Pagans bashing Christians.

[2eclipse]

So in another post, sidhebear asked me a damned interesting question after eltanin brought up pagans bashing christians and i responded. my thanks to him for provoking the hell out of me and making me think.
the majority of my pagan friends wouldn't be caught dead
idly bashing christianity or other religions and this isn't the first
time you've brought this up. Who is it in this group that keeps doing it?

and the truth is that i had never really thought about it before. and wasn't aware that i had said anything about it to him. i was just aware of feeling left out and sad (in fact sat. night was the first time i realized other christians were feeling the same way i did). but i put together an answer that was too long to post and so it is going here instead.


um....i don't want to name names. i don't think it is fair, because i don't think a)that it is any ONE person or b) that they even realize they've said something hurtful. for the most part i do not feel people are criticizing ME personally. for the most part. i DO hear people criticizing christians and when they do it generally, i speak up. i make corrections and say "hey that isn't all of us". and they back off. but i still feel the hurt of what they said, because most of the time i don't believe they have been convinced at all. the most painful attacks i have experienced have come from people you don't know.
i agree that mostly it is EXACTLY what you say - people who have been hurt, fighting back. but even though i am not a fundamentalist, i feel responsible for my blind and ignorant christan brothers and sisters. i DO consider myself my brother's keeper, and while i personally do not bash pagans or gays, i feel guilty for what other christians do. we are one body in christ and when part of that body is sick, the whole body suffers.
as to what i have felt personally besides fundamentalist bashing (which i myself have engaged in from time to time i am sorry to say), there are two main issues, some of which is merited, but hurts no less for it.

A)dismissing me/excluding me because i am christian. often this is about the fact that i am in seminary as much as because i am christian. christians who are just easter/xmas types are less threatening than someone who actually has real faith. this has happened a lot. often by strangers, often when i just meet people. many people choose not to know me, trust me, or hear me.

B)thinking all christians are represented by fundamentalism.
if they have a reason to get to know me, it tends to go away, but mostly people don't ask me what i really think. they assume "she thinks the christian thing" and assume they know what that is. this is painful because friends do it without realizing they do it. this is especially true because most of my friends have been deeply hurt by christians and i find them acting from time to time as though i shared the views of those that hurt them.

christians don't believe in magic. christians aren't really connected to the earth. christians are materialistic. christians are all hypocrites. in many ways i find more in common with my non-christian husband than i do with other christians, but neither am i alone. these are only some of the messages i personally have fought against from pagans of different persuasions. some of this we bring on ourselves. i freely admit that the liberal christians in this country are less organized than the right-wing christians. this means that we have been less effective in getting our perspectives out to the public and we are at fault for this. the message of love has been lost in the media's love affair with the current president (who i'm ashamed to say, claims membership in my own denomination - it just goes to show how different we all are even within the same sect). but there is another side to this too, which is that the media is less interested in peace, love and forgiveness. the right-wing gets a bigger voice in the media because the media is more interested in what they have to say - it will get better ratings.

the other thing is that we ARE hypocrites. i am a BIG HYPOCRITE. i freely acknowledge it. i would also hold that so is every other human being in this country. because one cannot hold high ideals that inspire one to better oneself without failing them sometimes. none of us is perfect. i don't believe that most christians in this country are the xmas/easter variety. in fact, i think those are the minority. i think most christians are fundamentalist or silent on these issues and so what they believe is not broadcast - christians are not supposed to flaunt their goodness.
accusations of hypocrisy are particularly painful to me because they are true and because they seem to say to me "either lower your standards or quit believing altogether". it is a beautiful thing when we can practice what we preach, but the truth is i have never in my life met someone who succeeds in this all the time, and that 20% or 40% or 2 % we get it wrong, someone will jump on us and say "hypocrite". there is no way to be fair about it. unfortunately, i cannot even say "some of us have fallen off the path." because while i believe it, there are different interpretations of what it means to be a good christian. the bible is a complex book full of contradictions. i myself am a pacifist. i honestly believe that it is murder to kill someone in self defense, or in defense of the country. i see nationalism as one of the greatest idolotries of our age. but most of my christian friends would disagree with me and be horrified at my extreme views, despite a deep tradition of pacifism in the first 400 years of christianity. the problem is that the bible often supports more than one view. christians believe different things because we prioritize the messages of the bible differently. so we are hypocrites, and we are hypocrites who argue with one another. but at the end of the day, the bible DOES say both things. the other side DOES have a leg to stand on, and when they do things that i consider "sinful" they can point the finger right back at me.
what this means is that when people who are not christian say "your religion says x and yet you do y, how can this be?" sometimes there is a very good answer. unfortunately the bible DOES say that homosexuality is a sin. it also says what to do about gay people - kill them. so there is a problem here. because people demand that christians do what they are supposed to do, but the bible says they are supposed to kill gays, pagans, witches and disobedient children among others. personally, i believe that it is a mark of progress that we no longer do these horrific things. i believe that we cannot say "unclean" to what god has made clean. god has plainly showered his blessings and his presence on many GBLT's i know. but i DON'T believe that it means i should dismiss the bible or my religion. it means i interpret it. and so do the people who interpret the bible differently than i do. so yes, we are hypocrites. and we are divided. and it is painful. and we inflict it on ourselves. but we are judged for it not only by ourselves, but also by those who don't understand the whole picture. the church is like a man who chopped jalapenos and rubbed his eyes and now flails around for something to ease the pain and hits other people in the process. it is not that the church is not a good man. it is that he has done something stupid and is suffering and can't see how to fix it.

Comments

[kfringe.livejournal.com]

It's three forty in the morning, so I'll try write something useful about the interesting points you raised later. Now is the time for minutiae. I find the idea that your bible tells you to kill homosexuals to be frighteningly wrong. If it does, then your bible also lays down a number of other rules in, I seem to recall, the same general place. Christians have traditionally interpreted Acts 10:28 to mean that those rules were suspended as part of the new deal with God. Any persecution of homosexuals was more clearly rationalized using other arguments. In Europe, those tended to be "they're not married," "shit on a penis is icky," or the ever popular favorite, "all these homosexuals keep sucking my dick!"

I don't believe that there is as large a large body of argument against hot women getting it on together, which strengthens my position on this.

Now, me, I don't so much believe in god, but a book is a different thing entirely. I don't have to believe in books; I can read them. I don't have to believe in people; I can argue with them. The nice thing about theological debate is that, for some reason, the debates tend to be repeated often enough to be recorded. Remind me to look some of these up for you. It's fun because most of them are about pork.

Mmmmmm. Pork.

Anyway, hypocrisy knows no bounds, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, and religious debate seems a bit like mutual masturbation without a payoff.

Tell your pagan friends to stop insulting Christians. That's my job, and I'm not going to give it up without a fight. I'm telling you God wants me on that wall. God needs me on that wall.

[lucifermourning.livejournal.com]

hm...very thought provoking.
i must admit that i do bash christianity sometimes--this is because i have very serious theological and moral issues with the religion. but then, i expect you have theological differences with paganism--the key is to keep that discourse civil and be willing to agree to disagree.
but i do take your point about not tarring christians with the same brush. whilst i may very strongly disagree with some of the premises of christianity, it's the practices of some christians that really enrage me. i don't think i'm likely to stop complaining about fundamentalists, but it is important to always keep your comments specific--e.g. 'i hate the way many fundamentalists want to deprive gay people of rights', 'i think it's hypocritical for people to ignore children starving to death in africa yet spend all their energies opposing abortion'--these are legitimate criticisms (and there are very, very many legitimate criticisms of pagans, i assure you). it doesn't mean it's okay to say 'i hate the way christians...' as though they were monolithic.
i guess my point is that there is a lot to be said against certain christians and groups of christians who use their religion in ways that are, in my opinion, cruel, hypocritical, and downright evil. pagans are, frankly, pretty powerless and ergo haven't been able to commit large scale evil in the name of religion lately--they might be just as bad if it were a mass religion. so i must support the criticisms of christianity as it is used by powers i oppose. but you are right that it isn't fair to assume any of these views about all, or about any individual christian. and we should be sensitive and specific about any criticisms or complaints we do feel the need to make.

[sooper.livejournal.com]

"the church is like a man who chopped jalapenos and rubbed his eyes and now flails around for something to ease the pain and hits other people in the process"

I love this analogy for some reason. Fairly accurate, and yet just kinda funny.

I can definitely relate to how you feel. Fundamentalists end up giving us all a bad name. Of course, the reality is that a lot of the people who have this "those Christians are at it again!" attitude are fundamentalists too. They're just fundamentalist athiests or fundamentalist pagans, etc. And they annoy me just as much. Every time I hear a fundie athiest say something to the effect of "Christians are all evil facists with a stick up their ass, and all athiests are totally accepting of other people and viewpoints" (Note: this sounds like exaggeration, but I swear, this is nearly a direct quote, only condensed) I almost want to laugh at the contradiction, except it isn't really funny. I know open, accepting, *tolerant* Christians, athiests, Pagans, Jews, etc. And I'd like to think we're all tired of being the voice in the back nobody listens to, but still it continues.

It makes me feel lost to believe in the things Jesus said, and see them distorted and abused by the majority, to the point where I no longer feel that Christianity represents me, or even represents Christ. And that shouldn't be.

[pixiecup.livejournal.com]

although I don't fit into the "pagan" category, I have probably been guilty of bashing Christians in my journal (most likely before meeting you, but possibly after, since I deal with ROTTEN Christians quite frequently, thanks to my family), and I apologize. I will be more sensitive about it, and I'm sorry if I ever offended you.

I come from the wrong side of the fundamental tracks, and it has left me sometimes bitter and hurt, but that is no excuse for spreading hate.

I'm sorry.

1)

[sidhebear.livejournal.com]

“christians who are just easter/xmas types are less threatening than someone who actually has real faith”

I disagree. I’m more threatened by christmas/easter types. It’s fairly typical for them to be bitter, resentful, back-biting, and repressed because they profess their beliefs without the requisite walk and therefore feel “pressured” into “doing what’s right” without receiving any joy. As a result, their spirit festers and the often become some of the worst people I know. I call them “christmas/easter” types regardless of how often they go to church because, even if they regularly read the bible, perform devotions, attend every week, they still have a spiritual hole inside of them. I’ve even seen this true of charismatics who lead truly spirit-led and spirit-filled revivals. Although the Holy Spirit comes down and provides a true annointing on many present, the leaders are using their ministry to fill a hole within themselves. I blame current evangelism tactics for this. Most fellowships stop evangelism with someone once conversion is achieved and do not teach them how to truly listen, therefore they lean heavily on the promised “peace that passes understanding” while being un-equipped to receive it.

My commentary is getting into some heavy territory here, and it’s hard to even BEGIN to touch on the points I’ve already mentioned without writing a paper on each one, so I’ll wrap up this point by saying those with real faith (although I hesitate to use that word as so many have been distilled by many who repeat them in the hopes of attaining the concepts behind them) hrmm...actually, let’s say “those that most resemble the early ‘ixthys-fish-drawing’ christians in nature.” I.e. Close personal walk, good stewards, generally exemplifying Christ’s behaviour in their everyday life and radiating it outward from them. (I can’t find my lexicons and google has failed me, therefore I can’t seem to locate an appropriate Greek word for this concept. Got anything?) Regardless of what we call them, the people you describe as having “real faith”, assuming, after my description, that we’re talking about the same types of people, are the least threatening to anyone but reactionary pagans. (yes, I know that was a horrible set of comma splices, but I’m on a roll here so I’m not editing it. *grins*) Paganism is, after all, based strongly on the interconnectivity of all things in the universe. Christian-bashing simply for the sake of it is divisive and disruptive. The two don’t mix. Paganism in any form is still widely unrecognized as a religion or legitimate spiritual path. (and still illegal in australia and several other countries, if I recall correctly) Any of the enlightened pagans I’ve talked to at length about christianity have all had the same response – “That’s their faith or personal spirituality. How can I cut that down or belittle that without degrading my own? Spirituality is a powerful and personal thing, emphasis on personal.” So I’m going to disagree with you on the above quoted point.

2)

[sidhebear.livejournal.com]

“many people choose not to know me, trust me, or hear me.”

That’s not your fault and it’s regrettable that the church as a whole has earned themselves such a stigma in the mind of the common man. I was often greatly irritated while visiting my grandparents or other relatives because we would attend their “fellowships”, and invariably, I’d get overenthusiastically asked if I’d found Jesus by a member of the congregation. Sadly, a truthful “Yes, I’m currently looking into which seminary I plan to attend” was not a sufficient answer at many of the churches I’ve been to, I still had to sit through being re-evangelized to because I mentioned the wrong denomination or suffer being quizzed later as to why I’d shut them down with a polite “go use that zeal for people who haven’t yet been reached” and walked away. This is only one example. Often the most vocal of christians give christianity as a whole, and Christ himself by proxy (in many people’s minds) a bad name. It’s all too common, and I believe many churches needs to tend their own house before embarking on evangelistic crusades and attempting to tend to the houses of others. It would certainly cut down on the bad press.

3)

[sidhebear.livejournal.com]

“thinking all christians are represented by fundamentalism.”

Hrm. I hadn’t really spent much time thinking about it because I know better, but I guess that really is the general opinion. Even Meghan tends to fall into the “most vocal = whole group” trap, and if it weren’t for her experiences with Shawn Isenhart and Dave Eggan (A great ambassador for Christ that I haven’t seen in a good three years) she’d still believe that all christians were generally spiteful, rabid hypocrites, or at the very least false-faced professors of doctrines they don’t follow. I really think the church has room to grow here and want to challenge them to do so. Let’s face it, the body of christ is very unhealthy, and it shows. Where’s Paul when you need him?




“if they have a reason to get to know me, it tends to go away, but mostly people don't ask me what i really think”

That’s one of the reasons I tend to avoid talking about my beliefs for the most part. People ask fairly regularly, but it’s not usually spurred by intellectual or spiritual curiosity so the question gets dodged with a simple “That’s personal and I’d rather not talk about it right now.” There are a fair number of self-professed “pagans” in the public eye as well. I figure, christianity has people like Jack Thompson, paganism has people like Jonathon Sharkey. Neither are really connected to anything about their respectively claimed religions, but they get a lot of press.

[sidhebear.livejournal.com]

“this is painful because friends do it without realizing they do it. this is especially true because most of my friends have been deeply hurt by christians and i find them acting from time to time as though i shared the views of those that hurt them”

I’d like to think that I’m more enlightened than that, but I’m fallible and don’t always catch myself. If you ever feel like I’m lumping you in with any of my bad experiences, please let me know. It’s certainly not my intent, and the level of separation exists in my mind, but isn’t often well-conveyed with my words. I still hold a great many christian *people* in very high esteem. I wouldn’t be the semi-well-adjusted person I am today without the likes of Kris Rydberg, Steve Sater, Karl Pishaw and others. Then again, I take things on an individual basis. Stereotypes may have basis in truth, but that’s no reason to treat a *person* any differently. Actions speak for themselves. I want to challenge my fellow pagans to get beyond their bad blood (c’mon guys, even if you were hung for witchcraft in a past life, that’s nothing more than a learning experience. If you believe in re-incarnation, then obviously your soul was supposed to get something out of the experience, I highly doubt it’s “blind hatred of others”. Get with the program and start living by interacting WITH your spirit instead of just performing knee-jerk reactions.)

5)

[sidhebear.livejournal.com]

“one cannot hold high ideals that inspire one to better oneself without failing them sometimes.”

Brilliantly put.

“i don't believe that most christians in this country are the xmas/easter variety. in fact, i think those are the minority”

I should have worded that better. For the above reasons, I disagree, but maybe a better point to be made would be “what defines a christian”? (I look forward to you having fun with this one. I’m actually excited about the possibility of a nice long essay. What a masochist I am. *grins*)

“the truth is i have never in my life met someone who succeeds in this all the time”

I agree wholeheartedly. I think the source of the disagreement here is semantics. As pagans, we believe that we’re part of the universe and that the universe, for all it’s flaws, has a purpose and is balanced, interconnected, and perfect. Yet obviously, we as entities wouldn’t be striving to improve ourselves if we were already flawless. There’s always something to learn from any given experience, and I think more people would do well to gain understanding and learn to interact with that paradigm. However, it would be foolish on my part to even suggest that most pagans understood that concept. But at it’s heart, paganism is rooted in the belief that we’re all a small portion of what contributes to the inherent perfection and balance in the world, so to verbally or spiritually flog ourselves with the fact that we’re still imperfect entities is counter-productive. (I’ll have to see if I can find the book I was reading that touched on this and Catholicism during the time of Martin Luther (and hope I can find the relevant passages). Popular german author and theologian. Very astute fellow. Dead now, IIRC. You might possibly be able to determine who I’m thinking of, so please, toss out names. It’s on the tip of my tongue but I’m not getting it) Pagans SHOULD be holding themselves to the same improvement standard that christians are, (we’re not done cooking yet. Sticking a toothpick in us gets goop) the only difference being that generally, christians believe that their time-window constitutes one life and they’ll be rewarded for how hard they try/what they exemplify with “crowns” and pagans generally believe they’ll keep at it via re-incarnation until they learn what they’re supposed to and enjoy an eternity of peace.

6)

[sidhebear.livejournal.com]

“the bible is a complex book full of contradictions”

I’m going to have to disagree here because I have yet to see a contradiction. Got one handy? (and please, no pointless tests for the sake of questioning my knowledge, if I’m going to dig back into it, it’s because I care, not because I feel a need to brain-masturbate via text. I don’t assume you would, but I’m not sure of what to expect out of other commentors.)

“the problem is that the bible often supports more than one view.”
Ahh. But is that a factor of what it’s stating or how it’s interpreted? This is why I got into theology in the first place. And subsequently got interested in anthropology and sociology. Somewhere, I believe that something got lost in the translation, so as much as we can say that “The bible is the infallible Word of the Lord”, it’s hard to be sure when we look at anything post-nicene-council...and the gospels are personal accounts....the rest of the NT (new testament, which christianity is based on) is mostly letters to churches. (which in my opinion is some of the BEST that the NT has to offer because it’s addressed to PEOPLE and not simply a matter of doctrine.)

7)

[sidhebear.livejournal.com]

“unfortunately the bible DOES say that homosexuality is a sin”

so are a LOT of things in the Old Testament. G-d had a plan for his people and so the Pentateuch enumerated what would be necessary for his children to survive. When it came to things that would kill his line, G-d was unforgiving and often tested the faith of his followers, especially when they’d done wrong. That all changed with the birth of Jesus. His life become a controversy because he was flying against the previous teachings of the old testament and even when asked questions about the previous law, stated two axioms. (matt 22, and although I’m not a big fan of that gospel, it corrolates with what is mentioned elsewhere in christ’s message. (john 13) I’d have to look it up again, but I thought “a new commandment” was a wording meant to indicate that it abolished the previous ones.

Was homosexuality a bad idea simply because it didn’t perpetuate the species at the time the law was made? Tough question, but the church today holds to it.
“i believe that it is a mark of progress that we no longer do these horrific things”
They may have been horrific at the time, but it was a matter of survival. Whether you think about ringworm from eating pork or infections transmitted by not washing properly before and after you had anal sexual contact with anyone, you’re basically risking the lives of everyone who comes into sexual or non-sexual contact with you. Bacteria is pretty aggressive stuff.

“but i DON'T believe that it means i should dismiss the bible or my religion.”
Neither would anyone else who thought about the subject critically.