Was the death of Hellenic and Norse paganism a bad thing?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Paganism, and hellenism would likely have evolved too in acceptable religions, just different than ours. In a few thousand years, we might ask ourselves: "Was the death of Christianity a bad thing or a good thing?", and there is no true answer to that. I think you can be spiritual and religious, but moderately.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Paganism, and hellenism would likely have evolved too in acceptable religions, just different than ours. In a few thousand years, we might ask ourselves: "Was the death of Christianity a bad thing or a good thing?", and there is no true answer to that. I think you can be spiritual and religious, but moderately.

{Citation desperately needed!}

The idea that there are natural inevitable currents of history/politics/religion/whatever is one of the silliest ideas in the social sciences.  It takes the accurate premise that certain changes require some necessary precursors to happen and makes the illogical leap that having those precursors happen is sufficient to guarantee the change will happen.

For that matter, absent Christianity, likely some other mystery religion would have supplanted traditional Greco-Roman beliefs within the Empire, of which only some were based upon those old beliefs.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Not if Midsommarvis anything to go by.

The 4 * 18 year quadrants oflife was interesting.

Imagine the savings to the Aged Care system.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Not if Midsommarvis anything to go by.

My impression is that Midsommar is a work of fiction.

[Georg Ebner]

Ehh, maybe my post works best when referring to the Norse societies pre conversion.

You don’t actually believe that paganism is remotely a force for good, do you?

Paganism typically has its roots in the belief that your people have a patron god, often the common ancestor of your race. That kind of implicit racial superiority is not good for the foundations of a society.

     The idea that all people are fundamentally equal in the eyes of God was a radical innovation in its time. People living today struggle to appreciate how big of a deal the Parable of the Good Samaritan actually is. Folks who try to paint Christianity as a negative social influence are comparing the real historical Christian societies to a utopia that never was.

No, Christianity doesn't teach the equality of all - saints are obviously more gifted and loved by HIM than others.
And while the modern (petty)bourgeois commentators claim, that the Parabel of the Good Samaritan has to do with our own (social) ethics, ORIGENES and other ChurchFathers wrote, that CHRIST referred - as always - only to HIMself.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Ehh, maybe my post works best when referring to the Norse societies pre conversion.

You don’t actually believe that paganism is remotely a force for good, do you?

Paganism typically has its roots in the belief that your people have a patron god, often the common ancestor of your race. That kind of implicit racial superiority is not good for the foundations of a society.

     The idea that all people are fundamentally equal in the eyes of God was a radical innovation in its time. People living today struggle to appreciate how big of a deal the Parable of the Good Samaritan actually is. Folks who try to paint Christianity as a negative social influence are comparing the real historical Christian societies to a utopia that never was.

No, Christianity doesn't teach the equality of all - saints are obviously more gifted and loved by HIM than others.
And while the modern (petty)bourgeois commentators claim, that the Parabel of the Good Samaritan has to do with our own (social) ethics, ORIGENES and other ChurchFathers wrote, that CHRIST referred - as always - only to HIMself.

     I should clarify that I mean we are equal in our opportunities, and not in our outcomes. The Parable of the Talents illustrates this point. Some people make use of the life they are given to dedicate it to God, and are rewarded greatly. Others squander it in iniquity, and are damned.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

And while the modern (petty)bourgeois commentators claim, that the Parabel of the Good Samaritan has to do with our own (social) ethics, ORIGENES and other ChurchFathers wrote, that CHRIST referred - as always - only to HIMself.

This doesn't hold up given the immediate context in Luke. Jesus is directly answering a question about interpersonal ethics, even though He's--yes, as always--answering it in a way that also has a Christological meaning.

[Georg Ebner]

Ehh, maybe my post works best when referring to the Norse societies pre conversion.

You don’t actually believe that paganism is remotely a force for good, do you?

Paganism typically has its roots in the belief that your people have a patron god, often the common ancestor of your race. That kind of implicit racial superiority is not good for the foundations of a society.

     The idea that all people are fundamentally equal in the eyes of God was a radical innovation in its time. People living today struggle to appreciate how big of a deal the Parable of the Good Samaritan actually is. Folks who try to paint Christianity as a negative social influence are comparing the real historical Christian societies to a utopia that never was.

No, Christianity doesn't teach the equality of all - saints are obviously more gifted and loved by HIM than others.
And while the modern (petty)bourgeois commentators claim, that the Parabel of the Good Samaritan has to do with our own (social) ethics, ORIGENES and other ChurchFathers wrote, that CHRIST referred - as always - only to HIMself.

     I should clarify that I mean we are equal in our opportunities, and not in our outcomes. The Parable of the Talents illustrates this point. Some people make use of the life they are given to dedicate it to God, and are rewarded greatly. Others squander it in iniquity, and are damned.

In dying all are equal, thus also in the eternal death, which is the hell. Whereas heaven is - as, for example, pope Pius XI pointed out - a strict HierArchy (those of debile aristocrats here on earth mirroring it).

[Georg Ebner]

And while the modern (petty)bourgeois commentators claim, that the Parabel of the Good Samaritan has to do with our own (social) ethics, ORIGENES and other ChurchFathers wrote, that CHRIST referred - as always - only to HIMself.

This doesn't hold up given the immediate context in Luke. Jesus is directly answering a question about interpersonal ethics, even though He's--yes, as always--answering it in a way that also has a Christological meaning.

The ChurchFathers ("my" St.AUGUSTINE in "De quaest. Ev." or "Contra Pel."; ORIGENES in "In Luc. hom." et cet.) and saints (St.THOMAS Aquinas in His "Catena Aurea" aso.) and as a result also i are far away from interpreting Luc.10,33 with a modern moralism!
The key here is 10,27.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

And while the modern (petty)bourgeois commentators claim, that the Parabel of the Good Samaritan has to do with our own (social) ethics, ORIGENES and other ChurchFathers wrote, that CHRIST referred - as always - only to HIMself.

This doesn't hold up given the immediate context in Luke. Jesus is directly answering a question about interpersonal ethics, even though He's--yes, as always--answering it in a way that also has a Christological meaning.

The ChurchFathers ("my" St.AUGUSTINE in "De quaest. Ev." or "Contra Pel."; ORIGENES in "In Luc. hom." et cet.) and saints (St.THOMAS Aquinas in His "Catena Aurea" aso.) and as a result also i are far away from interpreting Luc.10,33 with a modern moralism!
The key here is 10,27.

I'm sensing a false dichotomy here (although I'd obviously rather attribute it to you or me misunderstanding the Church Fathers than to the Church Fathers misunderstanding Scripture).

[Kingpoleon]

The idea that all people are fundamentally equal in the eyes of God was a radical innovation in its time. People living today struggle to appreciate how big of a deal the Parable of the Good Samaritan actually is. Folks who try to paint Christianity as a negative social influence are comparing the real historical Christian societies to a utopia that never was.

“The inhabitants of Africa, where they have equal motives and equal means of improvement, are not inferior to the inhabitants of Europe; to some of them they are greatly superior. … Certainly the African is in no respect inferior to the European. … Freedom is unquestionably the birth right of all mankind; Africans as well as Europeans: to keep the former in a state of slavery, is a constant violation of that right, and therefore also of justice.” - John Wesley

In the 1700s, as Europe developed a new and unprecedented idea of racial inferiority in the halls of government and universities, a great and unprecedented application of equality was brought forth into the world in the halls of the church.

Paganism and the evils brought forth from it are naturally the ways of man apart from God, and I see little authority to argue Christianity in the wrong and paganism - a root of sacrifice, murder, and oppression of every sort - in the right.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To argue that the 18th Century Enlightenment was purely a Christian phenomenon is as absurd as to argue it was a purely secular one. Keep in mind that one of the justifications offered for slavery was that it was a means for Christianizing pagans.

[Kingpoleon]

To argue that the 18th Century Enlightenment was purely a Christian phenomenon is as absurd as to argue it was a purely secular one. Keep in mind that one of the justifications offered for slavery was that it was a means for Christianizing pagans.

Sure, but I’m not calling Wesley and Whitefield Enlightenment leaders in this instance - indeed, almost none of the Enlightenment thinkers embraced the radical idea of racial equality.

[afleitch]

It's worth noting the position of non-'white' people in the Roman Empire and the Roman understanding of race and skin tone before trying to make Englightenment comparisons. Just putting that out there.

[Georg Ebner]

And while the modern (petty)bourgeois commentators claim, that the Parabel of the Good Samaritan has to do with our own (social) ethics, ORIGENES and other ChurchFathers wrote, that CHRIST referred - as always - only to HIMself.

This doesn't hold up given the immediate context in Luke. Jesus is directly answering a question about interpersonal ethics, even though He's--yes, as always--answering it in a way that also has a Christological meaning.

The ChurchFathers ("my" St.AUGUSTINE in "De quaest. Ev." or "Contra Pel."; ORIGENES in "In Luc. hom." et cet.) and saints (St.THOMAS Aquinas in His "Catena Aurea" aso.) and as a result also i are far away from interpreting Luc.10,33 with a modern moralism!
The key here is 10,27.

I'm sensing a false dichotomy here (although I'd obviously rather attribute it to you or me misunderstanding the Church Fathers than to the Church Fathers misunderstanding Scripture).

The totally different commentaries of modern aTheologians and ChurchFathers/saints clearly demonstrate an antagonism: On the one hand - since the "Enlightenment" - the irreligious (petty)bourgeoisie, which reduces religion to (social) ethics. On the other hand we medieval Christians, who despise any ethics autonomous from HIM; who love proton only HIM (cf. Luc.10,27) and deuteron HIS creatures, but only because HE wants it (and only insofar as we are of any worth, i.e. in HIS SON).
"The modern clergymen teach, that we should believe in God, because he loves humans. When we real Christians love humans only, because we believe in God." (GOMEZ DAVILA)

[McNukes™ #NYCMMWasAHero]

Hellenism didn't just die. It was destroyed. As was non superstitious Hellenic thought. How it was destroyed (and early and proto Christian sects too) is inherently a bad thing.

Surely you mean "subsumed"?

Not completely. I'm talking about the literal destruction of pagan worship, temples and pagans themselves. From the Edict of Milan which tolerated Christian worship it took only 16 years before Constantine was ordering the destruction of pagan temples.

There were further edicts by Constantius II and persecution under Theodosius (including the first decree that homosexuality was illegal and they were to be burned alive) ending with the absolute prohibition of non-Christian public worship. With Marcian eventually confiscating their property and condemning them to death.

Christianisation was not a morally neutral act that was undertaken at this time. Or in later times. It could be coercive, destructive and persecutory.

I'd need to look into this further. However, Christianity very rarely takes such action without a strong impetus; for instance, Norse paganism was eradicated by Charlemagne because they would not cease their guerrilla attacks against Christian churches. A notable modern example is how Varg Vikernes (Louis Cachet) burned a church because he was so anti-Christian as a Norse pagan in the 20th century.

[PSOL]

Hellenism didn't just die. It was destroyed. As was non superstitious Hellenic thought. How it was destroyed (and early and proto Christian sects too) is inherently a bad thing.

Surely you mean "subsumed"?

Not completely. I'm talking about the literal destruction of pagan worship, temples and pagans themselves. From the Edict of Milan which tolerated Christian worship it took only 16 years before Constantine was ordering the destruction of pagan temples.

There were further edicts by Constantius II and persecution under Theodosius (including the first decree that homosexuality was illegal and they were to be burned alive) ending with the absolute prohibition of non-Christian public worship. With Marcian eventually confiscating their property and condemning them to death.

Christianisation was not a morally neutral act that was undertaken at this time. Or in later times. It could be coercive, destructive and persecutory.

I'd need to look into this further. However, Christianity very rarely takes such action without a strong impetus; for instance, Norse paganism was eradicated by Charlemagne because they would not cease their guerrilla attacks against Christian churches. A notable modern example is how Varg Vikernes (Louis Cachet) burned a church because he was so anti-Christian as a Norse pagan in the 20th century.

I believe the guerrillas only did so after being forcefully invaded by the Frankish army. It was either fight or perish under the invading, forcefully assimilationist foreign armies subjugating the local population.

On a side note, I believe it was the German Saxons that revolted, not the Scandinavian population that believed in the, albeit similar, Norse mythology.