On 22 March 2010 09:00, Jez <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2010, at 08:42, mandrake wrote:
>
>> Jez - i understand where you are coming from with the
>> silliness/crassness of some media pagans -
>> I just think if you keep saying the right thing the message will get there
>> in the end
>> and the door will close on the carpet baggers . . . ??
>
>
> Actually, I don't think the battle is worth fighting - leave the term to the
> sillies and the media and reclaim all the other names specific to each
> religion.
>
> Would you expect a Hindu to say, 'I am a pagan, and the type of pagan I am
> is Hindu'? No. So why would I want to say 'I am a pagan and the type of
> pagan I am is heathen'.
>
> I'll stick with being accurate.
as regards accuracy, heathen appears to be simply a Germanic way of
saying pagan.
Both mean 'rural', non-Abrahamic beliefs. Celtic, Germanic or
Hellenistic traditions are equally heathen and pagan - though it is
not exclusive to them. The terms are indistinguishable in meaning
outside of recent redefinition by groups that the outside world
doesn't distinguish anyway. As far as many folks are concerned we're
all ruddy New Agers, like it or not! ;)
Also regarding accuracy, I am a goetic magician in the correct sense
of the term, but the majority of modern magicians don't use it that
way, and few others are likely to care. But for me being a very vocal
writer on a mission, the chances are this would never change - in fact
they remain fairly slight. A sense of humour and perspective while
those who have any interest are persuaded remains essential, as does
some sense of community and demographic relevance.
In short, pagan is at least a visible term which serves some purpose
in the wider world.
|