Credit Counseling | MPAA | Mortgages | iPhone Reviews | Online Advertising

pagans & Neo-Pagans [Archive] - MysticWicks Online Pagan Community and Spiritual Sanctuary

PDA

View Full Version : pagans & Neo-Pagans


TYRRHENUS
April 19th, 2004, 02:33 AM
Rome's birthday is upon us, and it got me thinking about the differences between the pagans of old and Pagans today.

TRIBALISTIC SPIRITUALITY
During the Regal Period Roman religion was tribalistic. The Gods were prayed to for the protection and survival of the king. It was believed that what was good for the king would also be good for the tribe, in this case, the Romans.

The Republic is the era which developed the Religio Romana - official Roman religion. The yearly calendar was filled with public ceremonies. Every God had a day and the calendar was based on the agricultural cycle. Which has led people today to believe that Roman religion was a fertility religion, but I believe agriculture was merely a by-product, the underlying psychology was the protection and survival of the tribe. The whole point of agriculture is survival. "Protect us, the children of Romulus." - Ovid.

During the Empire Romans had taken a step backward. The Senate was replaced by an emperor. But the psychology behind Roman religion remained the same. People were ordered to pray for the emperor's genius (soul), because what protected the emperor protected the tribe.

In all three periods the purpose of worship in Roman religion was to guarantee the survival of the tribe, regardless of the focus of that worship.

PERSONAL SPIRITUALITY
During both the Republic and the Empire Rome's success was beginning to make tribalistic Roman religion antiquated. The Romans no longer had to concern themselves with the survival. The Latin people were dominant. Rome herself was often called Invicta Roma (Unconquered Rome). Their prosperity allowed them to look inward.
Their tribalistic religion was being forgotten en masse in favor of monotheistic cults which preached messages of personal spirituality: Magna Mater, Mithra, Isis, Elagabus, Sol Invictus, (several others that escape me at the moment) and finally, Christianity. The fact that the earliest of these cults, that of the Magna Mater was embraced so thoroughly by such an early date (205 B.C.E.) proves the message of personal spirituality found in Christianity was long overdue.

MY CONCLUSION
This is what separates pagans from Neo-Pagans. We Neo-Pagans talk about our religions being personal, spiritual. We try to get in touch with our Gods at the individual level. Nowhere is there a feeling that the Gods must be prayed to for our survival. Because of this Neo-Pagans are much more closer to Christianity than pagans. In fact, the psychology seems to be exactly the same.
Perhaps one may consider Christianity a necessary step in religious evolution. Or that Neo-Paganism is a synthesis of old traditions with a "new" personal spirituality.
Putting aside any future catastrophes which may take us back to the psychology of our ancestors, I think religion from here on out will forever be personal. It will always have the Christian message.

What do you think?

Heathen Dawn
April 19th, 2004, 03:25 PM
Very thought-provoking, Tyrrh! :)

We Neo-Pagans talk about our religions being personal, spiritual. We try to get in touch with our Gods at the individual level. Nowhere is there a feeling that the Gods must be prayed to for our survival. Because of this Neo-Pagans are much more closer to Christianity than pagans. In fact, the psychology seems to be exactly the same.
Perhaps one may consider Christianity a necessary step in religious evolution. Or that Neo-Paganism is a synthesis of old traditions with a "new" personal spirituality.
Putting aside any future catastrophes which may take us back to the psychology of our ancestors, I think religion from here on out will forever be personal. It will always have the Christian message.

What do you think?

I think the function of worship has shifted from physical survival to mental survival. I’m a case in point: religion helps me deal with my fear of death (which drove me insane when I was an atheist) and the stress of college.

I have no problem seeing a kinship between Wicca and Christianity. In fact I think Wicca and Catholicism are soul-sisters (not so Wicca and Protestantism; the Prods have scripture-based rather than ritual-based spirituality). There’s no question about it, Wicca, and neopaganism in general, are modern. So, as a Wiccan, I see no problem here. But where do reconstructionists stand? Doesn’t it make you uncomfortable that Tyrrhenus is pointing out that your religions too are a departure from the spirit of old?

I think also that science has sapped faith away. Who now believes every bolt of thunder is Thor’s doing? With less belief, people pray for their survival less.

No avoiding the teeth of time...

Romani Vixen
April 19th, 2004, 06:47 PM
Interesting concepts. I'll have to think on them more!