Why does Paganism scare Christians?

[ContraMundum]

More than agree...and on the issue, even secular historians with no bias to Christianity have noted how inconsistent it is with actual history in Christianity when saying that there was never extensive history of persecution happening to Christians - especially by pagans.

As it is, the book didn't really say anything different than what has been claimed in other things like Da Vinci code and other things - and sad because it does as so many with focusing solely on the Roman Catholic Church (as opposed to dealing with the actual extent of Christianity ...for we have the specific example of the Coptic Orthodox Church/ Non-Chalcedonian or Oriental Orthodox Churches and Assyrian Church separating from the bulk of Christendom — from what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church — and them ALL having histories of persecution/differing saints and documentation on the matter....one example being the The Assyrian Church in the Mongolian Empire as a MINORITY religion and how often they had persecution..or the persecution/crucifixtion of Christians in Japan which was NOT hidden in Japanese culture in 1597 when the pagan emperor Hideyoshi intensified the persecution of Christians and there was a centuries long isolation from the world).

Anytime someone starts with "The Roman Catholic Church was hiding truth" - it tends to go into conspiracy theory territory....and sadly, that's exactly what Moss did...with Moss maintaining that the Roman Catholic Church and historians have known for centuries that most early Christian martyr stories were exaggerated or invented. there was actually an excellent review on it by RBL, N. Clayton Croy which is quite critical with some justification (and for more, one can see Ephraim Radner’s review at First Things).

As noted in one of the reviews:

​

Dr. Michael Heiser did some good discussion on the work as well:

• The Naked Bible » Review of Candida Moss’s Book, The Myth of Persecution

• Review: The Myth of Persecution (Candida Moss) | Earliest Christianity

• The Myth Of Persecution- 1 | theologyarchaeology

Thanks Bro. It's easy to spot a biased revision these days.

 

[ContraMundum]

That I can see - nonetheless, I can also see MANY times where people on the Church side (unfortunately) offered arguments that weren't worthy of Christ or what the Church said it was to be about ...and that never makes things beneficial if/when that occurs. Just like it is on other faith groups, those dynamics can occur here where a lot of people don't really know how to deal graciously or agree to disagree agreeably.

Yeah, I know. I guess it's to be expected. New Christians often have a long way to go before they can give good account for their Faith, and I would suspect that many of the opponents here are rather shallow in their knowledge and experience as well. It's a good lesson on patience for all I think. On thinking this through, I should try harder.

 

[steve_bakr]

Hoping it blesses you...
It goes both ways, of course - Christians should be careful not to assume things of all pagans simply because of bad experiences in certain settings or time frames
Understandable - although I do think that there can often be some dynamics with false scenarios that can make Modern and Classical Deism seem at odds at times when they aren't. And I'm more than in agreement with you that we should be asking questions/examining things critically. For me, it was never a matter of "Well - if they all cannot be valid - then there's no point in ANY of it and God can't be proven true" since having all systems not be equal isn't the same as addressing the question of whether or not God/a Creator can be proven to be true regardless of a system to explain him. They're two different questions, IMHO. And I'm thankful for others such as Dr. Stephen Meyer who shared on the matter after studying at Cambridgewww.youtube.com/user/DrStephenMeyer"]here[/URL] and here).

Additionally, it seems like wisdom to note that we need to help people see that some things can be partially true–And we shouldn’t have a problem conceding that this or that religion might contain some truth. However, as one person wisely did, we should follow this concession up with, “So?” In other words, he suggests asking, “What follows from that?”. For a good consideration on the matter, here's an excerpt from one read that really helped me process on the matter:

1. People need to be roused from their easy acceptance of flawed assumptions. So when someone says that all religions are the same, you can respond with “Really?...How about that religion that led people to kill
themselves when they saw the Hale-Bop comet? They thought that it was going to take them to heaven. Do you really think that their religion is the same as yours?”

2. Some things can’t be true. Again, if someone asserts that all religions are true, he is making an illogical statement, given the claims of exclusivity by most religions. If a religion is founded on the premise that it is true and others false, there is a fundamental disagreement. But before quoting Jesus: “No one comes to the Father but by me,” you can ask him to explain: “How
do you know that that is true

3. Some things can be partially true. “Someone may tell us, for example,
that Buddhists are right about the reality of a spiritual realm and that we
should be more aware of the unseen universe. We can say, ‘I agree,’ and
then lovingly, not sarcastically, ‘So?’


Central questions of life that we all have:

"
What is 'life'?
"What is the origin of life?"
"How did I get here?"
"Why am I here?"
"What does the future hold for the inhabitants of our world?
"

As Ravi Zacharias noted best (and as said before, he grew up Hindu/exploring Eastern religions before discovering them to be limited in dealing with life's central questions), it's not about whether or not all religions answer questions - it's about finding which religion addresses the most important questions to life and gives the most logical/best way of addressing thing...in the same way that it is not about whether a Ford or a Buick and Honda can drive so much as it's about seeing which one has the most quality/best ability for getting to the destinations we need to go to.

Let My People Think: Ravi Zacharias at Yale University - Part 1 - YouTube
Let My People Think: Ravi Zacharias at Yale - Part 2 - YouTube
Meaning of Life - Ravi Zacharias - YouTube
I think it'd be a safe bet to note that one will NEVER have full understanding on every issue within the universe - and no terms will ever be perfect for all issues. There's always the human element with translating ideas

Regarding religions, we can perhaps speak of the external doctrines or laws of religion and the mystical experience which illuminates the inner nature or experience of religion.

Most religious people approach their religion in terms of the exoteric laws and doctrines. The mystics of different religions don't ignore those laws and doctrines, but they seem to have an inner perspective which, in some cases, transcend the exoteric approach to religion.

Catholicism calls the ultimate goal of our religion the "beatific vision" or what Jesus called "seeing the face of God." Major religions have a similar goal but it may be described using different terminology and images. We might call this goal the Summit of the religious life.

If different religions begin their paths at different points at the base of a mountain, their ways seem far apart from each other, and that is the exoteric approach.But as some people get closer to the summit, the paths become closer together.

The question becomes: Do the major religions all lead to their own Summit, or is there but One Summit? Is the Upanishad correct when it says: "There is One Truth, and the wise know it by many names"? Or is it simply that every religion leads to hell but one?

Reza Shah-Kazema posed the question about the Summit in her comparative study of three of the greatest religious thinkers and mystics in history in her book, Paths to Transcendence. The author compared the spiritual thought of Shankara (Vedantist), Ibn Arabi (Sufi-Muslim) and Meister Eckhart (Christian).

The study was quite in depth, being a doctoral dissertation published as a book, and the conclusion was that all three mystics were describing--after taking into account differences in terminology--the same fundamental principles and the same experience.

 

[LoAmmi]

Kind of missing the point, and probably because I didn't stress it enough. Christian history is not about the Jews. In the big picture, it's not really much of a point. Jews tend to think everything in history should be judged on how we were treated. This much I learned early in life, and I'm sure you've been taught that too. University changed all that for me. One week or so I decided to just compare the history of the African-Americans to that of the Jews. I remember telling my mother that I thought the blacks had it much worse than us, and she of course had never even entertained the thought that anyone was worse off than the Jews.

You would be mistaken about me. However, when one looks at European history, the majority of it does not have black people in it. At least not in any great numbers. The thing is one must see the warts and all aspect of it all. I think the Church has overall been very good... for Christians. For others, it's been somewhat good to very bad depending on the period of time. It isn't just Jews either.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The issue is whether or not those incidents a) represent Christian theology, b) represent the norm for Christian praxis and/or c) are the majority of practice in the history of the Church. On this forum, the most possible negative spin is the one taken as magisterial. This to me is dishonest, but it is the normal response found in anti-Christian blogs etc. So to me if it looks like a duck etc...

Indeed - and I do think on that dynamic that there needs to be better if one is really going to have any issue with Christians. For it's no different than seeing gang members who happen to be Black or Hispanic - AND then claiming (like with Trayvon Martin's scenario) that all Blacks/Hispanics with hoodies on must be gangsters/evil and then code-switching with the camp the accuser comes from and saying "Well, when I wear a hoodie, it's not done with evil intent" (if it happens to be Caucasians).

As it is, Paganism today isn't even in the same category of how Paganism was in antiquity.

One can discuss the Druids are like, they were members of the priestly class of the Celts about 2000 years ago.. Druidism is a nature based religion that has many elements in common with New Age and Wicca, but with a focus on ancestry and nature. The Druids also practiced cannibalism/human sacrifice on massive scale—and Roman accounts repeatedly note Druidic savagery. Julius Caesar, who led the first Roman landing in 55 B.C., said the native Celts "believe that the gods delight in the slaughter of prisoners and criminals, and when the supply of captives runs short, they sacrifice even the innocent." And first-century historian Pliny the Elder went further, suggesting the Celts practiced ritual cannibalism, eating their enemies' flesh as a source of spiritual and physical strength.

But somehow, that's avoided....

Whenever Pagans claim "Pagans have always been Peaceful and Christians always bad!!!" because of others claiming Christ/doing bad thing - it never goes both ways when addressing Pagans who did the same extensively with harming others (Vikings, Celts inIreland, Iroquoi Indians, the Aztecs in their human sacrifices where thousands were killed daily and militarism occurred to gain more people to sacrifice, etc) for centuries - but only if/when people claiming Christ from a power of dominance harm is it a matter of "That's all Christians do!!"....and it sadly ignores where many Pagans already noted "It was never the case that all claiming Christ (or the majority) were harming others just like it wasn't the case that all pagans were warlike and we can be respectful."

And even they note that one has to deal with what Christ said rather than what was done in His name - Christ also noted that not everyone saying to Him "Lord Lord" was of Him (Matthew 7) and he noted the issue in Matthew 25 how there were both believers and false converts (wheats and tares - Matthew 13)....so from the jump, it was known by early believers that not all claiming Christ were automatically able to represent Him - be it in the political sense or any other sphere.....just as it was with Israel when there was both Israel faithful to the Lord and apostate Israel.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yeah, I know. I guess it's to be expected. New Christians often have a long way to go before they can give good account for their Faith, and I would suspect that many of the opponents here are rather shallow in their knowledge and experience as well. It's a good lesson on patience for all I think. On thinking this through, I should try harder.

Good thoughts - it is a growing process for a lot of people......

 

[ContraMundum]

You would be mistaken about me. However, when one looks at European history, the majority of it does not have black people in it. At least not in any great numbers. The thing is one must see the warts and all aspect of it all. I think the Church has overall been very good... for Christians. For others, it's been somewhat good to very bad depending on the period of time. It isn't just Jews either.

I see your point, but think about it this way using your own analogy: Judaism is good...for Jews, but very bad for Christian and Muslim Palestinians. Would such an equivocation be fair to Judaism? Most devout Jews (not the extremists) would say "not fair", and argue that Judaism as a religion should be distanced from the secular tendencies of Zionist Jews, who although Jews are not really being very Jewish.

You could use that argumentation for any religion and get a similar response I think.

 

[ContraMundum]

Indeed - and I do think on that dynamic that there needs to be better if one is really going to have any issue with Christians. For it's no different than seeing gang members who happen to be Black or Hispanic - AND then claiming (like with Trayvon Martin's scenario) that all Blacks/Hispanics with hoodies on must be gangsters/evil and then code-switching with the camp the accuser comes from and saying "Well, when I wear a hoodie, it's not done with evil intent" (if it happens to be Caucasians).

As it is, Paganism today isn't even in the same category of how Paganism was in antiquity.

One can discuss the Druids are like, they were members of the priestly class of the Celts about 2000 years ago.. Druidism is a nature based religion that has many elements in common with New Age and Wicca, but with a focus on ancestry and nature. The Druids also practiced cannibalism/human sacrifice on massive scale—and Roman accounts repeatedly note Druidic savagery. Julius Caesar, who led the first Roman landing in 55 B.C., said the native Celts "believe that the gods delight in the slaughter of prisoners and criminals, and when the supply of captives runs short, they sacrifice even the innocent." And first-century historian Pliny the Elder went further, suggesting the Celts practiced ritual cannibalism, eating their enemies' flesh as a source of spiritual and physical strength.

But somehow, that's avoided....

Whenever Pagans claim "Pagans have always been Peaceful and Christians always bad!!!" because of others claiming Christ/doing bad thing - it never goes both ways when addressing Pagans who did the same extensively with harming others (Vikings, Celts inIreland, Iroquoi Indians, the Aztecs in their human sacrifices where thousands were killed daily and militarism occurred to gain more people to sacrifice, etc) for centuries - but only if/when people claiming Christ from a power of dominance harm is it a matter of "That's all Christians do!!"....and it sadly ignores where many Pagans already noted "It was never the case that all claiming Christ (or the majority) were harming others just like it wasn't the case that all pagans were warlike and we can be respectful."

And even they note that one has to deal with what Christ said rather than what was done in His name - Christ also noted that not everyone saying to Him "Lord Lord" was of Him (Matthew 7) and he noted the issue in Matthew 25 how there were both believers and false converts (wheats and tares - Matthew 13)....so from the jump, it was known by early believers that not all claiming Christ were automatically able to represent Him - be it in the political sense or any other sphere.....just as it was with Israel when there was both Israel faithful to the Lord and apostate Israel.

Very good points. The old problem of "different weights and measures", which we are told HaShem detests.

 

[LoAmmi]

I see your point, but think about it this way using your own analogy: Judaism is good...for Jews, but very bad for Christian and Muslim Palestinians. Would such an equivocation be fair to Judaism? Most devout Jews (not the extremists) would say "not fair", and argue that Judaism as a religion should be distanced from the secular tendencies of Zionist Jews, who although Jews are really being very Jewish.

Perhaps. Although I think Israel and those making decisions over there are a lot more secular than, say, the Pope who specifically used Christianity and the New Testament to pass policies against non-Christians.

 

[ContraMundum]

Perhaps. Although I think Israel and those making decisions over there are a lot more secular than, say, the Pope who specifically used Christianity and the New Testament to pass policies against non-Christians.

Maybe, maybe not. There's plenty of Jews in history (one link is enough) and in modern Israel (eg. Rav Kahane) using the Torah to justify the less-than-kosher practices of the State.

 

[LoAmmi]

Maybe, maybe not. There's plenty of Jews in history (one link is enough) and in modern Israel (eg. Rav Kahane) using the Torah to justify the less-than-kosher practices of the State.

It's a fair point. I think the problem with European history is the fact that when the minorities were hurt it was obviously the majority that did it and the majority were Christian. That is not to say, of course, that Christianity is innocent of inspiring some to these actions. I do fully believe some parts of the New Testament incite people, especially those who can't read and are not corrected of their ideas.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Any historian that essentially narrates the story of Christianity as a constant struggle towards social progress, common welfare and modern liberal values is NOT an unbiased scholar.

Of course it looks excessively negative if somebody then contrasts this point of view by emphasizing all the bad stuff that happened, because it tends to look as if this point of view is just as lopsided, only leaning in the other direction.
Christians built hospitals - and butchered "heathen" children.
Christians were persecuted - and wiped out paganism by destroying sacred sites and writings, becoming persecuters in turn.
Christians kept slaves - and argued against slavery.
Christians defended the monarchy - and campaigned for an egalitarian assembly of believers.
Christians sorted the world into "races" by naming the larger groups after the sons of Noah (that's where the term "Semites" come from) - and denied the existence of separate human races.
Christianity preserved ancient writings - and actively destroyed them as well.


In short: it's a HUGE mixed bag, and to insist that it's all peachy-keen, with all the bad stuff only being perpetrated by No True Christians, is fundamentally dishonest.

 

[Huntun]

Who would say that pagans were always good? That label covers so many different people that there are bound to be "pagan" individuals and cultures acting up so to speak. Paganism and Christianity are apples and oranges. Pagan is such a broad term that covers thousands of religions and Christianity is one specific religion. The vast majority of these people wouldn't even have called themselves "pagan" and didn't consider that to be the name of their religion (if they even had a specific name for it).

 

[ContraMundum]

Any historian that essentially narrates the story of Christianity as a constant struggle towards social progress, common welfare and modern liberal values is NOT an unbiased scholar.

Never seen a historian do that, so it's really moot point as far as I can tell.

Of course it looks excessively negative if somebody then contrasts this point of view by emphasizing all the bad stuff that happened, because it tends to look as if this point of view is just as lopsided, only leaning in the other direction.
Christians built hospitals - and butchered "heathen" children.
Christians were persecuted - and wiped out paganism by destroying sacred sites and writings, becoming persecuters in turn.
Christians kept slaves - and argued against slavery.
Christians defended the monarchy - and campaigned for an egalitarian assembly of believers.
Christians sorted the world into "races" by naming the larger groups after the sons of Noah (that's where the term "Semites" come from) - and denied the existence of separate human races.
Christianity preserved ancient writings - and actively destroyed them as well.

Could it be that you are vindicating what I said? See Christianity as a social-civil political force and everything that happens can be laid at the feet of the religion? I think that's fundamentally dishonest.

Look at all the negatives in your bullet-points. Can you find them taught in the NT? If not, then are you looking at Christianity, or something that NT Christianity warns against- sin and hypocrisy masquerading as religion?

Regarding slavery especially, while it is true that the Church took a while in some countries to speak against it, it is also true that the death blow to slavery in Europe was the impulse of Christians against it. Also, the NT has some teachings that helped turn the tide against the cruel version of slavery that was occuring in Europe and the Americas (read Philemon)

In short: it's a HUGE mixed bag, and to insist that it's all peachy-keen, with all the bad stuff only being perpetrated by No True Christians, is fundamentally dishonest.

I think that's kind of a cop out argument- and I'm not trying to cause offence but to instigate discussion on it. I know it's very common to play the "no true scotsman" card by Christians (Muslims, Hindus, Pagans whoever) but the NT does describe what a true Christian looks like- and it doesn't have much to do with dogma. It is about character, faith hope and charity and the other fruits of the Spirit. So, if a person, Christian or otherwise falls short, then they are not on the right path (of course one may repent- like John Newton did) and if they show no desire to repent etc...then I think their faith can be called into question.

That doesn't mean there were periods of ignorance of the teachings of the NT. There were. Perhaps people were led by the ignorant (also warned about in the NT) and knowledge of the Word was sparse. I think that is true in many cases. For this situation, I don't have any other explanation other than where the Word is not, there is always darkness in doctrine and practice.

Cutting to the chase- if one reads the whole NT in context one would be hard pressed to find excuse for killing, stealing, cruel theft and trafficking of humans for slavery, racism etc. For this reason I think indicting Christianity for sins commonly found in every place and time under every known religion in the world pretty futile. It's just not using equal measures.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Very good points. The old problem of "different weights and measures", which we are told HaShem detests.

Yeah - and truth is truth.

 

[Zoness]

I'm curious to see the implications in relation to gay marriage. The reality is that its going to become legal all of the US eventually so how will churches handle it? Some I imagine will say they have always been in favor it and I know for a fact many are but what will happen with conservative churches? Either some will whitewash and say they've always been in favor of it but I imagine many will be strongly against it.

That's the next big issue that historically Christianity will be contending with, imo.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Fifty years from now, Christians will look back at the issue and point to all the liberal theologians who have been supportive of same-sex relationships all along, and they'll say that their exegesis of the Scriptures has always been the most reflective of the true New Testament spirit.
Then they'll claim that Christianity was the force that brought the change about - another glorious victory!

That's how it has always worked, in relation to just about any social issue.

 

[Lollerskates]

I'm curious to see the implications in relation to gay marriage. The reality is that its going to become legal all of the US eventually so how will churches handle it? Some I imagine will say they have always been in favor it and I know for a fact many are but what will happen with conservative churches? Either some will whitewash and say they've always been in favor of it but I imagine many will be strongly against it.

That's the next big issue that historically Christianity will be contending with, imo.

If there is no separation of church and state in law, there should be in mind. If murder was legal for twelve hours one day out of the year, and it was an accepted State norm (The Purge,) even looked at as good, a person whose respective religion forbids murder should not murder. If homosexuality is a sin biblically, then no matter what the State says ones respective religion forbids it then s/he should not participate.

But, it doesn't stop there. If, for example, any degree of lying, cheating, adultery, reviling, anger issues, disrespect, premarital sex, divorce other than sdultery, using a Holy name in vain, jealousy, etc. is religiously forbidden, then every one of those show have equal attention paid to them. The temperature of the "fire in hell" is the same for a liar, murderer and sexual offender in the bible. Oh, and hypocrisy also.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm curious to see the implications in relation to gay marriage. The reality is that its going to become legal all of the US eventually so how will churches handle it? Some I imagine will say they have always been in favor it and I know for a fact many are but what will happen with conservative churches? Either some will whitewash and say they've always been in favor of it but I imagine many will be strongly against it.

That's the next big issue that historically Christianity will be contending with, imo.

We actually have more issues with the food supply in the U.S being tampered with - as well as the rise of the police state

 

[Zoness]

We actually have more issues with the food supply in the U.S being tampered with - as well as the rise of the police state

I absolutely agree but I talk about the rise of the police state on hacker forums more than here, different subjects for different audiences. Besides, where are Christians on the rise of the police state or the food supply? That's not something limited to Christians or Christianity.

Gay marriage appears to be the big moral issue of Christianity right now; I think I made a fair estimation of what will happen.