Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defining "Pagan"

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

    #76
    Re: Defining Paganism

    Originally posted by Valhalla View Post
    Please understand I'm not trying to belittle you here or anything.
    My apologies - I didn't mean to be short, but I was rushing on my way to do something else. No offense taken!


    If you're a pantheist, doesn't that mean you view the universe as deity?
    Yes, that's correct.

    So in a sense you do believe in a higher power, no?
    You will get different answers to this from other pantheists, so understand that I am speaking only for myself .

    The answer is "no." the universe just is. It isn't "higher" in any sense. The universe is. Higher and lower all all part of the universe. It's a conglomeration of all it's parts, the way they interact, and the results of those interactions. Nothing more - no higher or lower than anything else. That actually is a fundamental part of my philosophical/religious outlook - "As it is above, so it is below."

    If you believe there is no higher power then I find it a little silly to use the term "Pagan" to describe yourself personally, but I'm not trying to insult you or begrudge you the right to do so. It just doesn't make sense *to me*.
    Oh, don't worry. I am what I am! But I'm still wondering at your specific reason for finding it (to use a less loaded word) "inappropriate" to call myself pagan? If it's an opinion, I get that. But if it's a well considered intellectual position, then there must be reasons...


    While I won't call it silly and I'm guilty of doing much worse quite deliberately, you are using a descriptor that fails to actually describe anything.
    I think that what you mean to say is that I am using a descriptor that fails to give you the information about my beliefs that you would want - if we were literally talking about our beliefs.

    However, it works for me when I use it, so there is something useful in it for me, even if it doesn't work for you.

    1. When I want to talk about my religion (which I rarely do outside of here), it sets the opening stage for a continuing discussion.

    2. When I use it as a search term, I find some of the kinds of things I am interested in. Moreso than when I use terms like Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Native American, etc.

    3. I find many more people with whom I share some common interests when I go to "Pagan Forum," far more than when I go to "Christian Forum," "Atheist Forum," etc.

    The term means something to people, and serves a purpose for them. That's why they use it.

    I don't care to attempt to impose the meaning I like on the term - it's futile anyway. I'll use it the way it is used by those who habitually use the word because it works for the purposes I (and others who use the term) use it for.
    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


      #77
      Re: Defining Paganism

      I guess what's really getting to me here is the constant cry for specifics. In certain contexts, having specific beliefs, practices and standards spelled out is a good thing - like when you're dealing with anti-discriminatory legislation. You can't build protection for someone if they can't tell you why they should be protected in the first place. In that sense, yes, using the term Pagan is defeatist, because it's too broad and cannot be considered one unified religion even to the extent that all Christianity can be considered one religion. Pentecostals may be a far cry from Universal Unitarians, but they're still generally considered Christian because they have the common thread of God, Jesus & the Bible tying them together (unless the UU has thrown out the Bible... which, for all I know, it may have).

      My version of Paganism isn't the same as Wicca - I have a few Wiccan roots left, but those get fewer & fewer each year. All of the -Wiccan beliefs (Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Dianic, Feri, Seax, etc.) can all be considered Wiccan, even if it's only by virtue of calling themselves 'Dianic Wicca', 'Seax Wicca', and so on. Wicca is also Pagan by extension... but not all Pagans use the Wiccan framework. -Wicca is protected as a religion, as it should be, but I'm not going to call myself a neo-Mediterranean Urban Wiccan just so I can receive the same protection as a bona fide, initiated Wiccan-Wiccan. My religious views may deserve the same protections, but until I can come up with a unifying concept of WIITID, I can't actually expect it to be given to me. And that is a genuine issue.

      But when casually speaking to other Pagans, isn't it sufficient to know we're all under the same umbrella?
      The forum member formerly known as perzephone. Or Perze. I've shed a skin.

      Comment


        #78
        Re: Defining Paganism

        Corbin: I'll agree the term can be useful in certain contexts. The fact that it has so much utility when its use has expanded to so many sects with such a wide range of beliefs is something that entertains and annoys me in about equal measure. Regarding meaning (I'm fully aware that splitting utility and meaning is slicing things rather thin but I don't have a better way to make my point right now), my problem is that it has too many meanings. The term has taken the phrase "jack of all trades and master of none" to heights that are awe-inspiring to behold and I'm not entirely convinces that's good.

        Originally posted by perzephone View Post
        But when casually speaking to other Pagans, isn't it sufficient to know we're all under the same umbrella?
        Err, to answer this I'd have to claim to be Pagan and I'm not making that claim.

        Past that, I have a mixed view on the issue. On one hand, I think the word tries to cover way too much and suffers for it. On the other, as Corbin rightfully pointed out earlier the word is still useful in various contexts even without a clear-cut definition.

        Shrug, I'm not in a profound rush to change the word's usage. I dislike the lack of clear definition but I don't see a better option occuring soon and if nothing else, long as the status quo exists, I can make crappy jokes about it and I'm almost always willing to accept conditions that allow me to make more bad jokes.
        Last edited by MaskedOne; 31 Jan 2012, 21:07.
        life itself was a lightsaber in his hands; even in the face of treachery and death and hopes gone cold, he burned like a candle in the darkness. Like a star shining in the black eternity of space.

        Yoda: Dark Rendezvous

        "But those men who know anything at all about the Light also know that there is a fierceness to its power, like the bare sword of the law, or the white burning of the sun." Suddenly his voice sounded to Will very strong, and very Welsh. "At the very heart, that is. Other things, like humanity, and mercy, and charity, that most good men hold more precious than all else, they do not come first for the Light. Oh, sometimes they are there; often, indeed. But in the very long run the concern of you people is with the absolute good, ahead of all else..."

        John Rowlands, The Grey King by Susan Cooper

        "You come from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve", said Aslan. "And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth; be content."

        Aslan, Prince Caspian by CS Lewis


        Comment


          #79
          Re: Defining Paganism

          Azazel's definition includes most pagans. However, I don't think it makes a good definition, because it neglects to address what all of these things have in common; western occultism, Meso American, and ancient European and middle eastern traditions make strange bedfellows. It's obvious that the only thing they all have in common is that they were extinguished or nearly extinguished by competitive Abrahamic religions, so even this definition is based on the "Abrahamic based perspective" Azazel refers to so distastefully.

          And I will never understand his insistence that we're just Christians in hiding if we accept a dichtonomy between Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions. Part of my reason for doing so is that I think the Abrahamic religions are very unique, I consider them the most anomalous faiths in the history of man, in fact. So it makes sense to have a division between them and all others.
          If you want to be thought intelligent, just agree with everyone.

          Comment


            #80
            Re: Defining Paganism

            Originally posted by MaskedOne View Post
            Corbin: I'll agree the term can be useful in certain contexts. The fact that it has so much utility when its use has expanded to so many sects with such a wide range of beliefs is something that entertains and annoys me in about equal measure...
            Yeah, I understand what you mean. In a technical or scholarly way, the term stinks because it has no specific meaning. It does have meaning in "common language," though (although to be honest, I only have a vague idea what it is), and so people use it in conversation.

            It doesn't need to be specific - the technical name for any religion is the name of the religion. "Pagan" doesn't need to do that duty. It's actually much more useful being vague than it would be if clearly defined.
            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


              #81
              Re: Defining Paganism

              Originally posted by MaskedOne View Post
              Shrug, I'm not in a profound rush to change the word's usage. I dislike the lack of clear definition but I don't see a better option occurring soon and if nothing else, long as the status quo exists, I can make crappy jokes about it and I'm almost always willing to accept conditions that allow me to make more bad jokes.
              Well, yes, of course. Free entertainment is still entertainment.
              The forum member formerly known as perzephone. Or Perze. I've shed a skin.

              Comment


                #82
                Re: Defining Paganism

                Originally posted by perzephone View Post
                So, which are you including neo-indigenous/shamanic, islandic, South American, African & Asian Paganism/neo-Paganism in - European or Mediterranean? Because people from those branches probably don't consider themselves part of the 'western occult esotericism' club, and there are plenty of those who don't fall under non-Pagan/neo-Pagan religions. I mean, if you really want to get nit-picky...
                Reconstructing religions native to the Americas actually has its own movement which predates Neopaganism.

                African Revivalist traditions tend to separate themselves off from anything "Pagan". Some go further than others, even with a few Afrocentrists trying to speak for that movement. And, its not like all of these traditions are dead.

                Asian religions, such as Bon-po, are being revived completely independently of Neopagan movement.

                Islandic religions? I can't claim any experience with such. But from what I've seen? They'd question the meaning of the term, just as MaskedOne and I are doing.

                So no, I don't see why we need to brand half the world with the label that this movement halfway tries to reclaim.
                "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


                  #83
                  Re: Defining Paganism

                  Paganism=polythetic term that people are too busy arguing over the specifics...which is stupid because its polythetic--no one *has* to put a check into every box in the list of descriptors

                  ...but hey, as long as people are willing to argue about *not being Pagan* or who *really is Pagan*, we're distracted from getting behind anything important being done for people that *do* consider themselves Pagan (or that would technically be considered Pagan, and could benefit from such)--like chaplain representation in the military (or at least better training for clergy in the military), court discrimination, church v state issues in schools, etc.


                  Perze--UU's treat the Bible like any other mythological or philosophical text, a source of wisdom and inspiration (and occasionally folly), but not cannon
                  Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Re: Defining Paganism

                    Originally posted by AzazelEblis View Post
                    Reconstructing religions native to the Americas actually has its own movement which predates Neopaganism.

                    African Revivalist traditions tend to separate themselves off from anything "Pagan". Some go further than others, even with a few Afrocentrists trying to speak for that movement. And, its not like all of these traditions are dead.

                    Asian religions, such as Bon-po, are being revived completely independently of Neopagan movement.

                    Islandic religions? I can't claim any experience with such. But from what I've seen? They'd question the meaning of the term, just as MaskedOne and I are doing.

                    So no, I don't see why we need to brand half the world with the label that this movement halfway tries to reclaim.
                    I can understand not branding actual religions 'Pagan' if they don't want to be considered Pagans, but I've encountered many people who are not AD/African revivalist, Bon-Po, Shinto, etc. who have done much as other Pagans have done by integrating their modern takes on ancient religions & cults that did not originate in Europe or the Mediterranean. So since you're stuck on that exclusivity for Paganism to be Euro/Mediterranean-centric, or part of the western traditions, does that mean to you people from other continents/cultures don't have any right to the word if they want it?


                    Originally posted by thalassa View Post
                    Perze--UU's treat the Bible like any other mythological or philosophical text, a source of wisdom and inspiration (and occasionally folly), but not cannon
                    Thanks for clearing it up.
                    The forum member formerly known as perzephone. Or Perze. I've shed a skin.

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Re: Defining Paganism

                      Originally posted by B. de Corbin View Post
                      Oh, don't worry. I am what I am! But I'm still wondering at your specific reason for finding it (to use a less loaded word) "inappropriate" to call myself pagan? If it's an opinion, I get that. But if it's a well considered intellectual position, then there must be reasons...
                      I guess that depends on your view of opinion vs. "well-considered intellectual position." When I posted, I meant only to bring a historical perspective to the table. In the context of the modern usage of the word "Pagan" by Pagans nowadays, you are well justified in calling yourself Pagan. My point is that the term originated from the Christian Church to refer to locals who weren't Christian yet, and since the Christian Church dealt mostly with native faiths whose followers it sought to convert, "Pagan" is most appropriate in an English-language historical context to refer to someone to adheres to such a native faith, such as Kemeticism, Asatru, Native American religion etc. So in a historical context the overreaching use of the word is "inappropriate," in my view, but in a modern view as the word has been commandeered by "us" and made into our own label, it is appropriate for, I suppose, anyone who wants it.

                      -Valhalla

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Re: Defining Paganism

                        Originally posted by thalassa View Post
                        Paganism=polythetic term that people are too busy arguing over the specifics...which is stupid because its polythetic--no one *has* to put a check into every box in the list of descriptors

                        ...but hey, as long as people are willing to argue about *not being Pagan* or who *really is Pagan*, we're distracted from getting behind anything important being done for people that *do* consider themselves Pagan (or that would technically be considered Pagan, and could benefit from such)--like chaplain representation in the military (or at least better training for clergy in the military), court discrimination, church v state issues in schools, etc.
                        And how do you propose to defend THIS:
                        Originally posted by MaskedOne View Post
                        Paganism: halfway meaningless umbrella term used to unify a horde of different belief structures that don't always have much in common
                        from discrimination? If a prospective Chaplain tells his superiors that THIS is what he wants to teach the troops, he'll be laughed at, or at least earn some quizzical stares as if to say "Huh?" rather than actual acceptance. Until you can hammer down Paganism to not include (even if it is friendly towards) Otherkin, LARPing, Goth Emo and music subcultures in general, and a whole host of other things, then there isn't much of a way to take it seriously. No one else here has indicated that they would stop me from saying "I'm Pagan because I'm a Vampire!" Or "I'm Goth, so that makes me Pagan".

                        While I don't like this about the man, I can't blame Don Rhymer for the fact that he includes these things as elements of your Religious Movement in his lectures on the Occult, based on what Court Defendants had to say about their own interpretation of "Paganism".


                        Originally posted by perzephone View Post
                        I can understand not branding actual religions 'Pagan' if they don't want to be considered Pagans, but I've encountered many people who are not AD/African revivalist, Bon-Po, Shinto, etc. who have done much as other Pagans have done by integrating their modern takes on ancient religions & cults that did not originate in Europe or the Mediterranean. So since you're stuck on that exclusivity for Paganism to be Euro/Mediterranean-centric, or part of the western traditions, does that mean to you people from other continents/cultures don't have any right to the word if they want it?
                        Look at Crowley for a while - his Thelema being my prototypical Neopagan path - and try to keep a straight face while saying "Religious Eclecticism isn't in the Western Esoteric Tradition" twenty-one times fast. If you are both familiar enough with, and paying attention to - the bs coming out of your mouth, you will at least crack a smile.

                        However, claiming the work of another community - that of Native American Spirituality - for our own is just unacceptable. It's one thing to accept people in our community, it's another to accept them as Pagan. If they want to span both the NAS and Neopagan communities, there must be something of both in their practice. The same goes for whatever other practice you wish to discuss.

                        I propose this out of respect for the other religions and religious movements out there, and to offer something more cohesive for Neopaganism to rally around.
                        "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


                          #87
                          Re: Defining Paganism

                          It is always fascinating when this question comes up and I love to read and consider everyone's own definition. I'm personally not interested in the debate side of it though. Having been wiccan, I am tired of the 'who can be and who can't be' crap. There are other umbrella nouns to which there are exceptions, so 'Pagan' having no concrete definition just isn't an issue to me at all. The only time this really bothers me, is when people define the beliefs of others with the intention of simply excluding them from their own perceived in-group; 'we consider .... to be/not to be ... because ....'. If someone finds a definition for themselves that works, even if it doesn't fit what I thought that definition meant, I don't feel it is my business to challenge them on it.

                          I'm not the first to say this, but I also don't like to describe what I am by what I am not. I'd never dream of replying to 'what is a Pagan?' with, 'Someone who doesn't follow one of the Abrahamic religions'. That's like replying to 'what is a tiger?' with, 'It's not a cetacean'. My hope is that by telling people what I AM, they can conclude for themselves that I am probably not therefore a Jew or Muslim etc.

                          Most of the time, I won't even try to define Paganism. When asked, I just say that it is too vague a term to explain and instead offer to describe what I believe (making it clear I speak only for myself). That is possibly all anyone can do really.
                          夕方に急なにわか雨は「夕立」と呼ばれるなら、なぜ朝ににわか雨は「朝立ち」と呼ばれないの? ^^If a sudden rain shower in the evening is referred to as an 'evening stand', then why isn't a shower in the morning called 'morning stand'?

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Re: Defining Paganism

                            Originally posted by Gobae View Post
                            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.
                            I would disagree with this. There is specific criteria for calling oneself a member of a specific church. But, what makes a person a Christian varies from church to church just as much as what Paganism is.

                            For example, if you were to take any random Catholic and show them the Nag Hammadi library and then ask them if the people that believed those documents were Christian, they would most likely say, "No." However, the Gnostics would've certainly said that they were Christians.

                            Just like my Granny. Once, she asked me what religion this girl I was dating was and I answered, "Jehovah's Witness." Her reply? "SHE'S IN A CULT!" But the girl I dated? Christian... in fact, more Christian than any other Church.

                            Then, there's the fact that even orthodox Christianity is an amalgamation of monotheism and Mediterranean dying-and-rising Mystery religion that can be argued as well.
                            There once was a man who said though,
                            It seems that I know that I know,
                            What I'd like to see,
                            Is the I that knows me,
                            When I know that I know that I know.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Re: Defining Paganism

                              Originally posted by AzazelEblis View Post
                              Look at Crowley for a while - his Thelema being my prototypical Neopagan path - and try to keep a straight face while saying "Religious Eclecticism isn't in the Western Esoteric Tradition" twenty-one times fast. If you are both familiar enough with, and paying attention to - the bs coming out of your mouth, you will at least crack a smile.
                              Yes, eclecticism is in the western tradition, but not all eclectics are. My bs is no more or less bs than your bs. At least we're both dedicated to our own.
                              The forum member formerly known as perzephone. Or Perze. I've shed a skin.

                              Comment


                                #90
                                Re: Defining Paganism

                                I'm just wondering if my two cents would rattle the wrong cages.

                                I mean, since it's out of sheer belligerence, as well as a strong desire to disassociate myself with anything related to some cockamamie "Neopagan Movement", that I call my world view Pagan. That is, instead of getting down to the nitty gritty of actually describing a very specific path of spiritual and potentially religious enlightenment that would confuse most everyone that is not on a similarly obscure path.

                                Yup. I, for sure, would rattle the wrong cages.

                                Hi. My name's Chain and I'm Pagan.




                                "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

                                Working...
                                X