Paganism: The Religion(s), The Community, The Way of Life

[L8RG8R84]

I like the end segment of this video.

[ReGreta9]

No I didn't know that actually. That's pretty fascinating. But I'm not sure if it's true. There's a village in india that is plagued by human-eating tigers. I'm not certain about the specifics as to the name of the village or even if they still have this problem. The thing is if humans made these tigers sick then they would probably stop attacking humans for no reason.

[BlueFireWitch]

Hey guys, seriously, can you take the argument somewhere else? Enough is enough.

[ReGreta9]

Alright.

[ReGreta9]

It only took a few weeks without meat for it to make me sick if I ate it again.

[ReGreta9]

I never said anything about stopping wild animals from eating other animals. And I'm not saying that all humans should be vegetarians or even could survive without animal flesh. Definitely some people need to eat meat to maintain optimum health. But I wanted to see if I was one of those people and it seems to me that I'm not. But if I did need to start eating meat again if for some reason sufficient vegetable protein was not available to me I wouldn't bury my head in the sand - continued

[ReGreta9]

and pretend that what I was eating wasn't an animal. I would appreciate that this animal was sacrificed for me to survive.

[BlueFireWitch]

Wow, I can't believe this argument is still going on. Face it, both Vegetarianism and Contemporary eating styles have and will exist. Both are valid for different reasons. Yes, we evolved through eating meat and our instincts tell us it's okay to eat meat. But as higher cognitive beings, we also have complex ideas about Ethics and Morality which may make us choose to not eat meat. Which is ok too. Seriously,both of you, I'm sick of getting my comment box flooded with this.

[ReGreta9]

Every christmas I drink eggnog. Now I go a good 11 months without drinking eggnog, but when I start again at christmas it doesn't make me sick. So I humbly disagree with you when you say that anything will make you sick if you purge it from your diet and then try to eat it again.

[ReGreta9]

You just compared meat to the extremely unhealthy food of McDonalds. You're only proving my point that bad food probably will make someone physically sick.

[ReGreta9]

I never actually thought meat was disgusting; I just felt like a hypocrite. Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying ALL meat-eaters who care about animals are hypocrites. I'm just saying I had trouble reconciling the two. And like I just posted before I got sick first and then found out about the meat.

[ReGreta9]

Um, I think you're misreading my post. I said I was sick and THEN found out there was meat in it. I got sick first and then the moron who made it told me they went ahead and put turkey in it. See? Got sick first; then found out about the meat second.

[ReGreta9]

Yeah I see what you're saying that we can be designed to do something but it doesn't mean that we have to do it. But you said in an earlier post that "we're designed to eat meat" in a way as though to say that we are supposed to eat meat because that's how we're designed. Is that not what you meant or am I getting you wrong? And also, I said I didn't even know there was turkey in the dressing that made me sick. I was told that it was going to be vegetarian, but then later found out it wasn't. co

[ReGreta9]

So there's no way that it had anything whatsoever to do with my mind.

[ReGreta9]

There have been other times when I ate something that made me sick to my stomach and then LATER found out it had some meat in it. And no, I don't have a history of stomach problems. I've always had a very strong stomach. Until I went off animal flesh and found that any time I eat meat now it makes me sick.

[ReGreta9]

I used to believe the same thing, but after I became a vegetarian six months ago I'm starting to question that. I'm not saying that EVERYONE should be vegetarian, but I tried it out because I always felt wrong eating meat. Now anytime I eat something that has a little bit of meat in it it makes me physically sick to my stomach. Like for thanksgiving I had some dressing that I didn't know had turkey in it and I got sick. After getting off meat I don't feel one bit different. - continued

[ReGreta9]

So I don't believe for one second that we're actually designed to eat meat. That's like saying that men are designed to have sex with women, because they have a penis and a penis goes in a vagina. But there are men who have no interest whatsoever in having sex with even though they have a penis and would rather have sex with another man. Same of course for some women. We should always be questioning what we think we are "designed" to do.

[ReGreta9]

You can keep your opinion the way it is. There's nothing I can do about that. But to say it's okay to eat animals, but not kill animals makes absolutely zero sense.

[greeklover131]

it makes sense to me. I wouldn't want to see an animal die, but I would eat it. I am against hunting, but I would go to the store and buy meat. I know that you have to kill the animal in order to eat it. Killing animals for no reason is bad. Killing animals to eat is OK. I just don't want to see a dead animal

[ReGreta9]

I agree with you that killing animals for no reason is bad, but you say that you don't want to see a dead animal? Don't you see a dead animal every time you look at a hamburger or a chicken leg?

[greeklover131]

I mean if it has fur on it and still has an eyeball.

the stuff at the store besides fish don't look like the dead animals at all to me.

[ReGreta9]

But it's still a dead animal is it not? No matter how different it looks from a living animal.

[greeklover131]

dead animals look creepy.

[ReGreta9]

@ TheWiccanRaven. I personally find this statement that you feel "animal sacrifice and animal eating to be different" to be extremely hypocritical. Eating an animal is the exact same thing as taking part in killing an animal and I don't understand why no one else here hasn't picked up on this.

[queenminority]

i hate the term neo pagan as well. eww. I wont use it ever.

[connerjd]

I don't understand why people have discussions if they can't handle it if everyone doesn't agree with them. i don't get offended if people disagree with me. i couldn't care less, I don't take things personnally.

[BlueFireWitch]

So do you think it's morally wrong to eat meat? Most animal sacrifices were done as ritual meals.

[carthonasi08]

Well I myself am a little weird. I made a joke petition at school to legalize cannibalism of the dead. Funny enough a got a nice amount of sigs lol.

[azmhyr]

Well, I don't think it's morally wrong.

I think that animals are animals, just as we, and can be slain, just as we can be slain by other animals. In this case, they are slain in the name of Gods, spirits, and for various other things.

Pagan practices have long been doing animal sacrifice, and the reconstruction movements have incorporated these rituals in their own beliefs, like for Asatruers performing Blot(Blood) ceremonies.

[azmhyr]

To those who'd call me a christian.

Know that I do not live in a christian country, and have no cultural and ethnic ties to any christians.

[azmhyr]

Well, there is.

My people, the Turks, have been shamanists/tengriists before they converted to islam. Yet no reconstruction can be attempted, for we don't have any shamans, and no shamans that could actually raise apprentices to be shamans.

Shamanism now survives in various regions, but under various names, and practices. But those are not revivals, and stem from the old traditions, and are somewhat pure, and intact.

[azmhyr]

Not everyone has to think the same way.

True. But just because they think different, that doesn't make them right.

"Guidelines? Laws?"

I know all of these. But these are not compatible with other pagan religions/practices, for example, it's not compatible with shamanism.

"cannot be fully revived"

Indeed, but reviving them as close as it gets to the original is the best the revivalist movement can do.

[azmhyr]

The wiccan raven is propably a neo-druidry adherent.

[azmhyr]

Why? Animal sacrifices are fine, I think.

And they are an important part of every and each european pagan tradition.

Indeed, not only for the european, but for anatolian, eurasian and etc.

"Why should we be like the Christians and have a dogma"

Well, that's what religions have, my dear.

Religions must have some sort of solid theology.

Greek and celtic have similiar beliefs?

Oh, perhaps both have oracles, animal sacrifice and etc.

But other than that, they are different.

[princessannikki]

Yeah I'm not recon either, I mean I don't think we can bring back an old religion exactly how it used to be - because it wouldn't fit with this world - unless this world drastically changes - but it's still the old religions which are the basis of our practice.

[princessannikki]

I agree there's no reason to follow tradition just for tradition's sake - but to me the word paganism means pre-christian tradition - so if you're not into old traditions then I don't see why you call it paganism. You know what I mean?

[azmhyr]

It's not even a tradition, because it has no real dogma, nor a real theology, it centers around what?

Who are it's adherents, what kinda laws does it have?

What kind of guidelines does it offer?

"then we'll have a conflict"

No, if you stick to the old tradition, you'll have the old religions back.

That's what reconstruction means.

It's the reason why pagan revivals even exist, without the old ancestral religions, your "paganism" wouldn't exist today.

[azmhyr]

Yet again, I could say that I perform blot ceremonies, ignite a wicker man, and worship jesus and go to friday prayers to a mosque at the same time.

Does this make sense? IS this a religion, that I worship, or something that I just put together to fit whatever I deem to be fit?

No, this isn't religion, this is nonsense.

Religion is not defined by a sole practitioner, it's defined by tradition and the common values and practices of a community. Not a single individual.

[BlueFireWitch]

Actually, that would be religion. I think what we have here is a difference of interpretation as to what makes a religion. Just because a religion draws from different cultural bases doesn't mean it ceases to be a religion. In fact, I see nothing wrong with doing those things that you mentioned if the person used it as part of their spiritual fulfillment. Who are we to say what's wrong or right when it comes to personal gnosis?

[azmhyr]

Call it a different name, call "spirituality", call it whatever, but it simply is not a religion. A religion has certain characteristics.

A religion has a number of followers who believe in the same thing.

Mix-max neo-paganism does not work as a reilgion, because no one seems to worship the same way as the other does.

It's not even a cult in nature.

[princessannikki]

I agree, Paganism cannot be called a religion - for it to be a religion there would have to be certain rules and beliefs that all pagans follow - but there aren't.

[tannhaus]

So they call the four powers of the Sphinx the "witch's pyramid"??

[BlueFireWitch]

At least that's what I was taught. If I'm incorrect, I'll post an annotation.

[tannhaus]

Nono...I'm sure you are. That's just another thing that Wicca took from ceremonial magick, changed the name, then claimed it was their own...

[princessannikki]

lol n_n

[azmhyr]

You misunderstand me.

I'm not critcising polytheism.

I'm criticising those who create nonsensial pantheons and weird dogma and worship it, and call themselves "pagans" and their religion "paganism".

I can't stop them, and I don't even try, not that I can anyways.

I'm just pointing on the fact that this is all silly.

[azmhyr]

Well, the other paths are actual religions, in fact.

I mean, I always valued reconstruction movements. Mainly because the recons value their ancestral religious values and cultures, and yet somehow manage to go in hand to hand with modern society.

[BlueFireWitch]

A religion is a system of human thought which usually includes a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power. I don't think you have the authority to say what an "actual" religion is and what isn't. This is the negative speech that I'm talking about. I consider it to be very offensive when one person puts their own self and thoughts above others. Please be considerate.

[azmhyr]

Well, I do not have an authority, maybe, but I myself value real tradition over anything else.

Yet again, a religion is not defined by a sole practitioner.

A religion is based on common values.

Like for example, our celtic recon friend here, he believes in a religion that has several adherents who all share the same values and a common pantheon, common rituals, and common tradition.

This makes it a religion in my eyes.

[BlueFireWitch]

A religion CAN be defined by a sole practitioner. There is no law to say that a cult has to have more than one member. All religions start with one believer.

[azmhyr]

They do, but they cannot be defined by the sole practicioner.

AS I said, if I'd say, I believe in a religion called, gumba, and want it recognized as one, would it be a religion?

No, it's simple not a religion, not even a cult.

[BlueFireWitch]

And I think you hit exactly where the difference of opinion is. Who is anyone to say what is insulting to the Gods and what is not? I never understood how one pantheon of Gods couldn' be considered to touch another pantheon or culture of ideas. But this is where the mutual respect comes in. Just because one person feels that way doesn't mean that idea is universal or exclusive or should be.

[BlueFireWitch]

But, what criticize that? I'm not sure why you have a problem with it.

[azmhyr]

I think it nullifies the purpose of the reconstructive movements within pagan religious societies around the world.

I mean, I really don't like to hear of a self-proclaimed shaman that is convinced that he/she is one.

It takes the hundreds of years of shamanistic tradition of siberia for granted.

I really do not like to see a wiccan worship a hellenic goddess/god. It just feels wrong, seeing the wonderful reconstruction work that the hellenic-pagan community of Greece accomplished.

[BlueFireWitch]

Is Paganism all about Reconstruction? It certainly isn't for me. For me, Paganism is about truth, plain and simple. If I want to reconstruct the past, I'll go to a Renaissance faire.

[azmhyr]

No. Neo-paganism should be about reconstruction. There still are other pagan populations around the world other than yourself. They have their mostly pure tribal traditions, and the reconstruction movement tries to purify the germanic, slavic and etc. European pagan religions as they were, in order to understand the pre-christian roots better.

[princessannikki]

I agree, if it's not based in old paganism, then don't call it paganism, call it New Age.

[BlueFireWitch]

It may feel wrong to you, but that doesn't give you the right to judge them as lesser or less important than so called "reconstruction" traditions. Old, to me, doesn't mean better or more legitamate.

[azmhyr]

I never called them less important, I called them irrelevant to the pagan revivals throughout the world.

For example, they do not keep any pagan traditions alive actually.

Even Wicca tries to keep it's own tradition alive, at least Gardnerian Wicca does.

Recon traditions are indeed more legitimate, because they actually descend from the religions that these people borrow elements from, and do not salvage or scavenge from ethnic religions worldwide.

[princessannikki]

If you're more into the new, then you're New Age - that's how I figure it.

[azmhyr]

Well, one can also call neo-paganism, but not all neopagans are actually into ecclectic and universal stuff.

Not even the wiccans, at least the traditional ones.

[princessannikki]

I think traditional Wiccans are still rather eclectic. I think they started out as trying to be reconstructionists, that was the theory, but quickly turned New Age.

[azmhyr]

Well, it's their choice, of which I'm comfortable with.

What I'm not ok with, that they name their unitarian beliefs as "paganism".

It's nonsense, and reflects their flawed view of religion.

Indeed, throughout history, religions influenced eachother, like the Hittites having a thousand gods, yet nothing like this came out until so far and named their non-religion a religion called "paganism".

Pagan religions as you understand them were mostly ethnic religions.

[mysticalcarter]

very nice perspective sweety. great ending and it made me think a lil about my old church.

[alyawolf]

if i hadn't of shown you the link its never of happened.

[alyawolf]

i let it get to me too, don't lay all the blame on you! its mostly my fault i showed you the link, honestly the whole thing is my fault V.V

[alyawolf]

peopel get definsive about their religion easily, its really a touchy ground and i believe that unless you purposely don't want to start an argument you shouldn't make any comment that is or seems negtive about someones relligion, i get the freedom of speech thing but people will yell at you anyway

[azmhyr]

My main point was not to tell people what to call themselves, my point was to tell them that paganism in itself is not a damn religion.

I tried to explain it to them, that the term is being misused as like paganism represents a religion where "pagans" share common values and virtues, and that paganism is not a religion, it's as you said, a label.

But even now the term is used as a blanket term, not as a term for just "country people".

Nowadays, it applies to non-abrahamic religions.

[BlueFireWitch]

Well that's one definition of it. Some define Pagan with a capitol P as something more norrow that non-Abrahamic than using pagan with a lower case p to refer the more Christianized definition. In actuality, there are alot of folks who claim Paganism as their religion as they borrow from several "Pagan" paths.

[azmhyr]

Well, that's where the actual problem starts.

That's more like "unitarian unversalist", than actually pagan to me.

I think those "pagans" are rather ecclectic wiccans or something, those who mix wicca with lots of other stuff to create something that is not even the least understandable, and does not fit into folk tradition, imo.

[BlueFireWitch]

I'm not really sure what's wrong with unitarian universalist myself. I mean, it's obvious that the Pagan community is diverse, but I don't really have a problem with that.

[azmhyr]

Well, it's anti-tradition.

Neo-pagan movements were born from ancestral religions and traditions.

The unitarian universalist approach to paganism however disregards every true connections and origins of these religions and traditions, and incorporates elements of these at will. I think it's quite wrong, if not ridiculous.

[BlueFireWitch]

I'm not sure why tradition is so important. The way I see it, it was also tradition to treat women like property and commit savage acts in colleseums, etc. I think it makes more sense to evolve than to cling to the past. We can learn from the past and take what's truth, But to hold steadfast to things that no longer make sense, That seems like fundamentalism to me.

[azmhyr]

Well, you're wrong.

I meant religious tradition in that sense.

The tradition means everything, without it, a religion is nothing. It includes the ceremonies, prayers, and various other practices of the particular religion.

If you're going to ignore tradition, what's the point of becoming pagan anyways?

[TheWellofMimir]

To begin with everything is subject to personal perspective. one persons ideas or understanding will never match another persons exactly including those within the same path or even the same coven/kindred/hearth or whatever you call your group.  So I say used whatever term you want however be prepared for someone to disagree. the only thing you can really do is smile and nod.. :) Good video but This issue has been around for a while and will continue until we get out heads out of our asses.

[nargargole]

You think paganism is a problem label? The term Tantra, which just means 'mind liberation', is a term covering a huge spectrum of beliefs and practices, but most people think 'weird sex' when you say the word 'Tantra' - but this can't be helped.

[texanwitchie]

Very well spoken, BlueFireWitch. My thoughts exactly.

[WellOfImbas]

Would it be okay with you BlueFireWitch if I did a respectful video responce?

[BlueFireWitch]

Yeah. that's cool. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.

[WellOfImbas]

No, don't worry. After I commented I looked for it on your page and couldn't find it LOl. Will either get the video up tonight or tomorrow depending on how much work I get done with a couple of other videos I need to upload.

Df Bhrat Bhrigde

Rob

[carthonasi08]

Its a deal, I can use a hand as well. Blessed be.

[carthonasi08]

Still I could have taken into account my position. Lets agree to help inform the other when we are overstepping our boundary.

[carthonasi08]

we both did Raven -internets hug-

[BlueFireWitch]

No offense intended, I just think that both sides got emotional and could have handled things better.

[azmhyr]

But, I'd better send a video response to actually answer the arguments.

[madeofyucca]

I think you make a lot of good points in this. Especially love the "I" statements.

Around min 9 you talk about Chris wondering about why we don't have [as many] orgs like many Christian groups do. I agree with what you are saying about us not organizing well but, would suggest that maybe another contributing factor may be that we are a very young religion (if we are unified enough to be called only one). We may not be established enough yet .

Thanks for sharing. :)

[carthonasi08]

I have to agree with this video. I am guilty of being self-righteous and it is a very hard obstacle to overcome. I would love for the Pagan community to organize these these events and services, unfortunately I think we would be meet with heavy opposition from other religious sides. Though it doesn't mean we shouldn't try : )