Opinion You're not an actual pagan

[Cedra]

In my opinion, they're just edgy hippie atheists.

"but my ancient religion is actually pretty progressive if u think about it compared to christianity!"

No it isn't, it's just as bad or worse. Cutting out slave girls' livers for the glory of the forest god is not progressive.

 

[FairyPrincess]

The term pagan was originally used by Christians to refer to anyone who doesn't believe in the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Muslim). So technically if you have a religion that is not a major religion than, yes, you are pagan.
But Wiccan and Neopaganism, which I think is what you are referring to, is not the same as historical paganism nor do they try to be historical. Nobody does ritualistic sacrifices anymore, unless you are like a serial killer. My experience with neopagans is that they just like to get high.

 

[adrian_]

r/gatekeeping sort of not really

 

[Hige]

Pagans are those who believe in a polytheistic religion. Also you're simplying the complex nature of these ancient socities just to be edgy.

 

[Cedra]

Pagans are those who believe in a polytheistic religion. Also you're simplying the complex nature of these ancient socities just to be edgy.

Do you know what edgy even means? How is simplifying something "edgy"? Maybe it's because I don't want to write an essay on some retarded ancient cult.

 

[RosefromtheRiver]

OKAY! Like we all have our own religions, but can you please do your research before making yourselves sound like idiots? I'm a pagan as well. We don't do sacrifices (Please search up Satanists who are more likely to do that kind of thing). AND ALL RELIGIONS ARE BASED FROM ONE MAIN RELIGION. Please do your research before insulting others with your stupidity (in this case, being closed-minded and not doing the proper reading before making an opinion.

Cutting out slave girls' livers for the glory of the forest god is not progressive

Like what century are you living? The first? You're making yourself sound stupid by saying this.

 

[Hige]

Yes, I do know what edgy means in the same manner in which you used it, to belittle other people's practices just because you look down upon it. As someone who actually does research with the ancient cults you waggle your finger at I have a pretty strong notion you don't know too much about them, otherwise you probably wouldn't be dismissing them.

A lot of them have varying level of tolerance depending on what era you are taking into account (going back to your first point about progressiveness), similar to the Modern US vs. the US in the 60's. Not to say these ancient cults don't have problems, many of them are still a product of their time, but to dismiss them as useless or "retarded" is a clear sign you don't know what value they bring or have already brought. (In case you didn't know, we have a lot of wonderful innovations, from the arts to math from many of these cultures.)

People can make moral judgements on the past (as you should) but those who actually are historians or are trained to understand older cultures know that the past won't always be as progressive as the present. So yeah, there were ancient sacrafices in some cultures. No shit.

However, another point is that acknowledging the good of a culture doesn't erase the bad. You should indeed talk about both the good and bad (although it may have a time and a place). Some of the cultures were progressive, despite your nay-saying. Ancient Egypt was rather infamous for the care it had for the elderly and property rights after death, the Romans were innovative with their military & law codes, and well, an obvious no brainer was Ancient Greece & their philosphy which inspired a lot of the world.

However, I could tell you that some of them actually moved beyond that. Ancient Egypt originally had human sacrafices for the kings, but later after that first era they moved away from that when the nobility & common people were said to be able to transition into the afterlife. In sort of a "you don't kill those sacred" and since "they can go to the Duat" they are sacred sort of fashion.

This tendency in popular culture to try and simplify every little thing is a serious problem because our human socities have never been simple. To simply just wave off other ancient cultures as "retarded" shows a clear lack of understanding of what many of them were. You really don't have to be a historian to understand these socities, just someone who is open to learning about them.

And as for the actual point of the thread, your nay saying is rather unplesant. If you want to have a discussion about religion if you can, but you actually have to understand their religion before you give your commentary on it. Paganism is so varied in it's modern variation. Were they a recon? One of the orthodxys? Neo-Druidism? Heathen? Kemetic? Kemetic Orthodxy? Wiccan? Were they solitary?

 

[rae2nerdy]

So at first I honestly thought what OP was trying to say was something along the lines of

"Man don't you hate it when some asshole tries to use religion to get around acting like a garbage person?"

Buuut I see that I was incorrect.

On a side note I would like to ask the actual pagans what your view is on people who do that.

Like use being a "Pagan" to justify a really superior or just shitty attitude.

I was reading a blog where this one was talking about the worst person she had ever met. ( we'll call her Sue )

Sue was a liar, a manipulator, self - centered , and always one upping blogger. She also happened to claim that she was a "Witch/Pagan"

So far as I can tell Sue only claimed this when she wanted to seem "deep" or "mystical".

Like I can't possibly get a job I must spend time feeding my aura or whatever.

Or I can't possibly use sanitary products because the mother goddess wishes us to celebrate our womanly flows.

Like really gross obnoxious behavior that she justified by being a "Pagan/Witch".

And whenever anyone called her out on it being you know gross and obnoxious she would get all "How dare you sneer at my religion you prudish christian no-nothing muggles". ( well not those exact the words but like super pretentious false outrage basically )

 

[Hige]

On a side note I would like to ask the actual pagans what your view is on people who do that.

Like use being a "Pagan" to justify a really superior or just shitty attitude.

You can still be a religious person and be a total tool. Just like with any religion. Paganism isn't different. Some may have moral guidelines but people can choose to follow it or not, just like Christanity.

 

[rae2nerdy]

You can still be a religious person and be a total tool. Just like with any religion. Paganism isn't different. Some may have moral guidelines but people can choose to follow it or not, just like Christanity.

Oh yeah obviously I just wondered how you felt when it was like your specific religion. I know it pisses me off when people use christianity to justify being toolbags and christianity is pretty mainstream ( i am also not particularly devout in my religion either )

Like how does it make you feel when people like deliberately misrepresent your religion and just sort of appropriate it ( ? is that right ? ) for to seem like cool or superior or whatever.

 

[Hige]

Oh yeah obviously I just wondered how you felt when it was like your specific religion. I know it pisses me off when people use christianity to justify being toolbags and christianity is pretty mainstream ( i am also not particularly devout in my religion either )

Like how does it make you feel when people like deliberately misrepresent your religion and just sort of appropriate it ( ? is that right ? ) for to seem like cool or superior or whatever.

The problem is with a lot of paganism religions is they are all differnet. I don't call myself a kemetic anymore but a Sethian Cultist. Even when I did all other kemetics are different. It's like we're all different secs of christianity but on an individual level but sometimes we have a lot of things to agree upon. Generally modern pagans make their own path, so they all turn out different. It's weird to say "my religion" because no one but me follows "my religion." We may follow the same gods (or be devoted to the same or different ones) but we may believe in different things or values.

 

[rae2nerdy]

The problem is with a lot of paganism religions is they are all differnet. I don't call myself a kemetic anymore but a Sethian Cultist. Even when I did all other kemetics are different. It's like we're all different secs of christianity but on an individual level but sometimes we have a lot of things to agree upon. Generally modern pagans make their own path, so they all turn out different. It's weird to say "my religion" because no one but me follows "my religion." We may follow the same gods (or be devoted to the same or different ones) but we may believe in different things or values.

Well I mean I mean in the sense that someone says - I'm Pagan so I can be an asshole and if you say anything against it I'll whine about discrimination. Or I'm a Pagan so I'm obviously so much more superior to you non-believers.

I mean sort of like if someone went around calling women who got pregnant out of wedlock whores or gay people abominations. And then they turned around and said it was okay because they're Catholic.

Like obviously that's assholish behavior and makes all christians look bad not just cathloics.

And christianity is a much more mainstream religion so people are at least aware there are different denominations and they believe very different things.

Paganism isn't that mainstream so most people aren't going to no the difference between a kemetic or a sethian cultists or a wiccan or a voodoo practioner or whatever.

So their going to see people like Sue from my previous post and assume she represents ALL pagans and thus that pagans are jackoffs trying to get around being assholes by claiming to be pagan.

 

[NofaceFell]

OKAY! Like we all have our own religions, but can you please do your research before making yourselves sound like idiots? I'm a pagan as well. We don't do sacrifices (Please search up Satanists who are more likely to do that kind of thing).

The only input I wish to add, since most everything else I thought has been brought up, is this. Real Satanists don't preform human sacrifice, in fact they don't even preform animal sacrifice. People who preform sacrifices to Satan are not true satanists, and very few cases of a human sacrifice have even been discovered.

 

[RosefromtheRiver]

The only input I wish to add, since most everything else I thought has been brought up, is this. Real Satanists don't preform human sacrifice, in fact they don't even preform animal sacrifice. People who preform sacrifices to Satan are not true satanists, and very few cases of a human sacrifice have even been discovered.

Well I was wrong in that case. For those who are Satanists, I am sorry for my ignorance (I meant no harm).

 

[NofaceFell]

Well I was wrong in that case. For those who are Satanists, I am sorry for my ignorance (I meant no harm).

No problem, we learn new things everyday. Besides it's not like we, Satanists, Pagans, ect, are portrayed in the best light in media and fiction. There are a ton of misconceptions and sometimes we just can't help believing them. ?

 

[CastoffCaptain]

"Pagan" originally meant "foreigner" or "from the country", and then later became associated with religion, just to clarify.

Pagans do not have to follow multiple gods.

There are all shades, flavors, types, and colorings of Pagans. Kemetics, Asatru, eclectic, Reconstructionist, henotheists... Etc. There are even several shades of Wiccans.

Telling the world someone is or isn't a type of thing you know nothing about is... Well. Ignorant.

One can't be an atheist who doesn't believe in a deity if one believes in a deity.

Also, trolls are idiots.

 

[rae2nerdy]

One can't be an atheist who doesn't believe in a deity if one believes in a deity.

Also, trolls are idiots.

lol yeah that was the first thing that jumped out at me. even when i thought they were speaking in good faith i was like... but you can't believe in gods and also be an atheist.

 

[Meredith]

Paganism is defined by any non-major religion. Your misunderstanding doesn't change the fact that they're just non-abrahamic.

OKAY! Like we all have our own religions, but can you please do your research before making yourselves sound like idiots? I'm a pagan as well. We don't do sacrifices (Please search up Satanists who are more likely to do that kind of thing).

Also, no. Satanists don't beleive in Satan - Christians do. Satanists are LaVey's followers who follow the 11 Satanic Rules of the Earth, which are rules that forbid violence towards people who don't harm you, so there's not actually such a thing as a 'satanic sacrifice'.

 

[Meredith]

The only input I wish to add, since most everything else I thought has been brought up, is this. Real Satanists don't preform human sacrifice, in fact they don't even preform animal sacrifice. People who preform sacrifices to Satan are not true satanists, and very few cases of a human sacrifice have even been discovered.

Well I was wrong in that case. For those who are Satanists, I am sorry for my ignorance (I meant no harm).

...Ah, hell, that'd already been responded to. Sorry to both of yall - tired eyes!

 

[NofaceFell]

...Ah, hell, that'd already been responded to. Sorry to both of yall - tired eyes!

Nothing to apologise for. Tired eyes are evil and we all know it.

 

[Platypus]

Also, no. Satanists don't beleive in Satan - Christians do

To be fair, there's several version of satanists and some of them do believe in Satan.

 

[Suum]

To be fair, there's several version of satanists and some of them do believe in Satan.

I think this is an important point.

"Satanism" does have multiple meanings and interlinks with three core definitions:

- An interchangable term with paganism to denote someone of opposing belief
- Operating within the confines of a satanic cult belief system (a cult within christianity as Meredith hints at)
- Operating within the confines of the religion, satanism, which is derived from christianity, but does not operate within it

The only input I wish to add, since most everything else I thought has been brought up, is this. Real Satanists don't preform human sacrifice, in fact they don't even preform animal sacrifice. People who preform sacrifices to Satan are not true satanists, and very few cases of a human sacrifice have even been discovered.

Calling one definition the "real" definition doesn't ignore the fact there are multiple definitions, especially when the one you are refering to as real is not the most established use of the term over the course of history and even into modern day.

With that in mind, it's fair to say that Rose could have done better in clarifying that they were refering to the cult definition rather than that of the religion, but saying that your definition is the "real" one and denouncing the cults of satanism as not actually being satanism is somewhat disrespectful to those with that belief system. I'm certainly not a fan of satanic cults, but I don't think it's an excuse to be disrespectful in the sense of not even acknowledging someone's belief system as the term it is most commonly used for.

I don't think anyone in here would be particularly pleased if I said you're not "real" roleplayers because myself and a group of others decided it now means "someone who plays by rolling around". Language evolves, but we can either accept all definitions or we have to accept the one of most commonly accepted use, which, unfortunately, is not modern satanism but the concept of a satanic cult. That is how language evolves after all, by acceptance of those using the language, and we're not at the stage where modern satanism is a more known/accepted use of the language than satanism in terms of a satanic cult.

--------------------------

Back on topic though. I'd just clarify to the OP that christianity, at its foundation, was every bit as crazy as other religions at that point in time. Whilst Christianity has developed between then and now, so has just about every other religion in one way or another. But because I want to acknowledge the point you were actually trying to make, I do sympathise with the fact someone might refer to themselves as pagan or wiccan to try and be edgy, though there are also people who genuinely follow the belief system too. The same is true across a wide variety of topics including topics such as pansexuality (some genuinely are, and some don't even know what it means).

Ultimately, it's currently cool to be different, and in a society where large portions of the world are so connected, people are indeed trying harder and harder to achieve that through creative use of self-identification. It is also important to remember though that some people genuinely do hold the beliefs they say, and you can't group everyone under the banner of trying to be edgy.

 

[Meredith]

To be fair, there's several version of satanists and some of them do believe in Satan.

"Satanism" does have multiple meanings and interlinks with three core definitions:

- An interchangable term with paganism to denote someone of opposing belief
- Operating within the confines of a satanic cult belief system (a cult within christianity as Meredith hints at)
- Operating within the confines of the religion, satanism, which is derived from christianity, but does not operate within it

On Satanism,
" Anton Szandor LaVey (1930—1997) was the founder of the Church of Satan, the first organized church in modern times promulgating a religious philosophy championing Satan as the symbol of personal freedom and individualism. Unlike the founders of other religions, who claimed exalted “inspiration” delivered through some supernatural entity, LaVey readily acknowledged that he used his own faculties to synthesize Satanism, based on his understanding of the human animal and insights gained from earlier philosophers who advocated materialism and individualism. Concerning his role as founder, he said that, “If he didn’t do it himself, someone else, perhaps less qualified, would have.” "

Because LaVey was the first to formally found a religion branded as Satanism, 'real Satanism' can actually be branded. You couldn't make up a religion based on a spaghetti monster and call it Christianity. Same principle here. The core definition of Satanism is the LaVeyan type even if an Abrahamic world does not wish it as such.

Calling one definition the "real" definition doesn't ignore the fact there are multiple definitions, especially when the one you are refering to as real is not the most established use of the term over the course of history and even into modern day.

Pre-LaVey, the term 'pagen' was usually used to describe non-abrahamic religions, followers of which were sometimes alluded to as 'Devil Followers'. More rarely were followers of 'satanic following' mentioned.

In the context of LaVeyan Satanism, the word 'satanist' was supposed to be an allude to the devil (who satanists covet as a symbol of individualism and self-love) - literally, it was meant to scare away people that LaVey didn't wish to consume his ideals.

With that in mind, it's fair to say that Rose could have done better in clarifying that they were refering to the cult definition rather than that of the religion, but saying that your definition is the "real" one and denouncing the cults of satanism as not actually being satanism is somewhat disrespectful to those with that belief system.

Nope. People that follow Satan aren't Satanists. They can call themselves anything they want, and they're certainly free to worship the Devil if they so desire, but the religion has already been defined. Pseudo-Satanist is a better term.

 

[Suum]

Meredith

I'm sorry but you can't ignore the history of a word based on the fact someone formed an organisation at a later date in time. "Satanism" and dervied words date far further back in the 1900s. As much as I credit you for using a source other than wikipedia (which is the norm these days), using the actual Church of Satan as the source for the definition of Satanism which places the Church of Satan at the heart of the concept is biased at best. But since this is the route we're going...

This is a quote from the Satanic Bible, published by LaVey in 1969 and in the words of Burton H. Wolfe, acknowledging the traditional covens (cults) of Satanism which existed before the church. This acknowledged the use of the term still popularised and commonplace today. Although it is the word of Wolfe, this was published by LaVey himself as the original introduction to the Satanic Bible and the central text to the entire religion. He said: "To this seemingly old story LaVey and his organization of contemporary Faustians offered two strikingly new chapters. First, they blasphemously represented themselves as a "church", a term previously confined to the branches of Christianity, instead of the traditional coven of Satanism and witchcraft lore. "

There is a reason that LaVey's satanism is traditionally refered to as modern satanism or contemporary satanism, and this is because the word already had a definition which was acknowledged within the Satanic Bible itself and commonplace in language. This is also the commonplace use of the word to this day and so while you can argue that LaVey's satanism is a legitimate definition of the word, you cannot argue that it is the definition of the word. At least, not until it becomes the defacto normal usage in society, which your definition of satanism is presently not - modern society still associates the term with devil worship.

On the note of more general uses of satanic, please see Children of Lucifer: The Origins of Modern Religious Satanism by Ruben van Luijk which clearly details the historic use of the word and commonplace usage. It also discusses LaVey's satanism extensively, but for the purpose of this discussion, it is the clear recognition of satanism's multiple definitions across vast amounts of cultures throughout time which is important here. Even the title and vast portions of the introduction highlight the clear need for him to define which use of the word satanism he is even discussing, which only further enforces my point that other definitions have legitimacy and cannot be ignored as "fake" or "pseudo".

Language evolves over time, but you can't force it. We are not yet at a point where someone using the word satanism is traditionally translated as LaVey's definition. Language is established by original use (various definitions) and later evolves by public acceptance (as a cult, with other definitions having become moderately established). Language does not, however, pander to who shouts the loudest. While a brand may expediate accepted changes in language, a brand does not, unfortunately, signify the actual change. If it did, then a group of walkers would be a pile of crisps and a an i-phone a day would keep the doctor away.

 

[NofaceFell]

Ah, my only point was to let someone of a different faith know that people in my church don't engage in human sacrifice. I am a Satanist, couple generations in, and to clear up a misconception was my intention. In the church we do not acknowledge people who have radical ideals of Satan or sacrifice or harm others in his name. We are united under a banner but we are all different in how we practice our faith, for lack of a better word. Some of us believe in magick, others are hard core believers in science and think magic is out of bounds. We all abide by our rules, and none of us murder in the name of Satan. To me, a satan worshiper and a Satanist are two very different things. This is true for all Satanists of the church. Plus, I stand by that very few cases of human sacrifice have ever been validated, and in the ones that have been have not always been in the same of satan.

My comments were not about any one else's conceptions of the faith, just to clear up the sacrifice thing.