definition of neopagan?
David Dalton
does not have a teaching lineage to an ancient path,
and believes he or she is part of nature and not above nature.
How do you define neopagan, if different from the above?
I now have a problem since if you define nature as The Earth
then unless you say The Earth contains all the souls of
all dna based someones such that the part of the someones
other than souls is a subset of The Earth, the souls
of some of such someones may be outside The Earth
and thus not all of all the someones are subsets of
The Earth. For example, Ferron is the avatar-1 of
Cosma the universe (space and its contents, not
all/everything) and thus Ferron's soul is as large as
the soul of Cosma (since there is alignment between them).
So now in the above definition of neopagan, I can
only say I am neopagan if I define nature as
all/everything, which is defined by saying
"Is there anything outside all/everything? No"
where by outside I mean not part of. Otherwise
if nature is The Earth then I would have to edit
the definition to say the part of me other than
soul is part of nature and not above nature.
I define soul as what I with my avatar-2 abilities
can sense and that I call soul. Perhaps later
I will switch to another definition such as
e.g. the non-matter non-energy part of self,
but for now I won't.
Anyway I welcome tips on repairing my
above definition of neopagan, and again
your definitions of neopagan.
hulk_arnol...@yahoo.com
in Asatru who use the term neo-pagan, identify themselves with "pagans"
in general, or think of Asatru as primarily a "nature religion".
I think to posit the existence of a movement termed Paganism, with a
singular if diverse identity, one must accept something of the paradigm
we have inherited from the major monotheistic religions, but
particularly Christianity. That is, Those of God and Them What Ain't,
the Pagans. In fact, each of the various "pagan traditions" are as
different from one another as from a great many expressions of
monotheist religions, and if anything, in developing a modern concept
of, say, "Asatru", we are in even that going beyond historical
religious self-identification. The terms we use are neologisms unknown
to the historical predecessors we claim, as is the concept of "Asatru"
and certainly of "Paganism".
I'm quite interested in other opinions as regards the existence of
"paganism" or of the practical usefulness of such a identity.
Eric
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5056/Links.html
Jim
Hello David,
I for one would define a neo pagan as one who is grabbing for straws.
Mix and match oximoronics. Giving recognition to supposed
anthropomorphic gods can hardly be called an earth religion. A true
earth religion does not give recognition to any human form gods. In
earth religion nature itself is "supreme sacredness" and we humans are
simply a part of the sacred web of all life. One who walks a true earth
religion path would never call themselves a pagan. NEVER!
Try calling a conservative traditional Native American or Australian
Aboriginal a pagan and stand back!
Neo-Paganism is a Caucasian recreationist experiment that is currently
running its course and slowly petering out, as it should.
The world does not need one more fluffy bunny anthropocentric religious
crutch, it needs individual self responsibility and respect for the
balance and harmony of all that constitutes nature.
Neo-paganism is the quintessential human centric expression that only
gives "hypocritical" lip service to nature and the earth.
Jim
odub...@comcast.net
Searles
Elaine Stutt
(hulk_arnol...@yahoo.com) writes:
>>From over here at alt.religion.asatru, I'd say that there aren't many
> in Asatru who use the term neo-pagan, identify themselves with "pagans"
> in general, or think of Asatru as primarily a "nature religion".
>
> I think to posit the existence of a movement termed Paganism, with a
> singular if diverse identity, one must accept something of the paradigm
> we have inherited from the major monotheistic religions, but
> particularly Christianity. That is, Those of God and Them What Ain't,
> the Pagans. In fact, each of the various "pagan traditions" are as
> different from one another as from a great many expressions of
> monotheist religions, and if anything, in developing a modern concept
> of, say, "Asatru", we are in even that going beyond historical
> religious self-identification. The terms we use are neologisms unknown
> to the historical predecessors we claim, as is the concept of "Asatru"
> and certainly of "Paganism".
Yes, pagan has had a negative connotation and at least in English
seems to have a shadow relation to Christianity. North American Pagans/
Neo-pagans seem to, perhaps "generously" include Hindu's, Buddhists
etc. in their "we're not them" pagan category. This is probably because
those two groups are small minorities in North America. World wide
those two have a much bigger presence. I have an old set of books,
"Religions of the World" five volumes on: Protestantism, Catholicism,
Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. Now I don't know why Christianity gets
two volumes, maybe they should have found a way to get a volume for
Chinese religions. In any case, you see statistically tiny groups of
Neo-pagans trying to absorb whole world religions. Not that it's
all ignorance or appropriation, there is also respect and learning
from other religions. It just sounds funny sometimes.
> I'm quite interested in other opinions as regards the existence of
> "paganism" or of the practical usefulness of such a identity.
>
> Eric
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5056/Links.html
Practically it is in use but it's definition is still being
developed. As you mentioned, the groups involved can be quite diverse.
I prefer Neo-pagan because, while tipping a hat to the old, it
acknowledges that it is new, frequently from many sources. Will
the term survive or will there eventually just be Wicca plus a bunch
of "reform" branches of older religions from else where? American
Reformed Voudoon, Southern Theravadan Assembly, Northwestern
Quaballans for Jesus. North America is still supposed to be solidly
Christian but I'm not sure I entirely believe the most recent polls.
One magazine article I read, predicted that the African Christian
Evangelicals might just take over. 8-}
Elaine
Attuarii
>>From over here at alt.religion.asatru, I'd say that there aren't many
> in Asatru who use the term neo-pagan, identify themselves with "pagans"
> in general, or think of Asatru as primarily a "nature religion".
>
> I think to posit the existence of a movement termed Paganism, with a
> singular if diverse identity, one must accept something of the paradigm
> we have inherited from the major monotheistic religions, but
> particularly Christianity. That is, Those of God and Them What Ain't,
> the Pagans. In fact, each of the various "pagan traditions" are as
> different from one another as from a great many expressions of
> monotheist religions, and if anything, in developing a modern concept
> of, say, "Asatru", we are in even that going beyond historical
> religious self-identification. The terms we use are neologisms unknown
> to the historical predecessors we claim, as is the concept of "Asatru"
> and certainly of "Paganism".
>
> I'm quite interested in other opinions as regards the existence of
> "paganism" or of the practical usefulness of such a identity.
The Song Remains the Same - The Master and the Beast
I had a dream. Crazy dream.
Anything I wanted to know, any place I needed to go
Hear my song. People won't you listen now? Sing along.
You don't know what you're missing now.
Any little song that you know
Everything that's small has to grow.
And it has to grow!
California sunlight, sweet Calcutta rain
Honolulu starbright - the song remains the same.
Sing out Hare Hare, dance the Hoochie Koo.
City lights are oh so bright, as we go sliding... sliding... sliding
through.
--
Lead me, O Uğ, from the unreal to the real!
Lead me, O Lord of Breath, from darkness to light!
Lead me, O Lord of All, from death to immortality!
- The Magnificent Forest Book, 1000-500 BCE
Post Post Colonial Boy
wrote:
>I have been defining a neopagan as one who is polytheistic,
>does not have a teaching lineage to an ancient path,
>and believes he or she is part of nature and not above nature.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. I like its succinctness.
I do not, though, believe it applies to me.
Nik
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
rorik
Post Post Colonial Boy wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:50:01 -0330, David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I have been defining a neopagan as one who is polytheistic,
> >does not have a teaching lineage to an ancient path,
> >and believes he or she is part of nature and not above nature.
>
> That sounds fairly accurate to me. I like its succinctness.
Succinct, yes; accurate, no. A simple process of observation and
classification would identify the essential features of "neopaganism"
as (1) demonstrated inability to apply oneself successfully to any
trade or occupation; (2) obsessive preoccupation with fantasy and
make-believe; (3) total or near-total ignorance of any actual
pre-Christian heathen tradition; (4) juvenile anti-authoritarianism
characterized by frequent, usually obscene, acting-out tirades directed
against parents, Christians, Republicans, and anyone else thought to be
wealthier, smarter, more powerful, or better looking than the neopagan
in question.
-rorik
lex...@ix.netcom.com
Doug Freyburger
>
> >I have been defining a neopagan as one who is polytheistic,
> >does not have a teaching lineage to an ancient path,
> >and believes he or she is part of nature and not above nature.
>
> That sounds fairly accurate to me. I like its succinctness.
>
> I do not, though, believe it applies to me.
Why do you say that, Nik? When I first read that I figured
the "teaching lineage to an ancient path" was a human lineage
and no one who has ever claimed such has ever turned out to
be objectively true. No luck getting anyone making such a
claim to have their extended family do separate interviews
with anthropologists to trace the family traditions back
through the generations.
Asatru at least two teaching lineages, but neither is in
the form of living humans. One is the Aesir, Vanir and
allied wights themselves. They are out and about doing
active recuiting. You and I were both recruited by The
Wanderer though we've reacted quite differently to our
callings. The other is the written Lore is the Eddas, the
sagas, the folklore. In addition to these teaching lineages
are the findings of archeology and other stuff I've missed.
Are these the teaching lineages you mean?
Hail Asgard!
Doug Freyburger
Jim
Love it!!!!!!!!!!!
Interesting how a minuscule segment of modern society loves to embrace
the contemptuous labels put upon certain of our ancestors by the church.
rorik
Good point. I suspect about 95% of Americans who call themselves
"pagans" do so for the same reason many of them also call themselves
"witches." It's the only way they can get anyone's attention. The
verbal equivalent of pushing safety pins through one's cheek.
Jim
root
Post Post Colonial Boy wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >I have been defining a neopagan as one who is polytheistic,
> >does not have a teaching lineage to an ancient path,
> >and believes he or she is part of nature and not above nature.
>
> That sounds fairly accurate to me. I like its succinctness.
>
> I do not, though, believe it applies to me.
Hehehehehe, I'm just human too ;)
golwg
Matthew
Pangur Ban
"root" <matthe...@gmail.com> wrote:
By golly, you nailed it again! I'm starting to be really impressed.
--
Pangur Ban
Pangur Ban's Page
<http://personal.bellsouth.net/d/r/drdrive/pangurban.html>
Post Post Colonial Boy
wrote:
>Post Post Colonial Boy wrote:
>> David Dalton wrote:
>>
>> >I have been defining a neopagan as one who is polytheistic,
>> >does not have a teaching lineage to an ancient path,
>> >and believes he or she is part of nature and not above nature.
>>
>> That sounds fairly accurate to me. I like its succinctness.
>>
>> I do not, though, believe it applies to me.
>
>Why do you say that, Nik? When I first read that I figured
>the "teaching lineage to an ancient path" was a human lineage
>and no one who has ever claimed such has ever turned out to
>be objectively true.
I'm meaning to refer to traditions, that may be in modernised form
now, but which actually do echo a practice from ancient Europe as
opposed to a practice that echos either a romanticised but innaccurate
17th century notion of what 'Pagan' belief was all about e.g. Order of
Bards, Ovates and Druids or indeed an innaccurate 1950s recombination
of elements of religious beliefs and practices from the ancient world
e.g. Wicca...
> No luck getting anyone making such a
>claim to have their extended family do separate interviews
>with anthropologists to trace the family traditions back
>through the generations.
>
>Asatru at least two teaching lineages, but neither is in
>the form of living humans. One is the Aesir, Vanir and
>allied wights themselves. They are out and about doing
>active recuiting. You and I were both recruited by The
>Wanderer though we've reacted quite differently to our
>callings. The other is the written Lore is the Eddas, the
>sagas, the folklore. In addition to these teaching lineages
>are the findings of archeology and other stuff I've missed.
>Are these the teaching lineages you mean?
Yes. Real ones as opposed to the likes of Marija Gimbutas who feels
free to make up whatever she likes.
root
Pangur Ban wrote:
> In article <1126289825....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "root" <matthe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Post Post Colonial Boy wrote:
> > > On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:50:01 -0330, David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I have been defining a neopagan as one who is polytheistic,
> > > >does not have a teaching lineage to an ancient path,
> > > >and believes he or she is part of nature and not above nature.
> > >
> > > That sounds fairly accurate to me. I like its succinctness.
> > >
> > > I do not, though, believe it applies to me.
> >
> > Hehehehehe, I'm just human too ;)
> >
> > golwg
> >
> > Matthew
>
> By golly, you nailed it again! I'm starting to be really impressed.
Please don't be, I talk a load of nonsense most of the time ;)
golwg
Matthew
joerev...@bellsouth.net
"root" <matthe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126333668....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Don't we all!
The impressive thing is realizing and admitting it.
root
Hehehe, some nonsense is cleverer than other nonsense, if that makes
any sense? ;)
>
> The impressive thing is realizing and admitting it.
Some of us almost revel in it from time to time ;)
golwg
Matthew