So I guess they're wrong when they call themselves Pagan, eh?

Nope.

[EDIT:] I suggest your read some of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. In this, you will find some information of some various pagan symbols we use, and how Christianity transformed these symbols as "evil", when they're really not. Pagan is not a bad word, and usually neopagans that are alive today don't take any offence to it. There are some nut-cases though, as many people misinterpurt religious practices. Druids arn't nudist, Wiccans don't practice self mutalations, etc...I blame this mostly on the english christian monks, who took whatever written records we have...and transformed it into something crazy/mad/stupid/evil. Then they did the same for spreading the oral word around about the ancients. Now neopagans have almost close to nothing about what they practiced in the past, the stories they told, etc.

For an FYI here, I'm not a diehard pagan, I am really loose about it. I am a druid/buddhist, if that will make sense to you

Already aware of that.

This thread has gone to hell.

As if you actually read it.

Anyways,

*kicks Wolfy's AC*

Yeah.

Just thought that some of you may like to know that we fixed the A/C. The timer was bad.

maybe the timer was good, but your AC was bad? EVER THINK OF THAT

No, because that's the thought process of a PAGAN.

lmfao


*chants while rocking back and forth*

I'm casting a spell on you, trouble-doer! I shall turn you into a...wolf. Yes. That's right.

>.>

Oh so your a druid hey? give me a frickin break...

Like I said, I'm barely one at all. I take the beliefs of buddhism and druidism and form it into my own...

As both of these are suprisngly close. But like I said, I'm really loose.

Lol...I find that hilarious. Good luck with your unique blend of buddhism and druidism. Seriously, have fun with that. Ahahahahahahhahaha.

Why thank you! And good luck with...er...whatever you are. :\

And the dictionary. And theologians. I mean... what would people who study the stuff know about it.

'Paganism' has merely been hijacked by the 'New Age' movement and followers of Wicca, to promote their cause as an alternative to Christianity.

'Pagan' was merely used as a pejorative by monotheistic religions to indicate individuals that don't believe in their religion. It isn't an actual 'set of beliefs' of any kind.

Since when do new age religions have an agenda?

Well, perhaps I phrased it badly, 'New Age' clearly isn't a unified movement with clear-cut goals, but the word 'pagan' has certainly been adopted by 'New Age' folks to mean some 'alternative spirituality'.

Be wary, my friend. As showing an expression of opinion sometimes shows a mark of ignorance.

Ok then, how about some historical proof that shows Pagan doesn't mean polytheistic. (Even though that's one of the definitions of the word.) I don't think I'm asking a lot here.

Sure.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/p/pa/paganism.htm

I never hoped to live to see the day, where the DaVinci Code was cited as anywhere near a credible source.

Go look up the wikipedia article about it, I seem to recall it listing a good page or so of inaccuracies, misrepresentations, or outright sophistry.

In fact the biggest fallacy he presents, is the claim that work is based on any sort of credible research or hitherto-unexplored source, and that it is to be taken as factual.

Now, sure, it may accidentally stumble upon some cogent points, such as the common knowledge that Christmas wasn't the date of Jesus' birth, or that certain symbols have persisted or been syncretized by religion, but I would far rather you look up the cites listed by Jon`C et al if you want a decent exploration of such topics.

Also, it would be great folly to pretend that sort of thing is anywhere near unique to Christianity. For starters, look at the Romans, who more or less stole their entire Pantheon [because they had pants gods, like Geoff, the god of biscuits] from the Greeks.

For that matter, there is a fair bit of reverse syncretism with regards to Christianity and other religions. Taking the Roman example again, how about the replacement of Mithra with Christ as their new God of war [and the Xi-Rho shield marking, Xp], without a resultant immediate adoption of the Christian beliefs themselves. It was also very common for pagan religions to adopt Jesus, or particularly Mary, as another deity in their pantheon, or simply rebuild a religion around one of them [as per the Cult of Mary].

Take also South American Catholicism, where a great many indigenous beliefs/celebrations were retained.

For that matter, one could look at Zeus Ammon as a direct adoption of the Egyptian sun god Amun, brought back by Alexander the Great from Siwa. Or that it it vser likely Mercury and Hercules were Odin and Thor in disguise.

Here also, one could look at the evolution of the Buddha in different areas. Much like Christ, he tended to be depicted in a very localized fashion. [in fact I seem to recall one classical mosaic where Christ is shown with a Roman bowl-cut]. However, this becomes particularly noticeable as he approaches China and Japan, passing through areas where earth-mother goddess worship had been in place at various times. The large rotund Buddha seems to have effectively taken the form of the earth-mother goddess [compare with the Venus of Willendorf]. Much like Christianity and the Cult of Mary, Buddha developed a female counterpart known as Kwan-Yin [Guan-Yi sometimes, pardon spelling]. Later on, even, Shinto adopted several aspects of Buddhism as well.

Perhaps it is best to think of religion not as an underpinning, but as an overlay, an organizing and unifying principle, but not necessarily a complete redefinition. As the various barbarian hordes [say them with me: Mongols and Magyars and Vikings, oh my!] of the 900s AD swept across Europe, they almost all at least in part adopted Christianity as they came, to one degree or another. Even a number of the Viking found their mythology so incredibly depressing that they found orthodox Catholicism to be downright exciting. [Beowulf is a fascinating treatment of the shifting from pagan to Christian beleifs in that respect]. Each of them tended to manifest Christianity in a certain polarized culturally influenced fashion. That's how these things happen.

It would be impossible to discuss syncretism without a nod to the Catholic canon of patron saints, 5001 strong and rising:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/patronnf.htm

It would be very surprising, were more than say 20% of those were actual real extant people, least of all Catholic. Catholicism had this very clever way of gaining an in, of common ground with peoples. Very often they would adopt folk heroes, mythological figures, legendary nobility, and turn them into saints. This not only gave converted cultures a feeling of familiarity and connection, with the adoration of the saints they could often go on worshipping their same deities in their slightly veiled form.

So, I guess I am disagreeing with the underlying sentiment that syncretism [adopting and adapting] is somehow a bad thing or dishonest underhanded unoriginal whatever. When in fact, it is endemic and even outright necessary for culture religion philosopy &c to propegate and survive. Think biomass. Adapt to the host for viral transmission of ideas and philosophy.

Not 'bad' or 'dishonest', but certainly evidence for how religion is merely a creation of civilisation, and how absurd it is to believe that any one of them is actually 'true'.

Credible source?



Now he never said any of this based is true. He only said this



I actually ment "Cracking the DaVinci Code" by Simon Cox, which is far more better than Dan Brown's.

I believe this wholeheartedly. I find it plausible that there could be a "god" but I find organized religion and anyone who follows it to be naive as hell. And I don't care who that offends.

Bingo.

Except 'god' and the supernatural is just as much a creation of civilisation as any elaborate mythology is. Useful creation? Possibly. But creation nonetheless.

Interesting mix. So what's your favourite part? Sacraficing someone then sacrificing them again when they're reincarnated?

I realize this.

Ahem.

Compare traditions of various religious with the historical changes to the texts of those religions. Completely different in most religions.

...the alternatives being the Romans, for whom 'pagan' meant 'common people'.

'European Christian' fairly obviously includes Americans too.

Posting this way down here because I'm so late in viewing this thread.

Comments such as this:



Will not be tolerated. The poster should consider themselves warned, and everyone else should remember to try and remain civil.

So... Pagan to Christians meant non-Christians, Pagan to Romans meant 'common people'... wouldn't these essentially be the same people? (Depending on the time period we're talking about.)

You guys keep turning joke threads into religious debates. Crap in a basket we need the religion forum back, NOW.

Now, let me tell you something about your way of thinking. It resmbles the Constatinian way of purging the Pagans from Christian land. Such an act would be considered intolerable by some, but they claim it's for the better good. This is why paganism has been erased or reformed so much that no one is certain weather or sure that they practice what they did.

Yeah it would, and that was the whole point of the word 'pagan', making them look poor and rustic and stupid for not converting to Christianity.

In any case, the context of the word has changed significantly since then, yes?

People, just like religion, things are viewed through perspective. I see differently than you, or you, or you or you!

Pagan to me means someone that believes in a polythestic diety.

Pagan to others might mean "OMG HERETIC LETS KILL DAT N00b!!!!!!!!!1111111oenoneone", or lots of different things.

Just keep in mind it's all about perspective (just like life is).