European = Christian?

[Piparskeggr]

Hail all;

To pick up on a thought I saw expressed within the current Ashkenazi thread...

As an Asatruar, I like to think of heritage (who were my ancestors, what did they do and how, where did they live...) and appreciate it.

I can admit that Asatru is a "tradition interrupted" and redrawn; like an art student sketching the works of the Great Masters at the Louvre. It is not fully old, yet it is not fully new.

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

Europe as it is now constituted by Nation-States rather than by Ethno-Cultural boundaries (exclusively), IS a construct of Christianity.

More particularly, as I view history, it is an outgrowth of the temporal (political, social and economic) ambitions of the Nicean-Catholic Orthodoxy (as a continuation of the Roman Empire in some ways) to be The Church, universal and triumphant.

Depending upon where one travels in Europe, my ancestors were "converted" over a broad swath of time within the confines of the Christian era; fairly early in central-western Italy and fairly late in the Baltics.

One can say, without being too far wrong, that the modern European identity is one of Christian identity in large degree.

Even so, there were hold outs, isolated pockets, which I think were due more to deeply ingrained folk customs rather than "organized Paganry."

But the solidity of Christianity has always been somewhat, shall we say, fractious. From its beginnings as a break-off Jewish sect, through all its developments in philosophy, creed and canon to the present day, Christianity is conflicted ... over 30,000 sects in the course of its history, and yes, the Catholic Church, in its Roman and Eastern rites, is the largest and most successful of them all (though, even these have "sub-brands").

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

Perhaps this is one reason why men and women across the world are looking to older beliefs and customs?

[Nodens]

Every time this debate surfaces, most arguments on most sides are predicated on the assumption that what applies to individual variants of Christianity can be applied to Christianity as a whole/abstract. The terms/categories 'Christian' and 'European' have no proportional relation to each other. Any discussion relating the two must be based in specific subtypes of each. A question concerning the relationship between 'Italian' and 'Roman Catholic' has a solid context. The same question concerning 'European' and 'Christian' is absurd.

Defining either term is a matter of establishing a lowest common denominator. The lowest common denominator of 'Christian' is a 'follower of Christ'. 'European' is a more complex concept, but nevertheless may be defined without any reference to an abstract 'Christianity'. In either case, neither term/concept is in anyway defined by the other. If 'historically Christian' is a qualification for being "European', than Ethiopia has been a European nation for longer than any Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic or Finnic nation.

The possible argument that the specifically European forms of Christianity (the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran or Presbyterian Churches) are necessary for defining 'Europe' is just a problematic. First, the LCD becomes "European Christianity', a category the is either fully arbitrary or leads us to another problem, just how 'Christian' is European Christianity?

As the LCD of 'Christian' is 'follower of Christ', the degree of 'Christianess' of a particular church/denomination is directly proportional to the emphasis on the recorded teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. The more Traditional forms (Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy) possess spiritual authority in their domains precisely to the degree the incorporate elements of Religio Romano and Hellinismos, Christian veneer notwithstanding. A similar pattern can be seen with the more Traditional element of Anglicanism and Lutheranism. The more radical forms of Protestantism initially attempted to focus on the New Testament, but shifted focus to the Old when they found the New to be insufficient for their political aims. Any given 'Christian' church becomes more 'Christian' to the degree that it becomes less Folkish, Traditional or European.

The Orthodox (Eastern and Western) Churches are a poor-man's Paganism, and the Protestant Churches are a Neo-Judaism in denial. The closest thing to 'true' Christianity the liberal, universalist, ecumenicist movement, seeing as how they choose to actually emphasize the canonical gospels.

P.S. For those who wish to define their own particular branch as the 'one true' Christianity, attempting to define yourself as right is, of course, your prerogative, but don't expect to be taken seriously by those with intellectual integrity.

[Piparskeggr]

I was going to ask, but it hit me...LCD = lowest common denominator.

I guess my personal LCD is tolerance for basic errors comes from working in "big-box" retail, I think; not a lot of "rocket surgeons" amongst either my colleagues or customers.

What you wrote does address concerns I have about my own postulates and conclusions, however.

[Nodens]

Heh, after seeing the same untested assumptions reappear so often while never being called out, the dam finally burst.

[Piparskeggr]

Heh, after seeing the same untested assumptions reappear so often while never being called out, the dam finally burst.

Everything in its proper time then.

A little flooding often clears the valley for better things.

[Lithium]

I don't see nothing european in the christianity and I can't explain to myself how the whole pagan Europe became christian. For me the christianity has nothing to do with the europeans.

[Cato]

My two cents:

A case of denail on both sides, with the Christians assuming that Christianity gave Europe meaning and purpose in toto and that pre-Christian history in Europe is largely an area of academic and secular interest. The pre-Christian past is largely valued by many Christians as a source of secular pride (rather than, say, as a source of spiritual pride and existential strength since many Christians still have some sort of aversion to the ancient folk beliefs, namely "It can't be true, even the good stuff in it, since it contradicts the Bible!").

Pagans or heathens or whomever deny that Christianity, for several centuries, provided structure and foundation to a continent in sore need of it after the collapse of antique civilization. They always cry foul and cite Christian atrocities, forced perseuctions, and the alienness and Jewishness of Christianity (even though Christianity in Europe is but one expression and opinion of the Christian religion and, to be blunt, expressions and opinions are like assholes- everyone has one), etc.

It's good to be aware of the pros and cons of both sides of the coin.
Christianity provided structure and order, a point of strength, whereas paganism and heathenism had no such thing. Emperor Julian tried to remedy this, but he failed to do so. Mmm, Christianity also offered a tempting view of the afterlife which many of the pagan cults failed to properly address. Oppositely, the pagans largely enjoyed life in the here and now and saw the Christians as morose and drab death-obsessed fanatics. Etc.

All sorts of hogwash has been said and will be said. Europe (or Europeans, including us so-called colonials bwaha) is as Christian as it is non-Christian. Those people who want Christianity to vanish like a fart in the wind are sadly mistaken, for Christianity simply forms one thread of the grand tapestry of European spirituality- like the ancient paganisms and heathenries. Likewise, Christians who live in denial of this polytheistic/pantheistic past are likewise mistaken.