Why do many Christians have qualms about Paganism?

[Brendan_64]

However, for reconstructionists, it is modern invention that does its best to emulate historical practice as closely as possible.

How can you emulate historical practice as close as possible when you have absolutely no idea what that historical practice was?

Typically modern ‘heathens’ look briefly at what we know about the lives of Anglo-Saxons (which in the main consists of a few items found in graves) and then extrapolate to create what they think those people** might** have believed. They then continue with this process and use build more and more stuff onto it (stuff that there is absolutely no evidence for whatsoever).

Then they go back and interpret the orginal sparce historical evidence in the light of all the additional spurious information they themselves have invented.

I once had a heathen argue with me that Anglo-Saxon pagans and Romano-British Christians did not assimilate and inter-breed to create the spread of Anglo-Saxon culture in Britain in the 5th century.

His argument that the indigenous British population died off at a time of mass influx of a Germanic people, was made on the basis that the religious beliefs of pagan Anglo-Saxons would not have permitted inter-breeding and assimilation of non-Germanics into Anglo-Saxon society. He argured that despite the fact that DNA evidence suggests that than Anglicisation of Britain at that time was as a result of a spread of a culture, not the spread of a people, resulting in no big change to the overall genetic makeup of the people living in Britain from before and after the ‘migration’. He refused to accept this evidence on the basis that the Anglo-Saxons were a ‘folkish’ people whose religion and culture kept them as a strong, separate people.

And what evidence does he have for this view? Nothing, other than that is the extrapolated interpretation modern Anglo-Saxon heathens have created, based on nothing more than a few trinkets found in a few graves. They impose their modern view of what they would **like **to think 5th-6th century Anglo-Saxons believed on these earler people in order to use it as a basis for what modern heathens believe. Completely circular logic.

And again I ask, why so hostile?

Why?

1 Corinthians 10:20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.

1 Corinthians 10:14 ESV Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.

Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

 

[Hrafnkel]

How can you emulate historical practice as close as possible when you have absolutely no idea what that historical practice was?

Typically modern ‘heathens’ look briefly at what we know about the lives of Anglo-Saxons (which in the main consists of a few items found in graves) and then extrapolate to create what they think those people** might** have believed. They then continue with this process and use build more and more stuff onto it (stuff that there is absolutely no evidence for whatsoever).

Then they go back and interpret the orginal sparce historical evidence in the light of all the additional spurious information they themselves have invented.

I once had a heathen argue with me that Anglo-Saxon pagans and Romano-British Christians did not assimilate and inter-breed to create the spread of Anglo-Saxon culture in Britain in the 5th century.

His argument that the indigenous British population died off at a time of mass influx of a Germanic people, was made on the basis that the religious beliefs of pagan Anglo-Saxons would not have permitted inter-breeding and assimilation of non-Germanics into Anglo-Saxon society. He argured that despite the fact that DNA evidence suggests that than Anglicisation of Britain at that time was as a result of a spread of a culture, not the spread of a people, resulting in no big change to the overall genetic makeup of the people living in Britain from before and after the ‘migration’. He refused to accept this evidence on the basis that the Anglo-Saxons were a ‘folkish’ people whose religion and culture kept them as a strong, separate people.

And what evidence does he have for this view? Nothing, other than that is the extrapolated interpretation modern Anglo-Saxon heathens have created, based on nothing more than a few trinkets found in a few graves. They impose their modern view of what they would **like **to think 5th-6th century Anglo-Saxons believed on these earler people in order to use it as a basis for what modern heathens believe. Completely circular logic.

Just because you’ve chosen to completely disregard every source that’s been listed besides “trinkets in graves” doesn’t mean they don’t exist, it just means you’re choosing not to read any response that’s been posted. Despite fragmentation, there is evidence, and it’s simply ignorant to deny it. Your argument can literally be extrapolated to the point of saying archaeology and anthropology are useless sciences that garner no knowledge whatsoever.

And as to the entire rest of your argument, I shouldn’t even acknowledge something to the tune of “I know a guy who said _____ ergo anyone who follows the same religion as him is full of it.” Do you think there aren’t catholics who misrepresent their faith? The man you knew was obviously wrong. There is extensive evidence of intermarriage between the Germanic Anglo-Saxons and the Celtic Britons, and he obviously ignored it the same as you’re ignoring literary sources. Regardless, the fact that one person you knew held that belief does not mean that all, or even most, AS Reconstructionists believe it. No more than all Christians believe full immersion baptism is necessary for salvation, or anything like that.

Why?

1 Corinthians 10:20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.

1 Corinthians 10:14 ESV Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.

Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

I may be wrong, but doesn’t Vatican II establish some sort of guidelines for how to be respectful of people of other faiths? Only the last of those verses necessarily serves your purpose, since this is technically inter-faith dialogue. A warning to the church not to ‘partner with demons’ or permit ‘worship of idols’ among their own holds no ground here. Find a few verses where Paul says “belittle those who believe contrary to you, and make false claims about their faith,” and you might have a leg to stand on. I’m trying pretty hard to be respectful here. You could at least return that courtesy.

 

[flameburns623]

Just because you’ve chosen to completely disregard every source that’s been listed besides “trinkets in graves” doesn’t mean they don’t exist, it just means you’re choosing not to read any response that’s been posted. Despite fragmentation, there is evidence, and it’s simply ignorant to deny it. Your argument can literally be extrapolated to the point of saying archaeology and anthropology are useless sciences that garner no knowledge whatsoever.

And as to the entire rest of your argument, I shouldn’t even acknowledge something to the tune of “I know a guy who said _____ ergo anyone who follows the same religion as him is full of it.” Do you think there aren’t catholics who misrepresent their faith? The man you knew was obviously wrong. There is extensive evidence of intermarriage between the Germanic Anglo-Saxons and the Celtic Britons, and he obviously ignored it the same as you’re ignoring literary sources. Regardless, the fact that one person you knew held that belief does not mean that all, or even most, AS Reconstructionists believe it. No more than all Christians believe full immersion baptism is necessary for salvation, or anything like that.

I may be wrong, but doesn’t Vatican II establish some sort of guidelines for how to be respectful of people of other faiths? Only the last of those verses necessarily serves your purpose, since this is technically inter-faith dialogue. A warning to the church not to ‘partner with demons’ or permit ‘worship of idols’ among their own holds no ground here.:t Find a few verses where Paul says “belittle those who believe contrary to you, and make false claims about their faith,” and you might have a leg to stand on. I’m trying pretty hard to be rul here. You could at least return that courtesy.

 

[Brendan_64]

Your argument can literally be extrapolated to the point of saying archaeology and anthropology are useless sciences that garner no knowledge whatsoever.

And you reckon archaeology can tell you what people were thinking 1500 years ago? I suppose the archaeologists must meditate on the items they find and that gives them evidence of what the previous owner of the items was thinking.

I may be wrong, but doesn’t Vatican II establish some sort of guidelines for how to be respectful of people of other faiths?

Quote the relevant part to me then, I’d much appreciate that. Perhaps you should go on the Vatican website and search on there.

Only the last of those verses necessarily serves your purpose, since this is technically inter-faith dialogue. A warning to the church not to ‘partner with demons’ or permit ‘worship of idols’ among their own holds no ground here. Find a few verses where Paul says “belittle those who believe contrary to you, and make false claims about their faith,” and you might have a leg to stand on. I’m trying pretty hard to be respectful here. You could at least return that courtesy.

If by respectful you mean I ought to say something like, “I respect your false beliefs and your worship of idols” or say something like, “All paths lead to the same goal” then you’ll be waiting a very long time before I say that.

But anyway, one thing that does puzzle me about heathenry and asatru is why you put such faith in impotent deities? If your ‘gods’ couldn’t protect their people when their people were at the height of their power, how can you trust them to protect you? Despite all the pretty heroic myths and legends, your ‘gods’ proved to be pretty weak when push came to shove.

 

[Hrafnkel]

And you reckon archaeology can tell you what people were thinking 1500 years ago? I suppose the archaeologists must meditate on the items they find and that gives them evidence of what the previous owner of the items was thinking.

Again, that’s where literary sources come in. But again, you’re ignoring that, just as you so blatantly ignored ‘anthropology’ in my post. If this is how you’re going to continue to reply, I’m not going to continue the discussion.

Quote the relevant part to me then, I’d much appreciate that. Perhaps you should go on the Vatican website and search on there.
If by respectful you mean I ought to say something like, “I respect your false beliefs and your worship of idols” or say something like, “All paths lead to the same goal” then you’ll be waiting a very long time before I say that.

I didn’t ask you to say either of those things, but since you insisted, I did go on the Vatican’s website, and I did find something, from the “Nostra Aetate” document that came out of the second Vatican Council (which I imagine you will summarily ignore). Here’s a relevant excerpt, with my own emphasis added so you might get the point.

“The Church, therefore, urges its sons and daughters to enter with *prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. *Let Christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-Christians, together with their social life and culture.”

But anyway, one thing that does puzzle me about heathenry and asatru is why you put such faith in impotent deities? If your ‘gods’ couldn’t protect their people when their people were at the height of their power, how can you trust them to protect you? Despite all the pretty heroic myths and legends, your ‘gods’ proved to be pretty weak when push came to shove.

Firstly, I don’t have an blind, absolute reliance upon the gods. Do I honor them? Yes. Do I respect them? Yes. Do I approach them with certain matters? Occasionally. Do I seek absolute divine guardianship? No. And even if I did, they’d be no more obligated to give it than your god is obligated to fulfill every prayer.

Following your line of reasoning, couldn’t one just as easily argue that the christian God has proven himself weak in the ongoing struggle against abortion? Or in stopping Christians from being persecuted in ancient Rome? That line of argument is pure fallacy at best, and offensive at worst. If you can’t witness without resorting to outright attacks on my faith, perhaps you shouldn’t witness at all, because you’re not leaving a very pleasant taste in my mouth with regard to Catholics and their behavior.

Since you’ve proven that civility is completely beyond your grasp, though, I’m going to withdraw from this. Not because I feel your point is made, but because I don’t feel that you can act like an adult. So don’t consider my withdrawal some kind of ‘victory.’

 

[Brendan_64]

Again, that’s where literary sources come in. But again, you’re ignoring that, just as you so blatantly ignored ‘anthropology’ in my post. If this is how you’re going to continue to reply, I’m not going to continue the discussion.

And what literary sources exist for 5th-6th century Anglo-Saxons? And don’t quote Havamal, the Eddas, and the like since they all post-date the last pagan Anglo-Saxon by many hundreds of years

Here’s a relevant excerpt, with my own emphasis added so you might get the point.

“The Church, therefore, urges its sons and daughters to enter with *prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. *Let Christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-Christians, together with their social life and culture.”

And here I am discussing with you. I’m not obliged to agree with you. Nor do I think that the worshipping of false gods counts as spiritual and moral truths.

Following your line of reasoning, couldn’t one just as easily argue that the christian God has proven himself weak in the ongoing struggle against abortion? Or in stopping Christians from being persecuted in ancient Rome?

Yes Christians were persecuted in Rome, but the Church like a rock stood firm, and the persecutions only served to make us stronger, and not only did we thrive, but within 300 years Christianity became the official religion across the entire Roman empire, with the city of Rome as our base (as it has been for nearly 1700 years now). I’d say that we definitely won that war, wouldn’t you? Hardly the result of a weak god?

Since you’ve proven that civility is completely beyond your grasp, though, I’m going to withdraw from this. Not because I feel your point is made, but because I don’t feel that you can act like an adult. So don’t consider my withdrawal some kind of ‘victory.’

That’s your choice. You heathens really are sensitive sorts.

God bless

 

[The_Wanderer]

Certain schools of neo-paganism (i.e. Odinism) are extremely hostile to Christianity or have fringe beliefs such as “The Burning Times.”

 

[Hrafnkel]

And what literary sources exist for 5th-6th century Anglo-Saxons? And don’t quote Havamal, the Eddas, and the like since they all post-date the last pagan Anglo-Saxon by many hundreds of years

Bede is a good source for some practices. Beowulf is a good source for anyone smart enough to see it as more than just fictional plot points, and make observations of the framework (and plenty of Catholics over the years have seen as much, Tolkien was a tremendous fan of its insights into ancient culture). Pan-germanic practices that align with archaeological evidence in Britain are helpful. If something is known about Scandinavian or continental germanic paganism, and the same things line up in England, you can extrapolate from that (such as sacrifices, burial practices and things of that nature). The pre-eminence of Woden and Tiw are documented and essentially confirmed.

And here I am discussing with you. I’m not obliged to agree with you. Nor do I think that the worshipping of false gods counts as spiritual and moral truths.

Quite frankly, you aren’t ‘discussing’ ****. You’re not obliged to agree with me, I don’t even expect you to, but discussion entails more than “You are a sinful idolater and there is nothing else to be said of you or your beliefs.” If the Papacy can admit there are spiritual and moral truths to be found in Hinduism, as the Nostra Aetate asserts, then the same can be said of other religions that worship ‘false gods.’ Unless you’re about to declare Shiva as a legitimate representation of the One God of Catholicism. The other alternative is that you don’t care what the Papacy stated at Vatican II.

Yes Christians were persecuted in Rome, but the Church like a rock stood firm, and the persecutions only served to make us stronger, and not only did we thrive, but within 300 years Christianity became the official religion across the entire Roman empire, with the city of Rome as our base (as it has been for nearly 1700 years now). I’d say that we definitely won that war, wouldn’t you? Hardly the result of a weak god?

You have Constantine to thank for that, as much as anything.

God bless

The irony of you saying “God bless” after spending half this thread spitting on and mocking my beliefs is not lost on me, believe me; it’s why I’m bothering with one more post. I’m pretty effectively convinced there’s no discernible difference between a practicing catholic and a practicing evangelical, despite the supposed structure the Church imposes. I don’t want the blessing of any God that you follow, friend.

 

[Darryl1958]

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?

Paganism was a dead religion. Now, the Harry Potter connection seems particularly apt to any of its modern practitioners. There does seem to be that element of fiction and fantasy about it for sure.

In comparison, the fantasy factor seems to be less present in the practices and beliefs of other major non-Christian religions.

 

[Brendan_64]

You have Constantine to thank for that, as much as anything.

Indeed we do. A Roman Emperor and a Christian, converted because of the power of the one true God and the example of His Church on Earth. Constantine was one of us.

Maybe if the pagan Germanic types had painted Chi-Rhos on their shields they too may have seen the light and survived?

 

[Hrafnkel]

Indeed we do. A Roman Emperor and a Christian, converted because of the power of the one true God and the example of His Church on Earth. Constantine was one of us.

Maybe if the pagan Germanic types had painted Chi-Rhos on their shields they too may have seen the light and survived?

I’d say pretty much all of my above points are proven.

 

[Brendan_64]

Well it did work for Constantine, so I can’t see why it wouldn’t have worked for early Germanic types as well. The result certainly had a life-changing impact on Constantine resulting in the establishment of Christianity all over the Roman Empire. A pretty good result for Christianity there.

If fact it was after the Anglo-Saxon conversion to Christianity that the previously pagan Anglo-Saxon people thrived. The same applies to the Normans and other germanic peoples. A testament to the power of the one true God, I’d say.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I take great exception to your comments. The Church is not disgraced in any way. Individual members (clergy and laity) may disgrace *themselves * not the Church.

Have you ever been in a profession, even for just a few months, where your success was dependent on the amount of influence you exerted over your audience?

If you did or at least know a few who do (like the apologists of CAF and EWTN), you will know how influence IS impacted by image.

That image in turn is affected by the ACTIONS of the people who are affiliated with it, who advocate its cause, preach its beliefs etc, etc.

So as far as that image is concerned, the Church is disgraced. Don’t downplay the importance of how we appear in the eyes of the world. The image we have created is something to live up to. And seeing as many of our religious leaders have not always lived up to that image, we shouldn’t be so quick to convert others or claim to be on a moral/spiritual highroad (no matter how theologically correct we may be).

We are certainly in a position to testify to the Truth and speak against evils.

Not when we ourselves have yet to recover from the evils committed in the name of our religion.

But don’t dare dismiss those whose focuses are on fighting against other forms of evils including occult practices. Evil is evil.

I don’t contest that but that’s the thing. People think pagans are more of a threat than wacko imams preaching children to wear bomb jackets when they come of age.

 

[Eilrahc]

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?

I’m guessing it’s because Pagans during ancient times fed Christians to the lions.

 

[Hrafnkel]

I’m guessing it’s because Pagans during ancient times fed Christians to the lions.

And Christians in less-ancient times put pagans to the sword. And have engaged in varying degrees of anti-semitism, racial cleansing, and the like, depending on how loosely you define ‘christian.’ Is it really relevant to modern pagan movements that ancient Roman pagans fed christians to lions?

 

[flameburns623]

And Christians in less-ancient times put pagans to the sword. And have engaged in varying degrees of anti-semitism, racial cleansing, and the like, depending on how loosely you define ‘christian.’ Is it really relevant to modern pagan movements that ancient Roman pagans fed christians to lions?

Prior to the Christian era, purely religious wars were rare and religious practices tended to be syncretistic more often than virulently antagonistic.

One notable exception was in the area we know now as Palestine, among the Israelite monoththeists. THOSE people engaged, regularly, in wars of brutality and extermination exclusively on account of their God and their monotheistic religion. Even when defeated in war, these monotheists behaved as fanatics, often waging guerrilla war and engaging in terror tactics.

It is not surprising that several successive imperial powers, having conquored Palestine, saw in monotheism a political menace. When Christianity, more than Judaism had ever done, began to proselytise formerly Pagan peoples, it was only a matter of time until the Romans saw this in a negative light and employed State power to prevent the spread of such fanaticism.

I think it is important that we Christians an monotheists really own up to the fact that we have been the intolerant ones, often the brutally intolerant ones, more often than have the polytheists and pagans. We think we have learned from history that such behavior is fundamentally evil, that dialogue and reason are more in character with the nature of Christ in winning souls unto His gospel. We should bear this in mind when reasoning with non-Christians who happen to visit us here at Catholic Answers.

 

[SteveVH]

I think it is important that we Christians an monotheists really own up to the fact that we have been the intolerant ones, often the brutally intolerant ones, more often than have the polytheists and pagans.

Really? Have you ever heard of Nero, Diocletian, Galerius or Genghis Khan?

 

[flameburns623]

Really? Have you ever heard of Nero, Diocletian, Galerius Genghis Khan?

Did you read my whole post?

Think of this: “Go into the land and slaughter all you find, the men and the women, the children, and even their livestock”.

“Happy are they who dash your little ones against the rocks”.

Etcetera.

The Roman emperors you names executed Christians feeling them to be political enemies of the State. To some degree, this seems wrong-headed from our perspective–but Christians WERE refusing to do homage to the rulers, and evidence suggests that some Christians (usually gnostics from our surviving records, but I underscore SURVIVING records) were lewd or unruly.

Whether or not good Christians were sometimes badly behaved is hard to say, though even the New Testament seems to imply that Christians sometimes got out of hand. “If you suffer as an evil-doer . . . .” We don’t even have many records of the arguments made by Pagan philosophers and logicians, except as such survive as rebuttals by Christians. Which suggests that much of the unfavorable historical records have vanished, often perhaps by design. To what degree Christians brought our troubles in the Roman Empire upon ourselves is hard to tell–but it is odd that Christians suffered waves of persecution for centuries in a culture otherwise noted as an epitome of religious tolerance.

Khan, as I best recollect, was a Moslem, a fellow-monotheist. Or was that Kublai Khan? Anyhow, Ghengis was pretty bloodthirsty to his opponents without respect of their religious affiliation. He was a plunderer, not someone specifically bent on persecution of Christians.

 

[SteveVH]

Did you read my whole post?

Yes, and it was the comment: “I think it is important that we Christians an monotheists really own up to the fact that we have been the intolerant ones, often the brutally intolerant ones, more often than have the polytheists and pagans” that stuck in my craw. It just isn’t true.

It is a pet peave of mine. How often do you hear that “religion is the cause of war” or some such similar comment. We cannot ignore the atheists in this discussion. Why don’t we consider Stalin, Hitler and Mao in this equation. They murdered millions upon millions of people. So no, I will not “own up to the fact that we have been the intolerant ones…”.

Please don’t get me wrong here. There have no doubt been abuses by members of the Church. But it is nowhere near the scale of non-Christian abuses.

 

[rursus]

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?

Good question. I cannot answer for myself because I think the Harry Potter magic saga is harmless: magic in the Harry Potter sense doesn’t work, it doesn’t even exist. But I believe this opinion is not the case for many Christians that interpret the New Testament stories about evil spirits at least somewhat literally, instead the Harry Potter saga might evoke a feeling of being real, teaching unsound doctrines. Personally I believe real “magic” is various illusions (similar to the professional illusionist “magicians”) combined with unsound psychological manipulations, and that the psychological manipulations is the really dangerous part – in my humble opinion, there is no such unsound psychological manipulation in Harry Potter, Harry Potter is just a saga.