Pagans

Hedgelayer

There's a lot of people reverting back to paganism and luciferian ways of living.

Since we were originally pagan and the Catholics slaughtered pagans and witches throughout history.

Does the rise in paganism which is very similar to the Catholic church bother any Christians ?

kelly1

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Does the rise in paganism which is very similar to the Catholic church bother any Christians ?

You're saying Catholicism is similar to paganism??

To answer your question, all Christians would/should be concerned about the rise in paganism/luciferianism and indeed any non-christian religion because these people are putting their souls in grave danger of damnation.

smacl

Hedgelayer wrote: »

There's a lot of people reverting back to paganism and luciferian ways of living.

Since we were originally pagan and the Catholics slaughtered pagans and witches throughout history.

Does the rise in paganism which is very similar to the Catholic church bother any Christians ?

Not sure that paganism in this country ever had anything to do with Lucifer, who is a character in Christian tradition. Paganism here predates Christianity, where you'd think more of Tuatha De Dannan, i.e. people of the goddess Danu, and prior to that the Fir Bolg.

Hedgelayer

kelly1 wrote: »

You're saying Catholicism is similar to paganism??

To answer your question, all Christians would/should be concerned about the rise in paganism/luciferianism and indeed any non-christian religion because these people are putting their souls in grave danger of damnation.

I think abrahamic religion full stop is putting people's soul's in great danger before they go anywhere....

But as far as I'm aware only 10,000 people are going upstairs anyhow and the rest are off to different places.

I don't believe in hellfire and brimstone for every one who's not Christian.
That's not an attractive way to live.
The fear of the odds of 10,000 people going to heaven out of billions.

It's not good odds really is it.

kelly1

Hedgelayer wrote: »

I think abrahamic religion full stop is putting people's soul's in great danger before they go anywhere....

But as far as I'm aware only 10,000 people are going upstairs anyhow and the rest are off to different places.

I don't believe in hellfire and brimstone for every one who's not Christian.
That's not an attractive way to live.
The fear of the odds of 10,000 people going to heaven out of billions.

It's not good odds really is it.

I don't know where you got 10k from but that's wrong. And how are Abrahamic religions putting souls in danger considering you don't believe in Hell?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Not sure that paganism in this country ever had anything to do with Lucifer, who is a character in Christian tradition. Paganism here predates Christianity, where you'd think more of Tuatha De Dannan, i.e. people of the goddess Danu, and prior to that the Fir Bolg.

This. Plus, modern paganism isn't really a revivial of pre-Christian Irish pagan traditions (about which we know very little); it's a largely modern invention. And it's not really "very similar to the Catholic church", that I can see.

Plus I'm not so sure about the "Catholics slaughtered pagans and witches throughout history" bit. Certainly in the Irish context, the conversion of the country to Christianity was entirely peaceful. We have no accounts of forced conversions, or of the killing of pagans on religious grounds.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

This. Plus, modern paganism isn't really a revivial of pre-Christian Irish pagan traditions (about which we know very little); it's a largely modern invention. And it's not really "very similar to the Catholic church", that I can see.

Plus I'm not so sure about the "Catholics slaughtered pagans and witches throughout history" bit. Certainly in the Irish context, the conversion of the country to Christianity was entirely peaceful. We have no accounts of forced conversions, or of the killing of pagans on religious grounds.

It is also worth considering that early Christianity in this country was syncretic in that it absorbed previous local traditions, practices and sacred objects into its own worship. For example we often see carved figures such as sheela na gigs embedded into very old churches where the figure predates the church itself. While more conservative types might consider this sinister, my take on it was that it was largely pragmatic in terms of establishing a new tradition without coming into conflict with what preceded it. Certainly more sympathetic to the locals than arriving on a crusade

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

It is also worth considering that early Christianity in this country was syncretic in that it absorbed previous local traditions, practices and sacred objects into its own worship. For example we often see carved figures such as sheela na gigs embedded into very old churches where the figure predates the church itself. While more conservative types might consider this sinister, my take on it was that it was largely pragmatic in terms of establishing a new tradition without coming into conflict with what preceded it. Certainly more sympathetic to the locals than arriving on a crusade

Well, it's not just the sheela-na-gigs; very often the churches themselves are located on sites of pre-Christian signficance. And of course that's not unique to Ireland; pre-Christian religious sites or buildings were commonly repurposed as churches, etc with the spread of Christianity.

That doesn't necessarily indicate a hostile takeover or expropriation or anything of the kind; just a change in the use of public property to match newly-developing public needs. When the community embraces Christianity they no longer need a pagan temple but they do need a church and, look, here is this handsome, spacious and newly-redundant building which already belongs to the community./is already dedicated to community purposes. What else are you going to do with it?

homer911

OP probably getting confused with the JW teaching that only 144,000 will go to heaven

http://evidenceforchristianity.org/is-it-true-that-only-144000-people-are-going-to-heaven-revelation-74r/

Hedgelayer

smacl wrote: »

It is also worth considering that early Christianity in this country was syncretic in that it absorbed previous local traditions, practices and sacred objects into its own worship. For example we often see carved figures such as sheela na gigs embedded into very old churches where the figure predates the church itself. While more conservative types might consider this sinister, my take on it was that it was largely pragmatic in terms of establishing a new tradition without coming into conflict with what preceded it. Certainly more sympathetic to the locals than arriving on a crusade

I was talking to an aul fella and he suggested that basically Catholism has more in common with Celtic paganism than any other Christian denominations.

He put it quite simple, the early Irish Christians basically spread their Celtic version of Christianity from West to East....

So it was like an inside out job, it came to the west from the east.
Then the west decided, hold on now one second.

We're going to do this our way, so the Irish and Scottish missionary's threw the ball back to Rome and said our way or the highway.

Rome liked the Irish version of Christianity,so basically Catholism is just a hybrid of paganism.

All the old wells and holy places were originally place's of pagan influence.
Then slowly and steadily it was absorbed by the Celtic/Christian idealism

So Catholism isn't entirely Christian, is it ?

smacl

Hedgelayer wrote: »

So Catholism isn't entirely Christian, is it ?

I'd suggest what you're seeing here is the effect of syncretism over time, so while Catholicism in Ireland has artifacts of Celtic paganism, Russian Orthodox might well have artifacts of Slavic mythology. Modern Abrahamic religions like to consider themselves exclusive, but upon close inspection often borrow from the local traditions that preceded them, often out of necessity to become established where the transition from one belief system to another isn't clean cut but a slow process that happens over an extended period of time. Here in Ireland we still carry all sorts of superstitions from Banshees to Leprechauns which are traditions based around pre-christian mythology. Some goes for most other countries.

Peregrinus

And Protestantism is no different. Nearly all Christians celebrate the resurrection on a Sunday; there's a bit of a clue in the name that suggests this day originally celebrated a different divinity. Indeed the seven-day week is a Christian inheritance from Judaism, which got it from the very pagan Babylonians. The date of Easter is fixed by reference to the phases of the moon; this too is a Babylonian inheritance.

I think Hedgelayer has a rather grand concept - emanating, perhaps, from national pride - of the influence of the Irish on western Christianity. As smacl points out, the practice of absorbing and re-imagining existing religous notions is not uniquely Irish (or even uniquely Christian, as the Jewish borrowings from Babylon testify). Regardless, even if that were correct, it's an influence that would tend to pass on both to Roman Catholicism and to Protestantism, since both emerge from the same Irish-influenced Latin Christianity

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

This. Plus, modern paganism isn't really a revivial of pre-Christian Irish pagan traditions (about which we know very little); it's a largely modern invention. And it's not really "very similar to the Catholic church", that I can see.

Plus I'm not so sure about the "Catholics slaughtered pagans and witches throughout history" bit. Certainly in the Irish context, the conversion of the country to Christianity was entirely peaceful. We have no accounts of forced conversions, or of the killing of pagans on religious grounds.

Mmmm, depends on whom one asks, I suppose. As an example, St Canice is said to have led a Christian army that did away with one of the last enclaves of Druidism in Kilkenny. One could presume that this was entirely peaceful, of course....

Effects

kelly1 wrote: »

All Christians would/should be concerned about the rise in paganism/luciferianism and indeed any non-christian religion because these people are putting their souls in grave danger of damnation.

How can someone who doesn't follow a christian religion have their soul in danger of damnation?
They don't believe those rules so they don't apply to them.

And for the Christians, repent at the last minute at the gates of heaven and you'll still get in.

You come across as very unchristian a lot of the time. It's your soul that I would be worried about, unless you change you ways and accept Christ into your life, the way you really should.

Peregrinus

pauldla wrote: »

Mmmm, depends on whom one asks, I suppose. As an example, St Canice is said to have led a Christian army that did away with one of the last enclaves of Druidism in Kilkenny. One could presume that this was entirely peaceful, of course....

Or that it's entirely mythical, which is in fact the case. None of the early sources tell a story like this about Canice, and it's completely missing from the annals. It seems to be medieval in origin, and the details in it (like there being an "Archdruid of Ireland" are completely ahistorical.

That's not to say that there might never have been conflict between communities which had embraced Christianity and those which had not. But all the indications we have are that, while there was plently of conflict in Ireland at the time, it was mostly about cattle and not very much about Christ. And there's no evidence at all, SFAIK, of violence as a strategy for winning conversions.

Peregrinus

homer911 wrote: »

OP probably getting confused with the JW teaching that only 144,000 will go to heaven

http://evidenceforchristianity.org/is-it-true-that-only-144000-people-are-going-to-heaven-revelation-74r/

I don't think "confused with" is the terminology you want here. I think the OP is a JW. If so, presumably, he doesn't find the beliefs and teachings that characterise the JWs confusing.

realitykeeper

Peregrinus wrote: »

Plus I'm not so sure about the "Catholics slaughtered pagans and witches throughout history" bit. Certainly in the Irish context, the conversion of the country to Christianity was entirely peaceful. We have no accounts of forced conversions, or of the killing of pagans on religious grounds.

Also, there are accounts of the pagan Romans slaughtering early Christians. Of course the Christian`s rojoiced at this because ... Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or that it's entirely mythical, which is in fact the case. None of the early sources tell a story like this about Canice, and it's completely missing from the annals. It seems to be medieval in origin, and the details in it (like there being an "Archdruid of Ireland" are completely ahistorical.

That's not to say that there might never have been conflict between communities which had embraced Christianity and those which had not. But all the indications we have are that, while there was plently of conflict in Ireland at the time, it was mostly about cattle and not very much about Christ. And there's no evidence at all, SFAIK, of violence as a strategy for winning conversions.

But of course there is records of those pesky witches being murdered

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

But of course there is records of those pesky witches being murdered

A few instances in Ireland - who has not heard of Alice Kyteler? - but (a) Ireland was largely by-passed by the European witch-hunting frenzies, and (b) this has more to do with the social control of women than any attempt to convert people to Christianity or to enforce conformity. In the first place, witch trials happened long after Ireland had been converted to Christianity; in the second, the great majority of women victimised in this way were conforming Christians.

(And this is generally true of witch trials in Europe. Whatever else they are associated with, it is really not converting people to Christianity.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the first place, witch trials happened long after Ireland had been converted to Christianity; in the second, the great majority of women victimised in this way were conforming Christians.

Also from memory, there were strong links between women being identified as witches and ergot poisoning. Ergot needs grain crops, rye primarily, which was never a staple in Ireland.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

Or that it's entirely mythical, which is in fact the case. None of the early sources tell a story like this about Canice, and it's completely missing from the annals. It seems to be medieval in origin, and the details in it (like there being an "Archdruid of Ireland" are completely ahistorical.

That's not to say that there might never have been conflict between communities which had embraced Christianity and those which had not. But all the indications we have are that, while there was plently of conflict in Ireland at the time, it was mostly about cattle and not very much about Christ. And there's no evidence at all, SFAIK, of violence as a strategy for winning conversions.

Not that I'm doubting you (far from it) but I'd be very interested in seeing a source for that, if you have one to hand; I heard the story of Canice from relatives in Kilkenny.

Peregrinus

The earliest source we have for Canice is Adamnan (c.700, about 100 years after the death of Canice, which the Annals of Ulster and the Annals of the Four Masters both date to 598); you can read it in translation here. it doesn't mention the battle story at all, which suggests it wasn't current then.

I haven't been able to trace the source of the "battle of Kilkenny" legend but - no offence to your Kilkenny relatives - odds are that it dates from the twelfth century, and is part of a suite of stories developed to support/justify the transfer of the cult of St. Canice from the monastic settlement of Aghaboe (which Canice founded, and where he died and was buried) to the cathedral town of Kilkenny. If so, it's part of a wider move going on at the time to wrest control of the Irish church away from abbots and monasteries and subejct it to bishops and dioceses.

pauldla

Peregrinus wrote: »

The earliest source we have for Canice is Adamnan (c.700, about 100 years after the death of Canice, which the Annals of Ulster and the Annals of the Four Masters both date to 598); you can read it in translation here. it doesn't mention the battle story at all, which suggests it wasn't current then.

I haven't been able to trace the source of the "battle of Kilkenny" legend but - no offence to your Kilkenny relatives - odds are that it dates from the twelfth century, and is part of a suite of stories developed to support/justify the transfer of the cult of St. Canice from the monastic settlement of Aghaboe (which Canice founded, and where he died and was buried) to the cathedral town of Kilkenny. If so, it's part of a wider move going on at the time to wrest control of the Irish church away from abbots and monasteries and subejct it to bishops and dioceses.

Excellent, thank you very much for that. :cool:

Zubeneschamali

smacl wrote: »

Not sure that paganism in this country ever had anything to do with Lucifer, who is a character in Christian tradition. Paganism here predates Christianity, where you'd think more of Tuatha De Dannan, i.e. people of the goddess Danu, and prior to that the Fir Bolg.

I always thought Brigid must be a bit unhappy - a Goddess in preChristian times, demoted to just a Saint afterwards. At least she kept her holy day and lots of wells.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I always thought Brigid must be a bit unhappy - a Goddess in preChristian times, demoted to just a Saint afterwards. At least she kept her holy day and lots of wells.

Could be seen as a promotion. Gods and goddesses in quite a lot of pagan pantheons are frequently unhappy or put-upon and/or come to sticky ends, whereas in the Christian cosmology saints are perfected beings who dwell in eternal happiness in the bliss of the beatific vision. Question is whether you prefer the more prestigious job title or the better job!

sbsquarepants

Hedgelayer wrote: »

I was talking to an aul fella and he suggested that basically Catholism has more in common with Celtic paganism than any other Christian denominations.

He put it quite simple, the early Irish Christians basically spread their Celtic version of Christianity from West to East....

So it was like an inside out job, it came to the west from the east.
Then the west decided, hold on now one second.

We're going to do this our way, so the Irish and Scottish missionary's threw the ball back to Rome and said our way or the highway.

Rome liked the Irish version of Christianity,so basically Catholism is just a hybrid of paganism.

All the old wells and holy places were originally place's of pagan influence.
Then slowly and steadily it was absorbed by the Celtic/Christian idealism

So Catholism isn't entirely Christian, is it ?

Jaysus....it's almost as if it's all just made up nonsense Ted.....

Peregrinus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Jaysus....it's almost as if it's all just made up nonsense Ted.....

Careful, now. You're in the Christianity forum.

sbsquarepants

Peregrinus wrote: »

Question is whether you prefer the more prestigious job title or the better job!

It would be nice to be a god and all, but then to get sacked and then just be a joe soap standing in line with the other unemployables - nah.
I'll take the civil service eh I mean Christian position, moves at a snails pace, but get your feet under the table and you're un sackable, nice pension, increments....lots and lots of increments:D

sbsquarepants

Peregrinus wrote: »

Careful, now. You're in the Christianity forum.

I know where I am - what I'm doubtful on is whether it's a place for discussion or only for agreement.

Peregrinus

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I know where I am - what I'm doubtful on is whether it's a place for discussion or only for agreement.

Check the charter. One line drive-bys suggesting that it's all nonsense in threads that already have a topic are not that welcome. Ya want ta discuss that, ya actually have to be ready to discuss it, in an appropriate thread, making reasoned arguments.