Putting the "Neo" Into Paganism

[FireonYce]

Franly I have never called Myself a neopagan. I think its just stupid to try and make a enw name for the same type of religion. Most of my beliefs are from the ancient egyptian, and other ancient cultures. They are surely not new in any way shape or form. So why should I call it new?  

[Starlock]

Christo Minaverus

Franly I have never called Myself a neopagan. I think its just stupid to try and make a enw name for the same type of religion. Most of my beliefs are from the ancient egyptian, and other ancient cultures. They are surely not new in any way shape or form. So why should I call it new?

Because you're *reconstructing* the beliefs and practices of these ancient cultures. What you're practising is not the same as what would have been practiced in ancient times, thus what you're practicing is "neo." Unless you're going to claim some unbroken secret linage to ancient times (which would make a number of people call "bull s**t"), the old Pagan religions you're reffering to collapsed and fell out of practice for hundreds of years. What we know about them is based off the writings and artifacts that have survived. Once again, it's reconstruction. This is especially important to recognize because most of the Pagan religions were strongly embedded in the local culture and way of life. You just don't have that cultural basis and ethnicity (nor the mindset of those time periods) as a reconstructionalist, unfortunately.  

[Lila Malvae]

Gypsy Blue

I think you've already explained why it's relevant: association. You need to know the historical associations of a god or goddess in order for your rituals or spells to work. Yes, we sometimes find new areas by accident when working with a god or goddess, but honestly, do you really think you're going to get great results just randomly assigning tasks to them?

I could manifest and work with Aphrodite when studying for a math test and ask for help in my studies, if traditional associations don't matter. But they do, because odds are, Aphrodite can't give me much of a boost in academics. I might get turned on by long division or find a way to seduce my math teacher into giving me a better mark, but that's not going to help my math skills, is it?

Having at least half an idea of what a diety rules over lends direction so that we can find other associated fields, so we can make up new rituals and the like. But we need some direction first. That's where history comes in, that's where it's helpful, and it's relivant to more than just historials: Religious scholars, folkloreists, archeologists and anthropologists, and the (Neo)Pagan community. Existing mythology enriches ritual and our understanding of the gods; it explains and reveals their personalities and demonstrates their areas of expertise. There are also groups out there claiming lineage that's been unbroken since time immorable; for the sake of their own practice, and as a source of distinction, information becomes very important.

If we're simply going to invent areas that a god or a goddess is going to be able to help us in, why are we even resorting to the old gods? Why not simply invent new pantheons if the history doesn't matter? As for us having a new name inf 50 years, I doubt it. Our movement has a name now, embraced by both scholars and memebers of the movement, so unless we fall apart, or some drastic change takes place, we'll remain NeoPagans just as Christians have remained Christians.

Okay that's not what I was talking about at all.
You totally didn't get my point, maybe I didn't communicate it well enough. So let me try again:

Yes it is important to know the facts, but religion was NEVER meant to be as solid and immovable as stone.
Ancient cultures almost everywhere use stone as a monument for the dead. Some passed their traditions down orally, or written/carved on plant matter (paper, papyrus, reeds) instead of defining themselves on stone. You can't change what a tablet says after it's been chisled.
We use stone for that which is supposed to be a memorial, a testament. Stone was one of the many substances used in religious icons because of its durability, it's resistance to the test of time. But religion itself is not meant to be a stone.
It is meant to be fluid and ever-changing. Certain principles do not easily change, so we let these be that which grounds us, but we don't let the stones anchor us down.
What I was trying to say is that time should not be the deciding factor in distinguishing Pagan from Neopagan.  

[Hatelijk_en_bloeden]

I have recently been wondering about this myself. I've taken to calling myself a 'Neo Pagan Dirt Daughter'  

[Starlock]

LilaMalvae

Yes it is important to know the facts, but religion was NEVER meant to be as solid and immovable as stone.
Ancient cultures almost everywhere use stone as a monument for the dead. Some passed their traditions down orally, or written/carved on plant matter (paper, papyrus, reeds) instead of defining themselves on stone. You can't change what a tablet says after it's been chisled.
We use stone for that which is supposed to be a memorial, a testament. Stone was one of the many substances used in religious icons because of its durability, it's resistance to the test of time. But religion itself is not meant to be a stone.
It is meant to be fluid and ever-changing. Certain principles do not easily change, so we let these be that which grounds us, but we don't let the stones anchor us down.
What I was trying to say is that time should not be the deciding factor in distinguishing Pagan from Neopagan.

On what basis (ie, what refferences) are leading you to say that religion wasn't ever made to be solid? It's been my experience that this depends on who you ask. People who are religious traditionalists will tend to disagree with what you say here; that the religion is NOT meant to change, and that chainging it is heretical.

On the time factor, I think time already has, in some ways, decided it (or at least for some traditions). For civilizations that are now long dead, anybody doing any practices from them is going to be "neo" in some way because the culture was so intertwined with the religious practices. The cultures don't exist anymore, so neither does the religion in its original context. But I'll say I haven't done near enough research on this to make any statements with confidence. It's the main impression I've got, though, that they're far enough removed from each other (we're talking centuries here) that one is clearly "meso" and what we're doing clearly "neo" ("paleo" would be pre-historical Paganism).  

[The Bookwyrm]

LilaMalvae

Okay that's not what I was talking about at all.
You totally didn't get my point, maybe I didn't communicate it well enough. So let me try again:

Yes it is important to know the facts, but religion was NEVER meant to be as solid and immovable as stone.
Ancient cultures almost everywhere use stone as a monument for the dead. Some passed their traditions down orally, or written/carved on plant matter (paper, papyrus, reeds) instead of defining themselves on stone. You can't change what a tablet says after it's been chisled.
We use stone for that which is supposed to be a memorial, a testament. Stone was one of the many substances used in religious icons because of its durability, it's resistance to the test of time. But religion itself is not meant to be a stone.
It is meant to be fluid and ever-changing. Certain principles do not easily change, so we let these be that which grounds us, but we don't let the stones anchor us down.
What I was trying to say is that time should not be the deciding factor in distinguishing Pagan from Neopagan.

I understand that, but time isn't the only factor distinguishing, nor am I trying to say that we *have* to call ourselves NeoPagans. I have to agree with what Starlock is saying, especially with how integrated Pagan faiths used to be in the cultures they originated in. What we have today is not so much a changed form of Paganism, as a completely recreated. We have the old gods, we have a fair idea of what each held dominion over, and we have records of some of the rituals associated with those old faiths which we have loosely based our own off of. But I can't very well take all hierarchy of the Catholic faith (the Holy Trinity, the saints, angels, arch angels, Virgin Mary, etc), create my own series of rituals and practice set around them and still call it Catholocism. It's something new, hence the term "neo" could be appropriately affixed to it.

Indeed, religion should change with the times but it's important not to try and present as something it's not. Paganism, as it once existed, was a virtually extinct religion; I think it would be almost safe to say that it *was* extinct, with a few scattered pockets of people practicing folk magic. The Paganism we have today is a reconstruction, it's new. Ergo, "NeoPaganism" is a more accurate term.  

[Lila Malvae]

Starlock

LilaMalvae

Yes it is important to know the facts, but religion was NEVER meant to be as solid and immovable as stone.
Ancient cultures almost everywhere use stone as a monument for the dead. Some passed their traditions down orally, or written/carved on plant matter (paper, papyrus, reeds) instead of defining themselves on stone. You can't change what a tablet says after it's been chisled.
We use stone for that which is supposed to be a memorial, a testament. Stone was one of the many substances used in religious icons because of its durability, it's resistance to the test of time. But religion itself is not meant to be a stone.
It is meant to be fluid and ever-changing. Certain principles do not easily change, so we let these be that which grounds us, but we don't let the stones anchor us down.
What I was trying to say is that time should not be the deciding factor in distinguishing Pagan from Neopagan.

On what basis (ie, what refferences) are leading you to say that religion wasn't ever made to be solid? It's been my experience that this depends on who you ask. People who are religious traditionalists will tend to disagree with what you say here; that the religion is NOT meant to change, and that chainging it is heretical.

On the time factor, I think time already has, in some ways, decided it (or at least for some traditions). For civilizations that are now long dead, anybody doing any practices from them is going to be "neo" in some way because the culture was so intertwined with the religious practices. The cultures don't exist anymore, so neither does the religion in its original context. But I'll say I haven't done near enough research on this to make any statements with confidence. It's the main impression I've got, though, that they're far enough removed from each other (we're talking centuries here) that one is clearly "meso" and what we're doing clearly "neo" ("paleo" would be pre-historical Paganism).

If a religion was never meant to change, then it deserves to die out. Stagnation just doesn't work for very long... of course I'm sure somebody else will pick apart this measley excuse for a paragraph because I used another metaphor.

You're not going to change my mind about it. And I'm not going to argue this stupid point any longer if it's only going to lead onward in itty bitty circles.  

[Nihilistic Seraph]

Lila, you sig frightens me...

*huddles in fear behind Blue*  

[The Bookwyrm]

LilaMalvae

Starlock

LilaMalvae

Yes it is important to know the facts, but religion was NEVER meant to be as solid and immovable as stone.
Ancient cultures almost everywhere use stone as a monument for the dead. Some passed their traditions down orally, or written/carved on plant matter (paper, papyrus, reeds) instead of defining themselves on stone. You can't change what a tablet says after it's been chisled.
We use stone for that which is supposed to be a memorial, a testament. Stone was one of the many substances used in religious icons because of its durability, it's resistance to the test of time. But religion itself is not meant to be a stone.
It is meant to be fluid and ever-changing. Certain principles do not easily change, so we let these be that which grounds us, but we don't let the stones anchor us down.
What I was trying to say is that time should not be the deciding factor in distinguishing Pagan from Neopagan.

On what basis (ie, what refferences) are leading you to say that religion wasn't ever made to be solid? It's been my experience that this depends on who you ask. People who are religious traditionalists will tend to disagree with what you say here; that the religion is NOT meant to change, and that chainging it is heretical.

On the time factor, I think time already has, in some ways, decided it (or at least for some traditions). For civilizations that are now long dead, anybody doing any practices from them is going to be "neo" in some way because the culture was so intertwined with the religious practices. The cultures don't exist anymore, so neither does the religion in its original context. But I'll say I haven't done near enough research on this to make any statements with confidence. It's the main impression I've got, though, that they're far enough removed from each other (we're talking centuries here) that one is clearly "meso" and what we're doing clearly "neo" ("paleo" would be pre-historical Paganism).

If a religion was never meant to change, then it deserves to die out. Stagnation just doesn't work for very long... of course I'm sure somebody else will pick apart this measley excuse for a paragraph because I used another metaphor.

You're not going to change my mind about it. And I'm not going to argue this stupid point any longer if it's only going to lead onward in itty bitty circles.

Lila, relax. No one is trying to change anyone's mind on htis, it's simply a discussion. If you're uncomfotrable with what's being said, you're under no obligation to remain a part of that discussion. Chill  

[Starlock]

LilaMalvae

If a religion was never meant to change, then it deserves to die out. Stagnation just doesn't work for very long... of course I'm sure somebody else will pick apart this measley excuse for a paragraph because I used another metaphor.

You're not going to change my mind about it. And I'm not going to argue this stupid point any longer if it's only going to lead onward in itty bitty circles.

First I'll echo Gypsy in that nobody is trying to get you to "change your mind" about anything. I happen to enjoy philosophical/theological discussion... it isn't about changing someone's mind, but about exchanging perspectives and info. whee

But I had a good laugh at the idea that "if a religion was never meant to change, than it deserves to die out." You'd better not let the Christian Fundamentalists hear you saying that (laughs). Essentially you'd be telling them that their brand of Christianity deserves to die out. Heh.  

[The Bookwyrm]

Nihilistic Seraph

Lila, you sig frightens me...

*huddles in fear behind Blue*

*pat pat* There, there, Nihil. In my exhaustion based bravery, I shall protect you!  

[Lila Malvae]

lol the sig is a bit scary... pushy daffodil.


Oh and... I did remove myself from the conversation.


I really wish people would read the entirety of my posts instead of just skim over it.  

[The Bookwyrm]

LilaMalvae

lol the sig is a bit scary... pushy daffodil.


Oh and... I did remove myself from the conversation.


I really wish people would read the entirety of my posts instead of just skim over it.

Actually, I did read your post in its entirety, and no you haven't removed yourself from the discussion yet because you seem to feel a need to have the last word. And you've just proven my point. You're just taking the discussion off topic by firstly saying that you're no longer going to participate in it, and secondly by posting again to say how you've removed youself. Try jumping to a few less confusions simply because a person addresses one point rather than all of them.  

[FireonYce]

Starlock

Christo Minaverus

Franly I have never called Myself a neopagan. I think its just stupid to try and make a enw name for the same type of religion. Most of my beliefs are from the ancient egyptian, and other ancient cultures. They are surely not new in any way shape or form. So why should I call it new?

Because you're *reconstructing* the beliefs and practices of these ancient cultures. What you're practising is not the same as what would have been practiced in ancient times, thus what you're practicing is "neo." Unless you're going to claim some unbroken secret linage to ancient times (which would make a number of people call "bull s**t"), the old Pagan religions you're reffering to collapsed and fell out of practice for hundreds of years. What we know about them is based off the writings and artifacts that have survived. Once again, it's reconstruction. This is especially important to recognize because most of the Pagan religions were strongly embedded in the local culture and way of life. You just don't have that cultural basis and ethnicity (nor the mindset of those time periods) as a reconstructionalist, unfortunately.

So what your telling me is the fact that no religion in the course of its history ever changed? That everything stayed the same and didn't deter from its original path? I hate to break your bubble but you can check into the tons of different bibles out there for documentation on that one. In no way shape or form as i reconstructing anything. What i do is my own. Most of me beliefs happen to coencide into many pf the same as that of ancient religions and cultures. Its part of my old old soul. Calling it Neo Paganism implies that everything Im doing is different from that of old. That i have no connection to the past and practices I partake in when i actually do have a connection to them. No one can practice a religion the way it was along time ago, not even christianity. Frankly they have changed far more than My beliefs from whence they stemmed and if they don't Have to call themselves neoChristans Then forgive me If i just call myself a Pagan.  

[Nihilistic Seraph]

Christo Minaverus

Starlock

Christo Minaverus

Franly I have never called Myself a neopagan. I think its just stupid to try and make a enw name for the same type of religion. Most of my beliefs are from the ancient egyptian, and other ancient cultures. They are surely not new in any way shape or form. So why should I call it new?

Because you're *reconstructing* the beliefs and practices of these ancient cultures. What you're practising is not the same as what would have been practiced in ancient times, thus what you're practicing is "neo." Unless you're going to claim some unbroken secret linage to ancient times (which would make a number of people call "bull s**t"), the old Pagan religions you're reffering to collapsed and fell out of practice for hundreds of years. What we know about them is based off the writings and artifacts that have survived. Once again, it's reconstruction. This is especially important to recognize because most of the Pagan religions were strongly embedded in the local culture and way of life. You just don't have that cultural basis and ethnicity (nor the mindset of those time periods) as a reconstructionalist, unfortunately.

So what your telling me is the fact that no religion in the course of its history ever changed? That everything stayed the same and didn't deter from its original path? I hate to break your bubble but you can check into the tons of different bibles out there for documentation on that one. In no way shape or form as i reconstructing anything. What i do is my own. Most of me beliefs happen to coencide into many pf the same as that of ancient religions and cultures. Its part of my old old soul. Calling it Neo Paganism implies that everything Im doing is different from that of old. That i have no connection to the past and practices I partake in when i actually do have a connection to them. No one can practice a religion the way it was along time ago, not even christianity. Frankly they have changed far more than My beliefs from whence they stemmed and if they don't Have to call themselves neoChristans Then forgive me If i just call myself a Pagan.

I think the distinction is that while Christianity has changed gradually over the years, and the splits do have their own names (Catholic, Protestant, etc). Recon isn't the same practice with a gradual change, it's picking up where the original followers left off thousands of years ago.