Welcome to Gaia! ::

I just thought of an interesting extention to this discussion. One that may make me lean a more toward your defenition Set, but then, maybe not. Let's see where it goes. As I said before, I tend to identify myself as a Heathen which comes with it's own Christian conotations that I try to redefine. Now within the pagan community, most folks know that a Heathen is someone who follows the Gods of northern Europe, and tries to reconstuct what they can of the religion of these Gods. however, if you look at the dictionary, it is mostly defined as a more negative version of the word Pagan. Just look at the dictionary.com entry

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heathen

Look near the bottom an you'll find one definition that fits mine. The rest of the page is reiterating over and over that a heathen is a either a synonym for pagan or an "irreligious, uncultured, or uncivilized" person. I may not think of pagan as a negative term, but this definition of heathen most certainly is. They are certainly related terms and I can see where the insult might come from. And considering the definitions for Heathen has made me think about how I define Pagan a bit.

Random question - Why do we northern types use the term Heathen anyway? Who started it?

It's interesting how we use words without really stopping to think about what they mean.

And rereading this thread has put me in a better mood. This is how debating and disagreement should work. Civil and repectful back and forth. CH1YO's posts have been upsetting me.

Yay! Information! I knew about the etymological origins of the word but I wasn't sure how we got from that to the way it's used today. Hurray for evolving terminology.

There are some pagans who include those religions. There are some Buddhists and Hindus who even consider themselves pagan (though I've found much more who disagree). There are some Hindu who have even combined aspects of Wicca into their Hindu practices.

Zoroastrianism! Here, you will see that Zoroastrianism had a major influence in the formation of Judaism and Christianity, not the other way around. Christianity and Islam did influence Zoroastrianism as well, but this was through aggressive conversion tactics. Zoroastrianism then came to publicly emphasize monotheism over their dualism, but maintained their own practices more than what Western scholars of the time realized. Zoroastrians do not recognize any covenant with Abraham, as Judaism, Christianity and Islam all do. Thus, Zoroastrianism is firmly outside of the Abrahamic faith tradition.

Here's a blog, filled with links, quotes and citations called The Wild Hunt. At the 2009 parliament of world religions, held this year in Melbourne, Australia, the term "European Indigenous Traditions" arose to explain this Neopagan movement to representatives of other faiths from around the world. Problems with this definition are noted - what about Wicca? As was not noted, what about reconstructionists of nearby associated cultures, such as some independent Kemetic Recons? Do they not get to call themselves Pagan if they claim it? Thus, this is noted as something of a "working definition" until a better one can be formulated.

Throughout the reports, the ethic is not one of "these pagans talked with those pagans from around the world". The definition which implies that is archaic, and inherently disrespectful to those who do not wish to claim the title of "Pagan". For some, they already have their own identity, and just don't need lumping into ours. For others, it is a term of colonial oppression used as part of an underhanded means to convert their people to Christianity.

This pickled vegetable...

Actually, no. Asatru is a specific type of Norse paganism. There are those who are a more general type of practitioner. I use the term Heathen because it is more general than Asatru. Sure it's kind of broad - encompassing both Germanic and Anglo-Saxon variants - but for me, that actually the point. I am a Norse focused Heathen but I'm not Asatru.

This pickled vegetable...