an anarchist
Your local loco.
I mean... Pagans nowadays don't even know what Pagans back in the day really did!!! Aren't they just making it up as they go? I guess that's why they are called "Neo" Pagans tho.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Pagans Pagan?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Yes.
And no, they're not "just making it up as they go." For the most part, they are reconstructing the beliefs and practices of indigenous peoples as best they can based on information that is available and filling in the gaps.
And no, they're not "just making it up as they go." For the most part, they are reconstructing the beliefs and practices of indigenous peoples as best they can based on information that is available and filling in the gaps.
The classic definition of a pagan is one who does not adopt the new practices brought into a culture via colonialism, but keeps the old ways of the culture before the colonialists came and took over the political and socio-religious system.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I'm petty sure that is the case with all ancient religions with a deep history going back centuries and thousands of years.
No.
Scholars used the prefix "Neo-" to distinguish the contemporary religious movement from historical Paganisms. Scholars today use the phrase "contemporary Paganism" rather than "Neopaganism."
It's my understanding that term "pagan" didn't even exist prior to the Church coining it. Those of pre-Christian practices and beliefs never referred to themselves as "pagan."
And yes, I'm aware of the whole "paganus" meaning hill dweller spiel, but I've come to the conclusion that contemporary Pagans use that to give the perception to antiquity to their belief systems.
Yes, that too. I was just speaking to the modern Pagan studies scholarship, so this here is an important addendum. Indigenous religions don't tend to really even have a word for "religion" much less what their "religion" is called - it is just who they are and what they do. Institutionalization of and defining of "religion" mostly happened with Christianity and then became the standard for how everyone who speaks English understands everything about religion. For better and for worse.
No, the classic definition had nothing to do with colonialism.
"Paganism (from classical Latin pāgānus "rural", "rustic", later "civilian") is a term first used in the fourth century by early Christians for people in the Roman Empire who practiced polytheism, or ethnic religions other than Judaism. In the time of the Roman Empire, individuals fell into the pagan class either because they were increasingly rural and provincial relative to the Christian population, or because they were not milites Christi (soldiers of Christ). "
Paganism - Wikipedia
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The reason they are called neo-Pagans is that no one in the 21st century can really recreate the paganism of days gone by. Neo-pagans today do not build wikimen to burn in which to sacrifice people, nor do they tear out still beating hearts to appease the sun god. Indeed, most pagans today see their pantheons mostly as metaphors for natural events, not as literal entities. The idea that a statue of a deity would have supernatural powers is just not a belief that is common today. Many neo-pagans simply lack the information necessary to recreate an old paganism, such as with Druidism.
I guess they are as pagan as Christians are Christian. There is very little data on what Christianity was like in the first 3 or 4 centuries of Christianity. There is no original bible to compare with.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Pagan was a reference to the fact that Christianity spread though the cities faster than the countryside. Thus, pagan indicates countryside dweller who maintained the "pagan" deities longer. They also were more intimately connected with the land and the spiritual aspects of the land. This is clearly seen in Ireland where despite Christianization the more rural areas maintained the connections with the land and entities of the land. The modern "pagan" movement in England initially claimed unbroken lines of knowledge which was later corrected. It is better described a revival of connecting with the land, ancestry and mythology in a thriving religious or spiritual path which has learned from archeology, history, comparative religion, new understanding of mythology, and other spiritual methods. Most know the past cannot be reproduced here in the present, but the "pagan" religions were fluid and changed with time and situation because of an oral tradition rather than written.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I agree with you in that "they aren't just making it up as they go."
But there are different approaches to paganism in contemporary times. Some pagans are very much "reconstructing the beliefs and practices of indigenous peoples as best they can." But others eschew such an approach, opting instead to embrace a common pagan idea that the gods act in the world for their own reasons.
We all know that love is a force in the world. Some pagans want to keep alive the idea that "Eros" is a force in the world without necessarily wanting to revive the ancient Greek sacraments surrounding Eros.
I know that you are aware of all this, and your post was more-so oriented toward explaining the approach you detailed as a response to the OP.
But I thought OP asked a good question. There's a good discussion to be had. I'd especially like to hear how different pagans weigh in on the issue.
I think originally a pagan meant person who is not a Christian/Jew. (In Biblical point of view Christians are also Jews). This is why anyone who is not a Christian can call himself pagan, regardless of what he otherwise practices.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Nah. You got Muslims, Taoists, and Buddhists They aren't Christian. But neither are they pagan.
In Bible pagans means all other people than Jews and Christians. But, obviously you are free to use whatever definition you like.
They're pagan, they just aren't Pagan. The term pagan (not a proper noun) has been used for a long time to designate "not our people" and "people to hate" in the context of Christianity. It's a pejorative, hateful use of the term but it is still used that way and not to be confused with Pagan (proper case) which is what this thread is talking about - Paganism as a specific religious category.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Depends on which definition of pagan you are using. Here is what Merriam Webster offers:
a
old fashioned + often offensive : a person who is not religious or whose religion is not Judaism, Islam, or especially Christianity : HEATHEN
b
history : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome or Greece)
So under definition a, a Buddhist would be considered a pagan, and under definition b they would not.
Because if pagans weren't pagans, it would lead to a logical contradiction.
Ciao
- viole
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Sure. But words and concepts change over time.
Whether correct or incorrect, today, the word pagan usually implies a return to the polytheistic, myth-based religious outlooks, like those of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, or Celtics.
I never use it as a pejorative, even though that's how it started. A lot of things began as pejoratives but are no longer deemed so. "Queer" for example.
. . .
Imagine lecturing a Pagan on how to define Paganism and then misspelling it "paganism."
Sigh.