The Differences Between Religious Paradigms

[Frigga]

An interesting thought that I've had for a little while. Different religions have different ideals, and thought patterns. Take Christianity for instance. I've known many over the years, and one thing that I've always noticed about them is that they have this staunch belief that their belief system is the only true one in the world and that all the rest are false. It is a very singular thought pattern in that regard.

Many heathens believe that their way is right as well, but the distinct difference is that they acknowledge that other ways are right, or could be right as well. The heathen/pagan thought pattern is pluralistic.

What else do you all find different about religious paradigms?

[Tabiti]

I've found that an intelligent person, following christianity or even islam doesn't claim that his religion is the only true one and only his god exist.

[Lutiferre]

An interesting thought that I've had for a little while. Different religions have different ideals, and thought patterns. Take Christianity for instance. I've known many over the years, and one thing that I've always noticed about them is that they have this staunch belief that their belief system is the only true one in the world and that all the rest are false. It is a very singular thought pattern in that regard.


This is the difference between exclusivistic and inclusivistic religious attitudes, and largely, the difference between (the original) pagans and Christians. Not so much the modern "neo-pagans", since they tend to be exclusivistic themselves and keep to their own worship and reject anything which is Christian or alien.

A Christian doesn't believe that other religions or belief systems don't have truth, or that they are completely false with not even a hint of truth in it. A Catholic Christian would believe a Protestant had more truth than an Arian, and most Protestants vice versa - there are "degrees" of how fully we appreciate truth. A Christian believes that other religions are false as such, by virtue of not containing the fullness of the most pertinent truth, not because they have no truth.

[Skandi]

Not so much the modern "neo-pagans", since they tend to be exclusivistic themselves and keep to their own worship and reject anything which is Christian or alien.



Where on earth do you get this from, I have never ever heard a "neo Pagan" claim that, many hold huge grudges against Christianity, but the very nature of most pagan paths inherently allows other belief systems to coexist with them.

[Tabiti]

Many of the christian customs and rituals today are just old pagan ones. Especially in Orthodox christianity...

[Lutiferre]

Where on earth do you get this from, I have never ever heard a "neo Pagan" claim that, many hold huge grudges against Christianity, but the very nature of most pagan paths inherently allows other belief systems to coexist with them.
Claim what? It's not a claim, but a religious attitude as such, which is exclusivistic.

[Liffrea]

Personally I believe there is truth in all religions but what really matters is what conclusions you reach. I decided I don’t need an intermediary to understand the divine I will arrive at my own understanding of it. I believe man was "raised up" and we have a gift of mind to understand with, use it.

As an Odinist I follow the practise of my forefathers in calling the divine by various names Woden, Thunor, Freo, but that doesn’t mean other names are not valid, other understandings and truths. How I understand the divine would probably set me at odds with other Odinists as well as other religions but that’s the difference isn’t it? Your willingness to allow others to develop their spiritual nature as they see best.

[Skandi]

Claim what? It's not a claim, but a religious attitude as such, which is exclusivistic.

The claim that neopagans have that attitude

[Frigga]

I think that what I was attempting to illustrate was the stance that a lot of Christians have where if they are told that someone rejects Christianity that their response was "Oh, you're going to Hell. I'm sorry." I have personal experince with this in real life, and on the internet. I find it interesting is all. I'm not speaking of different Christian sects being singular with each others belief systems as I am with their beliefs towards those completely against Christianity period. But there definitely is horn locking between different thought patterns of Christianity as well. Maybe that can be expanded on by those who know more.

But, Lutiferre, you are wrong about heathens. We may be exculsive towards ourselves, but we do not deny other people's beliefs as being valid. I myself think that every belief system is true, because our devotion to each belief system gives it strength and vitality. Hinduism is truth for Hindus, Christianity is truth for Christians, Heathenism is truth for Heathens, Atheism is truth for Atheists. That is a pluralist mentality, allowing in our minds and hearts that there can exist in the world different ways of thinking without there being animosity towards that which does not agree with your particular system.

[Lutiferre]

But, Lutiferre, you are wrong about heathens. We may be exculsive towards ourselves, but we do not deny other people's beliefs as being valid. I myself think that every belief system is true, because our devotion to each belief system gives it strength and vitality. Hinduism is truth for Hindus, Christianity is truth for Christians, Heathenism is truth for Heathens, Atheism is truth for Atheists. That is a pluralist mentality, allowing in our minds and hearts that there can exist in the world different ways of thinking without there being animosity towards that which does not agree with your particular system.
That is just subjectivism. It nevertheless coexists with exclusivism.

And anyway, it's a neo-pagan mentality, since the pagan mentality was highly inclusivistic of the sects, and gods of other peoples into it's own religious practice. Importations, syncretism and multisectism was like the water running down the stream in pagan religious history.

[Frigga]

subjectivism:1)Metaphysical: a:The theory which limits knowledge to concious states and elements. b: A theory which attaches great or supreme importance to the subjective elements in experince. See Kantianism. 2)Ethics: a: The doctrine that the supreme good os the realization of some type of subjective experience or feeling as pleasure. b:The doctrine that individual feeling or apprehension is the ultimate criterion of the good and the right.

How is what I wrote subjectivism? I quite curious.

[Skandi]

b:The doctrine that individual feeling or apprehension is the ultimate criterion of the good and the right.

If you twist it you could use this one, BUT there is no statement that the "good and the right" = the only.

[Lutiferre]

subjectivism:1)Metaphysical: a:The theory which limits knowledge to concious states and elements. b: A theory which attaches great or supreme importance to the subjective elements in experince. See Kantianism. 2)Ethics: a: The doctrine that the supreme good os the realization of some type of subjective experience or feeling as pleasure. b:The doctrine that individual feeling or apprehension is the ultimate criterion of the good and the right.

How is what I wrote subjectivism? I quite curious.
I meant subjectivism in the sense of the view of truth as being subjective. So that A is true for person X, and B is true for person Y. Christianity is true for me, heathenry "true for you". It combines almost an objective idea of true (a thing is true as such, not relative to something that can be measured about it) with a subjectivist interpretation.

[Frigga]

I meant subjectivism in the sense of the view of truth as being subjective. So that A is true for person X, and B is true for person Y. Christianity is true for me, heathenry "true for you". It combines almost an objective idea of true (a thing is true as such, not relative to something that can be measured about it) with a subjectivist interpretation.

Hm, you illustrate my point with you putting the bold statement in quotations. And I also think that you are nitpicking. Why do you feel that Heathen thought patterns is subjectivism, when going by that same logic, Christianity is as well? Do you feel that subjectivism is a good thing or a bad thing? Based on what you posted, I get the impression that you find it to be a defect of a thought pattern.

[Vargtand]

well as far as I know, christinaity recognises the excistance of other gods by the very statment You shall have no other gods before me. is that not in its very essence a statement from god if you wish that there are other gods?

Which is kind of funny when many Christians I know do not think there are any other gods.

At any rather, I believe there are many gods, and they exist as long as there are people who believe in them as they are as alive as ideas are, ideologies, cultures, religions hell even life, the more that believe the stronger the gods are, the more fanatic the more dangerous the gods are, this is what I believe.

[Lutiferre]

Why do you feel that Heathen thought patterns is subjectivism,
I never said it is a heathen thought pattern. I said it was what your statements amounted to.


when going by that same logic, Christianity is as well?
Christianity is not itself "subjectivist" or "objectivist". That is a philosophical (or rather, epistemological) question.

Do you feel that subjectivism is a good thing or a bad thing? Based on what you posted, I get the impression that you find it to be a defect of a thought pattern.
I feel that certain kinds of subjectivism are true and necessary to an extent, but that the one you have presented certainly isn't.

[Lutiferre]

well as far as I know, christinaity recognises the excistance of other gods by the very statment You shall have no other gods before me. is that not in its very essence a statement from god if you wish that there are other gods?

Which is kind of funny when many Christians I know do not think there are any other gods.
The bible many times refers to the gods of other peoples. It calls them false gods. Why? Because they are worshipped as gods, and they exist to an extent, e.g. may be built on some true happenings, but to call them God is a misattribution as they aren't God as the One God is.


At any rather, I believe there are many gods, and they exist as long as there are people who believe in them
So do you mean that any belief in a god or gods is a delusion, and therefore the delusion exists so long as the people who have the delusion exist? If so, then how utterly redundant that statement is. It's merely a reassertion that "God doesn't exist".

Or do you mean that our minds literally shape the world, such that what I believe is what reality conforms to, rather than the object of my thought being to conform to reality? So if I believe you are an African tribesman, you are actually an African tribesman, and if I believe the earth is flat, it's actually flat?

[Vargtand]

The bible many times refers to the gods of other peoples. It calls them false gods. Why? Because they are worshipped as gods, and they exist to an extent, e.g. may be built on some true happenings, but to call them God is a misattribution as they aren't God as the One God is.

So do you mean that any belief in a god or gods is a delusion, and therefore the delusion exists so long as the people who have the delusion exist? If so, then how utterly redundant that statement is. It's merely a reassertion that "God doesn't exist".

Or do you mean that our minds literally shape the world, such that what I believe is what reality conforms to, rather than the object of my thought being to conform to reality? So if I believe you are an African tribesman, you are actually an African tribesman, and if I believe the earth is flat, it's actually flat?


But apparently in that statement he does not refer to false gods, but to other gods, so in which case that means that in the bible there is a distinction between the two. otherwise it does not follow logic, and as a Christian you must believe that god creature nature thus he created the laws of nature, which everything except for quantum mechanics follow, and in the nature of it, god must be the most logical being of all. as he defines reality, in which the only logic that we can follow is regularity which means that when the bible speaks about gods and false gods it does not refers to the same things.


As for my other statement, neither.

Gods are very much real to their believers, and anything that can force men to wage war and build empires surely must be real? and I believe that it is a creation of its believers.

[Frigga]

I never said it is a heathen thought pattern. I said it was what your statements amounted to.

I don't think so. I'm a heathen and that is my thought pattern, and that of many other heathens I know. Are you so certain that my statements are so incorrect?


Christianity is not itself "subjectivist" or "objectivist". That is a philosophical (or rather, epistemological) question.

If what you say is true that Heathenism is subjectivist and/or objectivist, why then would Christianity not be as well? Why would Christianity be immune from such scrutinity?


I feel that certain kinds of subjectivism are true and necessary to an extent, but that the one you have presented certainly isn't.

Why do you feel that what I brought up is not true and neccessary? I feel that they are true and neccessary to me and to other Heathens. I find that rather demeaning that you are so quick to dimiss what I and other rational human beings find to be truth. How is that you are so certain that your paradigms are irrefutable truth?

[Lutiferre]

But apparently in that statement he does not refer to false gods, but to other gods, so in which case that means that in the bible there is a distinction between the two. otherwise it does not follow logic
You clearly haven't investigated this. You have just made a superficial reading of the English translation. The Hebrew clearly distinguishes between the One God (El-Echad) and the false gods. The name used for pagan god and gods, El, only really means strength, power and might, and is sometimes used for men or angels, as it is with false gods. Just like we call God the "Lord", even though we don't call him "Lord" in the same way as we call other humans of a superior rank "Lord". Does this mean the bible teaches that men are gods like God is? Not at all; it means that it teaches a distinction between the Mighty (El) men and creatures, from the One God Mightier than all the mighty. The false gods are called El singularly without a construct form as in the case of the One God (http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el-echad.gif El-Echad). It never refers to the (false) "gods" as El-Echad or Yahweh.

It's worth noting they are only false by virtue of being worshipped instead of the mightest of mighty; they are not false in not being "gods", since they are gods in the sense that it refers to them as mighty, but not mightest of mighty, a title reserved for the El-eschad.

[Lutiferre]

I don't think so. I'm a heathen and that is my thought pattern, and that of many other heathens I know. Are you so certain that my statements are so incorrect?
No. But I don't take you to represent heathenry and heathen mentality as such, which is a very broad term. I could name a hundred heathen philosophers who would disagree with you. I take you to represent at the most, a form of neo-pagan mindset.


If what you say is true that Heathenism is subjectivist and/or objectivist, why then would Christianity not be as well? Why would Christianity be immune from such scrutinity?
I never said heathenism is subjectivist nor objectivist. I said your statement amounted to subjectivism.


Why do you feel that what I brought up is not true and neccessary? I feel that they are true and neccessary to me and to other Heathens. I find that rather demeaning that you are so quick to dimiss what I and other rational human beings find to be truth. How is that you are so certain that your paradigms are irrefutable truth?
I never said that I am. I started that sentence with "I feel"; I only said I don't advocate your particular form of subjectivism.

[Frigga]

No. But I don't take you to represent heathenry and heathen mentality as such, which is a very broad term. I could name a hundred heathen philosophers who would disagree with you. I take you to represent at the most, a form of neo-pagan mindset.

I never said heathenism is subjectivist nor objectivist. I said your statement amounted to subjectivism.

I never said that I am. I started that sentence with "I feel"; I only said I don't advocate your particular form of subjectivism.

Okay, I'm curious then. Why do you not advocate my form of subjectivism? Although I don't feel that I'm being a subjectivist, but I'll humor you. What forms of heathen thought patterns do you not find subjectivist, and pray tell me why it is that they are superior to what I feel and believe. Also, why should you "take me at the most" a neo-pagan? Is this supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?

[Vargtand]

You clearly haven't investigated this. You have just made a superficial reading of the English translation. The Hebrew clearly distinguishes between the One God (El-Echad) and the false gods. The name used for pagan god and gods, El, only really means strength, power and might, and is sometimes used for men or angels, as it is with false gods. Just like we call God the "Lord", even though we don't call him "Lord" in the same way as we call other humans of a superior rank "Lord". Does this mean the bible teaches that men are gods like God is? Not at all; it means that it teaches a distinction between the Mighty (El) men and creatures, from the One God Mightier than all the mighty. The false gods are called El singularly without a construct form as in the case of the One God (http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el-echad.gif El-Echad). It never refers to the (false) "gods" as El-Echad or Yahweh.

It's worth noting they are only false by virtue of being worshipped instead of the mightest of mighty; they are not false in not being "gods", since they are gods in the sense that it refers to them as mighty, but not mightest of mighty, a title reserved for the El-eschad.

Alright fair enough that may be the case in the hebrew bible, and that may be the intent of the original scripture, but as the scirpture change with translation so must peoples belives. languages changes and words change values. is there any way to be certain of what value the word had despite knowing the meaning? hell people have hard time with word value going back 40 years... I don't even want to imagine going back 6000 years or what it was.:P

Still is Hebrew relevant for Christians? also when was it written the Hebrew variant, is it the first incantation of the OT which is translated, are the oral histories unchanged, completely unchanged from that they were conceived to when they were written down?
is it a modern version of the OT you read in Hebrew and study, is it 1000 years old? 2000 years old? 3000, 4000, 5000? as I can guarantee you without even taking a look at them that there will be a change in wordings. pronouncement, and word value.

And how is it in the new testament, which is more relevant for the Christian teachings than the old testament then, are these differences kept, and if so in which translation as when Christianity ceases to be an exclusive Jewish teaching it would be only logical to assume that so would Hebrew cease to be relevant to Christians as Hebrew is not relevant at all to Christianity as a whole at this point nor has it been for quite some time.

Truth be told, should the Hebrew version hold any relevance at all to Christians as the vast majority of Christians do not speak Hebrew nor is it the holy language any more.
By that reasoning it is completely irrelevant how the Jews distinguished between gods and how they use their language. Or would you not agree?

[Amapola]

The bible many times refers to the gods of other peoples. It calls them false gods. Why? Because they are worshipped as gods, and they exist to an extent, e.g. may be built on some true happenings, but to call them God is a misattribution as they aren't God as the One God is.

So do you mean that any belief in a god or gods is a delusion, and therefore the delusion exists so long as the people who have the delusion exist? If so, then how utterly redundant that statement is. It's merely a reassertion that "God doesn't exist".

Or do you mean that our minds literally shape the world, such that what I believe is what reality conforms to, rather than the object of my thought being to conform to reality? So if I believe you are an African tribesman, you are actually an African tribesman, and if I believe the earth is flat, it's actually flat?
I concur.

Pew Forum survey: 'Is Christianity the one true religion?'-->http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue5519.html
"Some Christians are probably more inclusivistic in their theology than pluralistic," he said. "The recent Pew Forum survey found that a majority of American Christians believe that some non-Christian faiths lead to eternal life and that 37 percent of those Christians were evangelical Christians."

Personally, I think that if ones does not believe that his faith is the true one, he actually happens not to have faith at all. I don't think Christians/Jews/Muslims believe in religious relativism. Accordingly, The Catholic church remembered-in the Second Vatican Council- that Catholicism is considered the real Church, originally founded by JesusChrist , which does not reject at all what there might be real or holy in other religions. There are degrees, I guess... but believing that a religion other than yours is true, would make you a destroyer of your own faith.

[Lutiferre]

Or would you not agree?
No, I don't agree. But this is completely off-topic, so let's stop further derailing.

Okay, I'm curious then. Why do you not advocate my form of subjectivism? Although I don't feel that I'm being a subjectivist, but I'll humor you. What forms of heathen thought patterns do you not find subjectivist, and pray tell me why it is that they are superior to what I feel and believe.

Plato and Aristotle, as prime heathen philosophers, are probably the most hardcore objectivists you could find, in terms of their view of abstract objects of truth. Anyway, all this is simply reading too much into what I said. It was to be a description of your statements, not a long exposition on my views on epistemology.

Also, why should you "take me at the most" a neo-pagan? Is this supposed to be a good thing or a bad thing?
It's supposed to be simply an accurate description, that's all.

[Vargtand]

No, I don't agree. But this is completely off-topic, so let's stop further derailing.


It is not it is related to the topic as it is discussing if christianity recognises different religious system as valid. it is not a discussion about Judaism but about christinaity, from there we need to establish if Hebrew is relevant for Christianity or not. in there we must establish what version of the Hebrew language is relevant, as you seem to be so focused with the source, then the most pure and the eldest stories must be the most relevant.

To establish what they actually say we must establish how the Hebrew language has changed and how not only meanings of words but also the value of words has changed.

once this is done we can start to discuss what it means, then what it says, then if it is relevant, and then we can further discuss what language version of the NT is relevant as every language has different word values than the next language, so we must establish which is the valid translation

We could do this by establish the oldest translation yet again, or we can follow the most widely acceptable. and if this is true for the NT then we must discuss if it is valid for the OT, then we can discuss if Christianity accepts other beliefs systems.

And we do this because we argue on the premises that the bible follows logic, and the bible states the truth.

after we have done this we must discuss if the bible is true or not, and if it follows logic or not...

And you don't agree... because you realise that you can not prove your point simply by the knowlage you claim to have, and that it would require thousands of lifetimes as well as having access to knowlage that possible is lost forever.

which only leads to the conclusion that you can not prove your point.

That is the short version of it I could go on if you wish :)

[Lutiferre]

if Hebrew is relevant for Christianity or not
It is relevant. Why do you think we have the Old Testament in our bibles? What I presented was, besides, the Hebrew word and it's English equivalent, so as to avoid your confusion between different expressions (El and Yahweh; El and El-Eschad).

[Vargtand]

It is relevant. Why do you think we have the Old Testament in our bibles? I'm not interested in spending time further debating this with an atheist. I fully accept the Orthodox Christian viewpoint on this area, which if you don't know, then that's your own problem. You can look it up at any time.
I asked if Hebrew not if the OT was relevant, even you should be aware that there is a difference....


I find it sad that you bind your thoughts to a viewpoint not created by your self. that you so blindly trust a viewpoint of someone else. is it the same with politics? with how you invest your money? with how your pension is going to be take care of? are you so naive that if I tell you that you will have food tomorrow that you will believe this to be true regardless of if I speak the truth or not?

use that mind you have to something creative, heathens and pagans at least do not fear science as your kind do. To be honest I find it strange that you even accept the world to be round.

[Lutiferre]

I find it sad that you bind your thoughts to a viewpoint not created by your self. that you so blindly trust a viewpoint of someone else. is it the same with politics? with how you invest your money? with how your pension is going to be take care of? are you so naive that if I tell you that you will have food tomorrow that you will believe this to be true regardless of if I speak the truth or not?

use that mind you have to something creative, heathens and pagans at least do not fear science as your kind do. To be honest I find it strange that you even accept the world to be round.
I made a reiteration of what I have already said. And I duly note your dishonesty by quickly jumping to unwarranted conclusions about me, based on the fact that I say that I accept the Christian viewpoint which I have made obvious all along, and had to make obvious again because you were asking questions completely ignoring it.

It is relevant ... [...] ... What I presented was, besides, the Hebrew word and it's English equivalent, so as to avoid your confusion between different expressions (El and Yahweh; El and El-Eschad).

[Vargtand]

I made a reiteration of what I have already said. And I duly note your dishonesty by quickly jumping to unwarranted conclusions about me, based on the fact that I say that I accept the Christian viewpoint which I have made obvious all along, and had to make obvious again because you were asking questions completely ignoring it.

You know you sound like a fucking immigrant telling me to show them some special privilege because the are immigrants. that I should have some understanding that they can't grasp the language and thus should not correct them when they are making a mistake...

By telling me that because you accept the Christian viewpoint that I can not ask you questions that you deem are disregarding your religion. what do you want, should I treat you as a retard that there are off limit questions? because you are a Christian I am not allowed to ask certain things, because you can not answer it, like a retard can not answer and thus I should not ask why his shoes are not tied?

Damn.. I treat everyone the same, but that is apparently not enough in this day and age, no I should treat people differently because apparently nowadays everyone is part of a special needs group! I don't even understand what your point on this forum is.

[Lutiferre]

By telling me that because you accept the Christian viewpoint that I can not ask you questions that you deem are disregarding your religion. what do you want, should I treat you as a retard that there are off limit questions? because you are a Christian I am not allowed to ask certain things, because you can not answer it, like a retard can not answer and thus I should not ask why his shoes are not tied?
No. But there's no reason to ask questions to which the answer is obvious (given your knowledge that I am an orthodox christian), like whether OT/Hebrew is "relevant" to the Christian faith.

[Vargtand]

No. But there's no reason to ask questions to which the answer is obvious (given your knowledge that I am an orthodox christian), like whether OT/Hebrew is "relevant" to the Christian faith.

Are you stupid?
Old testament: a collection of stories and scripture.
Hebrew: A language
Christianity: general term for all Christian faith variants.

You proved that your grasp of language was limited in the other thread but surely you can't be this foolish?

And I qoute you:
"I say that I accept the Christian viewpoint which I have made obvious all along, and had to make obvious again because you were asking questions completely ignoring it."

You say you accept the Christian viewpoint, yes this we agree on.
you have made it obvious all along, yes this we agree on
and have to make obvious again, yes care to think on your own?
because you (I) were asking questions completely ignoring it, meaning that I should not ask certain questions because I need to take the firstly mentioned reason into consideration when asking questions to you, because I should hold you in some special regard because you are Christian which makes certain questions off limits.

Have you ever tried to think of something from a perspective other than your own? I speak about Christianity, you think I speak about your self.
I speak about Hebrew you think I am even interested in if your minority even within the Christian community... holds Hebrew in any special regard.

Do you read Hebrew in orthodox Christianity, if yes, good for you it is still not relevant for the large majority of Christians which I was talking about, which I make painfully obvious as I am using Christians and not orthodox Christians with the geographical position of Denmark, much as I use the term swedes when talking about the large majority of swedes and not about the Danish people that work in Sweden and then drive home over the bridge at the end of the day... notice the difference?

[Lutiferre]

I speak about Hebrew you think I am even interested in if your minority even within the Christian community... holds Hebrew in any special regard.I misunderstood you, since I thought you were addressing the relevance of the distinction in the bible between a gentile god and the One God who is our creator, by merely reducing it to be a "hebrew" distinction, and then writing off that as irrelevant.

[Tabiti]

Off topic:
Lutiferre, what kind of Orthodox christian are you exactly?

[SuuT]

This is the difference between exclusivistic and inclusivistic religious attitudes, and largely, the difference between (the original) pagans and Christians. Not so much the modern "neo-pagans",

For someone who utterly denies the possibility of an authentic expression of Heathenry in the modern world, you sure do know alooooooooooooooooooooot about how it was originally practised...funny, that.


since they tend to be exclusivistic themselves and keep to their own worship and reject anything which is Christian or alien.

On the contrary, when a Heathen/Pagan is confronted with a tale, a person, an event that - to and in him - fullfills an archetypal representation of any profound thing (such as compassion, for example), he is ever quick to recognise it for what it is, in itself, and incorporates it accordingly. Thus, Christ is recognised as an exemplar of selflessness/compassion (what have you) - which is one of many loci of the human condition. Heathens who reject Jesus - outright - typically do so out of the rightful, however misplaced, anger that they feel over how Christianity commandeered their ethonogenesis. Christ is to be abstracted, and given consideration as an abstraction.

Anyway, this form of consideration (a deep cerebralisation of profound phenomena relative to the human experiece) has been, and is, a constant that has its roots in the earliest forms of not only Heathenry/Paganism, but all non-Abrahamic traditions.


A Christian doesn't believe that other religions or belief systems don't have truth, or that they are completely false with not even a hint of truth in it.

And a Heathen/Pagan doen not believe that other religions or belief systems don't have falsehoods, or that they are completely true with not even a hint of falsehood in it.


Many of the christian customs and rituals today are just old pagan ones. Especially in Orthodox christianity...

Helenised paganisms, yes. In fact, Christianity, in its archaic form, would be unrecognisable to us - let alone palatable.

You might thank your god for Pagan practices, Lutiferre, next time you take sacrement.


That is just subjectivism. It nevertheless coexists with exclusivism.

And anyway, it's a neo-pagan mentality, since the pagan mentality was highly inclusivistic of the sects, and gods of other peoples into it's own religious practice. Importations, syncretism and multisectism was like the water running down the stream in pagan religious history.

For someone who utterly denies the possibility of an authentic expression of Heathenry in the modern world, you sure do know alooooooooooooooooooooot about how it was originally practised...funny, that.



I meant subjectivism in the sense of the view of truth as being subjective. So that A is true for person X, and B is true for person Y. Christianity is true for me, heathenry "true for you". It combines almost an objective idea of true (a thing is true as such, not relative to something that can be measured about it) with a subjectivist interpretation.

:twitch::scratch:


...Christianity is not itself "subjectivist" or "objectivist". That is a philosophical (or rather, epistemological) question.

A question you raised in virtue of your use of the term. And one you might answer, therefore. Not so incidentally, there could be nothing more applicable to the thread topic than the understanding variance of the subjective and the objective as they relate to paradigm differences inhereing the faiths of the world. That would remove you from your sacrosanct zone of comfort though, and so is unlikely to happen: you would eventually have to stop quoting the bible and join in the liturgy of actual dialogue.


The bible many times refers to the gods of other peoples. It calls them false gods. Why? Because they are worshipped as gods, and they exist to an extent, e.g. may be built on some true happenings, but to call them God is a misattribution as they aren't God as the One God is.

:yawnee20:


No, I don't agree. But this is completely off-topic, so let's stop further derailing.

:rolleyes2:.


Just pay attention to the way Lutiferre thinks. The barebones of the differences between the Abrahamic cults and just about every other religio-moral artifice resides therein.

For that reason, I believe the fates will allow Lutiferre a significant tenure at ApeCity.



We all can learn a lot from him.

[Poltergeist]

Off topic:
Lutiferre, what kind of Orthodox christian are you exactly?

Most probably not in the sense in which the adjective "Orthodox" is understood in Bulgaria, that is, Eastern Orthodox.

[Vargtand]

I misunderstood you, since I thought you were addressing the relevance of the distinction in the bible between a gentile god and the One God who is our creator, by merely reducing it to be a "hebrew" distinction, and then writing off that as irrelevant.

Well yes, think about the implication of it. If Hebrew is not relevant to the Christian community as a whole, then that results in that how things are written in the Hebrew language is not relevant either to the Christian community. even if it was written originally in Hebrew (aside any linguistics debate). if this is not the case then the debate would be if Hebrew would be the Christian holy language and like the Qua-ran it could not be translated into any other language to retain the original meaning. Which is at least not an accepted viewpoint by the large mass.

If it is not like I put it forward Christianity would reject the new testament completely because it is not an hebrew scripture, which is not the case in fact christianity holds the NT in a higher regard then the OT (at least the protestant domination of it).

So yes, the question is is Hebrew relevant for the Christian world in how it deals with the teachings of the bible.
in my mind it must not be as otherwise they would have rabbis not priests preaching the words... in fact anything related to the Jews have been treated very negatively by the Christian world... actions do speak more than words.


My point in all this, as I do have a point and do not aim to just aimlessly ramble about is that. ever decision has consequence, everything follows logic, and by accepting something as relevant you also accept the implications that follows with holding it as relevant. by not accepting something as relevant you also accept the implications of that action.

For anything to be taken serious be it science, be it religion, be it politics, one must be able to follow either eqvivilance through its entire history or at the very least implications that one action leads to an other. which is the reason in my mind even though I am not to found of the world religions, they hold at least a considerable amount more relevance and truth than any new age or wicca or any other hippy contraption like Scientology and crap. if the for-named is treated with the respect and responsibility that it requires that is. and not just sugar coat and pick and chose what to accept. either accept everything or accept nothing as everything is there for a reason.

[Frigga]

I concur.

Personally, I think that if ones does not believe that his faith is the true one, he actually happens not to have faith at all. I don't think Christians/Jews/Muslims believe in religious relativism. Accordingly, The Catholic church remembered-in the Second Vatican Council- that Catholicism is considered the real Church, originally founded by JesusChrist , which does not reject at all what there might be real or holy in other religions. There are degrees, I guess... but believing that a religion other than yours is true, would make you a destroyer of your own faith.

Alana, this is an illustration of the differences between the paradigms of our very different religions. Christianity is not willing to view other religions as having truth for their own followers. Heathens acknowledge that other religions as having truth for their followers, even if they do not agree with that particular religion. Different ways of viewing the world is all.

[Gooding]

Doesn't it depend on the follower, though?I have known Christians, Jews and Muslims to freely state that there is truth to be found in other religions.In fact, most of those who've said this were Jews, with Muslims in the middle and the fewest were Christians of one stripe or another. I've known people with a folkish bent who say that the religion of heathenism is only for people of Nordic descent and those people ought to follow only heathenism because it's in their blood.Many heathens do feel this way, while many others subscribe to the "different truths in different faiths" idea.Wiccans of several types freely incorporate those things they find admirable in other faiths into their religious practices.The Zoroastrians in India and Iran are dying out because their priesthood insists on restricting membership to born ethnic Persians of Zoroastrian heritage, while the Baha'is have a more universalist bent and are flourishing outside of Iran.In this day and age, there's a much easier access to information regarding different religions and anyone who's undertaken serious study of these religious paths know that those faiths that require critical thought and accept debate are going to be much more successful than those who set stiff limits on free inquiry and require unthinking obediance.It's a matter of course that different truths may be found in different faiths..

[Frigga]

The bible many times refers to the gods of other peoples. It calls them false gods. Why? Because they are worshipped as gods, and they exist to an extent, e.g. may be built on some true happenings, but to call them God is a misattribution as they aren't God as the One God is.

Now, this is where I disagree, and you yet again prove my point.



So do you mean that any belief in a god or gods is a delusion, and therefore the delusion exists so long as the people who have the delusion exist? If so, then how utterly redundant that statement is. It's merely a reassertion that "God doesn't exist".

No.


Or do you mean that our minds literally shape the world, such that what I believe is what reality conforms to, rather than the object of my thought being to conform to reality? So if I believe you are an African tribesman, you are actually an African tribesman, and if I believe the earth is flat, it's actually flat?

That's not the point Varg was trying to make. I think that he was trying to say that the Gods exist outside of us and our thought, but our devotion gives them strength, and a reason to stick around. If something is no longer acknowledged in this world, I would imagine that it would leave to find another. I know that I would.


You clearly haven't investigated this. You have just made a superficial reading of the English translation. The Hebrew clearly distinguishes between the One God (El-Echad) and the false gods. The name used for pagan god and gods, El, only really means strength, power and might, and is sometimes used for men or angels, as it is with false gods. Just like we call God the "Lord", even though we don't call him "Lord" in the same way as we call other humans of a superior rank "Lord". Does this mean the bible teaches that men are gods like God is? Not at all; it metans that it teaches a distinction between the Mighty (El) men and creatures, from the One God Mightier than all the mighty. The false gods are called El singularly without a construct form as in the case of the One God (http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el-echad.gif El-Echad). It never refers to the (false) "gods" as El-Echad or Yahweh.

It's worth noting they are only false by virtue of being worshipped instead of the mightest of mighty; they are not false in not being "gods", since they are gods in the sense that it refers to them as mighty, but not mightest of mighty, a title reserved for the El-eschad.

Again you illustrate my point. :rolleyes:


Plato and Aristotle, as prime heathen philosophers, are probably the most hardcore objectivists you could find, in terms of their view of abstract objects of truth. Anyway, all this is simply reading too much into what I said. It was to be a description of your statements, not a long exposition on my views on epistemology.

No it's not. I genuinely am curious about your rationalization for your stance. And, you also still have not said why you "do not advocate my particular form of subjectivism" or how it is that I am being subjectivist. I'm acknowledging that other thought patterns are true, even yours. I may not agree with you, but I still acknowledge that you see truth for yourself. You're not doing the same for me, but that's because of your religious paradigms. Would it not stand to reason that you are being subjectivist towards myself and others that do not agree with you?


It's supposed to be simply an accurate description, that's all.

Well, it didn't sound that way.

[Poltergeist]

You clearly haven't investigated this. You have just made a superficial reading of the English translation. The Hebrew clearly distinguishes between the One God (El-Echad) and the false gods. The name used for pagan god and gods, El, only really means strength, power and might, and is sometimes used for men or angels, as it is with false gods. Just like we call God the "Lord", even though we don't call him "Lord" in the same way as we call other humans of a superior rank "Lord". Does this mean the bible teaches that men are gods like God is? Not at all; it means that it teaches a distinction between the Mighty (El) men and creatures, from the One God Mightier than all the mighty. The false gods are called El singularly without a construct form as in the case of the One God (http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el-echad.gif El-Echad). It never refers to the (false) "gods" as El-Echad or Yahweh.

It's worth noting they are only false by virtue of being worshipped instead of the mightest of mighty; they are not false in not being "gods", since they are gods in the sense that it refers to them as mighty, but not mightest of mighty, a title reserved for the El-eschad.

This is a bit misleading.

First a note on the Hebrew language and script. In Hebrew vowels of the words are not written, just consonants. Thus the word WOMAN, for example, were it written in Hebrew fashion would be written WMN. People who know Hebrew well are supposed to be able to guess the vowels of the word. However, Bible is always written in such a manner that small dots and dashes below letters denote vowels. Why is that being done? Simply to avoid any possible uncertainties in reading of the Bible, being an important book. So a Hebrew text can be "vocalized" or "not vocalized".

In the Bible there is no such thing as "Yahweh". It is only Hebrew letters YHVH that are written, while the name of God remains unknown. YHVH is only written (without dots below denoting vowels), but the word is pronounced adonay (something like: "my master"). Or sometimes the dots and dashes of the word adonay are placed below the YHVH tetragrammaton, but word is still pronounced adonay, and not Yahovah, as it should be read if consonants and vowel signs and consonants would suggest. From this mode of writing some Christians of more recent ages (last several hundred years) guessed that Yahovah, or Yehovah (or with the incipient J), might ne the Biblical name for God (thence Jehovah's witnesses and similar). In the beginning of the 19th century the Biblical scholar and expert for Oriental languages Gesenius made a reconstruction of the alleged original God's name hiding behind the mysterious YHVH. He thought it was originally "Yahweh" and since then this word (a mere indiviudal philological reconstruction, not the original Biblical Hebrew word) entered many Bibles, Proetstant ones first, and Catholic ones following the suit.

Whereas older versions of Bible translations, From the Greek Septuaginta on, rendered the YHVH by "Lord" (Greek kyrios, Latin dominus etc), which is way more correct because it corresponds to the original Hebrew word adonay (meaning something like: "my Lord") which was whenever the mysterious tetragrammaton was written.

There is another Hebrew word for God, Elohim, mentioned in the beginning of Genesis, and that word was always rendered by "God" (correctly).

So, no "Yahweh".

There are several other names for God appearing occasionally, but they are of lesser importance.

[Lutiferre]

Well yes, think about the implication of it. If Hebrew is not relevant to the Christian community as a whole, then that results in that how things are written in the Hebrew language is not relevant either to the Christian community. even if it was written originally in Hebrew (aside any linguistics debate). if this is not the case then the debate would be if Hebrew would be the Christian holy language and like the Qua-ran it could not be translated into any other language to retain the original meaning. Which is at least not an accepted viewpoint by the large mass.
So I didn't misunderstand you.

No, my point was not that this was only a Hebrew distinction. My point was that, going into the Hebrew or even the Greek could clear confusions in translation up from any arbitrary English rendition.


So yes, the question is is Hebrew relevant for the Christian world in how it deals with the teachings of the bible.
Hebrew wasn't the point. The different meanings of the various expressions used for the One God and the way "god", "godly" or "mighty" is used for men or angels was the point.

[Lutiferre]

In the Bible there is no such thing as "Yahweh". It is only Hebrew letters YHVH that are written, while the name of God remains unknown.
Obviously. But that is irrelevant; yahweh is simply a rendition of YHVH.


YHVH is only written (without dots below denoting vowels), but the word is pronounced adonay (something like: "my master").
No. Adonai means Lord, and is not a pronounciation of YHVH, but a title used to address God, just like Lord is in English.

There is another Hebrew word for God, Elohim, mentioned in the beginning of Genesis, and that word was always rendered by "God" (correctly).
Indeed, and Elohim is simply another construct form of El.

[Lutiferre]

Would it not stand to reason that you are being subjectivist towards myself and others that do not agree with you?
You still haven't understood what I've already said about what I meant with "subjectivist".

I meant subjectivism in the sense of the view of truth as being subjective. So that A is true for person X, and B is true for person Y. Christianity is true for me, heathenry "true for you". It combines almost an objective idea of true (a thing is true as such, not relative to something that can be measured about it) with a subjectivist interpretation.

Doesn't it depend on the follower, though?I have known Christians, Jews and Muslims to freely state that there is truth to be found in other religions
There is no problem in openly admitting to truth in other religions and mythologies and whatnot. There is a such thing as perennial wisdom. As I've already said:


A Christian doesn't believe that other religions or belief systems don't have truth, or that they are completely false with not even a hint of truth in it. A Catholic Christian would believe a Protestant had more truth than an Arian, and most Protestants vice versa - there are "degrees" of how fully we appreciate truth. A Christian believes that other religions are false as such, by virtue of not containing the fullness of the most pertinent truth, not because they have no truth.

Helenised paganisms, yes. In fact, Christianity, in its archaic form, would be unrecognisable to us - let alone palatable.
Surely not. The liturgies and doctrines from the first century and onwards are still known to us, through for instance, the Didache.


Just pay attention to the way Lutiferre thinks. The barebones of the differences between the Abrahamic cults and just about every other religio-moral artifice resides therein.

Well, if you think we are so unique, then thank you. But many pagans, like Pallamedes, would merely tell me that Abrahamic cults are just copies of other myths and in fact, nothing special. But of course, you will alter your criticism of Christianity to anything that suits you on the convenient occasion. So I'm not going to dig deeper into it (though you probably are).

[SuuT]

So Lutiferre, what do you think the greatest single paradigmatic difference is between Catholicism/Orthodox Christianity and inn forni siðr?

[Lutiferre]

So Lutiferre, what do you think the greatest single paradigmatic difference is between Catholicism/Orthodox Christianity and inn forni siðr?
I think the difference, in terms of religious attitude and practice, can be exaggerated.

I think the difference, in terms of all-pervading social, cultural, ethical and life attitudes in general, is the more important one. Moving from a more primitive (and in some ways innocent and other ways not) in some ways, apathic pagan society to a more culturally, socially conscious and progagonistic condition.

[Amapola]

Alana, this is an illustration of the differences between the paradigms of our very different religions. Christianity is not willing to view other religions as having truth for their own followers. Heathens acknowledge that other religions as having truth for their followers, even if they do not agree with that particular religion. Different ways of viewing the world is all.

Right, the Heathens are opposed to the stance of the Abrahamic religions, which consider themselves as the only Truth holders or at least in his extremist version. Nevertheless it's only because in the pagan universe there are many conceptions and each has a variety of the very Truth: each one can believe in their own truth. .it's a Religion based on Relativism as a way to understand life: relativism vs. objetivism.. So...it's more than a mere dogmatic difference, it is just the example and result of a total and different philosophy of life. .

Now again I would consider sound different religious dogmas:

1.-The Eastern Catholic Church doesn't accept divorce.

2.- The Eastern Catholic Church accept the dogma of the Blessed Virgin. Not the Othodox.

3.- The Eastern Catholics, under no respect, perform the precept in Schismatic Churches.

And so forth...

[Poltergeist]

Obviously. But that is irrelevant; yahweh is simply a rendition of YHVH.

no, it is very relevant.

There is no such name as "Yahweh". God's name in the Old Testament remains unknown.

[Óttar]

Elohim
It should be noted that Elohim is actually the plural, but my guess is this is most likely an honorific like how Allah says "We have shown our signs" in the Quran.

[Lutiferre]

no, it is very relevant.

There is no such name as "Yahweh". God's name in the Old Testament remains unknown.
But there is such a thing as YHVH; yahweh being merely a rendition thereof. And anyway, attributing any great importance to this is idiotic. The pronounciation doesn't matter. Adonai or Elohim are sufficient (and the various construct forms like El-Echad, the One God), or as theos/theon and kyrios in the Greek.

[Poltergeist]

But there is such a thing as YHVH; yahweh being merely a rendition thereof. And anyway, attributing any great importance to this is idiotic. The pronounciation doesn't matter. Adonai or Elohim are sufficient (and the various construct forms like El-Echad, the One God), or as theos/theon and kyrios in the Greek.

Yes, it does matter! The name of the God remains concealed in the Bible. There must be some reason for that. neglecting this or dismissing it as unimportant is idiotic.

Pronunciation DOES MATTER.

Especially from your point of view, since you claim that no other God approaches the Biblica one.

[Lutiferre]

Yes, it does matter! The name of the God remains concealed in the Bible. There must be some reason for that. neglecting this or dismissing it as unimportant is idiotic.
It doesn't remain concealed. The name is there: YHVH.

YHVH is the symbol of all universal existence translated from Hebrew as follows:

HYH (Hayah) means was.
HVH (Hoveh) means is.
YHY (Yehiyeh) means will be.

The combinations of these words convey the meaning of past, present, and future, which make up the four-letter Name of God (YHVH, the Tetragrammaton of Yod, Hey, Vav, and Hey). This is the Name by which in the Torah He has been known to us.

This is equivalent to when Moses asks Gods name, and the answer is: « I shall be what I shall be », or I am that I am. Ehyeh asher ehyeh.


Pronunciation DOES MATTER.
Why exactly? The English rendition is never going to be like the original Hebrew, whether you use the Jehovah or Yahweh rendition. Just like it isn't completely the same when English use words of Latin origin as in the original Latin.

Besides, the word is usually substituted with LORD and thus isn't realy pronounced.