I have to make a public apology to Mano Madytinos. I, as many did who debate what is and is not authentically Hellenismos here in the English speaking world, misinterpreted some of the statement’s Mano made over the last few months.

Read the rest of this entry »

This main question, “What constitutes a recon?” was spawned on the Mind-N-Magick forum in response to a thread debating Norse Mythology and Ragnarok. The timing seemed very appropriate, as this is one of the main questions being discussed across a number of venues in association with Hellenismos and Hellenic Reconstruction. The questioner asked three queries within her post to help her understand what a Reconstructionist is.

1. Do recons need to know everyone who ruled (for example) Finland, and when?
2. Is a “true” recon always conservative?
3. Can one still be a recon and not hold a traditional view on that path?

Read the rest of this entry »

In recent days, there was posted a public letter addressed to me, which I had responded. This post was titled as “A Public Letter to Tim Alexander.” Therefore, I feel it is my privilege to repost that letter here, verbatim, along with my response.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the great debate over what is and is not Hellenismos there tends to be two great factions. On one side, there are the Reconstructionists who base their practice on a historic definition, insisting that the religion embody the character, thought, culture, and ethical system of ancient Greece. On the other side are those who wish to take a Neopagan approach, identifying Hellenismos loosely as the honoring/worshiping/using/working with of at least some Greek Gods in some way. This approach favors and accepts Neopagan ideas of eclecticism and very individualistic forms of practice based on unverified (and often unreasoned) personal gnosis, and are often dismissive and have an exclusionary attitude towards traditional principles and values. It is hubris.

Read the rest of this entry »

This was the question posted on our Hellenic Polytheist Forum, “What are the main points of conflict in Hellenics? And what are your opinions on them?” My answer was rather simple. The biggest point of contention is answering the question who is and who is not Hellenic. Virtually every single one of the most heated debates can be traced back to that one question. In answering this query, the Neopagans are mostly on one side, while actual Reconstructionists sit on the other. In the end, most every Reconstructionist can be tolerant of the most liberal Reconstructionist opinion. We all draw from the same body of material, and use the same scholarly guidelines. Neopagans, on the other hand, do not want to “limit” themselves. They opt instead for free-flowing spirituality and practice, while at the same time insisting they be considered Hellenic.

Read the rest of this entry »

This seems to be the talk of the day across a number of venues. The questions tend to revolve around Hellenismos and it being a Reconstructionist religion. There are questions about where the boundaries are between Hellenic Paganism, Hellenic Polytheism, and Hellenic Reconstructionism. What is the importance of myths, religious obligation, and ethics? Is there a difference of opinion between different Hellenic Reconstructionists on what separates them and “Neopagans”?

Read the rest of this entry »

I would like to share a summary of a conversation I recently had with a friend, and fellow Hellenist. He is finding himself out of favor within certain circles of Hellenics, Religio Romana, and “progressive” Kemetics. These circles would prefer practicing an open-ended, complex mixture of beliefs, rather than a reconstruction of the culturally specific religions they claim to adhere.

Read the rest of this entry »