# What is Paganism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 8, 2009, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730 "2009-05-08T06:49:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/41 "2009-05-08T23:34:00Z")
FWIW the term _pagan_ comes from _pagani_, or “people living in the country”. During the Late Antiquity period of western Europe, the rustics were generally the last to convert to Christianity, notwithstanding the fact that traditional paganism was already banned and severely punishable by the end of the fourth century. When St. Benedict arrived at Monte Cassino to found his monastery, he found an Apollo festival in progress. I understand the word ‘paganism’ as essentially neutral and referring to mostly extinct or little known religious beliefs. I think ‘heathen’ has a much more negative spin. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/42 "2009-05-09T16:42:42Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Seems to me that even believers in established religions still tend to make a hell of a lot of stuff up. IIRC, a good deal of “rapture” theology practiced by many mainstream Christian churches is entirely extra-Biblical, no? > > Anyway, my point is that both “Pagan” and “Christian” are catch-all terms. How wide a net they cast varies, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Not all terms for a given subject have to have precisely equal specificity. Pagan is a broad term. Christian is somewhat less broad. Seventh Day Adventist even less so. On the other hand, “theist” is about as broad a term as you can bring to the table in this discussion, but that doesn’t mean that it’s devoid of meaning. Theist is more specific than pagan because it has one central belief. The belief in God. But theism isn’t a religion either. It’s also a catch-all ‘everyone else’. > [@](#): > > You’re conflating my arguments. The argument that Pagan is not a meaninglessly vague term is separate from the argument that there’s nothing inherently wrong (or particularly noteworthy) about redefining a term of abuse into label of self-identification. Right and my point is you are drawing a false equivalency. The Crucifixion is not the same as reclaiming some ancient derogatory term meaning essentially, ‘superstitious hick’ as **Spectre of Pithecanthropus** points out. > [@](#): > > I’d say it’s a hell of a lot _less_ strange than taking the very object that _killed your god_ as the central symbol of your religion. Not really, one has a central meaning the other is just a term that never had a special meaning for anyone it was applied to. > [@](#): > > No, there weren’t. But so what? People are trying to identify with people who they know nothing about, and make up a bunch of crap that they think these people who never existed, believed. It’s not the same as reclaiming nigger or faggot. > [@](#): > > Sure, just as “Baptist” has a bit more meaning than “Christian.” Yes, it’s more precise, but Baptist and Presbyterian have far more in common than Wicca and Voudoun. > [@](#): > > Indeed, it seems that many people (myself included) are agreeing with you. The disagreement stems from the idea that the worth of the religions covered by the catch-all can be determined by how broad it is. It’s not a matter of the worth of religions. One is a religion, the other is a hodge-podge of beliefs without much in the way of centrality of belief. A vague nature-worship and emphasis on the self can make it a spiritual philosophy, but not a religion. > [@](#): > > Well, yeah, you should. Religious belief, being inherently irrational (and I don’t mean that as a derogative), cannot be put into a hierarchy of value. Worshipping a dead Jew who got nailed to a cross two thousand years ago does not inherently carry any more merit than worshiping dolphins, or faeries, or, for that matter, Marvel comics characters. If you want people to respect your own (Christian, IIRC) beliefs, you have to start out by respecting everyone else’s beliefs, no matter how loopy they appear to you. I disagree. Because by respecting paganism I am respecting a vague and all-encompassing term. You are wrong that there is no way to assign value to religious belief. Religious belief can be evaluated based on the merit of action it inspires in its practitioners. People judge it on that basis on this forum all the time. With all due respect, taking mushrooms and pondering the archaic revival or someone else cutting open a rabbit and studying its entrails and finding out they need to kill their man’s other woman, are hardly the same as a religion that inspires people to go feed starving Ethiopians and teach them to read. People judge Christianity by many criteria relating to the actions of its believers. For instance, I don’t have contempt for ‘Wicca’, which is a religion, or Voudoun, in the same way as I do with Pagan, because they are religions and can be evaluated on their merits. Paganism cannot be evaluated by its merits because the common threads are too vague. Would an environmentalist Randroid be considered a ‘pagan’? > [@](#): > > Of course, there’s plenty of room to criticize _actions._ I won’t make fun of Mormon beliefs, except when those beliefs lead them to actively work against gay rights. I won’t make fun of Catholicism, but I will criticize Catholic leadership when it stonewalls child abuse investigations. I won’t even make fun of Scientology, but I will castigate the hierarchy for being creepy, abusive, occasionally murderous fucks. Eh, I’m a little more free with making fun of all those groups, but in each of those cases there’s something solid to make fun of. Believe me as someone who has loved to go into the woods take some mushrooms and commune with the rocks and the trees, I understand where people who do such things are coming from, I just recognize that pagan (based on experience with those who self-apply it) has no real cohesion. Come to think of it, ‘superstitious hick’, really does describe most self-described pagans rather well. > [@](#): > > I’m not familiar with Qi. Assuming that it’s religious in nature, I don’t doubt that there’s a healthy portion of this boar that would make fun of it. Because there’s a healthy portion of this board that, when it comes to the topic of religion, can be absolute shits. But those people tend to be equal opportunity shits. While there certainly are exceptions, most of the people making fun of any given religion are equally willing to make fun of any religion, period. They’re most certainly not part of your “leftist tolerance-cult.” More’s the pity. This board could really use a hefty dose of religious tolerance, all around. I’m not making fun of anyone’s religion, paganism isn’t a religion. It’s a descriptor that encompasses some religions, in the same way that monotheism is a descriptor that encompasses some religions. Religion requires a few things. 1. A community of faith. You can’t be a religion by yourself. 2. A cohesive core principle that identifies and differentiates the religion. 3. A tradition of practice that supplies aspirational goals to the congregants. > [@](#): > > I’m pretty going into what could be an interesting theological thread, and seeing that every third post is, “You’re an idiot for believing in God.” Agreed, but when I make accusations of leftist tolerance-cult, I am generally referring to those who use, ‘victim’, or ‘oppressor’, to derail a conversation. I am not victimizing anyone by saying that paganism is not a religion. So Paganism is a vague descriptor of belief, but a religion it is not. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/43 "2009-05-09T16:44:16Z")
**Tristan** I responded to your points in my response to Miller, I don’t want you to think I skipped your post. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/44 "2009-05-09T20:10:33Z")
This was an interesting thread until it became the “ **mswas** against **everyone else** ” thread. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/45 "2009-05-10T01:30:55Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > This was an interesting thread until it became the “ **mswas** against **everyone else** ” thread. Oh? Which of the first 8 posts did you find illuminating? It was the couple commenting on whether or not the thread should have been moved wasn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/46 "2009-05-10T03:23:15Z")
You’re so cute when you’re self righteous! ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/47 "2009-05-10T05:26:17Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > You’re so cute when you’re self righteous! As are you darling. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/48 "2009-05-10T11:38:51Z")
> [@Mariemarie](#): > > When I was in 8th grade, I got points taken off a spelling test for capitalizing _pagan_. Private religious school, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/49 "2009-05-10T17:42:28Z")
Semantics aside, I think the truth of the matter is that Paganism _was_ a religion many centuries ago, then it got wiped out so completely by the early Christians that it probably isn’t possible for anyone to be an ‘authentic’ Pagan nowadays- the ideas are pretty much lost. Which doesn’t stop people from trying. If the op is wanting to know what an ‘authentic’ Pagan would think, check out [Shinto](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto). It had the kind of relationship to an ascendant Buddhism that Paganism had to an ascendant Christianity, only instead of wiping out every single hick who didn’t convert, they kind of assimilated the ideas into the Buddhism of the region. So- the ideas of Shinto are still pretty much intact, it is a ‘folk religion’ that dates back to the same time period, and it probably has a lot in common with ‘authentic’ Paganism, even if the specifics are different. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/50 "2009-05-10T20:57:35Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > So- the ideas of Shinto are still pretty much intact, it is a ‘folk religion’ that dates back to the same time period, and it probably has a lot in common with ‘authentic’ Paganism, even if the specifics are different. Only that doesn’t say a lot, as Shinto and the Pagan world are, well worlds apart. As per your Buddism assimilation, the same holds true for the christian church. I think a lot can still be gleaned off the catholic mass rituals. Stuff like incense, how the priests sing the prayers, the ringing of bells but most has indeed just been wiped out. Trying to reconstruct some of it is of course fun and immensly interresting but to go and actually _believe_ in those findings (plus an inordinate amount of made up 20th century Romanticist crap) is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/51 "2009-05-10T21:00:51Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Semantics aside, I think the truth of the matter is that Paganism _was_ a religion many centuries ago, then it got wiped out so completely by the early Christians that it probably isn’t possible for anyone to be an ‘authentic’ Pagan nowadays- the ideas are pretty much lost. Which doesn’t stop people from trying. No that’s factually incorrect. There was no religion called ‘Pagan’ that was wiped out by Christianity. Paganism meant basically any religion that wasn’t Christian. There were many pagan religions that were wiped out by Chrisitanity though. > [@](#): > > If the op is wanting to know what an ‘authentic’ Pagan would think, check out [Shinto](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto). It had the kind of relationship to an ascendant Buddhism that Paganism had to an ascendant Christianity, only instead of wiping out every single hick who didn’t convert, they kind of assimilated the ideas into the Buddhism of the region. So- the ideas of Shinto are still pretty much intact, it is a ‘folk religion’ that dates back to the same time period, and it probably has a lot in common with ‘authentic’ Paganism, even if the specifics are different. The idea that Christians went through the country-side with wanton slaughter is overhyped nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/52 "2009-05-10T21:05:04Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Only that doesn’t say a lot, as Shinto and the Pagan world are, well worlds apart. > As per your Buddism assimilation, the same holds true for the christian church. > I think a lot can still be gleaned off the catholic mass rituals. Stuff like incense, how the priests sing the prayers, the ringing of bells but most has indeed just been wiped out. > Trying to reconstruct some of it is of course fun and immensly interresting but to go and actually _believe_ in those findings (plus an inordinate amount of made up 20th century Romanticist crap) is beyond me. The problem here is the assumption that the ‘pagan’ accretions that Catholicism adopted are adopted from a singular source. That shows a stunning ignorance of basic Christian history. Christianity everywhere it has gone in the world has allowed the past religion to influence the practice of the newly made Christians. In Mexico it’s influenced by Aztec paganism just as in Meditteranean Europe it’s influenced by cults of Apollo and such. This is what gives rise to such ideas as Santeria. The people when they convert are unable to completely divorce themselves from their tribal identity, so the various world paganisms are adopted. If you try and redact Catholic tradition to view some sort of ‘source’ paganism, you’ll create something entirely original that never existed before because it will be a conglomeration of the traditions of MANY tribes. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/53 "2009-05-10T21:53:21Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No that’s factually incorrect. There was no religion called ‘Pagan’ that was wiped out by Christianity. Paganism meant basically any religion that wasn’t Christian. There were many pagan religions that were wiped out by Chrisitanity though. Well, I did say ‘semantics aside’. We _could_ argue about what the word ‘pagan’ is referring to, if anything. I am using it in the way the historian Gibbon used it, to refer to ‘the religion of Numa’ and what that became in ancient Rome, and specifically the official religion of that state (plus the unofficial but similar associated practices of the commonfolk). It really was a particular religion that really was wiped out. Read that chapter in ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’ and argue this. But if the point is that they didn’t refer to themselves as ‘Pagan’, I can concede that point. I can also concede that ‘pagan’ can have the broader connotation that you have been promoting, namely ‘non-Christian polytheisms’ or ‘not people-of-the-book’. Sure, it gets used that way. And sure, other religions besides the one I’m referring to were wiped out by the Christians. _I’m_ pointing out that there are credible sources who use ‘Pagan’ to refer to a decently well-defined, particular individual religion. > [@](#): > > The idea that Christians went through the country-side with wanton slaughter is overhyped nonsense. Perhaps so. But again, there was a particular religion which Gibbon refers to as ‘Paganism’ which was pretty much scrubbed out of the world entirely. It was done by legal means as well as through killing. Also, Christian missionaries and others were effective in convincing many that this religion wasn’t worth their time, to give them some credit. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/54 "2009-05-10T22:00:33Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Only that doesn’t say a lot, as Shinto and the Pagan world are, well worlds apart. > As per your Buddism assimilation, the same holds true for the christian church. > I think a lot can still be gleaned off the catholic mass rituals. Stuff like incense, how the priests sing the prayers, the ringing of bells but most has indeed just been wiped out. > Trying to reconstruct some of it is of course fun and immensly interresting but to go and actually _believe_ in those findings (plus an inordinate amount of made up 20th century Romanticist crap) is beyond me. I couldn’t calibrate exactly how good an analogy Shinto is to (what I’m referring to as) Paganism. They’re both old enough to pre-date a lot of civilization itself, they seem to have arisen from the same kind processes… in my mind, they are the ‘same kind of thing’. This is the SDMB though, so maybe this is a case where you’re fighting my ignorance… ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2009, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/55 "2009-05-10T23:15:08Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Well, I did say ‘semantics aside’. We _could_ argue about what the word ‘pagan’ is referring to, if anything. I am using it in the way the historian Gibbon used it, to refer to ‘the religion of Numa’ and what that became in ancient Rome, and specifically the official religion of that state (plus the unofficial but similar associated practices of the commonfolk). It really was a particular religion that really was wiped out. Read that chapter in ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire’ and argue this. You aren’t putting semantics aside, you are trying to fit one semantic redefinition. The religion of Numa is but one paganism that the church resisted, and not all of the syncretized Catholic rituals stem from that one source. > [@](#): > > But if the point is that they didn’t refer to themselves as ‘Pagan’, I can concede that point. I can also concede that ‘pagan’ can have the broader connotation that you have been promoting, namely ‘non-Christian polytheisms’ or ‘not people-of-the-book’. Sure, it gets used that way. There is of course the Neo-Pagan thread, which is what most people are referring to, but even then there is no real commonality of belief. For something to be a religion there has to be an identifiable community of faith. > [@](#): > > And sure, other religions besides the one I’m referring to were wiped out by the Christians. _I’m_ pointing out that there are credible sources who use ‘Pagan’ to refer to a decently well-defined, particular individual religion. In a particular context. Pagan works to describe the religion of Numa as you so put it, but that doesn’t mean that it is not also broader, only that Gibbon limited his context. And while I am by no means a scholar on this, isn’t Gibbon version widely discredited at this point? I am not qualified to argue this point, but I have often heard Gibbon referred to contentiously when regarding this period. > [@](#): > > Perhaps so. But again, there was a particular religion which Gibbon refers to as ‘Paganism’ which was pretty much scrubbed out of the world entirely. It was done by legal means as well as through killing. Also, Christian missionaries and others were effective in convincing many that this religion wasn’t worth their time, to give them some credit. Right, but Gibbon was writing about something specific, there was no reason for him to refer more broadly to something else. Yes Christianity was spread by the sword throughout history, but there were European paganisms that have survived two-thousand years later, so the idea of some complete and comprehensive slaughter of pagans seems a bit overwrought. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/56 "2009-05-11T06:07:29Z")
Since it’s my post that people are probably referring to, I will try to expand a bit for the benefit of the OP. Usually when someone (in particular a Westerner) refers to themself as a Pagan or their religion as Paganism, what they are referring to - perhaps more specifically called Neopaganism - is any one of a complex of similar but different, and in some cases vaguely defined, religious beliefs/practices/traditions, largely compounded of reconstructions of the assorted pre-Christian European traditions along with ideas borrowed from various hands and plenty that has developed in modern times. A good proportion of Neopagans have certain things in common - some sort of polytheism or belief in immanent deity, solar festivals, an emphasis on nature, ecology, balance, and positive sexuality, and often some sort of belief in magic - but it’s impossible to make definitive statements. Nevertheless we often worship together, accepting each other’s practices when they don’t harshly conflict with our own beliefs. The argument at this point seems to be whether Neopaganism is “a religion,” however meant, and the disagreement seems to be turning around what we mean by “a religion.” I refer to it as my religion, in the sense that it’s the most convenient label for the sum of my religious beliefs (i.e. my beliefs in regard to matters of faith and the spirit). But I and most Neopagans readily acknowledge that Neopaganism is not “a” religion in the same way as Roman Catholicism, for example, according to the criteria that **mswas** set out above. I suppose you could call it a faith community, if you wanted to - we routinely find each other and worship together, according to the consensuses on practice that we arrive at together. Actually, the vagueness of the label is one reason I like it, since I don’t practise a specific tradition. I used to identify as Wiccan but don’t any longer. When pressed to define myself further, I usually identify as an eclectic Neopagan influenced by Wiccan, Reclaiming, and Radical Faerie traditions. Again, this is not “a religion” in **mswas** ’s sense. But it’s “my religion” in the sense that it’s how I describe my religious beliefs. (I recognize here that there are lots of people on this board who regard my religious beliefs as silly because they’re religious or supernatural in nature, and that’s fine. I certainly don’t expect or wish you to believe what I believe - hell, I don’t expect the person sitting next to me in circle to believe what I believe - nor is what I believe necessarily set in stone.) ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/57 "2009-05-11T08:52:23Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The problem here is the assumption that the ‘pagan’ accretions that Catholicism adopted are adopted from a singular source. That shows a stunning ignorance of basic Christian history. Christianity everywhere it has gone in the world has allowed the past religion to influence the practice of the newly made Christians. In Mexico it’s influenced by Aztec paganism just as in Meditteranean Europe it’s influenced by cults of Apollo and such. This is what gives rise to such ideas as Santeria. The people when they convert are unable to completely divorce themselves from their tribal identity, so the various world paganisms are adopted. If you try and redact Catholic tradition to view some sort of ‘source’ paganism, you’ll create something entirely original that never existed before because it will be a conglomeration of the traditions of MANY tribes. Well yes, if you want to conflate ‘Pagan’ to mean everything but the Abrahamics. Usually ‘pagan’ refers to the old European religions; celtic, germanic, greek.. that were still somewhat alive when the word came in use. For the other religions we later came more in contact with, I believe the word was\* heathen\*. Same difference, maybe, as both words mean nearly the same. Country-peasant vs Heath-dweller. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/58 "2009-05-11T13:20:40Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Well yes, if you want to conflate ‘Pagan’ to mean everything but the Abrahamics. I didn’t invent that usage. > [@](#): > > Usually ‘pagan’ refers to the old European religions; celtic, germanic, greek.. that were still somewhat alive when the word came in use. According to whom? > [@](#): > > For the other religions we later came more in contact with, I believe the word was\* heathen\*. The two words were not mutually exclusive. Both words can apply to the same person. > [@](#): > > Same difference, maybe, as both words mean nearly the same. Country-peasant vs Heath-dweller. Yeah, basically. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/59 "2009-05-11T13:34:13Z")
**matt\_mcl** If the person next to you in a circle doesn’t share your beliefs then what purpose is there in worshipping with them? Genuinely curious and not challenging you. To make it more personal, I don’t engage in worship of that kind generally, I mean I participate in prayer circles, but I don’t have any ‘community of faith’ that I belong to. I belong to a quasi-religious organization, but it’s not a religion in and of itself, it only has religious overtones. I’ve participated in large Ohming circles, meditations groups and prayer circles with people of various faiths, but I don’t consider that a community of faith in the sense that there is a central driving impulse in the way there is for people who attend the same mosque, church or synagogue. Like what brings Jews together, or various flavors of Christian denominations is a belief in the same thing. Yes there is always debate, but there is a centrality of belief that everyone agrees on and to some degree are capable of articulating. When I say Christian denominations I mean intra-denominational, you know Presbyterians and other Presbyterians, not inter-denominational like Presbyterians and Catholics. I’ve run around in Neo-Pagan circles in my time amongst underground music scenes. They proliferate amongst hippies, punks, goths and trancers. So I’ve definitely participated in different rituals and such, but I didn’t feel like we were a ‘community of faith’ as such when we did it. So what I am trying to figure out is why you might feel a sense of community of faith but I didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2009, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/60 "2009-05-11T14:49:26Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **matt\_mcl** If the person next to you in a circle doesn’t share your beliefs then what purpose is there in worshipping with them? Genuinely curious and not challenging you. First, I think pretty much any religious organization has people in it who believe different things; it’s a matter of degree more than kind. My parents’ church (a mainstream Protestant denomination) has people who vary pretty widely in belief, ranging from pretty seriously Bible-believing folks (like my dad) to people with much vaguer Jesus-was-a-pretty-cool-dude types (like my mom), without anyone much regarding the others as infidels. As with that (although of course we’re much looser in the commonalities), the point is not so much to hang out with people who believe the same things you do, but to take part in a common observance and have community. It can just be good, enriching, to get together with people and do a good old working for the Winter Solstice or what have you. (Most of us observe eight solar festivals - the Solstices, Equinoxes, and cross-quarter days - and they mean similar things to most of us.) Maybe the woman next to me is Ásatrú and worships Norse deities when she’s by herself or with her more intimate circle, and the guy next to me is a Greek reconstructionist. As long as we get along and the liturgy doesn’t step on anyone’s toes, it’s all good. And in fact a lot of us find it enriching to attend public workings led by traditions different from our own. If there is a ritual of a sort you just can’t work with, usually you will know that ahead of time and can simply not attend. I’m speaking here of public rituals, by the way, which are generally pretty general in terms of liturgy so as to accommodate many people. Others practise, or additionally practise, in smaller, more private groups whose work is more specific to their own tradition. I practise with a Reclaiming Tradition group and attend Radical Faeries gatherings, besides small personal rituals by myself or with close friends. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730.md?page=4)