h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I understand what you say. I only refer to myself as pagan actually very little. About the only time is on discussions like this. When someone asks me what my religon, I don't say pagan. I tell them what my religon/way of life is and generally leave it at that.

Phaerie

That's the first time I've seen the words "emasculate" and "immaculate" confused. It made me think.

lol, tis the curse of the spell checker. However, I assure you the alternatives are worse.

Thank you for your reading my prose with such attention to detail. h2g2 is wise to have editors.

I would tend to use the term "LaVey Satanists" and "Devil Worshippers", to make my meanings clear. There are, according to the guesstimates, many (many) more LaVey satanists than devil worshippers - but the popular usage of the term is somewhat biased the other way. The tabloid usage, anyway.

Obviously, "Satanist" does not mean "worship of Satan" by etymology, at any rate. C/f Buddhists, who do not worship Buddha (well, many of them). C/f ChristIANs rather that ChristISTs. Use of the term Satanist to describe devil worshippers *will* offend LaVey Satanists - it's hence better not to use the term in that context. Minimising confusion has to be a good thing, no?

But I'm glad for your clarification - good to see that you have an open mind on these things...

Someone who terms themselves a "Satanist" will know that, more often than not, their audience will hear "Devil Worshipper." So, why did LaVey choose this label, rather than something less shocking, to describe his path? Because shock is desired!

When someone says, "I'm a Satanist!", a number of reactions can occur. One reaction is to let it pass. However, because of the inherently provocative nature of the statement, a confrontational reaction will more often be provoked. Depending on the level confrontation, if gives the "Satanist" an immediate excuse to expose on their perspective.

This is why Aleister Crowley was fond of calling himself "the Beast." Such a declaration required that he constantly explain himself, which is what he really wanted anyway.

To a lesser degree, someone declaring themselves a pagan will be in the same boat. But many pagans are quiet about their thing, not wishing to provoke reactions.

I wore a pentacle for a couple years in college. When confronted, I would launch into my spiel on the significance of the pentacle in medieval Christendom ( Sir Gawain, my hero ). It could be great fun, and the debates were always entertaining. Of course, if I weren't in the mood, I could just growl at people. Believe me, I'm very familiar with the freaking the masses schtick.

Could you give us a sample of your speil on the significance of the pentacle in medieval christendom? I think it would be interesting to bring up with some of the kids who wear them these days...

I would encourage you to work up your own spiel.

However, to get you going, the Sir Gawain and the Green Knight poem discusses the shield of good knight. The inside of the shield is the blessed virgin, the outside is the pentacle. The poem gives five virtues of five, with the five wounds of Christ listed among them. "Thus he wore the five-point star on shield and surcoat in plain sight, his honor without stain or scar, a gentle, low-voiced knight."

The "Endless Knot" is readily found in period illuminations. It is not until it is inverted (point down) that "evil" qualities are ascribed to it. Much later, artwork starts to associate the pentacle with the in vogue devil images. Like the perfectly innocuous Buddhist swastika, is soon doomed but a massive flood of negative PR.

Hmmm.... Magic; magik; magick; magike; pagan; neo-pagan; gaia; kali..... the list goes on, and on.

Confusing.

As a Pagan, I feel it might be time to jump in and have a go at this.

Pagan, a definition (for those who require it):
A person who, with the (posible) exlusion of those who are also satanists, follows a path of pagan ideals/beliefs. Often, but not always pacifist, and often nature loving. May, or may not study/have studied magic/magick/magik or related subjects. Generally nice people (at least all the ones I have met). Unlikely to hold the same beliefs as other pagans.

Pagan ideals/beliefs? Delete as applicable: The earth mother; the goddess; gaia; kali; the beast; the forest lords; the lords; magic (and/or related subjects); pacifism; eco-awareness; eco-responsibility; reincarnation; god; the all-father; the guide; the spirits; and many, many more.

In short, a pagan will have similarities with other pagans (and can often be spotted by the fairly relaxed and friendly attitude sported by many of them, coupled with an interest in spiritulism/magic/the occult, but, again, not always), but is never likely to be the same. Paganism has themes, but no set rules. There is no holy book, no commandments, and (maybe most importantly) rarely anyone to say "this is how it must be done, this is what you must believe".

Well, that is my tupence worth :o)

Take Care
Malgor

"Unlikely to hold the same beliefs as other pagans."

That seems to be the problem, using the term to describe people with widely varying beliefs. But I guess Catholics (I used to be one, so I know a little about it) are like that, too - what the Pope says and what many Catholics believe/do don't always match.

I am also a Pagan, and most of what you described, Malgor, does not apply to me. Though I am admitadly on the fringes of Paganism...

Its tough to have a practical definition that works with all of Pagandom. I gave it my best shot...

That is my whole point ZenMondo - some or all of it may apply to some pagans, but often none of it will.

I applaud your efforts, and I think that the challenge you took upon yourself is one worthy of thought and discussion (which is why many of us are here) - and you have managed to raise one of the best debates I have seen on here for a while.

My post was merely to point out that while your description does not fit many of the pagans here, thier description would not fit you either.

Paganism is (to me at least) about being individual, being different, and still being able to all say "*we* are pagan" - a community of similarities, but not rules. I like that :o)

Once again, ZenMondo, thanks for starting this whole thing rolling :o)

-Malgor

Malgor, Thanks for taking the time with this entry. Pagan is a tenueous description for most. There are well established paths that may be considered pagan, such as Shinto... but would a Shintoist describe themselves as 'pagan'? Probably not.
There is no one set of beliefs that will encompase all pagans, so to try to define Pagan by beliefs is a futile effort. That is why my definition encomapsses all who have minority beleifs...

They do say "Ask 10 Pagans for a definition of the word and get 25 answers."


My experience is that while not all Pagans are worshipers of the Earth, most have a certain reverence for the Earth. I know very few other vegetarian Pagans, though most are laid back about it, and often ask me exactly what it means to be vegan (how, why, what, etc.). I know many Pagans who would freak at the thought of being pacifists, though most would not start a fight (quite a few would finish it).


Bless you for even attempting a definition!

"Bless you for even attempting a definition!"

Thank you very much! Its been a long while since I have been active on h2g2, but this entry comes up from time to time. I recently got an e-mail from a raver that was in a debate with someone about Paganism, and used this entry as a refrence!

It was quite the ambitious effort.... maybe something I will visit again, but I love the debate that has cropped up here.

Although I'm not a satanist I don't see satanism as a branch of paganism. To me a part of paganism is that we DONT belive in satan. Just my opinion as a pagan though.

My dictionary's definition of satanism:

"The worship of Satan characterized by a travesty of the Christian rites."

So it is specifically anti-Christian, a la the movie "The Exorcist" (sort of ...) Sounds right to me. And I agree that's different than my idea of paganism.

Pardon me if I've said this before, its been a long discussion ...

Well I'm a pagan and I do believe that there is a Satan... but he is too busy being the adversary to those in the "Big Three" that he just does not have the time to deal with pagans such as you and me.

To me its all about modeling mutual respect. If I want others to acknowledge the existance of my gods, I will acknowledge the existance of theirs.

For the record, most Satanists don't believe in Satan either.

[QUOTE]
My dictionary's definition of satanism:

"The worship of Satan characterized by a travesty of the Christian rites."
[/QUOTE]

Sounds like your dictionary confuses Satanism with Devil Worship. A common mistake, afterall.

The idea behind this entry was to get away from the definitions given us by dictionaries. Just out of curiosity, how does your dictionary define "Pagan" and "Paganism"?

My (CD-ROM) dictionary's definition of "pagan":

QUOTE

pagan (pâ´gen) noun
1. One who is not a Christian, Moslem, or Jew; a heathen.
2. One who has no religion.
3. A non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.

END QUOTE

Items 1 and 3 make the mistake of defining something by what it's not, IMHO. The definition of Satanism in my earlier post, while possibly incorrect as you point out, at least did not make that mistake. The same dictionary does not give a definition of devil worship, but the included thesaurus lists it together with Satanism (and witchcraft, diabolism, etc.)

I understand you're trying to get away from (I would have said "extend") dictionary definitions, but I feel they are worth considering as an indication of what SOMEBODY believes is common usage. My CD-ROM books do not particularly inspire my confidence, they are just convenient. I would have more confidence in the Oxford English Dictionary, but I don't have it. I vaguely recall a major update in recent years, it would be interesting to see what they came up with.

As someone else in this convo already said, there will never be one definition of Pagan, nor of anything else actually, because every single person has a different perspective based on his/her experiences, feelings and life in general.
Especially when it comes to immaterial things (such as beliefs), definitions or usages vary a lot from person to person.

I mix my beliefs, taking this and that from different systems, depending on what feels right for me. I can imagine that a lot of people that could be labelled Pagan do the same thing, although there are organized systems within Paganism.

The problem is, do you start calling it pagan when monotheism ends, or do you put Hinduism etc. in the Orthodoxy drawer? Why oh why do our minds have to be like organized little cupboards?