Neo-Pagan Apologetics

[KarenNC]

It took the Council of Nicea in 325 CE to define a uniform “Christian” doctrine.

Sorry, typo. That should have asterisks for emphasis rather than quotation marks. I was not intending to imply that the doctrine established by the Council of Nicea was not Christian, but rather that Christianity seemed to manage to survive without defining a centralized uniform doctrine for several centuries.

 

[Dawnpiper]

All of my scriture was quoted for to establish that we don’t have to bring anything to God but Praise and Thanksgiving

For my part, when I initially suggested that quoting scripture at us is not useful, I was not asking that you NOT quote scripture at all, just trying (apparently unsuccessfully… sorry) to point out that since we don’t accept the Bible as authoritative, reliance on that authority is not likely, in and of itself, to convince us of the validity of your arguments.

A scripture quote as a starting point, backed up with independent arguments and/or evidence, is a potentially different question - but relying on scripture as supporting evidence just doesn’t work with someone who is not already convinced that the Bible is a valid source of moral authority.

 

[rlg94086]

It took the Council of Nicea in 325 CE to define a uniform “Christian” doctrine.

The key word is uniform. There was Christian doctrine in place from the time of the Apostles, the Council of Nicea just clarified because there were some differences from church to church.

I’m pretty sure Ian said there is no ADF doctrine, so this is not the same case. Besides, they are making it up as they go, so it is not the same as clarifying the authentic teaching of the Apostles.

 

[Dawnpiper]

I think we can safely say that you believe there are more than one God and see evidence for this. I believe there is only one God, that Jesus is God, and I see evidence for my faith.

OK, I would like to start a narrowly-focused discussion with you… Similar, but not (I think) identical your discussion with Karen - I am following that with interest, but as Karen can tell you, I have trouble keeping my mouth shut when something interests me!

As I have stated elsewhere on this thread, I have no problem accepting that your God is one, I just disagree that he’s the only one. My basis for believing this is the traditional “three-legged stool” of Faith, Tradition and Reason, albeit applied slightly differently than I was taught it in the Episcopal church.

Faith (under which I am including private revelation, since it is entirely subjective) - I have had mystical experience of multiple Persons that I presume to be Gods. I have also been told, by people that I know and have reason to trust in other matters, of their own experiences with different Persons that they believe to be Gods - including Christians’ accounts of their own experiences. Perhaps ironically from a certain perspective, since none of my experiences have occurred in a Christian context, hearing of others’ experiences within that context actually strengthens my polytheism.

Tradition - Over the course of recorded human history, most people in most times and places have worshipped multiple Gods. Much of the accumulated wisdom of the human race points to polytheism as our basic religious orientation.

Reason - Given the wide variety of Gods reported across the world throughout time, Ockham’s Razor suggests the simplest explanation is that different people throughout time and across the world have in fact encountered different Gods, rather than that for whatever reason the One God chose not to reveal the Truth to them or that they were all misled by deceiving spirits.

Can you think of any counter-arguments that don’t beg the question? I’m really curious, because if there are none I will be disappointed - I like apologetics, and would be sad to think it’s all pointless.

Erik

 

[IanCorrigan]

I’m pretty sure Ian said there is no ADF doctrine, so this is not the same case. Besides, they are making it up as they go, so it is not the same as clarifying the authentic teaching of the Apostles.

ADF (and most of neopaganism) doesn’t prescribe systems of belief - that’s what most folks mean by doctrine. We do have a pretty standardized ritual form, customs, training, symbolism, etc. One of the strengths of wicca, as well, is the pretty well-defined set of rituals and methods, that have already been refined over decades.

I think this is what makes the more solidly organized forms of neopaganism more than just cultural fads. While we don’t prescribe any authoritative explanation for what we do, we do prescribe reliable methods of inducing the experience of the divine. Since we are able to reliably provide religious experience, I think we’ll continue to attract those who find themselves in tune with our ways.
Ian

 

[Dawnpiper]

The key word is uniform. There was Christian doctrine in place from the time of the Apostles, the Council of Nicea just clarified because there were some differences from church to church.

Um… I think you’re understating the case just a little? The question of the Christ’s divinity seems to be a pretty big difference.

 

[Contarini]

Um… I think you’re understating the case just a little? The question of the Christ’s divinity seems to be a pretty big difference.

rlg is understating a bit, but bear in mind that by the time of Nicaea Christ’s divinity per se was not in question (this is one of the biggest and most obvious errors of the DaVinci Code). The Arians said that Christ was divine, but in a derivative sense. (Thus, both sides accused the other of violating monotheism!)

The Ebionites, who did apparently teach that Christ was merely human, had been rejected as heretical long before Nicaea.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As I have stated elsewhere on this thread, I have no problem accepting that your God is one, I just disagree that he’s the only one. My basis for believing this is the traditional “three-legged stool” of Faith, Tradition and Reason, albeit applied slightly differently than I was taught it in the Episcopal church.

Faith (under which I am including private revelation, since it is entirely subjective) - I have had mystical experience of multiple Persons that I presume to be Gods. I have also been told, by people that I know and have reason to trust in other matters, of their own experiences with different Persons that they believe to be Gods - including Christians’ accounts of their own experiences. Perhaps ironically from a certain perspective, since none of my experiences have occurred in a Christian context, hearing of others’ experiences within that context actually strengthens my polytheism.

Tradition - Over the course of recorded human history, most people in most times and places have worshipped multiple Gods. Much of the accumulated wisdom of the human race points to polytheism as our basic religious orientation.

Reason - Given the wide variety of Gods reported across the world throughout time, Ockham’s Razor suggests the simplest explanation is that different people throughout time and across the world have in fact encountered different Gods, rather than that for whatever reason the One God chose not to reveal the Truth to them or that they were all misled by deceiving spirits.

Can you think of any counter-arguments that don’t beg the question? I’m really curious, because if there are none I will be disappointed - I like apologetics, and would be sad to think it’s all pointless.

Erik

The problem with your argument is that “god” is an equivocal term. Christians have traditionally admitted that there are many beings who can, in a sense, be called gods. For instance, one traditional Christian belief holds that salvation involves our becoming divine–through participation in God’s nature, we become gods ourselves. But obviously we will never be gods in the sense that the one God is God.

Here are a few of the possible things we might mean when we speak of God or a god:

a being worthy of respect or reverence
a being greater and nobler than humans
a being on whom humans are dependent
a being who created humans and/or the entire cosmos
the ultimate ground of all being–the First Cause from whom all things proceed, the One in whom all being participates and without whom/which nothing would exist

Christians believe that the “Ground of Being”–“God” in the last sense mentioned–is also the Creator, and is furthermore the only being on whom we should acknowledge complete dependence, and the only being worthy of a particular degree of reverence. Protestants hold stricter views on this than Catholics and Orthodox (who make a very fine distinction between the “latreia” due only to God and the “dulia” that can be offered to other beings), but all Christians would say that there is a kind of reverence/worship that should be offered only to God.

When you say that experience teaches that there are multiple gods out there, you’re begging the question of just what sort of beings these “gods” are. That there are many superhuman beings out there Christians do not (traditionally) doubt. That these beings are worthy of some degree of respect is also a traditional Christian belief. (The NT epistle of Jude carries this so far as to say that even Satan should not be treated with contempt or disrespect.)

It seems to me that the points at issue between us are the following:

1. Is there one ultimate reality behind the many beings humans experience as “gods”?
2. Is that Ultimate Reality itself directly knowable as an object of worship and a participant in a personal relationship, or can it be accessed only through the various beings who derive from it?
3. If Ultimate Reality can be known and worshipped in its own right, then what kind of reverence/worship can or should be paid to the other, derivative “gods”?

Jews, Christians, and Muslims, of course, all maintain that Ultimate Reality is knowable as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who has revealed Himself to human beings through prophets and covenants. Christians further believe that this God has made Himself known in Jesus Christ. So we have two levels of “incarnation,” in a sense–the Ground of Being becoming “incarnate” as a god, Yahweh, who thunders and whispers and does all the normal stuff gods do; and then this same ultimate Divinity becoming incarnate as the man Jesus of Nazareth.

The debate is not over how many members there are of a class of being called “gods.” No one denies that there are many gods in the sense you mean (though modern Christians have foolishly assumed that the particular beings worshipped by pagans do not exist, and ancient Christians assumed less foolishly but still rashly that such beings were all evil).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Wilken lists the total number of Christians within the Roman Empire by the beginning of the second century CE as follows: “The total number of Christians within the empire was probably less than fifty thousand, an infinitesimal number in a society comprising sixty million. The Jews, in contrast, were a significant minority numbering four to five million. Most imhabitants of the Roman Empire had never heard of Christianity, and very few had had any firsthand contact with Christians. Even among educated people little was known about the Christian movement.” (The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, p. 31). If my math is correct, that is about .08 percent. This is 200 years plus after the birth of Jesus.

That part of your math is not correct. The beginning of the second century (i.e., the 100s) would be about 100 years after the birth of Jesus. I don’t think this detracts from your argument, which is a sound one. Catholics, being the biggest religious organization on the planet, are way too prone to this kind of crude argument from numbers, and your’e right to reject it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

**Bluntly speaking. The pagan gods do not exist. There is no proof of their existence. **

An assertion without basis - those Gods were the Gods of millions of people for thousands of years - just because their worship was overcome (for a while) by an oppressive dogma machine, does not mean they don’t exist.

I don’t mean to be rude and insistent, but I previously mentioned Ramsay MacMullen’s account of how pagans came to convert to Christianity, which bears striking resemblance to your own criterion for religious truth. I agree that without the oppressive interference of the Roman state, paganism might (probably would) have continued to exist (indeed, in the face of persecution, there were still pagans at Harran at least when the Muslims took over). But Christianity carved out for itself a significant place in the religious economy of the late Roman Empire in the face of dispproval and even persecution. Many people became convinced on the basis of experience that the pagan gods did not have anything like the power of the Christian God.

I disagree completely with ricko’s claim that pagan gods don’t exist. I don’t know if they exist or not, but I suspect that they do. However, as a Christian I don’t believe that they are the same sort of beings as the Christian God–and furthermore you don’t as well. You simply don’t believe that our God is that sort of being (Ultimate Reality in personal form) either.

Edwin

 

[KarenNC]

That part of your math is not correct. The beginning of the second century (i.e., the 100s) would be about 100 years after the birth of Jesus.

Thanks for the correction. That’s what I get for trying to do math while practicing apologetics, trying to chivvy a reluctant 6 year old to bed and keep the cats from eating the coconut cake for tomorrow’s party.

BTW, Erik says he will try to respond to you tomorrow when he can give your post the respectful attention it deserves, but given our schedule of visiting with friends and family to help them celebrate Christmas, it may be as late as Tuesday.

Merry Christmas, Karen

 

[Contarini]

Y
I’m sorry if that offends you but can you not see that these things are simply forces of nature.

I am sure that Ian has enough sense to reject Enlightenment rationalism. I only wish you and other modern Christians had just as much sense in this regard. Nothing is “simply a force of nature.” What’s “simple” about it? Giving a thing a reductionistic name doesn’t reduce its reality.

They cannot speak, think or act on their own.

If it comes to that, neither can we–or do you think that we have existence independently of God?

I know what you mean–natural forces don’t appear to have free will in the way we do. Perhaps this is a mistake? (Do we really know that Origen was wrong when he taught that the sun was an angelic being who had chosen physical form?) But whether it is or not, that doesn’t change the fact that everything in creation participates in the divine being and so is (derivatively) divine. This is traditional Christian orthodoxy, and if it sounds like something else to you, that’s because you have fallen for the lies of modern rationalism posing as Christianity.

It’s okay to enjoy a gentle breeze, a rain shower and some snow but I never considered that a natural event was deserving of worship and never will.

Depends on what you mean by worship. They are certainly worthy of respect and admiration. Not of latreia, of course.

My intellect tells me that trees, fire, wind and any other object that cannot speak, think or act are not alive as that object or in the form of a spirit.

I once heard an Opus Dei priest say that geysers were hot because of angelic activity. I laughed at him, but perhaps I was wrong. . . . Who knows?

It’s fun to read about magic and witches and things like that but they are fairy tales and hopefully you will acquire the wisdom one day to accept them as such.

There’s more truth in fairy tales than in what passes for “common sense” in the modern world.

Edwin

 

[rlg94086]

Um… I think you’re understating the case just a little? The question of the Christ’s divinity seems to be a pretty big difference.

Big? Sure. One of the absolute fundamental doctrines in order to be a Christian? I don’t think so. Jesus didn’t teach directly about the nature of His divinity, so it is logical that there was a divergence of opinions which the Church eventually set straight.

 

[Dawnpiper]

Big? Sure. One of the absolute fundamental doctrines in order to be a Christian? I don’t think so. Jesus didn’t teach directly about the nature of His divinity, so it is logical that there was a divergence of opinions which the Church eventually set straight.

As a Protestant born and raised, I was taught that acceptance of the death and Resurrection was an absolute requirement, AND that this event was only meaningful because of Christ’s divine nature (“fully human and fully divine”, “of one being with the Father”, etc).

I know I have a copy of the CCC around somewhere (there’s that comparative religion bug again ), but can’t lay hand on it right now… in a nutshell, could you lay out what you believe to be the absolute minimum requirements?

Thanks, and if I don’t make it back here before Tuesday, have a merry Christmas!

 

[Paganus]

I’m pretty sure Ian said there is no ADF doctrine, so this is not the same case. Besides, they are making it up as they go, so it is not the same as clarifying the authentic teaching of the Apostles.

ADF (and most of neopaganism) doesn’t prescribe systems of belief - that’s what most folks mean by doctrine. We do have a pretty standardized ritual form, customs, training, symbolism, etc. One of the strengths of wicca, as well, is the pretty well-defined set of rituals and methods, that have already been refined over decades.

I think this is what makes the more solidly organized forms of neopaganism more than just cultural fads. While we don’t prescribe any authoritative explanation for what we do, we do prescribe reliable methods of inducing the experience of the divine. Since we are able to reliably provide religious experience, I think we’ll continue to attract those who find themselves in tune with our ways.
Ian

Or is it only that Freemasonry has left the lodge… ritual drama and indifferentism without being bound to an unpopular fraternity system. :ehh:

If someone were really in contact with Poseidon, why would they ever encourage someone to pay homage to the Morrigan?

Seems more like agnosticism seeking weaker opponents…

Miles of smiles,

Paganus

 

[rlg94086]

I am a convert from being an Athiest/Agnostic, so I am certainly not an expert. However, I probably should not have used the word fundamental.

Belief in the Trinity is a fundamental belief. That said there was a lot of confusion (translates to heresies ) about the nature of the Trinity in the early Church - especially the human and divine natures of Christ.

Even today, the Orthodox and Catholics disagree on the Holy Spirit. We say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. They believe the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father. That certainly doesn’t make one of us less Christian.

I believe that the majority of the Creed was agreed upon before Nicea - especially the death and resurrection. The Catechism lays out the “fundamentals” for Catholics (so, I can’t very well list it all in this post ), but other Christian churches differ on the “fundamentals.”

BTW…in the age of the internet, my Catechism is always handy: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

God bless and Merry Christmas,

Robert

As a Protestant born and raised, I was taught that acceptance of the death and Resurrection was an absolute requirement, AND that this event was only meaningful because of Christ’s divine nature (“fully human and fully divine”, “of one being with the Father”, etc).

I know I have a copy of the CCC around somewhere (there’s that comparative religion bug again ), but can’t lay hand on it right now… in a nutshell, could you lay out what you believe to be the absolute minimum requirements?

Thanks, and if I don’t make it back here before Tuesday, have a merry Christmas!

 

[IanCorrigan]

**If someone were really in contact with Poseidon, why would they ever encourage someone to pay homage to the Morrigan? **

Why wouldn’t they? Polytheists understand that no one deity can serve all purposes or meet all needs. Now, in your example, I doubt one would have found cross-cultural referrals, but a poseidon-worshipper would certainly see reasons to send someone to Minerva or the Furies.

**Seems more like agnosticism seeking weaker opponents… **

Agnosticism doesn’t really require opponents. I guess the opponent of an agnostic would be someone who’s absolutely sure of their beliefs. Imo, absolute certainty almost always leads to error. That’s one reason why Paganism, with it’s open-ended approach to explanation of religious experience, suits.
Ian

 

[KarenNC]

** Even today, the Orthodox and Catholics disagree on the Holy Spirit. We say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. They believe the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father. That certainly doesn’t make one of us less Christian.**

Well, actually there are definitely Greek Orthodox who would disagree with you on that one, though I’m not sure if that’s a normative Greek Orthodox position. For what it’s worth, I don’t see either group as less Christian either.

** The Catechism lays out the “fundamentals” for Catholics (so, I can’t very well list it all in this post ), but other Christian churches differ on the “fundamentals.” **

What we were asking for was what is considered the absolute universal core minimum, those things Roman Catholics consider as requirements for any person, regardless of church affiliation, to be considered a Christian. For instance, you’ve already said belief in the Trinity is required. What about the Virgin Birth? The Immaculate Conception of Mary? These are discussed in the catechism, but are all Christians, regardless of church affiliation, required to believe them to be saved, according to Roman Catholic doctrine?

I know that there are numerous issues and doctrines discussed in the catechism I learned, but there were certain core fundamentals that were considered essential for any Christian, not just Presbyterians. We were curious as to whether Roman Catholics differed on this.
BTW…in the age of the internet, my Catechism is always handy

Thanks, and yes, it is handy. However, not necessarily laid out in the format to answer the question asked. If you could suggest specific search terms that are likely to produce the answer, I will be glad to look there. I am having trouble finding a concise answer using the terms I have tried so far.

I have a feeling the answer is likely buried in the verbiage of the Dominus Iesus declaration, but I have to admit I was hoping for something a bit more concise. The best I have been able to glean so far from it is that the Roman Catholic church accepts that some Christians who are not either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox may be saved, but they aren’t really sure why God would do so.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

 

[KarenNC]

**Or is it only that Freemasonry has left the lodge… ritual drama and indifferentism **

I am pulling my information on indifferentism from the following site, as it is a new term for me. answers.com/topic/indifferentism

“In the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, indifferentism is condemned as a heresy that holds that one religion is as good as another, and that all religions are equally valid paths to salvation.”

No, while on the surface it may seem to be so, I don’t believe that Neopaganism is equivalent to indifferentism, since it doesn’t meet several of the criteria, at least not as I practice it.

1. “one religion is as good as another”–frankly, I have said that I believe that polytheism is a superior explanation of the reality which I experience. Also, if I thought that they were all equally good or equally valid, I would still be a Christian. It would certainly have been a heck of a lot easier all around .

I don’t necessarily believe that all forms of polytheism are equally good or valid, either, certainly not that they are equally good for me to practice. It makes a difference whether I am praying to Athena rather than Bast, Frygga or Kali. I have no relationship with those goddesses, so those prayers are unlikely to be as well received or potentially effective. My religion is about a relationship, not just a cosmic vending machine.

I also do not “disparage the value of religion”–in fact I hold the value of religion to be quite high.

1. “all paths are equally valid paths to salvation”. Well, that presupposes that I believe that I need salvation simply for being alive, which presupposes the doctrine of original sin, which I do not hold to be valid. I do not believe, nor have I encountered any other Neopagan who has said that they believe, that humans are born with a “moral deformity” in the form of original sin.

In terms of the more specific types of indifferentism (absolute, restricted and latitudinarian):

I do not hold that “that all religions are equally worthy and profitable to man, and equally pleasing to God” (restricted indifferentism). All religions are not going to be equally pleasing to any specific god, nor do I think that all are going to be equally profitable or equally worthy.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the answer to absolute indifferentism is that “every one is bound to practice religion as a duty towards God, and in order that he may attain the end for which he has been called into existence.” Several presuppositions in this one–I do not believe that I am bound to practice religion as a duty towards a specific god (much less a single,onmiscient, omnipotent, sole God as understood by monotheism), nor that I was called into existence for the sole purpose of worshipping the gods.

I have a duty to honor and respect those gods with whom I have a relationship, certainly, and it behooves me to be respectful of other gods of the places in which I find myself, but I am not bound to worship them in the same way, nor am I bound to worship any and every entity that someone on the planet deems a god. I also do not see as my creators the gods that I worship in the sense that Christians describe their God as being. It is not a parent/child or master/slave relationship.

As for liberal or latitudinarian indifferentism, that is for Christians to work out among themselves and has no bearing on me.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m pretty sure Ian said there is no ADF doctrine, so this is not the same case. Besides, they are making it up as they go, so it is not the same as clarifying the authentic teaching of the Apostles.

ADF (and most of neopaganism) doesn’t prescribe systems of belief - that’s what most folks mean by doctrine. We do have a pretty standardized ritual form, customs, training, symbolism, etc. One of the strengths of wicca, as well, is the pretty well-defined set of rituals and methods, that have already been refined over decades.

I think this is what makes the more solidly organized forms of neopaganism more than just cultural fads. While we don’t prescribe any authoritative explanation for what we do, we do prescribe reliable methods of inducing the experience of the divine. Since we are able to reliably provide religious experience, I think we’ll continue to attract those who find themselves in tune with our ways.
Ian

But this is your flaw…and your strength.

Flaw: Because you don’t prescribe any authoritative explanation, just about anything goes, so your cohesion is very loose.

Strength: It’s pretty difficult to discuss neo-paganism beliefs because there is such variation. So, it’s easy to take an agnostic or relativistic stance.