Christian Pagans

[Crysiira]

I posted a thread in the Christian Wiccan section of Paths, and I just wanted to draw some attention to it because I'm having trouble getting responses!! I'm doing a report for my Anthropology of Myth Magic and Religion class about Christian Wiccans/Pagans/Witches/Whatevers.... and I really need some help from the people who practice this, because I'm having trouble finding any sort of book sources!! I hate to shamelessly self-advertise another post, but I really neeed youuuu! :hahugh:
So if you get a chance, please pop over there and answer a few of my questions, pretty please? :)
Thank you!!

[Darbla]

Here are a couple of Christo Pagan yahoo groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChristianWicca/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianwitch/

Nancy, who runs the first group, did write a book but I think she's between printings now but working on getting some more done. You could join those groups and ask your questions. Good luck.

Darbla

[Crysiira]

That's a good idea - Thank You!! :hahugh:

[Rudas Starblaze]

as long as youre doing a modern report and not a history style anthro report you should have a prob finding info on wiccans and christian wiccans.

[Crysiira]

No, believe me, this is no history report. If it were, I'd really be lost! I know Christian Wicca and, well, most Pagan "religions" in general are really very personal practices and gut feelings; no history involved. But if anyone can pass on some books or sites that might help me, I'd appreciate it! I need just a few book sources to make this report at least look a litte bit official! :lol:

[Lunar_Dragonfly]

One of the best pages I've ever found on the subject:
http://members.aol.com/RawnaMoon/
There's *tons* of information here. Hope that helps :)

[Sage Rainsong]

most Pagan "religions" in general are really very personal practices and gut feelings; no history involved.

I'm sorry but I do have to disagree with that. There are many Pagans that have a bad sense of history but that depends on the Pagan and the religion. Recons for example rely heavily on history. Anyway here are some websites that you may find useful:

http://esotericchristian.com/

http://moonpathcuups.org/christo.htm

http://christianwicca.org/

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4885/cwj_index.html

[ajc2184]

Think you have the wrong idea here,a Pagan is either a Pagan or isnt!!! Unless yo make the rules up as you go along and if so there is absolutely no point in being anything! A Pagan can not deffinately no way be a Christian, that is impossible, the word Pagan means you are not a christian!

[David19]

Think you have the wrong idea here,a Pagan is either a Pagan or isnt!!! Unless yo make the rules up as you go along and if so there is absolutely no point in being anything! A Pagan can not deffinately no way be a Christian, that is impossible, the word Pagan means you are not a christian!

The word Pagan actually means "country-dweller", and didn't really have any religious significance, the Romans applied it to the early Christians. It was probably the equivalent to the word "inbred hick", "hill billy", "red neck", etc.

The Romans applied it to those in the country, those who didn't join the military, etc. Since the early Christians were called pagan, then technically, I guess that means Christians could be considered part of Paganism (OMGs, the horror :lol: ).

[Crysiira]

I'm sorry but I do have to disagree with that. There are many Pagans that have a bad sense of history but that depends on the Pagan and the religion. Recons for example rely heavily on history.


You're right, I should have defined what I was saying a little better. I just meant that the rise of Paganism in America has had a relatively short history, and many beliefs in Paganism are personal, very specific to that single person, though I know many other beliefs can trace their way back to very ancient history. I should know; I'm very Celtic-inspired myself! Sorry, I wasn't too clear before, huh? :hahugh:

Oh, and don't worry, ajc2184, your side of the story will be mentioned in my report. However, it is only your opinion, so please don't tell me I have the wrong idea.

[Lady Valkyrie]

The word Pagan actually means "country-dweller", and didn't really have any religious significance, the Romans applied it to the early Christians. It was probably the equivalent to the word "inbred hick", "hill billy", "red neck", etc.

The Romans applied it to those in the country, those who didn't join the military, etc. Since the early Christians were called pagan, then technically, I guess that means Christians could be considered part of Paganism (OMGs, the horror :lol: ).


Actually you are somewhat wrong. The word "pagan" comes from the Latin word "paganus" which meant "a civillian" or "a country dweller." The Latin word "paganus" comes from the Latin word "pagus" which meant "country district." Now with that said, during the early years of the Christian church, many of the churches were found in major cities or larger communities. So of course one would find that these cities and larger communities were filled with church going Christians. But the farther outside of those cities or larger communities one would go the less Christians one would find. That is because those who lived farther away from the churches in the cities and larger communities still embraced their native spiritual teachings of the land. The Christians in the cities would refer to such people in a derrogatory way as "pagans." Thus is how we in modern times have come about to have the word Pagan to mean a person who follows a religion that is not of Abrahamic lineage.

[HadouKen24]

I suppose I could go on my usual rant about the fundamental contradictions between paganism and Christianity, but I don't see the point.

That said, Christians are, I think, a lot closer to paganism than most atheists. And Catholics are closer than Protestants.

[Lady Valkyrie]

I suppose I could go on my usual rant about the fundamental contradictions between paganism and Christianity, but I don't see the point.

That said, Christians are, I think, a lot closer to paganism than most atheists. And Catholics are closer than Protestants.


Rant away... I like to be amused by fanatical fundamentalists... whether it be a fanatical fundamentalist Christian or a fanatical fundamentalist Pagan/Wiccan/Witch. If you ask me both sides of the fanatical fundamentalism have a lot more in common than they care to admit to themselves... and that is they believe themselves to be totally right and everyone else is totally wrong. I used to get mad as heck at those who told me I can't possible blend Paganism and Christianity. Now I just sit back and LMAO at them... because I am blending them and have been for years and their "rule" that says I can't means nothing to me now.

[LostSheep]

I suppose I could go on my usual rant about the fundamental contradictions between paganism and Christianity, but I don't see the point.

That said, Christians are, I think, a lot closer to paganism than most atheists. And Catholics are closer than Protestants.

Just curious, how many of these fundamental contradictions are based on the old Testament or all the stuff that the church added over the centuries, rather than what Jesus (is reported as) saying, at any rate?

[ap Dafydd]

Rant away... I like to be amused by fanatical fundamentalists... whether it be a fanatical fundamentalist Christian or a fanatical fundamentalist Pagan/Wiccan/Witch. If you ask me both sides of the fanatical fundamentalism have a lot more in common than they care to admit to themselves... and that is they believe themselves to be totally right and everyone else is totally wrong. I used to get mad as heck at those who told me I can't possible blend Paganism and Christianity. Now I just sit back and LMAO at them... because I am blending them and have been for years and their "rule" that says I can't means nothing to me now.

OK, I'll bite, but only because a friend (who is firmly Wiccan) gave permission to quote what he had to say on the subject...

Do Wiccans believe there is only one God, who created heaven and earth? No.

Do Wiccans believe in the Fall and Original Sin? No.

Do Wiccans believe Jesus was the only Son of God, is also God in a trinity
with the Father and the Holy Spirit, died for our sins, and rose from the
dead? No.

Do Wiccans believe they need redeeming through the above Jesus? No.

Do Wiccans believe that Christianity is the one and only true faith. No.

Do Wiccans believe the Christian Bible is the word of God, or even uniquely
authoritative amongst sacred texts? No.

Do Wiccans follow the ten commandments? Not unless one of them happen to
coincide with what would be right anyway.

Do Wiccans believe that everyone who is not a good Christian is going to
suffer for all eternity in hell? No.

Do Wiccans believe that human beings were created by the Christian God to
have lordship over the earth, and are essentially different from the rest of
life? No.

Do Wiccans believe that life on earth is merely a testing ground in
preparation for an afterlife? No.

Do Wiccans believe in the Day of Judgement and the Resurrection? No.

Do Wiccans accept the spiritual authority of the Pope or any other Christian
leader? No.

Do Wiccans believe that sex is evil, and that the body is the tomb of the
spirit? No.

Though I'm not a Wiccan myself, I can certainly agree with those sentiments. Wondered how you felt about them though?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Lady Valkyrie]

OK, I'll bite, but only because a friend (who is firmly Wiccan) gave permission to quote what he had to say on the subject...

Do Wiccans believe there is only one God, who created heaven and earth? No.

Do Wiccans believe in the Fall and Original Sin? No.

Do Wiccans believe Jesus was the only Son of God, is also God in a trinity
with the Father and the Holy Spirit, died for our sins, and rose from the
dead? No.

Do Wiccans believe they need redeeming through the above Jesus? No.

Do Wiccans believe that Christianity is the one and only true faith. No.

Do Wiccans believe the Christian Bible is the word of God, or even uniquely
authoritative amongst sacred texts? No.

Do Wiccans follow the ten commandments? Not unless one of them happen to
coincide with what would be right anyway.

Do Wiccans believe that everyone who is not a good Christian is going to
suffer for all eternity in hell? No.

Do Wiccans believe that human beings were created by the Christian God to
have lordship over the earth, and are essentially different from the rest of
life? No.

Do Wiccans believe that life on earth is merely a testing ground in
preparation for an afterlife? No.

Do Wiccans believe in the Day of Judgement and the Resurrection? No.

Do Wiccans accept the spiritual authority of the Pope or any other Christian
leader? No.

Do Wiccans believe that sex is evil, and that the body is the tomb of the
spirit? No.

Though I'm not a Wiccan myself, I can certainly agree with those sentiments. Wondered how you felt about them though?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred


How many Wiccans of today do you know actually uphold every one of the 161 Wiccan Laws that Gardner wrote? LMAO! Wicca has evolved since Gardner and will continue to evolve. Christianity is nothing like it was in the beginnings of the early Christian church. It's evolved and will continue to evolve. It is not for "gwyn eich byd" or for "Ffred" to determine what is "right" and what is "wrong" when it comes to one's personal religious/spiritual beliefs/practices. A "belief" is just that... a belief that is based on faith and not on hard core facts. It is a personal issue. So if a Wiccan wants to blend aspects of Christianity, Buddhism, and Satanism then so be it... it's their personal choice and no one has the right to tell them they are wrong for how they feel or for what they spiritually believe in.

Like I said, just because "Tom, Harry, Sally and Jane" believe my personal beliefs and practices can't be done or are wrong doesn't mean that "Tom, Harry, Sally, and Jane" are right.

[LostSheep]

Do Wiccans believe there is only one God, who created heaven and earth? .

Do Wiccans believe in the Fall and Original Sin?

Do Wiccans believe Jesus was the only Son of God, is also God in a trinity
with the Father and the Holy Spirit, died for our sins, and rose from the
dead?

Do Wiccans believe they need redeeming through the above Jesus?

Do Wiccans believe that Christianity is the one and only true faith?

Do Wiccans believe the Christian Bible is the word of God, or even uniquely
authoritative amongst sacred texts?.

Do Wiccans follow the ten commandments? Not unless one of them happen to
coincide with what would be right anyway.

Do Wiccans believe that everyone who is not a good Christian is going to
suffer for all eternity in hell? No.

Do Wiccans believe that human beings were created by the Christian God to
have lordship over the earth, and are essentially different from the rest of
life? No.

Do Wiccans believe that life on earth is merely a testing ground in
preparation for an afterlife? No.

Do Wiccans believe in the Day of Judgement and the Resurrection? No.

Do Wiccans accept the spiritual authority of the Pope or any other Christian
leader? No.

Do Wiccans believe that sex is evil, and that the body is the tomb of the
spirit? No.

Though I'm not a Wiccan myself, I can certainly agree with those sentiments. Wondered how you felt about them though?

gwyn eich byd

Ffred
So basically then, to be a Wiccan you have to answer "No" to all of the above, and to be a Christian you have to answer "Yes"? Doesn't that sound just as much like a set of dogma that's laid down that you have to follow as the Christian dogma that Wicca is supposed to be free from? Only this time, you have to disbelieve all of it.

Isn't there any room for coming to your own conclusions then, or do you have to give the answers as set out above in order to fit into one or other of the convenient boxes?

And in any case, some of those questions:
Do Wiccans accept the spiritual authority of the Pope or any other Christian
leader? No.

Do Wiccans believe that sex is evil, and that the body is the tomb of the
spirit? No. for instance, are only relate to specific branches of Christianity, and believe it or not there's more than just the one.

[Matsumoto]

I'm christian and pagan myself. I really don't see it as a conflict of interest at all :)

[David19]

OK, I'll bite, but only because a friend (who is firmly Wiccan) gave permission to quote what he had to say on the subject...

Do Wiccans believe there is only one God, who created heaven and earth? No.

Do Wiccans believe in the Fall and Original Sin? No.

Do Wiccans believe Jesus was the only Son of God, is also God in a trinity
with the Father and the Holy Spirit, died for our sins, and rose from the
dead? No.

Do Wiccans believe they need redeeming through the above Jesus? No.

Do Wiccans believe that Christianity is the one and only true faith. No.

Do Wiccans believe the Christian Bible is the word of God, or even uniquely
authoritative amongst sacred texts? No.

Do Wiccans follow the ten commandments? Not unless one of them happen to
coincide with what would be right anyway.

Do Wiccans believe that everyone who is not a good Christian is going to
suffer for all eternity in hell? No.

Do Wiccans believe that human beings were created by the Christian God to
have lordship over the earth, and are essentially different from the rest of
life? No.

Do Wiccans believe that life on earth is merely a testing ground in
preparation for an afterlife? No.

Do Wiccans believe in the Day of Judgement and the Resurrection? No.

Do Wiccans accept the spiritual authority of the Pope or any other Christian
leader? No.

Do Wiccans believe that sex is evil, and that the body is the tomb of the
spirit? No.

Though I'm not a Wiccan myself, I can certainly agree with those sentiments. Wondered how you felt about them though?

Do Wiccans believe that sex is evil, and that the body is the tomb of the
spirit? No., I wanted to answer this one, 'cause you should know there were a Wiccans (and probably still are) who thought gay people are "sick" and "perverted", and who would've probably think the thought of myself having sex with another guy was "evil".

Also, about the body being the "tomb" of the body, it's not just Christianity who believed that, there were many Pagan traditions who thought that (look up Orphicism, a Pagan gnostic tradition who believed matter was created from the dead bodies of the Titans and that the spirit was trapped within and that the goal of life was to escape the material prison), and Orphicism is a lot older than Wicca (and grew up in the Hellenic era, a era famed for it's philosiphical tradition, something Wicca can't claim).

Plus, as someone else mentioned, how many Wiccans follow the Old Laws of Wicca (http://web.archive.org/web/19960101000000-20051231235959/http://www.whywiccanssuck.com/laws.html), laws that are meant to be part of Gardner's original Wicca.

I'm a Pagan and I can accept Christian Pagans, we (the world) have a lot more concerns that what someone chooses to believe, the real important issues are things that are going on now (Darfur, Iraq, the AIDS crisis, poverty, etc).

[Aina]

Everyone and anyone has their own way of belifes. Nothing is "right" or "wrong" . Nowadays, this world has become just that. I am a Christian, and a witch. Now, I know that the bible says "thou not suffer a witch to live" , but hey, I've been praying my butt off about this, and, as of now, I havn't gotten any sign saying that what I am isnt okay.
People should have faith in what makes them feel comfertable. I think that is the best for this already corrupt world..

gaaah, im sorry, I'm really down today. I'm on my lunch hour, so I'll type more when I get home tonight.

-Aina-

[Baba Yaga]

Just out of curiousity, may I ask how a christian-pagan resolves the inflexible nature of christianity in order to blend it with another path? Not to be disrespectful, I just am unclear about how it would work.

[ap Dafydd]

How many Wiccans of today do you know actually uphold every one of the 161 Wiccan Laws that Gardner wrote? LMAO! Wicca has evolved since Gardner and will continue to evolve. Christianity is nothing like it was in the beginnings of the early Christian church. It's evolved and will continue to evolve.

All of the principles that I quoted above are recognisable to me as part of modern Christianity. I do accept that it's very different from the original period, but equally, I don't accept that it has any common ground with either Classical or modern Paganism.


It is not for "gwyn eich byd"

Nor do I appreciate being racially abused.


or for "Ffred" to determine what is "right" and what is "wrong" when it comes to one's personal religious/spiritual beliefs/practices. A "belief" is just that... a belief that is based on faith and not on hard core facts. It is a personal issue. So if a Wiccan wants to blend aspects of Christianity, Buddhism, and Satanism then so be it... it's their personal choice and no one has the right to tell them they are wrong for how they feel or for what they spiritually believe in.

All of this sounds like your saying "_I'll_ believe what _I_ want to believe and if _I_ say it's Christianity/Wicca then it _is_ Christianity/Wicca and I don't care what anyone else has to say"

That automatically removes any possibility of debate. After all, if you're right and everyone else is wrong, then how can anyone who doesn't say "yes, yes, you are absolutely right" have any validity in your scheme of things?


Like I said, just because "Tom, Harry, Sally and Jane" believe my personal beliefs and practices can't be done or are wrong doesn't mean that "Tom, Harry, Sally, and Jane" are right.

I'm reminded here of the old cartoon which shows fond parents watching their son in a military parade and saying "Oh look, our Jack's the only one in step!"

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[CheshireEyes]

Isn't christian pagans kinda like "jews for jesus"....an oxymoron? Seriously?

[wtfidka]

Well this is exactly what I said CE but nobody seemed to see it as such!:viking:

[LostSheep]

Isn't christian pagans kinda like "jews for jesus"....an oxymoron? Seriously?

well, I've tried explaining as best i can, but i may as well give up i think.

[CheshireEyes]

well, I've tried explaining as best i can, but i may as well give up i think.

seriously, LS, it is illogical to me....i'm too vulcan i think...lol

[Lady Valkyrie]

Just out of curiousity, may I ask how a christian-pagan resolves the inflexible nature of christianity in order to blend it with another path? Not to be disrespectful, I just am unclear about how it would work.


Christianity isn't inflexible... Christians themselves are most times the ones who are inflexible due to their twisted and biased interpretation of scriptures and along with the unwillingness to actually study and apply other Christian/Gnostic scriptures that didn't make the canon. And for those things within Christianity that appear to be inflexible then it is left up to each individial person... personal gnosis.

[LostSheep]

seriously, LS, it is illogical to me....i'm too vulcan i think...lolwell, basically I think, if you try and reconcile what the church has said and done over all the time it's been in a position of power, with pagan thinking, then yes, they don't match up very well, but i don't really see all that - all that stuff about sin, and how women shouldn't have anything to do with it, and all the rituals and suchlike - as having very much at all to do with what Jesus may have actually thought or said. I think, if you look at what Jesus may have actually wanted - i think he was a radical who wanted to get rid of all the established structures of power and all that - then, well, I think it's quite interesting.

for instance, he wanted to overthrow the priests and the temples and all that, and I think how Jesus saw it was that God was everywhere and you didn't need any churches or priests or whatever to get in touch with him, and I think a lot more of what he really intended was completely turned round by the church once it got power to suit itself.

[Lady Valkyrie]

Isn't christian pagans kinda like "jews for jesus"....an oxymoron? Seriously?

Does a Jewish person automatically stop being a Jew just because they acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah that all Jews have been and are currently waiting on? Wow! If that isn't religious intolerance I don't know what is! There are many Messianic Jews in this world who are told this very thing by many Jewish denominations and even Christians. Heck, Messianic Jews aren't considered Jewish under the State of Israel's Law of Return. Which I personally think is BS. All this crap about they are not "Jewish" once they believe in Jesus is man's way of trying to keep God in a box. It's their way of continuing to control fellow mankind through organized religion. It's BS!

[CheshireEyes]

Does a Jewish person automatically stop being a Jew just because they acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah that all Jews have been and are currently waiting on? Wow! If that isn't religious intolerance I don't know what is! There are many Messianic Jews in this world who are told this very thing by many Jewish denominations and even Christians. Heck, Messianic Jews aren't considered Jewish under the State of Israel's Law of Return. Which I personally think is BS. All this crap about they are not "Jewish" once they believe in Jesus is man's way of trying to keep God in a box. It's their way of continuing to control fellow mankind through organized religion. It's BS!
uh, if you believe the messiah has arrived, how can you consider yourself a jew? since they're still waiting? And don't believe that Jesus was the messiah. if they do, they're about several millennia too late....


well, basically I think, if you try and reconcile what the church has said and done over all the time it's been in a position of power, with pagan thinking, then yes, they don't match up very well, but i don't really see all that - all that stuff about sin, and how women shouldn't have anything to do with it, and all the rituals and suchlike - as having very much at all to do with what Jesus may have actually thought or said. I think, if you look at what Jesus may have actually wanted - i think he was a radical who wanted to get rid of all the established structures of power and all that - then, well, I think it's quite interesting.

for instance, he wanted to overthrow the priests and the temples and all that, and I think how Jesus saw it was that God was everywhere and you didn't need any churches or priests or whatever to get in touch with him, and I think a lot more of what he really intended was completely turned round by the church once it got power to suit itself.

i agree completely...

[Crysiira]

Look, you guys... I didn't start this thread with the intention of starting another "is Christian Wiccan valid" debate. I'm not questioning its validity. I simply asked that anyone who followed that path would go over to my thread in the Christian Witchcraft subforum and answer a few questions for my deeper understanding. I thank those who did.

HOWEVER, since it has turned into such a debate, I do want to say this:
The notion of exclusivity, that you can't practice more than one religion at a time, is a very Western train of thought. In many other cultures, people mix all sorts of religions. Some Japanese people will mix Buddhism and Christianity and even their local native Shinto. For them, it's not an issue to mix religions. It's just what they do. People do this all over, sometimes without realizing it. Every religion that has ever existed shows some blending of the religions that are around it or came before it. There is no "pure" religion known. I say this fairly confident in my knowledge because of much research and schooling. That is not to say I know it all, or that my schooling even counts for much. It's just what I know to be true.

And that's really all that anyone out there is practicing for their religion - what they know to be true. People who blend religions, including Christo-Pagans, are going to continue to do so because it's what they believe in, no matter how many times others say "it's just not possible." What happened to the idea of tolerance that so many Pagans love? The idea that we should be able to believe what we want to believe in without being persecuted, scorned, or made fun of? Does that only apply to us? I don't think that should be true; I think it should apply to everyone.

Please understand... I'm not trying to belittle your opinions. I'm just saying that we all have our opinions, and we shouldn't be trying to "disprove" other people's opinions. We can disprove facts, but not opinions. As the saying goes, live and let live; and apply that to religion, believe and let believe.

[Lady Valkyrie]

Isn't it funny how many Pagans, Witches, Wiccans, and even Athiests often pride themselves on not being a part of "organized religion" with all those "man made rules and regulations" yet as soon as anyone outside of their belief system goes against the grain of their affiliated religious denomination/sect those very same Pagans, Witches, Wiccans, and Athiests often cut them down often chastising them for not obeying those "man made rules and regulations." You'd think they'd be happy for those of us who refuse to keep God/Goddess in a box and refuse to blindly obey religious authority. But then again such people have nothing better to do with their lives than to point out every little alleged fault and mistake in others

[HadouKen24]

The notion of exclusivity, that you can't practice more than one religion at a time, is a very Western train of thought.

I would go further. It is not simply a Western train of thought--after all, the Romans and Greeks were certainly not religious exclusivists, as long as one recognized the civic deities--but a Christian train of thought. Christianity carried the radical monotheism of Judaism out to Europe. Moreover, Christ proposed a radically narrow salvation. Few are those who walk down the narrow path to salvation, and many walk down the wider path to destruction. Though for Jesus himself it had nothing to do with priesthoods or birthright, he was quite exclusive in his own way. For Jesus, one had to believe in the one God--not in any others--and internalize that belief. The exclusivity in Christianity is not only institutional--one can always denounce or fail to participate in institutions--but internalized.

Exclusivity is inevitable if one is to be a monotheist in a revealed religion. If there is one God, then it only makes sense that there would be one way of following that God. With rules and doctrine as incommensurable as those found in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, one must choose one over the others--and non-monotheistic traditions are clearly to be denounced. To say that Christianity and Islam are both correct, one must either say that there was human error, in which case all monotheistic traditions, including one's own, are undermined, or one must empty-headedly ignore the radical differences between the religions.

To say that Christianity can be combined with paganism is to radically misunderstand Christianity.


Isn't it funny how many Pagans, Witches, Wiccans, and even Athiests often pride themselves on not being a part of "organized religion" with all those "man made rules and regulations" yet as soon as anyone outside of their belief system goes against the grain of their affiliated religious denomination/sect those very same Pagans, Witches, Wiccans, and Athiests often cut them down often chastising them for not obeying those "man made rules and regulations." You'd think they'd be happy for those of us who refuse to keep God/Goddess in a box and refuse to blindly obey religious authority. But then again such people have nothing better to do with their lives than to point out every little alleged fault and mistake in others

I really don't believe that's accurate. I don't think anyone is saying that you're a bad person, or that your path doesn't really feel fulfilling. What we're saying is that it doesn't make sense. You can do what you want, of course, and there's not really anything we can do about it. But there has to be a line between paganism and the rest of the religiospiritual community, or paganism won't really have a definition. One of those boundaries has always been Christianity--pagans are almost always defined specifically as not Christian, and for good reasons, most of which have more to do with Christianity than paganism. You can cross that boundary if you like, but in doing so you place yourself outside the pagan community.

This is not being nit-picky. This isn't "every little alleged fault." This is an issue having to do with what paganism is.

[plumedsnake]

Just out of curiousity, may I ask how a christian-pagan resolves the inflexible nature of christianity in order to blend it with another path? Not to be disrespectful, I just am unclear about how it would work.

You see the inflexible nature of christianity is not fundamental to christianity. It only came in when Orthodoxy was introduced into christianity during the establishing of xtianity as the roman state religion. After that point other religions got persecuted as pagans and/or heretics. These heretics included many that were christians before the orthodox guys hogged the name christianity all for themselves.

There are as many paths in religion as there are individuals that practise religion. I see it as there is only One religion.
Inflexible orthodoxology is merely a religionism.

[LostSheep]

I really don't believe that's accurate. I don't think anyone is saying that you're a bad person, or that your path doesn't really feel fulfilling. What we're saying is that it doesn't make sense. You can do what you want, of course, and there's not really anything we can do about it. But there has to be a line between paganism and the rest of the religiospiritual community, or paganism won't really have a definition. One of those boundaries has always been Christianity--pagans are almost always defined specifically as not Christian, and for good reasons, most of which have more to do with Christianity than paganism. You can cross that boundary if you like, but in doing so you place yourself outside the pagan community.


sheep is mildly disappointed to find that he is outside the pagan community, but i'm used to it by now.

ho hum.

my apologies for intruding.

[Crysiira]

I would go further. It is not simply a Western train of thought--after all, the Romans and Greeks were certainly not religious exclusivists, as long as one recognized the civic deities--but a Christian train of thought. Christianity carried the radical monotheism of Judaism out to Europe. Moreover, Christ proposed a radically narrow salvation. Few are those who walk down the narrow path to salvation, and many walk down the wider path to destruction. Though for Jesus himself it had nothing to do with priesthoods or birthright, he was quite exclusive in his own way. For Jesus, one had to believe in the one God--not in any others--and internalize that belief. The exclusivity in Christianity is not only institutional--one can always denounce or fail to participate in institutions--but internalized.

Exclusivity is inevitable if one is to be a monotheist in a revealed religion. If there is one God, then it only makes sense that there would be one way of following that God. With rules and doctrine as incommensurable as those found in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, one must choose one over the others--and non-monotheistic traditions are clearly to be denounced. To say that Christianity and Islam are both correct, one must either say that there was human error, in which case all monotheistic traditions, including one's own, are undermined, or one must empty-headedly ignore the radical differences between the religions.

To say that Christianity can be combined with paganism is to radically misunderstand Christianity.



I'm sorry. We will have to agree to disagree on this point. I will "empty-headedly ignore the radical differences between the religions," and you will go about telling people their beliefs don't make sense, and we will go our seperate ways.

[LostSheep]

In saying that "it doesn't make sense", does that mean that it doesn't "make sense", point blank, or just that it doesn't "make sense" to that one person, i wonder? There seems to be a lot of absolute certainty there; a little, i don't know, dogmatic almost?


You can cross that boundary if you like, but in doing so you place yourself outside the pagan community. On whose authority are you stating that?

[SweetIsTheTruth]

To say that Christianity can be combined with paganism is to radically misunderstand Christianity.

Funny that. There is a Catholic Church not far from here, named Saint Brigid. Do you think those Christians know their church is named for a Pagan Goddess?


What we're saying is that it doesn't make sense.

But what you really mean is it doesn't make sense to you, because you see contradictions in such a mix that you yourself can not resolve.


Let's face it, contradictions exist in the mind. If a mind can work out those contradictions and resolve them, then a ChristoPagan can easily move forward on their path. Seriously, how many denominations of Christianity exist on the planet? Thousands? Is one more going to hurt? You might better get used to this sort of thing. Look for a professor of religion out of the University of Charlotte. He has some very interesting statistics on how these days, vast percentages of those in our society are taking a buffet approach to religion. You take a little from here, mix it with a little from there, throw in a dash of this and a dash of that. This is becoming the norm. Christianity itself was syncretized from numerous sources.



But there has to be a line between paganism and the rest of the religiospiritual community, or paganism won't really have a definition.

Ok, I get it. The sky is falling.



One of those boundaries has always been Christianity--


We used to have a boundary which clearly stated those of different races couldn't marry. That boundary is gone. Society did not go to hell in a handbasket as a result of this either. Unfortunately, this boundary you claim which prevents paganism from mixing with Christianity, doesn't exist and never really has. For how many years, or hundreds of years, has Christ been associated with Tiphareth on the tree? How long has the LBRP been with us, requiring us to call on archangels which are allegedly the servants of YHVH? The modern neo-pagan movement sprung from Wicca, which sprung from Ceremonialism, which sprung from, etc. Jesus has been at the 6th sephira throughout all of this.



pagans are almost always defined specifically as not Christian, and for good reasons, most of which have more to do with Christianity than paganism.

Seems to me it would be more logical to define one's beliefs based on what they actually are, rather than what they are not.



You can cross that boundary if you like, but in doing so you place yourself outside the pagan community.

So an atheist can be a pagan but a Christian can't? That doesn't sound right to me.



This is an issue having to do with what paganism is.

The problem is your definition, which is rather unusual based on my personal knowledge, is that you are somehow defining paganism as 'not Christianity.'

Sorry, but in a free society if someone wishes to invoke Jesus into a circle to do some magick, they have the right to do that, no matter that you fail to understand how Christianity and Paganism might be blended into a single practice. (And yes, I myself have numerous issues surrounding Christianity. However, I don't see why Jesus couldn't be invoked as any other deity could. I mean, if a chaote can invoke Spongebob......)

[wtfidka]

Isn't it funny how many Pagans, Witches, Wiccans, and even Athiests often pride themselves on not being a part of "organized religion" with all those "man made rules and regulations" yet as soon as anyone outside of their belief system goes against the grain of their affiliated religious denomination/sect those very same Pagans, Witches, Wiccans, and Athiests often cut them down often chastising them for not obeying those "man made rules and regulations." You'd think they'd be happy for those of us who refuse to keep God/Goddess in a box and refuse to blindly obey religious authority. But then again such people have nothing better to do with their lives than to point out every little alleged fault and mistake in others

Pagans by any recognised deffinition of the word cannot be Christians!

As for Witchcraft having "man made rules and regulations" could you please tell me what these are, I am a Witch, I have many freinds who are Witches too and as far as I am aware there are no rules or regulations in Witchcraft other than the ethical values each Witch places upon themselves! Idont know what type of Witchcraft you are reffering to but it isnt one that I recognise.

[LostSheep]

Pagans by any recognised deffinition of the word cannot be Christians!
.
if only i had such clarity of vision as to be able to state things with such certainty.

Further to that; this might be interesting. http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcr5.htm

It does say
It appears to be impossible for a Wiccan to match the definition of a Christian that is used by conservative Christian faith groups., but note the conservative Christian bit. That's not the only kind, just as Gardnerian Wicca, say, isn't the only branch of Wicca, let alone the only pagan path.

[wtfidka]

I dont think I even mentioned wicca, I was talking about Witches not wiccans!

[LostSheep]

Oh i know, i was just using it as an example of how there's more than one pagan path, just as there's more than one kind of Christainity, and not all of them are as dead set against pagans, that's all.

[SweetIsTheTruth]

Pagans by any recognised deffinition of the word cannot be Christians!

Actually, it appears the definition of the word 'pagan' contradicts itself;

pa·gan [pey-guhn]
–noun
1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.
–adjective
4. pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim.
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of pagans.
6. irreligious or hedonistic.

(From http://dictionary.reference.com/)

Definition #1 could include Christians, since their trinity obviously references 3 divine personages, making Christianity itself a form of paganism, by definition.

#2 contradicts #1, since the trinity is 3 and therefore, polytheistic, meeting definition #1. #3 could apply to a person working magick with Jesus as a deity, given that orthodox Christianity might consider such magick to be irreligious or hedonistic, etc and so on.

Looks like our definitions are going to have to change. I seriously doubt the ChristoPagans are going to alter their beliefs or practices simply because of what the dictionary says.

By the way, I just checked Crowley's 777, which associates the following in Table 1 Column XXXVI;

Sephira 1 - God the 3 in 1
Sephira 2 - God the Father
Sephira 3 - The Virgin Mary
Sephira 4 - God the Rain Maker
Sephira 5 - Christ coming to judge the world
Sephira 6 - God the Son
Sephira 7 - Messiah Lord of Hosts
Sephira 8 - God the Holy Ghost (as comforter, inspirer of scriptures, etc)
Sephira 9 - God the Holy Ghost (as incubus)
Sephira 10 - Ecclesia Xsti

Number 11 begins associations for the tarot trumps and continues.

In any event, if one considers the Tree of Life to be occult, hermetic or pagan and well outside of orthodox Christianity, it becomes quite clear that 777, penned in the last century, had already infused Christian mythos all up and down the tree. Hell, you can work your way straight up the tree using solely Christian imagery, deities and myth.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems we are almost a century late in deciding to become upset that the Christian myths have already been fused into the very foundations of Western magickal practices. It didn't start with Crowley either. Wasn't it Blavatsky who also drew parallels between myths found in religions throughout the world, including Christianity?

[wtfidka]

Ok, seems we ought to let this rest a while, suffice to say that Christians would not tolerate my kind of Paganism! Like you say there are many different paths and I really dont have a problem with that.

[wtfidka]

Actually, it appears the definition of the word 'pagan' contradicts itself;

pa·gan [pey-guhn]
–noun
1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.
–adjective
4. pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim.
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of pagans.
6. irreligious or hedonistic.

(From http://dictionary.reference.com/)

Definition #1 could include Christians, since their trinity obviously references 3 divine personages, making Christianity itself a form of paganism, by definition.

#2 contradicts #1, since the trinity is 3 and therefore, polytheistic, meeting definition #1. #3 could apply to a person working magick with Jesus as a deity, given that orthodox Christianity might consider such magick to be irreligious or hedonistic, etc and so on.

Looks like our definitions are going to have to change. I seriously doubt the ChristoPagans are going to alter their beliefs or practices simply because of what the dictionary says.

By the way, I just checked Crowley's 777, which associates the following in Table 1 Column XXXVI;

Sephira 1 - God the 3 in 1
Sephira 2 - God the Father
Sephira 3 - The Virgin Mary
Sephira 4 - God the Rain Maker
Sephira 5 - Christ coming to judge the world
Sephira 6 - God the Son
Sephira 7 - Messiah Lord of Hosts
Sephira 8 - God the Holy Ghost (as comforter, inspirer of scriptures, etc)
Sephira 9 - God the Holy Ghost (as incubus)
Sephira 10 - Ecclesia Xsti

Number 11 begins associations for the tarot trumps and continues.

In any event, if one considers the Tree of Life to be occult, hermetic or pagan and well outside of orthodox Christianity, it becomes quite clear that 777, penned in the last century, had already infused Christian mythos all up and down the tree. Hell, you can work your way straight up the tree using solely Christian imagery, deities and myth.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems we are almost a century late in deciding to become upset that the Christian myths have already been fused into the very foundations of Western magickal practices. It didn't start with Crowley either. Wasn't it Blavatsky who also drew parallels between myths found in religions throughout the world, including Christianity?

Ok if you insist, where does the word pagan come from and what was its original meaning? You can bend something to meet whatever requirements you have, go back to the original meaning of the word.

[SweetIsTheTruth]

Ok if you insist, where does the word pagan come from and what was its original meaning?

The original word came from a religio-political organization who sought to exert ultimate control over the lives and freedoms of the populations they ruled by slurring ALL belief systems different from theirs with a derogatory term. In other words, anything not like us and anything contrary to our beliefs is pagan, evil and from the devil. And killing off all of those who don't believe as we do is perfectly fine, right along side the use of this slur.

So correct me if I am wrong, since the word was used to slur ALL peoples and belief systems outside of the status quo, in order to gain political power, we should therefore not only follow this example, but continue this example as well? What moral justification do you offer to convince me we should follow an example such as this? Saying the word pagan means this because it has always meant this is no different than saying slavery should be legal because it was always legal in the past, or marriage should be between a man and a woman because it always has been. It's not a very convincing argument to me in either of these cases.

(And why does anyone care about what ChristoPagans are doing anyway? In the age of Aquarius wasn't religion SUPPOSED to become self-created, according to the needs of each person, instead of mass-marketed theologies handed down from priests to serfs?)

For that matter, what moral justification can you offer to prove anyone in our free society shall not have the right to formulate their belief systems however they choose, within the limits of what the law allows regarding the free exercise of religion? Or does it come down to, 'oh no! Christopagans are infringing on turf that belongs solely to us," which was the same justification the Christians used to stamp out paganism from the beginning?

I think we all need to take a hint from the Hindus which teach it doesn't matter what you call God, He/She/It answers.

[lamoka]

My two cents..
First and foremost I believe that the Divine shows itself to each individual as each individual needs to see or not see it for specific reasons..\
I believe each belief has a piece of the Greater Puzzle if you will..
If people are starting to put those pieces together.. what would be the worst outcome.. it shows open mindedness and willingness and tolerance..
Lastly we just had a funeral mass for my Mamma who took her walk behind the veil..
being raised Catholic, deciding I didn't care for the manmade religion of Catholicism and went sort of Christian non-denominational to now a pagan path I noticed this..
We gathered together, we sang, we prayed, we invoked the Spirit of God, Jesus, Mary and various Saints.. we had ritual, candles, incense, we offered food and drink that were seen as body and blood..
forget the fear tactics and manipulation of the manmade powers that be..\
the whole ritual was a raising of energy, a call to the Divine..
we used a sacred space and ritual tools, song and words..
what difference is there in this than in what we do as pagans in reality..
namaste

[Zibblsnrt]

Ok, seems we ought to let this rest a while, suffice to say that Christians would not tolerate my kind of Paganism! Like you say there are many different paths and I really dont have a problem with that.

Yeah, some Christians' ideas are sooooo antithetical to the idea of putting up with other beliefs (http://www.reallivepreacher.com/node/1196).


The original word came from a religio-political organization who sought to exert ultimate control over the lives and freedoms of the populations they ruled by slurring ALL belief systems different from theirs with a derogatory term. In other words, anything not like us and anything contrary to our beliefs is pagan, evil and from the devil. And killing off all of those who don't believe as we do is perfectly fine, right along side the use of this slur.

Funny, I thought the original word came from the Latin paganus, or "villager."


Really, people. Broad brushes are one thing, but people in this thread seem to be upgrading to paint rollers.

[David19]

Funny that. There is a Catholic Church not far from here, named Saint Brigid. Do you think those Christians know their church is named for a Pagan Goddess?



But what you really mean is it doesn't make sense to you, because you see contradictions in such a mix that you yourself can not resolve.


Let's face it, contradictions exist in the mind. If a mind can work out those contradictions and resolve them, then a ChristoPagan can easily move forward on their path. Seriously, how many denominations of Christianity exist on the planet? Thousands? Is one more going to hurt? You might better get used to this sort of thing. Look for a professor of religion out of the University of Charlotte. He has some very interesting statistics on how these days, vast percentages of those in our society are taking a buffet approach to religion. You take a little from here, mix it with a little from there, throw in a dash of this and a dash of that. This is becoming the norm. Christianity itself was syncretized from numerous sources.



Ok, I get it. The sky is falling.



We used to have a boundary which clearly stated those of different races couldn't marry. That boundary is gone. Society did not go to hell in a handbasket as a result of this either. Unfortunately, this boundary you claim which prevents paganism from mixing with Christianity, doesn't exist and never really has. For how many years, or hundreds of years, has Christ been associated with Tiphareth on the tree? How long has the LBRP been with us, requiring us to call on archangels which are allegedly the servants of YHVH? The modern neo-pagan movement sprung from Wicca, which sprung from Ceremonialism, which sprung from, etc. Jesus has been at the 6th sephira throughout all of this.



Seems to me it would be more logical to define one's beliefs based on what they actually are, rather than what they are not.



So an atheist can be a pagan but a Christian can't? That doesn't sound right to me.



The problem is your definition, which is rather unusual based on my personal knowledge, is that you are somehow defining paganism as 'not Christianity.'

Sorry, but in a free society if someone wishes to invoke Jesus into a circle to do some magick, they have the right to do that, no matter that you fail to understand how Christianity and Paganism might be blended into a single practice. (And yes, I myself have numerous issues surrounding Christianity. However, I don't see why Jesus couldn't be invoked as any other deity could. I mean, if a chaote can invoke Spongebob......)

I just gave you karma for that post 'cause I agree with what you just said. To me, it's not going to hurt Paganism or Christianity if Christians can be part of the Pagan community, if anything, it might show how acceping we (Pagans) are.

And also like you said, Christianity has been part of occultism for centuries (actually, probably since it first came about as there's evidence the very early Christians practiced magic), a lot of Wicca comes from Ceremonial magic, and a lot of Pagans use Tarot cards, if we scrap anything Christian or Abrahamic, then what we're left with is basically a shell or a skeleton.

Also, if it's ok to call upon any deity that has ever existed into a circle or whatever, then why can't a Christian-Wiccan call on YHWH or Jesus or Mary, etc?.

[David19]

Ok if you insist, where does the word pagan come from and what was its original meaning? You can bend something to meet whatever requirements you have, go back to the original meaning of the word.

As Zibblsnrt already said, paganus meant country-dweller, where's the religious connection in that or the path in that (if that's the definition of Pagan, then I guess many rural Christians are Pagan too).

The original word paganus was never used positively, it was used as an insult by the Romans to refer to civilians or people who didn't fight in the army, and also something urban people called people who lived in the country (like the modern word hick or hill billy, etc).

Interesting fact that I read once - the Romans also called the early Christians paganus, so I guess Christians really are Pagan afterall!.

[Baba Yaga]

Christianity isn't inflexible... Christians themselves are most times the ones who are inflexible due to their twisted and biased interpretation of scriptures and along with the unwillingness to actually study and apply other Christian/Gnostic scriptures that didn't make the canon. And for those things within Christianity that appear to be inflexible then it is left up to each individial person... personal gnosis.

Oh, I'm certainly not judging it, I was hoping people might share a little of that gnosis. I'm just curious about what makes it work.

[Baba Yaga]

You see the inflexible nature of christianity is not fundamental to christianity. It only came in when Orthodoxy was introduced into christianity during the establishing of xtianity as the roman state religion. After that point other religions got persecuted as pagans and/or heretics. These heretics included many that were christians before the orthodox guys hogged the name christianity all for themselves.

There are as many paths in religion as there are individuals that practise religion. I see it as there is only One religion.
Inflexible orthodoxology is merely a religionism.

So, how within the framework of christianity, does one go about worshipping other gods along side the christian one?

[Zibblsnrt]

So, how within the framework of christianity, does one go about worshipping other gods along side the christian one?

If you wanna take a liberal enough reading of scripture, it does say that you can't put gods other than the Christian one first. First Commandment and all.

It'd be an extremely non-standard reading of it by the baseline standards of Christian theology, but a lot of syncretic takes on it are.

[Baba Yaga]

If you wanna take a liberal enough reading of scripture, it does say that you can't put gods other than the Christian one first. First Commandment and all.

It'd be an extremely non-standard reading of it by the baseline standards of Christian theology, but a lot of syncretic takes on it are.

I can kind of see that.

[HadouKen24]

In saying that "it doesn't make sense", does that mean that it doesn't "make sense", point blank, or just that it doesn't "make sense" to that one person, i wonder? There seems to be a lot of absolute certainty there; a little, i don't know, dogmatic almost?

I presented plenty of reasons that it doesn't make sense. I can present more, if you like. I'm not just pulling this out of my butt, here. If you believe my reasoning is flawed, please point it out to me. But this isn't just being dogmatic. I'm not just saying "believe this" without telling you why I think that it is correct.

And heck, I haven't even busted out the Nietzsche yet. (Think what you like about his moral philosophy, he was a brilliant classicist with some real insights) Or my analysis of Aristotle's moral philosophy.

SweetIsTheTruth:



To say that Christianity can be combined with paganism is to radically misunderstand Christianity
Funny that. There is a Catholic Church not far from here, named Saint Brigid. Do you think those Christians know their church is named for a Pagan Goddess?

I'm aware that there was quite a bit of mixing that went on in Northern Europe, much to the chagrin of the priests trained in Southern Europe. This was because they misunderstood Christianity. The priests accepted this as a stepping stone to correct doctrine.


But what you really mean is it doesn't make sense to you, because you see contradictions in such a mix that you yourself can not resolve.


Let's face it, contradictions exist in the mind. If a mind can work out those contradictions and resolve them, then a ChristoPagan can easily move forward on their path. Seriously, how many denominations of Christianity exist on the planet? Thousands? Is one more going to hurt? You might better get used to this sort of thing. Look for a professor of religion out of the University of Charlotte. He has some very interesting statistics on how these days, vast percentages of those in our society are taking a buffet approach to religion. You take a little from here, mix it with a little from there, throw in a dash of this and a dash of that. This is becoming the norm. Christianity itself was syncretized from numerous sources.

There's working out contradictions, and there's working around contradictions. I believe one of the great failings of Christianity is that much of its theology is essentially an attempt to work around Biblical and doctrinal contradictions--hence the fight between the Calvinists and the Arminians over free will. That is, one must either not consider certain questions as a Christian (either because they do not occur to one or because of appeals to faith over rationality) or one must lie to oneself and figure out a way to work around these contradictions. One can, if one one wants, reconcile any two propositions as long as they don't directly contradict each other. (As philosopher W.V.O. Quine showed in his argument for this idea, known in philosophy as the Duhem-Quine thesis.) That does not mean one can reasonably reconcile them.

I believe the development of Christian theology shows how this might happen. I'd like to make the argument that one reason for the decline of Christianity in Europe is a recognition of the psychological motive behind much of theology. There is a point at which one is no longer resolving problems, but trying to work around them. When there is no real resolution, the mental acrobatics one must go through to maintain the belief will eventually reach the point that it is clear what is really going on.

(http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?p=3106316#post3106316)

But there has to be a line between paganism and the rest of the religiospiritual community, or paganism won't really have a definition.
Ok, I get it. The sky is falling.

o.O Eh?


We used to have a boundary which clearly stated those of different races couldn't marry. That boundary is gone. Society did not go to hell in a handbasket as a result of this either. Unfortunately, this boundary you claim which prevents paganism from mixing with Christianity, doesn't exist and never really has. For how many years, or hundreds of years, has Christ been associated with Tiphareth on the tree? How long has the LBRP been with us, requiring us to call on archangels which are allegedly the servants of YHVH? The modern neo-pagan movement sprung from Wicca, which sprung from Ceremonialism, which sprung from, etc. Jesus has been at the 6th sephira throughout all of this.

One may acknowledge a debt to Christianity without remaining Christian oneself. The Qabalah as practiced by pagans is Christian only in trappings; its doctrines would be considered heretical at best by orthodox Christianity.

Moreover, one must remember what Aleister Crowley said about the existence of the Sephiroth, the archangels, etc. They are not to be taken as literally existing. The Qabalah is a conceptual tool, a key to experience and effective use of the will. Not a key to truth in the logical sense. With that in mind, there is no contradiction in a pagan's using the Qabalah.

I would question, however, that neopaganism springs from Wicca. To be sure, Wicca was the spark that lit the tinder, but neopaganism's roots go back far further. G.K. Chesterton, a Christian writer who died in 1936, wrote a few paragraphs in his book Heretics about the movement toward paganism. Asatru arose independently of Wicca. While Wicca may have been the first to present a defined belief system as pagan--thus setting the stage for more to come--the movement in that direction had begun long before.



Seems to me it would be more logical to define one's beliefs based on what they actually are, rather than what they are not.

Paganism is a movement, not a belief system. Movements, especially movements which are reactions against particular groups, can, in fact, be defined as against what they are not--they often define themselves in that way.


So an atheist can be a pagan but a Christian can't? That doesn't sound right to me.

What is right or not doesn't depend on how it sounds. It sounds right to bring up your children in your own faith as best you can, but when that faith is as poisonous as, say, scientology, it isn't right.


The problem is your definition, which is rather unusual based on my personal knowledge, is that you are somehow defining paganism as 'not Christianity.'

Sorry, but in a free society if someone wishes to invoke Jesus into a circle to do some magick, they have the right to do that, no matter that you fail to understand how Christianity and Paganism might be blended into a single practice. (And yes, I myself have numerous issues surrounding Christianity. However, I don't see why Jesus couldn't be invoked as any other deity could. I mean, if a chaote can invoke Spongebob......)

I never said you don't have the right to worship and practice as you like. You do. I wouldn't dream of trying to take that away from you. You can do as you please. Heck, if you want, you can worship Jesus, Satan, and Astarte all at the same time and call yourself a Christo-Satano-Pagan, and I won't stop you. You have the right to believe whatever you think you should.

That doesn't mean that you have the right never to have your faith questioned or challenged by others.

As for me, I welcome challenges to my religious ideas and spirituality. If I really am doing something wrong, I want someone to call me on it. If I find that they have a legitimate critique, then I was in the wrong. It's not pleasant to be proven wrong, to be sure, but I've always become a better person for the experience.

[Lady Valkyrie]

For all of those who believe that Christianity cannot be blended successfully with Paganism, Witchcraft or Wicca... what are your feelings on Santeria? Santeria is a blending of ancient West African religions and Catholism. It is by it's very esscence a blending of Paganism and Christianity. And how did this religion called Santeria come about? African slaves were taken to the Carribean to work on plantations and Catholism was forced upon them. They were able to successfully blend their original beliefs with the Catholicism that was being forced upon them. Santeria is still being practiced today. Are they wrong for doing so?

And what about the Catholic Church that adopted many pagan practices, practiced many Christianized holidays arround pagan ones all to entice pagans into the Christian church? Are Catholics wrong for basically blending Pagan ways with their own?

I seriously think that those who truely believe that Christianity cannot be blended with any other religion simple have a chip on their shoulder. They obviously have their own personal issues with the religion. They want this clear line to be drawn between Christianity and Paganism/Witchcraft/Wicca so that they personally feel comfortable in their own little bubble they have created for themselves. That's ok. Believe me I won't enter your little bubble. I wouldn't want to. You go ahead and continue to believe as you wish. But why must you all constantly run off at the mouth screaming at the top of your lungs oxymoron this and that and scream that it just can't be done or that it just doesn't make sense? Just as we Christopagans, Christian Witches, and Christian Wiccans are not going to change your minds you will not change ours. So why must we constantly go around and around like this? Why do you all feel the need to challenge others on their beliefs? Do you truely what to understand or are you just wanting an opportunity show off your biblical knowledge and to bash on someone's beliefs that will never agree with to begin with? I truely feel that some of you simple just want to argue. Some of you are so see through it's pathetic

[wtfidka]

No I personally have no other reason other than that I am a Pagan and I dont see from my point of view how the Paganism I practice can ever come near to being Christianity, this for me is a fact. I have a feeling a lot of people here are probably talking about Neo - Paganism, which in Mo is a totally different animal all together.
It matters not wether your name is Crowley or whatever, I personally dont see how you can change the meaning of a name to make it mean what you want it to mean. For two thousand years give or take a couple of hundred Paganism has meant the opposite of Christianity, now because someone decides different it can suddenly mean something different? Paganism is a very old belief system centered around nature and it will never be any different it cant be.
I suppose the next argument is, well God created Nature, well I dont see that either Nature evolved over millions of years, the Christian God was created by man a couple of thousand years ago.

[lamoka]

Mans written account of the Christian God was created a couple of thousand years ago.. am I wrong in stating that spoken and pictoral evidence points to belief in higher powers as far back as the earliest human species we have found.. I am thinking in terms of cavemen, asians, native americans, etc...
I am not a serious book smart kind of person so I can't quote chapter and verse or quote this and that.. but something is striking a chord here..
namaste

[plumedsnake]

So, how within the framework of christianity, does one go about worshipping other gods along side the christian one?

Okay, let's look at the framework of christianity. We have a figure called Christ. What does christ means? It is taken from the hebrew Messiah which means the Chosen one, or the anointed one. So we find that the entire bible is littered with christs. David the anointed king of israel was a christ. So was Saul the king previous to him. So was Joshua, who was anointed to lead the Jews into Canaan. Heck even rocks are Christs cos Jacob anointed a rock after he slept on it and had a dream. He called it Bethel meaning the house of God. So we find that Jesus being Christ is not such a unique thing afterall. Also we find that we are ourselves anointed and chosen for the lives that we are living. So we are all each one of us Christs. Understanding this we realise that the christ we turn to is not some external figure but rather our own essential being and that which we are divinely anointed to be.
This was one of the fundamental points on which the orthodox christians like Irenaeus and the Gnostics differed. The Christ of Thomas' gospel said to look within and that we are all the Son of God. Irenaeus said that there was only one son of God and that without this external character we've got no chance.

Outside of christianity we find the same idea, like say in the religious practice of the Yoruba people from which Santeria is derived. The highest and most central diety is called Ori and he is the essential being of all of us. All the other dieties are inferior to him and under his control. Just as christ commands the elements, he tells the seas to be still and they obey, so Ori commands all the forces in the universe. Each man turns to his Ori to find himself, empower him self and above all reach the goal of Ifa, which is to attain Iwa pele, which means harmonious character or harmonious being.

Therefore Ifa provides the perfect template for how one worships both Christ and other gods. Christ is the main guy, but the orisha are like his lieutenants and they can be approached too. It's like you know that God sustains you, but you've still got to go to work to pay the bills. So your boss pays you, but you acknowledge that ultimately the money comes from christ.
So in SAnteria and Ifa, we are told that no orisha can bless you unless it is sanctioned by your Ori. Also no one can harm you unless it is sanctioned by your ori. So all appeals are made first to Ori who is the manifestation of God in the World.
There are many other parallels between christianity and other pagan faiths but that should do for now.

[Moonlight's Daughter]

To me I cant see Christian Wiccan- Wicca is nothing like Christianity (at least the way I practice it) but I can see Christian Witch.

Wicca, especially Gardinarian Wicca in my opinion has nothing to do with Christianity. But blending a practice like Witchcraft with the Christian panethon is a completely different issue.

If you practice Christianity like Jesus rather than the Church-that also is a different animal all together.

[HadouKen24]

For all of those who believe that Christianity cannot be blended successfully with Paganism, Witchcraft or Wicca... what are your feelings on Santeria? Santeria is a blending of ancient West African religions and Catholism. It is by it's very esscence a blending of Paganism and Christianity. And how did this religion called Santeria come about? African slaves were taken to the Carribean to work on plantations and Catholism was forced upon them. They were able to successfully blend their original beliefs with the Catholicism that was being forced upon them. Santeria is still being practiced today. Are they wrong for doing so?

I'm afraid I don't know enough about Santeria to comment. I'll have to do some research before responding.


And what about the Catholic Church that adopted many pagan practices, practiced many Christianized holidays arround pagan ones all to entice pagans into the Christian church? Are Catholics wrong for basically blending Pagan ways with their own?

There may be some pagan practices blended in to Catholicism, but Catholics themselves are not pagan. Likewise, there are the trappings of Christianity to be found in the Hermetic Qabalah, but its practitioners are not usually themselves Christian. The problem, for me, is not cross-pollination of particular practices, but the claim that one is both pagan and Christian at the same time.


I seriously think that those who truely believe that Christianity cannot be blended with any other religion simple have a chip on their shoulder. They obviously have their own personal issues with the religion. They want this clear line to be drawn between Christianity and Paganism/Witchcraft/Wicca so that they personally feel comfortable in their own little bubble they have created for themselves. That's ok. Believe me I won't enter your little bubble. I wouldn't want to. You go ahead and continue to believe as you wish. But why must you all constantly run off at the mouth screaming at the top of your lungs oxymoron this and that and scream that it just can't be done or that it just doesn't make sense? Just as we Christopagans, Christian Witches, and Christian Wiccans are not going to change your minds you will not change ours. So why must we constantly go around and around like this? Why do you all feel the need to challenge others on their beliefs? Do you truely what to understand or are you just wanting an opportunity show off your biblical knowledge and to bash on someone's beliefs that will never agree with to begin with? I truely feel that some of you simple just want to argue. Some of you are so see through it's pathetic

I hate playing this card on the internet, but... you don't know me. You don't know that most of my close friends are Christian. You don't know that I have a high opinion of the theologian-philosophers I've studied, like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. In short, you have no idea what my background is. I haven't made the foolish attempt to question your motives behind becoming a Christopagan, so I would appreciate it if you would extend the same favor to me.

I haven't been screaming at you. I'm perplexed that you think I have. I have calmly and soberly laid out some reasons that I believe one cannot be a pagan and a Christian at the same time. I find it surprising that, instead of responding to these reasons, you simply question my motives. Even if you were correct, and I did have some major beef with Christianity, what difference would it make? Would it make the reasons I presented any more or less correct? Certainly not. Trying to claim that my reasons are inadequate because of my (perceived) motives is the classic ad hominem fallacy of argumentation.

I'm arguing here for the same reasons I argue about the existence of free will, or whether deontological (rules-based) morality is better or worse than virtue ethics. I believe these are important topics that bear discussion and close examination.

[Lady Valkyrie]

I'm afraid I don't know enough about Santeria to comment. I'll have to do some research before responding.



There may be some pagan practices blended in to Catholicism, but Catholics themselves are not pagan. Likewise, there are the trappings of Christianity to be found in the Hermetic Qabalah, but its practitioners are not usually themselves Christian. The problem, for me, is not cross-pollination of particular practices, but the claim that one is both pagan and Christian at the same time.



I hate playing this card on the internet, but... you don't know me. You don't know that most of my close friends are Christian. You don't know that I have a high opinion of the theologian-philosophers I've studied, like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. In short, you have no idea what my background is. I haven't made the foolish attempt to question your motives behind becoming a Christopagan, so I would appreciate it if you would extend the same favor to me.

I haven't been screaming at you. I'm perplexed that you think I have. I have calmly and soberly laid out some reasons that I believe one cannot be a pagan and a Christian at the same time. I find it surprising that, instead of responding to these reasons, you simply question my motives. Even if you were correct, and I did have some major beef with Christianity, what difference would it make? Would it make the reasons I presented any more or less correct? Certainly not. Trying to claim that my reasons are inadequate because of my (perceived) motives is the classic ad hominem fallacy of argumentation.

I'm arguing here for the same reasons I argue about the existence of free will, or whether deontological (rules-based) morality is better or worse than virtue ethics. I believe these are important topics that bear discussion and close examination.

And you do not know me or any other Christopagan, Christian Witch, or Christian Wiccan well enough to say that their beliefs just cannot exist just because you feel that the beliefs cannot be blended together. You do not know us personally... you do not know what is in our hearts... our minds... you do not know the amount of time and effort that has been spent on blending these beleifs together... you act as though we have just pulled them out of our arses... you and others like you act like you are right and we are misguided and wrong... oh but you all say we are allowed to worship however we want... but you still think we are wrong... then why in the holy heck discuss it? You already stated you don't agree with our beliefs... why does it need to be discussed further? It's like talking to a dang brick wall. You and others like you have your minds made up... you do not want to be open to actually learning... you do not want to be open to the thought that it can be done... so why in the heck should we continue down this road of so called discussion with the likes of you and others like you? Because frankly my dear I believe you and others like you get your rocks off on this so called "debating" when in actuality it's just a bashing of certain people's religious/spiritual beliefs. This is why people like you amuse me... you all try so hard to get us Christopagans, Christian Witches, and Christian Wiccans to defend our beliefs all because you claim that you have the "right" to challenge our beliefs. To me, you are no better than a bunch of fanatical fundamentalist Christians or Jehovah Witness that come to challenge all those who don't believe like they do. Yes, you may have some Christian friends... so freakin what?! That's like a straight person trying to say they aren't homophobic because they have gay friends. Who gives a crap who your so called friends are! If you "challenge" their beliefs as much as you do Christopagans, Christian Witches, and Christian Wiccans, then I truely don't understand why they even call you a friend. True friends don't do that. They accept their friends as they are.

[Lady Valkyrie]

To me I cant see Christian Wiccan- Wicca is nothing like Christianity (at least the way I practice it) but I can see Christian Witch.

Wicca, especially Gardinarian Wicca in my opinion has nothing to do with Christianity. But blending a practice like Witchcraft with the Christian panethon is a completely different issue.

If you practice Christianity like Jesus rather than the Church-that also is a different animal all together.


Nancy Chandler Pittman has a really great website that has tons of articles and essays about Christian Wicca http://www.christianwicca.org/

She also has written a book on the subject which you can find at Amazon Christian Wicca: The Trinitarian Tradition (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1410753476/qid=1071187905//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/002-5657299-4121640?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Another lady by the name of RawnaMoon has a webpage on how to become a Christian Witch http://members.aol.com/RawnaMoon/

ReligiousTolerance.org has an essay titled Can A Person Be Both A Wiccan And A Christian? (http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcr5.htm)

[LostSheep]

I'm afraid I don't know enough about Santeria to comment. I'll have to do some research before responding.



There may be some pagan practices blended in to Catholicism, but Catholics themselves are not pagan. Likewise, there are the trappings of Christianity to be found in the Hermetic Qabalah, but its practitioners are not usually themselves Christian. The problem, for me, is not cross-pollination of particular practices, but the claim that one is both pagan and Christian at the same time.



I hate playing this card on the internet, but... you don't know me. You don't know that most of my close friends are Christian. You don't know that I have a high opinion of the theologian-philosophers I've studied, like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. In short, you have no idea what my background is. I haven't made the foolish attempt to question your motives behind becoming a Christopagan, so I would appreciate it if you would extend the same favor to me.

I haven't been screaming at you. I'm perplexed that you think I have. I have calmly and soberly laid out some reasons that I believe one cannot be a pagan and a Christian at the same time. I find it surprising that, instead of responding to these reasons, you simply question my motives. Even if you were correct, and I did have some major beef with Christianity, what difference would it make? Would it make the reasons I presented any more or less correct? Certainly not. Trying to claim that my reasons are inadequate because of my (perceived) motives is the classic ad hominem fallacy of argumentation.

I'm arguing here for the same reasons I argue about the existence of free will, or whether deontological (rules-based) morality is better or worse than virtue ethics. I believe these are important topics that bear discussion and close examination.
"I believe one cannot be a pagan and a Christian at the same time.". I'm glad that you recognise that it is what you personally believe, and not that it's the absolute truth, which is something no one on this earth can really state for certain that they know. That's what you believe, just as some of us believe that one can. Just as long as people are willing to accept that different people believe different things, or feel that something may be right for them, and not state absolutely and categorically that "one cannot be" something, then we'll all, i very much hope, be happy.

[plumedsnake]

I have calmly and soberly laid out some reasons that I believe one cannot be a pagan and a Christian at the same time. I find it surprising that, instead of responding to these reasons, you simply question my motives.

Yet again I am amazed at the ease with which a straightforward debate can crumble into a fracas. But that aside, I think the real problem lies with the definitions of Christianity etc. I reckon that HadouKen24 has a fixed definition of what a christian is that makes it mutually exclusive with his definiation of what a pagan is. In that case, according to his definitions, he is right. However if you have a different view of christianity, eg one that defines it simply as a Follower of Christ then you have more leeway.

ps. There is a closed Circle of Teaching class on Santeria that you might want to browse through to get a cursory idea of what it is about.

[Moonlight's Daughter]

Nancy Chandler Pittman has a really great website that has tons of articles and essays about Christian Wicca http://www.christianwicca.org/

She also has written a book on the subject which you can find at Amazon Christian Wicca: The Trinitarian Tradition (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1410753476/qid=1071187905//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/002-5657299-4121640?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Another lady by the name of RawnaMoon has a webpage on how to become a Christian Witch http://members.aol.com/RawnaMoon/

ReligiousTolerance.org has an essay titled Can A Person Be Both A Wiccan And A Christian? (http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcr5.htm)


I have looked at different things, and FOR ME (not for anyone else:hahugh: ) I just cant put the two together for Christian and Wiccan- Maybe Jesus's teachings can be interspersed but not the Christian religion (and I see big differences in the two-)

There are a huge amount of differences in Dogma.

[lamoka]

http://www.christianwicca.org/oxymoron.html

[HadouKen24]

Lady Valkyrie, I can see that I've offended you deeply. That wasn't my intention, and I apologize. I present my case so strongly not in order to discredit or demoralize anyone, but so that I can come to the best conclusions I can. I can see that I have not adequately communicated that I am not trying to personally attack you or anyone else, and so I must apologize.

I would ask, however, that you refrain from personal attacks.


But that aside, I think the real problem lies with the definitions of Christianity etc. I reckon that HadouKen24 has a fixed definition of what a christian is that makes it mutually exclusive with his definiation of what a pagan is. In that case, according to his definitions, he is right. However if you have a different view of christianity, eg one that defines it simply as a Follower of Christ then you have more leeway.

That is correct. When I refer to Christianity, I refer to orthodox Christianity, broadly defined as holding to the Nicene Creed. The traditions and doctrines of Christianity are bound up in the Church--or churches, if you prefer--so I would not consider someone a Christian who held to doctrine antithetical to that required by church dogma.

There is, indeed, a great amount of leeway if one defines a Christian simply as a follower of Christ. I don't do that, quite frankly, because I'm not sure what it means. That would seem to expand the definition to include both Deists like Thomas Jefferson and radical anti-Deists like the Cathars.

[Zibblsnrt]

Because frankly my dear I believe you and others like you get your rocks off on this so called "debating" when in actuality it's just a bashing of certain people's religious/spiritual beliefs. This is why people like you amuse me... you all try so hard to get us Christopagans, Christian Witches, and Christian Wiccans to defend our beliefs all because you claim that you have the "right" to challenge our beliefs. To me, you are no better than a bunch of fanatical fundamentalist Christians or Jehovah Witness that come to challenge all those who don't believe like they do. Yes, you may have some Christian friends... so freakin what?! That's like a straight person trying to say they aren't homophobic because they have gay friends. Who gives a crap who your so called friends are!

Flaming on any level, including this one, is completely unacceptable on this site.

Cease.

[David19]

That is correct. When I refer to Christianity, I refer to orthodox Christianity, broadly defined as holding to the Nicene Creed. The traditions and doctrines of Christianity are bound up in the Church--or churches, if you prefer--so I would not consider someone a Christian who held to doctrine antithetical to that required by church dogma.

There is, indeed, a great amount of leeway if one defines a Christian simply as a follower of Christ. I don't do that, quite frankly, because I'm not sure what it means. That would seem to expand the definition to include both Deists like Thomas Jefferson and radical anti-Deists like the Cathars.

You can be Christian without belonging to any Church, without ever accepting everything in the bible, etc. For example, there are many Christians who don't go to Church, who may not ever pray very often, they may even disagree strongly with a lot of what the Churches say, yet they follow and believe in Jesus and YHWH, that doesn't make them any less Christian.

Religions are always fluid, they allow for changes to happen, there is no "fixed" definition of Christianity (even between the Churches, there is no "fixed" definition, Eastern Orthodox is different to Catholic, to Protestant, to Baptist, etc) and there is no "fixed" definition of what being a Pagan is (some might say it's being polytheist, but then there are some monotheistic Pagans, even some atheist and agnostic Pagans, some might say it's being nature-based, but some are not "nature-based", and may not even care about nature).

So, I think it's perfectly acceptable for a Christian to also be a Pagan, if they want to be.

[Baba Yaga]

Okay, let's look at the framework of christianity. We have a figure called Christ. What does christ means? It is taken from the hebrew Messiah which means the Chosen one, or the anointed one. So we find that the entire bible is littered with christs. David the anointed king of israel was a christ. So was Saul the king previous to him. So was Joshua, who was anointed to lead the Jews into Canaan. Heck even rocks are Christs cos Jacob anointed a rock after he slept on it and had a dream. He called it Bethel meaning the house of God. So we find that Jesus being Christ is not such a unique thing afterall. Also we find that we are ourselves anointed and chosen for the lives that we are living. So we are all each one of us Christs. Understanding this we realise that the christ we turn to is not some external figure but rather our own essential being and that which we are divinely anointed to be.
This was one of the fundamental points on which the orthodox christians like Irenaeus and the Gnostics differed. The Christ of Thomas' gospel said to look within and that we are all the Son of God. Irenaeus said that there was only one son of God and that without this external character we've got no chance.

Outside of christianity we find the same idea, like say in the religious practice of the Yoruba people from which Santeria is derived. The highest and most central diety is called Ori and he is the essential being of all of us. All the other dieties are inferior to him and under his control. Just as christ commands the elements, he tells the seas to be still and they obey, so Ori commands all the forces in the universe. Each man turns to his Ori to find himself, empower him self and above all reach the goal of Ifa, which is to attain Iwa pele, which means harmonious character or harmonious being.

Therefore Ifa provides the perfect template for how one worships both Christ and other gods. Christ is the main guy, but the orisha are like his lieutenants and they can be approached too. It's like you know that God sustains you, but you've still got to go to work to pay the bills. So your boss pays you, but you acknowledge that ultimately the money comes from christ.
So in SAnteria and Ifa, we are told that no orisha can bless you unless it is sanctioned by your Ori. Also no one can harm you unless it is sanctioned by your ori. So all appeals are made first to Ori who is the manifestation of God in the World.
There are many other parallels between christianity and other pagan faiths but that should do for now.

wow. That was really interesting and educational. Thank you. So it depends on whether or not one is embracing an orthodox christian path?

[HadouKen24]

You can be Christian without belonging to any Church, without ever accepting everything in the bible, etc. For example, there are many Christians who don't go to Church, who may not ever pray very often, they may even disagree strongly with a lot of what the Churches say, yet they follow and believe in Jesus and YHWH, that doesn't make them any less Christian.

Religions are always fluid, they allow for changes to happen, there is no "fixed" definition of Christianity (even between the Churches, there is no "fixed" definition, Eastern Orthodox is different to Catholic, to Protestant, to Baptist, etc) and there is no "fixed" definition of what being a Pagan is (some might say it's being polytheist, but then there are some monotheistic Pagans, even some atheist and agnostic Pagans, some might say it's being nature-based, but some are not "nature-based", and may not even care about nature).

So, I think it's perfectly acceptable for a Christian to also be a Pagan, if they want to be.

Christianity is a religion defined by orthodoxy--having the correct teachings or dogma. Most pagan religions are defined by orthopraxis--following the right practices or actions. Moreover, paganism is a religious movement, not a religion as such. One cannot apply the same standards of membership to Christianity and paganism.

I don't believe a solid historical view of Christianity allows for the position that Christianity has no "fixed definition." To be sure, there are divisions within Christianity as diverse as between the icon-using Greek Orthodox and the iconoclastic Presbyterian church, but there are nonetheless certain core elements of doctrine shared between them--the Resurrection of the dead, the Crucifixion, the Virgin Birth, the simultaneous unity and trinity of God, etc. This is usually defined by either the Nicene Creed or the Apostle's Creed (the two are very similar). Those churches which deviate from these creeds are denounced and rejected by the rest of the Christian faith, and have been for a very long time. They are excommunicated. While that wouldn't mean much in paganism, it is extremely significant within Christianity.

[Lady Valkyrie]

So I guess you are saying that unless one follows the Nicene Creed to the fullest one can not possibly be considered a "real" Christian. Therefore anyone who claims to be a Christian Wiccan, Christopagan, or Christian Witch and is not following the Nicene Creed to the fullest extent is not a Christian at all. That's like saying unless one is a Gardnerian Wiccan one isn't a "real" Wiccan. Oh but wait that only pertains to Christianity and not any Pagan religion, right? Somehow I'm not convinced nor will I ever be convinced. Every religion on this earth has evolved and will continue to evolve, whether people like it or not. I believe it's time for some people to actually evolve with it.

[HadouKen24]

I believe part of the problem is the way we uncritically bandy about this word "religion." To be sure, there is a meaningful way we can use it, but we often use it in a way that is just as likely to obscure things as it is to clarify.

As one of my Christian friends put it, Christianity is not primarily a religion. It is a Christianity. Buddhism is primarily a Buddhism. To say that something is a religion only highlights that it is a set of beliefs and practices which say something about the human condition. How they say it and what places they have in their practitioners' lives is just as meaningful as their content. The way we use the word "religion" often covers over these distinctions.

It is incorrect and unfair to look at Christianity through the lens of paganism, just as it is incorrect and unfair to look at paganism through the lens of Christianity. Christianity's view of the proper place of "religion" is that a good religion must be concerned with salvation, whether the religion makes you happy or not. The neopagan view is that one's beliefs should be oriented toward living a good, happy life. To look at Christianity as "just another religion" is to make the error of looking at Christianity on one's own terms, and not on the terms Christianity sets for itself.

In the terms Christianity sets for itself, change is a bad thing. Protestantism, though relatively new, set itself up as a return to principles long abandoned by the Catholic church. The Pentecostal church is a perfect example of how innovations within Christianity can only succeed if accompanied by an appeal to an older tradition. It traces its origins back even further than the principles of the early church that most Protestants appeal to, all the way back to the Pentecost, the fiftieth day after Christ's resurrection. The only exceptions to this rule are uniquely American, such as the Church of the Latter Day Saints. It is no surprise that so many Christians reject the LDS church.

[plumedsnake]

Christianity is a religion defined by orthodoxy--having the correct teachings or dogma. Most pagan religions are defined by orthopraxis--following the right practices or actions. Moreover, paganism is a religious movement, not a religion as such. One cannot apply the same standards of membership to Christianity and paganism.

I don't think that it is fair or even possible to claim copyright on the word christianity. Of course once you've defined what you mean by christianity and you enter into a debate I am happy for the purposes of that debate to stick to your definition. But no, I won't accept that you have absolute monopoly over the use of the word christian.

The second point I'd like to make on this is: The word christian predates the nicene and apostles creed by about 400years. It was a derogatory term used to refer to a faction of the Jewish religion. So on the basis of precedence the nicene creed does not define christians or christianity. These first christians were inspired by a lot of different texts or gospels. The first attempts to define and limit christianity was made by Irenaeus. I think this was about the 2nd or 3rd century AD, in Lyon. Irenaeus was the Bishop of Lyon and one of the things he did was claim that there were only 4 gospels. Matthew Mark Luke and John. And what was his argument to buttress this claim? Well, there are 4 directions, and four elements and only 4 seasons so it makes sense that there should only be 4 gospels. Of course, at the time most of the other christians just scoffed at this.
I read an interesting book recently by Elaine Pagels where she discusses John's Gospel vis a vis Thomas'. Reading both together it becomes clear that they are actually pitted against each other. All of a sudden a lot makes sense. eg why Thomas is so vilified in John's gospel. Thomas is made to look stupid and he is always doubting the truth. hence the term doubting thomas. What is it that made thomas such a doubter? The simple fact that his gospel is based on the need for experiential proof. Thomas keeps saying that he needs to see with his eyes and touch with his hands while John keeps saying that is faithless and one should just accept as it is told. Another big difference is John's insistence that Jesus is the ONLY begotten son of God. While Thomas says that we are all the son of god and all have the divine spark.
To properly understand the extent to which John's gospel has influenced orthodox christianity it is worth reading the first 3 gospels again and while doing so try to forget the orthodox claim that Jesus is God. Remember the first 3 gospels were the first written accounts of Jesus' life. John and Thomas came about a century later. Reading the first 3 without orthodox preconceptions one thing becomes startlingly clear. There is no mention of the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is just a guy. It's only when you read it through the lenses of John's gospel that it seems to suggest that Jesus is the son of God. The terms son of God, son of Man, son of David were all terms used to refer to the messiah that was to come from the line of david.

The sheer fact that christianity predates orthodoxy and that the establishment of orthodoxy required the slaughtering of so many christians in my view almost makes them unworthy of being called christians. But hey, you have the right to call yourself anything you want. You just don't have the right to say other people can't call themselves anything that they want.



I don't believe a solid historical view of Christianity allows for the position that Christianity has no "fixed definition." To be sure, there are divisions within Christianity as diverse as between the icon-using Greek Orthodox and the iconoclastic Presbyterian church, but there are nonetheless certain core elements of doctrine shared between them--the Resurrection of the dead, the Crucifixion, the Virgin Birth, the simultaneous unity and trinity of God, etc. This is usually defined by either the Nicene Creed or the Apostle's Creed (the two are very similar). Those churches which deviate from these creeds are denounced and rejected by the rest of the Christian faith, and have been for a very long time. They are excommunicated. While that wouldn't mean much in paganism, it is extremely significant within Christianity.

Oh, the resurrection of the dead, they cricifixion, the virgin birth were all things that were hotly disputed in the pre orthodox era of christianity. heck even inthe bible, if you read the epistle of st. Paul you can tell that he was disputing with other christians that denied the resurrection. I can't quote the text exactly but he says words to the effect that: hey, if there's no resurrection then this is all a farce, what are we suffering for?.

In fact all this things, the resurrection, virgin birth, trinity in one are actually the aspects of christianity that have their roots firmly entrenched in Paganism. You should check out Mithraism and Orphic religions.

[LostSheep]

IOh, the resurrection of the dead, they cricifixion, the virgin birth were all things that were hotly disputed in the pre orthodox era of christianity. heck even inthe bible, if you read the epistle of st. Paul you can tell that he was disputing with other christians that denied the resurrection. I can't quote the text exactly but he says words to the effect that: hey, if there's no resurrection then this is all a farce, what are we suffering for?.

In fact all this things, the resurrection, virgin birth, trinity in one are actually the aspects of christianity that have their roots firmly entrenched in Paganism. You should check out Mithraism and Orphic religions.

very true; then there's gnosticism and Catharism, which were completely beyond the pale as far as the established church went (heck, they even beleived in reincarnation :blushake: ), but they called themselves Christians ...

[HadouKen24]

I don't think that it is fair or even possible to claim copyright on the word christianity. Of course once you've defined what you mean by christianity and you enter into a debate I am happy for the purposes of that debate to stick to your definition. But no, I won't accept that you have absolute monopoly over the use of the word christian.

I don't claim to have any sort of monopoly on what "Christianity" means. I'm not trying to establish what Christianity is by fiat. I am, however, trying to say that, based on a historical understanding of Christianity, one can say that Christianity displays certain characteristics.



The second point I'd like to make on this is: The word christian predates the nicene and apostles creed by about 400years. It was a derogatory term used to refer to a faction of the Jewish religion. So on the basis of precedence the nicene creed does not define christians or christianity. These first christians were inspired by a lot of different texts or gospels. The first attempts to define and limit christianity was made by Irenaeus. I think this was about the 2nd or 3rd century AD, in Lyon. Irenaeus was the Bishop of Lyon and one of the things he did was claim that there were only 4 gospels. Matthew Mark Luke and John. And what was his argument to buttress this claim? Well, there are 4 directions, and four elements and only 4 seasons so it makes sense that there should only be 4 gospels. Of course, at the time most of the other christians just scoffed at this.

There's a lot going on here. First, the claim about Christianity predating the Nicene Creed. I'm well aware of this fact. The Nicene Creed, however, is the direction that Christianity took, and has been the standard for determining orthodoxy within Christianity for fifteen hundred years.

Second, the claim that Irenaeus (he was second century) was the first one to limit Christianity. I don't believe that's accurate. One can trace that impulse all the way back to Paul--the founder of Christianity as we know it. One can find throughout his letters (and I exclude those which he probably didn't write, such as 1 and 2 Peter and Titus) plenty of concern with correct teaching. Paul constantly denounces the teachings of those who disagree with him as not only wrong, but leading to eternal destruction. The concern for correct doctrine can be found not only in Irenaeus, but in other Church Fathers as well, such as Ignatius of Antioch, who repeats Paul's injunction to avoid false teachings.

I honestly don't know why you mention Irenaeus' reasoning with regard to the number of Gospels. One cannot discredit everything a person has written merely by pointing out one area where they use bad reasoning, even if it's as spectacularly bad as that. Though I would say that Irenaeus was a silly old man. Mind-numbingly bad writer, too, stylistically speaking.


I read an interesting book recently by Elaine Pagels where she discusses John's Gospel vis a vis Thomas'. Reading both together it becomes clear that they are actually pitted against each other. All of a sudden a lot makes sense. eg why Thomas is so vilified in John's gospel. Thomas is made to look stupid and he is always doubting the truth. hence the term doubting thomas. What is it that made thomas such a doubter? The simple fact that his gospel is based on the need for experiential proof. Thomas keeps saying that he needs to see with his eyes and touch with his hands while John keeps saying that is faithless and one should just accept as it is told. Another big difference is John's insistence that Jesus is the ONLY begotten son of God. While Thomas says that we are all the son of god and all have the divine spark.

The book was Beyond Belief, right? I remember reading it. Very interesting book. It's clear that Pagels definitely believes quite strongly in the strength of her own arguments.

I do not find them so strong myself. While it makes for an interesting conjecture, her hypothesis is not very strongly supported by historical evidence. There isn't really any evidence showing that the author of John was aware of the Gospel of Thomas at all. There are innumerable other reasons that the author of John might have portrayed Thomas in that way.


To properly understand the extent to which John's gospel has influenced orthodox christianity it is worth reading the first 3 gospels again and while doing so try to forget the orthodox claim that Jesus is God. Remember the first 3 gospels were the first written accounts of Jesus' life. John and Thomas came about a century later. Reading the first 3 without orthodox preconceptions one thing becomes startlingly clear. There is no mention of the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is just a guy. It's only when you read it through the lenses of John's gospel that it seems to suggest that Jesus is the son of God. The terms son of God, son of Man, son of David were all terms used to refer to the messiah that was to come from the line of david.

You seem to be leaving Paul out of the picture. Paul wrote either before the Gospel of John or contemporaneous with its authorship. The ideas found in the Gospel of John are remarkably concordant with Pauline Christianity.

But yes, the Gospel of John is strikingly different from the other three. 'S why they've been calling the other three the synoptic gospels for so long. I'm not sure that I'd say they portray Jesus as "just a guy," though. I mean, the whole walking on water and cursing fig trees bit seems to indicate that there's something special about him, even if there isn't a clear indication of his divinity.


Oh, the resurrection of the dead, they cricifixion, the virgin birth were all things that were hotly disputed in the pre orthodox era of christianity.

Not really. The crucifixion and resurrection are to be found in the first gospel written, Mark. The virgin birth is in the other two synoptics, both of which are of a fairly early origin. These were pretty much defining traits of Christianity from the get-go.


heck even inthe bible, if you read the epistle of st. Paul you can tell that he was disputing with other christians that denied the resurrection. I can't quote the text exactly but he says words to the effect that: hey, if there's no resurrection then this is all a farce, what are we suffering for?.

It's 1 Corinthians 15.

The presence of dissent in one church (the church of Corinth) which didn't last long enough to merit any other mention in historical writings hardly constitutes a hot dispute at the heart of the Christian community.


In fact all this things, the resurrection, virgin birth, trinity in one are actually the aspects of christianity that have their roots firmly entrenched in Paganism. You should check out Mithraism and Orphic religions.

You seem to be claiming that paganism is the source of these doctrines in Christianity. (Though I don't get why you throw the trinity in there. The Christian trinity is far different in character from any pagan trinities) Even if that is true, I don't believe it is significant. There is no contradiction in saying that Christianity both drew from and rejected paganism at the same time. Modern secular atheism as it is seen today both drew from and rejected Christianity at its start at the beginning of the modern period in the seventeenth century. The ethical ideals that modern atheists accept are distinctly Christian in origin and nature--minus the arbitrary bits about sex.


very true; then there's gnosticism and Catharism, which were completely beyond the pale as far as the established church went (heck, they even beleived in reincarnation :blushake: ), but they called themselves Christians ...

Not only did they call themselves Christian, but they called themselves the only real Christians. Which just buttresses my point about the exclusivity of Christianity. They also claim an origin prior to the orthodox interpretation, saying that the Catholic church was the real corruption, and that their own doctrines were preservations of the original Christianity. Which supports my point that Christianity is opposed to changes in doctrine.

[plumedsnake]

I don't claim to have any sort of monopoly on what "Christianity" means. I'm not trying to establish what Christianity is by fiat. I am, however, trying to say that, based on a historical understanding of Christianity, one can say that Christianity displays certain characteristics.

Okay, but what are these characteristics that christianity displays. Is it the rigidity of doctrine that is it's defining characteristic? You've got to elucidate.


There's a lot going on here. First, the claim about Christianity predating the Nicene Creed. I'm well aware of this fact. The Nicene Creed, however, is the direction that Christianity took, and has been the standard for determining orthodoxy within Christianity for fifteen hundred years.

True. I will only nitpick about the nicene creed being the way that orthodox christianity took.



Second, the claim that Irenaeus (he was second century) was the first one to limit Christianity. I don't believe that's accurate. One can trace that impulse all the way back to Paul--the founder of Christianity as we know it. One can find throughout his letters (and I exclude those which he probably didn't write, such as 1 and 2 Peter and Titus) plenty of concern with correct teaching. Paul constantly denounces the teachings of those who disagree with him as not only wrong, but leading to eternal destruction. The concern for correct doctrine can be found not only in Irenaeus, but in other Church Fathers as well, such as Ignatius of Antioch, who repeats Paul's injunction to avoid false teachings.

Very true. But it is not only in Corinth that Paul is in conflict with other teachings. Even in Jerusalem Paul has run ins with Peter and James. Mainly over issues like how much of Jewish traditions should christians adhere to and can gentiles get involved. Paul it seems to me is the kind of guy that is constantly stirring things up, plus he seemed to be a guy full of energy and forcefulness that helps him to push through the most unfounded of ideologies.


I honestly don't know why you mention Irenaeus' reasoning with regard to the number of Gospels. One cannot discredit everything a person has written merely by pointing out one area where they use bad reasoning, even if it's as spectacularly bad as that. Though I would say that Irenaeus was a silly old man. Mind-numbingly bad writer, too, stylistically speaking.

Can I discredit everything a person says merely by pointing at one area? That depends on how typical the one area is of the guy. every one can talk shit sometimes, but some people talk shit because that is what they do. shit talking is an integral part of their rhetoric. St. Paul came and went and christianity was still a rich and diverse tradition. The activities of the likes of Irenaeus served to establish orthodoxy as the only form of christianity. to be honest, I think that orthodoxy always wins out in all traditions in history, for the simple fact that orthodoxies are better organised. Everyone that adheres to the orthodox principles can unite into a force to be reckoned with politically while those who follow their own individual inclinations are by virtue of that tendency not likely to get together to organise themselves. Therefore traditions are often split into exoteric and esoteric streams. the orthodoxies on the surface and a deeper secret tradition underlying it.



The book was Beyond Belief, right? I remember reading it. Very interesting book. It's clear that Pagels definitely believes quite strongly in the strength of her own arguments.

Darn right, you erudite fellow. But don't tantalise me like that. Why do you doubt the strength of her arguments? I want to know what points you found particularly weak.


I do not find them so strong myself. While it makes for an interesting conjecture, her hypothesis is not very strongly supported by historical evidence. There isn't really any evidence showing that the author of John was aware of the Gospel of Thomas at all. There are innumerable other reasons that the author of John might have portrayed Thomas in that way.
what are these innumerable other reasons? I'm salivating to know.
Oh, and also, there is very little in the gospels that is supported by historical evidence.



You seem to be leaving Paul out of the picture. Paul wrote either before the Gospel of John or contemporaneous with its authorship. The ideas found in the Gospel of John are remarkably concordant with Pauline Christianity.

True. I think that Irenaeus called it the apostolic tradition. Yet, Paul neither met nor learned from Jesus. He wasn't one of the disciples yet he was probably the most energetic and successful of all the apostles. The question is: did christianity start with Paul, or did it predate him. The movement which was called christianity by outsiders probably even predated Jesus. In fact I'm certain that it does. As a movement with certain recognisable strands it becomes hard to put into a box with neat labels. How much of the influence came from Greece, how much came from Persia and how much had it's source in spiritual inspirations. Yet as an organised institution with fixed orthodoxy that probably came into being in the 2nd century.


But yes, the Gospel of John is strikingly different from the other three. 'S why they've been calling the other three the synoptic gospels for so long. I'm not sure that I'd say they portray Jesus as "just a guy," though. I mean, the whole walking on water and cursing fig trees bit seems to indicate that there's something special about him, even if there isn't a clear indication of his divinity.

Having something special can mean being a prophet or something else, but does not equate with being god. Jesus challenged Peter to walk on the water too, and when he couldn't he chided him for having little faith. The idea being that walking on water was a matter of faith and not a matter of being divine. In fact Jesus told his disciples that they would do greater works than he has done. Yet that does not suggest that they will be more divine than he is. It suggests that these great works are within the capability of humanity.


Not really. The crucifixion and resurrection are to be found in the first gospel written, Mark. The virgin birth is in the other two synoptics, both of which are of a fairly early origin. These were pretty much defining traits of Christianity from the get-go.

Yet there were factions that believed that he wasn't crucified by only an image of him was. History mixes into mythology at this point because this theme and interpretation is found elsewhere in the world. My understanding of it is the idea that this world is only a mirage and that the body that is killled is not really the person that is killed and the person can return in other images. The images are transistory yet the real person is eternal.




It's 1 Corinthians 15.

The presence of dissent in one church (the church of Corinth) which didn't last long enough to merit any other mention in historical writings hardly constitutes a hot dispute at the heart of the Christian community.

Perhaps not, but there is evidence that there were a vast difference of takes on the christ story in early christianity.




You seem to be claiming that paganism is the source of these doctrines in Christianity. (Though I don't get why you throw the trinity in there. The Christian trinity is far different in character from any pagan trinities) Even if that is true, I don't believe it is significant. There is no contradiction in saying that Christianity both drew from and rejected paganism at the same time. Modern secular atheism as it is seen today both drew from and rejected Christianity at its start at the beginning of the modern period in the seventeenth century. The ethical ideals that modern atheists accept are distinctly Christian in origin and nature--minus the arbitrary bits about sex.

Hey, if I adopt a whole load of communist ideals and methods, but I don't call myself a communist, what am I?
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and smells like a duck yet insists that it isn't a duck, what do you call it?




Not only did they call themselves Christian, but they called themselves the only real Christians. Which just buttresses my point about the exclusivity of Christianity. They also claim an origin prior to the orthodox interpretation, saying that the Catholic church was the real corruption, and that their own doctrines were preservations of the original Christianity. Which supports my point that Christianity is opposed to changes in doctrine.

Orthodoxy wherever you may find it is opposed to changes in doctrine. This can be said of buddhism, islam, wicca whatever. However to define a religious movement by an orthodox aspect and then say that the whole movement is anti change is a bit drastic, don't you think?

[Baba Yaga]

Wow. I have been keeping up with this debate because it is extremely interesting and educational. Now, though, my head is starting to spin. So, what exactly are the defining characteristics that make christianity christianity? I had always been led to believe by society and the educators in this matter that there certain pre-requisites to following that path.

[Lunar_Dragonfly]

I think right here there is just an argument on semantics. Words, people, words.

Technically, a Christian cannot be a pagan, because the accepted definition of the word pagan means not a member of an abrahamic religion.

HOWEVER.

That does not mean a Christian cannot practice witchcraft, revere nature, or do other things generally lumped in with the definition of "pagan." They can do the exact same things they would if they were Christian pagans, it just seems like they can't call themselves that. Likewise, some Christians are touchy about the word "witch." So they call themselves "Christian Mystics." There. All better. This argument doesn't seem to be at all about what people can or cannot do, it's just about what they can or cannot call themselves. Perhaps they might instead have to give up on the word Christian, and call themselves a pagan who happens to revere Jesus. Or perhaps we can simply accept that the dictionary definitions of terms are limiting and that a Christian Pagan can seem like a contradiction, but isn't.

Also -- from what I understand about the Christian religion, it seems like Christianity has two basic rules -- Accept Jesus as your savior, and don't be an asshole. You do that, you're good, despite whatever else you might be doing on the side. All the rest of the rules in the Bible seem to either be more guidelines, or else they refer specifically to Judaism and not so much Christianity (old testiment). Of course a lot of conservative Christians have trouble grasping this concept.

[SweetIsTheTruth]

I presented plenty of reasons that it doesn't make sense.

To you.



And heck, I haven't even busted out the Nietzsche yet. (Think what you like about his moral philosophy, he was a brilliant classicist with some real insights) Or my analysis of Aristotle's moral philosophy.

Yet the ChristoPagans will do what they do no matter what the dictionary, Nietzsche or Aristotle said.



I'm aware that there was quite a bit of mixing that went on in Northern Europe, much to the chagrin of the priests trained in Southern Europe. This was because they misunderstood Christianity. The priests accepted this as a stepping stone to correct doctrine.

The early Catholics made saints of some Pagan Gods and Goddesses, which means, Paganism existed in Christianity from the beginning.



There's working out contradictions, and there's working around contradictions.

There's also recognition that contradiction is illusion since all lead to One.



That is, one must either not consider certain questions as a Christian (either because they do not occur to one or because of appeals to faith over rationality) or one must lie to oneself and figure out a way to work around these contradictions.

So, in your mind, the only two options are A or B. It couldn't possibly be that options C, D, E, F & G also exist as choices. All you have presented here is a false dichotomy based on a false duality.



One can, if one one wants, reconcile any two propositions as long as they don't directly contradict each other.

One could also reconcile two propositions that directly contradict each other. As an example, YHVH and Satan, although contradictory, could well be one and the same, merely two sides of one coin. Direct contradictions can be transcended.



One may acknowledge a debt to Christianity without remaining Christian oneself. The Qabalah as practiced by pagans is Christian only in trappings; its doctrines would be considered heretical at best by orthodox Christianity.


Except the Qabalah did not spring from Christianity, but Judaism. The Qabalah, at least according to 777, by Crowley clearly shows that Christian mythos had been and can be, mixed with Pagan mythos for some time. This is one example which proves your claim the two can't be mixed to be unfounded.



Moreover, one must remember what Aleister Crowley said about the existence of the Sephiroth, the archangels, etc. They are not to be taken as literally existing.

Atheists say the same about the deities of all religions. There are Christians, such as Spong, who likewise claim the Christian myths aren't to be taken literally either.



The Qabalah is a conceptual tool, a key to experience and effective use of the will. Not a key to truth in the logical sense. With that in mind, there is no contradiction in a pagan's using the Qabalah.

I never claimed there was. All I have claimed is that it is rather late in the game to upset that some mix Christian and Pagan practices. It's nothing new.



Paganism is a movement, not a belief system. Movements, especially movements which are reactions against particular groups, can, in fact, be defined as against what they are not--they often define themselves in that way.


Which has nothing at all to do with those who mix Pagan and Christian practices. They will do what they do no matter what the dictionary says and no matter how you define what is and is not Paganism.



What is right or not doesn't depend on how it sounds. It sounds right to bring up your children in your own faith as best you can, but when that faith is as poisonous as, say, scientology, it isn't right.

So who died and left you in charge of determining what faiths can and can not be mixed and also left you in charge of determining what faiths are and are not poisonous?



I never said you don't have the right to worship and practice as you like.

It would have been foolish for you to claim such with respect to me, since I am not a ChristoPagan.



That doesn't mean that you have the right never to have your faith questioned or challenged by others.

You are not attempting to question or challenge someone's else's faith here. You are attempting to tell others how they must label themselves depending on what faith(s) they practice or mix. Sorry, but Mormons can call themselves Christians, even though Baptists may not buy that particular definition.



If I really am doing something wrong, I want someone to call me on it.

You haven't proven any here have done anything wrong. All you are claiming is that ChristoPagans can't be TRUE(tm) Pagans. Gee, that line of argumentation sounds AWFULLY familiar.

[plumedsnake]

I think right here there is just an argument on semantics. Words, people, words.

an argument about Nomenclature





Also -- from what I understand about the Christian religion, it seems like Christianity has two basic rules -- Accept Jesus as your savior, and don't be an asshole. You do that, you're good, despite whatever else you might be doing on the side.


Yeah but is the Jesus you accept as your saviour an historical character that lived 2000 years ago, or is he something that you awaken from deep within yourself.

That is another little conundrum in christianity. The difference between the historicity of it and the eternal truths of it. If the sacrifice is an historical event that happened in 33AD (give or take) then does it serve as an ablution for those who lived before then or is the grace only available to those born after jesus died? If the christ myth is an eternal truth then the historic aspects of it are irrelevant and christ's historical crucifixion is merely a portrayal in history of something that was, is, and always will be true. And grace too will have been from the dawn of time. In fact the historical event will be irrelevant.

[taai]

i think the exclusion of paganism from christianity was a schism in the church after the death of jesus... politically motived... and i don't think jesus would approve, really. the romans, imo, hijacked jesus the revolutionary to promote their own agenda.

i have read the gnostic gospels, and they are thoroughly influenced by greek paganism.

i have serious problems with those who believe in a literal translation of the current bible, because there are a lot of statements within it-- both OT and NT-- that i do not agree with, that i find counter to my beliefs, and that some christians would use as justification to oppress others. i fear the political might of some of these groups, the future that they envision, and for this reason, i find it almost irresponsible to align myself with the bible, in anyway.

very interesting discussion. thanks for everyone's opinions. it's great to read. i do not have that great a grasp of ancient history-- really only a basic understanding from college and my own readings... it's great to read such detailed and well-thought out posts!

[Baba Yaga]

Do christo-pagans believe in the concept of original sin, and salvation only through Jesus, and do they consider the other gods to be subject to the hebrew one?

[taai]

certainly it is VERY clear in the OT that the hebrew god DEMANDS monotheism.

here's a passage to give christo-pagans pause:




Deuteronomy 13:1-16
1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them," 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 17:2-7
2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you. – it pretty clearly describes what the punishment for paganism is in the OT.

personally, i think there is a little more wiggle room in the NT, but not much.

[SweetIsTheTruth]

it pretty clearly describes what the punishment for paganism is in the OT.

The OT has all sorts of things like that in it, from instruction on slave-keeping, to advising death for kids who talk back to their parents and even advice to not eat shellfish. Many Christians ignore the OT in examples like this, which is why you won't see them stoning adulterers to death in the back of their churches. And why wouldn't they ignore the OT? Christianity is about the NT, not the Judaic OT. They believe Jesus overturned all OT laws. Why wouldn't the ChristoPagans view it similarly?

[taai]

i think that is not entirely true, because christians that i speak to adhere to the ten commandments (from the OT), the first of which is to not worship any gods before the hebrew god. i was responding to the previous post, which mentions the hebrew god. i actually agree that jesus overturned the OT; however, i think the OT still influences mainstream christian practice.

the OT has been the basis of many laws in our culture, including allowing for slavery (not so very long ago, i may add). in some countries that adhere more specifically to biblical law, adultery is a crime.

[SweetIsTheTruth]

i think that is not entirely true, because christians that i speak to adhere to the ten commandments (from the OT), the first of which is to not worship any gods before the hebrew god.

I agree with you. However, we can't forget the ten commandments advises us to give our slaves a day off, and to not covet the slaves of our neighbors, both of which are ignored by many Christians. In other words, Christians selectively pick and choose, or cherry pick, which parts of the OT they pay attention to and which they don't, which is why you don't see them stone adulterers to death, regardless of how strongly the OT recommends the practice.



i think the OT still influences mainstream christian practice.

It influences it, no doubt. At the same time, the more ridiculous and morally reprehensible practices outlined in the OT are completely ignored by Christians. There's no reason the ChristoPagans wouldn't do the same.



the OT has been the basis of many laws in our culture, including allowing for slavery (not so very long ago, i may add). in some countries that adhere more specifically to biblical law, adultery is a crime.

Even now, adultery is still a crime in some jurisdictions. However, such laws are rarely enforced. Slavery is outlawed in the US, no matter how strongly Jehovah himself (allegedly) recommends the practice, even providing instruction in Leviticus.

My point here is, ALL religions, just like so many other things in our society, borrow ideas or bits and pieces from each other. It has always been so. To somehow claim ideas or pieces of Christianity can not be mixed, blended or syncretized with other systems, just seems absurd to me. Pagan ideas, such as a dying/rising sun god who was born of a virgin, who was both mortal and divine, have existed within Christianity from the beginning. The Mithraic idea that one can be 'washed in the blood' (of a bull in the case of Mithras) were altered, then adopted into Christianity from the beginning. The Catholics made saints of some Pagan Gods and Goddesses. Santeria incorporates Christian mythos. Jesus is found on the 6th sephira in the Qabalah. These sorts of things have been occurring for millenia. It's nothing new. It's quite normal and to be expected. It's how we humans do things. To get upset about what is essentially the result of human nature and is a major process, if not THE major process, of how we humans create new things (religions and otherwise) is to basically get upset over things over which we have no control. That's a recipe for unhappiness if there ever was one.

If someone wishes to blend Christianity and Wicca, or whatever, let them be. If they have worked out any conflicts or contradictions themselves, well good for them.

[plumedsnake]

certainly it is VERY clear in the OT that the hebrew god DEMANDS monotheism.

here's a passage to give christo-pagans pause:

it pretty clearly describes what the punishment for paganism is in the OT.

personally, i think there is a little more wiggle room in the NT, but not much.

And more bible passages for thought:

“ 21.6. And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.
21.7. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.
21.8. And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
21.9. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

This is from the book of numbers chapter 21. The Serpent on a pole called Nehushtan, which some argue were two serpents entwined around a pole was a part of hebrew religious practice instituted by Moses as commanded by Yahweh. It was destroyed by King Hezekiah in a fit of monotheistic zeal, yet though the nehushtan was physically destroyed it continued to have a hold over Jewish religious imagination up until the times of the christians when Jesus used the symbolism, saying that as the nehushtan was lifted up and whoever looked upon it was saved so would the son of man be lifted up and whoever looked upon him will be saved.

I think that when we argue whether christian/jews can add influences from other religions we are giving too much credit to these religious movements as a coherent ideology. The bible itself is full of the most contradictions than any other book I know. So of course any one following it has to pick and choose otherwise you'd be a walking mass of contradictions.

[plumedsnake]

Do christo-pagans believe in the concept of original sin, and salvation only through Jesus, and do they consider the other gods to be subject to the hebrew one?


What Jesus? What Hebrew one? . . . And is Christopagan a structured religionism with well articulated creeds as to whether or not it's adherents can believe in original sin or not.

[SweetIsTheTruth]

The bible itself is full of the most contradictions than any other book I know.

That's probably the most important point made here yet.

[Baba Yaga]

What Jesus? What Hebrew one? . . . And is Christopagan a structured religionism with well articulated creeds as to whether or not it's adherents can believe in original sin or not.

Well, asking questions and trying to understand is apparently a cardinal sin, if this post is indicative of the majority.

[plumedsnake]

Well, asking questions and trying to understand is apparently a cardinal sin, if this post is indicative of the majority.

I'm confused here. You asked about whether christopagans believe in original sins like there is a manifesto and an agenda that christopagans adhere to. Till I found this thread I'd never even heard of christopagans but I made the presumption that it is not an organised institution with ready made answers for FAQS that it's followers learn.
If Christopagan is kinda a cult that doesn't allow asking questions then my apologies. I just thought it refered to pagans that believe in Christ too.

Unless you are getting in a strop about me questioning your question . . .

[Baba Yaga]

I'm confused here. You asked about whether christopagans believe in original sins like there is a manifesto and an agenda that christopagans adhere to. Till I found this thread I'd never even heard of christopagans but I made the presumption that it is not an organised institution with ready made answers for FAQS that it's followers learn.
If Christopagan is kinda a cult that doesn't allow asking questions then my apologies. I just thought it refered to pagans that believe in Christ too.

Unless you are getting in a strop about me questioning your question . . .

No, no, I'm not very skilled at wordgames, so you can pretty much take my words at face value.

I was asking questions of christian-pagans, so that christian-pagans could maybe answer them, and I could maybe learn something. If I knew the details about the path, I wouldn't have to ask questions. If you are not a christian-pagan yourself, why are you trying to dismantle my questions? Are they morally offensive to you or something?

[HadouKen24]

Okay, but what are these characteristics that christianity displays. Is it the rigidity of doctrine that is it's defining characteristic? You've got to elucidate.

Orthodoxy is one of the defining characteristics, yes. Even among those groups which most Christians would consider heterodox, orthodoxy within the group is the rule rather than the exception. The Marcionites, the Cathars, the hardcore Arians, etc., all thought of themselves as the true Christians, the ones who were carrying on the real message of Christianity. You can even find this is modern heterodox movements such as the Latter Day Saints and the Jehovah's Witnesses. In fact, from what I've seen, the more heterodox a group is from mainstream Christianity, the more likely it is to make exclusivist claims of orthodoxy.

Another defining characteristic is Christianity's focus on the community of believers. Membership in the Church--however that is interpreted in one's particular denomination--is extremely important. It is only relatively recently, and mostly in individualistic America, that people have taken seriously the claim that one doesn't need to be a member of a local body of fellow believers. From my own perspective, I believe I've seen a reaction against that belief, and a return to taking seriously the ecclesiastical nature of the religion. It should be noted that a prerequisite for belonging to a church is agreement with certain basic doctrines.


Very true. But it is not only in Corinth that Paul is in conflict with other teachings. Even in Jerusalem Paul has run ins with Peter and James. Mainly over issues like how much of Jewish traditions should christians adhere to and can gentiles get involved. Paul it seems to me is the kind of guy that is constantly stirring things up, plus he seemed to be a guy full of energy and forcefulness that helps him to push through the most unfounded of ideologies.

I think people overestimate the conflict between Paul and the council of apostles and elders at Jerusalem over the issue of the Law. That issue was decided the way most other issues were decided--a council of church leaders came together and came to a consensus. That consensus happened to be in favor of Paul, as the book of Acts records.

The conflict between Paul and James, as found in the disagreement between the epistle to the Galatians and James' eponymous letter, is relatively minor. If you apply the teachings of either Paul or James, you will end up with the same external behavior. Paul recognizes that if there are no actions coming out of faith, then it isn't really faith. The question is one of the mechanics of salvation, and has very little practical import.

Again, I believe that they would have an argument over something so relatively trivial--one which later Christians thought important enough to preserve in the Canon--shows the importance which Christians place on correct doctrine.


Can I discredit everything a person says merely by pointing at one area? That depends on how typical the one area is of the guy. every one can talk shit sometimes, but some people talk shit because that is what they do. shit talking is an integral part of their rhetoric. St. Paul came and went and christianity was still a rich and diverse tradition. The activities of the likes of Irenaeus served to establish orthodoxy as the only form of christianity. to be honest, I think that orthodoxy always wins out in all traditions in history, for the simple fact that orthodoxies are better organised. Everyone that adheres to the orthodox principles can unite into a force to be reckoned with politically while those who follow their own individual inclinations are by virtue of that tendency not likely to get together to organise themselves. Therefore traditions are often split into exoteric and esoteric streams. the orthodoxies on the surface and a deeper secret tradition underlying it.

I think you put too much importance on the writings of Irenaeus. To be sure, they were quite influential, but the fact is that his writings were preserved, unlike the writings even of many other important Church Fathers. Not only that, but they were accepted by the majority of Christians. He was not considered to be some crank trying to impose his own personal views on everyone else, but a saint defending the faith from those who would corrupt it.



I do not find them so strong myself. While it makes for an interesting conjecture, her hypothesis is not very strongly supported by historical evidence. There isn't really any evidence showing that the author of John was aware of the Gospel of Thomas at all. There are innumerable other reasons that the author of John might have portrayed Thomas in that way.

what are these innumerable other reasons? I'm salivating to know.
Oh, and also, there is very little in the gospels that is supported by historical evidence.

Perhaps Thomas really had been a bit of a doubter in that way. This isn't necessarily a denouncement of Thomas; after all, Peter denied Christ thrice according to the synoptics, and yet he became one of the most important apostles, even to the point of being the founder of the church in Rome. Perhaps there are other reasons which John had which we, lacking knowledge as we do, don't know.

This becomes an especially weak point given the scholarly dispute about when the Gospel of Thomas was written. The strongest argument for an early authorship is the fact that it takes the form of a sayings Gospel, as Q is supposed to be. However, many of the documents dug up at Nag Hammadi, such as the Valentinian Gospel of Philip, also take the form of a sayings Gospel, and are of much later origin.


True. I think that Irenaeus called it the apostolic tradition. Yet, Paul neither met nor learned from Jesus. He wasn't one of the disciples yet he was probably the most energetic and successful of all the apostles. The question is: did christianity start with Paul, or did it predate him. The movement which was called christianity by outsiders probably even predated Jesus. In fact I'm certain that it does. As a movement with certain recognisable strands it becomes hard to put into a box with neat labels. How much of the influence came from Greece, how much came from Persia and how much had it's source in spiritual inspirations. Yet as an organised institution with fixed orthodoxy that probably came into being in the 2nd century.

That's probably fair. Even if there wasn't anything recognizably like Christianity before Jesus, I don't think a movement like his could have started unless there were already inclinations in that direction. The Gospels themselves seem to imply that this is the case with John the Baptist, and there were certainly enough messiah figures around in that period, as reported by men like Josephus.

I'm not a trained historian, but I suspect myself that Christianity as an organized institution probably started a bit earlier than the 2nd century. I suspect that there was a level of organization by the writing of the Book of John, though probably not the kind of institution we see today.

However, Christianity did become an organized institution by at least the mid-second century. I suspect much of the reason for this was having to deal with schisms and heterodoxy. Doctrines like that of Valentinus and Marcion and other so-called "Gnostics" stood against the predominant teachings of the church, and in many cases clearly brought in ideas from outside Christianity. Seeing the threat to the purity of the doctrines they had been taught, there was organization in order to keep the movement from being hijacked by individuals coming in from the outside to enforce their own extra-Christian theological ideas.

Who can blame them? If someone started bringing Muslim ideas into Wicca, and started trying to teach it as the genuine teachings of Gardner, there would be similar attempts--especially if Gardner's life and teachings had not been as well documented as they had been. Given the illiteracy of the period, such a reaction is quite understandable.


Having something special can mean being a prophet or something else, but does not equate with being god. Jesus challenged Peter to walk on the water too, and when he couldn't he chided him for having little faith. The idea being that walking on water was a matter of faith and not a matter of being divine. In fact Jesus told his disciples that they would do greater works than he has done. Yet that does not suggest that they will be more divine than he is. It suggests that these great works are within the capability of humanity.

Oh, I certainly agree that the synoptics don't indicate that Jesus is divine. But he was marked out as prophet, at the very least. The most important prophet, in fact, at the Transfiguration.


Yet there were factions that believed that he wasn't crucified by only an image of him was. History mixes into mythology at this point because this theme and interpretation is found elsewhere in the world. My understanding of it is the idea that this world is only a mirage and that the body that is killled is not really the person that is killed and the person can return in other images. The images are transistory yet the real person is eternal.

Actually, the idea behind Docetism, as I understand it, is that Jesus never really incarnated at all. His body was only an illusion, in contrast to the actual bodies of... everyone else. The idea behind it is that since Christ is pure good, and matter is fundamentally evil, Christ's nature is completely incompatible with matter, and so he cannot really be incarnate.


Perhaps not, but there is evidence that there were a vast difference of takes on the christ story in early christianity.

Well, sure. But they all thought they were right, and they all vehemently condemned those who disagreed with them.


Hey, if I adopt a whole load of communist ideals and methods, but I don't call myself a communist, what am I?
If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and smells like a duck yet insists that it isn't a duck, what do you call it?

I don't deny that paganism had an influence on Christianity. My argument is that it had the same kind of influence that Christianity later had on atheism. Christianity took some ideas which were already present in paganism and placed them in a new paradigm.


Orthodoxy wherever you may find it is opposed to changes in doctrine. This can be said of buddhism, islam, wicca whatever. However to define a religious movement by an orthodox aspect and then say that the whole movement is anti change is a bit drastic, don't you think?

The important part is the role that orthodoxy plays. In Islam, it is very important indeed, and has been from the beginning--though it takes second fiddle to a rigorous orthopraxis. To be Muslim, one must both believe the right things and practice the right things. Not only has Buddhism never had an orthodoxy, but "Buddhism" is a Western construction that tries to lump together a whole range of practices and belief systems.

[HadouKen24]

SweetIsTheTruth, I tried to see what I could do about your response, but I'm afraid that I had a hard time making sense of the line of argumentation you made. It seemed like you have a whole bunch of things to say, but I'm having a hard time seeing how they fit together. I have real difficulty responding to people when they chop up my paragraphs into bits and respond in places sentence-by-sentence. My sentences are in paragraphs because I believe they form a unit together. Chopping them up obscures how your responses relate to my overall argument.

[Lady Valkyrie]

i think that is not entirely true, because christians that i speak to adhere to the ten commandments (from the OT), the first of which is to not worship any gods before the hebrew god. the OT has been the basis of many laws in our culture, including allowing for slavery (not so very long ago, i may add). in some countries that adhere more specifically to biblical law, adultery is a crime.

The following are my own personal beliefs & do not represent all of those individuals who claim the title of Christopagans, Christian Witch, or Christian Wiccan. You will learn that when it comes to Christopagan, Christian Witches, and Christian Wiccans we believe that certain issues are best learned through personal gnosis. Therefore, all Christopagans, Christian Witches, and Christian Wiccans differ slightly when it comes to certain issues.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." I worship the Holy Trinity. I worship Father God, Mother Goddess (the Holy Spirit), & their son that they bore in the womb of the virgin Mary, Jesus the Christ. I personally believe that the Holy Spirit is the feminine aspect of the Holy Trinity. In my opinion I am not in violation of this commandment. Just because one considers themselves a Pagan doesn't mean that they MUST worship every single God and Goddess in all of earth's history. I've known Pagans who worship just one God or one Goddess and just draw wisdom from the stories of other Gods and Goddesses. Well, that's what I do. I worship the Holy Trinity only. However, I also draw wisdom from the many ancient myths of ancient Gods and Goddesses.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Now this is all a matter of personal opinion only if one could see within my own heart and soul (which they can't). I have a statue of a white dove & it symbolizes The Holy Spirit. I do not worship this statue. I do not bow to this statue & pray to this statue. I do use this statue as a focal point as I pray to the Holy Spirit. I also have a statue of a cat & an owl on my altar. I do not bow down & worship these statues nor do I pray to these statues. I use these statues as a focal point when I am meditating & studying things concerning my totems which happen to be the Tiger & the owl. No I do not worship these animals. I worship their creator. The topic of totems is a subject that deserves its own webpage. I also have many pentagrams around my home. The pentagram holds a dual meaning for me. Early Christians used the Pentagram as a symbol of their faith before the Cross became the official Christian symbol. The five points of the Pentagram represented the five wounds of Jesus the Christ. That is what it represents to me. It also represents to me the five elements Spirit, Water, Fire, Earth, & Air all of which are used in Witchcraft.

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." This does not present a problem for me. I don't take the name of God in vain. However, I do cuss. Most people do not understand what this commandment truely means in context of the times in which it was written. God's name was often used in an oath. If you made an oath in those times you would swear by the name of God so that you would not dare break that oath. This commandment has nothing to do with using cuss words as so many mistakeningly think.

"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." Well I do believe that a heck of a lot of Christians break this commandment if one is to take it literally. Ancient Hebrew Sabbath was from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. How many Christians really keep the Sabbath & keep it Holy? Most Christians think the Sabbath is Sunday. It's even leaked into the secular world to where businesses & even state liquor stores are not even open on Sunday? Why Sunday? It's certainly not the Sabbath... that is if you take this commandment literally. I don't take it literally. I do believe that we should take at least one day of rest, relaxation, & meditate on our Higher Power. What day that is is a matter of personal preference in my humble opinion.

"Honour thy father & thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." Well, this is going to be a bit touchy. I am a parent of three children. Of course I expect my children to honour & respect me as their parent. But at the same time do I give them a reason to honour & respect me? I believe this commandment goes hand in hand with what is spoken of in the New Testemant about how parents should treat their children. My parents, especially my mother, gave me absolutely no reason to honour & respect them. They were extremely abusive... what honour is there in abuse? I survived... barely. I do honor & respect my father now for he changed his ways & has given me a reason to honour & respect him as my father. However, my mother is still the same. She is unrepented concerning the extreme abuse she dealt out to me as a child. She gives me no reason to honour or respect her. Some people may disagree with me here & that is fine. I am not out to change other's minds. I am just here to make a stand for my own beliefs.

"Thou shalt not kill." Now once again is this a commandment that we take literally? Or are there some unspoken conditions involved? Are we to believe that a God would command us not to kill anything at all & then go and command certain humans in the bible to rise up as an army & kill certain people whom he deemed as enemies? Are we to believe that a God would command us not to kill & yet command certain animals be sacrificed for the redemption of certain sins? Are we to believe that a God would command us not to kill & yet throughout the Bible God's people killed & ate animals for food? Are we to believe that a God who commands us not to kill would then turn around & command his people in the Bible to kill this person & that person for he deems them as sinners... basically capital punishment? This commandment has been up for interpretation since it was given & written down. I personally am against capital punishment. I am personally against the killing of anything for sacrifical means. I believe that one should be allowed to kill animals for food or out of defense if they are being attacked of course. And finally I believe that if you are being attacked & it is either them or you, you have the right to defend yourself by whatever means neccessary. Now take all of this & you determine if I am in violation of this commandment. I personally do not believe that I am.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." Now this commandment is also up for interpretation... especially when you take into account what the New Testament says about adultery. My own cousin believed that when I divorced my first abusive husband & then got remarried to another man I was committing adultery. She believed that I was to either be reconciled to my first husband or be single for the rest of my life... or if my first husband would have died before me then I would have been released from my marriage bond & only then could I remarry. She has Biblical scriptures to back up these beliefs. However, I do not agree with her... obviously since I am now on my third husband (in the spiritual sense that is). Now when I am in a relationship with someone I am theirs & theirs alone. I do not go sleeping around cheating on my them. So, depending upon one's personal interpretation of this commandment along with NT scriptures on marriage I may or may not be keeping this commandment.

"Thou shalt not steal." Well this is a no brainer... I do not believe anyone should steal! The last time I stole something I was a stupid kid... kid being the key word there. However, I believe that if I was placed in a situation where my very survival was at stake then yes I would probably steal as any one of us probably would... even a Christian if they were really honest with themselves. I really don't think that anyone would let this commandment stand in the way of their very survival or their children's very survival.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Do I tell lies about me "neighbors?" NO! I hate lies! I hate gossip... which is the spreading of lies. However, I will not think twice to telling the blatant honest truth to someone or about someone especially if it has to do with righting a wrong, defending myself, or clearing up lies already been told. NO I am not in violation of this commandment.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." I am one that has lived in poverty... & I am talking about some real poverty. Do I covet? I do wish I had better things... but they are just that... things.... nothing that is going to make me a better person. I am NOT a materialistic woman. Things do not impress me. I have been poor & I may not be rich... but I am better than I once was, that's for sure. I do not covet for people, places, or things. That's just not me. I am not in violation of this commandment.

[Lady Valkyrie]

I'm confused here. You asked about whether christopagans believe in original sins like there is a manifesto and an agenda that christopagans adhere to. Till I found this thread I'd never even heard of christopagans but I made the presumption that it is not an organised institution with ready made answers for FAQS that it's followers learn.
If Christopagan is kinda a cult that doesn't allow asking questions then my apologies. I just thought it refered to pagans that believe in Christ too.

Unless you are getting in a strop about me questioning your question . . .


You've hit the nail in the head. You are so right. There is no organized institute for Christopagan, Christian Witches, or Christian Wiccans. Those who are unmoveable sceptics of such spiritual paths will adamently ignore the fact that there is absolutely no organized institute for such spiritual paths annd will ignore the factor of personal gnosis. All this to further their hardcore sceptical point of view of these spiritual paths. They want Christians to keep themselves and their God in a box, so to speak. They don't want to even entertain the thought that Christianity has been evolving and some within Christianity are evolving spiritually a little faster than others. Some of us Christians (Christopagans, Christian Witches, and Christian Witches) refuse to adhere to orthodoxy for such things are of man not God. We'd rather follow our internal voice... the voice from beyond... that speaks to us... that draws us towards these more ancient of spiritual practices... yet we stay true to our God... to our Jesus. Those hardcore sceptics I believe are truely afraid of such things... if they embrace such things... they just might have to go within themselves and do a lot of self analysis... and they know they won't like what they will see. To those hardcore sceptics... worship whomever and however you may choose... you have that right and noone here will ever tell you are wrong or your ways cannot be done... please show us (Christopagans, Christian Witches, Christian Wiccans) the same respect.

[Baba Yaga]

I feel like I am being told that my questions are either insulting or stupid. Is this the case?

[HadouKen24]

You've hit the nail in the head. You are so right. There is no organized institute for Christopagan, Christian Witches, or Christian Wiccans. Those who are unmoveable sceptics of such spiritual paths will adamently ignore the fact that there is absolutely no organized institute for such spiritual paths annd will ignore the factor of personal gnosis. All this to further their hardcore sceptical point of view of these spiritual paths. They want Christians to keep themselves and their God in a box, so to speak. They don't want to even entertain the thought that Christianity has been evolving and some within Christianity are evolving spiritually a little faster than others. Some of us Christians (Christopagans, Christian Witches, and Christian Witches) refuse to adhere to orthodoxy for such things are of man not God. We'd rather follow our internal voice... the voice from beyond... that speaks to us... that draws us towards these more ancient of spiritual practices... yet we stay true to our God... to our Jesus. Those hardcore sceptics I believe are truely afraid of such things... if they embrace such things... they just might have to go within themselves and do a lot of self analysis... and they know they won't like what they will see. To those hardcore sceptics... worship whomever and however you may choose... you have that right and noone here will ever tell you are wrong or your ways cannot be done... please show us (Christopagans, Christian Witches, Christian Wiccans) the same respect.

Are you really suggesting that people who question the intellectual tenability of Christopaganism "won't like what they see" if they look inward? That seems rather presumptuous. What does intellectual dissent on this matter have to do with personal development?

[Lady Valkyrie]

Are you really suggesting that people who question the intellectual tenability of Christopaganism "won't like what they see" if they look inward? That seems rather presumptuous. What does intellectual dissent on this matter have to do with personal development?

I said what I've said from my heart... from my soul... from the "gut" feeling I have about certain sceptics on this board. And as I stated before Christopagans, Christian Wiccans, and Christian Witches should not have to defend their beliefs and/or practices... especially to the likes of the members of this message board who come from all walks of life with many different religious faiths and practices who also don't expect to have to "defend" their beliefs and/or practices at every turn by fellow members of this message board. And if they truely looked within themselves and saw themselves for what they really are then yes they would not like what they would see. I don't feel the need to explain myself any further on this particular point.

[Lady Valkyrie]

SweetIsTheTruth, I tried to see what I could do about your response, but I'm afraid that I had a hard time making sense of the line of argumentation you made. It seemed like you have a whole bunch of things to say, but I'm having a hard time seeing how they fit together. I have real difficulty responding to people when they chop up my paragraphs into bits and respond in places sentence-by-sentence. My sentences are in paragraphs because I believe they form a unit together. Chopping them up obscures how your responses relate to my overall argument.


Sounds to me you just don't like the responses they gave to your responses and you can't come up with anymore good responses.

[Baba Yaga]

I feel like I am being told that my questions are either insulting or stupid. Is this the case?

Is this what I am being told?

[ap Dafydd]

It rather does seem that way.

Sadly there seems to be a lot of newage psychobabble coming from the "Christian" side together with a refusal to engage in genuine debate.

My usual recommendation is that these folks should go and talk to other Christians.

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Lady Valkyrie]

It rather does seem that way.

Sadly there seems to be a lot of newage psychobabble coming from the "Christian" side together with a refusal to engage in genuine debate.

My usual recommendation is that these folks should go and talk to other Christians.

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

Debate... what is a debate? It is where individuals come together in a public arena... one is the "affirmative"... one is the "negative"... yet there is another called the "jury." Anyone who knows about formal debating knows that all debating is arguing back and forth until one side has successfully proved their point. Now this would work if let's say we were in high school or in college. But I don't know about you... but I'm a 32 year old stay at home mother of 3 children who is finally beginning to feel comfortable in her own skin. I don't think I should have to debate my beliefs... my very way of life... to a bunch of sceptics, who so obviously have a chip on their shoulder towards Christianity in whatever form it takes or who feel the need to boost their ego with their book smarts during a "debate."

[plumedsnake]

I was asking questions of christian-pagans, so that christian-pagans could maybe answer them, and I could maybe learn something. If I knew the details about the path, I wouldn't have to ask questions. If you are not a christian-pagan yourself, why are you trying to dismantle my questions? Are they morally offensive to you or something?

No man. I just find the subject extremely interesting and I have my own take on what is been talked about. Let me lay my card down on the table fully. I am of the opinion that Christianity is only one part (or manifestation) of a wider tradition that is in fact global. Like I've said before in other threads I believe that there is only one religion and within it there are as many different paths as there are individuals in the world.

I found your question confusing within the context of what was being discussed. It felt like you were addressing people that belonged to an institution with a manifesto and fixed creeds. I didn't mean to tread on any feelings. It was just an honest enquiry on where the questions were coming from.

[plumedsnake]

I feel like I am being told that my questions are either insulting or stupid. Is this the case?

NO! This is certainly not the case. Not from where I'm sitting in any case.

[plumedsnake]

My conclusion from reading this thread is that People who are not orthodox christian have no right to call themselves christians. This is an argument about rights, and patenting of the label christianity. I personally don't care so much for the word and if it makes others more comfortable I won't call myself a christian. It makes no difference to my religious practice.

All in all it has been a profitable debate for me. I wanna thank Hadouken24 for his challenging erudition. I wanna apologize to Baba Yaga if I offended him. I've learnt a fair bit from the thread so I'm happy.

Oh .. .! One more thought that has just occurred to me. This keeps coming up constantly and I guess that it is a reflection of one's worldview, but everytime people on this board talk about religious traditions they discuss in terms creeds and teachings passed down from one person to another. To what extent is spiritual inspiration actually the source of christian practice rather than what you learn from a teacher or guru or apostle or whatnot.
Afterall in the Gospels before Jesus dies the disciples ask what they are to do when he is gone. Did Jesus say to them, 'I'll give you an orthodox creed to follow and you'll be sorted'? No. I believe he said to them,' I'll send you the Holy Spirit who will guide you in all things.' This puts spiritual inspiration above scriptural teachings in the christian tradition. Of course the problem then becomes what inspirations are from the Holy Spirit and which ones are not. This was another problem in early christianity which is why there is quite a carry on about testing spirits etc. The thing is that once you're baptised in the holy spirit what external authority has a right to question the intimations that are communicated to you by the spirit. This spiritual aspect of christianity is more fundamental than a set of orthodox creeds. Of course if one does not believe in the reality of a spiritual world or of spiritual experiences then this aspect of christianity will be relegated to the trash can.

Shite! I had meant this post to be my concluding bow out of this thread but it seems that I've still got points left unsaid.

Oh yeah. Buddhist orthodoxy, not existing? I had a chat with a girl a while back who was buddhist. She was talking about a schism in the tibetan buddhist religion. She follows some guy who is the second in command to the Dalai Lama. Apparently the Dalai Lama is trying to smother the teachings on the Wrathful buddhas because he doesn't think that it isn't a very media friendly aspect of tibetan buddhism. Her teacher she claims teaches the full teaching . . . This sounds very much like an orthodoxy to me.

[Crysiira]

So basically what most of you guys are saying is that ChristoPagans don't deserve to call themselves ChristoPagans, they need to come up with a new name for themselves because they don't fit neatly into the "Christian" label or the "Pagan" label.

Is that what I'm understanding? Because arguing about what they believe as being contradictory is silly ~ they'll still believe what they want to believe, that's the thing about religion. It's faith, contradictions are ignored or reasoned away through faith.

What you guys seem to have the most beef with is them calling themselves both "Christians" and "Pagans." So what would you prefer they call themselves to fit into your labels?

Actually, one site I was researching while doing my report..
http://christianwicca.org/
Suggested that ChristoPagans could be thought of as a sect of Paganism. The name suggested was "Trinitarian Pagans." Pagans who worship the Trinity as their deity of choice, instead of the Greek Pantheon or whatever other Pantheon.

What do you guys think of that? Is changing the name enough to stop the debate?

I'm asking not to insult anyone or anything like that, I am just really curious as to what would make this path "valid" to you guys who say it's impossible.

[HadouKen24]

You've given me quite a few things to think about, as well, plumedsnake. It was a pleasure debating you.

I suppose I've given people the impression that I somehow have it in for those who consider themselves Christopagans or Christian Wiccans. I really don't. I think it's a bit odd that someone would want to combine the two, but I really don't have a problem with people following a path that they feel to be the way they should go. I'm not going to tell people that this is something that they can't do.

What I'm trying to say is that I have philosophical objections to calling oneself both pagan and Christian at the same time. I suspect most of the people on that path really aren't going to care. I disagree with the path. That doesn't mean that I lack respect for those who follow it. If disagreement meant lack of respect, I would have a hard time respecting anyone; it's rare that I run into someone I can agree with on even most of the important things.

If I've seemed too contentious, I apologize. My debating style tends toward that side of the spectrum, but it's a matter of style, not of attitude. I sometimes forget that not everyone I run into on the internet has run into someone who debates this way, and that many people may mistake it for genuine ire or resentment.


Oh yeah. Buddhist orthodoxy, not existing? I had a chat with a girl a while back who was buddhist. She was talking about a schism in the tibetan buddhist religion. She follows some guy who is the second in command to the Dalai Lama. Apparently the Dalai Lama is trying to smother the teachings on the Wrathful buddhas because he doesn't think that it isn't a very media friendly aspect of tibetan buddhism. Her teacher she claims teaches the full teaching . . . This sounds very much like an orthodoxy to me.

The point I was trying to make was that "Buddhism" is a Western construction. The idea of "Buddhism" seems to imply that this is just one giant religion spread across Asia, but it's not. It's a bunch of disparate religions which have some similarities and all somehow refer back to Siddhartha. Tibetan Buddhism as an institution of its own definitely has an orthodoxy and a hierarchy. But that has nothing to do with, say, Zen Buddhism or Pure Land Buddhism. Certain branches of Wicca, too, have their own hierarchies and orthodoxies, but that doesn't mean that Wicca as a whole has an orthodoxy.

[Lady Valkyrie]

So basically what most of you guys are saying is that ChristoPagans don't deserve to call themselves ChristoPagans, they need to come up with a new name for themselves because they don't fit neatly into the "Christian" label or the "Pagan" label.

Is that what I'm understanding? Because arguing about what they believe as being contradictory is silly ~ they'll still believe what they want to believe, that's the thing about religion. It's faith, contradictions are ignored or reasoned away through faith.

What you guys seem to have the most beef with is them calling themselves both "Christians" and "Pagans." So what would you prefer they call themselves to fit into your labels?

Actually, one site I was researching while doing my report..
http://christianwicca.org/
Suggested that ChristoPagans could be thought of as a sect of Paganism. The name suggested was "Trinitarian Pagans." Pagans who worship the Trinity as their deity of choice, instead of the Greek Pantheon or whatever other Pantheon.

What do you guys think of that? Is changing the name enough to stop the debate?

I'm asking not to insult anyone or anything like that, I am just really curious as to what would make this path "valid" to you guys who say it's impossible.

I've actually come across some who have point blank asked me why don't I just call myself something else. I in turn ask them why in the heck should I call myself something else just to please a few who are uncomfortable with what I currently call myself? Of course they once again go through all the "scholarly" answers as so many here have. In the end, I don't think I should have to change my religious title just because a few are uncomfortable with it. I mean come on... how many people in this world are uncomfortable with the term "Satanists?" What horrible imagery is conjured in certain individual's minds when the term "Satanists" is used? Because some individuals are uncomfortable with the term "Satanists" and because some don't agree with a Satanists beliefs or ways of life should a Satanists dropp that term and come up with a completely different name for their beliefs? NO! Absolutely not! Even though I like Nancy Chandler Pittman's coined title of "Christian Wicca The Trinitarian Tradition" and "Trinitarian Pagans." I feel that such reasoning is just trying to pacify the sceptics, who I don't think we as Christopagans, Christian Witches, and Christian Wiccans own a dang thing to other than a mutual respect of beliefs and ways of life.

[Baba Yaga]

No man. I just find the subject extremely interesting and I have my own take on what is been talked about. Let me lay my card down on the table fully. I am of the opinion that Christianity is only one part (or manifestation) of a wider tradition that is in fact global. Like I've said before in other threads I believe that there is only one religion and within it there are as many different paths as there are individuals in the world.

I found your question confusing within the context of what was being discussed. It felt like you were addressing people that belonged to an institution with a manifesto and fixed creeds. I didn't mean to tread on any feelings. It was just an honest enquiry on where the questions were coming from.

Its okay. I guess my questions come from my particular understanding of christianity, and I am trying to understand how others view it, and fit everything together into a working whole. I think i just had the bad luck of coming in after some feathers were already ruffled, and my questions seemed to have a connotation that they don't. It is not my purpose to judge or alienate anybody.

[Baba Yaga]

NO! This is certainly not the case. Not from where I'm sitting in any case.

Well, thank you.