Trille, I was wondering if you could clarify some views on Paganism for me? I identify myself as a Christian, though this thread isn't meant to ruffle any feathers. It is a serious inquiry into Pagan thought. My experience with the Pagans I know has left me baffled with the faiths. I'm not sure if I'm just not getting it or if they just don't have a clear view themselves.
Christianity, and most monotheism I fathom, one God..a set of ethical principles and doctrines. Belief in one Creator and there are no other deities. This disallows for any belief or acceptance of polytheism. It's consistent.
Buddhism and most major Asian religions. It places the importance on the here and now. Denies or mostly ignores the matter of a deity. It's about over coming pre-concieved notions of self, governed by an ethics of right actions.
Pure polythiesm, I can understand. A pantheon of gods with a plethora of area of governance. People pick and choose which deity they follow. There is usually a set code of actions and behavior.
Modern Paganism which Wiccan belongs baffles me at this point. At least from the inforamtion I'm getting by the Wiccans/Neo-Pagans I know. This is where I'm wondering if you could clarify what seems to be inconsistencies in the belief system.
Following are the claims I have been presented with:
1. "Truth is relative. It's all based on perception. It's up to the individual to create their own morality. There is no good and evil."
The trouble I have with following this train of thought: If there is no external right and wrong. No absolute morality. It's all up to the individual, then why the Wiccan rede and the law of three? Do what you will if it harms none? Isn't this a distinction between right and wrong action? Even if it is left vague? Any negative magic you use will come back on you three fold? Same with good. Isn't this a way to govern ones behavior? Placing a limitation on an individual?
2. "We hold all points of view to be valid. I can't feel my own faith is valid, and not recognize yours as valid. There are many paths."
This follows into my above question. The people that I know who practice Wiccan/Neo-Paganism reject Christianity. They dismiss the faith and say those who practice it impose limits on themselves. They claim this makes Christians spirtually weaker than pagans. Christians/Monotheism can have this view without contradicting itself and remain consistent. One God. One faith. The Buddhists can remain consistent with many paths to enlightenment, the formentioned denial of ignoring the question of deity. It's based on right action. But how can the true be said of the modern pagan movement? If they hold all faiths are valid? How can they claim the invalidity of the Christians/Jews/Muslims?
3. "Our faith is based on symbolism. We create myth."
Doesn't this relegate the Divinity to no more than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? What's the point? Why not just skip the middle man and go for straight humanism/philosophy or Eastern faiths?
4. "We don't believe in Dogma. We don't believe in a heaven or hell. Monotheism uses these concepts to force their believers to behave. We believe in reincarnation/karma."
Isn't the Wiccan rede and the law of three a form of dogma? Doesn't the belief in that dogma and the thought of karma also enforce a form of reward and punishment? Instead of going to heaven, you will be reborn into a more enlightned form? Instead of hell, you will be reborn into a lower existence for the bad karma of your past life? [ 06-12-2003: Message edited by: Old_Hickory ]
Wicca is a young religion. The Christian faith for the most part is based on a fairly old religion. All those little kinks in that faith have had time to be smoothed over and worked around. Give Wicca two thousand years and I'm sure that it will be just as indoctrined.
I think that it is fairly low class to try and force a student of a religion to defend their religion. The idea of one religion trying to debunk another is why I dislike this poly-religious enviroment of groups compeating for relavancy. Maybe not relavancy, just survival against the Christian tide that is swelling across the industrialized nations. [ 06-12-2003: Message edited by: Naimah ]
quote:
Naimah obviously shouldn't have said:
I don't practice religion. I'm a fan for the most part of the Asian religions for they tend to inspire less conflict. With that said...Wicca is a young religion. The Christian faith for the most part is based on a fairly old religion. All those little kinks in that faith have had time to be smoothed over and worked around. Give Wicca two thousand years and I'm sure that it will be just as indoctrined.
I think that it is fairly low class to try and force a student of a religion to defend their religion. The idea of one religion trying to debunk another is why I dislike this poly-religious enviroment of groups compeating for relavancy. Maybe not relavancy, just survival against the Christian tide that is swelling across the industrialized nations.
Holy crap, I'm actually agreeing with you to a degree.
There is no such thing as, "Tell me about paganism."
Jiminy, how many times do we have to go over this. Even Trillee agrees with me, now.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
And Neo-Pagansim is quite different from traditional paganism. It is a distinct movement with several sects sharing some common beginnings. In the same aspect as "Christianity" isn't just one lump sum. It varies from sect to sect. As does Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. I never said "pagan religion"...I said Neo-Pagan thought. Wicca does fall quite distinctly under the Neo-Pagan movement.
[ 06-12-2003: Message edited by: Old_Hickory ]
And the argument can be made at one time there was no Christianity. It was simply a form of the Jewish faith. But the movement grew and seperated over time.
quote:
Old_Hickory probably says this to all the girls:
Who is making someone defend their religion? I stated quite clearly, I am asking for a better understanding of the Wiccan and Neo-Pagan movements. it's called being open minded. I asked specific questions as to the parts I am fuzzy on as they have been presented to me.And Neo-Pagansim is quite different from traditional paganism. It is a distinct movement with several sects sharing some common beginnings. In the same aspect as "Christianity" isn't just one lump sum. It varies from sect to sect. As does Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. I never said "pagan religion"...I said Neo-Pagan thought. Wicca does fall quite distinctly under the Neo-Pagan movement.
There is no such thing as "traditional paganism." And there's certainly no such thing as "neo-paganism."
It's just a term being rampantly misused by a bunch of wanna-be New Age hippies seeking to be trendy.
Now, you actually skirt relevance in several places where you assert that Wicca should be considered a pagan religion. But "pagan," in that context, is simply a descriptive label, similar to, though less specific than, "monotheistic" if used to describe Islam.
So the underlying question, "Describe modern pagan beliefs for me," is utterly meaningless. Pick a religion, and we'll talk about it.
But you have to pick one, first.
Yes, you've run headlong into one of Bloodsage's pet peeves. Deal.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
So in essence, a good portion have attached that meaning. So, I guess, that is part what I'm asking. To gain an understanding in how that meaning came about for them. Again, I'm not trying to insult anyone or make them defend their beliefs. I'm asking if they might be able to shed some light on subjects I'm not quite grasping. [ 06-12-2003: Message edited by: Old_Hickory ]
It's not like essential terminology for a given subject is a matter of opinion, open to random interpretation. I don't really care if a bunch of wannabe poseurs get pissed off when I throw the bullshit flag. One can't have an intelligent discussion without precise terminology, and the very adoption of that label by so many goes a long way toward showing how serious these people are.
Basically, the only relevant use of the term "pagan" is as a perjorative by a Christian.
If someone wants to describe their religion, that's cool. Several folks around here are equipped to have quite intelligent discussions on the subject, probably regardless what religion it is.
But the ante to join said intelligent discussion is the ability--nay, the willingness--to use sufficiently precise terminology to enable a reasonable exchange of ideas.
[ 06-12-2003: Message edited by: Bloodsage ]
Edit: BTW, a lot of people think "irregardless" is a useful word, too, but that doesn't make them any less mistaken and ignorant.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Turn it around--go back about 80 years and use "gay" to mean "homosexual." That's a better analogy.
The term may, indeed, evolve that direction in time. But I'll be damned if I help New Age poseurs butcher the language just so they can feel trendy and cool.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Old_Hickory's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Who is making someone defend their religion? I stated quite clearly, I am asking for a better understanding of the Wiccan and Neo-Pagan movements. it's called being open minded. I asked specific questions as to the parts I am fuzzy on as they have been presented to me.
I agree you were asking questions but then you answered them; why you would ask a question you knew the answer to I don't know, in such a way that it was impossible for her to answer it without contradicting you. That dosn't seem very fair to the person being questioned now does it? If you had been gracious enough to ask the question in such a way that an answer was possible then I would have been slightly less annoyed.
And sage Neo-Paganism is an official term. Here you go...
Ne·o-Pa·gan·ism
n.
Any of various religious movements arising chiefly in the United Kingdom and the United States in the late 20th century that combine worship of pagan nature deities, particularly of the earth, with benign witchcraft.
quote:
Naimah attempted to be funny by writing:
I agree you were asking questions but then you answered them; why you would ask a question you knew the answer to I don't know, in such a way that it was impossible for her to answer it without contradicting you. That dosn't seem very fair to the person being questioned now does it? If you had been gracious enough to ask the question in such a way that an answer was possible then I would have been slightly less annoyed.And sage Neo-Paganism is an official term. Here you go...
Ne·o-Pa·gan·ism
n.
Any of various religious movements arising chiefly in the United Kingdom and the United States in the late 20th century that combine worship of pagan nature deities, particularly of the earth, with benign witchcraft.
Irregardless is in my dictionary, too.
What's your point?
Also, you'll note that the definition is pretty much in line with my earlier comparison with "monotheistic." The term is simply a perjorative description for a host of beliefs, from Hindu to Buddhist to Animist and everyhere betwixt. Just like "bad" in the '60s/'70s, a bunch of poseurs have decided they want to turn the label into a badge of honor.
When speaking of specific belief systems, "pagan" remains a meaningless term.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Old_Hickory thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
What about Freudian and Neo-Freudian? Liberalism and Neo-Liberalism? Impressionism vs. Neo-Impressionsim? Darwinism vs. Neo-Darwinism?
In these cases, the "Neo-" prefix modifies a meaningful term.
Duh.
When someone mentions Impressionist art, one can deduce quite a bit about the work. When someone mentions pagan religion, one can deduce nothing, since non-Christian religions differ so wildly.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
(not to sound rude, but I'm tired of defending myself to people.)
And Bloodsage, I agree that pagan isn't a religion, but what I believe in, is. If you wanna argue with me about that, there's always PMs. And I don't care how cowardly you think they are.
Now if you'll excuse me, either lock this damned thread, or let it fester into a flame fight, I don't care, I have a ten foot pole to use for it now.
"I know I'm wrong, but I'm going to continue anyway," seems pretty silly to me.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
It's all up to the individual, then why the Wiccan rede and the law of three? Do what you will if it harms none?
quote:
Any negative magic you use will come back on you three fold? Same with good.
Comes down to one basic question. Your religion preaches freedom, how does it give it to you?
quote:
Isn't this a distinction between right and wrong action? Even if it is left vague?
quote:
Isn't this a way to govern ones behavior? Placing a limitation on an individual?
Answer, it dosn't.
quote:
But how can the true be said of the modern pagan movement? If they hold all faiths are valid? How can they claim the invalidity of the Christians/Jews/Muslims?
The question, asked after the answer, is does the Wiccan religion support the validity of other religions?
quote:
This follows into my above question. The people that I know who practice Wiccan/Neo-Paganism reject Christianity. They dismiss the faith and say those who practice it impose limits on themselves. They claim this makes Christians spirtually weaker than pagans. Christians/Monotheism can have this view without contradicting itself and remain consistent. One God. One faith. The Buddhists can remain consistent with many paths to enlightenment, the formentioned denial of ignoring the question of deity. It's based on right action.
Answer, it dosn't.
quote:
Doesn't this relegate the Divinity to no more than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? What's the point?
I'm not even sure that is a question. I think the thought was, why does your religion remind me of kids holidays and things of that sort?
quote:
Why not just skip the middle man and go for straight humanism/philosophy or Eastern faiths?
Answer, because your religion sucks, you should join a real religion.
quote:
Isn't the Wiccan rede and the law of three a form of dogma? Doesn't the belief in that dogma and the thought of karma also enforce a form of reward and punishment? Instead of going to heaven, you will be reborn into a more enlightned form? Instead of hell, you will be reborn into a lower existence for the bad karma of your past life?
A question mark dosn't necessarily make it a question.
quote:
From the book of Trillee, chapter 3, verse 16:
Hi! This is what PMs are for, thanks.(not to sound rude, but I'm tired of defending myself to people.)
And Bloodsage, I agree that pagan isn't a religion, but what I believe in, is. If you wanna argue with me about that, there's always PMs. And I don't care how cowardly you think they are.
Now if you'll excuse me, either lock this damned thread, or let it fester into a flame fight, I don't care, I have a ten foot pole to use for it now.
What's your beef? If I'm not mistaken, I've already said you've acknowledged proper use of the term.
No one's talking either to you or about you, so you're probably better off not starting anything. Right?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
So yeah, someone is talking to me.
My beef is I'm tired of defending myself, because I know as soon as I try to explain my views, you'll come in and make a mockery of it. Don't deny it, you've done it before.
Now I say again, lock this damned thread and use the PMs.
