Conservatives: is paganism part of the Western tradition you want to conserve?

[Fiddytree]

Who regards paganism as part of "Western tradition"?

I would. It's incredible how much it influenced various region's implementations of Christianity.

 

[Fiddytree]

Or perhaps post #2 fails to give a rational definition of conservatism. In fact, the criteria being there attached to conservatism rather obviously have nothing whatsoever to do with any common understanding of what it means to be conservative. Conservatism has nothing to do with religion, physique, or sexual dysfunction.

In fact, looking over this thread as the whole into which it has so far shaped itself; I have to say that the OPs purpose is not to make any honest attempt to define conservatism; but to express a rather odd form of bigotry against conservatism; and you seem to be in league with the OP on this effort.

One almost has to wonder if both you and the OP are merely engaging in psychological projection here. It is certainly very common, in close quarters with one particular issue on which the two sides tend to sharply differ, for those on the far wrong side to project their own sexual inadequacies and dysfunctions on those of the far right side. Perhaps something similar is happening here.

Bob, it's okay if you don't consider religion or other matters to be influencing your conservatism, but let's not be completely foolish and/or historically ignorant.

As for my own, I plead Catholic, but I hold more allegiance to its institutional and ceremonial qualities than some of its views (though I am quite pleased with many of them).

 

[tessaesque]

Christianity (and therefore the Christian right) is riddled with pagan ties. Many of the traditions, superstitions, and culture values we see today are reflective of pagan schools of thought. Sure, we're not citing a Norse god or gathering at the solstice at Stonehenge, but religious culture isn't just about the god.

 

[USViking]

In terms of the realities of power and social structure, there are certain days out of the week that a society is organized to "take the day off." Generally it entails getting work loads and certain types of work done so that taking time off doesn't threaten the stability or safety of society. For Jewish society, one such time was "every Sunday", for Pagan societies, there were a few extended holidays that carried over the week where they could get their holiday business done, which mostly entailed large public gatherings and taking a break from work so as to renew social connections that they needed in order to maintain cooperation across different households and communities for the rest of the year.

None of this rises above what I term the chronologically trivial.

The Church had no doctrine which was affected by chronology,
so it could afford to be flexible. This did not extend to doctrine
itself, as illustrated by the fact that numerous Pagans had been
converted to Arianism before entering the Roman Empire, where
Arianism was heretical. Here the Church showed no flexibility,
and it was the former Pagans who conformed.

Since these holidays fulfilled crucial roles in Pagan society, they were absolutely unwilling to indulge any suggestion of conversion that required they "reorganize", which is why dates varied. Everything had to be agreeable to the converts

This and your preceding comments could use some citation.

It so happens that the most significant of all Pagans, the Romans,
enjoyed over 200 days of holidays per year:

Ancient Roman Holidays & Festivals

Since most if not all of these Roman holidays possessed religious
significance they would not have been tolerated in their original
form by the early Church. Therefore, you must in order to carry
your point document some form of accommodation made by the Church.

If you think "theological justification" is of great importance and that this isn't, we are completely at cross purposes.

My point is that there is not any theological justification for choosing
one chronology over another.

In my experience theological justification is strongest when it goes along with what is convenient for power-relations and loses its efficacy as soon as it opposes them.

“My experience” means you have lived through the events yourself.
What relevant events have you lived through yourself? Reading a
jargon-laden text does not count.

As to our argument, recall that for well over two centuries the Church
provided one of the best examples in all history of opposition to what
your text might label the power structure. That structure itself was one
of the best examples in history of a great empire in its prime. That empire
probably actually did throw Christians to lions. Yet it was the Christians
who in the end not only survived but triumphed. And they did not do so
by agreeing that the Romans could keep their 200 holidays per year, I don’t think.

Thus when Christianity was a marginalized religion the proper method for choosing a bishop was for the congregation to choose a spiritual successor and endow him with authority by popular acclamation (by the impetus of the Holy Spirit). Later on, kings chose bishops in collusion with the Pope, according to their shared authority over spiritual and temporal matters (which they enjoyed by the Grace of God).

Here, I see power at work. The theological justification was modified to cope with that reality.

I do not see the relevance of this to relative importance of chronology and theology.

 

[Morality Games]

None of this rises above what I term the chronologically trivial.

The Church had no doctrine which was affected by chronology,
so it could afford to be flexible. This did not extend to doctrine
itself, as illustrated by the fact that numerous Pagans had been
converted to Arianism before entering the Roman Empire, where
Arianism was heretical. Here the Church showed no flexibility,
and it was the former Pagans who conformed.




This and your preceding comments could use some citation.

It so happens that the most significant of all Pagans, the Romans,
enjoyed over 200 days of holidays per year:

Ancient Roman Holidays & Festivals

Since most if not all of these Roman holidays possessed religious
significance they would not have been tolerated in their original
form by the early Church. Therefore, you must in order to carry
your point document some form of accommodation made by the Church.




My point is that there is not any theological justification for choosing
one chronology over another.




“My experience” means you have lived through the events yourself.
What relevant events have you lived through yourself? Reading a
jargon-laden text does not count.

As to our argument, recall that for well over two centuries the Church
provided one of the best examples in all history of opposition to what
your text might label the power structure. That structure itself was one
of the best examples in history of a great empire in its prime. That empire
probably actually did throw Christians to lions. Yet it was the Christians
who in the end not only survived but triumphed. And they did not do so
by agreeing that the Romans could keep their 200 holidays per year, I don’t think.




I do not see the relevance of this to relative importance of chronology and theology.

If you keep splitting the posts we're finished.