|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:42 am
Okay I might step on a few toes and I am going to apologize in advance if I do.
There's a fundamental problem with the super-umbrella term "pagan". Pagan is a descriptor for religions that don't worship YHVH. Seems very simple enough. But upon closer inspection of world religions there's issues with the term pagan. To give example, movements within Christianity such as Marcionism and Gnosticism can be classified as pagan because they don't worship YHVH but they are still part of Christianity. I'm kinda feeling a little brain dead right now but I'm confident that there are other examples. Maybe you can help me out with this. My issue is basically that it creates a false dichotomy of world religions and can have implications such if you are not pagan than you are against pagans or if you are pagan, than you are against non-pagans which simply isn't true.
Thoughts and opinions? Should a new classification method of world religions be used? How would be a better way to classify world religions?
One example I've heard of is classifying world religions by their geographic origins. Any other suggestions?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:05 am
To me "Abrahamic" implies that the religion has evolved from the faith of Abraham, not that it specifically worships YHWH. So I'd stick Marcionites in there because their religion is a direct descendant of Abraham's religion. It wouldn't exist without the OT, wouldn't exist without the concept of YHWH, wouldn't exist without breaking away from early Christianity.
But let's be honest here; the defining lines of "Pagan" are more intuitive than definite in practise. In practise, the word it used - and has been used in the past - to mean pre-Christian, to mean a religion that isn't a major world religion (thus happily excluding Buddhism and Hinduism), to mean indigenous religion, to mean old religions of Europe specifically. And in many cases which vague meaning
I don't think it creates an "us vs them" thing. Any two groups will have bias naturally simply because two groups exist, but it's only an "us vs them" deal if the individuals involved want it to be.
And fair's fair. The vast majority of people who identify as "Pagan" are using it as an abbreviation of "Neo-Pagan" or "Palaeo-Pagan".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sanguina Cruenta Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:22 am
Sanguina Cruenta To me "Abrahamic" implies that the religion has evolved from the faith of Abraham, not that it specifically worships YHWH. So I'd stick Marcionites in there because their religion is a direct descendant of Abraham's religion. It wouldn't exist without the OT, wouldn't exist without the concept of YHWH, wouldn't exist without breaking away from early Christianity. Okay thanks for clarifying that for me. Quote: But let's be honest here; the defining lines of "Pagan" are more intuitive than definite in practise. In practise, the word it used - and has been used in the past - to mean pre-Christian, to mean a religion that isn't a major world religion (thus happily excluding Buddhism and Hinduism), to mean indigenous religion, to mean old religions of Europe specifically. And in many cases which vague meaning Then should such a vague term be used academically to describe world religions? Quote: I don't think it creates an "us vs them" thing. Any two groups will have bias naturally simply because two groups exist, but it's only an "us vs them" deal if the individuals involved want it to be. Notice I said "can have implications". I offered one possible consequence I've seen this dichotomy falsely imply. Quote: And fair's fair. The vast majority of people who identify as "Pagan" are using it as an abbreviation of "Neo-Pagan" or "Palaeo-Pagan". Well aware of that and thank you for addressing this. I had a feeling you would be the first to bring this up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:29 am
rmcdra Then should such a vague term be used academically to describe world religions?] Is it? Which fields use the word? In what circumstances do they use it? Seems an odd term to use unless one is, indeed, being particularly general for whatever reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sanguina Cruenta Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:42 am
Sanguina Cruenta rmcdra Then should such a vague term be used academically to describe world religions?] Is it? Which fields use the word? In what circumstances do they use it? Seems an odd term to use unless one is, indeed, being particularly general for whatever reason. I'm sorry let me re-word my question since I seem to have ask/imply something I was not meaning to ask/imply. Then should authors who are writing about religion refrain from using this classification descriptor due to it's vagueness or at least provide a clearer frame of reference?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:06 am
rmcdra Then should authors who are writing about religion refrain from using this classification descriptor due to it's vagueness or at least provide a clearer frame of reference? So, not academically, as such? Depends who their audience is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sanguina Cruenta Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:48 pm
I’ll erase this feeling…
I still have a long life don’t I?
kono omoi wo keshiteshimau ni ha
mada jinsei nagai deshou? Marcion and Gnositicsm both fall under the Christian umbrella because they believe in YHVH ultimately. If anything, some Christians like putting Catholics under the pagan umbrella for the belief in multiple saints and the veneration of Mary. The classification of the term Pagan isn't what's incorrect but the usage people use. I’m missing the feeling…
so this pain is also welcomed!
natsukashiku naru
konna itami mo kangeijan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
