What's Wrong With Pagan Origins?

[Left Coast]

There are some folks, especially of the Abrahamic persuasion, who get very bent out of shape at any suggestion that some aspect of their faith has pagan origins.

This confuses me.

Firstly, religions don't appear out of nowhere in a cultural or ideological vacuum. They don't generally form exclusively and only new thoughts and practices that have never been seen before. Some aspects of them are of course unique - that's what makes them different religions. But of course they share similarities with the traditions that preceded them. And historically, we know that monotheistic traditions were preceded by polytheistic and animistic ones. So of course monotheists are going to have borrowed some ideas and practices and even aspects of their mythology and theology from their ancestors, and of course adapted them from there (see the Genesis creation and flood narratives, for example).

This is also true even for completely secular traditions today, like wearing a ring to signify that you're married. That's straight up pagan, kids!

Why is this problematic? Why is something lesser or wrong or corrupted or otherwise bad because a pagan came up with the idea first?

 

[VoidCat]

There are some folks, especially of the Abrahamic persuasion, who get very bent out of shape at any suggestion that some aspect of their faith has pagan origins.

This confuses me.

Firstly, religions don't appear out of nowhere in a cultural or ideological vacuum. They don't generally form exclusively and only new thoughts and practices that have never been seen before. Some aspects of them are of course unique - that's what makes them different religions. But of course they share similarities with the traditions that preceded them. And historically, we know that monotheistic traditions were preceded by polytheistic and animistic ones. So of course monotheists are going to have borrowed some ideas and practices and even aspects of their mythology and theology from their ancestors, and of course adapted them from there (see the Genesis creation and flood narratives, for example).

This is also true even for completely secular traditions today, like wearing a ring to signify that you're married. That's straight up pagan, kids!

Why is this problematic? Why is something lesser or wrong or corrupted or otherwise bad because a pagan came up with the idea first?

I can give you an answer as someone who used to be a Christian. To me I would've said back then it's because that would mean God's word wasn't divinely inspired but created by man.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There are some folks, especially of the Abrahamic persuasion, who get very bent out of shape at any suggestion that some aspect of their faith has pagan origins.

This confuses me.

Firstly, religions don't appear out of nowhere in a cultural or ideological vacuum. They don't generally form exclusively and only new thoughts and practices that have never been seen before. Some aspects of them are of course unique - that's what makes them different religions. But of course they share similarities with the traditions that preceded them. And historically, we know that monotheistic traditions were preceded by polytheistic and animistic ones. So of course monotheists are going to have borrowed some ideas and practices and even aspects of their mythology and theology from their ancestors, and of course adapted them from there (see the Genesis creation and flood narratives, for example).

This is also true even for completely secular traditions today, like wearing a ring to signify that you're married. That's straight up pagan, kids!

Why is this problematic? Why is something lesser or wrong or corrupted or otherwise bad because a pagan came up with the idea first?

For me, your question in the other OP was not offensive i could not answer it, but if aspects of those rituals did have pagen origin but was "further developed " within Islam, that might have been so, I just dont know.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There are some folks, especially of the Abrahamic persuasion, who get very bent out of shape at any suggestion that some aspect of their faith has pagan origins.

This confuses me.

Firstly, religions don't appear out of nowhere in a cultural or ideological vacuum. They don't generally form exclusively and only new thoughts and practices that have never been seen before. Some aspects of them are of course unique - that's what makes them different religions. But of course they share similarities with the traditions that preceded them. And historically, we know that monotheistic traditions were preceded by polytheistic and animistic ones. So of course monotheists are going to have borrowed some ideas and practices and even aspects of their mythology and theology from their ancestors, and of course adapted them from there (see the Genesis creation and flood narratives, for example).

This is also true even for completely secular traditions today, like wearing a ring to signify that you're married. That's straight up pagan, kids!

Why is this problematic? Why is something lesser or wrong or corrupted or otherwise bad because a pagan came up with the idea first?

At least from the Christian worldview, pagan believes are satanic. So if a part of their faith originates from pagan origins, that means that they have satanic elements in their religion. Bare in mind that it is fundamentalists who have this view mostly.

 

[The Hammer]

There are some folks, especially of the Abrahamic persuasion, who get very bent out of shape at any suggestion that some aspect of their faith has pagan origins.

This confuses me.

Firstly, religions don't appear out of nowhere in a cultural or ideological vacuum. They don't generally form exclusively and only new thoughts and practices that have never been seen before. Some aspects of them are of course unique - that's what makes them different religions. But of course they share similarities with the traditions that preceded them. And historically, we know that monotheistic traditions were preceded by polytheistic and animistic ones. So of course monotheists are going to have borrowed some ideas and practices and even aspects of their mythology and theology from their ancestors, and of course adapted them from there (see the Genesis creation and flood narratives, for example).

This is also true even for completely secular traditions today, like wearing a ring to signify that you're married. That's straight up pagan, kids!

Why is this problematic? Why is something lesser or wrong or corrupted or otherwise bad because a pagan came up with the idea first?

To me what is problematic with saying all or any monotheism has "pagan" origins. Is that it implies that monotheism is some growth out of polytheism, or a natural evolution thereof. This in turn seems to imply that polytheists are backwards or less advanced spiritually, and kind of reeks of social darwinism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are some folks, especially of the Abrahamic persuasion, who get very bent out of shape at any suggestion that some aspect of their faith has pagan origins.

This confuses me.

Firstly, religions don't appear out of nowhere in a cultural or ideological vacuum. They don't generally form exclusively and only new thoughts and practices that have never been seen before. Some aspects of them are of course unique - that's what makes them different religions. But of course they share similarities with the traditions that preceded them. And historically, we know that monotheistic traditions were preceded by polytheistic and animistic ones. So of course monotheists are going to have borrowed some ideas and practices and even aspects of their mythology and theology from their ancestors, and of course adapted them from there (see the Genesis creation and flood narratives, for example).

This is also true even for completely secular traditions today, like wearing a ring to signify that you're married. That's straight up pagan, kids!

Why is this problematic? Why is something lesser or wrong or corrupted or otherwise bad because a pagan came up with the idea first?

It means that the purity of their faith is called into question because if it shares elements of Paganism it means their faith is corrupted and possibly not even true in regards to what they are taught (especially from a literalist interpretation).

 

[Augustus]

Why is this problematic? Why is something lesser or wrong or corrupted or otherwise bad because a pagan came up with the idea first?

1. Most of the things that are claimed to be "Pagan" (Christmas, Easter, etc.) are not "Pagan". That is reason enough to say it is problematic.

2. The reason they are claimed to be "Pagan" is not rational critical enquiry, but bigotry. The point is to reduce the legitimacy of the tradition, by claiming it is was originally "stolen" or "plagiarised" by dishonest and mendacious figures in the past. Most of the tropes so beloved of modern anti-theists actually originated in Protestant anti-Catholic polemic. So this time of year "Rationalists" all over the world uncritically repeat sectarian polemic as established historical fact

3. Why should we describe anything not uniquely Abrahamic as "Pagan" anyway? Doing so makes little sense from a secular perspective and just creates false connections between diverse and disparate behaviours, cultures, practices and belief systems all over the world. Why should anything not done for Abrahamic reasons be considered to have been done for "Pagan" reasons?


Christianity certainly integrated many aspects of culture, philosophy, etc from its environment, but the major celebrations that people tend to claim are "Pagan" are nothing of the sort.

 

[Debater Slayer]

1. Most of the things that are claimed to be "Pagan" (Christmas, Easter, etc.) are not "Pagan". That is reason enough to say it is problematic.

Sometimes they have similarities that are worthy of being talked about, though, if only to highlight the resemblance that many traditions throughout different cultures in history bear to each other. This doesn't have to take away anything from the traditions, although I realize some people argue it does.

2. The reason they are claimed to be "Pagan" is not rational critical enquiry, but bigotry. The point is to reduce the legitimacy of the tradition, by claiming it is was originally "stolen" or "plagiarised" by dishonest and mendacious figures in the past. Most of the tropes so beloved of modern anti-theists actually originated in Protestant anti-Catholic polemic. So this time of year "Rationalists" all over the world uncritically repeat sectarian polemic as established historical fact

Not necessarily: up until a couple of years ago, I was under the impression that Easter and Christmas entirely originated in paganism. I didn't view that as anything sinister or dishonest on the part of Christianity, but it was inaccurate nonetheless.

Easter in Egypt coincides with Sham El Nessim, a holiday dating back to ancient Egypt. It isn't hard to assume a connection between the two holidays when they're celebrated so closely together:

The celebration of Easter in Egypt has two very different moments: Coptic Christians follow the rites of the Coptic Christian Church in Coptic Cairo, founded by Saint Mark and Egypt as a whole celebrates the arrival of spring with Sham El Nessim.

Easter Traditions in Egypt - How to celebrate Easter in Egypt?

As much as I disagree with repeating historical misconceptions to demonize certain traditions or religions, I find the complete denial of any cross-cultural influences on modern-day Christian traditions by some Christian apologists and fundamentalists no less inaccurate or problematic than the misconceptions that some anti-theists use in order to try to discredit Christianity. Inaccurate history is problematic regardless of who propagates it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

On a related note, I think it's a bit strange to latch onto historical inaccuracies to criticize Christian traditions. In my opinion, there are numerous facts that one could use to do so, especially when it comes to the history of the Catholic Church and how rife it is with abuse, especially child abuse, and unnecessary violence. Shifting the focus from these facts to whether or not Christian holidays "appropriated" pagan ones seems a bit unreasonable.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It means that the purity of their faith is called into question because if it shares elements of Paganism it means their faith is corrupted and possibly not even true in regards to what they are taught (especially from a literalist interpretation).

Exactly. To religious supremacists and fundamentalists who repeat phrases like "remember the reason for the season," for example, while ignoring and/or looking down on all non-Christian winter traditions in the process, being associated with pagan traditions is an insult because it associates what they consider to be the "truth" with something they view as impure or sinful.

Of course, this is just one of the various objections to said association. Some people just reject the association because it is sometimes inaccurate and meant to imply sinister motivations on the part of Christians or other non-pagan religious groups who are assumed to have "appropriated" any given holiday or tradition.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

On a related note, I think it's a bit strange to latch onto historical inaccuracies to criticize Christian traditions. In my opinion, there are numerous facts that one could use to do so, especially when it comes to the history of the Catholic Church and how rife it is with abuse, especially child abuse, and unnecessary violence. Shifting the focus from these facts to whether or not Christian holidays "appropriated" pagan ones seems a bit unreasonable.

Why shouldn't this be discussed? It is an issue of historic relevance and it's not forever shifting the focus away from the issues you listed.
It's like Christians who hate Xmas, believing the X an attempt to take Christ out of Christmas. Or this fantasy they have that people arent supposed to say Merry Christmas but instead have to say happy holidays. I don't know if they still do it, but Fox News even had a "War on Christmas" thing going on.
It's basically a very large overlap of people who believe all this stuff. Including denial of just how Pagan Christianity really is.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Why shouldn't this be discussed? It is an issue of historic relevance and it's not forever shifting the focus away from the issues you listed.
It's like Christians who hate Xmas, believing the X an attempt to take Christ out of Christmas. Or this fantasy they have that people arent supposed to say Merry Christmas but instead have to say happy holidays. I don't know if they still do it, but Fox News even had a "War on Christmas" thing going on.
It's basically a very large overlap of people who believe all this stuff. Including denial of just how Pagan Christianity really is.

I didn't say it shouldn't be discussed; only that there's an undue fixation on it both from anti-theists and Christian apologists. There are issues of much more pressing concern than a holiday's origin that don't get talked about nearly as much.

 

[Estro Felino]

Absolutely nothing.
On April the 21st, each year Rome' s birthday is celebrated. That is the anniversary of Rome's foundation, 21st April 754BC.

And people dress like ancient Romans. Like pagan priests and priestesses. Like centurions and so on.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

To me what is problematic with saying all or any monotheism has "pagan" origins. Is that it implies that monotheism is some growth out of polytheism, or a natural evolution thereof. This in turn seems to imply that polytheists are backwards or less advanced spiritually, and kind of reeks of social darwinism.

It's worth pointing out that I often find monotheism to be a kind of forced idea. Ask any Christian who invokes the name of both God and Jesus, or a saint, or Mary, and believes in a host of angels and devils why they don't consider themselves polytheistic and you'll find the concept of "monotheism" is often more like "polytheism-lite."

If we use the analogy of evolution, it should be considered that adaptations are only better than previous iterations in that particular environment. Older forms are not inferior, only not suited for a particular environment, and can reevolve.

If we take monotheism as an evolutionary adaptation, it appears that it may have some function that wears away in time, requiring religions to add other beings to the pantheon, even they refuse to call them gods or deities lest their jealous Creator god banish them to hell.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

2. The reason they are claimed to be "Pagan" is not rational critical enquiry, but bigotry. The point is to reduce the legitimacy of the tradition, by claiming it is was originally "stolen" or "plagiarised" by dishonest and mendacious figures in the past. Most of the tropes so beloved of modern anti-theists actually originated in Protestant anti-Catholic polemic. So this time of year "Rationalists" all over the world uncritically repeat sectarian polemic as established historical fact
.

Since much of the history of Christianity has been based on colonialistic expansion through conversion, reducing the legitimacy of tradition there appears poetically just.

 

[Secret Chief]

There are some folks, especially of the Abrahamic persuasion, who get very bent out of shape at any suggestion that some aspect of their faith has pagan origins.

This confuses me.

Firstly, religions don't appear out of nowhere in a cultural or ideological vacuum. They don't generally form exclusively and only new thoughts and practices that have never been seen before. Some aspects of them are of course unique - that's what makes them different religions. But of course they share similarities with the traditions that preceded them. And historically, we know that monotheistic traditions were preceded by polytheistic and animistic ones. So of course monotheists are going to have borrowed some ideas and practices and even aspects of their mythology and theology from their ancestors, and of course adapted them from there (see the Genesis creation and flood narratives, for example).

This is also true even for completely secular traditions today, like wearing a ring to signify that you're married. That's straight up pagan, kids!

Why is this problematic? Why is something lesser or wrong or corrupted or otherwise bad because a pagan came up with the idea first?

Perhaps because it makes it difficult to be dismissive of something that contributed to the later faiths?

 

[Brian2]

There are some folks, especially of the Abrahamic persuasion, who get very bent out of shape at any suggestion that some aspect of their faith has pagan origins.

This confuses me.

Firstly, religions don't appear out of nowhere in a cultural or ideological vacuum. They don't generally form exclusively and only new thoughts and practices that have never been seen before. Some aspects of them are of course unique - that's what makes them different religions. But of course they share similarities with the traditions that preceded them. And historically, we know that monotheistic traditions were preceded by polytheistic and animistic ones. So of course monotheists are going to have borrowed some ideas and practices and even aspects of their mythology and theology from their ancestors, and of course adapted them from there (see the Genesis creation and flood narratives, for example).

This is also true even for completely secular traditions today, like wearing a ring to signify that you're married. That's straight up pagan, kids!

Why is this problematic? Why is something lesser or wrong or corrupted or otherwise bad because a pagan came up with the idea first?

That polytheism came before monotheism is just an idea and it has not been shown to be correct.
God spoke with pagans in the Bible and they were some of the heroes especially in Genesis.
The flood story is true and that is why pagans knew about it and had it in their myths before Genesis was written.
Anthropology seems to use the same naturalistic methodology that science does (I guess it is a science) and so of course has to work on the presumption that one religion came from another and that the supernatural stories in the Bible are not fact.

 

[Augustus]

Since much of the history of Christianity has been based on colonialistic expansion through conversion, reducing the legitimacy of tradition there appears poetically just.

Cultures, languages, belief systems etc. generally spread through some form of dominance, paganisms included.

What should make culture 'legitimate' or not?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Cultures, languages, belief systems etc. generally spread through some form of dominance, paganisms included.

What should make culture 'legitimate' or not?

Certainly. I would suggest questioning the legitimacy of culture is asking the wrong question. It is more of what purpose does this culture fulfill, and does it meet the needs of the people.

Calls for "keeping Christ in Christmas" ignores the need for winter celebration during a time when Christianity does not fulfill the needs of all the people but the holiday itself has an amalgam of elements that are either not related to Christ (mistletoe, feasting, revelry, hanging the greens), loosely associated with Christ and has other cultural associations (gift-giving, Santa Claus), or are related by-proxy (Christmas trees) that folks who do not relate to Christianity can choose from.

I myself have no problem with Christ; he's been hanging on the tree of Life and Death long enough that his blood is fermented and aged nicely to fit my pagan cup. I like it mulled with earthy spices to warm my blood and melt into the kingdom of Eden spread over the Earth.

But Christians keep pulling his bones down and shaking them at folks until Christianity is a dead thing to them and its wine is dust on the tongue.

 

[Left Coast]

To me what is problematic with saying all or any monotheism has "pagan" origins. Is that it implies that monotheism is some growth out of polytheism, or a natural evolution thereof. This in turn seems to imply that polytheists are backwards or less advanced spiritually, and kind of reeks of social darwinism.

Ah, that's interesting. I hadn't thought of that. To me, the fact that paganism came first in history doesn't make it inferior. But I suppose I can understand why some people would think that.