Terms

[Rival]

Is the term 'Pagan' useful in these times? Can such faiths as Druidry and Religio Romana be thrown in the same bucket? While it is good to look for similarities, many might also want to distinguish themselves - Norse Paganism is clearly distinct from Hellenismos, for instance, as is obvious. Do you think we should push out the word 'Pagan' and replace it with more descriptive terms?

Likewise with 'Abrahamic' - it treats Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'ism and their various offshoots as if they're all basically the same, but as anyone with insight can tell you, they're clearly not.

I see many folks interchanging 'Pagan' with 'polytheist' and this is also wrong; or assuming that any monotheistic faith is Abrahamic, when Sikhism doesn't fit that bill; nor does Zoroastrianism, if one wishes to argue that is monotheistic.

Thoughts?

 

[sun rise]

Likewise with 'Abrahamic' - it treats Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'ism and their various offshoots as if they're all basically the same, but as anyone with insight can tell you, they're clearly not.

Abrahamic to me means that the figure of Abraham is singularly important in the history of the religion. I would never assume that all of the religious "children" of Abraham were "basically the same".

 

[VoidCat]

pagan is useful for folk like me that are likely to mix pantheons and aren't of any particular group.

 

[Rival]

Abrahamic to me means that the figure of Abraham is singularly important in the history of the religion. I would never assume that all of the religious "children" of Abraham were "basically the same".

As a term used in opposition to 'Pagan' it takes on a collective quality I'm not sure those religions really have.

 

[VoidCat]

Abrahamic might be useful to folk who are inspired by abrahamic religions using bits of their doctrine but don't follow any one of them totally.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Pagan (capitalized) typically refers to Neopaganism, aka Modern Paganism and Contemporary Paganism, which encompasses traditions such as Wicca, Druidry, Heathery, Reconstructionism, etc.

Used with a lower case "p," the term pagan is a term coined by Christians to describe polytheists who worshipped "false gods." These pagans never referred to themselves as pagan.

Unfortunately, there are those who don't realize the dichotomy between the terms and use them interchangably (yes, even some Neopagans).

 

[Rival]

Pagan (capitalized) typically refers to Neopaganism, aka Modern Paganism and Contemporary Paganism, which encompasses traditions such as Wicca, Druidry, Heathery, Reconstructionism, etc.

My issue is that this seems like a useless term because what it encompasses is so broad as to be meaningless.

 

[SalixIncendium]

My issue is that this seems like a useless term because what it encompasses is so broad as to be meaningless.

I see your point, but I think it's meant to distinguish these religions from Abrahamic and Dharmic ones. I don't think there is any religion, with the possible exception of some indigenous ones, that do not fall under one of these three umbrella terms.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Is the term 'Pagan' useful in these times? Can such faiths as Druidry and Religio Romana be thrown in the same bucket? While it is good to look for similarities, many might also want to distinguish themselves - Norse Paganism is clearly distinct from Hellenismos, for instance, as is obvious. Do you think we should push out the word 'Pagan' and replace it with a more descriptive term?

Likewise with 'Abrahamic' - it treats Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'ism and their various offshoots as if they're all basically the same, but as anyone with insight can tell you, they're clearly not.

I see many folks interchanging 'Pagan' with 'polytheist' and this is also wrong; or assuming that any monotheistic faith is Abrahamic, when Sikhism doesn't fit that bill; nor does Zoroastrianism, if one wishes to argue that is monotheistic.

Thoughts?

I see we need to consider we are all one people from one source, living on One planet.

So we can embrace the good for all.

Regards Tony

 

[Rival]

I see your point, but I think it's meant to distinguish these religions from Abrahamic and Dharmic ones. I don't think there is any religion, with the possible exception of some indigenous ones, that do not fall under one of these three umbrella terms.

I suppose I'm asking what the point is of such umbrella terms when nowadays they just seem to confuse more than clear.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I suppose I'm asking what the point is of such umbrella terms when nowadays they just seem to confuse more than clear.

So we can group DIRs more easily?

 

[Rival]

So we can group DIRs more easily?

Easily??????

 

[SalixIncendium]

I see we need to consider we are all one people from one source, living on One planet.

So we can embrace the good for all.

Regards Tony

Since we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, should we discard the term Baha'i? I mean we're one people, right? Why the label?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Since we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, should we discard the term Baha'i? I mean we're one people, right? Why the label?

If that what it takes to become One planet of one people, then it is offered that is what we should do.

Regards Tony

 

[SalixIncendium]

If that what it takes to become One planet of one people, then it is offered that is what we should do.

Regards Tony

You first.

 

[Augustus]

Is the term 'Pagan' useful in these times?

Can be a functional shorthand in certain contexts, but often confuses more than it informs.

It tends to create the idea of uniformity and coherence among multiple diverse belief systems that didn't often exist. Also it tends to blur the lines between what "pagans" did, and what people did specifically in a religious context.

One example would be the "Christianity stole it from the pagans" trope so beloved of many "freethinkers".

The game goes as follows: paganism predates Christianity, therefore any Christian cultural practice that shares any similarity with any "pagan" cultural practice from any era or place must mean "they stole it from the pagans as a marketing ploy".

So something that Northern European "pagans" did in the 10th C was "plagiarised" by Middle Eastern or north African Christians in the 3rd C because "paganism predates Christianity".

Strangely enough, this relies on a fundamentalist Protestant concept of "pagan" as anything not sufficiently Protestant (only joking, it's not strange. Most of the 'freethinker' schtick is knockoff Protestant anti-Catholic polemic). So anything that pre-Protestants did is, by definition, pagan. My personal favourite is it's "pagan" to decorate your house with seasonal flora on feast days

 

[TransmutingSoul]

[

You first.

Ha ha, luckily I see our choices will not include the elimination of the world religions, but the embracing of them all in a different frame of reference, a new light.

Regards Tony

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Abrahamic might be useful to folk who are inspired by abrahamic religions using bits of their doctrine but don't follow any one of them totally.

That's basically how post-industrial society sees it anyway, in my opinion.. It's been an ala carte situation ever since industry and the enlightenment. Protestantism as well

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Is the term 'Pagan' useful in these times? Can such faiths as Druidry and Religio Romana be thrown in the same bucket? While it is good to look for similarities, many might also want to distinguish themselves - Norse Paganism is clearly distinct from Hellenismos, for instance, as is obvious. Do you think we should push out the word 'Pagan' and replace it with more descriptive terms?

Likewise with 'Abrahamic' - it treats Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'ism and their various offshoots as if they're all basically the same, but as anyone with insight can tell you, they're clearly not.

I see many folks interchanging 'Pagan' with 'polytheist' and this is also wrong; or assuming that any monotheistic faith is Abrahamic, when Sikhism doesn't fit that bill; nor does Zoroastrianism, if one wishes to argue that is monotheistic.

Thoughts?

That all that has happened is no one's fault, specifically, it just the homogeneous or syncretic forces of history at full work. At various points in the chemistry of this process, ideas cross pollinated, and we are living the result, much further downstream. So it is useful separate out the ingredients once again? I don't know, I think we might all kind of be in the oven, and it's too late for any of that. You'd have to really seal yourself away from anybody else and their ideas for that to work.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is the term 'Pagan' useful in these times? Can such faiths as Druidry and Religio Romana be thrown in the same bucket? While it is good to look for similarities, many might also want to distinguish themselves - Norse Paganism is clearly distinct from Hellenismos, for instance, as is obvious. Do you think we should push out the word 'Pagan' and replace it with more descriptive terms?

Likewise with 'Abrahamic' - it treats Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'ism and their various offshoots as if they're all basically the same, but as anyone with insight can tell you, they're clearly not.

I see many folks interchanging 'Pagan' with 'polytheist' and this is also wrong; or assuming that any monotheistic faith is Abrahamic, when Sikhism doesn't fit that bill; nor does Zoroastrianism, if one wishes to argue that is monotheistic.

Thoughts?

I think labels are very useful. They tell us what vegetable is in the can. If someone is a "pagan" it tells me they are polytheistic and/or animistic. It's a good category label to know.