How do Pagans feel about Christians and Why?

[Sundance]

Hate, hate, hate. Why are Christians always perceiving a no nonsense view of Christianity as hate? Answer: because their God said he is hated and his disciples would be hated by the word for believing in him. That idea is deeply ingrained. We are the victims, the martyrs.

Yes, that is the advantage of reading their book. You start to understand what makes them tick. What delusions they live in and allow them to act so unethically and still believe they are their gods finest. because the live in delusions.

Writing these things does not even raise my heartbeat. I am a Pagan, I do not deal in black and white, in good and evil. Christianity is not the ultimate evil for me. I am not fighting a cosmic war. For me, It is part of nature to have snakes and hyenas and all kind of treacherous animals too. There is no reason to hate them, just wise to stay away from them. But to do so we should be aware of the nature of this beast. And to understand that it is wise to look how it acted throughout history.

For a Pagan everything is about actions/behavior, not about beliefs. But to understand the Christian animal one needs to understand his beliefs, because he acts out his beliefs. He lives in a completely different world, a fantasy world, in which he is the servant of a glorious but ruthless creature he calls God. Yes when you enter the asylum, it is no longer enough to understand normal human behavior based in the senses, one has to understand what the ideas drive the madmen. Because in these people ideas grow out to obsessions more real than what theirs senses tell them. The same with fundamentalists and obsessive convictions

They have never seen a "soul", but they believe in a soul. So much that in their fantasy they need to "save that soul". They have to save that invisible entity. A whole fantasy world is spun around such abstract fantasies. It can not be disproved as it is non-existent and we can only prove existence and not non-existence.

I do not hate you, I am absolutely fascinated by the human mind and its ability to live in illusions. Okay religious predators are a pest, but they are pest that belongs to a society that has turned everything into commerce. It is business. Business used to be almost the same as war. Nowadays we try to keep those things apart, but it still leads to wars when the interests are big enough. Religious business is just a special case.

You call that hate because, from within you delusion, people that do not buy the holy gospel (for me crap) are labeled as enemies. You say I hate your God, but to me he is no more real than Donald Duck. If there was a historical Jesus, I suspect he was more like a real Jewish Messiah, a rebel who wanted to fight the Romans, was betrayed and sentenced by the Romans. That makes sense, Anyone who is free of indoctrination can see that. Yes poor Jesus. But the son of God who is God? No there are easier explanations for that.

I can say that here because this is a Pagan forum. I would never do that on a Christian forum, because that would hurt those people. And I do not want to hurt them. But here it only irritates the Christians who pretend to be Pagans. Well that is their own fault, they should mind their own business, like I do. Because Christian Pagan or Pagan Christian that is something like Nazi Jew or a Jewish Nazi.

My dear, I think I speak to what the majority of members who have read your posts like this are feeling when I ask: What is the matter with you? I cannot believe that I am honestly reading this! I am utterly shocked by these statements! Oh, and about this comment:

“Because Christian Pagan or Pagan Christian that is something like Nazi Jew or a Jewish Nazi.”

Yeeah, they're called ‘Christo-Pagans’, ‘Folk Christians’, ‘Christian Magicians’, ‘Christian Witches’, etc., and they DO exist, much to your chagrin. Christianity, being syncretic, DOES have influences from the ancient practices of various peoples, so it's isn't really that they're diametrically opposed.

 

[Quintessence]

Yeeah, they're called ‘Christo-Pagans’, ‘Folk Christians’, ‘Christian Magicians’, ‘Christian Witches’, etc., and they DO exist, much to your chagrin. Christianity, being syncretic, DOES have influences from the ancient practices of various peoples, so it's isn't really that they're diametrically opposed.

I used to be able to entertain the notion that there was some wall between various Christian traditions and various Pagan traditions (contemporary or otherwise). A smattering of exposure to the diversity of Christian traditions worldwide through a couple college-level courses on religion and historical/cultural documentaries pretty much shattered that misconception for me. It also shattered my ability to talk about Christians as if they're some monolithic group - it's extremely diverse in its various global incarnations.

 

[Cassandra]

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.

No I do not make these sweeping generalizations Christians so desperately want to stick on me. This kind of fallacy is called: "The straw man". I have no problem seeing all the diversity within Christianity, my objection is with the underlying ideology.

It seems to me, you do not really understand what a fundamentalist is, if you connect that to me. A "fundamentalist", "bases" on an ideological "foundation" for his ideas. Such ideological foundations are ideological books like the Bible, Koran, Mein Kampf, Red book, etc. My ideas are always presented as personal views, and not based on any ideological foundation. I am happy to discuss them, but sadly Christians quickly resort to personal attacks when you question their doctrine and hero. They have no problem discussing the shadow sides of Communist ideology, but their own ideology they find impossible to question. Instead if they find something wrong they patch it with new interpretations.

My view:

The problem is that the underlying ideology remains unethical even if you create more ethical interpretations around it when the times demand churches to be more ethical. It is lofty but it will never be as good as basing on a truly ethical foundation. Also it does not stop fundamentalist groups from using more factual, less wishful, intolerant interpretations.

My objections are not with your church, or you, but with Christian ideology underneath. To be short, in my view: It stinks. Bible-Jesus and his personality cult basically are the glorification of a megalomaniac book personality, but as he is held so high, no one can touch him, and thus the falsifying of true values can go on. More sensitive followers have no other way than to excuse him by saying he means something else than he says.

Before you object to the word megalomaniac. This is not meant as an insult, but a rather clinical detached observation. The meaning is:

Megalomania is a psychopathological condition characterized by fantasies of power, relevance, omnipotence, and by inflated self-esteem.

It seems to me Bible-Jesus (not per se historical Jesus) fits this definition on all four counts.

It would do wonders for this world if book believers would acknowledge that the words and deeds of their book hero's are often far from ethical. Then we restore ethics and that is far more important than preserving the mostly legendary image of a hero.

But we can debate about that. Like why Christianity is or is not an ethical ideology and why Jesus is or is not the good perfect person and hero he is presented as.

 

[Angy Ex Arcana]

Why do some Christians they behave incorrectly.
They try to make you change your religion. (I hate the forced Evangelization, playing t the door to talk to God, insisting and not respect your belief) are disrespectful, violent.
Marginalize people. Sometimes they even they have come to kill.

 

[EverChanging]

No I do not make these sweeping generalizations Christians so desperately want to stick on me. This kind of fallacy is called: "The straw man". I have no problem seeing all the diversity within Christianity, my objection is with the underlying ideology.

It seems to me, you do not really understand what a fundamentalist is, if you connect that to me. A "fundamentalist", "bases" on an ideological "foundation" for his ideas. Such ideological foundations are ideological books like the Bible, Koran, Mein Kampf, Red book, etc. My ideas are always presented as personal views, and not based on any ideological foundation. I am happy to discuss them, but sadly Christians quickly resort to personal attacks when you question their doctrine and hero. They have no problem discussing the shadow sides of Communist ideology, but their own ideology they find impossible to question. Instead if they find something wrong they patch it with new interpretations.

My view:

The problem is that the underlying ideology remains unethical even if you create more ethical interpretations around it when the times demand churches to be more ethical. It is lofty but it will never be as good as basing on a truly ethical foundation. Also it does not stop fundamentalist groups from using more factual, less wishful, intolerant interpretations.

My objections are not with your church, or you, but with Christian ideology underneath. To be short, in my view: It stinks. Bible-Jesus and his personality cult basically are the glorification of a megalomaniac book personality, but as he is held so high, no one can touch him, and thus the falsifying of true values can go on. More sensitive followers have no other way than to excuse him by saying he means something else than he says.

Before you object to the word megalomaniac. This is not meant as an insult, but a rather clinical detached observation. The meaning is:

It seems to me Bible-Jesus (not per se historical Jesus) fits this definition on all four counts.

It would do wonders for this world if book believers would acknowledge that the words and deeds of their book hero's are often far from ethical. Then we restore ethics and that is far more important than preserving the mostly legendary image of a hero.

But we can debate about that. Like why Christianity is or is not an ethical ideology and why Jesus is or is not the good perfect person and hero he is presented as.

I was responding directly to a reply you made to my post.

I said:

Original sin as taught in Catholicism does not entail the notion that human nature is bad. Of course sects differ. The Eastern Christians have no concept of original sin. My point here is there isn't just one Christianity.

You replied:

So there we are again discussing Christianity on a Pagan forum. Which was of course the purpose to begin with. Because forums are the grounds on which religious predators prey.

My view:

Of course Christianity has to be made to look better. Being raised a Christian I know you are talking nonsense here... Maybe this is American Christianity, they say anything there provided it sells. Not that it is not a common habit of all converters to tell lies to people they want to convert. Being honest is not one of the ten commandments. A Christian only has to be honest when he brings witness against a fellow Christian in a court of law. That is why they let him swear on the bible. Not that that guarantees anything, he can always ask forgiveness later. He can always "confess his sins". O God, I sinned! Forgive me please!

The whole centerpiece of Christianity is that God is only good...

And your post continues on quite a while. I respond again explaining to you that this is not the view of Original Sin as held by Catholicism, nor is it even an accurate representation of a more reformed view of original sin in the Anglican tradition (which contains more than one nuanced interpretation of this matter). And Eastern Christians never developed a theology of original sin period. You again respond here either unaware of the context of my post or simply evading the issue I am addressing.

And yes, I do think that your thoughts are very much like a fundamentalist in how you form your views of Christianity based on your personal interpretation of the Bible. Many informed Christians and theologians are quite aware that the canonical gospels are not neutral depictions of Jesus. They all have their theological bias set in their own context. There is not just one Jesus-concept in Christianities, and the concept of Jesus as found in Catholicism or Anglicanism (or other sects) is not merely reproduced from the Bible, a duplicate as it were. It is formed from many sources.

 

[Cassandra]

I respond again explaining to you that this is not the view of Original Sin as held by Catholicism, nor is it even an accurate representation of a more reformed view of original sin in the Anglican tradition

So you say to someone who was raised a Christian and is well versed in these things. I also know of the ever changing interpretations of Christians. I judge people and organizations on past actions, not their sleek, soothing words. Both RCC and Anglican Church have a very bloody history.

What I wrote is in line with Christians doctrine. Here is what common people have been made to read for 450 years (The Heidelberg Catechism):

Q. Did God create people
so wicked and perverse?

A. No.
God created them good1 and in his own image,2
that is, in true righteousness and holiness,3
so that they might
truly know God their creator,4
love him with all their heart,
and live with God in eternal happiness,
to praise and glorify him.5

Q. Then where does this corrupt human nature come from?

A. The fall and disobedience of our first parents,
Adam and Eve, in Paradise.1
This fall has so poisoned our nature2
that we are all conceived and born
in a sinful condition.3

Q. But are we so corrupt
that we are totally unable to do any good
and inclined toward all evil?

A. Yes,1 unless we are born again
by the Spirit of God.2

Q. But doesn’t God do us an injustice
by requiring in his law
what we are unable to do?

A. No, God created human beings with the ability to keep the law.1
They, however, provoked by the devil,2
in willful disobedience,3
robbed themselves and all their descendants of these gifts.4

Q. Does God permit
such disobedience and rebellion
to go unpunished?

A. Certainly not.
God is terribly angry

with the sin we are born with
as well as the sins we personally commit.

As a just judge,
God will punish them both now and in eternity,1
having declared:

“Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey
all the things written in the book of the law.”2

And yes, I do think that your thoughts are very much like a fundamentalist

Christians like to stick labels on people to undermine their credibility, you are no exception.

 

[Cassandra]

Why do some Christians they behave incorrectly.
They try to make you change your religion. (I hate the forced Evangelization, playing t the door to talk to God, insisting and not respect your belief) are disrespectful, violent.
Marginalize people. Sometimes they even they have come to kill.

My opinion:

Forced or through bribery and other grooming techniques. It does not make much difference, it is equally unethical. It destroys peoples own traditions, rob them of their own identity, and make them serve foreign powers. It is part of empire ideology to dominate people in other countries. They will bring Christians to power that will be loyal to them.

Looked what happened in Vietnam. The French colonizers converted 10% of the population and brought a Catholic to power (Diem) who then started to coerce people to convert. Non-Christians in public service no longer got promotions, etc). They forbid people to worship their own ancestors. When the people revolted to Diem, and the French retreated, the Americans stepped in to save him and killed millions of innocent Vietnamese who had never done them any harm. Did they ever apologize?

It is all part of the same power system. Muslims do the same Saudi Arabia trains fundamentalist that start to terrorize people in other countries to make or keep them servants to Mecca. These are power systems that use the idea of a oppressing God to both justify and hide their own crimes.

 

[Quintessence]

At what point does it become irrational and unreasonable to judge a person and organization based on past actions, @Cassandra ?

Do you hold a grudge so long as there is one single black mark in something's past, even if it was a generation ago, in a completely different country than yours, and doesn't represent that person or group today?

If so, we should be grinding the axe against all of humanity.

 

[Angy Ex Arcana]

My opinion:

Forced or through bribery and other grooming techniques. It does not make much difference, it is equally unethical. It destroys peoples own traditions, rob them of their own identity, and make them serve foreign powers. It is part of empire ideology to dominate people in other countries. They will bring Christians to power that will be loyal to them.

Looked what happened in Vietnam. The French colonizers converted 10% of the population and brought a Catholic to power (Diem) who then started to coerce people to convert. Non-Christians in public service no longer got promotions, etc). They forbid people to worship their own ancestors. When the people revolted to Diem, and the French retreated, the Americans stepped in to save him and killed millions of innocent Vietnamese who had never done them any harm. Did they ever apologize?

It is all part of the same power system. Muslims do the same Saudi Arabia trains fundamentalist that start to terrorize people in other countries to make or keep them servants to Mecca. These are power systems that use the idea of a oppressing God to both justify and hide their own crimes.

I understood the your point and agree.
But not is simply.
Not is only this the point.
The point is " acceptable the other faith" and respect.

At what point does it become irrational and unreasonable to judge a person and organization based on past actions, @Cassandra ?

Do you hold a grudge so long as there is one single black mark in something's past, even if it was a generation ago, in a completely different country than yours, and doesn't represent that person or group today?

If so, we should be grinding the axe against all of humanity.

Maybe because not is simply clear the past, or forgive,
Many people commit the same; same mistake on the past.
Many Christians don't are changed.

 

[Quintessence]

Mostly, I don't see the point of holding hatred and ire towards an entire group of people rather than the individuals who are more directly responsible for doing something.

I don't care what religion someone is - if they're a jerk to me, I'll judge them based on the fact that they were a jerk to me, not because they're religion X, Y, Z.

 

[EverChanging]

So you say to someone who was raised a Christian and is well versed in these things. I also know of the ever changing interpretations of Christians. I judge people and organizations on past actions, not their sleek, soothing words. Both RCC and Anglican Church have a very bloody history.

What I wrote is in line with Christians doctrine. Here is what common people have been made to read for 450 years (The Heidelberg Catechism):




Christians like to stick labels on people to undermine their credibility, you are no exception.

So you quote a Calvinist catechism to discount what I said about Catholic doctrine and theological diversity? Yeah, that's logical.

 

[1137]

Christians or Christianity? I feel bad for Christians but I don't dislike them, they likely never had a choice in what they became. Even when shown how bad and nonsensical the religion is they can't see it, but often this really isn't their fault. It's Christianity itself I detest. A religion based around self hatred, self victimization, fascist authority, and so on.

 

[Cassandra]

At what point does it become irrational and unreasonable to judge a person and organization based on past actions, @Cassandra ?

Do you hold a grudge so long as there is one single black mark in something's past, even if it was a generation ago, in a completely different country than yours, and doesn't represent that person or group today?

If so, we should be grinding the axe against all of humanity.

It is not a grudge. Personal allegations I find uggly. I think we should respect someones opinion even if it disagrees with us. A pity that it is done by a person whose views I generally respect.

By the way, I do not subscribe to the over the top Christian forgiveness concept. In Christianity one has to forgive those that do you injustice and oppress you. Yes, if they steal you pants, you have to offer them your shirt. Servants should never resist injustice, in stead they should forgive their (Christian) masters and accept their suffering as a path to heaven. Be like God and accept your crucifixion freely.

Well that is what they tell the flock, the conquered people made submissive. Because when Christians are done wrong by Pagans (non-Christians), their reaction is all-out war. When 10 thugs attacked the Twin Towers, I was waiting for the Christians to forgive them. After all it is only 10 criminals, you can not make millions of people suffer for that? Can you? Can you destroy the lives of millions in return?

But then you do not really understand Christian ideology. Pagans have to forgive Christians, not the other way around. You can not expect Christians to accept abuse from Pagans. Nor can Pagans expect excuses from Christians.

I was just reading about 500 year annual celebration of Maarten Luther. The church father that laid the foundation of the Holocaust in his book "the Jews and their lies" that was accurately executed by the Nazi's . (Hitler was a great admirer of Maarten Luther). Jews raised some objection that is why the protestant church organizations met with Jewish representatives to talk about the "unfortunate incidents" during history. Did they say sorry? No they did not do that. It should not have happened, is all they said. I call that utterly ruthless.

As long as Christians go on proselytizing all over the world and show no awareness of doing wrong I have no reason to change my opinion about Christianity. And Christianity will never fundamentally change because its core identity is based on an unchanging book. People can only make interpretations around that doctrine. The good , the bad, and the ugly interpretations all belong to this doctrine. Yes evil Christians will root out Pagan resistance and then good Christians come in to offer them help and lead them to Jesus. But they are all part of the same destructive system.

So please do not condemn me for not sharing your view. Like you I live up to my own ethics even if it may feel wrong to you.

 

[Quintessence]

Condemnation was not intended; you're free to answer that question posed in any fashion you wish. The point at which I would call something unreasonable need not be the point at which you would call something unreasonable. I do not ever find it reasonable to demonize entire groups of people based on the behaviors of some members of that group. If you do find it reasonable, so be it. You'll live with the consequences of that perspective as I live with the consequences of mine. The important thing is to make sure that you're okay with the consequences of that perspective.

 

[Katzpur]

Mostly, I don't see the point of holding hatred and ire towards an entire group of people rather than the individuals who are more directly responsible for doing something.

I don't care what religion someone is - if they're a jerk to me, I'll judge them based on the fact that they were a jerk to me, not because they're religion X, Y, Z.

Perfectly stated. I am with you 100%.

 

[Cassandra]

Condemnation was not intended; you're free to answer that question posed in any fashion you wish. The point at which I would call something unreasonable need not be the point at which you would call something unreasonable. I do not ever find it reasonable to demonize entire groups of people based on the behaviors of some members of that group. If you do find it reasonable, so be it. You'll live with the consequences of that perspective as I live with the consequences of mine. The important thing is to make sure that you're okay with the consequences of that perspective.

Nor do I.
There you go again attributing negative things to me. This coming from you really is surprise to me.

Rejecting an ideology is not rejecting the people following the ideology, even if they may feel it that way. For me those people are victim of ideology, just like most people embracing Nazism weren't bad people at all, but the ideology certainly was bad.

By the way, read again, It was not this text I was referring to, but:

Do you hold a grudge so long as there is one single black mark in something's past, even if it was a generation ago, in a completely different country than yours, and doesn't represent that person or group today?"

Using rhetorical questions implying negative things about a person, is considered an underhanded way of discussing. My ethics would not allow it.

 

[Quintessence]

*sigh*

I don't know what to say. I don't know how to deal with people who read things into my words that I didn't intend and that from my perspective, aren't there. I can't control how other people interpret what I write. I can't control that you believe I'm trying to attribute negative things to you, even though that is not and has not been my intention. I don't know what to do with that, especially when I already said that wasn't my intention once before. You're set on believing otherwise, and all I can do is shrug and move on, I guess.

 

[Cassandra]

I don't know what to say. I don't know how to deal with people who read things into my words that I didn't intend and that from my perspective, aren't there. I can't control how other people interpret what I write. I can't control that you believe I'm trying to attribute negative things to you, even though that is not and has not been my intention. I don't know what to do with that, especially when I already said that wasn't my intention once before. You're set on believing otherwise, and all I can do is shrug and move on, I guess.

May I ask you a question?

Do you hold a grudge so long as there is one single black mark in something's past, even if it was a generation ago, in a completely different country than yours, and doesn't represent that person or group today?" I do not ever find it reasonable to demonize entire groups of people based on the behaviors of some members of that group. If you do find it reasonable, so be it.

How does that sound to you?

 

[Quintessence]

By default nature, I'm terrible at holding grudges of any sort. I am incredibly bad at it to the point of it being pathetic. That comes with both costs and benefits. The costs are so rarely an issue given the culture I exist in, I see no reason to try and learn how to be a better grudge-bearer. I don't need that tool in my life at this time.

 

[gnostic]

Many pagans are not comfortable with Christianity because it has a tendency to make them feel worthless as human beings. Christianity tends to teach that humans are inherently evil, we are like scum to God, we must beg for forgiveness for even the smallest moral transgressions or face eternal torture.

And sometimes, they don't bother to wait for you to die, and take up the responsibility himself of torturing you.

No, Christianity don't have a good history in their treatments towards pagans, heretics, and the alleged witches.