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}
no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 12:51 am (UTC)I think it can be a matter of debate with SOME definitions. I mean, if I believe in Zeus, you could successfully show that no bearded man who hurls thunderbolts lives on top of Mount Olympus. But if I define Zeus as a sort of abstract concept, that's a whole different kettle of divine fish.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-03 04:08 pm (UTC)Fair enough. You're right about Zeus. We can trek up Mt. Olympus and see that "he" is not there casting thunderbolts. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if, once we reach the summit, the Zeus-worshiper's definition of Zeus doesn't shift to invoke some property of Zeus' that interfered with us seeing "him". At this point I shrug and say, "whatever gets you through the day". As long as the Zeus worshiper isn't making my life miserable with his or her beliefs, I respect his or her right to hold them. If I'm expected to accept the existence of Zeus, however? That too is a whole different kettle of divine fish ;-)
no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 12:50 am (UTC)I think this is really pretty typical with religion and mythology. A lot of ancient societies seemed to think the gods lived up in the clouds, but they were moved elsewhere once people explored the clouds and didn't see Valhalla. For that matter, there are all kinds of details people add to the Santa Claus myth to explain why flights over the North Pole never come across his workshop.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-08 06:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-08 08:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-08 10:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-09 01:02 am (UTC)