Christians VS Pagans

[brotherhrolf]

So, where then from an anthropological perspective does one differntiate between a totally fictional religion and another totally fictional religion.? Is it acceptable for me to develop a mythos based upon Billy Bob and his magical grocery store? Fine. Go off then and create a new religion based upon Billy Bob and his magical grocery store. That is at least, intellectually honest.

The development of a fictional neo pagan religion is no different from me developing a religion to worship Cthulhu or Billy Bob’s magical grocery store. It is delusion.

In an odd sort of way it makes more sense to worship Cthulhu and Billy Bob’s magical grocery store. The religious adherent to these stories has thrown caution to the wind. Unless you tell me that you are getting direct contact from Isis and Osiris commanding your worship, you are no better or worse than H. P. Lovecraft.

Formally, as an anthropologist, I am not going to treat anyone running off to “worship” the elder gods as a religion. The same principle applies to neo-paganism. Unless you can show me an unbroken chain into the past, well, you are no better or worse than Lovecraft or Hubbard. Your faith is an invention of your mind.

Let it be remembered that I am not running off to neo-pagan websites and attempting to convert neo-pagans nor have I appoached this from a strict CCC point of view. I have yet to get a clear-cut, rational explanation from any neo-pagan as to the rationale of their choice. You don’t agree with the Catholic Church - fine. You want to be a neo-pagan -fine too. But at least give me an intellectualy honest answer. Demonstrate to me how your gods and/or goddesses exist in this day after over a thousnad years.

 

[Persephone]

brotherhrolf,
You have to understand that not all pagans are reconstructionalists. Most modern pagans use the old pagan religions for inspiration, modernizing what they like and discarding some of the more unpleasant (and illegal!) aspects of the Old Religions. It is not a direct continuation of the Old Religions, and most pagans will freely admit to that fact.

Unfortunately, in decades past, there was some nonsense circulating within the pagan community about witch lineages dating back to the mythical “Burning Times” and surviving European pagan traditions dating back to the Old Stone Age. We’re getting better informed, but there are still some bright eyed novices who still believe that Wicca is “ancient” and that their religion is more valid than Christianity just because it’s older. When they finally learn the truth, some are so crushed that they leave the path. They clearly missed the entire point of the path, so I think it’s best that they find a religion better suited to their needs.

I’ve studied a number of pagan paths, from Wicca and “traditional” witchcraft, to druidry, and a few other occultic paths, although I’ve never studied shamanism to any extent. Paths such as druidry could obviously never be resurrected in its original form, but that doesn’t mean that modern druidry has nothing to offer. To a historian, or an anthropologist, it may be of little value, but it can be a deeply fulfilling and rewarding path to those who approach it as a spirituality. As you surely must realize, historical value and spiritual value are two very different things, and frankly I’m not particularly concerned about the historical value. Age is not a valid reason for following any religion. Every religion has a beginning, and whether that beginning was 10,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, or today, is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.

So, do the Gods still exist? I believe they exist as much as the Christian God, the Hindu Gods, or any other God. As I’ve stated before, I believe that mankind creates the myths and religions as influenced by culture, while Deity inspires the relationship. If the myths of the old Gods speak to a person and help them seek Deity, then it is a valid path to Truth. Obviously, I tend to have a more archetypal view of the Gods rather than a hard polytheistic view, so I speak only for myself and not paganism as a whole.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Thank you Persephone. Your answer makes sense. One of the basic underpinnings of anthropology is the concept of the psychic unity of man - so the pursuit of the archetypes is the basic pursuit of all mankind to understand that which is beyond us. Joseph Campbell, an anthropologist whom you may have seen on his many programs on public broadcasting, wrote several books about archetypal myths and early religions. He was a Catholic at the dawn of his career but before he died he basically stated that he followed all religions and advocated that everyone should “follow their bliss”.

The Jesuit anthropologist Teilhard de Chardin said “Something is afoot in the universe”. Your path is one of defining that “something” and following your bliss.

Medbh, not only do Catholics have the Bible (which really wasn’t formally compiled until St. Jerome did so in the 4th century) we also have the manuscripts of the early church fathers. The Didache was written in the first century by someone who probably knew the apostles. So we have 2,000 years of writings upon which we can draw and 2,000 years of documentable history.

Is religion static, engraved in stone, or is it living and changing? Jesus did not hand us the Catechism of the Catholic Church or any of the gospels before His crucifixion (documented by the Roman historian Tacitus) but He did say He would be with us always and He did send us the Holy Spirit to guide His Church through 2,000 years of history.

Judaism has an even longer documented history. Is this the same religion today as was practiced in Sinai? No. And the Jews have been writing their interpretations of Scripture since the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the diaspora.

Persephone acknowledges that she is on a quest to find the Diety and Truth. This is quite different from attempting to reconstruct a religion such as Druidism or the worship of the Aesir. Instead of relying upon Wikipedia why not read something of value?

amazon.com/Pathways-Bliss-Mythology-Personal-Transformation/dp/1577314719/sr=8-5/qid=1159718170/ref=pd_bbs_5/102-6213045-2687320?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

[Lillith]

I don’t hate Pagans! Actually I enjoy being around the mellodrama. I worked with a guy that considered himself Pagan, but lets be serious… there are probably no true Pagans in Kentucky This particular friend was “the son of a preacher man” and his paganism was actual rebeliousness of an obviously Freudian nature…That’s the type of pagan I am accustomed to.

I pulled this quote from you Medbh…because my bud at work expressed this thought almost identically…

If you take [a copy of] the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. Our bible IS the wind and the rain." Herbalist Carol McGrath as told to her by a Native-American woman

Oh the perceived (By me of course) mellodrama. The pagans that I meet are that and more. It is as if they believe themselves to be of a higher spirtual relm…above it all…talking to wind and trees…so spitritually intune as compared to myself that I could not possibly understand what they have…

Nevermind that they can’t actually do anything with these special powers.

I love Pagans…they’re so eccentric.

 

[Medbh]

Formally, as an anthropologist, I am not going to treat anyone running off to “worship” the elder gods as a religion. The same principle applies to neo-paganism. Unless you can show me an unbroken chain into the past, well, you are no better or worse than Lovecraft or Hubbard. Your faith is an invention of your mind…

My faith like everyone’s faith is their own personal thing. You can claim that religion needs to have a ‘link to the past’ as you do, but it doesn’t matter to me. I have my faith, which is stronger than any book or religious dogma.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Medbh, trying to reason with you is like trying to grasp a wriggling eel. Persephone was able to give an intellectually honest reply. Why can’t you? You go on and on about your faith but I have yet to have a single rational explanation for your belief. I can explain my faith but am extremely frustrated that you give no defense of your faith except to say that you have faith. If you believe it in your heart, then let it show forth in your life and on these fora.

 

[Dan_Brown_2]

Hello!
I have been lurking around this forum for a while but I guess know is my time to post

I used to be a RC, then became a sorta (non organised faith)Protestant, then left Christianity altogether.

For me faith/religion/cult etc has to be a personal experience, and nobody can tell you that your faith is right or wrong!!!

If one of the people here said they wanted to worship Lovecraft’s creations, then why the hell can’t they??? What difference does it make to anyone or the Catholic church if they do? Only God (if he/she/it exists) can tell us if we are wrong, no piece of paper will ever tell me what faith and what is not!!!

Faith is experience, and i have had enough experiences to tell me that the Church was wrong for me. Now most of the people here probably had difference experiences which keep them with the church. But nobody on any forum can tell me or anyone else that my faith is wrong!!!

Some people ask me why I left the church in the first place. Well i guess i have to say it appeared to me that there was no link to the past as one of the posters here said. what do i mean??? Well have any of the following being talked about in the bible: priests, confirmation, cardinals, bishops, sacraments of the sick, “saints” corpses in boxes to attract the crowds, Mary worship etc. The RCC appeared to me as one big business, designed to make money and then give some to the poor, like billionaires do to ease their conscience.
I recently saw on TV a drama about the life of Mother Tresa, where in one scene she was sitting at a table businessmen who were attempting to work out ways of fundraising, these businessmen were in nice suits and air-con offices, what did they know of the slums of India??? Also in the scene the little nun asked about the price of a bottle of mineral water which was on the table, one of the businessmen replied saying it was about $5 a bottle, she returned with a comment that she could keep a person alive for 1 month with that money. This is what the Church looks like to me, since its formation it has existed to make money and maintain power. Did you know that two popes never wear the same vestments? Each one is handmade at great expense. Also ever visited the Vatican, all that could be sold and given to the poor. But i guess there was a monk from Assisi who thought the same way and his ideas fell on deaf ears

 

[Gnosis]

I don’t understand whats so preposterous about resurrecting a “dead” faith. Neo-paganism, though new in many repsects, obviously relies on the ancient religions for their inspirtation, they don’t replicate the pagan religions of old, but they integrate what they can of them into the new faith. Thus, it is a new faith for the modern world with very ancient roots.

Is there some kind of rule that once a religion is “dead” it must stay dead and nobody can use its wisdom, practices or mythology anymore?

 

[Dan_Brown_2]

I don’t understand whats so preposterous about resurrecting a “dead” faith. Neo-paganism, though new in many repsects, obviously relies on the ancient religions for their inspirtation, they don’t replicate the pagan religions of old, but they integrate what they can of them into the new faith. Thus, it is a new faith for the modern world with very ancient roots.

Is there some kind of rule that once a religion is “dead” it must stay dead and nobody can use its wisdom, practices or mythology anymore?

Well Said!!! What difference apart from historical reference does it make if a religion is used. Religion is NOT FACT! It’s down to our own interpretation. What difference does it make if the original poster picks and chooses what they want from the old religions. I don’t thing it makes any difference as long as they are happy. Why this negative feeling towards them I’m not sure. In my experience i found a lot of negative feeling towards me when i was part of the Protestant faith, but this was because people were insecure with their own faith, as they felt they needed to put mine down. Perhaps this is the case here…

 

[Persephone]

brotherhrolf,
I’m glad that we could come to an understanding. I know very little about anthropology or Joseph Campbell, but it does sound like a fascinating area of study. If you’d be willing to explain the rational basis for your faith, as an anthropologist and a Catholic, I’d be very interested to hear it.

Lillith,
I’d agree with you that pagans can be rather eccentric. I think I’m quite grounded (in my own opinion, of course!), but I have my own eccentricities that some find amusing. For instance, I enjoy foraging. I like to cook with edible “weeds” like dandelions, lamb’s quarters, and nettles, as well as collecting wild fruits and berries. I guess it appeals both to the nature lover and the frugal Scottish blood in me.

 

[The_Augustinian]

Neo-Paganism seems to be a very modern notion, based upon the twin bugbears of hyper-subjectivism and individualism. Of course, the Old Pagans would have no truck with these notions, as they actually believed in tradition, unlike people who would make up their own beliefs out of whole cloth.

Christianity, at least, attempts to use reason to show that God exists and that faith in Christ is at reasonable. It is not a religion of sentiment, but of logos, reason. Certainly the dogma of the Church is not conducive to everyone, and we might find it hard to understand many things, but at least we don’t create a God who is willing to justify our every whim. We were created in God’s image, not the other way around.

I respect the old Pagans, and the many who still exist in Asia and around the world. These new “pagans” are hard to take seriously. After all, the last thing the old Pagans of Europe did was to convert to Christianity.

 

[UBERROGO]

I don’t have any problems with native religions. By training I am an anthropologist and if I were along one of the tributaries of the Amazon and came upon a previously undiscovered tribe, I would have no problem speaking to them about their religious beliefs because those beliefs exist as part of a living vibrant culture alive today. This would certainly be a pagan culture.

But paganism today? Hmm. From the knotwork and the early triskelion, I’d have to say you may be a pagan in a Celtic tradition? Could you tell me how the druidic, brehon and bardic traditions survived the last 1500 years? Remember, please, that with the exception of ogham, druidism relied upon memory and the passing down of lore from master to student. I am unaware of any druidic coven existing continuously through the last 1500 or so years. If you were to be able to conclusively prove that such a coven existed and continues to exist unbroken from the fall of the Romans, your discovery would rock the anthropological world to its foundations.

Unfortunately, the authentic cults of Cerunnos, Brighit, Llyr et al vanished around 1500 years ago. You can claim to be a pagan of the Celtic tradition but the honest fact remains that this “religion” was a creation of well-to-do British aristocrats in the late Victorian age - Butler, Gardner, etc. It is an invented “religion” just as surely as scientology.

I have had three friends in my life who claimed to be pagan. Two were followers of Gardnerian Wicca. One followed the Aesir. Of the three, only one is alive today. I submit to you my friend that you know not what you invoke. Our ancestors could claim that they did know what they invoked since the religion was in fact intact. Two dead friends under the most tragic circumstances and the third had his ritual room burn to the ground along with the rest of his house. To this day, I don’t know what these folks were messing with. I don’t believe they knew either.

Me? My little Irish Catholic genes were doing a “Danger Will Robinson” dance any time I got around their homes. These guys all knew their history too and we had many a long conversation. But it eventually got to the point where I had to disassociate myself from them. If you wan’t to know the truth, it had to be the action of my guardian angel.

So, no, I don’t personally hate “pagans” and I am more than willing to hold a conversation with them…and to pray that God has mercy on them when things go south.

I think that is a great story and am sorry about your friends.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Hi guys…
just a question.
on a few occasions I noticed that Christians often have a negative attitude towards pagans.
This can be shown more or less openly, by actions, by words, by behaviours,by many different things.
My question is: why do some Christians hate Pagans so much?
Why do they despise them?
It tends to become something personal…like for instance, you don’t know me and I don’t know you, but as soon as you know I’m Pagan, you take it personally.Why?
This is what I can’t figure out…because it is normal to disagree, and even to despise people’s opinions at times. But why taking it personally? I have seen Christians who refused to talk to some people just because they were of a Pagan belief.
Would those people, or any other Christian that can recognize himself/herself in this description, act as such with a Muslim or with a Jew?
Would you push somebody away and end up being rude with someone because of their faith? Why?

Coming late to the thread…

Hi Medbh!

I actually know one wicca (who attends a Unitarian church) and we’ve had a few really good conversations about what they believe and what catholics believe. I’ve met one other wiccan (back when I was in seminary) and we ended up shooting pool and drinking beer. Nice person.

I also have spent a lot of time at www.wicca.com and www.witchvox.com just trying to learn. I have to say that the one thing that surprised me is that there is no “one” pagan belief. Each person pulls together a collection of beliefs and practices that suit themselves. As a catholic, I can be reasonably certain that when I meet another catholic, there will be a large body of shared beliefs, attitudes, and practices between us. Not so with the neopagan movement.

Also, I found it interesting that many (not all) pagans that do believe in an Ultimate Source of Divinity.

I’ve met (online) pantheists, theosophists, wiccans, witches, shamans, and athiests With each person I had listen (read) closely what they wrote in order to understand each person’s understanding of the Divine.

So, I guess the point is that this is one christian that doesn’t hate pagans.

 

[Dan_Brown_2]

Neo-Paganism seems to be a very modern notion, based upon the twin bugbears of hyper-subjectivism and individualism. Of course, the Old Pagans would have no truck with these notions, as they actually believed in tradition, unlike people who would make up their own beliefs out of whole cloth…

It’s such a pity that the church can’t hold on to tradition.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

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.

Do you believe truth is relative or objective?

 

[corvidae]

It seems to me that many Catholics have a problem with neo-pagans, not because of what they believe, but rather because of some things that they seem to put forward.

For example, many neo-pagans believe they are following exactly as their great ancestors followed. This is just intellectually dishonest. Just as Many Catholics feel they would need to educate someone who thought the earth was flat. It is not about religion, it is about logic.

Second, some Catholics are probably offended by people claiming to have a connection to the past, without having what most would consider a “real” connection. This is offensive to those who believe that they have a “real” connection to the past. It is like you are cheating, you are saying you have a connection, without needingg to prove it like Catholics have to. Perhaps it is a bit of jealousy.

Another thing about intellectual honesty would be that if you pick your religious beliefs from a set of fiction, then it would be logical that your religion is a fiction. Now if you take your beliefs from numerous past religions, then they may be true, but if you just mix and match, it is less likely similar to a religion, but more likely just what you feel is good.

I would say it is less against a religion, and more about being intellectually honest.

A lone Raven

p.s.- these are just my observations, I claim no authority in this matter

 

[cheese_sdc]

Do you believe truth is relative or objective?

Truth is objective. Our perception of It can be subjective.

 

[Gnosis]

The problem here is that history centered, linear Catholic minds (seeing as the Christian faith is rooted on supposed historic events and the significance of those events) will have a difficult time grasping Paganism or much of the New Age movement.

Yes, Paganism will undoutably have some links and similarities to the Paganism of the past. And Yes, much of it will be new ideas or a synthesis of other traditions compiled to make a new system of belief or practice.

What the linear, historic religious mind fails to grasp is that Paganism is NOT A HISTORY CENTERED FAITH. And thus, the majority of its practicioners could care less what of their faith is new and what of it is old. They know some elements stem back thousands of years and they know that many do not. But ultimately the faith has nothing do with their ancestors, with history or the significance of things in the past. Paganism is a religion of primordial truth…that is, it exists OUTSIDE of history. This is why mythology is important, it espouses pre-historic truths, no one is asking if it literally happened or not, that part is irrelevant.

Essentially, Paganism is an internal faith, it plays out within. This is why the religious experience is so subjective…giving the appearance that truth is, when in fact, she is constantly manifesting herself in different forms.

It reminds me of the Rig Veda, “Truth is one, but men call her by many names”

 

[brotherhrolf]

The problem here is that history centered, linear Catholic minds (seeing as the Christian faith is rooted on supposed historic events and the significance of those events) will have a difficult time grasping Paganism or much of the New Age movement.

Supposed historic events? Are you refuting Tacitus? Or any of the manuscripts preserved from the first century? Or the next? I think Cthulhu and his minions have clouded your mind. Let me consult the Necronomicon! BTW just got finished reading Alhazred published by Llewellyn Press (you know, the folks that publish all those calendars for astrology, witches calendars, et al). You too can learn how the Necronomicon was compiled. Supposed historic events…Tacitus…Linear Catholic minds who read…Ay de mi!

 

[Gnosis]

Sorry to get you into such a flurry…

My use of the word “supposed” wasn’t intended to say that these events didn’t happen, but that certain events are still contested and there is a somewhat reasonable basis to think that not everything the gospels describe is historically accurate. ie. the virgin birth, the Roman census, slaughter of the innocent by Herod the resurrection, ect. Although the historical merit of these accounts are not relevant for this topic. By no means am I saying that Jesus is some kind of personified version of sun worship or any of those other theories that deny him as a historical person.

I’ve never read the Necronomicon…my own faith generally focuses on the cannical gospels, the Christian gnostic texts, Buddhist writings and the Bhavagad Gita.

Still my point stands. Paganism and Orthodoxy take fundamentally different approaches to their religions and always have. One is linear and focuses on the significance of historic events, another is ahistorical and rooted in supposed primordial truths, and in consequence, how they can factor into one’s life.