C
cyberwolf001
Guest
Eerything I’ve read and people I’ve spoken to says it goes back to a century after the conversion at least. But hey even if it is only 93 traditions must start somewhere right?
- Status
L
latin_rite
Guest
No the flame went out in the 16th century. It was relit in 1993. Ya but do you have to steal ours? But i suppose if we can help give them some cred then sure take it.
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
Well it was ours first! Oh and I am not looking out your window
But yea most propably dont know about the flame goin out. First I’ve ever heard of it.
L
latin_rite
Guest
Supposedly yours. But since we relit in 1993. Its ours. But like i said you can borrow it. Yeah it didn’t so much go out as put out. By the Norman Archbishop, Ralph de Londres. In the 1600;s or 1400’s. Fairly sure it was around the 16th century.Well it was ours first! Oh and I am not looking out your window
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
We could probably argue back and forth about who took what. I know many Catholic apologetics try to claim we stole everything from the Catholics but it will get us no where.
Interesting info on the 16th century deal. Did they start the light afresh or was it from the remains of the older light?
M
Melkite_Sword
Guest
I would have to agree with this statement. I just want to know a few things, if your “gods” are fallible, like us, why on earth would you worship them?, How could you possibly trust “gods” who are so weak they couldn’t even protect their own religion from complete and utter destruction? Do your “gods” grow in power depending on how many people worship them?
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
Why not? Your “god” is just as bad as mine. My own just don’t try to hide it.
This one has been answered so many times it isn’t even funny.
In a sense this is believed to apply to all Gods, Jesus included, sum just wont admit that things are both ways, they need us and we need them. That is they need belief, even Jesus had trouble working his powers around unbelievers.
Hope that made sense.
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
Fallibility is a condition of consciousness, I’d say - even the OT says that God repented that he had made man, that is, he changed his mind. Since Pagan ideas tend to reject the idea that any all-god, owner-operator of the entire cosmos does or could exist, since we pretty much reject the possibility of omniscience and omnipotence, that doesn’t bother us much.
Worship is a relationship based on reciprocity. We give to the Gods and Spirits and they give to us. their power is so much greater than ours that even their smallest blessing can make a great difference in our well-being. We don’t ‘put our lives in the hands of the Gods’ - we assume our lives are our own to succeed or fail in. We look to the Gods and spirits for support, inspiration, occasional luck-bursts, but not for the kind of providential will that monotheists seem to expect from their all-God. So even to the extent that the Gods might be fallible, they are so much able to aid us, and so marvelous and inspiring, that worship is a natural response.
Do the Gods grow in strength based on worship? Often discussed… We know that in ancient tales if humans are forced to cease the sacrifices to the Gods, the Gods were said to grow hungry, and to weaken. Paganism has always sought a relationship of mutuality with the divine - the Romans said ‘do ut des’ - we give so that you may give. We bind ourselves to and with the gods (re-ligio: binding together) through the sacraments of the rites - what the ancioents called ‘sacrifice’ - ‘sacred work’. A sacrifice is essentially a meal given to the god, along with various other sorts of due honor. Once again, since we don’t think that the Gods exist outside of ‘nature’ we find this sort of natural interaction to be pleasing.
Paganism was never very effectively destroyed. While centuries of aggression by institutional Christianity eventually extinguished almost all Pagan worship in Europe (except for a few hold-outs, such as the Baltic peoples and that western Russian tribe whose name escapes me…) polytheistic worship has persisted in world tribal cultures, and been revived frequently among westerners. The current revival is only the most successful of those attempts.The presence of the classical Gods never vanished from culture, returning as powerful symbols and occasional objects of heretical worship in the renaissance, and have picked up steam since then, flowering as the modern Pagan movement.
State-sanctioned Pagan worship ended in Europe around 1300, with the titular conversion of the Lithuanian empire, and popular polytheistic worship resumed among European peoples as late as say 1900. In the meantime neo-classicism kept the figures of the classical Gods alive through the renaissance, and folkloric revivals in the 18th and 19th century reminded northern Europe of their heritage.
All in all, while Christianity has done a good job of making its theological assumptions normative in Euro culture, it hasn’t done nearly so well at actually ending the memory and veneration of the Old Gods. Now, since, say 1900, the Old Gods are returning to Euro awareness.
M
Melkite_Sword
Guest
Could you please elaborate.
Really. This is an interesting statement, where? . I will give you an example from scripture to show this is not the case with God;
1 Kings 18:22-39
22 Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the LORD’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”
Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”
25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it.
Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “O Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.
27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.
30 Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD, which was in ruins. 31 Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.” 32 With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs [a] of seed. 33 He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.”
34 “Do it again,” he said, and they did it again.
“Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. 35 The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.
36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.”
38 Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.
39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The LORD -he is God! The LORD -he is God!”
If they need us then they are no more powerful than we are. You’re gods are your pets.
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
Read Ian’s response above, he explains it better than I did.
G
Griff77
Guest
As a former neo-pagan who converted to Catholicism I know something of both sides of the argument. Ultimately, I forsook neopaganism for two reasons. The first was its inability to account for infinity. In Germanic tradition, for instance, how does the Ginnungagap come into being? It is not explained. And all of the gods in that tradition are finite beings who ultimately owe their existence either to other finite beings or to natural elements, such as fire and ice; but the origins of matter itself cannot be explained in such cosmology. It is profoundly lacking.
In this respect, neopagans are faced with the same problem as atheists when it comes to the origins of the Universe. They must resort to ‘just-so’ stories. Whereas when there is an Infinite God at the heart of one’s religion there is no lack of accountibility for the origins of existence. The religions of both atheists and neopagans are both very modern inventions and are equally finite and fickle.
The second problem I had with neopagnism lay in its false traditions. The Judeo-Christian Tradition is unbroken and extant, beginning with the direct revelations of God to the Old Testament prophets and culminating in Christ - their fulfilment, the Word of God itself - who passed his teaching to the apostles, who in turn formed the Church, which, though bruised, continues to transmit the unbroken line of Tradition to this day.
Neo-paganism, on the other hand, is completely new and invented, taking ideas based on the romantic naturalism of the 18th and 19th centuries and giving them an all-new (yet as old as heresy itself), subjectivist slant based on desire rather than revelation. Ultimately, such religions are only as reliable as those who propagated them, which includes names such as Madame Blavatsky, Margaret Murray, Aleister Crowley, Guido von List and Gerald Gardner. In other words, they are not reliable at all!
A realistic summary of the history of neopaganism can be found in Ronald Hutton’s ‘Triumph of the Moon’. Hutton, himself a neopagan, dissects neopaganism’s history with surgical precision. What you are left with after reading it is the impression of a socio-cultural rather than a religious phenomenon. Neopaganism developed as a rebellious, ‘Pantheist’ reaction to the Enlightenment’s own grey, soulless, nihilistic and desacralising reaction to Christianity. Thus, like humanism and atheism, neopaganism is ultimately dependant on a reaction to Christianity and ergo exists, in its origins, as a schismatic, heretical offshoot from it.
In this respect, neopagans are faced with the same problem as atheists when it comes to the origins of the Universe. They must resort to ‘just-so’ stories. Whereas when there is an Infinite God at the heart of one’s religion there is no lack of accountibility for the origins of existence. The religions of both atheists and neopagans are both very modern inventions and are equally finite and fickle.
The second problem I had with neopagnism lay in its false traditions. The Judeo-Christian Tradition is unbroken and extant, beginning with the direct revelations of God to the Old Testament prophets and culminating in Christ - their fulfilment, the Word of God itself - who passed his teaching to the apostles, who in turn formed the Church, which, though bruised, continues to transmit the unbroken line of Tradition to this day.
Neo-paganism, on the other hand, is completely new and invented, taking ideas based on the romantic naturalism of the 18th and 19th centuries and giving them an all-new (yet as old as heresy itself), subjectivist slant based on desire rather than revelation. Ultimately, such religions are only as reliable as those who propagated them, which includes names such as Madame Blavatsky, Margaret Murray, Aleister Crowley, Guido von List and Gerald Gardner. In other words, they are not reliable at all!
A realistic summary of the history of neopaganism can be found in Ronald Hutton’s ‘Triumph of the Moon’. Hutton, himself a neopagan, dissects neopaganism’s history with surgical precision. What you are left with after reading it is the impression of a socio-cultural rather than a religious phenomenon. Neopaganism developed as a rebellious, ‘Pantheist’ reaction to the Enlightenment’s own grey, soulless, nihilistic and desacralising reaction to Christianity. Thus, like humanism and atheism, neopaganism is ultimately dependant on a reaction to Christianity and ergo exists, in its origins, as a schismatic, heretical offshoot from it.
I
IanCorrigan
Guest
**As a former neo-pagan who converted to Catholicism I know something of both sides of the argument. Ultimately, I forsook neopaganism for two reasons. The first was its inability to account for infinity. In Germanic tradition, for instance, how does the Ginnungagap come into being? It is not explained. **
In the same way, the God of Genesis has no rational origin or cause. It ‘just is’ because authority says it is. How is that different? No religious paradigm at all ‘accounts for’ infinity, it simply notices it and attempts to describe it. In my opinion ‘nature’ - i.e. “that which is” - is eternal, and we’re just haggling over the details. The divine exists within nature.
**In this respect, neopagans are faced with the same problem as atheists when it comes to the origins of the Universe. They must resort to ‘just-so’ stories. Whereas when there is an Infinite God at the heart of one’s religion there is no lack of accountibility for the origins of existence. **
There is absolutely no difference between postulating an all-powerful self-existent Creator and positing all-pervading impersonal raw materials, such as Gunningagap.
This question interested the ancients, but only a little. Various sects produced various versions of what we would call ‘creation stories’. Creation tales were meant to help a religionist understand the nature of the soul and its place in the cosmos. I doubt the educated ancients though of those tales as what ‘really’ happened.
In the end we must be satisfied with uncertainty, maybe more precisely with mystery, because to adopt one of the mythic tales as a certainty would be foolish.
**The Judeo-Christian Tradition is unbroken and extant, … the Church, which, though bruised, continues to transmit the unbroken line of Tradition to this day. **
That’s all very mythic. I might say that a Judean wonder-working rabbi gathered a following, taught doctrines and granted powers of healing and exorcism. His followers created a vibrant movement of many competing sects, in which scriptures and methods and doctrines competed. Two or three of those doctrine sets became dominant, and one of them won the sanction of the contracting Roman Empire. The rest is history, including the splintering of the tradition into thousands of small sects, some no bigger than a living-room’s congregation, not unlike the meetings of Neopagans. Now there is a worldwide competition, once again, between four or five (let’s say) dominant doctrine sets.
Nothing miraculous required to explain any of that, just regular human history.
**Neo-paganism, on the other hand, is completely new and invented, taking ideas based on the romantic naturalism of the 18th and 19th centuries and giving them an all-new (yet as old as heresy itself), subjectivist slant based on desire rather than revelation. **
Well, everything starts somewhere. It is not the origin of a thing that defines it, but the outcome. This wave of North American neopaganism is arguably not more than 50 years old, but reflects European roots going back to the turn of the 20th century, at least. Nevertheless we’re raising a third generation of religious Pagans these days. A Pagan sat in meeting with other religious leaders and Obama’s Faith-Based gang. Like all new things, we’re growing as we go.
**Ultimately, such religions are only as reliable as those who propagated them, **
That statement makes no sense to me. Religions are bodies of idea and practices meant to bind humans to and with the divine. I’d say that just as priest’s moral condition doesn’t render the power of the sacrament null, the wacky life of a mystic doesn’t render their ideas null.
Neopaganism has been developed by hundreds (thousands) of people by now. New material travels quickly and new syntheses can be made and tested. We are also adjusting our ideas and ritual practices in light of more reliable modern scholarship - nobody reads Maragaret Murray anymore, and Gardner’s public books are quaint artifacts of the first years of the work.
**A realistic summary of the history of neopaganism can be found in Ronald Hutton’s ‘Triumph of the Moon’. Hutton, himself a neopagan, dissects neopaganism’s history with surgical precision. **
A book on every serious neopagan reading list these days, especially Wiccan. I’d look at a fellow named Phillip Heselton for equally good work from an insider’s perspective. Hutton tries to maintain some distance…
What you are left with after reading it is the impression of a socio-cultural rather than a religious phenomenon.
My own experience in neopaganism over the last 30 years, has been of a set of religious movements that do have a countercultural element. The focus of the work has been the development of spiritual practices, though we have also built social and organizational networks. Because of the dominant Christian assumptions of English-speaking culture many individuals have to go through a process of self-deprogramming when they leave a Christian upbringing. In some people this produces anger and guilt. It remains a problem in a new-coversion religion, and will do until we home-grow more pagans than we recruit : ).
But the Pagan or Earth-based religions do nothing but increase, in numbers and in institutional solidity and in doctrinal and scholastic maturity. We do it with no central authority, by a continuing network of cooperation and experiment. Individuals build a practice that suits them, though we are also producing more competent public teachers. Soon you’ll see store-front Pagan chapels, and you may already have worked next to Pagans in a food-bank. In another 50 years we’ll be firmly established as minority religions.
In the same way, the God of Genesis has no rational origin or cause. It ‘just is’ because authority says it is. How is that different? No religious paradigm at all ‘accounts for’ infinity, it simply notices it and attempts to describe it. In my opinion ‘nature’ - i.e. “that which is” - is eternal, and we’re just haggling over the details. The divine exists within nature.
**In this respect, neopagans are faced with the same problem as atheists when it comes to the origins of the Universe. They must resort to ‘just-so’ stories. Whereas when there is an Infinite God at the heart of one’s religion there is no lack of accountibility for the origins of existence. **
There is absolutely no difference between postulating an all-powerful self-existent Creator and positing all-pervading impersonal raw materials, such as Gunningagap.
This question interested the ancients, but only a little. Various sects produced various versions of what we would call ‘creation stories’. Creation tales were meant to help a religionist understand the nature of the soul and its place in the cosmos. I doubt the educated ancients though of those tales as what ‘really’ happened.
In the end we must be satisfied with uncertainty, maybe more precisely with mystery, because to adopt one of the mythic tales as a certainty would be foolish.
**The Judeo-Christian Tradition is unbroken and extant, … the Church, which, though bruised, continues to transmit the unbroken line of Tradition to this day. **
That’s all very mythic. I might say that a Judean wonder-working rabbi gathered a following, taught doctrines and granted powers of healing and exorcism. His followers created a vibrant movement of many competing sects, in which scriptures and methods and doctrines competed. Two or three of those doctrine sets became dominant, and one of them won the sanction of the contracting Roman Empire. The rest is history, including the splintering of the tradition into thousands of small sects, some no bigger than a living-room’s congregation, not unlike the meetings of Neopagans. Now there is a worldwide competition, once again, between four or five (let’s say) dominant doctrine sets.
Nothing miraculous required to explain any of that, just regular human history.
**Neo-paganism, on the other hand, is completely new and invented, taking ideas based on the romantic naturalism of the 18th and 19th centuries and giving them an all-new (yet as old as heresy itself), subjectivist slant based on desire rather than revelation. **
Well, everything starts somewhere. It is not the origin of a thing that defines it, but the outcome. This wave of North American neopaganism is arguably not more than 50 years old, but reflects European roots going back to the turn of the 20th century, at least. Nevertheless we’re raising a third generation of religious Pagans these days. A Pagan sat in meeting with other religious leaders and Obama’s Faith-Based gang. Like all new things, we’re growing as we go.
**Ultimately, such religions are only as reliable as those who propagated them, **
That statement makes no sense to me. Religions are bodies of idea and practices meant to bind humans to and with the divine. I’d say that just as priest’s moral condition doesn’t render the power of the sacrament null, the wacky life of a mystic doesn’t render their ideas null.
Neopaganism has been developed by hundreds (thousands) of people by now. New material travels quickly and new syntheses can be made and tested. We are also adjusting our ideas and ritual practices in light of more reliable modern scholarship - nobody reads Maragaret Murray anymore, and Gardner’s public books are quaint artifacts of the first years of the work.
**A realistic summary of the history of neopaganism can be found in Ronald Hutton’s ‘Triumph of the Moon’. Hutton, himself a neopagan, dissects neopaganism’s history with surgical precision. **
A book on every serious neopagan reading list these days, especially Wiccan. I’d look at a fellow named Phillip Heselton for equally good work from an insider’s perspective. Hutton tries to maintain some distance…
What you are left with after reading it is the impression of a socio-cultural rather than a religious phenomenon.
My own experience in neopaganism over the last 30 years, has been of a set of religious movements that do have a countercultural element. The focus of the work has been the development of spiritual practices, though we have also built social and organizational networks. Because of the dominant Christian assumptions of English-speaking culture many individuals have to go through a process of self-deprogramming when they leave a Christian upbringing. In some people this produces anger and guilt. It remains a problem in a new-coversion religion, and will do until we home-grow more pagans than we recruit : ).
But the Pagan or Earth-based religions do nothing but increase, in numbers and in institutional solidity and in doctrinal and scholastic maturity. We do it with no central authority, by a continuing network of cooperation and experiment. Individuals build a practice that suits them, though we are also producing more competent public teachers. Soon you’ll see store-front Pagan chapels, and you may already have worked next to Pagans in a food-bank. In another 50 years we’ll be firmly established as minority religions.
S
steg
Guest
Just reading through this thread for the first time, I find many of the same arguments on both sides…
First, Hinduism is not the oldest extant religion… Isiacism is, it dates to at least 2500 BCE and is already established by this time. The argument is made that Isis worshippers don’t exist anymore, or that it was revived, but the truth is that was forced underground after the anti-pagan (really anti-everything) proclamations of Theodosius I, and the mass murders by Christian monsters like Archbishop Cyril (who was made a saint with one hand stained with gold, and the other with blood!) There are the occasional ‘scandals’ where Isians are discovered, but we’ve been very careful.
Now, as to Hellenes (Pagan is a derogatory term coined by Christians, so I loathe to use it to describe myself and other polythieists,) verses the Christian god… I’ve found that only those ex-Christians with a score to settle with their old religion seek to argue. PFBs (Polys From Birth) have issues with the methods of the church, their arrogance that their way is the only way, and their ignorance of the true origins of their religion… but that aside, we are so willing to let others believe however they want to… its your life, after all. It is the Monotheists that refuse to be tolerant.
Now lets see… I read that someone believes polytheism came from montheism? That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that one… seems someone is smoking crack up in here!
And, lets see… a view of the Christian god by a Hellene… hmmm. First I’d have to ask… which one? The Old Testament god, JHVH… the son of El, whose consort was Asherah, and a member of the Heavenly Council… who ordered the deaths of innocent men, women, children, animals, etc., who commands an Angel of Death, Lying Spirits, and other unsavory characters? Or, is it the New Testament god who seems to have a kid, chilled out somewhat, but still seems to demand blood as payment or will chuck the whole kit-n-kaboodle into a fiery lake for eternity? Who seems powerless to stop this Satan character (or what he evolved into up to this point…) and suddenly decides to stop appearing to everyone like he did in the days of old? Either one is a poor choice for basing a religion on… as can be seen by the havoc, death and destruction he and his followers seem to leave in their wake.
My advice to non-christians? Don’t argue with them, don’t try to convert them, don’t do anything… except fight to keep their teachings out of our public schools, government agencies, and any place outside of their churches and homes, where it belongs.
First, Hinduism is not the oldest extant religion… Isiacism is, it dates to at least 2500 BCE and is already established by this time. The argument is made that Isis worshippers don’t exist anymore, or that it was revived, but the truth is that was forced underground after the anti-pagan (really anti-everything) proclamations of Theodosius I, and the mass murders by Christian monsters like Archbishop Cyril (who was made a saint with one hand stained with gold, and the other with blood!) There are the occasional ‘scandals’ where Isians are discovered, but we’ve been very careful.
Now, as to Hellenes (Pagan is a derogatory term coined by Christians, so I loathe to use it to describe myself and other polythieists,) verses the Christian god… I’ve found that only those ex-Christians with a score to settle with their old religion seek to argue. PFBs (Polys From Birth) have issues with the methods of the church, their arrogance that their way is the only way, and their ignorance of the true origins of their religion… but that aside, we are so willing to let others believe however they want to… its your life, after all. It is the Monotheists that refuse to be tolerant.
Now lets see… I read that someone believes polytheism came from montheism? That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that one… seems someone is smoking crack up in here!
And, lets see… a view of the Christian god by a Hellene… hmmm. First I’d have to ask… which one? The Old Testament god, JHVH… the son of El, whose consort was Asherah, and a member of the Heavenly Council… who ordered the deaths of innocent men, women, children, animals, etc., who commands an Angel of Death, Lying Spirits, and other unsavory characters? Or, is it the New Testament god who seems to have a kid, chilled out somewhat, but still seems to demand blood as payment or will chuck the whole kit-n-kaboodle into a fiery lake for eternity? Who seems powerless to stop this Satan character (or what he evolved into up to this point…) and suddenly decides to stop appearing to everyone like he did in the days of old? Either one is a poor choice for basing a religion on… as can be seen by the havoc, death and destruction he and his followers seem to leave in their wake.
My advice to non-christians? Don’t argue with them, don’t try to convert them, don’t do anything… except fight to keep their teachings out of our public schools, government agencies, and any place outside of their churches and homes, where it belongs.
C
cyberwolf001
Guest
An Hinduism goes back to 6,000 BCE. An what is this Isiacism? Isis last I checked is a Kemetic goddess and a part of that spirtual family and tradition.
I can buy Isis worship going underground, I have infact argued such, but an entire entact religion?
You do know Hellenes is a term used to discribe Greek ethenic groups and there culture right? The Greek Orthodox church can be considered a Hellenes religion.
An as I am from Germanic, Celtic, First Nation and African stock that most certainly doesn’t apply to me. Other than I do honor the Greek gods along with many many others.
Say what?
Wait! Wait, we Pagans got a Pope now that can tell us this!? Ian why wasn’t I given the memo! Not to say I am not for live and let live but your basicly trying to speak for all of us in very broad we will terms.
An what is going on with this convers versus cradle Pagan deals.
My good Isian manners please! We are trying to maintain a civil debate here in the best traditions of mankind.
WOW can I get some references on all that?
Well now I personally don’t believe in that, sounds like the words of many of the fanatics on the Monotheistic side. As long as they don’t force it on us they can have it compete with ours.
I.E. They should be allowed to protest gay marriage and speak against it all they wont. But don’t dare try to tell my Church we cannot allow our gay members to wed.
G
GeorgeSword
Guest
If you wish to provide some sources about Isis worship going underground and surviving until today, please do provide some sources.
By Archbishop Cyril, do you mean Cyril of Alexandria? How can you say his hand was stained with blood? He has been accused of the murder of a Pagan philosopher, true, but this is really unproven. He also engaged in some persecution of Jews, but it was as far as I know bloodless.
A
ALLGIRLS
Guest
So, we can do whatever we want, so long as you can’t see it. THAT’S tolerant!**And, lets see… a view of the Christian god by a Hellene… hmmm. First I’d have to ask… which one? The Old Testament god, JHVH… the son of El, whose consort was Asherah, and a member of the Heavenly Council… **
Where is THAT in the Bible???
My advice to non-christians? Don’t argue with them, don’t try to convert them, don’t do anything… except fight to keep their teachings out of our public schools, government agencies, and any place outside of their churches and homes, where it belongs.
You might want to also try to pass laws that mandate that all churches and houses of worship be nondescript buildings w/ no crosses or steeples, lest you drive past one and get your Hellene sensibilities offended. In Christ,
Ellen
L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
Pagan, from the latin “pagani” meaning “country-dweller”. Used by the pre-Christian Romans to describe the religion practices of rural dwellers–in other words, the religion practiced out in the sticks as opposed to the offical Cult of Rome (Jupiter/Mars/ & Ceres I believe). NOT of Christian coinage–same for “heathen”, from the latin “heath” or “hearth”–the gods and religious practices of a particular home (pentes and lares I believe) STILL not of Christian coinage–which makes it particularly silly when neo-heathens (mostly Asertru) try to claim some difference of meaning between heathen and pagan when esentially the words have meant the same thing for the last 1600 years. That tends to evidence that someone is trying to pull one over on you–when they start to claim some different meaning for a word other than the accepted ones in the dictionary (like some Fundamentalists do with “religion”).
S
steg
Guest
That’s partly true… but not the entire story… Paganus / Pagani has multiple meanings… it can mean 'country dweller" but was also was a term used but soldiers to describe civilians… the term was, I guess you can say coined, borrowed, whatever… to be used by Christians (God’s Soldiers) against those who weren’t. Emperor Julian spurned the use of ‘Pagan’ and used instead ‘Hellene’, denoting the devotees of Hellenistic values. What the word means now, after being redefined 1600 years ago, doesn’t change what it used to mean. That’s like the word ‘atheist’, which was coined to describe christians, who didn’t believe in the many gods of the times, and was re-purposed by christians to mean those who believe in no gods at all.
S
steg
Guest
Modern Hinduism grew out of the Vedas, the oldest of which is the Rigveda, dated to 1700–1100 BCE (T. Oberlies (Die Religion des Rgveda, Vienna 1998. p. 158) based on ‘cumulative evidence’ sets wide range of 1700–1100.)
Of course it didn’t survive intact, it had to adapt to being hidden… there are instances when it is found by church officials… I’m saving refs because I’m writing a book on the subject, and want to keep specifics under wraps for now.
I refer to Emperor Julian’s use of the word, shunning Pagan as a derogatory term, and using Hellene as a person who held to the Hellenistic values.
I apologize for that… you are very right. I should say that, this is what I see in my experience, but without further research, cannot say this applies to the majority.
Not meant to be a slight… again, personal observation. I make no distinction between the two, and certainly do not wish to be divisive.
Again, thank you for setting me right… my apologies.
Yes… I will follow with bible and external references on this in a couple of days.
Agreed… I should expound on this statement, to clarify. I certainly do not say that a group should not be allowed to protest, or make known their beliefs in the civil arena. That’s our right, and should be fully exercised. I don’t ever condone the closing of any church temple or holy gathering place… that is nothing but tyranny. However, I do think that putting the 10 COmmandments in government buildings, or teaching Christian stories in school is going too far. These things belong in the church or home.
Thanks for your comments… quite enjoyable
S
steg
Guest
Hi Ellen,So, we can do whatever we want, so long as you can’t see it. THAT’S tolerant!
In Christ,
Ellen
No, absolutely not! I’ve visited many churches and monasteries all over the world, and find them quite beautiful and inspiring. I’ve also been to mosques, synagogues, temples, etc. and all are amazing places. I’ve known and been friends with peoples of all faiths, even today… I have polytheists, monotheists and atheists in my family, and we all have no issues, and even have great talks during gatherings. I have no issues with you or anyone practicing their faith, and will even gladly help in their community service projects when asked.
You can stand on the street corner and read from your bible, doesn’t matter to me. What I do find offensive is when the church becomes invasive, such as putting the 10 commandments in government buildings, or getting their bible stories taught in science classes… that offends me. You can teach whatever you wish to at home, or in sunday school, but not public schools. Christianity is not the only ‘shop on the block’ and should not expect special treatment.
Goddess protect you,
S.
- Status