Basically, I object to describing religious beliefs as 'pagan' unless the believers themselves describe(d) them as such. I find your approach, which seems to classify all non-Judeo-Christian beliefs as 'pagan', to be overly Christian-centric.
Actually, all non-Judeo-Christian beliefs (as well as Abrahamaic-based Islamic beliefs which are identical to Judaic beliefs) are, by definition, pagan.
Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "an old country dweller, rustic") is a term which, from a Western perspective, has come to connote a broad set of spiritual or cultic practices or beliefs of any folk religion, and of historical and contemporary polytheistic religions in particular.
The term can be defined broadly, to encompass the faith traditions outside the Abrahamic monotheistic group of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The group so defined includes the Dharmic religions (such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism), Native American religions and mythologies and Shinto as well as non-Abrahamic ethnic religions in general. More narrow definitions will not include any of the world religions and restrict the term to local or rural currents not organized as civil religions. Characteristic of Pagan traditions is the absence of proselytism, and the presence of a living mythology which explains religious practice.[1]
The term "Pagan" is a Christian adaptation of the "Gentile" of Judaism, and as such has an inherent Christian or Abrahamic bias, and pejorative connotations among Westerners,[2] comparable to heathen, and infidel, mushrik and kafir (كافر) in Islam. For this reason, ethnologists avoid the term "Paganism", with its uncertain and varied meanings, in referring to traditional or historic faiths, preferring more precise categories such as polytheism, shamanism, pantheism, or animism.
Considering that most of the original converts to Christianity were Jewish, it seems like they would have found it a bit odd to suddenly be turned around and told that they're now supposed to begin celebrating birthdays (a practice at the time only done by pagans), and whats more they were to celebrate their God's birthday at the very time that all the pagans around them were celebrating the various births of their winter-gods.
Also true. Nowhere in the bible does it say that Christians cannot celebrate birthdays. Yet, the only records of birthday celebrations in the bible are spoken of in a negative light, such as the birthday celebration in which John the Baptist was beheaded. Jesus himself never advocated the celebration of his birthday, as it was not even a custom among the Jews. But he did instruct his followers to celebrate his death in rememberance of his ransom sacrifice during the Lord's Meal.
It's also interesting to note that candles on a cake as a part of modern birthday celebrations are also of pagan origins. In ancient times, pagans would light candles on the day of people's birth to ward off wicked spirits. They superstitiously believed that with each passing year, you were one year closer to your death, and thus feared than on the anniversary of your birth, wicked spirits or the fates might try to kill you. So they lit candles as a way of protecting themselves.
I find it appalling that the vast majority of today's Christians have no problem celebrating pagan holidays. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
I find it appalling that the vast majority of today's Christians have no problem celebrating pagan holidays.
Appalling? Isn't it too strong an expression to use in this context?
I don't see what's wrong with pagan traditions. Celebrating pagan holidays doesn't make you pagan (I also find this word rather out-of-date and slightly offensive). Most atheists celebrate Christmas, which is a Christian holiday. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Last edited by Liz on Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
That is one definition, yes. However, I choose to reject that usage, because I find it offensive.
In what way? I'd be very interested to hear your side of this issue.
Honestly, most people that I end up engaging in this topic take it so personally that they do not want to discuss it with me from the moment I first spout out my initial data, so I have not had much opportunity to properly discuss it and talk the points over with a real person. I realize that there is a bit of a raw spot with people concerning their beliefs and logic behind it, myself included on many occasions. However, I would really just like to have the opportunity to hash out the specifics and see whats left. As it says in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. ".
Perhaps this is more of a topic for another thread.
I find it appalling that the vast majority of today's Christians have no problem celebrating pagan holidays.
Appalling? Isn't it too strong an expression to use in this context?
I don't see what's wrong with pagan traditions. Most atheists celebrate Christmas, which is a Christian holiday.
But have you ever considered what God might want? Try seeing it from his point of view, assuming like the Judeo-Christians that he exists. The pagan religions and the worship of other gods was something detestable to God. He punished the nation of Israel repeatedly for worshipping pagan gods such as Baal. So, being that God does not change, there is no reason to conclude that he wouldn't find such practices just as detestable today, as he did back then. Jesus told his followers that those who worship God must worship him in spirt and in truth. Therefore, we can't worship God whichever way we see fit, or whichever way seems most convinient. A lot of people do that however.
The bible says that many would have a form of Godly devotion, yet prove false to its power. Sadly, the vast majority of Christian churches fit that description. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
Pagans had their God/gods, too. From their perspective, that's what God wants.
Porthos wrote:
Try seeing it from his point of view, assuming like the Judeo-Christians that he exists. The pagan religions and the worship of other gods was something detestable to God. He punished the nation of Israel repeatedly for worshipping pagan gods such as Baal. So, being that God does not change, there is no reason to conclude that he wouldn't find such practices just as detestable today, as he did back then. Jesus told his followers that those who worship God must worship him in spirt and in truth. Therefore, we can't worship God whichever way we see fit, or whichever way seems most convinient. A lot of people do that however.
You are mixing different things, Josh. You seem to be implying that present-day Christians really *do* worship pagan Gods as they used to do in the old times. Well, they definitely aren't - most of these "rites" (for want of a better word) are merely formal now, just the revival of old traditions.
I don't really know how these things are going on in the States, but there are lots of countries (including mine) where ancient pagan and Christian traditions are naturally and traditionally intertwined. It's part of the folk culture, and no-one questions its credibility, not even profoundly religious Christians. Besides, it varies from culture to culture. You might have started out as Christians, we didn't. It wasn't possible to convert an originallly and traditionally pagan nation to Christianity by annihilating its traditions and destroying its roots. Therefore, old pagan traditions were melted into Christian practice and has remained an integral part of it. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Last edited by Liz on Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:02 pm; edited 2 times in total
I find it appalling that the vast majority of today's Christians have no problem celebrating pagan holidays.
Appalling? Isn't it too strong an expression to use in this context?
I don't see what's wrong with pagan traditions. Celebrating pagan holidays doesn't make you pagan (I also find this word rather out-of-date and slightly offensive). Most atheists celebrate Christmas, which is a Christian holiday.
Well, it's not appalling from the perspective of atheists because they have no reason to think it should be. Most atheists that do follow Christmas are typically not doing so for religious reasons, but are doing so simply because its customary. If you don't have any religious conoctations associated with it, you would have no reason be appalled by it as there is no "appalling" precedent that you're aware of.
From a biblical standpoint however, it is appalling because you're essentially mixing ways of men, made up from our own minds, with the ways of God. God laid his plan out very specifically and for reasons far more greater than us. Mixing other beliefs in with His ways is akin to taking a physics course, but then adding your own methods for doing things that you just made up off the top of your head, or changing numbers and elements at your discretion because it's "easier" or you simply prefer it. You'll still run into logic problems real fast if you simply choose to see water as "H3O2" instead of the proper "H2O". However, simply believing that water has an extra hydrogen atom and an extra oxygen atom still doesn't make it so. In the same way, for instance, the 7 'feasts of the Lord' depict the salvation of mankind and the establishment of God's Kingdom.. If the Hebrews tried to just change that at their whim then the whole point of the festivals broke down and lost their true meaning. Ancient Israel did just that, and God made it very clear to them how He disapproved, and that's one of the many reasons that He took back from the what He had given them... A land of their own with everything they'd ever need.
Also, another excellent example of God punishing His people for taking the practices of the surrounding peoples is during the Exodus. As I recall, while Moses went up to the mount and spoke with God, the people at the bottom grew weary of waiting, and decided to melt down all of their gold and form a golden calf, and begin to worship it. This enraged Moses to no end, leading up to him actually throwing down and breaking the newly minted '10 commandments'. Because of that transgression God told them that the Israelites would not even get to see the promised land until all of that generation was dead and gone, and that only their children would enter, which is why they wondered through that desert for 40 years. Even Moses himself never entered the promised land.
Also, I had not realized that there was such a percieved negative association with the term "pagan", so I will try to refrain from using it. When I use 'pagan' in my previous posts, I simply meant any believe or practice that didn't fall into directly biblically supported beliefs, so please just take it as that.
That is one definition, yes. However, I choose to reject that usage, because I find it offensive.
In what way? I'd be very interested to hear your side of this issue.
Because it's Christian-centric, and because most of the people whom you would describe as 'pagan' do not see themselves as such. The only people I would describe as 'pagans' are those who describe themselves as pagans — which includes only a few new religious movements. Hindus, for example, do not see themselves as 'pagans'.
It wasn't possible to convert an originallly and traditionally pagan nation to Christianity by annihilating its traditions and destroying its roots. Therefore, old pagan traditions were melted into Christian practice and has remained an integral part of it.
Very good point, but I guess the question that remains is, after all of that melding and meshing has occured, is it really still Christianity, or a new creation all its own? If I take a pot of vegetable soup and mix it with some chili, some alfredo sauce, and throw in a few hamburgers, then is it still vegetable soup?
Also, I had not realized that there was such a percieved negative association with the term "pagan", so I will try to refrain from using it. When I use 'pagan' in my previous posts, I simply meant any believe or practice that didn't fall into directly biblically supported beliefs, so please just take it as that
It has come to carry a negative conotation among Muslims/Christians/Jews similar to words such as "infidel" or "heathen". But the word itself is not necessarily negative, and so I won't refrain from using it. It merely means polytheistic religions, in contrast with the monoethistic religions of Islam/Christianity/Judaism.
So when I use the term, I don't mean it in a pejorative sense. That being said, I will continue to use the term based on its actual meaning, negative associations aside. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
It wasn't possible to convert an originallly and traditionally pagan nation to Christianity by annihilating its traditions and destroying its roots. Therefore, old pagan traditions were melted into Christian practice and has remained an integral part of it.
Very good point, but I guess the question that remains is, after all of that melding and meshing has occured, is it really still Christianity, or a new creation all its own? If I take a pot of vegetable soup and mix it with some chili, some alfredo sauce, and throw in a few hamburgers, then is it still vegetable soup?
You seem to use a lot of illustrations. I take it you're following the precedent set by Jesus in that he frequently made use of illustrations in his teachings. They're a great instruction tool. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
That is one definition, yes. However, I choose to reject that usage, because I find it offensive.
In what way? I'd be very interested to hear your side of this issue.
Because it's Christian-centric, and because most of the people whom you would describe as 'pagan' do not see themselves as such. The only people I would describe as 'pagans' are those who describe themselves as pagans — which includes only a few new religious movements. Hindus, for example, do not see themselves as 'pagans'.
Oh yeah, absolutely, the idea of being "pagan" is purely a subjective concept. At its base meaning, it can simply mean "anything outside your beliefs". Thats why, like i said above, I will refrain from using the term as it apparently has too many possible interpretations. Actually now that I think about, the only time I really hear 'pagan' used in mainstream culture is when referring to certain 'new age' groups, etc. Ironically, these 'new age' groups are not new at all... they almost all draw their beliefs on the exact same ancient systems that have been meshed in with Christianity now.
It merely means polytheistic religions, in contrast with the monoethistic religions of Islam/Christianity/Judaism.
In that case, how would you describe Sikhism, Zoroastrianism and the Bahá'í Faith? And contrary to popular Western assumptions, it isn't entirely reasonable to describe Hinduism as 'polytheistic'.
Well, you are right, Daniel (it's your name, isn't it?) - as an atheist, I don't have such an insight into these issues. I don't intend to have an argument with you as we obviously have different world views, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's why I regard faith debates as rather inane discussions.
I was merely trying to point out that celebrating some pagan holidays aren't tantamount to worshipping pagan gods. Furthermore, some of those customs have been integral part of Christian tradition and practice of religion for long, long years in several countries. I elaborated on that in my above post. You ignored that as we have written cross posts I reckon.
PS: I know that the situation is a bit different in the US as you started out as a Christian state, having been colonised by Puritans and other Christians. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
It wasn't possible to convert an originallly and traditionally pagan nation to Christianity by annihilating its traditions and destroying its roots. Therefore, old pagan traditions were melted into Christian practice and has remained an integral part of it.
Very good point, but I guess the question that remains is, after all of that melding and meshing has occured, is it really still Christianity, or a new creation all its own? If I take a pot of vegetable soup and mix it with some chili, some alfredo sauce, and throw in a few hamburgers, then is it still vegetable soup?
You seem to use a lot of illustrations. I take it you're following the precedent set by Jesus in that he frequently made use of illustrations in his teachings. They're a great instruction tool.
Lol, I suppose hehe. Actually, i think also, a lot of where I get that habit is watching Star Trek over the years...Almost every episode they'll try and take some abstract concept and equate it with some simple metaphor.. "Captain we seem to be caught in some sort of quantum slipstream and its pulling us away from this sector!" "Ahh yes Mr. Kim, just like being caught in a river without a log to grab on.. lets see if we can find that log Mr Kim".. lol..
But yeah, makes a great teaching tool, and worked out great for Jesus.
It wasn't possible to convert an originallly and traditionally pagan nation to Christianity by annihilating its traditions and destroying its roots. Therefore, old pagan traditions were melted into Christian practice and has remained an integral part of it.
Very good point, but I guess the question that remains is, after all of that melding and meshing has occured, is it really still Christianity, or a new creation all its own? If I take a pot of vegetable soup and mix it with some chili, some alfredo sauce, and throw in a few hamburgers, then is it still vegetable soup?
It's a very logical and almost convincing, albeit a little specious argument. Certainly, you are right, but look at the ingredients - you have an abundance of other things than vegetables in your soup, whereas the rather exiguous number of pagan customs will never outnumber Christian traditions in present-day religious practice. They are like spices in a dish but the ingredients you mixed into your soup definitely spoil the taste of it. You will never recognise that it has once been a vegetable soup. At the same time, the presence of pagan customs/traditions is nigh-on symbolic and they are hardly ever implemented in their original form. You don't even think of all of those customs as being pagan. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
Well, you are right, Daniel (it's your name, isn't it?)
Yep
Liz wrote:
I was merely trying to point out that celebrating some pagan holidays aren't tantamount to worshipping pagan gods. Furthermore, some of those customs have been integral part of Christian tradition and practice of religion for long, long years in several countries. I elaborated on that in my above post. You ignored that as we have written cross posts I reckon.
Ah yeah, sry bout that :P Actually, the main reason for the blending of the Christian traditions was what I had stated in an earlier post. Rome went out to convert Europe and instructed his bishops to essentially "Christianize" the local traditions, an act that I disagree with. What we see now 1500 years later is the result of that. But, had they not done that at the time, the Roman Empire would not have endured for as long as it did, in all of its many incarnations. It was the glue of the church that held the Empire together, which is why, over time, the church came to hold the true power in the Empire. Essentially it was done for political reasons as a way of controlling the masses, hence controlling regional power. Not a very "Godly" method of expanding a church, but very logical for expanding an empire.
Liz wrote:
PS: I know that the situation is a bit different in the US as you started out as a Christian state, having been colonised by Puritans and other Christians.
Very true, but do not forget that we were colonized by primarily by Europeans, especially at the beginning. They were primarily protestant, yes, but believe me the Catholic church followed pretty quickly. Today you will not find much difference between us and Europe in that respect. We are primarly now a secular society, regardless of the percentage of people who go to church--it's merely a symbolic thing for most of them.. I know this from personal experience--and regardless of what the so-called "Christian-right" would have you believe. We are pretty much an identical meshing of ancient forgotten traditions with modern Christianity, we have the same Catholic church, and all the mainstream protestant organizations are banded together in systems like the "National Evangelical Association", which pretty much follow de-facto standard protestant beliefs that you'll also find in Europe. The only difference is over in Europe, you'll probably find those traditions more wrapped up in the local cultural customs, whereas here you'll only find them wrapped up in religious customs.
Actually, the main reason for the blending of the Christian traditions was what I had stated in an earlier post. Rome went out to convert Europe and instructed his bishops to essentially "Christianize" the local traditions, an act that I disagree with. What we see now 1500 years later is the result of that. But, had they not done that at the time, the Roman Empire would not have endured for as long as it did, in all of its many incarnations. It was the glue of the church that held the Empire together, which is why, over time, the church came to hold the true power in the Empire. Essentially it was done for political reasons as a way of controlling the masses, hence controlling regional power. Not a very "Godly" method of expanding a church, but very logical for expanding an empire.
That's true. King Stephen I converted to Christianity and implemented Christian customs, making them obligatory for all Hungarians for the prosaic reason that he wanted our nation to survive, get integrated into Europe and prevent it from sinking into oblivion. If he hadn't done that, we wouldn't exist now - in all likelihood.
However, it raises the question whether the philosophy based on the statement "the end justifies the means" is compatible with Christianity or not. In my opinion, it isn't but the fact that it all happened in the ancient and medieval times shouldn't be overlooked, either.
PS: I hope my posts make at least a modicum of sense as I'm writing too quickly and carelessly. I bet I didn't get most of the prepositions right.
We made another cross post: you didn't notice that I reflected on your vegetable soup simile.
_________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
