History Why Paganism is incompatible with the modern world (and why Christianity is)

Tsar

New mem>ack!
Not long ago I stumbled across a fairly big channel that was dedicated to worshiping the Old Norse gods. It got me thinking about why there are people who still cling to such outdated beliefs. The reason Pagan gods were conceived of was to answer the inexplainable. Why destructive lightning strikes occur, romantic attraction to the opposite sex, and so on. We live in a world where this has all been throughly researched and explained. Thus, taking away the mystical element to them.

That is why Christianity was and still is a profound religion for many folks. The Christian God has set all things in motion, and needs not to perform divine deeds to prove his existence. Making it a much more universal religion that any man from any class can relate to, even in our rapidly evolving society.
 
Imagine a reformed sect of Christianity that mixes the good parts of pagan values with the commandments of the Old Testament. That would be a religion I could get behind.
 
That's just mormonism nigga
There is nothing pagan about Mormonism.

Not long ago I stumbled across a fairly big channel that was dedicated to worshiping the Old Norse gods. It got me thinking about why there are people who still cling to such outdated beliefs. The reason Pagan gods were conceived of was to answer the inexplainable. Why destructive lightning strikes occur, romantic attraction to the opposite sex, and so on. We live in a world where this has all been throughly researched and explained. Thus, taking away the mystical element to them.

That is why Christianity was and still is a profound religion for many folks. The Christian God has set all things in motion, and needs not to perform divine deeds to prove his existence. Making it a much more universal religion that any man from any class can relate to, even in our rapidly evolving society.
Proof of the contrary:
1. Pagans still had unexplained things in their societies
2. Natural philosophers in the Pagan world did not consider their findings to be in contrast with polytheism. The gods are the formal cause behind attributes of our world, they do not represent the physical causes.

Pagan myths are poetic representations of metaphysical reality, they are recognized as constantly happening atemporal things. Also, you are wrong on the second paragraph. Jehovah is precisely the only deity who needs to perform divine deeds to prove his existence. Abrahamism is a revelatory religion, it is entirely based on the miraculous and supra-rational communication between a transcendent God and human beings. God *needed* to come down to earth to explain certain things to Moses, and to Abraham, and eventually to the apostles. Meanwhile Hindus do not care about miracles because they are sense-perceived and don't really prove anything.
 
Also, you are wrong on the second paragraph. Jehovah is precisely the only deity who needs to perform divine deeds to prove his existence. Abrahamism is a revelatory religion, it is entirely based on the miraculous and supra-rational communication between a transcendent God and human beings. God *needed* to come down to earth to explain certain things to Moses, and to Abraham, and eventually to the apostles. Meanwhile Hindus do not care about miracles because they are sense-perceived and don't really prove anything.
I would argue that this does not necessarily mean that Jehovah "needs" to prove His existence through miracles. From a theological perspective, these interventions are God’s way to guide and teach humanity, rather than prove his existence. As many Romans did not believe in Christ, even after hearing the news about his resurrection.
 
Lawl paganism runs the world to this day...
 
I would argue that this does not necessarily mean that Jehovah "needs" to prove His existence through miracles. From a theological perspective, these interventions are God’s way to guide and teach humanity, rather than prove his existence. As many Romans did not believe in Christ, even after hearing the news about his resurrection.
He doesn't need to do anything, but it is sort of implied that there are qualities of God which have to be taught through revelation, they cannot be discovered naturally.
 
biased me thinks
It is the Orthodox view on the matter.

Blessed Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev and Galicia (+ 1936): “Before the sixteenth century all religious societies calling themselves Christian agreed that God’s grace lives in only one faith tradition, in only one self-identified Church, while all of the others are the same as heathens and tax collectors. They are heretics, strangers to grace, whom the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils has never called Christians, as is evident from the 31st Canon of the Council of Laodicea and from the 95th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.” [1st Letter to Robert Gardiner of the Episcopal Church in America, Vera i Razum #4 (1915), pp. 453-469]

Harsh, but it needs to be said.
 
It is the Orthodox view on the matter.

Blessed Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev and Galicia (+ 1936): “Before the sixteenth century all religious societies calling themselves Christian agreed that God’s grace lives in only one faith tradition, in only one self-identified Church, while all of the others are the same as heathens and tax collectors. They are heretics, strangers to grace, whom the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils has never called Christians, as is evident from the 31st Canon of the Council of Laodicea and from the 95th Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.” [1st Letter to Robert Gardiner of the Episcopal Church in America, Vera i Razum #4 (1915), pp. 453-469]

Harsh, but it needs to be said.
Disregarding the pope and the Trinity for a minute, why do you consider Christians who aren’t Orthodox heathens? I wouldn’t say that’s biblical if we’re taking into account Christ’s teachings.
 
Disregarding the pope and the Trinity for a minute, why do you consider Christians who aren’t Orthodox heathens? I wouldn’t say that’s biblical if we’re taking into account Christ’s teachings.
That's what Holy Tradition and the Ecumenical Councils say according to Metropolitan Anthony. He was a devout man, among the founders of ROCOR in fact. I don't dare question this just due to modern people's tendency to be overly sensitive on this matter. If we are talking about some set in stone truth that all must believe, then naturally there is no room for saying "those people in the past who did this and that were wrong and we are correcting them". I don't want to reform the church, I want the church to reform me. So this is the view I must have on the topic. Ecumenism is heretical.
 
Back
Top