I mean, Mullerornis---look--somethings are 'unfair' because of traditional precedence, which causes society to have a double standard about them. Just look at the current issue on Marijuana. Smoking tobacco is really bad for you, and it's perfectly legal, while Cannabis will get you jail time. This is pretty much just because of historical precedence. This is slowly changing because the argument for Cannabis is compelling. However, the best arguments for Cannabis aren't "You get your cigarettes so I should get my joint. They're both equally horrible for you!"
You don't change minds by shouting "You're all a bunch of hypocrites!" because we're all a bunch of hypocrites. All of us are about something, and we all know it; no one is disputing that. I know it might seem to you that people here are making some kind of argument about that, but no one is.
See, if you want to show that people are discriminating against something unfairly it's not enough to call them hypocrites. You have to SHOW that what you're proposing is worth consideration. You have to make a real CASE about it. Saying "I'm just as bad as you!" isn't enough. You need to show that you're just as GOOD as they are.
__________________
And you haven't yet because you've been too busy attacking people's character.
Sorry for my confusion. I hope you can undertand it, since Kraken B. Trippin didn't say 'Neo' once.
But, I'm sure now--as an attempt to piggyback on your post if nothing else-- he will claim he meant 'Neo' all along.
No, I have the brass to say that Christianity can stand on it's own two feet and argue in favor of it's own existence independent of PAGANISM. Not Neo-Paganism, but paganism itself.
Paganism may have come "first", but that doesn't mean that as a Christian that my default answer to any question you throw at me is "Ask a pagan first, then I'll give you an answer".
Hence why the OP is summarily defeated in this debate. He not only cannot, but he WILL not provide reasons as to why "Neo-Paganism" or whatever religion he is even talking about should be taken as seriously as Christianity. He refuses to participate in the debate, therefore, he's lost before he begins. And does a helluva lot more damage to the validity of alternate faiths than he realizes.
I'm of the opinion that the OP is actually just a hidden atheist who is bullheadedly trying to make some sort of hamfisted point that all religion is pointless and thus nobody should believe anything. Which I wold honestly prefer at this point.
If the OP cannot justify the existence of Neo-Paganism, Old School Paganism, Norse Reconstructionism, Discordianism or Pastafarianism on their own two feet without demanding that Christianity defend itself first, then none of the above religions deserve to be treated as equally as Christianity.
No, I have the brass to say that Christianity can stand on it's own two feet and argue in favor of it's own existence independent of PAGANISM.
So, umm... why don't you do it?
...
This thread is really just a Mexican standoff at this point, isn't it?
No one wants to actually make an augment over the validity of their religious beliefs, do they? Everyone is trying to push the other guy into the pool first, while they beat their chest over how good a swimmer they are.
I'll go first if you guys want, but honestly I'm beginning to see that which belief is more defensible isn't really the point at all.
__________________
No, I have the brass to say that Christianity can stand on it's own two feet and argue in favor of it's own existence independent of PAGANISM.
So, umm... why don't you do it?
...
This thread is really just a Mexican standoff at this point, isn't it?
No one wants to actually make an augment over the validity of their religious beliefs, do they? Everyone is trying to push the other guy into the pool first, while they beat their chest over how good a swimmer they are.
I'll go first if you guys want, but honestly I'm beginning to see that which belief is more defensible isn't really the point at all.
__________________
"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
-Macbeth
I'll gladly make another thread on it. Because hijacking this thread to be yet another "Is Christianity Valid" debate will only further serve to allow the OP to hide without having to defend the validity of his own religion.
I'll gladly make another thread on it. Because hijacking this thread to be yet another "Is Christianity Valid" debate will only further serve to allow the OP to hide without having to defend the validity of his own religion.
Bet you to it. I'm hoping Mullerornis will also post there explaining why paganism is the most valid.
However, now I'm really confused. What is the point of this thread? Is it just this? A yes or a no?
This thread is really just a Mexican standoff at this point, isn't it?
It's not so much a Mexican standoff as it is everyone is pointing their guns at Mullerornis, Mullerornis has no weapon at all, and Mullerornis is calling for everyone else to surrender.
Sorry for my confusion. I hope you can undertand it, since Kraken B. Trippin didn't say 'Neo' once.
But, I'm sure now--as an attempt to piggyback on your post if nothing else-- he will claim he meant 'Neo' all along.
No, I have the brass to say that Christianity can stand on it's own two feet and argue in favor of it's own existence independent of PAGANISM. Not Neo-Paganism, but paganism itself.
Paganism may have come "first", but that doesn't mean that as a Christian that my default answer to any question you throw at me is "Ask a pagan first, then I'll give you an answer".
Hence why the OP is summarily defeated in this debate. He not only cannot, but he WILL not provide reasons as to why "Neo-Paganism" or whatever religion he is even talking about should be taken as seriously as Christianity. He refuses to participate in the debate, therefore, he's lost before he begins. And does a helluva lot more damage to the validity of alternate faiths than he realizes.
I'm of the opinion that the OP is actually just a hidden atheist who is bullheadedly trying to make some sort of hamfisted point that all religion is pointless and thus nobody should believe anything. Which I wold honestly prefer at this point.
If the OP cannot justify the existence of Neo-Paganism, Old School Paganism, Norse Reconstructionism, Discordianism or Pastafarianism on their own two feet without demanding that Christianity defend itself first, then none of the above religions deserve to be treated as equally as Christianity.
1- I didn't argue for "it comes first". That is irrelevant. However, the fact that it is the origin of ethics latter practised by christians does have relevance in that regard.
2- Making lots of assumptions = rational argumentation now?
Okay I guess it's up to me to defend paganism, since the only person who's shown any interest in doing so would rather have a troll battle with highroller. (calm down BS, im not calling anyone a troll, I'm saying people are repeating themselves without listening to the other person).
EVERY PERSON in this thread has very incorrectly assumed what paganism is. Paganism is not a relgion like other religions are. Paganism is ANY set of beliefs that says that the order of nature is greater than we are. Thats it.
There are so many different sects, they cannot be named. In fact, if you have an idea of the unanswered questions, as long as that idea includes the power of nature being bigger than humanity, it is a pagan belief.
Neo-Pagans near universally abhor orthodoxy. I'm a pagan, and I find the personification of forces of nature as outdated, childish, and silly as the belief of the white bearded cloud surfing god who loves you but hates everything you do.
Deities cannot be proven, or proven incorrect. Any attempt to belittle your opponents position on religious belief via proof is a waste of time, because it is a fallacy in logic to do so. That is the whole idea of religion. Religion requires faith. Science requires proof. THAT is why religion and science don't mix well.
As a pagan I do not see the sun as a sentient being, I see it as a cosmic source of power for all living things. Need proof? Call a botanist.
As a pagan I do not see the moon as a sentient being, I see it as a cosmic source of all life. Need proof? Light reflected off the moon is responsible for many biological processes.
As a pagan I do not see the forest as a sentient being, I see it as a place where nature, the creator of all life, is herself. Some people call it a church, I simply call it the best place you can be (guess what my favorite color in magic is).
Identifying all pagans as Wiccans, or assuming they believe the same things as ancient pagans, is assanine. Do jews still stone people for wearing fabric made from two different sources? Hell no.
Beliefs change over time. Christianity as it is now is so terribly different from how it was in the year 400. All of the lovely holidays you love to celebrate, christmas, easter, etc. etc. are actually of pagan creation.
Does this mean ancient pagans knew something Christians didn't? Hell no. Ancient pagans were RIDICULOUS. As pointed out they thought sacrificing animals and people would make more rain. But there is a difference.
I can choose what to believe as a pagan. I can choose to believe that the sun creates the seasons (the basic process of life), or I can choose to believe it as a sentient being that wants me to sacrifice chickens.
Not a lot of religions out there where you can choose what to believe...
EVERY PERSON in this thread has very incorrectly assumed what paganism is. Paganism is not a relgion like other religions are. Paganism is ANY set of beliefs that says that the order of nature is greater than we are. Thats it.
Except the definition of the word "pagan" means "religions that are not Christianity." You'll have to define it further than that.
Deities cannot be proven, or proven incorrect. Any attempt to belittle your opponents position on religious belief via proof is a waste of time, because it is a fallacy in logic to do so. That is the whole idea of religion. Religion requires faith. Science requires proof. THAT is why religion and science don't mix well.
Except that's ridiculous. If there is no evidence whatsoever pointing toward your religion, then why believe it in the first place?
No, people who believe in religions believe that there IS indeed proof of the existence of God, or gods, or theistic beings of whatever kind.
As a pagan I do not see the sun as a sentient being,
But there are pagans who DO see the sun as a sentient being, the moon as a sentient being, and the forests as sentient beings. You may object to all forms of paganism being lumped together, but do not then claim that you speak for all those who identify themselves as holding a pagan faith.
Identifying all pagans as Wiccans, or assuming they believe the same things as ancient pagans, is assanine.
Not entirely, as do not Wiccans and other Neo-Pagans make the claim that their practices are authentic to ancient religions?
Further, recognize that it was the OP who attempted to lump all pagan practices together. I agree that regarding them all as the same religion is a mistake.
All of the lovely holidays you love to celebrate, christmas, easter, etc. etc. are actually of pagan creation.
This actually annoys me. Easter is not a pagan holiday. Easter is a Christian holiday. It is the celebration of Jesus' resurrection. It has its roots in the celebration of Passover due to Jesus being crucified on or a day away from the celebration of Passover, and for Jesus being regarded as the Passover Lamb for the world, but it is not the same holiday as Passover, and is certainly not a pagan holiday in the sense of pagan being a non-Abrahamic faith.
Identifying all pagans as Wiccans, or assuming they believe the same things as ancient pagans, is assanine. Do jews still stone people for wearing fabric made from two different sources? Hell no.
Alright, sure.
But that doesn't mean we can't criticize Wicca, or other specific neo-Pagan belief systems, on the specific grounds rehearsed here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
As a pagan I do not see the sun as a sentient being, I see it as a cosmic source of power for all living things. Need proof? Call a botanist.
As a pagan I do not see the moon as a sentient being, I see it as a cosmic source of all life. Need proof? Light reflected off the moon is responsible for many biological processes.
So in your case "pagan" means "using quasi-poetic language to describe certain natural phenomena?" K, but it sounds a bit like this, no offense
As a pagan I do not see the sun as a sentient being, I see it as a cosmic source of power for all living things. Need proof? Call a botanist.
As a pagan I do not see the moon as a sentient being, I see it as a cosmic source of all life. Need proof? Light reflected off the moon is responsible for many biological processes.
So in your case "pagan" means "using quasi-poetic language to describe certain natural phenomena?" K, but it sounds a bit like this, no offense
I despise ICP. Isn't that what all religion is; An attempt to understand the forces we cannot see empirically?
As a pagan I do not see the forest as a sentient being, I see it as a place where nature, the creator of all life, is herself.
And the oceans, the islands, the mountains, the plains, the swamps... why privilege forests (as cool as forests are)?
All above lands you describe are homes to many forms of life. The forest is the cradle of humanity. The forest is not more special than the other places, it is what is special for ME. This is where you have failed to understand what paganism is. It's a religion in that it is spiritual, not doctrine. It is love for your creator, and respect for the power she has. People choose to acknowledge and show respect in their own way. Some people its worshipping deities that we find to be comical, some people it's simply a moral compass.
Identifying all pagans as Wiccans, or assuming they believe the same things as ancient pagans, is assanine. Do jews still stone people for wearing fabric made from two different sources? Hell no.
Alright, sure.
But that doesn't mean we can't criticize Wicca, or other specific neo-Pagan belief systems, on the specific grounds rehearsed here.
You can criticize beliefs and ideas all you want. Criticizing paganism as a generality is like saying monotheism is dumb because Mormonism is clearly made up.
EVERY PERSON in this thread has very incorrectly assumed what paganism is. Paganism is not a relgion like other religions are. Paganism is ANY set of beliefs that says that the order of nature is greater than we are. Thats it.
Except the definition of the word "pagan" means "religions that are not Christianity." You'll have to define it further than that.
Well than I suppose your criticisms of paganism were very far off if that is the standard you're using. Like most people who aren't being a smart ass, I was talking about neo-paganism. Wicca is to paganism as Christianity is to monotheism.
Deities cannot be proven, or proven incorrect. Any attempt to belittle your opponents position on religious belief via proof is a waste of time, because it is a fallacy in logic to do so. That is the whole idea of religion. Religion requires faith. Science requires proof. THAT is why religion and science don't mix well.
Except that's ridiculous. If there is no evidence whatsoever pointing toward your religion, then why believe it in the first place?
No, people who believe in religions believe that there IS indeed proof of the existence of God, or gods, or theistic beings of whatever kind.
Wow Highroller, you might as well have said "Because A is not B, you can clearly say that C is not D." You cannot prove a Deity. You can look at something and tell yourself that it is proof, but there will always have to be an element of faith in order for it to be actual proof.
Some Christians say dinosaur bones are proof that satan wants us to ignore the bible.
As a pagan I do not see the sun as a sentient being,
But there are pagans who DO see the sun as a sentient being, the moon as a sentient being, and the forests as sentient beings. You may object to all forms of paganism being lumped together, but do not then claim that you speak for all those who identify themselves as holding a pagan faith.
I wasn't lumping them together, in fact I was demonstrating that they shouldn't be lumped together. I never claimed to speak for all those who identify with holding a pagan faith, I had said I was the only one that was going to defend paganism in this thread.
Identifying all pagans as Wiccans, or assuming they believe the same things as ancient pagans, is assanine.
Not entirely, as do not Wiccans and other Neo-Pagans make the claim that their practices are authentic to ancient religions?
Further, recognize that it was the OP who attempted to lump all pagan practices together. I agree that regarding them all as the same religion is a mistake.
They may very well try to believe exactly what ancient pagans believe, and that's fine. Not all pagans do.
Funny to me that you say the OP lumped them together: "a mistake", yet you think paganism is stupid because of Greek god A or Norse god B or insane cultural practice C.
All of the lovely holidays you love to celebrate, christmas, easter, etc. etc. are actually of pagan creation.
This actually annoys me. Easter is not a pagan holiday. Easter is a Christian holiday. It is the celebration of Jesus' resurrection. It has its roots in the celebration of Passover due to Jesus being crucified on or a day away from the celebration of Passover, and for Jesus being regarded as the Passover Lamb for the world, but it is not the same holiday as Passover, and is certainly not a pagan holiday in the sense of pagan being a non-Abrahamic faith.
Wrong again. Easter is the celebration of spring. Just goes to show how very little you know about pre-monotheistic holy days and really the Christian religion. Christians celebrate the (many)pagan story(s) of Yule on Easter. The day that Easter was celebrated on is the vernal equinox. Like Christmas (as Jesus was born in June and was celebrated in December to identify and kill the pagans who were secretly adhering to their faith) Easter was just another day to be celebrated on the wrong day to find out where all those crazy gods fearing pagans could be slaughtered en mass.
Well than I suppose your criticisms of paganism were very far off if that is the standard you're using. Like most people who aren't being a smart ass, I was talking about neo-paganism. Wicca is to paganism as Christianity is to monotheism.
After an 8 page thread discussing paganism and neopaganism and the divide between them, it is not an imposition to ask you to actually clarify what you mean by using the correct terminology.
Also, to say you're defending neopaganism falls flat when your beliefs are not indicative of neopaganism by your own admission. You even discuss at length to explain how many claims by neo-pagans are ridiculous in your eyes. So no, I don't believe you can say you were talking about neo-paganism.
Wow Highroller, you might as well have said "Because A is not B, you can clearly say that C is not D." You cannot prove a Deity.
Of course you can. A statement that an entity exists that interacts with the world in __ ways with __ personality traits is absolutely a claim that can be proven, as it is making a statement about reality and the existence of something within reality.
In fact, you seem to acknowledge this by saying that the worship of deities is a ridiculous notion. So clearly, proving or disproving deities is something you're comfortable making a statement about.
I wasn't lumping them together, in fact I was demonstrating that they shouldn't be lumped together. I never claimed to speak for all those who identify with holding a pagan faith, I had said I was the only one that was going to defend paganism in this thread.
Again with the poor choices of wording. Are you defending paganism? Neo-paganism? Your own form of paganism believed by specifically you? What are you even discussing? Are you yourself sure of what your subject matter is?
Wrong again. Easter is the celebration of spring.
No, Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of Christ on the third day after his crucifixion.
Christians celebrate the (many)pagan story(s) of Yule on Easter.
No, because Yule takes place in December and has no relationship to Easter.
The day that Easter was celebrated on is the vernal equinox.
Yes, because that's when Passover is celebrated. Hence why Easter is, in many languages, called pascha: because of the Paschal Moon.
Easter was just another day to be celebrated on the wrong day to find out where all those crazy gods fearing pagans could be slaughtered en mass.
No it isn't, because again, we know where it originated from, and that is the Jewish holiday of Passover.
The closest thing Easter has to any non-Jewish pagan holiday is the fact that in English, its name is "Easter," taking its name from Eostre, the month dedicated to the goddess Eostre. However, to claim that this makes Easter a pagan celebration is like claiming that Business Casual Friday is a pagan holiday because "Friday" descends from "Frigg's Day."
There are plenty of non-empirical forces. The soul for instance is something that we cannot quantify.
Why not?
Anyway, instead of continuing with the Socratic method, let me just cut to the chase to save us some time.
If something (we'll say 'the soul' to say on topic) can affect the world, then it is subject to empiricism. If it can't affect the world, then who cares?
If you tell me the soul is immune to empiricism then you're telling me it doesn't physically do anything. You are claiming that nothing about the soul manifests as anything measurable, and remember that things like 'feelings' are measurable.[1]
So, if the soul does anything that manifests as a physical thing, then it would be an "empirical forces." Are you claiming that the soul has no effect whatsoever on anything?
Wrong again. Easter is the celebration of spring. Just goes to show how very little you know about pre-monotheistic holy days and really the Christian religion. Christians celebrate the (many)pagan story(s) of Yule on Easter. The day that Easter was celebrated on is the vernal equinox. Like Christmas (as Jesus was born in June and was celebrated in December to identify and kill the pagans who were secretly adhering to their faith) Easter was just another day to be celebrated on the wrong day to find out where all those crazy gods fearing pagans could be slaughtered en mass.
There is exactly one historical source that discusses the pagan festival of Éostre, and that is the Venerable Bede, a Christian monk writing in the 700s. What Bede says is that the pagan Anglo-Saxons celebrated the eponymous goddess in the spring, which is why the time around the vernal equinox was called Éostremónaþ or "Easter-month". Now that the Anglo-Saxons had converted, they no longer observed the festival, but instead picked up the Christian holiday celebrating Christ's resurrection, which in most European languages was named something like Pascha after the Hebrew Pesach, "Passover". However, the Anglo-Saxons started calling the holiday after the old term Éostremónaþ in which it fell; hence, "Easter".
Thus, (a) the pagan artifact name is a peculiarly English phenomenon, not found in the languages of the rest of Christendom; (b) the name may have no more real pagan significance than "Casual Friday" does because Friday was originally Frigg's day; (c) there is no evidence at all that it was used as a device to slaughter pagans en masse.
As for Christmas... there is no historical source that states Jesus was born in June. "Yule" is associated with Christmas, not Easter, and the word has much the same story (although it is better attested): Germanic pagans called the time around their winter celebration "Yule-month", so when they stopped celebrating a pagan holiday in that time and started celebrating a Christian one, they retained the old terminology. And once again, there is no evidence of slaughter associated with the holiday.
So the next time, before you tout your superior historical knowledge, make sure you have some. You have to be careful what you believe. Neopaganism may only be a century old, but already its adherents are the equals of any other religion in this respect: they confabulate to make themselves look better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This is probably why nobody would defend paganism.
It's also why paganism is not understood and is laughed at.
I'm not going to bother explaining every facet of every part of what I, or other people may believe.
As for the OP, if Pagan religions are discriminated in the west, it is most certainly because you people in the west havn't the slightest notion of what their religion is.
If the reluctance or inability to explain paganism is indicative of the religion--as it seems to be with the two who practice it here--then I can understand why people feel it's worthy of mockery.
No one respects the indefensible, and no one should.
You can criticize beliefs and ideas all you want. Criticizing paganism as a generality is like saying monotheism is dumb because Mormonism is clearly made up.
Well, sure.
But at the same time, I could say that what little you've said of your particular Paganism sounds dumb, and because we're using vague language and because you haven't defined your Paganism as anything in particular, call it "Paganism."
This is probably why nobody would defend paganism.
It's also why paganism is not understood and is laughed at.
I'm not going to bother explaining every facet of every part of what I, or other people may believe.
As for the OP, if Pagan religions are discriminated in the west, it is most certainly because you people in the west havn't the slightest notion of what their religion is.
I mean, if your complaint is that no-one understands Paganism because no-one explains it, and then you refuse to explain what you mean by Paganism, you can understand why it makes your complaints seem a little bit self-serving.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
The soul for instance is something that we cannot quantify.
Also, I'll add that this is fundamentally against what I believe. Souls are very quantifiable, at least in the sense that I interpret the soul. It actually fascinated me when I sat down and examined what I believed because of how spiritual it was, yet how strongly it correlated to science.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You don't change minds by shouting "You're all a bunch of hypocrites!" because we're all a bunch of hypocrites. All of us are about something, and we all know it; no one is disputing that. I know it might seem to you that people here are making some kind of argument about that, but no one is.
See, if you want to show that people are discriminating against something unfairly it's not enough to call them hypocrites. You have to SHOW that what you're proposing is worth consideration. You have to make a real CASE about it. Saying "I'm just as bad as you!" isn't enough. You need to show that you're just as GOOD as they are.
__________________
And you haven't yet because you've been too busy attacking people's character.
No, I have the brass to say that Christianity can stand on it's own two feet and argue in favor of it's own existence independent of PAGANISM. Not Neo-Paganism, but paganism itself.
Paganism may have come "first", but that doesn't mean that as a Christian that my default answer to any question you throw at me is "Ask a pagan first, then I'll give you an answer".
Hence why the OP is summarily defeated in this debate. He not only cannot, but he WILL not provide reasons as to why "Neo-Paganism" or whatever religion he is even talking about should be taken as seriously as Christianity. He refuses to participate in the debate, therefore, he's lost before he begins. And does a helluva lot more damage to the validity of alternate faiths than he realizes.
I'm of the opinion that the OP is actually just a hidden atheist who is bullheadedly trying to make some sort of hamfisted point that all religion is pointless and thus nobody should believe anything. Which I wold honestly prefer at this point.
If the OP cannot justify the existence of Neo-Paganism, Old School Paganism, Norse Reconstructionism, Discordianism or Pastafarianism on their own two feet without demanding that Christianity defend itself first, then none of the above religions deserve to be treated as equally as Christianity.
So, umm... why don't you do it?
...
This thread is really just a Mexican standoff at this point, isn't it?
No one wants to actually make an augment over the validity of their religious beliefs, do they? Everyone is trying to push the other guy into the pool first, while they beat their chest over how good a swimmer they are.
I'll go first if you guys want, but honestly I'm beginning to see that which belief is more defensible isn't really the point at all.
__________________ -Macbeth
I'll gladly make another thread on it. Because hijacking this thread to be yet another "Is Christianity Valid" debate will only further serve to allow the OP to hide without having to defend the validity of his own religion.
However, now I'm really confused. What is the point of this thread? Is it just this? A yes or a no?
It's not so much a Mexican standoff as it is everyone is pointing their guns at Mullerornis, Mullerornis has no weapon at all, and Mullerornis is calling for everyone else to surrender.
1- I didn't argue for "it comes first". That is irrelevant. However, the fact that it is the origin of ethics latter practised by christians does have relevance in that regard.
2- Making lots of assumptions = rational argumentation now?
EVERY PERSON in this thread has very incorrectly assumed what paganism is. Paganism is not a relgion like other religions are. Paganism is ANY set of beliefs that says that the order of nature is greater than we are. Thats it.
There are so many different sects, they cannot be named. In fact, if you have an idea of the unanswered questions, as long as that idea includes the power of nature being bigger than humanity, it is a pagan belief.
Neo-Pagans near universally abhor orthodoxy. I'm a pagan, and I find the personification of forces of nature as outdated, childish, and silly as the belief of the white bearded cloud surfing god who loves you but hates everything you do.
Deities cannot be proven, or proven incorrect. Any attempt to belittle your opponents position on religious belief via proof is a waste of time, because it is a fallacy in logic to do so. That is the whole idea of religion. Religion requires faith. Science requires proof. THAT is why religion and science don't mix well.
As a pagan I do not see the sun as a sentient being, I see it as a cosmic source of power for all living things. Need proof? Call a botanist.
As a pagan I do not see the moon as a sentient being, I see it as a cosmic source of all life. Need proof? Light reflected off the moon is responsible for many biological processes.
As a pagan I do not see the forest as a sentient being, I see it as a place where nature, the creator of all life, is herself. Some people call it a church, I simply call it the best place you can be (guess what my favorite color in magic is).
Identifying all pagans as Wiccans, or assuming they believe the same things as ancient pagans, is assanine. Do jews still stone people for wearing fabric made from two different sources? Hell no.
Beliefs change over time. Christianity as it is now is so terribly different from how it was in the year 400. All of the lovely holidays you love to celebrate, christmas, easter, etc. etc. are actually of pagan creation.
Does this mean ancient pagans knew something Christians didn't? Hell no. Ancient pagans were RIDICULOUS. As pointed out they thought sacrificing animals and people would make more rain. But there is a difference.
I can choose what to believe as a pagan. I can choose to believe that the sun creates the seasons (the basic process of life), or I can choose to believe it as a sentient being that wants me to sacrifice chickens.
Not a lot of religions out there where you can choose what to believe...
Except the definition of the word "pagan" means "religions that are not Christianity." You'll have to define it further than that.
Except that's ridiculous. If there is no evidence whatsoever pointing toward your religion, then why believe it in the first place?
No, people who believe in religions believe that there IS indeed proof of the existence of God, or gods, or theistic beings of whatever kind.
But there are pagans who DO see the sun as a sentient being, the moon as a sentient being, and the forests as sentient beings. You may object to all forms of paganism being lumped together, but do not then claim that you speak for all those who identify themselves as holding a pagan faith.
Not entirely, as do not Wiccans and other Neo-Pagans make the claim that their practices are authentic to ancient religions?
Further, recognize that it was the OP who attempted to lump all pagan practices together. I agree that regarding them all as the same religion is a mistake.
This actually annoys me. Easter is not a pagan holiday. Easter is a Christian holiday. It is the celebration of Jesus' resurrection. It has its roots in the celebration of Passover due to Jesus being crucified on or a day away from the celebration of Passover, and for Jesus being regarded as the Passover Lamb for the world, but it is not the same holiday as Passover, and is certainly not a pagan holiday in the sense of pagan being a non-Abrahamic faith.
Alright, sure.
But that doesn't mean we can't criticize Wicca, or other specific neo-Pagan belief systems, on the specific grounds rehearsed here.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Yeah, you can't really prove any god-claim, but you can actually reject certain god-claims—namely, the logically inconsistent ones.
So in your case "pagan" means "using quasi-poetic language to describe certain natural phenomena?" K, but it sounds a bit like this, no offense
And the oceans, the islands, the mountains, the plains, the swamps... why privilege forests (as cool as forests are)?
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I despise ICP. Isn't that what all religion is; An attempt to understand the forces we cannot see empirically?
All above lands you describe are homes to many forms of life. The forest is the cradle of humanity. The forest is not more special than the other places, it is what is special for ME. This is where you have failed to understand what paganism is. It's a religion in that it is spiritual, not doctrine. It is love for your creator, and respect for the power she has. People choose to acknowledge and show respect in their own way. Some people its worshipping deities that we find to be comical, some people it's simply a moral compass.
You can criticize beliefs and ideas all you want. Criticizing paganism as a generality is like saying monotheism is dumb because Mormonism is clearly made up.
Well than I suppose your criticisms of paganism were very far off if that is the standard you're using. Like most people who aren't being a smart ass, I was talking about neo-paganism. Wicca is to paganism as Christianity is to monotheism.
Wow Highroller, you might as well have said "Because A is not B, you can clearly say that C is not D." You cannot prove a Deity. You can look at something and tell yourself that it is proof, but there will always have to be an element of faith in order for it to be actual proof.
Some Christians say dinosaur bones are proof that satan wants us to ignore the bible.
I wasn't lumping them together, in fact I was demonstrating that they shouldn't be lumped together. I never claimed to speak for all those who identify with holding a pagan faith, I had said I was the only one that was going to defend paganism in this thread.
They may very well try to believe exactly what ancient pagans believe, and that's fine. Not all pagans do.
Funny to me that you say the OP lumped them together: "a mistake", yet you think paganism is stupid because of Greek god A or Norse god B or insane cultural practice C.
Wrong again. Easter is the celebration of spring. Just goes to show how very little you know about pre-monotheistic holy days and really the Christian religion. Christians celebrate the (many)pagan story(s) of Yule on Easter. The day that Easter was celebrated on is the vernal equinox. Like Christmas (as Jesus was born in June and was celebrated in December to identify and kill the pagans who were secretly adhering to their faith) Easter was just another day to be celebrated on the wrong day to find out where all those crazy gods fearing pagans could be slaughtered en mass.
What does that mean?
Like what?
After an 8 page thread discussing paganism and neopaganism and the divide between them, it is not an imposition to ask you to actually clarify what you mean by using the correct terminology.
Also, to say you're defending neopaganism falls flat when your beliefs are not indicative of neopaganism by your own admission. You even discuss at length to explain how many claims by neo-pagans are ridiculous in your eyes. So no, I don't believe you can say you were talking about neo-paganism.
Of course you can. A statement that an entity exists that interacts with the world in __ ways with __ personality traits is absolutely a claim that can be proven, as it is making a statement about reality and the existence of something within reality.
In fact, you seem to acknowledge this by saying that the worship of deities is a ridiculous notion. So clearly, proving or disproving deities is something you're comfortable making a statement about.
Again with the poor choices of wording. Are you defending paganism? Neo-paganism? Your own form of paganism believed by specifically you? What are you even discussing? Are you yourself sure of what your subject matter is?
No, Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of Christ on the third day after his crucifixion.
No, because Yule takes place in December and has no relationship to Easter.
Yes, because that's when Passover is celebrated. Hence why Easter is, in many languages, called pascha: because of the Paschal Moon.
No it isn't, because again, we know where it originated from, and that is the Jewish holiday of Passover.
The closest thing Easter has to any non-Jewish pagan holiday is the fact that in English, its name is "Easter," taking its name from Eostre, the month dedicated to the goddess Eostre. However, to claim that this makes Easter a pagan celebration is like claiming that Business Casual Friday is a pagan holiday because "Friday" descends from "Frigg's Day."
There are plenty of non-empirical forces. The soul for instance is something that we cannot quantify.
Why not?
Anyway, instead of continuing with the Socratic method, let me just cut to the chase to save us some time.
If something (we'll say 'the soul' to say on topic) can affect the world, then it is subject to empiricism. If it can't affect the world, then who cares?
If you tell me the soul is immune to empiricism then you're telling me it doesn't physically do anything. You are claiming that nothing about the soul manifests as anything measurable, and remember that things like 'feelings' are measurable.[1]
So, if the soul does anything that manifests as a physical thing, then it would be an "empirical forces." Are you claiming that the soul has no effect whatsoever on anything?
There is exactly one historical source that discusses the pagan festival of Éostre, and that is the Venerable Bede, a Christian monk writing in the 700s. What Bede says is that the pagan Anglo-Saxons celebrated the eponymous goddess in the spring, which is why the time around the vernal equinox was called Éostremónaþ or "Easter-month". Now that the Anglo-Saxons had converted, they no longer observed the festival, but instead picked up the Christian holiday celebrating Christ's resurrection, which in most European languages was named something like Pascha after the Hebrew Pesach, "Passover". However, the Anglo-Saxons started calling the holiday after the old term Éostremónaþ in which it fell; hence, "Easter".
Thus, (a) the pagan artifact name is a peculiarly English phenomenon, not found in the languages of the rest of Christendom; (b) the name may have no more real pagan significance than "Casual Friday" does because Friday was originally Frigg's day; (c) there is no evidence at all that it was used as a device to slaughter pagans en masse.
As for Christmas... there is no historical source that states Jesus was born in June. "Yule" is associated with Christmas, not Easter, and the word has much the same story (although it is better attested): Germanic pagans called the time around their winter celebration "Yule-month", so when they stopped celebrating a pagan holiday in that time and started celebrating a Christian one, they retained the old terminology. And once again, there is no evidence of slaughter associated with the holiday.
So the next time, before you tout your superior historical knowledge, make sure you have some. You have to be careful what you believe. Neopaganism may only be a century old, but already its adherents are the equals of any other religion in this respect: they confabulate to make themselves look better.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't think that's really true. I'm not even clear on what it means for a species to "start" or "begin".
It's also why paganism is not understood and is laughed at.
I'm not going to bother explaining every facet of every part of what I, or other people may believe.
As for the OP, if Pagan religions are discriminated in the west, it is most certainly because you people in the west havn't the slightest notion of what their religion is.
No one respects the indefensible, and no one should.
Well, sure.
But at the same time, I could say that what little you've said of your particular Paganism sounds dumb, and because we're using vague language and because you haven't defined your Paganism as anything in particular, call it "Paganism."
Our species evolved on grasslands. That's why we are bipedal; because we need to be able to walk long distances.
To say that something cannot be measured empirically is not the same thing as saying that it is not logically consistent with itself.
I mean, if your complaint is that no-one understands Paganism because no-one explains it, and then you refuse to explain what you mean by Paganism, you can understand why it makes your complaints seem a little bit self-serving.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Also, I'll add that this is fundamentally against what I believe. Souls are very quantifiable, at least in the sense that I interpret the soul. It actually fascinated me when I sat down and examined what I believed because of how spiritual it was, yet how strongly it correlated to science.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player