What's Wrong With Pagan Origins?

[Augustus]

it hardly seems appropriate to toss around a word like 'bigotry.'

You misunderstand, that statement it its actual context

Most of the things that are claimed to be "Pagan" (Christmas, Easter, etc.) are not "Pagan"... The reason they are claimed to be "Pagan" is not rational critical enquiry, but bigotry... Most of the tropes so beloved of modern anti-theists actually originated in Protestant anti-Catholic polemic... 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.

So what's your take on the material in the many hundreds of english folk songs - I am a folk singer, I play clawhammer banjo, and fiddle, and sing. I can tell you, and show you, where something spiritually mysterious pops of out practically every stanza, of these words I sing. Take a good look for example, at the lyrics of 'the wife at usher's well,' that I pick on banjo. What in the world do you make of that? What kind of a mysterious 'spirit world' is this folk song placing as a background structure behind Christmas, which it mentions. Now if you can't answer that question, it hardly seems appropriate to toss around a word like 'bigotry.' I hardly know what's going on in that song, and many others that do the same thing in the folk tradition

Is Lord of the Rings "pagan"? I mean it contains features of "paganism" in it, yet it was written by a devout Christian in the 20th C, with a decidedly Chritian subtext in response to 20th C poltical events.

 

[KWED]

By all means present your evidence.

Ritual ablutions before five daily prayers were a part of Zoroastrian practice long before Islam adopted them.
"Before each of the five daily prayers, the Zoroastrian should wash his face, names and feet". - A History of Zoroastrianism: the Early Period, Mary Boyce, p310

(There are many other examples. However, I suspect that no amount of evidence would persuade you. Such is the way of the ideologue.
Also noticed that you declined to present any argument to support you ad hom based invective. Any chance of that?)

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

Some were never "spread".
Also, inter-tribal conflict over resources is nothing new, but that doesn't excuse the violence and oppression involved. (Google "whataboutery")

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

If they impose their "evolved" culture on others through coercion, then yes, those expansions are illegitimate.

Wonderful.

It is interesting how often Abrahamic apologists feel obliged to defend imperialist expansionism and subjugation. As you say, "wonderful" .

 

[KWED]

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

By finding out that what you once thought was true/correct is actually false/wrong.
When you find out something new, you don't immediately forget the earlier knowledge.

 

[KWED]

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.

I think it stems from the classic misunderstanding of "survival of the fittest", which wasn't even a term used by Darwin.

 

[Augustus]

There are many other examples. However, I suspect that no amount of evidence would persuade you. Such is the way of the ideologue.

Read better please

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.

Ritual ablutions before five daily prayers were a part of Zoroastrian practice long before Islam adopted them.
"Before each of the five daily prayers, the Zoroastrian should wash his face, names and feet". - A History of Zoroastrianism: the Early Period, Mary Boyce, p310

Not a celebration.

Some were never "spread".
Also, inter-tribal conflict over resources is nothing new, but that doesn't excuse the violence and oppression involved. (Google "whataboutery")

Noting all dominant cultures are spread through the exercise of power underpinned by violence is not "whataboutery".

(Google "whataboutery")

If they impose their "evolved" culture on others through coercion, then yes, those expansions are illegitimate.

Which major modern culture that owes nothing to violence and coercion?

Which successful historical culture owes nothing to violence and coercion?

It is interesting how often Abrahamic apologists feel obliged to defend imperialist expansionism and subjugation. As you say, "wonderful" .

a) I'm not remotely religious.

b) Stating historical fact is neither apologetics or 'defence' of said historical fact.

 

[KWED]

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

So are you claiming that 25th December is the actual birth date of Jesus, and it's just coincidence that it happened to fall in the middle of a load of existing midwinter festivals?

some things that may seem superficially "pagan" are simply folk Christianity.

Would "folk Christianity" be Christianity that has adopted existing "folk" traditions or beliefs, by any chance?

 

[Augustus]

So are you claiming that 25th December is the actual birth date of Jesus, and it's just coincidence that it happened to fall in the middle of a load of existing midwinter festivals?

No

My view are expressed here:

Christmas 25 Dec: Scholarly views

Would "folk Christianity" be Christianity that has adopted existing "folk" traditions or beliefs, by any chance?

It certainly has non-Christian influences, but thinking as anything with non-Christian influences as being 'pagan' is misleading imo.

For example:

Is Lord of the Rings "pagan"? I mean it contains features of "paganism" in it, yet it was written by a devout Christian in the 20th C, with a decidedly Christian subtext in response to 20th C political events.

 

[KWED]

Read better please
Not a celebration.

OK, so you accept that the Abrahamic religions adopted elements of earlier pagan religions, but you are complaining about people who claim Christmas and Easter are actually pagan celebrations?
Given that people don't make that claim, but rather that the Christian festivals incorporated elements of or piggybacked earlier festivals, I fail to see what you are getting so upset about.

Noting all dominant cultures are spread through the exercise of power underpinned by violence is not "whataboutery".

You weren't merely "noting" it but using it as an argument by comparing the two.

Which major modern culture that owes nothing to violence and coercion?

Straw man.

Which successful historical culture owes nothing to violence and coercion?

I said "spread".

a) I'm not remotely religious.

You do a very good impression.

b) Stating historical fact is neither apologetics or 'defence' of said historical fact.

So you condemn imperialist expansionism, in principle. Wonderful.

 

[Augustus]

OK, so you accept that the Abrahamic religions adopted elements of earlier pagan religions, but you are complaining about people who claim Christmas and Easter are actually pagan celebrations?
Given that people don't make that claim, but rather that the Christian festivals incorporated elements of or piggybacked earlier festivals, I fail to see what you are getting so upset about.

Some people certainly do make that claim.

Given I think the origins and elements of Christmas are not "pagan", it should be clear why I find it wrong for people to claim they are, especially when it is often done out of prejudice.

You weren't merely "noting" it but using it as an argument by comparing the two.

You were arguing cultures spread by power and violence were illegitimate.

I was noting that this makes all major cultures illegitimate.

Not "whataboutery".

I said "spread".

Give me an example of a major modern or historical culture that wasn't spread by power underpinned by violence.

You do a very good impression.

Only if you assume being irreligious requires you to be credulously anti-religious

So you condemn imperialist expansionism, in principle. Wonderful.

In the modern world, yes.

In the past it was really a necessity as if you were weak you would likely become the victim.

Empire as such was neither good nor bad, it just was a fact of life with positive and negative effects.

 

[Augustus]

Pretty sure it was me

Is Plato Christianity's hidden "church father"?

"I would personally opine that - as filtered through the Middle Platonist synthesis between Platonism and Stoicism, the Platonizing Judaism of Philo of Alexandria, the Wisdom of Solomon and St. Paul's letters - there has been quite a lot of indebtedness on our part."

Should have guessed

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
If they impose their "evolved" culture on others through coercion, then yes, those expansions are illegitimate.
...

It depends on how you use the word "are"?
And if you try to impose your evolved culture on mine? Or do you accept that I understand it differently and it doesn't mean that I am "something negative"?

 

[Sheldon]

I think it stems from the classic misunderstanding of "survival of the fittest", which wasn't even a term used by Darwin.

Yes it's origins are nothing more than pseudoscience. So when this accusation was posted:

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.

I wanted to be sure the term was being used as I understood it.

That unevidenced accusation aside, religions like cultures and societies do evolve. Christianity is no exception with a staggering 45000 denominations globally, and over 200 in the US alone. The idea it didn't absorb any practices from the religions it replaced, might be important to those who wish to view it as unique, but that is hardly what the evidence suggests.

"Saturnalia originated as a farmer’s festival to mark the end of the autumn planting season in honour of Saturn (satus means sowing). Numerous archaeological sites from the Roman coastal province of Constantine, now in Algeria, demonstrate that the cult of Saturn survived there until the early third century AD.

Saturnalia grew in duration and moved to progressively later dates under the Roman period. During the reign of the Emperor Augustus (63 BC-AD 14), it was a two-day affair starting on December 17th. By the time Lucian described the festivities, it was a seven-day event. Changes to the Roman calendar moved the climax of Saturnalia to December 25th, around the time of the date of the winter solstice.

From as early as 217 BC there were public Saturnalia banquets. The Roman state cancelled executions and refrained from declaring war during the festival. Pagan Roman authorities tried to curtail Saturnalia; Emperor Caligula (AD 12-41) sought to restrict it to five days, with little success."

 

[Sheldon]

So are you claiming that 25th December is the actual birth date of Jesus, and it's just coincidence that it happened to fall in the middle of a load of existing midwinter festivals?

Festivals that involved present giving, celebrations including feasting, and bringing branches and plants indoors and decorating them, with a theme of generosity and giving. Once one accepts the fact that Dec 25th is not the birth of Jesus, then denying the influence of festivals known to predate xmas, that occurred at the same time, and shared many of the types of celebrations, is trying to slam the door after the horse has bolted really.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Is Lord of the Rings "pagan"? I mean it contains features of "paganism" in it, yet it was written by a devout Christian in the 20th C, with a decidedly Chritian subtext in response to 20th C poltical events.

I thought Tolkien was an old Norse scholar. I read the 4 major books he did, plus 2 eddas and one saga. Though I am not a scholar, I could show you point by point where he gets all of his material, if I had the time.

Another folk song I have adapted to banjo is Alison gross, which mentions Halloween alongside major pagan themes, ought you review those lyrics

 

[Augustus]

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.

The application of ideas regarding evolution to human society.

It was a major trend in European and American thought around the turn of the 20th C, along with things like positive and negative eugenics.

Whilst more associated with ideas from people like Malthus, Spencer and Haekel, Darwin himself unequivocally held views that could be considered "Social Darwinistic" as he believed rules of evolution could be applied to human societies.

While we generally find such ideas distasteful in the modern era, at the time they were supported by both progressive and conservative forces and were very much considered to be legitimately scientific.

That modern creationists may use the term polemically to undermine evolution, doesn't require us to pretend that these ideas were only held by fascists and ideologues and that any fairly liberal scientist acting in good faith knew they were false and pseudoscientific.

They were simply considered rational and scientific beliefs supported by the evidence available.

(to preempt a potential mistake, noting this is not "attacking science" it is just reporting historical fact)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The application of ideas regarding evolution to human society.

It was a major trend in European and American thought around the turn of the 20th C, along with things like positive and negative eugenics.

Whilst more associated with ideas from people like Malthus, Spencer and Haekel, Darwin himself unequivocally held views that could be considered "Social Darwinistic" as he believed rules of evolution could be applied to human societies.

While we generally find such ideas distasteful in the modern era, at the time they were supported by both progressive and conservative forces and were very much considered to be legitimately scientific.

That modern creationists may use the term polemically to undermine evolution, doesn't require us to pretend that these ideas were only held by fascists and ideologues and that any fairly liberal scientist acting in good faith knew they were false and pseudoscientific.

They were simply considered rational and scientific beliefs supported by the evidence available.

(to preempt a potential mistake, noting this is not "attacking science" it is just reporting historical fact)

You can still find it in a similar sense today. The battle cry is Education! If we just could give everybody the correct education all our problems would be over.
As someone who have worked in an educational institution for over 15 years, I can spot some well meaning opinions, which are none the less naive. Even from the traditional left side and the center, i.e. the progressives and social liberals.

 

[Augustus]

I thought Tolkien was an old Norse scholar. I read the 4 major books he did, plus 2 eddas and one saga. Though I am not a scholar, I could show you point by point where he gets all of his material, if I had the time.

The question is how much these can be viewed as representing an authentic "paganism" rater than simply being source material for a modern story based on a Christian worldview. For example, the straightforward good/evil narrative doesn't seem particularly pagan to me.

George Martin borrowed extensively from medieval history for Game of Thrones but repurposed it for his own creation.

It's easy to point to countless examples and identify the real world character or event he is re-creating. But with each he is fundamentally changing its nature.

One would learn little about factual history from reading it as it does not strive to authentically replicate a historical culture, but use it as a tool for telling a story aimed at a contemporary audience.

Stories take on the character of the society they develop in, and at some point they lose any meaningful connection to the culture that first created the concepts.

If I wrote a story called "Mr Careful the Safety Elf" to help children cross the road how "pagan" would that be just because it has an elf in it?

 

[Kenny]

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 guess because when Abraham received his calling, it was indeed "out of nowhere".

That there would be similarities, I would say yes because we would hold to that it all started correctly and then branched out and changed over the centuries holding on to some truths.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The question is how much these can be viewed as representing an authentic "paganism" rater than simply being source material for a modern story based on a Christian worldview. For example, the straightforward good/evil narrative doesn't seem particularly pagan to me.

That's actually a very interesting question. I think there is a good/evil narrative in Norse myth, but although it isn't exactly parallel with the Christian stories, it is perhaps alive and well in the Western subconscious.

Case and point, would be what the philosopher Jordan Peterson loves to talk about, which is whole idea of being useful to society while at the same time being an 'individual,' and the whole idea of conquering a metaphorical dragon, and how that 'strengthens' a person almost metaphysically - that whole bit is almost directly out of the saga of the Volsungs, yet he probably has not idea about that

That particular dragon story is of course, taken to the hobbit, and it also compares rather startlingly to the old testament story about Adam eating the forbidden fruit - you see, Sigurd eats the dragon's heart, and it gives him a parallel sort of mental elongation, like what happened with Adam.

I go into that in a different thread I am working on, comparing Norse myths to the Bible directly. But the difference is, is that maybe Sigurd's act wasn't looked down on as much, as eating from his 'tree of knowledge' (the dragon) was more of an act of courage

So where Christianity cuts off, partly, I think is with sometimes editing away the notion of 'fate,' which was important to the Norse. Unless you are a Calvinist, because I thought the Catholics didn't really like the idea of not having free will. And so to the Norse, eating the fruit of knowledge would have been more like an act of courage, that their divine powers would be more approving of.

And the concept of the 'individual' feeds into that as well, because that also takes courage, just to become one

Anyway, in doing a word search of Jackson Crawford's Poetic Edda, I see that the word 'good' appears 151 times, while evil appears 25 times. I think he may have some videos that speak to that, what good and evil was them. I haven't thought about that much, but it's likely been covered by smarter folk than I

If I wrote a story called "Mr Careful the Safety Elf" to help children cross the road how "pagan" would that be just because it has an elf in it?

Well, the 'elf' is the original conceptual material that you are using, so what you are doing is creating a derivative work. People do that all the time, that's how culture evolves in a way you can track. Your elf didn't come out of nowhere

 

[KWED]

I don't know what "it's not the dating" means. You're claiming paganism doesn't predate Judaism?

I've already mentioned a couple.

Creation myth
Flood myth
Sacrifices - particularly blood sacrifice
Priestly caste
Dying/rising god/son a god - see also Rank/Raglan hero archetype

Again, you're not going to claim that nothing in Abrahamic religion is pagan, are you?



Which is why we should adopt the view I suggested - parts of Abrahamic religion are borrowed, and parts are novel. Thank you for agreeing with me.



A useful question indeed, but one you didn't answer...?

Sacrifices are indeed ubiquitous - in paganism.



That depends on the tradition. Some pagans did copy each other. The Romans copied the Greeks, for example. In



I don't know how you conclude anything is a "universal human practice" without having exhaustive knowledge of all human beings, but...okay? If you're admitting that Judaism shares religious features with its religious ancestors, that seems to be an admission that what I said in my OP is correct. Or are you claiming that the ancient Israelites came up with all those similar features completely independently, with no knowledge of the existing religious ideas all around them? I truly hope that's not what you're saying.



So again - what's pagan? How would you tell if a religion borrowed from a pagan precursor?

I think we can sum up Augustus' position as... "I hate it when people don't make the arguments I want to attack, so I'll attack them anyway".