Bridging the divide

[ArmyMatt]

"Festivus features a Messiah. It's absolutely clear from the holiday's hymns and celebrations."

"Christianity features a Messiah. It's absolutely clear from the holiday's hymns and celebrations."

By your logic, as the former is false, the latter is false by virtue of using the same justifications.

no, that does not follow my logic at all. Christian Freemasons say that it is only about fraternity and social justice, therefore you can be a Christian and Freemason.

Druidic Order Christians say that it is all about preserving Welsh culture and language, therefore you can be a Christian and a member of that Druidic Order.

the illogic comes from folks who say no to Masonry and yes to this Druidic thing when they use the same arguments. since Christianity is based on a relationship and experience, and not just philosophic ideals (like Masonry and the Druid thing, your argument falls apart.

it actually does not follow my line of thinking at all

and even then, there has still been no defense of the Druidic thing. all that has been said is that Freemasons are a faith, this thing is not because the members who are Christians say it isn't. well, the Masonic Christians say the same thing. just calling the Masonic Christians liars or deceived actually is not a solid argument.

 

[Cappadocious]

no, that does not follow my logic at all. Christian Freemasons say that it is only about fraternity and social justice, therefore you can be a Christian and Freemason.

Druidic Order Christians say that it is all about preserving Welsh culture and language, therefore you can be a Christian and a member of that Druidic Order.

And, just as the first claim was evaluated and found false, the second claim must be evaluated and found true or false. So far, it has not been found false, and appears, so far, to be true.

the illogic comes from folks who say no to Masonry and yes to this Druidic thing when they use the same arguments. since Christianity is based on a relationship and experience, and not just philosophic ideals (like Masonry and the Druid thing, your argument falls apart.

What in the relationship or experience of the "druidic thing" indicates that, according to Christianity, it is a pagan religion?

and even then, there has still been no defense of the Druidic thing. all that has been said is that Freemasons are a faith, this thing is not because the members who are Christians say it isn't. well, the Masonic Christians say the same thing. just calling the Masonic Christians liars or deceived actually is not a solid argument.

There is evidence that Freemasonry contains actual religious elements. There has been no evidence that the "Druidic thing" contains any actual religious elements. The premise that there are religious elements in Freemasonry has been demonstrated to be true; the premise that there are religious elements in the "Druidic thing" has not been demonstrated to be true.

And that *does* make quite a bit of difference.

Personally, I find LARPy societies like the 'Druidic thing' to be potentially anti-Christian for the same reasons I find certain forms of investment banking, certain political parties, and the Boy Scouts to be so (not because of the gay thing). But I wouldn't call either pagan or anti-Christian in the traditional sense except for shock value, because people would certainly misunderstand my atypical definitions.

 

[ArmyMatt]

"Festivus features a Messiah. It's absolutely clear from the holiday's hymns and celebrations."

"Christianity features a Messiah. It's absolutely clear from the holiday's hymns and celebrations."

By your logic, as the former is false, the latter is false by virtue of using the same justifications.

plus, the argument would have to only be me trying to say Christianity over Festivus based solely on the holiday's hymn's and celebrations. since no Christian actually argues that, and Festivus has no Messiah or hymns (unless you wanna count George's groans during the feats of strength), the argument does not follow.

I am saying one cannot solely say one thing to defend something, but then when others use the exact same defense, say that it is wrong with the only evidence being one just saying that other group is clearly wrong.

an example is when folks try to defend homosexuality by saying that consenting adults should be able to whatever they want in their own bedrooms because they love each other, but then turn right around and say consenting polygamists are perverts because polygamy is wrong and it does not matter that they are consenting adults who love each other.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And, just as the first claim was evaluated and found false, the second claim must be evaluated and found true or false. So far, it has not been found false, and appears, so far, to be true.

not by Christian Freemasons, and that is the point.

What in the relationship or experience of the "druidic thing" indicates that, according to Christianity, it is a pagan religion?

Druids have always been pagans, and there is a resurgance of Druidism (yes that is a religion) in the Neopaganism that has been coming back. you cannot dress up like they do, perform rituals in stone circles, and then just say that it is not pagan. that would be like dressing in a white robe in front of a burning Cross and saying you are not in the KKK.

There is evidence that Freemasonry contains actual religious elements. There has been no evidence that the "Druidic thing" contains any actual religious elements. The premise that there are religious elements in Freemasonry has been demonstrated to be true; the premise that there are religious elements in the "Druidic thing" has not been demonstrated to be true.

aside from the white robes and hoods, that it was done on celtic stone circles, and that they call themselves Druids, yes you are right, nothing religious at all

 

[Cappadocious]

I am saying one cannot solely say one thing to defend something, but then when others use the exact same defense, say that it is wrong with the only evidence being one just saying that other group is clearly wrong.

That's not the only evidence. And if it were the only evidence, your reasonable conclusion ought to be "group B's claim is either true or false", not "group B's claim is false".

not by Christian Freemasons, and that is the point.

It's not a very persuasive one.

aside from the white robes and hoods, that it was done on celtic stone circles, and that they call themselves Druids, yes you are right, nothing religious at all

Right. They're LARPing. You don't think the actors who played the kids in Beyond Thunderdome really worshiped Captain Walker, do you? Or for a more apropos example, was Spinal Tap worshiping the mini Stonehenge?

If anything, they are mocking the Druids. In fact, I would certainly say they're mocking the Druids. There are no actual religious elements here, there is merely LARP.

Now, one could ask, should a Christian cleric LARP? I would say no. But I certainly wouldn't mistake the LARP for the real thing.

 

[Lukaris]

I would think probably the best way to apply what was considered good from the pagan Celts would be to examine what Sts. like Patrick of Ireland did.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's not the only evidence. And if it were the only evidence, your reasonable conclusion ought to be "group B's claim is either true or false", not "group B's claim is false".

well, we are not talking about truth vs falsehood. we are talking about what a Christian cleric should do. no one here denies that a Christian should not be a mason. and yet there are Christians who are masons. the only arguements that folks have used to defend the Druid thing, are the same ones that a little while ago the Freemasons used to defend being Christian and masons. since none of those arguements worked defending the masons, they should also not work defending being a Christian druid.

It's not a very persuasive one.

I know, it should also not be for Christian cultural druids either.

Right. They're LARPing. You don't think the actors who played the kids in Beyond Thunderdome really worshiped Captain Walker, do you? Or for a more apropos example, was Spinal Tap worshiping the mini Stonehenge?

If anything, they are mocking the Druids. In fact, I would certainly say they're mocking the Druids. There are no actual religious elements here, there is merely LARP.

Now, one could ask, should a Christian cleric LARP? I would say no. But I certainly wouldn't mistake the LARP for the real thing.

well they are not mocking Druids, they are seeing Druids as a part of their Welsh culture, so they are being seen as merely bards and scholars, which they weren't and, for the most part, are not to this day. I get that Tom Hanks really doesn't believe in the stuff that was in the Da Vinci Code, but seeing an Orthodox Christian in a movie basically espousing what St John calls Antichrist is not something that we should think is neither good nor bad because it is a part of modern American Literature. it's bad, even if it did not affect his faith.

 

[MKJ]

again, from the Christian Freemasons POV, they use the same arguments that you are using. there was a thread a while back and every Christian freemason who defended being a mason said the same things you are.

and the Japanese tea ceremony, at least the one with Zen Buddhist overtones and is a part of that spirituality, should also probably be left alone.

People can use the same argument for something, and in one case it is true, and another it is false.

That is just basic logic.

Jack and Jill's mother comes home and sees a broken lamp. She wants to know which of them broke it.

Jack says he did not do it. In fact he did - he is fibbing, or maybe he didn't realize he was the one that knocked it over.

Jill says she did not do it. Which is true.

The mother discovers that in fact Jack did do it.

Should she conclude that Jill must therefore also be guilty of breaking the lamp? She used the same argument about the same question.

You have to look at truth claims independently. Just because in one instance a truth claim is false, does not mean that it is false in every case someone makes the same claim.

 

[ArmyMatt]

People can use the same argument for something, and in one case it is true, and another it is false.

That is just basic logic.

Jack and Jill's mother comes home and sees a broken lamp. She wants to know which of them broke it.

Jack says he did not do it. In fact he did - he is fibbing, or maybe he didn't realize he was the one that knocked it over.

Jill says she did not do it. Which is true.

The mother discovers that in fact Jack did do it.

Should she conclude that Jill must therefore also be guilty of breaking the lamp? She used the same argument about the same question.

You have to look at truth claims independently. Just because in one instance a truth claim is false, does not mean that it is false in every case someone makes the same claim.

I am, and in both cases I think it is wrong. I am not using the same arguments, I think Christians should be neither. in these cases it is wrong. I merely pointed out that folks who would defend Archbishop Williams, use the same thing to condemn Freemasonry and Christians who do it.

so I am looking at both cases independently, both are too pagan, both should not be engaged in by folks called Christians, especially those that are clergy.

 

[MKJ]

I am, and in both cases I think it is wrong. I am not using the same arguments, I think Christians should be neither. in these cases it is wrong. I merely pointed out that folks who would defend Archbishop Williams, use the same thing to condemn Freemasonry and Christians who do it.

so I am looking at both cases independently, both are too pagan, both should not be engaged in by folks called Christians, especially those that are clergy.

You said it is wrong because it is the same argument - because the masons use the argument, we should not believe it in the case of the Gorsedd of Bards.

I think we all realize it is possible to make a claim that something is non-religious, or compatible, without it being a true claim.

As far as whether it is in fact "too pagan", i haven't seen any convincing evidence of that. The elements they borrow are no more questionable than ones accepted into Christianity without issue - some robes, some names for things, some vague ceremonial things not connected to any particular religious belief. Many of our religious vestments were the same as those worn in non-Christian religion, we have adopted many cultural rituals with pagan origins (hanging greens, Christmas trees and eggs, lighting fires at the beginning of Lent,) poetic forms, and we have adopted whole chunks of philosophical thought and language directly from pagan religion.

This seems pretty mild compared to the things Christianity already has adopted and adapted to its own use, much less what would be reasonable for a non-religious use.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You said it is wrong because it is the same argument - because the masons use the argument, we should not believe it in the case of the Gorsedd of Bards.

I think we all realize it is possible to make a claim that something is non-religious, or compatible, without it being a true claim.

As far as whether it is in fact "too pagan", i haven't seen any convincing evidence of that. The elements they borrow are no more questionable than ones accepted into Christianity without issue - some robes, some names for things, some vague ceremonial things not connected to any particular religious belief. Many of our religious vestments were the same as those worn in non-Christian religion, we have adopted many cultural rituals with pagan origins (hanging greens, Christmas trees and eggs, lighting fires at the beginning of Lent,) poetic forms, and we have adopted whole chunks of philosophical thought and language directly from pagan religion.

This seems pretty mild compared to the things Christianity already has adopted and adapted to its own use, much less what would be reasonable for a non-religious use.

no, my point was that the Christian freemasons use the same argument. one cannot just dismiss the Masons because they are Masons but accept something like a Druidic order, when they basically follow the same line that Christian Masons follow. there should be something more concrete than well, they say that it is just about Welsh culture and language. one can be all about preserving Welsh culture and language, and not have anything to do with this.

they are called Druids, they wear similiar stuff to what modern Neopagans wear, they did it in sacred ancient Celtic sites like Neopagans do, and they did non-Christian rituals. and this is a church that accepts homosexuality, abortion, and every other kind of modern worldliness in a very undiscerning world. and this is not just any Anglican, but the head bishop of all the world's Anglicans. sorry, there are some things that should be off limits when you are clergy.

and while Christianity has always adopted and Christianized pagan things, there was nothing in the article to suggest that everything in this was made Christian.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and if I did suggest/say that it was only the argument that made it wrong, then that was wrong of me

 

[Protoevangel]

and if I did suggest/say that it was only the argument that made it wrong, then that was wrong of me

You didn't.

 

[MKJ]

no, my point was that the Christian freemasons use the same argument. one cannot just dismiss the Masons because they are Masons but accept something like a Druidic order, when they basically follow the same line that Christian Masons follow. there should be something more concrete than well, they say that it is just about Welsh culture and language. one can be all about preserving Welsh culture and language, and not have anything to do with this.

they are called Druids, they wear similiar stuff to what modern Neopagans wear, they did it in sacred ancient Celtic sites like Neopagans do, and they did non-Christian rituals. and this is a church that accepts homosexuality, abortion, and every other kind of modern worldliness in a very undiscerning world. and this is not just any Anglican, but the head bishop of all the world's Anglicans. sorry, there are some things that should be off limits when you are clergy.

and while Christianity has always adopted and Christianized pagan things, there was nothing in the article to suggest that everything in this was made Christian.

What would it look like to you for pre-Christian cultural things to be "made Christian"? In the context of using them culturally, but not in the Church?
Can you give examples?

They aren't really called Druids. They are called the Gorsedd of Bards.

 

[MKJ]

and if I did suggest/say that it was only the argument that made it wrong, then that was wrong of me

That's what I thought you were saying, but it's easy enough for people to misunderstand each other in writing.

 

[Mockingbird0]

they are called Druids, they wear similiar stuff to what modern Neopagans wear, they did it in sacred ancient Celtic sites like Neopagans do

Nothing can be argued from the garments. The garments are the products of 18th/19th century fancy. If neo-pagans (who emerged only later) wear similar garments, they show their ignorance of, or unconcern with, historical paganism, but they impart no pagan content to the garments themselves.

Nor is it inherently pagan for a literary association to award the title "Druid", any more than calling a Christian elder sacerdos in Latin makes him a pagan priest.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What would it look like to you for pre-Christian cultural things to be "made Christian"? In the context of using them culturally, but not in the Church?
Can you give examples?

They aren't really called Druids. They are called the Gorsedd of Bards.

well, the ones you picked out were good examples (Christmas trees, etc), because they are obviously Christianized.

and I know they are not like the Neopagan druids, but they are too close for comfort, and all the articles I have seen have identified them as such, even if their official name is something different.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's what I thought you were saying, but it's easy enough for people to misunderstand each other in writing.

thanks MKJ, just making sure

 

[ArmyMatt]

Nothing can be argued from the garments. The garments are the products of 18th/19th century fancy. If neo-pagans (who emerged only later) wear similar garments, they show their ignorance of, or unconcern with, historical paganism, but they impart no pagan content to the garments themselves.

Nor is it inherently pagan for a literary association to award the title "Druid", any more than calling a Christian elder sacerdos in Latin makes him a pagan priest.

yeah they can. there are Roman Catholic areas that have upside down Crosses because St Peter was crucified upside down (I know one of the Pope's thones has this on it). but those are rarely if ever seen, because the Church of Satan uses that as one of their symbols, as an overturn of Christianity. so yeah, even if the symbol started out with a certain meaning, the wrong folks can highjack it.

it goes back to St Paul bringing up food offered to idols as meaning nothing, but if it would cause scandal he would give up eating meat.

 

[Protoevangel]

yeah they can. there are Roman Catholic areas that have upside down Crosses because St Peter was crucified upside down (I know one of the Pope's thones has this on it). but those are rarely if ever seen, because the Church of Satan uses that as one of their symbols, as an overturn of Christianity. so yeah, even if the symbol started out with a certain meaning, the wrong folks can highjack it.

it goes back to St Paul bringing up food offered to idols as meaning nothing, but if it would cause scandal he would give up eating meat.

Bad example. The ONLY thing evil about the inverted cross is for those who know, to let the satanists own it. There is NO excuse to give up on truth just because it's not popularly understood.

Every time I see some hipster wearing it ("oooh, I'm soooo evil" lol), I congratulate them for their Christian piety by wearing Saint Peter's cross, indication their humble unworthiness before Christ.