Will and Elst.

[Thomas]

The first point is that any given Revelation, being a disclosure of the True (and one might also say the Real, the Good, the Beautiful), will naturally - in fact supernaturally - assume all 'lesser truths,' all lesser modes of reality, goodness and beauty, unto itself, rightfully so as all truth is One - these lesser modes being human in origin, but nevertheless 'welcome' to God, in that they comprise a blind, or obscure fumbling towards the Divine.

(St Clement was not alone among the Fathers who spoke of 'Christians before Christ.' There are those who believe that the Hermetic sciences were given to the Egyptians by Moses, rather than by the god Hermes. I doubt this, even as a Christian, for although I am a Christian I also acknowledge man's natural capacity for logic, reason, intuition and wisdom - in the same way that the Fathers acknowledge the wisdom of Plato as a 'Master' in an age when philosophy was not divorced from the sacred.)

The second point is that any given revelation, being a disclosure of the True, will naturally - and again in fact supernaturally - utilise all natural and cosmological means at is disposal to manifest itself in accordance with the harmony of the whole. Thus it should be no surprise that Christ will utilise and imbue the mundane with sacramental significance.

Thus, as the late Pope pointed out (in continuation with christian Tradition) that the foremost 'revelation' of God is in the Incarnation, and second to it is Creation and its cosmology - this knowing of the world is summed up in The Philosopher's Stone, the very term 'stone' signifying the crystalisation and sum total of the knowledge of the manifest order, which is as much 'knowing' as human reason and logic can naturally aspire to.

Knowledge of the supernatural is and can only be 'revealed' from above - yet what must not be missed is that there must be something a priori in the nature of man that can recognise it and in the recognition sought to clothe it in understanding.

Thus Christian doctrine, for example, recognises 'mundane' or 'pagan' knowledge as knowledge of truth, but must always call on man to raise his gaze higher, to concentrate (or meditate) upon the 'one thing needful' which invested in all human knowledge a Mystery - the discreet semblance of Itself.

In so doing, of course, God and man is obliged to 'refute' error - and it's worth mentioning here that the Fathers were not alone in refuting what later came to be called 'gnosticism' - the great Platonist and Stoic philosophers also decried the errors in what was largely a profane, magical and populist pseudo-philosophy which imputed to the gods a false anthropomorphism.

Indeed it was Plato who observed of the Greek Pantheon that if they were gods on Mount Olympus, it was about time they started acting like such and ceased to display those sentiments that are counted as the worst vices of human nature.

Thomas

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The first point is that any given Revelation, being a disclosure of the True (and one might also say the Real, the Good, the Beautiful), will naturally - in fact supernaturally - assume all 'lesser truths,' all lesser modes of reality, goodness and beauty, unto itself, rightfully so as all truth is One - these lesser modes being human in origin, but nevertheless 'welcome' to God, in that they comprise a blind, or obscure fumbling towards the Divine.

wow i had heard of racisim. now i know the religious equivalent of it.

so paganism is lesser truth, lesser mode of reality and at best achieves a blind or obscure fumbling towards the divine, whilst christianity is the truth.

wonder what the pagan members have to say to that.
as also non-pagan non-christians.

Originally Posted by Thomas

(St Clement was not alone among the Fathers who spoke of 'Christians before Christ.'

if there were christians before crist, then surely christ's teachings were nothing new cos there already were people who lived by those.

Originally Posted by Thomas

The second point is that any given revelation, being a disclosure of the True, will naturally - and again in fact supernaturally - utilise all natural and cosmological means at is disposal to manifest itself in accordance with the harmony of the whole. Thus it should be no surprise that Christ will utilise and imbue the mundane with sacramental significance.

aahh, so pagan practices are mundane too !!

meanwhile revealations are 'the true".
btw, others have claimed revealations too (eg. islam).

i suppose you did not want to use the word "any" cos that would make islam true too.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Knowledge of the supernatural is and can only be 'revealed' from above - yet what must not be missed is that there must be something a priori in the nature of man that can recognise it and in the recognition sought to clothe it in understanding.

so other people to whom no revealations were made, had no knowledge of the supernatural??

Originally Posted by Thomas

Thus Christian doctrine, for example, recognises 'mundane' or 'pagan' knowledge as knowledge of truth, but must always call on man to raise his gaze higher, to concentrate (or meditate) upon the 'one thing needful' which invested in all human knowledge a Mystery - the discreet semblance of Itself.

i hate being euphemistic, so can i describe the above as a crude attempt at evangelization. ??



one final question.... supposing you are right and the pre-christian pagan beliefs were indeed lesser and mundane truths, - why be selective then??

why opt to incorporate some of these lesser truths, say from the germanic dawn godess Oester, into christianity, and why not the pagan beliefs of the sky worshipping mongols or the voodoo or the maya??

are there "gradations" amongst these lesser mundane pagan beliefs??
are european pagan meliefs less lesser than mayan and mongolian pagan beliefs?

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by prajapati

i dont get you.

if you want to ban me then do so.

but dont accuse me of lack of civility.

last time i said a certain sect is "loony" - thats without knowning that they were reporesented here.
now i call myself an idiot for oversimplifying and you say i am being aggressive??

If I'd have wanted to ban you, I would - but you raise some good questions and carry some good discussions, but you have a very brusque manner which doesn't carry very well in only the written medium. It makes you look pointlessly aggressive in tone, hence the repeated call to chill-out.

As for Thomas's comments above - you asked about a Christian perspective - and you have it.

There are some Christians here who give paganism a very high regard, but in mainstream Christian belief Christianity is concerned with the fulfillment and self-realisation of God's Will on earth via the sacrifice of Christ. So it would be unfair to expect mainstream Christians to subject themselves to being subservient to other Faith viewpoints - as with other Faith's also.

Pagan's have their own views, Christians theirs, and many others somewhere in between and beyond.

Point being that it would be a shame if you deride a Christian opinion when you have asked for a Christian opinion.

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

If I'd have wanted to ban you, I would - but you raise some good questions and carry some good discussions, but you have a very brusque manner which doesn't carry very well in only the written medium. It makes you look pointlessly aggressive in tone, hence the repeated call to chill-out.

As for Thomas's comments above - you asked about a Christian perspective - and you have it.

There are some Christians here who give paganism a very high regard, but in mainstream Christian belief Christianity is concerned with the fulfillment and self-realisation of God's Will on earth via the sacrifice of Christ. So it would be unfair to expect mainstream Christians to subject themselves to being subservient to other Faith viewpoints - as with other Faith's also.

Pagan's have their own views, Christians theirs, and many others somewhere in between and beyond.

Point being that it would be a shame if you deride a Christian opinion when you have asked for a Christian opinion.

I am not impolite or rude nor do i cuss.
i do make scything attacks and often talk tongue-in-cheek.

adults usually do.
ban me if you will - but pls supply a concrete reason.
or say that tongue-in-cheek comments are not allowed either !!


yes we have a christian's perspective. and thus we know how supremacist their opinions can be sometimes.

thats highlighted bit - there you r assuming.
thinking of their religion as the be-all and end-all of spirituality is a decidedly secondary semetic (christian and ialam) thing. pagans and followers of eastern religions dont look down upon other religions.



so there's nothing wrong in his "christian oipnion" though its clearly "my way IS the highway" in nature.

bah !!

i asked for views - not for posts that implicitly consider other beliefs "lesser" and "blind attempts to reach the divine" or some such.


is it not possible to come up with a christian opinion thats respectful of pagan faiths as well ??


anyways, comming to what you said... the religion and culture thing -

say i was a mongolian and my culture requires me to ride a horse for an hour everyday.
i become christian and also continue with the horse habit.
thats one thing.
thats a person changing his religion whilst holding to his culture.

but if christianity was to incorporate horse riding as part of its festival (as solstice has been made a part of christianity) and then connected something biblical to the horse riding (as someones birthday has been woven) - that would be a different thing.

that would be a religion changing itself, so as to fit itself along the boundary conditions of another culture.

which is what i believe happened with christianity wrt the pagan religions of europe.***


btw, and this is not to you, wont the person who made those disrespectful remarks about pagan faiths ever reply to the questions i asked him.


***ofcourse the customs of other non-european cultures were never thought worth christianity's while to attempt to fit itself into/incorporate into itself. if there's another reason, i'd like to know it. why for example a hindu who converts to christianity now, cant also play Holi whilst becomming christian, the way whites continue to celebrate solstice in another name. and why does the hindu have to celebrate solstice, though its neither christian, nor a part of his own culture.

[Bandit]

i can see where some pagan things were acquired & put into christianity. but to say the whole thing was adopted FROM pagan roots is is way left field.
rather, in some other ball park.

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i can see where some pagan things were acquired & put into christianity. but to say the whole thing was adopted FROM pagan roots is is way left field.
rather, in some other ball park.

i didnt say the whole thing was adopted from pagan roots.

i did say though, that pagan roots and rituals were adopted/incorporated INTO christianity. and biblical tales were woven around them (eg -solstice became birthday) incidentally will durant also said that. that christianity adopted paganism, in a classic "if you cant beat them, then join them" tactical manouvre.

prove me wrong.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by prajapati

i do make scything attacks and often talk tongue-in-cheek.

Emoticons could be very useful for you here, to help convey the emotion with which a sentence or passage is written in.

I never used to use them, and my intentions were often misunderstood because of it.

Originally Posted by prajapati

say i was a mongolian and my culture requires me to ride a horse for an hour everyday.
i become christian and also continue with the horse habit.
thats one thing.
thats a person changing his religion whilst holding to his culture.

but if christianity was to incorporate horse riding as part of its festival (as solstice has been made a part of christianity) and then connected something biblical to the horse riding (as someones birthday has been woven) - that would be a different thing.

[/quote]

Indeed, and there certainly is an argument that this has happened to *some* degree - it is no secret that Christianity often sought to replace existing belief systems, rather than eradicate them (such as replacing ancient shrines with Christian churches) - but I would also argue that it is easy to inadvertently exaggerate the extent in which the cultural practices have impinged on the actual theology of Christianity.

For example, Christians may engage in the Western cultural practice of having a Christmas tree in their home at Christmas, but I don't believe there are many churches at all that stick a fir tree on the altar.

As for the timing of Christian festivals - indeed, the actual timing has often been due to the process of supplanting existing theologies, but I personally find it hard to see the argument that supplanting belief systems therefore implies taking them aboard.

The recognition of spring and winter solstices is a practice many religious systems have, because these are (or were) extremely important times for the cultures in question - simply having major festivals on these dates does not therefore mean they are taking on pagan ideas, as much as trying to replace them with Christian ones.

The spring solstice offers a period of renewal and hope in the world as the earth returns to life after the sleep of winter - how appropriate that Christianity should determine this as the best time to celebrate the crucifixion and return to life of Jesus?

Now, if you were to go another way and argue that Christ was essentially a reinvention of an agricultural deity for an urban Greek audience, then that would be another argument entirely.

[prajapati]

Indeed, and there certainly is an argument that this has happened to *some* degree - it is no secret that Christianity often sought to replace existing belief systems, rather than eradicate them (such as replacing ancient shrines with Christian churches) - but I would also argue that it is easy to inadvertently exaggerate the extent in which the cultural practices have impinged on the actual theology of Christianity.

-------------------------

i did not exeggerate. i for example did not name a singlke thing in the original list (ok not me, elst) which isnt something in christianity with a pagan root.

as for the part in bold - either you love euphemisms, or you dont know the real history of europe, esp of dudes like charlemange. for ex. he came up , amongst many other edicts and orders, with this incredibly innovative concept where every 2nd child born to the original germanic saxons would be kidnapped and raised with a newly converted christian family - a technique later perfected by the now-christian, germanic anglo-saxons in australia - where aboriginals had their babies kidnapped galore. google Andrew Simmons and Guy Sebastian for good examples. and then there is the small matter of the inquisitions, including one here in india (Goa).. but these are very recent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example, Christians may engage in the Western cultural practice of having a Christmas tree in their home at Christmas, but I don't believe there are many churches at all that stick a fir tree on the altar.

------------------------

no there arnt. yet there are few christian families that dont have a fir tree in their houses on the day of solstice. and that bold bit should actually be "at solstice". besides it wasnt a cultural practice, this celebrating of solstice. it was a pagan festival all right and still is practiced in pagan circles. cultural practice is bull fighting or such like. that which doesnt celebrate any god from any belief system.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the timing of Christian festivals - indeed, the actual timing has often been due to the process of supplanting existing theologies, but I personally find it hard to see the argument that supplanting belief systems therefore implies taking them aboard.

-------------------------------------

no. but fact remains that the present day saxons for example are celebrating christmas on the same day on which they used to celebrate solstice in their old belief system. also that where as christianity has no real actual connection with the day when the sun makes a comeback of sorts, the festival of solstice is organically linked with it.

and er... the bit in bold.. theologies... i am sure you meant "existing cultures".. or was it a Freudian slip ?
the supplanting bit is less euphemistic than "replace" used b4, so congrats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The recognition of spring and winter solstices is a practice many religious systems have, because these are (or were) extremely important times for the cultures in question - simply having major festivals on these dates does not therefore mean they are taking on pagan ideas, as much as trying to replace them with Christian ones.
--------------------------------

i am sure that by "cultures" you meant "extremely imp times for the religious systems in question", esp having used the same words in the previous line !!

these two things are not inter-changable - culture and religious system.
bull fighting is part of spanish culture not part of the present religion of spaniards.
celebrating the event called solstice by weaving the "feast of the invincible sun" around it, was a part of pagan religions, not their cultures. that would be their dance, song and games.


and yes they are not taking pagan ideas - they are taking pagan events of importance (like solstice) and replacing the associated pagan idea (eg - the feast of the invincible sun, eaten in reverence to the sun) with a biblical connection (eg- someone's birthday), never mind the fact that its often without historical proof (eg- 25th december is not the birthday.. at least there's no historical proof to suggest it. this day became the birthday ONLY from the time the pagan idea of the "feast of invincible sun" got replaced with this biblical idea, on the event of the day of "solstice" - which is an actual and annual event in astronomy, feast or no feast.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The spring solstice offers a period of renewal and hope in the world as the earth returns to life after the sleep of winter - how appropriate that Christianity should determine this as the best time to celebrate the crucifixion and return to life of Jesus?
----------------------------------

yes. they were indeed judicious in their choice of biblical fable/idea, that replaced the pagan idea on the day of the event.

it would look mighty odd and speak ill of the mental health of the "idea replacers", had they chosen to make the height of winter an 25th dec as the day of "return of life".

but the fact remains - its like a manenquin - you can take of the evening gown its wearing, and replace it with a jeans and T or some other dress.

the same manenquin is used still - and there's no denying that.

as for the bit in bold, it was made to coincide, so that the new dress replaces the old dress. if it didnt coincide, and a new date/manenquin was used, the old manenquin would still be wearing the same dress - and that "replacement" you euphemistically alluded to, would not have materialised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if you were to go another way and argue that Christ was essentially a reinvention of an agricultural deity for an urban Greek audience, then that would be another argument entirely.
---------------------------------

i made no such arguement !! (i'm taking the hint and using emoticons)

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by prajapati

i didnt say the whole thing was adopted from pagan roots.

i did say though, that pagan roots and rituals were adopted/incorporated INTO christianity. and biblical tales were woven around them (eg -solstice became birthday) incidentally will durant also said that. that christianity adopted paganism, in a classic "if you cant beat them, then join them" tactical manouvre.

so far I dont see anything that Christians & the whole world is not already aware of, before a durant or prajapati ever came about.

give me one example of a biblical tale & what you mean by that. or the 'tale' that bugs you most.

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by Bandit

so far I dont see anything that Christians & the whole world is not already aware of, before a durant or prajapati ever came about.

give me one example of a biblical tale & what you mean by that. or the 'tale' that bugs you most.

aha !
so christians were already aware of the fact that they adopted pagan manenquins and dressed them up in christian garb ??

"tale" = a biblical story. for example the birth of Christ taking place on the exact day (the day of solstice) the pagans celebrated the feast of the invinsible sun.

i didnt use it to mean "tall tale" or fake or fable. and none of them bugs me.


what bugs me is the unwillingness to call a spade a spade.


anyone, despite repeated attempts, none of my points have been refuted or proven wrong. most of all i am interested to know why voodoo and maya manenquins had NOT been dressed in christian dress, but on the other hand both africans and mayans (those that have not been slayed by the spaniards) had been forced to accept solstice, though its neither christian nor voodoo/maya. why this eurocentricity of manenquins ?




so i maintain - a whole lot of pagan manenquins remain in christianity, dressed though in biblical dress now. and that the religion christianity adopted itself to the boundary conditions of the pagan faiths that it wanted to eradicate.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by prajapati

aha !
so christians were already aware of the fact that they adopted pagan manenquins and dressed them up in christian garb ??



so i maintain - a whole lot of pagan manenquins remain in christianity, dressed though in biblical dress now. and that the religion christianity adopted itself to the boundary conditions of the pagan faiths that it wanted to eradicate.

i did not adopt them, they were handed down that way in many churches for centuries. it depends on what church you would go to as to how aware & admittant to it all. i think most everyone here does not have a problem with what you are saying. (so far)

Most Christians build there faith on the the love of Christ & the death burial & resurrection of Jesus for eternal life.
is any part of that foundation an issue?

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i did not adopt them, they were handed down that way in many churches for centuries. it depends on what church you would go to as to how aware & admittant to it all. i think most everyone here does not have a problem with what you are saying. (so far)

Most Christians build there faith on the the love of Christ & the death burial & resurrection of Jesus for eternal life.
is any part of that foundation an issue?

no its not. its the fact that beneath the dress of christianity (not christian theology but christian festivals/rituals), lies the manenquin of paganism, that i wanted to point out in the thread.

accepted answers - yes or no (if no, then explain how come)

and though you yourself did not adopt them, they were adopted by the catholic (i believe) church back in the early days of christianity. that many centuries have passed, dont make them any less pagan.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by prajapati

no its not. its the fact that beneath the dress of christianity (not christian theology but christian festivals/rituals), lies the manenquin of paganism, that i wanted to point out in the thread.

accepted answers - yes or no (if no, then explain how come)

and though you yourself did not adopt them, they were adopted by the catholic (i believe) church back in the early days of christianity. that many centuries have passed, dont make them any less pagan.

ok then we are in agreement. yes.
if you want to try & chisel away the great walls of china, that is up to you. i tossed my chisel out the window years ago & learned that it will eventually weather away & maybe open up on its own, yet the basic foundation of it all, will always stand uncorrupted .

peace to you & i appreciate the little discussion of awareness.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by prajapati

aha !
so christians were already aware of the fact that they adopted pagan manenquins and dressed them up in christian garb ??

That's a point of contention - only the clothing is pagan. As before, the Christmas tree isn't on the Church altar - Christianity has not adopted the Christmas tree as a religious symbol.

However, multi-cultural secular Europeans were certainly happy to *revive* older customs. I don't believe you'll find the ceremony of the Christmas tree present in Britain before the 19th century.

Originally Posted by prajapati

"tale" = a biblical story. for example the birth of Christ taking place on the exact day (the day of solstice) the pagans celebrated the feast of the invinsible sun.

This is the problem. *Which* "pagans" are the Christians stealing from? The Jewish celebration? The Persian celebration? The Italian? Scottish? Mayan? As before, it was a key date in the agricultural calendar. To celebrate an event at that time did not mean taking one religious tradition and simply giving it another name and calling it Christian - it's simply the cuckolding of the original tradition by a new religion with it's own clear theological events.

Originally Posted by prajapati

what bugs me is the unwillingness to call a spade a spade.

That and Europeans.

Originally Posted by prajapati

anyone, despite repeated attempts, none of my points have been refuted or proven wrong.

You haven;t really raised anything other than an observation that Christian rituals can have pagan elements. You don't seem to have put forward any successful argument stating that Christianity is simply other religious theologies under a different name.

Originally Posted by prajapati

most of all i am interested to know why voodoo and maya manenquins had NOT been dressed in christian dress

You really think Christianity isn't big in Haiti? The Maya were long gone when the Spaniards arrived, though - and I don;t believe the Spaniards took the Aztecs customs and sacrifices on-board and called them Christian.

Certainly there has been a lot of forced conversion - but that isn't your argument - your argument appears to be that Christianity is just another pagan religion, under a new name. I'm not seeing this supported by any specifica accusations with references. You're putting forward your opinion as some kind of "proof"?

Or have I misunderstood something here??

[prajapati]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Or have I misunderstood something here??

grossly.

i'll give you a chance to get the stick by the right end.