Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Pagan Topic => Topic started by: Shaker on December 31, 2016, 12:16:40 PM
-
One on which to end the old year.
A few days ago I was reading and came across a short quote (if I can retrace my steps I'll post the exact words, though the following is a very close paraphrase) which runs something along these lines: "Paganism is based on an innate/inherent human reaction to the natural world. If every scrap of knowledge of Christianity, Judaism and Islam disappeared from the world overnight, they would and could never be recreated in anywhere near the same form (if at all), but paganism would."
Is there anything in this? I strongly suspect so.
-
One on which to end the old year.
A few days ago I was reading and came across a short quote (if I can retrace my steps I'll post the exact words) which runs something along these lines: "Paganism is based on an innate/inherent human reaction to the natural world. If every scrap of knowledge of Christianity, Judaism and Islam disappeared from the world overnight, they would and could never be recreated in anywhere near the same form (if at all), but paganism would."
Is there anything in this? I strongly suspect so.
Mmm I think here 'one of these is not like the others, one of these just doesn't belong'. It reads like a category error and would be better comparing paganism with monotheism in which case I suspect both are likely to emerge. Further as an atheist I cannot see how anything that has emerged is not an innate and inherent human reaction.
-
Mmm I think here 'one of these is not like the others, one of these just doesn't belong'. It reads like a category error and would be better comparing paganism with monotheism in which case I suspect both are likely to emerge.
This would certainly be the case if, as seems likely, theism develops from an innate sense of agency detection (for which there's now abundant evidence), so yes, theism and especially monotheism(s) would very likely still arise if we were to run the programme again from scratch - though not in their specific current forms.
-
This would certainly be the case if, as seems likely, theism develops from an innate sense of agency detection (for which there's now abundant evidence), so yes, theism and especially monotheism(s) would very likely still arise if we were to run the programme again from scratch - though not in their specific current forms.
But surely paganism is so wide in its definition that it doesn't fit the form definition that apply to Christianity, Islam, Judaism so it's not a valid comparison?
-
One on which to end the old year.
A few days ago I was reading and came across a short quote (if I can retrace my steps I'll post the exact words, though the following is a very close paraphrase) which runs something along these lines: "Paganism is based on an innate/inherent human reaction to the natural world. If every scrap of knowledge of Christianity, Judaism and Islam disappeared from the world overnight, they would and could never be recreated in anywhere near the same form (if at all), but paganism would."
Is there anything in this? I strongly suspect so.
Paganism is based on a particular understanding of the natural world, in much the same way that the other belief-systems mentioned are. Since neither Hinduism or Buddhism, let alone Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Shintoism, animism and various other belief-systems aren't mentioned by name, would I be right in thinking that the author regards them all as forms of paganism? If so, Paganism suddenly becomes a far broader 'church' than I've ever understood it to be.
-
The monotheisms you mention are basically intellectualised variants of the phenomena's of paganism. So as paganism is a function of the human psyche so in time monotheism at least would arise - assuming the intellectual will was there as it is now. As a Christ figure type was reproduced in other religions, including various pagan beliefs, before the actual Christ figure appeared in Christianity, then the form of these proposed monotheisms would include what is essentially a Hero figure, as Christ is, and the rhetoric that goes with all this.
I think it was Dicky who pointed out in a recent thread that he thought that Christianity was just an elaborate pagan format. From my archetypal reading of Jung's psychology this made sense, though before this I had not bothered to joined the dots on this.
Btw, nice question.
-
What exactly do 'we' all understand as Paganism anyway ?
Nick
-
This would certainly be the case if, as seems likely, theism develops from an innate sense of agency detection (for which there's now abundant evidence), ....
Its interesting that it all has toi be brought down to and 'blamed' on evolution, Shakes.
I also like the definition of 'agent detection' from wikipedia - Agent detection is the inclination for animals, including humans, to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent in situations that may or may not involve one.
Is there any evidence that animals other than humans presume anything in this way? Are their brains that far advanced? If not, I'd suggest that the whole concept is a red herring
-
I think it was Dicky who pointed out in a recent thread that he thought that Christianity was just an elaborate pagan format. From my archetypal reading of Jung's psychology this made sense, though before this I had not bothered to joined the dots on this.
Nt sure that Jung's take actually touches on the subject sufficiently to give an answer either way, JK; but the very idea suggests that this isn't some accidental process, but one with some degree of rationality.
I notice that no-one has really answered the early question as to what paganism is.
-
Nt sure that Jung's take actually touches on the subject sufficiently to give an answer either way, JK; but the very idea suggests that this isn't some accidental process, but one with some degree of rationality.
I notice that no-one has really answered the early question as to what paganism is.
Strawman on Jack Knave's statement, and then a flip out into an assertion and a naturalistic fallacy to end on. Funky fallacy routine!
-
One on which to end the old year.
A few days ago I was reading and came across a short quote (if I can retrace my steps I'll post the exact words, though the following is a very close paraphrase) which runs something along these lines: "Paganism is based on an innate/inherent human reaction to the natural world. If every scrap of knowledge of Christianity, Judaism and Islam disappeared from the world overnight, they would and could never be recreated in anywhere near the same form (if at all), but paganism would."
Is there anything in this? I strongly suspect so.
That would be animism, not paganism, no ? Paganism is poorly defined and derivative; animism is the closest thing to an indigenous religion for homo sapiens imv.
-
Its interesting that it all has toi be brought down to and 'blamed' on evolution, Shakes.
There's no blame attached. And it's interesting purely because evolution is why we're here and are the way we are, and that's as interesting as it gets.
I also like the definition of 'agent detection' from wikipedia - Is there any evidence that animals other than humans presume anything in this way? Are their brains that far advanced?
In some cases, yes.
-
That would be animism, not paganism, no ? Paganism is poorly defined and derivative; animism is the closest thing to an indigenous religion for homo sapiens imv.
I think this is right. It's been said that animism is the default human 'response' and has manifested pretty much everywhere there have been humans whereas monotheism developed only once.
-
Its interesting that it all has toi be brought down to and 'blamed' on evolution, Shakes.
I also like the definition of 'agent detection' from wikipedia - Is there any evidence that animals other than humans presume anything in this way? Are their brains that far advanced? If not, I'd suggest that the whole concept is a red herring
We don't really know but they don't always take things as is and will puzzle at things. For example if I bark at a dog - and I sound like the real thing - a dog will look at me with some puzzlement as it sees a human but the sound of a dog. But if I then speak to it it calms down because the dilemma has been resolved. I can do the same with some cats by making meow sounds.
-
Nt sure that Jung's take actually touches on the subject sufficiently to give an answer either way, JK; but the very idea suggests that this isn't some accidental process, but one with some degree of rationality.
I notice that no-one has really answered the early question as to what paganism is.
Firstly, haven't you been the one asking me to put my Jungian stuff into plain English? Now all of a sudden you've become an expert on him! ::)
Well if I answer the second bit first then in my view paganism is a psychological reaction to being human in this natural world. I.e. the psychical archetypes impose an emotional awareness (consciousness) of the environment they are in. That is the outer world appears to reflect what they are feeling in their inner world, i.e. their psyche, the unconscious. The two worlds become in a sense one though the relationship is only symbolic and expressed as representable images. This then being the root of all those myths and fables etc. Our monotheisms being the intellectualisation of our pagan days, that is, to a greater and significant degree, the inner world is severed from the outer world and thus we are left with the façade and patina of a spiritual life - that is spiritual death. A meaningless routine of rituals is undertaken that provides almost no connection with who we are within as spiritual human beings. This in turn brings about a reaction hence the endless schisms and new religions - Mormons, Scientology etc., and for our modern day the plethora of political ideologies and utopian philosophical dreams. Paganism in my view is the same or just a step on from what is referred to as the primitive psychological position, though for modern man taking up the pagan standpoint this would mean a 'going back' but still holding onto the modern psychical attainments that mankind has achieved, and hopefully reassessing our whole spiritual position or paucity.
So no, Hope, you don't understand Jung as he has presented a more than adequate perspective on the whole of mankind's psychical development through the ages.
-
Firstly, haven't you been the one asking me to put my Jungian stuff into plain English? Now all of a sudden you've become an expert on him! ::)
Surely not ::)
Interesting stuff JK. I'm awaiting delivery of a book on Jung's approach to spirituality, as it happens.
-
Strawman on Jack Knave's statement, and then a flip out into an assertion and a naturalistic fallacy to end on. Funky fallacy routine!
Citation required for this inane assertion and personal incredulity.
-
Surely not ::)
Interesting stuff JK. I'm awaiting delivery of a book on Jung's approach to spirituality, as it happens.
Which book? Is it one of the collective works ones?
-
Citation required for this inane assertion and personal incredulity.
What do you mean citation? You ask for a citation for a factual claim about something not a personal opinion about Hope's post.
-
Which book? Is it one of the collective works ones?
Oh, no, it's a broad and basic introduction - by Vivianne Crowley IIRC.
-
What do you mean citation? You ask for a citation for a factual claim about something not a personal opinion about Hope's post.
So I was right it was an "inane assertion and personal incredulity"
-
So I was right it was an "inane assertion and personal incredulity"
No, that doesn't follow. Your logic seems askew.
-
Oh, no, it's a broad and basic introduction - by Vivianne Crowley IIRC.
Good luck with that. I hope, like a good rationalist, you will engage in some experimentation, practical exercises and on hands scrutiny?
-
No, that doesn't follow. Your logic seems askew.
Like your post we are addressing, this one is likewise an unqualified assertion based on your personal incredulity.
-
Like your post we are addressing, this one is likewise an unqualified assertion based on your personal incredulity.
Repetition is not argument. Having had your nonsensical request for a citation pointed out is not a justification for the rest of your post. And there is nothing about personal incredulity in the posts. If you are seeking to pack the most wrongness into the fewest words, you have started the year well.
-
Repetition is not argument.
Perhaps you should take full note of your own advice because you can be very repetitive, claiming that an unqualified assertion is a valid argument.
-
Perhaps you should take full note of your own advice because you can be very repetitive, claiming that an unqualified assertion is a valid argument.
Why are you now lying?
-
Why are you now lying?
Because the chair has become a bit too uncomfortable.
-
Because the chair has become a bit too uncomfortable.
Passably witty, but not an excuse for misrepresentation.
-
Passably witty, but not an excuse for misrepresentation.
A tough audience!
You do know what an assertion is and if so when you making one?
-
That would be animism, not paganism, no ? Paganism is poorly defined and derivative; animism is the closest thing to an indigenous religion for homo sapiens imv.
What is animism?
I am pagan but not, as far as I know, an anumist - so definition please!
-
What is animism?
I am pagan but not, as far as I know, an anumist - so definition please!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism)
No I am not, nor is any pagan I know, an animist - we do NOT give "souls" to inanimate objects. Only living breathing entities, human and animal, have souls/life forces/personalities that can pass to the Summerlands
-
No I am not, nor is any pagan I know, an animist - we do NOT give "souls" to inanimate objects. Only living breathing entities, human and animal, have souls/life forces/personalities that can pass to the Summerlands
What about Mother Earth?
-
What about Mother Earth?
The Gaia - yes but she is a humanoid Goddess - not the Planet! She is often depicted as a pregnant human female, her foetus being Planet Earth!
-
The Gaia - yes but she is a humanoid Goddess - not the Planet! She is often depicted as a pregnant human female, her foetus being Planet Earth!
But when you said human or animal I thought you meant that literally. You say she is often depicted as a..... but that is a symbol not an actual entity.
You said, "... - we do NOT give "souls" to inanimate objects. Only living breathing entities, human and animal, have souls/life forces/personalities that can pass to the Summerlands
So how does she figure then in this statement; I don't think she breathes(?).
-
But when you said human or animal I thought you meant that literally. You say she is often depicted as a..... but that is a symbol not an actual entity.
You said, "... - we do NOT give "souls" to inanimate objects. Only living breathing entities, human and animal, have souls/life forces/personalities that can pass to the Summerlands
So how does she figure then in this statement; I don't think she breathes(?).
So your Christian God does not breathe?
-
So your Christian God does not breathe?
Am an atheist so not only does my "God" not breathe it doesn't even exist. I was just following up on your statement that was all, taking it that pagans endow their deities, which are not animals, as aspects that have some form of life force.
-
Am an atheist so not only does my "God" not breathe it doesn't even exist. I was just following up on your statement that was all, taking it that pagans endow their deities, which are not animals, as aspects that have some form of life force.
I don't know what name might be applied to the 'life force' of the deities, mine and other's. in paganism. To be honest I have never even thought about its precise nature.
Pagan deities are seen as closer to humans, flawed, having their nasty side, their nice side, their raunchy side and, in one case, like myself, a taste foir a drop or two, bottle or two of the hard stuff.
They are spritual, not having a physical body, but hey, I'm not intellectual enough to know which af the many -isms that the more well educated apply to such entities until I look them up and see if they fit!
-
One on which to end the old year.
A few days ago I was reading and came across a short quote (if I can retrace my steps I'll post the exact words, though the following is a very close paraphrase) which runs something along these lines: "Paganism is based on an innate/inherent human reaction to the natural world. If every scrap of knowledge of Christianity, Judaism and Islam disappeared from the world overnight, they would and could never be recreated in anywhere near the same form (if at all), but paganism would."
Is there anything in this? I strongly suspect so.
Wishful thinking... Because before the things of paganism existed there had to be God who created the things their beliefs came from.
Paganism is just another word for Gentiles. Those who were not part of Gods chosen people.
We see that Abraham knew God and so did he first man. Paganism came long after God.
It came long after the first man. And throughout the world history shows mankind has always believed in a creator. You took the words of one man in his human state lacking God.
One lead by feeling and personal not choice, not be fact and truth.
God kept his covenant with the Jews he made them a great nation. One which prospered wherever they went and made those countries prosper too. A living statement to a living and powerful God who has the last word in everything.
Paganism exists because man exists and Gods creation.
God exists for all mankind regardless of anything created.
It is all a matter of being alive to Gods presence or being dead and only having the consciousness of what God created surrounding your being.
-
Wishful thinking... Because before the things of paganism existed there had to be God who created the things their beliefs came from.
Paganism is just another word for Gentiles. Those who were not part of Gods chosen people.
We see that Abraham knew God and so did he first man. Paganism came long after God.
It came long after the first man. And throughout the world history shows mankind has always believed in a creator. You took the words of one man in his human state lacking God.
One lead by feeling and personal not choice, not be fact and truth.
God kept his covenant with the Jews he made them a great nation. One which prospered wherever they went and made those countries prosper too. A living statement to a living and powerful God who has the last word in everything.
Paganism exists because man exists and Gods creation.
God exists for all mankind regardless of anything created.
It is all a matter of being alive to Gods presence or being dead and only having the consciousness of what God created surrounding your being.
Your entire argument collapses with the highglighted! This shows that you do not understand what Shaker said! Do not or refuse to, just as you refuse to understand, or even try to understand, anything that anyone says that does not fit your Christain version of the world and its history!
-
You're building up, Sassy; take a break.
-
Your entire argument collapses with the highglighted! This shows that you do not understand what Shaker said! Do not or refuse to, just as you refuse to understand, or even try to understand, anything that anyone says that does not fit your Christain version of the world and its history!
Actually, using that reasoning then all would be Jews like Abraham.
The fact God was there with man at the beginning and created a first man and woman shows that something is missing in the argument. There are those who wonder and those who reason. You and shaker are in the wonder we the Christians are in the 'reason' because like Christ, we know beyond any shadow of doubt ONLY GOD can be the answer to creation.
Now if you have no other arguments stop pretending you know or understand the argument presented by Shaker when clearly his own post shows even he cannot explain what he was trying to say.
It is instinctive of mankind that there is a GOD who created everything. Rather than the pagan view being amplified.
Paganism is for people who rebel because they don't like the truth or want it to be true for them.
We both know you cannot make paganism about anything but that which man has created for himself even though he knows it is all false. But God and Jesus Christ are exceptional to say the least in that they meant something to mankind all the way through history. There has always been a GOD but paganism came much later from the created.
-
The fact [...]
Long and dismal experience shows me that it's an infallible rule that whenever you use the word 'fact', it isn't one.
-
Long and dismal experience shows me that it's an infallible rule that whenever you use the word 'fact', it isn't one.
Amen to that, Shaker!
However here is a fact, or two, in fact; one, Sassy would not recognise a fact in the context of any religion other than Chritianity or the fact that most facts about Christianity are not facts at all, if said fact or facts were tied to a housebrick and she were hit in the head with it!
Two, Sassy would also not recognise the 97.5% of modern pagans and/or witches who DO NOT wear a ton and a half, at least, of arcane jewellery 24/7 if any number of them walked down the street towards her!
A sad truth this, that she vilifies that which she has absolutely no comprehension of!
-
I'm an animist and a pantheist. I don't give things 'souls', I just think everything is alive or has an energy running through it to some extent or other.
-
Well it got Rhiannon back! ::) ;D
I guess the fact is most atheists are just not clued into the bigger picture.
Never will be because they don't have a foot in either camp.
-
Well it got Rhiannon back! ::) ;D
I guess the fact is most atheists are just not clued into the bigger picture.
Never will be because they don't have a foot in either camp.
Unlike you, Sassy, who always have one foot firmly jammed in your mouth!
-
One on which to end the old year.
A few days ago I was reading and came across a short quote (if I can retrace my steps I'll post the exact words, though the following is a very close paraphrase) which runs something along these lines: "Paganism is based on an innate/inherent human reaction to the natural world. If every scrap of knowledge of Christianity, Judaism and Islam disappeared from the world overnight, they would and could never be recreated in anywhere near the same form (if at all), but paganism would."
Is there anything in this? I strongly suspect so.
Given that paganism means "Any non Abrahamic religion" and there are/were thousands of them, it would be surprising if you couldn't find at least one to match your newly recreated religion.
-
Given that paganism means "Any non Abrahamic religion" and there are/were thousands of them, it would be surprising if you couldn't find at least one to match your newly recreated religion.
That's a broad definition - the passage I paraphrased was emphasising paganism in a definitionally narrower but in practical terms more numerically widespread sense of a spiritual path (even a religion, by some lights) with nature as its focal point of reverence. The implication is that if we reset the clock to zero and ran the experiment of Planet Earth again, paganism would revive (whereas Christianity et. al wouldn't, built as they are on alleged specific persons and events) because the human response to nature is innate and perennial.
-
That's a broad definition - the passage I paraphrased was emphasising paganism in a definitionally narrower but in practical terms more numerically widespread sense of a spiritual path (even a religion, by some lights) with nature as its focal point of reverence. The implication is that if we reset the clock to zero and ran the experiment of Planet Earth again, paganism would revive (whereas Christianity et. al wouldn't, built as they are on alleged specific persons and events) because the human response to nature is innate and perennial.
I think that as soon as we divided ourselves off into them and us and have land and tribes to defend we'd invent a sky god who would direct the suffering of our enemies once more.
-
Unlike you, Sassy, who always have one foot firmly jammed in your mouth!
You make such tasteless and such bad remarks about other people. Then accuse those people of doing what you do. Do you not find it odd you have such double standards?
Or that you are really doing what you falsely accuse others of doing.
Does your beliefs really teach you such hatred and vile things?
-
You make such tasteless and such bad remarks about other people. Then accuse those people of doing what you do. Do you not find it odd you have such double standards?
Or that you are really doing what you falsely accuse others of doing.
Does your beliefs really teach you such hatred and vile things?
No. It is your denial of any validity of any belief other than yours. You insist that yours is the only true belief, that everyone else accept that they are in error just because you say so.
You refuse to even consider that your beliefs may be in error. This monumental arrogance in your attachment to a book that has been, by those outside your belief, shown to containing errors of fact which you also refuse to accept, insisting that it is the proofs of your error that are in error.
Ye Gods and little fishes - there are even Christians on this forum that do not accept your version of Christianity.
It is your attitude to MY beliefs that are tasteless and your bad remarks about other people who hold other beliefs, calling us liars, stupid, and ignorant that teaches us, well me anyway, such hatred and to say what you consider are vile things when applied to your belief but allowing you to say anything no matter how vile or hateful they may be!
-
No. It is your denial of any validity of any belief other than yours. You insist that yours is the only true belief, that everyone else accept that they are in error just because you say so.
WRONG...I have no reason to insist on any such thing.IT IS YOU AGAIN MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS.. What the truth is, when I share my beliefs I have scripture to support it.
Other Christians cannot use scripture to deny it or change that truth.
As for you as an atheist/pagan what would it be to you? You already admit your beliefs are built on myths so it would be illogical for you to argue about my beliefs.
You refuse to even consider that your beliefs may be in error. This monumental arrogance in your attachment to a book that has been, by those outside your belief, shown to containing errors of fact which you also refuse to accept, insisting that it is the proofs of your error that are in error.
Well show us what error that might be considered to be such an error in what I believe?
The monumental arrogance is someone like yourself who admits your beliefs are not based on anything concrete so question mine. YOU CANNOT EVEN BEGIN TO KNOW MY FAITH let alone understand it. So how do you have the gaul to question something you have no personal knowledge or experience about. NO ARROGANCE just a strong faith one you cannot tear down.
That is your arrogance that you cannot accept GOD is revealing himself to others and not you.
The facts of the bible are not able to be refuted.YOU CAN'T DO IT, No man can till they can you don't have an argument. You attack because you have nothing but contempt that others have something you don't.
Ye Gods and little fishes - there are even Christians on this forum that do not accept your version of Christianity.
RED HERRING... Jesus Christ is the Son of God and came in the flesh. He died for our sins on the cross and rose again from the dead. NO OTHER VERSION OF CHRISTIANITY. So you make up things and cannot even know what Christianity is, to make such a remark. You think you can tell which Christian is right?
1 John 4King James Version (KJV)
4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
I have told you Jesus Christ came in the flesh. They tell you God came in the flesh.
Who does John say is right?
Now desist because even the above proves you are wrong as they are wrong when it comes to knowing Christ is the Son of God and Christ came in the flesh.
It is your attitude to MY beliefs that are tasteless and your bad remarks about other people who hold other beliefs, calling us liars, stupid, and ignorant that teaches us, well me anyway, such hatred and to say what you consider are vile things when applied to your belief but allowing you to say anything no matter how vile or hateful they may be!
The proof it that your tasteless and bad remarks stating things not true and boring as you have NEVER PROVED IT, show that I have NEVER CALLED ANYONE LIARS.
STUPID or IGNORANT ABOUT THEIR OWN BELIEFS. Ignorant about my beliefs as the above
proves because you could not show I was wrong as a believer and the word shows I was speaking the truth and yet you now have to face that truth.
The truth is your beliefs are something you chose. Chose having not credence to them.
My beliefs have God and Jesus Christ, they give those beliefs credence.
Do I need to prove it. NO! Do I believe you know your beliefs have no credence in truth? Yes!
I am therefore being honest not deceptive and not calling anyone liars because the pagans I know admit it. They don't use it to make personal attacks on believers as you do.
Like myself,. we/they accept our beliefs for what they are. You need to attack anyone who does not accept your beliefs. I do not accept anything which I can see to be unfounded and myths.
My heart goes out to those whose beliefs who have lead people in history to sacrifice their children and pretend to distance themselves from that history today somehow makes it okay,
Do you believe the history of the RC makes it okay for them to distance themselves from that history? If so why do so many bring it up.
Kettle and pot. Personally, why would anyone want to insult paganism or any other religion
when the history of most beliefs do it for them?
Nah! Life too short.Whatever your wrong thinking of me, one day we will both stand before our creator and I am not going to be the one told off because I never shared what I believed.
i AM ALLOWED TO BELIEVE WITHOUT YOU ATTACKING ME WITH UNTRUTHS ABOUT MY BELIEFS OR HOW I SEE THE BELIEFS OF OTHERS.
-
That's not writing, that's typing*.
* © T. Capote
-
Reply to SASSY
i AM ALLOWED TO BELIEVE WITHOUT YOU ATTACKING ME WITH UNTRUTHS ABOUT MY BELIEFS OR HOW I SEE THE BELIEFS OF OTHERS.
-
Well it got Rhiannon back! ::) ;D
.............
Yes, we are all glad to see her back, she's so balanced (though I don't think this or any other thread had anything to do with it, she intended to come back some time).
Shaker opening post: Paganism is based on an innate/inherent human reaction to the natural world. If every scrap of knowledge of Christianity, Judaism and Islam disappeared from the world overnight, they would and could never be recreated in anywhere near the same form (if at all), but paganism would.
I've read all the opinions here which are quite fascinating and don't have anything much to add, however my strong instinctive feeling, for what it's worth, is that what Shaker quoted, above, is spot on. What I have read about the customs and rituals of early homo sapiens seems to bear this out.
-
Yes, though it was Shaker, not NS, I think.
-
You're right.
-
I think it was Dicky who pointed out in a recent thread that he thought that Christianity was just an elaborate pagan format. From my archetypal reading of Jung's psychology this made sense, though before this I had not bothered to joined the dots on this.
Btw, nice question.
I was suggesting that it was particularly the Pauline elements in Christianity that gave it a particularly 'pagan' colouring, though with Christ as the 'Hero' figure, other parts of the NT would certainly fit into Joseph Campbell's and Jung's frameworks
-
That's a broad definition - the passage I paraphrased was emphasising paganism in a definitionally narrower but in practical terms more numerically widespread sense of a spiritual path (even a religion, by some lights) with nature as its focal point of reverence. The implication is that if we reset the clock to zero and ran the experiment of Planet Earth again, paganism would revive (whereas Christianity et. al wouldn't, built as they are on alleged specific persons and events) because the human response to nature is innate and perennial.
I notice you have added in this post, and what was not in your OP, that being, the evolution of the Earth. This would raise the matter of whether mankind would evolve at all, and many other events that lead to mammals and mankind. I would suggest you would only need to go back about 200,000 years to try out this project.
-
I was suggesting that it was particularly the Pauline elements in Christianity that gave it a particularly 'pagan' colouring, though with Christ as the 'Hero' figure, other parts of the NT would certainly fit into Joseph Campbell's and Jung's frameworks
Yep, that'll be the Hellenism.
-
Yep, that'll be the Hellenism.
As opposed to Christianity which is often Hellonearthism.