Christians VS Pagans

[Victorious]

I have a lot of respect for Catholicism, and I enjoy reading about the lives of saints. I find it comforting to know that people like this lived and made a difference in the world. I have a strong desire to dedicate my own life to helping others, of living a simple life of charity. It’s not glamorous, but it’s something that I feel called to do, and I can do no less.

I’m glad you get a lot out of reading the lives of the saints. Do you think their Catholic faith had anything to do with their ability to make a difference in the world?

I know that most Christians would still say that I’m being deceived by Satan, but I have to do what I think is right. What else can I do? I think it would be unconscienable to switch religions because of the threat of hell, rather than out of love.

One of the really nice things about God is that He is humility itself. Because He is Humility itself, He condescends to take from us whatever we can give Him at the present moment. Then – because He is also Mercy itself – He does the rest. As a former pastor of mine used to say, God loves us just as we are, but too much to leave us where we are. Do not, then, be too quick to judge people who turn to God simply because they fear damnation. That’s the best they can give at the present moment, and frankly, that’s all He needs.

I have read most of the Bible, and I honestly don’t think I could love the God portrayed in the OT. He’s nothing like the patient and loving Deity that I know.

Actually, when I read the Old Testament, I don’t see a vengeful God. I see a God dealing patiently with His stubborn and headstrong people: repeatedly warning them of the consequences of their failure to mend their ways, and giving them chance after chance to straighten up. I also see God stooping to accommodate His people, realizing that they needed to learn by experience why some of the things they wanted weren’t good for them. For example, He actually obeyed their wish not to deal with Him face to face, but only through intermediaries such as Moses. He also gave them a king, even though He didn’t want them to have one, and He warned them what a human king would do with his power. And I don’t think it was really God who wanted all the picky rules associated with the Mosaic law. Rather, I suspect the people wanted the rules as a way of holding God at arm’s length. But God accepted this – I believe because He so wanted a relationship with them that He would rather do it through picky rules than not at all. But, being a God of justice, He held them to what they wanted.

I suspect if people had to choose between believing what they have experienced firsthand vs what is written in a book, the majority would choose to believe their own experiences.

But the Bible isn’t just any book: it’s the inspired Word of God. How can we become better people without some objective standard against which to measure ourselves? This amounts to thinking that we don’t need God – which is contrary to your stated position.

 

[tamccrackine]

Most, or at least many, christians view any non-christian religion to be “pagan”.

That’s because by the very definition of “pagan” it means:

1.One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2. One who has no religion.
3. A non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.
5. A Neo-Pagan.

ADJECTIVE:

1. Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
2. Professing no religion; heathen.
3. Neo-Pagan.

education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pagan

I’ve been in “discussions” before with so called pagans that did nothing but keep dancing around an academic discussion. Brotherhrolf (forgive me if I mispelled it) has provided EXCELLENT resources and information, history… yet it doesn’t seem to be satisfactory and the second the discussion seems to be winding down, you jump in with “well why do you label me”… you make it like he’s out to personally attack you, when it’s very obvious he hasn’t.

The only time I can actually say I had to force myself to pray for pagans was when some self-proclaimed pagans wanted to try to convince me that there is this thing called a Christopagan. The only comment I had made was that by virtue of the definition of a Christian and Pagan, you can’t mesh the two. With that said… I was attacked up one way and down the next because these pagans couldn’t understand a simple definition… they wanted to make up another religion and call it historical!

Anyway… pagans don’t make sense to me. The term pagan is as what my priest said are basically “religion rednecks”… country folk following a religion of the land and not the One True God. I perosnally could care less about what people do in their spiritual life as long as the respect for mine is given. I don’t believe pagans (most anyway) are Satanists… to me it’s something totally different. Satanists have a god… it’s called Satan, whereas pagans have a bunch of gods and/or goddesses. Although I do beleive that alot of the gods/goddesses that pagans address very well may be evil.

 

[Persephone]

Do you think their Catholic faith had anything to do with their ability to make a difference in the world?

I think it was their closeness to God, especially, led them to do great things, but I think Catholicism as a whole is more inclined toward doing good works than most Christian denominations. Wouldn’t you agree?

Do not, then, be too quick to judge people who turn to God simply because they fear damnation. That’s the best they can give at the present moment, and frankly, that’s all He needs.

It’s not about judging others. All I’m saying is that, for me, the threat of hell is not a valid reason to convert.

Actually, when I read the Old Testament, I don’t see a vengeful God. I see a God dealing patiently with His stubborn and headstrong people: repeatedly warning them of the consequences of their failure to mend their ways, and giving them chance after chance to straighten up.

I just saw a lot of darkness in the OT. God killed people at the drop of a hat. He killed a man for picking up firewood on a Saturday, or for catching the ark when it was going to fall to the ground, and he killed 70.000 for David’s census. How many times did the Bible mention that “God’s anger burned” against the people? This is totally foreign to me, because the Deity I know is infinitely patient. I’m very stubborn and headstrong in my own right, but I’ve never been punished for being hardheaded. If I do something contrary to Divine guidance, then I suffer the result of my own actions. There is no punishment or judgment, but simply the law of cause and effect. Plus, in my experience, Deity reacts to human selfishness with sadness and hurt, but not burning anger. I would think a God of love would be more, well, loving. After all, there are ways to get through to people short of killing them.

But the Bible isn’t just any book: it’s the inspired Word of God. How can we become better people without some objective standard against which to measure ourselves? This amounts to thinking that we don’t need God – which is contrary to your stated position.

To believers, the Bible is not just any book, but to the rest of us? It’s just a book. I believe that the only standard humanity really needs is conscience, which I believe is from Deity. A long list of “thou shalt not’s” is no match for the inner knowledge of right and wrong.

 

[Victorious]

I just saw a lot of darkness in the OT. God killed people at the drop of a hat. He killed a man for picking up firewood on a Saturday, or for catching the ark when it was going to fall to the ground, and he killed 70.000 for David’s census. How many times did the Bible mention that “God’s anger burned” against the people? This is totally foreign to me, because the Deity I know is infinitely patient. I’m very stubborn and headstrong in my own right, but I’ve never been punished for being hardheaded. If I do something contrary to Divine guidance, then I suffer the result of my own actions. There is no punishment or judgment, but simply the law of cause and effect. Plus, in my experience, Deity reacts to human selfishness with sadness and hurt, but not burning anger. I would think a God of love would be more, well, loving. After all, there are ways to get through to people short of killing them…To believers, the Bible is not just any book, but to the rest of us? It’s just a book. I believe that the only standard humanity really needs is conscience, which I believe is from Deity. A long list of “thou shalt not’s” is no match for the inner knowledge of right and wrong.

With respect, I don’t think you’ve really read the Bible carefully. The understanding of the God of the Old Testament that you communicate is really quite superficial. In fact, it takes a superficial understanding of God in general to think that He is small enough to be completely embraced by our puny human experience. The experiences of all people put together isn’t nearly enough to paint a complete picture of God.

This is why it’s not enough for us to rely merely on our own experience. You, for instance, have learned that God is Mercy and Patience; but you haven’t learned that He is also Justice. And you haven’t even completely learned the lessons of His Mercy, because you fail to recognize His repeated warnings – through the saints, through the Church, and through His Word – about how terrible it is to fall under His justice.

God didn’t strike people dead in the Old Testament on a whim. Rather, He warned them repeatedly not to do something, then they went ahead and did it anyway – and found out the hard way why He warned them not to do it. You judge Him as harsh for doing this because your experience has not taught you that God wills everything for our good, that only He can see all ends, and that we must therefore trust Him when He commands us to do or not do something, even when His commands make no sense to us in the present moment.

Your comment that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God to you is quite revealing. The fact is, the Bible is what it is regardless of what you or anybody else think. The idea that the state of reality depends on our opinions is, frankly, pure delusion and a conceit of human pride.

 

[Persephone]

With respect, I don’t think you’ve really read the Bible carefully. The understanding of the God of the Old Testament that you communicate is really quite superficial.

I only read what is there. I’m not inclined to play apologist for a religion I have no faith in, and don’t intend to follow. I’ve heard Christians say that non-Christians can’t understand the Bible because they don’t see it through the eyes of faith. So be it. I tend to call a spade a spade.

In fact, it takes a superficial understanding of God in general to think that He is small enough to be completely embraced by our puny human experience. The experiences of all people put together isn’t nearly enough to paint a complete picture of God.

I agree with you here. I’m not arrogant enough to believe that I have absolute Truth, and I’m skeptical of anyone who claims they do.

This is why it’s not enough for us to rely merely on our own experience. You, for instance, have learned that God is Mercy and Patience; but you haven’t learned that He is also Justice.

You’re right; I’ve never known Deity to be the “eye for an eye” type. We suffer because of our own failings, our own selfishness. As you might say, we reap what we sow. The purpose of suffering is not to satisfy some sort of Divine retribution, but to learn from our errors. If Mother tells her child not to touch the hot stove, and the child disobeys and burns himself, he learns a lesson. The burn was not the Mother’s punishment for disobeying, but the result of the child’s own actions. Cause and effect. I don’t believe that Deity is looking over our shoulders, recording our bad deeds and calculating how to punish us for them. There are far more important things to do.

You judge Him as harsh for doing this because your experience has not taught you that God wills everything for our good, that only He can see all ends, and that we must therefore trust Him when He commands us to do or not do something, even when His commands make no sense to us in the present moment.

No, I do believe that Deity desires only the best for us. I’ve been led to some situations that didn’t make any sense to me at the time, but turned out to be exactly where I needed to be. However, I see no good coming from killing people for trivial infractions. God’s burning anger speaks more of arrogance and ego than love and humility. Perhaps I am being harsh, but like I said, I call a spade a spade.

Your comment that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God to you is quite revealing.

Well surely this comes as no surprise to you. I never claimed to be a Christian.

The idea that the state of reality depends on our opinions is, frankly, pure delusion and a conceit of human pride.

I never said anything of the sort.

 

[latin_rite]

Who is this Deity person?

 

[kellie]

Hi medbh,

I am very much interested in learning about paganism from you, and have been following what you have been saying.

You say you don’t believe in sins that are written down by man, such as the 10 Commandments.

You only believe in the sins created between you personally and your god(s).

So if you have a child, (I don’t know whether you do or not), what do you teach your child about your religion?

Let’s use the following as an example.

Let’s say we make up a new sin called “Too many posts” and it means that if you post more than 5 posts on this forum a day you have sinned.

You have made this sin up between you and your gods. And you live by that rule of not going over the limit of 5 posts per day here.

Do you teach your child this same sin? And to follow it? Or do you allow your child to post 10 posts here, and arrange her own limit between her and her gods?

Written sins such as the 10 Commandments are just a way of passing what our forefathers were told by our God, that were sins, and they are a way of teaching us how to obey our God?

How do you teach your descendants to obey your gods if sins aren’t passed down, written or unwritten?

Also, what is the point of not sinning for your religion? Does it please your gods if you don’t sin? And if it does please them, what is your reward?

Our reward is to live eternally in the Kingdom of our God.

Thanks, and hope I made sense

 

[Persephone]

Who is this Deity person?

I use the term Deity to avoid the connotations that come with words like “God,” “Goddess,” or “Gods.” It’s just a generic term that refers to the higher power.

It is my belief that people view Deity through the filter of their cultures. After all, it’s hard to have a personal relationship with something that you cannot relate to on some level. All people, in all times have had mystical experiences with Deity, which led to the foundation of religion. Mankind creates religion, the myths and dogma, but Deity inspires the relationship. That is the kernel of Truth that exists in all faiths.

Some faiths are closer to Truth than others. Some religions have been lost in legalistic rules and dogma, rather than concerning themselves with seeking Deity. At that point, religion fails to be a path to Truth, and becomes a hinderance and a distraction, or worse.

Just recently there was an interesting article in the news about how cultural differences in various regions of the USA has led to vastly different views of the Christian God, just amongst Christians. I thought that was fascinating. You can easily see how isolated civilizations would develop different views of Deity based on their cultures. I think that lends credence to my belief that culture influences our perception of Deity, even though we all enjoy a relationship with the same Deity.

 

[Two_Feathers]

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.

Light & Dark Greetings & Blessings to All Members,

brotherhrolf, since We were 1st shown this Thread on: Christians Vs Pagans, We have noticed, you Tend to Infer, because you are an Anthropologist, you (& other Anthropologists-Especially, those you Quote) are Right and have: All the Answers to, on & of Ancient Civilizations & Religions.
Please correct Us if We are wrong, yet according to the Dictionary-anthropology is: the scientific study of the origin & development of humanity. & an anthropologist is: someone who studies or is concerned with anthropology.
Now, taking in to account, that you are “Well Read” on this subject & have Degrees (of one kind or another) within this area, you & other anthropologists, are not Infalable, as you Dont & cant know, Everything!

A Persons Spirituality, is a Direct Relationship between them & their Goddess/God/Deity/Higher Power, in & within, which ever way, They Choose to Recognise It!
We, view The Great Spirit, as an Entity, which is Equally: Female & Male-hence Goddesses & Gods. Each & Every Name, which has ever been attributed to them is, as Valid today, as when it was 1st Uttered.
We Worship the The Twin Goddesses-Isis/Nepthys & God-Osiris & recognise Others, as We Know, in, within & through Our Spirit-This Is Right for Us!

No Religion (Regardless of Denomination), has the Right to Dictate to Others, Who they should Believe In & How they should Worship.
Christianity itself, was (Questionably) Founded on the teachings of a Man/God named Jesus & according to their own doctrines: Jesus, Did Not Discriminate, Against Anyone, Regardless of their Spirituality or Faith.
So, the Question may be put: Why does the Roman Catholic Church, as well as , Other Christian Churches go against, His Acceptance of All?

We were raised a Roman Catholic & after many years, walked away from the Church, because of the Incosistancies in Practice & Inabilities to Answer Questions on Teachings.
To say, that a person Must Have Faith is one thing, yet to: Not Receive an Answer; Be Flat Out Refused an Answer &/or Be Punished, for Asking the Questions: does not Win Over peoples Hearts, Minds & Spirits!
We Found Ourselves, when We found Our Spirituality, after Rejecting the Church!

If you have Questioned, as to why We refer to Ourselves in the Plural, it is because We are an Equal Female & Male within the 1 Body. If you choose to reject Our explanation of who & what We are, that`s OK. If you choose to accept Us this is Much Better. We already know people from both camps, as well as those who place Us in the, “Too Hard Basket!”

yours,

Two Feathers,

Akita mani yo . . “Observe all things, as you walk,”

mitakuye oyasin . . “we are all related” (lakota),

Aho

 

[Victorious]

I said:
"Victorious:

The idea that the state of reality depends on our opinions is, frankly, pure delusion and a conceit of human pride.

Then you said:

I never said anything of the sort.

You did when you said the Bible isn’t the inspired Word of God to you. The Bible is what it is, whatever you think of it.

 

[cheese_sdc]

I use the term Deity to avoid the connotations that come with words like “God,” “Goddess,” or “Gods.” It’s just a generic term that refers to the higher power.

It is my belief that people view Deity through the filter of their cultures. After all, it’s hard to have a personal relationship with something that you cannot relate to on some level. All people, in all times have had mystical experiences with Deity, which led to the foundation of religion. Mankind creates religion, the myths and dogma, but Deity inspires the relationship. That is the kernel of Truth that exists in all faiths.

Some faiths are closer to Truth than others. Some religions have been lost in legalistic rules and dogma, rather than concerning themselves with seeking Deity. At that point, religion fails to be a path to Truth, and becomes a hinderance and a distraction, or worse.

Just recently there was an interesting article in the news about how cultural differences in various regions of the USA has led to vastly different views of the Christian God, just amongst Christians. I thought that was fascinating. You can easily see how isolated civilizations would develop different views of Deity based on their cultures. I think that lends credence to my belief that culture influences our perception of Deity, even though we all enjoy a relationship with the same Deity.

Good post!

 

[brotherhrolf]

Two Feathers: Anthropology is not simply the study of the origins of mankind. It has four distinct branches:

1. Physical. The study of the origins of mankind. The study of the variances of mankind - how we adapt to climate, variations in the genome, etc. This includes forensic anthropology which is extremely useful in solving crimes.
2. Cultural. The study of why human cultures are so different. One of the most basic things an anthropologist is taught is not to judge other cultures through the eyes of one’s own culture. This would apply to religion as well.
3. Linguistic. The study of human languages.
4. Archaeology. Documenting the past.

I specifically tried to limit this discussion to the academic realm. I am by no means infallible but I am well read - particularly well read in mythology of all stripes. I have nowhere attempted to push Catholicism on any neo-pagan.

The specific point I was trying to make is that the cults of Isis, Osiris, Ra, Epona, Thor, Odin, Huitzlipotchili etc. ad infinitum died in the historic past. The priesthood, believers and underpinnings of the cult ceased to exist. Only written records remain.

Since written records are incomplete, and, since we know that the revival of neo-paganism is a product of the Victorian Era, from my standpoint as an anthropologist, I could just as well form the First United Church of Cthulhu, publish my own version of the Necronomicon, and rely upon the works of Lovecraft et al to support my thesis. This has absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism. It has everything to do with intellectual honesty.

If I went to the Amazon basin and lived amongst the Yanamamo, I would encounter a vibrant native religion. Far and few between are the cultures of mankind today who live the life of their ancestors. Where is the continuity? I can certainly accept the continuance of native American beliefs (Castaneda et al) since there are still shamans in existence. But the cults of Osiris and Isis are long gone. I don’t dispute your choice of gods but I do dispute your claim to authentic worship unless, of course, you can provide me with documentation showing the viability of the cult of Osiris/Isis over the last 1800 years.

This has absolutely nothing to do with belief. It is all academic.
Oh, and BTW, I am descended from the 7th son of a 7th son and was born with a caul. I have the second sight and no I can’t explain it. But I know that my ancestors were Catholic since St. Patrick. I know that I am following the way of a God who spoke to a bunch of desert wandering Semites. I know that my ancestors likely worshipped Cernunnos, Brighet, Epona, Wotan, Thunor, etc. But it would never enter my mind to try to resurect their cults since any attempt I made would never, ever resemble the original. That’s intellectual not Catholicism.

 

[Medbh]

Two Feathers: Anthropology is not simply the study of the origins of mankind. It has four distinct branches:

1. Physical. The study of the origins of mankind. The study of the variances of mankind - how we adapt to climate, variations in the genome, etc. This includes forensic anthropology which is extremely useful in solving crimes.
2. Cultural. The study of why human cultures are so different. One of the most basic things an anthropologist is taught is not to judge other cultures through the eyes of one’s own culture. This would apply to religion as well.
3. Linguistic. The study of human languages.
4. Archaeology. Documenting the past.

I specifically tried to limit this discussion to the academic realm. I am by no means infallible but I am well read - particularly well read in mythology of all stripes. I have nowhere attempted to push Catholicism on any neo-pagan.

The specific point I was trying to make is that the cults of Isis, Osiris, Ra, Epona, Thor, Odin, Huitzlipotchili etc. ad infinitum died in the historic past. The priesthood, believers and underpinnings of the cult ceased to exist. Only written records remain.

Since written records are incomplete, and, since we know that the revival of neo-paganism is a product of the Victorian Era, from my standpoint as an anthropologist, I could just as well form the First United Church of Cthulhu, publish my own version of the Necronomicon, and rely upon the works of Lovecraft et al to support my thesis. This has absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism. It has everything to do with intellectual honesty.

If I went to the Amazon basin and lived amongst the Yanamamo, I would encounter a vibrant native religion. Far and few between are the cultures of mankind today who live the life of their ancestors. Where is the continuity? I can certainly accept the continuance of native American beliefs (Castaneda et al) since there are still shamans in existence. But the cults of Osiris and Isis are long gone. I don’t dispute your choice of gods but I do dispute your claim to authentic worship unless, of course, you can provide me with documentation showing the viability of the cult of Osiris/Isis over the last 1800 years.

This has absolutely nothing to do with belief. It is all academic.
Oh, and BTW, I am descended from the 7th son of a 7th son and was born with a caul. I have the second sight and no I can’t explain it. But I know that my ancestors were Catholic since St. Patrick. I know that I am following the way of a God who spoke to a bunch of desert wandering Semites. I know that my ancestors likely worshipped Cernunnos, Brighet, Epona, Wotan, Thunor, etc. But it would never enter my mind to try to resurect their cults since any attempt I made would never, ever resemble the original. That’s intellectual not Catholicism.

You seem to regard my faith as a mishmash or this and that thrown together and called a religion, to me that is fine, perhaps to you it isn’t but who are you to judge?

What truely is your problem with my faith?

Christianity has borrowed from Jews, from Paganism also, if you know Celtic history as you claim you will acknowledge that many aspects of the Paganism which were encountered in Ireland by missionaries where accepted into church teaching in order to achieve a conversion. The idea that people were worshiping St. Brigid instead of the Goddess of the same name, was one of the tricks used by Christian monks.

Many Pagan days of celebration were simply turned in to Saints days in order to convert those who would attempt to hold on the truth.

You speak of having a clear link with the past, but provide me with evidence that the Roman Catholic Church is exactly the same today as it was when it was formed, and does not contain influences of any other religion be it Judaism or Paganism.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Ia, ia, Cthulhu f’thagen! When mighty Cthulhu rises from dread R’lyeh where he lies sleeping, all mortals will tremble.

There is a whole mythos out there regarding Cthulhu and N’yarlthotep et al. Started from the creation of a 1930’s writer, H. P. Lovecraft and continued by writers today like Brian Lumley. There are even people who purport to worship the “elder gods”. This has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with intellectual honesty. How can one worship that which is obviously the fabrication of someone else’s mind - e.g. Lovecraft. Likewise, it is demonstrably correct that that the reconstruction of ancient European beliefs began during the Victorian era and reached it’s culmination with the works of Gardner in 1954.

So, at its very essence, neo-paganism is not based upon written or oral tradition passed on from one generation to the next, but rather upon the reconstruction of what the adherent thought it might be. There is no difference between this and L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology. Believe what ye will as long as ye do no harm.

Is the Church the same as it was 2,000 years ago. Obviously not. I’m not going to discuss the religious reasons for this since I am trying to keep this in the academic realm. Suffice it to say, there is such a thing as syncretism and Holy Mother Church has never shied from using this. Patrick didn’t “trick” anyone by using a shamrock. The symbolism was already there - the triskelion in your signature. The three in one and one in three. Brighet not Brigid is another perfect example.

May I suggest to you neo pagans that you go and investigate Indo-European roots if you want to reconstruct an authentic religion. We were all Indo-European once and living on the plains of what is now Russia. There were 12 gods (gasp! shades of Greco-Romanism) . We had a common language whose roots are evident in all Indo-European languages. Logically, if one wanted to get back to an authentic worship like our ancestors, one should turn to Hinduism…an authentic representation unbroken since that time on the Russian plains.

 

[Persephone]

Victorious,
If you’ll recall, I said: “To believers, the Bible is not just any book, but to the rest of us? It’s just a book.” And that is indeed the case. Believers believe, disbelievers disbelieve. It’s really not such a radical concept.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that the state of reality depends on human opinions, and I really can’t imagine how you jumped to that conclusion from the above statement. So, for the record and to prevent further confusion, I believe that Truth exists outside of human opinion, for Truth is simply what IS.

We, as human beings, will never completely grasp Truth. It’s so far beyond the comprehension of our mortal minds that we’ll never completely understand the big picture in this life. But, that doesn’t mean we won’t try! All religions have been created to seek Truth. Some are rather elaborate, like Christianity, while others are far more simplistic. I truly believe that all who seek will find, regardless of which religion they adhere to.

brotherhrolf,
Do you believe that the age of a religion gives it validity?

 

[brotherhrolf]

Persephone: I am an anthropologist and have no problem with religions whose line is unbroken into the the past. I do have a problem with adherents whose religion is a constuct of what they think the religion ought to have been. One cannot reconstruct a religion which has not been practiced in over a thousand years. To do otherwise is intellectual dishonesty. I could stop everything tonight and declare my belief in the elder gods of H.P, Lovecraft. But to be intellectualy honest, I would have to acknowledge that the mythos of the elder gods was penned by Lovecraft in the 30s and has abosolutely no relevance to todays world.

So too with our pagan brethren. What? I’m supposed to roll over and play dead because Gardner in 1954 resurrected a pseudo-Celtic belief ? Carlos Castenada, an Anthropologist, apprenticed to a genuine shaman in northern Mexico. I read all of his books. They were genuine. Authenitic unbroken culture.

So, just because you say so, I should suspend disbelief and lo, the god and godesses of my ancestors should appear full blown like Athena from the brow of Zeus?

Neither you nor Medbh have produced a convincing arguement or, Mon Dieu, any kind of argument which supports your position.

This is NOT about Cathoclicism. This is simply intelllectual. You tell me how you can authetically ressurect a religion which died over a thousand years ago.

 

[Victorious]

You tell me how you can authetically ressurect a religion which died over a thousand years ago.

Wouldn’t that entail bringing back human sacrifice?

 

[Medbh]

Is the Church the same as it was 2,000 years ago. Obviously not. I’m not going to discuss the religious reasons for this since I am trying to keep this in the academic realm. Suffice it to say, there is such a thing as syncretism and Holy Mother Church has never shied from using this. Patrick didn’t “trick” anyone by using a shamrock. The symbolism was already there - the triskelion in your signature. The three in one and one in three. Brighet not Brigid is another perfect example…

So if it is not, then how can you claim that the link to the past is unbroken? The Christians of today do not match exactly what the Christians of 2000 years ago. I’m sorry but your argument is weak at best.

Do you claim the bible as your link to the first Christians, it might be a source but it is anything from perfect?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigid%27s_cross

I know this means nothing to you but perhaps some people can have a look at it.

 

[Medbh]

Wouldn’t that entail bringing back human sacrifice?

Like the Jews?

 

[Gnosis]

In anthropological terms, is there an unbroken line stemming from modern Paganism to the way the ancient’s practiced it? No.

But that would be approaching this issue from the wrong perspective, in fact, thats not even relevant. Modern paganism or neo paganism, is a new religion in the sense that it has not been practiced quite in this way before, but ancient in the sense that it is practiced in the spirit of the ancient path…it is ahistorical, mythologically centered, rooted in primordial mysteries and truths.

and, honestly speaking, there is no religion today that is practiced just as it was thousands of years ago. The ancient practice and the modern practice share a common thread. However, in every age, each religion is, as it needs to be, reborn.