Posted on 02/20/2008 11:03:10 AM PST by NYer
“Paganism” is a term fraught with all sorts of connotations.
It originally meant something like “country dweller,” “rustic” or even “hick.” That’s because (contrary to popular myth) Christianity did not spread among the Hee Haw-watchers of antiquity, but among the city dwellers and urban folk.
The very last people to receive the faith were the rural folk who clung to the worship of the old gods and the customs of their ancestors long after Christianity had become thoroughly established in the cities.
So the term originally referred only to “country folk.”
However, because the country folk were devoted to the various gods of the Gentiles, it came to mean something else: a worshipper of non-Christian deities.
And as those deities receded into the past and became conflated with the demons of both revelation and of the medieval imagination, “pagan” came to take on a much darker significance.
It became fraught with imagery of devils, horned gods, and all manner of wild witchery (which paganism was sometimes, in fact, fraught with). To call somebody a “pagan” in this sense was no longer to describe where they lived, but to say something desperately dark about their soul.
Finally, in these latter days, “pagan” has taken yet another turn and is now used in some circles as a compliment. Among a growing number of people, “pagan” now means “post-Christian religionist who is attempting to rescue reverence for Nature from the hands of evil Judeo-Christian earth rapists.”
The notion behind this version of “pagan” is that there was once a magical far-off time when humans dwelt in harmony with Mother Earth, everybody was comfortable with their various Jungian archetypes, and all was well as we worshipped the “gods” and “goddesses” who both expressed the beauty of Nature and got us in touch with our inmost selves (and lots of libido, to boot).
Who needs all that stuff about sin, dying to self and the need for redemption? The great blunder of the human race was when the old gods were swept away by the evil Judeo-Christian God. We have to return to our natural state of innocence with the gods (and especially the goddesses) of Nature that reigned before God mucked everything up. Then we will find the happiness we are all seeking.
The first thing to note about paganism, is the last thing that I note: It is seeking something. Paganism is, according to G.K. Chesterton, a search. Chesterton had a very high regard for pre-Christian paganism. He famously said that paganism was the attempt to reach God through the imagination. He declared, “Paganism was the largest thing in the world and Christianity was larger; and everything else has been comparatively small.” The thing it is seeking is the thing we all seek: the thing St. Thomas Aquinas says we can’t not seek — happiness.
But that brings us to our second point: namely that paganism takes two basic forms — pre-Christian and post-Christian.
Pre-Christian paganism was, says philosopher Peter Kreeft, a virgin. Post-Christian paganism is, he adds, a divorcee. And that matters enormously because there are two basic reasons people ask questions: to find something out and to keep from finding something out.
Pre-Christian paganism was (for the most part) an attempt to find God. It was (as we shall see in our next discussion) often alloyed with all sorts of error and hampered by original sin. But the fundamental goal was a search for God. As such, it was ordered toward reality, though much hampered in the pursuit by the effects of sin.
Post-Christian paganism is, first and foremost, a search for an escape from God. It is a hunt for the blessings of heaven without the trouble of submitting to heaven. As such, it is ordered toward unreality, though much hampered in the pursuit by the work of the Holy Spirit.
Now it should be noted here that merely living in the 21st century does not automatically make you a post-Christian pagan. It is quite possible for pre-Christian pagans to exist in this day and age. I well remember a woman I worked with who was spurred by Joan Osborne’s song with the refrain “What if God was one of us?” to remark: “Wouldn’t that be a cool idea for a story?”
“What?” I queried.
“Well, suppose God became a human being. Wouldn’t that be a great idea for a story?”
I remarked, “Yeah! You could call it ‘The Greatest Story Ever Told’ or something.”
She had no clue that this was what Christianity taught. It was, even at this date, news. And she was amazed.
But others are, in Chesterton’s phrase, “weary of hearing what they have never yet heard.” These divorcee post-Christians are looking, not for God, but for something — anything — else.
Understanding that is the essential first step. Next time, we will discuss the next step.
By who's estimates, The author's? I suspect the author has some very severe bias towards one particular way and you share that view.
Not all who wander are lost, but in this case they are.
In other words anyone who believes to the contrary is then labeled "lost" or whatever pejorative they want.
Everything you believe is predicated on what is believed being "the truth" everything falls apart if it is not. That is the two meter wide hole going directly to the reactor core. You are free to ignore it all you want many people no longer do so.
The questions they ask have been answered by many good men whose wisdom, learning, and experience exceeds all of ours. Yet they rely on their own powers and ignore the stored up learning of centuries.
Why is that, I wonder?
No not a straw man or god. It cuts directly to the heart of what you believe.
Deriding a religious belief suitable for a child of 6 proves nothing with respect to mature Christian faith.
Failing to take stock in what you believe in is what is suitable for a child of six. If I were to go around saying I have an invisible friend who I talk to and he grants me wishes like some cosmic genie I'd be thrown in the loony bin. What you refer to a being a child I refer to as boiling down to the components parts. That people do not like that indicates a problem on their part not mine.
The whole point of Christianity is that God is no longer invisible. He humbled himself to become man and suffered and died for our salvation - mine, and yours too. That is the concrete answer.
That is not an answer that is a carrot dangled to attract converts. Perhaps you should change the bait.
“That is an opinion not a fact.”
No, sorry, it is a fact, objective, empirical, and demonstrated.
You accept many things as facts for which the proof is far more tenuous.
All fine and dandy why do you feel the need to keep repeating that? I have already stated my position others have their own reasons for believing as they do.
The questions they ask have been answered by many good men whose wisdom, learning, and experience exceeds all of ours. Yet they rely on their own powers and ignore the stored up learning of centuries.
So if good men say 2+2=5 it is five. Is this Good Brother instead of Big Brother?
Why is that, I wonder?
You could look into it or just believe the choice is yours.
In case you want to know I have no animus towards Christianity. Frankly I have no dog in the fight in their quest for souls with any other religion except islam and my beef with islam has more to do with islam's excesses in the temporal world. What I do have a problem with is someone so blinded by their beliefs they are willing to go to their own destruction believing everyone jumping off is somehow a traitor. This is not something limited to just religion.
prove that it is a fact and use something other than the bible. The bible has a slight bias towards itself.
Straw god again.
This does not cut to the heart of anyone's belief. You are stating what you believe religion to be . . . not what it actually is. And your stated belief is contrary to Christianity as it is. That is the very definition of a straw man argument -- attack a proposition you created yourself, not what you are purporting to attack.
That is not an answer that is a carrot dangled to attract converts. Perhaps you should change the bait.
No, that is the straw man again. You are imagining what you believe the faith to be. Why don't you ask questions and seek real answers, instead of asking rhetorical questions and treating every statement with exaggerated suspicion?
Your position is neither daring nor intellectual. It is so common that C.S. Lewis put your very words in the mouths of the obstinate Dwarves in The Last Battle. "They are so afraid of being taken in, that they cannot be taken out."
Much of what we're talking about predates the compilation of the group of writings now called 'the Bible'.
It's a book you might have heard of it.
That is an opinion. But I'm sure you will just say strawman again as if that means something.
You are not going to convince me that Christianity is the one true religion. And I am not trying to convince you that it is not. My original post to this thread, which has gone widely astray, was a bemused observation of history.Believe what you wish but realize there are others who believe differently. But remember the tighter you make your grip the more people will slip through your fingers.
You keep using it. I'm just calling it by its proper name.
If you prefer I not use the rhetorical term, that's o.k. In plain words, you are attacking something you created, not the actual proposition. In other words, you are arguing with yourself.
Reason and logic are not ends in themselves. You can over-intellectualize, doubt, and deconstruct yourself into believing in absolutely nothing at all.
C.S. Lewis, once again, has seen it all before (probably because he began as an atheist intellectual):
Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for. There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers, and were glad when you had found them. Become a child again, even now… You have gone wrong. Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth.
- The Great Divorce
I highly recommend Lewis, by the way, as a guide to the essential elements of Christianity. You could do worse than start with that book, which is one of the finest he ever wrote.
Ever been to Antartica? If not, how do you know it exists?
When you buy a pound of meat at the store, do you weigh it on your own personal scale before you buy it to make sure it weighs a pound, or do you trust that the store's claim of a pound is correct?
When you go to your parents' house (or the house of anyone you trust implicitly) and they serve you some food, do you test that food to make sure it's safe for human consumption, or do you trust that they aren't trying to poison you?
If you meet a friend you trust, and that friend tells you about another friend you haven't seen in years, do you automatically trust that first friend to tell you the truth, or do you always verify what everyone tells you about other people? What if it was impossible to verify what your first friend told you about the second, in a physical way? Would you automatically reject what your first friend said, even if you knew him/her for years, and had no reason to distrust them?
The point is, unless you are an unreasonable person, you do trust certain other people to tell you the truth, without "verifying" it yourself physically, so there is no reason to not apply this methodology to the existence of God/Jesus. That is to say, faith is a method of knowledge, it isn't just something you "believe" because it makes you feel good. This is demonstrated by the FACT of Antartica, the FACT that the butcher weighed the meat correctly, the FACT that your parents don't want to poison you, the FACT(S) that you know about your second friend through the WITNESS of the first.
IOW, there are two ways to know facts for certain, one, through direct knowledge (which is what you say that's all you do, but unless you don't believe in Antartica's existence before you go there, or weigh all things yourself before buying them to make sure their weight is correct, you don't), and indirect knowledge through a WITNESS. Both are equally valid ways of obtaining facts, unless one is unreasonable, and visits every part of the world before believing they exist, and tests the food one's loved ones provides for poison.
:::wonder if anyone will get the reference:::
the best post of the thread.
So you'd say you don't have the answer?
No I do not have the answer. If I did I'd write a book or start a religion. I don't think anyone has the answer which is why I ask the questions. It seems that upsets people though. I'm not sure why.
Whether or not they can be physically quantified is irrelevant to my point. Again, do you go around "quantifying everything" before you believe in it? My point is, that unless you are a crazy person, going around and "quantifying" everything, then you aren't consistent when you say:
I don't believe in God because I can't quantify Him. But, I have no problem accepting other's testimony regarding Antartica, the weight of meat, or the facts about my 2nd friend through the WITNESS of my first.
You rely on the witness of others to trust that Antartica exists, or that a pound of meat really is a pound, or that there are facts about another friend related to you through the first. So why can't you rely upon the witness of others with regards to the existence of God/Jesus? Are you seriously telling me that only because you CAN quantify something, not necessarily because you ACTUALLY do, but ONLY because you can, that's the only reason you believe in something? You are the one claiming that something shouldn't be believed if it isn't quantified PERSONALLY, but yet now you are turning around and saying, "Well, you don't have to quantify everything personally, but just because I COULD if I WANTED to THAT makes it real".
This is not reasonable because of the simple fact it's not consistent. On one hand you have no problem believing Antartica exists even though you haven't verified it personally, but yet, when someone doesn't verify the existence of God personally, you say that their witness of Him is irrelevant. This is a non sequitur.
However, others will tell me that their god is the correct one still others will say there is no god. Are they by your definition not also trustworthy? If not why are they not?
I don't know, and that's the question you must answer: ARE they trustworthy? This is the task that faces every human being. I'm not proposing that it's reasonable to trust just anyone. I'm proposing that if there is no reason to distrust someone, then you should examine their claims further. And how do you examine their claims? You, along with everyone else, must compare a claim someone makes to the absolute standard of "reasonableness" which every sane person possesses.
Now you might counter, "Well, I already don't think it's reasonable to even consider that there might be a God", but that's only because you are a slave to the modernistic version of "rationale" which demands that only direct knowledge is secure. That is to say, you are making an assumption, a priori that the question of God cannot be answered in a reasonable fashion because there's no way to know God directly, through a person to person contact. But I've already demonstrated that you already rely upon indirect knowledge in other areas (your friend that tells you of another, the weight of meat at a store, the existence of Antartica) so, there's no reason (other than a hypocritical one) that would state that one can't use indirect knowledge to apply to the question of God.
The most crucial point to remember in my posts to you is that the method I've described so far does not necessarily lead you to the Christian God right away, but my claim is, that eventually it WILL, IF one is not prejudiced to the claim that He exists, or ultimately, not prejudiced to the claim that INdirect knowledge is of EQUAL WEIGHT as DIRECT knowledge. Your own human existence proves this axiom true (Antartica, the weight of meat, the facts about your 2nd friend given through the first), therefore by every definition of "reasonable" it is reasonable to use the method of indirect knowledge to determine FACTS about REALITY when direct knowledge is impossible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.