Neopaganism ~ Liturgical Christianity

[Ellinas]

I'm finding this all rather impenetrable simply because I doubt the validity of generalizations.

 

My paganism is highly unlikely to be the same as Cianna's or Ravenstar's (assuming that either of them accept "pagan" as a label anyway).  My choice of deities, how I view them and what that leads me to do day to day will be different as well - and has no connection that I can readily work out with Christianity of any description.

 

Liturgical Christianity has pagan elements gleaned long ago from the ancient world, but they are not really a part of much modern pagan practice and I am very doubtful of the accuracy or worth of modern reconstructionism.

 

it is true that many modern pagans care little about whether others agree or disagree with them.  It is not correct that modern pagans are necessarily defined by some sort of ritual practice - it's been a long time since I last engaged in anything that would be identifiable as a formal ritual, and online conversations over the years suggest I am far from being unusual in that lack of ritualism.

 

Liturgical Christianity is what it is - a system of ritual where the belief structure may be rarely considered or discussed; equally I would be amazed if that structure would be regarded as irrelevant and certainly would be officially upheld.  I recall a few years ago a representative of the Greek Orthodox church reported as describing attempts to reconstruct ancient Hellenic paganism as something along the lines of reviving a corrupt religion.  Presumably he saw a pretty stark distinction.

 

But, beliefs are as varied as the persons who hold them.

[moanareina]

I had a thought: many Christians attending liturgical churches are actually neopagans.

- they are following a tradition

- they are insprired by rituals, formal prayers, stories of saints, etc.

- membership is defined by joining the rituals instead of believing things

 

Any opinions?

 

Actually there is a book on that topic. It is called Pagan Christianity, written by George Barna and Frank Viola. It is a christian book though it explains how Church became the way it is and it is pretty amazing. Even pentecostal Churches are not aware of how pagan their services are. From the building to the songs to the stage and the preaching, the staff and the hierarchies, having a pastor etc. There are tons of historical references in the book. I have not checked them out but when I read it I thought a Christian would not write such stuff if it was all wrong. But maybe I am going to read it again and then I ll check out all the references there are.

[directionless]

I'm finding this all rather impenetrable simply because I doubt the validity of generalizations.

 

My paganism is highly unlikely to be the same as Cianna's or Ravenstar's (assuming that either of them accept "pagan" as a label anyway).  My choice of deities, how I view them and what that leads me to do day to day will be different as well - and has no connection that I can readily work out with Christianity of any description.

That is a good point. I know the same is true of any congregation. Everybody sings the same songs and say the same things, but they often understand them very differently.

 

Liturgical Christianity has pagan elements gleaned long ago from the ancient world, but they are not really a part of much modern pagan practice and I am very doubtful of the accuracy or worth of modern reconstructionism.

I am suggesting a common way of thinking about religion as opposed to borrowing the Christmas tree or borrowing the idea of a communal meal. When I read explanations written by neo-pagans, I can't tell what they believe. When I read explanations written by some Christians, I can't tell what they believe. They both seem to consider religion to be psychological and cultural practices rather than objective facts. Sometimes they seem to be basically atheist/materialists and other times they don't.

 

it is true that many modern pagans care little about whether others agree or disagree with them.  It is not correct that modern pagans are necessarily defined by some sort of ritual practice - it's been a long time since I last engaged in anything that would be identifiable as a formal ritual, and online conversations over the years suggest I am far from being unusual in that lack of ritualism.

But even if you don't gather with others for a ritual, don't you have private practices such as meditating on a mythological story or burning some incense?

 

Liturgical Christianity is what it is - a system of ritual where the belief structure may be rarely considered or discussed; equally I would be amazed if that structure would be regarded as irrelevant and certainly would be officially upheld.  I recall a few years ago a representative of the Greek Orthodox church reported as describing attempts to reconstruct ancient Hellenic paganism as something along the lines of reviving a corrupt religion.  Presumably he saw a pretty stark distinction.

A few examples from my experience of Orthodoxy:

- a friend of a friend went to an Orthodox seminary and quit after the professor suggested that archaeologists may discover the bones of Jesus

- my priest suggested that the OT and the gospels were legends with secret metaphysical meanings. For example, he said the number of fish in a gospel story matched the number of people attending an early church council, and similarly for the Torah.

- the communion bread has symbols with supposedly profound meaning when the priest prepares it behind the screen

 

So this got me wondering if there is a connection.

 

But, beliefs are as varied as the persons who hold them.

True

[directionless]

Actually there is a book on that topic. It is called Pagan Christianity, written by George Barna and Frank Viola. It is a christian book though it explains how Church became the way it is and it is pretty amazing. Even pentecostal Churches are not aware of how pagan their services are. From the building to the songs to the stage and the preaching, the staff and the hierarchies, having a pastor etc. There are tons of historical references in the book. I have not checked them out but when I read it I thought a Christian would not write such stuff if it was all wrong. But maybe I am going to read it again and then I ll check out all the references there are.

Thanks, I'll put that on my wish list. Someone else mentioned Viola, but I was suspicious of biases when I saw that he was a Christian. But maybe I will give it a look.

[moanareina]

 

Actually there is a book on that topic. It is called Pagan Christianity, written by George Barna and Frank Viola. It is a christian book though it explains how Church became the way it is and it is pretty amazing. Even pentecostal Churches are not aware of how pagan their services are. From the building to the songs to the stage and the preaching, the staff and the hierarchies, having a pastor etc. There are tons of historical references in the book. I have not checked them out but when I read it I thought a Christian would not write such stuff if it was all wrong. But maybe I am going to read it again and then I ll check out all the references there are.

Thanks, I'll put that on my wish list. Someone else mentioned Viola, but I was suspicious of biases when I saw that he was a Christian. But maybe I will give it a look.

 

 

Well I don't remember if I read the last chapter or if I just decided to ignore Viola's ideas of Church and all. The information he gives is neutral but he comes up with his own conclusions that are more open minded then the usual but is still a try to make the religion he wants to believe in to work...As much as I remember he suggests house church as an alternative. It has been a while that I read it. But as much as I remember that is the only down vote I can give. It can be ignored.

It is not a book that intends to proof Christianity wrong but it gives good information on how modern Christianity formed itself and has little to do with the bible anymore.

 

I remember talking about Church and the bible in our small group and it always bothered me that we thought we where following the bible when we clearly where not. I mean no one of us shared everything with everyone, living together in communes, not calling anything our own etc...It is fun how many people know but would never think about questioning...instead try and find ways to explain why we did things the way we did...ans still call it biblical. Crazy.

[directionless]

Well I don't remember if I read the last chapter or if I just decided to ignore Viola's ideas of Church and all. The information he gives is neutral but he comes up with his own conclusions that are more open minded then the usual but is still a try to make the religion he wants to believe in to work...As much as I remember he suggests house church as an alternative. It has been a while that I read it. But as much as I remember that is the only down vote I can give. It can be ignored.

It is not a book that intends to proof Christianity wrong but it gives good information on how modern Christianity formed itself and has little to do with the bible anymore.

 

I remember talking about Church and the bible in our small group and it always bothered me that we thought we where following the bible when we clearly where not. I mean no one of us shared everything with everyone, living together in communes, not calling anything our own etc...It is fun how many people know but would never think about questioning...instead try and find ways to explain why we did things the way we did...ans still call it biblical. Crazy.

There is a lot of that sort of thing like you mention. Whenever I read the Bible I would always feel like there were loose threads. The way Judaism seemed to evolve from the Torah to Daniel and then Chrisitanity seemed to evolve made it hard for me to believe in divine inspiration. But for some reason I continue to think and wish that Jesus and God are real in spite of all the reasons to disbelieve. Other people seem to be able to put these beliefs behind them by simply following the reasoning to the obvious conclusion. The best I can do is a split brain - half Christian and half atheist.

[seven77]

 

Well I don't remember if I read the last chapter or if I just decided to ignore Viola's ideas of Church and all. The information he gives is neutral but he comes up with his own conclusions that are more open minded then the usual but is still a try to make the religion he wants to believe in to work...As much as I remember he suggests house church as an alternative. It has been a while that I read it. But as much as I remember that is the only down vote I can give. It can be ignored.

It is not a book that intends to proof Christianity wrong but it gives good information on how modern Christianity formed itself and has little to do with the bible anymore.

 

I remember talking about Church and the bible in our small group and it always bothered me that we thought we where following the bible when we clearly where not. I mean no one of us shared everything with everyone, living together in communes, not calling anything our own etc...It is fun how many people know but would never think about questioning...instead try and find ways to explain why we did things the way we did...ans still call it biblical. Crazy.

There is a lot of that sort of thing like you mention. Whenever I read the Bible I would always feel like there were loose threads. The way Judaism seemed to evolve from the Torah to Daniel and then Chrisitanity seemed to evolve made it hard for me to believe in divine inspiration. But for some reason I continue to think and wish that Jesus and God are real in spite of all the reasons to disbelieve. Other people seem to be able to put these beliefs behind them by simply following the reasoning to the obvious conclusion. The best I can do is a split brain - half Christian and half atheist.

 

 

I think that in my case, I simply saw the hypocrisy of it all and was able to make a clean break. I went through a period of grieving and depression.

 

My former church was more Jewish than Christian. They taught that much of Christianity is false doctrine. So I never did view Christianity as most here probably do/did. Even when I was still in it, I knew that a great deal of it was for show, to attract new members. Only those high up in the church really knew what they were teaching and preaching wasn't Christianity. I only found out because I had some friends in high places and was able to follow the rabbit trails through the sermons and newsletters.

 

I wish you well on your journey, Directionless. Not all ex-c's end up becoming atheists. Some just decide that they aren't Christians and others find various spiritual paths to follow.

[directionless]

I think that in my case, I simply saw the hypocrisy of it all and was able to make a clean break. I went through a period of grieving and depression.

 

My former church was more Jewish than Christian. They taught that much of Christianity is false doctrine. So I never did view Christianity as most here probably do/did. Even when I was still in it, I knew that a great deal of it was for show, to attract new members. Only those high up in the church really knew what they were teaching and preaching wasn't Christianity. I only found out because I had some friends in high places and was able to follow the rabbit trails through the sermons and newsletters.

 

I wish you well on your journey, Directionless. Not all ex-c's end up becoming atheists. Some just decide that they aren't Christians and others find various spiritual paths to follow.

That's interesting that your church was more Jewish. Was it a Messianic Jewish church? I have read a couple of books by Geza Vermes about his idea of the authentic message of character of Jesus as opposed to the later Christian theology.

 

In my case, I think spirituality would be psychologically unhealthy, because apparently I have had psychosis at times. If I open my mind at all to believing in supernatural, then I open a can of worms psychologically. Christianity doesn't feel like spirituality because I grew-up with it, but other religions make me very uncomfortable. I like the music and practices of Islam, but it has many of the same problems as Christianity.

 

So atheism is a sensible choice that matches science. But there seems to be an inner core to my mind that will not give up believing in God and Jesus.

[Ellinas]

Directionless,

 

To take a couple of your comments in turn:

 

Ellinas, on 20 Jul 2014 - 4:25 PM, said:

Liturgical Christianity has pagan elements gleaned long ago from the ancient world, but they are not really a part of much modern pagan practice and I am very doubtful of the accuracy or worth of modern reconstructionism.

"I am suggesting a common way of thinking about religion as opposed to borrowing the Christmas tree or borrowing the idea of a communal meal. When I read explanations written by neo-pagans, I can't tell what they believe. When I read explanations written by some Christians, I can't tell what they believe. They both seem to consider religion to be psychological and cultural practices rather than objective facts. Sometimes they seem to be basically atheist/materialists and other times they don't".

 

It may be that a given individual has no clear - or, at least, fixed - idea of their own beliefs.  These things can be an ongoing process rather than a definite conclusion - and that may be true in any background.
 

Ellinas, on 20 Jul 2014 - 4:25 PM, said:

it is true that many modern pagans care little about whether others agree or disagree with them.  It is not correct that modern pagans are necessarily defined by some sort of ritual practice - it's been a long time since I last engaged in anything that would be identifiable as a formal ritual, and online conversations over the years suggest I am far from being unusual in that lack of ritualism.

"But even if you don't gather with others for a ritual, don't you have private practices such as meditating on a mythological story or burning some incense?"

Yes and no.  I do very little as a regular activity, and what I do is informed by my belief, not by a liturgical structure.  At what point does an occasional practice become a ritual? 

 

Ellinas, on 20 Jul 2014 - 4:25 PM, said:

Liturgical Christianity is what it is - a system of ritual where the belief structure may be rarely considered or discussed; equally I would be amazed if that structure would be regarded as irrelevant and certainly would be officially upheld.  I recall a few years ago a representative of the Greek Orthodox church reported as describing attempts to reconstruct ancient Hellenic paganism as something along the lines of reviving a corrupt religion.  Presumably he saw a pretty stark distinction.

"A few examples from my experience of Orthodoxy:
- a friend of a friend went to an Orthodox seminary and quit after the professor suggested that archaeologists may discover the bones of Jesus
- my priest suggested that the OT and the gospels were legends with secret metaphysical meanings. For example, he said the number of fish in a gospel story matched the number of people attending an early church council, and similarly for the Torah.
- the communion bread has symbols with supposedly profound meaning when the priest prepares it behind the screen

So this got me wondering if there is a connection."
 

Would any such connection be common to some members of practically any belief system?  All beliefs have their more conservative and liberal wings?

[seven77]

My former church was Messianic-leaning at the time I was attending and a member. There were two main groups there. One was a moderate traditional Christian group; the other a strongly Messianic, Jewish roots sort of group. The version of Jesus that the two groups settled on was ultimately a Jewish one. There were a lot of contradictions there and I don't want to derail this thread with specifics. Suffice to say, I found the message they preached to be hypocritical due to them not being forthcoming about their Jewishness and instead presenting a hippie Jesus that was far more palpable than the twisted version of half-assed Judaism that most of those in power and the inner circles actually believed.

 

They were all about the authenticity of Jesus and his Jewishness was a big part of that. Their take was that the Christianity was false and corrupt. I'm pretty sure that Geza Vermes was read in the learning groups. There was a fee to attend those and I never did, so I haven't read them.

 

As for you, take your time. I have experimented with a variety of spiritual practices. These days, I am far more comfortable without indulging spiritual elements in my life than I ever was when I indulged them. I was not raised in the church and so I did not have those hurdles to overcome. I write a lot and find that exploring the expanses of my mind through fictional worlds and characters works much better than praying and reading the Bible and all of that. I also go for walks and like spending time with my nephew, who is a little guy and is just starting to learn about the world. It brings me great joy and I hope that he remains curious as he grows.

 

Finding the things that make you happy, that give you an outlet for your emotions and thoughts, is key. Religion/faith fulfills those needs for some. When you leave it, you have to figure out how to live in a world without God, spirits, etc. It takes time and it is difficult. Keep looking and don't let chemistry dictate your thoughts, if you can help it.

[directionless]

My former church was Messianic-leaning at the time I was attending and a member. There were two main groups there. One was a moderate traditional Christian group; the other a strongly Messianic, Jewish roots sort of group. The version of Jesus that the two groups settled on was ultimately a Jewish one. There were a lot of contradictions there and I don't want to derail this thread with specifics. Suffice to say, I found the message they preached to be hypocritical due to them not being forthcoming about their Jewishness and instead presenting a hippie Jesus that was far more palpable than the twisted version of half-assed Judaism that most of those in power and the inner circles actually believed.

 

They were all about the authenticity of Jesus and his Jewishness was a big part of that. Their take was that the Christianity was false and corrupt. I'm pretty sure that Geza Vermes was read in the learning groups. There was a fee to attend those and I never did, so I haven't read them.

That's interesting. There is much more variety in Christianity than I ever realized until joining this forum.

 

As for you, take your time. I have experimented with a variety of spiritual practices. These days, I am far more comfortable without indulging spiritual elements in my life than I ever was when I indulged them. I was not raised in the church and so I did not have those hurdles to overcome. I write a lot and find that exploring the expanses of my mind through fictional worlds and characters works much better than praying and reading the Bible and all of that. I also go for walks and like spending time with my nephew, who is a little guy and is just starting to learn about the world. It brings me great joy and I hope that he remains curious as he grows.

 

Finding the things that make you happy, that give you an outlet for your emotions and thoughts, is key. Religion/faith fulfills those needs for some. When you leave it, you have to figure out how to live in a world without God, spirits, etc. It takes time and it is difficult. Keep looking and don't let chemistry dictate your thoughts, if you can help it.

Thanks. I like what you said ("don't let chemistry dictate your thoughts"). I never thought of it that way, but it is true. We can learn and apply critical thinking skills to make the brain chemistry a non-factor.

[directionless]

Directionless,

 

To take a couple of your comments in turn:

 

... 

 

It may be that a given individual has no clear - or, at least, fixed - idea of their own beliefs.  These things can be an ongoing process rather than a definite conclusion - and that may be true in any background.

 

...

 

Yes and no.  I do very little as a regular activity, and what I do is informed by my belief, not by a liturgical structure.  At what point does an occasional practice become a ritual? 

 

...

 

Would any such connection be common to some members of practically any belief system?  All beliefs have their more conservative and liberal wings?

Thanks. O.k. maybe I am making too much from these similarities.

 

This idea interests me, because I could never decide if my Orthodox priest was an athiest or a Christian with such a non-literal belief that he seemed like an atheist. I feel angry and confused about how that priest treated me sometimes.

[Ellinas]

I recall back in the '80's a C of E clergyman who wrote a book and did a television series to the conclusion that god is the abstraction of our moral values.  That strikes me as much the same sort of category as your Orthodox priest.

[directionless]

I recall back in the '80's a C of E clergyman who wrote a book and did a television series to the conclusion that god is the abstraction of our moral values.  That strikes me as much the same sort of category as your Orthodox priest.

That sounds like a good guess.

 

I have several theories:

- an atheist trying to see some beauty and value in Christianity and his role as a priest

- an atheist mocking, confusing, and ripping-off the naive believers in his parish to amuse himself

- a bizarre mystical Christian pretending to be an atheist scoundrel to teach his parish

 

On several occassions I asked this priest about various "spiritual experiences" that I didn't understand. So if he was an atheist then why didn't he gently suggest that I might be having psychosis? Why did he keep "borrowing" money from me and apparently almost everybody else in the parish recycling the same phony reasons? Why would he often promise to do something (visit a sick person, come to a function, have a church service, etc.) when nobody had asked him to do this thing but then not show-up and never provide a reason?

 

He was a very charming and likeable priest, but I don't know what to think about him. Sometimes I am angry and other times I think he must have meant well somehow.

 

(I need to simply forget about it and move on. )

[directionless]

 

...

Thanks. I like what you said ("don't let chemistry dictate your thoughts"). I never thought of it that way, but it is true. We can learn and apply critical thinking skills to make the brain chemistry a non-factor.

Do you mean that our "mind" can override our "brain"? If so, then we are more than physiology, and not everything is reduced to grey matter and firing of synapses?

 

I'm not sure what seven77 meant, but I thought she meant that we should not let brain chemicals control our behavior. We can make our choices by applying critical reasoning methods (step 1, step 2, step 3, ... o.k. this is what I should do or believe) - rather than (this choice feels right)

[seven77]

^that is what I was going for..

 

So much of what we learn in church is to be controlled by our emotions. How often does one hear that faith is about relationship and not religion? Relationships are emotional connections and faith is driven by a series of emotional inputs that trigger events that are said to confirm or strengthen the faith of an individual.

 

Emotion overrides reason every time. Much of what is taught and practiced in churches goes directly against what is natural, our inborn instincts. Love the poor. Be like a child. Give all you have. Fear the invisible sky master (God). We are all sinners. Heaven is for real. Hell is even more real.

 

I believe that we can overcome faulty programming (Christian inputs) and misfiring / bad wiring (the chemical and emotional effects of such inputs) through critical thinking, reasoning, debate, and the embrace of self. Not that we are to narcissists, but in the sense that we no longer have to be ashamed of ourselves and will regain the ability that we all once had to preserve the self without feeling fear or shame for doing so.

 

That is my take on things. Others may not agree. Ultimately, we can control and manipulate our chemistry via medications and such, so there's that if you want to be literal about it.

[directionless]

 

 

 

...

Thanks. I like what you said ("don't let chemistry dictate your thoughts"). I never thought of it that way, but it is true. We can learn and apply critical thinking skills to make the brain chemistry a non-factor.

Do you mean that our "mind" can override our "brain"? If so, then we are more than physiology, and not everything is reduced to grey matter and firing of synapses?

 

 

I'm not sure what seven77 meant, but I thought she meant that we should not let brain chemicals control our behavior. We can make our choices by applying critical reasoning methods (step 1, step 2, step 3, ... o.k. this is what I should do or believe) - rather than (this choice feels right)

 

Thanks, directionless. Do you believe this also?

 

I believe that, but I've never tried to put it into practice. I've been thinking about buying a book on critical thinking. It doesn't come naturally to me, so I'm not sure if I can make it sink in.

[seven77]

e.

 

^that is what I was going for..So much of what we learn in church is to be controlled by our emotions. How often does one hear that faith is about relationship and not religion? Relationships are emotional connections and faith is driven by a series of emotional inputs that trigger events that are said to confirm or strengthen the faith of an individual.Emotion overrides reason every time. Much of what is taught and practiced in churches goes directly against what is natural, our inborn instincts. Love the poor. Be like a child. Give all you have. Fear the invisible sky master (God). We are all sinners. Heaven is for real. Hell is even more real.I believe that we can overcome faulty programming (Christian inputs) and misfiring / bad wiring (the chemical and emotional effects of such inputs) through critical thinking, reasoning, debate, and the embrace of self. Not that we are to narcissists, but in the sense that we no longer have to be ashamed of ourselves and will regain the ability that we all once had to preserve the self without feeling fear or shame for doing so.That is my take on things. Others may not agree. Ultimately, we can control and manipulate our chemistry via medications and such, so there's that if you want to be literal about it.

seven77,I like what you're saying. I'm just trying to understand it better. I've thought along these lines myself. Do you recognize a distinction (although not a separation) between corporeal brain (chemistry) and noncorporeal mind (perhaps emergent qualities)? And you mention the "self." There was a thread in the Spirituality forum speculating on what the Self is. But it was full of a lot of philosophical terminology. I participated in it, but it seemed there wasn't much practical outcome in the thread. Maybe it was basically intellectual exercise. So, if religion operates more in the area of emotions, then the higher mind, or emergent qualities can override the operating of religious experience.Human

I believe that the mind can override faith. The mind can also explain religious experiences.

 

There is a sharp divide between what faith is and what it isn't in the community I belonged to. Faith is a relationship with Jesus; sin is your emotions, your carnal desires. The closer your are to Christ, the farther away you are from your emotions, your carnal desires. A relationship with Jesus required putting on a new self, being made a new creation in Christ. This (IMHO) is a very sneaky way of saying that in order to be a Christian, you must give up your self. Christians are not allowed to have their own feelings. They are taught to control all emotion and to eliminate all human desire. They dress these sentiments up, disguise them in god talk and wrap them in platitude. Those in charge preach freedom, but there cannot be freedom with autonomy and there is no autonomy without a self to experience it with.

 

If your self is Christ, then you are not truly an individual. Christians are "little Christs" and so desire to remain children attached to their father. They bow to authorities, proclaiming strength in weakness, believing in lies that have no basis in reality. That is why when one wakes up and leaves the dream, they must deny it. They must say 'you chose sin because you like it' or other such things because they have no self and so cannot understand the desire to be free to experience it.

 

Their denial of carnality, the flesh, leads them down dangerous paths. What they fear becomes what they crave and eventually, they cannot deny it any longer. When one leaves the faith, they must find their self. For some, the self is what compels us to leave.i couldn't stay in the faith because in order to do so, I had to lie about what I wanted and who I was. I value the truth (reality) more than the lies, so I left the faith to honor myself. For others, the process of leaving the faith is due to lack of emotional experience, lack of validation or the serious consequences of prolonged self-denial that has left them with deep wounds.

 

Ultimately, the self is not some hidden thing. The self is what makes us human. It is the capacity to learn and communicate and the capability to honor the ideals and persons that we hold dear.

 

Those are my opinions, fwiw.