Print

[kiara]

I didn't know where exactly to put this post but I though it worked here because it was a pretty general question. Anyways, when I started my religious journey, there were many unfamiliar words that came up in my research, the main one being "Pagan"(or any variation of the word). I was confused because some sources said it was a classification of a religion, like monotheism or polytheism, and that there were many religions belonging to that class. Others said it was a religion with different sects,like Christianity being a tree and Catholicism and Baptists being two of the many branches. And then to finish it off, if you Google the definition of paganism it would say, "   any of various religions other than Christianity or Judaism or Islamism". Which is difficult because there are religions that aren't Christianity, Judaism, or Islamism that one would think of as Pagan. 

With all those different answers, it's a struggle for me to decide what to believe.
So my question is to you all:
1. What does the word "Pagan" mean to you?(meaning is it more of a classification or religion to you)
2. Why do you feel that way?
3. Do you ever find people that disagree with your interpretation of "Pagan"? What is their view and argument for it?

I know many of you say it doesn't matter because it's just a word but I think words are crucial in any situation. Thanks to any one who decides to read and/or answer my questions. I hope you all have a great day!

[Rovay]

With all those different answers, it's a struggle for me to decide what to believe.
So my question is to you all:
1. What does the word "Pagan" mean to you?(meaning is it more of a classification or religion to you)
2. Why do you feel that way?
3. Do you ever find people that disagree with your interpretation of "Pagan"? What is their view and argument for it?

Ain't gonna be great, my typing sucks tonight. I'd gladly answer, though!

1. The word "pagan" to me means two things. One is the snippy comment I read somewhere that said "No matter what Christians think, "pagan gods" aren't simply gods that aren't the Christian one, but are gods that are older than him."

The real deal, though, means someone who believes in multiple deities, in my case, all, or simply just multiple deities with old origin.

2. I feel that way because... Well, I believe in all gods. The world is complex place, makes sense that it took more than one god to create it and keep it intact. Also, the bible does kind of admit the existence of other gods in few places. Also, I know what I feel, and I do not feel close to the Christian God, but do feel close to deities. Anyway, what makes me feel this way is just... Intuition. It's our greatest tool; Intuition is the "whisper of the soul", as a famous spiritualist in Bulgaria used to say, and we pagans are all about spirituality, and thus, what the soul tells us. So, why I feel this way? Because I am supposed to, I guess.

3. Now that I think of it, I think there will be people who may agree that "pagan" just means believing in gods who are older than the Christian one of origin, or maybe believing that the majority of gods exists, but not all like I do, etc, etc. But honestly, I don't know any real pagans in real life. Some people with mixed believes whom I helped get on pagan-like-path, but besides them, I haven't had enough discussions with pagans to get to argue.
Yes, I am lonely.

[earthmuffin]

When I use the word pagan, I generally use it as an umbrella term to refer to any person who follows a modern or reconstructionist earth-based religious or spiritual path so in that sense it would include Wicca, Traditional Witchcraft, Asatru, Druids,  etc., etc. as well as the variety of folks who identify themselves as Eclectic Wiccanish folks but not true Wiccans or class themselves as any of the other religions mentioned. People that seem to be on the fringe but I might also lump as pagans are other folks like members of the World Pantheist movement and modern shamanic practitioners who follow paths that are strongly earth-based. I do not view the term as defining a religion with various sects. I don't include Buddhists, Hindus, Native American spirituality, or other non-Abrahamic religions in the term pagan because they have their own very long and different histories with an unbroken historic record.

I think people usually understand me when I use the term pagan, at least around here, but I'm sure I would get some arguments over my definition. Sometimes I'll use neopagan if the discussion is such that I think I need to distinguish between the modern practice of these types of paths as compared to the historical pagan religions that were in existence before and at the time of the rise of Christianity.

[FairyQueen]

This is how I look at it and I'll start it out this way:

Christianity is the furthest left term in the tree diagram - it is the broadest term you can use to define someone's faith (assuming they're Christian). Then there are a gazillion branches sticking off towards the right that label the different traditions: Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, LDS, etc. There are even smaller branches off of that level - conservative, liberal, fundamental, etc.

It is the same with Paganism. Paganism is the furthest left term in the tree diagram. Then on towards the right are the different traditions: Wicca, Druid, Astru, Hereditary, on to infinity. Even that level has offshoots - Dianic, Eclectic, etc.

Those who aren't sure or don't care where they lie in that tree diagram can just call themselves Pagan (or if using the first example, Christian).

Like I said, that is just my opinion.

[dragonspring]

I would go with the first definition found here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism1.htm

"Pagans consist of Wiccans and other Neopagans"

The why is because it is the most commonly accepted definition in the community.  I am sure that the responses on this thread will answer the last question.

[Rovay]

The why is because it is the most commonly accepted definition in the community.  I am sure that the responses on this thread will answer the last question.

The online, or real life? Because in my country people haven't heard much about Wicca, but the word "pagan" is known by everyone.

Also, at FairyQueen - your understanding of the term, umbrellaish and leftish, sounds so much easier to explain than mine that I am actually willing to steal it.

[Crystal Dragon]

I would go with the first definition found here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism1.htm

"Pagans consist of Wiccans and other Neopagans"

The why is because it is the most commonly accepted definition in the community.  I am sure that the responses on this thread will answer the last question.

   Agreed but I take it one step farther.  I use "pagan" as an umbrella term for any person who doesn't follow one of the Abrahamic religions.  I tend to use "Pagan" when referring to a religious practice that isn't Abrahamic but also doesn't fall into one of the pagan paths like Wicca or Hinduism.

[diniesaur]

To me, "Pagan" has two main branches--the old religions from before the Judeo-Christian tradition, and "Neo-Pagan" which is what most of us on this forum are. I agree with FairyQueen's analogy of the tree for this, only I think that Neo-Pagan has much more diversity than Christianity.

[dragonspring]

The why is because it is the most commonly accepted definition in the community.  I am sure that the responses on this thread will answer the last question.

The online, or real life?

I was speaking of the Pagan community - online and IRL.

[BronwynWolf]

I would go with the first definition found here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism1.htm

"Pagans consist of Wiccans and other Neopagans"

The why is because it is the most commonly accepted definition in the community.  I am sure that the responses on this thread will answer the last question.

   Agreed but I take it one step farther.  I use "pagan" as an umbrella term for any person who doesn't follow one of the Abrahamic religions.  I tend to use "Pagan" when referring to a religious practice that isn't Abrahamic but also doesn't fall into one of the pagan paths like Wicca or Hinduism.

That about sums it up for me

[kiara]

Thank you all for your answers! They were pretty much what I assumed Pagan to mean. I think earthmuffin had an awesome definition and an explanation that I might keep for myself. Hehe. 

I also want to bring up this one incident where I was reading an article and it defined Paganism as any Earth-based religion but included religions like Buddhism. I kind of liked the definition but the religions the classified it under totally threw me off. I always thought that Buddhism was a different sort of religion than any kind of Pagan religion, no matter how much the Buddhist respect the Earth. Is it just me?

[Ghost Wolf]

Buddhism, in it's pure form, is a philosophy. Some sects revere the Buddha as a god, but they are in error in doing so. Tibetan Buddhists also believe in spirits and demons and such.

[Rovay]

Buddhism, in it's pure form, is a philosophy. Some sects revere the Buddha as a god, but they are in error in doing so. Tibetan Buddhists also believe in spirits and demons and such.

Quoted for truth.

[earthmuffin]

Buddhism, in it's pure form, is a philosophy. Some sects revere the Buddha as a god, but they are in error in doing so. Tibetan Buddhists also believe in spirits and demons and such.

 

I agree with all your factual points about Buddhism, GW, but I just don't understand the opinion that Buddhists who revere gods are in error. While it's true they have interpreted Buddhism in a different way than it was first taught, who is to say it is wrong to do so? In theory that sort of statement could be very offensive to Mahayana Buddhists or other sects who do revere gods (in theory, because Buddhists work to be free of negative emotional patterns like taking offense). Is any religion or spiritual path that evolves away from the original teachings to be considered erroneous?

[Ghost Wolf]

It was once said, by ninth-century Master Lin Chi: "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."  He makes a valuable point: to turn the Buddha into a religious fetish is to miss the essence of what he taught.

You really over-think things Muffin. You need to let go of that scientific mind set in order to free your spirit.

[FairyQueen]

You need to let go of that scientific mind set in order to free your spirit.

If I remember correctly EM needs that scientific mind set to make a living. There is no reason why someone cant be both scientific and spiritual. I, for instance, am in that boat.

[Rovay]

Buddha himself would be offended if he was refereed to as god. He was a man; in my opinion, a man above all men, but still just human. Gods are to be worshiped, not humans. You can honor one's teachings without turning him into a god.

[Ghost Wolf]

You need to let go of that scientific mind set in order to free your spirit.

If I remember correctly EM needs that scientific mind set to make a living. There is no reason why someone cant be both scientific and spiritual. I, for instance, am in that boat.

This has nothing to do with her making a living. It has everything to do with spirituality.

[Ghost Wolf]

Allow me to elaborate. The "scientific mindset" I refer to represents  logical thinking, which tells us that the real is only that which can be perceived by the senses. This will actually close one off from the spiritual realms because of skepticism and even disbelief.

Muffin herself is an interesting study, in that she denies Deity, is very logical and science based, yet practices shamanism and believes in spirits.

[Ghost Wolf]

Muffin, Dear, I hope you don't think I am picking on you, I'm not. We all love you.

[Rovay]

Muffin, Dear, I hope you don't think I am picking on you, I'm not. We all love you.

I don't think it would be picking, unless you had said "She is in interesting study, we should put her in a glass jar and watch her with a microscope". Seriously, snored orange juice out of my nose when I read the "is an interesting study thing".

But yeah, I am new to the forum and I already love you too, muffin.

[earthmuffin]

You never answered my question, GW.

I am aware of the some of the teachings of Buddha, most of which were orally transmitted and written down by various disciples hundreds of years after the Buddha's death. There is a similar pattern in Christianity. Various sects/denominations hold various and often different interpretations of the original teachings of these two men, with very periods over which teachings and traditions have evolved. One path may have strayed farther from the original intent or ideas of the originator of that path, but to say one is less "correct" than the other is folly in my opinion, just as it is to say that my mindset, whatever it may be, makes me less able to understand the truth than you or any other human being.

As for the study of me, you have not gotten it quite right. I don't deny Deity-- that would atheist. I also have to disagree that logical thinking requires a belief that the only thing real is that which we perceive. We live within our own perceptions yet our perceptions change over time (and sometimes quite drastically depending on our circumstances) and what we perceive as reality one day we may realize was an illusion the next.

[Ghost Wolf]

I did answer it, which is that fixating on the person of the Buddha distracts one from the path.

Let me rephrase the deity issue, you stated you don't believe in personal deities, i.e., you don't hold to the idea that there are anthropomorphic Gods and Goddesses, but rather see nature as a whole as embodying deity. I am not implying that is incorrect, that is your personal choice. However, Nature itself, in this case, becomes deity.

I struggled for years overcoming the logical, science based thinking patterns, and still can't completely do away with them. We need a certain balance so that we remain grounded in reality. There is great danger in dwelling in the spiritual realms at the expense of the material. On the one hand, there is the mystic, who went up on the mountain and never came back. He may have had great insight, but fails to be able to impart that to others and is unable to deal with the real world. Then there is the hard-nosed materialist, the Athiest type who denies the very existance of the spiritual. He will never be able to see that realm because his very disbelief acts as a shield, cutting off any contact that would otherwise be made. We need to take the middle path.

[Rovay]

there is the mystic, who went up on the mountain and never came back. he may have had great insight, but fails to be able to impart that to others and is unable to deal with the real world. Then there is the hard-nosed materialist, the Athiest type who denies the very existance of the spiritual. He will never be able to see that realm because his very disbelief acts as a shield, cutting off any contact that would otherwise be made. We need to take the middle path.

Good example, it shall come of use. Still, I can't help but mention that EM seems to be taking very well the middle path, and even her presence in the forum is a sign of that.

[Ghost Wolf]

She has come a long way from an Atheist background to what she is today.