Christians VS Pagans

[Medbh]

I am happy for everybody who finds their religious fulfillment, no matter what religion it is.

 

[Ahimsa]

We don’t have the concept of ‘sin’. We believe that everybody harvests what they sow. And this prejudice to people is result as offensive.

One definition of “sin” is “to miss the mark”, as in falling a bit short of doing what is best or optimal. Don’t pagans have the notion that some types of behaviors are better than others, and that it is possible to attempt to do what is best, yet fall short?

 

[brotherhrolf]

We don’t have the concept of ‘sin’. We believe that everybody harvests what they sow. And this prejudice to people is result as offensive.

All human societies have some idea of “transgression against the whole”. All human societies have rules which regulate human behavior. Everyone harvests what they sow? Medbh, please show me any, ANY, human society which does not have societal rules and regulations. Hint: Start with the Kung! The exclamation point has nothing to do with emotions, only pronunciation. BTW, I’m sure Wikipedia will provide you with a complete explanation.

 

[Medbh]

The concept of ‘sin’ I am talking about is the one in written form.

 

[brotherhrolf]

There are sins of omission (failing to do what is right) and comission (deliberately doing what is wrong). This is pan-human in all societies across the board whether or not the culture is literate. Sin as an expression of writing? You have my attention, Medbh. I await your explanation.

 

[Medbh]

The sins i am talking about are ones defined in writing by man. For example: the ten commandments. Of course my transgressions against the Gods are wrong doings, but they are defined by me and them, not written in books by people i don’t know.

As far as in regards to others, I keep by the rule of doing what i wish as long as i don’t harm others.

brotherhrolf, may i ask you a question? How do you deal with your transgressions, against others and against your God?

 

[brotherhrolf]

You mean the sins codified into law? That is certainly appropriate for literate societies but does not account for unwritten laws such as tribal law like that of the Yanamamo of the Amazon Basin.

Me? This Catholic does what he and his ancestors have done for generations. I seek forgiveness in the sacrament of reconcilliation - I confess my sins to a priest who stands “in persona Christi”.

You speak as if transgressions are something between the individual and the gods. Guess again. The far more ancient tract speaks of the individual vs. society. This is a basic tenet of Humanity 101 not the musings of some Victorian. Law, or rules and regulations if you must, is one of the cornerstones of human society - of any religion.

Let me introduce you to a concept which is central to the study of humankind - the psychic unity of man. Basically it means there is nothing new under the sun…mankind is as mankind does. I am not aware of any human culture which has adopted a “do what you want save that it does no harm” rule as the basis of society. If you are aware of a culture which operates under these rules please let me know.

 

[Medbh]

You mean the sins codified into law? That is certainly appropriate for literate societies but does not account for unwritten laws such as tribal law like that of the Yanamamo of the Amazon Basin.

Me? This Catholic does what he and his ancestors have done for generations. I seek forgiveness in the sacrament of reconcilliation - I confess my sins to a priest who stands “in persona Christi”.

You speak as if transgressions are something between the individual and the gods. Guess again. The far more ancient tract speaks of the individual vs. society. This is a basic tenet of Humanity 101 not the musings of some Victorian. Law, or rules and regulations if you must, is one of the cornerstones of human society - of any religion.

Let me introduce you to a concept which is central to the study of humankind - the psychic unity of man. Basically it means there is nothing new under the sun…mankind is as mankind does. I am not aware of any human culture which has adopted a “do what you want save that it does no harm” rule as the basis of society. If you are aware of a culture which operates under these rules please let me know.

And?

 

[brotherhrolf]

I wish you well Medbh but it is obvious you are not here for honest dialogue. I will tell you this…I had more honest conversations from my three pagan friends than I have had from you. I leave you with the words of the anthropologist Joseph Campbell, “Follow your bliss”. Exit stage right.

 

[latin_rite]

I don’t hate pagans. if they want to follow some dead god based on the ideas of t.v shows like charmed and buffy straight into hell why should i care?

 

[happygal]

I don’t hate Pagans, but i will take opportunity to spread Gospel to them, however if they really doesn’t buy they isn’t much i can do. But i will still love him/her as my frez

 

[Medbh]

I don’t hate pagans. if they want to follow some **dead god based on the ideas of t.v shows like charmed and buffy **straight into hell why should i care?

:bounce:
you really deserve four smileys …

But you believe there is just one God…and you said that God is dead… so you are worshipping a dead God…

 

[LilyM]

I think latin rite meant to say that the gods you worship don’t exist and never have - that they’re false gods.

And no, the Christian God isn’t dead … Jesus, one person of our three-in-one God, did die, but resurrected.

 

[Medbh]

I think latin rite meant to say that the gods you worship don’t exist and never have - that they’re false gods.

And no, the Christian God isn’t dead … Jesus, one person of our three-in-one God, did die, but resurrected.

Prove to me that the Gods I worship are dead and never existed.
Prove to me that your God exists and is the only one.
Don’t bother coming back to me asking for me to prove mine, beacuse I’m not the one who started the argument of which God did and didn’t exist.
This is silly and non-constructive.
It’s not a matter of who does or does not exist, but of who does or does not exist to the person in question. And I personally already explained my point of view on the subject on this topic.

 

[LilyM]

So people can think a God or Gods into existence?

If I in all seriousness believe in a God of Twinkies then does that God exist or not??? Just because I think they do??

I don’t quite understand your position.

 

[Medbh]

So people can think a God or Gods into existence?

If I in all seriousness believe in a God of Twinkies then does that God exist or not??? Just because I think they do??

I don’t quite understand your position.

A friend of mine said: “Faith can be demolished, inasmuch as it is based on the ephemeral fog of accepting without seeing. Differently from experience, which for its nature is unmovable and indestructible.”

God cannot be proven or disproven. God IS a matter of faith.
If you want to believe in a “God of Twinkies”, you have every right to.

 

[LilyM]

Well certainly we don’t and may well never in our lifetimes have sufficient knowledge of God to say that one religion or another is correct.

Of course it doesn’t stop the fact that one religion (or set of beliefs about religion) IS correct. The various belief systems around are fairly well mutually exclusive of each other. They can’t all be objectively true.

Just as at one point (prior to Copernicus and Gallileo) there were people who belived the Earth was flat and others who believed it was round and not enough evidence to really show who was correct.

But if I make up a new religion with not the slightest evidence backing it up and which is as offensive to all reason, intelligence and common sense (which after all are also gifts from the deity or deities) as the idea that there is a God of Twinkies, then it doesn’t deserve to be treated as valid!

 

[Medbh]

Well certainly we don’t and may well never in our lifetimes have sufficient knowledge of God to say that one religion or another is correct.

Of course it doesn’t stop the fact that one religion (or set of beliefs about religion) IS correct. The various belief systems around are fairly well mutually exclusive of each other. They can’t all be objectively true.

I agree. But I personally don’t believe in two religions, I believe in one, that is, Paganism. So this is the true one and correct one for me. Objectively, we have nothing to state that one religione is correct, and the other is false.

Just as at one point (prior to Copernicus and Gallileo) there were people who belived the Earth was flat and others who believed it was round and not enough evidence to really show who was correct.

But if I make up a new religion with not the slightest evidence backing it up and which is as offensive to all reason, intelligence and common sense (which after all are also gifts from the deity or deities) as the idea that there is a God of Twinkies, then it doesn’t deserve to be treated as valid!

I agree here too. But who determines what religions are valid and what aren’t?

Besides, there is freedom of expression, which allows people to ‘make up a religion’ if they feel like it.

 

[LilyM]

Freedom of expression sure, but there is not freedom, for example, to claim tax benefits for being a self proclaimed pastor of the twinkie God church, nor can Mormons or Muslims legally practice polygamy in the US or other Western countries.

Religious faith that is so easily created is not true faith, and the idea that it can be is insulting to those of us who do genuinely adhere to our religious faith after serious study of it, and often at a cost to ourselves in terms of time and resources.

 

[Hastrman]

You’ve said more than once that Paganism is “the correct Path for you”. But what if the Taoist heresy of Thousand-Killing* is the “correct Path for you?” That was (and is) one of the Taoist heresies that sought, instead of becoming an Immortal by meditation and right action, to become a Yiu-gwai (somewhere between a fairy and a demon) by certain magical practices. Most of the heretical practices involve cannibalism; Thousand Killing, on the other hand, taught that by being soaked in the blood of a thousand men, one could become a Yiu-gwai. And it meant “soaked in blood” literally and figuratively–you had to kill them all.

And a practitioner of this sect–or rather, a follower of this Path, because it wasn’t so much a religion as a warped ritual–wouldn’t be swayed by arguments about people’s “right” not to be killed. First, of course, the Chinese don’t have the idea of rights, as such; and second, he would argue that, as a superior being who knows the secret of the path and has the Will to follow it, his wishes matter more than those of mere mortals, content to live in their unquiet lives. And then he’d probably quote the I Qing, Taoism’s most sacred text, in support of his practice.

But hey,

Objectively, we have nothing to state that one religione is correct, and the other is false.

Unless you’re going to irrationally posit some “morality”, or something, outside of pure, unadulterated power.

*I don’t know if there were any actual practitioners of this–though they are popular villains in fiction and movies–but I do know that the Yiu-gwai shortcut exists in traditional Taoism, though it is denounced as a heresy, sort of the Asian equivalent of Satanism. The cannibalism during the Cultural Revolution can perhaps be traced to such beliefs, as can the cannibalism practiced by some Chinese abortionists. There were also samurai in the Japanese Senkoku era who sought to kill a thousand men and thus achieve what they thought of as godhood. Some of them may even have done it.