Your definition of a Neopaganist

[Cassandra]

I am interested where Neopagans draw line between Neopaganism and New Age and Christian "Pagan" Churches, now that these have created such churches (example) to attract Neopagans and people on this forum are recommending those (Example).

The question of identity arises now Christians churches create "Pagan" churches for proselytizing. Are these Christians Neopaganists?

I wonder how other Neopagans think about this. I like to hear your views. Do you think Neopagans can consolidate on a view, or are we rather a subset of New Age. Are we more like people who are turning to a Pagan lifestyle mixing it with trophies from previous adventures? What is your view?

 

[Nietzsche]

Some of us were born into Christian families, dear. I'm Asatru now, but one cannot help how they were brought up. Also your "covert proselytizing" assumption reeks of conspiracy-theorist dreck. Has it happened? Undoubtedly. Is it common? No. Is it a big enough problem to accuse people of being that? F*** no.

 

[Quintessence]

@Cassandra , I understand that this topic is of some importance to you, but it isn't appropriate for the DIR because it invites debate. We also do not find it acceptable to quote other people's posts without their permission, and that may be considered against the rules. Would you like to rework this OP (without using other people's quotes) in a debate section of our forums?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Also your "covert proselytizing" assumption reeks of conspiracy-theorist dreck.

Nowadays, whenever I see a post by this member, I just say "don't feed the trolls".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is true people are carrying more than one title. There are people on this forum (check out: Mixed-matched paganism? | ReligiousForums.com #20) Who do find insight in their old faith. It is sad that people HATE their old faith so much as to bash others who dont hate it.

It is interesting that one can hold a belief yet not follow the practice. Beliefs mean nothing without direct Devotion and fellowship with like members. That would mean a person has to not only believe in the tenants (like I believe two and two equals four) but have to Practice it as well. (but if I am to claim Im a mathetician, I have to Study mathetics as well.)

There is something about paganism (no matter the spelling) that youre NOT getting. If you say you are a pagan (even though pagans respect other people, hopefully), you would ACT like it too.

There are people who evangalize their faith on other boards to recruit people. (Against RF rules) I honestly never seen it and when I "had" practiced Christianity, that was something that turned me Away from the faith.

Christians have killed pagans and pagans have killed christians. Before it was with a sword, now its with words.

No christian in her right mind would post in a pagan thread. (Her God would not be pleased). Go ahead and ask Christians (real ones) if theyd post on a pagan forum. Theyd look at you silly.

I have practiced paganism (witchcraft specifically and in family) and have been for 20 years. In Lousiana they dont call it witchcraft. It is not modern...no intent based spells. There is a DEEP respect for elders. There is a code of ethics that do not mirror Wiccan ethics.

In VA, there are hundreds of churches. If you havnt been a part of one, dont worry, "they catcha sometime" is the ol country accept mix with northornist lingo.

Ive learned things from Iran (mother raised there), I learned what people call superstition from my grandmother. I learned a lot about paganism.

Like people said in other forums, paganism is a polytheistic, nature worshiped centeree,goddess and god centered, ethnic AND/OR polytheistic faith.

Anyone in this category can post in the pagan forums.
--
What else do I have to say? Oh. If you want to talk respectfully, we can. DO NOT POST any of my old posts without permission.

(Note to staff)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thank you for reinforcing the DIR rules. I was just about to report the post without permission.

@Cassandra , I understand that this topic is of some importance to you, but it isn't appropriate for the DIR because it invites debate. We also do not find it acceptable to quote other people's posts without their permission, and that may be considered against the rules. Would you like to rework this OP (without using other people's quotes) in a debate section of our forums?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Nowadays, whenever I see a post by this member, I just say "don't feed the trolls".

Too late bad timing.

 

[Cassandra]

I have clear views that some people dislike. That is all right. However i am not asking for what they think of me or my ideas, but to give their own view on where the difference lies between Neopaganism, New Age, and Christian Paganism.

If they think there is none, please say so. I am not out for debate, I simply want to know how the opinions lie in the Paganist community here (which seems to be quite small).

Another thing I would like people to give their opinion on is: Is there a difference between Neopagans and Neopaganists?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have clear views that some people dislike. That is all right. However i am not asking for what they think of me or my ideas, but to give their own view on where the difference lies between Neopaganism, New Age, and Christian Paganism.

If they think there is none, please say so. I am not out for debate, I simply want to know what how the opinions lie in the Neopagan community here (which seems to be quite small).

Another thing I would like people to give their opinion on is: Is there a difference between Neopagans and Neopaganists.

There are strict differences:

Neopaganism is a modern pagan faith. Some people are polytheist and not all. It incorporates Wicca, Druidism, (depending on if one is initated, i.e. or eclectic) It is a nature based faith. Some practice forms of witchcraft others do not.

New Age, is well, new. All reconstrictive pagans, neopagans, todays "witches" fall in. Usually it covers people who do tarots, astrology, divination, etc that are not passed down but learned.

Christian Paganisim is repetative. Christianity has a lot of paganist beliefs merged within it. If Judaism was not an influence, christianity would be Pagan faith. I have only talked with a couple of Christian neopagans. They say they admire what Jesus taught. They Differ because most do not believe Jesus died for their sins. They reject a lot of christian literal teachings for mystical outlook. They believe the bible is a "good book for guidence". Most dont believe in the God of Abraham. The two dont go together.

All of these are under paganism. If you are refering to ethnic Pagans like people who practice Vodun and those rebuilding the pre-christian beliefs of, say, Rome, Greek, pantheons,etc, that falls under Paganism (as per this forum).

Because paganism is modern and diverse, there are a lot of opinions. I notice some core things: nature oriented, belief in spirits or gods, respect, openess to others opinion (probably learned from backlash by some christians), and many practice some form of ritual or magic. A lot of people say that Jesus is a good person.

I hear some people, youd personally identify as Pagan, say that Jesus is an inspired man. Just like you. Just like me. (I think you need to talk to christian pagans themselves. They have a different spin on whats thought of as paganism and even severly so, christianity. Id place it under neopaganism--given the saints are considered pantheons too; or new age but not a pagan forum IF it is only open to polytheist reconstructing pre christian beliefs with a requirement for initiation is to hate all other religions but theirs.

With regards to Christ, NO New Ager, Pagan, pagan, or Christian Pagan worships the ground He walks on.

 

[Quintessence]

Thank you for revising your OP, Cassandra. I often find your posts to be a pleasure to read, even where we've got our differences.

To be honest, I have never even heard of these Christian organizations acting as posers to rally non-Christians to their cause, and I highly doubt it is at all pervasive or any significant threat. To be honest, I have to agree with Nietzsche: fretting about this smells like conspiracy-theorist paranoia to me. I've been around in the Neopagan community for quite some time now, and I have never heard anyone discussing this or being concerned about it. Given the fragmentary nature of the community to begin with, that may or may not be significant, but I think when we use ideas like this to start pointing fingers at one another, that does substantially more damage than any supposedly existing Christian conspiracy groups could ever do.

What I have witnessed frequently in my time associating with the Neopagan community is endless discussions about who is and is not Pagan. These discussions range from academic and polite to caustic and destructive. After seeing so much in-fighting over this issue - after seeing so many of the disgusting consequences of this in-fighting - I stopped engaging it. Because Neopaganism is not a centralized nor homogenous religious movement, nobody will ever have the authority to say who is and is not "Pagan enough" and I don't think it is worth tearing apart the community arguing about it. Arguing over the issue is far less about impartially or academically assessing who is and is not Pagan and far more about in-group/out-group control and social/power dynamics. I have little patience for that kind of drama, and in terms of our ability to share and learn from each other, I really couldn't care less what group someone identifies under. I may look at someone and internally think "I really wouldn't consider this person a Druid" but still learn things from them and develop a positive relationship with them. There is much to be gained by accepting people for who they are and learning from all walks of life, and far less by generating needless conflict and drama in our lives fighting over titles and labels. That has been my experience, at any rate.

-*-*-*-*-​

I definitely do not regard Neopaganism as a subset of the New Age movement, and conflating the two is something of a peeve of mine. If we look at the academic literature that studies the two movements, it becomes pretty clear that they have very different origins and fundamentally different orientations. The New Age movement came out of stuff like Spiritualism in the 19th century, while Neopaganism has more roots in Romanticism. The New Age movement is forward looking, and speaks of things like the evolution of human consciousness; Neopaganism is backwards looking, and speaks of a return to old ways. The New Age movement is rife with paranormal pseudoscience; Neopaganism is rife with polytheistic mythos and story. New Age has distinctly Christian overtones; Neopaganism has distinctly polytheistic overtones. The movements happen to share some common practices: energy work, divination, spellcraft, meditation, among other things. They also cross-pollinate, and share ideas or influence one another. But having interacted with both communities, they really do feel much different to me. Neopaganism doesn't need to consolidate on anything (which will never happen, realistically) to be distinct from the New Age movement; it already is distinct from it.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I definitely do not regard Neopaganism as a subset of the New Age movement, and conflating the two is something of a peeve of mine. If we look at the academic literature that studies the two movements, it becomes pretty clear that they have very different origins and fundamentally different orientations.

Wiccans do not appreciate being confused with New Agers, whom many of them would dismiss as "fluffy bunnies". And then there are the jokes, like:
"What's the difference between a week-end course on meditation run by a pagan priestess and one run by a New Age guru?"
"If you're lucky, no more than a few hundred dollars."

 

[Quintessence]

Wiccans do not appreciate being confused with New Agers, whom many of them would dismiss as "fluffy bunnies". And then there are the jokes, like:
"What's the difference between a week-end course on meditation run by a pagan priestess and one run by a New Age guru?"
"If you're lucky, no more than a few hundred dollars."

I think it depends on the Wiccan, given we have people self-identifying as Wiccan in both the New Age and contemporary Pagan communities. The syncretic origin of Wicca accounts for some of that, and we might even identify an occult variety of Wicca given how much it drew from the occult revival. Wicca is a strange beast on the whole, as it spread and morphed and transformed quite a lot when it was exported out of the UK and hit the States. It's difficult to say what it really is anymore.

 

[Cassandra]

Yes, my views clearly deviate from people here. Proselytising is how churches grow and nowadays they use the Internet as a far more efficient way to approach people. It works for sexual and religious predators alike. Denying that religious predators are active on religious forums, is like denying that sexual predators are active on social sites, I can only laugh about that. It is the most driven business and a very ruthless one at that.

At this moment I am watching "Going Clear" about Scientology Church and it is fascinating how believers are willing to engage in any lie and deceit (legal and illegal) for their church. The belief then even becomes more indispensable for self-deceit (The end that justifies the means), It is the reason of irrationality.

I understand from your reactions that Neopaganism is a faith, a collection of romantic movements looking towards the past, where as New Age are movements looking towards the future. One is inspired by pre-Christian times, the other by new scientific ideas and ideas from other religions.

That makes Neopaganism like monotheism, a collection of somewhat similar creeds. It makes sense as the suffix -ism generally means a movement of people bound together by some kind of common ideology.

I had not realized that. It is only logical that Christians would adopt such new faiths. People can easily shift between beliefs, even opposite beliefs. I thought I was a Neopaganist as I understood it to be a modern Pagan, someone with a Pagan mindset. Pagans did not have religion, it simply was reality to them. They did not distinguish between daily life, science, religion. Faith, beliefs as we have come to understand religion are the product of philosophy, the product of intellectuals. That is why all these movements are the products of books and thinkers. Often weird ones as the charisma of the sick mind is often bigger, because of their unusual preoccupation with their own ideas.

It explains a lot. Also why I am not really your kind of Neopaganist. In fact, I am not one at all. I think a better description for me now is non-religious. And that insight makes this short visit certainly worthwhile.

Thank you very much for your patience and answering my questions. And I excuse to those feeling insulted by my words. I now see how compatible Christianity as a creed is to newly formed -ism's, whether romantic or modernistic. It is not Christianity that does not fit in, but me.

Thanks and good luck on your life's path.

 

[Quintessence]

Okay, now I'm just confused.

When you were using the term "Neopaganist" or "Paganist" I thought you were just being sloppy with grammar, because that's not even a proper term as far as I'm aware. Now I'm getting the impression you meant something distinct by it, and some of these other comments you're making are not making much sense to me. For example, you comment that Neopaganism has a common ideology, but I don't think anyone who has studied the movement would say that is the case. You also speak of religion as if we can't use that word to describe someone's way of life, which is very strange to me considering that if one is truly religious, it is one's way of life and not a mere product of philosophy and intellectuals. So yeah. Kind of confused.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Cassandra,

You dont have to relabel yourself as a pagan. I notice, using the caps, Pagan is built on prechristian beliefs and in some ways influenced by christian. Some people like myself dont identify as Pagan because the focus is more on (edit) mythological prenchristian concepts not just nature and just life. Its not dogma, no Jesus, no Muhammad. Its a lifestyle that people are just putting labels to. Many neopagans are not religous. I stoped being religious a year ago. Maybe youre a natural believer and see through all the symbolism and stuff that other religions have. That doesnt mean you dont relate to pagans or are not one. Just religion is not your think.

For me, God is just life. No one created us noone created the world. Nothing disapears and nothing pops into thin air. If you live with understanding that titles dont matter, youll see beyond how you define someone else but how they are through life. Who they are.

Its a beautiful thing to be a part of life. That to me is is paganism. There is no hate. It is all respect.

Dont change your labels for others. You are who you are, "pagan", "Pagan", "neopagan" or not. You are not labels, right? Nature living goes beyond that.

Im sure youre premitted post in pagan DIR. No grudges.

Yes, my views clearly deviate from people here. Proselytising is how churches grow and nowadays they use the Internet as a far more efficient way to approach people. It works for sexual and religious predators alike. Denying that religious predators are active on religious forums, is like denying that sexual predators are active on social sites, I can only laugh about that. It is the most driven business and a very ruthless one at that.

At this moment I am watching "Going Clear" about Scientology Church and it is fascinating how believers are willing to engage in any lie and deceit (legal and illegal) for their church. The belief then even becomes more indispensable for self-deceit (The end that justifies the means), It is the reason of irrationality.

I understand from your reactions that Neopaganism is a faith, a collection of romantic movements looking towards the past, where as New Age are movements looking towards the future. One is inspired by pre-Christian times, the other by new scientific ideas and ideas from other religions.

That makes Neopaganism like monotheism, a collection of somewhat similar creeds. It makes sense as the suffix -ism generally means a movement of people bound together by some kind of common ideology.

I had not realized that. It is only logical that Christians would adopt such new faiths. People can easily shift between beliefs, even opposite beliefs. I thought I was a Neopaganist as I understood it to be a modern Pagan, someone with a Pagan mindset. Pagans did not have religion, it simply was reality to them. They did not distinguish between daily life, science, religion. Faith, beliefs as we have come to understand religion are the product of philosophy, the product of intellectuals. That is why all these movements are the products of books and thinkers. Often weird ones as the charisma of the sick mind is often bigger, because of their unusual preoccupation with their own ideas.

It explains a lot. Also why I am not really your kind of Neopaganist. In fact, I am not one at all. I think a better description for me now is non-religious. And that insight makes this short visit certainly worthwhile.

Thank you very much for your patience and answering my questions. And I excuse to those feeling insulted by my words. I now see how compatible Christianity as a creed is to newly formed -ism's, whether romantic or modernistic. It is not Christianity that does not fit in, but me.

Thanks and good luck on your life's path.

 

[Nietzsche]

Neopaganism tends to be reconstructions of ancient belief systems. Which means that Wicca is not a pagan faith, neo or otherwise. Wicca is quite clearly New-Age, as its roots date back no more than the 1940s. There are many, many people literally older than Wicca. It's a poorly stitched-together chimera of a variety of sometimes incompatible pagan practices and some things made up entirely from whole-cloth.

Wiccans do not appreciate being confused with New Agers, whom many of them would dismiss as "fluffy bunnies". And then there are the jokes, like:
"What's the difference between a week-end course on meditation run by a pagan priestess and one run by a New Age guru?"
"If you're lucky, no more than a few hundred dollars."

But Wicca is new-age. Outside of the stuff they stole from traditional paganism, anyway.

 

[Queenspeak]

Neopaganism is not a subset of the New Age. Neopagan religions have non-Christian cosmologies, deities, and origins. Some of the neopagan religions take cues from historical practices, some are more modern, some borrow that which is meaningful from multiple cultures. Some do all three.

The New Age movement shares practices in common with some Neopagans, but it holds to a Christian cosmology (belief system) and has a preponderance of angel lore.

As far as blended paths, like Christian-Paganism, each follower will probably go about the business of their practice in their own way.

 

[Politesse]

I tend to label as New Age any eschatalogical movement (i.e., the world is about to substantially change and the indigo children must be ready to be its new teachers, etc.) and Pagan any group whose main goal is recovering (even if with changes) the pre-Christian traditions of Europe. In short, one looks mostly forward in time for completion, and one looks mostly to the past for wisdom. But obviously, both terms are applied very inconsistently in popular culture, with any "woo" getting labeled as new age and Paganism covering nearly anything that's not Christianity and some things that are. If labels are useless normally, they are definitely useless in trying get a grip on the rapidly changing world of 20th century new religious movements.