Pigeonholing?

[Journeyman]

BB, y'all.

I am an initiated 1st Degree Wiccan but have been inactive for a couple of years.
I don't believe that there is just one true path or just one true god. So I sometimes think of myself as Pagan.
However, I do not worship nature. I believe that the earth is filled with divinity, but I don't even like to garden. I'm from NYC and am a pretty urban guy.
Nature worship isn't my gig. Am I still Pagan?
I believe in the gods, but not as anthropomorphic personages. I believe that divine energy manifests to different cultures and places indifferent ways, each appropriate to that culture.
So I don't work with any particular pantheon. I am ethnically and culturally Jewish, and I can't find any known pantheon or mythos which resonates with me and my character/energy.
So am I a Pagan without gods? A generic polytheist?
I don't know,and I'm not sure how to explore it.

Any input, empathy, commiseration, or ideas?

BB,
JM

[Myst]

Pagans aren't necessarily nature based - hell, pagans aren't necessarily anything specific, other then perhaps those who aren't totally Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.

I understand your pondering it but don't worry about the labels too much.

[Wicce]

I think Paganism is defined by it being earth-based - however, that does not mean you have to worship the Earth, only, like, revere it...as you would your mother. Pagans generally feel a *connection* to the Earth, and some worship it, but you do not have to literally take it as a God'dess for you.

Don't be so worried with labels. Go with your gut instinct, your feelings, and don't worry if they have a name or a perscription. If there is no path laid out for you and no guidelines that feel right...hack out your own path and make your own rules. :)

Btw, I really don't like gardening either ^_^

[Journeyman]

Thanks for the thoughts, all.
Sometimes the open-endedness of it all is disconcerting and intimidating.

BB,
JM

[Myst]

With all due respect I disagree that "Paganism is defined by earth-based". Norse, Ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Celtic Witches, Pagans, and Heathens are some of the people who are Pagan but don't work with a religion or belief system that is necessarily earth-based.

[Mithrea]

In my opinion (but based on what I know of cultural studies), I would guess that earth-based religions is a label that has been placed on all pagan religions by a largely Christian academia or culture. As in, "if your gods aren't in our heaven, then they must be here on earth" type of deal. So while most would not really be nature based or earth based, they would incorrectly receive that label.

I don't know that, it's just a guess.

And Wicce honey, I can only barely read what you wrote. That white doesn't show up unless I tilt the monitor ;)

[Wicce]

I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my definition of Paganism...it's just, most people see Paganism as any religion that isn't Christian, which I totally disagree with, and people always ask what Paganism is...a lot of Pagans are earth-centered, Asatruar and Druids and Wiccans and such. But I know not all of them are. Could any religion call itself Pagan, then?

It's all names anyway, which I put no stock in. What's important is what you are, not what you call yourself.

Sorry about the font color, I didn't realize no one could see it...I'll change it :)

[Mithrea]

You didn't offend me ;) We are all just discussing here :D

I just thought you might want to know about the font because if it were me, I would want people to be able to read what I had to say ;)

No worries :)

[Amethyst Rose]

When I created my Pagan club, a few years ago, we had a hard time trying to decide what paths were were going to consider Pagan; should we do the "earth religions" route, or the "anything that isn't Christian, Jewish or Muslim" route?
What we decided is to go the earth religions route, because that was the group that we wanted to communicate and socialize with and the people we had the most in common with. Also, going the other route would mean that we would have hundreds of religions on our hands! :)
I can relate, partially, with what Journeyman was saying, however. I also don't "worship" the earth or nature... I don't see it as a "god" or divinity. I believe that all things have divinity in them, but that's different. I have often wondered, like he has, if I'm really wiccan, because I do not believe in the god and goddess as real, physical deities, but rather as archetypes -- the female and male aspects of all things in the universe.
But, I just go with my heart -- that's all you can do, really.
Journeyman: If you are an initiated 1st degree Wiccan, even if you have been out of the groove for a while, why not discuss these things with your High Priest or Priestess....that's what they're there for.

[Journeyman]

Well. I'm glad that this discussion is going on! As a Jew, I know that we certainly wrestle with the "who is a Jew?" question.

Well, were the Greeks Pagans? The Romans? The Egyptians?
Modern day Pagans work alot with these pantheons, but the original religions weren't "earth-based," were they?

I may be wrong...

[Myst]

No I'm sure you're not wrong. I just started studying Ancient Egyptian beliefs and it's definitely not "earth based". I don't think Asatruar are either, but Rick would know better.

As far as Greek/Roman/Graeco-Roman Paganism (Hellenic) though they had a deity of "the earth" or fertile crops (Demeter), they also weren't "earth-based" nor was earth central to their beliefs.

Which is why, for my purposes, I consider a Pagan in the strictest sense to be anyone who isn't fully Jewish, Christian, or Muslim (and keep in mind, that's Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, not just Christian).

Is there a reason why you don't like that definition, Wicce?

[Journeyman]

Myst, thanks for your input. I mostly agree with you, but I think it's a bit odd to define Paganism strictly by what it's not. In a way, that's a negative definition, and one that, IMO, buys into the Xtian/Jewish/Moslem nomenclature and worldview.

Also, you end up with a definition of Pagan that includes Bahais, Zen Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Confucianists, Scientologists, Zoroastrians, etc.

Not a flame, and not even an opinion to which I'm wedded; just a thought.

[Myst]

Originally posted by Journeyman
I mostly agree with you, but I think it's a bit odd to define Paganism strictly by what it's not. In a way, that's a negative definition, and one that, IMO, buys into the Xtian/Jewish/Moslem nomenclature and worldview.

I actually agree with your first comment but not your second - yes it's defining Paganism by what it's not, however, in trying to define some things it's easier to say what they aren't then what they are. I can't tell you anything that all Pagans are. However, I define it that way because it is inclusive and makes sense, not because I'm "buying into" any worldview. It's just what works for me.


Also, you end up with a definition of Pagan that includes Bahais, Zen Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Confucianists, Scientologists, Zoroastrians, etc.

I don't mind that myself. Why do you think it's not a good thing to call these people Pagan?

I understand some people would like to find a better definition for what is Pagan.. but I haven't found a better one yet. I'm enjoying our discussion, Journeyman, thanks for bringing this up :)

[Storm]

I guess I think of paganism as poly-theistic. I am sure thats wrong. Maybe not. I guess that would include Bahais, Zen Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Confucianists, Scientologists, Zoroastrians, etc. If it has a specific name then call it that. I guess I am closest to Wicca but not. I don't have a name for what I am but I know it fits under Pagan. Very eclectic at that. And barely religious. Anyway why do old definitions have to stay. If its outdated redefine it. We are too hung up on the past and the Old Ways. I don't know maybe we need that for validation. So we don't seem like a bunch of flakes, and, let's face it, given some of our beliefs and practices, the general close minded masses do think of us that way. Uh, so I am back and forth on that issue, but anyway I am rambling. Please forgive me. :)
Storm

[Myst]

No one said old definitions have to stay; that's why we're discussing how we might define it now.

Pagans can be polytheistic, monotheistic, pantheistic... :)

[Journeyman]

These are all good points. I'm enjoying this, too.

Well, I guess I have trouble considering, for example, people of the Bahai faith Pagan. They are a monotheistic offshoot of Islam.
And Zen buddhists are pretty much agnostic, I believe (though Tibetan Buddhism does seem to be ploytheistic)

Myst - interesting point about monothesitic Pagans. COuld yopu elaborate or give examples? I can't think of any, but I'm ecrtainly far from omniscient. :)

[Myst]

Sure - first some Pagans work only with a Goddess, and some consider there to be only one God that people know by their own names.

Some Dianics I think just work with a Goddess (tho I'm pretty sure some only center on the Goddess but recognize there is a God too). Also for a long time I have thought the various Gods people work with are just names they apply to part of the All God (one supreme God).

[Journeyman]

Good points again, Myst.

Here are some ideas on this topic as well:

http://religioustolerance.org/paganism.htm


What a nifty site!

[Storm]

That is why I come here. Learn so much everytime I do.

[Wicce]

I have trouble thinking of Buddhism, Shinto, etc as Pagan. I don't know why, but I see the Pre-Christian European religions as Pagan, and the Asian religions as Eastern Mysticism religion.

Paganism is theistic, having belief in a deity and that with that deity you can ascend to something further. The Eastern religions are ethicalistic, meaning they believe that it is your actions that will help you move on to a higher existance. From a sociological standpoint, Paganism and the Eastern religions are different, but then again, I know that Paganism also believes your ethics are crucial to taking you higher, and that most people will combine the Eastern religions with some form of theism.

I just hate thinking Paganism is any religion that isn't Judeochristian or Islamic; why should it be? They're large religions, but that doesn't make it them and us. Of course, they were the ones who first called us Pagans.

Labels are just not good, anyway... :)

[Journeyman]

I pretty much agree with you, Wicce.
I'll just put the issue to rest for myself by saying that I'm Pagan. And if anyone wanted to get into detail, I'd do so with them.
Beyond Pagan, though, I can't think of applicable labels.

bb,
jm

[Myst]

Originally posted by Wicce
Paganism is theistic, having belief in a deity and that with that deity you can ascend to something further. The Eastern religions are ethicalistic, meaning they believe that it is your actions that will help you move on to a higher existance.

Actually, if you think of Wicca, a very well known Pagan religion, the focus *is* on ethics, not deities. "Harm none" as opposed to joining with or believing in any specific deity. In the case of Ancient Egyptian beliefs, you ascend (or at least move to another form of existence) by dying, and you concentrate on ma'at. In Norse and Greek beliefs the idea of ascension isn't there in the first place. In fact it was my understanding that the idea of ascension itself was from eastern philosophy *in* the first place.

[Wicce]

You're right...but despite that, Paganism is still classifed as theistic rather than ethicalistic, because of the belief in divinity and deity.

I have a bit of an idea though...Paganism, or at least the Neo-Paganism I know, covers the religions that strive to piece together and revive the ways of the pre-Christian people, their lore, their mythology, and their deities. And of course, bring new knowledge into the lifepool, also.

[Aotearoa]

:huh:I say labels suck, not every blond is a bimbo (just most of em!;):lol: )
Only YOU know what you are/believe and only YOU can choose your label. :)......Or you could chose to have no label, or make your own "journeymanism"-sounds deep.:lol:

"you can't put round pegs into square holes"

"I am whatever you say I am, If I wouldn't be then why would I say I am?"-Shady

[Cait]

Journeyman - there's an essay here (http://www.angelfire.com/wa3/sannion/Urban_Pagans.html) about being a city-based pagan, which I thought you might find interesting/helpful/whatever.

(disclaimer: having read a few more essays on that site, I disagree with a lot of this guy's ideas - he seems to have a very strange view of Wiccans, for one thing - but I quite liked this particular essay and hoped Journeyman might find it helpful, since he was questioning the whole nature-based thing...)

[Storm]

I thought it was a beautiful essay and a much different viewpoint I never concidered. If I believe that rocks may have souls or as I prefer to call it, an energy form, why not buildings.. and bits and pieces of energy left behind by the people who built them. I must say.. I am profoundly moved by having read it. Thanks be to you, Cait, for posting the link.

[Mithrea]

Originally posted by Wicce
I have trouble thinking of Buddhism, Shinto, etc as Pagan. I don't know why, but I see the Pre-Christian European religions as Pagan, and the Asian religions as Eastern Mysticism religion.
. . .

I just hate thinking Paganism is any religion that isn't Judeochristian or Islamic; why should it be? They're large religions, but that doesn't make it them and us. Of course, they were the ones who first called us Pagans.


On the flipside Wicce, why shouldn't it be? The simple fact of the matter is that there are *far* too many NRM's to make any type of sweeping generalizations and have any foundation. Many many people will call themselves pagan and I would bet that no two of them believe exactly the same way.

I am most certainly a Neo-Pagan, but I think it is completely pointless to spend years of my life trying to prove that my path has an historical basis. My path is my own and I do not need history to legitimize it.

I also believe that the rise of NRM's is seriously tearing down your classifications of theistic vs. ethicalistic. As in, as scholars we are not using those labels anymore because the growing number of shades of gray between them has brought us to the point where we no longer can see either side.


*edited for Mithrea typing disease

[Journeyman]

Originally posted by Mithrea

I also believe that the rise of NRM's is seriously tearing down your classifications of theistic vs. ethicalistic. As in, as scholars we are not using those labels anymore because the growing number of shades of gray between them has brought us to the point where we no longer can see either side.

Sorry for being dense, but what's an NRM?

[Mithrea]

I have to stop posting at 6 am after I've been up all night. :T

NRM = New Religious Movements

[Wicce]

I did not mean that you needed history to validate your current path, that would be quite silly, as no one can move forward if they're always looking backward...I meant that the Neo-Pagans I have known, whether Wiccan or Asatruar or Kemetic, have always had a few roots in mythology and the ancient practices of older civilizations. And they have always planted new seeds and new roots to grow and spread from.

But, you're right... :)

[Amethyst Rose]

Inserted a little late into the conversation, but oh well....

I do not consider pagan religions to be "earth" based, but rather "nature" based. In answer to a previous question, yes, I do consider the ancient Greeks, and Egyptians to have practiced pagan religions, because they had gods and goddesses that represented certian aspects of nature -- sun, moon, weather gods and goddesses, etc. (hence, nature based).
These ancient religions came in to being as a way of describing the natural occurances of the planet. The very first religions and "gods" were created, because people needed to explain why rain fell from the sky, why fire burned, why plants grew, and the seasons changed. (at least that's what I learned in my Ancient Religions class in Uni.)

In response to something else that was said.... do you think that Buddists, and Janists, and Shinto's etc. call themselves, or even consider themselves to be Pagan??? (I actually don't have a clue, so if someone knows different, please correct me.)

[Journeyman]

Amethyst Rose, I think that I am much more comfortable with "nature -based" than "earth-based." I think that jibes more with how I feel.

Also, the "urban pagan" guy's site has been taken down by Angelfire. :(

[Myst]

Well it's pretty certain that cultures are going to associate things with natural phenomena, I don't think that means the belief system is based on the earth or nature.

For instance, Ra is associated with the sun, but that's only a tiny bit of who he is. It's like skimming the surface of what he stands for and such a small part of not only the belief system but the sun itself's impact in the belief system that I *still* don't consider that "nature based" at all. The cosmology of Kemet spans numerous plains of existence, and we think of nature and can only experience it on this one.

That's actually part of why Kemeticism interests me.

[FlamedLilly]

Just an off shoot, I still think along christian lines alot becuase I'm still deciding, but anyway here goes. There are some Christian religions that believe that God's "power" is shown through the earth, that you can connect with God through Nature and observation. There are also Christian religions out there that believe that they can become Gods, and that God was once like man, that he had a God, etc. so there for they, logically, believe in more then one god and also in more then one Godess. So does that make them Pagans?

[MaddyBlue]

I am very new to this....like umm...just joined today....but I love the discussions ocurring on this site. The question of what is or is not Pagan is very interesting to me. And I have enjoyed a lot of the answers. I wanted to make a few points of my own.

One: I agree that Paganism is not defined by a connection to the earth or worship of the earth. I am still searching, but predominately hellenistic. The Greeks valued the earth, but not above anything else. In fact worshipping of the earth would upset the very thing that the ancient Greeks strove for...Balanace.

Two: Paganism is essentially defined as anything not of the judeo-christian religion. Yes, it is never good to define something by what it is not. Yes, it is un-wittingly giving validity to the idea that judeo-christian beliefs are the norm. However, it is a word created by judeo-christian followers to define people who are not.
This is why there are more specific definitions of the seperate pagan religions.

The beauty of paganism is that it is defined by what it is not. It is not centralized or organized around a man (be it a priest, rabbi, pope, jesus himself, or any other central human religious figure). It has no clear definition, no one thing in common. You can not make the statement, "All pagans believe..." And this, my friends, is a wonderful thing. What it is not, is everything that is bad about judeo-christian religions.

Maybe that is the definition. Ha ha. Maybe I have stumbled upon the definition. It is a religion that is not based on the worship, god-ification (is there a word for that...the opposite of personification) of one or many men. This would eliminate the judeo-christian religions as well as possibly some of the eastern religions.

Well that's my two cents.
Thanks for listening.

[MaddyBlue]

Just thought add my own little anecdotal story:

In High School I had a friend who was a devout Bible-Baptist. I challenged her religion frequently in the way that good friends should (ie. to spark intelligent debate...not to judge or slander). When one day she told me that the jehovah's witness was a cult, I began to probe further. I asked her why she thought it was a cult. It is after all a christian religion, ironically not very much unlike the bible-baptist religion in a lot of their practises. She informed me that any religion that was not a common protestant religion was a cult. Through further probing I found this list included Catholics, Episcopaleans (sp?), Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, and many other well established religions. I am sure that none of these people would ever consider their religion a cult, but there is no clear definition of a cult.

What is my point?
The dictionary definition of a cult is as follows:
cult Pronunciation Key (klt)
n.

-A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
-The followers of such a religion or sect.
-A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
-The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
-A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

-Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
-The object of such devotion.
-An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

My friend was indeed correct in her statements. I am sure all religions fall into this. In her eyes she was only going by the first definition, "A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. " And for her all the other religions she considered cults we either extremist or false or both.

In the same way the dictionary definition of Pagan is as follows:
pa·gan Pronunciation Key (pgn)
n.
-One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
-One who has no religion.
-A non-Christian.
-A hedonist.
-A Neo-Pagan.

adj.
-Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
-Professing no religion; heathen.
-Neo-Pagan.

This means that a number of religions that do not consider themselves pagan fall into this definition. Including ancient greeks and egyptians. They, at no point, ever considered themselves pagan. Because there was no such thing. It was a word created by the Christian world to seperate us from them.

The real point. Pagan is a huge generalization. And is absolutely irrelevant in terms of stating your beliefs. Its only use is to state what your beliefs are not. It is after all just a word. And it is what each and every one of us makes of it.

From the sounds of posts all over these message boards there are a lot of people out there making paganism a good thing. Now if only the Right Wing Republican world could see that. :)

Peace
Erin the Elder

[FlamedLilly]

I totally agree, it reminds me of something that I learned the summer before I joined the AF. A weed is something that grows where it is not wanted. By this definition everything is a weed to something. Even a rose bush could be considered a weed.