Why do many Christians have qualms about Paganism?

[flameburns623]

Once you strip away all negative assumptions and associations, Paganism is nothing but another religion (or rather, a group of religions). They certainly have different morals and such, but still. They don’t do human sacrifices (at least not mainstream ones, not anymore), they’re not explicitly evil (any evil they have is simply lack of Jesus).

I mean, why do Christians make a big deal about Pagans and witchcraft, to the point of blaming Harry Potter (which is flat out stupid, but that’s another topic) but have no real say about Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism or any other religion?

Some of my best friends are Pagans and Heathens.

Seriously.

I’m reading Alain de Benoist and Tyr, a journal of Pagan thought now. Have read a significant number of other good thinkers and writers in this area of religious thought and think Christians neglect this area to our own hurt. Much of the mysticism connected with these spiritual disciplines, for example, is very much similar to the mysticism practiced among Christians, which perhaps is one of the appeals of the NeoPagan revival.

Catholic apologists should take note that the Pagan/Heathen revival has been generating some very sophisticated philosophical and moral reasoning over the past 40 years. A lot of the popular apologetics addressing this movement major in minor issues and/or confound pre-Christian European folk religions with demonology/Satanism/occultism.

Catholics–usually better trained philosophically and rather more able to deal with nuances, ambiguities, and differences between the Christian faith and Paganism, and ought also to be able to make reasonable distinctions between Heathen faiths and outright worship of evil, as sometimes manifested in explcit Satanist groups.

F’rinstance–a Catholic apologist ought to be able to distinguish between Luciferian pagans and Satanists. To clue in the unaware: ‘lucifer’ is the Latin name of the Morning Star (Venus), and is used in Scripture metaphorically BOTH of Christ, and of a pagan king who has typified a sort of Satan. Most ‘Luciferians’ loathe the idea of Satan: they think of Lucifer as an avatar rather than as an embodiement of evil.

So far as I can tell, all of the Heathen and Pagan world are riddled with these sort of ambiguities, and well-meaning Prptestant Evangelicals and Fundamentalists latch onto the more shocking things without really addressing the serious and well intentioned practitioners of these reconstructed and re-imagined religious movements. Causing us to talk past one another rather than truly dialogue one with each other.

 

[draco_cupri]

I might also add the most basic of reasons…self-defense. We generally regard those who openly attack on every front as a blatant enemy. The other religions you mentioned do not do this, and are more intellectually opposed to Christianity first, and spiritually second, at least from their own perspectives.

Paganism is diametrically opposed to Christianity, and in many cases vehemently so. They do not share the same disdain for other religions, like Hinduism, Shintoism, or Taoism…because they are not threatened by them or what they teach.

Not to be insulting, but Satan is a smart general. He will attack that which poses a threat to his agenda, and views the rest of the worlds religions as “useful idiots.”

I want to point out that the original meaning of Pagan is “country-dweller,” and that long, long ago, the country-dwellers welcomed the Gospel with open arms. Our Christmas rituals all attest to this: Yule logs, Christmas trees, holly and mistletoe, all come from Pagan traditions. Paganism is the religion of Nature, and Christianity is from the Supernatural God. The World and God were “made for each other” like Wife and Husband. ( I know God isn’t “made,” it is just a manner of speaking.)

The new religion that so explicitly rejects Christianity is Gerald Gardner’s Wicca, and its various offshoots, essentially what is called “Neo-Paganism.” It is essentially everything good about the Marriage of God and Nature, minus God. The reason it is so strong is that it in fact includes much that God gave it long ago. Just as Satan did not lose his Gifts when he sinned, so the original Christianized Pagans did not lose their gifts when Gardner crafted his “Wicca” back in the 1950’s.

With all due respect for the zeal of Catholics to counter this abominable trend, if we hope for any success, we are going to have to step up our game. As Saint Peter writes, what sort of people must we not be?

Islam poses a threat, sure, particularly because of the violence it allows. But make no mistake — the real threat to the true Religion is not in violent opposition, but in a peaceful alternative. And those neo-pagans I have encountered in my life are proud, beautiful, and fierce. They offer a religion of the Power of the Individual human being that is rightfully his own, and Confidence in wielding that power. They do not oppose Christianity — the simply treat it as of no account, as a relic of a fading age, that certainly has nothing to offer them. Every time a Christian accuses them of being of the devil, they pay him no mind, and that actually works for their cause, not ours, since they treat each other and others as well with fairness, respect, and peace. It is a little difficult to directly attack a people who says they have nothing but honor and respect for your chosen path, and simply asks the same in return. This is the true face of Wicca, no matter what else you may have heard about it.

The only way to counter this is, as I’ve said, to seriously step up our own game. It is time now to begin to take all the teachings of all the Saints seriously. In every one of her apparitions, Our Blessed Mother asks that her rosary be prayed, and it is the rosary that will save the world. She promised that one day she would save the whole world through her rosary and scapular. That day is now upon us. Supernatural power is yet superior to natural power, but a people that has only natural power and uses it to its full advantage is more powerful than a people who has supernatural power at their disposal and does not use it. The only thing we have to offer the world, the only thing we ever had to offer, is conversion from sin. And that must begin, with ourselves. And the way into it, is through rosary after rosary after rosary.

 

[Hrafnkel]

Just because I mention my past doesn’t mean that I am required to go into detail about it. I’ve said enough for it to be understood where I’m coming from. My personal life is my business and it is up to me how much of it I choose to publish on a public bulletin board.

I also resent your insinuation that I haven’t truly ‘converted’ back to Catholicism. I didn’t decide to ‘convert’ back, I was called back very loudly and very clearly and in such a way that I couldn’t but come back. And I am eternally grateful for that. I was accepted back unconditionally by Our Lord- something that I certainly didn’t deserve.

I’m not going to go into detail about my experiences of paganism as I do not want to give it any more ‘publicity’.

So in a nutshell my position is as follows:

1. There is only one God - the God of Abraham.
2. Pagans worship a wide range of many beings that they believe are gods.
3. These beings do exist (that I can say from my own personal experience).
4. These beings get very close to people, ‘befriend’ people and can create close relationships with people who falsely believe these beings are gods (this I also know from personal experience).
5. These beings cannot be gods (as there is only one God)
6. These beings are duping people (particularly those who are ‘searching’ for some sort of sprituality) and using people for their own ends, or for the ends of a powerful being at opposition to the one God.

Taking the view that all religions are as valid as each other and that we should accept paganism as being a set of benign religious faiths is very dangerous indeed. The false gods of paganism represent forces diametrically opposed to the one true God. The fact that many individual pagans seem to be decent people is irrelevant (most of them are indeed decent people) doesn’t take away from the fact that they are being tricked and used by the evil one.

As a Christian, Jew or Muslim who believes in the existence of the one true God, and in the existence of the Devil, demons and the very real battle on Earth between good and evil, you cannot simply accept paganism as a benign (or even neutral) force.

I’m not saying you have to give your life’s story, I’m just saying that if you repeatedly bring up the fact that you’re an ex-pagan you could at least stand to expound upon that fact to allow for a better understanding of your background in the matter. Also, I wasn’t insinuating that you haven’t truly converted to Catholicism, I was only saying that since you have your past is in the past and doesn’t necessarily need to reflect on who you are now, and thus no harm in talking about it.

As for the rest of your position, believe me, there is no confusion on that front. You’ve stated it three or four times now.

And I don’t know how I missed this one on my first readthrough, but

I might also add the most basic of reasons…self-defense. We generally regard those who openly attack on every front as a blatant enemy. The other religions you mentioned do not do this, and are more intellectually opposed to Christianity first, and spiritually second, at least from their own perspectives.

Paganism is diametrically opposed to Christianity, and in many cases vehemently so. They do not share the same disdain for other religions, like Hinduism, Shintoism, or Taoism…because they are not threatened by them or what they teach.

Not to be insulting, but Satan is a smart general. He will attack that which poses a threat to his agenda, and views the rest of the worlds religions as “useful idiots.”

I really don’t know that many pagans, outside of the reactionary teenager wiccan crowd, who are ‘vehemently’ opposed to Christianity. For my part, anyway, I range from passively ambivalent about it to moderately supportive of it. Most of my heathen friends feel about the same. I can see some manner of value in Christian teachings, on the whole. I just don’t have any place in my own life for its doctrines, outside of a scholarly interest.

 

[flameburns623]

Hopefully my attachment uploaded and folks are able to see that there are elements of Heathen values which they share in common with us, things which we value with them. All of this identification of Heathen or Pagan faith with demonism or with anti-Christianity is, IMHO, misplaced. While it is true that it is Christ Who saves, it is important to relize that there is much which is good and beautiful and true in most religious traditions and we should honor that and be respectful of those whose deeply-held convictions differ from our own.

 

[gmcbroom]

I can certainly understand someone’s wanting to have their privacy about there past. As I was someone that over shared about my past and got flaque for it. I think the former pagan doesn’t owe anyone an explanation. It should be enough that he/she volunteered what they did. Paganism can be very seductive . It’s freedom to live by your own rules can be hard to walk away from. While it can be noted that some follow some variant of karma or golden rule there is no authority that they all follow. That’s why some solitary practitioners leave it or go down a darker path, which usually start innocently. Now not all are like that. Those with a support network either family of practitioners or a group usually follow a system. This doesn’t diminish how dangerous paganism is just that it can be seductive. Ultimately, though Christians are commissioned to give the good news of Jesus Christ. The others whether they are , Muslims,Jews, Pagans, Atheists,etc can either accept it or reject it. If they accept great. If not that’s fine too. At least they’ll know. Is paganism dangerous yes the same way pot is dangerous they are both gateways. One to other drugs and the other to other systems of magical systems. They both appear innocent and indeed there are those that smoke pot or practice paganism and that is all their interested in. But more often its just a temporary stop on to something harder. The pagans don’t have to like it just accept it.

 

[Hrafnkel]

I can certainly understand someone’s wanting to have their privacy about there past. As I was someone that over shared about my past and got flaque for it. I think the former pagan doesn’t owe anyone an explanation. It should be enough that he/she volunteered what they did. Paganism can be very seductive . It’s freedom to live by your own rules can be hard to walk away from. While it can be noted that some follow some variant of karma or golden rule there is no authority that they all follow. That’s why some solitary practitioners leave it or go down a darker path, which usually start innocently. Now not all are like that. Those with a support network either family of practitioners or a group usually follow a system. This doesn’t diminish how dangerous paganism is just that it can be seductive. Ultimately, though Christians are commissioned to give the good news of Jesus Christ. The others whether they are , Muslims,Jews, Pagans, Atheists,etc can either accept it or reject it. If they accept great. If not that’s fine too. At least they’ll know. Is paganism dangerous yes the same way pot is dangerous they are both gateways. One to other drugs and the other to other systems of magical systems. They both appear innocent and indeed there are those that smoke pot or practice paganism and that is all their interested in. But more often its just a temporary stop on to something harder. The pagans don’t have to like it just accept it.

Part of the reason there’s no authority that -all- pagans follow is because paganism encompasses a variety of religions. Do you follow precisely the same authority as someone who follows Islam, or Bahai’i? I’d imagine not, so why would a wiccan follow the same practices as a Hellenic Reconstructionist, or a neo-druid?

Comparing paganism to marijuana isn’t especially charitable, either. Any actual evidence that pagans use that path on the way to something ‘harder?’ And for that matter, what would that be, that they move on to? I feel like there’s some pretty serious misconceptions about paganism as a concept, here, that would make it difficult for most of you to effectively relate your message to those who identify as pagan. We don’t all use Ouija boards and tarot cards, or whathaveyou.

 

[flameburns623]

Part of the reason there’s no authority that -all- pagans follow is because paganism encompasses a variety of religions. Do you follow precisely the same authority as someone who follows Islam, or Bahai’i? I’d imagine not, so why would a wiccan follow the same practices as a Hellenic Reconstructionist, or a neo-druid?

Comparing paganism to marijuana isn’t especially charitable, either. Any actual evidence that pagans use that path on the way to something ‘harder?’ And for that matter, what would that be, that they move on to? I feel like there’s some pretty serious misconceptions about paganism as a concept, here, that would make it difficult for most of you to effectively relate your message to those who identify as pagan. We don’t all use Ouija boards and tarot cards, or whathaveyou.

Friend: some of us are trying to make that point. Hence my posting of an illustrative diagram which showed some of the affirmative values of Paganism.

Alain de Benoist’s early chapters of ON BEING A PAGAN engage Christianity in a rather incisive analysis and critique, erroneous in some assumptions so far as I can tell, but much more careful and respectful of the sources of our religious tradition than some of the participants here are being with Paganism. I’m just beginning this book so have awhile before I could undertake to provide an outline of some of his key points. Time permitting, perhaps I can do so in a few weeks.

Of course, this is a web forum, where people opine largely from their base of accrued knowledge, perceptions, misperceptions, and errors. And there is a larger problem as well: “Paganism” and “Heathenry” are umbrella terms for what are in effect a variety of religious traditions with both commonalities and differences. Wicca is not synonymous with Asatru, which is not synonymous with Slavic Paganism, none of which is synonymous with non-Christian Esoteric Mysticism.

Perhaps it would be helpful for Pagans posting here to narrow-down their particular traditions and elaborate upon or provide links to material which outline their own affirmative beliefs and values and compare/contrast Pagan views with Catholic/Christian beliefs.

Recognise btw, that this is a Roman Catholic apologetic forum, not a forum primarily for ecumenical dialogue. There WILL BE rebutal. I would hope my fellow-Catholics will endeavor to understand first, and then respond. But any Pagan/Heathen participants might want to bear in mind this is NOT a level playing field.

Hope this is helpful!

 

[Hrafnkel]

Friend: some of us are trying to make that point. Hence my posting of an illustrative diagram which showed some of the affirmative values of Paganism.

Alain de Benoist’s early chapters of ON BEING A PAGAN engage Christianity in a rather incisive analysis and critique, erroneous in some assumptions so far as I can tell, but much more careful and respectful of the sources of our religious tradition than some of the participants here are being with Paganism. I’m just beginning this book so have awhile before I could undertake to provide an outline of some of his key points. Time permitting, perhaps I can do so in a few weeks.

Of course, this is a web forum, where people opine largely from their base of accrued knowledge, perceptions, misperceptions, and errors. And there is a larger problem as well: “Paganism” and “Heathenry” are umbrella terms for what are in effect a variety of religious traditions with both commonalities and differences. Wicca is not synonymous with Asatru, which is not synonymous with Slavic Paganism, none of which is synonymous with non-Christian Esoteric Mysticism.

Perhaps it would be helpful for Pagans posting here to narrow-down their particular traditions and elaborate upon or provide links to material which outline their own affirmative beliefs and values and compare/contrast Pagan views with Catholic/Christian beliefs.

Recognise btw, that this is a Roman Catholic apologetic forum, not a forum primarily for ecumenical dialogue. There WILL BE rebutal. I would hope my fellow-Catholics will endeavor to understand first, and then respond. But any Pagan/Heathen participants might want to bear in mind this is NOT a level playing field.

Hope this is helpful!

I noticed your effort to clear things up, and it’s appreciated. As my user profile would suggest, I’m of the Anglo-Saxon recon persuasion, which would best be described as some blend of Theodism (but not as heavily neo-tribal), Asatru (but based more on historicity, a lot of Asatru has a decidedly wiccan flavor to it) and folkism (that is, that my beliefs stem from my Anglo heritage, the same way most traditional Jews take their path from their ancestry). I could go into far, far greater detail, of course, but that would take a while. Suffice to say, I don’t believe so much in the karmic bend of most “harm none” pagan types, but rather, view things in terms of constructive/destructive to family/community. The more dualistic approaches of many neopagan groups only work so long as there is absolute black and white good and evil, and I don’t find that to be true. An act that could be construed as evil might be good, depending on the circumstances in which it is conducted. That said, I’m starting to ramble, so I’ll save anything else for later, if anyone’s interested.

Also, I realize this is a catholic forum. But even if the intent is to offer rebuttal, doing so in a patronizing or degrading manner doesn’t serve to enlighten the pagans that may be reading. I don’t mind most of the remarks, but the baseless (insofar as I haven’t seen them backed up in a meaningful way) accusations of pagan beliefs being a ‘gateway drug’ are purely offensive and misinformed.

 

[Brendan_64]

I’m not saying you have to give your life’s story, I’m just saying that if you repeatedly bring up the fact that you’re an ex-pagan you could at least stand to expound upon that fact to allow for a better understanding of your background in the matter. …

As for the rest of your position, believe me, there is no confusion on that front. You’ve stated it three or four times now.

Yes I have stated my position clearly several times, so given that, I fail to see why I ought to have to give more details on my pagan past. I mentioned it to support my assertion that the beings pagans worship as their gods are not simply figments of the imagination, these beings do attempt to get close to (at least some) of the people who worship them, and I brought up my past to say that I was speaking from personal experience.

And why should I expand on my background further than that? For your own personal amusement, or to satisfy your curiosity? I have no interest whatsoever in doing either.

I noticed your effort to clear things up, and it’s appreciated. As my user profile would suggest, I’m of the Anglo-Saxon recon persuasion,

An Anglo-Saxon heathen who doesn’t know many people who use runes? That I find VERY hard to believe.

Anyway, when your ragnarok comes, rest assured that heathens will certainly not be on the same side as Christ and His followers. Your belief system is diametrically opposed to Christianity (and also to Judaism and Islam).

 

[Hrafnkel]

Yes I have stated my position clearly several times, so given that, I fail to see why I ought to have to give more details on my pagan past. I mentioned it to support my assertion that the beings pagans worship as their gods are not simply figments of the imagination, these beings do attempt to get close to (at least some) of the people who worship them, and I brought up my past to say that I was speaking from personal experience.

And why should I expand on my background further than that? For your own personal amusement, or to satisfy your curiosity? I have no interest whatsoever in doing either.

An Anglo-Saxon heathen who doesn’t know many people who use runes? That I find VERY hard to believe.

Honestly the only people I’ve ever met who -do- seriously use runes are the Asatruar who have a distinct wiccan flavor to their practices, as I mentioned. Most that I’m acquainted with are more of the Theodish sort, and don’t attempt to use any kind of ‘magic’ or divination or whathaveyou. I will admit, of course, that it’s mainly by choice that I don’t associate with the former group. I know -of- people who claim to follow a Norse or (less often) AS path and use runes, but most of them pay little mind to the historicity of their alleged faith and simply add Germanic dressings to their eclectic neopaganism. Honestly, I could almost compare it to Evangelical rejection of Catholic tradition.

And in reply to your edit, I don’t have any particular opinion on Ragnarok. It doesn’t have a meaningful place in my tradition, as it does for those who follow a more Northern Germanic path.

 

[Brendan_64]

but most of them pay little mind to the historicity of their alleged faith and simply add Germanic dressings to their eclectic neopaganism.

What history? Your ‘heathenism’ has no historical basis at all. A few trinkets found in a few Anglo-Saxon graves, and around this you ‘reconstruct’ a system of religious beliefs. Your ‘religion’ is based on nothing more than a few obscure baubles. Your’s is NOT an ancient religion, it is a modern invention, no different from the ‘New-agers’ who dangle crystals. You may dress up in funny costumes and pretend to be all historical, but you’re no more an ancient religion that the ‘New-age’ crystal danglers.

What exactly are the historical sources for the Anglo-Saxon heathen belief system? Come on then, name them.

 

[flameburns623]

What history? Your ‘heathenism’ has no historical basis at all. A few trinkets found in a few Anglo-Saxon graves, and around this you ‘reconstruct’ a system of religious beliefs. Your ‘religion’ is based on nothing more than a few obscure baubles. Your’s is NOT an ancient religion, it is a modern invention, no different from the ‘New-agers’ who dangle crystals. You may dress up in funny costumes and pretend to be all historical, but you’re no more an ancient religion that the ‘New-age’ crystal danglers.

What exactly are the historical sources for the Anglo-Saxon heathen belief system? Come on then, name them.

You mean, apart from the Havamal, the Eddas, the Icelandic Sagas, Greek, Roman, and other sources, and Indo-Aryan Vedicism?

Granted that a lot of this is speculative–Heathens and Pagans fully concede that their faiths must necessarily be reconstructed and re-imagined. But pretending that there is no historical basis, no documentary evidence, for such beliefs betrays an ignorance of your subject. Or bigotry against it.

Bear in mind that by virtue of invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, there is cause to hope that even Pagans and Heathens may be saved.

As Lewis illustrated in the last of the Narnia tales, where even a general serving the avowed enemy of Aslan found himself in the newly-restored Kingdom of Narnia. Though he had believed himself in opposition to Aslan, he had served the greatest good he understood, and Aslan counted it unto him as righteousness.

 

[Hrafnkel]

What history? Your ‘heathenism’ has no historical basis at all. A few trinkets found in a few Anglo-Saxon graves, and around this you ‘reconstruct’ a system of religious beliefs. Your ‘religion’ is based on nothing more than a few obscure baubles. Your’s is NOT an ancient religion, it is a modern invention, no different from the ‘New-agers’ who dangle crystals. You may dress up in funny costumes and pretend to be all historical, but you’re no more an ancient religion that the ‘New-age’ crystal danglers.

What exactly are the historical sources for the Anglo-Saxon heathen belief system? Come on then, name them.

I never said it’s perfect, or that my own practices are an exact replication of those of pre-christian England. It’s obviously not a flawless reconstruction, but serious reconstructionists do the best they can with archaeological and literary sources. Some things can be extrapolated from the Eddas and Sagas, but of course they’re not ideal from an Anglo-Saxon viewpoint, being written down in Iceland. Other literature and records from the period can be used to ascertain values, belief systems, and the like. If surmising that sort of thing was as impossible as you suggest, there wouldn’t be archaeologists or historical anthropologists.

I have to ask, though. Why so combative?

 

[Brendan_64]

You mean, apart from the Havamal, the Eddas, the Icelandic Sagas, Greek, Roman, and other sources, and Indo-Aryan Vedicism?

Havamal, the Eddas and the Icelandic Sagas ALL post-date the Anglo-Saxon period. The people your ‘religion’ purports to be the religion of were all dead and buried by the time any of the above was written.

Greek and Roman sources? name me some of these sources. And are you trying to tell me that the ancient Greeks managed to reach North-West Europe? They must also have used a time machine to tarvel forward in time while they were at it.

And Indo-Aryan Vedicism? What on Earth has the predecessors of Indian Hindusim got to do with the Anglo-Saxons? Did the visit North West Europe too?

Most ‘heathens’ are very good at splashing fancy names about to try to convince themselves that their ‘religion’ has some historical basis, but when pushed on these matters tend to have no idea whatsoever what they’re talking about. So go on then ,prove me wrong. Answer the questions posed above.

 

[Hrafnkel]

Havamal, the Eddas and the Icelandic Sagas ALL post-date the Anglo-Saxon period. The people your ‘religion’ purports to be the religion of were all dead and buried by the time any of the above was written.

Greek and Roman sources? name me some of these sources. And are you trying to tell me that the ancient Greeks managed to reach North-West Europe? They must also have used a time machine to tarvel forward in time while they were at it.

And Indo-Aryan Vedicism? What on Earth has the predecessors of Indian Hindusim got to do with the Anglo-Saxons? Did the visit North West Europe too?

Most ‘heathens’ are very good at splashing fancy names about to try to convince themselves that their ‘religion’ has some historical basis, but when pushed on these matters tend to have no idea whatsoever what they’re talking about. So go on then ,prove me wrong. Answer the questions posed above.

I don’t think he necessarily meant greek and roman sources for Germanic reconstructionism (albeit for continental germanic recon, roman sources are of some value), but for those respective forms of paganism. As for Indo-Aryan Vedicism, it relates to proto-Indo-European religion, that being the system that virtually all european paganism evolved from, whether Hellenic, Latin, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic, or Celtic.

And for the record, most of the Old Testament was written down years and years after the parties involved were dead, as well. Particularly all the books of Moses.

Oh and, despite it obviously being a fictional story, Beowulf is pretty valuable for Anglo-Saxon values and customs. Most historians agree it was written down within living memory of Anglo-Saxon practices in England.

 

[Brendan_64]

Oh and, despite it obviously being a fictional story, Beowulf is pretty valuable for Anglo-Saxon values and customs. Most historians agree it was written down within living memory of Anglo-Saxon practices in England.

It’s nothing more than a fictional story. So one fictional story is all you have to create the basis for a ‘religion’. That’s your source is it? So they drank mead in banqueting halls, fought for the warlord who provided them with weapons, believed in dragons, and buried their warlords in barrows. Loads there to support all the spurious stuff that makes up most of the Anglo-Saxon heathen belief system, eh?

Let’s face it, despite what ‘heathens’ say (or would like to think), your belief system is a purely modern invention, no different from any of the other ‘New-age’ belief systems knocking about these days.

 

[Hrafnkel]

It’s nothing more than a fictional story. So one fictional story is all you have to create the basis for a ‘religion’. That’s your source is it? So they drank mead in banqueting halls, fought for the warlord who provided them with weapons, believed in dragons, and buried their warlords in barrows. Loads there to support all the spurious stuff that makes up most of the Anglo-Saxon heathen belief system, eh?

Let’s face it, despite what ‘heathens’ say (or would like to think), your belief system is a purely modern invention, no different from any of the other ‘New-age’ belief systems knocking about these days.

Stories of that sort help exemplify the cultural value and practices of the people who tell them, just like the Epic of Gilgamesh is valuable for understanding the lives of ancient Sumerians, or the Iliad and the Odyssey help us understand the part of the hero-myth in ancient Greek culture. Even as a fictional story, the framework is invaluable for historical insight, even if the core plot points are fictional. I’m not sure where the confusion lies, there?

I am not denying that modern heathenry is modern invention. However, for reconstructionists, it is modern invention that does its best to emulate historical practice as closely as possible. And again I ask, why so hostile? Does the overt aggression really work to your advantage in representing your side of the argument?

 

[flameburns623]

Havamal, the Eddas and the Icelandic Sagas ALL post-date the Anglo-Saxon period. The people your ‘religion’ purports to be the religion of were all dead and buried by the time any of the above was written.

Greek and Roman sources? name me some of these sources. And are you trying to tell me that the ancient Greeks managed to reach North-West Europe? They must also have used a time machine to tarvel forward in time while they were at it.

And Indo-Aryan Vedicism? What on Earth has the predecessors of Indian Hindusim got to do with the Anglo-Saxons? Did the visit North West Europe too?

Most ‘heathens’ are very good at splashing fancy names about to try to convince themselves that their ‘religion’ has some historical basis, but when pushed on these matters tend to have no idea whatsoever what they’re talking about. So go on then ,prove me wrong. Answer the questions posed above.

You might look at things from the perspective of Heathens and Pagans, who blame the necessity for so much reconstructionism on Christians who exploited their political ascendancy by frequent forcing non-Christians to convert at sword’s edge, who relentlessly obliterated most traces of pre-Christian European faith, who co-opted what they could not suppress and made much of it emblematic of demonism.

After 300 years of persecution, one would have thought our Christian forebears would have thought better than to have behaved thus, but as a matter of historical record this did happen at many times in many places. (I suspect Pagans underestimate the compelling case which Christians must have been able to make to have risen from a puny sect to a position of huge influence in 4th-century Rome). Nowadays we recognise more perfectly the principle that faith cannot be forced, and that dialogue and coexistence are desirable ways by which to conduct ourselves.

One hopes you see the value of these things yourself.

 

[Hrafnkel]

You might look at things from the perspective of Heathens and Pagans, who blame the necessity for so much reconstructionism on Christians who exploited their political ascendancy by frequent forcing non-Christians to convert at sword’s edge, who relentlessly obliterated most traces of pre-Christian European faith, who co-opted what they could not suppress and made much of it emblematic of demonism.

After 300 years of persecution, one would have thought our Christian forebears would have thought better than to have behaved thus, but as a matter of historical record this did happen at many times in many places. (I suspect Pagans underestimate the compelling case which Christians must have been able to make to have risen from a puny sect to a position of huge influence in 4th-century Rome). Nowadays we recognise more perfectly the principle that faith cannot be forced, and that dialogue and coexistence are desirable ways by which to conduct ourselves.

One hopes you see the value of these things yourself.

All of that’s worth noting, too. I wasn’t really getting into the whole “it’s the Church’s fault that we have to piece things back together” angle, but frankly, it is in large part true. At the same time, though, what we do have is because of christians. As I recall, Beowulf was recorded by christian monks, for example. Still, historical record shows a great many people being converted at sword point, or even massacred for refusing, and quite a few old pagan holy sites were either destroyed or usurped by the church.

 

[SteveVH]

As to the question asked by the OP, my only respnse is why in the world would a Christian not have qualms about paganism? It seems to go against everything Christian; everything that we believe is true.