Pagan vs Christian mentality

[Darkforbid]

To what end? Are you genuinely interested in learning about how Paganism works as a religion and way of life or are you simply asking because you want to engage in a game of one-upmanship?

I ask because it is really easy to find what it is you are looking for if you spend any time at all engaging with the contemporary Pagan community. Pretty much any blog, podcast, youtube channel, book, or other form of media is going to cover some of this stuff. One thing to understand is that when a religion doesn't demand special intermediaries to communicate with the gods, everyone who is a practitioner can do so. There is no special "Bible" that we hang off of as an authority. We are all our own priests/priestesses, and through collaboration with each other, we learn more about our gods and the world. In this, contemporary Paganism is sometimes described as "mystical religion." There are sects within the Abrahamic religions that are the same way - people who communicate directly with your god - though they are often deemed heretics.

To bring this around to the OP, that access to the gods isn't restricted to some vested authority figure helps prevent Pagan religions from developing the "your gods are fake" or "you are a heretic" attitude. Mostly, we just respect each other's religious experiences even if they are not our own. That doesn't mean we aren't discerning or adopt what they discovered in our own paths, but it does generally mean we respect it.

"To bring this around to the OP, that access to the gods isn't restricted to some vested authority figure helps prevent Pagan religions from developing the "your gods are fake"

Really like bringing God into your life isn't the message of most religious beliefs

 

[The Hammer]

There's something to be said for the notion that monotheism inherently breeds exclusivism. After all, when your theological position entails declaring "there is no god but God" that inherently negates and dismisses other theological positions. It's been said by folks wiser on the history of this than myself that monotheism basically invented religious intolerance. How true that is I cannot say, but it makes sense from a logical standpoint if nothing else. Monotheism doesn't have to be exclusivist, though, which is important to understand. Some feel making those compromises represents a weakening of the faith. Perhaps they have a point in that, but if you want to get along with your neighbor instead of beating them down with a stick (or a quill in the case of "culture wars") it's good to offer a little leeway to tolerate other points of view, as you say.

I would be interested to hear from those religious historians who thinks that monotheism invented religious intolerance, it wouldn't surprise me, but as with you it isn't something I know for certain. And you are right, not all Christians or practicing monotheists are exclusivist, as my wife is a Christian and I am Pagan and we do fine. She went to a very progressive church though, according to her.

 

[syo]

I think it is very incorrect to generalise as I have many wonderful Christian friends who treat me with unconditional acceptance and love and I belong to another Faith.

I talk about Gods, not you/humans.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I would be interested to hear from those religious historians who thinks that monotheism invented religious intolerance, it wouldn't surprise me, but as with you it isn't something I know for certain.

Well, here are some cases:

• Akhenaten persecuted his opponents and ran a personality cult that would impress North Korea.
• Hezekiah (Judah) carried out iconoclasm.
• Josiah (Judah) executed priests of gods he rejected.
• Nehemiah or Ezra carried out ethnic cleansing.
• John Hyrcanos destroyed the Samaritan temple.
• When the Roman Empire became Christian, persecutions began almost at once.
• Islam persecuted pagans, as in India.

Note that these are all Abrahamic. I don't know of any persecutions by Sikhs! As for supposed persecutions by polytheists,

• The Romans punished Christians because they tried to subvert traditional practices, not because they were monotheists — no Jew got thrown to the lions.
• The Japanese exiled Christians because they were seen as potential allies for would-be European colonialists — they could see what the Portuguese and Dutch were like.

 

[Harel13]

Note that these are all Abrahamic.

Pretty sure Akhenaten was Egyptian and worshipped the sun. Perhaps you meant "Monotheistic"?

 

[j1i]

Pagans worship their Gods and they also respect all the Gods of other pagan religions. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc.

Christians, however, worship their God and they attack all the other Gods as fakes.

Which mentality is better?

In my opinion, pagans do the right thing.

thanks and with you please let me sharing ^_^

When you accept other gods, you accept wrong thoughts, ideas
My objection to lies and misinformation does not mean to defeat me
Rather, sticking to the principle is a human value when I help others Against false ads

Imagine that there are lands and you say that if all the lands are dug in them, sweet water will come out of them
There is one land with sweet water and the rest is salty
What is the benefit of lying to others and sabotaging their investments
The majority failed to know who the true God was and how to describe it

 

[Augustus]

Pagans worship their Gods and they also respect all the Gods of other pagan religions. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc.

This goes a bit far.

Monotheists, on average, have certainly been more intolerant, but the idea that historical Pagans 'respected' all gods is not particularly true. Applying the concept of religious tolerance to the ancient world is somewhat anachronistic as it's really a modern concept. Pagans were less intolerant of course, but tolerant is a step too far.

There was no such thing as secularism in the ancient world, so the gods people worshipped couldn't be separated from the social and political realities of the society. When gods were seen as a threat, then pagans could be very intolerant.

For example, Emperor Diocletian's edict against the Manichaeans:

As for these people (the Manichaeans), who set up new and unheard of sects contrary to the ancient rites, in order that in support of their perverse belief they might drive out those doctrines which had been granted to us in earlier times by divine influence...

We should be afraid that they might attempt, as is their wont, to corrupt men of more innocent natures, the modest and tranquil Roman race, and the whole of our empire with the deplorable customs and sinister laws of the Persians as if by the poisons from their own malevolence.

We command that their authors and heads be subjected to the harshest punishment; that is, to be consumed by the burning flames along with their condemnable writings. Furthermore we direct that their adherents receive capital punishment, so long as they are troublesome, and we decree that their wealth be appropriated to our treasury. If any officeholder or individual of any standing or persons of great repute convert to this hitherto unheard-of, foul, and entirely disgraceful sect, or to the religion of the Persians, you must make sure to transfer their property to our treasury and send them to the Phaenensian or Proconnesian mines.

Or the 3rd C Roman historian Dio Cassius:

“You should not only worship the divine everywhere and in every way in accordance with our ancestral traditions, but also force all others to honour it. Those who attempt to distort our religion with strange rites you should hate and punish, not only for the sake of the gods … but also because such people, by bringing in new divinities, persuade many folks to adopt foreign practices, which lead to conspiracies, revolts, and factions, which are entirely unsuitable for monarch.” Dio Cassius - History of Rome

 

[Quintessence]

I would be interested to hear from those religious historians who thinks that monotheism invented religious intolerance, it wouldn't surprise me, but as with you it isn't something I know for certain. And you are right, not all Christians or practicing monotheists are exclusivist, as my wife is a Christian and I am Pagan and we do fine. She went to a very progressive church though, according to her.

IIRC, I came across that in the book "God against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism" by J. Kirsch. It's one of those books I started reading, didn't finish, but still have... and probably should get back to.

 

[syo]

This goes a bit far.

Monotheists, on average, have certainly been more intolerant, but the idea that historical Pagans 'respected' all gods is not particularly true. Applying the concept of religious tolerance to the ancient world is somewhat anachronistic as it's really a modern concept. Pagans were less intolerant of course, but tolerant is a step too far.

There was no such thing as secularism in the ancient world, so the gods people worshipped couldn't be separated from the social and political realities of the society. When gods were seen as a threat, then pagans could be very intolerant.

For example, Emperor Diocletian's edict against the Manichaeans:

As for these people (the Manichaeans), who set up new and unheard of sects contrary to the ancient rites, in order that in support of their perverse belief they might drive out those doctrines which had been granted to us in earlier times by divine influence...

We should be afraid that they might attempt, as is their wont, to corrupt men of more innocent natures, the modest and tranquil Roman race, and the whole of our empire with the deplorable customs and sinister laws of the Persians as if by the poisons from their own malevolence.

We command that their authors and heads be subjected to the harshest punishment; that is, to be consumed by the burning flames along with their condemnable writings. Furthermore we direct that their adherents receive capital punishment, so long as they are troublesome, and we decree that their wealth be appropriated to our treasury. If any officeholder or individual of any standing or persons of great repute convert to this hitherto unheard-of, foul, and entirely disgraceful sect, or to the religion of the Persians, you must make sure to transfer their property to our treasury and send them to the Phaenensian or Proconnesian mines.

Or the 3rd C Roman historian Dio Cassius:

“You should not only worship the divine everywhere and in every way in accordance with our ancestral traditions, but also force all others to honour it. Those who attempt to distort our religion with strange rites you should hate and punish, not only for the sake of the gods … but also because such people, by bringing in new divinities, persuade many folks to adopt foreign practices, which lead to conspiracies, revolts, and factions, which are entirely unsuitable for monarch.” Dio Cassius - History of Rome

The Romans were conquerors. They don't count. Conquering is abnormal.

 

[Augustus]

The Romans were conquerors. They don't count. Conquering is abnormal.

Conquering was very normal for pagans, just as it has been for most human societies throughout history.

 

[syo]

Conquering was very normal for pagans, just as it has been for most human societies throughout history.

No, it's abnormal. I disagree.

 

[Augustus]

No, it's abnormal. I disagree.

Something that reflects the vast majority of historical societies can't be considered 'abnormal' though.

Have you a list of 'normal' historical pagan societies that match up to your ideal as there are thousands of violent pagan societies that could be named?

 

[Rival]

No, it's abnormal. I disagree.

Egypt.
The Sea-People.
Babylon.
Assyria.
Greece.
Rome.
Goths/Germanic tribes.
Anglo-Saxons.

They're just the big ones.

 

[syo]

Something that reflects the vast majority of historical societies can't be considered 'abnormal' though.

Have you a list of 'normal' historical pagan societies that match up to your ideal as there are thousands of violent pagan societies that could be named?

Egypt.
The sea-people.
Babylon.
Assyria.
Greece.
Rome.
Goths/Germanic tribes.
Anglo-Saxons.

They're just the big ones.

What about it?