Pagan royalty

Status
Not open for further replies.

flux

Banned
That all the Royals are secretly pagans and they used Christianity to enslave people?

That's the vibe I was getting off the post atleast.

Did Constantine convert to HIS new religion?

Or did he follow his family tradition - paganism?

Paganism is a royal baby - the people NEVER introduce
religions to royalty - it is always the other way around.

Paganism is a royal tradition, so if constantine remained pagan,
even though he proclaimed christ, it is obvious his descendants
[queen] would be loyal to their family tradition also.

It is so obvious that royalty is pagan to this day - look
at the architecture, customs, traditions - PAGAN.

The truth is coming out - hence church failure.
 
If I'm reading this right, the OP means:

1) The ancestors of royal houses were pagan.

2) When they converted to Christianity, they didn't surrender their royal authority, which had been obtained under paganism.

3) Therefore they must be still secretly pagan.

4) And secretly hostile to Christianity.

5) Which is why Europe isn't as religious as the US.

There is a chain of logic there, if you think sideways enough. It just requires a certain touching faith that it's impossible for humans to be even slightly hipocritical and a wide and deep ignorance of European history.
 
Please, outline for us where i am wrong?

Is the queen a descendant of pagan royalty? Yes - fact.

Were the royals pagan one day and christian the next? - Yes - fact.

Did the pagan royals incite murder? Yes - fact.

Is the pope descended from pagans? Yes - fact.

Are you descended from pagans? Yes - fact.

Was everyone who converted to christianity pagan one day and christian the next? Mostly (I think Judaism and Islam aren't pagan right? So there's a few exceptions.)

My premise question is - why was pagan royalty allowed to take a christian throne, following their crimes while pagans?
Because the Papacy wanted quick power and was a conservative force not wanting rebellions and war everywhere.

The kings told us they had converted to christ ; then what about his pagan family back at the pagan palace?
Maybe his family was pagan, and maybe the peasants were all pagan too but just claiming christianity. Over time however people faking religion tend to convert.

Pharaoh was the first pagan king and Egypt was the first state to sponsor paganism.
Nooooooooooo. There are nations older than Egypt. Ur, Babylon, etc.

Egypt was the idol worship capital of the world - the pagan headquarters. Rome did not fall alone, but with Egypt.
But the part of Rome with Egypt lasted longer than the part without. ;)

How strange then that all the northern kings [ uk, scandanavia ] were 'sun worshippers' and 'children of the sun'.
Not really, sun gods are pretty universal, and I could see the variability of it in the north as making it something people care about more.

Sun day was named after Ra, and many people gather to say Amen on sun day. We worship the Egyptian gods to this day;
Amun and amen are similar sounding words, but that's it, like poupée and puppie. Also Sunday's route is old Indo-European and the ancient egyptians were not of that cultural group.

Paganism is a royal baby - the people NEVER introduce religions to royalty - it is always the other way around.
No, Paganism predates anything more complex than chiefdoms, maybe a few changes happened, but the kings emerged after paganism.
 
Please don't misinform people.

Um...

Pharaoh was the first pagan king and Egypt
was the first state to sponsor paganism.

You're just gonna softball it in like that?

.
.
.

Moving along.

Just like the Roman Emperors, pharaoh
was seen as divine.

No the OFFICE of Pharaoh was divine. The person of the pharaoh wasn't. That's why when erasures of a king's image were conducted to remove them from memory, they had no problems chiselling out the images of the person, but never touched the images of the "royal Ka", which represented the pharaonic office.

Not even going to touch the rest of it.

It is so obvious that royalty is pagan to this day - look
at the architecture, customs, traditions - PAGAN.

You could say the exact same thing about the church...
 
My premise question is - why was pagan royalty allowed to take a christian throne, following their crimes while pagans?
Why not? If Saint Paul could persecute Christians, then later convert and repent of his past, how is it inconsistent for a pagan monarch to convert, repent and rule as a Christian?

The whole point of Christianity is that everyone sins and needs to be forgiven. It's not about doing the right thing your entire life.
 
A bit useless as he got banned... And a bit stupid given that he uses insane troll logic... But here goes:
flux said:
Is the queen a descendant of pagan royalty? Yes - fact.

Were the royals pagan one day and christian the next? - Yes - fact.

Did the pagan royals incite murder? Yes - fact.
What does this chain of arguments prove aside that the queen has pagan ancestors who committed atrocities? NOTHING.

Besides, if you look back at everyone's genealogy, you will eventually find one or two poorly recommandable ancestor along the way... I know for a fact that I have a murderer among my ancestors: does this make me a murderer too? Of course not.
flux said:
Woden [ Odin ] is the royal god - the god of hanging.
Since when is Odin the god of hanging? I'll admit I don't know much about Norse mythology but it seems to me it's not one of his attributes.
flux said:
My premise question is - why was pagan royalty allowed to
take a christian throne, following their crimes while pagans?
First: Political Pragmatism. Why change the King if he is willing to accept Christ and promote the Faith?

Second: because the Kings who converted weren't necessarilly guilty of crimes committed against Christians. Are you the kind of man to punish people for the crimes their ancestors did?

Third: Ever heard of the concept of Redemption? If you make amends for your past crimes, you will eventually be forgiven. Granted, conversion alone doesn't make amends for the crimes you committed before becoming Christian, but it could have been seen as a first step towards Redemption.
flux said:
The kings told us they had converted to christ ;
then what about his pagan family back at the pagan palace?
It varied from royal family to royal family. But eventually most of the royal bloodlines became Christians as years passed.

As a side note, royals aren't that different from people. You also had a lot of pagans probably with a rather poor backrgound that became Christians: why only held the Kings accountable?

Besides, I'll refer to the three points I've mentinned earlier.
flux said:
Just like the Roman Emperors, pharaoh
was seen as divine.
I might be wrong, but I don't think the Emperor was considered Divine in Rome. Some Emperors were divinised after their death (Augustus for example) but I don't think they were considered Gods...

If someone could tell me whether or not I'm right?
flux said:
Pharaoh was the first pagan king and Egypt
was the first state to sponsor paganism.
As has been pointed out by Beedok, there are a few Middle Eastern civilisations that predate Egypt.
flux said:
Egypt was the idol worship capital of the world -
the pagan headquarters. Rome did not fall alone, but with Egypt.

Why do they not tell us about this, during history lessons?
First of all: Egypt wasn't the idol worship capital of the world. In fact, there is no such thing as an "idol worship capital": each religion as it main centeres and there are tons of different form of paganism.

Second: seriously? You never heard that Rome conquered Egypt in 29 BC? You don't know it remained part of the Roman Empire until the Arab conquests of the 7th century? That seems pretty clear to me that Egypt fell at one point.
flux said:
Pharaoh was the first king to worship the sun [ Ra ].

How strange then that all the northern kings [ uk, scandanavia ]
were 'sun worshippers' and 'children of the sun'.
That there exists many Sun Gods is strange? Seriously, in Paganism there is nearly a god for everything so why not a Sun God?

I aslo trust you realise Paganism actually covers pretty different religions. Amon-Râ in Egypt isn't exactly the same God as Helios in Greece who himself isn't a complete equivalent to Sol in Rome.
flux said:
Even more strange, that many pharaohs[eg.Amenhotep ] worshipped a god called Amen.

Sun day was named after Ra, and many people gather
to say Amen on sun day. We worship the Egyptian gods
to this day;

The UK, Rome and USA, have Egyptian obelisks addressed
to Amen and Ra.
One: I feel insulted, you failed to mention the big one we have Place de la Concorde in Paris :p

Two: ever heard of Egyptology and Egyptophilia? That's one of the reason there are various obelisks outside of Egypt. And they're not meant (or no longer for some) to be a symbol of worshipping any Sun God.

As for sunday, it is chosen that declared it was the seventh day upon which God is said to have rested after he created the world. That's how it was justified though it's likely this was also done to allow an easy transition by Christianising a Pagan tradition. After all, we chose December 25 to be the birthdate of Christ but we don't know exactly when he was born: the Church thought it was the best date to celebrate because Pagans used to celebrate the Winter Solstice that day.
flux said:
Paganism is a royal baby - the people NEVER introduce
religions to royalty - it is always the other way around.
You've got it backwards my friend.
flux said:
Paganism is a royal tradition, so if constantine remained pagan,
even though he proclaimed christ, it is obvious his descendants
[queen] would be loyal to their family tradition also.
You're definitely confusing Royalty with Paganism... You don't need to be Pagan to be a Royal.

And as a matter of fact, God is sometimes referred as "King of Kings and Lord of Lords". So what? God is a Pagan now? :rolleyes:
flux said:
It is so obvious that royalty is pagan to this day - look
at the architecture, customs, traditions - PAGAN.
Just because two things look similar doesn't make them the same thing...

And that's neglecting the centuries of evolution that have passed in Architecture, Customs and Traditions. It also denies the whole concept of Christianization...
flux said:
The truth is coming out - hence church failure.
So the Church fails because Royals are being unmasked as Pagans? Give me a break: the Church doesn't need the Royals to fail :rolleyes:
Beedok said:
I think Judaism and Islam aren't pagan right?
Well, I believe the term Pagan is generally used to define non-Abrahmic Religions of pre-Christian Europe. So technically yeah: Jews and Muslims aren't Pagans.
 
This kingdom definitely had Pagan Royalty.:D

Also, looking at wikipedia I'm now confused as to whether Dharmic and Sinitc faiths are technically Pagan.:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top