The semantics of Paganism

[The Player Character]

I wanted to get some opinions on the subject of semantics and terminology in Paganism/Neopaganism. It seems to me that people get really freakin' pretentious about this and it bugs the living daylight out of me. In a serious intellectual debate I see the importance of defining ones terms but it seems in common usage to be less important.

A few examples are the terms Neopagan vs Pagan. Is one term more appropriate than another? Are they both usable? In what context?

As a possible continuation of this idea, how far can we stray from the old religions before it is no longer related enough to call it Paganism (with or without the Neo suffix)? This applies to specific sect such as Wicca. True Wicca would most likely be Gardners tradition but is that where the line must be drawn? Many books that stray from Gardners path have been published using the word Wicca (To Ride A silver Broomstick for instance). Are they completely wrong? Aren't religions transient and changeable? Look at Christianity, there are gay Christians now. What about the less strict Paganism. Must they include only elements of old religions? They've changed so much can they not continue to change? At the time Pagan religions generally had a deity of the harvest but now we have factory farming. Is a harvest god/dess still appropriate? What about gods appropriate to our time like a god of the net? Where do we draw the line to define (Neo)Paganism?

It's a very general idea but I wanted to ask about it. Terminology seems to be the root of most of the pretentious bull in Paganism so I wanted to hear opinions.  

[CuAnnan]

KuraiNeko

In a serious intellectual debate I see the importance of defining ones terms but it seems in common usage to be less important.

Words have meaning.
If I decide to call you a c**t but mean "someone who poses their opinion as fact with nothing to back it up" and you don't know that's what I mean, then you're going to get offended.
Now, we both know that if that were true, I'd be entitled to call you a c**t, because we've seen you posting your opinion as though it were fact when, in fact, your opinion was wrong.

If you are right and there is no importance in defining one's terms, then you are forced to admit that I am free to call you whatever the ******** I like and not qualify it.
But we both know that's not the case.
We both know that words have meanings and that if I were to call you a c**t like that, I'd be in breach of the terms of service.

KuraiNeko

Is one term more appropriate than another? Are they both usable? In what context?

Neither term means anything much.
Pagan means "someone who is not an adherant of the big five religions".
Neo-pagan means "someone who is not an adherant of the big five religions and who's religious path is new".
Neither are descriptive of what the person is, merely what they are not.

KuraiNeko

Are they completely wrong?

Yes.

KuraiNeko

Aren't religions transient and changeable?

No.

KuraiNeko

Look at Christianity

Let's not.
Christianity is an open orthodoxic religion.
Meaning that what you believe is important. The 'what' in this case being 'jesus christ was important and we should be like him, or at least strive to'.
That's it.

KuraiNeko

At the time Pagan religions generally had a deity of the harvest but now we have factory farming. Is a harvest god/dess still appropriate?

So? We also have traditional farming.

KuraiNeko

What about gods appropriate to our time like a god of the net?

He is an old God and his name is Number.  

[The Player Character]

CuAnnan

KuraiNeko

In a serious intellectual debate I see the importance of defining ones terms but it seems in common usage to be less important.

Words have meaning.
If I decide to call you a c**t but mean "someone who poses their opinion as fact with nothing to back it up" and you don't know that's what I mean, then you're going to get offended.
Now, we both know that if that were true, I'd be entitled to call you a c**t, because we've seen you posting your opinion as though it were fact when, in fact, your opinion was wrong.

If you are right and there is no importance in defining one's terms, then you are forced to admit that I am free to call you whatever the ******** I like and not qualify it.
But we both know that's not the case.
We both know that words have meanings and that if I were to call you a c**t like that, I'd be in breach of the terms of service.

KuraiNeko

Is one term more appropriate than another? Are they both usable? In what context?

Neither term means anything much.
Pagan means "someone who is not an adherant of the big five religions".
Neo-pagan means "someone who is not an adherant of the big five religions and who's religious path is new".
Neither are descriptive of what the person is, merely what they are not.

KuraiNeko

Are they completely wrong?

Yes.

KuraiNeko

Aren't religions transient and changeable?

No.

KuraiNeko

Look at Christianity

Let's not.
Christianity is an open orthodoxic religion.
Meaning that what you believe is important. The 'what' in this case being 'jesus christ was important and we should be like him, or at least strive to'.
That's it.

KuraiNeko

At the time Pagan religions generally had a deity of the harvest but now we have factory farming. Is a harvest god/dess still appropriate?

So? We also have traditional farming.

KuraiNeko

What about gods appropriate to our time like a god of the net?

He is an old God and his name is Number.

Wow, that first bit was a little passive aggressive. I get enough of that from my ex, I don't really need more of it here.
I never once called anything I said fact. The entirety of the opening post is simply proposing questions. Ah, save where I expressed my opinion about pretention in semantics. You're walking evidence to support that opinion though and I would never deny that it is my opinion. As far as my proposals go; I don't think a question can be fact or opinion, I think its just a question. On the other hand, you have made conjectures all throughout your post that are not supported. They also happen to be opinions (we do still have traditional farming though). If you're not going to justify your responses I highly recommend you stop talking s**t. It's unbecoming and frankly a bit sad.  

[TeaDidikai]

KuraiNeko

I wanted to get some opinions on the subject of semantics and terminology in Paganism/Neopaganism. It seems to me that people get really freakin' pretentious about this and it bugs the living daylight out of me.

Is now a good time to point out that the use of pretentious is pretentious in your denouncement since being pretentious is to make unjustified claims?
See- groups, such as the Wica, are justified by their sacrifice within their cult to hold standards to where the word coined for their religion is applied, whereas your denouncement thereof is unjustified since it relies upon your personal opinion rather than any objective standards.

Quote:

In a serious intellectual debate I see the importance of defining ones terms but it seems in common usage to be less important.

Being common doesn't make something right.

Quote:

A few examples are the terms Neopagan vs Pagan. Is one term more appropriate than another? Are they both usable? In what context?

Yes, there are cases where one term is more appropriate than another. For example, if you are relying on the denotation of pagan that reflects the status of a religion as being non-abrahamic, then calling Byaggha a neo-pagan would hardly be appropriate since her religious tradition pre-dated the coining of the term pagan to begin with.

Quote:

As a possible continuation of this idea, how far can we stray from the old religions before it is no longer related enough to call it Paganism (with or without the Neo suffix)? This applies to specific sect such as Wicca. True Wicca would most likely be Gardners tradition but is that where the line must be drawn?

The cult of the Wica extends to other lines. That said- Wica is a neo-pagan religion.

Quote:

Many books that stray from Gardners path have been published using the word Wicca (To Ride A silver Broomstick for instance). Are they completely wrong?

Debatable, given the ways in which Gardner and other members of the Cult use the word. That said, you wouldn't get the same debate depending on spelling.

Quote:

Aren't religions transient and changeable?

Not all, thank you. Please be so kind as to not rely on your ignorance of other traditions to form generalizations about all religions. It's insulting.

Quote:

Look at Christianity, there are gay Christians now.

What makes you think there haven't always been homosexuals in covenant with Yeshua. I mean for ******** sake- Saul converted Greeks.

Quote:

What about the less strict Paganism. Must they include only elements of old religions?

Since all the word pagan denotes is that it isn't an Abrahamic faith, there's no reason to assume that all that is pagan stems from pre-Christian traditions.

Quote:

They've changed so much can they not continue to change? At the time Pagan religions generally had a deity of the harvest...

Funny, I don't recall a deity of harvest in my traditions. How odd.

Quote:

but now we have factory farming.

I wasn't aware that harvests only took place on an industrial scale. Damn. Why the hell have I been bleeding for these damn blackberries for so long!? gonk

Quote:

Is a harvest god/dess still appropriate?

I recommend you ask those who worship them.

Quote:

What about gods appropriate to our time like a god of the net?

I'm sorry. My gods are individuals- not charactures. Perhaps you should be addressing those who worship charactures instead of deities.

Quote:

Where do we draw the line to define (Neo)Paganism?

New Paganism, religious traditions generated after the eighteenth century, especially those Hellenophiles like Nuri. wink

Quote:

Terminology seems to be the root of most of the pretentious bull in Paganism so I wanted to hear opinions.

Actually, my experience is that ignorance masquerading as righteous indignation is far more pretentious. See above regarding the word pretentious.  

[Bastemhet]

KuraiNeko

In a serious intellectual debate I see the importance of defining ones terms but it seems in common usage to be less important.

Umm...why would what a word actually means be less important in any circumstance?

Quote:

Aren't religions transient and changeable?

Only if one is completely ignorant of the religion at hand. Then you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Thankfully there are either revealed texts, accepted canon/practices, or archaeological evidence to clear up this kind of nonsense.

Quote:

What about the less strict Paganism. Must they include only elements of old religions?

Not sure what you mean here. Less strict = reconstructionist? I think you have it backwards.

Quote:

They've changed so much can they not continue to change?

What are "they"? Do you have any specific examples that have changed "so much"? How do you quantify "so much" as opposed to "a bit"?

Quote:

At the time Pagan religions generally had a deity of the harvest

Generalization = not a good thing.

Quote:

It's a very general idea but I wanted to ask about it. Terminology seems to be the root of most of the pretentious bull in Paganism so I wanted to hear opinions.

Yeah, terminology is important, I agree, but I don't see how that equates with bull. And for the most part nobody here will give "opinions" so much as accurate information, because to spread more lies when they're already in abundance would be irresponsible. And if you've read the guild info, it says that we strive for "Educational, Respectful and Responsible Paganism." If you have a problem with being told you're wrong, you may not be ready for this guild. I hope this isn't the case.  

[The Player Character]

TeaDidikai

Is now a good time to point out that the use of pretentious is pretentious in your denouncement since being pretentious is to make unjustified claims?
See- groups, such as the Wica, are justified by their sacrifice within their cult to hold standards to where the word coined for their religion is applied, whereas your denouncement thereof is unjustified since it relies upon your personal opinion rather than any objective standards.

Um, I believe the terms I was referring to were "Paganism" and "Neopaganism", last time I checked these were different than Wica. Again, I am proposing questions, I made no conjecture as to the legitimacy of any term. I did say I felt that people were pretentious about this subject, obviously an opinion. I made no unjustified claims, I simply proposed questions and stated an opinion. You're doing a good job of justifying my opinion seeing how you define pretention as centering around unjustified claims and you're making an awful lot of them. Thanks for that.

Quote:

Being common doesn't make something right.

Never said it was right, just less immediately important to have strictly defined. Good job.

Quote:

Yes, there are cases where one term is more appropriate than another. For example, if you are relying on the denotation of pagan that reflects the status of a religion as being non-abrahamic, then calling Byaggha a neo-pagan would hardly be appropriate since her religious tradition pre-dated the coining of the term pagan to begin with.

Wow, you weren't blatantly attacking or insulting me here. Were you feeling alright? (Yeah, I'm being mean at this point. I don't take well to being attacked without justification. I suppose thats why I never tried entering the community. Too much bullshit.)

Quote:

The cult of the Wica extends to other lines. That said- Wica is a neo-pagan religion.

What lines? I would like this defined since you all seem to really get your panties in a wad about this Wica stuff. Don't want to step on any hypersensitive toes.

Quote:

Not all, thank you. Please be so kind as to not rely on your ignorance of other traditions to form generalizations about all religions. It's insulting.

I'm pretty certain this is up for debate. You should try to keep an open mind, maybe you (or your pride) wouldn't be insulted so easily. I have yet to find a religion that has not undergone some form of change over the years. People and societies change and I believe religions, all traditions included, change in coordination with this. Even if we assume that the basic principles of a religion do not change (say there is an unchanging, unaltered book of rules for instance), the way it is practiced and the way those principles are interpreted would logically change as the people practicing it and the society they lived in changed. Whether or not the words used stay the same, if the practice and interpretation change I think that changes the religion fundamentally.
I formed no generalizations, to do that I would have to have some point of reference to generalize about. I put forth no point of reference. Hell, I never even said I believed this was the case. In this case I do believe it but my belief is based off of my observations of many faiths and of many societies. You shouldn't make so many assumptions. It's insulting.

Quote:

What makes you think there haven't always been homosexuals in covenant with Yeshua. I mean for ******** sake- Saul converted Greeks.

Holy crap! I forgot all about that! I'm terrible! I'll bet they weren't so open and vocal as they are now, the faith tended to look down upon open gays in a rather violent manner. Christianity no longer stones gays and I've now got a few openly gay, Christian friends who believe Jesus loves them despite their sexual orientation. Even though the Bible blatantly rejects homosexuality there are those that interpret and practice it differently. A good example of what I was rambling about above.

Quote:

Since all the word pagan denotes is that it isn't an Abrahamic faith, there's no reason to assume that all that is pagan stems from pre-Christian traditions.

Ah, so you include Asiatic religions in your definition. I don't. Funny how these semantics work. I also define Pagan from Neopagan by the time period in which the religion arose. For example, Hellenism would be a Pagan religion. Wica/Wicca is a Neopagan religion. I feel that it may be incorrect to use the word Pagan to describe any non-Asiatic, non-Abrahamic religion currently practiced as not enough information survives to accurately practice them (those that arose early enough to earn the title Pagan in my opinion). I do not necessarily believe this though, I'm still debating it. If I decide this is not the case, in my opinion, then only revivals of the older religions would qualify as Pagan rather than Neo-pagan. I should mention, lest any of your begin raging like banshees, that these conjectures are my opinions, as I've stated several times. Not fact, opinion. Don't accuse me of false conjectures, they are opinions. Opinions. O-pin-ions.

Quote:

Funny, I don't recall a deity of harvest in my traditions. How odd.

And your traditions are? How old are they? If they are not by my definition a Pagan (versus Neopagan) religion then they would not qualify for this statement. In other words, do they predate Christianity?

Quote:

I wasn't aware that harvests only took place on an industrial scale. Damn. Why the hell have I been bleeding for these damn blackberries for so long!? gonk

Oh, I'm sorry, I keep thinking about religion as a reflection of society. I keep thinking that these applied well to societies as a whole, not just individuals. I mean, it's not like the Hellenistic deities were the predominant deities of ancient Greece. It's not like they could apply to society and societal functions like agriculture.
I don't know what the hell about that offended your PC a** so much. I'm guessing you're just being rude but on the off chance you're not I would suck it up a little. I was, obviously, referring to larger scale ideas, those applying to a whole society rather than the functions of the individual. Even if we take into consideration your blackberries, how many people do that? I hate to break it to you but in the cities I've lived in gardening wasn't exactly big. But hey, lets not take into consideration what occurs on average, only you're practices are important here.

Quote:

I'm sorry. My gods are individuals- not charactures. Perhaps you should be addressing those who worship charactures instead of deities.

Alright, what defines something as a deity vs a caricature? =)

Quote:

New Paganism, religious traditions generated after the eighteenth century, especially those Hellenophiles like Nuri. wink

I might go a little further back with my line but I generally agree.

Quote:

Actually, my experience is that ignorance masquerading as righteous indignation is far more pretentious. See above regarding the word pretentious.

You should be readily familiar with it then, it is so close to home. You should really think about these things. I never stated anything as fact, I only proposed questions and stated an opinion (about people being pretentious about terminology, like you). You act like I listed off a bunch of s**t and then demanded it be taken as fact. I dont think questions really qualify for the fact/opinion debate. Only the answer. But hey, if you want to attack me because my questions somehow offended you, have fun. Just remember, I try to enter something with civility but I attack right back when attacked. If you'd made a legitimate conjecture about me being mistaken or politely pointed out an opinion that may have come off as "fact" then I would politely accept your conjecture and corrected myself. In this case you simply attacked me for nothing. It's this type of s**t that pisses me off about religion and Paganism (ect) in particular. But hey, you obviously know more than me and are far superior. You know everything about me and can act as if you were better, no questions asked. Civility is unnecessary when dealing with heathens like me. Don't worry, I understand and I hope you have fun with that ego of yours oh infallible mistress.  

[The Player Character]

Bastemhet

Umm...why would what a word actually means be less important in any circumstance?

I'm really just referring to the difference between strict definition and practical usage. A good example is the word "Manga". In Japanese it literally means something like "whimsical picture" but its practically used to refer to graphic novels. When we use it in English its used to mean Japanese graphic novels in particular. Technically it does not mean Japanese graphic novels but its practically taken to mean that. In day to day, casual conversation I do not see the point in getting pissy about using the term manga completely accurately. Another example would be words like "existence" in philosophy. We could debate the definition of existence and time and whatnot until the end of time so in order to keep things moving we have to make some assumptions in philosophy to allow debate to move forward. Both could apply to this. I don't get on people's asses when the use Pagan to describe Wica (which I feel is Neopagan) in common conversation because its time consuming to debate and not that important in common conversation. In debate I would argue with it though. Words like energy and deity are difficult to accurately define in this context so I might accept a general definition in a debate to keep it moving rather than focusing on it for hours.
This is what I meant when I said that.

Quote:

Only if one is completely ignorant of the religion at hand. Then you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Thankfully there are either revealed texts, accepted canon/practices, or archaeological evidence to clear up this kind of nonsense.

I mentioned this already in my last post but I'll say it again; I disagree. Even those religions of which we have some idea of the practices and beliefs changed. For instance, Zeus is not native to Hellenism, he was a foreign import. In that case do you include Zeus in the pantheon? He wasn't originally part of it. Was the original version correct or was the revised pantheon including him correct? By adding Zeus and putting him as ruler of the gods the religion was fundamentally changed. It would be as if the church added in a bit about Jesus' older brother, the failed messiah. That would change Christianity majorly.

Quote:

Not sure what you mean here. Less strict = reconstructionist? I think you have it backwards.

Ah, when I said "Must they..." I was referring to any current Pagan religion. Basically asking how far reiterations of old religions can stray before they are no longer considered Pagan.

Quote:

What are "they"? Do you have any specific examples that have changed "so much"? How do you quantify "so much" as opposed to "a bit"?

"They" are religions". Christianity, for instance, no longer supports the stoning of gays. There has also been the addition of a few new deadly sins recently. I guess Christianity is another good example of so much. It was originally an offshoot of Judaism, a sect. It changed "so much" as to evolve into its own religion. Another example, sacrifice was common in Druidism. Not the case anymore. Its a notable change. Hellenism gained a new ruler of the deities when it imported Zeus. I wanna say he was Mycenian, maybe Macedonian. Can't remember off the top of my head. Ask Campbell. That was a pretty major change. The Celtic pantheon changed every time their culture was invaded. That's a pretty big change a few times over.

Quote:

Generalization = not a good thing.

Alright, then shall I go through and list every religion that did or did not contain a harvest deity and decide if it was predominate or not based upon the numbers? And just to make sure that most people in America wipe their a** should I also go and ask each individual in America if they wipe their a**? If you're going to veto any form of generalization from the debate then you go and check every possible variable as to avoid it yourself. Prove me wrong.

Quote:

Yeah, terminology is important, I agree, but I don't see how that equates with bull. And for the most part nobody here will give "opinions" so much as accurate information, because to spread more lies when they're already in abundance would be irresponsible. And if you've read the guild info, it says that we strive for "Educational, Respectful and Responsible Paganism." If you have a problem with being told you're wrong, you may not be ready for this guild. I hope this isn't the case.

The bull to which I refer is the crap spouted by people who needlessly attack (and I do mean attack) others. Other than historical fact a lot of Paganism is opinion. How one defines deity varies not only from tradition to tradition but individual to individual. No one is correct as everyone holds only beliefs, ie opinion. It would only be fact to state that a particular tradition holds a particular belief. That belief itself would be opinion. But hey, call it fact all you like, it's only my opinion that spiritual beliefs cannot be proven fact.
I have no issue with being told I'm wrong, I have issue with being attacked. In this thread I did two things; I stated an opinion about pretention in Paganism and I proposed questions. I was immediately attacked because I made "unjustified claims" when I claimed nothing. In another thread I made a mistake when using the term "Wicca" when I should've said "Paganism". It was a legitimate mistake and I admitted it but rather than someone politely pointing out the mistake I was immediately attacked and insulted. Even still I admitted my mistake and was insulted still. That is what inspired me to make this thread and propose my questions and again I was attacked and insulted. That is the pretention to which I refer and that is what I take issue with. Paganism is supposed to be a flexible religion practiced by open minded individuals but so many people have their heads stuck so far up their asses with this tradition and that that they forget ideas like openess. Whatever happened to perfect love and perfect trust? It seems so many people are quick to attack you but do little to legitimately help you. It's spirituality, it's belief, not fact. No one person is right in spirituality. The idea in Paganism is that each person is different and has the right to their own spirituality. But now that I enter the community I'm immediately attacked for freakin' nothing because people always want to be right, whether or not they are. I'm not saying I am, I didn't really say anything. I asked questions and got nothing but attitude, grief, and oversized egos. If people were civil and would politely point out mistakes and errors then I would either politely apologize and fix it or argue against them in some civil form. Of course if I'm attacked I'll attack right back. I tried the endlessly polite thing and it didn't work for me. If people are going to attack me no matter what I say I will respond with the same. When people try being civil I will respond in kind. Until then I will continue to respond to insults and attacks with the same.

I thought after 6 years of solitary practice I might try reaching out to other like minded people but it seems there is no such thing here. It's sad really.  

[maenad nuri]

Kurai, the attitude you are receiving is entirely based on the attitude you are giving. Check it at the door. You are not responding well to people correcting and trying to broaden your 6 years of practice.  

[The Player Character]

maenad nuri

Kurai, the attitude you are receiving is entirely based on the attitude you are giving. Check it at the door. You are not responding well to people correcting and trying to broaden your 6 years of practice.

I'll only defend myself once more as I seem to be talking for nothing. My attitude is in reaction to the attitude given to me by CuAnnan in another thread. It is an attitude continued again in this thread. I dont know if you read that post at all but I'm almost certain I got called a c**t. It seems understandable that I would have an attitude in reaction to being called a c**t. I guess I'm just over-reacting to a blatant insult. Forgive me for getting upset at being called a c**t and then made to look a fool based upon unsupported accusations.  

[maenad nuri]

KuraiNeko

maenad nuri

Kurai, the attitude you are receiving is entirely based on the attitude you are giving. Check it at the door. You are not responding well to people correcting and trying to broaden your 6 years of practice.

I'll only defend myself once more as I seem to be talking for nothing. My attitude is in reaction to the attitude given to me by CuAnnan in another thread. It is an attitude continued again in this thread. I dont know if you read that post at all but I'm almost certain I got called a c**t. It seems understandable that I would have an attitude in reaction to being called a c**t. I guess I'm just over-reacting to a blatant insult. Forgive me for getting upset at being called a c**t and then made to look a fool based upon unsupported accusations.

He didn't, hence the main word "if I decide" in his sentence -- but I understand where you got that, so I already talked to him about it. Now it's your turn, particuraly since you are taking it out on people who are really not insulting you, people who are at the very least, attempting to introduce a little doubt.  

[The Player Character]

I will admit that I may have misinterpreted the words of others because I was already riled by CuAnnan. Whether or not this is the case is unimportant as I have no intention of debating or arguing further. I apologize if misinterpreted anybody's words or intentions. That being said, with the reaction I received immediately after posting for the first time I doubt I will be terribly active in this guild. Who knows though, maybe CuAnnan is a rare case. I certainly hope so.  

[The Player Character]

Its time for bed. Gotta drive home tomorrow.  

[TeaDidikai]

KuraiNeko

Um, I believe the terms I was referring to were "Paganism" and "Neopaganism", last time I checked these were different than Wica.

They are different. However, I am not limited to the examples you provide. It's part of being able to apply critical thinking to a subject- and since you made claims about the Wica earlier, I applied it there- since you either were being ironic by being pretentious, or simply do not understand the meaning of the word.

Quote:

Again, I am proposing questions, I made no conjecture as to the legitimacy of any term.

Actually, you did make conjecture as to the legitimacy of terms since you suggested that some terms are pretentious, and thus are unjustified- making them illegitimate in application.

I'm not a fan of intellectual dishonesty, so I tend not to let it slide just because a poster contradicts themselves.

Quote:

I did say I felt that people were pretentious about this subject, obviously an opinion.

Opinions are not right for merely being opinions.

Quote:

I made no unjustified claims, I simply proposed questions and stated an opinion. You're doing a good job of justifying my opinion seeing how you define pretention as centering around unjustified claims and you're making an awful lot of them. Thanks for that.

Actually, my position is justified by yours here and in other threads. Hence why I pointed out the irony.

Quote:

Being common doesn't make something right.

Never said it was right, just less immediately important to have strictly defined. Good job.

Quote:

Wow, you weren't blatantly attacking or insulting me here. Were you feeling alright? (Yeah, I'm being mean at this point. I don't take well to being attacked without justification. I suppose thats why I never tried entering the community. Too much bullshit.)

Part of your problem is that you don't have the ability to understand that we aren't attacking you. Your position perhaps, but not you.

I expect an apology for your behavior towards me.

Quote:

What lines? I would like this defined since you all seem to really get your panties in a wad about this Wica stuff. Don't want to step on any hypersensitive toes.

Lineaged traditions. The common ones we see are CVW, Alexandrian etc.

As for why your position is offensive, it smacks of entitlement and ignorance. If you tell me next that you get to call me a Gypsy because that's what you feel like calling me, you'll get a similar reaction. Ignorance and entitlement when debasing others is frowned upon here.

Quote:

I'm pretty certain this is up for debate. You should try to keep an open mind, maybe you (or your pride) wouldn't be insulted so easily.

Actually, you made a hasty generalization. There are religious traditions that are orthopraxic by nature- they don't change. If they do, they are no longer that religion. There are Mystery traditions that have died, rather than change. So, while in your ignorance you claim that religions do a certain thing, being ignorant of the exceptions doesn't mean they don't exist. This is called an Argument from Ignorance by the way- your lack of knowledge on the subject doesn't mean exceptions to your position don't exist.

Quote:

I have yet to find a religion that has not undergone some form of change over the years.

That's a byproduct of you not being familiar with all religions.

Quote:

People and societies change and I believe religions, all traditions included, change in coordination with this.

See above why your ignorance doesn't change the fact that there are cults that allow themselves to no longer exist rather then indulging your unsupported opinion.

Quote:

Even if we assume that the basic principles of a religion do not change (say there is an unchanging, unaltered book of rules for instance), the way it is practiced and the way those principles are interpreted would logically change as the people practicing it and the society they lived in changed.

This is anything but logical since it relies on several fallacies, argument from ignorance, argument from potential, proof by assertion etc, to stand.

Quote:

Whether or not the words used stay the same, if the practice and interpretation change I think that changes the religion fundamentally.

Your personal opinion isn't enough to actually define external forces though.

Quote:

I formed no generalizations, to do that I would have to have some point of reference to generalize about. I put forth no point of reference. Hell, I never even said I believed this was the case. In this case I do believe it but my belief is based off of my observations of many faiths and of many societies. You shouldn't make so many assumptions. It's insulting.

You need to communicate more accurately. You said:

Quote:

Aren't religions transient and changeable?

It reads as a rhetorical question. It turns out that there is justification for us reading it as rhetorical since you then made a lot of unsupported claims about the nature of world religions being such.

Quote:

Holy crap! I forgot all about that! I'm terrible! I'll bet they weren't so open and vocal as they are now, the faith tended to look down upon open gays in a rather violent manner. Christianity no longer stones gays and I've now got a few openly gay, Christian friends who believe Jesus loves them despite their sexual orientation. Even though the Bible blatantly rejects homosexuality there are those that interpret and practice it differently. A good example of what I was rambling about above.

I wasn't aware that a theology, as opposed to it's members, were able to stone people.

I want a chapter and verse citation that demonstrates in the Koine that Christian scripture rejects homosexuality. There isn't one that I recall, so my suspicion is that you are proffering more ignorance and conjecture as fact.

Quote:

Ah, so you include Asiatic religions in your definition.

I don't rely on personal appeals to authority to define words.

I allow experts in linguistics to provide definitions.

Quote:

I don't. Funny how these semantics work.

See- I see this less as an issue of semantics, and more of an issue of your offering your personal ignorance in place of a solid understanding.

Quote:

I also define Pagan from Neopagan by the time period in which the religion arose. For example, Hellenism would be a Pagan religion.

And what makes you think that- especially since the term Neo-Pagan was actually created to address people like Nuri.

Quote:

Wica/Wicca is a Neopagan religion. I feel that it may be incorrect to use the word Pagan to describe any non-Asiatic, non-Abrahamic religion currently practiced as not enough information survives to accurately practice them (those that arose early enough to earn the title Pagan in my opinion). I do not necessarily believe this though, I'm still debating it. If I decide this is not the case, in my opinion, then only revivals of the older religions would qualify as Pagan rather than Neo-pagan. I should mention, lest any of your begin raging like banshees, that these conjectures are my opinions, as I've stated several times. Not fact, opinion. Don't accuse me of false conjectures, they are opinions. Opinions. O-pin-ions.

Being an opinion, and waving your hands as though that somehow justifies them, doesn't make them immune to criticism.

Quote:

And your traditions are?

I have no intention of debasing that which is sacred to me in order to indulge you.

Quote:

How old are they?

That isn't relevant.

Quote:

If they are not by my definition a Pagan (versus Neopagan) religion then they would not qualify for this statement. In other words, do they predate Christianity?

They predate Christian influence over my culture.

Quote:

Oh, I'm sorry, I keep thinking about religion as a reflection of society. I keep thinking that these applied well to societies as a whole, not just individuals.

I'm glad you now see your mistake. Please make corrections for the future as well.

Quote:

I mean, it's not like the Hellenistic deities were the predominant deities of ancient Greece. It's not like they could apply to society and societal functions like agriculture.

As has been pointed out- the pagans you are addressing here worship gods, not charactures.

Quote:

I don't know what the hell about that offended your PC a** so much.

Your tone is out of line.

Quote:

I'm guessing you're just being rude but on the off chance you're not I would suck it up a little. I was, obviously, referring to larger scale ideas, those applying to a whole society rather than the functions of the individual. Even if we take into consideration your blackberries, how many people do that? I hate to break it to you but in the cities I've lived in gardening wasn't exactly big. But hey, lets not take into consideration what occurs on average, only you're practices are important here.

Most people I know personally engage in some form of harvesting, even if it is for recreation.

But then, I live in a city that has massive urban gardens and a great deal of wilderness for wildcrafting.

Quote:

Alright, what defines something as a deity vs a caricature? =)

Individuals verses misrepresentations thereof.
I'll address the rest of your unfounded position later.  

[Bastemhet]

KuraiNeko

I'm really just referring to the difference between strict definition and practical usage. A good example is the word "Manga". In Japanese it literally means something like "whimsical picture" but its practically used to refer to graphic novels. When we use it in English its used to mean Japanese graphic novels in particular. Technically it does not mean Japanese graphic novels but its practically taken to mean that. In day to day, casual conversation I do not see the point in getting pissy about using the term manga completely accurately.

Words in translation are kind of iffy to be using as an example. There of course are problems with directly translating foreign words into English as sometimes this is impossible. Japanese is one example, hieroglyphics is another great example. However you're asking for the definition of pagan and neopagan which are both English origin words that we can come to a reasonable understanding of the definition on, so I don't think defining foreign words are a good analogy.

Quote:

Another example would be words like "existence" in philosophy. We could debate the definition of existence and time and whatnot until the end of time so in order to keep things moving we have to make some assumptions in philosophy to allow debate to move forward.

O.K., this is another slippery example. Since metaphysical conclusions are nonfalsifiable you can say any damned thing means existence for you, and no one could prove otherwise. As soon as you step onto the solipsistic side, even arguing about reality is pointless. However if you want to keep it in the realm of just hard science, our existence is pretty obvious. We can measure matter now, as well as heart beats, brain waves, etc. Again this is not a good analogy when talking about words' definitions because hey, we have etymologies, linguistics, dictionaries, history, and social contexts to help us out (please do not confuse this last one as majority wins)! Any of these can be used to verify a basic meaning to those words, while social applications can be verified, categorized, and justified (or not). An opinion of what something means is only ignorant unless it has any of these things to back it up.

Quote:

I don't get on people's asses when the use Pagan to describe Wica (which I feel is Neopagan) in common conversation because its time consuming to debate and not that important in common conversation.

I very much disagree. It is important that everyone knows what something means before they start debating it. Otherwise they should first try to understand what it means, period.

Quote:

In debate I would argue with it though. Words like energy and deity are difficult to accurately define in this context so I might accept a general definition in a debate to keep it moving rather than focusing on it for hours.
This is what I meant when I said that.

Then why did you not just simply ask "What do pagan and neopagan mean?" You began to make assertions about the nature of every single religion before even having come to this consensus yet. You may think you know, but here's what I learned from my stay here: always approach a topic with the idea that you may be wrong, and you probably are, and you will end up learning more. People have this funny idea that once they learn a couple things, that's about all that's necessary to jump to some pretty silly conclusions. There is always more to learn, and there are some very informed people here.

Quote:

Bastemhet

Only if one is completely ignorant of the religion at hand. Then you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. Thankfully there are either revealed texts, accepted canon/practices, or archaeological evidence to clear up this kind of nonsense.

I mentioned this already in my last post but I'll say it again; I disagree. Even those religions of which we have some idea of the practices and beliefs changed. For instance, Zeus is not native to Hellenism, he was a foreign import. In that case do you include Zeus in the pantheon? He wasn't originally part of it. Was the original version correct or was the revised pantheon including him correct? By adding Zeus and putting him as ruler of the gods the religion was fundamentally changed.

I think you are mistaken. The incorporation or syncretisation of a deity into a pre-existing pantheon does not change anything except perhaps the heirarchy of deities (if there even existed one in the first place). For example, the Egyptian patheon was vast. There was of course the Pesedjet that we are most familiar with, but there were other groupings, tons of local deities, maybe even thousands, and many more that we will never know of. Throughout the course of history interaction with other societies led to the incorporation of foreign deities being incorporated into the pantheon. For one example, in some instances, the Sumerian goddess Astarte is identified as the Egyptian god Set's wife, when he is identified with the Semitic name Hadad. This is probably a convention to strengthen bonds between those two cultures. This was not part of the original Egyptian mythos, nor did it essentially change anything about it. Everything else was not affected by just this one small syncretism. So to state that because some religions evolve that there is something transient about them is not only insulting but wrong. And now that I've given you an example in which this idea is utterly wrong, please don't make a blanket statement about religions anymore.

Quote:

It would be as if the church added in a bit about Jesus' older brother, the failed messiah. That would change Christianity majorly.

This is really not comparable for the reasons I stated above.

Quote:

Ah, when I said "Must they..." I was referring to any current Pagan religion. Basically asking how far reiterations of old religions can stray before they are no longer considered Pagan.

If you are defining pagan as any non-Abrahamic religion, then I don't understand how a religion can stray from this. It either is or it isn't.

Quote:

"They" are religions". Christianity, for instance, no longer supports the stoning of gays. There has also been the addition of a few new deadly sins recently.

Tea covered the former. And I believe the deadly sins are Catholic. In which case as Pope, one can add onto that list speaking as the foundation of the church who has "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" Matthew 16:13-19. Also, I fail to see how the addition of the deadly sins completely changes and invalidates whatever the religion formerly was. If they add onto the sins while keeping with the ethics that have been already established by the Bible, which is revealed wisdom from God, then there is nothing actually changing here. I cannot speak with authority though, since I'm not Catholic. I suggest you speak to a Catholic Priest about this rather than assume things about the religion based on what little you know about it. Please allow them the autonomy to define their own religion for themselves. To do otherwise would be bigotted.

Quote:

Quote:

Generalization = not a good thing.

Alright, then shall I go through and list every religion that did or did not contain a harvest deity and decide if it was predominate or not based upon the numbers? And just to make sure that most people in America wipe their a** should I also go and ask each individual in America if they wipe their a**? If you're going to veto any form of generalization from the debate then you go and check every possible variable as to avoid it yourself. Prove me wrong.

Actually, I really don't have to.

Definition for shifting the burden of proof, a logical fallacy

Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Description: The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

Quote:

The bull to which I refer is the crap spouted by people who needlessly attack (and I do mean attack) others.

Because you never engage in this, right? And I'm not going to comment on others' behavior because I'm not a moderator, but you really, really need to know the difference between someone showing you that your unfounded opinion is wrong, and someone attacking your personal character. The latter is not tolerated here.

Quote:

Other than historical fact a lot of Paganism is opinion.

Maybe in the circles you run in. That would be unfortunate. However this guild, and this forum, and continued personal education are great resources to correct this idea.

Quote:

How one defines deity varies not only from tradition to tradition but individual to individual. No one is correct as everyone holds only beliefs, ie opinion.

I would actually say everyone is correct depending on what system/philosophy they adhere to, and how well they have developed their own ideas.

Quote:

It would only be fact to state that a particular tradition holds a particular belief. That belief itself would be opinion.

Truism. A belief can be wrong just like an opinion can be wrong. And you're forgetting orthopraxic traditions.

Quote:

But hey, call it fact all you like, it's only my opinion that spiritual beliefs cannot be proven fact.

I believe others have already covered this but mystical experiences by their very nature are nonfalsifiable. If you're asking for someone to prove their mystical experience, you would really be going about it the wrong way.

Quote:

I have no issue with being told I'm wrong, I have issue with being attacked. In this thread I did two things; I stated an opinion about pretention in Paganism and I proposed questions. I was immediately attacked because I made "unjustified claims" when I claimed nothing.

You had a few assumptions in your original post that you seem to be having trouble letting go of.

Quote:

In another thread I made a mistake when using the term "Wicca" when I should've said "Paganism". It was a legitimate mistake and I admitted it but rather than someone politely pointing out the mistake I was immediately attacked and insulted. Even still I admitted my mistake and was insulted still. That is what inspired me to make this thread and propose my questions and again I was attacked and insulted. That is the pretention to which I refer and that is what I take issue with.

Again, there is a difference between attacking your person and attacking your incorrect conclusions. Why do you feel entitled to be coddled when some of the things you say are very insulting to others?

Quote:

Paganism is supposed to be a flexible religion practiced by open minded individuals but so many people have their heads stuck so far up their asses with this tradition and that that they forget ideas like openess. Whatever happened to perfect love and perfect trust?

What you think it's supposed to be is not what it always is. If your definition "non-Abrahamic" is applied then there are so many different forms of religion that to glob them into a homologous term would be wrong, and that is exactly what you did. Also, perfect love and perfect trust- isn't this from the movie The Craft? I don't know if this is a legit Wiccan idea, but if it is, you're taking it out of context and also assuming everyone here agrees with Wiccan theology. Another grand, and baseless assumption.

Quote:

It seems so many people are quick to attack you but do little to legitimately help you.

Actually, at least two people have answered all of your questions and told you about other ideas that you then can go research on your own. If you want them to explain more, ask. Nobody is going to spoon feed you here, and it's ridiculous to think that because we are in this guild that our lives are devoted to gently teaching someone we've just met everything there is to know about non-Abrahamic religions. We're not tutors, and we don't get paid.

Quote:

The idea in Paganism is that each person is different and has the right to their own spirituality.

Again, a sense of entitlement to all religions is not going to get you far, especially with closed or initiatory religions.

Quote:

But now that I enter the community I'm immediately attacked for freakin' nothing because people always want to be right, whether or not they are. I'm not saying I am, I didn't really say anything. I asked questions and got nothing but attitude, grief, and oversized egos. If people were civil and would politely point out mistakes and errors then I would either politely apologize and fix it or argue against them in some civil form. Of course if I'm attacked I'll attack right back. I tried the endlessly polite thing and it didn't work for me. If people are going to attack me no matter what I say I will respond with the same. When people try being civil I will respond in kind. Until then I will continue to respond to insults and attacks with the same.

Attacking people is not going to lead to learning anything. If you really want to learn, have patience. This is the best advice I can give you. I hope you take it to heart.

Quote:

I thought after 6 years of solitary practice I might try reaching out to other like minded people but it seems there is no such thing here. It's sad really.

All people who practice non-Abrahamic religion are not like-minded. There is a huge variety of stuff out there. If you really want to learn, you now have the opportunity to suck it up and admit that there is stuff that you don't know and would appreciate if people would help you out. Secondly, try not talking. I'm serious. Don't take an idea and run with it because that is the easiest way to say some offensive crap and shut other people out. Learning is listening and asking questions. Frame your questions so that you don't sound like you already know s**t when you just told us your read Silver Ravenwolf. Check out the links list and book list stickies at the top of the forum. And I suggest you apologize to the people you've offended already. There may be a chance for you to learn, yet.  

[Collowrath]

KuraiNeko

A few examples are the terms Neopagan vs Pagan. Is one term more appropriate than another? Are they both usable? In what context?

Personally, when I use pagan in a general sense (non-Abrahamic) and neopagan to refer to pagan religions that are new (as opposed to mesopagan, and paleopagan).

Quote:

As a possible continuation of this idea, how far can we stray from the old religions before it is no longer related enough to call it Paganism (with or without the Neo suffix)?

Well in order to stop calling it Pagan, it would have to start straying into Abrahamic territory. Until then, it's still Pagan, just different kind.

Quote:

This applies to specific sect such as Wicca. True Wicca would most likely be Gardners tradition but is that where the line must be drawn? Many books that stray from Gardners path have been published using the word Wicca (To Ride A silver Broomstick for instance). Are they completely wrong? Aren't religions transient and changeable?

Actually in the case of Wicca, that is where the line is drawn. When it no longer resembles the core of Wicca (does not carry the proper rituals and such), it is not Wicca. That's the core of an orthopraxy. Some religions are perhaps malleable in that they are organic and will adapt to changing times. Wicca not so much - it is designed experientially; the rituals are done in their particular way in order to transfer a set of mysteries upon the practitioners - change it enough and that mystery is lost/not transferred.

Quote:

Look at Christianity, there are gay Christians now.

I'm sure there have always been gays in Christianity. biggrin We're not new to the world or anything.

Quote:

What about the less strict Paganism. Must they include only elements of old religions? They've changed so much can they not continue to change?

Nie. Not all Pagan traditions are mesopagan. If one is trying to reconstruct or revitalize an old religion, once they change it to the point where it does not resemble that original source, is it the same religion? Probably not.

Quote:

At the time Pagan religions generally had a deity of the harvest but now we have factory farming. Is a harvest god/dess still appropriate? What about gods appropriate to our time like a god of the net? Where do we draw the line to define (Neo)Paganism?

How and where we grow our crops does not change why they grow in the first place. Also, I'm sure there are Gods of the internet - it seems like the kind of thing Hermes would so be in to.

I guess, when trying to define neopaganism, you should ask yourself, is it neo/new?

Quote:

Terminology seems to be the root of most of the pretentious bull in Paganism so I wanted to hear opinions.

Unfortunately, a lot of the time when people complain about this as being pretentious bull, it's because they're trying to justify using a word incorrectly for no good reason. Sure, Wicca is a nice word. It sounds cool. But it has a meaning - like most words. Given the way verbal and written communication works, it's for the best that words don't just mean whatever we want them to.

For instance, I like the word kurats. It sounds really cool, rolls off the tongue very easy. Hey, my friends are cool. I like them. I want to call them a cool sounding word, not some soft word like "friends." Unfortunately, no matter how much I want kurats to mean friends it still means c**k.