What exactly is Pagan?

[Nightwish]

What exactly is Pagan?
If oftain wondered what would be considered a pagan faith. In this country (uk) The main religion is christian, so id imagine the deffinition here would be someone that doesn't belive in the mainstream god. The mainstream being the god of the christians, jews and muslims.

But then wouldn't that make the hindu faith a pagan religion? Most pagans i know pray to and worship a wide range of gods, i happen to like the norse gods, but i know people who worship the egyptian or cletic panteon. These gods are from differant cultures and there are meny gods in each group, so would that not make the hindu faith a pagan faith too.

So what would you describe as a pagan faith?

Oh im just using the hindu faith as an example as it has meny gods so its similar the a pagan faith but i could of picked any of the other faiths that dont worship the mainstream christian god.

[Rook]

I believe the group term for Jewish Xtian and Muslim faiths is the Abrahamic religions as they all recognise him as a major leader. I am not going to try and define modern paganism. The term predates the abrahamic faiths and I think is from Greek and used to separate the supposedly sophisticated "civilised" folks (ie those living in the cities)from the faith of the peasantry. I understanding is that it has similar origins to paeon and peasant. I think the connection is a religion of the countyside and that it referes to a rural or nature based religion but I may well be wrong. It then became a word used for 'those who dont believe what we believe'.

[Nightwish]

The word Pagan comes from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller" or "rustic" so you might be right about it being a religion of the countryside.

[Saraha]

my understanding is that it's the conqueror's word for the conquered - Romans stayed safe in and near towns, anyone else was a bumpkin or pagan, the Saxon equivalent was heorthan, which gives us our modern word heathen.

Now in Henry VIII's time the only safe place for the English in Ireland was the Dublin Fort, known as the Pale. Going outside, into Ireland proper was considered dangerous and corrupting. It was in fact literally beyond the Pale. So you could say being Pagan is going beyond the pale.

I've said before that I see the words Pagan and Queer following similar paths; both began as an insult, both words have been politically reclaimed by the people they sought to insult. Who now have to deal with the fact that nothing genuinely unites them other than external oppression and they have no inherent boundaries.

I'm tired, I've said that more eloquently in the past but that is how I see Pagan; a loose collective of people united by nothing more than a spiritual curiosity. a deviance from the religious majority and the (potential at least) oppression of that majority.

[Boris]

It is always a mistake to come up with narrow or even broad definitions, the judaeochristlamic religions are not monoliths (trilithons? LOL) as each have their factions which overlap.

There are the monthoeistic religions - but e.g. Catholicism pays lip-service to polytheism with the virgin mary and the saints of this or that
The personality cults - most notably the moonies but also other faiths or sects with an identified founder at one end and the fundamentalist JESUS cults at another, maybe even Gardnerian Wicca could fall within this grouping
Prescriptive vs Experiential - e.g. the good book (fundies) vs personal interaction with the divine (e.g. Buddhism)
Dualism vs Everythingness - the divine as separate from or integral to the material world
Natural vs anthropomorphic - venerating the forces of nature directly or intermediately via an anthropomorphised god-figure

I could go on. My point is that there are several dimensions to religious faith and any one religion will fall somewhere along the various spectra.

I don't know enough about Hinduism to judge propertly, but on the surface it is polytheistic, recognises the divine feminity and has nature-based (e.g. elephant) gods, so I've always regarded it as a pagan religion with a small 'p'.

[Saraha]

All gods descend from the supreme and unworshippable Brahman (not to be confused with the god Brahma) and while there are goddessed they are secondary to and subservient to the male trimurti, the triple godhead of Vishnu Shiva and Brahma. To the point that Shiva's wife and equal, Shakti, was killed off and brought back as the more docile, family oriented Parvati to ensure and maintain that hierarchy. Get to a certain point and the difference between religion and soap opera starts to blur.

[Blackbird]

All gods descend from the supreme and unworshippable Brahman (not to be confused with the god Brahma) and while there are goddessed they are secondary to and subservient to the male trimurti, the triple godhead of Vishnu Shiva and Brahma. To the point that Shiva's wife and equal, Shakti, was killed off and brought back as the more docile, family oriented Parvati to ensure and maintain that hierarchy. Get to a certain point and the difference between religion and soap opera starts to blur.

I'm not sure that what you say about goddesses here is the only Hindu perspective.

I was under the impression that while Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva attract much of the worship, as the public face of deity, their consort goddesses represented the active power which they channel.

I also think of the worship of White Kali, who is an all-encompassing goddess; and Black Kali, who is certainly not a domesticated figure!

But there certainly is a tradition within Hinduism that "All gods descend from the supreme and unworshippable Brahman"; and, from this point of view (and also because of the use of "pagan" as a term of abuse by Christians in the past) many Hindus do not like to be called pagan; I think that, whatever the similarities between the polytheistic side of Hinduism and other paganisms, we should respect this sensitivity.

[Saraha]

I'm not sure that what you say about goddesses here is the only Hindu perspective.

Of course it isn't, we know how huge Hinduism is as a faith system; I'm over-simplifying for sheer necessity, no mention of the Amu, possibly the oldest Indian deity and a mother goddess, who really is a bridge between Vedic Hinduism and the earlier, more Tantric beliefs.

I was under the impression that while Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva attract much of the worship, as the public face of deity, their consort goddesses represented the active power which they channel.

Which would make them effectively extensions of the gods, not beings in their own right. Certainly not my understanding. Parvati, Lakshmi and Sarasvati are all goddesses in their own right, the worship of Shakti and her aspect Kali probably predate the arrival of Shiva. Interestingly there's actually very little worship of Brahma, he has only a handful of temples.

I also think of the worship of White Kali, who is an all-encompassing goddess; and Black Kali, who is certainly not a domesticated figure!

Kali has always been a problem for conservatives. I'm told that her worship is considered dangerous but will not go away; even when Shakti was converted into Parvati Kali wouldn't go away, and so Kali was made an aspect of Parvati.

But there certainly is a tradition within Hinduism that "All gods descend from the supreme and unworshippable Brahman"; and, from this point of view (and also because of the use of "pagan" as a term of abuse by Christians in the past) many Hindus do not like to be called pagan; I think that, whatever the similarities between the polytheistic side of Hinduism and other paganisms, we should respect this sensitivity.

I've said above that I consider the word Pagan to be in a state of flux; it has no real solid definition beyond really being a word Christians use for non-Christians. Which does rather beg the question should we use it at all?

[Blackbird]

Which would make them effectively extensions of the gods, not beings in their own right. Certainly not my understanding.

Or alternatively, would make the gods just masks of the real powers here! Neither of which is my understanding.

I'm sure that there are Hindus who, as you suggested, see the goddesses as "secondary to and subservient to the male", just as there are Hindus who, like the western neo-Platonists, prefer to focus on the ultimate unity of the one source. But, as you agree, there are many traditions there!

And I'd suggest that that's one thing that modern paganism has in common with Hinduism - the sheer diversity.

[Saraha]

ooh I like that - Paganism as a Western Hinduism. Not actually Hinduism obviously, but a many branches one tree type of religion, tolerant and inclusive and based on a positive and spiritual view of the human being. Sorry I think I'm putting words in your mouth there but I think that's what you said? And yes, I really like that..

[Hereweald]

I don't know enough about Hinduism to judge propertly, but on the surface it is polytheistic

Monotheism and polytheism are mutually opposed, but pantheism embraces the two stances. Hinduism appears polytheistic on the surface because of the plethora of dieties. The word 'avatar' is a Hindu word that refers to a deliberate descent of a deity from heaven to earth. Hindus believe there is one universe and when mankind is in need the universe will create an avatar to descend to earth and guide man back on to the right path. This makes Hinduism a pantheistic religion and Buddha, Jesus, Momamad, Odin and Bob Marley are all avatars. I reckon anyway.

ooh I like that - Paganism as a Western Hinduism

I think, from a Hindu perspective we are all Hindu, everyone. If so, then from a pagan perspective we are all pagan, everyone.