Define 'Pagan'

Hello, nice site :)

Hello, nice site :)

No, Stan. Just as there is no secret Jewish conspiracy, there is no secret Muslim one.

Has it ever occured to the 'Christian Right' that we could be in a 'bait and switch' atmosphere where once a religious state is established in America it will be switched to a religion other than Christianity??

zxkun brmq vusnf ujwnt ryzbisnu mwbjeq gtjphkeal

zxkun brmq vusnf ujwnt ryzbisnu mwbjeq gtjphkeal

zxkun brmq vusnf ujwnt ryzbisnu mwbjeq gtjphkeal

zxkun brmq vusnf ujwnt ryzbisnu mwbjeq gtjphkeal

I never did either.

I hope we can see the detrimental effects of absolutism clearly enough to know that there has got to be a better way.

I hope to be a part of the solution.

Priver,

Let's hope we can continue to do just that......pull ourselves back from the brink.

I have never understood why it is that the so-called moral majority (all those TV preachers, etc.) can have such an influence on people's lives and American politics.

May the pendulum swing the other way soon.

Gaby,

I can only agree.. and I was born here. Go figure.

The best thing about this country though is that (so far) the people have been able to pull themselves back from the brink most of the time. This presidency is a great opportunity to do just that. I only hope we can do so now- it's more important than ever.

Karma:

Well said! Although I am an American by election, I still have lots of my European biases. The one thing that deeply distrubs me about America is the fervent Christians that try to run the country and may in the end succeed.

Although in much of Europe the Church and state are not separated, it appears to me that as a society Europeans are much more open in their acceptance of others' spirituality than most Americans will ever be. I have always found that a bit worrisome.

Americans are hard to grasp. On one hand they profess to be the most open (everthing goes) and intellectual society, on the other they come across as puritans from the 1700.

Not everybody, but definitely the majority.

Richmond,

Please don't take this as patronizing, but I've had this very conversation with an endless string of Christians, and the one small revelation is the hardest to come by: your thoughts are deeply embedded in the Christian stream, and even when you think you are stretching your senses out and away, they are still looking (at me) through the same flowing water, stemming from the same source and going to the same destination.

The irony here is that I sometimes try to start the discussion with "we are all headed for the same destination; only our paths are different."

The impolite (okay, blunt and harsh) truth is that when it comes to faith, logical arguments fail completely for the outsider looking in. I never get into more trouble than when I ask a logical question as an outsider. I get, variously, two or more insiders getting into a heated argument (usually forgetting my presence, but also sometimes blaming me for it); a circling of the wagons, go away you monster; or a complete intellectual implosion as the respondent gets tied into knots trying to express the unexpressable.

That is my challenge to you, good sir. Chuck your logic, step outside of your stream, dry your eyes and walk with me (or any Pagan) for a while. If it were me, I can easily and absolutely promise you two things: you will not be sucked into my beliefs; you will not be dissuaded of your own beliefs. You will, as I have seen with other companions on my path, learn things or see familiar things in a different light.

...the ethic of "if it doesn't hurt anyone else, do what you Will and let other people do what they Will."

This is from a longer piece called the Wiccan Rede. Only Wiccans hold to it as definitional; I am not Wiccan. The exact quote is this: "An it harm none, do what you will." The following phrase "and let other people do what they Will" is nowhere to be found either in the Rede or in Wiccan discussions about the Rede. It is not dogma. It is, if anything, instructional.

Like "do unto others as you would want others to do unto you," it is simple and an opening to subtle complexity. It begs many questions, and while it is not exactly equivalent in semantics to the Golden Rule, it is equivalent in intent: think about your connection to other people, before, during and after you act. That connection, given its due and valid weight, will inform and govern your actions.

Do not falter on the fact that Pagans have no [S]scripture. Do not make the mistake that we have no firm foundations of any sort because of that lack. We have, for want of a better phrase, a very finely developed ability to reinvent the wheel, time after time, and come up with a perfectly round object that will roll downhill much more easily than uphill, and can be ridden from atop or be crushed by from below.

Richmond: "I mean not ALL paths lead to the top of the mountain. Some of the paths are THE LONG WAY and some NEVER get there."

For me, the journey is about the journey, not the most expedient route to a destination pre-determined for me by someone else.

...and, of course, there is that rather vexed question of what the US would do if Jesus returned to save the world in the same part of the world, with the same aims using the same methods he tried 2000 years ago.

I very, very much doubt that a Middle Eastern born prophet preaching the overthrow of the military occupiers would receive the same treatment the Romans visited upon Jesus then.

Pagan wrote: There's a reason America is *not* based on theology. Because this is a terrible way to try and run a just society.

I agree with your last sentence, but from where I sit in Australia, which admittedly is a long way away, the US does currently run on theoligical lines.

We see, hear and read of Christian judges attempting to blur the line between Church and the legislature. We see US Supreme Court decisions overturning decades of liberalism, seemingly based on Christian beliefs.

We see thousands of parents bombarding State schools to force them to introduce Creationsism into the curriculum - a step supported by Bush. We see BushBush, virtually every single time he is broadcast in Australia, calling for prayer, the blessings of god and calling on god to protect your country. We see politicians and citizens envoking god for the Iraqi war. We even see sportspeople, actors and entertainers giving god all the credit for their achievments (but not their failures, of course)whenever they gain awards or even score a touchdown.

A previous Prime Minister of Australia, Bob Hawke, was quite up front about his agnostism. Surely, you can't say that an American Presidential candidate that admits to being anything but a Christian would have any chance of success. I cannot see how a person who admits to being either an athiest or an agnostic (or a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or any other relgion) could ever win a Presidential election.

Your Constitution might well demand for separation of Church and State, and my research in the past suggests that your Founding Fathers, including Washington, were at the very least secular or deists, if not outright athiests themelves. In practise, however, it is evident to me that the US is a theocracy in everything but name.

Richmond: I guess my concern with that life ethic is that sometimes, to quote Guns 'n Roses, live and let live means "live and let *die*"

Steve: You're very young, aren't you? And eager to be seen as wise, and a discerning judge of Things That Are Important(tm). Uhhh-huh.

Step 1 is to stop condescending. It's clear you want to save us all from our ignorance and error, but, as far as I'm concerned, *you're not equipped* and *that's not your job anyway*. When you learn to have some respect for others beyond seeing them as helplessly flawed sinners who need to be saved (by you), conversations with you may become much more interesting.

As in, ...a lot of these debates about 'historical Jesus' and 'messiahs' aren't anything to do with who has real religion, real spirit, real community... It's about *constructing an argument* in a way that the *argument favors certain power interests.*

There's a reason America is *not* based on theology.

Because this is a terrible way to try and run a just society.

This is about justice, not 'high.'

"Which begs the question just what the top of the mountain is supposed to be or, indeed, to represent."

Think in this case it represents people trying to make the discussion about what's 'higher' (even if the top of mountain is cold, empty, and hard to breath on) when the concern at hand is the living.

This is about justice, not who can claim 'high and mighty and right.'

To use a sports metaphor, it seems a lot of Christians think the only thing worth doing is to swing for the fences, strike out a lot, and not figure what you're supposed to play with if you do make the ball go away. :)

Which begs the question just what the top of the mountain is supposed to be or, indeed, to represent. I suppose it is supposed to mean that the path to happiness is a tough one, although I don't know why that has to be the case. It is not a privilege to be safe happy, it is the right of everyone.

There is a very good reason why the life of Jesus, as depicted in the New Testement, fulfills the prophesies as outlined for the coming of the Messiah in the Old.

Considering that all the authors of the New Testement, and, indeed, Jesus himself, were immersed in ancient Judaic texts, including the requirements for the coming of the Messiah, it stands to reason that the authors of the New Testement would ensure that those prophesies were completed, in word if not in deed. In the New Testement, Jesus makes it absolutely clear he is well aware of the path he would need to take to support his claims.

As is the case now, people pursuing a certain view point have a vested interest in including information that supports their claim, and omitting that which does not. Dare I say the old adage "don't let the facts get in the way of a good story" applies to the eulogised life of Jesus?

I completely reject the claim that by merely studying the life of Jesus, scant as that information is, one can "realize" or prove Jesus was the son of god. I can accept that Jesus, or a person like him, did exist - there are brief references to such a person in Roman texts, most notably Pliny. However, there are very few documents that contain any detailed information at all about Christ's life, none of which can possibly be interpreted as an independant or historically accurate document.

Indeed, even in The Bible, there is virtually nothing about Christ's childhood or adolescence. There are huge gaps in Jesus' life from his early childhood until he assume his Ministry, broadly accepted at about the age of 30. If fact, In The Bible, the Gospels differ on the circumstances surrounding Christs birth, for example. Was he born in a Manger or a House? Was he visited by Kings or Shephards or both? What happened to Joseph after the birth? Indeed, what happened to Joseph at all?

Where was Jesus educated? How, seeing as Joseph is not mentioned, did the family live? Why does the adult Jesus not have a single childhood friend on which to lean? There are way too many unanswered questions to consider that The Bible is a true account of Christ's life, especially when one considers that the earliest Gospel was certainly written at least 30 years after Jesus' death, and it is universally accepted that none of the Gospel authors actually met or knew Jesus during his lifetime.

As an aside, the timing of the initial Gospel is interesting, coming, as it is generally agreed, during or shortly after the Jewish uprising of 69-70 ACE. If one wants their religion to continue under the Roman Empire, then one is hardly likely to blame said Empire the execution of their religous leader. Although, in my mind, it is certain that Rome executed Jesus for attempting to mount a revolution against Rome, the punishment of which was always crucifiction.

That is not to say that there are some occurances contained within ancient Christian texts which are not historically accurate, but to suggest that all that information is such is simply unsustainable. There is plenty of archeological evidence to discount many of the occurances that Christianity claims is historical fact, on the other hand.

I don't have a problem if people defend their belief in Jesus' divinity based on faith, even though I might disagree with that, but I do have a problem when that claim is justified by attempting to describe it as indesputable historical fact. At the heart of that debate, of course, is the ridiculous Intelligent Design/Creationsim argument - a belief that is entirely unsustainable by any definition of evidentary analysis. It may be a system of belief, but it is not reality.

Actual, independant and incontrovertable historic evidence to support Jesus as the Messiah simply does not exist.

Actually, that was Paul McCartney and Wings, wasn't it?

:)

"I guess my concern with that life ethic is that sometimes, to quote Guns 'n Roses, live and let live means "live and let *die*" ... I mean not ALL paths lead to the top of the mountain. Some of the paths are THE LONG WAY and some NEVER get there. If you think there's truth, then you have to be open to the possibility that there's *un-truth* or *error*... that your path could be wrong."

Why, you could even mistake Beatles song for the Guns & Roses cover. ;)

Don't be so smug when you think 'wrong' is the worst thing imaginable. :)

One thing about tops of mountains, anyway:

They can be nice places to visit
But you wouldn't want to live there. :)

Franklin Evans (Posted July 9, 2007 8:08 PM): Thanks for your respectful query.

I think I know what you are asking. You are looking to see if I am exclusive and claiming Jesus as the *only* way... and perhaps by saying this you would interpret that I would be insulting other Ways that other people (especially pagans) discover and sincerely follow. I have heard you pagans have the ethic of "if it doesn't hurt anyone else, do what you Will and let other people do what they Will" or something to that effect.

I guess my concern with that life ethic is that sometimes, to quote Guns 'n Roses, live and let live means "live and let *die*" ... I mean not ALL paths lead to the top of the mountain. Some of the paths are THE LONG WAY and some NEVER get there. If you think there's truth, then you have to be open to the possibility that there's *un-truth* or *error*... that your path could be wrong.

It's important to be respectful when warning people, but too say nothing and "live and let die" is also not "loving your neighbor" and is in effect harming them.

I can't testify to the veracity of every path, but I can tell you that the path I am on is pretty good.. it involves studying the life of Jesus and his death, and resurrection... and through this process of following Jesus and trying to emulate his interpersonal ethic and gain an appreciation for the way that he really represents all that the OT prophets said he would be. By studying Jesus you realize that he is the Christ, or Messiah that God sent and endowed with his Spirit.

The only core confession Christians have ever had is "Jesus is Lord" or "Jesus is Messiah." This means I can point to the big JC and say. "This dude will take you up the hill." I'm not saying Bahaullah is the path to Hades, but I'm not going to affirm that, you know, take whatever path you want that's cool dude... I am going so say 'follow me if you want I can show you a great path to the top. I can also tell you that the whole Gaia thing is bogus. If you want to go there you are making it hard for yourself, that's all.

We have internal standards too... knowing that your inner spirit is the source of your behavior, we are called, like the Buddhists, to empty ourselves of selfish motivations and to invite the Holy Spirit to fill us up.

Grace and Peace,
RT

"In any case, Pagan, I agree with much of what you have written, although I struggle to think of any religion that does not have at the heart of its beleif system that that particular relgion alone is the One True Way."

Yet you've mentioned two in the same post. The 'struggle' is thinking we can speak for ourselves, apparently.

Unfortunately, my last post lost a great deal of its meaning and intent, as it was very heavily edited - I don't really know why, as none of it could possibly be considered offensive.
But I guess one has to accept such conditions on blogs.

In any case, Pagan, I agree with much of what you have written, although I struggle to think of any religion that does not have at the heart of its beleif system that that particular relgion alone is the One True Way.

I think Paganism, as a belief system, has far more relevance than most other religions, if that is how one can describe Pagan thought. My understanding of Paganism is the spiritual relationship between human kind and nature. Australian Aboriginals' entire spiritual system revolves around this very concept, as does, as I understand it, Native American beliefs.

It makes far more sense to me to have a belief of this type that it does to have faith in an ethereal being whose existence can neither be seen nor proved.

Heck, sometimes when atheists demand I justify what I'm doing, I just say, "Look. At the *very least* I have a subconscious. I'm gonna work with it rather than let someone else do it for me."

If you don't mind so *terribly* much.

:)

"But, Pagan, do you accept that there are people who are religious who not only believe that one MUST have a faith, it has to be their faith? Do you accept that there are some people of all religious affilliations that are prepared to kill those who do not believe in their particular god?"

Yes, this happens. But there are a few contradictory religions which say this, ...no, they can't all be right. Therefore, none can enjoy a privileged position in the outside world based on this.

We have only their insistence, when they say the rest of us aren't 'real religion.'

Doesn't hold up.

"Therein lies the basic philosophy. While I am prepared to accept peoples sincere religious faith, no matter how erroneous I believe their views to be, can the same be said of religion?"

'Religion' isn't all the same thing.

Even if someone believes 'All religion is the same that way.'

Actually, it's usually specific religions who believe they have the 'One True Way' who say 'All religion does this, thus it's foolish to question.'

Sometimes atheists buy this as fact when they should really know better.

I wonder if those who think that Pagans are so stupid not to be Christians, would think it was disrespectful if it was us downing them?

You disrespect us. Period. Who died and made you judge?

It is in our laws to respect those of other beliefs, for you have suffered for your faith as we have. But in your faith are you to denigrate and belittle others?

Is this Christian? Is this how your Jesus treated others? When are Christians going to act like your Christos?

Please save me from those driven by religious ego.

Pagans have as much deeply held love for their faith as any person of any other religion. We are NOT Christians, we do not see our religion in the same way. Please stop useing your measure, it does not work.

Is it so hard to understand that we have rights as Americans...I really don't care if you approve of my Gods or not...neither do they. We do not care if you are Christian or Hare Chrishnas... we will show you all respect and fight for your right to honor the god/s of your heart. Why can we not expect the same thing?

Goddess bless!
terra

terra

But, Pagan, do you accept that there are people who are religious who not only believe that one MUST have a faith, it has to be their faith? Do you accept that there are some people of all religious affilliations that are prepared to kill those who do not believe in their particular god?

Therein lies the basic philosophy. While I am prepared to accept peoples sincere religious faith, no matter how erroneous I believe their views to be, can the same be said of religion?

Greetings Celia,

I accept your rebuke and should probably clarify my position. I don't regard all individuals who believe in a certain religion to be either dangerous or deranged. I certainly regard religion as an institution of believe to be both dangerous and disengenuous, although I don't think I'd used the term deranged.

As I'm sure you have experienced, I have met and liked many wonderful people who believe in one God or another, and I agree with you completely that religions of one faith or another have done many good things. I have never dismissed anyone as a friend or colleague on the basis of their religious beliefs - which is more than can be said of many believers, of course.

I think the error that beleivers make when discussing athiests is that they think we believe in nothing, that we have no moral foundation, no ability to empathise and do good for the community, no spirituality. I'm sure you'd agree that that is not the case at all.

I firmly believe in the spirituality of the human state. Simply put, though, it is not a spirituality that believes there is a god or god-like figure overseeing, or in many religions, spectating the history of mankind.

The spirituality of human kind lies within the human condition, not without.

While I was thrilled with the Census results, as you would be aware I'm sure, one should not underestimate the influence of evangelical christian groups in Australia's domestic politics, such as Hillsong and the Exclusive Brethren, both organisations which verge, if not overstep, the bounds of brain washing cultism and intimidation.

Hi, Celia, ...guess now that you mention it I don't figure what they think the 'outer darkness' is supposed to be to them that differentiates to them nonbelievers vs 'otherwise-believers.'

Certainly the ideas can seemto go hand in hand with each other, "People of faith are better!"

and, "Your faith isn't a faith!"

Personally, I got faith that religion isn't obligatory. Doesn't mean you can't have one. :)

Dear Dr Bob,

I am an atheist and/or a secular humanist. Unlike my Australian atheist colleague above, I dont believe that everyone who is religious or spiritual is deranged or dangerous. I also acknowledge that in a peaceful context many people of faith have done extraordinary work around the world, and I am proud to call them friend. It is a shame that in your article, while expousing religious tolerance, you also exposed some of society's intolerances. For example:

"Others will associate pagans with atheists and put them in whatever box that will marginalize such "non-believers" relegating them to the outer darkness of contemporary society."

Perhaps this is a cultural difference between Australia and America. In our last census 20% of Australians reported that they had no religion. As an atheist I dont feel as though I am living in the outer darkness of society. Instead, I feel I have an important and vital role to play.

Nice name to be asking that question with. :)

I don't mean to give you short shrift, but I must run an errand. :)

As for other people's dieties/ prophets, avatars, well, you'll get varying answers, but the general consensus is usually to respect the stories and personages except where they contradict everything else: ie lots of Pagans have no trouble respecting Jesus in one way or another, but it just doesn't make sense to say he's the only son of the only God, cause, that's not our world.

Personally, I consider the Buddha a Buddha, ...OK, that's what a Buddha is. :)

Krishna's a God. Ok. We got lots of those. How ya doing. :)

'What happens after we die' is not a fear or promise we're based on. Probably the most common view in general modern Paganism is we reincarnate in a new life, probably after a stop in a place known variously as the Summerlands, the Tir, Inis Affalon, Elysium, (if you're that happy,) etc etc, where you get to chill a 'while' and catch up on things for however long. :)

It's not a rigid dogma, cause Pagans tend to not make these quasi-factual assertions like our lives depended upon it. It's not like the whole point of Pagan religion is to avoid punishments or earn rewards, it just happens, more or less.

Where the knowledge comes from, well.. *smile.* Apart from experience and research and more experience and research, and more experience...

Well, that's a very interesting question. :)

Sorry, Don, but Paganism is anything by new. It predates Christianity by thousands of years. For the record, I don't know how Pagans view the three people you have mentioned, but from my point of view:

Jesus, properly Jeshua, was the rebel leader of a revolt against both the rule of Rome and the collaboration of the Jewish heirarchy.

Buddha and Krishna were both philosophers from an age where very few natural or scientific phenomena could be explained by people at the time.

As the history of human kind shows, if we can't definitively explain why something happens, we make it up.

Religion, in my view, has developed for three reasons.
Ignorance - as detailed above, we cannot accept that there are things we simply don't know.

Arrogance - mankind's ego is such that we beleive there must be a higher purpose for our existance rather than the perpetuation of our species, which is the meaning of every other creature.

Fear - the fear of death. The fear that once we die, we die and there is nothing else.

Paganism is simply an ancient belief system which attempted to explain what humankind at the time could not explain.

May someone be so kind as to tell me something I ignore? Paganism is something new, and I do not know what Neopagans or historical Pagans believe. Who do Pagans think (now) that Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna were? What happens after we die? Where does their knowledge come from? And where does Pagan knowledge come from? Thanks

May someone be so kind as to tell me something I ignore? Paganism is something new, and I do not know what Neopagans or historical Pagans believe. Who do Pagans think (now) that Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna were? What happens after we die? Where does their knowledge come from? And where does Pagan knowledge come from? Thanks

Hi, JJ. :) Names. They do seem to accumulate. :)

As for S, I take tea with lots of folks.

If, Steve, the kenning's as obvious to me as I think you intend it to be, I will shortly see if I can get an outside line on a particular account that I associate with my presence here. This account has stymied me about simple things before, so we'll see if it goes out. :)

Presuming my speaka-dee-Asatru's that good. :)

I'll say firstly that I am an athiest in every sense of the word and, like many athiests, consider all forms of religion the greatest threat to peaceful cohabitation. While accepting that the history of all the 'major' religions of the world is soaked in blood, one must remember that some of the more extreme religious beliefs acheive that same outcome.

In Australia recently, a 25 year old woman stabbed her father and teenaged sister to death and critically injured her mother. Yesterday, she appeared before the Court in Sydney - I am posting from Canberra, Australia.

It emerged yesterday that the woman has a long history of psychiatric illness. It also emerged that her father, at least, belonged to the Church of Scientology. It is alleged that at least the father forbad his daughter from taking her psychiatric medication and refused to allow her to access psychiatric treatment.

Obviiously, the results have been catastrophic. It should be remember that while religion has cast a dark shadow over world history, the perfidious nature of religious belief can affect the minitae as well as the global. One wonders just what the likes of Tom Cruise has to answer for. I'm sure this is not the first time that there has been horrific results from following this perverse belief system that is represented by Scientology.

Having said that, being an athiest, Scientology has no more or less veracity that any other regious thought. The sooner mankind stops looking for the answers from some ethereal nonsense, the better off we'll all be.

It might be interesting that the results of the 2006 Census held in Australia were released last week. A full 20% of Australian's say they have no religious belief at all. Although 80% of the population remains deluded, at least there is a large proportion of us that are recognising the fiction of religion and religious faith.

Ooops. "Wise-One" You now have two Names!

Thankyou "Messenger" eeeeee haaaaaaa Cow Girl's & Cow Boy's!

Dr. Edgar, hoping you browse down this far:

Greetings from a former constituent in the PA 7th. Some of us still miss you.

To the rest: I am supremely unsurprised by Edgar's short essay. Clear, concise, and completely consistent with his understanding of the Bill of Rights and his ethic of service.

Yes, I am feeling very smug right now. ;-D

Richmond,

The mistake you are making, and it is a common one that I see many of my siblings-in-faith make as well, is in thinking that you have made a sufficient effort to see our (pagan) perspective.

I submit that your failure is one of indoctrination. You have not, so far in your writing, broken free of the clear and precise core of Christian teaching: Jesus is the one true way, and all others are false.

You can do one of two things to regain your credibility.

1) Admit that I am accurate in my assessment.

2) Make a successful effort to prove me wrong.

Christians have internal standards that all faithful must meet. Different sects have differing standards (and while the observable differences are not gross, they are important). Pagans have an inside-out approach in that regard. We have internalized standards, to which we hold ourselves, and we recognize that others' internalized standards may be different from ours.

I hasten to qualify my general statements: there are bigots in every crowd. Pagans, however, have observed and experienced that non-Pagan bigots tend to have a higher profile than Pagan bigots. Crowds tend to dilute the stench, as it were.

Please understand, in no way am I calling you a bigot. I am, to be honest, and intending it to be constructive, calling you ignorant and stuck in your perspective. I don't have to agree with you to see what you see; nor does the seeing make me suddenly a believer. I strongly suggest you look over a Pagan's shoulder for an extended period of time. Either that, or give over trying to be reasonable when you have been shown your lack of knowledge.

Hello Me beautiful "W O R L D-V I E W" et al;

Note: Mr. Or Mrs. "S": or S:, is not your Cup of Tea!

Praise The OURS "Space-Ship" Tell-Us & Beyond! Ya Momma Poppas!

eeeee Ha! Life is So Beutiful With Eclati-Ons instead of dem OFFS!

Hey Paganplace:

Would love to talk privately. If you're interested, I am abell@X.com, where X is the short form of the name of the favorite adornment of the Vanadis. Put your handle in the subject line.

Best regards,

Steve

Christians should welcome Pagans with open arms, be ecumenical even. Pagans explain Christian mysteries.

Example:
Christians say we are all children of God.
Pagans verify that we are all children of the fertility god.

Thank you for the illustration of hysteria:

*waggling fingers..*

Woooo... We're taking over... Quick! Opress as fringe minority! Force into shape!

Yah, that works great.

Breathe.

MOE

What makes you think Pagans aren't mentally ill like all the other religious? They're not "just" in it for the money, have nothing anyone with just a pinch of brain would actually believe? Linus will tell you that even a pumpkin patch can be sincere. Why not nuts and fruits? They can be sincere too but it doesn't stop them from being nuts and fruits.

Is there a national council of Pagans? Yet? This issue will be decided by money. Give until it hurts, all the gods need the money,, to spread their holy words. Do Pagan Gods have words or are they limited to god's word?

Actually, all worship is Devil worship. The biggest Devil of them all, Lucifer is the God of the three great faiths. Just think of how many little devils there are. They need love too.

Richmond: (Regarding Paganism)...but I don't have to pretend that it is right just out of an overexuberant sense of politeness or something.

Steve: Did anyone say you did? I won't tell you that you have to pretend to think my religion is right, nor will I pretend any such thing about yours. But, assuming that you live in the United States, I damn well expect that you will show some civic respect and basic good manners toward those whose beliefs are different, as long as they afford the same to you. Beyond that, make whatever judgments you will, but it will be better for everyone if those judgments are based on facts.

"I agree that religion is not about creeds but about life... if you believed that writing is unimportant you wouldn't be posting on these fora..."

I didn't say it was *unimportant,* ...I said that goodness is not *dependent* upon it. Particularly not that Gods or we are *dependent* upon obeying a certain one.

Writing can inform and express our ideas of reality, even right and wrong.

It cannot substitute.

As something of a poet, I live by that. ;)

" I guess my point is that for me the written and the lived theology agree on many descriptions of the character of God... and so I am unlikely to embrace or endorse ideas of the divine"

The only one I'm asking you to loose yourself from is the idea you're the guy who gets to do the endorsing here in America. Or under military regs.

You're not.

"that vary significantly from what I personally know in my heart to be true. I am not going to get violent over it or anything like that but I don't have to pretend that it is right just out of an overexuberant sense of politeness or something."

Ah, the old.... "Constitutional rights are wimpy PC, say you know THE TRUTH! It's not me, it's GAWD!"

*ahem.*

Violence.

Gods know how much I've been through cause someone said, 'I can't accept that. But it's not me, it's God...'

What I know in my heart is that *you don't need this false sense of control and judgment over others.*

What I know in my experience is that misperceptions create suffering.

Maybe your book teaches you to defend misperceptions instead of listen to others about themselves.

But that's your problem.

You're defending an injustice here.

That's, unfortunately, my problem.

Cause these are my people.

You could... Let go.

" Richmond T. Stallgiss:

"Paganplace: "Pagans in general have a cyclical and regenerative idea of the universe, not a linear and revealed one. ... To say that 'Paganism' went away and came back actually fits *fine* with our worldview. ... It's yours that insists there's an inherent problem there that doesn't exist."

"Richmond: You don't actually know that much about my worldview."

Gee, after being raised in an enforcedly-Christian environment for seventeen years, where I wasn't supposed to be allowed to have any *other,* not to mention the constant advertising and pressure and discussion boards like these, you'd think I might know a thing or two...

Have to question if, after all that, 'I don't understand the Christian worldview,' what superior accomplishment you presume Christian chaplains can lay claim to over a military tour.

"You presume, perhaps as others make presumptions about Christian cross-worship..."

No, I don't, I said *we don't 'worship inanimate objects *any more than you worship your crosses and steeples.*

You could read or something. That might help, before you go constructing my 'presumptions' for me.

" you presume that Christians are robots who must spout what their books say..."

Well, apparently *not* spouting what a book says disqualifies Pagans from being good people or serving in a chaplaincy capacity, in your mind, doesn't it?

Which is it? Or is it just a double standard I detect here?

" you presume that Christians live in the land of commandments, over-ordered lives, blind obedience, and worry."

Nah, I don't *presume* that, I just observe some people *say* that you (and we) must.

Nah, I just say you don't have to when *you* presume we live in a land of greed, selfishness, chaos, 'slavery to sin' or whatever, and callowness.

Now, would you kindly address my points instead of *your* further presumptions?

Paganplace: "Pagans in general have a cyclical and regenerative idea of the universe, not a linear and revealed one. ... To say that 'Paganism' went away and came back actually fits *fine* with our worldview. ... It's yours that insists there's an inherent problem there that doesn't exist."

Richmond: You don't actually know that much about my worldview. You presume, perhaps as others make presumptions about Christian cross-worship... you presume that Christians are robots who must spout what their books say... you presume that Christians live in the land of commandments, over-ordered lives, blind obedience, and worry.

Actually, the Abrahamic traditions have a variety of conceptions of time. The Jews talk about being between time and eternity -- their Sabbath represents a time of weekly rest that is mystically connected to eternal rest in G-d's presence. Christians speak of Kairos and Chronos to distinguish 'God moments' from the 'mundane moments' of our lives. Christians also understand moments of divine fellowship, Koinoinia, that bears relation to the Jewish concept of Shalom.

There are all these references to God being outside of space and time... In the beginning was the Logos... God is a god of "being and becoming"... Is, Was, and Always Will Be... The Alpha and the Omega... etc etc keywords for you to google for yourself.

I agree that religion is not about creeds but about life... if you believed that writing is unimportant you wouldn't be posting on these fora... there is something great about writing: it enables us to share experiences of life and of the divine and pass on what we have learned. Writing also makes a great record of the mistakes you have made so you don't have to commit them again. I guess my point is that for me the written and the lived theology agree on many descriptions of the character of God... and so I am unlikely to embrace or endorse ideas of the divine that vary significantly from what I personally know in my heart to be true. I am not going to get violent over it or anything like that but I don't have to pretend that it is right just out of an overexuberant sense of politeness or something.

-RT

Richmond: You're not giving me much to work with here.

Steve: In other words: you don't have much to say that counts beyond "This is what I believe."

Richmond: I'm sorry that your church growing up sucked...

Steve: It didn't suck, it just wasn't personally compelling. Do you like your church? Glad to hear it.

Richmond: That doesn't mean what you are *doing* is a healthy form of religion.

Steve: You don't *know* what I'm doing, Rich. And what *you're* doing *is* healthy? How do you know?

Richmond: I am not sure what it *does* for you, but perhaps you could explain more.

Steve: Outside the scope of this venue. Although, given what you write, it's probably safe to say that whatever you think it might do for me isn't it.

If you want to talk about this privately, we'll have to figure out a secure address exchange.

Richmond: I didn't call *you* defective, or deluded, or lying... and I don't think you are.

Steve: Thank you, but it's hard to know that from what you write.

Richmond: My attitude is that you are like others I have talked to who have a spiritual hunger but who have a total kneejerk reaction against "organized religion" owing to some haphazardly strung-together list of damning Christian historical events like .

Steve: You are in an awfully big hurry to make assumptions about me and the mechanics of my religion, and you are *uniformly wrong*.

Richmond: Your motto can be "harm none" or "love one another" and you can be an A@@ regardless.

Steve: Finally, something we can agree on!

Richmond: The point is to try to identify what's real... and I submit that God is the one ultimate objective reality that transcends anything we can say.

Steve: You can submit all you want, Rich. Bald assertions, sleeves...you get the idea.

If you want to put an Abrahamic face on reality, go ahead. It's hard for me to see why you'd want to do that, and I won't join you, but it's your business. As for "our own persaonl creative fiat", I was already well-versed in the Christian pitch when I first heard the Norse lore, and my *immediate* internal response to the Aesir and Vanir was "Yes, I know them." It's now about 45 years later, and that's still the response. No "persaonl creative fiat" involved. If you didn't have that response, that's because you're you and not me. Get over it.

Chaplains are worthless anyway.

I am a pagan..

a pagan is anyone who is not a brainwashed Christian, muslim or Jew..

that means people who are Pagan does not follow the command " Believe or die , BS"

Steven T Abell: "Care to take another run at it, and without the bald assertions this time?"

Richmond: You're not giving me much to work with here. I'm sorry that your church growing up sucked... but that doesn't mean that all churches suck.

Steven T Abell: "Asatru does for me what no church ever did."

Richmond: That doesn't mean what you are *doing* is a healthy form of religion. I am not sure what it *does* for you, but perhaps you could explain more.

Steven T Abell: "However, your attitude that, to believe as I do, I must either be defective, or deluded, or lying, is the same attitude that is tearing the world apart over in your Holy Land."

Richmond: I didn't call *you* defective, or deluded, or lying... and I don't think you are. My attitude is that you are like others I have talked to who have a spiritual hunger but who have a total kneejerk reaction against "organized religion" owing to some haphazardly strung-together list of damning Christian historical events like Crusades-Inquisition-PriestMolestationScandal-GWBush-Terrorists-ViolenceInTheMiddleEast.

Rather than consider that these events are artifacts of sociopolitical realities, you blame organized religion for the inability of people to get along. Guess what... if a majority of in the world practiced Asatru and other pagan religions then you would *even still* see poverty, tyranny, injustice, corrupt politicians and armies and power-mongering cabals and people preying on one another. The world ain't gonna be Utopia, no matter what religion you practice.

I honestly believe that people retreat to obscure religions because they are spiritually hungry but they don't want to associate themselves with organized religion and holy wars.Just because you happen to favor this or that legend doesn't make you immune to harming people. Your motto can be "harm none" or "love one another" and you can be an A@@ regardless. The point is to try to identify what's real... and I submit that God is the one ultimate objective reality that transcends anything we can say. We have clues (revelation) as to the character of this one ultimate reality, but what we know is revealed by experience of the divine rather than declared by our own persaonl creative fiat.

More back to the point... if a politician chooses to declare what she has learned spiritually and references lessons of her walk with Thor and Worf, then I simply am not going to take her seriously. Nothing against Thor or Thor-ists. It's just my perspective that that politician is drawing inspiration from a reality that is not The Reality.

I mean, Richmond, if there's one unspoken article of faith among Pagans is that...

Humans...

Can figure stuff out.

The role of the Gods isn't to say, 'You can't, so have a book and obey.'

They're teachers, and, what They're teaching us *now* *better* be a little different than whatever we were learning a long time ago in different situations.

Frankly, taking the ceremonies away didn't stop that process.

You're part of it, just as we all have been.

It's not about creeds or 'sins' ...it's about *life.*

And that ain't half bad.

As for ancient, you'd be surprised where the ancient can find you.

Wouldn't wanna spoil that for someone else by advertising how right now. :)

Richmond: "The primary critique of idol worship or worshipping false gods is that you are identifying something as worthy that is really a powerless inanimate object."

I'll thank Steven for spelling me on having to repeatedly clarify this insistence.

Richmond: This is what *your religious belief and ideology *say* about Pagans.

It's not true.

Any more than you worship your crosses or steeples.

Frankly, Pagans tend to think you confuse your book translations for your God, but that's an opinion.

Frankly, as far as I can tell from reading antiquities, it never *was* true that anyone thought an object *was* a God except in a ceremonial sense that Christians themselves often use.

Ideas that, because Christians and others stopped anyone from saying they worshiped the Old Gods in a lot of places for varying spans of time... means that modern people who do so aren't 'real religions with authority from antiquity' speaks of *others'* fallacious arguments from antiquity to call themselves 'more worthy' than others.

Pagans in general have a cyclical and regenerative idea of the universe, not a linear and revealed one.

To say that 'Paganism' went away and came back actually fits *fine* with our worldview.

It's yours that insists there's an inherent problem there that doesn't exist.

And, we remember more than you think, anyway. :)

My experience with religion has convinced me that religion is a form of mental illness.

A Pagan is someone who is not afflicted by that desease.

It certainly does not "beg the question." Please learn the meaning of this phrase before you use it.

The word pagan has so many definitions--try religioustolerance.org and see for yourself. As for me, I would have said that the word has been used to demean anyone who is not of the same faith as the speaker, or writer. For example, the Spanish believed the Aztecs, Inca, etc. were pagans because they had multiple gods and many statues (forget that the Aztecs consumed others--symbolically, Christians consume Jesus, but that's another topic). It has been used as a pejorative term.

So, the first thing we would have to do is define what is meant by a "pagan chaplain." We couldn't have a non-believer chaplain, an agnostic? But to believers in Wicca or Druidism, etc., this is an insulting term, which means less than equal. I remember when I was working in my son's grade school library and read a book which claimed that the Egyptians were inferior because they worshipped animals.

When my mother was dying in the hospital, she wouldn't allow anything religious near her. She had always told each of her children that she was a different religion--Methodist, Evangelical, etc., whatever she thought might work to get us to move to another topic. Her mother and father were a-religious and never attended a church. To comfort my mother, I asked a female chaplain to talk with her but not tell her she was a minister. My mother--who also had dementia--was fine with this. My father was/is an atheist, like his father and brothers, and doesn't seem to realize that his atheism is also a belief. A beloved uncle, when he was dying from prostate cancer, refused any drugs and looked his death in the eye. He didn't go gentle.

Too much is made of religion. It has been both harmful and beneficial. I would say, considering the dark ages and the crusades and the Nazis, that it has been mostly harmful. I think it is part of being a member of the clan, with everyone having the same beliefs and values, even smelling the same, looking the same, etc.

My husband recently moved to a rural area, and a resident of the nearby town (about 700 residents) asked me what religion we were, and I replied my husband, who was standing there, was a heathen, and I was a Unitarian. The conversation ended.

Richmond T. Stallgiss:

"...The Real Actual Creator Of The Universe."

Steve: See my earlier statement about bald assertions and laughing up sleeves.

Regarding "idol worship": Do you really think we "worship" a carved-up log or rock? Viking Age people knew very well that the statue is not the god. Did you think we had regressed somehow? Do you make a habit of assuming such things about people you don't know? You, sir, are a bigot.

If you get some satisfaction and find wisdom in your religion, that's fine with me and you are welcome to it. Personally, it impresses me as being "a story", and not a very good one, but you are not me, as I see I may have to persuade you to notice. I grew up going to a Christian church. I knew I was supposed to be impressed. I was not. Asatru does for me what no church ever did. If it is not your cup of tea, be assured I have no need to change your religion. However, your attitude that, to believe as I do, I must either be defective, or deluded, or lying, is the same attitude that is tearing the world apart over in your Holy Land.

Care to take another run at it, and without the bald assertions this time?

I'll vote for Dr. Bob anyday!

Steven T Abell:
"Actually, we in Asatru don't "worship" anything, not even our gods. They didn't make us to grovel. If you find us using the "w" word, that's just because its a single word that most people understand, and it approximates (rather badly) what it is that we do.

We acknowledge, respect, and honor our gods. We don't kneel before them or anything else in any sense, and we don't let them do our thinking for us. We stand and look them in the face and appreciate the opportunity of living in such a fabulous world."

Richmond: Worship is just a word that derives from "worth" ... when you or any other religious practitioner "worships" you are pointing to what is worthwhile, worthy, or valuable. In Christianity, worship doesn't involve simply reenacting middle age fealty oaths... worship is a corporate experience of centering the community around those things that are truly worthy and not fake. In Christianity, the claim is that there is one God who is the source of everything, and that therefore is something that the community needs to recognize and center on.

The primary critique of idol worship or worshipping false gods is that you are identifying something as worthy that is really a powerless inanimate object. I assert that the ancient religion you call Asatru was written and reinterpreted in the 1960s.

If you are respecting something that is just a good story, then your form of worship is merely an intellectual stimulus akin to a cup of coffee or a good novel. Made up lightning-throwing gods who live in a Palace Hall at Asgard are fascinating and wisdom-containing fiction like Lord of the Rings, but are ultimately human-created and are not as worthy as The Real Actual Creator Of The Universe.

It is this conflation of man-made and God-made that motivates my critique. Which came first, God(s) or people? Creating something and then thanking it for creating you seems ... uh... not normal.

Steven T Abell:
"Fortunately, while there are aspects of our gods that don't change, there are others that do, and we're not constrained by our religion to repeat past mistakes or recreate verbatim cultures that didn't work.

Richmond: Christianity has a feedback loop as well. Read Barth.

Yeah, originally "pagan" meant "those outside the cities," and "heathen" is a direct translation to English ("heath" = "open land").

Most groups in fact get their common names from what others call them. According to the book of Acts, the term "Christian" seems to have been applied by others to the followers of Jesus ("in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians" - Acts 11:26)

I'm sad to see how many people seem to be surprised to hear something reasonable and measured from the head of the National Council of Churches. The NCC is a (basically) politically liberal and socially progressive organization. There are millions of measured, reasonable Christians out there. They (we) need to speak up more, because people are judging Christianity by the standard of its most authoritarian and intolerant adherents.

"Of course Satan is God's right hand angel and a good one too, does the judgment of soul. Jesus said, "fear him who can destroy both body and soul in fiery hell." Satan is the "him" that does that under orders from Almighty God, the being that Moses made the deal with. Satan is God's law enforcement arm."

Actually, Satan and angels are a useful way of talking about how truth is conveyed from God. Satan and demons are like angels, literally "messengers" of truth. Nobody can directly at God, but people can interpret God's truth indirectly, from the message/messengers that carry parts of that truth. The Legend of Satan is a back story for how people tend to delude themselves about their own self sufficiency and thus lead themselves away from the love of God.

Demons are said to be deceivers because they speak only a part of the truth, or half truths. We are constantly accused by Satan "the King of Lies", who makes us think we're 'all that' when we're not... and then after we reject our need for God he reminds us of God's demand for justice and righteousness (but fails to mention God's grace). Since we are always goofing up one way or another, we might be deluded self-accusation into believing that we are going to be rejected by God for our rebellion and are now banished from God's great presence. That's a lie!

It is said that you can rebuke your accuser by recalling the things God has done to demonstrate unconditionale 'agap-e' love. 70 X 7 forgiveness etc.

It's like in that TV show Three's Company when Mr. Roper would overhear only part of the conversation through the door and interpret salacious details from the verbal comments of Jack as he examined Janet's new fur coat. Mr. Roper would then come to wrong conclusions about Jack and Janet and this would make all further interactions with them very awkward. That's how it is when we get all awkward with God.

I'm not saying that Mr. Roper really exists, but I think that's a useful way of talking about God. Ditto Satan. People who worship Satan or Mr. Roper don't really 'get it.' It's *just* a manner of speaking.

Richmond T. Stallgiss:

Interesting how you misquoted me. If you can't play it straight, then don't play it.

Actually, we in Asatru don't "worship" anything, not even our gods. They didn't make us to grovel. If you find us using the "w" word, that's just because its a single word that most people understand, and it approximates (rather badly) what it is that we do.

We acknowledge, respect, and honor our gods. We don't kneel before them or anything else in any sense, and we don't let them do our thinking for us. We stand and look them in the face and appreciate the opportunity of living in such a fabulous world.

I brought up war gods in my earlier post because I was making some very broad distinctions between Asatru and Wicca. You're likely to find a lot of Wiccans who are pacifists; you're very unlikely to find many pacifist heathens anywhere. We have great respect for military service, and we recognize that, sometimes, war *is* the answer. That doesn't mean we're especially happy about it, or that we as individuals necessarily approve of all wars or all that goes on in them, or that we're just itching to get involved in them. If that's what you were thinking, grow up.

That's part of being heathen: you have to think straight on about some very ugly issues. Asatru came out of a warrior culture, and you don't have to read very much of the history of that culture to see the consequences of where they got it wrong. Fortunately, while there are aspects of our gods that don't change, there are others that do, and we're not constrained by our religion to repeat past mistakes or recreate verbatim cultures that didn't work.

If you don't like the word "heathen", it's kind of like the word "Comanche": a derogatory name given to a group by others. Not absolutely sure about this, but I think "Navajo" is in the same category of names. If that's what others want to call us, we're OK with that, perhaps even proud of it.

If you think Asatru is a made-up religion, take a look in the history books: you're obviously very wrong. If you question our grip on reality because of our gods, you'll have to explain to me how monotheism, especially the Abrahamic kind, is different, and do it without making some pretty bald assertions that will have the rest of us laughing up our sleeves.

The term "pagan" was coined the non-pagans. It is a derogatory term used by the early Christian church to denigate those who clung to traditional religious (family?) values.

Like "heathen", "nappy-haired","uppity", or "queer", pagan is a loaded term. The fact that it has been embraced by non-Christians to describe their religion is similar to black youths embracing "the word that begins with N that dare not passeth white lips".

Norrie Hoyt: Food for thought? Hardly. A statement based on the hypothetical validity of a false statement.

Angela B

Wow are we ignorant to reality. Lets look at the etymology of the word shall we.

pagan

c.1375, from L.L. paganus "pagan," in classical L. "villager, rustic, civilian," from pagus "rural district," originally "district limited by markers," thus related to pangere "to fix, fasten," from PIE base *pag- "to fix" (see pact). Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (e.g. milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908. Paganism is attested from 1433.

this was a term the romans used to describe Christians as well. The Muslims use it to describe any one not muslim so on and so forth.

So that is not all there is to it there is so much more. It basically meant Country Bumpkin which this proud redneck and pagan is happy to claim. educate yourself

SSG G

Angela B

Wow are we ignorant to reality. Lets look at the etymology of the word shall we.

pagan

c.1375, from L.L. paganus "pagan," in classical L. "villager, rustic, civilian," from pagus "rural district," originally "district limited by markers," thus related to pangere "to fix, fasten," from PIE base *pag- "to fix" (see pact). Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (e.g. milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908. Paganism is attested from 1433.

this was a term the romans used to describe Christians as well. The Muslims use it to describe any one not muslim so on and so forth.

So that is not all there is to it there is so much more. It basically meant Country Bumpkin which this proud redneck and pagan is happy to claim. educate yourself

SSG G

Richmond T. Stallgiss, et al.,

ON THE NATURE OF MAGICK (as distinguished from stage magic) AND WHAT IT'S REALLY ABOUT:

Aleister Crowley said it best: "Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity to will."

I've always understood that the essence of real magick is the use of intention and will to produce changes in the natural world, including consciousness.

"What is a Pagan?" "Come close to worshiping Satan."

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul says all three great faiths faith Lucifer the leader of the fallen angels, call Him God, is their God that lives in a ball of fire. I won't say that's so but am all ears, "listen, if you have ears" waiting to hear a more reasonable explanation than "Moses sold his soul for the treasure of earth." Leader of God's chosen people is the highest office there is?

Of course Satan is God's right hand angel and a good one too, does the judgment of soul. Jesus said, "fear him who can destroy both body and soul in fiery hell." Satan is the "him" that does that under orders from Almighty God, the being that Moses made the deal with. Satan is God's law enforcement arm.

I'm not sure about this but I expect a god is a god to a Pagan and gods come in several varieties, good ones and bad ones with good and bad being determined by what they do. And even that isn't iron clad. For example: Vulcan can be a bad god and smother us in volcanic ash or Vulcan can do that to our enemies hold up on the mountain and be our best friend,, at the time.

We need to rethink our position of religion. Is it really good for us? Is worshiping the "wrong God" sure fire damnation? If it is then we are all going to hell, "on the road of righteousness paved with the best intentions" the best intentions that Devil worship can inspire. Of course Pagans worship Devil. All supernatural beings are gods of one kind or the other. It's the needs of the moment that make the decision.

Amviennava,

You wrote:

"Actually anyone who is not an atheist or monotheist fits the definition of 'Pagan' as PaganPlace posted it."

So, if Muslims are correct in stating that Christianity is a polytheistic religion because of the Trinity, then all Christians are Pagans.

Hmm, food for thought.

Regards.

Amviennava,

You wrote:

"Actually anyone who is not an atheist or monotheist fits the definition of 'Pagan' as PaganPlace posted it."

So, if Muslims are correct in stating that Christianity is a polytheistic religion because of the Trinity, then all Christians are Pagans.

Hmm, food for thought.

Regards.

I don't have much to add here, but I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Edgar for this kind of viewpoint. It is how I feel about the process, and it's good to know that others feel the same way.

So thank you, Dr. Edgar, for being compassionate and realizing that the best way to vote is based on the politician, not the religion.

Richmond T. Stallgiss: I agree. Considering what those who allegedly follow a religion that preaches 'Love one another' do, I shudder to think what someone who worships ANY war god will do. That automatically excludes that individual from my vote. As a matter of fact, I might even consider voting for GWB - perish the thought ... I just had a nightmare ;).

Norrie Hoyt @July 9, 2007 9:59 AM: Actually anyone who is not an atheist of monotheist fits the definition of 'Pagan' as PaganPlace posted it.

Richmond T. Stallgiss,

You wrote:

"I think Pagans absolutely have a right to run for office, but I doubt they'll make a dent in the political system unless they live in, say, San Francisco."

Other posters have made nearly identical statements here in the past.

I recall responses from people living in rural, conservative areas, who said that there were elected local-government officials who were Pagans in their communities.

Perhaps rural dwellers [Pagani] still like the "Old Ways". [See Robert Frost's, "The Witch of Coos", about "...a mother and son, Two old-believers."]

You also wrote:

"...I really don't trust polytheists to have a firm grip on 'reality'."

As for me, I really don't trust monotheists to have a firm grip on 'reality'.

By the way, Islam considers Christianity to be a polytheistic religion, because of its belief in the trinity.

Best wishes.

Paganplace:
"humans as innately equipped to perfect our actions and intentions through paying attention, and with the Gods, our many heritages, and the world itself as our teachers and guides, who we venerate in order to grow closer and learn from rather than declare ourselves in sacrifice or submission to. "
Christians believe in paying attention to God, but, like the buddhists, we believe that you have to get over yourself first. First, Kenosis; then Nirvana. You can't pay attention to "what's really out there" until you reduce your own internal noisemaking.

"Belief in magical practice at least as a tool for learning is common, though this is seen as part of a living world, not as some super-natural imposition of power over it. "
As described, your description of magic makes it seem like innocuous method for learning about the world. Playing around with test tubes and such is just harmless exploratory science.

The standard Jewish critique of magic that I learned from a Rabbi was that people who use magic have the false idea that they can control nature through the use of handwaving and verbal incantation. I honestly believe the Voodoo artists of Haiti think they *are* controling the spirits. Insofar as one believes they can control God through hand motions, they are wrong.

It's the difference between wishing and hoping. when you 'wish,' you command the universe to comply. When you 'hope,' you acknowledge what you want without deluding yourself into thinking your thoughts are controlling the universe.

Paganplace:
"humans as innately equipped to perfect our actions and intentions through paying attention, and with the Gods, our many heritages, and the world itself as our teachers and guides, who we venerate in order to grow closer and learn from rather than declare ourselves in sacrifice or submission to. "
Christians believe in paying attention to God, but, like the buddhists, we believe that you have to get over yourself first. First, Kenosis; then Nirvana. You can't pay attention to "what's really out there" until you reduce your own internal noisemaking.

"Belief in magical practice at least as a tool for learning is common, though this is seen as part of a living world, not as some super-natural imposition of power over it. "
As described, your description of magic makes it seem like innocuous method for learning about the world. Playing around with test tubes and such is just harmless exploratory science.

The standard Jewish critique of magic that I learned from a Rabbi was that people who use magic have the false idea that they can control nature through the use of handwaving and verbal incantation. I honestly believe the Voodoo artists of Haiti think they *are* controling the spirits. Insofar as one believes they can control God through hand motions, they are wrong.

It's the difference between wishing and hoping. when you 'wish,' you command the universe to comply. When you 'hope,' you acknowledge what you want without deluding yourself into thinking your thoughts are controlling the universe.

Webster's Definition of Pagan: 1: heathen 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person. Nothing more to say................

I'm sorry, but if somone is going to run for office and they tell me they are a "non-eclectic hard polytheist who calls himself a heathen and worships several war gods" I am *not* going to vote for that guy, regardless of his economic policy or plan for universal health care. Worldview and character count in my vote, and certain religious beliefs are showstoppers for me.

I'd vote for Buddhists and Muslims, and probably panentheists and atheists, but the line has to go somewhere for me (I am not an "anything goes" person), and for political office, I am pretty sure I would honestly see it as campaign-damaging if a candidate made public issue of the fact that they worship more than one God.

I stand firmly for full civil rights and respect for all people regardless of religious beliefs, but when it comes to *me* choosing who *I* trust to effectively lead and hold political office, I really don't trust polytheists to have a firm grip on *reality*. I honestly see polytheism as do-it-yourself imaginary made-up religion. I think Pagans absolutely have a right to run for office, but I doubt they'll make a dent in the political system unless they live in, say, San Francisco.

Michel,

Buddhists are Buddhists. There's no way they can be fitted into any definition of "Pagan", unless you think "Pagan" simply means "someone who doesn't adhere to an Abrahamic religion".

In that case, most people on earth are Pagans.

PaganPlace: Thank you for the response. Apparently 'Pagan' is a generic label for some polytheistic religions.

But much as it pains me to agree with 'Concerned the Christian Now Liberated', his post of July 8, 2007 11:17 PM asks a legitimate question.

http://www.milpagan.org/media/statistics.html is the cited source of the # of Pagans in the US military. A Defense Department reference would be the only real source of accurate information.

But let us do the math anyway: 4300 Pagans/6702 military bases (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/01bases.htm) or less than one Pagan per base on average.

There are probably more Pagans working for Wallmart. Maybe they should add a few Pagan chaplins to the "welcomers".

And there are probably a heck of a lot more atheists in the military. Another positive for atheism. No chaplins required!!

And with so few Pagans in the military, why are we discussing this issue?????

Merry Meet Steven,

Glad to have an Asatru here.

It would be great to have more representatives of Paganism.

All the Asatru I have met have been wonderful debaters...that we could always use.

terra

Steven T. Abell:

Merry meet! Welcome to the friendly fracas. I've not had the opportunity to meet an Asatruar before.

I hope you'll stick around. These blogs get pretty interesting sometimes. We can use all the voices we can get around here.

Bright Blessings!

PRIVER

Paganplace:

Yes, heathens prefer to distinguish Asatru entirely from Wicca. The attitude and mode of thought are certainly different. We are non-eclectic hard polytheists, and we like our war gods. But your Paganism-in-general description is still right on target. And a common component of heathen thought is not just the recognition that there *are* other religions in the world, but that there are *supposed to be*.

Pleased to know you.

Hail!

Well-met, Stephen. Haven't been too many representatives of Asatru on here, I've been doing my best to hold some space for ya, actually I know a lot of Heathens who prefer to be considered separately in many respects, so I tend to think along those lines. :)

Part of the equation of Wicca with Paganism has to do with the media: a lot of folks out there think it sounds literate to call anything that looks 'witchy' Wicca, and a lot of folks want to point to what pissed-off metalhead kids do and somehow call it 'evidence that this is really all Satanic,' etc.

Makes for some muddy waters, especially given the Wiccan predilection for speaking just as Pagans rather than specifically as Wiccans, in the general scheme. There's a certain hump of understanding, or at least acceptance, to get over, before getting too fussy over the details of labels (As many Pagans actually really love to do, ...I always point to the fact we can just as quickly put down these scuffles, circle up, and get it done. As 'A religion,' we're at *least* as coherent as 'Christianity,' or 'Islam,' or 'Buddhism,' or 'Hinduism,' actually:

Maybe more so than some of these, because it's not our *belief* that there's supposed to be 'One Right And True Way,' but, rather, many.

We live that.

It's part of our religion. :)

BB. :)

Michel,

you stated in your first post that the term "pagan" was used to identify Buddhism. first and formost. Buddhism is not a religion and you can ask any Buddist and they will tell you the same thing. its a way of life and a theary of happyness. 2nd. tonio Im not sure about your learnings but i have always heard Hinduism was a pagan path.

from a pagan warrior

A truly excellent description by Paganplace.

Most of the postings in these blogs seem to equate Paganism with Wicca. My religion is Asatru (we specifically call ourselves heathens), a religion that is enormously different from Wicca in its particulars and in much of its outlook, and yet Paganplace's post is still applicable to us.

And thanks to Dr. Edgar for demonstrating that there are Christians who understand what the United States of America are really about.

Paganism is a modern religious movement and an umbrella turn for any of a number of paths which bring a veneration of the Gods of our many ancestors together with current understandings, folk tradition and ancient myths.

Typically, though not creedally, this involves a recognition of the world and universe as somehow alive and sacred, ...rather than with a view of a single God outside of 'Creation,' we tend to see the Gods in the world, in nature, and among us.

Typically, there is a cyclical view of time, commonly, a belief in reincarnation and transmigration of souls in terms familiar to those who know about such traditions as Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism: ethics are based in observing cause and effect in ways very analagous to karma, ...rather than seeing goodness as imposed through revealed words by a supernatural 'Creator' external to Creation.

The Gods are seen in many ways: 'Orthodoxy' and being 'saved by belief' are largely absent and certainly not as prominent in Pagan belief and experience as may be familiar to Christians: rather than some idea that humans are innately damned by some flaws and in need of saving, Pagans see humans as innately equipped to perfect our actions and intentions through paying attention, and with the Gods, our many heritages, and the world itself as our teachers and guides, who we venerate in order to grow closer and learn from rather than declare ourselves in sacrifice or submission to.

Belief in magical practice at least as a tool for learning is common, though this is seen as part of a living world, not as some super-natural imposition of power over it.

Power itself is typically taken as one's responsibility to study and express in order to contribute positively to this living universe: goodness is not considered to be something that people must use to 'make up for' a debt, but rather as a thing to be cultivated for its own sake and clear effects.

Within this general scheme, there's broad variation in practice, belief, and expression, but that's what this Pagan thinks describes Paganism as a whole.

It's process, not 'revealed product,' so there isn't a definitive creed or expectation that this is what 'makes you Pagan.'

Many would just say, 'If you worship the Old Gods, you're Pagan.'

Fine by me, that. But there's a shape to things, which I above try to describe. :)

So, what is a Pagan? IS it a belief system or is it a generic label? If it is a generic label, what is it a label for?

Thank you, Mr. Edgar. I, too, was braced for the worst and was pleasantly surprised.

I only wish some of your fellow bloggers would be as reasonable as you in their responses.

People who self-identify as "pagan" tend to be pantheists or polytheists. (Or perhaps the more complicated case of a pantheist who interacts with the all-divine through a polytheistic model.) There are also those who believe in a pantheon, but worship one member of that pantheon as a personal deity. Some pantheons may be classically Greek or Egyptian or Celtic, others may be a mix of the god-forms that resonate most strongly with that individual.
Wicca is one example of a pagan religion following this definition. Most Wiccan texts identify the goddess and the god in a dualist framework, not of good and evil, but of ebb and flow, push and pull. The goddess and the god manifest through deity, and all deities are aspects of these eternal forces. Not all Wiccans believe this exactly, but this is the doctrine (per-se) of Wicca.
Another pagan religion is that of the modern Druids. I haven't had much experience with their philosophy, but I am aware that they recognize deities as actual individual beings, rather than aspects of the divine duality.
Other pagan religions would be Hinduism, African tribal customs, and Shinto.

This post is admirably even-handed. However, I can't agree that a candidate's religion is irrelevant as to his/her qualifications. In fact, if a candidate was admittedly non-religious, that would incline me to vote for them, as non-religious people tend to be more progressive, more educated, and more tolerant than religious people.

Michel,

I didn't know that Buddhism and Hinduism were included under the "pagan" term. I had been under the impression that the term included not just the Native American religions but also Wicca and the African animistic religions. If I understand you correctly, the word originated as a putdown of all non-monotheistic religion. Is that accurate? Wouldn't that make the word a synonym for "heathen," another pejorative term?

I find it interesting that a number of respondents identify themselves as pagans.

The term "pagan" developed within the monotheistic belief systems, particularly the Judeo-Christian, and, as such, it has almost always been used pejoratively. In early Christianity it was used to identify polytheistic religions such as those of the Romans and Greeks. Today it is used to refer to beliefs systems such as Buddism, Hinduism or the religions of the Native Americans.

For someone to self-identify as a pagan is rather like a Christian calling himself a Gentile.

Dr. Edgar wrote:

"When I am faced with choosing a candidate for public office there are many criteria I use. At the top of my list is a candidate's demonstrated ability to serve the common good. Strength of character, commitment to justice, protection of the planet and leadership to eliminate poverty, racism, and sexism, are all attributes I look for in a candidate for public office."

Christopher Responds:

These are indeed wise words, and they could serve to bridge the gap between many different religions, not just Pagan ones and non-Pagan ones. I do find it helpful to understand what grounds the ethical and moral approach of a public candidate, whether it be a secular devotion to the common good, or an uplifting religious view of postmillenial Christianity, or the sacred ethics of most Pagan or indigenous Amerindian traditions that see all life interwoven with Sacred Power and thus, also with Sacred Responsibility for synergistically enhancing the results of our given planetary interdependence on each others. It by no means determines my vote, but does illuminate my understanding of a candidate's drive and motivation.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I love a beautiful car as few do, I just don't *need to own it.*

Dig?

" Athena:

If Pagans worshipped money, then why are so many of us lacking in it? You don't see Pagan "clergy" driving BMWs or Lexuses. Can you say that about Christian clergymen?"

I think that's one thing about not telling people they reaaaaly-want-the-Lexus-and-can-be-forgiven-for-how-you got it.

No sin drama. No sex-shaped holes in human life filled with more 'acceptable sins.'

Just, 'You want it, you live it.'

Funny how none of we amoral hedonists seem to choose the Lexus.

And with nary a whiff of brimstone, either.

Good Post, Dr. Edgar

Thanks for preserving the true essence of our First Amendment - separation of church and state.

As a Pagan, I appreciate your reasonable comments.

If Pagans worshipped money, then why are so many of us lacking in it? You don't see Pagan "clergy" driving BMWs or Lexuses. Can you say that about Christian clergymen?

Umm, get off the plantation.

If Pagans worshiped money, I'd move to a country with more interesting currency.

Gods.

Do they even focus-group the crap you're taught lately?

Pagan is worship of the inanimate (nonliving), e.g., money.

This has got to be one of the most unusually thoughtful views concerning religion in the realm of politics I've seen written by any religious advocate. I stand stunned and most thankfully astonished. An emphatic Amen.

Hee. Maybe there's a hidden truth to the cattle-tags.

Maybe Pagan is what you get when you take certain things away. :)

What is a pagan? indeed.

Recently, I was filling out medical forms in preparatin for surgery, and in the blank for Religion, I wrote Pagan. Once the informatin had been entered in my chart, and I was asked to check everything before it was printed onto a hospital bracelet, I saw that in the Religion blank had been typed the word None. I very politely but tersely informed them that they had put the wrong information in my chart, and that it needed to be corrected immediately.

Hrm. OK, I was bracing for another column where a Christian tries to marginalize our faith because our faith doesn't *demand definition* in the way some creeds do.

I appreciate the reason.

For short, let me make the blanket assurance that as diverse as modern Paganism is by nature, our beliefs are far less diffuse and contradictory than this 'God' that so many in the world invoke as though there were present a consistency that doesn't exist.

They say we have no values or community, because *their* religious belief says these things can only exist if imposed by the written word and a coercive sort of divine power.

We don't believe these particular things.

But we do have at least as much of 'A Religion' as does a 'Christian' or other 'God-Fearer.'

We're just not afraid that way, is all.

"The religion or belief system of a candidate becomes relevant as a criterion for public office only if the candidate has a record of trying to impose that belief system on others."

I agree. Good entry from Dr. Edgar.

I agree Steve B, the last two lines sums it up perfectly.

Nice post Mr. Edgar.

Thank you for those reasonable words. You are quite right to ask "What is a pagan?" - not only is it a term covering many paths, but there is a huge amount of ignorance about the activities and ethics of modern pagans.

"Strength of character, commitment to justice, protection of the planet and leadership to eliminate poverty, racism, and sexism, are all attributes I look for in a candidate for public office"

And are all subjects that neo-paganism feels strongly about fulfilling and protecting.

Your last two lines made me want to cheer, I only wish we had more people who thought that way.