Is Hellenismos Pagan?

[David19]

I was just reading YSEE's site (http://www.ysee.gr/index-eng.php), and on their main page, they have this to say about the word "pagan":


In our days it is used to call a non-monotheistic religion as pagan or neo-pagan, but this word in reality is an insult for the native/ethnic polytheistic pre-Christian religions. We prefer not to use this term which was applied from the Christian church in order to insult our ancestors and their religion and way of life.

Personally, I feel the same way when people refer to ancient religions and cultures as "pagan", like I don't like referring to the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc as "pagans", as it would be an insult to them (I doubt someone living in a city like Athens would appreciate getting told their a country hick, which is what pagan originally meant). Do you think modern Hellenismos is Pagan, or do you think it's its own sub-culture?, like, for example, Buddhists are Buddhist, Hindus are Hindus, Jews are Jews, etc, neither would be considered Pagan (even though I've seen some people, including Pagans, attempt to include Hindus and Buddhists under the label which is an insult to those in India, and elsewhere), or do you think modern, American, Hellenismos is Pagan (with a capital "P")?.

[Philosophia]

Even though I'm not Hellenismos, I found this answer (http://www.ecauldron.net/dc-faq.php#3) for you:


Is Hellenismos a (neo)pagan religion?

It depends entirely on how you define those terms. If by "pagan," you mean "something other than Jewish, Christian, or Moslem," then yes, Hellenismos is pagan. If you mean "godless, lacking in religious belief," then obviously no. If you mean "an earth-based, magical religion honoring a goddess and her consort and following an annual calendar based on Northern European agricultural and pastoral cycles," then again, no.

To the extent that our religion is a reconstruction and adaptation of ancient religious practices in the modern world, one could argue that the label "neopagan" is both accurate and descriptive, and some Hellenes embrace it. However, the terms "neopagan" and "paganism" have become so closely linked to eclectic Wicca that many people now treat them as synonyms.

In response to the confusion created by this usage, there is currently a movement within the reconstructionist religions, including Hellenismos, away from using the term "pagan" at all. Some also object to the imposition of a Latinate label, created by Christians as a term of derision, that would never have been used by the ancient Greeks to describe themselves in the first place. There is, however, no consensus on this issue at present, and each individual uses the terms most comfortable for him or her. (The author of this FAQ, for example, prefers "polytheist" to "pagan" and eschews "neopagan" altogether.)

[Louisvillian]

Under the current and modern meaning of the term, yes. The usage they are implying is outdated and a relic of historical Roman times. Times change, and words with it.

I can see using it in its proper context, e.g. referring to actual ancient Greek and Roman polytheism as just "Greco-Roman polytheism" instead of "paganism". But they are entirely different things from modern polytheistic revivals.

[*~Amora~*]

As previously cited, yes and no, depending on how it's used.

Personally, I prefer "polytheist", as it quite literally means "beliver in more than one" which I think is neutral enough and gets away from the trappings of "pagan". This preference isn't born out of an ethical objections, but out of convenience and avoiding misunderstandings.

[Nuadu]

So basically anything that doesnt share an origin in masonic trad isnt pagan?

I would see three problems with that, it assumes that Native religions dont want to be identified as pagan, it assumes western paganism doesnt owe its existance to the neo pagan movement and it assumes the religions from the western world hold an equal status in western culture as the eastern forms of polytheism do in theirs and can declare themselves as a body in a similar way to the eastern forms.

Point 1. While its fair enough to say that cultures that retain their native polytheism dont refer to their religion as pagan, it is not because they believe that their religions are not pagan and should not be identified with western polytheism. Through AiKiDo Japanese Kannagara - the way of the gods is promoted in western terms as Japanese Polytheism. The word Pagan is not native in Japanese and the iconography associated with the word in the west isnt present in Japan so it is not used. If they do not find the association with contemporary forms of paganism offensive I see no reason why our western cultures polytheism should have a problem with it.

Point 2. We in the west all live in Christian countries where there are no ancient unbroken forms of paganism. That being the case In My Opinion the resurgance of interest in native forms of paganism is New and owes its existance or its popularity to the 'neopagan' movement. So unless some 'ancient' unbroken line of paganism emerges that has existed in silence down through the ages I think native religions can only be a part of neo paganism.

Point 3. In Japan Kannagara is a national religion, otherwise known as Shinto. It has recignised leaders, a set structure and is a part of everyday life for a large part of the population. In the western world while some religions are recignised they do not share that status. They are not recignised as an indigenous form of religion by the culture as a whole or the state. That being the case it is only comparatively small groups of people who make the claim that their religion isnt pagan or neo pagan with the majority in opposition. Those who are from the culture, who have a claim to it and responsibility to it as their heritage, who dont just consider it devil worship or a shockingly insulting example of someone stealing their culture from them will consider it pagan. So in my opinion by consensus that makes the religion pagan. Of course that assumes people who practice native religions place a value on that religions contemporary culture, which some being alien to the culture or alienated by the culture dont.

But for me those three simple realities make it impossible to call my native paganism anything but neo paganism and Id apply the same thinking to Hellenismos. If Hellenic recons want to make other claims thats fine with me. Greek people might have other opinions.

EDIT: Actually following on from my first point I would like to know why people have a problem with a simple name 'neo pagan' or 'pagan' in the face of contradicting facts. Is it a personality conflict with Wiccans?

[Twinkle]

I think of it this way:

In the broadest definition, yes - Hellenismos is pagan. However; many of us prefer not to use the term as we do not want to be confused with Neopaganism.

Not that there is anything wrong with being Neopagan - but at least for Hellenic Reconstruction - we are so far removed from it we have virtually nothing in common with it.

It's simply easier to say what we are, rather than go into long explanations as to what we are not.

[David19]

I think of it this way:

In the broadest definition, yes - Hellenismos is pagan. However; many of us prefer not to use the term as we do not want to be confused with Neopaganism.

Not that there is anything wrong with being Neopagan - but at least for Hellenic Reconstruction - we are so far removed from it we have virtually nothing in common with it.

It's simply easier to say what we are, rather than go into long explanations as to what we are not.

So, would you say Hellenismos is similar to Buddhism or Hinduism or Judaism, in that you have you have your own, kind of, sub-culture, just like Buddhists are Buddhist, Hindus are Hindus, Jews are Jews, Hellenes are Hellenismos, etc.

The more I learnt about Hellenismos, the more I can see what you mean, it does seem to have more in common with mainstream religions than it does with some Neo-Pagan ones (and I mean that as a compliment :)).

[Twinkle]

I wouldn't presume to respond for every practitioner of Hellenismos - but I would say that for me personally, I believe Hellensimos to be what it is - a subset of the broad umbrella term of Paganism.

Hinduism and Buddhism by broad definition are Pagan, but most of them would be offended to be called Pagans. They are more accurately placed under the heading of the Dharmic Religions - because of that, I can't really say we're like the Buddhists or Hindus.

I think I get what you're saying - so if pushed I'd have to say that in my opinion the practitioners of Hellenismos are a distinct and separate religion from Neopaganism - which seems to be the common understanding of what a Pagan is.

[David19]

I wouldn't presume to respond for every practitioner of Hellenismos - but I would say that for me personally, I believe Hellensimos to be what it is - a subset of the broad umbrella term of Paganism.

Hinduism and Buddhism by broad definition are Pagan, but most of them would be offended to be called Pagans. They are more accurately placed under the heading of the Dharmic Religions - because of that, I can't really say we're like the Buddhists or Hindus.

I think I get what you're saying - so if pushed I'd have to say that in my opinion the practitioners of Hellenismos are a distinct and separate religion from Neopaganism - which seems to be the common understanding of what a Pagan is.

Thanks, and I hope my post was clear enough :).

[Twinkle]

I think so - did I answer your question?

[David19]

I think so - did I answer your question?

Yes, you did, it was very helpful.

[Erebos]

I think it can be considered "Pagan," but I think it's an offensive term, even if it has been reclaimed by the modern movement, so I prefer not to use this term to describe myself, personally. I don't think reconstructionists like to be lumped in with the "magickal dragon faerie" type of thing that is popular in Neopaganism, so that's another factor that separates recons from mainstream Pagans.

[Newbieoffractals]

I think that worshiping non Abrahamic Gods makes one a Pagan(By some Christian's standards, non Christians(meaning Catholics as well as most Protestants who aren't part of cults are pagan! But, generally speaking, Jews and Christians and often Muslims are seen as worshiping the same God, and I do agree that they all do.).

The Dali Lama is a pagan, just as much as the person who's a hardcore recon, and both of them are just as pagan as the magical fluffy unicorns person. Now, some might be more serious about their religion, some might be based in historical accuracy, but neither is right or wrong. I don't think most serious neopagans like to be lumped in with the teenager who practices spells from Silver Ravenwolf, and absolutely nothing else, though I don't know.

Also, didn't the Hellenic religion and most European religions which are called pagan now, survive longer in the countryside/private practice as opposed to big state sponsored festivals in the major cities? If pagan means from the country, isn't it appropriate that a lot of the sources of later practices are country ones?(Though, the Greeks did do a wonderful job at preserving their culture in religion compared to other groups!)

Please correct me if I'm wrong on how long they were practiced for, because I'm not 100% sure on that one, but I thought that they were practiced more in the countryside openly in comparison to cities!

[Toby Stimpson]

I think that worshiping non Abrahamic Gods makes one a Pagan(By some Christian's standards, non Christians(meaning Catholics as well as most Protestants who aren't part of cults are pagan! But, generally speaking, Jews and Christians and often Muslims are seen as worshiping the same God, and I do agree that they all do.).

The Dali Lama is a pagan, just as much as the person who's a hardcore recon, and both of them are just as pagan as the magical fluffy unicorns person. Now, some might be more serious about their religion, some might be based in historical accuracy, but neither is right or wrong. I don't think most serious neopagans like to be lumped in with the teenager who practices spells from Silver Ravenwolf, and absolutely nothing else, though I don't know.


The Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism is NOT Paganism. If the context and meaning of Paganism is allowed to be solely on definition... then I don't think people are really looking hard enough.

[Newbieoffractals]

I said that I think worshiping non Abrahamic god makes one a pagan. I suppose Buddhism is more iffy, as there isn't a "god" persay in it, but perhaps Hinduism is better.

There's the neopagan movement, and then there are living religions with multiple Gods, and living religions without the Christian Gods. Neopagans often consider Native American religions to be pagan, or use their rituals, so that's why I'd consider a movement like Buddhism(Or Hinduism) pagan.

That being said, I think pagan is a very large term, so it doesn't really mean all that much to call someone pagan. There's a huge difference between a Wiccan, a Hellenic recon, and a Hindu in terms of their faith!

[ninurta2008]

I agree with Twinkle on this one. It does fall under the umbrella.

I understand YSEE's sentiment though, I don't think the term fits my path either. As I follow a religion that is civilization oriented (right down to their creation myth), way far away from being a rustic country dweller religion

[David19]

I think that worshiping non Abrahamic Gods makes one a Pagan(By some Christian's standards, non Christians(meaning Catholics as well as most Protestants who aren't part of cults are pagan! But, generally speaking, Jews and Christians and often Muslims are seen as worshiping the same God, and I do agree that they all do.).

The Dali Lama is a pagan, just as much as the person who's a hardcore recon, and both of them are just as pagan as the magical fluffy unicorns person. Now, some might be more serious about their religion, some might be based in historical accuracy, but neither is right or wrong. I don't think most serious neopagans like to be lumped in with the teenager who practices spells from Silver Ravenwolf, and absolutely nothing else, though I don't know.


The Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhism is NOT Paganism. If the context and meaning of Paganism is allowed to be solely on definition... then I don't think people are really looking hard enough.


I said that I think worshiping non Abrahamic god makes one a pagan. I suppose Buddhism is more iffy, as there isn't a "god" persay in it, but perhaps Hinduism is better.

There's the neopagan movement, and then there are living religions with multiple Gods, and living religions without the Christian Gods. Neopagans often consider Native American religions to be pagan, or use their rituals, so that's why I'd consider a movement like Buddhism(Or Hinduism) pagan.

Like Toby said, Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama, Hinduism, Native Americans, etc are not Pagan, by any definition, yes, certain Fundamentalist Christians, and Muslims, may consider them "Pagan", but, they are not. For one, it would be an insult to the vast majority of those people practicing their faiths, and, 2), the word "pagan" was thrown around at other faiths by those that weren't Christian (or, more precisely, those that weren't a certain brand of Christianity, everything else was "pagan" or "heresy", or whatever).

Modern day Paganism refers to religions that are either reconstructions of ancient religions, some modern day earth-based paths that may, or may not, include the worship of deities, magic, and elements of ancient religions (among other things too), and those that may not fit into those labels, but, still identify as Pagan for various reasons (maybe they do believe in many Gods, or practice magic, and feel the modern Pagan movement meets their spiritual needs).

There are Pagans who label everything that isn't Christian or Muslim, or, sometimes, Jewish, as Pagan, I've even seen one person try to say "Zoroastrians are Pagan", which is the biggest load of crap ever, but, to me, that's just very disrespectful to all those cultures and religions, while there may be some Hindus who may identify as Pagan, or feel like they have a lot in common with the modern day Pagan movement (and, most of those Hindus are usually white, American converts to Hinduism, with a few Indian Nationalists who have grudges against Christianity and Islam (and the British)), but, the vast majority of people in those cultures do not identify as "Pagan", and would not (most, probably, have no clue what it means anyway, other than, as an insulting word).

[YoungSoulRebel]

Like Toby said, Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama, Hinduism, Native Americans, etc are not Pagan, by any definition, yes, certain Fundamentalist Christians, and Muslims, may consider them "Pagan", but, they are not. For one, it would be an insult to the vast majority of those people practicing their faiths, and, 2), the word "pagan" was thrown around at other faiths by those that weren't Christian (or, more precisely, those that weren't a certain brand of Christianity, everything else was "pagan" or "heresy", or whatever).

Modern day Paganism refers to religions that are either reconstructions of ancient religions, some modern day earth-based paths that may, or may not, include the worship of deities, magic, and elements of ancient religions (among other things too), and those that may not fit into those labels, but, still identify as Pagan for various reasons (maybe they do believe in many Gods, or practice magic, and feel the modern Pagan movement meets their spiritual needs).

There are Pagans who label everything that isn't Christian or Muslim, or, sometimes, Jewish, as Pagan, I've even seen one person try to say "Zoroastrians are Pagan", which is the biggest load of crap ever, but, to me, that's just very disrespectful to all those cultures and religions, while there may be some Hindus who may identify as Pagan, or feel like they have a lot in common with the modern day Pagan movement (and, most of those Hindus are usually white, American converts to Hinduism, with a few Indian Nationalists who have grudges against Christianity and Islam (and the British)), but, the vast majority of people in those cultures do not identify as "Pagan", and would not (most, probably, have no clue what it means anyway, other than, as an insulting word).
Quoted for truth.

Basically, "Pagan" is an umbrella term that under common use by pagans and sensitive/educated non-pagans alike tends to extend only to the following religious groups:

1. "reconstructed" religious paths, and typically those with roots in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (basically, "Classical Western Antiquity")
2. new religious paths inspired by the above to some degree (such as Wicca or Feri)
3. pantheistic or animistic nature-based or agrarian spirituality (or "tree-hugging dirt worshippers", as a friend's bumper sticker proclaims)

Occasionally, tribal religious practises I'll still see vaguely described as "pagan", but even this is something I'm seeing less and less of; and honestly, I think it's only been the most bigoted Christians I've seen describe any non-Abrahamic religion as "pagan" during my lifetime.

[David19]

Quoted for truth.

Basically, "Pagan" is an umbrella term that under common use by pagans and sensitive/educated non-pagans alike tends to extend only to the following religious groups:

1. "reconstructed" religious paths, and typically those with roots in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (basically, "Classical Western Antiquity")
2. new religious paths inspired by the above to some degree (such as Wicca or Feri)
3. pantheistic or animistic nature-based or agrarian spirituality (or "tree-hugging dirt worshippers", as a friend's bumper sticker proclaims)

Occasionally, tribal religious practises I'll still see vaguely described as "pagan", but even this is something I'm seeing less and less of; and honestly, I think it's only been the most bigoted Christians I've seen describe any non-Abrahamic religion as "pagan" during my lifetime.

QFT for me too, from what I've seen, from both lectures at uni and elsewhere on the internet, a lot of African tribal religions define themselves as African Traditional Religions (which would include things such as Voodoo, and the countless other religious systems you get within the African continent).

I think anything else is just a holdover from peoples Christian upbringing (e.g. by thinking anything non-Christian is Pagan).

[YoungSoulRebel]

QFT for me too, from what I've seen, from both lectures at uni and elsewhere on the internet, a lot of African tribal religions define themselves as African Traditional Religions (which would include things such as Voodoo, and the countless other religious systems you get within the African continent).

I think anything else is just a holdover from peoples Christian upbringing (e.g. by thinking anything non-Christian is Pagan).
I see Voudou and Santeria get tagged with "African Diaspora religions" a lot because while having roots in traditional African tribal religions, some people consider it different enough to say it's a creation of the groups that ended up in the New World. Regardless, I rarely see Voudou referred to as "pagan" these days and those who do are pretty much in the camp of "non-Abrahamic = Pagan", which just makes my eyes roll as so many of those people like to rant and rave about religious tolerance, but have a subtle intolerance for non-Abrahamic religionists who insist that their religion isn't "pagan".

[David19]

I see Voudou and Santeria get tagged with "African Diaspora religions" a lot because while having roots in traditional African tribal religions, some people consider it different enough to say it's a creation of the groups that ended up in the New World. Regardless, I rarely see Voudou referred to as "pagan" these days and those who do are pretty much in the camp of "non-Abrahamic = Pagan", which just makes my eyes roll as so many of those people like to rant and rave about religious tolerance, but have a subtle intolerance for non-Abrahamic religionists who insist that their religion isn't "pagan".

I've seen that too, I think the types of people who lump everything under the Pagan umbrella tend to fit into 2 groups, either Christian Fundamentalists (or Islamic fundamentalists), or perhaps Pagans who don't seem to have gotten over their Christian upbringing, and think everything that has more than one God is somehow "Pagan".

[Sekhmet Soul30]

I don't like the word 'pagan.' It implies so many horrible things and it's an insult to those that were very smart back then. Of course that's my own personal opinion.

[C. Iulia Regilia]

I think that worshiping non Abrahamic Gods makes one a Pagan(By some Christian's standards, non Christians(meaning Catholics as well as most Protestants who aren't part of cults are pagan! But, generally speaking, Jews and Christians and often Muslims are seen as worshiping the same God, and I do agree that they all do.).

The Dali Lama is a pagan, just as much as the person who's a hardcore recon, and both of them are just as pagan as the magical fluffy unicorns person. Now, some might be more serious about their religion, some might be based in historical accuracy, but neither is right or wrong. I don't think most serious neopagans like to be lumped in with the teenager who practices spells from Silver Ravenwolf, and absolutely nothing else, though I don't know.

Also, didn't the Hellenic religion and most European religions which are called pagan now, survive longer in the countryside/private practice as opposed to big state sponsored festivals in the major cities? If pagan means from the country, isn't it appropriate that a lot of the sources of later practices are country ones?(Though, the Greeks did do a wonderful job at preserving their culture in religion compared to other groups!)

Please correct me if I'm wrong on how long they were practiced for, because I'm not 100% sure on that one, but I thought that they were practiced more in the countryside openly in comparison to cities!

This is exactly my problem with the term. It's more a term of convenience for the religions that are not JCI religions. It says nothing about what you actually are. It's simply shorthand for Non-Abrahamic. The problem is that most of the Non-Abrahamic religions have little in common. A Wiccan and a Hindu and an Asatruan see their world very differently, not just in style, but in substance. And even in these cases, they come from PIE roots. If you consider Chinese or Japanese or Lakota religions in the same catagory, the catagory is absolutely meaningless.

I think the term should be dropped altogether, not because its offensive, but because it says nothing useful about what a religion believes and practices. It would be better to talk about "Classical Religion" or "Northern Tradition" or "Native American Tradition" or "Wiccan Tradition". You won't give the false impression that these separate religions are simply denominations of the same thing, as would be the case in Christian Religion, or Islam. Hellenism and Wicca have very little in common, and they both don't have much in common with LeVayan Satanism, yet call them pagan and they all sound the same. I don't think it's accurate in the least to speak as though "Pagan" religions are one type of thing as it implies similar beliefs.

"Pagans worship nature"
"Pagans cast circles"
"Pagans cast spells"
"Pagans are polytheist"

Whatever. No statement you could make about "Pagans" applies to every religion thrown under that umbrella. Hinduism has a fairly strong monistic streak, Asatruans don't. Wiccans cast circles, but Hellenes don't. Wiccans cast spells, but most Reconstructionist Traditions don't.