Welcome to Gaia! ::

So lots of religions that call themselves pagan aren't because they're not old enough?

Princeton slightly disagrees.
Neo-pagan is a subset of pagan. Pagan is anything that doesn't worship the Abrahamic god.

By defining a particular group of religions based on another (if a religion is not christian, therefore it is pagan) we run into an odd sort of dependence by definition that bothers me.

Sort of like how "Gay" was originally an ethnocentric insult to homosexuality, we may need to take the word "Pagan" and claim it as our own, ascribing our own meanings to it. Because I think Ganesha and Papa Legba alike might take offense to being called "Pagan Gods".

And I love how princeton agrees with both of you guys' definitions.

Why not
paganism:
1-the religions that existed in Europe and the areas around the Mediterranean Sea before and concurrent with the spread of Christianity in those regions
2 - the reconstructions thereof, and other Neopagan concepts.

Good enough? It even fits the Popes' edicts, seeing as how most of their use of the word "pagan" fits my definition, since "All the non-Christian religions" in their world was a relatively small subset of the full globe we see today.

Placing religions in a dichotomy defined as "Christianity vs. the Pagan Religions" implies that Christianity (and possibly the related religions of Judaism and Islam) are somehow special and set apart. The linguistic connotations of that definition display the original writers' view that Christianity was the absolute truth. For Neopaganism to accept both that label and that current definition is suicidal on that basis.

Also, good luck finding Hindus that are willing to be lumped in with the Neopagan movement in such a fashion. Wiccans don't call themselves "neopagan", but rather simply "pagan". By your definition, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and followers of Shinto, Native American faiths and Voodoo are then "Pagan", when few among those groups would think of themselves by a word which defines their faiths in relation to Christianity. Forcing that label upon them only continues the cultural narcissism of the Conquistadores and others who tried to force Christian faith on them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm curious about YHWH as a "pagan god". I've heard rumors, but nothing credible, about him having a wife; however, if you have something to offer please do so. I'm always open to new info if you've got some sources to cite.

And you are aware that gay was once used as a term for homosexuality in an exclusively negative way? The parades, in part, changed that but it was more of an attitude adjustment. While not the "original" use of the word, I was hoping you might understand this.

Dude, deja vu. Have we had this discussion before?

Sanguina,

The "Other Neopagan concepts" I would argue includes Wicca, and the overlap with the New Age movement. While I lack the documentation saying such, both established themselves in the same time period - roughly in the 1960s and 70s, during a cultural upheaval.

How much have you looked into the history of Wicca? In particular, you may want to examine Gardiner's affiliation with Aliester Crowley's OTO. You might recognize a lot of Gardinerian Wicca in Crowley's Thelema.

On the definition itself - you're missing my point. Voluntarily using a definition of Paganism that bases itself off of the Abrahamic tradition waters down our definition of ourselves. Why define ourselves by a god we *don't* worship?

It still seems unreal to me that we define Paganism in such a way that includes several pre-existing groups that have nothing to do with our Neopagan movement.

The definitions laid out before me did not leave such a "gray area" as you mentioned. This dreadfully wide definition is why we need to refine the word "pagan" as I suggested in the first place if we are to continue calling ourselves Pagan at all. I've actually been criticized for leaving it *too wide* for redefining Paganism to be relevant to our definition.

Satanism faces similar issues - by defining itself by the adversary in Christian theology, it condemns itself to being defined by Christianity and thus having little room to grow as such belief structures do need from time to time. Satanism, by definition has relegated itself to little more than an inverted sect of Christianity.

Paganism, by the act of defining itself on Christianity implicitly does the same thing, albeit more loosely than Satanism by virtue of the fact that it is defined by the tradition and not simply the adversary. When combined with the fact that neopaganism took root in a predominately Christian West, our Neopagan movement can be seen as little more than a religious revival within the specifically Christian tradition. This concept of Neopaganism as a 20th and 21st Century revival within Christianity is a view taken by many Anthropologists who bother to examine the movement.

By adding other criteria so as to use the Abrahamic tradition more as a reference point than simply creating a dichotomy, we narrow the results to include those faiths which are relevant to Neopaganism today, with some others thrown in that came out of the dirt that share some similar characteristics, including polytheism.

"Pagan" has come to mean something different that simply "unchristian" and thus implying "uncivilized" from it's root meaning "rural person" or something similar.

We *are* civilized. When Pagans think of their faith and what exactly it *is*, they don't reflect back on how "it's not christian", as the current stated definitions of "Pagan" suggest. Some even try to blend Wicca and Christianity to create something that is both Neopagan and Christian. Personal judgments aside, these occurrences don't reflect the nomenclature.

And about Pre-Abrahamic Covenant Judaism being pagan by definition - cute. That's just the sort of thing I'm trying to narrow out of my definition. I will adapt it accordingly.

The point is that language adapts. Why not adapt it to a way that suits our needs? By inventing the concept of "Neopaganism" we've already adapted the meaning behind the word "Pagan" to fit our needs - often as a colloquial term for neopagan and the roots that neopaganism claims. We need to craft a solid, laid out definition that reflects this usage, and allows the movement to define itself not by Christianity.

I agree, this is getting interesting.

However, the definition of Pagan is only relevant in the context of Neopaganism. Nowhere outside of a little pagan group as this is such a discussion even relevant; thus, I think it is unfair to group every single other faith in the world outside of the Abrahamic tradition into one single category. Also, since we're the ones bringing relevance to the word, we might try making relevant to ourselves and *only* ourselves. We have that power.

We may not view it as a negative word, but to cultures where that label became a rationalization for conversion to Christianity, applying that word to them carries that connotation. Defining those faiths as "pagan" still relates them back to Christianity in a way that I (and others) find (at best) distasteful.

The stated definition sets us up for an "us and them" mentality, however subtly, which bases our identity upon Christianity. Paganism must stand on it's own if it is to be a viable collection of faith traditions.

Yes, Voodoo has Christian influences - at the heart of it's intent was to reconstruct an African tribal faith. Many Christian influences were the only ideas around to supplement necessary parts; others were used as a cover up their decidedly non-Christian activities, such as the correspondences between Saints and Loa. That is distinguishably in a gray area relative to the Stanford definition of Paganism, and Christianity.

However, Shinto somehow qualifies as "Pagan"? I'm not alone in finding that both humorous and somewhat offensive to define that practice relative to Christianity.

And you'll see that I clarified about the term gay. My apologies for the mix up.

Well, is something Pagan because it is polytheistic or animistic, whether hard or soft? You seem to be working off of a different definition than what I'm trying to present, maybe even different than any that has been presented in this thread.

Also, we've already embraced the word "Pagan" as a colloquial synonym for the Neopagan movement, of which the reconstructionist branch *hopes* to root itself in the previous faiths it rebuilds (present company among the successful few among reconstructionists). A definition which encompasses our colloquial use would be more up to date for our purposes, and for continuity it's older roots, would reflect the word's current use and possibly allow the movement to clarify itself.

Clarifying the movement involves leave out religions which have their own established identities because calling them "Pagan" does not clarify who and what *we* or *they* are. Hinduism doesn't need clarity, nor to be lumped in with us (except as polytheists).

So far, the previous definition of "a religion not in or derived from the Abrahamic Faith Tradition" doesn't shed much light on what Paganism *is* - It just says "not christian, or anything associated with the god of Abraham". That, and as I've stated, lumping Hinduism in there as Pagan for being non-Abrahamic perpetuates a cultural bias in favor of the Abrahamic faith tradition. As active participants in Paganism, it is our job to clarify.

Why bother? Lack of clarity in the movement has allowed abuse - Celtic Shamanism being one example. We can dissociate ourselves from such nonsense by establishing structures which are truly Pagan, even alliances thereof, which use and propagate the refined definition.