[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Ginnungagap

I think where Christianity began to conflict with other religions was in a political aspect. When Christianity became part of the Roman Empire, and then began exerting its influence on Europe, it didn't leave any room for the pagan traditions to survive. We can thank the medieval Christians for putting some of the old myths into writing, but they did so with a Christian veneer over them.

Those old traditions survived and were incorporated into the Christianity.

But don't forget another thing: before Christianity triumphed in the Roman Empire as the both official religion and the faith of the majority, there was another philosophical/intellectual movement, with some religious overtones, reigning in the Roman Empire. It was Neoplatonism. A philosophy somewhat similar to Christianity, which had absorbed somehow all the previous philosophical currents of the Greco-Roman world, as well as some Egyptian and Mesopotamian traditions. It absorbed Paganism to a certain extent, or different wings of paganism (whereby names of earlier pagan gods started to have symbolical significance). It was a highly spiritual doctrine, even more spiritual than Christianity (it scorned to a ceratin extent matter, while in the Christian teaching matter is also good), with universal claims. Then you had Christian heretics, Gnostics, who professed a doctrine of the radical rejection of matter (some kind of mix between Christianity and Neoplatonism). Further there was a widepsread Mithraic cult. So the conflict was not between Christianity and paganism, but the picture is more complex.

Besides, speaking of paganism per se: there was never one single paganism, but many different paganisms springing from various local traditions (Roman, Greek, Celtic, Germanic etc.)

Julian the Apostate (361-363) tried to turn the wheel of history back and he rejected Christianity as state religion. But he did not favour a return to the paganism of yore, but to the synthetic philosophy/religion of the late Roman Empire, dominated by Neoplatonism. And in his attempts to revive this old culture he tried to imitate some Christian habits, for example he instituted "pagan" monatseries, orphanages, system of almsgiving etc. Christianity had changed the Roman Empire so much that a return to the old ways in the fullest sense of the word was virtually impossible. Let alone today...

As strange as it may seem, it appears that Neoplatonism, the major rival of Christianity in its early life, somehow paved the way for Christianity to be widely accepted in the Roman Empire, especially among the elites. Nevertheless, many of the converts to Christianity from Neoplatonism in the 4th century were reluctant to accept some tenets of Christianity, which were not in accordance with their previous religious sensibilities. For example, Synesius of Cyrene could not accept the resurrection of the flesh, because for Neoplatonists matter was unclean and destined for decay.

Originally Posted by Ginnungagap

We must not forget, though, that the blame does not soley rest on the Christians; pagan Romans essentially destroyed the religion of the Celts long before Christianity reached them.

As far as I know, Romans curbed the influence of Druids in Britain, slaughtering many of them. The reason for that was political, the opposition of some Druids to the Roman rule. But I don't think that Romans destroyed the Celtic religion in its entirety.

Originally Posted by Ginnungagap

As for neopaganism, just as Marulus described scientific superstition, it is yet another offspring of corrupted Christian ideas but this time trying to connect with ancient traditions. Neopagan groups are overwhelmingly egalitarian, individualistic, and globalist. They have no real connection to the old ways, and not even a good understanding of it. I think it might have been one of you guys that posted Evola's essay about Neopaganism and I think he basically summed it up.

It is clearly an impossibility to resurrect all those ancient religious forms. It can only be something utterly distorted.

Originally Posted by Ginnungagap

What I don't understand though is why so many European nationalists cling so heavily to Christianity when it is essentially an imported religion.

Your qeustion or dilemma is bit unclear. What did you want to ask: why are many European nationalists Christian believers, as individuals; or why are nationalist movements influenced by Christianity?

As to the first question: individual faith is a matter of individual conviction and there is no "objective" criterion to determine why someone should or should not be a Christian believer. If you intended to ask the second question, then the answer would probably be: what else? Christianity has been European religion for two thousand years, there is really no other spirituality to cling to. Neopaganism being an impossibility, the only alternative would be secular/atheist humanism. And it is basically a castrated form of Christianity (Christian worldview minus the supernatural component). I personally despise castrated ideologies. People in the nationalist movements also need some ultimate meaning, some spiritual background. Not all of them, I am sure that there are some irreligious nationalists, but it cannot be avoided that those movements be - to certain degree - influenced by Christianity.

However, the European tradition has been division between the temporal and the spiritual sphere, for centuries. So the fact that there is some Christian influence on certain nationalist movements does not mean that they advocate theorcracy (in fact, there was rarely a therocracy in the history of Christendom, it is rather an Islamic concept).

Originally Posted by Ginnungagap

Europeans have definitely made Christianity into a religion of their own but that does not change its roots.

For a believer, roots of religion and/or faith are in God. The fact that it came through the intermediary of this or that tribe or people is of secondary importance. When seen through spiritual glasses, those things look differently.

Furthermore, Christianity only in part comes from the ancient Israelites. Greek philosophy also influenced thereupon, some Zoroastrian teachings etc.

Originally Posted by Ginnungagap

We have more ancient traditions which created the great empires and cultures of our ancestors. Christianity usurped those civilizations, but some element of the older traditions did manage to shine through, especially during the middle ages.

I wouldn't say that Christianity usurped those traditions, but a fruitful synthesis came about.

Originally Posted by Ginnungagap

Christianity was the blue print for later secularized movements that essentially culminate in egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and liberalism.

I was also talking about that: all these things you mention are distortions of the original Christian message. It fits in with the idea of Antichrist, who does not overtly oppose Christ, but in a way mocks it by perverting its message. But - in my opinion at least - that does not prove that Christianity in itself is wrong, but that some people (philosophers, religious leaders etc.) distorted it and turned into some purely mundane ideology. It speaks against them and not against Christianity. A true Christian should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff...

Originally Posted by Ginnungagap

Isn't it then, quite antithetical to those who believe in the autonomy of a nation and its culture as important?

Isn't it also signifiant that it was in the area of Christendom that individual nations and national cultures sprang up and Christendom did not remain a monolithical entity like, for example, the non-Christian China? The idea of universal message to all people of the earth and of some sort of particularism co-exist in Christianity, it is a matter of finding a nice balance between them.

Originally Posted by Ginnungagap

Anyone who values hierarchy, heroism, and life-affirming will would be hardpressed to find their home in the Christian faith.

I think that modern man of the mass, the vulgar member of the modern society, who scorns any hierarchy and heroism, lacks one important Christian virtue, which is humility. It has been ousted in the name of egalitarianism (a distortion of the Christian message of the equality of all men before God). As for heroism, there is plenty of it in Christianity. What about martyrs? Medieval knights?