'Hail Persephone': Pagans Retool the Rosary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Timidity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Since the word “pagan” is from the Latin, shouldn’t the prefix denoting “new” be from the Latin also (instead of “neo”, which is Greek)?

I hereby therefore, before a multitude of witnesses, propose “NovoPagan”.😃
 
faelpsanfeel said:
This may be a little off topic, but aren’t you guys even a little bit curious about pantheism (such as that found in sufism, hinduism, and some gnostic christian sects) and it’s justifications? It even appears in a lot of Jewish mysticism.

There’s a reason that a lot of eastern and tribal cultures don’t have a problem integrating Christianity with their current beliefs. It’s called the doctrine of “Emanation,” and it’s actually quite similar to the rationale for the trinity.

You see, in almost all pantheist religions there is a prime source for all of existence, and all of the lesser gods, angels, spirits, and even humans are all products of the prime source’s divine consciousness.

It’s sort of like the people who believe that everything exists in God’s imagination, except instead they say “okay Gaia exists in God’s imagination and we exist in the imagination of Gaia,” or something similar. It’s a little more complicated than that because they also believe that the higher levels of being cannot exist without the mundane, but I’m sure you all get the idea.

So I guess what I’m getting at, in a very round about way, is that it’s quite likely this girl identifies Persephone with a Catholic saint (sort of like santerians.)

Now, this is obviously not acceptable behavior as far as the church is concerned, but don’t some of you think that understanding the reasoning behind these beliefs could better inform your frame of reference to deal with such situations in the future?

I’m just kind of curious, and I figure I’m too new to start my own thread.
Click to expand...

It has its attractions - however, the Christian claim for the Triune God insists on the transcendence & uniqueness of God:​

  • It’s possible to be Christian, & regard Persephone (& other gods) as an idea (or possibly as an Idea) in the Divine Mind
  • It’s possible to be Christian, & regard all creatures as “in” God, by holding a Christian, or a Christ-centred, Panentheism
  • It’s not possible to be Christian, & to be a pantheist, because this would mean that Christ is neither transcendent nor unique; because it would mean that he was totally contained within creation so as to be no more than a part of it, instead of being its Saviour & Renewer - & to think that He is no more than a part of creation, or is resolvable into it (somewhat like most of the gods of Egypt at the end) is to hold a faith other than the Christian. He is unique, because the God of the Jews is unique. It is one thing for an eternal & transcendent Creator-God to humble Himself to take upon Himself a true human nature, & something else, for Him to be thought to be no different in nature from His own handiwork; so little different indeed, as not to be its Creator at all.
    Besides, the Christian notion of history is linear - from creation forwards, with its consummation being the day of judgement; pantheism seems either to be without any such goal, or to be cyclic. But if it is cyclic, that means there will be uncounted Falls & uncounted Crucifixions, & that there have already been, for ever. But that is to make history into a treadmill. It subjects all things to an inflexible & amoral necessity, & destroys all hope. This is far more pessimistic than anything of which the Church has been accused: Hell is terrible, but it is not necessitated, & it is just, & shows the same righteousness of God as does the salvation of the blessed.
And if history is cyclic, it is self-contained - & in a universe of which the history is cyclic, & without a transcendent God Who exceeds all created things in goodness, there is no possibility of God’s saving such a universe: because it is totally self-contained, & God cannot (if He is not transcendent) act except within it. The “Living God” of the OT is a Saviour, because He is Lord of creation & of time - He does save. He can be gracious because He is not restricted by His own handiwork; & becvause it is finite, creation needs & lives by grace: it is anything but self-contained - it is an open universe, not in any sense self-enclosed. So it is a universe in which repentance & conversion are possible.
 
Ahimsa said:
Since the word “pagan” is from the Latin, shouldn’t the prefix denoting “new” be from the Latin also (instead of “neo”, which is Greek)?

I hereby therefore, before a multitude of witnesses, propose “NovoPagan”.😃
Click to expand...
Feel free, maybe it will catch on 🙂
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:
And if history is cyclic, it is self-contained - & in a universe of which the history is cyclic, & without a transcendent God Who exceeds all created things in goodness, there is no possibility of God’s saving such a universe: because it is totally self-contained, & God cannot (if He is not transcendent) act except within it. The “Living God” of the OT is a Saviour, because He is Lord of creation & of time - He does save. He can be gracious because He is not restricted by His own handiwork; & becvause it is finite, creation needs & lives by grace: it is anything but self-contained - it is an open universe, not in any sense self-enclosed. So it is a universe in which repentance & conversion are possible.
Click to expand...
Without the presupposition of original sin, from what do those in the universe you describe need to be saved?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top