Is Paganism our only hope against Islam?

[Guapo]

Sure why not. the Islamic god is a pagan god. The generic Arabic word for god is ilah but Allah means "The god". Allah was the chief pagan diety (a moon god who had 3 daughters, one of which was named Manat) of the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon of gods, and therefore Allah is still the same pagan god.

[Wyn]

When a religion is foreign to the whole continent it does.

But in Europe as a whole it didn't always go that way, in Norway it was pretty violent.

Your claim:

See how Europe's foreign religion was imposed on Europe by the sword. Abrahamic religions belong in the Middle East from whence they came.

This is demonstrably untrue (see esp. the British Isles). Don't speak in absolutes ("...imposed on Europe by the sword") if you don't want to be understood in absolutes. Christianity was not "imposed on Europe" by the sword and as you've admitted you're aware of this.

Maybe so,

Not maybe.

but the Middle East is its roots.

The thing about roots is that they don't always define the essence of a thing. The focal Christian concept of God is Indo-European, the one revered as the Messiah himself is deified by pagan Greek theology and the influence of Greek thought is plain to see. This doesn't even include the many "saints" who are merely European gods put into a Christian context. All of this is to be expected given that many of the earliest Christian thinkers were Europeans of the Roman Empire and that they wanted to make their religion palatable to the Hellenistic population. Christianity had to adapt to Europeans, otherwise they wouldn't have accepted it. That Christianity originates in the Middle East is indisputable. Equally indisputable is that the religion very quickly became different to the Middle East's Semitic religions.

[Albion]

Your claim:
This is demonstrably untrue (see esp. the British Isles). Don't speak in absolutes ("...imposed on Europe by the sword") if you don't want to be understood in absolutes. Christianity was not "imposed on Europe" by the sword and as you've admitted you're aware of this.

So what? It was in part, so just because they didn't impose it everywhere by the sword it doesn't make it any better does it?

Not maybe.

Yes maybe. If Islam took root in the West with a Western façade it'd still be a Middle-Eastern religion.

The thing about roots is that they don't always define the essence of a thing. The focal Christian concept of God is Indo-European, the one revered as the Messiah himself is deified by pagan Greek theology and the influence of Greek thought is plain to see. This doesn't even include the many "saints" who are merely European gods put into a Christian context. All of this is to be expected given that many of the earliest Christian thinkers were Europeans of the Roman Empire and that they wanted to make their religion palatable to the Hellenistic population. Christianity had to adapt to Europeans, otherwise they wouldn't have accepted it. That Christianity originates in the Middle East is indisputable. Equally indisputable is that the religion very quickly became different to the Middle East's Semitic religions.

Yeah, that's a good point but it sort of makes Christianity the weird offspring of both Europe and the Mid-East. Whilst I accept that Christianity is probably too far ingrained into European culture to simply just deny it as being in any part European, I still see it as a Middle-Eastern religion.

When the priests of the Roman Empire were deciding at the Council of Nicea on how to Europeanize and spread Christianity to Europe what gave them such authority to speak for it as a whole? The Council of Nicea decided on how to continue Rome's legacy through the pope via the medium of religion.

Sure why not. the Islamic god is a pagan god. The generic Arabic word for god is ilah but Allah means "The god". Allah was the chief pagan diety (a moon god who had 3 daughters, one of which was named Manat) of the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon of gods, and therefore Allah is still the same pagan god.

He's not of European forms of Paganism though.

[Wyn]

So what? It was in part, so just because they didn't impose it everywhere by the sword it doesn't make it any better does it?

So what? Your claim was that Christianity was "imposed on Europe by the sword" which you know not to be universally true. Europe cannot be spoken of as a monolith here because different populations have different histories with Christianity. I didn't say that something made anything "better" or some such nonsense, don't put words in my mouth. I'm examining this from as neutral a position as I'm able, not trying to claim that any particular thing is better or worse.

Yes maybe. If Islam took root in the West with a Western façade it'd still be a Middle-Eastern religion.

Yeah, that's a good point but it sort of makes Christianity the weird offspring of both Europe and the Mid-East. Whilst I accept that Christianity is probably too far ingrained into European culture to simply just deny it as being in any part European, I still see it as a Middle-Eastern religion.

This is the important part. Whether or not it can be called simply a façade is highly debatable. We're not talking about a Middle Eastern religion with a few European add-ons here. Christianity as practiced in Europe developed under the guidance of European (primarily Hellenistic) thinkers located in the Roman Empire and the religion was shaped by this from the very beginning and at crucial stages in its development.

The fundamentally Indo-European influences on Christian theology and Christology go beyond being a "façade" in my opinion (obviously this is all completely subjective) and show a natural progression of what was bound to happen to any new religious movement that sprang up in the Roman Empire.

When the priests of the Roman Empire were deciding at the Council of Nicea on how to Europeanize and spread Christianity to Europe what gave them such authority to speak for it as a whole? The Council of Nicea decided on how to continue Rome's legacy through the pope via the medium of religion.

Those present at CoN were essentially the movers and shakers of Christian proto-orthodoxy. Their (if it can be called theirs, after all, they were simply the leaders of a religion that was already being shaped by the inhabitants of the empire) brand of the religion was the most popular and as such they were the most influential (in comparison to the "gnostic Christians" and other much smaller movements without real organised leadership). Naturally, when they gave one doctrine the "approved" stamp and another the "reject" one then that was what the Church as a whole was going to believe and so that was what was spread. The religion was adapting to its Hellenistic converts and philosophers, never mind what individuals priests/bishops had in mind. Regardless of their power as individuals, and even of the authority of the council, their influential position coupled with the Hellenism of the empire made sure that their brand of Christianity was going to be the brand of Christianity. That's just the way it goes - they had the numbers on their side. "It is what it is", as they say.

[Albion]

So what? Your claim was that Christianity was "imposed on Europe by the sword" which you know not to be universally true. Europe cannot be spoken of as a monolith here because different populations have different histories with Christianity. I didn't say that something made anything "better" or some such nonsense, don't put words in my mouth. I'm examining this from as neutral a position as I'm able, not trying to claim that any particular thing is better or worse.

Oh okay then, we'll do it your way then.

We're not talking about a Middle Eastern religion with a few European add-ons here. Christianity as practiced in Europe developed under the guidance of European (primarily Hellenistic) thinkers located in the Roman Empire and the religion was shaped by this from the very beginning and at crucial stages in its development.

Yes, I suppose the question is whether it is a Middle Eastern religion anymore or if its absorbed so much European influences that it is mainly European. So yes, I guess in my opinion it is more European than Middle-Eastern, at least now anyway.

The fundamentally Indo-European influences on Christian theology and Christology go beyond being a "façade" in my opinion (obviously this is all completely subjective) and show a natural progression of what was bound to happen to any new religious movement that sprang up in the Roman Empire.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. I just wanted to see if the Vatican crew on here would get wound up , I don't have strong views of Christianity or Heathenism either way.

Those present at CoN were essentially the movers and shakers of Christian proto-orthodoxy. Their (if it can be called theirs, after all, they were simply the leaders of a religion that was already being shaped by the inhabitants of the empire) brand of the religion was the most popular and as such they were the most influential (in comparison to the "gnostic Christians" and other much smaller movements without real organised leadership). Naturally, when they gave one doctrine the "approved" stamp and another the "reject" one then that was what the Church as a whole was going to believe and so that was what was spread. The religion was adapting to its Hellenistic converts and philosophers, never mind what individuals priests/bishops had in mind. Regardless of their power as individuals, and even of the authority of the council, their influential position coupled with the Hellenism of the empire made sure that their brand of Christianity was going to be the brand of Christianity. That's just the way it goes - they had the numbers on their side. "It is what it is", as they say.

Yeah, some good points raised there.

So once a foreign religion and brought to certain areas by the sword, but now an integral part of European culture.
Heathenism has its place too though, I'd like to see a good revival of it in a true form as possible. It could exist as a minority religion at around 5% of the population of Europe.

[Grumpy Cat]

When a religion is foreign to the whole continent it does.



But in Europe as a whole it didn't always go that way, in Norway it was pretty violent.



Maybe so, but the Middle East is its roots.



No, I just got fed up with you using the same tired arguments against Pagans as Liberals and multiculturalists use against us racists . Right-wing, fringe groups... sounds like the familiar baseless insults to me.



Where did I say that? No, I was just talking about sheep following the Shepard actually, this being Christians and Atheists who question nothing.



Ah, yeah its awful that way, I know. I use a touch screen smartphone on here sometimes, god how I long for a physical keyboard. up

I didn't say pagans were right-wing fringe, just simply fringe. Some are left-wing fringe. A lot of them are society outcasts who got into it in high school when they were social outcasts.

I was around Heathenry for 10 years, and sure, not all of them are crazy but a good number of them are. Also being half faroese I know that some view the modern Heathen scene as an insult to their heritage and culture.

I remember first hearing of the movie 300 on pagan boards and thinking "So... Is this a movie or the average pagan's credit score?"

[Albion]

I didn't say pagans were right-wing fringe, just simply fringe. Some are left-wing fringe. A lot of them are society outcasts who got into it in high school when they were social outcasts.

I was around Heathenry for 10 years, and sure, not all of them are crazy but a good number of them are. Also being half faroese I know that some view the modern Heathen scene as an insult to their heritage and culture.

I remember first hearing of the movie 300 on pagan boards and thinking "So... Is this a movie or the average pagan's credit score?"

How do some see it as an insult? Yes I see the whole hippie sector of it as an insult where they dance around Stonehenge naked and generally act as hippies do, but what of the rest of the movements, the proper one's trying to recreate it?

[Adalwolf]

Come on, you don't really go around believing that rubbish do you? You sound like some medieval priest about to commence a book burning.

There has been many terrifying first hand experiences from people who have messed with the occult. Some people may be able to handle it, but others can develop serious psychotic problems.

Alas, most of the Neo-Pagan movements are simply stupid or run by hippies. There are some smaller and genuinely decent movements out there though.

Correct; and the Wiccans aren't much better either I hear. In this modern age, these types of Pagans vastly outnumber the genuine groups.

Yes, indeed it has. Christianity in the UK is associated with two types of people: the elderly interfering types and the country bumpkins. Sadly I have the one or two of the elderly interfering types in my family.

And what are Heathens associated with there? Liberal green ecofriendly or anti-social weirdos who like to conjure up potions and spells. Besides, you're interpreting a universal matter and subjecting it to your opinion within the UK.

It takes an intelligent person not to follow the crowd like most people. Christianity is the crowd, and atheism is the other one.

That is such failed logic. Most people who genuinely follow a religion or not is because of personal experience.

Open your history book and look at the pages covering from modern human's evolution to the Viking conversions to Christianity

And old Scandinavia was so lovely wasn't it. I mean regular bog lynchings and sacrifices of people and animals to the Gods would be a cherished tradition.

Btw, you completely overlook the fact how the Crusades helped Europe fend off attacks from the Muslims regularly.

[Psychonaut]

...green ecofriendly...

What's wrong with being green and ecofriendly?

[Brynhild]

There has been many terrifying first hand experiences from people who have messed with the occult. Some people may be able to handle it, but others can develop serious psychotic problems.

There have been experiences to the extreme of Christians taking the doctrine way too seriously as well, or having family members imposing it on them in such ways that they suffer long-term trauma. It's like anything, you mess with what you don't know and you will suffer the consequences.

Correct; and the Wiccans aren't much better either I hear. In this modern age, these types of Pagans vastly outnumber the genuine groups.

The basic problem with new agers and neo-pagans is the utter lack of respect of identity and culture that they try to incorporate in magical rites. It's like being a jack of all trades but a master of none.

And what are Heathens associated with there? Liberal green ecofriendly or anti-social weirdos who like to conjure up potions and spells.

I don't have a problem with being environmentally friendly but I don't attach that to any religious view. There are also plenty of anti-socials and again they needn't be restricted to those who practice a specific religion.

That is such failed logic. Most people who genuinely follow a religion or not is because of personal experience.

I can actually see this sheep mentality but that doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. It's the more vulnerable who are likely to take it literally than the otherwise more level-headed who take what they need and discard the rest.

And old Scandinavia was so lovely wasn't it. I mean regular bog lynchings and sacrifices of people and animals to the Gods would be a cherished tradition.

At least that way of life was understood among those who practised it. I wouldn't exactly call the acts of the Inquisition to hunt down and wipe out so-called witches, based on hearsay and malicious gossip, civilised either. The Malleus Maleficarum was a book specifically written describing various methods of torture, to the delight of those who didn't need much of an excuse to exert their sadistic behaviour onto those others that were considered outsiders.