*** Mod post ***
- No debating or arguing in any DIR.
- Non-members of a DIR may only ask respectful questions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do Pagans feel about Christians and Why?
- Thread starter The Ocelot
- Start date
*** Mod post ***
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
@Cassandra If you want to start to have diversity and peace among you enemies, either make them your friends in unconditional love or let it be. Dont waste time ans energy on christian politics if it upsets you so.
In my opinion and in my experience, ditaching oneself from christianity (if it causes you to feel negativity like in my case) would help and the way to start is....
Dont talk about it. Really. In a religious debate forum, you can talk about them nicely and opinionated all you want but if you want to set a strong example of the Pagan community, talking about other faith AND saying Paganism accepts diversity are contradicting.
To be fair, just treat every Person with respect even if you hate the religion they follow.
In my opinion and in my experience, ditaching oneself from christianity (if it causes you to feel negativity like in my case) would help and the way to start is....
Dont talk about it. Really. In a religious debate forum, you can talk about them nicely and opinionated all you want but if you want to set a strong example of the Pagan community, talking about other faith AND saying Paganism accepts diversity are contradicting.
To be fair, just treat every Person with respect even if you hate the religion they follow.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Sorry. Saw the mod alert too late.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
But is there any rule that states that a member of a religion's DIR may rant against other religions in their DIR, when the non-members can't even defend themselves? I can't imagine starting a thread in the LDS DIR for the purpose of dissing everybody who wasn't LDS. I would hope that this wouldn't be allowed.
Cassandra
Active Member
And I said I do not know who you are. I have as much a right to form my own opinion as you saying you are a Christian.
As I said before it is very Christian to call people haters.
The thread has since been moved to the general debates section. My post and the move happened at about the same time, so you're good to go.
Oooh, boy! Where do I begin with this one? Cassandra, you have a lot of nerve posting the very heavy load of complete BS that you did. I must say that it is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE! To demand respect and acceptance for your own religion, proclaiming it to be tolerant of others while, with the same breath, demonizing another's faith is ridiculous, utterly pitiful. And yet, you wonder why Pagans aren't respected as you feel that they ought to be. Because of some who possess that attitude! Regardless of the religion, the type of bigotry as displayed in your posts is antithetical to what being not just a Modern Pagan, but a decent f***ing human being, is truly about!
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Test
Odd. I can post but it says I dont have permission to Like.
Odd. I can post but it says I dont have permission to Like.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Fortunately, most of us here on RF have interacted with enough pagans on the forum to just be able to dismiss this kind of absolute contempt for other religions as not being typical of the average pagan.
Sees
Dragonslayer
Even in a general section we have to keep it from being personal, folks. That is site-wide, in all Forums and Chat, and it covers most rules by default. It should only be getting personal on RF if it is about your self or it is invited by a specific member.
If we go back the topic, things get better.
Group hug?
I don't remember if I put my own input in the thread previously...much like with Islam though, I'm not very fond of Christianity - and in the same way it doesn't automatically apply to the people who claim/practice/believe in said religious traditions. I think this goes for most people and at least some bit of animosity toward Abrahamic faiths (or certain portions of them) are going to be lurking in pagan minds/hearts for quite a while.
Good thing is you can learn about your own path and self by looking at "the others" and looking at how "the others" perceive you and yours.
If we go back the topic, things get better.
Group hug?
I don't remember if I put my own input in the thread previously...much like with Islam though, I'm not very fond of Christianity - and in the same way it doesn't automatically apply to the people who claim/practice/believe in said religious traditions. I think this goes for most people and at least some bit of animosity toward Abrahamic faiths (or certain portions of them) are going to be lurking in pagan minds/hearts for quite a while.
Good thing is you can learn about your own path and self by looking at "the others" and looking at how "the others" perceive you and yours.
@Cassandra
I can actually kind of see where you're coming from. My own family was blackmailed into becoming Catholic, else they would be poor uneducated people in an already poor country. Though they still managed to hold onto their own beliefs as well.
I have seen directly the influence of a sort of Colonial/Missionary hangover in my own culture, my family and indeed my own traditions.
I understand that, yes, people have done very unethical things in the name of Christianity that they have managed to justify using scripture (like most religious people of varying faiths.)
I have a great many issues with the whole Missionary/converting thing the Abrahamics are very fond of. The tactics, even if done with sincerity and out of good intentions, can actually have some pretty dire consequences. Look up the documentary "God Loves Uganda" for an example of well intentions gone awry with some actually scary ramifications. So I get it, this is not without precedent.
Having said that, I cannot hold onto any sort of animosity towards Christians. For I know a great many of traditional practicing Christians who are welcoming genuinely nice people.
I reserve judgment of a fellow person until they prove with their specific actions that such reservation was unnecessary.
Faith I think is a double edged sword. You can use scripture (whatever that may be) to hurt your fellow man with the intention of helping your own deity, but you can also use it in order to give you a plan to help your fellow man.
I can actually kind of see where you're coming from. My own family was blackmailed into becoming Catholic, else they would be poor uneducated people in an already poor country. Though they still managed to hold onto their own beliefs as well.
I have seen directly the influence of a sort of Colonial/Missionary hangover in my own culture, my family and indeed my own traditions.
I understand that, yes, people have done very unethical things in the name of Christianity that they have managed to justify using scripture (like most religious people of varying faiths.)
I have a great many issues with the whole Missionary/converting thing the Abrahamics are very fond of. The tactics, even if done with sincerity and out of good intentions, can actually have some pretty dire consequences. Look up the documentary "God Loves Uganda" for an example of well intentions gone awry with some actually scary ramifications. So I get it, this is not without precedent.
Having said that, I cannot hold onto any sort of animosity towards Christians. For I know a great many of traditional practicing Christians who are welcoming genuinely nice people.
I reserve judgment of a fellow person until they prove with their specific actions that such reservation was unnecessary.
Faith I think is a double edged sword. You can use scripture (whatever that may be) to hurt your fellow man with the intention of helping your own deity, but you can also use it in order to give you a plan to help your fellow man.
I said you're being hateful because you are! Nothing to do with being Christian. Be as hateful and paranoid as you wish, but recognize that's exactly how you are being. My "religion" field says "Olympianism / Greco-Roman". That's what my religion is, so stop insinuating that I am somehow lying or otherwise seeking to deceive. That is very insulting! Someone not agreeing with your anti-Christian ranting doesn't make them a Christian! That's going off the deep end. It's like a German in Nazi Germany speaking out against the mistreatment of Jews being dismissed by saying they must be a Jew, too. Wtf.
Politesse
Amor Vincit Omnia
Which, indeed, often happened, one reason why the response to Nazism was often more tepid than we would retroactively wish.
Politesse
Amor Vincit Omnia
I think the piece of all of the above that bothers me most is the allegation that Christian are or should be liars. While many Christians (like many people) lie, I would define truthfulness as one of the key teachings of Christ, that underscores the rest to the point of making them incomprehensible should it be questioned. Jesus defined hypocrisy as the problem of his age, the thing that must be rooted out if the kingdom was ever to be restored; he told his followers that Truth alone can lead to freedom; that their yes must mean yes and no no; upon being questioned for sedition, his only answer in John's gospel is that he had come to tell the truth. Without truth, there is no kingdom, no future, no functioning humanity. I don't like John's gospel for the most part, but it hardly encouraged lying.
Accuse bishops and princes of lying if you like, I am certain Christ would do likewise, but do not paint the gospel as encouraging dishonesty, please.
Accuse bishops and princes of lying if you like, I am certain Christ would do likewise, but do not paint the gospel as encouraging dishonesty, please.
Cassandra
Active Member
Aah, someone sharp
my view:
In Christianity there are basically three kinds of people:
1 Those who heard the gospel and follow Jesus
2 Those who heard the gospel and do not wish to follow Jesus
3 Those who have not heard the gospel
1 is saved. 2 goes to hell. 3 is undecided.
When Jesus says: "those who are not with us are against us" , he does not mean group 3, those are still undecided. He means group 2. When he says: "for he that is not against us is for us", he means group 3. Christians should treat group 3 as friends as a means to convert them. If they still reject the Gospel after that than they become the enemy. But they should be given the chance to switch sides.
Or as Jesus says to his missionaries/apostles: Go to them in peace, but if they reject your message, you will leave them and "take your peace with you". That is a flowery way of saying, " then it is war". So a Pagan is not an enemy as long as there is a chance to convert him. That is why Christian start with killing the indigenous priests, they are considered group 2, they hold group 3 people away from conversion.
There are practical reasons for this ideology. It is how the Romans fought war. These ideas come from Julius Caesar. He was also called Julius Clementaris, Julius the forgiving one. Before Julius Caesar people that had fought for opposing leaders were merciless exterminated, even though they never had a choice but were often obligated to fight for them. Julius Caesar who was a very shrewd military leader, and also worshiped as a God (Yes he was a Son of God) brought the innovation of "Mercy"
He offered mercy to all those who had fought against him but were willing to change sides and pledge allegiance to him (conversion). Just like that other J.C. Like Jesus he demanded total obedience. Is it a coincidence that Jesus heralds the Roman commander and his blind obedience as the best of all believers? And does Jesus walking with his men without women, not resemble a commander who walks with his soldiers through often alien lands? And do these Christians not call themselves "soldiers of Christ"? No coincidence here. The Roman way of warfare was to always present yourselves as a friend, and weaken the enemy before attacking them. ("We come in peace!". Exactly the kind of peace Christian conquerors brought to native people all over the world.
By the way this line: "Those who are not with us are against us", comes from Ceasar. Jesus happens to copy a lot of Julius Caesar. No wonder for the Romans he was no doubt a person as divine as Alexander the Great was for the Greek. And like Julius he was equally betrayed by the elite and brutally murdered. He was worshiped after his death and people even hang a puppet representing him on a cross in remembrance of him. Until his imperial cult was merged into the new Christianity. Jesus in the bible is a compilation of characters and ideas made into a political correct doctrine to serve the empire. It is really interesting to study how these legends are formed out of all the existing bit and pieces ans stitched together in a new story.
The idea that is very strong in Christianity is "allegiance". You swear to Jesus, you are now part of the army of god, If betray us, you go to hell. The same allegiance Romans had to swear to their emperor. And why do Christians have to conquer the world? Because the Roman emperors were constantly conquering the world. The Mafia is based on the same Roman army principles. You swear an oath of loyalty, the Omerta. Once you are in, there is no way out. Same with Christianity, once you are baptized you are in for life, now way out, Those things come from the Roman army.
They had a big row in my country because people want to officially quit the church. But the church said, this is not possible. Once you give your soul to God you can not take it back. Ultimately they had to give in and scratch peoples names from their registers. After all the scandals over child abuse they were in no position to refuse. Especially since the bishop had declared: "wir haben es nicht gewusst", Yes, the exact same words the Nazis used after the war about the Holocaust. But bad luck for him all kinds of documents surfaced that proved he knew about it and had done nothing.
What are we dealing with here? For a pagan like me it is rather obvious. For a christian that is a difficult matter. He has been made to believe this and connect his whole existence with this idea. The same problem have other people that are indoctrinated and start giving for a cause. There are hardly any Germans that denounced Nazism after the war, they just died out and their children grew up with more sane ideas.
Group 3 is why Christians keep proselytizing. They keep believing that there are young people growing up that have not yet heard the gospel and whose soul can still be saved and they need to go to them an spread Christianity. That is why they infiltrate all kinds of groups, pretending to be one of them. They have whole manuals how to go about, and which people to target and how to get near them. They especially target young men not having found a steady relationship yet.
Saving souls. That is what the proselytizers believe and are made to believe, but they are simply used by clever but ruthless people. Islam is no different. Mohammed promised his soldiers that those that would die in battle for him would go directly to heaven without being judged by God and given a lot o virgins The funny thing is that if you tell that to a Christian he immediately recognizes that as nonsense to deceive gullible people. But still can not recognize how he is fooled himself in the same way.
I find it absolutely fascinating how people can be made to believe in fantasies. No I do not hate them for that. Nor do I hate Jesus. The historical Jesus was probably a very different man than the Romans made of him. More like a William Wallace, the Scottish rebel that became a rebel king before he ended like Jesus. I respect people that stand up and dare fight for their independence and against injustice (the opposite of what bible-Jesus preaches)
Last edited:
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
First off, I apologize if I ended up debating in the wrong DIR. But I should clarify here that I'm not actually debating what some here have said about Christianity as it was presented and taught to them. Fundamentalists may very well teach some of the things mentioned here. I am merely adding some observations about other Christian theologies.
Cassandra, everything I said about Catholic and Orthodox theology is true. I did not just make this stuff up to make Christianity (or better yet Christianities) look better. Anglicanism also presents a distinct take on original sin, arguably more than one view as Anglicans are wont to do. But even in the more reformed perspective of the Anglican tradition which tends to view human nature as sinful, it is still a nuanced view that is not at all the same as fundamentalist teachings as presented here regarding human nature. I am not lying, I am not deceiving you: you can look this stuff up and study it for yourself. I have now alluded to three distinct and continuous Christian traditions to make my point that we are not dealing with a monolithic entity here, but diverse traditions.
As to making converts, sorry, I'm not interested. In fact, I'd wager you don't know many Episcopalians if you think that's what all Christians are out to do. Making converts is not really an Episcopal thing, never has been, and that might be why the denomination is shrinking. Additionally I have my own take on Christianity that is quite different from the various traditions you will come into contact with as do many other Episcopalians. This tradition particularly in its modern incarnation includes persons with a wide array of beliefs many of which hold beliefs that traditionally would be considered heretical. Again, the Jesus movements which gave rise to Christianities started out diverse. There are literally hundreds of gospels only four of which were included in the Bible. Some of those gospels contain syncretic teachings. As for myself I have quite a bit in common with some neo-pagans and have worshiped with them in their own settings when invited to. Some of them had quite a bit in common with me as well: one was a Christopagan eclectic and another member of our group also communed regularly in my parish. So it goes both ways when it comes to eclecticism.
So I've brought to your attention three distinct continuous Christian traditions (each of which encompasses multiple theologies within itself), and it's up to you to do your own research on whether they actually exist. Again this has nothing to do with converting you, nor am I involved in lying, trickery, or some vast conspiracy to "get you." I'll say again this doesn't even mean posters here are wrong that a particular flavor of Christianity taught such and such: that goes along with my observations here that these are diverse theologies (or even religions) that we're dealing with here. I have my own tensions with some Christian traditions and theologies including my own sect, but one thing I hate to see is for people to take their experiences especially those of fundamentalism, a minority group and very modern innovative set of teachings in Christianity, and simply act like the rest of our Christian traditions don't exist. Or if they do exist they aren't "true" Christianity even though our traditions actually predate fundamentalism. Cassandra, even if you were never a fundamentalist you presume to interpret the scriptures in a certain way on your own as an individual and act as though that is "the" way they are interpreted, a very fundamentalist mindset foreign to most Christianity including traditional Protestantism. And don't forget that not all Christians even agree on what the canon is, what its relationship to tradition or the wider community is, or how it is to be interpreted in various aspects.
Seriously, if that's the take on the issue then one has simply never left the fundamentalist mindset: by ignoring history and the vast majority of Christian traditions and individuals one continues to assert that fundamentalism is the one true version of Christianity even after claiming to reject that tradition.
Cassandra, everything I said about Catholic and Orthodox theology is true. I did not just make this stuff up to make Christianity (or better yet Christianities) look better. Anglicanism also presents a distinct take on original sin, arguably more than one view as Anglicans are wont to do. But even in the more reformed perspective of the Anglican tradition which tends to view human nature as sinful, it is still a nuanced view that is not at all the same as fundamentalist teachings as presented here regarding human nature. I am not lying, I am not deceiving you: you can look this stuff up and study it for yourself. I have now alluded to three distinct and continuous Christian traditions to make my point that we are not dealing with a monolithic entity here, but diverse traditions.
As to making converts, sorry, I'm not interested. In fact, I'd wager you don't know many Episcopalians if you think that's what all Christians are out to do. Making converts is not really an Episcopal thing, never has been, and that might be why the denomination is shrinking. Additionally I have my own take on Christianity that is quite different from the various traditions you will come into contact with as do many other Episcopalians. This tradition particularly in its modern incarnation includes persons with a wide array of beliefs many of which hold beliefs that traditionally would be considered heretical. Again, the Jesus movements which gave rise to Christianities started out diverse. There are literally hundreds of gospels only four of which were included in the Bible. Some of those gospels contain syncretic teachings. As for myself I have quite a bit in common with some neo-pagans and have worshiped with them in their own settings when invited to. Some of them had quite a bit in common with me as well: one was a Christopagan eclectic and another member of our group also communed regularly in my parish. So it goes both ways when it comes to eclecticism.
So I've brought to your attention three distinct continuous Christian traditions (each of which encompasses multiple theologies within itself), and it's up to you to do your own research on whether they actually exist. Again this has nothing to do with converting you, nor am I involved in lying, trickery, or some vast conspiracy to "get you." I'll say again this doesn't even mean posters here are wrong that a particular flavor of Christianity taught such and such: that goes along with my observations here that these are diverse theologies (or even religions) that we're dealing with here. I have my own tensions with some Christian traditions and theologies including my own sect, but one thing I hate to see is for people to take their experiences especially those of fundamentalism, a minority group and very modern innovative set of teachings in Christianity, and simply act like the rest of our Christian traditions don't exist. Or if they do exist they aren't "true" Christianity even though our traditions actually predate fundamentalism. Cassandra, even if you were never a fundamentalist you presume to interpret the scriptures in a certain way on your own as an individual and act as though that is "the" way they are interpreted, a very fundamentalist mindset foreign to most Christianity including traditional Protestantism. And don't forget that not all Christians even agree on what the canon is, what its relationship to tradition or the wider community is, or how it is to be interpreted in various aspects.
Seriously, if that's the take on the issue then one has simply never left the fundamentalist mindset: by ignoring history and the vast majority of Christian traditions and individuals one continues to assert that fundamentalism is the one true version of Christianity even after claiming to reject that tradition.
Last edited:
Cassandra
Active Member
The thread has since been moved to the general debates section. My post and the move happened at about the same time, so you're good to go.
I only reacted to this because it was in the Pagan DIR, an obvious intrusion by Christians. I have no desire to go into debate with Christians in other places. I already explained that.
Interesting move though
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
