Pagan, Neopagan or Polytheist?

[EyeofOdin]

How do you Identify yourselves, and why? Also how do you define each of these three terms?

Whenever I think of a "neopagan", I think of the groups and movements that can by polytheistic, but mostly are soft polytheistic, and have a spirituality that is more universalist and sometimes stems or is related to the Wiccan movement.

Whenever I think of a "polytheist", as opposed to a pagan, I think of someone who has chosen an ancient culture and choses to worship the gods of that culture as distinct individuals, including the Hellenic, Germanic, Asatru and Kemetic Polytheism.

In my experiences and relationships with people who identify as simply "Pagans", they usually are people who fall somewhere in between a Neopagan and Traditional Polytheist. Maybe soft polytheist or hard polytheist, usually eclectic, etc.

 

[Quintessence]

I think I'd be careful about assuming things about why other people use the terms they do. I am very technical in my usage of these terms, and the technical usages don't have the associations you're attaching to them. I'll respect whatever odd labels people stick on themselves, but in my head I'll reclassify them into categories that would be more proper according to the current academic literature. The vast majority of people who call themselves Pagans are, technically speaking, Neopagans (or contemporary Pagans if one prefers); they drop the "Neo" or the "contemporary" mostly because: a) they aren't technical nitpickers like I am, and b) that's how it is spoken of by most of the community and they follow the common usage.

 

[EyeofOdin]

I understand where you're coming from. Most of my definitions I've provided are 1) for the use of discussion of this topic and 2) based on what other people have said. I personally have varying, more dictionary definitions of these terms.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Are all polytheists pagans?

Are all pagans polytheists?

 

[Me Myself]

I wouldnt call myself pagan but I am a polytheist.

I wonder if there is some pagan monotheism though.

Then again, pagan is a complicated term, in the way I know it it seems to be anything but christianity. And they believe in three gods anyways

 

[Poeticus]

I wouldnt call myself pagan but I am a polytheist.

I am also a polytheist.

 

[EyeofOdin]

Are all polytheists pagans?

Are all pagans polytheists?

Some polytheists prefer to call themselves polytheists instead of pagan, because the origin of the word "pagan" comes from the latin word "paganus" meaning "country dweller", the equivalent of calling someone today a "hick" or "redneck", so they view it as an insulting word that dishonors the gods and ancestors.

There are some pagans who are monotheists or "soft polytheists". The ones who are monotheists (whom some would call "neopagan") usually are involved in some "Goddess" centered spirituality. Soft polytheists are people who believe that many gods are "aspects" or extensions of one or a few deities, greatest example being the most commonly known religion "Wicca" which most of its practitioners believe that all gods are aspects of "The God" or "The Horned God" and all goddesses are aspects of "The Goddess", "The Mother Goddess" or "The Triple Goddess".

 

[Sha'irullah]

I would classify my theological understanding of god as pagan along with my spiritual interests although I am not one to add the label pagan to my theological repertoire quickly. I have held a strong obsession towards pre-Islamic cults before the rise of Muhammad and an every increasing desire to resurrect such theologies.

I myself have just learned to embrace soft polytheism and rid my mind of previous monotheistic tendencies. Almost all religions no matter how "far removed" from paganism they may seem actually are very pagan at their roots. Monotheism is not a departure from paganism but merely is a product of it

 

[Quintessence]

Just to offer a more substantive response (because I do have one... heh), I'm going to plop this up from my BoS. It's based largely on academic works I've read, particularly Michael York's work. Each of the bullet points below has a more in-depth treatment in the file I pulled this from, and I don't explicitly talk about what distinguishes Neopaganism from Paganism in that file. Neopaganism (contemporary practitioners stemming from revivals traceable to roughly the 50s and 60s) is somewhat different than the list below. Neopaganism often blends in elements of some other social/religious movements because of its developmental history (specifically the New Age, Western occult revival, environmentalism, and feminism), and I've noticed most Neopagans put less emphasis on the first bullet.

The term “pagan” is often a source of confusion given its myriad of definitions and usages. Here, the idea is to treat paganism as Paganism with a capital ‘p’ - as a system of religious thought that should be considered as much a world religion as any other that is typically given proper case.

[*snip*]

As with any religious categorization - but particularly with Paganism - it is difficult to draw up a list of characteristics a system must possess to fall under its designation. It is possible to outline a number of qualities and characters often seen in Pagan religions.

• Locality-oriented. A Pagan’s practices are an expression of their surrounding environmental context.
• Nature-centered. A Pagan’s conception of the divine or way of practice is inexorably tied to the natural world.
• Pluralistic. A Pagan’s understanding of the divine is pluralistic.
• Immanent. A Pagan sees the divine as primarily manifest in the world rather than separate from it.
• Experiential. A Pagan religion emphasizes personal experience and is based more on actions than dogma or doctrine.

There are some additional qualities often seen in Pagan religions. The divine is usually anthropomorphized as both male and female but sexes generally do not conform to stereotype. Paganism often expresses itself through the sacredness of the physical body. Otherworlds are commonly an important element in Pagan religions. Community and service is also characteristic, with worship of gods sometimes seen as a civic duty. Paganism is generally life-affirming and free of ethical codes that demonize the act of sex.

 

[mimpibird39]

Polytheist. For the exact reasons you described. Mainly because I've gone for a more reconstructive/traditional and hard polytheistic route. And although I worship gods from two different pantheons, I keep them separate. I don't want the labels "neopagan" or "eclectic" not because they are bad but because they don't really describe me now. But I also don't mind the label "pagan".

 

[Sha'irullah]

Polytheist. For the exact reasons you described. Mainly because I've gone for a more reconstructive/traditional and hard polytheistic route. And although I worship gods from two different pantheons, I keep them separate. I don't want the labels "neopagan" or "eclectic" not because they are bad but because they don't really describe me now. But I also don't mind the label "pagan".

I share your sentiments toward religious identity. Declaring yourself a polytheist is far more soulfully satisfying than declaring a religious affiliation, no matter how loose a religion can be many people just don't want to be bogged down by it.

Polytheist and pagan are not synonymous at all really. One could easily have picked a deity like al-Qaum and removed him from polytheistic pagan pantheons and made the worship of him monotheistic yet remain pagan.

 

[Quintessence]

You know, the first time I saw this thread I'd forgotten that around a year ago there was this huge controversy throughout the Neopagan community about labels. Specifically, this (Neo)pagan vs. polytheist debacle. I remember watching it, and I remember mostly rolling my eyes. I've seen so much fussing over labels in this community in the, what, roughly ten years I've been watching it that I've grown pretty indifferent to it. I just made my own classification system and stick to it as an organizing schema for myself and quit getting involved in those arguments. >_>

 

[wildcat]

I prefer to try to describe myself in words that are the best descriptors of my beliefs. I hold nothing against using the terms Neo-pagan or pagan, but I find it an overly simplistic way of identifying yourself, and in the end, it doesn't actually describe your beliefs. Paganism encompasses so many different paths, from Wicca to reconstructionist polytheistic religions, atheistic nature-worshiping, and the list could go on. Simply saying pagan is too broad a term. A lot of people will automatically think of Wicca when one says Neo-pagan, or another popular Neopagan path, so I don't like to use the term because I don't want people to incorrectly assume my beliefs.

My terms for myself are still broad and require explanation. Terms such as polytheist (I don't say hard or soft since my concept of the gods doesn't really relate to those terms), nature-worshiper, animistic, and influenced by Taoism. Broad terms still, but it's better if I start off with these terms and take it from there, versus simply saying Neo-pagan, which would bring forth assumptions that I am most definitely not. It's a bit difficult for me since I don't have a religion that has a name (such as Wicca, Asatru, Hellenic, etc.), I simply have my own brand of beliefs and spirituality. I can't toss out a name, only descriptors before I end up explaining myself.

Simply saying your Neo-pagan is similar (in my view) to a Jew simply saying they are a Theist. Or a Jain saying they practice an Eastern religion. Those religions aren't the initial religion that a person would assume (in my culture, they'd assume Christian and Hindu, probably). Such broad terms don't specify what they actually believe but actually seem a hindrance when explaining how they identify.

Whenever I think of a "neopagan", I think of the groups and movements that can by polytheistic, but mostly are soft polytheistic, and have a spirituality that is more universalist and sometimes stems or is related to the Wiccan movement.

Whenever I think of a "polytheist", as opposed to a pagan, I think of someone who has chosen an ancient culture and choses to worship the gods of that culture as distinct individuals, including the Hellenic, Germanic, Asatru and Kemetic Polytheism.

This is why I don't like the terms Neo-pagan or even simply polytheist, because there are assumptions about what beliefs I hold, I fit into none of the examples you gave. Despite that, I think most people would agree that my beliefs fall in the pagan and polytheist labels.

 

[dsaly1969]

As an animist and a pantheist I do not identify with the terms of "neopagan" or "polytheist" at all. "Neopagan" because it evokes images of Wicca and I do not focus on historical cultural pantheons. I do share a lot of commonalities with those heathens who focus on Fyrn Sidu with more emphasis given to venerating local spirits of hearth, home, and land and ancestors. So I do not mind the terms "heathen" or "pagan".

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I guess I consider myself to be all three. Pagan because the concepts I work with are primarily pre-Christian in nature. Neopagan because I don't follow a strictly historical viewpoint or practice. Polytheist because I accept the existence of multiple Gods (but I guess I'm mostly a duotheist in practice due to revering Satan as the Masculine Adversary and Lilith, His Consort, as the Feminine Adversary).

 

[EyeofOdin]

I prefer to try to describe myself in words that are the best descriptors of my beliefs. I hold nothing against using the terms Neo-pagan or pagan, but I find it an overly simplistic way of identifying yourself, and in the end, it doesn't actually describe your beliefs. Paganism encompasses so many different paths, from Wicca to reconstructionist polytheistic religions, atheistic nature-worshiping, and the list could go on. Simply saying pagan is too broad a term. A lot of people will automatically think of Wicca when one says Neo-pagan, or another popular Neopagan path, so I don't like to use the term because I don't want people to incorrectly assume my beliefs.

My terms for myself are still broad and require explanation. Terms such as polytheist (I don't say hard or soft since my concept of the gods doesn't really relate to those terms), nature-worshiper, animistic, and influenced by Taoism. Broad terms still, but it's better if I start off with these terms and take it from there, versus simply saying Neo-pagan, which would bring forth assumptions that I am most definitely not. It's a bit difficult for me since I don't have a religion that has a name (such as Wicca, Asatru, Hellenic, etc.), I simply have my own brand of beliefs and spirituality. I can't toss out a name, only descriptors before I end up explaining myself.

Simply saying your Neo-pagan is similar (in my view) to a Jew simply saying they are a Theist. Or a Jain saying they practice an Eastern religion. Those religions aren't the initial religion that a person would assume (in my culture, they'd assume Christian and Hindu, probably). Such broad terms don't specify what they actually believe but actually seem a hindrance when explaining how they identify.



This is why I don't like the terms Neo-pagan or even simply polytheist, because there are assumptions about what beliefs I hold, I fit into none of the examples you gave. Despite that, I think most people would agree that my beliefs fall in the pagan and polytheist labels.

Isn't that sort of the point of creating definitions? To be able to assume the meaning of a word Universally?

I mean one can say that he or she is a Christian, but it's rather silly if the person doesn't believe in Jesus, as that's apart of the definition.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Now that I look at it I believe more etymological correctness should be employed when handling the taxonomy tacked onto the pagan community.

I am a Semitic Revivalist(or Deconstructionalist) and am solely interested in the Semitic theology of the ancients. The broad term for people interested in ancient folk religion should be a folk theist/deist if you ask me as this best describes the anthropological view of religion, mythos and metaphysics that arose from ancient cultures.

The European word pagan and it's misuse is fairly insulting considering the connotations it has behind it. On top of this the word pagan does not remotely imply polytheism

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The terms polytheist and monotheist are minefields, as different people use them in different senses. The Christian claims to be a monotheist but the Muslim cries "no you're not, you're a tritheist!" We actually have

1. Those who deny that the terms "god" or "divine" can be applied to more than one entity: Muslims, Sikhs, etc.
2. Those who accept that more than one being can be divine, but acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being: Hindus, believers in traditional African religions, Christians (check before you deny this!)
3. Those who acknowledge several divinities, but not a Supreme Being: Shinto, many "neopagans".

(1) are clearly monotheists, (3) polytheists, but (2) depends on your definitions.

Is "pagan" insulting? In Latin, pagani meant "villagers" and, in army slang, "civilians". It seems that Christians who often called themselves milites Christi "soldiers of Christ" used pagani as the opposite of milites. Is "pagan" useful? How can we define it? Those Africans who practice primal religions are called pagans in contrast to the local Christians and Muslims, but we don't often hear Hindus called pagans. It's basically a "not one of us" term which some modern Heathens, Wiccans, etc have converted into a "not one of you" term.

Do we need a term like "neopagan" which can embrace, as normally used, such disparate groups as Wiccans, Heathens, Druids, Hellenists? Probably not. Will people go on using it? Probably.