Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are we taken seriously?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Re: Are we taken seriously?

    Originally posted by Porpoise View Post
    Presumably there are some things which all pagans agree on? Or some basic common principles?

    ALL Pagans, no. Some basic common principles? Yes, if you call them "characteristics" instead. But...it comes under the polythetic classification thing again (which I might add is a perfectly valid way of defining things and is used for a number of concepts from cancer to species to games to religion in general). A polythetic definition is one that (for lack of a better simple answer) works like a checklist. If you compare one tradition directly to another, they might not have any checked boxes in common, but when you look at multiple Pagan traditions, A will overlap with E which overlaps with C, which overlaps with B and D, where D overlaps with A. It helps if you look at Paganism as a group of Paganisms, rather than as one distinct unified tradition. The problem with this is that *people are stupid* and don't think this way--we think in monolithic definitions and dualisms. I tend to think that it is easy for Western societies to truly think pluralistically or polythetically, its something you have to relearn (kids are actually really good at learning this, if you catch them early)...our system of learning, world view, and body of knowledge has tended to discourage this sort of thinking.

    Characteristics of Pagan traditions (this is by no means a comprehensive list, and in no particular order):
    Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
    sigpic

    Comment


      #62
      Re: Are we taken seriously?

      Originally posted by thalassa View Post
      It helps if you look at Paganism as a group of Paganisms, rather than as one distinct unified tradition. The problem with this is that *people are stupid* and don't think this way--we think in monolithic definitions and dualisms.
      Characteristics of Pagan traditions (this is by no means a comprehensive list, and in no particular order):
      Yes, having been involved in a Dharmic tradition for a long time I've grown used to plurality and diversity, but it took a while to come to terms with this.

      An interesting check-list, these are the ones I wouldn't currently "tick", which presumably means I would be seen as a naturalistic pagan:

      --an imminent view of sacredness (AKA the material is divine)
      --importance of ritual as a tool for worship and/or ecstasy to connect ourselves with the sacredness in the world
      --use of food and drink, as well as music and dance used as a link between man and gods/spirits
      --use of magic as a method of empowerment and agency
      --concerned with forming and maintaining relationships with the Gods, ancestors, and spirits

      ( though I can get quite religious about ice-cream )
      Last edited by Spiny Norman; 09 Dec 2015, 06:17.
      Once a man, like the sea I raged;
      Once a woman, like the earth I gave;
      And there is in fact more earth than sea.
      Genesis lyric

      Comment


        #63
        Re: Are we taken seriously?

        I had no idea how interesting this thread would become when I started it. Thanks everyone for your contribution. (And btw just to make everything clear: I made this thread out of interest. I haven't been insulted by anyone or that pic I posted in the beginning.)

        IMHO it would really be a good idea to work on those common Pagan characteristics, even if we didn't share them all. It does seem a bit like we're sometimes just a bunch of people who yell "we're/I'm different!" and leave it there. And in that case it's only reasonable to not take someone seriously. When we talk about religious dialogue (even between Pagans themselves) there is already enough separation.
        baah.

        Comment


          #64
          Re: Are we taken seriously?

          Originally posted by thalassa View Post
          Some basic common principles? Yes, if you call them "characteristics" instead. But...it comes under the polythetic classification thing again. ... It helps if you look at Paganism as a group of Paganisms, rather than as one distinct unified tradition.
          That sums it up very nicely! But it does strike me that all Pagans actually have more in common than all Christians. I remember a survey that showed 25% of US fundamentalists believed all Roman Catholics were going to hell: evidently they didn't see themselves as practicing the same religion.

          Characteristics of Pagan traditions
          I was pleasantly surprised to see how much we agree here. The only comments I'd make are:

          -- Connection to ancient indigenous Indo-European religions and related pre-Christian religions originating in the ancient world, either thru reconstruction, revival, or loose inspiration
          One must also include modern non-Christian religions. Anyone practicing Shinto or an African religion is a Pagan. Perhaps "Connection to religions which evolved naturally without being created by one or more charismatic leaders ..."

          -- Pluralistic view of Deity, polytheistic (whether literally or figuratively, in belief or in practice)
          This is a bit problematic. Many say that those who regard deities as archetypes are monotheists or atheists, and certainly not Pagans. Such a belief doesn't characterise any ethnic religion.

          -- view humans as non-privileged part of an interconnected more-than-human community of beings
          The "non-privileged" part would not be accepted by many, such as most African religions and many Native American ones.

          Comment


            #65
            Re: Are we taken seriously?

            David not everyone agrees on that. There are many, including myself, that would say "pagan" is exclusive from Europe to India, largely because of the influence of the Roman Empire and ultimately, the creeping influence of Christianity. I wouldn't say that religions of Shintoism or in fact any religions of the "Far East" constitute pagan on the basis that these people never were pagani, they were everywhere, in the cities, in the palaces, etc. There is the assumption that the beliefs were marginalized by the empires who spoke Latin or Latin-influenced languages. The practices of the Druids, the Heathens, the "Celts" (shudders), were all pagans on this basis. African, Asian, South American religions, I would not call these pagans for the reason mentioned above. I understand you may have a different view but to say you must include religions that would never have been referred to as "pagan religions" is a little presuming, in my opinion.
            I'm not one to ever pray for mercy
            Or to wish on pennies in the fountain or the shrine
            But that day you know I left my money
            And I thought of you only
            All that copper glowing fine

            Comment


              #66
              Re: Are we taken seriously?

              Originally posted by DavidMcCann View Post
              That sums it up very nicely! But it does strike me that all Pagans actually have more in common than all Christians. I remember a survey that showed 25% of US fundamentalists believed all Roman Catholics were going to hell: evidently they didn't see themselves as practicing the same religion.
              This is exactly one of the reasons why the "we are too diverse" debate among Pagans continues to depress me...it seems becoming Pagan isn't enough to stop thinking like Christian.

              I was pleasantly surprised to see how much we agree here.
              YAY!



              -- Connection to ancient indigenous Indo-European religions and related pre-Christian religions originating in the ancient world, either thru reconstruction, revival, or loose inspiration
              One must also include modern non-Christian religions. Anyone practicing Shinto or an African religion is a Pagan. Perhaps "Connection to religions which evolved naturally without being created by one or more charismatic leaders ..."
              I think this is definitely another bullet point for the list...but I think they need to be separate to address the divide between big-P Paganisms (that are generally proto-Indo-European in origin) and little-p paganisms that are just non-Abrahamic in origin.

              -- Pluralistic view of Deity, polytheistic (whether literally or figuratively, in belief or in practice)
              This is a bit problematic. Many say that those who regard deities as archetypes are monotheists or atheists, and certainly not Pagans. Such a belief doesn't characterise any ethnic religion.
              I would hope that anyone that has read Greek philosophy would know that at least one ancient pagan religion was not uniformly polytheistic, and that there was quite a bit of variety in *how* one believed in the gods. Monotheism also doesn't make Atenism any less pagan, unless one is restrictive in their definition of "pagan" as being hard polytheism.

              Whether or not one agrees with the idea that these people are Pagan isn't really the question here--its a simple reality that they call themselves Pagan, they participate in Pagan communities and events, they celebrate Pagan holidays and belong to Pagan organizations...if we don't have a creedal test for what makes a "real Pagan", then (IMO) a minor disagreement in dogma can't be held as a test of "true" Paganism.

              -- view humans as non-privileged part of an interconnected more-than-human community of beings
              The "non-privileged" part would not be accepted by many, such as most African religions and many Native American ones.
              True, there are a number of Pagan traditions that won't agree with this, but there are a number that will.

              TBH, this is the benefit of looking at things polythetically--not everyone has to check every box to be categorized in the same "family". The difference between defining something and classifying it (IMO) is that the first can be used in a way that is prescriptive (and ultimately restrictive)--you must be X to fit this, where as the latter is descriptive (and ultimately inclusive)--people that claim X are usually doing some combination of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, etc.
              Last edited by thalassa; 09 Dec 2015, 11:08.
              Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
              sigpic

              Comment


                #67
                Re: Are we taken seriously?

                IMHO it would really be a good idea to work on those common Pagan characteristics, even if we didn't share them all. It does seem a bit like we're sometimes just a bunch of people who yell "we're/I'm different!" and leave it there. And in that case it's only reasonable to not take someone seriously. When we talk about religious dialogue (even between Pagans themselves) there is already enough separation.
                Forums like this are probably quite useful.

                I've been involved in many similar discussions in a Buddhist context, around the definition of "Buddhist". The most pragmatic and inclusive answer we came up with is that it includes anyone who is doing some kind of Buddhist practice. In any case the reality is that if somebody self-identifies as "Buddhist" or "Pagan" or whatever then there is little point in telling them that they're not. What you can do is ask them what it means to them and then hopefully have a constructive discussion.

                - - - Updated - - -

                Originally posted by thalassa View Post
                Whether or not one agrees with the idea that these people are Pagan isn't really the question here--its a simple reality that they call themselves Pagan, they participate in Pagan communities and events, they celebrate Pagan holidays and belong to Pagan organizations...if we don't have a creedal test for what makes a "real Pagan", then (IMO) a minor disagreement in dogma can't be held as a test of "true" Paganism.
                Exactly. And telling colleagues in other parts of the same tradition that they aren't doing it properly often looks like sectarianism.
                Once a man, like the sea I raged;
                Once a woman, like the earth I gave;
                And there is in fact more earth than sea.
                Genesis lyric

                Comment

                Working...
                X