Ask a Pagan

[PRmerger]

I see the problem of our misunderstanding now, which stems from the problem of our religious dissimilarity.

As was just stated above, catholicism believes there can be a rational arrangement about religion. Im am of the other position,that in the end it is a matter of faith.

This is the cause of our disagreement. Catholicism is a VERY western style religion, it takes an almost scientific approach to religion. Over the past two thousand years generations of catholic theologians have debated and hammered out responses to nearly every question that can be posed. The positions of the catholic church are quantified in the catechism, and there are hundreds of books on how to properly respond to questions, both from within and without catholicism. While there are some things the catholic church claims simply cant be fully understood, such as the trinity, they have an official, well structured position on just about everything else, from scripture to morality to the nature of man. All these positions and the techniques of argument sharpened and perfected by two thousand years of endless debate. In my opinion a well learned Catholic is one of the most challenging debate opponents possible for a debate on theology, as they have a set plan in place for almost every line of argument.

This is catholicism. Rigid and scientific in its belief and masters of the art of theological debate.

On the other hand Paganism, and I believe this will go for most people across the pagan community regardless of tradition, are much much more lax. Pagan beliefs cover a wide variety even within the same traditions, and we are in the middle of our own religious renewal as paganism is reborn from the ashes. Even though the ancient pagans of Europe believed literally the local stories of their cultures, there is no governing body to dictate beliefs, and in fact we are in the mildly did not attempt to convert their neighbors, or engage in cross-religious debate. What is more important is meaning. There are many different ways to make a sacrifice, but it is the intent that matters. similarly the stories may vary from region to region but the message they convey remains the same. The story dosn’t need to be true, so long as it conveys the message, the universal truth. For a pagan, truth is much more illusive, mythical. Much like many eastern religion we are willing to accept a degree of mystery, uncertainty. While the western style of religion is tangible, alwase in a quest for the fullest understanding possible, where as we are willing to accept some mystery, some allegory, not knowing everything because maybe we cant.

So, to sum that all up, the burden of proof lies with Christianity, because it is the religion that makes the bold claims. You claim the Resurrection, and the miracles of the bible, and on those are built the other arguments and tenants of catholicism. Without those being true, the rest of your religion, as Catholics so often point out, would be hollow. Put the pagan stories can be myths, not necessarily actual events, because they are meant to convey universal truths like support of family, punishment for ones crime, courage, and other values that culture may value highly. Even if Fenrir was never literally bound with a silken chain and the world isnt literal in a giant tree, we no longer see our stories as some literal “this happened in this spot on this date” true. Our stories convey meaning, weather they are historical events is much less significant.

well, if you read that whole thing i applaud you.

Heh. I did read the whole thing. And I hope you note the irony in that you spent a lot of words expressing what paganism is, and in doing this you engaged in a paradigm to which you are vociferously objecting.

Again, your inconsistency is egregious. It appears that you keep reserving for yourself and for paganism, that which you criticize in Catholicism.

In addition to this inconsistency you just demonstrated, I again bring up the fact that you are skeptical of any historical texts of Christian origin, yet give almost no skepticism to anything pagan.

Would that you applied the same standard for all!

 

[Skadi]

So you believe that the powerful spirit posing as Mary is lying to the little children? After all the supposed unknown spirit revealed herself as the blessed virgin Mary, the queen of the Most Holy Rosary? Remember, Mary told the children that they should always tell the truth, no matter what, and yet here she is supposedly lying about who she is, if you are right, that is. Nah…

Let’s assume you are correct for a moment. Are you OK with powerful spirit that lies and misleads?

’
Mary is a symbol. And the spirit can do whatever the hell it wants. The “Is All” is made up of everything in the universe, you, me, every animal, tree, and spirit great and small. It includes all the love, passion, and caring as well as all the greed, anger, and hate.

However, the children wern’t harmed and in fact the predictions were accurate so I don’t see how one could say this spirit had bad intentions.

 

[Skadi]

Heh. I did read the whole thing. And I hope you note the irony in that you spent a lot of words expressing what paganism is, and in doing this you engaged in a paradigm to which you are vociferously objecting.

Again, your inconsistency is egregious. It appears that you keep reserving for yourself and for paganism, that which you criticize in Catholicism.

In addition to this inconsistency you just demonstrated, I again bring up the fact that you are skeptical of any historical texts of Christian origin, yet give almost no skepticism to anything pagan.

Would that you applied the same standard for all!

Please explain. I don’t think any of the Eddas are based in fact, and that really dosnt matter because they arn’t required to be. I hold all religious texts to the same standard, which is why I don’t necessarily trust the Koran either.

 

[joe371]

’
Mary is a symbol. And the spirit can do whatever the hell it wants. The “Is All” is made up of everything in the universe, you, me, every animal, tree, and spirit great and small. It includes all the love, passion, and caring as well as all the greed, anger, and hate.

However, the children wern’t harmed and in fact the predictions were accurate so I don’t see how one could say this spirit had bad intentions.

Why tell the children that lying is very bad…that it should never be done and then lie to the children about who the spirit really is - was all I meant. But like you said it can do “What ever the hell it wants.”

In terms of bad intentions, if the powerful spirit was responsible for the miracle then we as Catholics have been deceived into believing that it was done by the holy trinity via Mary as the messenger. If you are right what’s the point of appearing as Mary with a Rosary, the mother of the Christian God with all of those messages and the vision of hell. Why would the spirit reveal fire -hell in a vision, something you don believe in? None of this making any sense…

 

[joe371]

’
Mary is a symbol. And the spirit can do whatever the hell it wants. The “Is All” is made up of everything in the universe, you, me, every animal, tree, and spirit great and small. It includes all the love, passion, and caring as well as all the greed, anger, and hate.

However, the children wern’t harmed and in fact the predictions were accurate so I don’t see how one could say this spirit had bad intentions.

A symbol of what?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Please explain. I don’t think any of the Eddas are based in fact, and that really dosnt matter because they arn’t required to be. I hold all religious texts to the same standard, which is why I don’t necessarily trust the Koran either.

Why would you subscribe and pledge yourself to something you admit is a nice fairy tale, a myth? Why would you even bother?

 

[JMJ_coder]

However, the children wern’t harmed and in fact the predictions were accurate so I don’t see how one could say this spirit had bad intentions.

So being thrown into prison, ridiculed, laughed and scoffed at, threatened with all manner of torture for themselves and their families isn’t being harmed?

 

[JMJ_coder]

The “Is All” is made up of everything in the universe, you, me, every animal, tree, and spirit great and small. It includes all the love, passion, and caring as well as all the greed, anger, and hate.

Could you please explain the reasoning behind your belief in this ‘Is All’? Where did you get this idea? And what is the rational explanation for it?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Heh. I did read the whole thing. And I hope you note the irony in that you spent a lot of words expressing what paganism is, and in doing this you engaged in a paradigm to which you are vociferously objecting.

Again, your inconsistency is egregious. It appears that you keep reserving for yourself and for paganism, that which you criticize in Catholicism.

In addition to this inconsistency you just demonstrated, I again bring up the fact that you are skeptical of any historical texts of Christian origin, yet give almost no skepticism to anything pagan.

Would that you applied the same standard for all!

For example, Skadi, you hold as suspect all religious text. Let’s look at Christianity…you seem to think that the Apostles manipulated the story to gain something. You gave as examples that they gained travel, wine, and women. That flies in the face of history. Let’s look at the fruit, since that is how best a tree is judged.

The earliest Christians gave up homes, spouses, their personal property and wealth, their freedom and even their lives. They gave these things up not with a sour demeanor, but with joy emanating from within. They gladly gave away all that they had to those less fortunate than themselves. They sang songs and hymns while being led to face down the lions in the arenas.

And yet, you hold them suspect because they had something to gain? Can you provide some evidence to back up your claim? What did they gain in actuality? And please use your own standard and provide a reputable and verifiable historic source.

On the other hand, you take without question any secular or pagan sources. Why? Let’s look at secular sources. Why take for granted accounts, say, of the founding of nations? There is a situation that is definitely biased because stories and national mythos were being crafted to consolidate regional, temporal power often after some sort of violent battle. This is where the popular phrase history is his-story comes from.

Now, let’s take a look at their fruits. While it is impossible to generalize all of them, I’ll still attempt a somewhat simplistic generalization. Many let their hatred for the former regime turn streets red with blood (e.g., the guillotining after the French Revolution). Some leaders of nations amassed ungodly amounts of wealth and led hedonistic lives (e.g., King Louis XIV, if you believe the stories).

For example, when I was taking an early class on history (many moons ago), my teacher had us read many accounts on the Battles of Lexington and Concord. The question we were particularly gauging was ‘who shot first?’. Every account had its own bias and contradicted each other.

Later on, in taking history courses in college, we learned that historian from early eras were no like historians today. They were not trying to annotate actual facts, but to craft legends, mythos and cults of personality (to use modern terms). That is why, for example, the Illyiad and Odessey have been considered as historic texts.

Now, consider, for example, the opening of the Gospel of Saint Luke.

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

If you didn’t know the source, you’d clearly see that this is presented in a way as any historian from that era would present things.

Now, again the question is posed, why do you hold a different standard for sources of secular vs Christian history?

 

[PRmerger]

Please explain. I don’t think any of the Eddas are based in fact, and that really dosnt matter because they arn’t required to be.

LOL!

You must see the cognitive dissonance we are having here, Skadi.

You object to Christianity’s “lack of proof” from its religious texts. “People could have made this up!”

and yet…

join a religion which you seem to be relishing in the fact that it’s made up.

Really?

 

[rinnie]

Your mistake is that the above is not CIRCULAR, but rather SPIRAL. And, as such, a spiral argument is absolutely logical.

For the argument above to be circular, you would have to start with a premise, and end with the same premise.

It would look something like this: The Bible is inspired. The Bible says that the Church is infallible. The Church says the Bible is inspired.

OR: The Church is infallible. The Church discerned the canon of Scripture. The Scriptures say that the Church is infallible.

That’s circular.

The spiral argument is this:

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.

From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.

And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.

This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired." source

:yup:

 

[Portofino]

The spiral argument is this:

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.

From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.

And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.

This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired." source

I admire Catholic abilities to reason and to argue for their positions, even when I’m not completely convinced by those arguments!

Here’s my personal problem with the spiral argument as you’ve presented it:

1. “We argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.” One danger I see in this approach is one can deemphasize any contradictions in the would-be historical accounts. For example, accounts of Jesus’ nativity differ in the gospels (for those gospels that deal with the nativity, at all); accounts of the crucifixion differ (from memory, compare John’s account with Matthew’s); accounts of the Last Supper differ, etc.

The Bible is literally a historical document because it provides us with a historical record of what Jesus’ earliest followers believed, or claimed, to have happened. Whether it actually happened, as they said it, would require some verification that was independent from the text itself (granted, we have 4 canonical gospel accounts, but these folks were part of the same “tradition”, so to speak, and they differ in some of the details).

What a historian would want, for the resurrection, is independent (read: non-Christian) verification of the event. This eludes us, however, since Jesus was said to have been crucified in public, but resurrected in private. He appeared only to his disciples, not to the general public (contrast this with his teaching ministry, where he did make public appearances, to the Pharisees and others, and is said to have performed his miracles publicly).

He chose to resurrect rather privately; no reason to believe that Pilate, or Pharisees, were aware of his resurrection.

1. “from that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.”

I’m not aware of what part of the Gospels refers to an infallible Church. There is one line in Matthew’s gospel, that I am aware of, that says, “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of heaven will not prevail against it.” In all candor, I think a stronger case would be made for this line, if something so important had appeared in all 4 gospels! But it only appears in one of them, thus in 1 of 4 gospel accounts, and that in a single line (as opposed to something that is mentioned in beginning, middle, and end, so there is no mistake about it).

But the problem I have with this line in Matthew is that, assuming it were true, it points to the enduring nature of the Church; not necessarily to its infallibility, its “inability to err” on matters of the development of doctrine. There could be other arguments for the plausibility of why an infallible Church would be useful, but nothing in the historical gospels explicitly grounds the existence of an infallible Church. One could just as well read Jesus to be saying in Matthew, “no matter how many times the human beings who organize the Church falter, no matter how many errors they make, what they get right (namely, the realization of my actual words, my actual commandments, “love thy neighbor as thyself”–will mean that I will always live on in my Church. They may obscure my message, at times, but enough of me will get through, despite the sinful nature of its leadership, and its errors in understanding.”

Of course, who gets to interpret that line in Matthew, regarding the would-be implied infallibility of the Church? None but the Church! This, indeed, is necessarily circular.

1. “and then we take the word of the infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.” I see a careful choice of words here, though. Namely, another way of expressing proposition 1. is to say, “we argue that everything said in the Bible is true, using reason (namely, arguments for the Bible as reliable history)” 2. “because everything in the Bible is true, and the Bible says the Church is infallible, it is true that the Church is infallible” 3. Because the Church is infallible, it can infallibly declare that everything in the Bible is true because it is inspired by God.

I would argue that “everything in the Bible is true” and “everything in the Bible is inspired by God” are, at least, similar propositions, but I see what you’re saying about how the Church explains something about the Bible that is not necessarily in the Bible itself; not that everything in the Bible is true (which you seem to be arguing for on the basis of reason alone, thus as something that even a Protestant could adhere to, without the Church) but why everything in the Bible is true.

I’m still not sure 1 could be infallibly grounded without 2 and 3, given that the proposition, “everything in the Bible is true” points to no historical inaccuracies, whatsoever.

That is, I can’t help but believe that “3” helps prop up “1” even further, giving it additional support

 

[PRmerger]

“We argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.” One danger I see in this approach is one can deemphasize any contradictions in the would-be historical accounts. For example, accounts of Jesus’ nativity differ in the gospels (for those gospels that deal with the nativity, at all); accounts of the crucifixion differ (from memory, compare John’s account with Matthew’s); accounts of the Last Supper differ, etc.

Perhaps you could proffer what these contradictions are?

(Remember, for it to be a contradiction, it would have to say in one account “A” and in another account “not-A”.)

 

[SteveVH]

1. “from that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.”

I’m not aware of what part of the Gospels refers to an infallible Church.

Matthew 16:18-19
"And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (19) And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

You need to read the very next verse, Verse 19. The power to bind in heaven what is bound on earth and the power to loose in heaven what is loosed on earth is unbelievable and awesome authority. It is Christ’s own authority and that is why it is infallible. What the Church says is so, is so. And we can have confidence that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church into all truth as that was another promise of Christ to his Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Whether it actually happened, as they said it, would require some verification that was independent from the text itself (granted, we have 4 canonical gospel accounts, but these folks were part of the same “tradition”, so to speak, and they differ in some of the details).

This seems to setting up a circular arrangement (oh, the irony! )

Give me something from someone who wasn’t part of the tradition of Christianitiy!

and

If someone writes about the resurrection of Christ that makes him part of the tradition of Christianity.

How do we grant you your criteria when you have set it up so it’s necessarily exclusionary?

What a historian would want, for the resurrection, is independent (read: non-Christian) verification of the event

You do see, Portofini, that if anyone writes of this resurrection that would necessarily make him a Christian, right?

I’m not aware of what part of the Gospels refers to an infallible Church.

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible for the Church to fall into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history or that the Church is fallible.

Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”–originally posted by Randy Carson

 

[Porknpie]

For example, Skadi, you hold as suspect all religious text. Let’s look at Christianity…you seem to think that the Apostles manipulated the story to gain something. You gave as examples that they gained travel, wine, and women. That flies in the face of history. Let’s look at the fruit, since that is how best a tree is judged.

Yes, Skadi believes the apostles made up a lie to gain something. What is hard to understand here is :

Beliefs lead to > Thoughts … thoughts lead to > Knowledge

However Skadi has no knowledge as his beliefs are wrong…hence his thoughts are wrong.

11 of the 12 apostles died of Martyrdom, believing the Jesus Christ was the Son of God, the Messiah. This is history as passed on through the Church since the apostolic time (along with 20 or so of the first 21 Popes dying the same way).

My question is why can’t you believe this?

And why instead create and hold to such false beliefs (travel, wine and women)?

 

[Porknpie]

Why tell the children that lying is very bad…that it should never be done and then lie to the children about who the spirit really is - was all I meant. But like you said it can do “What ever the hell it wants.”

In terms of bad intentions, if the powerful spirit was responsible for the miracle then we as Catholics have been deceived into believing that it was done by the holy trinity via Mary as the messenger. If you are right what’s the point of appearing as Mary with a Rosary, the mother of the Christian God with all of those messages and the vision of hell. Why would the spirit reveal fire -hell in a vision, something you don believe in? None of this making any sense…

Right.

Beliefs > Thoughts > Knowledge

Skadi, please describe your beliefs here (correct me where I’m wrong):

• God’s lie;
• God’s steer people to Christianity by pretending to be Mary, the Mother of God
• God’s have people pray to Mary the Mother of God
• God’s give people a vision of the Christian version of hell
• God’s make miracles through a Christian figure, Mary.
• God’s make accurate predictions through a Christian figure, Mary.

Skadi, the beliefs above make me think that your God’s seem pretty Christian.

Is there anythings that they are doing that is Christian that I have not captured??

 

[joe371]

So being thrown into prison, ridiculed, laughed and scoffed at, threatened with all manner of torture for themselves and their families isn’t being harmed?

That’s what I was thinking…Can’t imagine what would of happened if the miracle did not occur…

 

[joe371]

Right.

Beliefs > Thoughts > Knowledge

Skadi, please describe your beliefs here (correct me where I’m wrong):

• God’s lie;
• God’s steer people to Christianity by pretending to be Mary, the Mother of God
• God’s have people pray to Mary the Mother of God
• God’s give people a vision of the Christian version of hell
• God’s make miracles through a Christian figure, Mary.
• God’s make accurate predictions through a Christian figure, Mary.

Skadi, the beliefs above make me think that your God’s seem pretty Christian.

Is there anythings that they are doing that is Christian that I have not captured??

Reasonable conclusion…:yup:

 

[Portofino]

This seems to setting up a circular arrangement (oh, the irony! )

Give me something from someone who wasn’t part of the tradition of Christianitiy!

and

If someone writes about the resurrection of Christ that makes him part of the tradition of Christianity.

I did not intend to imply that anyone who wrote about the resurrection of Christ is, because of that fact alone, rendered a Christian. But I think we all agree that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John *were *Christians.

On reflection, I would also say that one could have testified to Jesus’ appearance, without necessarily believing in his resurrection. Pilate, for example, could have written a letter to his wife, something like, “I thought I crucified that guy!” (granted, that would have caused chaos and confusion, with people trying to apprehend Jesus a second time).

A resistant non-Christian could have argued, “we saw Jesus walking around, which led us to the obvious conclusion that he survived the crucifixion.” Then again, a resistant non-Christian – as you seem to be saying – could have seen the resurrected Christ walking around, and immediately believed (from what I remember, the crucifixion account has immediate converts, from the time that Christ dies and the earth quakes). But that still leaves room for non-Christians to have argued, “okay, Jesus appeared; but that doesn’t mean he rose from the dead!”

It may be that Jesus chose not to appear in public, deliberately. Indeed, there are no accounts in the gospels of new converts as people who saw the risen Jesus (even Thomas was already a disciple). It would be plausible to say that the appearance of the risen Jesus in the temple would have shaken things up quite a bit!

But, to get back to my point, I wouldn’t account any written testimonies of the appearance of Jesus after death to involve Christians, by definition. Scared, confused Jews could have grasped at straws and maintained that Jesus obviously survived, never having died in the first place.

I’m not saying this proves it never happened, just that it makes it more difficult to maintain that one has proven that it did happen. And, as I understand it, there are Christians who believe that the relatively private nature of the resurrection was deliberate, so that it would not eliminate the need for faith. The equivalent of a local newspaper report, or video eyewitnesses, would have taken away the need for faith.

Just so, if the bread obviously became flesh, and the wine obviously became blood, there would be no need for faith. But we’re talking here not about faith, but about reasonable historical proof.