J
johnnyt3000
Guest
What characteristics would make someone a “Pagan”?
- Status
L
LethalMouse
Guest
The term is essentially used on any religion not of the one true God.
Though entomology wise maybe soecifically polytheism? But basically it is a generic term like protestant. There are many protestants as different from eachother as they are from catholics. But the term is useful for generic purposes.
Though entomology wise maybe soecifically polytheism? But basically it is a generic term like protestant. There are many protestants as different from eachother as they are from catholics. But the term is useful for generic purposes.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
the word pagan can be used as a derogatory term, intending to show that your religion is superior to theirs.
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
1
1ke
Guest
Not at all. The term pagan originated to distinguish between those who believe in the one God (Jews, Christians, and later Muslims) with those who do not. It is a word used to contrast, not to denigrate.
A
Ad_Orientem
Guest
Tom, for the sake of discussion, what exactly do you find offensive about the term? Is it that it implies that the beliefs of the person in question are false? Is it that it lumps different religions together, as if it matters not what they are, if they are not the true religion?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I said that some (but not all) Hindus in India take offense at being called pagan by Christians. When used by some Christians, paganism refers to a false and possibly superstitious religion.
quora.com/Why-dont-Hindus-like-to-identify-themselves-as-pagans-despite-Hinduism-being-a-pagan-religion
Further the Catholic encyclopedia classifies Hinduism as pagan, but many Hindus do not consider themselves to be pagan:
huffingtonpost.com/arvind-sharma/is-hinduism-a-pagan-relig_b_1245373.html
Christian articles on the web have called Hinduism pagan and devil worship.
jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Hinduism/julia_roberts.htm
A
anon67074017
Guest
A pagan is someone who worships multiple gods.
A
Ad_Orientem
Guest
Okay, I took your remark, “Yes it is offensive and derogatory” as your own opinion. Do you self-identify as pagan?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
No. I am Catholic.
C
ComplineSanFran
Guest
I know people (read: Christians) who equate pagan with ‘heathen’ and it is quite a derogatory term.
And I know many people who are, I guess the general term would be, neo-pagan. They practice their beliefs quite devoutly. There is a wide range of beliefs and schools of thought. They tend to follow schools that are culturally or geographically based, or through a line of philosophy, or through a devotion to a god or goddess. I wish I knew more: it is quite interesting.
There is a pagan seminary in the US called Cherry Hill. Their web site is:
cherryhillseminary.org
And I know many people who are, I guess the general term would be, neo-pagan. They practice their beliefs quite devoutly. There is a wide range of beliefs and schools of thought. They tend to follow schools that are culturally or geographically based, or through a line of philosophy, or through a devotion to a god or goddess. I wish I knew more: it is quite interesting.
There is a pagan seminary in the US called Cherry Hill. Their web site is:
cherryhillseminary.org
B
badnewsbarrett
Guest
Pagan is a word whose meaning has changed quite a bit over time. It used to be a catch-all term for anyone outside of the Abrahamic religions, and such people would typically have been presumed to be polytheistic and lacking in any sort of formally codified text purported to be revelation from God, or any sort of central leadership that could determine some form of orthodoxy on behalf of everyone practicing. Another common assumption was that pagan practices would likely have pre-dated Christianity.
The word can still be used in this way, but in a certain sense, we know better than to make such generalizations in an overly sweeping manner. As of now, we are more likely in general to make more careful distinctions between non-Abrahamic religions. We acknowledge that some non-Abrahamic religions are monotheistic, and even some forms of paganism are monotheistic- although, in fairness, if there is a Supreme Being there usually are some lesser deities involved and we may have to introduce a distinction between polytheism and henotheism. There are also some religious texts that may be used in a fairly universal manner within a particular practice, although that’s certainly not done as a rule, and you may find some attempts at a form of central leadership, although these attempts have varying levels of success when it comes to actual unity. Also, not all forms of paganism actually pre-date Christianity. This has led to some pagan-related terms that highlight such distinctions, like paleo-paganism (which is likely to act as a retronym in reference to pagan groups no longer really in existence), Meso-Paganism (practices which may or may not pre-date Christianity which have some continuity from an indigenous population to the modern day), and Neo-Pagan (which tends to be more of a modern-day restoration-ish type of thing in some form or fashion).
At this point in time, Hindus and Buddhists are typically excluded from the pagan category. There is a little something to talk about there, but it doesn’t define the whole group in either case. Typically though, if you’re looking for something that you can properly call pagan at this point in time, Santeria and Espiritu religion, Haitian Vodou, and British traditional Wicca would be some of the names that come out of the Meso-Pagan category, along with Viking age Norse paganism to some extent. Afro-diasporic faiths with origins in pre-Columbian America would be a good place to look, especially if some of those things are still around to any extent.
Neo-paganism mainly includes Wicca (the rebooted types, not the British traditional), neo-Druidism, and Slavic Rodnovery (although they don’t like the term “pagan,” but will accept “neo-pagan”).
At this point in time, pagan generally means there’s a plurality of divine beings although there may be a Supreme Being, it tends to be nature-based, it tends to exclude the idea of a fallen creation, and there tends to be the idea of the Sacred Feminine- a Goddess may be the Supreme Being, or there may be Goddesses who are co-equal to male deities. This is more characteristic of neo-Paganism, which sometimes picks and chooses which parts of an ancient religion it wants to revive while incorporating modern liberal values that have no basis in a proper restoration. But maybe a truly proper restoration isn’t exactly the goal.
In general, this may be a good rule of thumb. If you’re talking to someone who wants to reach back with the stated goal of reclaiming some religious truth that was obscured by the Christianization of a people-group that had some valuable religious practices before those practices were marginalized, you are probably looking at a pagan. Or maybe a neo-pagan, as some people will accept that term while rejecting the other. If you’re talking to someone who belongs to a major world religion of a people-group that hasn’t ever been substantially Christianized, that is probably not someone that you should call a pagan.
Aside from the Christianization angle, there is something to be said for Islamization…but when pagan religions get that treatment, the thing usually just gets wiped out and no longer exists. The Yazidi people are monotheistic, but they are classified as pagan by some- and they may be in the process of being wiped out. Some call them “the last pagans of Iraq,” and there isn’t much else going on in the rest of the Middle East. Going back to 1815, however, there was a polytheistic idol-worshipping group known as the Cult of Dhul Khalasa, and this was wiped out by the Wahhabist campaign of violence that led to the rise of the modern Saudi state- and it is the closest historical cognate to what ISIS is now doing. I suppose you might call them the second-to-last pagan religion of the Middle East, if indeed the Yazidis properly count as one, but if you look hard enough you might be able to find another example or two of pagan religions in the region that continue to survive under duress. With the Yazidis, though- some will say their monotheism excludes them. (I would say they’d be easier to exclude in a more Christianized area and more likely included when coming out of the Mesopotamian region, but that’s just me). Others will say a genocide is on, and agreeing to call them pagans gives the appearance of tacit approval of this genocide. If we can save some lives by finding a reason to call them something different, let’s try to save some lives.I can actually see where that’s coming from, and I’d be willing to set aside the issue of labels long enough to ensure a better chance at survival.
The word can still be used in this way, but in a certain sense, we know better than to make such generalizations in an overly sweeping manner. As of now, we are more likely in general to make more careful distinctions between non-Abrahamic religions. We acknowledge that some non-Abrahamic religions are monotheistic, and even some forms of paganism are monotheistic- although, in fairness, if there is a Supreme Being there usually are some lesser deities involved and we may have to introduce a distinction between polytheism and henotheism. There are also some religious texts that may be used in a fairly universal manner within a particular practice, although that’s certainly not done as a rule, and you may find some attempts at a form of central leadership, although these attempts have varying levels of success when it comes to actual unity. Also, not all forms of paganism actually pre-date Christianity. This has led to some pagan-related terms that highlight such distinctions, like paleo-paganism (which is likely to act as a retronym in reference to pagan groups no longer really in existence), Meso-Paganism (practices which may or may not pre-date Christianity which have some continuity from an indigenous population to the modern day), and Neo-Pagan (which tends to be more of a modern-day restoration-ish type of thing in some form or fashion).
At this point in time, Hindus and Buddhists are typically excluded from the pagan category. There is a little something to talk about there, but it doesn’t define the whole group in either case. Typically though, if you’re looking for something that you can properly call pagan at this point in time, Santeria and Espiritu religion, Haitian Vodou, and British traditional Wicca would be some of the names that come out of the Meso-Pagan category, along with Viking age Norse paganism to some extent. Afro-diasporic faiths with origins in pre-Columbian America would be a good place to look, especially if some of those things are still around to any extent.
Neo-paganism mainly includes Wicca (the rebooted types, not the British traditional), neo-Druidism, and Slavic Rodnovery (although they don’t like the term “pagan,” but will accept “neo-pagan”).
At this point in time, pagan generally means there’s a plurality of divine beings although there may be a Supreme Being, it tends to be nature-based, it tends to exclude the idea of a fallen creation, and there tends to be the idea of the Sacred Feminine- a Goddess may be the Supreme Being, or there may be Goddesses who are co-equal to male deities. This is more characteristic of neo-Paganism, which sometimes picks and chooses which parts of an ancient religion it wants to revive while incorporating modern liberal values that have no basis in a proper restoration. But maybe a truly proper restoration isn’t exactly the goal.
In general, this may be a good rule of thumb. If you’re talking to someone who wants to reach back with the stated goal of reclaiming some religious truth that was obscured by the Christianization of a people-group that had some valuable religious practices before those practices were marginalized, you are probably looking at a pagan. Or maybe a neo-pagan, as some people will accept that term while rejecting the other. If you’re talking to someone who belongs to a major world religion of a people-group that hasn’t ever been substantially Christianized, that is probably not someone that you should call a pagan.
Aside from the Christianization angle, there is something to be said for Islamization…but when pagan religions get that treatment, the thing usually just gets wiped out and no longer exists. The Yazidi people are monotheistic, but they are classified as pagan by some- and they may be in the process of being wiped out. Some call them “the last pagans of Iraq,” and there isn’t much else going on in the rest of the Middle East. Going back to 1815, however, there was a polytheistic idol-worshipping group known as the Cult of Dhul Khalasa, and this was wiped out by the Wahhabist campaign of violence that led to the rise of the modern Saudi state- and it is the closest historical cognate to what ISIS is now doing. I suppose you might call them the second-to-last pagan religion of the Middle East, if indeed the Yazidis properly count as one, but if you look hard enough you might be able to find another example or two of pagan religions in the region that continue to survive under duress. With the Yazidis, though- some will say their monotheism excludes them. (I would say they’d be easier to exclude in a more Christianized area and more likely included when coming out of the Mesopotamian region, but that’s just me). Others will say a genocide is on, and agreeing to call them pagans gives the appearance of tacit approval of this genocide. If we can save some lives by finding a reason to call them something different, let’s try to save some lives.I can actually see where that’s coming from, and I’d be willing to set aside the issue of labels long enough to ensure a better chance at survival.
T
TheAtheist
Guest
I tend to see the term embraced by the groups you highlighted who are coming from the West. This is especially true of those who are coming more out of the New Age movement mixed in with progressive/liberal political and cultural values.
On the rare occassions I’ve seen “Western Pagans” of the Reconstructionist or Neo variety attempt to categorize or group ancient indigenous religions from other parts of the world like Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Daoism, Jainism, etc. etc… the response from the respective participants have been quite…muted…
I always got the sense from the traditionalists of those respective religions, that while the Western Pagan is trying to be all inclusive and trying to make a case that “we are all the same,” they are in fact fundamentally misunderstanding the central tenants of those respective faiths.
All they see is some sort of weird/bizzare New Age Syncretism that while well-meaning has the potential of distorting the teachings of Siddartha Gautama, Lao Tan, Mahavira, et. al.
What I always found interesting when dealing with those coming out of Judaeo-Christian background is those kind of equation of identity that occurs between Pagan = Occultism = Satanism that tends to crop up every so often…even here on Catholic Answers.
Again those faiths/philosophies coming out of the East seem to get a pass on this…well…at least from the more educated Christians I encounter.
But… say the word Wiccan ====> Witchcraft! ===> Satanism!
And i always found that rather odd - that while even the Catholic’s Pope Emeritus while defending the truth claims of their religion, is still capable of acknowledging the I guess you can say limited or incomplete truths found in a religion like Buddhism or Hinduism…
…yet can’t really find a positive thing to say on Wiccans or other type of Western pagans. And in fact warn people away from these groups with the same prohibitions/caveats they use with say using a Taort card deck or a Oujia board.
I always found this inconsistency fascinating for is it a matter of:
1.) Historical Baggage? After all, certain Christian sects in their weekly meetings/masses/ etc. especially the older ones, tend to celebrate the triumph of your Divinity against the forces of Paganism (here specifically meaning the wider religion of the Graeco-Roman world).
2.) The Devil You Know? Pun intended
.Many of the Axial Age religions tend to have rather sophisticated philosophical and ethical systems that while not exactly matching, tend to overlap in certain ways with the Christian worldview. If i may draw an analogy:
You folks have Mary - Virgin or Otherwise.
The Taoists have the goddess Guan Yin - who fulfills a role similar to those Christians sects who find it permissible to Pray to Mary for…what is that word called again? Something like an intervention?
The Hindus…have multiple goddess like Pavarti, Sakti, etc. who also fill “Mary-like” roles.
Scanning over some of the Western Pagan’s goddess… while they may share a similar portfolio to your Mary, they are decidedly of…shall we say rather different temperament.
3.) Is it all just a cynical pragmatic ploy?
You know…because there are a lot more Hindus than say Reconstructionist pagans.
So it would behoove you to find something nice to say to this large chunk of humanity, while at the same time you folks can ignore the existence of Wiccans per say and give them the short end of the stick because…well… population wise they just don’t matter.
4.) The average Christian doesn’t really understand all these other ancient religions…but they do have an inkling about “paganism”?
I’ve seen many a Christian insist for instance that Buddhism = Nihilism.
Don’t take this as some sort unique or special deficiency to Christians… after all i saw a Hindu try to explain the concept of the Trinity…
But yeah, apart from those who put in the effort to make the study of religions to be a career, the average believer doesn’t really have a firm grasp of a non-Abrahamic religion. Heck, from what the Catholics, Orthodox, et al tell me on this board and others… the average believer doesn’t really have a firm grasp on their own religion.
Perhaps its so alien that many of you can’t wrap your heads around it.
But “paganism”? Now that’s something most Christians are familiar with, if at least in the abstract. And familiarty breeds contempt.
B
badnewsbarrett
Guest
I’ll go ahead and address the questions without quoting everything in full. Let me know if you want to bring something up from before that I left out.
I’m pretty sure that we have lots of collective ignorance when it comes to paganism. I’m not sure if we have a relatively large amount of overconfidence, though. I don’t really think so, I would say it’s probably more indifference than anything else. As far as I know, anyway.
If there is any special contempt for paganism (and there probably is), I’d say it comes from the standpoint where pagan religions, in general, are viewed as religion that Christianity defeated or is defeating, and it deserves to be defeated. Whereas other religions, mainly the larger major world religions, are viewed as religion that we either can’t expect to defeat in the same sense or we really don’t want to defeat it, because it doesn’t deserve such treatment.
Perhaps with many forms of paganism, we prefer to see it as deserving of defeat because we already did defeat it. Or maybe we think of it as a religion that lost out in a relatively fair fight because it was simply inferior. Or perhaps, with some of them, we think of them as religious practices that enjoyed a nice long life and then they died out over time of fairly natural causes, before being revived by Stan Lee in the form of fictional superhero characters. It’s a bit of a mixed bag, but I wouldn’t be overly inclined to put “familiarity” on the list of main reasons for why paganism gets special contempt (when it does get such contempt, it’s not at all universal).
I suppose I disagree with you on just that one point. Perhaps on the Marian point as well, but I’ll let other people comment on that- I just don’t think it applies very much to me, and I do think we can agree on at least that. Otherwise, I don’t have much to offer in terms of a truly different perspective.
I think that’s a fair point, paganism at least in the West tends to be religion that’s been conquered or muted by Christianity, and then maybe some people are trying to bring it back a little bit at a later time. It does seem like we have less respect for those religious practices than we do for the ones that Christianity hasn’t overwhelmed at any point.
2.) The Devil You Know? Pun intended
I’d like to point out that I’m an Evangelical, and this particular point of comparison applies to Catholics a lot more than it does to me. With that being said, I do realize we’re on a Catholic forum, and the larger point stands for the majority of anyone who’s going to see this. For the record though, I’d be interested in seeing what you’d come up with if you were going to do my people more specifically.
That’s a good point, I do think it’s a lot easier to fall into a less desirable category when you’re a small group compared to when you’re a large group. Sometimes people will go out of their way to create a different, kinder category for you if a small group is lucky enough to become a significantly larger group than it once was.
The average Christian knows very little about anything outside of Christianity. This is objectively true. We also have a tendency to think we know more about other religions than we really do, or about other types of Christianity than we really do. There is a definite trend toward ignorance alongside overconfidence.
I’m pretty sure that we have lots of collective ignorance when it comes to paganism. I’m not sure if we have a relatively large amount of overconfidence, though. I don’t really think so, I would say it’s probably more indifference than anything else. As far as I know, anyway.
This is all very true, and atheists, on average, put in the most work and get the best results in terms of understanding the widest variety of religions. After all, you need good reasons to reject every one of them. Christians take a good look at whatever they are practicing and typically don’t look very hard at all the things they reject.
I’m not sure if we’re really all that familiar with paganism, I don’t think most Christians would be able to direct you to the nearest place where a pagan might go to worship, for instance. Or describe what might be done there. And if there is no formal place of worship, how would that work exactly? What would you need to buy from a Wiccan supply store in order to be a proper Wiccan? Most Christians don’t know a lot about these things, as far as I’m aware.But “paganism”? Now that’s something most Christians are familiar with, if at least in the abstract. And familiarty breeds contempt.
If there is any special contempt for paganism (and there probably is), I’d say it comes from the standpoint where pagan religions, in general, are viewed as religion that Christianity defeated or is defeating, and it deserves to be defeated. Whereas other religions, mainly the larger major world religions, are viewed as religion that we either can’t expect to defeat in the same sense or we really don’t want to defeat it, because it doesn’t deserve such treatment.
Perhaps with many forms of paganism, we prefer to see it as deserving of defeat because we already did defeat it. Or maybe we think of it as a religion that lost out in a relatively fair fight because it was simply inferior. Or perhaps, with some of them, we think of them as religious practices that enjoyed a nice long life and then they died out over time of fairly natural causes, before being revived by Stan Lee in the form of fictional superhero characters. It’s a bit of a mixed bag, but I wouldn’t be overly inclined to put “familiarity” on the list of main reasons for why paganism gets special contempt (when it does get such contempt, it’s not at all universal).
I suppose I disagree with you on just that one point. Perhaps on the Marian point as well, but I’ll let other people comment on that- I just don’t think it applies very much to me, and I do think we can agree on at least that. Otherwise, I don’t have much to offer in terms of a truly different perspective.
A
ajcstr
Guest
Wouldn’t it be the same as a Jew referring to a non-Jew as a Gentile?
In them selves, both words “Jew” and “Gentile” are not offensive, but can also be used offensively (just like anything else).
A
ajcstr
Guest
I don’t know if I totally agree with this but I can see the point, a priest once made the comment that all babies are pagan until they are baptized.
J
JurisPrudens
Guest
I would define it as a “traditional set of religious beliefs and practices, formed over a long period as a result of the gradual evolution and lacking a uniform system of doctrines and rules”.
J
JurisPrudens
Guest
I would not call Hindus as pagans. Hinduism, despite its polytheism, has a coherent system of doctrines and practices, fortified by a philosophical sophistication.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Hindus complain that Christian missionaries come to their villages in India and try to convert them, telling them that they are pagans and must convert in order to be saved.
You tube has all kinds of videos claiming that Hindus are pagans who worship the devil.
youtube.com/watch?v=RGmQXQd88z8
Obviously, these videos use pagan as a derogatory term.
- Status