Christianity and the "new paganism"

[shadesovgrey]

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0010.html

I came across this article and thought it was interesting. The author compares 'new' paganism with 'old' paganism, saying that "there were at least three elements in the old paganism that made it great. And all three are missing in the new paganism".

Apparently, these elements are a sense of piety, objective morality, and "awe at something transcendent, the sense of worship and mystery". Does anyone agree or disagree? Can we really say that a 'new' paganism is different in these ways, and if it is, would this necessarily be a bad thing?

By the way, I probably don't (or shouldn't) have to say this, but I don't want this thread to result in christian bashing, this is just one person's opinion after all. Rather, I'm interested in whether people believe his argument has any merit. :)

[Harmony Aurore]

hmmm..

for one, I don't agree that ancient paganism was "pious". Atleast it wouldn't be considered "pious" to modern views.

That's the problem, isn't it? If the author is comparing an ancient religion that was considered pious and moral and contained "awe at something transcendent, the sense of worship and mystery" by the standards of that past society, and we still had those three things exactly as they were then... our modern society would not view them the same. I think that we still have those elements, but a christian based society will never see those elements as "pious". Because it seems that they are really only comparing the perception that society had on the religion then and now. Since Paganism was the vogue thing then, and has since fallen out of favour, the author is COMPLETELY comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't work, and you can't really make that kind of a point.

I think that really, the author is viewing our religion through their own eyes with their own perspective of the religion. It's not really being objective.

[Cassie]

...The author compares 'new' paganism with 'old' paganism, saying that "there were at least three elements in the old paganism that made it great. And all three are missing in the new paganism".

Apparently, these elements are a sense of piety, objective morality, and "awe at something transcendent, the sense of worship and mystery". Does anyone agree or disagree? Can we really say that a 'new' paganism is different in these ways, and if it is, would this necessarily be a bad thing?


An interesting article but not backed up by much evidence or knowledge of modern paganism.
It talks about piety as follows;-

The first is the sense of piety (pietas), the natural religious instinct to respect something greater than yourself,
I and most Pagans I know have a great deal of respect for things which are in many ways greater than ourselves.

.. the humility that instinctively realizes man's subordinate place in the great scheme of things.
There is of course a belief in Christianity that human kind is always subordinate in the great scheme of things. Some Pagans (ancient and modern) might agree, but many do not.


“Moderation” or “temperance” went along with this, especially in classical civilization. The motto “nothing too much” was inscribed over every temple to Apollo, along with “know thyself.”
I'm sure many modern Pagans would also agree with this.


This natural modesty and respect contrast sharply with the arrogant attitude of the new pagan in the modern West. Only Oriental societies still preserve a traditional reverence.


I think this paragraph only shows the writer's prejudice and has little basis in fact.

On the subject of objective morality the question has to be objective to whom or by what standards? Pagan morality may be seen as more subjective but I personally find it more honest and meaningful than Christian morality. I am not expert enough to say if modern Paganism is more or less moral than ancient Paganism. How can such a thing be measured anyway?

As for modern Paganism lacking "awe at something transcendent, the sense of worship and mystery" the writer obviously hasn't observed much Pagan ritual. Personally despite many years of attending Christian churches I never felt that Awe or sense of mystery until I became a pagan.

All in all I think the article makes huge and inaccurate generisations about both modern and ancient Paganism.

[cheddarsox]

A great deal of what he says, reguarding beliefs, is true. In many pagan paths, some of those things are "missing", or are different from religions of old.

Here is my take on it...religions are a product of culture, and as cultures change, the religions, and what they emphasize will change. I don't think there is any way to prevent that.

In a sense, his article is another "it ain't like the good old days..." acknowledgement...but...so often...people forget that the "good old days" weren't really all that good.

I'm not a great historian...but even so...I can't identify a time in history so wonderful that the majority of us would be happy to be transported there. The "old" religions reflected the needs, fears, concerns and experiences of people in cultures very different than ours. While it may be comforting to some to shake their heads and say "If only people believed in the old ways...everything would be better."...it isn't true. It is just a way of dealing with, or maybe more so, avoiding dealing with reality.

Why don't people believe that a big thunder bolt will come out of the sky and zap them for sinning...because that doesn't happen. Once upon a time...cultural reasoning blamed the god's anger for mishaps...now we have other input that makes it impossible for most of us to believe that. We can't put blinders on and pretend that we don't know that we can "outsmart" those old bugaboos. Now we have weather predictions, birth control, medicine, etc that protect us from those zaps. In that sense...we have become gods, because we can now control the things that once gods got the credit for.

It is not merely human hubris...a great deal of it is true, and we are currently altering our religions to include those truths. Sometimes we go overboard and think we can control more than we are capable of, like teens testing the limits. That is human nature. No way to prevent these akward stages. Religion is dynamic, it will be adjusted accordingly.

The writer of the article writes from the standpoint that his beliefs are true, and the rest of us have gone astray. I recognize that much of what he accuses us of...is true, but I disagree that we have neccesarily gone astray.

I frequent a Catholic forum, and the other day I posted a statement that any deity deserving of honor...doesn't need humans to fight their battles for them.

I'm not trying to defend paganism in the face of Christianity. I think all religions have issues. There are adherents of every faith that use their religion as an excuse for anti social behavior. I know a-holes of every faith.

My religion does have a profound sense of awe, and humility in the face of the Divine. Honestly, much more so than when I was a Catholic. In fact I left Catholicism, in part, due to its unholy pride. I don't have a God who can beat up everyone else's god, like I did when I was a kid. My false pride has been replaced by genuine humility. He has that part wrong. Not all pagans think they are gods. I recognize what is really in charge now, and honor it, and trust it.

Our planet is a hot bed of different religions. I don't see anyway to decide which is "best", or true. Truth is, they all seem to work and serve...how does one explain that? The tribal people...works for them, the Amish...works for them..the Catholics...doing fine...Pagans..chugging along...People keep saying that the world is going to hell in a handbasket...yet here we still are! And they've been saying that in all of written history at least. I think the universe has a better handle on what's true than any religion does...that's why I place my trust in it.

[bshore]

A couple things.

I noticed this article was written in 1987. Perhaps Paganism wasn't so prevelant or 'out' as it is now and the author didn't have the resources he would if he were writing now.

I have trouble critiquing the message and argument the man presents, because he makes so many broad generalizations and states outright that he is talking about "the line of least resistance, religion in its fallen state". He obviously has a negative opinion of Paganism, and doesn't seem inclined to be objective.

Also, I don't like how he lumps "Paganism" together as one big religion. It's not. It's along the same lines as saying "Christians don't follow Jesus's mandate of loving your neighbor as yourself". Of course this is erroneous. Some Chrisitans lose sight of this specific tenent, but many have not.

As for the three points you brought up earler, I agree with the posters above me. He obviously hasn't met and observed very many Pagans and practices. Either that, or he already had his mind made up when he was doing research for this article, and only saw what he was looking for.

[Brightshores]

I think one must consider the source. One should not expect an admiring, positive, or even fully informed viewpoint on modern Paganism from a place called catholiceducation.org. Heck, you get ten modern Pagans in a room together and you'll hear twelve different definitions as to what Paganism is; I doubt a person who has dedicated his life to the service of the Roman Catholic Church would have any better understanding. :hahugh:

(by the way, I do consider myself to be "pious," I have a great deal of "transcendent awe," and I consider myself to be a heck of a lot more ethical than a lot of Christians I know. Not to bash Christians - many Christians are wonderful people - I just don't think they have a monopoly on ethics, nor do I think that all Christians behave in an ethical manner befitting the teachings of their religion. Of course, that goes for practitioners of every other religion also.)

[Xentor]

Heck, you get ten modern Pagans in a room together and you'll hear twelve different definitions as to what Paganism is; I doubt a person who has dedicated his life to the service of the Roman Catholic Church would have any better understanding. :hahugh:

Really? I find it's often the outsiders who show the best comprehension.


Apparently, these elements are a sense of piety, objective morality, and "awe at something transcendent, the sense of worship and mystery".


On the subject of objective morality the question has to be objective to whom or by what standards? Pagan morality may be seen as more subjective but I personally find it more honest and meaningful than Christian morality. I am not expert enough to say if modern Paganism is more or less moral than ancient Paganism. How can such a thing be measured anyway?

The idea of objective being that anyone can know this morality by the only standards there are, through study or observance. "Objective to whom?" isn't objective at all, neither is "by what standards?": these both lead to subjectivity.

Although you and I may think that morality is a subjective topic, the original author will have thought otherwise.

What I'm curious about is whether the original author actually believed that morality hasn't changed at all in the past 2000 years of Christianity. Because it it's objective, why would it change?



the humility that instinctively realizes man's subordinate place in the great scheme of things. There is of course a belief in Christianity that human kind is always subordinate in the great scheme of things.

There is? I thought the Christians were taught that God created Adam to rule all the lands and seas, and all the flora and fauna. That places mankind at the top, the ruler of everything, with just one being above them: God. No greater scheme here. Just God. And then, somewhere along the lines of history, Christianity inserted a complete hierarchy of angels, cherubines, demons, saints and what-not.

Now that's where I assume most pagans would differ.

And finally:

It talks about piety as follows;-

The first is the sense of piety (pietas), the natural religious instinct to respect something greater than yourself,
what does the original author mean with "natural religious instinct"? If God created mankind, why would any religious feeling be natural or instinctive? It's neither; it's God-given instead. Who can resist something that God put into them?

Now if you don't believe that God planted that behaviour in the first place, one might be able to study nature and see whether or not something as religious instinct exists. If some other animal has it, then maybe we have it too.

Guess what? Studies were done, and someone (I don't recall this person's name) claimed that religious experiences were a fluke of the brain. There you go, that instinct isn't an instinct but an aborration. Congratulations.

[David19]

There is? I thought the Christians were taught that God created Adam to rule all the lands and seas, and all the flora and fauna. That places mankind at the top, the ruler of everything, with just one being above them: God. No greater scheme here. Just God. And then, somewhere along the lines of history, Christianity inserted a complete hierarchy of angels, cherubines, demons, saints and what-not.

I think that's right 'cause i think Yahweh commanded Adam and his descendant to go out 'and multiply' or something, and 'conquer the lands, sea and air' (not sure about the actual quote).

It seems, traditionally, Christians are only subserviant to Yahweh (and Jesus).

[Cassie]

There is? I thought the Christians were taught that God created Adam to rule all the lands and seas, and all the flora and fauna. That places mankind at the top, the ruler of everything, with just one being above them: God. No greater scheme here. Just God. And then, somewhere along the lines of history, Christianity inserted a complete hierarchy of angels, cherubines, demons, saints and what-not.

.

To clarify. It is my understanding that while Christians believe it is possible to be reunited with God, they do not believe it is ever possible to be equal with God. In other words there is a limit to the possibilities of spiritual evolution for humanity. Thus the quote in the article " the humility that instinctively realizes man's subordinate place in the great scheme of things."

[noxtwice]

Apparently, these elements are a sense of piety, objective morality, and "awe at something transcendent, the sense of worship and mystery". Does anyone agree or disagree? Can we really say that a 'new' paganism is different in these ways, and if it is, would this necessarily be a bad thing?

i disagree... i think those 3 elements are very much present in the pagan community, but as with all religions you have to factor in the buttholes that ruin it. i've seen pagan in it for the glory, power, ego, a trend, the craft or charmed wannabe's, or what-have-you's but i've definetely met quite a few that seem to be in touch with those elements you mentioned.

I've seen the same thing in all religions, people who wear it like a shirt but rarely live it.

so imo paganism as a whole isn't missing anything, it's some of the people itself that are.

[ap Dafydd]

To quote Mandy Rice-Davies "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"

It's not the first time I've come across the argument that modern Paganism is in some way inferior to Classical Paganism but basically I'd just see it as another means of trying to denigrate us.

The guy clearly has an axe to grind and I'd rather go to an objective source for an objective comment.

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Fiamma]

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0010.html

I came across this article and thought it was interesting. The author compares 'new' paganism with 'old' paganism, saying that "there were at least three elements in the old paganism that made it great. And all three are missing in the new paganism".

Apparently, these elements are a sense of piety, objective morality, and "awe at something transcendent, the sense of worship and mystery". Does anyone agree or disagree? Can we really say that a 'new' paganism is different in these ways, and if it is, would this necessarily be a bad thing?

By the way, I probably don't (or shouldn't) have to say this, but I don't want this thread to result in christian bashing, this is just one person's opinion after all. Rather, I'm interested in whether people believe his argument has any merit. :)



Interesting article. I have problems with a lot of thine thigns he has to say, but as already pointed out, it was written almost twenty years ago, and I think that a lot has changed since then. I think that "paganism" was a lot less diverse at the time, at least what was publically visible, and a lot easier to lump into one little homogenous package.

I also think that it accurately describes some people in the pagan realm.



Pantheism is comfortable, and this is the modem summum bonum. The Force of “Star Wars” fame is a pantheistic God, and it is immensely popular, because it's “like a book on the shelf,” as C.S. Lewis put it: available whenever you want it, but not bothersome when you don't want it.


This describes the view of god/s held by several people that I know immediately offhand.



The first is the sense of piety (pietas), the natural religious instinct to respect something greater than yourself, the humility that instinctively realizes man's subordinate place in the great scheme of things.


I also agree that this is true with many modern pagans. Arguments/discussions of this word come up from time to time within ADF. Piety is one of our nine virtues. People think that piety is a strictly Christian idea. I personally believe that this usually means that they don't understand the word.

(Here's a short essay that I wrote on piety a while back if anyone is interested.... http://asthefiretree.livejournal.com/7301.html)

[TempestDra]

My two cents.. only a response to the article, really.

I think that, from a Christian standpoint, it's actually a very reasonable article. It's obviously biased, yes, but the way it's biased is, in my opinion, not unreasonable. The author has a different worldview and is playing by different rules. He's quoting scripture and looking at things through the Christian viewpoint... but I'm impressed that that's the extent of it, frankly. Everything he discusses is at least worthy of discussion(No baby sacrificing here.)

The article avoids specific examples. I think it's fair to assume that his definition of the word "Paganism" is much broader than ours(the New Age movement being merely an aspect of it in his essay); namely it is a certain way of thinking that isn't the same as a traditionally Christian one. He goes on to define it.. and that might be the problem, since by necessity, his definition is based on points he's arguing against.

So... hm. He actually makes a couple decent points.

I agree with point two. There's a definite emphasis these days on questioning everything instead of observing hard, fast rules handed down by something or someone else. (But.. in a discussion with my boyfriend the other day, I realized that often we end up at the same point. God says don't kill people, or I think hard on what I think is right and I decide that I shouldn't kill people. Is there a root cause or an instictual human or societal morality? Hmm... I smell a thread topic!)

I also really liked the implication of his "Perfect love casts out fear" bit. In a general sense, he's got a point. "...when there is no fear to cast out, perfect love lacks its strong roots. It becomes instead mere compassion—something good but dull, or even weak" He's saying that we should fear God, and therefore that it makes God's love that much stronger.. and that the love of the new pagan god/s is deminished simply because it is self-evident. This was a particular struggle I had with my own path at first(and I don't have Christian roots); the idea of the unquestioning love of a God and Goddess seemed somewhat diluted and undeserved to me. I don't think fear needs to be an element, but I do think you can't understand pleasure if you don't also understand hardship.

And now I'm rambling! I close by offering up a severe rolling of the eyes at the essay ending in such a stereotypical "Watch out for the devil, kids!" way. ;)

-L

[Xentor]

I also really liked the implication of his "Perfect love casts out fear" bit. In a general sense, he's got a point. "...when there is no fear to cast out, perfect love lacks its strong roots. It becomes instead mere compassion—something good but dull, or even weak" He's saying that we should fear God, and therefore that it makes God's love that much stronger.. and that the love of the new pagan god/s is deminished simply because it is self-evident. This was a particular struggle I had with my own path at first(and I don't have Christian roots); the idea of the unquestioning love of a God and Goddess seemed somewhat diluted and undeserved to me. I don't think fear needs to be an element, but I do think you can't understand pleasure if you don't also understand hardship.

Right. You may wish to reconsider that. Otherwise you may end up loving those you fear, or fearing those you love, automatically. Lots of women get stuck in an abusive relationship because of this kind of thinking.

I'd rather trust the person I love, than fear them.

[TempestDra]

Right. You may wish to reconsider that. Otherwise you may end up loving those you fear, or fearing those you love, automatically. Lots of women get stuck in an abusive relationship because of this kind of thinking.

I'd rather trust the person I love, than fear them.

I didn't mean to imply I think the gods should be feared, but I'm afraid I may have. Honestly, I think knowing indifference and hate has made love more precious to me in my life... which was the point I'd hope to make. My apologies.