Anyway there is a defensive nature that traditional Christians can have. Basically many of my fellow conservative believers are afraid to achnowedge that there might be something positive about another religion; because in doing so it would negative the exclusivity of Christianity. (As if were playing a zero sum game).
Do these fellow conservative believers not know the long history of doing exactly the opposite, and that this thereby established that behavior -- and not 'zero sum game defensiveness' -- as the more conservative position? I'm thinking here, of course, of things like the "Seeds of the Word" found in St. Justin Martyr (2nd Century AD), the treatise on the use of pagan literature by properly disposed Christians by St. Basil (4th century AD), etc.
Particularly in Egypt -- which I imagine may resonate with you given your ecclesiastical journey -- the earlier generations of ethnically Coptic believers would have all come from pagan backgrounds, or at any rate received classical (Greek/Hellenistic/Pagan) educations. Heck, the Catechetical School at Alexandria was modeled after the preexisting Mouseion of that same city, which was established by the thoroughly Pagan Ptolemies.
Meh.
Anyway, OP:
I am 'lucky' in a way that even though I have never officially belonged to any other religion, I have been exposed to a lot of them. My mother was friends with the matriarch of one of our little town's only Jewish families, so they invited us to their Passover, and also let us cut down a tree from their land (they lived out in the woods) every year to be used as a Christmas tree. Very nice folks, these Jews. I never thought about conversion to their religion, however, and as you probably know, Judaism itself tends to discourage that. It is very much an archetypal 'ethnic' religion.
Later in my life, I had friends and family members who were Mormons, Muslims (both born and converts), Buddhists, Wiccans, and so on. So I've been exposed to all of that to varying degrees, though other than my minimal participation in the Passover that we were invited to when I was a child, I can't say I participated in any of them.
They all have their good and not-so-good sides. The Mormons and the Muslims, for instance, are both very strong on family values and are usually at least outwardly very friendly and kind, but theologically they are both completely out to lunch, self-contradictory, and obviously operate like "Cliff Notes" versions of earlier religions in an effort to legitimize themselves in the eyes of believers in those religions. And if you're paying attention and know their backgrounds and (probable) sources, it won't work.
Judaism is strong on tradition, but at least most Jews I have met are less strong about belief. One Jewish guy I knew in college even identified simultaneously as a Buddhist, because that's what he actually practiced (but he was still Jewish according to their law because his mother is Jewish; this is why there is a tradition of Jewish
atheists).
Wiccans have an admirable reverence for nature and the power of it, but often wrongly see themselves as some kind of continuation of ancient pre-Christian (or, in the places where that religion rules, pre-Islamic) practices about which in reality there is actually scant evidence. So it's kind of hard to take seriously, because most of these 'Neo-Pagan' types, whether they identify as Wiccan or whatever else (I don't know or care to know all the subdivisions or types), are actually following religious ritual and practice that might be +/- 50 to 100 years old at most (hence it is properly termed
Neo-Pagan). Also, I know this is going to sound very sexist, but I can't help but notice that at least in the United States, where I am, the vast majority of the people attracted to and professing these religions tend to be young girls or older women who fit a certain ugly stereotype of...I don't know how to say it...40 to 60-something cat-owning Lesbian bookstore proprietors? Something like that. Generally frumpy old ladies celebrating their lady-ness and personifying the earth as a womb and all this. I actually have an ex-girlfriend (definitely on the young side of the population; she's 30) who is into this, and to hear her talk about it it's a way of gaining "power", whatever that means. She is a high-level manager at a national company who makes very, very good money, lives independently in a very upscale town on the East Coast in a very nice apartment, etc. Not sure what "power" is missing, since she can basically go anywhere and do anything she wants, but there ya have it. All I'm meaning to say is that there's not a lot in it for a man (me, or I assume any other average dude) who isn't into the sacredness of Fallopian tubes or whatever, and doesn't see chanting in front of a bowl of yard waste on a folding table in the living room as a particularly effective way of gaining power or direction in life, or whatever these people are doing.
Sorry, that was probably incredibly harsh and rude, and certainly people could say and have said similar things about Christianity (Like my own grandmother:
"So you drink some wine and eat a piece of bread and then what? That's stupid. Why would you want to be a part of that?"), but that is the reason why I would have to reject Neo-Paganism out of hand. It's not really based on anything, and it's hard not to see it as a silly kind of role playing of some sort that you can't even know whether or not you're doing it right (due to lack of primary sources), or that you're doing anything at all. Like how do you even know when you have "the power"? It'd be one thing if my friend's life was constantly awesome or whatever, but she's got the same problems as anyone, so I guess the spells either ain't working or she's not burning the right candles or I dunno what. Maybe there's some level internal change going on that no one would see, but then how do you know that's the Wiccan spells, and not professional therapy, medication, or any one of a million other things? I guess that's a question that can be asked of any 'mainstream' religion as well, though. I dunno. I just couldn't do it, personally.
But the whole "there's nothing good or true in any other religion, and never could be" thing seems rather modern -- certainly building upon the negative assessments of the apostles and other early saints, but forgetting/not knowing about whatever positive things they may have had to say. (I don't want to say it's because they've gone unread by those people, because I don't know that to be the case, but I have to imagine it is true for some of them, and maybe more true among the most strident of them than among others who have a more moderate view.)
