|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:23 am
Sanguina Cruenta Aura leigh Dragon i understand why this subject is very debatible ....... But why is it in the Pagan Sub-Forum? its has nothing to do with Pagans or any branch of pagans! gonk Laveyan Satanists can be called Pagans because they do not worship Yahweh or Yeshua. but just because they do not worship god or jesus (those are there hebrew names) does not mean that they are pagans. Laveyan Satanists teachings are individualism, self-control and "eye for an eye" morality. they do not worship the pagan gods ethier. I have a Friend who is a Laveyan Satanist, him and i (im a wiccan) believe this is in the wrong spot.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:33 am
Aura leigh Dragon Sanguina Cruenta Aura leigh Dragon i understand why this subject is very debatible ....... But why is it in the Pagan Sub-Forum? its has nothing to do with Pagans or any branch of pagans! gonk Laveyan Satanists can be called Pagans because they do not worship Yahweh or Yeshua. but just because they do not worship god or jesus (those are there hebrew names) does not mean that they are pagans. Laveyan Satanists teachings are individualism, self-control and "eye for an eye" morality. they do not worship the pagan gods ethier. I have a Friend who is a Laveyan Satanist, him and i (im a wiccan) believe this is in the wrong spot. The other potential beliefs of pagans do not matter: If you aren't Christian, Jew, or Muslim, you qualify as a pagan, no matter if you are Satanist, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Polytheist or Animist. Essentially, i'd rather say that the word "Pagan" is incorrect to begin with, but as it is, it fits many ... one could claim too many ... under its "umbrella". (It reminds me of "Barbarian" that used to mean "Everything not a part of Rome"....)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:14 am
Aura leigh Dragon Sanguina Cruenta Aura leigh Dragon i understand why this subject is very debatible ....... But why is it in the Pagan Sub-Forum? its has nothing to do with Pagans or any branch of pagans! gonk Laveyan Satanists can be called Pagans because they do not worship Yahweh or Yeshua. but just because they do not worship god or jesus (those are there hebrew names) does not mean that they are pagans. Laveyan Satanists teachings are individualism, self-control and "eye for an eye" morality. they do not worship the pagan gods ethier. I have a Friend who is a Laveyan Satanist, him and i (im a wiccan) believe this is in the wrong spot. You don't have to worship a god to be a Pagan. "Pagan" means "not Abrahamic", and as an atheistic religion Satanism can technically fall into this category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:57 am
Tiina Brown The other potential beliefs of pagans do not matter: If you aren't Christian, Jew, or Muslim, you qualify as a pagan, no matter if you are Satanist, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Polytheist or Animist. Essentially, i'd rather say that the word "Pagan" is incorrect to begin with, but as it is, it fits many ... one could claim too many ... under its "umbrella". (It reminds me of "Barbarian" that used to mean "Everything not a part of Rome"....) Sanguina Cruenta Aura leigh Dragon Sanguina Cruenta Aura leigh Dragon i understand why this subject is very debatible ....... But why is it in the Pagan Sub-Forum? its has nothing to do with Pagans or any branch of pagans! gonk Laveyan Satanists can be called Pagans because they do not worship Yahweh or Yeshua. but just because they do not worship god or jesus (those are there hebrew names) does not mean that they are pagans. Laveyan Satanists teachings are individualism, self-control and "eye for an eye" morality. they do not worship the pagan gods ethier. I have a Friend who is a Laveyan Satanist, him and i (im a wiccan) believe this is in the wrong spot. You don't have to worship a god to be a Pagan. "Pagan" means "not Abrahamic", and as an atheistic religion Satanism can technically fall into this category. I've combined these two because my response is the same. By these arguments we should only have two boards with a slew of sub-boards, and ultimately atheists going into the Pagan board since they too don't accept the God of Abraham. And yes, I was being tongue-in-cheek. And like I've stated other times in the forum there are multiple definitions of "pagan", and your definition is just one of quite a few and cannot be accomplished with just a one-liner definition. I understand that is the stance the moderators have taken, but it should not be presented as the only one as it's easily refuted. Ultimately it may be easier to give nontheistic religions (which is the proper term for "atheist religions") their own board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:10 am
4shi Tiina Brown The other potential beliefs of pagans do not matter: If you aren't Christian, Jew, or Muslim, you qualify as a pagan, no matter if you are Satanist, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Polytheist or Animist. Essentially, i'd rather say that the word "Pagan" is incorrect to begin with, but as it is, it fits many ... one could claim too many ... under its "umbrella". (It reminds me of "Barbarian" that used to mean "Everything not a part of Rome"....) Sanguina Cruenta Aura leigh Dragon Sanguina Cruenta Aura leigh Dragon i understand why this subject is very debatible ....... But why is it in the Pagan Sub-Forum? its has nothing to do with Pagans or any branch of pagans! gonk Laveyan Satanists can be called Pagans because they do not worship Yahweh or Yeshua. but just because they do not worship god or jesus (those are there hebrew names) does not mean that they are pagans. Laveyan Satanists teachings are individualism, self-control and "eye for an eye" morality. they do not worship the pagan gods ethier. I have a Friend who is a Laveyan Satanist, him and i (im a wiccan) believe this is in the wrong spot. You don't have to worship a god to be a Pagan. "Pagan" means "not Abrahamic", and as an atheistic religion Satanism can technically fall into this category. I've combined these two because my response is the same. By these arguments we should only have two boards with a slew of sub-boards, and ultimately atheists going into the Pagan board since they too don't accept the God of Abraham. And yes, I was being tongue-in-cheek. And like I've stated other times in the forum there are multiple definitions of "pagan", and your definition is just one of quite a few and cannot be accomplished with just a one-liner definition. I understand that is the stance the moderators have taken, but it should not be presented as the only one as it's easily refuted. Ultimately it may be easier to give nontheistic religions (which is the proper term for "atheist religions") their own board. As i see it, there perhaps should not be any pagan subforum at all, because the explanation give is the actual meaning of the word. But then, we would have a perfectly viable word, of no use. So, if you suggest a different definition of the word "pagan" than the original ...... I guess i agree, Satanism fits better, technically, into non-theistic definitions than in what one expects from the definition "pagan".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:34 am
4shi Tiina Brown The other potential beliefs of pagans do not matter: If you aren't Christian, Jew, or Muslim, you qualify as a pagan, no matter if you are Satanist, Atheist, Zoroastrian, Polytheist or Animist. Essentially, i'd rather say that the word "Pagan" is incorrect to begin with, but as it is, it fits many ... one could claim too many ... under its "umbrella". (It reminds me of "Barbarian" that used to mean "Everything not a part of Rome"....) Sanguina Cruenta Aura leigh Dragon Sanguina Cruenta Aura leigh Dragon i understand why this subject is very debatible ....... But why is it in the Pagan Sub-Forum? its has nothing to do with Pagans or any branch of pagans! gonk Laveyan Satanists can be called Pagans because they do not worship Yahweh or Yeshua. but just because they do not worship god or jesus (those are there hebrew names) does not mean that they are pagans. Laveyan Satanists teachings are individualism, self-control and "eye for an eye" morality. they do not worship the pagan gods ethier. I have a Friend who is a Laveyan Satanist, him and i (im a wiccan) believe this is in the wrong spot. You don't have to worship a god to be a Pagan. "Pagan" means "not Abrahamic", and as an atheistic religion Satanism can technically fall into this category. I've combined these two because my response is the same. By these arguments we should only have two boards with a slew of sub-boards, and ultimately atheists going into the Pagan board since they too don't accept the God of Abraham. And yes, I was being tongue-in-cheek. And like I've stated other times in the forum there are multiple definitions of "pagan", and your definition is just one of quite a few and cannot be accomplished with just a one-liner definition. I understand that is the stance the moderators have taken, but it should not be presented as the only one as it's easily refuted. Ultimately it may be easier to give nontheistic religions (which is the proper term for "atheist religions") their own board. "Easily refuted"? Refuted as what? Refuted as a definition, or as the only definition? I recognise that dictionaries tend to list more than one definition. However, this tends to be the widest, and most accepted, and doesn't exclude those who self-identify as Pagans who aren't polytheists. If the OP wanted to put this in the atheist subforum they would be welcome to do so. They could also have put it in the "other religions" subforum. They didn't, and I'm fine with it being here. I can't see any reason to move it. Likewise a Hindu would be welcome to post here or in the "other religions" subforum, depending on which they considered most appropriate. This subforum by default tends to be for Pagan NRMs. Non-theistic =/= atheistic. Forms of Buddhism are non-theistic but not atheistic. It was my understanding that Satanism took an atheistic stance, although to be sure it is possible I was mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:45 am
On the main subject: Seishitsu Henka I wonder what you think about Satanism.
What comes to your mind when you hear the word "Satanism" "Satanic" and things like that? I think: Alleged alternative, but really is no alternative. It has worked well as a crowbar, to bend away the lies on what is a sin and what is not, though. I also think "Demonized", as in said to be worse than bad, something or someone to blame, while ignoring proof pointing in another direction. I also think of those who use those words as an "alibi" to act like shitheads, dirtbags, and worse, by putting their own will for gruesomeness, morbidity and vengeance into their own meanings of those words. That is what i think about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:14 am
Tiina Brown As i see it, there perhaps should not be any pagan subforum at all, because the explanation give is the actual meaning of the word. Maybe I'm just that tired, but this makes no sense. You are saying paganism shouldn't be allowed its own subforum because of a debate of what it means? Because much could be said of any other religion. Quote: But then, we would have a perfectly viable word, of no use. So, if you suggest a different definition of the word "pagan" than the original ...... I will deal with this in a moment. If you feel like digging further there was another post way back when that I linked to about the issue and its complexity. Quote: I guess i agree, Satanism fits better, technically, into non-theistic definitions than in what one expects from the definition "pagan". Oh, I see. You feel anyone who isn't following an Abrahamic faith isn't theistic, correct? I'll let you mull that one over... Sanguina Cruenta "Easily refuted"? Refuted as what? Refuted as a definition, or as the only definition? I recognise that dictionaries tend to list more than one definition. However, this tends to be the widest, and most accepted, and doesn't exclude those who self-identify as Pagans who aren't polytheists. The problem is that is so broad it fits a lot of religions that don't belong under that umbrella under it. To illustrate the point: http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism2.htmI'll see if I can dig up the Parliament of World Religions lecture that discussed a definition. No, it isn't perfect either, but I personally would revise their definition of religion to have something to the effect of any product of the New Religious Movement that includes practices reviving Indigenious European practices. Quote: If the OP wanted to put this in the atheist subforum they would be welcome to do so. They could also have put it in the "other religions" subforum. They didn't, and I'm fine with it being here. I can't see any reason to move it. Likewise a Hindu would be welcome to post here or in the "other religions" subforum, depending on which they considered most appropriate. This subforum by default tends to be for Pagan NRMs. This is immaterial. I was merely suggesting a viable solution to a current issue. The current issue was about why Satanism was placed under the Paganism board. Quote: Non-theistic =/= atheistic. Forms of Buddhism are non-theistic but not atheistic. It was my understanding that Satanism took an atheistic stance, although to be sure it is possible I was mistaken. No one made this claim. The only thing close was my sarcastic remark about placing atheism under Paganism. "Nontheistic" is the proper term for what you were referring to as atheist religions. The term I introduced is used by various members of academia. I was simply trying to inform you of the proper term. As for your understanding of Satanism, it is more complex than that. As mentioned in other threads (one which brainsoup linked to) LaVeyan Satanism is nontheistic, but there are Theistic Satanists (such as members of the Temple of Set). To add to the complexity LaVeyan Satanism isn't the only nontheistic religion but the most common one. While currently there seems to be an issue with LaVeyan Satanism and boards in this guild I'm sure at some point there will be some Theistic Satanists who come along. Since I'm not a moderator here and you are I'll trust you to handle it accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:38 am
4shi Tiina Brown As i see it, there perhaps should not be any pagan subforum at all, because the explanation give is the actual meaning of the word. Maybe I'm just that tired, but this makes no sense. You are saying paganism shouldn't be allowed its own subforum because of a debate of what it means? Because much could be said of any other religion. Quote: But then, we would have a perfectly viable word, of no use. So, if you suggest a different definition of the word "pagan" than the original ...... I will deal with this in a moment. If you feel like digging further there was another post way back when that I linked to about the issue and its complexity. Quote: I guess i agree, Satanism fits better, technically, into non-theistic definitions than in what one expects from the definition "pagan". Oh, I see. You feel anyone who isn't following an Abrahamic faith isn't theistic, correct? I'll let you mull that one over... Ok, i'll chalk it up to two things: You being tired, and my occasionally clumsy ways of expressing. Yes, you did misunderstand me, but i also made some grammatical errors to begin with. * As pointed out, the original meaning of "Pagan" includes any kind of worldview that isn't of the Abramic faiths. As such, it includes so many different worldviews/religions, that to have one forum for them all .... results in comments like "Why am i in this group, i'm not Pagan(in this case meaning polytheist/animist)! As such, it perhaps would be better to not have a "Pagan" Forum, but a Polytheist/Animist Forum, and a Non-theist Forum. ... As an example. * I'm not sure i want to dig further, for now. * Nope, not correct. Abrahamic Faith claims to be monotheistic, there are many other theistic worldviews. Somehow, you read into my post that i didn't know nor understood that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:36 pm
Tiina Brown 4shi Tiina Brown A Ok, i'll chalk it up to two things: You being tired, and my occasionally clumsy ways of expressing. Yes, you did misunderstand me, but i also made some grammatical errors to begin with. This is why I ask... Quote: * As pointed out, the original meaning of "Pagan" includes any kind of worldview that isn't of the Abramic faiths. While the implication is correct it actually meant something akin to "country bumpkin". Quote: As such, it includes so many different worldviews/religions, that to have one forum for them all .... results in comments like "Why am i in this group, i'm not Pagan(in this case meaning polytheist/animist)! This indicates to me actually why the current definition of Paganism used by this guild is a poor one. It overcomplicates an already complicated issue. Quote: As such, it perhaps would be better to not have a "Pagan" Forum, but a Polytheist/Animist Forum, and a Non-theist Forum. ... As an example. This is where I disagree somewhat. On one hand I'm happy to see we both can see a benefit to a Nontheist board. Like I said there are multiple definitions of Paganism, but to solely define it as Non-Abrahamic is problematic. This is especially so when one wishes to put a limit on the implication of Abrahamic faith. Do we limit that to just the bare minimum of worshipping the God of Abraham, or do we elaborate with further practices (e.g. why some Christians argue the Muslims shouldn't be considered an Abrahamic faith). There's also the issue of Rastafari, who could be construed as an Abrahamic faith even though many place it under New Religious Movement. Quote: Abrahamic Faith claims to be monotheistic, there are many other theistic worldviews. Somehow, you read into my post that i didn't know nor understood that. Actually it is possible to follow an Abrahamic faith in a nontheistic way. There are Nontheistic Quakers, for example. There are also many faiths that fall under the Paganism umbrella that are monotheistic, and this article (http://www.patheos.com/community/paganportal/2010/09/28/the-definition-of-pagan-monotheism-and-polytheism/) covers it and the issue of Paganism's definitions quite well. That was what I meant by the need to mull it over. I'm also going to cite Rastafari again as it's monotheistic and arguably an Abrahamic faith, yet many would debate otherwise. My point being that "Non-Abrahamic" in and of itself is a horrible stance because such dichotomies tend to ignore how many attributes of how one defines a faith overlap. A Nontheistic board-as we both agree should be available- would cover that problem for those such as LaVeyan Satansists as well as other nontheistic faiths. Setian Satanists, as an example of a Theistic Satanism, would then have the option of the Pagan sub-board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:03 pm
4shi Tiina Brown * As pointed out, the original meaning of "Pagan" includes any kind of worldview that isn't of the Abramic faiths. While the implication is correct it actually meant something akin to "country bumpkin". Quote: As such, it includes so many different worldviews/religions, that to have one forum for them all .... results in comments like "Why am i in this group, i'm not Pagan(in this case meaning polytheist/animist)! This indicates to me actually why the current definition of Paganism used by this guild is a poor one. It overcomplicates an already complicated issue. Quote: As such, it perhaps would be better to not have a "Pagan" Forum, but a Polytheist/Animist Forum, and a Non-theist Forum. ... As an example. This is where I disagree somewhat. On one hand I'm happy to see we both can see a benefit to a Nontheist board. Like I said there are multiple definitions of Paganism, but to solely define it as Non-Abrahamic is problematic. This is especially so when one wishes to put a limit on the implication of Abrahamic faith. Do we limit that to just the bare minimum of worshipping the God of Abraham, or do we elaborate with further practices (e.g. why some Christians argue the Muslims shouldn't be considered an Abrahamic faith). There's also the issue of Rastafari, who could be construed as an Abrahamic faith even though many place it under New Religious Movement. Quote: Abrahamic Faith claims to be monotheistic, there are many other theistic worldviews. Somehow, you read into my post that i didn't know nor understood that. Actually it is possible to follow an Abrahamic faith in a nontheistic way. There are Nontheistic Quakers, for example. There are also many faiths that fall under the Paganism umbrella that are monotheistic, and this article (http://www.patheos.com/community/paganportal/2010/09/28/the-definition-of-pagan-monotheism-and-polytheism/) covers it and the issue of Paganism's definitions quite well. That was what I meant by the need to mull it over. I'm also going to cite Rastafari again as it's monotheistic and arguably an Abrahamic faith, yet many would debate otherwise. My point being that "Non-Abrahamic" in and of itself is a horrible stance because such dichotomies tend to ignore how many attributes of how one defines a faith overlap. A Nontheistic board-as we both agree should be available- would cover that problem for those such as LaVeyan Satansists as well as other nontheistic faiths. Setian Satanists, as an example of a Theistic Satanism, would then have the option of the Pagan sub-board. Bumpkin, hm? .... Then the alleged "original definition", as i have heard, is really incorrect in all ..... I agree that the alleged original definition of "Pagan" is limited: Even though i consider myself of the "One Faith", i prefer the definition "Pagan" rather than "Abrahamic", since i have no problem with seeing Angels as some of the more influential poly-theistic divinities. I actually think we agree, since the example i gave, was just an example. As i mentioned in my post before that one, the word "Pagan" could be re-defined, but the question there is "what should it cover instead?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:25 pm
Tiina Brown Bumpkin, hm? .... Then the alleged "original definition", as i have heard, is really incorrect in all ..... I advise you to read again. While the literal translation was "country bumpkin", it implied anyone who hadn't converted to Christianity. These people usually, coincidentally enough, lived in the country side. Quote: I agree that the alleged original definition of "Pagan" is limited: Even though i consider myself of the "One Faith", i prefer the definition "Pagan" rather than "Abrahamic", since i have no problem with seeing Angels as some of the more influential poly-theistic divinities. That is why in my quote of Sanguina Cruenta's post I suggested something akin to the definition given at the Parliament of World Religions only with the addition of New Religious Movement. It covers their idea of European Indigenous religions but also acknowledges the religions that are influenced by it, especially various branches of Neo-Wicca and ecclectic paths. Quote: I actually think we agree, since the example i gave, was just an example. As i mentioned in my post before that one, the word "Pagan" could be re-defined, but the question there is "what should it cover instead?" Your example was used to frame your argument and I was working within it. I was merely pointing out that the dichotomy put forth by stating the reasoning at to why LaVeyan Satanism is Pagan is flawed and ignores the spectrum of religion as a whole. And I've answered the question of what it should cover instead from my personal stance, so I won't repeat it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:29 pm
4shi Tiina Brown And I've answered the question of what it should cover instead from my personal stance, so I won't repeat it. Ok, then i will say no more on that matter, at least not for now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:20 pm
Seishitsu Henka I wonder what you think about Satanism.
What comes to your mind when you hear the word "Satanism" "Satanic" and things like that?
When I hear these words, I think of individuality, intelligence, and confidence, as it seems in this day and age such things are deemed "unholy". I might also add that I am a Theistic Satanist, and I personally believe this thread is in the right place, as I disregard Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, etc, and anything that isn't one of those 3 is considered Pagan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:27 pm
I go to Catholic school so I don't hear "Satanic" or "Satanists", but when I do hear it, I think of: Satanic- I think of human beings, posessed by the Devil or Satin, which to me are two different people, and also people who are demented.
Satanist- Someone who believes that Satin is a more powerful person then God, the creator of humanity and everything (even Satin), and also thinks that the Resurection of Jesus Christ, was a crime that someone stole the body or something like that.
If you're not Catholic, I'm sorry that I'm using Catholic terms/ ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
