Origins of paganism

[Brotherbrian]

I have been doing quite a lot of study recently, and I am currently investigating a new concept. I have seen anything like this on the bookstores or online...

I think paganism (OT paganism) may have been a perversion or perversions of the true religion.

This would definitely explain why Judaism and paganism have so much in common. This is not meant to disparage Judaism or Christianity in any way. I think pagans stole their stuff from God's true believers way, way back.

Any takers? Any input? Any comments would be greatly appreciated...

Brian

Ex-pagan thanks to God!

[Mikeb]

I think not.

The Abrahamic view was a completely novel and unique development in the history of human thought. It sprung from and was developed out of pagan religions (thus the similarities), but the historicism developed by Abraham was a unique creation.

For an interesting and fairly short study of pagan ontology and the unique development of the Abrahamic religions, you might read Mircea Illiade's "Myth of Eternal Return--Cosmos and History."

[GakuseiDon]

Yesterday @ 05:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209818#post209818)
Brotherbrian:

I have been doing quite a lot of study recently, and I am currently investigating a new concept. I have seen anything like this on the bookstores or online...

I think paganism (OT paganism) may have been a perversion or perversions of the true religion.

This would definitely explain why Judaism and paganism have so much in common.Some early Christian and Jewish commentators believed that the ancient Greek philosophers studied Judaism and got their ideas from there. Can't remember who - Augustine perhaps? Anyway, they saw Greek paganism as an off-shoot of Judaism.

[Mikeb]

Aquinus, Augustine, and many of the early theologians were more in the business of empire building than understanding the Hebrew mind. They, perhaps along with Paul, are the reason much of todays Christian Theology is has a distinctly pagan tint.

As to the commoness between Plato and the Abrahamic God, they are at different ends of the ontological spectrum. The experience and historicism from which the Hebrews drew their picture of God and his workings are the guys in Platos cave staring at the shadows of shadows.

[BeHereNow]

I was under the impression that "pagan" was a loose term, not referring to any specific doctrine or religion. Is that not so?

[Andrew]

It would seem to me that the doctrine of the Fall necessitates the belief that people were initially in relation with God and that sin perverted this. This would mean moving from a true understanding of God ('though because of progressive revelation the content of this knowledge about God would be quite low) to false belief.

[Karl_Franz]

09-13-2003 @ 05:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=210861#post210861)
BeHereNow:

I was under the impression that "pagan" was a loose term, not referring to any specific doctrine or religion. Is that not so?

It started as a derogatory term for anyone who didn't subscribe to the belief in one god of the Abrahamic tradition, pagan comes from a word which I think means 'rural', as the worship of traditional gods continued in the country when the cities of the Roman Empire were almost entirely dominated by the cults of Mithras, Christ and Isis.

[Kain]

Mikeb:

The Abrahamic view was a completely novel and unique development in the history of human thought. It sprung from and was developed out of pagan religions (thus the similarities), but the historicism developed by Abraham was a unique creation.


In what way was it unique?

[bar Jonah]

Actually, I am fascinated by the argument put forth by biblical historian William F. Dankenbring, who demonstrates in one of his books that all paganism points back to Nimrod. Before that... men accepted or rejected God and His will.... but he shows evidence that Nimrod may very well have been the first man to create another religion apart from the one true religion, and that the legends of Osiris and many other major pagan gods may be traced back to him, specifically. While his argument isn't explicit proof, he provides quite a bit of backing.

(Dankenbring also has some fascinating things to say about many of the catastrophic events in biblical history, and how they are corroborated by other cultures not only in the Middle East but around the world, including the sun stopping in the sky on two occasions! The book's name may be ill-conceived -- [u]Beyond Star Wars -- but hey, Lucas' film had just come out, and it has to do with some of his conclusions at the end of the book which I ultimately disagree with... but I highly recommend this book. It will make you sit up and pay attention, and it has real apologetic value.)

[Mikeb]

Kain,

The archaic mind was in the business of creating a world. For them the concrete events of every day life only gained reality by participating in some mythological archetype or precident. All the things and experiences in this world were real only in that they reflected some divine archetype.

Abraham, with his single God and blood line covenant, began to see the world around him, the world of historical events and concrete experiences as a theophany, a revelation of God's will. Thus Abrahamic eyes view the world of concrete experience not as a secondary reflection of divine events in another world, but as real, in and of themselves, a real revelation of God's covenant and will.

[Mikeb]

Today @ 05:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=216949#post216949)
Mikeb:

Kain,

The archaic mind was in the business of creating a world. For them the concrete events of every day life only gained reality by participating in some mythological archetype or precident. All the things and experiences in this world were real only in that they reflected some divine archetype.

Abraham, with his single God and blood line covenant, began to see the world around him, the world of historical events and concrete experiences as a theophany, a revelation of God's will. Thus Abrahamic eyes view the world of concrete experience not as a secondary reflection of divine events in another world, but as real, in and of themselves, a real revelation of God's covenant and will.

This is a unique development in human thought, and when the historicism of Abraham was fused with the formal structure of Greek thought by the early Christians, Paul, Aquinus, Augustine, et. al. it gave birth to the modern world we all call home.

[Blake Reas]

09-12-2003 @ 05:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209818#post209818)
Brotherbrian:

I have been doing quite a lot of study recently, and I am currently investigating a new concept. I have seen anything like this on the bookstores or online...

I think paganism (OT paganism) may have been a perversion or perversions of the true religion.

This would definitely explain why Judaism and paganism have so much in common. This is not meant to disparage Judaism or Christianity in any way. I think pagans stole their stuff from God's true believers way, way back.

Any takers? Any input? Any comments would be greatly appreciated...

Brian

Ex-pagan thanks to God!


I would say that Abraham was a Pagan and worshipped one of the local deities of the region of Ur. When YHWH calls him out of the land it is interesting that he uses the name El. I would postulate that somewhere along the line the belief in the one true God almost died out. That is when God revealed himself to Abram as a "tribal" deity. I could post more but most scholarship in this area tends to be highly specualtive do to what we don't know of the ancient world. I would suggest getting a hold of any books by Patrick D. Miller (pretty techincal) and also read Bill T. Arnolds article on it in The Face of Old Testamen Studies which was published by Baker Academic. Arnold gives a historical overview of the discipline and then examines the differing theories on the development of Israelite Religion. I do think that Paganism is a corruption of the worship of YHWH.

In Christ,'
Blake
:haha: :cirrobot:

[Gilgaron]

What definition are you using for "pagan"?

I think Hinduism is as old as Judaism is, so I'm not certain that it could be established that all religions share a common root in history quite like that. My point may be irrelevant depending on what definitions you're using, so I won't elaborate yet.

[epimetheus]

"Actually, I am fascinated by the argument put forth by biblical historian William F. Dankenbring"

The "Nimrod" theory was an anti-Catholic screed written by Alexander Hislop who argued that The Catholic Church was "a system of Paganism" and the "Babylon" of Revelations. It was written in 1853, and despite the fact that the scholarship is spotty to say the least (not to mention completely outdated) many modern Christian historians and theologians still use Hislop as source material for their own agendas.

You can read "The Two Babylons" here:
http://philologos.org/__eb-ttb/default.htm

[nomad]

i think i've seen it other places besides hyslop by now, though that may have been the first.

RI, have you read any velikovsky? it's a bit older than star wars, but 'worlds in collision' was along the same lines. the science may be a bit strange (and i think he's currently considered 'debunked', even though he correctly predicted the existence of planetary magnetic fields against the wisdom of the day), but he does the same thing - tries to synergize ancient historical texts. interesting at least.

one book i am meaning to pick up is wilhelm schmidt's 'origin and growth of religion'. he argues in there that the original religion was monotheistic, and polytheism was a later corruption. it's hard to get a hold of in english though. and i don't feel like reading it in german. if i get ahold of a copy maybe i'll post back.

[Blake Reas]

09-22-2003 @ 05:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=217207#post217207)
Gilgaron:

What definition are you using for "pagan"?

I think Hinduism is as old as Judaism is, so I'm not certain that it could be established that all religions share a common root in history quite like that. My point may be irrelevant depending on what definitions you're using, so I won't elaborate yet.


By Pagan I simply mean nonJudaeo-Christian religions. It is not a matter of Hinduism being before Judaism at all. Are you presupposing a naturalistic interpretation of religion? If you are we hit the "wall" as JP Holding and Kyle Gerkin call it in their debates.
I will give you an example.....Judaism did not exist until the Sinai covenant, but if we take scripture seriously as historical(this takes us down a whole other road namely the JEDP theory of the Pentateuch in its newer modified forms) then it seems to hint that YHWH revealed himself to Abe as EL. So if somewhere back in our earliest history we forgot God and he had to reveal himself again to his people. Like I said the history of Israelite Religion and the ANE in general is highly complex so I will not comment anymore than I know. I would point you in the direction of the works I cited above.

Blake

[Gilgaron]

Blake Reas:

By Pagan I simply mean nonJudaeo-Christian religions. It is not a matter of Hinduism being before Judaism at all. Are you presupposing a naturalistic interpretation of religion? If you are we hit the "wall" as JP Holding and Kyle Gerkin call it in their debates.

I'm not sure what you mean by a naturalistic view of religion. If any pagan religions based off of primitive Judaism, I would suppose it would be Western religions. Eastern religions seem distinct enough to me to have arisen seperately, or diverged before Judaism was recognizable.


I will give you an example.....Judaism did not exist until the Sinai covenant, but if we take scripture seriously as historical(this takes us down a whole other road namely the JEDP theory of the Pentateuch in its newer modified forms) then it seems to hint that YHWH revealed himself to Abe as EL. So if somewhere back in our earliest history we forgot God and he had to reveal himself again to his people. Like I said the history of Israelite Religion and the ANE in general is highly complex so I will not comment anymore than I know. I would point you in the direction of the works I cited above.

Blake

I am not familiar with those acronyms. Perhaps I am not knowledgeable enough to answer your questions on this matter, as I do not think I understand where you're coming from exactly.

[Blake Reas]

10-04-2003 @ 07:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=233142#post233142)
Gilgaron:



[quote]I'm not sure what you mean by a naturalistic view of religion. If any pagan religions based off of primitive Judaism, I would suppose it would be Western religions. Eastern religions seem distinct enough to me to have arisen seperately, or diverged before Judaism was recognizable.

Sorry I have not answered your post I forgot that it was here! What I mean by a Naturalistic view of Religion is that one can explain all Religion as arising out of Naturalistic causes (ie. no creator). Judiasm claims to be Revelatory as does Christianity I am not saying there is no continuity between the two because in reality Christianity started out as a sect of Judaism (unfortunately we split instead of uniting under Christ).




I am not familiar with those acronyms. Perhaps I am not knowledgeable enough to answer your questions on this matter, as I do not think I understand where you're coming from exactly.

YHWH- mean Yahweh God of the hebrews.
EL- High god of the Pathenon in Ur were Abram started out when called by YHWH.
ANE- Ancient Near East
Abe- my shorthand for Abraham. Sorry about that I am used to discussing this in shorthand jargon.

Blake

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

09-21-2003 @ 08:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=216760#post216760)
Karl_Franz:



It started as a derogatory term for anyone who didn't subscribe to the belief in one god of the Abrahamic tradition, pagan comes from a word which I think means 'rural', as the worship of traditional gods continued in the country when the cities of the Roman Empire were almost entirely dominated by the cults of Mithras, Christ and Isis.

That's generally correct. It comes from the Latin "paganus," which means "country dweller." Basically, the country folk adhered to more localized tribal religions, as opposed to the more mainstream religions of the more settled areas, cities and whatnot.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

10-04-2003 @ 01:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=233142#post233142)
Gilgaron:



I'm not sure what you mean by a naturalistic view of religion. If any pagan religions based off of primitive Judaism, I would suppose it would be Western religions. Eastern religions seem distinct enough to me to have arisen seperately, or diverged before Judaism was recognizable.
I think some are trying too hard to root paganism in early Judaism, presupposing incorrectly that Judaism was the first organized religion. I think most scholars tend to agree that Zoroastrianism predated Judaism, not to mention that Hinduism and some of the far eastern religions arose at approximately the same time.

[Gilgaron]

Eireann:

I think some are trying too hard to root paganism in early Judaism, presupposing incorrectly that Judaism was the first organized religion. I think most scholars tend to agree that Zoroastrianism predated Judaism, not to mention that Hinduism and some of the far eastern religions arose at approximately the same time.

I'm not familiar with Zoroastrianism. Do you have any links? I'll give google a shot, of course.

[CatholicSage]

Today @ 02:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=241863#post241863)
Eireann:


I think some are trying too hard to root paganism in early Judaism, presupposing incorrectly that Judaism was the first organized religion. I think most scholars tend to agree that Zoroastrianism predated Judaism, not to mention that Hinduism and some of the far eastern religions arose at approximately the same time.

That's actually not what they are presupposing. I don't think that anyone is saying that Judaism as started by Abraham gave rise to pagan religions. Rather, if the OT is to be taken seriously, there was once one true monotheistic religion before any polytheistic/pagan religions. This true religion was corrupted and perverted into paganism and eventually nearly lost, only to be revealed again to Abraham.

[Mikeb]

Eirean,

Zorastrianism may have predated the cannonization of the Torah which occured around 495 BCE, but I don't think it predated the religion of the Hebrews or the writing of the Torah. Most people accept that Zarathustra lived somewhere between 1000 and 600 BCE while Moses lived about 500 to 1000 years before that.

How you date the emergence of Judaism, the religion is a good question. Is it from the initial blessing of Abraham (which was a blessing on a race, not a faith) or from the founding of the Hebrew nation by Moses, or from the actual canonization of the Torah when it actually became a formal religion. I don't know.

The roots of pagan (i.e. county bumpkin) aside for a moment, I think the question Brotherbrian asked might be phrased: Were pre-Abrahamic religions distortions of the "real" religion that preexisted them.

The answer must be, Not no, but HELL NO. The archaic mind and the religions it spawned were the first fruits of Eden, the poison fruit, the Knowledge of good and evil, in its purest, most deadly form. For the archaic mind existence itself depended upon repeating or reenacting mythic archetypes. Any experience. action or object that did not have a divine precident or mythic model was seen to be non-existent, profane, a part of chaos.

Looking back, we wonder how Rome, an Empire based on terror, opression and slavery, could have existed for over 300 years. How could normal humans inflict such horrible inhumanity on other humans. The answer lies in the structure of the archaic mind, in the fresh fruit of Eden. The archaic mind not only prohibited people from seeing others as human, it prevented them from seeing those people as existent. Everything outside the cities control (i.e. beyond the power of their Gods) was a part of chaos, disorder, non-existence. Thus the act of conquest, slaughter, and opression was seen by the archiac mind as a creative act, an act of bringing order to disorder, creation to chaos.

Abraham was a step back toward life. Abraham recognised that human flesh and actions mattered. The Hebrew covenant introduced responsibilty into the world. For people following the covenant of the Hebrews, their personal and national history was a theophany, a revelation of God's Law and will, a revelation of God himself. Thus the fate of individuals and nations were dependant upon their own actions. If they followed the law, they were rewarded. If they did not they were punished.

This message of earthly human responsibility was not one the world wanted to hear, and we have been punishing the Hebrew nation for bringing ever since.

[bar Jonah]

Mikeb:
This message of earthly human responsibility was not one the world wanted to hear, and we have been punishing the Hebrew nation for bringing ever since.
Uhh.... who is this "we?" :rihrm:

[Mikeb]

Oh, let's see. Hitler comes to mind. Most of Europe during one time or another. The Hebrew nation has been hounded and persecuted from about the time of Abraham onward. By "we" I mean all of us and the "nations" who have tried forever to invent ways to circumvent responsibility and delve back into the blissful carnage of paganism.

[bar Jonah]

So, Mike, you believe in persecuting the Jews, then?

See, I don't. And no friend or relative of mine does, either. So if you believe in attacking the Jews and holding them down, and want to include yourself along with the Nazis, that's your choice, but please define "we" carefully so as not to include the rest of us.

[Mikeb]

Rightidea,

Thanks for sharing that absurd little flame.

If I could divorce myself from my history as easily as you do, I sure I'd feel much better. Unfortunately Christians throughout the ages have Hebrew blood on their hands. Perhaps you should reexamine a value system that allows you to so simply expunge the sins of your history. Isn't that what anti-semitism is?

[bar Jonah]

How can it be a flame? You said "we" and identified yourself with people who attack the Jews.

Or does your definition of "we" not include yourself? :huh:

And no, I have absolutely NO resonsibility for what a bunch of people did hundreds of years ago to a bunch of other people who've been dead hundreds of years. Furthermore, I categorically oppose bigoted oppression of Jews or any other so-called "race" or culture.

So I certainly don't include myself in your "we," and if I were a betting man, I'd bet a month's wages no other person here at TheologyWeb does either. Which kind of throws your "we" out the window.

[Mikeb]

I certianly beg your pardon and am extremely sorry I implicated you in any of the wrongdoings that have occured in the world in the last ten or so millennium.

That's the wonderful thing about Christianity. How it can cut off its connection with its history. How it can hold you and me blameless by claiming that other Christians were not really Christians after all, or that they were mistaken or heritics. What a lovely religion. How convenient, how, how.. Pagan.

[CatholicSage]

:ahem:

You act as though Christians all gather in a secret, underground bunker and decide on the best way to distance themselves from evildoers who happen to be Christian in some vast conspiracy. That was such an absurd post that I see no point in writing anything more detailed.

[Durthorin]

Today @ 05:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=244307#post244307)
LutheranSage:

:ahem:

You act as though Christians all gather in a secret, underground bunker and decide on the best way to distance themselves from evildoers who happen to be Christian in some vast conspiracy. That was such an absurd post that I see no point in writing anything more detailed.

After to many years of hearing the the phrases and the arguments as a non-Christian.. you start to really wonder about that bunker.

The reality is that whenever a Christian does something morally indefensable, other Christians will say he wasn't a "real" Christian, if he had been he would have never done what ever it was he did. Historically, what that means <pointing at your Catholic refence> is that whenever Christians in the other denomination were not "real" Christains then killing, murdering, maiming.. etc was good because it was for the glory of God who was of course on your side.. not theirs cause.. well they arn't "real" Christians. Also when you point these things out to Christians such as they Inquisition, Crusades.. etc etc.. Well those weren't "real" Christians so that does not count against real Christians. Yet anything those same denominations historically did is OK somehow.. you see it causes this moral whiplash in your neck when your try to follow what side of the net some Christians are on.

Danu Bless, Dur

[CatholicSage]

Today @ 05:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=244373#post244373)
Durthorin:



After to many years of hearing the the phrases and the arguments as a non-Christian.. you start to really wonder about that bunker.


And to Christians, that only reinforces the absurdity of the anti-Christian arguments. Good post overall, though.



The reality is that whenever a Christian does something morally indefensable, other Christians will say he wasn't a &quot;real&quot; Christian, if he had been he would have never done what ever it was he did.


I've heard many skeptics/non-Christians accuse Christians of doing this, but I have never once heard this argument actually coming from a Christian. The possible exception is the "Hitler was a Christian" argument, but even then Hitler's moral shortcomings are only used in support of numerous quotes and contemporary public sentiment.



Historically, what that means &lt;pointing at your Catholic refence&gt; is that whenever Christians in the other denomination were not &quot;real&quot; Christains then killing, murdering, maiming.. etc was good because it was for the glory of God who was of course on your side.. not theirs cause.. well they arn't &quot;real&quot; Christians.


I'm having trouble understanding what perspective this is coming from. Using the Crusades as an example, do you mean that from a Protestant perspective the Crusades were good because we can distance ourselves from Catholics but secretly applaud the Crusades? Or do you mean a Catholic perspective where the Catholic could distance himself from the Crusaders and yet still secretly applaud them? Or do you mean from the perspective of a Crusader at the time, where going out and killing in the name of God was good? There are several misconceptions in that section of your post that may need to be cleared up, as I'm somewhat confused.



Also when you point these things out to Christians such as they Inquisition, Crusades.. etc etc.. Well those weren't &quot;real&quot; Christians so that does not count against real Christians. Yet anything those same denominations historically did is OK somehow.. you see it causes this moral whiplash in your neck when your try to follow what side of the net some Christians are on.

Danu Bless, Dur

I for one, and most other people that I know, have never claimed that the Crusades and the Inquisition were performed by "fake" Christians. Rather, some of the actions that were committed in those movements were distinctly and unequivocally un-Christian and condemned by the Christian religion, despite being performed by Christians. One important tenet of Christianity is that ALL people sin, including Christians, so I see no point in being phased by Joe Crusader who murdered a Muslim family, or even by my own Martin Luther who became anti-Semitic later in his life. The only problem I see is when atheists and anti-Christians use these few incidents to condemn the Christian religion as a whole, and I am more than ready to defend my faith in that area.

[Brotherbrian]

Mikeb:

Eirean,


The roots of pagan (i.e. county bumpkin) aside for a moment, I think the question Brotherbrian asked might be phrased: Were pre-Abrahamic religions distortions of the "real" religion that preexisted them.

The answer must be, Not no, but HELL NO. The archaic mind and the religions it spawned were the first fruits of Eden, the poison fruit, the Knowledge of good and evil, in its purest, most deadly form. For the archaic mind existence itself depended upon repeating or reenacting mythic archetypes. Any experience. action or object that did not have a divine precident or mythic model was seen to be non-existent, profane, a part of chaos.


Looking back, we wonder how Rome, an Empire based on terror, opression and slavery, could have existed for over 300 years. How could normal humans inflict such horrible inhumanity on other humans. The answer lies in the structure of the archaic mind, in the fresh fruit of Eden. The archaic mind not only prohibited people from seeing others as human, it prevented them from seeing those people as existent. Everything outside the cities control (i.e. beyond the power of their Gods) was a part of chaos, disorder, non-existence. Thus the act of conquest, slaughter, and opression was seen by the archiac mind as a creative act, an act of bringing order to disorder, creation to chaos.

Abraham was a step back toward life. Abraham recognised that human flesh and actions mattered. The Hebrew covenant introduced responsibilty into the world. For people following the covenant of the Hebrews, their personal and national history was a theophany, a revelation of God's Law and will, a revelation of God himself. Thus the fate of individuals and nations were dependant upon their own actions. If they followed the law, they were rewarded. If they did not they were punished.

This message of earthly human responsibility was not one the world wanted to hear, and we have been punishing the Hebrew nation for bringing ever since.



I think that is a fair re-phrasing of my original question, thank you. Sometimes I get a flair for words, other times... blaaaahhh...

May I ask what evidence brings you to these conclusions?

I will leave the "punishing the Hebrew nation" statement at rest for the moment.

As for your description of the "archaic" mind (assuming you mean ancient rather than Cro Magnon), I think you may be dramatizing or even glamourizing it a bit. To claim that they (the archaic-minded rulers) thought they were creating a new world by slaughtering others is to practically excuse the behavior.

In the scenarios given, I would suggest madness was probably more to blame than dreams of global reform.

I believe there is reason to believe that the belief system we think of as established at Sinai was not the first time Israel knew of the things found within. There are too many instances of pre-Sinai behavior that mirrors that same law. I believe there is a possibility that, whatever form this pre-Abe religion took, could have been the blueprint for virtually all other belief systems (perverted to different degrees, of course).


Sorry for not having posted for a while, but this forum is really hard to keep track of. How does anyone know who is responding to who and in what order?


Brian

[Durthorin]

Today @ 10:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=244550#post244550)
LutheranSage:

I've heard many skeptics/non-Christians accuse Christians of doing this, but I have never once heard this argument actually coming from a Christian. The possible exception is the &quot;Hitler was a Christian&quot; argument, but even then Hitler's moral shortcomings are only used in support of numerous quotes and contemporary public sentiment.


Well I've heard it in Sunday School classes when I taught Sunday School, I have heard it from Southern Baptist Pastors. I have heard in Church with my wife. It has been in referance at those times to things such as the man who shot the doctor who performed abortions, the beating of homosexuals. As irony: in reference to Catholic Priests as not being real Christians. Noting your phrasing you have not heard it coming from a Christian does that mean you have heard it from people you didn't think were Christians?

As to Hitler, as a Pagan I think his religious views are somewhat up in the air.. and tend to accept him as a flawed vessel of spirit no matter what his faith. There are good arguments that he was if not a Pagan at least willing to create a religion for the soul purpose of supporting his own agenda not carrying is it was paganlike/christianlike or some ugly halfbreed of the two.



I'm having trouble understanding what perspective this is coming from. Using the Crusades as an example, do you mean that from a Protestant perspective the Crusades were good because we can distance ourselves from Catholics but secretly applaud the Crusades? Or do you mean a Catholic perspective where the Catholic could distance himself from the Crusaders and yet still secretly applaud them?


Actually both, I have always found it odd that certain fundimentalist denominations denounce Catholics yet adopt as "Good" Christians staunch an proper Catholics of their historic time period, like watching a Protestant using Pascal's Wager unaware that Pascal formulated it to bring wayward Protestants back to the one "true" church. In the case of the above, "Its horrible what happened but it was God's will that moslems not hold the temple. "




I for one, and most other people that I know, have never claimed that the Crusades and the Inquisition were performed by &quot;fake&quot; Christians. Rather, some of the actions that were committed in those movements were distinctly and unequivocally un-Christian and condemned by the Christian religion, despite being performed by Christians.


Then I compliment you and "most" other people you know. As to the Crusaders, they were endorsed and commented as worthy of merit by the Christians and Christian Leadership of the time. Scripture was quoted, sermons where preached, prayers said and God beseeched on their behalf. This points to the concept often quoted of Christianity as being unchanging in its ideas of right/wrong or moral/immoral behavior. Ie by historical example the idea of what was moral Christian behavior has changed. Has it not?

It also goes to an argument used towards Pagans by Christians of bringing up human sacrifice etc.. I tend as a response to state that "My spiritual ancestors fed yours to lions.. yours rampaged across the world forcing people to convert. Neither of our faiths do that anymore.. so lets call it even and move on."



The only problem I see is when atheists and anti-Christians use these few incidents to condemn the Christian religion as a whole, and I am more than ready to defend my faith in that area.

I am hardly an anti-Christian, I have been married to a good southern baptist girl for 23 years now, one son who has decided to follow that faith at 13.. my daughter at 17 is still looking but if I guess correctly will choose a liberal version of Christianity. For my wife and others I see it as a wonderful, enriching and spirtual fufilling path for them. I simply do not see it as the "only" path nor for everyone the "best" path. I note you call them "these few incidents" but doesn't that sort of ignore that even the jest you use "i really like catholics" is based on the historical fact that Protestants and Catholics fought murderous wars against each other for "hundreds" of years?

Be blessed, Dur

[Mikeb]

Brotherbrian,

I'd like to suggest that in your research on this matter you read Mircea Eliade's little, and highly accessible book The Myth of Eternal Return or, Cosmos and History. In it Eliade, a master of comparative religion, lays out the ontological structure of the archaic, pre-Abrahamic mind.

He also goes into some detail about the historicism of the Abrahamic tradition and how that tradition brought the terror of history into the human conciousness. In other words, how the concept of the divine covenant made humans responsible for their own personal and historical fate.

I think you'll find Eliade an interesting read.

I'm not sure what sources you use to conclude that the Abrahamic belief system pre-dated Abe, so I don't know exactly how to comment on your conclusions. I do know that if we don't understand the ontological basis for a belief system, we tend to think it reflects our own.

Perhaps you could expand your "reason to believe" the pre-existence of the Abrahamic mind. In my readings of other ancient religions and philosophies, I find no evidence of Abrahams historicism or his concept of responsibility. It seems to me that it is a unique and profound creation of the Abrahamic covenant.

Btw, thanks for leaving the "punishment of the Hebrew Nation" at rest. When I said it, I simply meant that my reading of history concludes that "we" (i.e. the Non-Hebrews of the world) have persecuted the Hebrew nation pretty single mindedly throughout most of our history... Seems to be a sensitive subject.

[BohemianXQueen]

Listen here. Your Easter Eggs, your Christmas Trees, the day of Christmas, Halloween, and countless other "christian" things came from pre-Christian Pagan religions. THAT's why they have so much in common. Like it or not, the Christians took A LOT from the Pagans in Spain, the Romani areas of Europe, and the Nordic and Gaelic countries.

[bar Jonah]

BohemianXQueen:
Listen here. Your Easter Eggs, your Christmas Trees, the day of Christmas, Halloween, and countless other "christian" things came from pre-Christian Pagan religions. THAT's why they have so much in common. Like it or not, the Christians took A LOT from the Pagans in Spain, the Romani areas of Europe, and the Nordic and Gaelic countries.
That's right. And you can thank the Roman Catholic Church for that injection of paganism into Christian tradition.

I say get rid of it.

What do you think? :ri:

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 10:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=308679#post308679)
BohemianXQueen:

Listen here. Your Easter Eggs, your Christmas Trees, the day of Christmas, Halloween, and countless other &quot;christian&quot; things came from pre-Christian Pagan religions. THAT's why they have so much in common. Like it or not, the Christians took A LOT from the Pagans in Spain, the Romani areas of Europe, and the Nordic and Gaelic countries.

So let's see:
1. Folk traditions that remade the symbolization of certain things, never actually done by the Church.
2. The placing of days.

Oooh. Look how pagan we are :ahem:

[Undomiel]

Eek this thread is a mess!

Yes, the hebrews have been punished for a very, very long time. Partly as an act of YHVH, Himself, against them when they went awry His commandments. But if any of you recall, His commandments were tough! HARD! Incredibly difficult to live up to. ANY race with such a burden would've had the same exact results [if not worse!], thusly the need for grace and salvation.

El (ohim) was not An, Ea, Enlil or Enki or any of the ancient Sumerian gods (let's just get that outta the way right upfront). He was already in existence and worshipped by the ancestors of Abraham. Abe wasn't the first. The hebrew and christian religion is traced, not from the beginning of the promises to Abe, but from the seed of Adam through successive generations to Jesus Christ. Abe only marked the beginning of the hebrew nation and the promises therewith. But let's not forget, Noah also followed God and also received a promise.

The definition of paganism might mean rural in modern day dictionaries, but the actual following of multiple gods was already in existence in ancient Sumeria, long before the Babylonian, Grecian and Roman empires, for example. Unless someone can prove Sumeria was not the first civilization on record, I'd say it's a given that anyone who followed Ba'al, Enki, Enlil, An, etc, was considered following false religions and false gods by the hebrew ancestors of Abraham, forward and backward in time.

[BohemianXQueen]

Haha, Right. I just want people to know that some of the traditions they have aren't of Christian roots. People don't know this, I think they should. Or maybe it's just me whoring my knowledge to make myself look good :rofl: I like to feel like an educated 16 year old girl.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 05:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=309039#post309039)
spl_cadet:



So let's see:
1. Folk traditions that remade the symbolization of certain things, never actually done by the Church.
2. The placing of days.

Oooh. Look how pagan we are :ahem:
Let's not forget the veneration of the saints, the elevation of Mary, and so on. Those are pretty much direct accomodations to polytheism.

[bar Jonah]

Wow, Eirrean, we agree on a religious matter. :tongue:

[tmancour]

It started as a derogatory term for anyone who didn't subscribe to the belief in one god of the Abrahamic tradition, pagan comes from a word which I think means 'rural', as the worship of traditional gods continued in the country when the cities of the Roman Empire were almost entirely dominated by the cults of Mithras, Christ and Isis.
And it's coming back -- There are at least 4 million of us in North America and Europe, and current estimates show the religion doubling in size roughly every 18 months.

[technomage]

And it's coming back -- There are at least 4 million of us in North America and Europe, and current estimates show the religion doubling in size roughly every 18 months.
Greetings and Blessed Be, TMancour,

I would very much like to see the source of these "current estimates."

[CatholicSage]

Egad! Why do people revive ancient threads?? I didn't think I posted on a thread about the origins of paganism recently...

[shunyadragon]

That's generally correct. It comes from the Latin "paganus," which means "country dweller." Basically, the country folk adhered to more localized tribal religions, as opposed to the more mainstream religions of the more settled areas, cities and whatnot.

I consider 'pagan' to be a poor word with many bias, because it developed as a negative label to use as one of many words as clubs and stones - and maybe some cats - for catapults against the other non-Jewish/Christian/Roman religions of the time. The word is later taken as the pseudomodern banner of rebellion against the established religion by various groups that have little or no relation ship to the primative religions of the world that suffer most from the clubs and stones.

All religions, including Judaism, have evolved from primative community and tribal belief systems into kingdom, than empire and later modern religions. All these early primative belief systems shared many charactoristics such as sacrafice (sometimes human) evolving to symbolic sacrafice, from polytheism to monotheism, polygamy to monogamy, anthropomorphic God(s), creation stories, and elaborate cerimonies.

[mikeledo]

From what I can tell all ancient religions including Judaism and Christianity have their origin in cosmic myths.

[Malista_Dove]

I may not be right, but it is my belief that Christianity was derived from Paganism. I have read in Raven Grimassi's books that several different religions influenced paganism as the times passed. Paganism was around before The Roman Catholic Church suddenly outlawed it. Paganism was then practiced "underground."

Holidays such as Easter and Christmas were derived from Pagan holidays that celebrated season and their God/Goddesses.

[technomage]

I may not be right, but it is my belief that Christianity was derived from Paganism. I have read in Raven Grimassi's books that several different religions influenced paganism as the times passed. Paganism was around before The Roman Catholic Church suddenly outlawed it. Paganism was then practiced "underground."

Holidays such as Easter and Christmas were derived from Pagan holidays that celebrated season and their God/Goddesses.

Greetings, Malista,

While it is an interesting theory, it's been fairly well refuted since the days of Graves and Murray. I fear Raven's been doing his research in less reliable sources than could be wished.

It is true that Christianity has been influenced by Paganism--the structure and context of Christian theological writings was developed in a Hellenistic culture, and many elements of Hellenistic philosophy found expression in Christian writings. This is only natural, as various Greek philosophies were considered the pinnacle of human thought, and as Christianity was fighting not just for the heart, but for the mind, of believers, Christian writers (many of whom were trained in Greek schools of thought) used their training to express the new "Way."

And it is true that much of Christian ritual and practice was influenced by Pagan religion: just as Wicca and most other forms of Neo-Paganism are heavily influenced by the Post-Modernism in which they originated (and the Romanticism from which they sprang), Christianity was influenced by the practices of the time. We can clearly see that in the use of the dates for Christmas, even though the similarities betwen Easter dating and Spring Equinox are more coincidence than design. And we can see this influence in many of the customs that have sprang up within Christianity.

But to say that Christianity was derived from Paganism is to give far too little weight to the influence of pre-Christian Judaism. It would be more accurate to state that Christianity was built on a Judaic foundation, but incorporated some Pagan elements of design.

[Sevivon1913]

I may not be right, but it is my belief that Christianity was derived from Paganism. I have read in Raven Grimassi's books that several different religions influenced paganism as the times passed. Paganism was around before The Roman Catholic Church suddenly outlawed it. Paganism was then practiced "underground."

Holidays such as Easter and Christmas were derived from Pagan holidays that celebrated season and their God/Goddesses.

You're absolutely correct. Everything about the life of Jesus can be found in any of the ancient pagan god-man-who-dies-for-the-world religions.

Not only did the Catholics outlaw and persecute "Pagans," but they also persecuted and outlawed any Christians who were tolerent pluralist GNOSTIC (they didn't take the life of Christ as a literal event, but as a moral and spiritual lesson) instead of LITERALIST fundamentalists. Unfortunately, all Christians today are descended from these fundamentalists (they wiped the gnostics out pretty well). They also wiped out the ORIGINAL followers of Jesus - the Ebionites - by the 10th Century CE. These original followers denied the supernatural or divine nature of Christ, the ressurection, etc and they were founded by the ORIGINAL disciples of Jesus (as opposed to PAUL the inventor of churchianity).

There is absolutely NOTHING "Judaic" about the origins of Christianity. There is NO RESEMBLENCE WHATSOEVER. Here's a literal analogy as to how Christianity is derived from Judaism:

excriment is derived from the food we eat.

Don't let any Christians pull the wool over your eyes -- if Christianity isn't pagan, then neither is Hinduism.

[barnasha]

You're absolutely correct. Everything about the life of Jesus can be found in any of the ancient pagan god-man-who-dies-for-the-world religions.

Ah, but just because the well is poisoned, does not mean there was not clean water in there to begin with.



Not only did the Catholics outlaw and persecute "Pagans," but they also persecuted and outlawed any Christians who were tolerent pluralist GNOSTIC (they didn't take the life of Christ as a literal event, but as a moral and spiritual lesson) instead of LITERALIST fundamentalists. Unfortunately, all Christians today are descended from these fundamentalists (they wiped the gnostics out pretty well). They also wiped out the ORIGINAL followers of Jesus - the Ebionites - by the 10th Century CE. These original followers denied the supernatural or divine nature of Christ, the ressurection, etc and they were founded by the ORIGINAL disciples of Jesus (as opposed to PAUL the inventor of churchianity).


"pagan" is a relative term. If a new world religion suddenly made Abrahamic theology obsolete, it could be viewed as "pagan", too!



There is absolutely NOTHING "Judaic" about the origins of Christianity.

depends on what you refer to as Christianity. Jesus, and the first christians, (who were not necessarily his disciples, by the way), were Jews.... in the ethnic and religious sense!



There is NO RESEMBLENCE WHATSOEVER. Here's a literal analogy as to how Christianity is derived from Judaism:

[quote]
Don't let any Christians pull the wool over your eyes -- if Christianity isn't pagan, then neither is Hinduism.

hinduism is only pagan in relationship to buddhism or secularism (et cetera), it is a relative term, "pagan".

[shunyadragon]

"pagan" is a relative term. If a new world religion suddenly made Abrahamic theology obsolete, it could be viewed as "pagan", too!

Pagan is a relative term and originally met coumtryside beliefs in the Roman Empire. The primal religions o the Neolithic peoples of the world are most likely basis for what people call pagans. If you follow the Bible and archeology of the Middle East is clear that Abrahamic religions evolved from primal tribal beliefs of people in the region.




. . . depends on what you refer to as Christianity. Jesus, and the first christians, (who were not necessarily his disciples, by the way), were Jews.... in the ethnic and religious sense!

Jews in the ethnic and religious sense evolved from pagan tribal peoples.



hinduism is only pagan in relationship to buddhism or secularism (et cetera), it is a relative term, "pagan".

Hinduism and Buddhism have their roots in Neolithic pagan tribal beliefs.

How does secularism fit here?

[barnasha]

Jews in the ethnic and religious sense evolved from pagan tribal peoples.

Hinduism and Buddhism have their roots in Neolithic pagan tribal beliefs.


yep... same for, well, every people on the face of the earth who changed. the old way is called "pagan".

[mikeledo]

From what I can tell, all religions have their basis in the cosmic myth. Religions differed based on differences in astrological view points and culture. Some would fuse history and myth, like the Old Testament. The stories of gods and heros are nothing more than a storybook of the constellations. In the OT this would basically run from creation to the crowning of Solomon. In the NT, the nativity and passion are cosmic myths.

That is not to say certain events did not happen, because myth was blended with history.