Christo-Paganism: What's the hap?

[VioletVortex]

Well, we clearly disagree. I find your argument spurious in that "Odinism" was not a religion at the time we're talking about, and I do not agree that Christ's message and sacrifice were for any particular nation alone. Neither ancient Germans nor early Christians were big on exclusionary thinking. Why shouldn't they work together? Odin wanders far, and Christ's message was not particular.

Odinism is the modern term for Norse Paganism. Wotanism is the same thing, but those who hold National Socialist political beliefs prefer that term. Heathenry is the broad term for Northern European Paganism.

So, Jesus's teachings should destroy every bit of non Christian culture from our world by mixing into it? I don't understand why a Pagan would think that Christianity is somehow compatible with their religion.

Actually, the Germanic and Nordic peoples gave a great amount of resistance against the Abrahamic religion that invaded their culture, more so than any other European tribes. They were far from accepting of Christianity. It was forced into their land via legal prosecution from the Christianized Romans.

Christianity was huge on exclusive thinking. They killed Pagans just because they didn't conform to their culture and religion. They wanted the whole world to become Christian. On the surface, that actually seems very inclusive, but actually, they did this by excluding those who stayed true to their own religions.

I just find it strange to pick two random religions and fuse them.

 

[Politesse]

So, Jesus's teachings should destroy every bit of non Christian culture from our world by mixing into it?

Why on earth would they do that? You don't have to have this or that belief to love your neighbor for instance, nor does doing so cause destruction.

Christianity was huge on exclusive thinking. They killed Pagans just because they didn't conform to their culture and religion. They wanted the whole world to become Christian. On the surface, that actually seems very inclusive, but actually, they did this by excluding those who stayed true to their own religions.

The thing is though, I don't see this kind of exclusionary thinking as a good thing. Do you? It certainly caused a lot of, to my mind, regrettable and unnecessary suffering. So why would I want to emulate it?

I jus t find it strange to pick two random religions and fuse them.

That's not strange in the slightest. Syncretism is and always has been a part of religous life. People don't huddle in little colonies and never leave, we travel and talk and form families and try new things and trade. It's how we roll. Purity is the myth.

 

[Quintessence]

That's not strange in the slightest. Syncretism is and always has been a part of religous life. People don't huddle in little colonies and never leave, we travel and talk and form families and try new things and trade. It's how we roll. Purity is the myth.

Just quoting this to make sure people read it.

 

[Augustus]

That's not strange in the slightest. Syncretism is and always has been a part of religous life. People don't huddle in little colonies and never leave, we travel and talk and form families and try new things and trade. It's how we roll. Purity is the myth.

I've always found 'syncretist' seems to be used as a kind of patronising pejorative. Sort of "look at these funny little religions with their crazy fusing together of the 'proper' religions". No one ever considers the Mighty Monotheisms to be syncretic even though they (totally unsurprisingly) meet the criteria.

 

[OceanSoul]

Hmm, well that depends on how flexible your mind is and how you manage to reconcile Christo-Paganism. How you approach Christ is between you two, at the end of the day.

 

[Politesse]

I've always found 'syncretist' seems to be used as a kind of patronising pejorative. Sort of "look at these funny little religions with their crazy fusing together of the 'proper' religions". No one ever considers the Mighty Monotheisms to be syncretic even though they (totally unsurprisingly) meet the criteria.

I do! The bigger you are, the more you've borrowed really. It's also a myth that "conversion" means a complete change of identity; everyone who enters a community brings insights and practices with them. And we really ought to be okay with that.

 

[Augustus]

I do! The bigger you are, the more you've borrowed really. It's also a myth that "conversion" means a complete change of identity; everyone who enters a community brings insights and practices with them. And we really ought to be okay with that.

Sorry, I know that is what you were saying. It was meant as a rhetorical 'no one', rather than a literal one.

As well as being ok with it, we ought to be enamoured with it. The 'purists' are the ones who have it wrong in that they think there is nothing else worth knowing, whether they be purists of the religious or atheistic/'rationalist' persuasion.

 

[VioletVortex]

Why on earth would they do that? You don't have to have this or that belief to love your neighbor for instance, nor does doing so cause destruction.


The thing is though, I don't see this kind of exclusionary thinking as a good thing. Do you? It certainly caused a lot of, to my mind, regrettable and unnecessary suffering. So why would I want to emulate it?


That's not strange in the slightest. Syncretism is and always has been a part of religous life. People don't huddle in little colonies and never leave, we travel and talk and form families and try new things and trade. It's how we roll. Purity is the myth.

Exclusionary thinking makes a group of people stronger.

If you want to continue debating, PM me.

 

[Quintessence]

Exclusionary thinking makes a group of people stronger.

If you want to continue debating, PM me.

Make a new thread on the topic. It's one that ought to be discussed here every once and a while, at least, given the mythos of "purity" has been so central historically to wars and conflicts between humans.