The Christians and the Pagans
Feb. 1st, 2009 06:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatSo, I'm not sure anyone in Ireland reads this journal, but I'll wish you people a happy St. Brigid's Day anyway. Brigid of Kildare is one of the patron saints of Ireland, and was said to have lived in the sixth and seventh centuries. Even before her, however, there was an Irish goddess named Brigid, one of the Tuatha Dé Danann, who was associated with fire, cows, wisdom, warfare, and craftsmanship. And her festival, Imbolc, was celebrated...at the beginning of February. So there's been some speculation that the saint was simply a Christianized version of the goddess, fitting the common policy of adapting old religions into the new. If the people of a certain land worshipped, say, a tree, missionaries would dedicate the tree to Jesus. And that would make everything all right, because Jesus is apparently fine with people going through the motions without actually believing. I'm not totally sure why revering trees is so bad for Christians anyway. Aren't they part of God's creation?
I guess I find some appeal in the idea of minor nature or household gods, even though I don't believe in them any more than I do the monotheistic God. I mean, I basically agree with Douglas Adams, who said, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" But in a way, I think I'd like the fairies to be there. After all, as far as I know, they don't threaten to send me to Hell if I disagree with them. Granted, there can be problems if they're not invited to a christening, but scrounging up an extra place setting seems a lot easier than having to go to church every week. The thing is, a fair number of the people who identify themselves as pagans nowadays seem to regard it as more of a hobby than a true religion. Then again, some people do that with the Abrahamic religions as well. I mean, you don't have to look very far to find someone who goes to church regularly but doesn't follow much of anything Jesus actually said. Is that really belief, of the kind you live by and are willing to die for? I don't think I would join a religion unless I honestly, deeply believed in it. I don't see much point in half-assing it, unless you just think whatever deity is in charge isn't really too bright. ("Well, he doesn't sincerely believe, and hasn't been living by any of the rules I established, but he said the right words in that ritual, so I think I'll favor him!" Hey, Pascal thought it would work.)
Respect for nature is a common thread among many religions, but it's important to realize that, well, nature is a lot bigger than the authors of most religious texts knew. It seems a little odd to me that, in a universe of quasars and black holes, people still think God's primary concern is who controls various pieces of land. Besides, if God is really the all-loving All-Father that people say He is, isn't there a good chance that He'd want you to share? There are even people who essentially want to deny the majority of the universe, like the Young-Earth Creationists. If the entire universe is only 6000 years old, then all the stuff we've discovered about the life cycles of stars is just illusion set up by God (or possibly Satan) to trick astronomers. Granted, if there really IS an omnipotent and omniscient being, He/She/It presumably COULD handle colliding galaxies while also helping the Hebrews take control of Canaan, and make every single species of beetle individually (no evolution required!), but would it really be prudent?
I guess I find some appeal in the idea of minor nature or household gods, even though I don't believe in them any more than I do the monotheistic God. I mean, I basically agree with Douglas Adams, who said, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" But in a way, I think I'd like the fairies to be there. After all, as far as I know, they don't threaten to send me to Hell if I disagree with them. Granted, there can be problems if they're not invited to a christening, but scrounging up an extra place setting seems a lot easier than having to go to church every week. The thing is, a fair number of the people who identify themselves as pagans nowadays seem to regard it as more of a hobby than a true religion. Then again, some people do that with the Abrahamic religions as well. I mean, you don't have to look very far to find someone who goes to church regularly but doesn't follow much of anything Jesus actually said. Is that really belief, of the kind you live by and are willing to die for? I don't think I would join a religion unless I honestly, deeply believed in it. I don't see much point in half-assing it, unless you just think whatever deity is in charge isn't really too bright. ("Well, he doesn't sincerely believe, and hasn't been living by any of the rules I established, but he said the right words in that ritual, so I think I'll favor him!" Hey, Pascal thought it would work.)
Respect for nature is a common thread among many religions, but it's important to realize that, well, nature is a lot bigger than the authors of most religious texts knew. It seems a little odd to me that, in a universe of quasars and black holes, people still think God's primary concern is who controls various pieces of land. Besides, if God is really the all-loving All-Father that people say He is, isn't there a good chance that He'd want you to share? There are even people who essentially want to deny the majority of the universe, like the Young-Earth Creationists. If the entire universe is only 6000 years old, then all the stuff we've discovered about the life cycles of stars is just illusion set up by God (or possibly Satan) to trick astronomers. Granted, if there really IS an omnipotent and omniscient being, He/She/It presumably COULD handle colliding galaxies while also helping the Hebrews take control of Canaan, and make every single species of beetle individually (no evolution required!), but would it really be prudent?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
first to the comment, then to the main post, though I suppose I could do two
Date: 2009-02-02 06:39 pm (UTC)Hear hear! I agree. I also agree with the person who responded to this comment about the all-encompassingness of God. Of course, I have noticed that when it comes to actual belief I have very open ones-- I tend to believe in everything in some way. But still!
Which brings me to the main post, so I won't bother making a separate comment. This is timely because I just finished reading a book full of interesting concepts about religion, particularly the relationships between early paganism and early Christianity, and what was really interesting and I must say to me refreshing was that it didn't take the tired old neo-pagan argument that Christianity-just-stole-everything-from-the-pagans-so-therefore-it's-invalid viewpoint, but the more mysterious Maybe-there-are-Deep-Spiritual-REASONS-for-these-connections viewpoint. And I love that kind of thing, and when I try to think about what it is I actually BELIEVE about the universe and the spiritual side of it, I realize that it's closer to this, a belief that all these old myths and legends are windows to the unknowable truth, which is why I keep fanatically writing about the importance of Myth and Story myself I guess; but then I still identify and identify strongly as a Christian, and I realized this is not so much that I believe "what a Christian believes" (whatever THAT is, as any denomination or even people within the denomination will tell you differently) as much as it is a Life-Calling Choice-- choosing to follow Jesus and his teachings particularly over all the other religions just because I feel a sure connection with Him somehow. And yet I'm NOT a particularly ritualistic Christian, although I feel most comfortable in the particularly ritualistic denomination I grew up in, and I love going to Mass and participating in the prayers and receiving the Eucharist. So I don't know where I fall in your hobby vs. believer analysis of religious types-- somewhere else entirely I guess.
Re: first to the comment, then to the main post, though I suppose I could do two
Date: 2009-02-02 07:35 pm (UTC)a Life-Calling Choice-- choosing to follow Jesus and his teachings particularly over all the other religions just because I feel a sure connection with Him
I like both of these points. I, too still find a great deal of comfort in the ritual of the Eucharist, but, of course, when one chooses to perform a ritual, it can be as rich with meaning as any human relationship, or as dull as badly-danced waltz. And casual observers might never know how meaningful it is in one's life; they may assume that a ritual is just a ritual.
BTW, what was the name of the book?
Re: first to the comment, then to the main post, though I suppose I could do two
Date: 2009-02-02 07:58 pm (UTC)Re: first to the comment, then to the main post, though I suppose I could do two
Date: 2009-02-03 12:56 am (UTC)Especially when you consider that those pagans probably took a lot of their ideas from earlier pagan religions. I don't think any known religion isn't syncretic to some degree (well, except maybe if you find a totally isolated tribe).
Re: first to the comment, then to the main post, though I suppose I could do two
Date: 2009-02-03 02:27 pm (UTC)And I would bet even THEY have some overlap, my beliefs about religion being what they are.