Nothing isn't Pagan anymore.

[Starlock]

Yeah... I'm in that Guild as well, I just generally don't use sig images. Heh.  

[TeaDidikai]

Jasta

Quote:

(Pst... there is an offical Jedi Church in England)

Lol.. well, I've not come across that one, and I live in England... if you want to point me in the direction of a reference there Tea, that'd be cool smile Sorry if I am giving out incoorect info there.

I'd be happy to. I think it is based near or in Liverpool (my hubby mentioned it- and he lived there, so I'm making an assumption that may or may not be correct)

TheDisreputableDog

TeaDidikai

And as lovely as all this "Self Identifying" stuff is- there is the fact that Pagan isn't an inclusive term, but an exclusive term. Historically it was not a title claimed, but a title issued not to mean "All of us" but to mean "All of them"- being outside of Christendom.

Yes yes. These days people want to be pagan. It's a cool club. Kinda like being a "gypsy." stare

Don't be insulting. I'll iggy you so fast it will make your head spin. I haven't had to iggy someone for racial slurs yet- don't be the first.  

[Jasta]

Quote:

I'd be happy to. I think it is based near or in Liverpool (my hubby mentioned it- and he lived there, so I'm making an assumption that may or may not be correct)

Very cool.. thank you smile  

[Son of Axeman]

I think he's refering to the "gypsy craze", where it was considered cool to pretend to be as much like a gypsy as you can. Same with teenagers, and trying to be as stereotypically black as possible, what with the pants at their ankles, and t-shirts thirteen sizes too big, and imitating the dialect that African-American teenagers were using at the time. I don't think it was meant in a hurtful or racial manner.  

[TeaDidikai]

Son of Axeman

I think he's refering to the "gypsy craze", where it was considered cool to pretend to be as much like a gypsy as you can. Same with teenagers, and trying to be as stereotypically black as possible, what with the pants at their ankles, and t-shirts thirteen sizes too big, and imitating the dialect that African-American teenagers were using at the time. I don't think it was meant in a hurtful or racial manner.

I am painfully aware of what they speak of. It is still an ethnic slur- one that puts people on my s**t list faster than you can spit.  

[Starlock]

TeaDidikai

Son of Axeman

I think he's refering to the "gypsy craze", where it was considered cool to pretend to be as much like a gypsy as you can. Same with teenagers, and trying to be as stereotypically black as possible, what with the pants at their ankles, and t-shirts thirteen sizes too big, and imitating the dialect that African-American teenagers were using at the time. I don't think it was meant in a hurtful or racial manner.

I am painfully aware of what they speak of. It is still an ethnic slur- one that puts people on my s**t list faster than you can spit.

So here's a point of question.

I'd hazard to say the vast majority of the population has no clue "gypsy" is an ethnic slur. Given that, if you use an 'ethnic slur' with absolutely no knowledge that it even IS a slur, is it *really* a slur anymore (language evolves on the basis of how people use words, and if people are not using it as an ethnic slur with deliberate intent to be offensive...)? Perhaps ignorance may be an excuse, but I'd say knowing "gypsy" as an ethnic slur is pretty damned obscure knowledge, implying that when people use the word, they don't mean it disrespectfully in any way. Wouldn't you say the definition of "gypsy" has thus changed away from being a slur if it is almost never used in that context?  

[TeaDidikai]

[ Message temporarily off-line ]  

[TheDisreputableDog]

TeaDidikai

So- not to put to fine a point on it- No.

I suggest, if I may, that this particular discussion is now at an end, and now we all know better. My posts on the subject have been deleted and I apologize for my words. If there's anything I can do to make up for it, although I'm guessing there isn't, say the word.  

[WebenBanu]

Nuri

That works when you actually have something that your religion is. NeoWicca would at least have Wicca as its basis. But paganism really doesn't have a basis in anything at this point, and I think that is a strength. It causes us to think diversely and expand ourselves beyond our comfort level.

You're treating Paganism as a religion itself, though.^_^ Paganism is a family of religions, and not it's own religion. For example, look at Native American religion- there is no particular "Native American religion," but it is a family of religions found mostly in Northern America. The various religions which make up this family may be more or less similar in some ways, but they are also very distinct from one another. However, simply because the members of this family are different from one another does not mean that a person could just make something up involving animal spirits and legitimately call it a Native American religion, claiming that it's no more different from the existing NARs than the originals are from each other (although some folks do try^_^'). In the same way, a person can't simply make up a religion and call it "Pagan," just because Pagan religions are varied.

We can accept other religions or ways of viewing the world without giving up our own identity. Not everybody has to be in our little club in order to be accepted.^_~ If someone finds that fictional characters enrich and enhance their understanding of life, then that's great- so long as it leads to an ethical and functional life, then that's a wonderful use of modern literature. But that doesn't make them one of us- not everyone who has an unusual approach to life is Pagan, even if we think it's a valid one.

Nuri

I don't see as much difference between fiction and mythology, espcially good fiction. While there is a difference between a delusion, using fiction as a source for your spiritual beliefs isn't always delusional.

The difference is that myths were created to illustrate the flow of forces in this world- real forces, real natural and spiritual phenomena. The characters of myths embody real forces or entities which really act out the sorts of things which the myths say that they do. The myths are there to help us to understand how reality works. Fiction, on the other hand, is simply made up because somebody thought that it would be entertaining. Myths are there to instruct, while fiction is there to amuse. That is the difference.

Nuri

Namely, theres a difference between Mists of Avalon and Jediism-which both have more mainstream "pagan" ideas at their core, and believing that Sailor Moon is real.

What is the difference, other than that Star Wars and Mists of Avalon may appeal more to us as settings, whereas Sailor Moon is targeted toward a younger audience? I've known people who would invoke anime characters (including Sailor Senshi) in rituals- kind of like pre-made thought forms when they're used as gods and goddesses. They were going on the same theory that you've stated above- that fiction is the modern version of mythology. It really wouldn't be fair to laugh at Sailor Moonites while accepting Jedites, since they're both basically doing the same thing.

Jasta

Re-iterating - the Jedi do not consider themselves pagan.
They do not consider themselves a part of the pagan religion.
They do not advertise themselves as being pagan in any way at all..

That makes more sense. Also, it strikes me as more of a philosophy than a religion, anyway.^_^  

[WebenBanu]

TeaDidikai

And as lovely as all this "Self Identifying" stuff is- there is the fact that Pagan isn't an inclusive term, but an exclusive term. Historically it was not a title claimed, but a title issued not to mean "All of us" but to mean "All of them"- being outside of Christendom.

Fair enough.^_^ But because of that, Paganism as a term has been used to describe the indigenous or traditional religions of the world- other than the Abrahamic religions- for quite some time. It probably came to have an "All other religions" association because at the time that it first came into usage, the traditional religions of each area pretty much were all the other religions with which most folks using the term were familiar. We've entered into a very different kind of age, however, where a lot of new religions are just springing up all over the place. It's very tempting to use the term "Paganism" for any of these new religions, because it's an old term and we can't seem to think of anywhere else to put the new arrivals.^_^' However, Paganism is not simply "any religion," and there are indeed religions which do not fit the bill.

Many of our NeoPagan religions are already on the fringes of what could appropriately be called Pagan, honestly. While I don't tend to spend much time worrying about who is and who is not technically "Pagan"- I tend to be a bit too busy with my own concerns to spend much time on it^_^'- I do recognize these facts. For me, so far, it has been sufficient to say that for a religion to claim the title, it really needs to be related to one of the original Pagan religions. The further that religion digresses from the original, the more frivolous the title of "Pagan" becomes. I expect that if someone was truly serious about their religion, they wouldn't weaken it with a frivolous title, and leave it at that. Because of this, the family of NeoPagan religions can use our common set of "Pagan" origins as a rallying point, and we share some similar concerns. On the other hand, if "Pagan" comes to mean "just anybody," the term will lose even that much significance and become entirely useless.  

[WebenBanu]

EladrinStarmist

It's possible to be pagan and jedi, but jedi doesnt' automatically = Pagan.

That seems more logical.^_^

EladrinStarmist

Honestly, the ppday way of describing Pagan is the best one I've seen. Any thoughts?

I agree with some parts of it, but others seem a bit too loose. That doesn't surprise me, though, since the modern Pagan movement tends to try to be all things for all people- it's a political tactic, trying to gain as many followers as possible so that they can be a more "real" political force. There are both pros and cons to that approach, however. While they probably can accomplish more that way, they do it at the cost of Pagan identity- which in the end may be more harmful than doing nothing at all. sad

A Pagan or NeoPagan is someone who self-identifies as a Pagan, and whose spiritual or religious practice or belief fits into one or more of the following categories:

Honoring, revering, or worshipping a Deity or Deities found in pre-Christian, classical, aboriginal, or tribal mythology;

I'm OK with this so far. Self-identification is fine so long as it's backed up by that second qualification, and I'm not going to force somebody to use a description of "Pagan" if they don't want to be one. Even if, technically, they are.

and/or Practicing religion or spirituality based upon shamanism, shamanic, or magickal practices;

We're getting more iffy here- I tend to believe that magical practices are inextricably intertwined with religious principles, but not all folks agree. Paganism is a family of religions, so magic which is not woven out of spiritual practices does not qualify. Magic which does qualify will already be included in the description if the corolating spiritual practices qualify as Pagan, so it's inclusion here is superflous. Magic belongs more in the Occult community than the Pagan one.

Also, the use of the term "shamanic" in this sense is like the use of the word "kleenex" or "xerox." Technically, it refers to a much more specific religion/brand product, but it has come to signify any of a large number of religions/products of a similar nature.

So drop magic and establish that "shamanic practices" in this case are a particular set of practices associated with certain "pre-Christian, classical, aboriginal, or tribal" religions, and this is also good.

and/or Creating new religion based on past Pagan religions and/or futuristic views of society, community, and/or ecology;

Heading further out into left field here, this is where my original comment of "the further a religion digresses from its Pagan origin, the more frivolous a designation of 'Pagan' becomes" applies. Some created religions could be considered honorary Pagan religions based on their close association with their Pagan origin. Religions based on futuristic views of society, community, and/or ecology, however, do not have a strong enough association with Pagan religion to be included as a sole identifying characteristic of "Paganism." confused This latter set, therefore, should not be included in this list.

and/or Focusing religious or spiritual attention primarily on the Divine Feminine.

And this is so vague as to be practically useless. Why is the Divine Feminine quintessentially Pagan and the Divine Masculine is not? Simply because some non-Pagan religions have a male God? Newsflash: lots of Pagan religions have male g/Gods, too. Are women just naturally more Pagan than men because Jesus was male? This line of reasoning is absurd.  

[AvalonAuggie]

Son of Axeman

Absolutely. A "religion" that acts as an extension of things that we have immediate proof that are fiction, the Mists of Avalon, for instance, should not be associated with paganism in any way/shape/form.

The Bible, the Qu'ran, Hermetic, Nordic, etc. Mythologies are excempt to this, considering that, although there is no evidence that they are real, there is no evidence that they are fiction, either. With Star Wars, or the Mists of Avalon, there is concrete, irrefutable proof that they are, indeed, fiction.

And, the very fact that there is a discussion of whether or not Jediism is pagan or not in THIS little community means that it has to be an issue for the rest of the pagan community, as a whole (I use that term loosely).

Another problem I see with the real or fiction debate on religions is that when you've got a basic source material from long enough ago, the distinction between fictional and nonfictional literature did not exist (much like concepts of ideological ownership and copyright). In the case of certain major religions I could name, original texts that describe events in a metaphorical sense (given audience awareness and cultural traditions of using such literary devices) can in the modern day be taken literally by believers, in a sense making religion out of what was originally written with a somewhat fictional intent.

Apocalyptic tales in the Hebrew and Christian bibles (Revelation, the book of Daniel I believe) can be viewed in historical context as metaphorical fictions describing the persecution of the Jews and early Christians, and the eventual hoped-for overthrow of these forces. but of course these days fundamentalists believe that there actually will be a giant Beast rising out of the sea to be the Antichrist, and I'd put that on the same level of misappropriation as people who think the Wicca-like Mists of Avalon faith is actually how things were run back in the day.

Of course the problem with this is that when things were written so long ago, we tend to accept them as legitimate no matter what the authors original intent may have been. With works that appear in the modern era, such as Star Wars, the line is more clearly drawn and we're more apt t call believers crazy. Or you know, just not practicing a 'valid' religion.  

[maenad nuri]

Weben: I think there's a difference between types of fiction, since our mythologies were also what were used to entertain, I'm open to new mythologies that arise out of fiction.

Where I see a difference is that both star wars and mists have values and belief structures that are common to some of the more generic ideas in eclectic paganism ( I am more than well aware that paganism is a family of religions, I just don't think all of our relatives have been born yet) than sailor moon, although, I could see the use in some archetypal ways of worship. I don't agree with them at all, but I can see its use.

As Avalon said, some of the texts that I use as part of my religion are born out of drama and comedy, and different collections of stories of the divine.

In fact, I find it strange that there are not more new myths being created. Greek myths depended on place to place and in time. Where are the new myths? Where are the new gods?

Interestingly enough, I like the ppd definition. I think its vague enough for a lot of people to slip in.