# 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:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**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 11, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/61 "2009-05-11T15:29:26Z")
Maybe this conversation is moving off in different directions, but here is my response anyway 🙂 > [@mswas](#): > > 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. Arguing about whether or not something is semantics is meta-semantics :rolleyes: I’ll try not to go there if you do the same, deal? But ok, I don’t have a desire to control the meaning of the word ‘Pagan’ for everyone else. I don’t have strong opinions about syncretized rituals and the variety of their sources, either. I will say that ‘the religion of Numa’ that I’m talking about was strictly outlawed, along with every other non-Catholic religion whereas Shinto was never outlawed AFAIK, and so there is that much less guesswork in viewing ‘source shinto’. > [@](#): > > 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. Frankly I know hardly anything at all about Neo-Pagans. Let’s see, they like to party naked? That’s the extent of my knowledge of neo-pagans, or modern pagans, be it a religion or a strictly non-religious ‘fuzzy demographic’ or whatever. I’m pretty ignorant of all that, however… > [@](#): > > 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. This isn’t a terrible disagreement then. Yah, that context. I guess I’m speaking of the ‘original’ Paganism. The context is The Roman Empire, so ‘paganisms’ outside of that won’t fit, though there was a bit of overlap across formal national boundaries, which themselves changed quite a lot in the period we’re (or maybe just I am) discussing. > [@](#): > > 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. Just to rope in a few points here… as I see it, this original paganism wasn’t a comprehensive worldview or system of thought in the way people think of religions nowadays. There wasn’t really a uniform moral code- an action that gets you rewarded in one story leaves you fucked in the next. A lot of it wasn’t credible- I don’t think people ‘believed’ the text of the stories anyway, in the way people may get excited about the literal truth of a specific message. And it was a jumble- a town might have a temple to Isis or another Egyptian or Greek god, and so it would be ‘different’ religions, and yet all the same thing too. But people didn’t seem to give it much thought, they just kind of accepted the rituals and took the rest as appropriate ‘religious mystery’ or something. Eventually there was much consensus that the whole mess was just unsatisfactory. But it had been the state religion for over a thousand years, and who knows how long it had been around before that. Once the emperors got excited enough about Christianity to change the state religion and outlaw all others, Christianity became something of a political device. ‘Paganism’ was the old, rival religion and it was specifically targeted, kind of with the flavor of one of the old Roman purges, you know, one group would simply kill off an entire rival family to solidify their position… Anyway. I can’t say whether or not it was a matter of wholesale slaughter or how credible Gibbon is. Gibbon certainly had access to a mountain of material and couldn’t be wrong about everything, though he seems a little culturally biased. I don’t think he is just inventing the purge of ‘paganism’ though. Consider- there are more Roman ruins in Turkey today than there are in Italy, France, etc. Most of the best ancient architecture had ‘pagan’ connotations, and the Christians went on a rampage tearing it down during the period I’m talking about. Only so many ‘western’ examples remain. On this topic… destroying buildings gets people’s attention in the cities, but the country-folk may be less influenced by the authorities and slower to change their beliefs. I bet it was the country-dwellers who were the last to give up their old ‘religion’. Interestingly, it was the emperor’s particular brand of Catholicism which was imposed on everyone- the controversies of the time were all settled by decree. There is a fair chance the authentic Christianity was wiped out during this political process. Heh. It’s not like this is a personal mission of mine or anything, I’m just trying to give a good answer. Are the neo-pagans still partying naked?? ---
**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, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/62 "2009-05-11T20:15:33Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I didn’t invent that usage. Well, you’re the first I hear it from. I’ve never heard the Meso-Americans f.i. refered to as Pagans. Heathens, yes. And I think the distinction matters. ‘Pagan’ is still in modern use, not as a derogatory term but just to denote the ‘Pre-Christan religions of Europe’. It is mainly those religions _Neo_-Pagans look to revive (plus some new agey stuff), not a blood feast on the steps of a temple, ripping out the hearts of the vanquished. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/63 "2009-05-12T00:34:19Z")
When I hear the word “pagan”–in a non-neo context–the connotation that comes to mind is not a pejorative meaning “rustic” but rather _taboo_. There’s a sense that paganism involves an earthy exuberance in its rituals, a lack of sexual inhibition, garish imagery, indulgence in alcohol or drugs, and an interest in tapping into the forces of the occult. The leaders of conventional religion seems ever on guard against the underlying threat that paganism may lure young people into backsliding into it with all its temptations. It’s portrayed as tantamount to Satanism, which is precisely why it’s attractive to the baser, hedonistic instincts. In reality, I think neo-pagans are primarily interested in being spiritual yet not-christian and paganesque models, however archaic, were available, just as Eastern religions were widely embraced in the 60s, them being an even more readily available model that was an alternative to Christianity. I would say that Paganism seem appears to have had more staying power than the latter because it’s something they can call their own rather than something borrowed from a more blatantly foreign culture. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/64 "2009-05-12T01:10:08Z")
**sqweels** I see Yoga schools and Buddhist meditation classes everywhere, so I don’t know what lack of staying power you are referring to. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/65 "2009-05-13T06:20:14Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **sqweels** I see Yoga schools and Buddhist meditation classes everywhere, so I don’t know what lack of staying power you are referring to. Well I certainly could be wrong about that, but I get the impression that a full-blown embrace of Eastern religions was more popular in the 60s and 70s than today. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/66 "2009-05-14T02:11:45Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > Well I certainly could be wrong about that, but I get the impression that a full-blown embrace of Eastern religions was more popular in the 60s and 70s than today. Well it was newer and more dramatized, but I think it’s more pervasive as a regular part of our culture now. The West has had many periods where it looked toward the East and there was an explosion in the occult/mysticism stuff. Happened back in the teens/twenties also. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730/67 "2009-05-14T13:37:44Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > Why? The OP is looking for information, not a debate. Question answered? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-paganism/495730.md?page=3)