Neo-Paganism Q&A

[lil_flower_luv]

I would love to hear an answer to this one. Along with why it took bloodshed and violence and brutal laws to supress it in the first place.

The Catholic Church may be Jesus’ founded Church, but humans are made up of it. And we fail. So to answer your question: It was wrong to use violence as a means of destroying paganism. We should leave judgment up to God. What may have been the answer so long ago, was not God’s answer, but man’s answer.

 

[Belathene]

The Catholic Church may be Jesus’ founded Church, but humans are made up of it. And we fail. So to answer your question: It was wrong to use violence as a means of destroying paganism. We should leave judgment up to God. What may have been the answer so long ago, was not God’s answer, but man’s answer.

That might very well be the best answer I’ve ever gotten to that particular question. I thank you for not making up excuses or skirting around the issue, and I appreciate your honesty.

 

[IanCorrigan]

**I don’t see neopaganism as a religion. At least, I don’t see it as a religion as is commonly meant by the word. **

Yes, modern religion has become owned mainly by those we might call ‘faith-ists’ - people who think that religion is a system of ideas that must be ‘believed in’. More usually such religions call what they require members to think ‘orthodoxy’ (correct thinking) and brand those who disagree as ‘heterodox’ (different thinking).

This goes along quite well with Christian ideas such as ‘sins of intent’, in which what you think about doing counts almost as heavily as what you actually do. But none of that had much to do with ‘religion’ before the 1st century AD.

Pagan religion has never been about what one ‘believes’. The ancient Greeks had little interest in what a worshipper thought the Gods might “really” be, only in whether the worshipper kept the customs properly. Even Judaism (which preserves many archaic elements) has that notion - being a ‘good Jew’ is being an observant Jew, not believing the right things about, say, Moshiach.

So I’d say that in returning to a religion that is based on doing effective rites and personal worship, rather than on accepting a credo of theological positions, we are correctly following the Old Ways. I’d say we’re more like what Socrates or Moses would have understood as religion than are Christianity or Islam.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

That might very well be the best answer I’ve ever gotten to that particular question. I thank you for not making up excuses or skirting around the issue, and I appreciate your honesty.

Thank you kindly.
I appreciate your honest questioning, as well.

~Therese

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s hard discerning God’s will and the will of human beings. I wouldn’t presume to make such a statement. God in the Old Testament condoned warfare and confrontation in situations to preserve, protect, and encourage the faith. Had Constantine, Theodosius, Charlemagne, Clovis, and company not spread the Catholic faith, unfortunately through use of the sword at times, would we even be having this conversation? We might be pagans right now. Or was God not protecting and aiding Charles Martel when he fought of the onslaught of the Muslim invaders that tried to take France and the environs there? This man single-handedly saved Christendom. So it’s hard to make a definite statement that will satisfy pagans in forums such as these. God has, in times past according to Scripture, used calamities such as floods and thunder and storms and plagues to punish cities that were living in sin. When such a calamity happens, it may or may not be God’s authorship behind it. We don’t know and shouldn’t try to make a definitive statement either way IMO.

The Catholic Church may be Jesus’ founded Church, but humans are made up of it. And we fail. So to answer your question: It was wrong to use violence as a means of destroying paganism. We should leave judgment up to God. What may have been the answer so long ago, was not God’s answer, but man’s answer.

 

[Belathene]

It’s hard discerning God’s will and the will of human beings. I wouldn’t presume to make such a statement. God in the Old Testament condoned warfare and confrontation in situations to preserve, protect, and encourage the faith. Had Constantine, Theodosius, Charlemagne, Clovis, and company not spread the Catholic faith, unfortunately through use of the sword at times, would we even be having this conversation? We might be pagans right now. Or was God not protecting and aiding Charles Martel when he fought of the onslaught of the Muslim invaders that tried to take France and the environs there? This man single-handedly saved Christendom. So it’s hard to make a definite statement that will satisfy pagans in forums such as these. God has, in times past according to Scripture, used calamities such as floods and thunder and storms and plagues to punish cities that were living in sin. When such a calamity happens, it may or may not be God’s authorship behind it. We don’t know and shouldn’t try to make a definitive statement either way IMO.

I have a question for you, my friend–please don’t take offense at this, as it really is an honest question.

Had those men chosen NOT to use the sword to spread/defend the faith, would God have allowed the faith to die out entirely? If not, and God would never allow Christianity to disappear completely, why resort to killing people to get the message across?

 

[lil_flower_luv]

It’s hard discerning God’s will and the will of human beings. I wouldn’t presume to make such a statement. God in the Old Testament condoned warfare and confrontation in situations to preserve, protect, and encourage the faith. Had Constantine, Theodosius, Charlemagne, Clovis, and company not spread the Catholic faith, unfortunately through use of the sword at times, would we even be having this conversation? We might be pagans right now. Or was God not protecting and aiding Charles Martel when he fought of the onslaught of the Muslim invaders that tried to take France and the environs there? This man single-handedly saved Christendom. So it’s hard to make a definite statement that will satisfy pagans in forums such as these. God has, in times past according to Scripture, used calamities such as floods and thunder and storms and plagues to punish cities that were living in sin. When such a calamity happens, it may or may not be God’s authorship behind it. We don’t know and shouldn’t try to make a definitive statement either way IMO.

What a great post!! Thank you for responding (with all that wonderful history in there!) I understand what you have said and I truly believe that God has, at times, used disaster for our eternal good. And He has turned suffering and death into a victory for the sake of His Children. Overall, however, Christians have strived to be non-violent. That’s what I would like to get across. That, in our lives, God may ask us to fight for Him and our brothers and sisters (through works, words, sufferings), but we cannot be bloodthirsty soldiers. Only when it is necessary to fight, we fight. And only when we know it is in accordance with our Lord’s will.

You make many good points. And I do agree. But as Christians, one of our greatest priorities is relying on the promises of God. That He would take care of us. That we leave everything up to Him, and trust firmly in Him. The punishing, and even taking of lives, never rests on our shoulders.

God Bless

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Had those men chosen NOT to use the sword to spread/defend the faith, would God have allowed the faith to die out entirely? If not, and God would never allow Christianity to disappear completely, why resort to killing people to get the message across?

That is a great question! I’m sure that gurneyhalleck1 could give you a much better and detailed answer, but I will jump in to make some points:

–The Catholic Faith is a Faith that will never die out. A saint once said, “Truth suffers, but never dies” and God tells us about His faithfulness many times in the Bible:

** “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20)
“For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath.” (Deuteronomy 4:31)
“What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do” (Isaiah 46:11)
“He provides food for those who fear him; he remembers his covenant forever.” (Psalms 111:5)**

Why, someone could knock down all the Catholic Church’s in the world, and they still wouldn’t be able to stop His Church!

–You are very correct to say violence is no way to get a message across. It solves nothing.

–And if God had allowed early Christianity to be done differently, would it really matter? It is His Light that will triumph at the end of time. That is the most important thing to remember.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Hello all! I’m a neo-pagan as well, in the Discordianism “church”. I already have a thread on Discordianism, so I am going to just post the link here, instead of explaining it all out again:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=425496

I’d rather not thread jack this thread, so if anyone has any questions or anything, please ask them there. It is a form of Neo Paganism, but it is also considered a lot of other things. I just wanted to bring up a lesser known pagan group.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great post on your end, too, Lil. I agree with all you say. Violence is never preferable. And especially in the modern age, the Holy See strives to see a war-free world. Will it ever happen? No way. As long as idiots like Al-Queda are in the world and terrorism exits, militant Islam, and the typical human greed and ambition, we’ll have war. But the Vatican is very much anti-war, they should be, and they didn’t support the invasion of Iraq, etc. You’re spot-on right about non-violence and a thirst for blood. Nobody is proud and brags about the crusades or the Christianization of Europe through the sword. It’s not pretty. But the war on terror isn’t pretty either and I whole-heartedly support it, within reason.

What a great post!! Thank you for responding (with all that wonderful history in there!) I understand what you have said and I truly believe that God has, at times, used disaster for our eternal good. And He has turned suffering and death into a victory for the sake of His Children. Overall, however, Christians have strived to be non-violent. That’s what I would like to get across. That, in our lives, God may ask us to fight for Him and our brothers and sisters (through works, words, sufferings), but we cannot be bloodthirsty soldiers. Only when it is necessary to fight, we fight. And only when we know it is in accordance with our Lord’s will.

You make many good points. And I do agree. But as Christians, one of our greatest priorities is relying on the promises of God. That He would take care of us. That we leave everything up to Him, and trust firmly in Him. The punishing, and even taking of lives, never rests on our shoulders.

God Bless

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Belathene, I don’t take offense at your question at all; I’ve observed you to be a thoughtful, charitable poster. No worries, friend.

I believe that God intended His word to spread, pure and simple. Only God knows the means and historical unraveling of his plan. God knows our natures, good and bad. As a young man I used to ask, “why did God only reveal Himself to the Jewish people for so long as a chosen race? Why didn’t He reveal Himself to all right off the bat?” As I thought it over, prayed, read Scripture, and have matured I realize that the human race just wasn’t ready for God at that point. God wanted to take one group, make them a holy nation and a good example, set them apart as a beacon, and show the world what they could have in Him. Why did God sanction the brutal conquest of Canaan? I can’t answer that really. Apparently God felt it necessary. The people in Canaan had turned away from God and were worshippers of Baal and other pagan gods. They had prostitution cults, child sacrifice, and all sorts of horrible things. God’s righteous actions are His own and apparently he felt them worthy of destruction and Israel worthy of ascendancy to that land.

God would NOT allow the faith to die out completely. Thanks to His promise in Matthew 16 we see the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church and through Sciptural prophecy we also see a future for christendom and an apocolyptic ending in which Christians are present. So there will always be a Church and Christians one way or another. Christianity is the salvific hope for humanity and the means for all to attain heaven. God cannot and will not obliterate humanity’s only hope.

“Resorting to killing” is not God’s first choice. The barbarians of Europe were brutal themselves and savage in many cases. They were locked in a pagan barbarity. Also keep in mind that Charlemagne, Clovis and other Christian kings were also POLITICAL. Their primary conquest of Europe was for political LAND and POWER, politics and control. Christianity came with the package. And I would emphasize that Christianity isn’t the only religion to convert the populace that it politically conquers. The Dutch brought the Reformed faith where they went, the Aryans brought the early Hindu religion to the Harappan lands of Pakistan/India, the Muslims brought Islam with the caliphate, the Spanish Catholicism to Mexico, etc., atheism came with the Soviet spread. So it’s more a political history we’re looking at than a religious one. And in the grand scheme of things God allowed His faith to spread to places that would have already encountered the sword for political reasons anyway.

I have a question for you, my friend–please don’t take offense at this, as it really is an honest question.

Had those men chosen NOT to use the sword to spread/defend the faith, would God have allowed the faith to die out entirely? If not, and God would never allow Christianity to disappear completely, why resort to killing people to get the message across?

 

[Belathene]

Hi Belathene, I don’t take offense at your question at all; I’ve observed you to be a thoughtful, charitable poster. No worries, friend.

I believe that God intended His word to spread, pure and simple. Only God knows the means and historical unraveling of his plan. God knows our natures, good and bad. As a young man I used to ask, “why did God only reveal Himself to the Jewish people for so long as a chosen race? Why didn’t He reveal Himself to all right off the bat?” As I thought it over, prayed, read Scripture, and have matured I realize that the human race just wasn’t ready for God at that point. God wanted to take one group, make them a holy nation and a good example, set them apart as a beacon, and show the world what they could have in Him. Why did God sanction the brutal conquest of Canaan? I can’t answer that really. Apparently God felt it necessary. The people in Canaan had turned away from God and were worshippers of Baal and other pagan gods. They had prostitution cults, child sacrifice, and all sorts of horrible things. God’s righteous actions are His own and apparently he felt them worthy of destruction and Israel worthy of ascendancy to that land.

God would NOT allow the faith to die out completely. Thanks to His promise in Matthew 16 we see the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church and through Sciptural prophecy we also see a future for christendom and an apocolyptic ending in which Christians are present. So there will always be a Church and Christians one way or another. Christianity is the salvific hope for humanity and the means for all to attain heaven. God cannot and will not obliterate humanity’s only hope.

“Resorting to killing” is not God’s first choice. The barbarians of Europe were brutal themselves and savage in many cases. They were locked in a pagan barbarity. Also keep in mind that Charlemagne, Clovis and other Christian kings were also POLITICAL. Their primary conquest of Europe was for political LAND and POWER, politics and control. Christianity came with the package. And I would emphasize that Christianity isn’t the only religion to convert the populace that it politically conquers. The Dutch brought the Reformed faith where they went, the Aryans brought the early Hindu religion to the Harappan lands of Pakistan/India, the Muslims brought Islam with the caliphate, the Spanish Catholicism to Mexico, etc., atheism came with the Soviet spread. So it’s more a political history we’re looking at than a religious one. And in the grand scheme of things God allowed His faith to spread to places that would have already encountered the sword for political reasons anyway.

I think I understand your position now. Obviously, I disagree with the theology (and as such disagree with the idea that Christianity will always be here no matter what), or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But I think I understand your reasoning.

There were far too many times where laws were put in place and enforced that made non-Judeo-Christian religious practice punishable by death. Then again, one instance of that is too many in my book, regardless of which religion it is that’s being suppressed by the state.

I do have to disagree with your use of the term “barbarian,” however. Particularly the phrase “pagan barbarism.” Up until the Roman Empire took over Greece, “barbarian” simply meant anyone who wasn’t Greek- they were cultural snobs, who insisted that anyone who didn’t speak Greek was speaking nonsense-- in their language, “bar bar bar bar.” Hence, Barbarian. It wasn’t really used to refer to practices or peoples that were morally despicable or even morally unwise; it was used to refer to “a culture other than our own.” This according to my Greek History professor, anyway.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I never meant the term barbarian as a negative term to trash these folks. It was merely a term used to define non-Roman peoples that existed in those days. Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part. As a pagan, I think you’re traveling down a wrong road and putting yourself in spiritual jeopardy. Out of love and hope for you, I wish you’d return to the Christian faith. I pray you will. However you’re not uncivilized and some animal. I never meant that connotation.

That’s awesome that you have a Greek professor. I might have mentioned in previous posts that I was fortunate and blessed enough to have Dr. Victor Davis Hanson as my professor of Ancient Greek studies at Fresno State. He is now THE leading authority in the world, period, on all things Greek. He’s simply the most brilliant man on this planet when studying Greek and Western warfare. He’s the senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford, writes for the Wall Street Journal, appears on the History Channel and TLC, etc. He lectures at Anapolis Military Academy, has written books for Oxford. He’s awesome. Sitting in his classroom was spell-binding. Talking with him after class was a delight. He has a website, Victor Davis Hanson’s Private Papers and you can read about him. He still lives in Selma, about 30 miles from here. Amazing man. I love Greece.

I think I understand your position now. Obviously, I disagree with the theology (and as such disagree with the idea that Christianity will always be here no matter what), or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But I think I understand your reasoning.

There were far too many times where laws were put in place and enforced that made non-Judeo-Christian religious practice punishable by death. Then again, one instance of that is too many in my book, regardless of which religion it is that’s being suppressed by the state.

I do have to disagree with your use of the term “barbarian,” however. Particularly the phrase “pagan barbarism.” Up until the Roman Empire took over Greece, “barbarian” simply meant anyone who wasn’t Greek- they were cultural snobs, who insisted that anyone who didn’t speak Greek was speaking nonsense-- in their language, “bar bar bar bar.” Hence, Barbarian. It wasn’t really used to refer to practices or peoples that were morally despicable or even morally unwise; it was used to refer to “a culture other than our own.” This according to my Greek History professor, anyway.

 

[cyberwolf001]

I have a question for you, my friend–please don’t take offense at this, as it really is an honest question.

Had those men chosen NOT to use the sword to spread/defend the faith, would God have allowed the faith to die out entirely? If not, and God would never allow Christianity to disappear completely, why resort to killing people to get the message across?

This has been the reason I’ve most often heard on why Christianity never took off in Asia like it did Europe. Too far from Rome to get an effective military campagin going. Not sure how true this is, but given how Europe, the Americas and Australia as well as the pacific islands got converted I’d believe it myself.

If not for the military usage Christianity might still be struggling to grow.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It makes one wonder if paganism was such a great religion why it didn’t lay dormant in any significant numbers and make a good comeback in Europe? In England the Church of England persecuted Catholics but recusant Catholics continued an underground Catholic presence, Mass was continued, and Catholicism is about to overtake Anglicanism easily in England. Catholicism survived in Spain despite years and years of Moorish rule. Orthodoxy survived in the USSR, polytheism during Akhenaton’s rule in Egypt, etc. If religions are deep and meaningful they survive the ‘persecutions’ and tough times. A few folks converging on Stone Henge for solstices nowdays to me doesn’t constitute a resurgence. If the many gods like Thor and Odin and Zeus were legit why didn’t the religion survive? Like Gamaliel says in the Book of Acts, if it is from God, it will survive, if not, it will die. Other than a few Renaissance Festivals, I haven’t run into a lot of pagans? They must be meeting by moonlight in these parts?

This has been the reason I’ve most often heard on why Christianity never took off in Asia like it did Europe. Too far from Rome to get an effective military campagin going. Not sure how true this is, but given how Europe, the Americas and Australia as well as the pacific islands got converted I’d believe it myself.

If not for the military usage Christianity might still be struggling to grow.

 

[kenofken]

It makes one wonder if paganism was such a great religion why it didn’t lay dormant in any significant numbers and make a good comeback in Europe? In England the Church of England persecuted Catholics but recusant Catholics continued an underground Catholic presence, Mass was continued, and Catholicism is about to overtake Anglicanism easily in England. Catholicism survived in Spain despite years and years of Moorish rule. Orthodoxy survived in the USSR, polytheism during Akhenaton’s rule in Egypt, etc. If religions are deep and meaningful they survive the ‘persecutions’ and tough times. A few folks converging on Stone Henge for solstices nowdays to me doesn’t constitute a resurgence. If the many gods like Thor and Odin and Zeus were legit why didn’t the religion survive? Like Gamaliel says in the Book of Acts, if it is from God, it will survive, if not, it will die. Other than a few Renaissance Festivals, I haven’t run into a lot of pagans? They must be meeting by moonlight in these parts?

Those situations mentioned are not exactly analagous. Catholics in Reformation England had to hold out for what, a century and a quarter? During that time, they had the benefit of literacy, varying degrees of sympathy among the nation’s elite (including the occaisional monarch) and ready physical access to an adjoining continent which was overwhelmingly Catholic in nature. I’m not saying it was easy to hang on in those times, and plenty died for their faith, but they didn’t face the problem of forgetting “how” to be Catholic. Christians in the Soviet Union certainly didn’t have an easy slog of it either, but their dark time lasted all of 75 years.

Pagans in England, just as one example, had to try to reconstruct and start over after 13 CENTURIES of effective absense. During that time, the entire cultural, ethnic and political landscape was swept away by countless invasions. They had essentially no written records to turn to, and even oral histories were disrupted as the Industrial Revolution forced people to move from rural areas where they may have had family roots for 500 years.

The pope’s recent visit to the Czech Republic illustrates how fragile religious identity can be in the storms of political change. With only a generation or two of communist influence removing the church’s influence from public life, the country went from one of the more devout Catholic nations to one that is mostly indifferent to the faith. Regardless of the merit of the religion in question, it’s ultimately a human endeavor subject to the laws of momentum.

The other thing to keep in mind is that no one pagan tradition became the religion of empire the way Christianity did, at least post-Roman times. When genuine conversion, or bribery of a chieftan, or threat of death extinguished the flame in one area, it’s not like they could send to their version of Rome for more missionaries, backup copies of their liturgy, etc.

In truth, SOME pagan traditions did surivive time more or less intact. Not many, to be sure, but in the Baltic region, which was never fully Christianized and only somewhat so in fairly modern times, there are traditions which are considered fairly authentic. Even in England and elsewhere, bits of the old religions survived in fragments in the cultural memory, in what would be called folklore, folk magick etc. Many elements of paganism also survived WITHIN Christianity. Conquerors often get assimilated by the cultures they take over, at least as much as they impose their culture on the conquered.

I don’t know how much we should read into the validity of a religion based on its ebbs and flows of practice or political capital. From AD 70 (or before) to the 1960s, really, the history of Judaism was more trough than peak, yet I don’t hear many at least on this forum willing to conclude that it’s fallen from God’s favor and should die.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It’s not meant to be completely analagous. Similar. The point really is that if the people had the deep, heart-felt will to truly believe those pagan ideals and in those gods, I believe they would’ve survived. And not all conversion was by the sword. St. Patrick and Augustine of Canterbury didn’t hold a dagger to everyone’s throats to my knowledge. And the printing press is a nice feature but think of how Christendom lasted through the middle ages with no printing press. It’s not essential. The faith is. Think of how much of the Muslim Caliphate was illiterate and yet boy that was a successful little run of conversions!

Those situations mentioned are not exactly analagous. Catholics in Reformation England had to hold out for what, a century and a quarter? During that time, they had the benefit of literacy, varying degrees of sympathy among the nation’s elite (including the occaisional monarch) and ready physical access to an adjoining continent which was overwhelmingly Catholic in nature. I’m not saying it was easy to hang on in those times, and plenty died for their faith, but they didn’t face the problem of forgetting “how” to be Catholic. Christians in the Soviet Union certainly didn’t have an easy slog of it either, but their dark time lasted all of 75 years.

Pagans in England, just as one example, had to try to reconstruct and start over after 13 CENTURIES of effective absense. During that time, the entire cultural, ethnic and political landscape was swept away by countless invasions. They had essentially no written records to turn to, and even oral histories were disrupted as the Industrial Revolution forced people to move from rural areas where they may have had family roots for 500 years.

The pope’s recent visit to the Czech Republic illustrates how fragile religious identity can be in the storms of political change. With only a generation or two of communist influence removing the church’s influence from public life, the country went from one of the more devout Catholic nations to one that is mostly indifferent to the faith. Regardless of the merit of the religion in question, it’s ultimately a human endeavor subject to the laws of momentum.

The other thing to keep in mind is that no one pagan tradition became the religion of empire the way Christianity did, at least post-Roman times. When genuine conversion, or bribery of a chieftan, or threat of death extinguished the flame in one area, it’s not like they could send to their version of Rome for more missionaries, backup copies of their liturgy, etc.

In truth, SOME pagan traditions did surivive time more or less intact. Not many, to be sure, but in the Baltic region, which was never fully Christianized and only somewhat so in fairly modern times, there are traditions which are considered fairly authentic. Even in England and elsewhere, bits of the old religions survived in fragments in the cultural memory, in what would be called folklore, folk magick etc. Many elements of paganism also survived WITHIN Christianity. Conquerors often get assimilated by the cultures they take over, at least as much as they impose their culture on the conquered.

I don’t know how much we should read into the validity of a religion based on its ebbs and flows of practice or political capital. From AD 70 (or before) to the 1960s, really, the history of Judaism was more trough than peak, yet I don’t hear many at least on this forum willing to conclude that it’s fallen from God’s favor and should die.

 

[Monica4316]

I see Paganism as our natural state.

Hi

just a question for you, - do you think our natural state is good? why do you think so?

Christianity teaches that we should be transformed from our “natural” state because what we think is “natural” in us isn’t natural at all, but fallen. God meant for us to be sinless, to live forever with Him, to not experience any pain or sickness, etc… we believe we can only get there through the Cross.

I’m just wondering, why do you think that our natural state is what it’s supposed to be?

 

[Belathene]

It’s not meant to be completely analagous. Similar. The point really is that if the people had the deep, heart-felt will to truly believe those pagan ideals and in those gods, I believe they would’ve survived. And not all conversion was by the sword. St. Patrick and Augustine of Canterbury didn’t hold a dagger to everyone’s throats to my knowledge. And the printing press is a nice feature but think of how Christendom lasted through the middle ages with no printing press. It’s not essential. The faith is. Think of how much of the Muslim Caliphate was illiterate and yet boy that was a successful little run of conversions!

I don’t particularly think any of us are qualified to say whether or not ANYONE from history has a “heart-felt faith.” How many Christians do you think have turned from their faith because they’ve been threatened in some way, even if it wasn’t physical threat? Now, there is threat of financial loss, familial loss, community loss- and certainly, community loss was a crucial factor for a people who were primarily tribal. How many young children do you think would hold out in faith if their parents were forcibly converted, with threat of violence or otherwise? I would guess not many. If 29 people out of a tribe of 30 convert, that doesn’t mean that last one didn’t have the heart-felt will to maintain the faith- but he might not have been feasibly ABLE to. Pagan religions are very community-based, even now; they were much more so back then. Without a community, the practice of the religion will die out, but the belief not necessarily so. Would a Catholic layperson alone be able to celebrate mass, or receive the sacraments? He needs a priest, correct? Any Catholic would say that the man is still Catholic in his heart. This is true. Pagan religion, however, is primarily based on action, rather than belief–so you would say that a pagan in that situation would no longer be pagan, being unable to perform his rites and ceremonies properly, even IF he has the heart-felt will to do so. You can’t look at a history where the actions of a people are fundamental to their identity, see where those actions are suppressed, and say that the people must not have wanted to do it badly enough. Force enough of them, and the rest will by necessity follow. That doesn’t make it right.

 

[Belathene]

Hi

just a question for you, - do you think our natural state is good? why do you think so?

Christianity teaches that we should be transformed from our “natural” state because what we think is “natural” in us isn’t natural at all, but fallen. God meant for us to be sinless, to live forever with Him, to not experience any pain or sickness, etc… we believe we can only get there through the Cross.

I’m just wondering, why do you think that our natural state is what it’s supposed to be?

Monica, I know this wasn’t directed at me, but I figure I’ll give my answer, anyway.

Pagans in general think that yes, our natural state is good. We don’t believe in a fallen state, or original sin- that’s a Christian concept. Without that idea in there, it makes absolute sense that pagans would see natural as good–there’s no reason for it not to be.

Personally, I think pain and sickness is as natural as health and joy. Without one, we would have no basis of comparison for the other–how do I know what I’m feeling is joy, when I’ve never known or seen sorrow? Obviously, one is preferable to the other, but I don’t think there will ever be a world where pain and sickness don’t exist. Such a world would be without joy, also, and most likely without feeling entirely. Positive and negative emotions and physical feelings must exist together–not necessarily simultaneously in the same person, but the amount of any sensation is relative to the experience of other, opposing sensations. I might say a toothache is the worst pain I’ve ever felt, but that might just be because I’ve never known the pain of a missing limb. These sensations are relative, on a scale, and you have to have both sides of the scale to know which side you’re on, if that makes sense.