You think I'd know the etymology of the word I classify myself as... [long]

[nashiitashii]

I just got into an argument with someone about the word I use to classify myself as far as religion goes: Pagan. Having a conversation with an acquaintance online, he goes to tell me that I’m using the “incorrect term” to classify myself as and should be using the term “non-traditional Wicca” instead. Well, for starters, I don’t use the word “Wicca” because I don’t practice the craft. I got into a discussion about the etymological origin of the word with him, and he is trying to shove some bullshit down my throat about it being a term that the Christian church had originated… I get him proof, multiple times even, from different sources and he still tries to tell me I’m wrong because the sources happen to be what I can pull off of dictionaries and encyclopedias and an etymological newsletter I found on the internet. This is the link that got him to shut up about it for five minutes:

From Richard W. Jordan:

I am a pastor wondering about the etymology of the word pagan. One church member has told me that I should not use the word (old-fashioned, offensive, etc.). My dictionary says the word comes from the Latan paganus for peasant. This is curious to me, how a word describing a common poor person was transformed into a word that means a non-believer. Do you have any insights on this?

Well, of course we do. That’s why you should always Take Our Word For It.

The literal meaning of the Latin paganus is “villager” or “rustic” (from pagus “rural district”). It was once thought its meaning of “non-Christian, heathen” developed because the ancient idolatrous religion persisted in the rural districts long after Christianity had been generally accepted in the towns and cities of the Roman Empire. While it may indeed be true that the older Roman religions lingered in remote hamlets, this is not the word’s true origin.

A secondary meaning of paganus was “civilian”. Early Christian authors such as Tertullian and Saint Augustine called themselves milites Christi, “soldiers of Christ”. It therefore became natural to refer to those who were neither Christian nor Jewish as pagani, “civilians”.

He apologized for the nitpicking over a detail that was false and then told me that he still thought that my sources aren’t credible, misspelling half of the words he types as he goes. [Spelling errors are a huge pet peeve of mine, especially when they are really easily spelled, everyday words. Also, excuse the grammar; I know there’s soem funny sentence structure in here…] He then decides to start telling me that his skepticism comes from the fact that he’s Agnostic and that a “proper Agnostic questions anything put forth until it is absolutely proven,” then goes on to tell me that my religion is less valid than the older religions by virtue that the incarnation hasn’t been around as long and also because it varies so greatly from person to person. Being a former Agnostic, I find his little speech to be quite offending because he is essentially telling me everything I’ve ever believed in is wrong and the “right way” to go about doing things. *This is the exact reason why I never called myself a Lutheran even though I was raised to be such. *I find it somewhat evil to tell someone what they “have” to believe in. It’s each person’s decision, and I just had a revelation: I’m really damned testy today because I’m sick.
Thanks for listening to me bitch for a few minutes…

[Dragonblink]

I’m kind of in the same position as you, considering myself Pagan and not Wiccan, and I get the same kind of crap sometimes. People get so wound up over words. I’ve also gotten argued at (I do my best not to argue back) over my description of my coven as “a coven of solitaries,” which it is. We’re all in college, we’re scattered around Southern California, and we practice together when we can but we work just as well on our own. “That’s not a coven, that’s a circle!” I’ve been told. Or a covenant. Or just a group.

What’s the big deal anyways? Religious terms are rarely well-defined because you can’t rigidly define matters of faith. Especially in a highly individual path such as Paganism.

Oh, and if in his opinion your religion is less valid because it hasn’t been around as long, does that mean Confucianism is more valid than Judaism, which is more valid than Christianity, which is more valid than Islam, etc etc etc? What a load of crap. I think he has this image in his head that Wicca and Paganism are cults.

[iampunha]

*Originally posted by Mirrored Indigo Shadows *
He apologized for the nitpicking over a detail that was false and then told me that he still thought that my sources aren’t credible, misspelling half of the words he types as he goes.

Did he bother to say why he didn’t think your sources credible?

[Spelling errors are a huge pet peeve of mine, especially when they are really easily spelled, everyday words. Also, excuse the grammar; I know there’s soem funny sentence structure in here…]

Bolding mine:D

He then decides to start telling me that his skepticism comes from the fact that he’s Agnostic and that a “proper Agnostic questions anything put forth until it is absolutely proven,”

Um, sure. Whatever he wants to tell himself to make himself superior.

Has he finally accepted that 1+1=2, except for higher values of 1?

then goes on to tell me that my religion is less valid than the older religions by virtue that the incarnation hasn’t been around as long

So age is the sole arbiter of validity? Good to know that this makes Christianity less valid than Judaism, and Judaism less valid than Buddhism (I think; my knowledge of history is really bad).

and also because it varies so greatly from person to person.

As is the case with Agnosticism, Christianity, Wicca, etc.