Why should I choose Quora over Wikipedia

Pages

Friday, November 1, 2019

Contra Dittmar and Deschner (quora)


About Charlemagne and the blood court of Verden with its background - instead of Karlheinz Deschner, I recommend Klett-Cotta-Verlag, Gebhardt, Handbook of German History, 2. The time of the Carolingian Empire 714-887, Rudolf Schieffer, pages 55 to 63, or also, Verlag Fayard: Charlemagne by Jean Favier, pages 223 to 228 and 239 to 245.

The 4500 Saxon ringleaders were anti-Christian terrorists or, if you prefer, resistance fighters - but also very bloody ones. They weren't just accused of being baptized, they weren't.

About women in antiquity and the Christian Middle Ages, I recommend the chapter on the deceased second daughters of the fine Romans in the introduction to the work La femme aux temps des cathédrales, Régine Pernoud. A first son had the parental choice between a pair of different first names, only with the fifth or sixth do I continue with first names like Quintus, Sextus, Septimus, Octavus, Decimus (but no Nonus, as far as I know). A first daughter had a single name, namely the feminine form of the noun gentile. The daughter of Marcus Tullius Cicero was called Tullia. She doesn't mention it, as far as I can remember, but sometimes there was one, correspondingly, Tullia Secunda or Tullia Minor, with the elder becoming Tullia Prima or Tullia Major. Very rare, a Tullia Tertia, accordingly. Sometimes the daughters were only abandoned after the third or fourth. Because they were women.

The same author Pour en finir avec le Moyen age, contains, I think, a chapter on the Inquisition. Bernard Guy was a very strict inquisitor, in Toulouse he judged about 900 cases, of which 45 or 42 were either burned or "burned in effigy" that is, a hay doll was burned while they were elsewhere. I don't know if it was 45 or 42 that were actually burned.

About Hypatia, I recommend Tim O'Neill to the atheists (until the last time I checked):

Armarium Magnum: A Geologist Tries History (or "Agora" and Hypatia Yet Again)
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2012/03/geologist-tries-history-or-agora-and.html

He wasn't a historian, but neither was Karlheinz Deschner. And neither is Volker Dittmar.

I recommend a dialogue in books about Albigensians The name of the rose by Umberto Eco, between Adso von Melk and father Baskerville.

question
Why does the Christian Church now allow atheism even though it used to strictly forbid it?
https://de.quora.com/Warum-l%C3%A4sst-die-christliche-Kirche-den-Atheismus-inzwischen-zu-obwohl-sie-in-fr%C3%BCher-streng-verboten-hat/ answer / Volker-Dittmar

Volker Dittmar
Self-employed hypnotherapist (2015-now)
Answered August 31st
The Church does not allow atheism. She looks on, gritting her teeth, as it spreads, because she can no longer burn heretics alive. If it still could, atheism would also spread, but not publicly, and one could pretend it doesn't exist.

The Church, of course, never had the right to forbid anything. It has acquired power, it has acquired the "right" to forbid something that it was not entitled to. And she used all of this for almost a millennium and a half to threaten people, blackmail them, kill them if you didn't believe what she said. How does it come from that "he had to believe in it" is understood by everyone to mean: "he had to die"? Because the church enforced its faith by force, fire and sword. Those who were not baptized were often killed. It is not thanks to the Church that these criminal machinations of the Church have been stopped.

So the answer to the question is this: She allows it because she has been prevented from continuing to murder people in order to enforce her belief. That's a good thing.

I.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
October 26th
"Because the church enforced its faith by force, with fire and sword. Those who were not baptized were often killed."

But not much more often.

Perhaps in Prussia, but it was about people who had caused a bloody riot against the Knights of the Cross for the second or third time.

Even a jihadi who had fought Christians was sometimes allowed to choose between death or baptism, but an ordinary Muslim in the crusader states was not.

Do you have your historical delusions from an Ossi school, right? [I look and see Hamburg…. "j'hallucine" as they say here in France]

Volker Dittmar
Original author
October 26th
It is enough to kill a few who were not baptized - the rest then followed "willingly". The Saxons were dealt with with full force; with other peoples it was enough to kill a few, that was a deterrent. Only the very stubborn were killed.

This can be read in the history books, especially of course in Deschner's "Criminal History of Christianity" and is therefore state of the art of historical science (Deschner almost exclusively refers to the mainstream of historians in his history work, which is so often overlooked).

So people were killed "often enough" to show people what was happening to them. This type of terror is then played down by apologists who say: "Yes, but not everyone was killed who was not baptized". The kind of terror that such a public execution carried out and that this generated immense pressure - one forgets that in one's tendency to play down.

Have a look under the keyword "Blood Court of Verden", in which, according to contemporary sources, 4,500 Saxons were beheaded. The number is considered exaggerated by historians, but even if it was only 100 - the sign is clear.

Jews were treated particularly perfidiously: they were put under great pressure, a few of them were killed, and others were threatened with death if they were not baptized. The Jews who were baptized in this way were later accused of being baptized only for pretense, and the Inquisition took action against them. Or a mob of crusaders killed them right away, the crusades were also directed against Jews in their own country.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
October 26th
"It is enough to kill a few who were not baptized - the rest then followed" willingly ". The Saxons were dealt with with full force."

Did Deschner also report on how the pagan Saxons had behaved towards Christian neighbors for around a hundred years?

"with other peoples it was enough to kill some, that was a deterrent."

How many peoples in Europe were converted like the Saxons? Prussia, Estonians, Latvians, in many cases yes. Makes four peoples together with Saxony. Some of the Finnish peoples - five.

How were the Bavarians converted, for example, or the Irish? How was it in Sweden or Denmark? In Poland or Bohemia? In Hungary? And Iceland? And how about Russia-Ukraine?

When and how did the Visigoths of Spain become Catholic? Or the Lombards in many parts of Italy? The Burgundians or the Franks? What about the Frisians? The Thuringians?

"Jews were treated particularly perfidiously: They were put under great pressure, a few of them were killed, and others were threatened with death if they were not baptized."

Has happened but was not the rule.

"Or a mob of crusaders killed them right away, the crusades were also directed against Jews in their own country."

As with Hypatia: a mob is a mob. Dear Crusaders, say, in the First Crusade, many were non-noble and never knighted, and that is the background of what has been said. By the way: the First Crusade, not the Crusades.

Volker Dittmar
Original author
Sunday
How were the other peoples of Europe converted?

Because Constantine made Christianity the state religion. At that time Rome ruled most of Europe, and Constantine made the Christian religion compulsory. He gave the priests the power, especially the children, to convert - which is easy, children take their views from those in authority.

As a Christian you should know that.

After the transfer of all religious power to the priests of the Catholic Church, the persecution of the Gentiles began. The pagan temples were destroyed, the priests killed or exiled. The hunt for heretics - including pagans - began. Emperor Julian partially reversed this, but that was short-lived as his term in office was short (three years).

The people had no other choice - with Christianity, ancient religious freedom was abolished.

It's easy. The spread of Christianity follows the lines of the Christian conquerors. When a country was conquered by Christians, it became Christian. There is one exception, the Vikings converted to Christianity because one of their kings became a Christian - who then made Christianity compulsory.

If a country was not conquered by Christians, such as B. China, Japan, or large parts of New Zealand - so the Christian population kept within a modest framework. 1,200 years of Christian mission in China did not turn more than 3–5% of the Chinese population into Christians. In Japan there are 0.5% Christians.

Which country in South America is predominantly Protestant and which is predominantly Catholic? You can tell from it whether a Protestant state or a Catholic state conquered the country. North America became Protestant because it was conquered by Protestant emigrants.

India was conquered by the English, but not Christianized. Result: 2.3% of the Indians are Christians.

It is very simple, and it applies to Islam as well. When a country was conquered by Muslims, it became Muslim - Persia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North Africa. When a country was conquered by Christians, it became Christian. In the non-conquered countries it was not possible to make more than 5% of the population Christian.

When the Roman Empire became Christian, it is estimated that there were no more than 0.5% Christians in the country. Christianity has grown so "quickly" in 300 years, when no state despotism helped to spread it.

If you are a Christian today, there is a high probability that your country was conquered by Christians. That speaks volumes and is often ignored. Monotheism has grown almost exclusively through military conquest, i. i.e., spread through violence. Exceptions like the Vikings are so rare that you don't even need all the fingers on one hand to list them. If there is a Christian majority in a country, the country either belonged to the Roman Empire or was forcibly conquered by Christians. The missionaries came with the soldiers, if no soldiers accompanied the missionaries, then the successes were as sparse as in China or Japan.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Monday
"Because Constantine made Christianity the state religion. At that time Rome ruled most of Europe, and Constantine made the Christian religion a duty."

I counted on peoples who were not under Rome.

You show glaring ignorance of history about Constantine and 313

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Monday
"The spread of Christianity follows the lines of the Christian conquerors. When a country was conquered by Christians, it became Christian. There is one exception, the Vikings converted to Christianity because one of their kings became a Christian - who then made Christianity a duty."

This "exception" is more like a rule.

Volker Dittmar
Original author
Monday
Your blanket criticism is of such devastating worthlessness that it is unnecessary to go into it.

I could ask you which of the European peoples besides the Vikings surrendered to Christianity without violence, but I am sure that I will not get an answer except that I don't know anything.

And to go into such stupid allegations is too much of my time.

How did we say earlier in such cases? *** PLONK ***

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Monday
"that there is no need to go into it."

Or you have too little knowledge of history to be able to give a reasonable answer.

I had a history exam in grammar school and had to deal with how Charles XII had deposed August of Saxony and appointed another king. I forgot the name and wrote "his name was never famous". And the teacher asked in red "can't you remember it Hans".

I think you have a motive similar to mine for "his name was never famous" which was not the case with Stanislas Leszczynski either. He was Grandfather or Great-grandfather of Louis XVI ...

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl
October 26th
  • 1) Most of the time when the Catholic Church was in social authority, there was no inquisition. Heresies were rare, ended more with councils than with stakes, and paganism with Judaism was impopular but permitted (for second-rate citizens).

  • 2) Most of the time with the Inquisition, atheism really wasn't the main antagonist.

  • 3) Ask yourself if you'd rather have wanted to live in a civilization that was safe from albums, or more pagan ... in one, in short, the authorities never had to be fair, because they were like the devil's work, in the other, slaves and women and newborns belonged Children not to society.


Volker Dittmar
Original author
October 26th
  • 1) is true, but here the history of the Waldensians, Albigensians and others is completely swept under the carpet.

  • 2) is also correct - but you can do the math on half a finger of one hand: If already believing Christians who only believe a little bit differently, such as B. the Cathars (from the name the word "heretic" is derived) are killed - what then happens to people who deviate considerably more from it and, for example, believe almost nothing about it? Are they then showered with flowers? No, one will be careful not to say that one does not believe in God. As always, the deterrent effect of executions - which took place in public - is totally underestimated. You only have to kill one to intimidate a thousand.

  • 3) Slaves did not belong to society in Christianity either, and women only to a limited extent. It was quite different in paganism, where a woman could become a philosopher and teach men - like Hypatia, who was then killed by a Christian mob. Because, quite biblically, quite Pauline, one did not tolerate a woman teaching men anything.

    As an atheist, I would have preferred a pagan society. At least they didn't burn people with dissenting religious views alive; .B. some of the Albigensians.

    And pagan governments - which, like Athens for a time and Rome to Caesar almost continuously - were democratic, are also certainly preferable. But to call a government that was democratically elected, even if not by our current standards, as the "work of the devil" shows what narrow-minded Christian fundamentalist spirit you are.


Hans-Georg Lundahl
October 26th
  • 1) Waldensians and Albigensians could only be judged by the Inquisition because they had already been baptized.

  • 2) As I said: Atheism was really too implausible at the time of the Inquisition to have thousands who were secretly atheists, but did not want to say it. Without heliocentrism and the theory of evolution, atheism is intellectually lame.

  • 3) Divided into several:

    "Even in Christianity, slaves were not part of society,"

    You couldn't kill or maim them anymore. St. Bathilde abolished slavery in the Franconian Empire.

    "And women only to a limited extent."

    Ask yourself where the second or third daughters of the pagan Romans got to ... that was forbidden in Christianity.

    "It was quite different in paganism, a woman could become a philosopher and teach men - like Hypatia,"

    The only example.

    "which was then killed by a Christian mob. Because, in a very biblical, very Pauline way, it was not tolerated that a woman should teach men anything."

    Or because the mob was a mob. Wi [e] der, the only example.

    "As an atheist, I would have preferred a pagan society. At least they didn't burn people with divergent religious views alive, such as some of the Albigensians."

    But they killed if you refused to sacrifice Caesar's genius without being a Jew. NB sometimes also by burning, like with Nero.

    "And pagan governments - which, like Athens for a time and Rome to Caesar almost continuously - were democratic, are certainly preferable too."

    I do not think so. Democracy in itself is neither the bad nor the good in politics.

    "But to call a government that was democratically elected, even if not by our current standards, as the" work of the devil "shows what narrow-minded Christian fundamentalist spirit you are."

    Read what I wrote. In an Albigensian civilization, government would have been counted as the work of the devil and no one would have cared about whether it was fair or not.It is not me, it was the Albigensians who called all governments the work of the devil. Incidentally, some medieval governments, namely local governments, in the town hall, were democratic.


Volker Dittmar
Original author
Sunday
There was far more than one female philosopher in paganism. Above all, there were plenty of priestesses, in monotheism that precluded until the Reformation that a woman could take on a priesthood.

The fact that Nero so haunted the Christians is based on historical falsification. The "Testimonium Taciteum" is a Christian forgery, as the theologian Detering proves in minute detail in: Detering, Hermann. False witnesses: non-Christian Jesus testimonies put to the test. 1st edition Aschaffenburg: Alibri, 2011.

It is interesting: Nero was an emperor who was highly controversial and who was said to have all kinds of atrocities - such as having set Rome on fire. We have an abundance of contemporary writers, e.g. T. harsh criticism of Nero, z. t. the criticism was even exaggerated. But no one says that he persecuted Christians - except for the one passage in Tacitus, which was not written in the style of Tacitus, which nobody knew for a long time, and which appears and is cited very late and is missing in earlier manuscripts, and which is in the most unsuitable place - it is a later insertion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Monday
We have historically fooled about Nero's government:

Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius. And later.

We really do not have an abundance of contemporary authors; there is a gap in contemporary historians between Velleius Paterculus, who graduated in the 16th year of the Emperor Tiberius, and Tacitus published the Agricola after the death of Domitian.

The historian-authors who are still guarded in between are Josephus on the Jewish war and the three synoptics, Luke also on the Acts of the Apostles, no other.

Unless you mean authors who were not contemporary historians, and those who may have had reasons not to talk about Christianity at all.

"There was far more to paganism than just one female philosopher."

A single other?

"Above all, there were a lot of priestesses,"

Which in paganism is not at all the same as philosopher. Or give lessons to men - which abbots already did.

III

Martin Weitzel
September 1
As an atheist, I would like to add to this harsh - and in my opinion also justified - criticism of "the church" that the term church should not be equated with people who feel they belong to a certain religious denomination.

As I said, I am writing this from my atheist position, but I would like to make it very clear that I know many such people who, for one reason or another, believe in something I do not believe in, but therefore definitely never believe in the death penalty for "unbelievers" like me. (On the contrary, they would probably even actively advocate this freedom of belief for others.)

But what even this group does not always correctly perceive is that a reduction of their current preference back to equality with atheists does not constitute a discrimination of their beliefs.

Volker Dittmar
Original author
September 2nd
I agree. We are dealing with a situation similar to that in Germany at the time of National Socialism. The absolute majority of Germans were against the war, the absolute majority were against killing Jews. Nevertheless, the state has prevailed here.

This should also apply to the majority of Christians in most, if not all times: there has always been a majority who neither want to see heretics burned nor atheists. But this is no protection against institutions or states asserting themselves against the majority, especially not in states without democracy.

Therefore, as correctly noted, we are dealing here with criticism of the church as an institution, especially of the Inquisition, but not of "Christianity" or "Christians", apart from the minority who supported it. The vast majority of Christians had nothing to do with the murder of people of different faiths. But she was also unable to prevent it.

The point is that ideologies generally do not rely on a majority, but on being able to assert themselves against a majority. This can happen even in a democracy. I remind you that the Bundestag has passed a law against professional euthanasia, against which a clear majority of the population has spoken out.

In general, monotheism is about asserting oneself against majorities on moral issues. The argument goes like this: Because only God can be the basis of all morality, my opinion about what God considers morally right is more important than the opinion of the majority. In cases of doubt, the autocracy of the religious institution decides what God wants.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
October 26th
First, most of the heretics weren't atheists, and second, I really don't think most Germans were against the war when it started. As for killing the Jews, officially the camps were more Lao Gais, not death camps.

Since the Inquisition was public, it is not comparable.

Inquisitors were also really more amiable to unbaptized Jews and to Catholic Jews than the Nazi regime.

"Therefore, as correctly noted, we are dealing here with criticism of the church as an institution, especially the Inquisition, but not of" Christianity "or" Christians ", apart from the minority who supported it Christians had nothing to do with the murder of people of different faiths. "

Would the Inquisition have killed the heretics by murder?

In 1945 there were around 8.5 million National Socialists in Germany, and in 1955 almost none left, do you think 8.5 million were murdered after the war, or do you think "denazification" wanted to be something else ...?

Volker Dittmar
Original author
October 26th
Nowhere did I claim that most heretics were atheists - it was not for nothing that I said: heretics and atheists. Read a little more carefully, please!

When the war started, most Germans may have been in favor, but only because they were persuaded that the others started it. Who does not know the famous sentence: "They have been fired back since 5:45 am!" by Adolf Hitler to justify the war against Poland. Who knew this was a lie?

The camps for the Jews were designed from the start for extermination - often "extermination through work".

It may be that the inquisitors were often lenient towards Jews - the Crusaders were often not.

Nor have I ever claimed that the Inquisition would have eliminated "heresy" through murder. It's annoying when you have to defend yourself against claims that you never made, that are obviously just fabricated to discredit me or what I said. This is black rhetoric in the bottom drawer.

Here, too, deterrence works: you only have to kill a few heretics to exert pressure. One cannot abolish heresy by killing all heretics - although, with the Waldensians, the Albigensians, the Huguenots, etc. one has tried. On some days more heretics were murdered than Christians were killed during the 300 years of Roman persecution of Christians.

It is disgusting to play it down - just as disgusting as the belittling of the labor camps for Jews, where thousands died, even without gas chambers and firing squads.

Denazification was also a certain pressure because people knew that if they resisted, they would probably not get a job in the administration. But it must also be said that many Germans felt shame when it transpired what crimes the Third Reich had committed in the "name of the German people".

However, to compare denazification with the terror of the murder of heretics is also an absolutely disgusting trivialization. If you don't feel disgusted, you probably lack empathy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
October 26th
"by killing all heretics - although, with the Waldensians, the Albigensians, the Huguenots, etc. one tried."

Not exactly, no.

"On some days, more heretics were murdered than Christians were killed during the 300 years of Roman persecution of Christians."

Iwo ... did you get it from "Trail of Blood" right?

// From the beginning, the camps for the Jews were designed for extermination - often "extermination through work". //

If so, then this would mostly have been unknown to the people.

"It is disgusting to play it down - just as disgusting as the belittling of the labor camps for Jews, where thousands died, even without gas chambers and firing squads."

With the Inquisition, as with the denazification, the goal was someone to come out as a good non-heretic or non-Nazi, and to be alive and well.

The inquisitors took a harder line of action than denazification against the least opposed, but the goal was the same.

"Nowhere did I claim that most heretics were atheists - it was not for nothing that I said: heretics and atheists."

I just know an atheist who may have died at the hands of the inquisitors - the miller Menocchio.

Correspondence with Ginzburg on Menocchio's Death
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2019/04/correspondence-with-ginzburg-on.html

Atheism was theoretically forbidden, but was punished about as often as 300 km / h on a Swedish motorway…. he was simply not intellectually very attractive, nor was he before the English chaos of beliefs and civil wars after their Catholic days. And then and there the prohibition on atheism was already abolished, except in the sense of the denazification process: like the Catholic denomination.

Volker Dittmar
Original author
October 26th
On some days more heretics were murdered than Christians were killed during the 300 years of Roman persecution of Christians. "

"Iwo ... did you get it from" Trail of Blood "right?"

From the "Kriminalgeschichte des Christianentums", probably the most precise and thorough historical work about Christianity. After all, the Catholic Church organized a symposium to prove Deschner's errors. For this purpose, experienced historians were assigned to each chapter, experts in the field, mostly professors, who were now given the task of proving Deschner's errors.

They found - not a single mistake. Nothing. Although Deschner later admits that they missed a few mistakes he made, including: he confused two basilicas.

It is astonishing what a superficial and sometimes completely wrong picture many Christians have of the history of Christianity. Well, if you don't know, you believe all shit, and whoever is so gullible as to fall for Christianity also believes all other shit that is said by people of the same religion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
October 26th
"On some days more heretics were murdered than Christians were killed during the 300 years of Roman persecution of Christians."

If Deschner pointed this out, there would be a mistake.

"and whoever is so gullible as to fall for Christianity also believes every other bullshit that is told by people of the same religion."

I call gullible atheists, you believe in Deschner. Well, not all, e.g. not Tim O'Neill.

Volker Dittmar
Original author
Sunday
What Deschner reports is a historical fact. At the Anti-Deschner Symposium "Criminalization of Christianity?" none of the historians questioned it. There is not even a debate among historians who belong to the Church and who work for them about the correctness of Deschner's statement.

Only fundamentalist apologists without any knowledge of history dare to do this.

But who is Tim O'Neill? Not a historian.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Monday
"What Deschner reports is a historical fact."

The Verden blood judgment was not a murder, but the execution of heavily charged criminals who could be pardoned by baptism.

What Deschner does not report is that the Saxons attacked the Frankish Empire for 100 years, much like the Vikings later.

"At the Anti-Deschner Symposium" Criminalization of Christianity? "None of the historians questioned it"

Was there any?

"But who is Tim O'Neill? Not a historian."

Granted:

About the Author (and a FAQ) - History for Atheists
https://historyforatheists.com/about-the-author-and-a-faq/


Additionally:
Deschner wasn't a historian either:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Deschner

I had overlooked that Dittmar said this (unless he added it in an edit after my answer):

Because Constantine made Christianity the state religion. At that time Rome ruled most of Europe, and Constantine made the Christian religion compulsory. He gave the priests the power, especially the children, to convert - which is easy, children take their views from those in authority.


He seems to Constantine with Hitler (or Jules Ferry or Lenin or Azaña) and priests with teachers from a compulsory school from z. B. to have confused 1938 with his Reichsschulgestez.

Firstly, there was no compulsory schooling in Rome, a teacher who was employed by the city was a public opportunity, but could not take away children from parents, and secondly, the priests did not have a monopoly on teaching.

Constantine reformed the status of Christianity and the Catholic / Orthodox Church in Religio licita, it only became the state religion later and then (with a brief exception under a son who, by the way, promoted half-Arianism, not Catholicism) all duty but only a special position in public space. The Religio licita was around 313. Let us now look a little like St. Paulin von Nola lived:

Pontius Meropius Paulinus was born c. 352 at Bordeaux, in southwestern France. He was from a notable senatorial family with estates in the Aquitaine province of France, northern Spain, and southern Italy. Paulinus was a kinsman of Melania the Elder. He was educated in Bordeaux, where his teacher, the poet Ausonius, also became his friend. At some time during his boyhood he made a visit to the shrine of St Felix at Nola near Naples ... In 383 Gratian was assassinated at Lyon, France, and Paulinus went to Milan to attend the school of Ambrose. [4] Around 384 he returned to Bordeaux. There he married Therasia, a Christian noblewoman from Barcelona. [5] Paulinus was threatened with the charge of having murdered his brother. [2] It is possible that an attempt was made to accuse him in order to confiscate his property. [6] He was baptized by Bishop Delphinus of Bordeaux. He and his wife traveled to Spain about 390. When they lost their only child eight days after birth they decided to withdraw from the world, and live a secluded religious life. [2]


And what about his teacher Ausonius?

Ausonius appears to have been a late and perhaps not very enthusiastic convert to Christianity. [3] He died about 395. [3]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ausonius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulinus_of_Nola

Excuse me for the English articles, but the German Wikipedia hides it as St. Paulinus did not grow up as a Christian. So, after 313, Paulinus had a pagan teacher and both remained pagans until the course was completed.