Wiccanism as a religion [Merged]

Originally posted by inimalist
really, I'm most familiar with its Victorian usage, which hearkens back to Greek pantheons and uninhibited sexual promiscuity...

As you said, language is a living thing. A lot of words have very loose or very altered meanings from what they meant at one time. Have you ever gone to a matinee in the morning?

Actually that's a good example of the way the words change. Matinee means "that which fills morning" in French. Rich francophiles (which was just about everyone at one time) who tended to stay up all hours of the night and sleep through the morning started using the word to refer to what they did in what was the afternoon for everyone else. The word seeped into the rest of the culture and no means exactly what it doesn't literally mean.

Neo-pagans are following a similar pattern with respect to the word pagan. If they use it to refer to themselves eventually that is exactly what it will mean.

Then again you already know that sort of thing, but I'm not erasing all that text now.

Originally posted by inimalist
then again, the only Victorian literature I'm familiar with is Sacher-Masoch, lol

Kinky, very kinky.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, in other words, you are reclaiming a previously negative word for self identification so that people in society can get a feel for who you are and what you believe?

Originally posted by jalek moye
yup basically, like lots of other groups do. I don't like claiming a specific faith since i dont exactly follow the tradions and beliefs of one. The one closest to it would be asatru. But i'd rather just use the umbrella term neo-pagan.

do you feel these various types of "paganism" are losing their individual flavors?

has identifying a huge spectrum of practices as "Pagan" made them all more similar? like, are what would have been Norse traditions bleeding into south american shamanism?

There is a similar trend in global youth culture, given the internet and all that, where local communities are becoming more hegemonic with a larger global world. ie, kids from china and america are becoming more alike. Anything like that, from your perspective, in paganism?

(lol, spellcheck says china is ok, but america is not... even the internet is jingoistic)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
As you said, language is a living thing. A lot of words have very loose or very altered meanings from what they meant at one time. Have you ever gone to a matinee in the morning?

Actually that's a good example of the way the words change. Matinee means "that which fills morning" in French. Rich francophiles (which was just about everyone at one time) who tended to stay up all hours of the night and sleep through the morning started using the word to refer to what they did in what was the afternoon for everyone else. The word seeped into the rest of the culture and no means exactly what it doesn't literally mean.

argh, could you define "francophile". I'm a Canadian, so it rings too close to "francophone" for me to really understand.

I'm assuming "someone who loves french culture"?

cool example 🙂

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Neo-pagans are following a similar pattern with respect to the word pagan. If they use it to refer to themselves eventually that is exactly what it will mean.

maybe, are you familiar with the atrocious failure of the term "brights"? (though, I would hardly consider "rationalists" to be a group with these types of identity issues)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then again you already know that sort of thing, but I'm not erasing all that text now.

i hate typing something really impressive up, only to realize the person above me said it in a much clearer way, or that I am just echoing common sense.

lol, half the time I post I have to question my own relevance.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Kinky, very kinky.

it actually surprised me when it came up in Venus in Pelts. Here I was thinking I knew all the cool words to call promiscuous women.

prior to that I thought it was just a catch all for animism/naturalism

Originally posted by inimalist
do you feel these various types of "paganism" are losing their individual flavors?

has identifying a huge spectrum of practices as "Pagan" made them all more similar? like, are what would have been Norse traditions bleeding into south american shamanism?

There is a similar trend in global youth culture, given the internet and all that, where local communities are becoming more hegemonic with a larger global world. ie, kids from china and america are becoming more alike. Anything like that, from your perspective, in paganism?

(lol, spellcheck says china is ok, but america is not... even the internet is jingoistic)

Originally posted by jalek moye
people dont use it to refer to that any more. becuse of wide spread knowledge of other religions. now it mostly refers to wicca, druidism, shamanism, asatru, kemetic othodox. etc

Just look that the top definitions from Google Pagan

Originally posted by Da Pittman
And what people would that be?

Just look that the top definitions from Google Pagan

Originally posted by jalek moye
to some extent I do see that, i see certain poractices of certain faiths bleeding into others. ii kind of think that in alot of cases the small numbers has us so glad to see another type of pagan that they slowly adopt aspects of one another.

do you think, given maybe 100 years, this "paganism" will have formed into a more formal set of practices and beliefs, combining influences from all over the "pagan" world?

like, early Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc, started in a similar fashion, yet had some point where the beliefs were formalized (Hinduism to a lesser extent, maybe a bad choice on my part...) into one coherent system.

Do you see that happening? are there any formal "pagan" institutional bodies that try to determine what is or isn't true with the faith?

I've always liked the individualistic nature of "new age" stuff, I'm just wondering if that is a by-product of it being new, on the margins of society, or unpopular, or if it really was an intrinsic part of the beliefs.

Originally posted by jalek moye
one of those definitons is the one most used now adays. The about the local religions of the pre christian/muslim eras. The modern use of the word only includes certain groups of faith not just any thats not a abrahamic one. Becuase people know more about other religions then they use to, or atleast have heard of more.

Originally posted by inimalist
do you think, given maybe 100 years, this "paganism" will have formed into a more formal set of practices and beliefs, combining influences from all over the "pagan" world?

like, early Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc, started in a similar fashion, yet had some point where the beliefs were formalized (Hinduism to a lesser extent, maybe a bad choice on my part...) into one coherent system.

Do you see that happening? are there any formal "pagan" institutional bodies that try to determine what is or isn't true with the faith?

I've always liked the individualistic nature of "new age" stuff, I'm just wondering if that is a by-product of it being new, on the margins of society, or unpopular, or if it really was an intrinsic part of the beliefs.

But like i said i could see Wicca becoming alot more formalized, and the neo-pagan faiths becoming more merged. The druids and the shamans will end up still the same but they will be influenced and influence the others. IMO

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I have no idea what you are saying, where do you get your information that they word pagan is used in the manner that you are saying when almost every reference refers to pagan as someone that doesn't believe in your (meaning the god that you believe in) god. A Muslim will can call a Christan a pagan because they don't believe in their god and the Christan can do the same and Wicca can call a Druid a pagan as well.

Originally posted by jalek moye
No a muslim wouldn't call a christian pagan becuase Islam has a different word for infidels, and they actually worship the same god just with different prophets. Christan kind of moved on from the word . Wiccans and druids consider themselves pagan so no they wouldn't.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Just because they "don't" doesn't mean they can't because the meaning is that one that doesn't believe in your god. Does the word have multiple meanings yes, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is referring to a person that doesn't believe in your god.

Originally posted by inimalist
argh, could you define "francophile". I'm a Canadian, so it rings too close to "francophone" for me to really understand.

I'm assuming "someone who loves french culture"?

cool example 🙂

Yup. Loves french culture.

Originally posted by inimalist
maybe, are you familiar with the atrocious failure of the term "brights"? (though, I would hardly consider "rationalists" to be a group with these types of identity issues)

Never heard that term before.

Originally posted by jalek moye
yea and gay means happy, but thats not the way it it ussally used. Plenty of words have lesser used meanings. The definitions havnt changed, but the way you use has fallen out of modern day use.

Now you are right that the word pagan is not as commonly used as it was but I'm sure that most refer it to those not of the Christan, Muslim or Jewish faith. Most would probably say Wicca or Witchcraft, Satanism or those that believe in "spirits" and worship them.

Originally posted by Da Pittman

Now you are right that the word pagan is not as commonly used as it was but I'm sure that most refer it to those not of the Christan, Muslim or Jewish faith. Most would probably say Wicca or Witchcraft, Satanism or those that believe in "spirits" and worship them.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Never heard that term before.

Dawkins thought he was going to do something revolutionary, and coined the term "brights" as a form of identity politics for those who are rational atheists.

It failed terribly, not the least because one would have to be the most machismo gentleman to say they were a "bright" and not feel instantly emasculated. The fact that it is condescending to everyone else on its face would be another reason. Then that whole thing about self-identifying and atheism that Sam Harris talked about. God, just thinking about it now, for someone who called himself a "bright", it is enormously stupid.

It was really just ego stroking on his part, because he coined the term "meme" (which meant nothing until Blackmore, ie: Dawkins only coined the term, he did nothing with it) he thought he would be specifically good at determining what would mesh with society. Admittedly trying to follow the homosexual community and their usage of "gay", he wanted to further become the pope of intellectuals everywhere and be the one who named the group they would all self identify with.

It is worth noting that Sue Blackmore, who I would consider the preeminent scholar of memes today, was pretty sure the name would fail, and iirc, totally was against that form of self-identification (I'm sure a google search could confirm that, but I will assume I am correct)

Originally posted by jalek moye
the second part people would say pagan. (not sure about satanism thouhg, that seems like it would be with the abrahamics) but people wouldnt say bhuddists, hindus, taoists, etc are pagans. Which is why i said that it is more then just not one of the abrahamic religions.

Many Christan websites and stuff that I have read refer to those not of the Christan faith as pagan or a pagan society so I'm pretty sure they are not just referring to Wicca and Druids.

well from my experiance(which before you say anything, happens to be alot) christians tend to not consider everyone pagan. They tend to differeniate the different groups of non christians/jews.

Originally posted by jalek moye
well from my experiance(which before you say anything, happens to be alot) christians tend to not consider everyone pagan. They tend to differeniate the different groups of non christians/jews.

You keep making general sweeping statements but please show me where something says that one not of the Christan faith is not a pagan? I have seen number of Wicca sites that refer to your definition but in general of what I have read and talked to with Christians most would classify those not of their faith to be pagan.