs:
The Poppy Garden
Shepen's Yahoo 360 Profile
|
WabAndy
Wab Priest
Reged: 12/31/02
Posts: 453
Loc: New Hampshire
|
|
Quote:
like that netjer energy photo thing that Andy ( I think) was doing.
nope - not me it's Crimson that's doing that - and the photos are hers (and quite wonderfull)
Andy
--------------------
Andy Dolph, Wab Priest Aset-Hethert
Per Ankh The Traditional Reigion of Ancient Egypt
|
WabJenSoko
Wab Priest / KOL Newsletter Editor / Central Regio
Reged: 08/22/01
Posts: 850
Loc: Lost in Middle America
|
|
Em hotep *bow*
From where I sit, it depends.
It depends on two things. One is our definition and sense of position as to where our temple stands in the "recon" spectrum. And the other, which is perhaps more important in certain situations, is what does your audience/the other person in the conversation think "recon" means. It can be startling to say, "No, I'm not a recon," and find out the conversation has been hijacked in an attempt to prove that you are, in fact, a recon, because you fall entirely inside the boundaries of the other person's definition of recon.
For example. It's been my experience that in general, neopagans tend to speak in code. There are terms that sort of act as "buzzwords" which have encapsulated meanings that of course don't do them justice, but are nevertheless used to sort of feel out and attempt to find common ground when people are trying to dialogue about matters of faith, which are so personal and hard to express.
In a conversation with a Wiccan, for example, sometimes I'll refer to myself as a recon, or someone with recon leanings, especially if it's not the point of the whole conversation, or if it's just a casual mention. Because my experience has been that in a neopagan context, what we do would be closer to the accepted communal definition of "recon." From there, if the converation warrants, I can move into a more accurate and detailed description. But if not, I will have successfully communicated that my practices are more distanced from an "eclectic" practice which has its basis in Wiccan practices.
Sometimes I'll say I'm a recon in a casual conversation, because it's simple enough and general enough to move the conversation forward, and vaguely communicates the general gist of my practices. I don't want to be the guy (gal) who hijacks a conversation to ramble on about her faith when that wasn't what people were interested in in the first place.
I guess it depends on...wait for it...culture and context. 
--------------------
senebty,
Jen Sokoloski, Wab Priest of Ptah
Per AnkhThe Traditional Religion of Ancient Egypt
|
WabSandie
Senior Wab Priest /Ritual Coordinator
Reged: 04/11/02
Posts: 898
Loc: Austin, TX, USA
|
|
Em hotep! *bow*
Thanks for sharing that point of view, Lilairen. My experience with the term "reconstructionist" came from my association with a group that did have the extreme and highly limiting point of view of rejecting everything that was modern (and yet they had a presence online LOL)...and poo-pooing any group that didn't try to do things the same way they were trying to do them. It makes perfect sense that there would be a spectrum within the recon community.
Senebty!
Wab Sandie
--------------------
Senior Wab Priest of HetHert-Sekhmet --|<>]
Per Ankh: The Traditional Religion of Ancient Egypt
www.per-ankh.org
|
Lilairen
KOL
Reged: 02/20/03
Posts: 323
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
*bows*
I do wonder about the couple of really insanely hardcore recon types who wind up online. . .
I get the impression that there's a certain amount of polarisation in that spectrum, truly; there's hostility rattling around back and forth, and some of the more conservative folks are pretty quick to throw around the whole "not /really/ recon" thing.
When I actually look at (and participate in) the arguments, though, what they're mostly upset about is people changing things at random (especially to Wiccan structures), not distinguishing lore-attested stuff from modern innovation, and the odd neopagan group that uses 'recon' as the newest code for 'not a fluffy!'
I find that different groups have different tolerances for innovation and change -- this is the stuff that denominations are built of. I'm towards the traditionalist end of things with Kemetic stuff, but I suspect that I'd give the hardcore recons hives with some of the other portions of my religious practice.
--------------------
Daughter of Het-Herw and Khnum, Beloved of Set and Wepwawet
Chatting with: Anpw, Djehuty, Bast, Nebet-Het, and Sekhmet
|
Nebra
KOL
Reged: 08/01/02
Posts: 2383
Loc: Left kansas withToto
|
|
Hotep all.... thought I'd chime in as this thread had proven an interesting read ...... I'm still not sure what I am.... I'm traditional but not a reconstructionist fundy ... lets face it this is not 1650 BC so stuff can't be the same no matter how hard we try.... still I think we can keep certain things very traditional...... as in what we offer, how we represent the images of the Gods and when possible actually use the ancient prayers...... Rituals are a larger problem most have been lost to time I think we have enough clues from Egypts own past to restore the same feeling and intent of the rituals..... however I'm not comfortable with using West African traditions as examples to draw from which seems to be a popular trend .... the core cultures and worldviews seem to me to be much to different ..... I guess I tend towards a realistic middle path that is well laced with a strong hold to true Egyptian roots .....
--------------------
Icon Photo Gallery
|
ShaRenKa_Acre
KOL
Reged: 03/13/04
Posts: 59
Loc: NY
|
|
Em Hotep Wab Sandie! *bow*
Your statement on Wicca..Wiccans is exactly why I left that path after many many years. They change the rules year to year, generation to generation to fit their own desires instead of being concerned with the Desires of the Gods and Goddesses ....and now I do not even recognize 3/4 of them anymore as Wiccans. Enshala ShaRenKa
|
Isian
KOL
Reged: 03/15/04
Posts: 481
Loc: NSW, Australia
|
|
Hotep
With respect, Rev Renee.. I don't believe there is 'harm' in either path (after all, harm comes with intent and screwed intent can happen whether one is learned or not). Now, I do not know one ounce of what is taught to Priest hopeful's for Per Ankh (so please feel free to tell me Im speaking out my bottom, and do tell me 'how'), but I know that we may never know what the AE's specifically taught their own priests. Conclusion being that what is taught now is either Facts about AE (which one could be taught from becoming a archaeologist through university) or 'someone's' standard for what should be taught to Per Ankh priests. Would that be correct?
If so... it follows then that other (let's call them..) 'denominations' may use their 'own' facts and 'standards'. If respect is desired, respect must be given. In my own heart there is a big difference between intelligence and widsom
I wish I had a little of both ~LMAO~
Thanks for reading my ramble!
All the best,
Jen
|
RevRenee
Founder-Wehemu
Reged: 06/12/01
Posts: 2727
Loc: Racine Wisconsin
|
|
Hotep Jen
First the only "harm" that comes is when someone claims practices to be of the Ancient Faith when they are in fact not doing so. The "harm" done here is to deny the world the power and beauty of the Ancient Faith.
The clearewst example is with "native american spirituality". In itself North American's who are not among the indigenous people's practicing Native American religion seems as reasonable as practing any other faith..or the Ancient Egyptian faith for example
The reality is somewhat different. All sorts of works that claim to be "Native American Indian Religion" have become very popular...so popular that there is little market for the REAL stuff. By "real" here I mean actual past and current practices of indian people's.
The result is a channeling of funds away from Native people's (something which is not new to these people in various forms)and as importantly more and more people believe they know something about the traditions who are spreading around stuff that may well be touching but most are in no way authentic to American Indian Religions.
A real shame.And intentional or not..harmful to these people and to our collective knowledge of that beautiful tradition(s)
Ancient Egypt is very popular. Yet most books that talk about Ancient Egyptian religion have little to do with the ancient faith.
Some of these books I personally find VERY moving.
To say they do harm does not mean there is nothing of value.
It simply means it is a different faith
<<we may never know what the AE's specifically taught their own priests.>>
We actually know a great deal about what Priests where taught, rituals, organization of the temples, and we learn more each day, Unlike the Celtic faith which lacks much to work with..our issue is simply keeping up with new research.
Until very recently almost none of this information could be found in places like Barnes and Noble..so that many popular images of Egypt remain those based in occult, ceremonial magic and Budge books which are readily available
Conclusion being that what is taught now is either Facts about AE (which one could be taught from becoming a archaeologist through university) or 'someone's' standard for what should be taught to Per Ankh priests. Would that be correct?>>
No. That is the approach of pagan reconstructionist. To take all you can reconstruct and then fill in the rest however fits the modern world.
The result is a modern world view with ancient rites (more or less)
The scholarly approach to religion and theological studies is NOT primarily archeological. Rather it builds on that material, anthropology, religious studies, and so forth to understand the worldview of the religion being studied.
It simultaneously looks at modern culture and practice and asks the question of how the worldview, meaning and significance of Ancients can best be lived in this time and place in a way that is MOST true to the Ancient religion
This question of how to carry forward an ancient tradition (The Ancient Egytian Religion) into the modern world manner (kemetic traditional religion and kemetic religion(s)) in a manner most true to the ancient faith and most helpful to our current worlds and practitioners needs
Is the central theological question with which we are concerned. Serving Netjer in the contemporary world is our main religious and spiritual focus
<<If so... it follows then that other (let's call them..) 'denominations' may use their 'own' facts and 'standards'. If respect is desired, respect must be given.>>
Well actually no. False statements about the ancient practices do not need to be respected. Low standards may be satisfactory for some but they do not cease to be low standards And the desire for respect is NOT the basis upon which respect is gained.
I know relativism..the idea that all ideas are equally valid and good has a lot of weight in some communities. It is also true that when people hold fast to an idea there is usually some reason..some positive function it is serving for them in their life.
However,the question for kemetic practitioners is: "Is this idea true" Does it uphold Ma'at?" If either answer is no then it is not a good thing no matter how dearly held the idea may be:)
The Kemetic WorldView is very flexible in that there are many many ways to get at the same truth. However that never was taken to imply that all statements ard standards are equally valid.
Truth for Kemetics is too deep and too rich for any single concept or person to grasp it all at once. So there can be many truths about the same reality
Yet there is also falsehood.
Wisdom is in part about discerning the difference
Best
--------------------
Rev Renee Levant, Hemet Sekhmet & Aset
Founder & Wehemu & Educational Director
Per Ankh: The Traditional Religion of Ancient Egypt
http://www.per-ankh.org
Edited by RevRenee (04/16/04 02:04 AM)
|
RevSedgwick
Heri Tep Hem Netjer
Reged: 04/12/02
Posts: 361
Loc: Racine, WI
|
|
Em hotep! <bow> Quote:
Truth for Kemetics is too deep and too rich for any single concept or person to grasp it all at once. So there can be many truths about the same reality
Yet there is also falsehood.
Wisdom is in part about discerning the difference
This is the kind of statement that drives my students crazy, and who can blame them? Most education apparently leads students to believe that there is a simple one-to-one correspondence between things, one clearcut answer. I'm not sure what area of human life exhibits such simplicity and clarity, but I am quite sure that religion doesn't.
Rev Sedgwick
--------------------
Rev Sedgwick Heskett, Hemet NebetHet-Nit and Amun
Heri Tep Hem Netjer Per Ankh
Per Ankh: The Traditional Religion of Ancient Egypt
http://www.per-ankh.org
|
Isian
KOL
Reged: 03/15/04
Posts: 481
Loc: NSW, Australia
|
|
Hotep, Rev Renee
Quote:
the only "harm" that comes is when someone claims practices to be of the Ancient Faith when they are in fact not doing so
.
I've not had the experience of anyone saying they practise the Ancient Faith when the practises they follow are something entirely different. On the whole, I like to think that people are comfortable enough with their own faith to be able to catagorise it without prejudice. Then again, I myself don't know the practises of the AE's ~ and yet I consider myself Kemetic. Is that wrong?
Jen
|
RevRenee
Founder-Wehemu
Reged: 06/12/01
Posts: 2727
Loc: Racine Wisconsin
|
|
Hotep Jen
<bow>
If that term makes sense to you and you know what you mean by it..I wouldn't say it is "wrong"...or "right".
The word "kemetic" means of Kemet or Ancient Egypt. People use the term differently. When we at Kemet OnLine! say "kemetic" we mean those who follow the Netjer of ancient Egypt and the ways of It's Ancient Faith today.
Those inspired by Ancient Egypt such as the Rosecutions would not use the term "kemetic" to describe their religion
Wiccan's who worship Egyptian Gods tend to simply use wicca, egyptian wicca or Tamaran. Ceremonial Magicians tend to use whatever term their tradition uses.. a few have used the term "kemetic" but their practice only relates to our own superficially as we are not a modern western magical order
Our concern is less with what label one choses to apply to the complex reality of who _they_are..then that practices of the Kemetic ways..the ways of the Ancient Egyptians be preserved, remembered and that this faith brought foward with both integrity and faithfulness to the contemporary world.
Best
--------------------
Rev Renee Levant, Hemet Sekhmet & Aset
Founder & Wehemu & Educational Director
Per Ankh: The Traditional Religion of Ancient Egypt
http://www.per-ankh.org
|
Lilairen
KOL
Reged: 02/20/03
Posts: 323
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
Quote:
I've not had the experience of anyone saying they practise the Ancient Faith when the practises they follow are something entirely different.
Recently on a board I read, someone posted a question about ancient Greek practices and how they reflected on some modern stuff (with regards to the Olympics). The question was explicitly directed at one of the known Hellenic recons on the board.
Someone replied with, "Well, if you want to know what the Greek recons think about this, why don't you actually ask some?" and posted a link to a Wiccan site.
Response was split between "Uh, yeah, what do you think this thread was doing?" and "Er, no, that's not ancient practice at all."
--------------------
Daughter of Het-Herw and Khnum, Beloved of Set and Wepwawet
Chatting with: Anpw, Djehuty, Bast, Nebet-Het, and Sekhmet
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
hi peps
If that term makes sense to you and you know what you mean by it..I wouldn't say it is "wrong"...or "right".
The word "kemetic" means of Kemet or Ancient Egypt. People use the term differently. When we at Kemet OnLine! say "kemetic" we mean those who follow the Netjer of ancient Egypt and the ways of It's Ancient Faith today.
Those inspired by Ancient Egypt such as the Rosecutions would not use the term "kemetic" to describe their religion
Wiccan's who worship Egyptian Gods tend to simply use wicca, egyptian wicca or Tamaran. Ceremonial Magicians tend to use whatever term their tradition uses.. a few have used the term "kemetic" but their practice only relates to our own superficially as we are not a modern western magical order
Our concern is less with what label one choses to apply to the complex reality of who _they_are..then that practices of the Kemetic ways..the ways of the Ancient Egyptians be preserved, remembered and that this faith brought foward with both integrity and faithfulness to the contemporary world.
Best
hi   
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
hi peps
If that term makes sense to you and you know what you mean by it..I wouldn't say it is "wrong"...or "right".
The word "kemetic" means of Kemet or Ancient Egypt. People use the term differently. When we at Kemet OnLine! say "kemetic" we mean those who follow the Netjer of ancient Egypt and the ways of It's Ancient Faith today.
Those inspired by Ancient Egypt such as the Rosecutions would not use the term "kemetic" to describe their religion
Wiccan's who worship Egyptian Gods tend to simply use wicca, egyptian wicca or Tamaran. Ceremonial Magicians tend to use whatever term their tradition uses.. a few have used the term "kemetic" but their practice only relates to our own superficially as we are not a modern western magical order
Our concern is less with what label one choses to apply to the complex reality of who _they_are..then that practices of the Kemetic ways..the ways of the Ancient Egyptians be preserved, remembered and that this faith brought foward with both integrity and faithfulness to the contemporary world.
Best
hi
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Facts & Meaning in the study of AE religion ?
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
Re: Facts & Meaning in the study of AE religion ?
Re: Facts & Meaning in the study of AE religion ?