Christians Have Changed the Definition of Paganism
In the 1930's, T.S. Elliot expressed alarm about the possibility paganism would swamp Christianity. The characteristics he attributed to paganism were exactly the characteristics now embraced by the religious right, Catholic and Protestant.https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/users/david-albertson-1
The Paganism defined in the 1930's by T.S. Elliot was a religion in which the state and religion united to reinforce each other. It was a religion that praised wealth. He saw this kind of religious thinking in the wild prosperity and super rich of the 1920's before the crash. That definition of paganism seems very similar to much of Christianity during this time of Trump.
However, much of today's Christianity refers to secularism as similar to paganism. There are generalizations that secularists have no moral grounding like they think paganism has none.
While the way some of Christianity has morphed into what was formerly paganism is alarming but not unusual. The faith has morphed since it dropped circumcision during the supposed time of Jesus. What would be helpful, however, would more self evaluation of their own views.
The lack of morality in paganism as seen by T.S. Elliot is now present in so much of Christianity. It is especially present to the parts of Christianity that labors hard to use government against women and gays and to promote more wealth for the wealthy.
Jon, I really enjoyed the linked article. Good find. Albertson writes “The ‘paganism’ that future Christians will need to identify and resist, [Eliot] warned, will appear as unrestrained capitalist greed; as authoritarianism seeking to weaken democratic norms; as callous environmental degradation; as a superficial Christian moralism seeking to fuse church and state; and as a petty ‘sanctimonious nationalism.’” It’s here, it’s loud, and in part a natural consequence of the “ends by any means” strategy used to enforce a right wing Christian agenda focused on dismantling abortion rights, suppressing the rights of LGBTQ citizens, turning away desperate immigrants, deregulating gun rights, and some perverse take on religious freedom. Someone wrote that the “bible” of the ancient Greeks was Homer's lIliad and Odyssey, the Nazi’s “Positive Christianity” had “Mein Kampf”, and today we have the work of a master of shameless spectacle, the godsend Donald Trump’s “Art of the Deal”. As if you needed an elite pagan’s pursuit of self-gratification to lead you down the path to redemption. Dismantle, suppress, turn away, deregulate, and pervert. Well we all get played from time to time. Rollover if you want your favorite biscuit (is it vengeance?) or stand fast in your faith’s tradition and rest assured political moderation is not a form of apostasy.
ReplyDeleteSince you have decided to drag T.S, Eliot into your frayed and tattered comments on homosexuality and abortion, here are several quotes that you might find relevant: ……….That corpse you planted last year in your garden, Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year? Oh keep the Dog far hence, that's friend to man. Or with his nails he'll dig it up again!,,,,,,,,,,,,,We are the hollow men, we are the stuffed men, Leaning together. Head pieces filled with straw.
ReplyDeletealas! Our dried voices, when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless, As wind in dry grass. Or rat's feet over broken glass. In our dry cellar.
and still another. Because these wings are no longer wings to fly. But merely vans to beat the air, The air which is now thoroughly small and dry. Small and drier than the will.....
ReplyDeleteBTW Eliot is one of my great men. Did much to shape my worldview. too bad that he got dragged into your peons atheism.
sorry: s/b paeans not peons. really enjoyed Arby's latest. you have a true believer there. too bad that y'all misunderstood Eliot.
ReplyDeleteJon may reject this comment, claiming that it is irrelevant to this particular post. As it most certainly is. That said, however, I don't know where else to "park" it. Anyway, I was thinking about those folks, Pete Buttigag, among others, who claim that Scripture teaches that individual human "beingness" begins with an infant's first breath (which technically happens then the placenta attaches to the uterine wall). Obviously though there are passages in Scripture that can be cited in support of that view, at least by Scriptural literalists (e.g Jon). What I find amusing about such views is that the folks who express them are often folks who think of Scripture as mythological at best and, at worst, a collection of tall tales. In fine they remind one of those who beat on literalists who hold that creation took place on six twenty four days while themselves interpreting Scripture as saying the very same thing. Like the "breath" people they don't seem to realize that our contemporary understanding of the world no longer supports many of the literalist readings of Genesis (where one of the breath passages is to be found) should not be treated as literally true, at least not in the context of the contemporary abortion debate. Yes, amusing, is it not.
ReplyDeleteUnknown (Unknown II as I will refer to you.) Our discussion work much better if you choose a handle so others know which commenter one is referring to.
DeleteYes, anyone can use scripture in a variety of ways. I use it sometimes to make a point here or there. I liked Buttigag's use of it because no doubt he has heard it used against himself personally. We have devout Christians who post here and claim not to be literalists but take small parts of the scriptures literally to justify their particular branch of the faith.
I've said many times that using the Bible as the primary source of Christianity was a mistake from day one. As more critical scholars find much of it was written by wealthy impostors for the practical purpose of controlling the not wealthy the less it becomes something from the world of the divine.
the fact remains: you take Scripture literally and use your literalism to beat up on other literalists. as to the "wealthy goat herders" line: that, in my view, is just so much neo-Marxist bunkum. and it certainly does narrow, constrain your view of history.
ReplyDeleteUnknown "as the the 'wealthy goat herders' line: that is so much neo-Marxist bunkum. and it certainly does narrow, constrain your view of history."
ReplyDeleteThat's an odd reflection. Your are saying that if one acknowledges the fact that when the various parts of the Bible were written and later edited by scribes during a historical period when the literacy rate was a tiny percentage of the population and then concludes the views in the Bible probably reflected the self interest of that small wealthy group it narrows one's view of history.
The truth is just the opposite. It broadens one's view of history by applying critical analysis to propaganda. A narrow view of history is when one, like yourself, does not allow critical thinking, apparently believing that God wrote the Bible. I will acknowledge that I do not accept the opinion that God wrote the Bible. If that is narrowing a view of history I gladly accept the criticism.
there you go again. reality as it is said, is a many splendored thing. the Marxists, as you do, boiled it all down to economics and the battle of oppressors and the oppressed. that view obviously leaves out one hell of a lot. it narrows, it constrains. not that we should overlook the role of economics, production and consumption, the reality of economic exploitation in human life. but to treat economics as the be all and end all of the human drama is, to put it crudely, nuts.
DeleteCurrently there are about 10,000 members of the group that does critical scholarly work on the Bible. To them and myself this is a field about research and critical thinking. To you it is a society of Marxists. OhooKaaay.
ReplyDelete