Defining "Pagan"

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

Occasionally you still come across groups or people that try to use the descriptions that Issac Bonewits set up.

Hinduism (prior to the influx of Islam into India), Taoism and ShintoRosicrucianism, Theosophy, Spiritualism, etc., as well as those forms of Druidism influenced by those movements, the many Afro-Diasporatic faiths (such as Voudoun, Santeria, Candomble, etc.), Sikhism, several sects of Hinduism that have been influenced by Islam and Christianity, Mahayana BuddhismThelemaSecular Humanistscore Neopagan beliefs include a multiplicity of deities of all genders, a perception of those deities as both immanent and transcendent, a commitment to environmental awareness, and a willingness to perform magical as well as spiritual rituals to help both ourselves and others. Examples of Neopaganism would include the Church of All Worlds, most heterodox Wiccan traditions, Druidism as practiced by and the Henge of Keltria,Church of All Worlds.

http://www.neopagan.net/PaganDefs.html

[ThorsSon]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

The Pagans are the rivals of the Hell's Angels.

[thalassa]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

Personally I define Neo Paganism as any religion that is not Judeo-Christian and does not have historical roots. This means that I include Wicca, Druidism, etc under the Neo Pagan banner. So by that logic Wicca is both pagan and Neo Pagan but Hellenism is only pagan.

The problem with this is that Wicca and Druidism DO have historic roots. Don't get me wrong, they aren't histoical reproductions of an ancient belief system (though some forms of Druidry make the attempt), but that doesn't mean that they didn't attempt to take their inspiration from what they thought at the time was legitimate historical beliefs, and then sort of fill in with what was known about other magical and occult systems. How much history does something need to be historical?

Personally, I consider everyone practicing anything today that descends from a pre-Christian religious tradition or takes its inspiration from there to be practicing a form of contemporary Paganism (I ain't in the matrix, I reject the neo ). Ancient cultures are also pagan, but their attempts to revive them are Pagan. I don't care how much effort someone puts into research and accuracy, its impossible to fully recreate an ancient practice--#1) we aren't the ancients, no matter how we try, we don't have their values and their beliefs as they had them...its hella impossible because part of a culture, a society, and an individual's formation is their collective history (I've learned this very well from participating in Civil War reenacting) and #2 there are too many gaps, and there always will be.

Religions naturally evolve...reconstructed religions have been denied that evolution--they are not the same as the ancient pagan religion (and trying to get them as close as possible in a modern context is an endless and ongoing process) and I doubt they are anywhere close to where the religion would be if it had been allowed to remain and evolve. A reconstructed religon is still a modern convention.

[Malflick]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

The problem with this is that Wicca and Druidism DO have historic roots. Don't get me wrong, they aren't histoical reproductions of an ancient belief system (though some forms of Druidry make the attempt), but that doesn't mean that they didn't attempt to take their inspiration from what they thought at the time was legitimate historical beliefs, and then sort of fill in with what was known about other magical and occult systems. How much history does something need to be historical?

Personally, I consider everyone practicing anything today that descends from a pre-Christian religious tradition or takes its inspiration from there to be practicing a form of contemporary Paganism (I ain't in the matrix, I reject the neo ). Ancient cultures are also pagan, but their attempts to revive them are Pagan. I don't care how much effort someone puts into research and accuracy, its impossible to fully recreate an ancient practice--#1) we aren't the ancients, no matter how we try, we don't have their values and their beliefs as they had them...its hella impossible because part of a culture, a society, and an individual's formation is their collective history (I've learned this very well from participating in Civil War reenacting) and #2 there are too many gaps, and there always will be.

Religions naturally evolve...reconstructed religions have been denied that evolution--they are not the same as the ancient pagan religion (and trying to get them as close as possible in a modern context is an endless and ongoing process) and I doubt they are anywhere close to where the religion would be if it had been allowed to remain and evolve. A reconstructed religon is still a modern convention.

I don't think Zoroastrians would call themselves Pagan though, and they're one of the oldest religions around.

[thalassa]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

I don't think Zoroastrians would call themselves Pagan though, and they're one of the oldest religions around.

And they shouldn't---they haven't had the break in their timeline that the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc religions did. Now, they could (by virtue of being non-Abrahamic) be considered (little 'p') pagan in origin, but I personally don't consider Hinduism, etc to be pagan either...even though those religions have elements that can be fit into (big 'P') Pagan religious practices. Basically, I reject the idea that non-Abrahamic is enough to be 'pagan' or 'Pagan'---Pagan (as with a number of terms) is a polythetic definition as opposed to a monothetic one.

[Malflick]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

And they shouldn't---they haven't had the break in their timeline that the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc religions did. Now, they could (by virtue of being non-Abrahamic) be considered (little 'p') pagan in origin, but I personally don't consider Hinduism, etc to be pagan either...even though those religions have elements that can be fit into (big 'P') Pagan religious practices. Basically, I reject the idea that non-Abrahamic is enough to be 'pagan' or 'Pagan'---Pagan (as with a number of terms) is a polythetic definition as opposed to a monothetic one.

Got it, that answers my question quite well, and makes a good deal of sense.

[Erika]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

I tend to agree: defining a group by what it's not doesn't sit very well with me. On the other hand, it can be difficult to define what Paganism is and is not, so I understand why that's a go-to definition. However, I think a better, if not perfect, definition would be that someone/group that defines theirself as being Pagan, is. Not a perfect way to explain it, by any means, but I prefer it, if only because it's a definition of what is, rather than what isn't.

[Wonderland]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

To me, "Pagan" means any spiritual belief/path or person who is not classified under an Abrahamic belief/religion.

In other words, you would have Christianity, Islam and Judaism (along with their respective ramifications) under one column and everything else under another. There are exceptions like Atheism that don't fall in either column because of their lack of spiritual belief but are still regarded as Pagans by some.

[Malflick]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

To me, "Pagan" means any spiritual belief/path or person who is not classified under an Abrahamic belief/religion.

In other words, you would have Christianity, Islam and Judaism (along with their respective ramifications) under one column and everything else under another. There are exceptions like Atheism that don't fall in either column because of their lack of spiritual belief but are still regarded as Pagans by some.

What about non-Abrahamic Monotheistic religions like Zoroastrianism and Sikhism? They would balk pretty handily at being labeled Pagan, Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest religions of all time, and has for a very long time made a distinction between itself and Pagan religions, yet is non-Abrahamic.


(aside: also, Baha'i is also an Abrahamic religion, its just the smallest of the 4 branches so people forget about it)

[Wonderland]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

What about non-Abrahamic Monotheistic religions like Zoroastrianism and Sikhism? They would balk pretty handily at being labeled Pagan, Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest religions of all time, and has for a very long time made a distinction between itself and Pagan religions, yet is non-Abrahamic.


(aside: also, Baha'i is also an Abrahamic religion, its just the smallest of the 4 branches so people forget about it)

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "everything else". The are religions/beliefs that certainly do not fall under any category (like the ones you stated). Not everything has to be categorized anyway, it just makes it easier to explain.

[ethelwulf]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

Pagan is clearly a diverse religion, but all pagans still share some features which made them want to be pagan. Defining what you are not still does not clarify what you are. From all of the different types of Pagan faith I have found they have at least these three things in common even if in different degrees.
1. Nature centered religion
a. Divine knowledge comes from nature which includes the world we see as well as the spirit world.
b. Practicing paganism is often done in nature - at sacred trees springs and wells as examples
c. Pagans live in harmony with the cycles of nature celebrating special days connected with the sun and moon.
2. Polytheistic with both female and male deities.
a. Female deities are as important as Male deities so Pagans worship the Goddess as well as the God
b. The number of gods may vary in number and the gods/goddesses may be seen as more abstract or very concrete but there is not just one male god as in Abrahamic relgions
3. Celebrates the mystery of life.
a. The Pagan religion has no problem accepting science because science is the study of nature. But there are many things that science cannot explain (at least yet) which is celebrated in the Pagan faith whether you use magic, journey into the spirit world or study the mysteries of life.
b. Pagans have a sense of wonder about our universe and nature enjoy it’s mysteries

These are but some of the things which pagans have in common but also have many things that make them different. What is good about paganism is that it is tolerant of diversity allowing for self-expression rather than conforming to one and only one way to believe.
Other important aspects of the Pagan Religion but not necessarily found in all types are
1. Ancestry
2. Return pre-Christian practices
3. Shamanism
4. Use of sacred plants
5. Personal experience for knowledge overdivine doctrine as the main source
6. Preforming rituals to honor thegods/goddesses and or nature.
7. Many other practices of personalimportance which help self-expression.
These are my thoughts on defining Pagan.

[thalassa]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

From all of the different types of Pagan faith I have found they have at least these three things in common even if in different degrees.

While I would disagree slightly with the top half here (that all Pagan religions fall into all three categories)...I definately agree with your approach in general.

This is exactly what is known as a polythetic defintion---its where there is a list of criteria, sort of like a checklist, where different (overlapping) criteria are shared by a group of things, but not all of them will fit every single item on the list. Basically, its a definition based on familial resemblance, rather than a single critera. There are actually a number of concepts that fall into this--religion as a whole, games, cancer, species, etc.

[ethelwulf]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

I appreciate the comments. It is clearly hard to define Pagan because it has been changing with time. There is tremendous diversity which I feel is good, and a welcome alternative to the rigid religions that currently dominate. The problem with to much diversity is a loss of connection with each other and I have seen arguments to divide pagans. One is a the idea of a hard or soft pagan. The problem with these types of words is that they can carry implied meanings which people have used suggest one type may be more correct than another. There is a reason we have all connected with the pagan religion and there are common aspects that do connect us. The three aspects I mention first happen to be three that I feel most pagans can identify with. There may be other aspects to the Pagan religion but Nature seems central to most Pagans if have known. Pagans see the goddess as well as the god which is different than majority religions. The mysteries of the world are seen as a positive aspect to Pagans as apposed to something to be feared by or distrusted as many from the Christian/Judaism/Islamic faiths. I would like to hear more of what we have in common as well as learn how we see things differently.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

I appreciate the comments. It is clearly hard to define Pagan because it has been changing with time. There is tremendous diversity which I feel is good, and a welcome alternative to the rigid religions that currently dominate. The problem with to much diversity is a loss of connection with each other and I have seen arguments to divide pagans. One is a the idea of a hard or soft pagan. The problem with these types of words is that they can carry implied meanings which people have used suggest one type may be more correct than another. There is a reason we have all connected with the pagan religion and there are common aspects that do connect us. The three aspects I mention first happen to be three that I feel most pagans can identify with. There may be other aspects to the Pagan religion but Nature seems central to most Pagans if have known. Pagans see the goddess as well as the god which is different than majority religions. The mysteries of the world are seen as a positive aspect to Pagans as apposed to something to be feared by or distrusted as many from the Christian/Judaism/Islamic faiths. I would like to hear more of what we have in common as well as learn how we see things differently.

You do know that there is no such thing as "the pagan religion," right? "Pagan" isn't even a religion. It is a category that groups many different religions.
There are dozens (if not hundreds) of different religions that all fit inside the category called, "pagan."
And "pagan" is defined, mostly, by what it is not, more than what it is... and, as this thread (and every previous attempt) has shown, there are about as many different definitions of what "pagan" means as there are pagans.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Defining "Pagan"

You do know that there is no such thing as "the pagan religion," right? "Pagan" isn't even a religion. It is a category that groups many different religions.
There are dozens (if not hundreds) of different religions that all fit inside the category called, "pagan."
And "pagan" is defined, mostly, by what it is not, more than what it is... and, as this thread (and every previous attempt) has shown, there are about as many different definitions of what "pagan" means as there are pagans.

The bad part is that Pagan and Paganism have come to be recognized by many as a religion vice simply an umbrella term. It seems to be part and parcel to the pick and choose creation of ones spiritual / religious beliefs that mark paganism today. In many ways it's like "Shamanism" is being seen as a religion / spiritual pathway as well vice it's normal belief of being a way of life that incorporates the spiritual / religious beliefs of the people and serves as an extra facet of understanding the divine and its influence.

Even to the point of using the capital or lower case P to reflect P = religion / spiritual pathway while p = umbrella term. I'm sure you already knew that but sometimes I think it just needs to be repeated. Have to admit I have difficulty when people claim pagan = religion / spiritual vice a collective umbrella term but hey the times they are a changing as the song says.