• 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!

The return of pre-christian religion


There has been an increasing interest in returning to the religions practiced by the Celts and the Germans. Previous attempts as in Gerald Gardner’s return of the wiccan religion have created some suspicion about the validity of these religions but newer attempts using linguistics, archeology, literature/folktales, anthropology and cross cultural evaluation has led to more believable religion. What is interesting is why it has returned. One of the most common reasons is to reconnect with nature. Many especially since the 60's have felt that religions descended from Abraham are in conflict with nature. This void has caused an increased interest in Native American faith. There have been a few problems in its development. First is to recover from almost 2000 years of the Christian church demonizing pagan religions and to change the perceptions’ of these words. The other is to deal with the tendency to trend towards fantasy. The third is how to create some unity between the different trends yet allow for the tolerance which was important to pagan religion.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Druidic, North European, native and central American religions worked closely with nature.
However they all had a very dark side we do not need in the world again.
It is hard to fault the teachings of Jesus, even if Christianity has missed that mark.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sallie McFague, a post-modern Christian theologian, addresses this very issue in two of her books, Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age (1987) and The Body of God: An Ecological Theology (1993). Also interesting are J. Philip Newell's books, Christ of the Celts: The Healing of Creation (2008) and A New harmony: The Spirit, the Earth, and the Human Soul. Both these theologians depart from an imperialistic, atomistic POV and take us to the organic POV. Xy isn't inherently imperialistic.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Druidic, North European, native and central American religions worked closely with nature.
However they all had a very dark side we do not need in the world again.
It is hard to fault the teachings of Jesus, even if Christianity has missed that mark.

Bring back wicker men! Fun times, that. :drool:
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Druidic, North European, native and central American religions worked closely with nature.
However they all had a very dark side we do not need in the world again.
It is hard to fault the teachings of Jesus, even if Christianity has missed that mark.

I do hope you wouldn't broadstroke all the followers of those ancient faiths
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
There has been an increasing interest in returning to the religions practiced by the Celts and the Germans. Previous attempts as in Gerald Gardner’s return of the wiccan religion have created some suspicion about the validity of these religions but newer attempts using linguistics, archeology, literature/folktales, anthropology and cross cultural evaluation has led to more believable religion. What is interesting is why it has returned. One of the most common reasons is to reconnect with nature. Many especially since the 60's have felt that religions descended from Abraham are in conflict with nature. This void has caused an increased interest in Native American faith. There have been a few problems in its development. First is to recover from almost 2000 years of the Christian church demonizing pagan religions and to change the perceptions’ of these words. The other is to deal with the tendency to trend towards fantasy. The third is how to create some unity between the different trends yet allow for the tolerance which was important to pagan religion.

I think there are other reasons as well. I think the world is getting tired of all the conflict associated with the Abrahamic religions, and their need to proselytize and take over the world. Bringing back indigenous religions breaks the Abrahamic hold.

*
 

dgirl1986

Big Queer Chesticles!
I trust in nature, I respect nature and I also fear nature. Nature is my religion pretty much.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
There is actually a lot to this. As sojourner pointed out, some Christians have been focusing on nature. The college I graduated from in fact had developed a program around Christianity and ecology. They also recently opened up an environmental house. The college was associated with the ELCA Lutheran Church. So there is a movement within Christianity for a greater interest in the environment, and nature in general.

At the same time, I think much of the movement to these recreated, or reconstructed religions (or even the movement to Native American religion) is based on what Michael Shermer labels the beautiful people myth. I can deal with the Native American tradition quite better, as that is where most of my study has been (and to state Native American as a general term is unfair as paints the picture of a unified group, when in fact there are a number of different tribes with different ideas). However, looking at various situations, it is apparent that there was large scale ecocide (destruction of the ecosystem). One of the best examples of this is the Anasazis and Pueblo Bonito, and Chaco Canyon in general. The environmental destruction there has not left the area, which was once a forest, into a nearly uninhabitable desert. When it comes down to it, they were no more or no less destructive. The main difference is population size and technology.

And this can be shown to be true for many of the other "nature" religions.

I also think that part of the movement is a want to connect with the ancient. Many grow up with a fascination of these ancient societies based on schooling. This fascination makes people long for a simpler time (now, of course this doesn't hold true for all).
 
I first want to know what was meant by the dark side. Many religions have a dark side. Look at what was done by the Ottoman Empire on its way to the first battle of Vienna or the massacre of the Saxons by Charlemagne. I have great respect for what Jesus said but other religions echo many of the same ideas in terms of respect for others. I am most familiar with the pre-Christian Germanic beliefs and they showed great respect for marriage and possibly more respect towards women than other Europeans. The problem is that Germanic society had an oral tradition except for some limited use of runes. What is written about them comes from those that wanted to get rid of them. The church created and impressive propaganda program to take away all sacred sites, assimilated customs, and call them Christian, and demonized important symbols to the pagans. You must be careful what is written.
As for Christian ecology you only need to look at the state of the world today to see just how well that is working. There are of course Christians who are trying to help preserve nature but look in the bible and see how much is written about protecting an preserving nature. How many sermons are dedicated to change the way mankind is degrading nature. Look at the attitude of the apocalyptic Christians and Jews view of the natural world and you see the problem. Ask a Native American how well Christians treat Nature.
In addition there are significant similarities between how Native Americans and Germanic tribes worshiped nature.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I assume he may have been referring to the Druids when he indicated Celts specifically. Things like human sacrifice among the Celts, assuming that's the dark stuff he means- is often overplayed.

Only people who went off the path, Darach is the word for them, did things like sacrifice humans.
 
I am not sure I understand you. You are comparing a few cases of impact that Native Americans have had on the environment to the affect of the Christian European has had. I am more familiar with the North Eastern American Indians and I can only find positive attitudes and lifestyles with Nature. The Germanic tribes were hunting and gathering societies similar to the North Eastern Native Americans and certainly had differences but from what I have found so far the similarities are more impressive. Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew and the attitude of apocalyptic Jew was very negative towards the natural world. Some saw the natural world as evil which would place them at an antagonistic role with nature. I understand that some modern Christians are trying to improve our relationship but so far it has been minimal at best.
 
To Egyptian Phoenix - Thank you I appreciate the support.

I would like to remind everyone that you must look who wrote about a religion and if they are in favor, neutral or against that belief system. Most of what is known of pre-Christian pagan northern Europe comes from the Roman, Muslim, and Christian writers. They are not going to be objective reports. A good example is what was written about the early Christians by the Romans. There were many reports that Christians were cannibals and had incestuous relationships between brothers and sisters. I doubt any Christian would see themselves as cannibals or having incestuous relationships even in early Christianity, but the point is that it was written as being true by the Romans during early Christianity. You must be careful of the source.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
I am not sure I understand you. You are comparing a few cases of impact that Native Americans have had on the environment to the affect of the Christian European has had. I am more familiar with the North Eastern American Indians and I can only find positive attitudes and lifestyles with Nature. The Germanic tribes were hunting and gathering societies similar to the North Eastern Native Americans and certainly had differences but from what I have found so far the similarities are more impressive. Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew and the attitude of apocalyptic Jew was very negative towards the natural world. Some saw the natural world as evil which would place them at an antagonistic role with nature. I understand that some modern Christians are trying to improve our relationship but so far it has been minimal at best.
I'm not comparing a few cases of the impact that Native Americans had on the environment to what Christian Europeans did. I'm stating forthright that Native Americans also destroyed the environment. In fact, the only reason why Europeans were able to "conquer" the land is because Native Americans had already largely modified it.

Historically, it is very possible to see the impact that Native Americans had on the environment. The mass clearing of different areas is consistently being shown, as well as the entire collapse of different Native American civilizations based on the destruction of their environment.

I'm not saying that Native Americans were harder on the land, or abused it on purpose. I'm saying that they did the same things that others did. And it may be true that many Native Americans (especially today, which is part of a reaction of having their homelands stripped away from them) show a very deep connection with the land, and that they take care of the land, that does not necessarily constitute a historically accurate view. Archeological records in fact show that this is not always the case. Another great example are the large kill pits that have been found of large mammals that once roamed North America (such as giant tree sloths, mastodons, and even horses). The mass hunting that was done led the the extinction of many different species.

As for the apocalyptic idea of Jesus, it isn't necessarily that they saw the natural world as evil. They saw the Kingdom of Earth evil. In the time of Jesus, this would have been Rome. And in specific, it would have been the subjugation of the Jewish people. The natural world really wasn't a problem.

As for some Christians making a difference, it is actually a relatively large movement, nor is it really a recent idea.
 
to falling blood -
I am not that familiar with kill pits and the impact they had. I am most familiar with northeastern and southeastern Native American cultures and feel you cannot equate their impact on and their view of nature with the Christian Europeans impact on and view of nature. Of course they had some effect but they clearly lived in a better harmony with nature. It would be wonderful if Christian’s took up the cause to save the very natural world which God made but it is not happening. I know there are some isolated efforts but nothing substantial. I was a Christian for over 50 years and except for some minor sermons nature was never mentioned as important and all the missionary work that was done none was dedicated to helping nature. God made our world and we are destroying it. My conversion to pagan (for lack of a better word) came from this disparity. With deeper searching I found that Germanic tribal worship was nature oriented and many worshiped mother earth. Interestingly there is also evidence they still believed in a God that created the world and that the other so called Gods are spiritual representations of aspects of nature. The gods like Thor and Odin may have been great leaders in the past that became promoted to a divine spot through an oral tradition. I also have to comment apocalyptic Jews. Their message was that God was going to cause the destruction of all of the world and not just Rome only saving the righteous. I do not see a distinction between the evil kingdom of earth and the natural world. The Earth is the natural world. I have not heard of any large Christian movement to save nature from the continuous destruction occurring now.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
to falling blood -
I am not that familiar with kill pits and the impact they had. I am most familiar with northeastern and southeastern Native American cultures and feel you cannot equate their impact on and their view of nature with the Christian Europeans impact on and view of nature. Of course they had some effect but they clearly lived in a better harmony with nature. It would be wonderful if Christian’s took up the cause to save the very natural world which God made but it is not happening. I know there are some isolated efforts but nothing substantial. I was a Christian for over 50 years and except for some minor sermons nature was never mentioned as important and all the missionary work that was done none was dedicated to helping nature. God made our world and we are destroying it. My conversion to pagan (for lack of a better word) came from this disparity. With deeper searching I found that Germanic tribal worship was nature oriented and many worshiped mother earth. Interestingly there is also evidence they still believed in a God that created the world and that the other so called Gods are spiritual representations of aspects of nature. The gods like Thor and Odin may have been great leaders in the past that became promoted to a divine spot through an oral tradition. I also have to comment apocalyptic Jews. Their message was that God was going to cause the destruction of all of the world and not just Rome only saving the righteous. I do not see a distinction between the evil kingdom of earth and the natural world. The Earth is the natural world. I have not heard of any large Christian movement to save nature from the continuous destruction occurring now.
There are a few logical fallacies here. The fact that you haven't hear of any large Christian movements, doesn't mean they don't exist. Here is a link to some in the U.S. Christian Ecology - Contact and a decent sized one in Europe: Green Christian. Yes, some churches do not touch on this subject; however, that doesn't mean that is a representation of the larger Christian religion. Being a Christian for 50 years does not mean that you will learn everything that Christianity teaches, or even be aware of what other Christian denominations teach and do.

For Jewish, apocalyptic belief, it was still under Judaism. Jewish ideology did have a respect for nature. This is seen clearly in the OT. The world was good, as Genesis stated. Humans had a duty to oversee it. Now, if you don't see a difference between the Kingdom of Earth, and nature, it is not a reflection on the belief at that time. And since Jesus never states anything about destruction to nature in general, we can't assume that he wanted the nature destroyed. In fact, within apocalyptic thought, we generally do not see mention of it being okay to destroy nature. Destruction was for the Kingdom of Earth, not nature in general.

As for Germanic tribes, we can look at the Norse as see the destruction in Greenland. They exploited the farmland until it was no longer fertile.

Native Americans in the northeastern and southeastern United States also had a tremendous impact on the environment. If they had not cleared the forests (sometimes through the use of fire), Europeans probably never would have been able to "conquer" the United States. By the time of the first Europeans, the eastern part of North America had greatly been altered. This is clear in the archeological records.

Now, they may have had a respect for nature, but their actions did not always show that. To depict Native Americans as these natural ecologists simply is false. That is not to say that they were purposefully destructive, but it is to say that they often were no better than Europeans.

And not all Europeans had a negative impact on the United States environment. They still had some respect for nature (or at least some did). The idea that Christian Europeans were just destructive is not historically correct.

Not to mention that many pre-Christian religions were much more destructive to nature. If we look at the collapse of the Mayan civilization, it is quite clear that a good portion of it had to do with environmental destruction. Machu Picchu is a great example of how they overburdened their environment until a collapse happened. Easter Island is another great example, where the inhabitants would have had to know that they were chopping down the last tree on the island (a source not only for food, but for boat building, as well as for other tools), yet did nothing to stop it. In fact, part of the problem was their religion, which is why they built those statues (which they erected by using chopped down trees).
 
I do not know where you get your information but it is so far off I do not understand. The Native Americans of the Northeast and Southeast did not do what you said. What little clearing the did was minimal and does even compare to the agricultural practices of the Europeans that came to america. The forest of northern europe prior to christianity was so dense it protected the germanic tribes. The buffalo, ranged through pennsylvania were wiped out by the europeans. The north american forest were so thick with vegetation which the Native Americans lived in. As Europeans moved west the cleared most of the forests which lead to erosions. I do not know were you are getting your information but it is so far from the truth that it is concerning that is unless it is Christian propaganda to rewrite history again. The proto orthodox christians rewrote history from the beginning to make it look that their way was the correct way from the beginning of Christianity even though factual evidence shows it was not. Christians rewrote history about the pagan to eliminate them form Europe with horrible propaganda which was not true the murdered men women and children. Burned people alive. slaughtered whole tribes of people who were unarmed just because they wanted to believe it their faith. I guess they were pagan martyrs for God.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
I do not know where you get your information but it is so far off I do not understand. The Native Americans of the Northeast and Southeast did not do what you said. What little clearing the did was minimal and does even compare to the agricultural practices of the Europeans that came to america. The forest of northern europe prior to christianity was so dense it protected the germanic tribes. The buffalo, ranged through pennsylvania were wiped out by the europeans. The north american forest were so thick with vegetation which the Native Americans lived in. As Europeans moved west the cleared most of the forests which lead to erosions. I do not know were you are getting your information but it is so far from the truth that it is concerning that is unless it is Christian propaganda to rewrite history again. The proto orthodox christians rewrote history from the beginning to make it look that their way was the correct way from the beginning of Christianity even though factual evidence shows it was not. Christians rewrote history about the pagan to eliminate them form Europe with horrible propaganda which was not true the murdered men women and children. Burned people alive. slaughtered whole tribes of people who were unarmed just because they wanted to believe it their faith. I guess they were pagan martyrs for God.
I'm getting my information from professors (I took a number of courses on Native American history, and history in general, which was my minor), scholarly papers that were published in peer viewed journals, a number of books by scholars in the field, and the like. What I am saying is not that far off.

One of the fallacies that are using is that since one group did things to a larger extent, or worse extent, what others have done is not wrong. That simply does not make sense. You can't justify one person's wrong doings by saying that others have done it on a larger scale.

Now, looking at hunting animals, while it is true that Europeans did wipe out large quantities of buffalo, to the point of near extinction. There are other animals that have suffered the same fate. There is no denying that. There should also be no denying that early Native Americans also wiped out, to the point of extinction, a number of different large mammals. These included mammoths, mastodons, giant sloths, bear-sized beavers, camels, lions, horses, and many other large mammals. They are now all extinct. Archeological records show that these animals were hunted in mass numbers. The evidence for this are the large kills pits that have been found, with massive numbers of bones from these animals, many of which still have the weapon tips impaled in the rib bones. (Michael Shermer, in his book, Borderlands of Science, discusses this on his chapter called the Beautiful People Myth)

The view of North America that you point to, at the time of European arrival, is actually the European "Christian" view. The idea that when Europeans arrived in North American, that it was this pristine forest, is a myth that European "Christians" propagated based on their views of nature. In William M. Denevan's “The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americans in 1492,”
he shows how Native Americans had already modified the forest, expanded and even created grasslands, as well as changed the composition of the forests. Ecologists now believe that if it was not for the annual burning of grasslands, the western prairies would have vanished. By the time of European arrival, much of the mature forest was open, because of burning and clearing. And it is no wonder that the land did experience so much change because of the millions of people who inhabited North America pre 1492. It is because of this open forest that Europeans were able to spread through it so quickly.

And looking at Chaco Canyon in specific (this is the area that I actually focused a study on), the environmental destruction is clear, as I pointed out before (if you want more, Jared Diamond, in his book Collapse shows this even more. He also goes over the destruction done by the Norse in Greenland, as well as other ancient ecocide). Going to Chaco Canyon today, what is left is nothing but a desert, where a once dense juniper forest had thrived. And in fact, it is a clear example of Native Americans clearing the land to such an extent that the erosion was so devastating, that any sort of irrigation became impossible. Any form of agriculture was impossible.

This isn't Christian propaganda. The idea of the dense forest that you are talking about is in fact the European "Christian" view.

Also, pagans are also guilty of slaughtering entire groups for one reason or another. The amount of violence in the United States before Europeans came here. In fact, it was part of some of the various Native Americans societies and religions. When Europeans were settling here, in the Northeast, there was common warfare among the various tribes. In fact, that is part of the reason why some Native Americans accepted European friendship, as it was one more ally for them.
 
I studied and did papers on differences between native American impact and European impact in the area from Virginia up to New York. The records from the time of Jamestown up to the expelling of the Cherokee from North Carolina all support what I have said. They are public records although many are very old. The records of interactions between Quakers of Pennsylvania and there interaction between the Lenni Lenape and Iroquois are particularly telling. There are numerous archaeological studies of the Shenandoah valley of Virginia. The deforestation of these areas are clearly documented and show the deforestation of these areas were from the European settlers. Your Professors must be talking about a different group of people since this information is extensive in public records. One of the reasons that the English had so much trouble controlling the Eastern Indians is that they did not destroy the forests and were more mobile when compared to the Indians that the Spanish conquered. Indians from Mexico to South America had a very different relationship with nature. I never did research on these people and so do not have much comment. I have seen the pyramids and it is clear there relationship was different. I still contend that South Eastern and North Eastern Native Americans lived much more in harmony with nature that did the European settlers. There is no myth there is factual evidence.
 
Ecologists do not think that the northeastern forests were destroyed by the American Indians in that area. There were conflicts in Native Americans. In never meant to imply there were not. The fact that the Europeans were tolerated at all and helped was impressive by the Indians. What the Europeans did to the American Indians is sad. To imply that the Europeans became an ally to the Native Americans is not supported by history or records.
 
Top