What do the Armenian neopagans believe in exactly?

[levon]

Re: What do the Armenian neopagans believe in exactly?

Wow, I didn't know there is such an attempt to rewrite the history of Armenians. I also can't believe people like James Russell are taken seriously.

Rewriting history is a hard task. In order to succeed one must first bring doubt to the currently accepted events. This is usually done by exposing small holes in the chronologies. It's rather easy to do as holes exist in chronologies of histories of all nations. Once the holes are there, one works hard to entice the reader to connect the following dots: if there are holes in the story then then parts of the story must be wrong. As soon as this is established, one then continues on to say that since parts of the story are untrue, then the whole story must be untrue. Logically it may not make sense, but most people don't bother to examine the logic of the claims, but merely accept it as fact without question. Of course, once it is established that the old version was incorrect then the new version is at least as credible as the old version.

Turks don't need to re-write Armenian history. All they need is enough doubt so that most people won't truly believe either version.

This is why it's extremely important that when we, Armenians, speak of our own history, we don't just state opinions as if they were facts.

[hyem]

Re: What do the Armenian neopagans believe in exactly?

Wow, I didn't know there is such an attempt to rewrite the history of Armenians. I also can't believe people like James Russell are taken seriously.

I always thought that it's weird that Armenia is never mentioned in history... I mean I've seen maps of Armenia stretching all the way down to the south, to the west,east and north, it was a HUGE kingdom surely it was significant... so why no mention? In that sense I do agree that there may be a real conspiracy.

I didn't comprehend much of the info given in this thread. Can you guys please recommend some good books on actual Armenian history. I feel bad for not studying about this. And what I do know is probably false info.

Even the video around the end he says something about xxxish Turks from Spain if I understood correctly, I am so lost.

If the Turkish objective was to confuse people they are doing a good job.

[levon]

Re: What do the Armenian neopagans believe in exactly?

I love how you dissect everything, put words in my mouth and try to destroy everything I say. You'd do well in academia, you're the type who doesn't even have to read the books, you can get away with just attacking everyone around you who doesn't agree with what you want to hear, and you'll make a career out of it!

I love how you try to insult me somehow to try to destroy my character, when you are missing the main point. I am only dissecting your posts because you post your opinions as facts and provide no proof.

It is here that I don't mind your excessive bickering about everything I write about Armenia... I don't mind looking up and posting more information behind the reasons for why I claim things you hold as "fact", to me are more likely to be myths. Just keep it up, but there's no reason to put words in my mouth next time, please.

Bro, whether I put words in your rhetoric or not, do understand that the only reason I pick through your posts is not because I necessarily view things one way or another, but because when you have an opinion that's unwarranted (or without proof) then don't post it as fact. As a scholar you have the right to question things that don't seem to hold water; however, as a scholar you also have the responsibility to present proof for your opinions if you will be presenting them as facts. So long as you post your opinions as facts, I will be ripping through your posts.

I never said ultra-nationalists, I said patriotic Armenians. You put words in my mouth. And no, they are not credible for academic purposes because they, like you, will attack anything that contradicts what they WANT to hear. What an arrogant way to view things.

Firstly, all I want to hear is opinions supported by proof if they are presented as fact. If you will challenge an idea, then do prove your points. Secondly, if it wasn't for the patriotic Armenians, Armenia would likely not exists. So do mind your words there as well. I'm sure living in the comfortable west has made you less patriotic and has enlightened you to the merits of doubting one's nation, you have at the same time forgotten the fact that without nationalism a small nation like Armenia will be forgotten everywhere except in history books. You ever wonder why majority of history classes in the west never even mention Armenia? If we don't mention ourselves, soon no one will even know there was such a country.

Armenian history as presented to us by our clergy, can never be retold, it is a fully comprehensive world view that has calcified as the backbone of the Armenian narrative. You can't throw out Movses Khorenatsi, even if you can find evidence for his work being penned by more than a single author, likely centuries apart.

Again, you stated an opinion without facts. How about you prove the bolded part.

[jgk3]

Re: What do the Armenian neopagans believe in exactly?

I love how you dissect everything, put words in my mouth and try to destroy everything I say. You'd do well in academia, you're the type who doesn't even have to read the books, you can get away with just attacking everyone around you who doesn't agree with what you want to hear, and you'll make a career out of it!

That's a nice straw-man argument. It doesn't stand at all.

Maybe to you.

Church's historiography? You say it as if you know with certainty that it's all incorrect. Now, let's not go back to your old argument of "they could do it, so they probably did it" so why don't you post some actual proof of what you are claiming. Otherwise, why don't we just say you are full of hot air.

I was as careful as possible in my articulation to say it's not all incorrect, in fact, it's a very useful record for information, and I disagree with western scholars who reject the whole thing just because it has a few holes in it. On the other hand, I disagree with persons who freak out just because I pointed out one of its holes, and then blame me of rejecting the whole shebang.

So, what you are saying is that, those who see truth in Armenian history are actually crazies who see everyone not agreeing with them as part of a conspiracy? Funny isn't it, as those with "your view" claim that the "others" are "crazies who see conspiracies in everything." Why is your view correct? Do you have enough evidence to prove your point of view?

No. Thanks for skewing everything I said, making me appear like some kind of monster who rejects everything Armenian and has no confidence in our historical record whatsoever, just because I like to question things first and am open to considering a different take on things if it makes sense.

Really, so somehow you have arrived at the conclusion that the work of the western scholars is more "scholarly" than that of the Armenian scholars, and there is no possible way that any western scholar might come to incorrect conclusions or be coerced toward certain biases introduced by political affiliations.
Remember, in order to sound credible (in the western world), while at the same time introducing revisions, one has to appear to appeal to neither Turks nor Armenians thus "distinguishing doubt" that he/she may have political bias.
James Russel fits the profile, doesn't he?

Of course it's possible for western scholars to be incorrect... They've been making incorrect conclusions since the start, making all kinds of hideous statements not based on adequate research, especially today in linguistics when all too many new graduates don't even bother to learn the language of the phenomenon they're writing about, relying on secondary sources and features found in sentences which they do not see in the full context of the language they are dealing with. The same is true for modern western historiography and religion studies, which depend all too much on knowing all the literature out there before you decide to play the "scholar" who has something new to bring to the table. Unfortunately, the reality is that such responsible scholars are being reproduced by our modern education system at a lower rate, than the dime a dozen, irresponsible variety that is the product of just trying to fill those universities with bodies of students for $$$.

Now, is the situation any better in Armenia in your opinion? And is it a crime for me to hold certain scholars in western academia as reputable? Just because I like one scholar, suddenly I like every word uttered by the whole of western academia... ridiculous. Perhaps you like every word uttered by the whole of Armenian academia, equally ridiculous.

Really, so there obviously are zero western scholars who have done revisionist, anti-armenian and genocide denial work, yes? I'm sure you don't believe that.

Give me names of "western scholars" who have directly worked for the turks, under a political agenda, and that will be a different topic, a topic in which I will agree with you about those individuals as being bad for Armenia if listened to.

The intent of these western scholars is not known to anyone, except to them. I think your views are merely biased towards the western world view, and you value everything western above everything Armenian.

yeah right.

So those who don't see eye-to-eye with you are "ultra-nationalists" who are "obviously" completely biased in their world-view and therefore cannot be credible. Therefore, if their views "cannot" be credible, then yours are "obviously" correct. What an incredibly arrogant way to look at things.

I never said ultra-nationalists, I said patriotic Armenians. You put words in my mouth. And no, they are not credible for academic purposes because they, like you, will attack anything that contradicts what they WANT to hear. What an arrogant way to view things.

So, lets see. By drawing similarities between Tibet/China and Armenia/Turkey you aim to say that since the Tibetan chronology is wrong as told by western scholars (and they are correct) then obviously Armenian history must also be retold by western historians to be correct. What an nice flawed argument to put forward. That is complete bs, and you know it.

Armenian history as presented to us by our clergy, can never be retold, it is a fully comprehensive world view that has calcified as the backbone of the Armenian narrative. You can't throw out Movses Khorenatsi, even if you can find evidence for his work being penned by more than a single author, likely centuries apart. This is because he's not just a source anymore, he's part of our pantheon along with Krikor Lusavorich and Khatch Vartan. Thus, to challenge him, is to challenge the pantheon as Armenians have accepted it for centuries, as the unquestionable truth, and this is what is hitting a nerve for you. It is this situation that I am comparing to Tibetans, they feel the same way about their traditional historiography, and all its major figures and sources having a quasi-mythical (and at times, most likely completely mythical) status, but of course, in their minds, its all real, and to contradict it is to attack Tibet.

What people like me want, is not to erase or destroy Tibetan or Armenian traditional historiography, but see how much of it can be proven if we don't all just take it at face value, as though its a sacred text handed down to us from God (which btw is what's happening half the time in traditional historiography, because for the clergy, the highest authority is God).

By calling our history as full of myths you are conveying a point of view as fact. A point of view, that I'm am completely confident you aren't able to prove. Now, unless you will prove that they are indeed myths, why don't I just declare you as full of baseless opinions, and you agree to stop presenting them as facts if you cannot support them with proofs.

You cannot prove something is a myth, or that it's false... You can only check for criteria in which it can fail as being likely for it occurring as traditionally described to occur, such as when Movses Khorenatsi talks about phenomena that occurred past his time if he indeed lived in the 5th C. AD. Some examples and explanations I agree with from Robert Thomson, found on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movses_...Modern_studies

It is obviously impossible for you to not question Armenian history as you have fully convinced yourself that's it's full of myth. What you believe personally is entirely up to you, but before you come out here and confidently post your opinions as facts, please be courteous enough to the rest of us and provide proof for your opinions, or be sure to tag every one of your opinions with in my opinion, just to make sure that unsuspecting readers don't read your opinions and later regard them as facts.

It is here that I don't mind your excessive bickering about everything I write about Armenia... I don't mind looking up and posting more information behind the reasons for why I claim things you hold as "fact", to me are more likely to be myths. Just keep it up, but there's no reason to put words in my mouth next time, please.

[jgk3]

Re: What do the Armenian neopagans believe in exactly?

Speaking of Evola (not that I adhere to everything he writes. as with everything, one has to exert judgement) and "neo-paganism", here is a fairly interesting article (dating back to 1942):

http://www.juliusevola.it/documenti/...te.asp?cod=155

Thanks for this, it is pretty relevant, and I agree with how it describes our modern day neo-pagan movements, as starting from a Christian standpoint, and then trying to eschew from all the laws of Christianity, identifying itself with something "pre-Christian", pretending that the practices and worldviews of those relatively obscure ancient religions were somehow completely known to them.

I too nowadays don't completely agree with Evola anymore, I see that he's too prejudiced towards religions that identify the divine in nature, because of his idealizing of a certain type of transcendence that holds an externalized view of God that we must reach by means of his brand of rigidly defined criteria of enlightenment. He doesn't notice how much his own approach is shaped by a Judeo-Christian monotheistic conception of the divine, seeing his favorite ancient religions, such as Zoroastrianism (which can hardly be understood as some kind of comprehensive religion throughout history, with much of the records of its practices and even beliefs not being attested for lapses of centuries), the Graeco-Roman cults, ancient Indian religion, and Buddhism through this same monotheistic lens, with the conception of a divine absolute along the lines of Yahweh as some kind of externalized thing that must be sought after and attained through a divine quest. And of course he describes the criteria for this quest, calling upon themes of race and solar myths in an age of "xxxish perversion" threatening the Aryan race and all other traditionalist "Solar" cults.

Of course, this stuff is great for warfare and creating a medieval European society, which has its own perks, but its not the 'be all end all' answer to what we should do as human beings.

[gkv]

Re: What do the Armenian neopagans believe in exactly?

Speaking of Evola (not that I adhere to everything he writes. as with everything, one has to exert judgement) and "neo-paganism", here is a fairly interesting article (dating back to 1942):

http://www.juliusevola.it/documenti/template.asp?cod=155

...
One should consider, then, that "paganism" is a fundamentally tendentious and artificial concept that scarcely corresponds to the historical reality of what the pre-Christian world always was in its normal manifestations, apart from a few decadent elements and aspects that derived from the degenerate remains of older cultures.

Once we are clear about this, we come today to a paradoxical realization: that this imaginary paganism that never existed, but was invented by Christian apologists, is now serving as the starting-point for certain so-called pagan circles, and is thus threatening for the first time in history to become a reality--no more and no less than that.

What are the main traits of today's pagan outlook, as its own apologists believe and declare them to be? The primary one is the imprisonment in Nature. All transcendence is totally unknown to the pagan view of life: it remains stuck in a mixture of Spirit and Nature, in an ambiguous unity of Body and Soul. There is nothing to its religion but a superstitious deification of natural phenomena, or of tribal energies promoted to the status of minor gods. Out of this there arises first of all a blood- and soil-bound particularism. Next comes a rejection of the values of personality and freedom, and a condition of innocence that is merely that of the natural man, as yet unawakened to any truly supra-natural calling. Beyond this innocence there is only lack of inhibition, "sin," and the pleasure of sinning. In other domains there is nothing but superstition, or a purely profane culture of materialism and fatalism. It is as though only the arrival of Christianity (ignoring certain precursors which are dismissed as insignificant) allowed the world of supra-natural freedom to break through, letting in grace and personality, in contrast to the fatalistic and nature-bound beliefs ascribed to "paganism," bringing with it a catholic ideal (in the etymological sense of universality) and a healthy dualism, which made it possible to subjugate Nature to a higher law, and for the "Spirit" to triumph over the law of flesh, blood, and the false gods.

These are the main traits of the dominant understanding of paganism, i.e., of everything that does not entail a specifically Christian world-view. Anyone who possesses any direct acquaintance with cultural and religious history, however elementary, can see how incorrect and one-sided this attitude is. Besides, in the early Church Fathers there are often signs of a higher understanding of the symbols, doctrines, and religions of preceding cultures.
...

[gkv]

Re: What do the Armenian neopagans believe in exactly?

Levon, if you read him carefully (most people won't), you'll understand jgk3 is not taking sides really, only stating a number of observations. I don't think a guy who's read Evola in his early 20s has a pro-"western" bias per se. My take is jgk3 is rather willing to show and expose an understanding of different viewpoints. He is not manichaean or narrow-minded. He does not fear confrontation with other perspectives or see evil everywhere (win/win situations, rather).

[levon]

Re: What do the Armenian neopagans believe in exactly?

By tying Western academia on Armenia into a conspiracy theory, you're promoting the alienation of Armenians from speaking at a higher level about their history than say a hypothetical case of an Englishman who believes King Arthur pulled out the sword from the stone, and anyone who says otherwise is the equivalent of a genocidal Turk.

That's a nice straw-man argument. It doesn't stand at all.

Turks use Western academia perhaps as "revisionism" to attack the Armenian church's historiography we cling onto, which in this day and age, taken on its own 'without further inquiries'/'at face value', holds no currency outside of Armenia, just like the historiography told by the Old Testament without any serious re-analysis because to do so is to question the word of God, holds no academic currency either.

Church's historiography? You say it as if you know with certainty that it's all incorrect. Now, let's not go back to your old argument of "they could do it, so they probably did it" so why don't you post some actual proof of what you are claiming. Otherwise, why don't we just say you are full of hot air.

So by holding onto this church history of ours, of course it becomes very easy to see some kind of "international conspiracy theory" run by "xxxs and Turks, who want to wipe us out".

So, what you are saying is that, those who see truth in Armenian history are actually crazies who see everyone not agreeing with them as part of a conspiracy? Funny isn't it, as those with "your view" claim that the "others" are "crazies who see conspiracies in everything." Why is your view correct? Do you have enough evidence to prove your point of view?

In reality, what is going on here is just coincidental preferences of some findings made by Western scholars about Armenia that suit the interests of Turks to make a lot of noise about in order to attack the legitimacy of our history in other areas where there is less ground to disprove, such as perhaps, the fact that Eastern Turkey is a homeland to Armenians.

Really, so somehow you have arrived at the conclusion that the work of the western scholars is more "scholarly" than that of the Armenian scholars, and there is no possible way that any western scholar might come to incorrect conclusions or be coerced toward certain biases introduced by political affiliations.
Remember, in order to sound credible (in the western world), while at the same time introducing revisions, one has to appear to appeal to neither Turks nor Armenians thus "distinguishing doubt" that he/she may have political bias.
James Russel fits the profile, doesn't he?

The western scholars would never say such a thing, and by attacking them just because Turks use their work out of context to attack our history in an academically bankrupt way... is just as ridiculous as what the Turks are doing.

Really, so there obviously are zero western scholars who have done revisionist, anti-armenian and genocide denial work, yes? I'm sure you don't believe that.

In reality, the intent on the part of western scholars to make these conclusions that are so outrageous to Armenians such as that interviewer, is nowhere near genocidal. In fact they are eager to work with Armenians for linguistic and archaeological purposes and do not wish to steal any credit from Armenia for discoveries they have found about her history. What they don't defend are stories about Armenia's history which stand on shaky ground, such as the conclusion that Movses Khorenatsi's history of Armenia being written by a single author in the 5th century, without question. Or about how the Armenian Alphabet came into his head from a divine dream.

The intent of these western scholars is not known to anyone, except to them. I think your views are merely biased towards the western world view, and you value everything western above everything Armenian.

The only people who would defend those things (and be outraged by scholars who don't defend them, but openly challenge their legitimacy) are patriotic Armenians who are not coming from the same worldview as these scholars, and are not familiar with academia, and thus are oblivious to ways it can actually be used to Armenia's advantage.

So those who don't see eye-to-eye with you are "ultra-nationalists" who are "obviously" completely biased in their world-view and therefore cannot be credible. Therefore, if their views "cannot" be credible, then yours are "obviously" correct. What an incredibly arrogant way to look at things.

It reminds me of a similar situation with Tibet and China... On the one hand, the western academia which doesn't begin from a Tibetan Buddhist historiographic standpoint, contradicts the mythical beliefs of Tibetans being held as historical facts, and on the other, proves beyond question through its diligent inspection of facts about Tibetan civilization and its chronology (even if the story being told contradicts the traditional religious narrative of Tibetans) that China is occupying land that it cannot claim as Chinese in history and culture. This is a very similar situation to what is going on between Armenians and Turks concerning the regions that are being denied by Turks as being historically Armenian in not just demographics, but also in civilization.

So, lets see. By drawing similarities between Tibet/China and Armenia/Turkey you aim to say that since the Tibetan chronology is wrong as told by western scholars (and they are correct) then obviously Armenian history must also be retold by western historians to be correct. What an nice flawed argument to put forward. That is complete bs, and you know it.

Of course if people start to question our traditional myths taken as truth, it's gonna anger Armenians who take the church stories to be the real deal.

By calling our history as full of myths you are conveying a point of view as fact. A point of view, that I'm am completely confident you aren't able to prove. Now, unless you will prove that they are indeed myths, why don't I just declare you as full of baseless opinions, and you agree to stop presenting them as facts if you cannot support them with proofs.

But the fact of the matter is, international academia will be as reluctant to accept, at a wholesale level, the credibility of an anachronistic story, or a divinely written alphabet when records reveal human records of its characters used up to 800 years prior to the earliest attestation of the Armenian Alphabet,

It is obviously impossible for you to not question Armenian history as you have fully convinced yourself that's it's full of myth. What you believe personally is entirely up to you, but before you come out here and confidently post your opinions as facts, please be courteous enough to the rest of us and provide proof for your opinions, or be sure to tag every one of your opinions with in my opinion, just to make sure that unsuspecting readers don't read your opinions and later regard them as facts.

[jgk3]

Re: What do the Armenian neopagans believe in exactly?

jgk3, this is true for all religions throughout the world not just the Armenian Church.
New religions super-imposed themselves on the older, hijacking sites of worship, sites of pilgrimage,festivals and the plethora of gods.
The ancient worlds many lesser gods are replicated in Christianitys saints.
The relatively recent revival of interest in paganism is interesting, perhaps a pseudo-bohemian need to believe in something while rejecting the beliefs/standards of the majority.
These people might turn to Christianity if they lived in a totally pagan society.
I'm Christian and have a higher opinion of atheists than those playing pagans.

Yeah, I agree with you.

[hrai]

Re: What do the Armenian neopagans believe in exactly?

I don't know what they are. All I know is that the Armenian Church did a great job of destroying much of the relics of our pre-Christian history, we hardly know anything about our ancient religions... Zoroastrianism in Armenia is a hot topic for research however, a domain of inquiry that's spearheaded in western academia by a xxx known as James Russell, whom most of these AAO folk would probably want to burn on a pike before listening to, just for being a xxx. So whatever these folks are trying to "ressurrect" isn't exactly gonna be much of a return to the ancient, old stuff they crave to identify themselves with.

jgk3, this is true for all religions throughout the world not just the Armenian Church.
New religions super-imposed themselves on the older, hijacking sites of worship, sites of pilgrimage,festivals and the plethora of gods.
The ancient worlds many lesser gods are replicated in Christianitys saints.
The relatively recent revival of interest in paganism is interesting, perhaps a pseudo-bohemian need to believe in something while rejecting the beliefs/standards of the majority.
These people might turn to Christianity if they lived in a totally pagan society.
I'm Christian and have a higher opinion of atheists than those playing pagans.