Definition of Pagan?

[tenar]

Hello all, here I go with a question again

What do people here use as their definition of the word 'Pagan'? Have you heard definitions that left you out, or that you agreed with, or some that were downright silly? Do you use a capital 'P', or not?

Most of the definitions I've seen don't seem to include me-I don't consider myself as 'nature worshipping', there's a lot of stuff pagans online seem to discuss that I don't believe in at all; I don't believe in ley lines, or life after death, or psychic powers. I respect ancient historical sites for their fascinating history, but don't really regard them as sacred.

The Pagan Federation's 'principles of paganism' don't seem to gell with my 'hard' polytheism either.

I have heard it defined as 'A pagan is anyone who self-identifies as pagan'. Whilst this seems rather meaningless, I can't come up with anything better.

Are there better definitions you've heard, or should I stick to simple polytheist?

[Blackbird]

*g* I prefer 'polytheist' these days, as it avoids assocation with crystal waving yoghurt weavers Though truly, that stereotype is more true of 'New Agers' than pagans, to the general public, we are all lumped into the same tie dyed boat. Using the word 'polytheist', you can sidestep that, and use Jez's excellent strategy of then using a comparison to Hinduism. I've found that very useful in my quest to have people take me seriously.

For me, pagan is not capitalised. Folks that do capitalise it are usually those that see paganism as a religion in its own right - whereas I see it as a catch-all term for lots of different faiths and philosophies. Some people even prefer to use the term 'paganisms' to underline the fact that there are lots of them!

Don't worry about the PF's Principles - a little bird tells me that these will soon be a thing of the past. For myself and many other polytheists, these have been a bone of contention for years - it was a bitter irony that the PF's principles would have disallowed any of our pagan ancestors from joining... or indeed, any modern polytheist. But as I said, light has now dawned.

Self identification is as good a way to define it as any, perhaps, as we are never going to be able to say 'all pagans believe...' OK, well some folks have tried it, but have generally been trampled down in the ensuing protests ;D

[jez]

The PF will be open to all pagans from Jan 2006, and I have asked Amergin to forward a membership form asap after that. Also, the requirement to be vetted by your local PF rep has gone.

As for pagan, I use it rarely. I tend to say, I am heathen.

When I get a totally blank look, I expand this to 'one of the pagan religions. I am a polytheist, you know, like hindus...'

The with the JWs at the door who are looking blankly at the 'Christmas' decorations, I say, yes, I celebrate Yule. And I do believe in your god, I just don't choose to worship him.'

Jez

[tenar]

I think I'd much prefer being compared to hinduism than the New Age Movement

'Paganisms' seems like a much better term-implies a bit more diversity, I think.

If the PF are doing away with the principles, I think I might think about joining. I will definatly be joining the ATP sometime in the new year anyway.

LOL...my mum's a JW, last week she was telling me about how tinsel came about because Romans used to drape human entrails over trees for Saternalia (though how true that is, I have no idea) and I said 'of course...what do you think happens to all the JWs we keep getting?' ;D

[Blackbird]

Entrails! I think that's one thing the Romans didn't use them for...
What they did do was to bring in laurels and other evergreens for decoration at Saturnalia.

I like the entrails idea (Not in my front room though, the landlord would have a fit...)