jess

(get your comnstipation jokes out now... oooo, did I just say that? <shudder&gt

Basic differences between the two seem to be a desire to study vs a tendancy to trust bookstore publications and a belief in life nad nature being all good and a search and an understanding of the dark and negative sides of the religions.

As you can tell from my profile, I fall into the traditional viewpoint. Anyone here want to discuss what that means, and what I believe, or argue from the other side?

jess

actually, I realize that I don't use the word traditional in my profile...

here:

I am an agnostic global reconstuctionalist neo pagan.

Lets break that down...

pagan: noun, for someone who worships the 'old' religions. It specially implies someone from the country. The term has been usurped to mean anyone who wasn't part of the big three/ten (depending on who you are). It is a catch all term, much like 'Christian' is. Pagans vary in belief and intellegence just as Christians do--- from 'book of shadows thumpers' to atheists who like to party.

neo: adjective, new. Few of the old traditions were spared the axe. Most pagans realize that we cannot call ourselves plain old pagan, simply because we do not know exactly what they did. Native Americans, Shinto followers, and Heathens (Asatru members) are some of the lucky few who have true roots to the old ways. The rest of us don't.

reconstuctionalist: again, an adjective. possibly a redundancy of 'neo', it implies that the path I follow is not an old one. Specifically, it says that I am intent on learning as much as possible of the old ways and fitting them into modern life smoothly and carefully, as opposed to a Discordian or a Wiccan who is a member of a 'new' religion. This is the word that should have made the 'tradtional' obvious...

global: Another description. As opposed to a local type religion (Asatru, Romanus, Egyptian) I follow a true Roman view--- all cultures and gods are equally valid, and I do not have to choose among them. An Asatru, for example, forsakes all gods other than the Norse upon conversion (not denies, merely will not worship them any more). Globals fee that all gods who have taken an interest in human affairs (and those who haven't) can be equally worshipped in our global society--- with emphasis on local gods, of course.

agnostic: another desciption. On this board, should be self-explainatory. I am not sure if anything outside this realm does or does not exist. I am, however, certain that the Christian and Muslim worldviews are egocentric and foolish. On some days I am a complete athiest, on others I am a firm believer. Most days, however, I figure, what the hell does it matter, anyway?

Questions? Comments? Cookies?

Gurdur

*cookie*

um, trad paganism covers a lot of territory - much of it contradictory.

For example, I think of myself as a bit of a Stoic, as well as being neo-Confucianist - but I enjoy a MidSummer Fire just as much as anyone else, so I could be described as fitting into the trad pagan - but then I don't buy the mystical witchcraft & demon crap that also goes together with trad paganism.

It's possibly a bit unfair to make the distinction between trad & mod pagans based on differences in uncritical book-buying - the old trad pagans had no chance to rush off to buy the latest nonsense; if they had, quite possibly many of them would have.

The morass of incoherent superstitions, and people willing to buy the whole kit and caboodle without ever paying heed to the concept of cognitive dissonance, has always been with us, and to some degree possibly will always be with us.

jess

yeah, I realized I fell in to that trap... I used two different definitions for traditional, a 'true' one and a 'popular' one.

I would call you global, not Traditional, as I stated that very few groups could be labelled Traditional.

Question: witchcraft and demons are more Christian developments... care to elucidate?

I stand by my insult that people who have nothing bu 'basic and beginner' books on their bookshelves need help... Anyone who seriously believes a real witch would publish his/her book of shadows is just plain goofy...

I however, do realize it is an insult.

jess

Thanks for the cookie...

RyanS2

Oh come on!! You mean you don't love the mass published books by RavenSilverWolf and DruidfromtheHobgoblinsofGoldenStreams? What about GrandElderPixieDustFeatherSniffer? How can you not call these books timeless classics!!!!? It's blasphemy!!!!

jess

Ryan:

ROTFLMAO...

Yeah, every self respecting pagan probably has one or two of those on their shelf... I even have a <shudder> Buckland spell book...

of course, I think it is holding up the broken leg of a dresser...

Gurdur

um? ??
Do you mean witchcraft and demons are Christian-sponsored developments (or even inventions) ?

I would certainly very strongly disagree with such a view; belief in witchcraft and demons predates Christianity a very long time, and has very little or no connection with Judaism or Christianity - in fact both religions seem to have adopted and altered pre-existing beliefs, rather than inventing them.

jess

Gurder: I did say 'more Christian'. I realize the beliefs were there before Christianity and Judaism, but not to the same level as they became under Christianity (namely the witch hunts)

We can take this to another thread to discuss, or we can merely define the terms to both of our likings, and finish it.

?

DarkDruid

Personally, I don't like the word "pagan." I think it was fabricated by Christians to try and make themselves stand out by blanketing the rest of the world with that term.