Mixed-matched paganism?

[Unveiled Artist]

Thank you for answering as the post originally intended.

I've seen it happen, and unless it was obvious that someone wasn't a Pagan, I often felt uncomfortable about it. Personally, I'm a newbie so I won't judge who is and isn't. It's not my place to say and I feel it would be arrogant from my part. I'm not even sure what criteria one would use... Reverence of nature? Having rituals? Gods? *Shrugs*

I was thinking that myself unless someone says they are who is to judge. In regards to religion, I find it offensive to tell someone they are not who they say they are.

Even among ly friends, theyd say "you used to be Buddhist" and I think, you have to be formally initiated on a sect to be Buddhist and, regardless the faith, everyone has the wisdom within (everyones a Buddha). My other RC friend talks to me as if Im a Catholic. To be divorced from the Church the congregant has to go through paperwork at his home parish. Im not sure if they "unbless" someone or not. The Churcb believes Once Catholic, always Catholic. So, Im Catholic by sacrament/vows but not by faith.

Its interesting, I know I said a lot already here. There are just some things we learn from and as you say find insight from. It really lets you know what you really believe.

Take care

. I feel any past religions I've looked at had given me insight into what I really believed in and what I didn't so because of that, I'm more sure of the general direction I want to go towards. I don't have ill feelings towards those religions and feel that, at the very least, I can put aside some assumptions made in the media about people from other faiths

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Do you consider paganism and neopaganism completely different from each other or is the latter a more modern version of the former?

Like some phenomenologists of religion, I use "pagan" to refer to what anthropologists call primal religions: those which have grown naturally rather than having identifiable founders.

To write "Pagan" has nothing to do with respect: it implies that it's a proper name. If we consider paganism to be a single religion (as Michael York and Jordan Paper do), with the various paganisms as "denominations", then "Pagan" would be appropriate. This is a contentious position, but I think I'm coming round to it. My Hellenism certainly has more in common with, say, Shinto than Presbyterianism with Orthodoxy, although both of those are called Christians.

As a reconstructionist Pagan, I do not regard myself as a neopagan. That term I reserve for Wicca, pagan Druidry, etc. They are obviously not primal religions. On the other hand, they aspire to be pagan, as it were, and it would be discourteous to deny them the right to self-identify as such. There are some who would deny it: Ronald Hutton doesn't even accept that Wicca is a religion. Certainly, there are many differences between pagans (ethnic or reconstructionist) and neopagans. As I said, I can relate to Shinto, and to Asatru, but not to Wicca or Wiccans.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As a reconstructionist Pagan, I do not regard myself as a neopagan. That term I reserve for Wicca, pagan Druidry, etc. They are obviously not primal religions. On the other hand, they aspire to be pagan, as it were, and it would be discourteous to deny them the right to self-identify as such. There are some who would deny it: Ronald Hutton doesn't even accept that Wicca is a religion. Certainly, there are many differences between pagans (ethnic or reconstructionist) and neopagans. As I said, I can relate to Shinto, and to Asatru, but not to Wicca or Wiccans.

Don't know about Wicca, but I take Druidry as a primal religion, if I do not Hinduism also lands up as non-primal. The primal religions also develop (From Polytheism to Brahman) and have priesthood.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Don't know about Wicca, but I take Druidry as a primal religion, if I do not Hinduism also lands up as non-primal. The primal religions also develop (From Polytheism to Brahman) and have priesthood.

Modern Druidry is not a continuation of ancient Celtic belief: unfortunately, the original druids never wrote anything down. The Druid Order founded in the 18th century was a cultural organisation and its members were Christians. Even today, many members of groups like the Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids are not Pagans.

 

[Jainarayan]

Druidry would rank with Heathenism, Celtic, ancient Egyptian, Hellenic, and Balto-Slavic (such as it is, or is not) re-conned and revived religions. I don't know how widely practiced the African religions are and if they were interrupted and revived, but it seems that it's only the religions of south and east Asia that have unbroken lines. The religions of Europe and western Asia were all but obliterated by Christianity. Now they are being revived, but unfortunately because they were broken 1,000 years ago, we have no idea if we're "doing it right". Wicca and Kemetic on the other hand, are something I'd call Neo-Pagan. I don't think they're not valid religions, they are for their followers, but they were created in the 20th century, not based on any ancient religions, afaik. Just my thoughts.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Like some phenomenologists of religion, I use "pagan" to refer to what anthropologists call primal religions: those which have grown naturally rather than having identifiable founders.

To write "Pagan" has nothing to do with respect: it implies that it's a proper name. If we consider paganism to be a single religion (as Michael York and Jordan Paper do), with the various paganisms as "denominations", then "Pagan" would be appropriate. This is a contentious position, but I think I'm coming round to it. My Hellenism certainly has more in common with, say, Shinto than Presbyterianism with Orthodoxy, although both of those are called Christians.

As a reconstructionist Pagan, I do not regard myself as a neopagan. That term I reserve for Wicca, pagan Druidry, etc. They are obviously not primal religions. On the other hand, they aspire to be pagan, as it were, and it would be discourteous to deny them the right to self-identify as such. There are some who would deny it: Ronald Hutton doesn't even accept that Wicca is a religion. Certainly, there are many differences between pagans (ethnic or reconstructionist) and neopagans. As I said, I can relate to Shinto, and to Asatru, but not to Wicca or Wiccans.

That makes sense. I never got the alert.

Before all the mix up, I just thought Pagan was a proper noun for a category of people identifying as ethnic belief, neopagan, and others under that label. Neopagan I relate more to modern. pagan, small p, would be all non abrahamic faiths.

If I was forced to pick a name for my faiths it would be a Witch. But even That word has many connotations based on origin, popular misconceptions, and just being the in-word these days.So, I dont use it. Just a holistic dreamer.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Druidry would rank with Heathenism, Celtic, ancient Egyptian, Hellenic, and Balto-Slavic (such as it is, or is not) re-conned and revived religions. I don't know how widely practiced the African religions are and if they were interrupted and revived, but it seems that it's only the religions of south and east Asia that have unbroken lines. The religions of Europe and western Asia were all but obliterated by Christianity. Now they are being revived, but unfortunately because they were broken 1,000 years ago, we have no idea if we're "doing it right". Wicca and Kemetic on the other hand, are something I'd call Neo-Pagan.

African religions are still doing well in many countries: half the population in the Congo, Madagascar, and Togo; 85% in South Sudan.

Although I've made a distinction between reconstruction and neopaganism, it's really a sliding scale. For Hellenic and Egyption religion, we have documentation actually written by the believers. Tamara Suida was able to publish a whole book of translated Egyptian prayers and I use translated Greek hymns. Heathens at least know the difference between a blot and a sumbl, but what the Celts got up to is anyones guess!

 

[Quintessence]

This "distinction" between reconstructionism and Neopaganism is quite strange to me, considering as far as the academic literature is concerned (and thus myself as well, as I develop my classification based mostly on an academic perspective), reconstructionism is a subtype of Neopaganism (and Neopaganism, or contemporary Paganism, is a subtype of Paganism). That said, having read some of the attitudes certain reconstructionists have about Neopaganism, I don't blame them for wanting to create a schema that dissociates themselves from it. When I first encountered those, I was baffled, because it sure as blazes didn't describe the Neopaganism I was familiar with or how it is regarded by academics, much less my own path.

So I suppose as a heads up, when I say Neopaganism, I always include reconstructionism under that header. If it's a polytheistic new religious movement inspired by historical/indigenous/tribal Paganisms, or if its a revival of such Paganisms that died out and there's no unbroken line, it's "neo" or contemporary in my book.

 

[Aštra’el]

Many of us pagans, but certainly not all, have been influenced by abrahamic religion. A pagan, I read threads back, said once he speaks to his gods (pantheon) in abrahamic language because that is the language he know best.

Sometimes our chosen correct path is a part of us that what we have learned from our former faiths (which Im sure some pagans admit they do) influences our present and we feel it like being hit from a bolt of lightening when it pops up for no reason.

I wonder, why not (if we have not) pagans learn from our former faiths, appreciate it, and know how they have shaped you as pagans?

I dont want to say some pagans dont do this, I certainly do, just I just think a good healthy way to see a free life as a pagan is to see the blessings you recieved in your former faith(s).

--

I was also thinking how the definition of paganism is so broad that almost anyone outside the abrahamic faith can claim he is. How or should we define how someone else sees themself as a pagan? It reminds of christians trying to define other christians relationship with God. Are we doing the same? If so, honestly, why?

I just find paganism, if I defined it as a belief system, is very mix matched that people who are embracing their faith or called to it have a hard time finding themselves in it. Especially if all they know is abrahamic associations outside in the real would (not on the internet) and are trying hard to separate the two.

I know it is an indivdual and private journey. Many of us will use this as an answer after a litttle while of sharing generalities about the pagan faith to people who are pagan. It just seems we are sometimes telling others who are pagans and who are not.

I just thought I share and ask this here because it has been bothering me lately. We, pagans in general not specifically RF readers, should help each out on our journies. Some of us, like myself, are trying to build relationship with ancestors, finding rituals that click, find outlook and our inlook. While others are pulled to panthons, learning what is meant to revere the gods and so forth. This is our faith.

I know we are influenced by formed faiths. Some see their formed faiths as enemies (from how it looks). In MHO dont be to mean to people who love what they used to follow. That is what a path does it shapes our lives. Former and present.

Another thing, off topic, I was thinking how pagans here, if not private, how have you journied from your former faiths? Have you learned from it? Does it, in little positive ways shapes who you are as a pagan?

I am not young anymore; and, time is running out. When they say life is short, it really is. I just thought that even those us that have been pagan for a long time share their thoughts.

I enjoy discovering the strength and beauty and power within every religion. Everything I have ever learned and experienced from any religion has strengthened my position as a Pagan. Spiritually and religiously... I am completely devoid of regret.​