Paganism

[cantdog]

The argument is a side issue. Someone misspoke because of a feeling they had, and that was it.

 

[Lisa Denton]

O.k. I went through the first 2 pages, enough to see where all the side issues had reason to enter in and totally de-rail what I was wondering.

First off though, I had seen the moron remark and was surprised by who said it, then I saw the eating babies remark and was disgusted by who said it.

So here I am, a "newbie" as far as paganism is concerned and anybody who doesn't know better think twice about throwing shit like that at me.

Here is where I get mixed up, when we are talking about paganism and wicca is a part of that, everybody goes into wiccans this and wiccans that, and I am learning, but it doesn't make it clearer about paganism, actually more confusing.

If for instance, we state for the sake of discussion, not arguement, that wicca and paganism are seperate, then define paganism for me.

My interest is only in trying to understand, if a wiccan can be a pagan, what is paganism without wicca?

 

[Pure]

Hi Lisa,

I think 'pagans' come in all sizes and shapes, long before Wicca in its modern incarnation.

The definitions below are pretty good. A pagan is a polytheist. But the term is/was used by Christians as a disapproving label for such.

What's not brought out much, below, is the issue of 'nature worship' or religion based on connecting with Nature and the forces thereof. To me, the new pagans especially are likely polytheists or even monotheists around Nature, esp. taken as Mother.

So I would say, Wiccans are one of the many subgroups, all of whom can be called 'pagan.' Indeed, from a Christian pov, a Hindu is a pagan, as well as a follower of Roman or Greek religion in their classical heyday.
----

Merriam Webster Unabridged

Main Entry: 1pa·gan Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: pgn
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, civilian, country dweller, from paganus, adjective, of the country, from pagus country, village, district;[...]

1 : HEATHEN 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)

2 : one that has little or no religion and that is marked by a frank delight in and uninhibited seeking after sensual pleasures and material goods : an unrestrained irreligious hedonist and materialist <is a pagan of the decadence ... takes the world with exquisite nonchalance and prefers a well-ordered dinner to a dissertation on the immortality of the soul -- T.L.Peacock>

===
Main Entry: 2heathen Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: "
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural heathens or heathen
Etymology: Middle English hethen, from Old English h[AE]then

1 a : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible : PAGAN <I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance -- Ps 2:8 (Authorized Version)> b biblical : IDOLATER, GENTILE

2 a : a person whose culture or enlightenment is of an inferior grade; especially : an irreligious person b : a person felt to resemble a heathen (as in nonconformity or ignorance) <a grand old heathen who made his own place in life>

 

[Lisa Denton]

Hi Lisa,

I think 'pagans' come in all sizes and shapes, long before Wicca in its modern incarnation.

The definitions below are pretty good. A pagan is a polytheist. But the term is/was used by Christians as a disapproving label for such.

What's not brought out much, below, is the issue of 'nature worship' or religion based on connecting with Nature and the forces thereof. To me, the new pagans especially are likely polytheists or even monotheists around Nature, esp. taken as Mother.

So I would say, Wiccans are one of the many subgroups, all of whom can be called 'pagan.' Indeed, from a Christian pov, a Hindu is a pagan, as well as a follower of Roman or Greek religion in their classical heyday.
----

Merriam Webster Unabridged

Main Entry: 1pa·gan Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: pgn
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, civilian, country dweller, from paganus, adjective, of the country, from pagus country, village, district;[...]

1 : HEATHEN 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)

2 : one that has little or no religion and that is marked by a frank delight in and uninhibited seeking after sensual pleasures and material goods : an unrestrained irreligious hedonist and materialist <is a pagan of the decadence ... takes the world with exquisite nonchalance and prefers a well-ordered dinner to a dissertation on the immortality of the soul -- T.L.Peacock>

===
Main Entry: 2heathen Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: "
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural heathens or heathen
Etymology: Middle English hethen, from Old English h[AE]then

1 a : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible : PAGAN <I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance -- Ps 2:8 (Authorized Version)> b biblical : IDOLATER, GENTILE

2 a : a person whose culture or enlightenment is of an inferior grade; especially : an irreligious person b : a person felt to resemble a heathen (as in nonconformity or ignorance) <a grand old heathen who made his own place in life>

Well o.k., I mean, I can see the way pagan could be used as a derogatory term to insult someone by a non-pagan. But I don't understand how a person who calls themselves a pagan would define it. The peoples who are helping me with PM's and here on this thread are wiccans, and I am learning lots about that. But when they say that a wiccan can be a pagan I know they are not insulting themselves. So I guess to ask my question with more clarity, why aren't they seperate, why for instance shouldn't a wiccan say "I am a wiccan, not a pagan." and then go on to talk about wicca.
Or is wicca somehow supposed to be tied into paganism? Everbody says there are different types of wiccans, are there some who say they are not pagans, and what is the difference there?

 

[cantdog]

Lisa, the "irreligious" or "sensualist" meanings are of non-pagan origin.

Polytheistic ideas always parse well with reality, because one's experiences show one clearly that If a sufficiently powerful being is producing the effects around me then he is certainly not of one mind.

Whereas a polytheist expects contradictions, since there are numerous minds and voices of the gods. It keeps a person balanced.

Mono religions become trapped into single-term moralities and single-rule ethics as the centuries pass and the weight of mono philosphers builds.

Whereas if the gods are many, then it behooves a human to be excellent and to be true. Tying those things to the will of one of the gods would be asinine under those circumstances. Think it through. The gods conflict, each has different priorities, aspects, attributes.
No, the source of human wisdom is a human source, necessarily.

How excellent is excellent? What does it look like? Bible-idolatry or Koran-recitals are not the answer to that question. The best answers are given by the wisest from among us. Children are not writing wisdom books, but many others are. Some of those people are wise indeed, and a good guide. Others are callow. A person has to judge.

 

[Pure]

bravo, cant

--
Lisa, i'm sure you can find some pagans who are not Wiccans.
The 'golden dawn' folks and the gardnerians come to mind.

(I am assuming that Hindus, as an established religion, may not qualify [for some reason], although they are fine example polytheists.)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Ilks were pagan, but not Wiccan at all. Cultures like that do exist.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Lisa, the "irreligious" or "sensualist" meanings are of non-pagan origin.

Polytheistic ideas always parse well with reality, because one's experiences show one clearly that If a sufficiently powerful being is producing the effects around me then he is certainly not of one mind.

Whereas a polytheist expects contradictions, since there are numerous minds and voices of the gods. It keeps a person balanced.

Mono religions become trapped into single-term moralities and single-rule ethics as the centuries pass and the weight of mono philosphers builds.

Whereas if the gods are many, then it behooves a human to be excellent and to be true. Tying those things to the will of one of the gods would be asinine under those circumstances. Think it through. The gods conflict, each has different priorities, aspects, attributes.
No, the source of human wisdom is a human source, necessarily.

How excellent is excellent? What does it look like? Bible-idolatry or Koran-recitals are not the answer to that question. The best answers are given by the wisest from among us. Children are not writing wisdom books, but many others are. Some of those people are wise indeed, and a good guide. Others are callow. A person has to judge.

Gosh Cant, I had to read it three times before it started sinking in, thanks although I still feel like I am getting non-pagan definitions of paganism, just toned down.

 

[Lisa Denton]

O.k., Pure and Joe, what I want to know is do they define themselves as pagans, not others. And if they do, what definition do they have for paganism?

 

[cantdog]

Gardner is but one. Because of the situation of a polytheist, relying on the wisest for guidance in fielding the whims and programs of the gods, pagans tend to organize themselves in wisdom traditions.

Gardner is pretty damn Wiccan, as sweet mentions, with a capital W.

The druids Caesar encountered obviously had schools training bards in the singing of the oral traditions and training the best of those to druid priesthood or whatever it would have been called. (Caesar was out to eradicate the druids and didn't get into a lot of detail.) But there was certainly a large preserved lore among the Gauls and Britons, a wisdom tradition. Mystery religions in Egypt, Thrace, Eleusis and elsewhere also certainly were concerned with preserving and transmitting wisdom traditions.

Many of the wisest seemed, curiously, to hold that all wisdom is one. Excellence certainly sounds like a criterion which has a chain-like structure, x being better than y, y more excellent than z. But there is no chain structure. Balance is more important than some sort of championship of the wisdom traditions.

cantdog

 

[Lisa Denton]

Gardner is but one. Because of the situation of a polytheist, relying on the wisest for guidance in fielding the whims and programs of the gods, pagans tend to organize themselves in wisdom traditions.

Gardner is pretty damn Wiccan, as sweet mentions, with a capital W.

The druids Caesar encountered obviously had schools training bards in the singing of the oral traditions and training the best of those to druid priesthood or whatever it would have been called. (Caesar was out to eradicate the druids and didn't get into a lot of detail.) But there was certainly a large preserved lore among the Gauls and Britons, a wisdom tradition. Mystery religions in Egypt, Thrace, Eleusis and elsewhere also certainly were concerned with preserving and transmitting wisdom traditions.

Many of the wisest seemed, curiously, to hold that all wisdom is one. Excellence certainly sounds like a criterion which has a chain-like structure, x being better than y, y more excellent than z. But there is no chain structure. Balance is more important than some sort of championship of the wisdom traditions.

cantdog

Cant, could I take it, from this and even more from the first sentence of the previous post (Lisa, the "irreligious" or "sensualist" meanings are of non-pagan origin.) that the only true difinitions of paganism are from non-pagans? Have self-described pagans, over the centuries, not come up with a totally different definition of paganism with which to describe themselves. Or do they agree perhaps with the definition already in place?

 

[cantdog]

Pagan is a lumping term. The various traditions describe themselves, but the lumping term is too large.

I'm no expert, but I try to listen. To listen in a special way, when people talk in a vocabulary beyond the one I'm used to.

This, too, is a way with wisdom traditions. The stance you take under the blows of fate, the manner in which you decide at the cusp of decision, the ultimate rock upon which your own wisdom is based, are not always stated in familiar terms, to a twentieth & now twenty-first century American.

I study languages and I study broad histories to stretch the ability to hear, really hear, when alien modes of expression come my way. Besides, I liked the discipline of language study. I mean, in a language class, you either know it or you don't; you don't get to bullshit.

That's why I enjoy weird stuff like a paganism thread. People are always-- always, in all circumstances!-- talking in code. It's terrific to hear.

House apes are deplorable, but they are also heroic, admirable, fascinating, wise, silly. There's nothing like them. So when I hear the attempts by the Earl and Kassiana and Luc to delineate the variety and consonances within the whole sweep of "paganism," I am listening to comprehend their referents, the things they choose as examples to describe something with. Are they being truthful? What is their testimony? For, it is clear they are passionate about it.

That is the tool set to bring to a discussion of wisdom traditions. You hear the testimony of others, cast in their terms. You interpret it, looking for meaning, guided by the yardstick of truthfulness.

Joe's approach is the scientific, objectivist approach. Both are empirical in that both interpret experience, but that is the last similarity. In interpretation, I try to winnow, to think about what I hear with logic, because logic clarifies analysis. But he is not in the dialogue. The dialogue is the mode of the wisdom traditions.

You can't well investigate the inner workings of a personality with a microscope and a caliper.

Science is monologue. You alone set up the conditions and run the test, guided by objective truth, not by thruthfulness. The testimony is irrelevant, the surface is all: What statements do they produce? That's Joe's question. He analyzes, logically, the statements for truth. He should be in the dialogue, interpreting the testimony. Attempting to bridge the gulf between one mind in one tradition and his own in another by understanding, by interpretation, looking for the meaning not the statement and its truthfulness.

That's why people say he's hanging them with words. Semantics, they call it, knowing no better. He has taken their statement and pretended it was made in his language. He points out that in his monological scientific language, what they said was hardly true. And of course he is right. But he's brought the wrong tools.

The wisdom-tradition, dialogue approach is slow, but every bit as productive as the monologue, objective, scientific approach. One is better for surfaces and nearly useless for depths, the other represents the only tried and true approach to depths. When we talk about the bases of the personality, its gods, its morality, its passions, where is the surface for objective truth to measure?

Sorry.

Lisa, the answer is, I'm leery of discussiong "definitions" in this sort of context. I ask rather, that you suspend the definition of "pagan" and wait for the testimony of the pagans themselves to bring you to an understanding of it.

Derive it from your interpretation of what they tell you. Don't challenge them to define it in monologue terms.

I'm hopeless, I guess, as a source, here. Are you following me?

 

[Pure]

Cant, could I take it, from this and even more from the first sentence of the previous post (Lisa, the "irreligious" or "sensualist" meanings are of non-pagan origin.) that the only true difinitions of paganism are from non-pagans?

In a sense, yes, since, be it Greeks referring to country ruffians or Christians referring to the unconverted or idolaters, 'pagan' has a negative tone/valence to it.


Have self-described pagans, over the centuries, not come up with a totally different definition of paganism with which to describe themselves.

I think in the West, neo pagans have re-adopted the term, reappropriated it. Sort of like those who propose 'queer theory' have dealt with that label.

Outside the West, of course a Hindu might define herself "This is my practice as a Hindu." But she wouldn't say, "This is my practice as a pagan."

If you find an Aboriginal in the West or elsewhere, they may say, "This is how I define my 'aboriginal' {if they use the term} religion," but not "This is how I define my pagan religion."

Or do they agree perhaps with the definition already in place?

People outside the West likely ignore the definition. It's not 'in place' for them.
Jews have terms for the non Jewish, and perhaps Hindus do, for the non Hindu.

No doubt Hindu philosophers have described monotheism and polytheism. Iow, they would want a neutral term, if they were comparing religions, so that they might say, "We are polytheists." (Note, Hinduism may be a qualified polytheism, if any god is given supreme status.)

In short, if you want a 'self definition' from a 'self defined pagan' you're going to have to look to a Westerner with a point to make, like the folks who say, "We're here; we're queer."

NOTE I believe this agrees with Cant, esp. in his last sentence. It was written prior to reading his last post.

Don't challenge them to define it in monologue terms.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Pagan is a lumping term. The various traditions describe themselves, but the lumping term is too large.

I'm no expert, but I try to listen. To listen in a special way, when people talk in a vocabulary beyond the one I'm used to.

This, too, is a way with wisdom traditions. The stance you take under the blows of fate, the manner in which you decide at the cusp of decision, the ultimate rock upon which your own wisdom is based, are not always stated in familiar terms, to a twentieth & now twenty-first century American.

I study languages and I study broad histories to stretch the ability to hear, really hear, when alien modes of expression come my way. Besides, I liked the discipline of language study. I mean, in a language class, you either know it or you don't; you don't get to bullshit.

That's why I enjoy weird stuff like a paganism thread. People are always-- always, in all circumstances!-- talking in code. It's terrific to hear.

House apes are deplorable, but they are also heroic, admirable, fascinating, wise, silly. There's nothing like them. So when I hear the attempts by the Earl and Kassiana and Luc to delineate the variety and consonances within the whole sweep of "paganism," I am listening to comprehend their referents, the things they choose as examples to describe something with. Are they being truthful? What is their testimony? For, it is clear they are passionate about it.

That is the tool set to bring to a discussion of wisdom traditions. You hear the testimony of others, cast in their terms. You interpret it, looking for meaning, guided by the yardstick of truthfulness.

Joe's approach is the scientific, objectivist approach. Both are empirical in that both interpret experience, but that is the last similarity. In interpretation, I try to winnow, to think about what I hear with logic, because logic clarifies analysis. But he is not in the dialogue. The dialogue is the mode of the wisdom traditions.

You can't well investigate the inner workings of a personality with a microscope and a caliper.

Science is monologue. You alone set up the conditions and run the test, guided by objective truth, not by thruthfulness. The testimony is irrelevant, the surface is all: What statements do they produce? That's Joe's question. He analyzes, logically, the statements for truth. He should be in the dialogue, interpreting the testimony. Attempting to bridge the gulf between one mind in one tradition and his own in another by understanding, by interpretation, looking for the meaning not the statement and its truthfulness.

That's why people say he's hanging them with words. Semantics, they call it, knowing no better. He has taken their statement and pretended it was made in his language. He points out that in his monological scientific language, what they said was hardly true. And of course he is right. But he's brought the wrong tools.

The wisdom-tradition, dialogue approach is slow, but every bit as productive as the monologue, objective, scientific approach. One is better for surfaces and nearly useless for depths, the other represents the only tried and true approach to depths. When we talk about the bases of the personality, its gods, its morality, its passions, where is the surface for objective truth to measure?

Sorry.

Lisa, the answer is, I'm leery of discussiong "definitions" in this sort of context. I ask rather, that you suspend the definition of "pagan" and wait for the testimony of the pagans themselves to bring you to an understanding of it.

Derive it from your interpretation of what they tell you. Don't challenge them to define it in monologue terms.

I'm hopeless, I guess, as a source, here. Are you following me?

Yes you are hopeless Cant, attempting the improbable. I wasn't following as you didn't lead, but saw a path that you envisioned and I hadn't imagined, without a destination as you wanted me to find my own.

Thank you for what little I did understand, as I listened.

 

[cantdog]

In my view, the author of the Gita modified Hinduism by subsuming the sprawling myriads of gods into a single Godhead. It's like, for me, what Christ did for the sprawling masses of Jewish law, deriving a central thrust, relieving western monotheism of the burden of the Law in all its complexities.

A reform, a synthesis, maybe, but not a protestantism. Buddha may stand as a protestantism, as he did away with the gods altogether.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Cant, could I take it, from this and even more from the first sentence of the previous post (Lisa, the "irreligious" or "sensualist" meanings are of non-pagan origin.) that the only true difinitions of paganism are from non-pagans?

In a sense, yes, since, be it Greeks referring to country ruffians or Christians referring to the unconverted or idolaters, 'pagan' has a negative tone/valence to it.


Have self-described pagans, over the centuries, not come up with a totally different definition of paganism with which to describe themselves.

I think in the West, neo pagans have re-adopted the term, reappropriated it. Sort of like those who propose 'queer theory' have dealt with that label.

Outside the West, of course a Hindu might define herself "This is my practice as a Hindu." But she wouldn't say, "This is my practice as a pagan."

If you find an Aboriginal in the West or elsewhere, they may say, "This is how I define my 'aboriginal' {if they use the term} religion," but not "This is how I define my pagan religion."

Or do they agree perhaps with the definition already in place?

People outside the West likely ignore the definition. It's not 'in place' for them.
Jews have terms for the non Jewish, and perhaps Hindus do, for the non Hindu.

No doubt Hindu philosophers have described monotheism and polytheism. Iow, they would want a neutral term, if they were comparing religions, so that they might say, "We are polytheists." (Note, Hinduism may be a qualified polytheism, if any god is given supreme status.)

In short, if you want a 'self definition' from a 'self defined pagan' you're going to have to look to a Westerner with a point to make, like the folks who say, "We're here; we're queer."

NOTE I believe this agrees with Cant, esp. in his last sentence. It was written prior to reading his last post.

Don't challenge them to define it in monologue terms.

Thanks Pure, I think what I may have done was take out of context some things I read in PM's. You and Cant did clear it up some in that I was looking to be told an answer, instead of looking for an answer.

I do feel I've learned a great deal today about what others feel about wicca and paganism, and am interested in the subject more than I thought I would be. Thanks for some insight into your thoughts on the matter.

 

[cantdog]

Yes you are hopeless Cant, attempting the improbable. I wasn't following as you didn't lead, but saw a path that you envisioned and I hadn't imagined, without a destination as you wanted me to find my own.

Thank you for what little I did understand, as I listened.

I can't ask for better, Lisa my love. I know I'm how I am, and it delights me that you are how you are. You have my esteem, whether you need it or not.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Ok, on catch up a little. Lisa, yes, as I believe my post pointed out a while ago, buried in a turbulent sea of battle, there exist many who would call themselves Wiccan not Pagan and Pagan not Wiccan. Gaia-worshipping Wiccans, purist Hellenics, these are but one example of each.

Furthermore, paganism as it is known popularly is basically polytheism, because its first religious conotation use was used against the polytheist Hellenics by the Christian Rome under Constantine.

The pantheons of this polytheism are varied as would be expected and have further been reduced to describe polytheistic religions that are no longer have active shrines or combinations of said pantheons. For instance, Hindu and Shinto would be unlikely regarded as pagan by most people, but a combination of both would be "pagan" as would a purely Norse belief structure.

Whether one describes himself as a pagan or not is another matter entirely. Self-identity of religion is always a personal act. Some may describe themselves by a broad definition, a particular Church, or may have their own name for it. I suspect cantdog would be hard pressed to synthesize his spiritual path in a single word without leaving much of it out. Spiritual beliefs and worldviews are difficult things to compartmentalize. Even a label like Christianity does nothing to explain the trials and tribulations and degrees of difference in its practice. To put it bluntly, most every worldview when proper will take a long while to describe, every spiritual path when done properly will take a long and confusing while to explain adequately. This is it's nature and why simple labels and attitude toward said label are usually found severely lacking.

I also agree with Pure and cantdog that dialogues and most importantly listening are the most important steps to understanding a worldview. When you are able to listen you learn much of the way others see the world, even if you do not follow that path yourself. Too bad this thread wasn't a dialogue. Though I appreciate the knowledge that did come my way. Thank you very much cantdog for your description and for digging up old posts for me. They were very helpful.

And that last paragraph doesn't negate my held belief that religion is personal. In fact it is because it is personal that listening intently to another's description of beliefs becomes worthwhile even if you "believe you know everything that is to be known about it". Just because I do not speak on my religion's behalf, does not mean I do not listen when others do, nor do I refrain from repeating and sharing it when others try to listen as well.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I can't ask for better, Lisa my love. I know I'm how I am, and it delights me that you are how you are. You have my esteem, whether you need it or not.

I desire your esteem Cant, as you have mine.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Ok, on catch up a little. Lisa, yes, as I believe my post pointed out a while ago, buried in a turbulent sea of battle, there exist many who would call themselves Wiccan not Pagan and Pagan not Wiccan. Gaia-worshipping Wiccans, purist Hellenics, these are but one example of each.

Furthermore, paganism as it is known popularly is basically polytheism, because its first religious conotation use was used against the polytheist Hellenics by the Christian Rome under Constantine.

The pantheons of this polytheism are varied as would be expected and have further been reduced to describe polytheistic religions that are no longer have active shrines or combinations of said pantheons. For instance, Hindu and Shinto would be unlikely regarded as pagan by most people, but a combination of both would be "pagan" as would a purely Norse belief structure.

Whether one describes himself as a pagan or not is another matter entirely. Self-identity of religion is always a personal act. Some may describe themselves by a broad definition, a particular Church, or may have their own name for it. I suspect cantdog would be hard pressed to synthesize his spiritual path in a single word without leaving much of it out. Spiritual beliefs and worldviews are difficult things to compartmentalize. Even a label like Christianity does nothing to explain the trials and tribulations and degrees of difference in its practice. To put it bluntly, most every worldview when proper will take a long while to describe, every spiritual path when done properly will take a long and confusing while to explain adequately. This is it's nature and why simple labels and attitude toward said label are usually found severely lacking.

I also agree with Pure and cantdog that dialogues and most importantly listening are the most important steps to understanding a worldview. When you are able to listen you learn much of the way others see the world, even if you do not follow that path yourself. Too bad this thread wasn't a dialogue. Though I appreciate the knowledge that did come my way. Thank you very much cantdog for your description and for digging up old posts for me. They were very helpful.

And that last paragraph doesn't negate my held belief that religion is personal. In fact it is because it is personal that listening intently to another's description of beliefs becomes worthwhile even if you "believe you know everything that is to be known about it". Just because I do not speak on my religion's behalf, does not mean I do not listen when others do, nor do I refrain from repeating and sharing it when others try to listen as well.

I appreciate this Luc, I wasn't being lazy by not reading the entire thread. I got through the first couple pages before it got, um, fusterclucked.

I also got some informative PM' from nice peoples that explained some things that I didn't know.

Sometimes I come across as silly cause I like to joke and have fun, but I really enjoy learning new things also.

Thanks, you and Cant give good post.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Lisa,

I have to say that many people who call themselves wicca or wiccan are really pagan- because they don't follow many of the things that make wicca what it is- these being the 'ecclectic wiccans' in large part. Some use 'wicca' to mean a modern word for witch and witchcraft- believing that wicca is a softer less offensive sounding word- or believing that the word is prefferable for some other reason. In this instance, many use the word wicca as a noun that is synonymous with witch- while others use it as a specific religion (as I said Wicca) with specific rules, structure, and rituals.

Now- as to the question of a pagan who is not a wiccan, it has two parts since there are basicly two definitions of Wicca.

In the case of the lowercase w wicca- a pagan who is not wiccan is basicly anyone who is pagan but doesn't choose to call themselves wiccan. (confusing no?) but also can be a pagan who doesn't consider themselves a witch- either because there paganism is a spiritual practice and not a magical one, or because it is magical but they have a different name for there practices or for whatever other weason, they don't feel that they are wiccan. In some cases- the pagan may call themselves a Witch, a Pagan, a Druid, a Voodun, or some other lable. Unless you belong to a coven or some other group or organization, it's pretty much up to you to decide what lable you wish to identify yourself with. It's best- unless you go with pagan, to do lot's of research so that if you following Norse gods and so forth, you don't look silly calling yourself a Druid. (You would want to call yourself something that resonates with that tradition.) If you belong to a coven or group- you will all be called the same thing, whatever that may be.

This is probably terribly confusing, if your already confused. I tried my best, so I hope it helps. If you really have an interest, a really good thing to read is Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today

It's somewhat dated, but its very comprehensive and scholarly (I believe she wrote it as her thesis or something) I totally enjoyed reading it-- and was suprised to find it available at my library I would however, love to have a copy for my very own. It doesn't read like a novel or anything, but I think you can handle it- you seem pretty smart to me.

there's a little bit of a definition in the description, so I'll reprint it here with a link (amazon) in case you want to read the reviews or whatever

Popular demand for this clear-sighted compendium of information about the rebirth of Pagan religions hasn't waned since its initial publication in 1979. Distinguished by the journalism of National Public Radio columnist Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon explains this diverse and burgeoning religion's philosophies and activities while dispelling stereotypes that have long been associated with it. Most people don't realize that pagan simply refers to pre-Christian polytheistic nature religions, such as the various Native American creeds, Japanese Shinto, Celtic Druid, and Western European Wicca. Originally, the word pagan meant "country dweller" and was a derogatory term in Rome in the third century A.D., not unlike calling someone a hick today. If you find yourself feeling queasy when you hear the words witch or pagan, a healthy dose of reeducation via Drawing Down the Moon could be the cure. --P. Randall Cohan

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/102-0300445-9676178?v=glance&s=books

Here's what one reviewer said:

This book is like a history book, that covers each and every nuance and political faction of the Wiccan movement since it's inception and because of that is an important reference work, but, as such, it's a bit like reading an encyclopaedia.
I was much more educated than inspired.
(they still gave it 3 stars)

 

[Amy Sweet]

Re: Re: spirit animals, shapeshifting

Someone here turned me on to finding my animal guide, very enlightening experience I might add.

That sounds really cool. If that person is interested in PM-ing me, I'd love to learn too. (UNless they want to post here, which would be cool too)

 

[Amy Sweet]

Joe

As always, if I'm in error (and haven't, myself, acknowledged as mcuh)... I'd be delighted to see where. There are a number of questions I've asked that haven't been answered, I'd be delighted to have those answered to.

And, still, Amy seems to believe that her opinion is superior to others in that her recommendation that I just stop being argumentative altogether (that would be a polite rephrasing). However, I still don't know for sure whether that's the best idea. Surely, the opinions of others have been varied. My concern isn't for how people think of me, Luc would be wrong about that, but how best to resolve the desires of those here.

Past that, philosophy was never about introspection. That's sort of like saying psychology is the study of crazy people... just not the case.

If you want to continue this discussion, I'm going to move it over to it's own thread. Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with Paganism. You can respond or let it die. Whatever works for you.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=299290

 

[curious2c]

My two cents worth...

Paganism is equal to Christianity...

both 'titles' cover a large distance in religious belief's. Christianity...covers, Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants, Baptist, Mormans, so on and so forth...Paganism covers Wicca, Gardaining witches, Druids...so on and so forth. In my book anyway.

I am a solitary Druid...Celtic based. I have recently converted to this belief and learning what I need to know has to come from online (i.e. witchvox etc.) and from books. I have several Cunningham books, but I also have many other books by other authors as well. Since I am focusing on Druidism, my library is so focused too.

It is still hard in today's world to find correct information too. Many have their belief's and they try to help, but a Pagan's whole true viewpoint is to let each choose their own path...that is how it is for all living things...and The Goddess and God are the base to the path. All paths.

Just some rambling thoughts from this ol man.

Edtied to add:

I started out in life as a Christian by the way...Assembly Of God...parents were quite...um...strong in their belief's. I on the other hand had questions that could not be answered by them or the ministers I talked to while growing up.

Now, my mother is 82...I can't tell her of my choice's, as that would hurt her and probably break her heart too. Oh well...I know I am on my path and that I am on the correct path...for me.

 

[Amy Sweet]

My two cents worth...

Paganism is equal to Christianity...

both 'titles' cover a large distance in religious belief's. Christianity...covers, Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants, Baptist, Mormans, so on and so forth...Paganism covers Wicca, Gardaining witches, Druids...so on and so forth.

Exactly. paganism is an umbrella term, it's a large category of religious beliefs. It's like saying mamall or reptile. It's a very general description.