Discuss! (please 
) History, currently, etc, etc.
-Eric
Iāve never been to Ireland, but itās my impression that in most of Western Europe, paganism died for a very long time and was revived in a period lasting from the late 1800s until the mid 1900s. So the paganism you find today is really a new type of religion, a kind of reconstruction, if you will.
I have a friend who is Wiccan, and in his office hangs a big sign which reads āWicca: pretending to be an ancient religion since 1959.ā
Iāve always found interesting the way Catholic saints were super imposed on various pagan figures, such as Brigit. In one of my previous college classes (āWomen in World Religionsā) we studied all the similarities between Saint Brigit and her pagan counterpart. From the Irish Catholic theological standpoint, Iāve heard it argued that the pagan figure of Brigid was just another manifestation of the Christian Saint Brigid, although I donāt think pagans generally accept that for obvious reasons. Itās really fascinating, if controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_King_of_Ireland, that should answer a little bit of some history. before the St.Patrick, Ireland was mainly made of pagans. infact, most of the celts and gauls etc.. were pagans. that is where the celtic cross comes into play. the cross standing for christianity, and the circle standing for the sun god for the pagans to understand how the Lord works, he was the one who brought christianity into Ireland(or the main person who is most famous for it). he also used the shamrock to explain the trinity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Patrick
Even though itās unorthodox, I like the analogy of the rarer four-leaf clover to the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Holy Mother.
āIāve heard it argued that the pagan figure of Brigid was just another manifestation of the Christian Saint Brigid, although I donāt think pagans generally accept that for obvious reasons. Itās really fascinating, if controversial.ā
This is close to the doctrine of the Good Pagan, from Aquinas,
who maintained that pagans often worship Christ without
knowing it, in the guise of a pagan deity. The idea finds its literary
expression in C. S. Lewis, where a young man worships
Tash, a nasty pagan god, but the young man insists that
Tash is good and full of love. When things get sorted out,
finally, the fellow ends up in heaven, having worshipped
Christ all along without realizing it. This is part of a response
to the problem of what happens to people who never heard
of Christ, so never had an opportunity to accept him (e.g.
folks who lived before Jesus).
Some protestant philosophers
I know maintain that people who consider themselves atheists,
but who feel there is goodness in the universe,
a fundamental difference between right and wrong, something
moving us toward being better, something hopeful,
have unwittingly accepted Christ.
The idea is that we
worship whatās really there, if only through a glass darkly,
as long as we describe it well enough to get whatās
important about it. And thatās good enough for God.
So Socrates is in heaven.
I know itās a very beautiful idea. And I hope with all my might itās true.
From the Irish Catholic theological standpoint, Iāve heard it argued that the pagan figure of Brigid was just another manifestation of the Christian Saint Brigid,
everybody else has long accepted that Brigid was an adaptation of the earlier pagan figure. Weāve had this discussion before and donāt you really think that makes more sense than saying the earlier figure was an adaptation of the later saint?
Many earlier religious strains were incorporated in the local version of Christianity. I was at a Blessed Well on the side of Sliabh Elva a few hours ago. Provides eye cures, despite the catholic imagery some of these wells have they usually have a strong pre-christian feel about them and this one was no exception. But thatās a story for somewhere else.
Yes, itās a lovely idea, and an old one.
You may have seen that the Pope has modified the doctrine
about limbo. This also came from Aquinas. What happens
to infants and fetuses who die before they are baptized?
Aquinas said they went to limbo, a calm, peaceful place
where they might enjoy as much of Godās presence
as their nature would allow. But they can go no further.
In a way he was less kind to them than he was to
(good) pagans. But they die with original sin and canāt
think about worshipping even a pagan god.
The Pope now says that this teaching has no basis in
scripture. We simply do not know what happens to them,
so there is hope that they will go to heaven too. We canāt
say they wonāt. Evangelical commentators agree that
we donāt know what happens to themābut we can rest
assured that they rest in the arms of an infinitely loving
God. The outcome is up to him, so we neednāt worry.
Billy Graham said, maybe a decade ago, that he regretted
the āfire and brimstoneā sermons he once gave. He said
we canāt say what happens to people who donāt accept
Jesus. We donāt know. Itās up to Godā¦We know who is
saved, arguably, but we canāt know who isnāt saved.
On the surface it makes more sense, but from a Christian standpoint, no, the story goes that the pagan goddess Brigid was a manifestation of Saint Brigid of Kildare, before she was known as such.
One of my friends was recently over in Ireland to see her family. It was around about Coleraine. She said she was at a Christian ceremony (Iām sorry, Iāve forgotten exactly what) to celebrate bringing some flame (on a candle) from somewhere to somewhere else. (Accurate & precise, eh?) What struck her, as Pagan, was that the nuns involved in this ceremony seemed completely up to speed on the Pagan elements of what they were doing. She got into a conversation with the nuns and from her take on what they said, they were keeping the pagan traditions alive as much as anyone.
Itās been a while since I was over in Ireland. I wouldnāt know what to look for. But my āWitches Bibleā was written by Janet & Stewart Farrar - they moved from England to Ireland. Iām not sure thatās what they mean, but itās a āverifiable pagan presenceā.
I love the crack about āpretending to be an ancient religion since 1959ā.
Jim, C.S. Lewis was a pretty evangelical christian, and not someone whose word I would accept on anything pagan. And he was a Belfast blowhard into the bargain. Think āPaisley, but literateā and thatās my take on the man. This business of Pagans worshipping Christ without knowing who he was - well , Iām prepared to accept Marcus Aurelius, but itās not a good idea to rub on about it. If you speak in those terms, you can easily get into āChrist is my Druidā area, and prove that Albert Schweitzer was a bodhisattva. It benefits no-one.
Of course that would be the official spin on it. Anything else would undermine the Churchās claim to supremacy. Makes perfect sense.
Just to be clear, Iām drawing a distinction between Christanity and the Church, here, so I think to say that it was a āChristian standpointā isnāt quite exact.
But Iām being drawn in to a discussion thatās better suited to TEH BOARD. Really, you people should check it out. Itās fun. Letās see how this goes. I already have my doubts.
I think itās too much trouble to check two different boards, this one has most of the conversation I want to read so I come here and always forget about the other board. Thank you.
āJim, C.S. Lewis was a pretty evangelical christian, and not someone whose word I would accept on anything pagan. And he was a Belfast blowhard into the bargain. Think āPaisley, but literateā and thatās my take on the man. This business of Pagans worshipping Christ without knowing who he was - well , Iām prepared to accept Marcus Aurelius, but itās not a good idea to rub on about it. If you speak in those terms, you can easily get into āChrist is my Druidā area, and prove that Albert Schweitzer was a bodhisattva. It benefits no-one.ā
Hi, I donāt think the Good Pagan Doctrine is true, either, and
I agree with you and Cranberry that pagans wouldnāt/shouldnāt accept it.
Lewis gave it literary expression in the Narnia Chronicles (that
isnāt claiming he was a good fellow or antyhing)
but its source is
Thomas Aquinas. Right, itās conservative Christianity.
I doubt that the people who formulated
it were experts on paganism. Itās an interesting
bit of theology. Again, I donāt think itās true.
I do find it interestingājust that from the early
middle ages some important Catholic theologians
felt that many people were saved who
werenāt Christians. I donāt understand your
last sentence, but I didnāt mean to say anything
controversial.
Yeah, maybe thereās something the matter
with the doctrine. I mean even for
Christians. Interesting question. Best, Jim
Too much trouble? Iām sorry for your inconvenience. Please. You already admit to frequenting other boards anyway. If youāre going to be a member here, show the grace to remember the policies and Daleās wishes. This subject is done.