Debate and Discussion

Witch
mechanical_lullaby at 7:48AM, Jan. 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,905
joined: 1-7-2006
ozoneocean
I'd say that from the info presented that it doesn't prove a genetic or biological origin for religion. It just investigates the phenomena of “religious” euphoria.

We have no way of knowing if that phenomena has anything to do with religious belief in the past, it's just supposition and extrapolation in a big way. The correlation doesn't suggest a cause, it's just a correlation. Skool's approach seems the more promising: social/cultural factors are responsible, with biological and chemical influences doing what they always do, or not, in the background.
mechanical_lullaby
I'm pagan.
Ok, but what are you then? It's exactly like saying “I'm not American”. It's funny that some consider the Mormons to be pagans, not to mention the Jews, Muslims etc. And at time the different parts of the Christian world called each other “pagan”, Some protestants still consider Catholics to be pagan.
Correction, ozone. Saying I'm Pagan is like saying I'm Christian. But you wont get on a Christian about what their exact Christianity is, will you? Because there are so many different types of Christianity in the world, including personal Christianities, that I might as well say I'm my own personal pagan. I don't classify myself because I do it for myself as an individual. You asked me last time which one of the big 5 I was. And really, that was kind of insulting and that's why I didn't give you an answer. =/

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:57PM
bravo1102 at 10:45AM, Jan. 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,223
joined: 1-21-2008
mechanical_lullaby, you are correct as far as the technical classification of “pagans”, “Christians” etc goes. Ozone is correct as far as popular definitions go.

There is dogma and there is personal practice. e.g. The Pope says that Catholics can't use birth control. That's dogma. Many Catholics use birth control; that's practice. It can be said there are as many religions as there are practitioners of religion but that's not what the leadership of any organized religion would ever like to admit. It also makes the study of comparative religion difficult as it would just become an aspect of psychology and we humans need to put things in catagories. It makes things so much easier.

Catholics and Protestants historically have regarded each other as heretics and Godless, idolaters, Papists. Protestants call Papists “pagans” mostly for their worship of idols (crucifix, rosary, icons, Saints, the Holy Mother, Popes etc) as opposed to reveling in the glory of Christ, Jeeeee-sus. Now kneel and accept the Holy Spirit, let God-dah into your heart! I sayah Yayah! Yayah!

Sorry. Believe what you will, it is your relationship with the numinous (the wholly or holy other) your conception of spirit and soul and the universe and let the terms define the catagories of worship but not necessarily your take on what you believe.

Or whatever. I'm going off and re-read the notes from my comparative religion classes so I can figure out what I just wrote.


last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
Product Placement at 12:35PM, Jan. 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
mechanical_lullaby
Saying I'm Pagan is like saying I'm Christian.

No! I do not agree with that statement.

All christian faiths are tied together around the believe that Jesus Christ was our lord and savior. The original heavy hitter was the Roman Catholic church but over the time more and more faiths based on Christianity have been formed.

Catholics call all of them a protestant faith since they're all formed after the great reformation in 1517 when Martin Luther (not to be confused with Martin Luther King) defied the Catholic church and caused many countries to sever their connection with the Vatican.

Bottom line is that whether you're Catholic or a believer of a protestant faith, the core, central belief that Jesus Christ is the son of god and should thus be worshiped makes you Christian.

“Pagan” Is a name that Christians give faiths that do not follow the one true god (Muslims and Jews follow the same god so they don't count).

There is no connection between these faith. It can be based on Celtic Druidism, Native American believes or the Old Nordic Faith.

I say no. You can't classify these as the same thing. I find that chucking so many different believes with their own customs and faiths into the same corner and labeling them “other” is a huge insult towards them all and anyone practicing them.

mechanical_lullaby
I'm my own personal pagan

Wait? Isn't that more being agnostic? That's at least what those who follow no established faiths but still believe in a higher power are called.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
mechanical_lullaby at 2:34PM, Jan. 2, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,905
joined: 1-7-2006
…Product Placement, take everything you just said and go on and dumb that down for me. And go ahead and tell me what faith I follow. And how about teach me a little more about Christianity, since I obviously don't know the difference between being Christian and Pagan. God, I'm stupid. Here I am just trying to make a point about how complex different religions and beliefs are whereas Christianity might mean you're baptist or episcopal or lutherin or catholic or you might be pagan where as you could follow a hermetic qabbalic, or wiccan, or hell, even neopaganistic approach to your faith, but really I have absolutely no idea on how to distinguish between Christians and Pagans. And oh dear… agnostic? What the hell are an agnostic?

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:57PM
Sea_Cow at 3:20PM, Jan. 2, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,687
joined: 4-5-2007
Hey guiz, I have a great idea. Lets all have in-depth discussions about religion outside of the Debate & Discussion forum.
I am so happy to finally be back home
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:26PM
Product Placement at 2:38AM, Jan. 3, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Since I'm assuming you're going for the flair of sarcasm here, I'll play ball. Christians = Based on the same core belief. Pagans = Based on different beliefs.
Also you're completely free to keep your faith to yourself. I just felt like pointing out that people with their own private faiths are considered agnostic but you're free to object.

It's basically anyone who believes in a god or spirits or a unified theory or whatever else you can think of but is not part of any organized religion is agnostic.

I myself believe that there must be something greater then us out there so I guess that makes me agnostic.

Agnostic is often considered the same as an atheist except an atheist refuses to acknowledge the existence of anything that can't be explained with science. Science can't explain god, thus god does not exist.

Do not take my rant before as a personal attack at you. I just hate the word, pagan. I consider it an insult to those faiths it's meant to describe and I believe they should be called their own represented names. I do not want to hear anyone call the faith of my ancestors pagan.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
ozoneocean at 3:08AM, Jan. 3, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
mechanical_lullaby
Correction, ozone. Saying I'm Pagan is like saying I'm Christian.
No it's not, because “Pagan” is a Christian word for anyone who isn't a Christian. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
Product Placement at 3:16AM, Jan. 3, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
ozoneocean
No it's not, because “Pagan” is a Christian word for anyone who isn't a Christian. :)

Ok. Fair enough. I guess I could have dumbed it down like that.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
ozoneocean at 3:21AM, Jan. 3, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
BTW, my nationality is: Foreigner. Are you one too PP? We might be related. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
Product Placement at 4:06AM, Jan. 3, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
Heh. I suppose we could be. Although in my native tongue we call all foreigners, outlanders. I love that. Gives some sort of a Mad Max feel to it.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
ozoneocean at 4:39AM, Jan. 3, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Product Placement
Heh. I suppose we could be. Although in my native tongue we call all foreigners, outlanders. I love that. Gives some sort of a Mad Max feel to it.
Well met fellow Outlander!

Who's fighting in the Thunderdome tonight?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
mechanical_lullaby at 4:40AM, Jan. 3, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,905
joined: 1-7-2006
lol… I didn't take anything that you said personally.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:57PM
Product Placement at 5:04AM, Jan. 3, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
ozoneocean
Who's fighting in the Thunderdome tonight?

Well Oz. The inside scoop says that The Pulverizer will be going against Crazy Dog.

News at 11.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
NickGuy at 10:52AM, Jan. 3, 2009
(online)
posts: 988
joined: 2-22-2007
DARKNES
Come on tell me what ye think of witchcraft

like everything else “supernatural”…ill believe it when i experience it.

“Kung Fu Komix IS…hardcore martial art action all the way. 8/10” -Harkovast
“Kung Fu Komix is that rare comic that is made with heart and love of the medium, and it delivers” -Zenstrive
“Kung Fu Komix is…so awesome” -threeeyeswurm
“Kung Fu Komix is..told with all the stupid exuberance of the genre it parodies” -The Real Macabre
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:15PM
MagickLorelai at 2:34PM, Jan. 3, 2009
(online)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
Product Placement
I just felt like pointing out that people with their own private faiths are considered agnostic but you're free to object.


Phoenix Wright: OBJECTION!!!

Being agnostic is NOT “following a personal private faith”. By dictionary definition:

1a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
1b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Or, in other words, agnosticism is not quite atheist, not quite devout in faith, either. It's someone who says, “I don't know if God exists or not, I need proof.” Many identify as atheist, as in, “I don't know if God exists, but until someone proves it for certain, I don't believe in the existence of God.”

Also. You might have a problem with people using the word “Pagan” to describe their faith, but a lot of people have reclaimed the word as an umbrella term for a myriad, fluid set of beliefs. In fact, the word literally means ‘Of the countryside“, or the way it was used at the time of its creation, ”Country Bumpkin“. People who held onto their non-Christian beliefs tended to be outside of the main cities, so Christianity- the new fad sweeping population centers- didn’t get to them as quickly. These ”Countryside“ people also tended to have outdated fashion, compared to cityfolk, since information didn't travel nearly so quickly back then, so fads that USED to be popular stuck around longer with rural folks. This includes the cone hat that became so popularly associated with witches.

It was made to define people who held onto older religious beliefs- the polytheistic, spirit and nature-based beliefs- in a derogatory way, yes. It only came to mean ”anyone non-christian“ later on. (Even if it DID only mean ”not Christian“, what's wrong with people using the term again? They're still Not Christian).

Even if Christians WERE all united by a common belief that Jesus is our savior, there are still some vastly different beliefs depending on what branch of Christianity you're in, as well as vastly different practices, taboos, rituals, and which figurehead you focus worship on. They become very distinct religions on their own, with a ”theme“ that unites them under one umbrella.

If you take offense at the word ”Pagan“, then don't use it. Telling other people who identify as Pagan that the term is an insult, however, is like people who use the word ”gay“ to mean ”not cool"; it's turning a word that people take pride in and calling it an insult.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
Vakanai at 9:01PM, Jan. 3, 2009
(online)
posts: 460
joined: 11-20-2007
Personally, as far as witchcraft/magic is concerned, I view it as really a more ritual version of trying to use psychic powers. Your basic spells are surprisingly similar to some psychic practices. It's all about getting into a higher state of mind and then focusing your attention and will to a certain outcome. As long as it harms none, I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact I'm delving into all kinds of books trying to untap my own potential in such regards.
However, at the first sign of spirits or voices I'd bolt. That's just dangerous territory there. Angels, loved ones, demons, aliens, don't care. Partially cause I don't want to risk getting tricked, but mostly cause I'm not exactly a people person to begin with. I'd like to be left alone and to my own devices, and being contacted by god knows what in such a state isn't something I'd think I like.
Heck, as far as me and God are concerned, I just want protection and to be left alone. No interference. If that's my relationship with god, then obviously I'd like my interaction with mysterious entities to be less.
As for Ouija/talking boards, I'd rather not. I'm not in psychic or magical development for crazy communication. I'm in it more for better control over my universe and unlocking more of my potential. Plus I like the whole mind over body thing, cause I think that is the best bet for finding a way to stop the aging process and reaching closer to the goal of immortality, a rather big goal for me in life (everyone accepts death as fact, but I'm a little too individualistic to just go with the flow). Plus, again, spirits can be crazy.
But anyways, whether you believe the whole Goddess/pagan thing or more of the psychic thing, you should be careful, and know what you are going in for. You should have more of a goal than ‘OMGZZZ!!! SO COOL!!!’
Also, I wouldn't be so worried about spirits and what not as I would be about my own un-and-subconscious mind. A lot of your personal problems you don't like to admit about yourself (greed, jealousy, etc.) come to the forefront. So stay away from this kind of stuff unless you're willing to face and deal with what you really are.
At least that is my take on magic and psychic development, which is what paganism is mostly about, only it focuses a bit more on the magic/Goddess philosophy (of which I really don't care for, God or Goddess or whatever, deity or deities, it's just uninteresting and besides the point for me, and ‘magic’ seems to take away too much of my own personal control, hence my preference for the more ‘psychic’ aspects) and a bit more spirituality than I care for (and I'm getting spiritual enough with the trying to get psychic route).
I'm not exactly seeing a lot of progress really, but I think I'm a bit luckier, and I am getting a better understanding of my mind and control over my emotions (read: more happy).
But as I said, as far as I'm concerned with paganism, just be careful and harm none.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:38PM
Product Placement at 12:07AM, Jan. 4, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
MagickLorelai
OBJECTION!!!

Personally I feel like you just objected me but ended up saying exactly the same thing that I said. That Pagans are what Christians call non Christians. And that all Christians are collection of different faiths that all worship Jesus.

Ok. I bungled up the finer points of what defines Agnostic but at least I got it partially right.

I, myself
Agnostic is often considered the same as an atheist
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
MagickLorelai at 4:10AM, Jan. 4, 2009
(online)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
Product Placement
MagickLorelai
OBJECTION!!!

Personally I feel like you just objected me but ended up saying exactly the same thing that I said. That Pagans are what Christians call non Christians. And that all Christians are collection of different faiths that all worship Jesus.

Ok. I bungled up the finer points of what defines Agnostic but at least I got it partially right.

I, myself
Agnostic is often considered the same as an atheist

First of all, I didn't say “OBJECTION!!!” Phoenix Wright did. XD (Sorry- but that's the power of internet memes)

And no, I did not say the same thing as you. I said while the common usage of the term “pagan” was used to define “anything not-christian” for a long period of time, it's original usage and present-day usage does NOT go by that definition. Certainly not by those who identify AS Pagan- it's a word of pride for them. You have made it out to sound like an insult.

Even if an agnostic is “often considered” the same as an atheist, an agnostic is NOT an atheist. Sometimes they are, oftentimes they're not. An agnostic is someone who doubts if we have total and absolute proof of the existence of God(or a god-like, divine figure), but still believes that there could be one- accepts the possibility, anyway. In fact, many agnostics believe there's SOMETHING divine, if nothing definable or provable.

Atheists deny the existence of anything divine or “supernatural”. I can't speak for all atheists, though, so I won't try to define them any further than that.

So no, unless you're cherrypicking nuggets of text from what I said, I did NOT say the “exact same thing” you said. In fact, I was almost completely contrary to what you said.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
ozoneocean at 4:35AM, Jan. 4, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
MagickLorelai
And no, I did not say the same thing as you. I said while the common usage of the term “pagan” was used to define “anything not-christian” for a long period of time, it's original usage and present-day usage does NOT go by that definition. Certainly not by those who identify AS Pagan- it's a word of pride for them. You have made it out to sound like an insult.
No, the original meaning, true meaning, only real meaning of “Pagan” is non-Christian.

relatively recently, considering how old the word is, it was expanded to also mean “and non-jew, and non-Muslim” and then expanded further to “and non-Buddhist, and non-Hindu”.

Very, very, VERY recently, like in the latter part of the 20thC, an eyeblink in the history of the word, some people misunderstood it to be the name for some sort of early western nature religion. But they still don't know which one they mean. ;)

———————–
Non-Christian is still the easiest, best way to think of the word.
If you follow an older nature religion, and you're serious about it, it'd be a good idea find out what it is instead of using an old Roman/Grecco-Christian insult for everyone else.

Even Atheists and agnostics were Pagans to the people who first started using the word.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
MagickLorelai at 5:36AM, Jan. 4, 2009
(online)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
ozoneocean
No, the original meaning, true meaning, only real meaning of “Pagan” is non-Christian.


Non-Christian is still the easiest, best way to think of the word.
If you follow an older nature religion, and you're serious about it, it'd be a good idea find out what it is instead of using an old Roman/Grecco-Christian insult for everyone else.

Even Atheists and agnostics were Pagans to the people who first started using the word.

I said in my first post here, “Pagan” means, literally, “Of the Countryside”. I already explained there why the term was used. Maybe as a mild insult to people “not keeping up with the times,” but it wasn't until later(maybe not MUCH later, but still later) that the term came to mean STRICTLY “Non-christian”. Yes, it's the easiest, but not the best. It's the easiest because it's hard to explain to people what a nature religion is, if they have never been exposed to it before.

And as for ‘only real meaning of Pagan’? That's your opinion, based on your experiences. Anyone who takes on a nature or spirit-based religion seriously knows better than to think they are practicing OMG THE ORIGINAL OLD RELIGION. That is reserved for people who are in it to rebel against the mainstream, fit in with a clique, stand out and be different, or just “be cool”. At least, in my humble opinion. There could be people who genuinely ARE seeking the Old Religion.

In the meantime, even if it's “wrong” I think that people who identify as “pagan” should have the right to call themselves that. Unless you want to be the person who wants to sift through all the slang in our present day language and restore every word to its original meaning- thus rendering most communication nowadays mostly ineffective- then don't worry about who calls themselves what.

Also, I think it'd be a good idea to learn about modern pagan culture before deciding how serious they are based on what you THINK they should know. (Because you never know when what YOU know is really, really wrong.)

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
ozoneocean at 6:11AM, Jan. 4, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
No, the “countryside” name was actually “Heathen”, which meant “people of the heath, or scrubland areas in England who tented to to backward and still practice the Saxon religion, which was basically the Germanic version of the Norse.

The Latin name ”Infidel“ means something like ”the unfaithful“, and that was mainly reserved for the Muslims.

”Pagan“ is older, that was what the first Christians called non-Christians, it means something like ”civilian“, while Christians in contrast were ”soldiers of god“. It's like the Jewish term ”Gentile“ for non-Jewish people.
Here's a source:
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.).
Online etymology dictionary

—————–
Lorelai, I don't mean to insult you, but your usage of Pagan really is very modern and not used by the majority. It really is based on a misunderstanding, like the Christians who think “speaking in tongues” is gargle talk rather than “different languages”.

It's ok for communication within the sub-culture for the people that subscribe to that meaning, but for the rest of the world and really for the people themselves, it'd be better to learn about the names and such of the spiritual beliefs that they're using. It'd help them understand more about themselves and help outsiders understand and accept them more easily too. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
MagickLorelai at 7:35AM, Jan. 4, 2009
(online)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
Ozone, you may not mean to be insulting, but you do come across as condescending. Even if the most vocal and public of self-identified pagans aren't the most mature or “normal”, how they identify THEMSELVES, and how they would LIKE to be identified, is what's important, not the original use of the word.

In many ways, it's about reclaiming the word to mean something positive. Yes, my(and others) interpretation of the word may be very modern, but that doesn't stop that interpretation from being right.

Do you know how frustrating it is to be patted on the head with “self-proclaimed witch” in the media, if you're a witch? (I'm not one, by the by. Not anymore, at least). It's like ‘self-proclaimed accountant’ or ‘self-proclaimed Buddhist’, both of which do not require being called “self-proclaimed”, but they feel the need to explain that “these people THINK they are this/that/the other thing”.

Are you saying that, even though it's a word that has meaning to the people who have currently adopted it, even if it isn't the original meaning for the word, even if it's only a MODERN interpretation of Pagan, it just shouldn't be used? Because to someone ELSE it has a different meaning? I guess those can't-be-called-Pagans should also stop using pentacles/pentagrams, because that means something totally evil to most people in pop-culture, and heck- why use the word Witch, either? That has negative connotations, too.

Of course that's ridiculous and not what you meant at all, but why should popular opinion define the identification of the members of a particular community?

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
ozoneocean at 7:53AM, Jan. 4, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
No, I'm saying that to a lot of people, myself included, the word still means “non-Christian”, whatever it means to you. So the thing is it'd be more helpful and informative if people would tell us what they were, instead of what they weren't.

Do you see :)?

And if they themselves aren't sure, then they should be. It's a pretty important part of learning about yourself what you believe in.

——
“Reclaiming” and all that is usually for the people within the subculture, not those without. Those outside don't know all the ins and outs, rights and wrongs, the jargon and patois of the initiates. All they have access to is the conventional terms for things, an outsider's view.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
Product Placement at 4:23PM, Jan. 4, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
First of all. I know plenty that Agnostic and Atheist are not the same. That quote served as a guidance to something I previously said and you decided to take it out of context there. Here's the full quote.

I
Agnostic is often considered the same as an atheist except an atheist refuses to acknowledge the existence of anything that can't be explained with science. Science can't explain god, thus god does not exist.

By saying that I got it partially right I meant that at least I got that part right.

MagickLorelai
Even if the most vocal and public of self-identified pagans aren't the most mature or “normal”, how they identify THEMSELVES, and how they would LIKE to be identified, is what's important, not the original use of the word.

By that definition you could say that people of African descent should take pride in being called n*****s and homosexuals being called queer. After all the original use the word was meant to be an insult but it doesn't need to be like that today? Eh?

Why do they need to accept the word Pagan? Why can't they choose their own name? Like followers of Wicca and Aesir did?
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
MagickLorelai at 7:16PM, Jan. 4, 2009
(online)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
Product Placement
By that definition you could say that people of African descent should take pride in being called n*****s and homosexuals being called queer. After all the original use the word was meant to be an insult but it doesn't need to be like that today? Eh?

Why do they need to accept the word Pagan? Why can't they choose their own name? Like followers of Wicca and Aesir did?

…Uhm, what?

No, I never said anyone SHOULD take pride in anything. I said that many self-identified pagans DO take pride in calling themselves Pagan. i.e. Pagan Pride day, and all sorts of communities using the term pagan to describe the general set of beliefs (or sets of sets of beliefs).

They can choose their own name! I never said that they couldn't, or that I thought they couldn't! A lot of people don't fall into a specific religious belief but still identify with nature-based religions, and use the umbrella term “Pagan” to describe it.

Seriously, I'm kind of boggling as to where you got that I thought anyone SHOULD call themselves anything, or “just accept an offensive term”. But I'm not really interested in returning to this topic anymore. v.v Enjoy yer discussion.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
Product Placement at 3:29AM, Jan. 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
You know, you accuse Oz of being condescending but you yourself are awfully rude.

You accuse me of cherry picking but then go on nitpicking in what I say.

What the hell am I saying that's so frigging confusing? Why do you treat me like I just said the most idiotic thing in the world?
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:50PM
bravo1102 at 5:02AM, Jan. 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,223
joined: 1-21-2008
According to the scholarship about early Christianity (up to Constantine) pagan was a country bumpkin and therefore not exposed to the urban/town religion of Christianity.

Keep going with online word origins and you'll end up like kyupol. ;) Most aren't very well explained nor do they hold up mostly being popular definitions as opposed to well researched ones set in proper historical context.

For example Jews were excluded from “pagan” until after the Christianization of the Roman Empire and even then until after the disappearance of the cosmopolitan pagan culture of the later Roman Empire. Pagans did not hold Jews as fellow pagans. Pagans did not refer to themselves as pagans until after teh Christians in their ignorance coined the term. Pagan as a definition was an ignorant broad brush even applied to Christian heretics. But not to Jews at first.

The reason it was intitially applied to Muslims was that many in Europe believed they were polytheists who worshipped the ancient Greco-roman gods. (As mentioned in the Song of Roland and later Mohammadian characters in Medieval romance.)

Or not. :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 5:16AM, Jan. 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
bravo1102
According to the scholarship about early Christianity (up to Constantine) pagan was a country bumpkin and therefore not exposed to the urban/town religion of Christianity.
No. The etemology I meantioned is researched and belived to be the true origin. I didn't find it online, I only used that well respected online source as a backup so people could see for themselves. And as it says there, the “bumpkin” usage is a matter off people going BACK and creating a meaning for the word, like people do with RPGs when they say “Rocket Powered Grenade-launchers”. The bumpkin meaning was impossible since the word was used long before such a situation was in place. ;)

And besides, we have multitudes of words in every language that do that anyway. :)
-Heathen being the common English one.

The term wasn't used in ignorance, it was used as a distinction- “not a Christian like one of us”. It had nothing to do with polytheism. All that sort of thing is a symptom of the later acceptance of other mainstream religions and people going BACK into the the culture and redefining things in terms of whatever was acceptable in the contemporary culture at the time.

MagickLorelai
A lot of people don't fall into a specific religious belief but still identify with nature-based religions, and use the umbrella term “Pagan” to describe it.
Religious belief is specific. You can call yourself what amounts to “miscellaneous” (the use of Pagan), and that's fine, it's how people will think of you: A person that doesn't know what they believe in.

Perhaps others will just associate you with whatever non-Christian or non-mainstream religion they happen to know of, like saying: think of some strange group that you hate and think are freaks, that's me!
Either way, it's a great strategy to confound people and promote misunderstanding and disharmony between people of all different groups and faiths :)

I've known many people who follow non-mainstream religions and none ever described it as “pagan”. The closest they come to a generalisation was “goddess worshipper”, and the ones who say that usually always mean Artemis/Diana
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:33PM
bravo1102 at 12:02PM, Jan. 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,223
joined: 1-21-2008
I guess primary sources don't matter for the definition of ignorance? It was drawn from the notes accompanying The Song of Roland and Tristan and Isolde I guess I'll have to go to Rutgers and tell Professor J.J. Wilhelm that he's wrong. ;)

RPG means Hand held anti-tank Grenade-launcher (literally in Russian) The rocket propelled grenade was a mneumonic device for a soldier to remember its form and function, just like a BMP Armored Personnel Carrier was called a Battle Machine People or a FROG was a Free rocket Over Ground. You think soldiers are going to bother to remember the Russian language words behind the Acronmyms?

Really not a fair comparison. One is a mneumonic device used to teach soldiers and the other was an “urban legend”. Even if it does show up in the accepted literature on the topic. Guess we'll have to visit a few scholars on the early Christian Church and tell them they're wrong.

Now try to explain Me-109 versus ME BF-109. :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
NickGuy at 12:26PM, Jan. 5, 2009
(online)
posts: 988
joined: 2-22-2007
wow, and here i was assuming that this thread was about witches.




“Kung Fu Komix IS…hardcore martial art action all the way. 8/10” -Harkovast
“Kung Fu Komix is that rare comic that is made with heart and love of the medium, and it delivers” -Zenstrive
“Kung Fu Komix is…so awesome” -threeeyeswurm
“Kung Fu Komix is..told with all the stupid exuberance of the genre it parodies” -The Real Macabre
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:15PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved