(no subject)

[badstar]

I was talking to Caryn on Friday night, and she repeatedly told me "Renee, you're not pagan. You're Apollonian. You're a priestess of Apollo."

Apparently though, this actually came originally from Will.

Caryn also said that she hadn't thought of it before, but after reading my journal, it occurred to her that she didn't see me as clergy.

Comments

[dubhlainn.livejournal.com]

hmmm... I don't know. I personally have a difficult time understanding the reluctance for some Reconstructionists in accepting the term "pagan" or even "neo-pagan".

For me it is just a convienant term to generally discuss those religious expressions that are not Abrahamic, Indian, or Far Eastern. I am not one who normally likes to define things in the negative however that is the whole point of the term Paganism. My feeling is that for all that is different about the respective pagan religious traditions there are many more similarities.

I also happen to believe it is a mistake to isolate ourselves for the sake sematics.

[needa.livejournal.com]

I don't think a negative definition works here. Atheists are neither Abrahamic, Indian, nor Far Eastern, but they most assuredly are not any form of Pagan. Ditto the Agnostics.

[dubhlainn.livejournal.com]

Certainly atheists are not pagans and I suppose I should have included them in the original definition, I guess I considered it a given.

[droops.livejournal.com]

Actually I've seen more than one person describe themselves as 'atheist pagans.' I personally find that mind-boggling, but there are some out there who defend that definition. *shrug*

[fuego.livejournal.com]

This is true. It hurts my brain also.

BUT "pagan" is one of those words that I will not really argue over who can or can't call themselves pagan- and don't really think that others should either because there is no single commonly-accepted definition. If we can't reach an agreed definition, we can't just point to something and say "that's pagan", "that's not".

Now, as soon as you start breaking it down into anything more defined, I will definitely argue- for example, I'm not Wiccan, I've never been, no desire to be. But I get into arguments all the time about what is/n't Wicca (I'm with the BTW's on that one)


I have very distinct ideas about what I think "pagan" refers to...which would include European cultural reconstructionists...but then my urban-dwelling, city-loving brain starts to whine "but I'm not a country dweller."

*shrug*

I've said before...I often avoid the term, and I think we'd be better off making far more use of the names of individual religions- oh, but then there's all the issues with the word "religion"...and the "Don't label me" crowd (80% of whom want to be called Wiccan and will pitch a bitch if you try to suggest otherwise.)

[chironcentaur.livejournal.com]

It comes mostly from a desire to distance ourselves from Wicca and wiccan-ish neopagan religions. For too many people Wiccan and Pagan pretty much mean the same thing, and most reconstructionist religions have about as much in common with those sorts of neopagan types as they do with your average Christian, which is to say just about nothing (though your comment seems to indicate you disagree with that, I'd love to hear what you think the commonalities are, if you have a different take on things). I get a little annoyed whenever I tell someone I'm Pagan and then have to explain that I'm not Wiccan because that's the assumption that is made. Its one of the reasons I've pretty much stopped using that term altogether, though not the only one. I agree that it is a convenient label for discussing certain types of religions, but just a very confusing one when trying to apply it to yourself.

I think the point of this comment was to say that her religion is far more focused on the cult of a single god. Someone who is strongly devoted to a single (or more than one) god and serves them almost exclusively is going to have very different religious thoughts, experiences, rituals, values, everything than a Pagan that doesn't have such a relationship. Pagan is a vague and nebulous term, Apollonian more specific and far more relevant.

it is a mistake to isolate ourselves for the sake sematics

I also tend to think its a mistake to try to force community for community's sake. If Pagan is mostly a term to try to build community between a bunch of different faiths that have nothing to do with each other. How do we build a coherent community out of large groups of people that don't believe the same things, have the same holy days, the same values? Renee and I share a lot of the same beliefs and have had many of the same sorts of experiences (with different gods), which is why I may share more religiously with her than with most other people. But with the broader Pagan community, its like they speak a completely different language; I may find their faith and their experiences interesting but I don't in anyway feel a sense of community with them, not like I do with some of the Recons that I've met.

But then again, I'm really not the community sort. So I guess you have to take my opinions for whatever you think they're worth.

[dubhlainn.livejournal.com]

Actually I do disagree that there are major differences between wicca and reconstructionist religions. That is not to say they are the same thing. Primarily the similarities I see is in "belief" or actually the lack there of.

Both approaches are ritualistic in nature. I do not feel that in ancient Greek culture that literal belief in the Deities was neccesary or even asked about. What was important was following the forms in support of the community/family. But all of that may be a unique point of view, or I may be projecting other IE cultures onto the Greek that is just not true.

Oh... I guess I was not clear in my first comment in that I also agree that Apollonian is by far a more accurate term. I just am not sure I agree that the more specific negates the general.

As for community... well were the ancient cultures and rituals communal in nature? I get the sense that they were but then I may again be projecting. I also suppose that community is important to me and I feel completely in community with you, Renee, Slavic Recontructionists etc. even though we may not share a singular religious expression. It is the reason I spoke up to begin with. I feel as we have much more in common (reverence for the old gods, a desire to improve our lives, seeking to be our best selves, reliance on formal ritual etc.) than we do that seperates us.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

(to be clear, I'm not finished, just waiting for your response)

[fuego.livejournal.com]

(i pout this in the wrong place)

[chironcentaur.livejournal.com]

Primarily the similarities I see is in "belief" or actually the lack there of.

Ancient religions did care far more about right practice than right belief. I don't know if Wicca is in the same category. But this is not to say that today we all don't have plenty of shared beliefs that are very important to us and which do set us apart from others that don't share those same beliefs. For example, most (though not all) Reconstructionists are hard polytheists and find the duotheistic view of deity that many Wiccans hold to be insulting to the gods. I do think people can believe whatever they want to believe, but I would not be attending a ritual that treats one of the gods I love as just one more mask for the uber god to wear.

Both approaches are ritualistic in nature

So does every other religion on earth. More importantly, the differences between the ritual forms are so great that they don't look anything like the same thing. Most Reconstructionist rituals are no where near so formal, most recon rituals are far more devotional in nature than your average Wiccan ritual is (which focuses much more on magic and using the gods for some sort of self improvement). Rituals are formed around how a religion views the deities and the world; comparing the two together shows that neither religion has a similar world view.

What was important was following the forms in support of the community/family.

True, but you were unlikely to find the ancient Greeks getting together with the ancient Celts and the ancient Norse and tailoring a ritual that all of us can participate in together as one big happy family. The ancients had more of a live and let live attitude to other faiths it seemed, those who worshipped different gods from different faiths did so on their own.

There are also, besides different ideas about deity and ritual forms, the lack of shared holy days, different values and priorities (you've seen Renee bitch on an earlier post about "earth centered" religions, your average Recon does not consider their religion to be nature based, and with how strongly that belief is held among those who do feel that way it can be a major sticking point), different ideas even about what the purpose of religion is.

And if the orthopraxic method is what should unite us all, once again the rituals don't look the same. Wiccan ritual is foreign to me, and vice versa. In orthopraxic ancient religions, there was a common ritual form that all of them shared, that made them a community. So I don't think we're truly united on that front either; sharing an idea that practice is more important than believing certain things when the practices are radically different doesn't really count.

Which is not to say that we can't all get along, learn from each other. But I do feel we are very separate religions and prefer to recognize it as such.

[dubhlainn.livejournal.com]

Which is not to say that we can't all get along, learn from each other.

Actually, that is the main point I was trying to make

But I do feel we are very separate religions and prefer to recognize it as such.

I view this as the same as lets say Friends (Quakers) and Episcopalions. They are certainly very distinct and different religious, and yet both exist under the unbrella term Christian. Additionally I imagine many Quakers would be uncomfortable in a High Church setting and many Episcolpalions would not be comfortable the religious setting of compelte silence of a Friends meeting.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

hmmm... I don't know. I personally have a difficult time understanding the reluctance for some Reconstructionists in accepting the term "pagan" or even "neo-pagan".

Okay: here's the cliffs notes and a big part of it is really the same as my bitch about "pagan" events:

It can be blamed largely on Llewellyn. It's such a pervasive assumption that if one identifies as "pagan", then one must cast circles, call quarters, and worship The God and The Goddess in their aspects. Oh yeah, and "pagan" simply MUST equal "earth-based" or "nature-worshipping". Not quite as wide-spread but still out there is the idea that one must be to some degree or other "eclectic".

I'll need to find my list of reasons I've been given at times that I'm "not a real pagan"- it's a good page long, but to give you a sampling...

1. don't cast circles
2. don't call quarters
3. am hard polytheist (dammit, that's not a deity, that's a personality disorder!)
4. I don't relate to the earth and nature in a religious context (In an ADF ritual, those elements are included, and while I'm perfectly fine with paying homage to the earth and nature to open the ritual and in the context of the kindreds, you're not going to find me doing a ritual in honor of the fairies or bowing down and worshipping the dirt.)
5. don't cast spells
6. I don't use an athame, chalice, pentacle or wand

it goes on, but you get the idea.

The assumption that I must do x, y and z because I'm "pagan" drives me nuts. Yeah...there's always the option to argue it, but even if I get someone to understand that there is no such thing as universality when talking about pagan religions, there are always a dozen more for that one, and unfortunately, Llewelyn has a much wider distribution than I do.

Other than that, like I've said before, "pagan" has so little actual meaning- when you can't give any definite positive defnition and can only say "well, we know it's not x,y or z, probably not a or b and we're kinda shaky on c,d and e..." it gets really useless.

Pretend you know nothing about me, and you ask about my religion, and I say "I'm a pagan"- what are the first thoughts that come to mind? What do you think I do (or don't)?- I don't care how offensive or stereotypical you might think it is, I want to know what you think when you hear nothing more detailed than that someone is pagan.

[dubhlainn.livejournal.com]

Actually this happens to me pretty commonly. Or some varient, maybe someone will say to me at my church "I am interested in the Pagan group can you tell me more?" etc.

Now 5 years ago I would have been just as you say, immediatly assumed the person was Wiccan or practiced some type of craft but I have sense learned about a huge amount of diversity that exists even with those who call themselves wiccan.

Today, if someone says "I am a pagan" I usually respond by "Do you follow a specific tadition" or something like that.

I mean what you are saying happens to me as well. I have to explain what I mean when I say Druid or Druidry. One of my best friends told me yesterday "all goddesses are the goddess" which as a polytheist I do not agree with.

I gots to get ready for work, more later?

[chronarchy.livejournal.com]

Clergy is an internal calling, a vocation. Weirdly, it's not one of those things that others will necessarily agree with you on.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

Weirdly, it's not one of those things that others will necessarily agree with you on.

Actually, no one's ever disagreed with me on it- or if they did, never said anything, except for one person way back at the beginning- who really didn't know me at all. Caryn had said she was surprised when I walked in one day back in '05 and said I was joining ADF, going to do the DP and move onto the CTP, but she felt no place to question it- and that it was only after reading what I've been writing this week that she really thought about it.

At this point, I've been around the grove long enough, and know and respect Caryn enough that if she told me today that she thought I was full of crap and deluding myself, I'd listen to what she had to say and give it some consideration. It certainly wouldn't dictate what I'd do, but I'd give it enough thought to consider why she was saying that and whether there was really any merit to it.

Clergy is an internal calling, a vocation.

This is true. And I've come to the conclusion that either 1. I was misinterpreting where I needed to focus all along or 2. Something changed to change that focus.

I'm not sure which, and I guess it doesn't really matter. What matters is that I've figured it out and am putting my focus in the right place now.

[verginiamus.livejournal.com]

How does your budding relationship with Dioneysis fit into all of this? It seems to me that they are two halves of the same whole. I can see you serving the Greek Gods. I did have doubts about you being clergy from meeting you and reading your lj. But being an Initiate - that I see from your Fire Dancing. Loved that.

[fuego.livejournal.com]

How does your budding relationship with Dioneysis fit into all of this?

Somewhere...lol...that's all I know for sure at this point. One does not exclude the other.


It seems to me that they are two halves of the same whole.

I have theories....see this entry- this is about as extensively as I've written about it at this point, because I'm really trying to come up with something better-thought-out. Not quite two halves of the same whole- even more closely intertwined and almost inextricably linked...

http://fuego.livejournal.com/622103.html