Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defining "Pagan"

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Re: Defining "Pagan"

    [quote author=Crimson Horizons link=topic=669.msg13595#msg13595 date=1289880152]
    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).
    [/quote]

    I, respectfully, beg to differ. Although personal gnosis is always a major component to how one defines things for themselves, where they find meaning, in any case, I still think your statement (regarding, but not limited to, Animism) is quite a bit more accurate and is best flagged as a reminder. Not every 'Pagan' is comfortable with every definition (or stereotype/nomenclature/what-have-you) that comes down the pipe. So, as this thread, and every thread we've ever had like it, continually displays: there's a TON of definitions, and hardly any two are even similar.


    Therefor:
    [quote author=Crimson Horizons link=topic=669.msg13523#msg13523 date=1289864012]
    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]

    ...might actually be something that all those in the debate may actually agree on!




    "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it." - Ayn Rand

    "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - Marcus Aurelius

    "The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice." - Mark Twain

    "The only gossip I'm interested in is things from the Weekly World News - 'Woman's bra bursts, 11 injured'. That kind of thing." - Johnny Depp


    Comment


      #47
      Re: Defining "Pagan"

      Pagan, a Definition:

      A first generation pagan is somebody who puts all the possibilities into a hat and then pulls out the ones he or she likes.

      After the first generation, a person either repeats the above, or follows whatever he/she was taught by someone else.
      Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.

      Comment


        #48
        Re: Defining "Pagan"

        Ok guys, this might seem a little convoluted, but I think I'm finally developing an idea of what I think "Pagan" really means.

        In theory, putting all of the possibilities into one hat and drawing out what you like is a method anyone could use to arrive at any religion. Someone might reflect on all possibilities, and just decide that Buddhism suits them best. Or they may regard all monotheistic religions as have a common truth in them, and still arrive at some personal spirituality that isn't pagan at all. I think pagans decide to call themselves pagans because they are trying to express a desire to disassociate (partially or completely) with the tenets found in Abrahamic religions.

        Nature worship is a very recognizeable way of taking that step away from Abrahamic faith in our culture. By common perception, embracing any other ideas that have pre-Christian inspiration is also a way to recognizably distance yourself from the tenets present in those three faiths, and so it's a common way. However, other people may choose to disassociate themselves from those tenets in other ways as well, and decide to call themselves pagan on those grounds instead.
        If you want to be thought intelligent, just agree with everyone.

        Comment


          #49
          Re: Defining "Pagan"

          [quote author=Yazichestvo link=topic=669.msg23049#msg23049 date=1292564085]
          ...However, other people may choose to disassociate themselves from those tenets in other ways as well, and decide to call themselves pagan on those grounds instead.
          [/quote]

          Yes - that would be me...
          Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.

          Comment


            #50
            Defining Paganism

            Hi all!

            I have been a pagan for a little while now (about three years) during which time I have studied various different paths including Wicca, Ceremonial Magick, Asatru, Odinism, and Druidry (and recently, Traditional (non-Wiccan) Witchcraft).

            One thing I've come to realise while studying paganism is that due to the vast diversity of different paths/traditions that fall under it's umbrella, paganism can be rather difficult to define. At least, it can be hard to find a definition that works for all who define themselves as pagan.

            When reading the "Pagan 101" thread on this site, I saw that it started with:


            What *is* a pagan?

            Well...one way to look at it is that it is anyone that calls themselves a pagan .


            I was wondering whether there are others here who agree with that definition? Would you agree that self-identification is all that is required to be a pagan?

            Comment


              #51
              Re: Defining Paganism

              Hello.

              I believe I mentioned in that thread that a pagan is, by the dictionary, anyone who is part of a belief system outside of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). But there are also, for example, Jewish reconstructionists and Christo-pagans. If you believe you're pagan, you are. I don't believe you need to justify yourself to anyone or get specific. Paganism is vague and often mixed as it is.
              Army of Darkness: Guardians of the Chat

              Honorary Nord.

              Habbalah Vlogs

              Comment


                #52
                Re: Defining Paganism

                Thank you for your reply.

                Yes, I'm familar with the "non-Abrahamic" definition, and my main problem with it is that it excludes Judeo-pagans and Christo-pagans (of which there are a growing number).

                But I definately do agree with you - paganism is indeed very vague and it's difficult to get at all specific when defining what a pagan is.

                ---------- Post added at 01:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 AM ----------

                Does anyone else have any opinions?

                Comment


                  #53
                  Re: Defining Paganism

                  Originally posted by Luke_Ironside View Post
                  Yes, I'm familar with the "non-Abrahamic" definition, and my main problem with it is that it excludes Judeo-pagans and Christo-pagans (of which there are a growing number)
                  Yes, that would exclude them. Personally, I feel that the term Christo-pagan shouldn't exist for the very reason that it's oxymoronic. Either someone is Christian or they're not and there are specific criteria for that. Now their variety of Christianity may contain elements and certain concepts in common with (or taken from) some pagan religions. But that wouldn't make them "Christo-pagan" any more than incorporating the belief of reincarnation into Wicca makes someone a Wiccan-Buddhist.

                  But in general the whole problem with the term "pagan" is that it tells what you are NOT not what you ARE. Which is a pretty poor way to write a definition or description.
                  Re: Living History Blog
                  Ancient Celtic Clans

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Re: Defining Paganism

                    Originally posted by Luke_Ironside View Post

                    Well...one way to look at it is that it is anyone that calls themselves a pagan .[/I]

                    I was wondering whether there are others here who agree with that definition? Would you agree that self-identification is all that is required to be a pagan?
                    Yes.

                    I would have to be pretty conceited to believe that I know more about a person's beliefs than he/she does his/her self.

                    I'm not that conceited.
                    Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Re: Defining Paganism

                      Oh, the age old question...

                      It *has* been a while since we went around again, hasn't it?

                      As a quick Mod note, since I seem to have called firsties today, so long as this stays a friendly exchange of ideas, I'm keeping it here. If it gets heated, though, it'll get moved to Debates.


                      Personally, I agree with Corbin. Pagan is a mixed-bag umbrella term for all sorts of beliefs that don't fit elsewhere. We have pagans on here that are atheist, monotheistic, hard or soft polytheistic, etc, etc...add in other factors, like magical practices(or lack thereof), ecological awareness (or lack thereof), etc, and the permutations are endless.

                      You also have a lot of groups that might technically fit, but would not call themselves such, even possibly becoming offended at the term. Traditional Native American faiths, Asian beliefs such as Buddhism or Shinto, African Diaspora religions, and even some Heathen groups readily come to mind. Even though some pagans borrow from all of those belief systems, it does not make the beliefs themselves pagan.
                      Great Grandmother's Kitchen

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Re: Defining Paganism

                        Yup, it's that ol' 'Paganism - it's not a religion, it's an umbrella' thing come back to haunt us.

                        I'm old-fashioned. I go with the dictionary definition:
                        Pagan
                        [pey-guhn]

                        Origin:
                        1325–75; Middle English < Medieval Latin, Late Latin pāgānus worshiper of false gods, orig. civilian (i.e., not a soldier of Christ), Latin: peasant, noun use of pāgānus rural, civilian, derivative of pāgus village, rural district (akin to pangere to fix, make fast)

                        Synonyms
                        2. heathen, gentile.  

                        noun
                        1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
                        2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
                        3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.

                        I'm all three of those.
                        The forum member formerly known as perzephone. Or Perze. I've shed a skin.

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Re: Defining Paganism

                          Considering that we're talking "Paganism" as a term relating to the Neo-Pagan Religious Movement, I find it inauthentic to allow our definition to include such things as Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Scientology or even Shintoism.

                          Rather, looking at the paths which are included in the movement, we might want to enumerate that it is a collection of attempted revivals of ancient European & Mediterranean Traditions, alongside a continuation of Western Occult Esotericism.

                          To define our religious movement by the Abrahamic Tradition... just leaves us dependent upon said tradition for our identity as a movement - this would lend credence to several Anthropologists' ideas who view Neopaganism less as a New Religious Movement than simply another Christian Revival.

                          So, are you still Christian? If not, then quit defining yourself by Christianity. Define your self and your Religion based on it's own content.
                          Last edited by AzazelEblis; 30 Jan 2012, 20:42.
                          "A true initiation never ends"-Robert Anton Wilson
                          http://www.hermetic.com/crowley
                          "Reality has become a commodity"-Stephen Colbert 1/29/07
                          http://www.chaosmatrix.org/
                          "Sometimes, when you can't breathe, there are people there to breathe for you" - Aesop Rock
                          http://upholdingmaat.wordpress.com

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Re: Defining Paganism

                            Originally posted by AzazelEblis View Post

                            So, are you still Christian? If not, then quit defining yourself by Christianity. Define your self and your Religion based on it's own content.
                            The only problem is that this Christianity-based definition is the source of what little commonality pagans may feel with one another. That"s not to say this commonality is utterly insignificant. On the contrary, in a primarily Abrahamic world, it makes perfect sense to feel a connection with someone else who sees validity in non-Abrahamic religion.

                            As for polytheistic and nature based religions outside of Europe and the Middle East not being called "pagan", that always struck me as nothing more than a coincidence of geography. Only their remoteness from Europe kept them from being lumped in with all the other pagans.
                            Last edited by Yazichestvo; 30 Jan 2012, 21:01.
                            If you want to be thought intelligent, just agree with everyone.

                            Comment


                              #59
                              Re: Defining Paganism

                              Originally posted by Yazichestvo View Post
                              The only problem is that this Christianity-based definition is the source of what little commonality pagans may feel with one another. That"s not to say this commonality is utterly insignificant. On the contrary, in a primarily Abrahamic world, it makes perfect sense to feel a connection with someone else who sees validity in non-Abrahamic religion.

                              As for polytheistic and nature based religions outside of Europe and the Middle East not being called "pagan", that always struck me as nothing more than a coincidence of geography. Only their remoteness from Europe kept them from being lumped in with all the other pagans.
                              Granted - Geography kept these Pagans from associating with similar folks of other regions. The fact is, European Religions died out under the weight of Christianity, and was relegated to folklore (at best).

                              That same distance from Europe and the Middle East also helped keep Abrahamic Traditions from sweeping further into these regions. To ignore that separation shows another degree of arrogance.

                              However, to ignore the fact that Neopaganism is a New Religious Movement, and to claim a heritage outside of rebuilding European and/or Middle Eastern religions would attempt to lay claim to a heritage which is not ours.

                              The Church of Scientology is not Abrahamic, yet has its own identity, independent of Paganism - would you try to claim that for yourself as well?

                              Even the Church of Satan has established its own identity in such a way which it could still somewhat stand without Christianity, while at the same time playing off of the dichotomy created by it's own existence. To allow Paganism to be that dependent upon Christianity for an identity shows a lack of its own cohesive identity. If Paganism will not stand on its own, it isn't really a separate path.

                              Those individuals in question that still clinging to the Abrahamic Tradition for their identity never left it. To keep this identity based on the Abrahamic tradition relegates Paganism to a passing fad, both for the individual participants and as a whole - the latter of which makes it a Religious Revival within Christianity.


                              To base our religion on Christianity puts up another barrier to anyone for whom Christianity is not an issue. How will you explain the Neopagan movement to someone of the Bon-Po? Would you rather simply explain what a Pagan believes, or would you rather first explain Christianity, and say "We're not that," as if that explained what we are?
                              Last edited by AzazelEblis; 30 Jan 2012, 21:26.
                              "A true initiation never ends"-Robert Anton Wilson
                              http://www.hermetic.com/crowley
                              "Reality has become a commodity"-Stephen Colbert 1/29/07
                              http://www.chaosmatrix.org/
                              "Sometimes, when you can't breathe, there are people there to breathe for you" - Aesop Rock
                              http://upholdingmaat.wordpress.com

                              Comment


                                #60
                                Re: Defining Paganism

                                Originally posted by AzazelEblis View Post
                                Those individuals in question that still clinging to the Abrahamic Tradition for their identity never left it. To keep this identity based on the Abrahamic tradition relegates Paganism to a passing fad, both for the individual participants and as a whole - the latter of which makes it a Religious Revival within Christianity.
                                The issue I see with this is that most people are familiar only with the Big 5 religions - Judaism, Muslim, Christianity, Hinduism & Buddhism. Some have the Big 6 by adding Catholicism. If I talked to all but a select few of my co-workers (those 2 out of an immediate 90 who are openly Pagan... gee, we're 3% Pagan!), I would get doe-in-the-headlight stares if I started talking about Gerald Gardner & the Freemasons. I get doe-in-the-headlights stares when I talk about Greek/Roman/African Gods, mythology & folklore too. One time I told a co-worker that "I worship many Gods". She responded, "Mini-God? What is that, some kind of fun-sized God?" When I broke it down to "I worship more than one God", her response was "There's only one God that I know of" and most of the people in the room agreed with her. The concept of 'other' Gods made no sense to them (and no one even mentioned JHVH or Allah). I wasn't certain which God she was thinking of, because for all I knew she was Jewish but I had to go under the assumption that she was Christian.

                                Debating the definition of Paganism or neo-Paganism on a forum, where people who are educated, literate, & know how to find references that aren't on wikipedia is a heck of a lot different than trying to define Paganism to the average American. It's easier for people to wrap their head around "I'm not Christian/Catholic/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu or Buddhist. I worship Gods from many ancient cultures and occasionally practice magic. I am only one Pagan, though - Paganism is an umbrella term for many faiths that are not Christian/Catholic/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu or Buddhist - and there are thousands of us" than it is to break it down to individual Pagan paths as they are practiced today. Most people don't really want to get into that much detail, and if they do, they'll ask. If they don't, they usually say, "oh" and wander off, or accuse you of being a devil-worshiping hoodoo woman/man & start throwing Bibles at you.
                                The forum member formerly known as perzephone. Or Perze. I've shed a skin.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X