Were Pagan Religions far more Peaceful and Tolerant than Abrahamic On

[Pisces Axxxxx]

One thing I keep hearing from anti-religious people-particularly those whoa re attacking the Roman Catholic Church-is that all 3 of the Abrahamic Religions (Islam, Judaism, and last but not least Christianity-esp Catholicism) created long periods of religious intolerance and Holy Wars throughout history.

 

They often make it out that the Pagan Religions that existed before the Warriors of the Abarahamic Faiths went out to proselytize others were far more open and tolerant as well as much more peaceful than any of the three faiths. This attack is most especially used against eh Roman Catholic Church.

 

In fact I once chatted with a ****-religion hating Atheist who bashed the Catholic Faith for its long history of religious persecution and suppression of intellectualism. He actually stated that the various pre-Christian faiths that existed in Europe such as the Roman Polytheistic Religions and the Celtic Religion actually endorsed "Freedom of Religion" to the point they openly welcomed any followers of other faiths to stay in the same region and that followers of such religions were actually far more peaceful people who never wanted to impose their religious beliefs and others and didn't have any concept of "Holy Wars". This same guy attacked the Roman Catholic Church for waging their Crusades on these "Peace-loving" peoples and he sided with these pagans, literally vouching that they only fought in self-defense.

 

In addition he actually went as far as saying that these Paganic Religions encouraged far more free-thinking and actually had "far more sophisticated sciences and intellectual arts such as Philosophy" than the Catholic Church ever had in its history up until near the end of the Medieval Period and the start of the Renaissance. He attacks the two other Abrahamic Religion, Judaism and Islam, for very much the same reasons.

 

What do you think? Were Pagan Cults and Religions as peace-loving and tolerant "defenders of Religious Freedoms" as many religion-hating people make them out to be? Are their attacks on the three Abarahamic Faiths-especially on the Catholic Church-actually justified or exaggerated? Furthermore were these Pagan People actually firm supporters of "Free-thinking" and actually had more sophisticated arts and sciences than the Catholic Faiths as many Anti-Catholic Irreligious people make them out to be?

Edited October 14, 2012 by Pisces Adonis

[caldrail]

The question of whether religion is tolerant is not driven by the structures and teachings of the religion itself, but the nature of the society that interprets it. Intolerant societies have harsh religions. Tolerant societies are less fussy. To complicate matters of course there are often divisions in society where intolerant members want harsher religious belief.

 

Also, the issue of what we consider as harsh is also relevant. Take druidic practises for instance. In theory, the druids were a class of overseers of religious rites - it was written that no sacrifices were allowed without a druid present - and thus presented a limiting factor on sacrificing human beings to assuage the gods or read the signs. They did however oversee such sacrifices and we know such sacrifices continued after the Romans arrived (Evidence for instance of human remains found in a vertical cave where they'd been dumped before death in the north of england, dated in the 1st century ad).

 

During druidic times a typical sacrifice was to hit the victim over the head to stun him, strangle him (one set of remains show a violent application of a noose that actually broke his neck and killed him), then cut his throat. Everything was in threes - a significant number in druidic religion - and sacrifial rites followed this pattern. It has also been observed that one victim may have been prepared beforehand, possibly even voluntarily, although we cannot be sure.

 

Of course the neo-pagans of the modern day who claim to follow druidic belief do not generally have any concept of the somewhat grim iron-age beliefs and wouldn't like it if they did, because they want something they consider more in tune with simple superstition that probably has more in common with neolithic/bronze age beliefs. So they see druidism in a positive light, ignoring the bloodletting.

 

It comes down to a matter of mindset. The ancient iron age peoples believed their human sacrifices had a positive purpose whereas today it would be abhorrent for most people.

[barca]

One thing I keep hearing from anti-religious people-particularly those whoa re attacking the Roman Catholic Church-is that all 3 of the Abrahamic Religions (Islam, Judaism, and last but not least Christianity-esp Catholicism) created long periods of religious intolerance and Holy Wars throughout history.....

 

-especially on the Catholic Church-actually justified or exaggerated? Furthermore were these Pagan People actually firm supporters of "Free-thinking" and actually had more sophisticated arts and sciences than the Catholic Faiths as many Anti-Catholic Irreligious people make them out to be?

 

 

It seems to me that the Roman Catholic church is always blamed for all of the attrocities committed by Christians.

 

There is no question that in the so-called "dark ages" or "age of faith" there was a decline in intellectualism, living standards, etc.

However during the late Middle Ages and early renaissance the Catholic Church actually promoted humanism as intellectuals left form the declining Byzantium. Pope Nichols V, for example was responsible for much of the Vatican Library.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11058a.htm

 

Protestants were no less intolerant. Reformers were concerned that the church was becoming too Roman or too pagan as it promoted humanism during the Renaissance.

A example of Protestant intolerance was the execution of Michael Servetus by the Calvinists because of his controversial views on the Trinity:

 

http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html

Edited October 15, 2012 by barca

[caldrail]

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a series on life after God. He uncovered interesting statistical research that shows moral behaviour compared between religious and non-religious people is hardly different, only the religious people feel shame about it. Strong religion does not like independent thought, because intellectualism questions standard teaching. We see the same tendencies in political regimes too. As I said, the strictness of religion goes hand in hand with the strictness of society.

[barca]

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a series on life after God. He uncovered interesting statistical research that shows moral behaviour compared between religious and non-religious people is hardly different, only the religious people feel shame about it.

 

 

Can you gives us a link to these discussions?

[caldrail]

Sorry, I wouldn't know where to find it. I only saw the program by chance.

[Pisces Axxxxx]

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a series on life after God. He uncovered interesting statistical research that shows moral behaviour compared between religious and non-religious people is hardly different, only the religious people feel shame about it.

 

 

Can you gives us a link to these discussions?

 

Ahhh Richard Dawkins. I did a Paper on an interview between him and Alister McGrath a year ago in a World Religions Class I took. Haven't read his works yet but I find his anti-religious agenda quite amusing .

 

I still remembered Dawkin's reasoning for hating religions in the vid was that he realized he could have been born under a different culture with a different religion just by pure chance. That realization is when he began to hate religion .

[caldrail]

He doesn't hate religion, he just doesn't believe it has any intellectual value. I do note however that he seems to assume that religion is doomed for the very reason he refuses it, ignoring that for many religion is an important part of their lives and may indeed be a necessary part of the human psyche irrespective of which relgion you ascribe to.

[Melvadius]

Sorry, I wouldn't know where to find it. I only saw the program by chance.

 

I know that Richard Dawkins pops up on several different radio based scientific and/or theological debate related programmes on a fairly regular basis. Could it have been the 'Life Scientific' which was shown in early September by any chance?

[barca]

 

They often make it out that the Pagan Religions that existed before the Warriors of the Abarahamic Faiths went out to proselytize others were far more open and tolerant as well as much more peaceful than any of the three faiths.

 

I recommend a book entitled Christianizing the Roman Empire by Ramsay McMullen

 

He points out that unlike Paganism, Christianity presented ideas that demanded a choice, not tolerance. There was a sharp and consistent attack on the idols of Paganism. Eusebius writes of the "mis-named 'gods'" Erected at Epheseus was an inscription "Destroying the delusive image of Artemis, Demeas has erected a symbol of truth, the God that drives away idols, and the Cross of Priests, deathless and victorious sign of Christ." God was pictured as being at war against all rivals. St Paul issued a summons to struggle to defeat the powers of darkness.

 

Artemis, also known as Diana was resurrected in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance with the renewed appreciation for Classical Literature. somehow later Christians were able to reconcile pagan literature while maintaining Christian faith.

[GhostOfClayton]

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a series on life after God. He uncovered interesting statistical research that shows moral behaviour compared between religious and non-religious people is hardly different, only the religious people feel shame about it. Strong religion does not like independent thought, because intellectualism questions standard teaching. We see the same tendencies in political regimes too. As I said, the strictness of religion goes hand in hand with the strictness of society.

 

Dawkins is a trifle severe for my tastes - his non-belief often has a fervour worthy of the Taliban. Greta Christina (author of 'Why Are You Atheists So Angry?: 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless') is a little more balanced, and has a very accessible blog. Much of it deals with her day-to-day life, but her thoughts on religion are interesting, well considered, and can be quite profound.