Religious Misconceptions!

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

hmm, let me think about that idea. Another discussion on what a pagan is....

Another....


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I were a pagan,
ya ba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a pagan.
I wouldn't have to be evil.
ya ba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dum.
If I were a biddy biddy pag-,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle -an.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

If I were a pagan,
ya ba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dum.
All day long I'd biddy biddy bum.
If I were a pagan.
I wouldn't have to be evil.
ya ba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dum.
If I were a biddy biddy pag-,
Yidle-diddle-didle-didle -an.

That's got a good beat.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

I honestly don't understand how a pagan could not find nature sacred. It's inherent in paganism. Especially considering the emphasis on holy spirits and the Deities thereof. I can't really consider someone a pagan if they do not respect or see sacredness in nature. How can you truly respect the Mother Of The Earth if you will not respect her domain or poison the Father Of The Sky's dominion?

For me much of my practice is defined against Hellenic beliefs which did not see the earth as sacred in the sense that most modern neo-pagan practices do. Respected yes, but that does not make it sacred. From a shamanic aspect the earth is my mother by that to does not make it sacred either for I know she will try to kill just as quickly as support life. To me many neo-pagans use sacred in the sense that nature is safe and not harmful which is a very romantic perspective upon things. It's using the rose colored lenses to look upon things and see it not as it is.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

To me many neo-pagans use sacred in the sense that nature is safe and not harmful which is a very romantic perspective upon things. It's using the rose colored lenses to look upon things and see it not as it is.

Isn't that more a misconception by a religion than of a religion? You might think they are nuts, but its not a misconception to say that is legitimately what they believe...because some people do believe that. (I think they are wrong too, but that's a different conversation.)

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

Isn't that more a misconception by a religion than of a religion? You might think they are nuts, but its not a misconception to say that is legitimately what they believe...because some people do believe that. (I think they are wrong too, but that's a different conversation.)

I think your probably right. But then I suppose it becomes a catch-22 situation in does the person create the perspective from their internal usage or does the religion suggest it as part of its world view? Sort of like the snake handlers in Christianity, the people read the bible and take it as fact so its internal analysis, yet the serpent in that aspect is in the bible so the religion suggests or implies it though others do not act upon it. So one see's the serpent as evil while the other is evil but belief overcomes its evilness and tames it. Which is probably a whole other issue of misconceptions.

[anunitu]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

The word "Pagan" means or meant way back when a person that lived in the country. People of the land tended to "believe" in nature and the seasons because crops depended on the seasons,and crops meant living and not starving.

[thalassa]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

For me much of my practice is defined against Hellenic beliefs which did not see the earth as sacred in the sense that most modern neo-pagan practices do. Respected yes, but that does not make it sacred. From a shamanic aspect the earth is my mother by that to does not make it sacred either for I know she will try to kill just as quickly as support life. To me many neo-pagans use sacred in the sense that nature is safe and not harmful which is a very romantic perspective upon things. It's using the rose colored lenses to look upon things and see it not as it is.

Honestly, this sounds more like you define "sacred" differently. I have a degree in biology, I *get* the reality of nature--what was it Darwin said...red in tooth and claw? There's no "mind" behind Nature--no one (not even those I know have a far more romantic view of it than I do) I know would claim that Mother Nature is some omnibenevolent force. Sacred doesn't mean it can't kill you, sacred just means worthy of worship...and if the Earth or its forces (wind, sea, etc) aren't worthy of worship, then neither is Posideon, or Gaia, or the numinous deities that are said to be representatitve or have dominion over those forces.

Which, admitedly is its own interesting discussion and could probably be split if this topic interestes anyone else.

(and forgive the typos, I'm phoning this in)

[Rowanwood]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

The word "Pagan" means or meant way back when a person that lived in the country. People of the land tended to "believe" in nature and the seasons because crops depended on the seasons,and crops meant living and not starving.

That's sort of a misconception too, actually.

From: http://www.etymonline.com/

pagan (n.) Look up pagan at Dictionary.com
late 14c., from Late Latin paganus "pagan," in classical Latin "villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant" noun use of adjective meaning "of the country, of a village," from pagus "country people; province, rural district," originally "district limited by markers," thus related to pangere "to fix, fasten," from PIE root *pag- "to fix" (see pact). As an adjective from early 15c.

Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (e.g. milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908.


So, its more a of a pejorative than a compliment, historically speaking.

[anunitu]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

Thank you Rowan..

[jcaternolo]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

The word "Pagan" means or meant way back when a person that lived in the country. People of the land tended to "believe" in nature and the seasons because crops depended on the seasons,and crops meant living and not starving.

Didn't know that, but I was going with the modern usage of Pagan, someone who follows a non mainstream religion.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

Thank you Rowan..

I can't tell you how many times I've read your definition in a book or on a pagan website -- so its a really, really common misconception. You have lots of company.

[Malflick]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

(I'm really doubting that Sikhs and Zoroastrians would want to be labelled as Pagans due to them being mono-theists. Though man, yet another "What are Pagans?" discussion XD.)

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

Honestly, this sounds more like you define "sacred" differently. I have a degree in biology, I *get* the reality of nature--what was it Darwin said...red in tooth and claw? There's no "mind" behind Nature--no one (not even those I know have a far more romantic view of it than I do) I know would claim that Mother Nature is some omnibenevolent force. Sacred doesn't mean it can't kill you, sacred just means worthy of worship...and if the Earth or its forces (wind, sea, etc) aren't worthy of worship, then neither is Posideon, or Gaia, or the numinous deities that are said to be representatitve or have dominion over those forces.

Which, admitedly is its own interesting discussion and could probably be split if this topic interestes anyone else.

(and forgive the typos, I'm phoning this in)

In truth I probably do define it differently than most others. I tend to see things "Sacred" as things like the Sacred Bundle which represents Wankan Tanka and The Great Spirit to a degree. Certain places upon the earth where one walks upon it and you feel the place and know it is different which makes it sacred, yet not just the earth itself for existing or supporting life upon it. Holy Relic's are sacred to me but they are not worthy of worship but are sacred due to what they represent or suggest to those who made them sacred items of their heritage or past events. I suppose one might look at the usage of The Black Stone of the Ka'Bah to the Muslims, it is sacred for what it represents yet that does not make the earth equally sacred or worthy of worship and reverence. Granted it can be compared to any of the Omphalos from around the world but it is sacred as an item.

Though I do agree this could go into a whole new discussion of its own.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

(I'm really doubting that Sikhs and Zoroastrians would want to be labelled as Pagans due to them being mono-theists. Though man, yet another "What are Pagans?" discussion XD.)

Pagan =/= Polytheist, at least per the dictionary.

A lot of pagans are monotheists and pantheists and panentheists and agnostic and atheists too.

Sikhs, I would consider a mainstream religion, despite smaller numbers. Zoroastrians....well, I've never met one, so I couldn't tell you.

[Malflick]

Re: Religious Misconceptions!

Pagan =/= Polytheist, at least per the dictionary.

A lot of pagans are monotheists and pantheists and panentheists and agnostic and atheists too.

Sikhs, I would consider a mainstream religion, despite smaller numbers. Zoroastrians....well, I've never met one, so I couldn't tell you.

I'm well aware of that. I'm just saying from what I know they would disagree with being labelled as Pagans.

Also, misconception I learned: all Christians are theists. There are some very serious atheist Christians!