Defining "Pagan"

[Orion Guardian-Elm]

Greetings!

I thought it would be interesting to start a thread about defining Paganism - a topic which seems rather controversial if you ask me!

I personally believe that a Pagan is someone who calls him or herself a Pagan. The rest is personal interpretation.

I believe that such individuality is one of our strengths as Pagans - we can be completely different from one another, yet still accept each other for who we are without claiming that our way is the "one true right way". Of course, as with any system of belief there are those who will claim that "you are not a real Pagan if you don't do this, or that, the way I say it should be done", but then again, there's people like that in practically every religion (such intolerance is one of the reasons I left Christianity. Though many Christians seem to be wonderful accepting people, many whom I encountered were the complete opposite...).

Does anyone agree with my definition of Paganism? Do you believe that a Pagan is someone who calls him/herself a Pagan?

How do you define a Pagan?

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

I agree. My opinion would be a repetition of what you said.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

Well, yeah. Within reason.

[thalassa]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=Orion Guardian-Elm link=topic=669.msg9762#msg9762 date=1288820931]

Does anyone agree with my definition of Paganism? Do you believe that a Pagan is someone who calls him/herself a Pagan?

How do you define a Pagan?
[/quote]

IMO:
A pagan is someone that acknowledges themselves as such and follows one (or a combination of more than one) of many distinct spiritual paths (or creates their own) under the Pagan umbrella which often incorporates the practice of some form of earth-centered and/or polytheistic, religious or spiritual path(s) that generally (but not always) incorporates the use of ritual and/or magic(k) that may either be inspired by a reconstruction of, or an eclectic mix of one or multiple pre-Christian pagan faiths and other pagan religions such as Buddhism, Hindu, etc.

[Orion Guardian-Elm]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=thalassa link=topic=669.msg9770#msg9770 date=1288822729]
IMO:
A pagan is someone that acknowledges themselves as such and follows one (or a combination of more than one) of many distinct spiritual paths (or creates their own) under the Pagan umbrella which often incorporates the practice of some form of earth-centered and/or polytheistic, religious or spiritual path(s) that generally (but not always) incorporates the use of ritual and/or magic(k) that may either be inspired by a reconstruction of, or an eclectic mix of one or multiple pre-Christian pagan faiths and other pagan religions such as Buddhism, Hindu, etc.
[/quote]

I would definately agree that most Pagans fall under one of the above categories, though I have encountered a number of Pagans before who do not actually consider themselves religious nor spiritual, rather seeing their practice of Paganism as more of a lifestyle. There are also a number of atheistic, or secular Pagans: www.spiralgoddess.com/SecularPaganism.html

I do consider myself religious personally, and I am theistic, however for a while I was probably what could have been considered an atheistic Pagan. I have also been in an Eclectic Pagan group with a number of irreligious Pagan witches in the past.

[Orion Guardian-Elm]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=B. de Corbin link=topic=669.msg9764#msg9764 date=1288821256]
I agree. My opinion would be a repetition of what you said.


[/quote]

Thanks ;D

[thalassa]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=Orion Guardian-Elm link=topic=669.msg9785#msg9785 date=1288827740]
I do consider myself religious personally, and I am theistic, however for a while I was probably what could have been considered an atheistic Pagan. I have also been in an Eclectic Pagan group with a number of irreligious Pagan witches in the past.
[/quote]

I don't consider being atheistic or non-religious/spiritual to not fit into that...in my experience those individuals fill the idea of deity in the literal sense with some form of pantheistic belief, or other equivalent (including myself).

[magusphredde]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

I am a Jimist ... I believe in me ... I am responsible for what I do ... And if I don't like what I do I send myself to my room for a time out ...

[ThorsSon]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

The word "pagan" is from the root word "paganis," which is Latin for "country dweller."... so... originally, the word was very much the equivalent of "hick," "redneck," "hillbilly," and the like. However, when Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion of Rome, the cities were the first to convert, leaving the country dwellers behind, worshiping the old gods. As such, the paganis, still holding on to the old gods, became synonymous with "not Christian." Over the years, the word has come to encapsulate anyone not of Abrahamic faith (ie, not Christian, Jewish or Muslim). There are those that further constrain the word to exclude certain other faiths... but, in all honesty, "pagan" is a derivative of "paganis" which means "country dweller," and came to mean "Not Christian." Now, that initial change of meaning, was directed toward those who followed the Roman gods, much as the word Heathen was directed at those who follow the Germanic gods... so.. technically, I would define "pagan" as a follower of the Roman gods... but, more modernly, I would define it as any follower of a non-Abrahamic religion.

signed,
The Redneck (paganis) Heathen

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

Really? I have to disagree with the consensus here.

The thing is, Paganism is most often used as a shortened term for the Neopagan Movement. And really? Outside of our small community, it recalls the painful history of colonialism. Imho, it reeks of trying to get older, more established religions on the bandwagon with this New Religious Movement. Defining Paganism relative to the Abrahamic Tradition binds us to forever be defined by Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and their derivatives. As a result, except for some of the more "leading edge" of Cultural Anthropologists many in the discipline take our Neopagan Movement to be simply a revival within Christianity.

And Really? When you look at the history of Wicca, all of this is a revival of medieval christian mysticism under a different banner. Chaos Magic went a different direction than Wicca when branching off of Thelema, but that shared source is a part of why I feel comfortable here.

As much as I dislike this blog for what I perceive as alarmist tendencies, the writer does occasionally have access to real info. http://wildhunt.org/blog/2009/12/aft...hos-a-nrm.html
The thing is, when Neopagans interact with the world's other religions where they haven't heard of us all, they use a different term - "European Indigenous Traditions" - which points to what the real root is. We can build from there to include pre-Christian Middle Eastern religions, as would include Kemetic, Babylonian, and Mesopotamian Reconstructionists.

Buddism, Hinduism, Shinto, Taoism, Native American Religions, and the Australian Aborigines Tradition all existed before our little movement. Roman Popes used the word "Pagan" as a slur against anyone who wasn't Jewish or Christian. Occasionally, Heretics earned the title of "pagan," as a way to demoralize them and rally the troops. During the Crusades, the label was applied to Islam.

If we wish to reclaim the word "Pagan", that's our business. But to try lump the rest of the world's religions on that bandwagon with us, without really consulting any of their practitioners but a few immigrants to the US and Europe? That strikes me as the worst sort of arrogance, which also shows a deep-seeded resentment against Christianity.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=AzazelEblis link=topic=669.msg11241#msg11241 date=1289333269]
Really? I have to disagree with the consensus here.
[/quote]

Which definition, in particular, do you disagree with?

After rereading the thread I still don't see opposition to what your claim of the word "Pagan" means. Granted, you toss in the semantics of Neopaganism and regional mythologies which is a fair deviation, to find better accuracy in certain regards. It just seems like you've verified what everyone else has been saying, all along, here. We all define the word, ourselves, in terms of religion. The only exception is the etymology of the word and you obviously don't mean to disagree with that, do you?

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=ThorsSon link=topic=669.msg10146#msg10146 date=1288947358]
[...]technically, I would define "pagan" as a follower of the Roman gods... but, more modernly, I would define it as any follower of a non-Abrahamic religion.
[/quote]
[quote author=thalassa link=topic=669.msg9770#msg9770 date=1288822729]
IMO:
A pagan is someone that acknowledges themselves as such and follows one (or a combination of more than one) of many distinct spiritual paths (or creates their own) under the Pagan umbrella which often incorporates the practice of some form of earth-centered and/or polytheistic, religious or spiritual path(s) that generally (but not always) incorporates the use of ritual and/or magic(k) that may either be inspired by a reconstruction of, or an eclectic mix of one or multiple pre-Christian pagan faiths and other pagan religions such as Buddhism, Hindu, etc. [/quote]
I hoped to address these posts, and to a lesser extent, the OP. We do need reasoned limits: when we get either too inclusive or exclusive, we lose out on what *this* is actually supposed to be about.

For the record, eclectics get awkward imho, unless they follow all or mostly deities or ideas that fall under the umbrella of my aforementioned definition of "pagan". I'm not even sure how to address the atheist or lifestyle pagans, but prematurely I don't see how that's necessarily even a religion; therefore, I don't see how they can take part in a religious movement.

[Talyn]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=Orion Guardian-Elm link=topic=669.msg9762#msg9762 date=1288820931]

Does anyone agree with my definition of Paganism? Do you believe that a Pagan is someone who calls him/herself a Pagan?

How do you define a Pagan?
[/quote]

I agree with the OP that a Pagan is someone who identifies as a Pagan. I mean, the word has changed a lot, so it's mostly just depends on who identifies that way, now.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=AzazelEblis link=topic=669.msg11679#msg11679 date=1289426178]I hoped to address these posts, and to a lesser extent, the OP. We do need reasoned limits: when we get either too inclusive or exclusive, we lose out on what *this* is actually supposed to be about.[/quote]

So, by your definition, since you are basing it on the Wiccan movement, and the Asatru, Irminsul and Odinist movements came about independent of Wicca, while the Theodish Heathens DID spring from the Wiccan movement; you would classify Theods as Pagans, but not other Heathens?

It seems to be a very odd place to draw the line, to me... not all that problematic to me, since I feel much more comfortable with the word Heathen than Pagan... but I don't think that you can get very far with the argument that Heathenry isn't a form of Paganism.

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=ThorsSon link=topic=669.msg11839#msg11839 date=1289460602]
So, by your definition, since you are basing it on the Wiccan movement, and the Asatru, Irminsul and Odinist movements came about independent of Wicca, while the Theodish Heathens DID spring from the Wiccan movement; you would classify Theods as Pagans, but not other Heathens?

It seems to be a very odd place to draw the line, to me... not all that problematic to me, since I feel much more comfortable with the word Heathen than Pagan... but I don't think that you can get very far with the argument that Heathenry isn't a form of Paganism.
[/quote]The thing is, much of the reconstructionist movement within paganism came about as a direct reaction to the "anything goes" attitude about Paganism that many cite in Margot Alder's book, Drawing Down the Moon. While more accurate and authentic, they seem to have began with that in mind to directly counter the heavy eclecticism and overuse of Unverified Personal Gnosis found in the Pagan community before such groups emphasis on authenticity.

While this does not leave these groups as true "descendants" of the Wiccan ideology, they do form a counterbalance to it within the Neopagan Movement. Thus, they must be included. I would actually argue that they need emphasis, since Neopaganism's emphasis is on the faiths of the European's Pre-Christian ancestors, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the extinct faiths of the rest of the Middle East. Even Wicca initially wrapped itself in this emphasis.

ThorsSon, you more than almost anyone else in this conversation are a textbook example of what I consider Paganism. So too is someone who worships predominately or exclusively the old gods of Europe, Mesopotamia, Egypt,etc. Whether they do so in the most authentically reconstructed methods possible, or in a more eclectic manner (mostly because of Wicca's influence) almost becomes immaterial since we must include all that has become of Wicca.


So, if you worship a wide collection of Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, and Taoist deities, but happen to throw in Hermes too... well, I happen to think you're just eclectic, but not necessarily a "Pagan" eclectic. There has to be a base of something from pre-Christian Europe, or something Wiccan that isn't just as easily attributed to the "New Age" community or some other source.


The occasional Hindu might decide to say they're "Pagan", because you include Hinduism in a definition based on Polytheism. But for every one of those you find, I can guarantee there are at least a thousand Hindus that say that the whole world is Hindu, regardless of their faith. This frustrated Christian Missionaries in India to no end, when they saw their Christ interpreted often as an avatar of Vishnu or Shiva, and their bible placed right alongside Vedic scriptures.