 |
 |
On 22 March 2010 07:40, mandrake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear All > > Personally I'm happy to identify myself as a pagan - a new religion created > in the > classical world from Greek, Babylonian and Egyptian sources - > > as such I think Hinduism is something else, perhaps even as a religion, its > origins are different and a little older > circa 6th century bce? > > You're right that some UK pagans have problems with the term - > partly I think because of the Xtain coinage and the idea that its _maybe_ > pejorative > (Some supposed expert commentators have probably confused the community on > that . . . ). > Personally I think that some pagans are just being bloody minded when they > refuse to get on board and take advantage of a name with a long, noble > history . . . it makes it awkward when it comes to committees and censuses > etc. > We use it here in our dealings with local Council of Faiths - > (although there have been grumblings about the term "faith" -) > where pagans are definitely a local religious minority but not by any means > the smallest > (some pagans also object to term "religion"). > that definition of pagan I can get behind, (post-modern classicism again) tho' the Hellenistic synthesis didn't spring into being from nothing. When it comes to origins the Minoans alone go back to 6000 BC, and plenty of later Hellenes were disillusioned with state cults and consciously reviving/reforming the old traditions (as were the earlier Orphics etc.). There's also plenty of Indian influences on the old 'Western' trad, and vice versa. So if pagan=polytheist with Western spin, India is in there as far as I can see. More care is needed with th ATRs, as Congo was converted to Christianity before the slave trade and the adoption of Saints as camouflage in Voodoo etc. Nevertheless, we've more chance of empathising with the ATRs by comparison with Classical paganism than with Cabala-ha-ha or Wicca. Indeed, we've more chance of understanding and revivifying many elements of Western magic that way (plus a hefty dose of Astrology). On a personal note incidentally I do describe myself as pagan on censuses and medical forms etc., I just don't much identify with the neos and the reverse is also true (try finding a decent academic book on Greco-Roman magic in Glastonbury!) The pejorative sense is unlikely to worry me, I've been called worse things and relished them. Naturally I am also 'religious', and can't imagine goetia without religious elements. ALWays Jake > > bb/93 > > Mogg > >> On 21 March 2010 21:52, Matthew Citrullo <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> LOL - reminds me of the occasion someone asked what the largest pagan >>>> grouping in the UK was, folks were umming and ahing over neo-Celtic, >>>> Wotanist et al, until someone perceptively pointed out it was the >>>> Hindus. >>>> >>> >>> Someone asked the Hindus what they think about that? >>> >>> Matt >>> >> >> or Voodoo devotees come to that, pagan isn't a universally embraced >> term. Semantics are knotty, medieval Moslems considered Christians >> polytheists - not to mention some Protestant views of Catholicism... >> >> Come to that, neo-pagan isn't exactly how I'd describe myself. >> >> >> >