Defining "Pagan"

[Dez]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=AzazelEblis link=topic=669.msg12522#msg12522 date=1289600723]
Well chain, since you've started editing language, I guess ya might wanna follow through here too. :-\
[/quote]

I edited your post, Azazel...if you have a beef, please take it up with me.

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=thalassa link=topic=669.msg12539#msg12539 date=1289604354]
What would you call an indigenous tradition to a group of Native Americans? What would you call the indigenous tradition of a group of ANY indigenous peoples? If someone, 1000 years from now came and said they were recreating some religion of some people that have since lost such traditions or died out or something...no matter how carefully (or not) they might be trying to recreate such an idea...do you REALLY think you can still call it an indigenous tradition?

Because I don't. THAT is why I think the lineage aspect is important. Someone reconstructing a European Indigenous Tradition is reconstructing that tradition and practicing a reconstruction of it, they aren't practicing it itself And someone that is loosely inspired by the mythology or culture of some European Indigenous Tradition is even further from practicing that European Indigenous Tradition. [/quote]
Firstly, Native Americans already have a defined, self-explanatory label for their indigenous religions - Native American Religions. Its that simple. And plenty of them are trying to reconstruct the religion that has been lost. There aren't any written records, and the US has so vigorously tried to kill off that culture and absorb the people into its own society, never mind conquistadors in the states which used to be a part of Mexico. So, much of the Native American Traditions have been lost.

The Native American Church is a wonderful example of an eclectic, reconstructionist Native American Religion, which formed in the United States of America. Maize and Peyote are considered to be a part of a sacred, yearly cycle in which the practitioners of the religion participate. This movement spans tribal boundaries, even past where those practices were indigenous to. This religion holds on to iconography from the Native religions, but cannot be demonstrated to be the religion of any particular tribe - yet, it is still a Native American Religion attempting to pull from those tribal religions, and calling to the peoples who were indigenous to this land.

I would compare this Native American Church with many of the Druid groups in the Neopagan movement that do not accurately rebuild even what has been known for a while about the Celtic faith. If you can forgive me for throwing my own musings in, I would say that complete accuracy doesn't seem to be the point of those groups, but more of building something that a group of varyingly dejected people can believe in.

Then again, we can also observe that a lot of those same druid groups pull from the eclectic attitude of Wicca, which I took pains to also include in my definition.
[quote author=thalassa link=topic=669.msg12539#msg12539 date=1289604354]
I do historical reenactment. No matter how authentic my gear, no matter how much I read about the time period, no matter how much I put myself in the shoes of en educated middle class woman during the 1860's---I've driven a car, I brush my teeth every day, and I've never been considered inferior to a man, I've never seen a slave...in short, I've never lived in that society, in that time or place. No matter how much I *know*, I am not portraying an accurate picture of a woman in the 1860's--because it is a physical impossibility.
[/quote]And to this I say:

I love Anthropologists for the fact that it is their job to piece things together, and even do a sort of reenacting where there are no records. Because of Archaeologists, historians, and Folklorists we have some good ideas about what people in Europe believed before Christianity - whether from ancient books, modern fables, or from items out of the dirt.

Experimental Archaeologists form an integral part of this pursuit of knowledge. They're the guys who, without any guidance from a teacher, replicate the material culture from a given group. Tools, ritual items, toys... you name it, they go out into the woods (or whatever landscape applies), gather materials, build and use what we've found evidence of. While they can't talk to, or even observe someone from that extinct culture anymore, these people do their best to try to relive what has been found of them. Some of these people even revive the use of long extinct hunting tools, finding practicality, proficiency, and efficiency in their use even after the "experiment" is over. These folks usually pass on their knowledge with these tools.

Can we reconstruct it all? Nope, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best. That's why 60% of a skeleton is a complete skeleton in Archaeology. If we add some other bones from another skeleton for context, we no longer have a single skeleton, but something new. But that collection of bones from more than one skeleton at least could fill more of the role of a skeleton. What a Recon doesn't have, or simply cannot reproduce has to be supplemented with either material from a linguistically-related group, or modern constructs. Wicca's eclecticism forms a ready-made collection of supplemental culture for many, but not all recon groups.

But, as it turns out, that label of "European Indigenous Traditions" just turns out to be a more precise way to define a subset of the group we call "Pagan" or "Neopagan". Anyone with an education should know better than to think it's an unbroken continuation of the original.




Edit: My bad, didn't mean to blame Chain for something he didn't do. But my implied point about fairness still stands, DR.

[Dez]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=AzazelEblis link=topic=669.msg12551#msg12551 date=1289607771]
Edit: My bad, didn't mean to blame Chain for something he didn't do. But my implied point about fairness still stands, DR.
[/quote]

My implied point still stands, too. Damn is not in the same league as the F-word, particularly on a forum that includes children as young as 13 or 14. It doesn't matter who it was...I would have edited it.

Edit to add: Also, I've read three pages of this and I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what you're offended about, Azazel, besides a sarcastic and self-deprecating remark from Thalassa. By the end of your last post, it sounds for all the world as though you're both saying the same thing, just coming at it from two different directions, with you deciding to be offended.

Let's everyone take a deep breath, please.

[thalassa]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=AzazelEblis link=topic=669.msg12551#msg12551 date=1289607771]
But, as it turns out, that label of "European Indigenous Traditions" just turns out to be a more precise way to define a subset of the group we call "Pagan" or "Neopagan". Anyone with an education should know better than to think it's an unbroken continuation of the original.
[/quote]

Actually, I thought you were using the term "European Indigenous Tradition" as a stand in for "Paganism", not that you were meaning it for a stand-in for "reconstructionism".

[ChainLightning]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

I don't really care. This about the 17th incarnation of the great "Define: Pagan" debate. They always turn from a simple sharing of opinions into a knock down, drag out johnny-brook.

There IS no one definition of "Pagan". Get over it! Whether it's a bastardized set of beliefs or an original system, by it's original peoples, or a slur or any other use of the word. Fighting about who is right, who knows more or who is most offended by the butchery called Eclecticism, is all completely pointless.

POINTLESS.

This thread is now moved to debates. Use some sources to back up claims of what Pagan means? Or what being a Pagan consists of? There are none, that agree. Ten pagans in a room and a dozen opposing opinions, is all you get.

[AzazelEblis]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

[quote author=thalassa link=topic=669.msg12560#msg12560 date=1289608554]
Actually, I thought you were using the term "European Indigenous Tradition" as a stand in for "Paganism", not that you were meaning it for a stand-in for "reconstructionism".
[/quote]Yeah, my bad for not explicitly including Wicca and eclectics in my first post. But, I did make it a point to include them through my discussion with Chain.


[quote author=ChainLightning link=topic=669.msg12566#msg12566 date=1289609112]
This thread is now moved to debates. Use some sources to back up claims of what Pagan means? Or what being a Pagan consists of? There are none, that agree. Ten pagans in a room and a dozen opposing opinions, is all you get.
[/quote]True. But you can at least get some vague similarities between at least a couple of 'em. A few of those similarities may even have a basis in reality.

[ChainLightning]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

I'd have to urge caution, though, in assuming a realism/reality, in basis only, for any number. Regardless of how many people were crammed in the room.

On that same token, however, I completely, 100% understand that each and every one of those people, packed into the room like sardines, ALL believe their own reality. Which, if you think about it, brings us right back to the OP.

We each have our own reality, our own definition of the word "Pagan" (capital 'p&#039, some of us even have separate definitions for the words "pagan", neo-pagan, Neo-Pagan, Recon, etc., etc., etc... that are only peripherally related, at best, and etymologically related at worst.

[newgirl24]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

This is so much like many "define Christian" debates I've been in. :P

It's interesting that Pagans can be just as stingy with the title as (some) Christians can be.

I guess that I thought Paganism went hand in hand with open-mindedness and individuality.

I'm Pagan, because I said so... so there! ;D

[Bjorn]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

For me, "pagan" is pretty cut and dry.

It is an umbrella term that refers to a follower of any pre-Abrahamic religion, or neo form of a religion. Largely the pagan paths are earth based but not all are, nor do they have to be.

[davidabraham]

Re: Pagan 101

A Pagan is a person who believes that everything has a soul or spirit. This is called Animism, and all Pagan religions share this belief in common. Rivers, animals, rocks, trees, land are all filled with there own unique spirits for people who are Pagans. Traditionally, Christians believe that only humans have souls or spirits.


Thanks
David.


*mod note: this and the following post have been moved from this thread*

[Crimson Horizons]

Re: Re: Pagan 101

[quote author=davidabraham link=topic=37.msg13482#msg13482 date=1289857287]
A Pagan is a person who believes that everything has a soul or spirit. This is called Animism, and all Pagan religions share this belief in common. Rivers, animals, rocks, trees, land are all filled with there own unique spirits for people who are Pagans. Traditionally, Christians believe that only humans have souls or spirits.


Thanks
David.
[/quote]

Wow. David, did you even bother to read the rest of the thread before you posted? From what I know about several different "pagan" paths, not only is Animism not universal, it is practiced only by a minority of pagans.

[thalassa]

Re: Re: Pagan 101

[quote author=Crimson Horizons link=topic=37.msg13523#msg13523 date=1289864012]
Wow. David, did you even bother to read the rest of the thread before you posted? From what I know about several different "pagan" paths, not only is Animism not universal, it is practiced only by a minority of pagans.
[/quote]

for this reason...and some others...I think I'll move this to the Defining Pagan debate.

done.

[Crimson Horizons]

Re: Re: Pagan 101

[quote author=thalassa link=topic=669.msg13575#msg13575 date=1289876279]
for this reason...and some others...I think I'll move this to the Defining Pagan debate.

done.
[/quote]

Erm, thanks? And here I thought I was going to stay out of the "Defining Pagan" debate this time around. Guess not...

[thalassa]

Re: Re: Pagan 101

[quote author=Crimson Horizons link=topic=669.msg13589#msg13589 date=1289878969]
Erm, thanks? And here I thought I was going to stay out of the "Defining Pagan" debate this time around. Guess not...
[/quote]

lol, sorry about that!

I would have just moved his comment...but I didn't want you to wonder where yours went to!

[Crimson Horizons]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

No worries. My comment is just out of place now (or, more accurately, David's is more acceptable, since this thread has been more about personal definitions of pagan).