What's Wrong With Pagan Origins?

[Left Coast]

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.

That's interesting. But even from a fundamentalist POV, it's not as though pagans are only and ever wrong about everything. Perhaps pagans just got a few things right?

 

[Left Coast]

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.

Christmas and Easter certainly contain pagan elements, though I'll let people argue those specifics in another thread. The notion that Abrahamics derived nothing in their faiths from paganism strikes me as pretty ahistorical. So I hope we can agree that there is at least some truth to this concept, even if every alleged example isn't true.

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

My reason for pointing it out isn't to accuse Abrahamics of plagiarism or suggest any inferiority on the part of their traditions. My point here is actually to challenge the fundamentalist idea that this historical reality of how religious traditions develop is some sort of problem theologically that Abrahamics must be so motivated to deny.

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?

That actually gets to a more basic question: what's paganism? At what point can we reasonably say that some belief or practice is pagan, or has pagan roots?

For instance: making sacrifices to appease gods, including blood sacrifice. That's a common feature of polytheistic religion stretching back further than Abrahamic religion, as far as I know. Is that pagan? Is it fair to say that Jews didn't come up with that idea on their own, but inherited it from their pagan predecessors? Seems fairly obvious to me the answer is yes.

 

[viole]

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 would say that if you are a religious historian, then it should not matter. It is actually compelling. For instance, i think Catholicism, especially in Italy, is a follow up of all those mini gods they had before, with all those saints they pray to and with different powers and responsibilities (e.g. Saint Christopher specialized in travels, and meant to protect travelers, or the instance of Mary located in Fatima, specialized in deflecting gun shots reaching a VIP).

but if you believe that your god is absolutely unique, and has nothing to do with those false gods of the past, then you will tend to reject any connections with those gods. If you are an ancient Christian, then you will destroy the statues of those gods, like the Talibans do today.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sand Dancer]

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.

Yep. It's like if anything isn't divinely inspired by Yahweh, then the whole thing is for naught. It takes a while in Christianity to realize that this is not a healthy mindset to be in. Shades of gray are healthy.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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.

Historically the trend was away from multiple gods and toward one god. That's not right or wrong, just how it was.

 

[KWED]

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?

Indeed. Both Christianity and Islam have incorporated pagan tradition and ritual into their ideology.
Kinda stands to reason. What better way to attract new customers than by selling them a *New And Improved* version of what they are used to.

 

[KWED]

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.

Perhaps it's more like the free market eliminating competition.

 

[KWED]

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.

Given the seemingly clear evidence for the adoption of pagan celebrations and rituals into Abrahamic practice, perhaps it would be more effective to actually address these issues rather than simply arguing by assertion (and the rather gratuitous ad homs)?

 

[KWED]

That polytheism came before monotheism is just an idea and it has not been shown to be correct.

Of course it has been shown to be correct. There is archaeological evidence of polytheism thousands of years before monotheism.

The flood story is true and that is why pagans knew about it and had it in their myths before Genesis was written.

A global flood of the magnitude of the Bible story is not true.
Obviously, there have been many widespread and catastrophic floods over history. There still are. Stories of these events likely became embellished and evolved into the Biblical flood myth.

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.

It works on no such presumptions. Those conclusions are drawn from the available evidence. That's how science works, the opposite of religion which starts with a conclusion and then tries to find "evidence" to support it.

 

[KWED]

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

What should make culture 'legitimate' or not?

"Culture" that is imposed en-masse and through coercion by invading imperialists, at the cost of the native, evolved culture is clearly not legitimate.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That's interesting. But even from a fundamentalist POV, it's not as though pagans are only and ever wrong about everything. Perhaps pagans just got a few things right?

Well, I have heard the reasoning too that any religion before Christianity and Judaism that has stories or practices similar, got those practices and stories from some biblical historical event and perverted it. As an example, the flood story, which some would say the true version of events are in the biblical narratives, and any other variant of it has been changed for satanic purposes.

 

[clara17]

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.

Used to be a Christian is interesting. How can you un-know what you once knew?

 

[Augustus]

Given the seemingly clear evidence for the adoption of pagan celebrations

By all means present your evidence.

"Culture" that is imposed en-masse and through coercion by invading imperialists, at the cost of the native, evolved culture is clearly not legitimate.

Haha, like the "evolved native cultures" were spread through peace and the power of rational discourse

Basically all major modern cultures evolved out of those spread by "invading imperialists", so they are all illegitimate.

Wonderful.

 

[VoidCat]

Used to be a Christian is interesting. How can you un-know what you once knew?

I disagree with Christianity. I know what I believed at the time. I no longer believe in Christianity. So I used to be a Christian but am no longer. I changed religions im an apostate

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

That is blatantly false. Many of the Saints, such as Bridget, were Pagan gods before they were Catholic Saints. These beliefs and traditions weren't appropriated or stolen or plagiarized but rather inserted into Christianity by Pagans who converted.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Used to be a Christian is interesting. How can you un-know what you once knew?

How's that? Both OT and NT mention those who leave. Paul says we are like dogs who eat their own vomit. That vomit is pretty tasty.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

What does social Darwinism mean? The only other time I've heard this phrase, was when Nazis misappropriated Darwinian evolution for their pseudo scientific ideas.

 

[Sheldon]

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.

That sounds like a classic poisoning of the well fallacy to me. Do you have anything beyond your unevidenced subjective claim to support this?

 

[Sheldon]

That polytheism came before monotheism is just an idea and it has not been shown to be correct.

You mean like monotheism? Or have monotheistic beliefs been "shown to be correct" in a way you think paganism has not?

God spoke with pagans in the Bible and they were some of the heroes especially in Genesis.

You mean the bible claims this, so what, this does not remotely amount to objective evidence. The bible claims that the earth with vegetation existed before the sun.

The flood story is true and that is why pagans knew about it and had it in their myths before Genesis was written.

Genesis is equally a myth, and none of it is remotely supported by objective evidence, and much of it is demonstrably falsified by scientific facts.

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.

Science does not deal in assumptions about unfalsifiable superstition. There is no objective evidence for any supernatural claims, and the bible's supernatural claims have no more merit than the legends of Hercules, and for the same reason.

 

[Augustus]

That is blatantly false. Many of the Saints, such as Bridget, were Pagan gods before they were Catholic Saints. These beliefs and traditions weren't appropriated or stolen or plagiarized but rather inserted into Christianity by Pagans who converted.

That point was about the standard points that get trotted out relentlessly: Christmas, Easter etc.

Anyway while saints can be considered a form of 'soft polytheism' if one is inclined that way, whether St Brigid was a "pagan god" or not is very debatable.

The problem is pagans didn't write much down, so sources for paganism tend to be Christian and written hundreds of years after the spread of Christianity.

The cults of some saints almost certainly do reflect pre-Christian traditions, but also some things that may seem superficially "pagan" are simply folk Christianity. It is often impossible to tell because there simply isn't much evidence.