A Pagan take on traditionalism and politicised science.

[PFElton]

PFElton,

I cannot deny what Rome did across the world in the name of God but while this was going on there were Christians who sticking to the Scriptures did not indulge in these practices. The problem was that men who were never born again assumed the rulership of Christ's mission for His people to tell of the Gospel in humility and love and done mostly in an unadvertised manner. This was the case in Britain until the Roman system was introduced and so up until the death of Macbeth who in reality was like his wife a devout Christian in the Scriptural fashion. I don't know whether it is true but there is a belief that Paul himself actually set foot on these shores to bolster those that were already preaching the word here.

Nope, you do not get to skew history on grounds of your Protestant re-envisioning of the theology. The Romans, Franks, Teutonic Order, Byzantines, "East Frank" proto-mainland Germans, Anglo-Saxons, and every other converted group of people acted with full agency to eradicate tribal identity and indigenous religions across Europe by any means necessary for some 1,200 years. I do not care if they were not "muh Born Again", "muh Born Again" isn't a separate religion.

[basics]

Nope, you do not get to skew history on grounds of your Protestant re-envisioning of the theology. The Romans, Franks, Teutonic Order, Byzantines, "East Frank" proto-mainland Germans, Anglo-Saxons, and every other converted group of people acted with full agency to eradicate tribal identity and indigenous religions across Europe by any means necessary for some 1,200 years. I do not care if they were not "muh Born Again", "muh Born Again" isn't a separate religion.

PFElton,

Then you have never read the Scriptures and so cannot understand the difference between faith and religion. " A man must be born again if he is to enter heaven," words spoken by God our Saviour to a leader of the Jews. Jesus goes on to tell of all the religious so-called Christians who thinking they were saved because they did so many things in His name that they would be cast out simply because they weren't born again, didn't have the faith that He bestowed on them that do. So, I am not skewing history at all, rather educating you on what the Scriptures clearly say on the subject of being one of God's people. It has nothing to do with me being of a Protestant family because in my church are people who were Catholic and Jewish and atheist yet are now sons and daughters of God. Therefore what is happening historically is only what has been written by God's people all through the ages, it's just that you cannot see it nor probably want to.

[PFElton]

PFElton,

Then you have never read the Scriptures and so cannot understand the difference between faith and religion. " A man must be born again if he is to enter heaven," words spoken by God our Saviour to a leader of the Jews. Jesus goes on to tell of all the religious so-called Christians who thinking they were saved because they did so many things in His name that they would be cast out simply because they weren't born again, didn't have the faith that He bestowed on them that do. So, I am not skewing history at all, rather educating you on what the Scriptures clearly say on the subject of being one of God's people. It has nothing to do with me being of a Protestant family because in my church are people who were Catholic and Jewish and atheist yet are now sons and daughters of God. Therefore what is happening historically is only what has been written by God's people all through the ages, it's just that you cannot see it nor probably want to.

Do you have any idea how naive and hilarious your Christsplaining is, trying to tell me - a former devout Catholic with a heebee geebee non-denominational stepmother - about Chrisinsanity? Do you really think your bubble-logic and reasoning of theological nuances matters to anyone with objective thought? Do you seriously believe your whole faith is absolved because for the last few hundred years some of you have started waving your hands in the airs and going on adrenaline trips for 5 hours every Sunday?

[basics]

Do you have any idea how naive and hilarious your Christsplaining is, trying to tell me - a former devout Catholic with a heebee geebee non-denominational stepmother - about Chrisinsanity? Do you really think your bubble-logic and reasoning of theological nuances matters to anyone with objective thought? Do you seriously believe your whole faith is absolved because for the last few hundred years some of you have started waving your hands in the airs and going on adrenaline trips for 5 hours every Sunday?

BFElton,

That you say you were a devout Catholic with a disliking of your stepmother does not make you an authority on Christianity, not with such hatred coming from your heart. Did the objective thought go out the window at some point because Paul's letter to the Roman church was exactly about Justification by Faith and that alone which, surprisingly, is the same doctrine in Genesis onwards. So, when it comes to naivety perhaps you should stop laughing, go back to God's word and ask Him why He had all this written not just for my benefit but yours also. Is that not what a devout person might do?

[Aexodus]

@basics I believe the topic is best discussed from a secular standpoint, which otherwise leads to Elton's perception of 'bubble logic', or rather, the Christian lens that not everyone shares.

@topic It seems Christianity puts the interests of its God above the interests of Christians, creating a relationship akin to servitude. It imposes a cultural and moral hegemony, rather than worshipping the local native life, which is traditionalism. Is this not so? Traditionalism is the belief that all the world's peoples have their own values and customs, (regardless of their perceived morality) and it can be catastrophic when foreigners to that culture attempt to change it. This doesn't mean people can change and reform their own religions, it means outside interference often causes more harm than good.

[basics]

@basics I believe the topic is best discussed from a secular standpoint, which otherwise leads to Elton's perception of 'bubble logic', or rather, the Christian lens that not everyone shares.

@topic It seems Christianity puts the interests of its God above the interests of Christians, creating a relationship akin to servitude. It imposes a cultural and moral hegemony, rather than worshipping the local native life, which is traditionalism. Is this not so? Traditionalism is the belief that all the world's peoples have their own values and customs, (regardless of their perceived morality) and it can be catastrophic when foreigners to that culture attempt to change it. This doesn't mean people can change and reform their own religions, it means outside interference often causes more harm than good.

Aexodus,

Indeed that's what salvation is all about, serving God and Him only. What you call the world people's traditionalism has its roots from the fall of man and is answerable only to man which is why the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is an offense to most. If these traditions equaled true morality then Jesus advent into this world would have been quite unnecessary for wars and disease would be a thing unheard of, but it's not, why not? The answer is that man loves sin more then anything including God. That's his nature now ever since the fall of Adam bringing about the curse that only God can erase through the blood shed by Jesus Christ at Calvary but one has to believe it and realise how deep his sin is.

[Prodromos]

Heathens did nothing to target Christians first. There were no religious strifes through Europe until the dead Jew and his fan club showed up. Christians are just as guilty of the behavior you have outlined and often initiated it, masking their barbarism under the cross of the dead carpenter-god, so spare me the "there we were peaceful little Christians loving Jezuz until the big mean pagans came and hurt us because they didnt love Jezuz and were bad guys" routine. For some 2,000 years, Christians have dominated precipitating conflict, then crying foul when someone hits back.

The Norse were murdering and kidnapping as far away as Scotland, Ireland, Iberia. Do you believe attacking a monastery thousands of miles from home is self-defense? Face it, they were simple thugs on par with South African farm murderers.

Also, your picture is demonstrably deceptive and false, a classic smear tactic against Heathens. However, anyone with eyes can clearly see the discrepancy in the sophistication of structures demonstrated. Even our lowly, common little villages had more advanced architecture than peak sub-Saharan.

Yes, Scandinavia probably was more advanced than most of sub-Saharan Africa, but that's no accomplishment. What about those lowly Southern Euros and Semites, though? What were the pagans' greatest accomplishments in science, literature, engineering, medicine, etc.? Let's compare Scandinavia's accomplishments before and after the adoption of Christianity. Has it been a step up or not?

Dr. Legend - the "human condition" argument can easily applied to all other religions (including Islam!) as well.

Of course it can. There were evildoers before Islam and there will probably be some after Islam is gone. Islam is a collection of ideas, so how can it be evil or make people evil? Only thinking beings can be evil. The real difference is, as you say, different religions promote different styles of behavior. It is not that Islam makes people evil, it's more that evil people become Muslim or find Islam useful to further their aims. Even though it is people and not ideologies that commit evil, we should still encourage the extinction of complex belief systems (e.g. religious and political ideologies), that provide motivation and organization for the commission of evil.

The prime motivators behind the Viking raids weren't "Pagan values", they were greed, material poverty, socio-political issues, etc.

It's been a while since I looked into it, since I was a fan of the mythology as a kid, but I think the general Norse belief systems encouraged or at least condoned warring, killing, dying, and just general aggression. Is that correct?

Then again, you could argue that the socio-political situation etc encouraged people to create the violent religion, rather than the other way around.

It's also rather misleading to claim that the Pagan Scandinavians were primitive - they were an iron age culture that was quite advanced in shipbuilding and woodworking, and as fond of the amenities of civilized life as anyone. The ones that went on raids and became the eponymous Vikings were in all likelihood not the most virtuous members of their society. Although in today's parlance, they would probably be called "refugees"...
It is also worth noting that the Christianization of Northern and Central Europe was not peaceful, and mostly happened due to political pressure from the ruling class. And there were many instances of Christian violence and extremism, particularly in the early Modern age.

I agree that Norse and Viking are often mistakenly used interchangeably. Even back home in Scandinavia, however, there still was widespread suffering, so it wasn't just the raiders who committed atrocities.

Of course the African thing was meant to be a funny exaggeration. My point is that pagan revivalists have an idealistic view of pre-Christian Northern Europe. They believe it was a time of peace and prosperity until Christianity arrived and ruined everything. The reality is it was a time of suffering for various classes of people. Not everything was bad, of course.

Also, the mythology of Christianity is no less bizarre and unrealistic than that of most other religions. Which is the main reason why I object to calling it "logical"

Well remember that logic and truth aren't the same thing. Some Christian beliefs may seem bizarre from an outsider's perspective, but I've generally found them to be fairly logically-coherent; meaning that the conclusions naturally follow from the premises. Whether those premises are true is an entirely separate matter.

I'm curious how PFElton squares his beliefs with logic. Who created the world in his opinion? How can he believe in creation without a Creator? He believes in various gods, but what created them? The only logical answer, I'd say, is what we know as God. Worshiping those created beings he calls gods seems pretty primitive to me. He might as well start worshiping a Macbook.

[conon394]

The answer is that man loves sin more then anything including God. That's his nature now ever since the fall of Adam bringing about the curse that only God can erase through the blood shed by Jesus Christ at Calvary but one has to believe it and realise how deep his sin is.

This would appear a design defect by God. Since to fall Adam (and Eve) must have already loved sin more than God - correct. Also this still seems a tad inexplicable if "the curse that only God can erase through the blood shed by Jesus Christ at Calvary". The only way, why wait so long and introduce the solution in such a way as to deny the option to so many?

[basics]

This would appear a design defect by God. Since to fall Adam (and Eve) must have already loved sin more than God - correct. Also this still seems a tad inexplicable if "the curse that only God can erase through the blood shed by Jesus Christ at Calvary". The only way, why wait so long and introduce the solution in such a way as to deny the option to so many?

conon394,

Well, when told by this representative of Satan that they wouldn't die because God didn't really mean what He said, Eve believed it and ate of the fruit then persuaded Adam to do the same and so God put a curse on them and then before casting them out of the garden He clothed them as a sign of the covenant to come to hide their shame for disbelieving Him and then to follow it up He, God, declared that a Saviour would come to contend with the lies of Satan for the souls of men. That way no man could say that he wasn't warned and made aware of a way out of the curse placed on mankind. So, to say there wasn't a solution is quite wrong.

[Iskar]

This would appear a design defect by God. Since to fall Adam (and Eve) must have already loved sin more than God - correct. Also this still seems a tad inexplicable if "the curse that only God can erase through the blood shed by Jesus Christ at Calvary". The only way, why wait so long and introduce the solution in such a way as to deny the option to so many?

This is an understandable question concerning the story(-ies) of fall and salvation. And while I think basics will disagree with me for being a proponent of the church, there are two main points to consider:
1) God is considered above time, but our human existence is necessarily tied to it, so any act of God in this world has to have a temporal dimension - to us, not to Him, and not as a necessary feature but as a worldly coincidence. Therefore when the salvation would take place is of little to no importance, compared to that it would take place - the act of salvation encompassed not just the present or possibly the future but all of creation and to every spatial and temporal extent.
2) "Exculpable Ignorance" - based on the above the church holds that those who did not get to know the person of Christ by happening to live before him are not automatically condemned, but are judged for how good they led their lives regardless of explicitly following the one God.

[Aexodus]

Just a reminder that the original purpose of this thread was whether Christianity or Paganism represents Europeans as a people.

While I understand the theological arguments of Christianity, what are the real advantages that it brings to Europe? And can it even be considered a European, and therefore traditionalist, ideology?

[basics]

Concerning the Old Covenant people who lived before Christ's advent they had God's promise of a Saviour given in the garden at the fall of man meaning that even then faith was the very thing that justified the people at that time. Their salvation was exactly the same as those during and after Jesus' day on earth. The same argument can be put for all those as yet unborn but of whom some will also come to Christ in their time and it all comes down to one word, faith, faith that has reached forward and backwards to the cross since what transpired there covers all time in our existence.

[Prodromos]

Just a reminder that the original purpose of this thread was whether Christianity or Paganism represents Europeans as a people.

While I understand the theological arguments of Christianity, what are the real advantages that it brings to Europe? And can it even be considered a European, and therefore traditionalist, ideology?

Back during pagan times, what we arbitrarily define as Europe was simply a geographic area populated by numerous unique nations, including Celtic, Greek, German, Finnic and other nations, most of which had little in common with each other prior to Christian unification. Even today, the cultures of the Dutch and the Mari are pretty different from each other, despite being equally "European." So it is pretty difficult to say that Europeans have ever been one distinct nation.

Whether a religion originated in Europe or another region, seems fairly irrelevant as to its merits to me. Farming and writing systems didn't originate in the European region either, correct?

Nevertheless, you could actually say that Christianity originated in the Roman Empire (a "European" civilization). Back then, the peoples of Rome, Greece and the Levant were probably culturally closer to each other than to, say, the peoples of Scandinavia.

You could also argue that Christianity was created by God, not by random humans from Asia. Pagans believe in several minor gods but that doesn't preclude them from believing in God. The Romuva knew God before even hearing about Christianity, as did many Greeks, Easterners and other pagans; Aristotle, Lao-Tzu, to name a couple. Pagans believed in God as a deus otiosus, usually. They just named him differently.

If I'm wrong about any of the above, feel free to correct me.

[Iskar]

Just a reminder that the original purpose of this thread was whether Christianity or Paganism represents Europeans as a people.

While I understand the theological arguments of Christianity, what are the real advantages that it brings to Europe? And can it even be considered a European, and therefore traditionalist, ideology?

I don't think any religion is fit to represent an entire people - even if Europeans can be construed to be a sufficiently distinct people (which is highly doubtful given the more fluid transitions to the east and southeast at least). Religion is a personal choice of the individual and as such can only, if ever, represent the inidividual.

There is no question whether a religion brings more or less net profit to a community, either, beyond the basic question of whether it respects the secular laws and constitution of the polity.

As such I do not buy into the premise of traditionalism that things are better because some ancestors clung to them. Picking the sociocultural setting of some random point of time in history and claiming it is special compared to that of all other points of time in history isn't really convincing either.
There is no such thing as "original European" (or African, Asian, etc, for that matter) as group and geographical identifications and demarkations are fluid over time and continuously developing. What matters is what we today see as European and what we, each individually, choose for ourselves in terms of habits, religion, etc. - without slavishly copying it from those before us and without tyrannically imposing it on those after us.

[Aexodus]

I don't think any religion is fit to represent an entire people - even if Europeans can be construed to be a sufficiently distinct people (which is highly doubtful given the more fluid transitions to the east and southeast at least). Religion is a personal choice of the individual and as such can only, if ever, represent the inidividual.

There is no question whether a religion brings more or less net profit to a community, either, beyond the basic question of whether it respects the secular laws and constitution of the polity.

As such I do not buy into the premise of traditionalism that things are better because some ancestors clung to them. Picking the sociocultural setting of some random point of time in history and claiming it is special compared to that of all other points of time in history isn't really convincing either.
There is no such thing as "original European" (or African, Asian, etc, for that matter) as group and geographical identifications and demarkations are fluid over time and continuously developing. What matters is what we today see as European and what we, each individually, choose for ourselves in terms of habits, religion, etc. - without slavishly copying it from those before us and without tyrannically imposing it on those after us.

I think my definition of 'paganism' has been slightly mis-construed, Paganism isn't a singular religion, it is a breadth of different local gods and pantheons, generally United by a worship of the world, and not so much a creator.

All the same, I do understand your points, however I still fail to fully look past the fact that Christianity was first the religion of Semites in the Middle East, and was spread through Europe partly through Hegemony, and partly through force (see Lithuania). Many Western occasions still have pagan origins, such as Halloween and the Solstices. It's worth saying that primitive Pagan landmarks like Stone Henge represent more of a connection to our forefathers, than a Church wholely dedicated to a deity. Not that pagan didn't have temples/sacred groves to individual gods either.

[Iskar]

I see where you're coming from and I would easily agree that the traditions of the people who lived in Europe before us (hard to say whose ancestors Milesians, Indoeuropean or Finnougrian nomads, etc. actually are) are important to our history and culture - just not so much to our religious choices.

And as a point to think about, a church provides me personally much more connection to my Catholic/Christian ancestors of the past thousand years at least (whoever they were) than any Menhir or Holy Tree.
Also, how a religion originally spread is of little relevance to my personal connection to it. I wasn't converted at swordpoint or by repression, and neither were any of my ancestors for the past few hundred years.

If you want to use paganism as a synonym for pantheism, sure, then it looks very much like a clear distinction from the church, but then you're comparing many to one. Once you compare the breadth of former pagan cults to the breadth of Christian denominations becomes much blurrier. I would also caution against a romantisation of pagan cults as "worship of nature", just because their primitive means meant their sacred places looked less sophisticated. By the same logic Catholicism would be worship of architecture rather than the great Architect, due to our cathedrals.

Finally the notion of a "local god" is a semantic tripwire. It conveys the implicit meaning that some deity is naturally bound to some place/region independent of whether people worship it - which is false. Deities are bound to place only by those living there worshiping them. In that way the Christian God is much more local to Europe these days than any member of former panthea.

[Common Soldier]

I think my definition of 'paganism' has been slightly mis-construed, Paganism isn't a singular religion, it is a breadth of different local gods and pantheons, generally United by a worship of the world, and not so much a creator.

All the same, I do understand your points, however I still fail to fully look past the fact that Christianity was first the religion of Semites in the Middle East, and was spread through Europe partly through Hegemony, and partly through force (see Lithuania). Many Western occasions still have pagan origins, such as Halloween and the Solstices. It's worth saying that primitive Pagan landmarks like Stone Henge represent more of a connection to our forefathers, than a Church wholely dedicated to a deity. Not that pagan didn't have temples/sacred groves to individual gods either.

Actually, medieval christian churches represent more of a direct link to our ancestors than something like Stonehedge. which we don't know for what purpose it was built, or really by whom, or necessarily even what language the builders spoke, other than it was not an ancestrial language of the modern inhabitant.

The 1400 years the Christian Church has been in England is a long time, and has became more part of the cultural heritage today than some pagan god we aren't even sure of the name. And often today's Christian traditions often incorporate pagan traditions. We think of pagan traditions as being unchanging, but that probably not the case. The religious beliefs of hunter gathers of 5,000 years ago as the farmers of 2,000 years ago in the same lands. Gods that were the major gods in the ancient Hindu vedasVedas, like Indra, are hardly worshiped by modern Hindus.

[Aexodus]

So Christianity has largely replaced Paganism as a cultural heritage, I can agree with that. However, Celtic traditions in Scotland and Ireland are still a connection to a past preceding Christianity, even if the actual Pagan Gods aren't worshipped. Various Henges still represent a connection to our past, these people would have spoken an indo european language, which is most definitely an ancestral language of English, or at least of Anglo-Celtic fusions such as Ulster-Scots dialects.

[Common Soldier]

So Christianity has largely replaced Paganism as a cultural heritage, I can agree with that. However, Celtic traditions in Scotland and Ireland are still a connection to a past preceding Christianity, even if the actual Pagan Gods aren't worshipped. Various Henges still represent a connection to our past, these people would have spoken an indo european language, which is most definitely an ancestral language of English, or at least of Anglo-Celtic fusions such as Ulster-Scots dialects.

Even if the builders of Stone Henge spoke an Indo European language, it wouldn't have been an ancentrial language of English, which came from a different branch of the Indo European family. Very little of English derives from Celtic languages, and the influence of Celtic languages on English is very slight. At best, English is only distantly related, not directly descended.

And it isn't even certain the builders of Stonehedge an Indo-European language, that is just a guess. As far back as Stonehedge was built, the language could have been non Indo European, like Basque, or Etruscan, we just can't be certain. No one thinks Celtic arose in the British Isle as far as I know.

[Davidos]

The way I see it, even as a Catholic myself, albeit a lapsed one, Europe has much more to do with Paganism than Christianity. Why?

The reason is simple, Christianity, in its first 1000 years adopted many practices that were related to the pagan Roman religion. For example, the lesser gods are replaced by saints, the art and architecture itself, the idea of ex votos, legalism in the doctrine of the Church and even the 'son of god' title. The thing is, I like to see history as it is with no biases although it can be a difficult process.

There also these new neo-pagans groups in certain countries. Christianity, as a European unifying factor failed and miserably at that.

To my mind, when I see the Pantheon I say they should give it back to the gods .