On Christianity and Tradition [split]

[Ginnungagap]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

You sound like you could be a good addition to this forum. Introduce yourself in the introductions/farewells forum! Just some friendly advice though, you wont get far here with referring to Christianity as "mindless adherence to literal interpretations of Abrahamic religions".

That wasn't a slant against Christianity as a whole, but the empty, traditionless modern varient which values a literal understanding of scripture over a genuine search for knowledge employing the values and traditions of the past. I am talking about how Christianity has chosen moralism, theology, and dogma over virtues, myth, and philosophy. I'm sure there's a lot in say Traditional Catholicism, or Orthodox Christianity to admire, but I personally just never connected with Christianity, seemed alien to me. I have found my beliefs and gathered knowledge to be much more in line with German Idealism along with the ancient Indo-European traditions which inspired it, and created the cultures of my ancestors. I don't mean to insult any Christians, I just think in a historical and cultural context it led our cultures away from our indigenous spirituality which majorly shaped the culture of our people. I also have a problem with modern Christianity's rejection of science, while I myself am far from any type of cultural or scientific materialist, I do see value in our physical and chemical understanding of the universe, which despite what you may think, does fit into religion, just not so well with Christianity.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Ginnungagap

That wasn't a slant against Christianity as a whole, but the empty, traditionless modern varient which values a literal understanding of scripture over a genuine search for knowledge employing the values and traditions of the past. I am talking about how Christianity has chosen moralism, theology, and dogma over virtues, myth, and philosophy.

I agree to some extent. A quite common Christian attitude I've met is more concerned with being on the safe side, than with Christ as a mystery. There is a general reluctance and commonly a downright refusal to even speak about faith, except in stereotypical terms.

I'm sure there's a lot in say Traditional Catholicism, or Orthodox Christianity to admire, but I personally just never connected with Christianity, seemed alien to me. I have found my beliefs and gathered knowledge to be much more in line with German Idealism along with the ancient Indo-European traditions which inspired it, and created the cultures of my ancestors.

The German idealists were Christians, weren't they? In my view of Christianity, there is a division between two different currents. On the one hand, there is a dogmatic interpretation that often stresses intellectual righteousness on what I called "the safe side", in stereotypical and shallow representations, practices and ethics. On the other hand, there is a current of spirituality that is much more in line with what you mentioned - of union of matter and spirit, of reconciliation and mystical piety, combined with dynamic notions of virtue; in the words of Friedrich von Schelling (1775–1854): Spirit is invisible nature, nature is visible spirit.

I don't mean to insult any Christians, I just think in a historical and cultural context it led our cultures away from our indigenous spirituality which majorly shaped the culture of our people. I also have a problem with modern Christianity's rejection of science, while I myself am far from any type of cultural or scientific materialist, I do see value in our physical and chemical understanding of the universe, which despite what you may think, does fit into religion, just not so well with Christianity.

I think it can fit. But I dislike another approach that is common among scientists and intellectuals who are also Christians. I'm speaking of a tendency to water down Christianity to make it more in line with science on a shallow plane. That's actually a variant of the dogmatic current of Christianity already discussed. The idea is to focus on anything that is impossible to refute or hard to criticise, or to reduce Christianity to such conclusions. For example, something that liberal theologians have clinged to: "Christianity is about love." One branch of intellectualism that is a little bit more complicated is a kind humanism, a pragmatic view entailing that religious beliefs should be subject to scrutiny by reason. William James (1842–1910) was a proponent of such a position.

[Ginnungagap]

Originally Posted by Gnist

The German idealists were Christians, weren't they? In my view of Christianity, there is a division between two different currents. On the one hand, there is a dogmatic interpretation that often stresses intellectual righteousness on what I called "the safe side", in stereotypical and shallow representations, practices and ethics. On the other hand, there is a current of spirituality that is much more in line with what you mentioned - of union of matter and spirit, of reconciliation and mystical piety, combined with dynamic notions of virtue; in the words of Friedrich von Schelling (1775–1854): Spirit is invisible nature, nature is visible spirit.

The thing about a lot of western philosophers, especially the idealists is, although they all started with a Christian upbringing, they all were taught the classics. Kant read Plato, Schopenhauer read the Bhagavad Gita, etc. The only appeal Kant really has to Christians is that he leaves room for a God in his philosophy, as the way he sees it, humans are incapable of discovering the true knowledge of things and experiencing the world's existence directly. What Kant was doing was bringing Empiricism and Rationalism together, basically the same religion/science divide people see today. In a larger context it is just about the material and all that is immaterial, the world of ideas or forms. The end result is he came out sounding more like a pessimistic Plato with only a pragmatic belief in God. Many phlosophers at this time, and the ones inspired by the idealists, though.. began to challenge their own faith. You have to remember that during this time and following it there was a lot of Romantic art and literature which was drawing upon what knowledge of the pre-Christian religion was still out there. Western Europeans were also now "discovering" the Indian culture and religions. They drew much inspiration from it, not realizing that the basic model of Hinduism is found in all the European paganism that was condemned by Christianity.

As far as Christianity and Science, neither should be watered down to fit each other, but theologians should be open to less literal interpretations when the science pokes large holes into their case. I'm familiar with William James, and yes that sort of Christian philosophy is to be admired, but sometimes I feel they're turning Christianity into something completely different to fit it into reality better. I think they're on the right track of aligning their beliefs and knowledge, but they usually end up with beliefs a bit alien to the core followers of Christianity. There is a sharp divide between intellectualized Christianity, and the form that is actually out there being practiced in churches.

I'd also like to mention that I never fully outright agree with the beliefs and findings of someone else, as pertaining to their entire ethos including their religion. It doesn't matter to me that Kant was Christian or that he valued moralism, what matters is that he truly explored how humans see the world, and realized how everything is just a symbol created for an existence we can't truly perceive.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Ginnungagap

As far as Christianity and Science, neither should be watered down to fit each other, but theologians should be open to less literal interpretations

Allegorical interpretation of the Scripture was commonplace in the Christian theology since the earliest days of Christianity. Biblical literalism is not a matter of Christianity in general, but of some Protestant fundamentalist sects.

[Ginnungagap]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Allegorical interpretation of the Scripture was commonplace in the Christian theology since the earliest days of Christianity. Biblical literalism is not a matter of Christianity in general, but of some Protestant fundamentalist sects.

In the society I am in, the latter is the norm.

I'd also like to reply to the reputation comments you left me, as I don't think I can pm you I will do it here.

Originally Posted by Marulus

The modern superstitious scientism (a belief that there is nothing beyond the knowledge acquired through materialistic scientific research) IS as well a degenearted offspring of Christianity. Your views are interesting nevertheless...

Although I am Christian myself, I must say I agree with some of your statements. Modern Christianity abandoned search for truth and genuine faith in favour of cheap "moralism". What you say about Christianity and science isn't true.

I think what we are finding is that we both generally agree on a lot of these concepts, our major difference is our personal experience with Christianity. The problem with science and Christianity is the secular/spiritual divide many Christians still see. Religion and science are really looking for the same thing, knowledge of the order of things. We need to get rid of both degenerative science and degenerative religion. The unadultered goals, though, must be pursued.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Ginnungagap

The thing about a lot of western philosophers, especially the idealists is, although they all started with a Christian upbringing, they all were taught the classics. Kant read Plato, Schopenhauer read the Bhagavad Gita, etc. The only appeal Kant really has to Christians is that he leaves room for a God in his philosophy, as the way he sees it, humans are incapable of discovering the true knowledge of things and experiencing the world's existence directly. What Kant was doing was bringing Empiricism and Rationalism together, basically the same religion/science divide people see today. In a larger context it is just about the material and all that is immaterial, the world of ideas or forms. The end result is he came out sounding more like a pessimistic Plato with only a pragmatic belief in God. Many phlosophers at this time, and the ones inspired by the idealists, though.. began to challenge their own faith. You have to remember that during this time and following it there was a lot of Romantic art and literature which was drawing upon what knowledge of the pre-Christian religion was still out there. Western Europeans were also now "discovering" the Indian culture and religions.

I don't see a conflict between different spiritual traditions unless they actually contradict each other. That has to be proven first, and then we could discuss the details in all friendliness.

They drew much inspiration from it, not realizing that the basic model of Hinduism is found in all the European paganism that was condemned by Christianity.

Or they simply didn't care; that's way more plausible in my opinion. Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and - later on - Heidegger most probably intended to provoke. Nietzsche is the most obvious case, and judging by his account, there was actually something wrong with Christianity that warranted a thorough critique of it.

As far as Christianity and Science, neither should be watered down to fit each other, but theologians should be open to less literal interpretations when the science pokes large holes into their case.

That depends a lot, and it depends on many variables, for example your notion of science. I'm not generally on the side of less literal interpretations.

I'd also like to mention that I never fully outright agree with the beliefs and findings of someone else, as pertaining to their entire ethos including their religion. It doesn't matter to me that Kant was Christian or that he valued moralism, what matters is that he truly explored how humans see the world, and realized how everything is just a symbol created for an existence we can't truly perceive.

OK. I'm just saying that from my perspective there is no definite line of conflict between Christianity and philosophy, science included. Nor do I perceive that there is a definite line of conflict between Christianity and older European traditions of spirituality.

I perceive that there is an actual conflict between say Catholicism and paganism, that has been fuelled by the Vatican recently in the current pontificate, for example in the condemnation of creationism as "a kind of paganism", which is rather blunt since paganism and creationism are of completely different origins in history. I believe that brother Consolmagno makes a mistake in positing paganism as the scoundrel in a drama that has nothing to do with paganism, but is a score to settle between creationism and the Catholic church. I guess someone will want to bring up the fact that neo-paganism has won a lot of ground in the protestant sphere, but that is, in my opinion, telling of the state of protestantism rather than of the merits of neo-paganism. And it still doesn't link creationism and paganism together bilaterally by a long shot.

[Marulus]

There was already an interesting thread on the related issues:

Council of Europe to vote on creationism

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gnist

I believe that brother Consolmagno makes a mistake in positing paganism as the scoundrel in a drama that has nothing to do with paganism, but is a score to settle between creationism and the Catholic church. I guess someone will want to bring up the fact that neo-paganism has won a lot of ground in the protestant sphere, but that is, in my opinion, telling of the state of protestantism rather than of the merits of neo-paganism. And it still doesn't link creationism and paganism together bilaterally by a long shot.

Consolmagno was being metaphorical in this issue. I guess he did not want to say that creationism is directly deduced from some form of paganism, he just wanted to stress some similarity in the core principles of these two worldviews.

But there is something else to it. I am usually surprised and even angered when some "good Christians" attack some imaginary new paganism as source of certain major ills of the present-day society. I am angered because, in may opinion, they are hitting the wrong target, they are attacking the strawman. There is no larger body of neo-pagans influential enough to impose their worldview on states and on the whole world.

The worldview of modernity has its origins in Christianity. All ideals of the modern world can be traced back to some secularized form of Christianity, which rejected God and anything supranatural, but retained and even reinforced to the outer limits some kind of (pseudo)-Christian (pseudo)-morals. And there is some logic in that. It is called corruptio optimi pessima, corruption of the best is the worst imaginable thing. So the modern day pandemic of abortion, to take an example, has no origin in some Wicca cult (such cults are very marginal and have no influence on the society), but precisely in the very Christian idea of free choice, ie. freedom, which is understood as freedom to "dispose of one's own body". It is a Christian idea (we could say satanically) distorted. I want to say that many of the forms of modern depravity are in fact distortions of the originally Christian ideas and concepts.

So instead of attacking some imaginary "neo-paganism", Christians would do better to see the reality for what it is, to separate the wheat from the chaff, to come to understanding that Christianity is not a system of ethics solely (although ethics is important part thereof). To see the ills of the modern world as a distortion of the original Christianity would surely help many Christians to understand what their faith really is and to purify it.

But, yes, it is easier to blame it all on some resurgent cult of Gaia or similar nonsense...

[Ginnungagap]

I'm glad you split the threads as it was getting quite off-topic.

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. 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 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.

That link you posted on the Catholic astronomer is interesting. This sort of attitude is unfound in America. There is either the humanistic atheists who dogmatically believe in scientific materialism, and then there's the other side of the coin which views science as heresy.

What I don't understand though is why so many European nationalists cling so heavily to Christianity when it is essentially an imported religion. Europeans have definitely made Christianity into a religion of their own but that does not change its roots. 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. Christianity was the blue print for later secularized movements that essentially culminate in egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and liberalism. Isn't it then, quite antithetical to those who believe in the autonomy of a nation and its culture as important? Anyone who values hierarchy, heroism, and life-affirming will would be hardpressed to find their home in the Christian faith.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Marulus

Consolmagno was being metaphorical in this issue. I guess he did not want to say that creationism is directly deduced from some form of paganism, he just wanted to stress some similarity in the core principles of these two worldviews.

In my opinion, he's using "paganism" as a derogatory or pejorative term. I even suspect that it's a part of a tendency of the Catholic church to further herself from European paganism, although the two of them were previously fused.

[M.R.]

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.

Personaly, because my ancestors were Christian and my family is Catholic. It's not only about religion, it's about your blood and culture. As for Christianity as faith, it makes more sense than paganism, which is empty in a lot of ways or maybe we simply don't know enough about it. Either way paganism is dead.

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by M.R.

Either way paganism is dead.

Not true. It's alive in Sweden, and from what I've read here on Stirpes, it's also alive in Spain.

[M.R.]

In what way? What are you reffering too? Some traditions? Few neo-pagan nuts?

I was talking about spirituality, about which we don't know much. Everything that was good in paganism was preserved by Catholic church anyway.

[Ginnungagap]

Originally Posted by Gnist

In my opinion, he's using "paganism" as a derogatory term. I even suspect that it's a part of a tendency of the Catholic church to further herself from European paganism, although the two of them were previously fused.

He's using pagan as a derogatory term similar to Heretic, I think. If he were really speaking about pre-Christian European religion he would be grossly mistaken as the "creation" myths of the Indo-Europeans have no conflict with science. These ancient philosophies seem to have already had a grasp onto what science has only achieved recently.