Why does Paganism scare Christians?

[awitch]

You realize you just contradicted yourself? "We don't believe in church and state but the State says...."

No, I don't see how.
I don't think religion should be influencing politics nearly to the extent that it does. Nor do I want to see a government full of Neopagans; I'd much rather see Secular Humanists running the show.

Nor is it logical that because the Constitution allows freedom of religion that automatically people will flock to it?

I don't expect any people to flock to it. It's not a religion for everyone and I'd prefer they didn't. I meant that the Constitution says that I'm allowed to practice my religion and I'm entitled to the same rights and access as others and if people don't like that, then that's too bad.

 

[steve_bakr]

I think we're straying quite far into "No True Christian"-territory here, but...

isn't one of the defining features of Christianity that it claims to NOT require anything? No intellectual grasp of abstract concepts, no meditation or other mind-expanding techniques, no catalogue of laws and observances - ritual or otherwise - that must be kept: just Jesus. Jesus saves.
Different denominations do not put the same amount of emphasis on that point, and some even include "works" into the equation for salvation, but at the end of the day, it still boils down to the same statement:
You can be the worst person on the planet, and yet still be saved if you just point to Jesus and proclaim "HE died in my place".
Is that a morally bankrupt arrangement? You bet! But many Christians do not seem to grasp that. Heck, they even filmed this little commercial, never quite realizing how bad it made their religion (and them) look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrLzYw6ULYw

Well, I don't defend fundamentalism. But I think that Christianity--like Islam--is made simple enough for anyone to follow yet deep enough to accomodate scholars and intellectuals. It has been said about both the Bible and Quran that there are several layers of meaning, accomodating both exoteric and esoteric religion.

 

[steve_bakr]

Personally, I think that the authoritarian, exclusivist religions of the past are on their way out - and the radicalization we see within these right now (grouped together under the term "religious fundamentalism") is but a death rattle, akin to fading empires trumping up spectacular military parades and thumping their chests.

While I think there will always be fundamentalism, most serious theologians have some sort of approach which lessens the exclusivist approach to Christianity, such as Karl Rahner's Anonymous Christian.

Some of these approaches can admittedly seem condescending. Exclusivist claims are quite a challenge for Christianity, and are handled best through an esoteric approach, I think.

Ibn Arabi--Sheik Al-Akbar--made a case for the universality of religion even within the exclusivist religion of Islam. Frithjoff Schuon wrote on the Unity of Religion.

Christianity has not made as much progress as Islam in this area, although the majority of Muslims may still be excusivists.

 

[Zoness]

Bodycount religion? Really? You're going to try that one out? LOL

Do yourself a favour. Put down whatever book you got that from and read the primary sources. Add to that a bit of common sense and independent critical thought and you'll soon work out that paganism died in different parts of the world mainly because of missionary activity, and not by mass extermination, which is frankly easily refuted by real, non-revisionist accepted history and doesn't make sense when you crunch the numbers. Populations remained about the same pre and post conversion to the Faith. If entire pagan populations were "exterminated", who would be left to comprise the Christians? It's just silly.

Lmao you're telling me that Christianity did spend most of its existence eliminating people who didn't agree with it? They didn't even have to be pagan, anyone who opposed the church's political structure was gonna have a bad time. Missionaries did a lot of work but what happens when people didn't play by the rules? If you're asserting that Christianity didn't use violence to coerce people into conversion at all, you're simply wrong.

I see neo-paganism as basically a completely invented and very human religion for people who find Christianity, Islam and Judaism too hard and who basically don't think they need to change. I think most people feel that way that I know as well. I don't see it as having any real impact and pretty much believe it will disappear into the murky brew fallaciously called the New Age- which is so over and will die with the last of the hippies.

Loose spiritualism in the form of paganism or something else is continue to grow in the next century once people realize that the increasingly radical political factions of today's religions are too extreme. If that doesn't happen then the alternative is that Christians and Muslims will simply become less extreme and more accepting of people they don't like as education and wealth improve around the world. More likely it will be a combination of both as the world gets more connected.

As a Christian its easy enough to hate gays or Muslims now but its harder in a world where they are your friends. As a Muslim its easy to hate Atheists and Jews when they aren't people you know but when you realize that all of these people are okay you start to wonder about what your preachers and holy books said. Why the hate? I think ecumenism will continue to grow.

 

[morningstar2651]

"In a world that’s gone hellishly mad we've always taken comfort in the fact that the faith of our fathers is the one thing that remains solid and unchanging. It occurs to very few of us that perhaps for the last 2,500 years the faith of our fathers has been one of the main reasons why our world has gone hellishly mad." - Lon Milo DuQuette, The Key to Solomon's Key

 

[Lollerskates]

I think we're straying quite far into "No True Christian"-territory here, but...

isn't one of the defining features of Christianity that it claims to NOT require anything? No intellectual grasp of abstract concepts, no meditation or other mind-expanding techniques, no catalogue of laws and observances - ritual or otherwise - that must be kept: just Jesus. Jesus saves.
Different denominations do not put the same amount of emphasis on that point, and some even include "works" into the equation for salvation, but at the end of the day, it still boils down to the same statement:
You can be the worst person on the planet, and yet still be saved if you just point to Jesus and proclaim "HE died in my place".
Is that a morally bankrupt arrangement? You bet! But many Christians do not seem to grasp that. Heck, they even filmed this little commercial, never quite realizing how bad it made their religion (and them) look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrLzYw6ULYw

Christians are supposed to fast - if only from something you think you need (wine, meat, etc.) We also have the sabbath as a resting day, and the feast days. Some religions teach that chanting, meditating, and manipulation of your "energy," you can achieve some sort of "Christ-consciousness." Christians believe we need a Savior, and though we can get closer to God, we cant get perfection on our own. It was bought a price, and will be given to certain people (holy people.)

God isn't stupid, and He doesnt want His children to be stupid. God never called for blind faith: that is something people said in order to gain control. Many of God's people were astronomers, farmers, doctors, tax collectors, scientists, etc. Many of His are today. He always spoke about discerning, consulting, and reasoning. Adam was charged with naming every animal.

And, you cant murder someone, then proclaim Christ and expect to automatically get in. He knows us, and how sincere we are.

 

[seashale76]

Lmao you're telling me that Christianity did spend most of its existence eliminating people who didn't agree with it? They didn't even have to be pagan, anyone who opposed the church's political structure was gonna have a bad time. Missionaries did a lot of work but what happens when people didn't play by the rules? If you're asserting that Christianity didn't use violence to coerce people into conversion at all, you're simply wrong.

You're both right and you're both wrong. If one looks at how conversions occurred in certain places in Europe, they will find a pattern. A king/ruler converts to X religion and so must everyone else by default. Often, a bunch of converting back and forth between Christianity and Paganism occurred depending on who was in charge and who won which conflict. Most of it amounted to warring between various leaders. It didn't seem to matter what the religion was. Also, if you look at events like the Crusades, the goal wasn't about spreading Christianity. However, most of Christendom over time was not like this, and when people converted they got rid of pagan things of their own will. It was certainly not all coercion. To paint a peaceful pagan utopia mythos is just as much of a historical revisionist fantasy as those who try to say there weren't Christians out there who used violence to coerce others into believing.

 

[Huntun]

I see neo-paganism as basically a completely invented and very human religion

Kind of like every religion. Some of the more popular religions were simply invented far enough back in time that their origins are not as fresh in our mind and well documented.

for people who find Christianity, Islam and Judaism too hard and who basically don't think they need to change.

Too hard? Why do Christians have to earn their salvation? Many of the Protestant traditions at least claim that salvation and growth in holiness is the result of Gods grace and that we can't really take any credit for it. If anything that should draw people to it for it's ease not scare them away by appearing too hard. Most the neo-pagan traditions would be, to use a Christian phrase, more "works" based. You got to get things for yourself and don't get all the divine help.

 

[smaneck]

I've never met a Christian who gives the neo-pagan movement a second thought. No one I know cares a hoot about it. I certainly don't.

You obviously don't live in the Bible belt like I do. I know a lot of American Evangelicals and even Catholics who associate Wiccans with the demonic.

 

[smaneck]

Disbelief in the scientific consensus on evolution and global warming were selling points of the Republican candidates in the 2012 election. It wasn't imaginary. It's real.

Yeah, but in my experience neo-pagans often don't have what I would describe as a 'scientific' world-view either.

 

[smaneck]

So, while you might want to raise a case against the "Christians" as using the sword, it's not hard to see that the pagans didn't think twice about it and certainly had a history of forced conversions as well (in particular in northern Europe). So what gives the pagans the higher moral ground? Nothing. Nothing at all. You're simply picking the side that lost militarily and there is no moral high ground to be won.

When it comes to religion, paganism has historically been much more tolerant than the ethical monotheisms. It is very rare for them to forcibly convert others to their religion. More often it is a case of, "I'll worship your gods if you'll worship mine."

Monotheism, however, in insisting on a single truth (a single God being not nearly as important) is by definition suggesting that other truths are wrong. Ironically Islam has been the most tolerant of the monotheistic traditions historically (however might be the case at present.) This is because in saying 'there is no people to whom a Prophet has not been sent' it opened the door to recognizing a certain level of legitimacy to other religions.

I'm exempting the Baha'i Faith from this discussion since we have never been tested with political power the way the other Abrahamic religions have been. One would hope that the injunction to "Consort with the followers of all religions with joy and spirituality" might take us in a very different direction, however.

 

[smaneck]

Been there, done that. To death. Again, you present only one side of the issue because the other side actually scares you more- that missionaries made converts, not soldiers, and missionaries present a God that actually turns up and makes the change.

But let's take the case of our Native American children who are forcibly removed from their homes and placed in missionary schools where they are indoctrinated into Christianity. Without the soldiers would such a thing have been possible?

 

[smaneck]

I don't think I've ever said such a broad blanket statement. What we have is a language difficulty here. You can't force a person to become a Christian. You can politically call them a Christian, but they still won't be a Christian. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"

But a child can be coerced into believing what authorities tell him to believe. If the practice of any religion but Christianity is banned then the following generation will know nothing but Christianity. If you insist on seeing conversion as an internal process what you suggest maybe true but that definition is not that relevant when it comes to historical analysis. The Saxons were forcibly converted to Christianity whether Charlemagne changed the heart of any individual Saxon or not.

 

[smaneck]

Christianity has not made as much progress as Islam in this area, although the majority of Muslims may still be excusivists.

An argument can be made the Salafi-type movements of the 18th century and later were in part a reaction to the move universalist approaches to Islam championed by Ibn Arabi and the Mughal Emperor Akbar. In fact, I would say that it was the tensions within Mughal India that eventually brought all of this to a head.

 

[Zoness]

You're both right and you're both wrong. If one looks at how conversions occurred in certain places in Europe, they will find a pattern. A king/ruler converts to X religion and so must everyone else by default. Often, a bunch of converting back and forth between Christianity and Paganism occurred depending on who was in charge and who won which conflict. Most of it amounted to warring between various leaders. It didn't seem to matter what the religion was. Also, if you look at events like the Crusades, the goal wasn't about spreading Christianity. However, most of Christendom over time was not like this, and when people converted they got rid of pagan things of their own will. It was certainly not all coercion. To paint a peaceful pagan utopia mythos is just as much of a historical revisionist fantasy as those who try to say there weren't Christians out there who used violence to coerce others into believing.

Absolutely! But I'm pretty sure I didn't say this; if I did I'd like to know which post so that I may redact it.

I jumped on the assertion that Christianity has always been peaceful but what annoyed me more was Contra's assertion that modern Neopaganism was somehow less valuable because it was 'invented' in the last century. While that is true, every religion is basically 'invented'. I'm not sure if he was making an appeal to age or something else but at any rate that doesn't somehow make Christianity superior to Neopaganism at least in the framework of the United States government.

An argument can be made the Salafi-type movements of the 18th century and later were in part a reaction to the move universalist approaches to Islam championed by Ibn Arabi and the Mughal Emperor Akbar. In fact, I would say that it was the tensions within Mughal India that eventually brought all of this to a head.

Interesting. Could this be compared to the birth of modern Christian fundamentalism in the United States? Fundamentalism in response to modernist and universalist doctrine, that is.

 

[smaneck]

Interesting. Could this be compared to the birth of modern Christian fundamentalism in the United States? Fundamentalism in response to modernist and universalist doctrine, that is.

I suppose if your looking at the birth of fundamentalism as not occurring until the close of the nineteenth century with the publication of The Fundamentals of Christianity. However, if you trace American Evangelical Christianity back to the first and second Great Awakenings I think it shares something else with the rise of Islamic Revivalism of 18th and 19th century, namely the spread of mass literacy on a fairly low level. This contributed to a literalism which took hold in both religions about the same time.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I've never really made the connection between the spread of literacy and fundamentalism, but it makes perfect sense.

After all, the Reformation would never have happened without the advent of the printing press, either, as suggested by the abject failure of preceding reformers such as Jan Hus or John Wycliffe.

I always interpreted religious fundamentalism as a reaction against modernism/the Enlightenment, but its rampant anti-intellectualism may very well be tied to the spread of literacy without sufficient accompanying education, as in: providing only a very rudimentary education to the lower strata of society, and keeping the doors of higher education shut by demanding horrendous fees and/or only admitting exceptionally gifted individuals.

 

[ContraMundum]

No, I don't see how.
I don't think religion should be influencing politics nearly to the extent that it does. Nor do I want to see a government full of Neopagans; I'd much rather see Secular Humanists running the show.

So....just pick your favorite philosophy or religion and that makes it all good. "As long as its not X"

 

[ContraMundum]

Lmao you're telling me that Christianity did spend most of its existence eliminating people who didn't agree with it?

Yes. I think that's pure hyperbole. It's a broad slander, basically. I've read, studied and critiqued a lot more Church history that your average CF'er and I don't see what you see.

 

[ContraMundum]

You're both right and you're both wrong. If one looks at how conversions occurred in certain places in Europe, they will find a pattern. A king/ruler converts to X religion and so must everyone else by default. Often, a bunch of converting back and forth between Christianity and Paganism occurred depending on who was in charge and who won which conflict. Most of it amounted to warring between various leaders. It didn't seem to matter what the religion was. Also, if you look at events like the Crusades, the goal wasn't about spreading Christianity. However, most of Christendom over time was not like this, and when people converted they got rid of pagan things of their own will. It was certainly not all coercion. To paint a peaceful pagan utopia mythos is just as much of a historical revisionist fantasy as those who try to say there weren't Christians out there who used violence to coerce others into believing.

Exactly....but they don't really care about that. They prefer a Christian boogey-man over an impoverished missionary building schools, hospitals and other mercy missions. Most of the young 'uns invest a lot of emotion into the argument, so facts just don't matter.