Is Neopaganism in any way related to classical paganism?

[Gatefan1976]

Actually, it is perfectly possible for a Christian to not believe in the Trinity, and yet still be Christian. This doesn't necessarily mean that Trinitarians will accept them as such, but the 16th century Unitarians were indeed Christians who simply believed the God was ONE being rather than a trinity, hence the name "Unitarian" applied to their particular brand of the faith. Also, in very early Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity had not yet been invented or solidified, so it can be argued (rather successfully) that a great number of the first Christians knew nothing of the Trinity, and therefore did not believe in it.

I can give citations if anyone wants, as this is all historical material. Bear in mind that I am not only a Unitarian-Universalist in addition to being Pagan (this is actually not uncommon, modern UUism being a somewhat different creature from its spiritual forebears, despite having evolved directly from them) but I am also a lay historian specializing in the medieval and Renaissance eras.

And in doing so, you reinforce my point, Thank you

[aretood2]

Sure, I can totally dig that.
I would start narrowing down exactly *what* you want to look at though.
IF you wanted to look at Norse beliefs, pick up or look at online Lee M Hollanders translation of the Edda's for example.
I dunno, sounds like you want to know more, and as much as I'd like to say I can tell you all you want to know, I just can't.
If you want a list of "suggested reading" however, I could probably provide that.

I'll hold of for now, since Ukko gave me a list a few weeks ago. Just for the record I am looking more for the scholarly side of things. History wise.

Well, this is *somewhat* related to the idea of writing (the act of physically recording information), can be a good or bad thing, But I don't think that's what you are talking about. History has a funny way of "appearing" or being "proven" when we really need it sometimes.

No it did not, it did however get people crucified, fed to lions and burnt at the stake.
Are you REALLY ready to die for no reason besides that you believe in Jehovah??

This would be a bridge I'd have to cross once I, and if I, get to it. But ideally, yes. Actually Korean Christians were faced with this challenge during WWII when they were forced to bow to the Emperor. Their stubborn resistance to do so has turned Christianity in Korea from a foreign religion to a native religion since it was seen as an action of resistance against the imperialistic invaders. Now one quarter of South Koreans are Christian.

Hmm
Purely "faithwise", no, not that I am aware of.

In Christianity you can be a vegetarian and claim that it is for God, but that is not needed to please God. However the freedom to believe so is there.

Notice the use of your word "honorable"
Why did Christ become a sacrifice?

I am sure that the Aztec "Sacraficee" was honored...not too sure about the none Aztec "Sacraficees." To them, the Aztecs were just crazy and the Conquistadors were a blessing...until they showed their true colors, then it was a lose lose situation. History if fun that way.

This is actually a very astute observation. UNLESS your parents were pagan, in the "west" it is VERY likely that you grew up with some form of Christian background, or Athiest/Agnostic.

Kudos for including Mexico in the "west." Some do include it, but others seem to limit that term to western Europe and the US and Canada.

Let me answer with another question, If a Christian does not believe in the triumverate, does that make them any less Christian?

The what now? If you mean trinity.................

In other words, it has the "weight" of history upon it.
No, I cannot provide that either, as I said, someone burnt my copy, and apparently SF&C's as well.

Something like that. I just have a hard time calling an overnight sensation a "Religion." Christianity broke off of Judaism over the course of a few decades, it came from an age old religion. Pagan religions came through cultural developments over the course of many generations. Buddhism was from a quest to better understand the world from a Hindu viewpoint, it abandoned said viewpoint, but it came from Hinduism, nonetheless. An overnight sensation or purposeful desire to creat something new isn't what I would call a "Valid" religion.

Yes you did, and thats no small thing to admit, and admirable.
My point is, these are "mystery religions", you are sorta asking me to tell you how the Pope is chosen. Even if I DID know, I'm not supposed to tell you

I do try to be honest. Though that said, I hope you understand that I am a Christian...and by default I do have certain beliefs on paganism (not pagans, just the religions) that you may not be too fond of. I am just mentioning it in case you get mislead or something

Though to be honest, Spiritism and other theistic/non-theistic religions weren't big in the place where and when parts of the Bible was written. So Paganism ends up being the stand in for all other religions to a point. It was just monotheism and paganism...

Actually, it is perfectly possible for a Christian to not believe in the Trinity, and yet still be Christian. This doesn't necessarily mean that Trinitarians will accept them as such, but the 16th century Unitarians were indeed Christians who simply believed the God was ONE being rather than a trinity, hence the name "Unitarian" applied to their particular brand of the faith. Also, in very early Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity had not yet been invented or solidified, so it can be argued (rather successfully) that a great number of the first Christians knew nothing of the Trinity, and therefore did not believe in it.

I can give citations if anyone wants, as this is all historical material. Bear in mind that I am not only a Unitarian-Universalist in addition to being Pagan (this is actually not uncommon, modern UUism being a somewhat different creature from its spiritual forebears, despite having evolved directly from them) but I am also a lay historian specializing in the medieval and Renaissance eras.

Unitarianism is one form of nontrinitarianism. There are many nontrinitarians out there who are Christian and still stay away from paganism, and in many cases they do a better job than trinitarians.

[SF_and_Coffee]

I'm curious about these other non-Trinitarian forms of Christianity. What are/were they? Do they still exist today? I'll be honest; non-Trinitarian Christianity fascinates me.

Disclosure: I was reared as a mainstream Lutheran, what would today be considered ELCA. I dabbled in other brands of Christianity before abandoning it for another path around twenty years ago.

[Gatefan1976]

I'll hold of for now, since Ukko gave me a list a few weeks ago. Just for the record I am looking more for the scholarly side of things. History wise.

In that case I too will defer, probably to SF&C in this case.

This would be a bridge I'd have to cross once I, and if I, get to it. But ideally, yes. Actually Korean Christians were faced with this challenge during WWII when they were forced to bow to the Emperor. Their stubborn resistance to do so has turned Christianity in Korea from a foreign religion to a native religion since it was seen as an action of resistance against the imperialistic invaders. Now one quarter of South Koreans are Christian.

I'm not talking about becoming a Matyr here Tood, merely a situation where you are killed just because you happen to believe a certain thing.
Also, no matter how well Christianity is accepted or recognised, it is hardly what I would call "native" to the west.

In Christianity you can be a vegetarian and claim that it is for God, but that is not needed to please God. However the freedom to believe so is there.

If someone wanted to be both pagan and vegetarian, then I see no issue either.

I am sure that the Aztec "Sacraficee" was honored...not too sure about the none Aztec "Sacraficees." To them, the Aztecs were just crazy and the Conquistadors were a blessing...until they showed their true colors, then it was a lose lose situation. History if fun that way.

History has it's moments

Kudos for including Mexico in the "west." Some do include it, but others seem to limit that term to western Europe and the US and Canada.

And here I was thinking Australia was part of the west as wel.......

The what now? If you mean trinity.................

Yes, the trinity.

Something like that. I just have a hard time calling an overnight sensation a "Religion." Christianity broke off of Judaism over the course of a few decades, it came from an age old religion. Pagan religions came through cultural developments over the course of many generations. Buddhism was from a quest to better understand the world from a Hindu viewpoint, it abandoned said viewpoint, but it came from Hinduism, nonetheless. An overnight sensation or purposeful desire to creat something new isn't what I would call a "Valid" religion.

Overnight sensation??
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Neo-paganism in its current format has been around for some 50 years, attempted revivals have existed long before then. It is also one of the fastest growing religious structures in the world. Will it be less of a "overnight sensation" in 2100, 2500??

I do try to be honest. Though that said, I hope you understand that I am a Christian...and by default I do have certain beliefs on paganism (not pagans, just the religions) that you may not be too fond of. I am just mentioning it in case you get mislead or something

I'm well aware of your own religious leanings/beliefs Tood, and I'm not trying to "convert" you at all, not would I expect you to be.
You have however piqued my interest on these "certain beliefs" which I may not be fond of.

Though to be honest, Spiritism and other theistic/non-theistic religions weren't big in the place where and when parts of the Bible was written. So Paganism ends up being the stand in for all other religions to a point. It was just monotheism and paganism...

Theistic religions were big, they all tend to get lumped into the generic "pagan box" however, which is sorta fine for discussing generalities, not so good for specifics, much like dumping all monotheistic religions into the "Abrahamic box" and expecting all the "flavors" to believe in the same things.

[SF_and_Coffee]

Just a clarification of terms that may be helpful in the continuing discussion:

Theistic - Any faith that posits the existence of a deity or deities. Both monotheistic (one deity) and polytheistic (many deities) faiths fall into this category. Individial people can also be referred to as theists, monotheists or polytheists.

Nontheistic - A nontheistic faith is one that does not involve or require the existence of a deity. In its purest form, Buddhism is an example of a nontheistic faith. An example of a newer nontheistic faith might be Secular Humanism.

Atheistic - See above. (It is also interesting to note that there are many nontheists/atheists in modern-day Unitarian-Universalist congregations, although there are also a great many theists there, of both monotheistic and at least quasi-polytheistic stripes.)

[Republibot 3.0]

But you (or your friend) havent mentioned alot of the rituals. You just focussed on sacrifice and (doing what SF&C said) "taking this or that small element and attempting to paint those elements as being fully representative of the entire whole" or, making out that this element was all it was and that not adhering to it invalidates everything.

No, it doesn't invalidate everything. As said, Jews don't have a temple anymore. They've developed to accomodate this. Other religions have as well.

But lets have fun for a moment. Out of those of you who think that these things are necessary to be a "proper pagan", which ones are going to, in a society that claims freedom of religion for all and the right to practice, fight for the right of the pagan to kill people? Because whats the point of arguing that they are not "really pagan if they dont do all that the pagans did" when they are not even allowed the choice to do so?

Oh, I freely admit I have no idea. I don't know squat about their rituals. I'm going on Heather's say so, and comments from my other pagan friends in the past.

The fact is, this is the 21st century, we no longer kill people for luck, a better harvest or victory in war and we dont have to. Im not gonna hang someone from a tree and stab them with a spear, and christians arent gonna burn any witches. This is 2011, and that is the reason.

And good riddance to bad rubbish. I agree. Understand I'm not saying you *should* do these things, but whereas Christians and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Mormons and whomever can point to the history of their faiths and say "Well, this is where we stopped doing that, and here's why" So you see an evolution, as opposed to Group A ceases to exist, and Group B turns up several centuries later claiming to be Group A, but does practically none of the same stuff.

EDIT: Is it me or is everything im saying in here coming across sarcastic and confrontational?

[/QUOTE]

Not really. Was that what you were going for?

[Republibot 3.0]

But then that isnt a religious reason for the Jews to no longer sacrifice. Its others that have, by various means, prevented the tradition from continuing, much like pagans and sacrifice.

You kind of lost me there.

[Republibot 3.0]

You missed the thrust of my post completely, which was that when it's pointed out that religions like Christianity or Judaism don't do certain things now that they used to do, you chalk that up to those religions having evolved away from some practices and into new ones (or that there are external reasons which are valid). Yet somehow you seem to think that Paganism can't be Paganism unless it adheres completely to all of the ancient practices which are ascribed to it. Why the double standard?

No, not at all. As was explained upthread by someone else, and as I said just two posts back, with the mainstream faiths you can *see* the evolution. With Neopaganism you can't. It happened offstage so to speak. Does that make it invalid? Probably not. But:

Suppose a thousand years ago the people of the village of quiesenart worshiped Hoobajoob, and had 10 very important rituals, and a philosophical understanding of what these meant. They get wiped out, or simply get bored with it ("Remind me: Why do we have to burn everything we own twice a year again? Christianity is looking fairly appealing right now...") and the faith is dead, excepting a few second-hand references.

Then, 2011, people decide to revive the worship of Hoobajoob. They only know 5 of the 10 rituals, the others long forgotten, and they don't know *any* of the philosophical understandings behind them, as that was oral tradition. And they don't practice, let's way, two of the 5 rituals they know, one because it's stupid, another 'cuz it's illegal.

*ARE* they really the Hoobajoobians from 1000 years ago? Can they lay legitimate claim to it? Would people from Quiesenart laugh at their claims to Hoobajoobian piety? Probably.

Now: the new guys *CAN* argue to be Hoobajoob worshipers, but they can *not* claim a terribly authentic connection with the original faith. They're a NEW religions worshiping an old god.

Make sense?

[Republibot 3.0]

[Republibot 3.0]

If you think about it, this isn't all that different from the bread and wine of Christian communion being a substitute for the flesh and blood of ancient Jewish Temple sacrifices, is it?

Your point being?

Please do tread cautiously here. Communion means something to me, I'm a believer. I've been trying really hard to avoid insulting anyone, and when I step over the line, I apologize and take it back. Say what you want, but please don't poke at one of the central tent-poles of my faith.

[Republibot 3.0]

As such it was the duty of the priest/esses to take care of them. I believe there are strong Christian traditions that follow the same notion of offering aid and comfort to the sick.

Not exactly the same thing. In the Philistine religion, the insane were thought to have had direct contact with the gods - either punishment, or simply seen 'em directly - and as such they were untouchable, regardless of what they did. Nobody particularly liked them, but you just let 'em go 'cuz they didn't belong to you. In the Sioux faith, whenever homosexuals appeared in society, they were declared "Contraries," and hence sacred to the spirits. This meant that people couldn't just kill 'em for being different, but at the same time it meant that as Contraries they had a lot of religious duties to perform which kept them away from the tribe on a hilltop for much of the year. The closest comparison there would be monasticism.

Christian charity is a different dealieo.

So you prune, to continue the analogy.

Yeah.

Very good, but this comes down to one question really.
Is the BELIEF more important than the RITUAL, or the other way around?

Chicken--->Egg--->chicken--->egg. Both are equally important, and each informs the other. As Jesus' brother Jim said, "Faith without works is dead."

Is there something inherently wrong with that idea?

I'm going to say 'yes.' I'll expound if you like.

If I plant a Passionfruit vine, no matter what support structure I use, I will get passionfruits, its what I planted.

Ah, yes, but will it be easy to get to when you need it, or will it be on the ground? Will it be fully ripe and ready to eat, or will it be half-rotted from ground water?

Futile, yes. It may not be *exactly* the same, but its core elements remain intact. Neopaganism may not be *exactly* the same as "Old skool" paganism, but it's core elements remain intact.

Ok. Well, my basic question was "Is it the same thing," and the answer seems to be "Mostly No."

[Republibot 3.0]

Gee, and here I thought, "Well, they evolved from the older practices to a newer set of practices" should be as acceptable an explanation regarding Paganism as it is regarding Christianity. Silly me.

There's a difference between a gradual evolution over time, and a revival of a dead faith. One is a gradual change of one organism into another. The other is an attempt to clone a mastodon from partial DNA found in a tusk in Siberia.

[Republibot 3.0]

No, but the point about double standards is that if "it evolved" is a good enough answer for one group of religions (and the person who began by asking all of these questions seems to think it is) then it has to be good enough for all the others as well.

It's really not a double standard. It's a process. The venerable faiths have a lot of evidence of change you can point to (The Old Testament actually records *massive* amounts of this kind of thing), whereas the pagan faiths I'm aware of really don't, or don't talk about it.

Which doesn't invalidate them, but it does argue that they're *new* religions.

Which likewise doesn't invalidate them.

I'm not saying a sapling isn't a tree because it's small and new, I'm just saying it may not be *same* tree as the big old one next to it. One's a pine, one's an oak, maybe.

[Republibot 3.0]

[Republibot 3.0]

Tood
No offence, seriously, but you DO KNOW these are "Mystery religions" we are talking about yeah??

Modern Neopaganism is a mystery religion? Ancient paganism was a mystery religion? You lost me.

[Republibot 3.0]

Obviously this no longer happens. The belief has been largely destroyed by the spread of Catholicism. I don't think there are any real groups out there that profess the same form of Aztec paganism, most that I have heard about blend Paganism with Catholicism.

A good question is, would these groups be considered actual Aztec pagans? Or are these neopagan groups no longer related to Paganism of old?

Oh, that IS a good one!

Back in my extremely fundamentalist youth (I'm not a fundamentalist anymore, though I bear 'em no ill will, it just wasn't a good fit for me as I got older), we referred to such groups as "Christopagan." Would these be considered Pagan by Pagans? There actually *is* a strong thread of continuity with the older, otherwise extinct faiths. Same could be said of anything related to Vodun, though the original form still exists in Africa.

Furthermore, is Buddhism "Neopagan" in that it absorbed - and then ignored - local gods in its period of wild expansion.

And if Balder is thought to be a Norse adaptation of Christ, as many suspect, than might later Norse beliefs be considered at least lightly syncretistic? Syncretism is a pretty standard way religions evolve.

[Republibot 3.0]

I'm curious about these other non-Trinitarian forms of Christianity. What are/were they? Do they still exist today? I'll be honest; non-Trinitarian Christianity fascinates me.

Disclosure: I was reared as a mainstream Lutheran, what would today be considered ELCA. I dabbled in other brands of Christianity before abandoning it for another path around twenty years ago.

Bunches, but it takes many different forms, most of which would - by the definitions of normative Christianty - be considered kinda' culty. For instance the Mormons believe the Trinity is, more or less, three separate Gods. The United Church of God (Formerly Herbert W. Armstrong's World Wide Church of God) is a somewhat more normative, though *both* of these are kinda' weird Amero-Centric "We are the missing tribes of Israel in some form" faiths. Make of that what you will. There were ancient forms of non-Trinitarianism which are indistinguishable from normative Christianity in the period, apart from creeds and a few prayers. The Cathars were non-trinitarian. Jehovah's Witnesses.

My own several years in Unitarian Universalism convinced me that the "Unitarian" aspect was more or less vestigial, and that the "Universalist" aspect had won out. I'd be interested in your opinion on this.

[Ukko]

And if Balder is thought to be a Norse adaptation of Christ, as many suspect, than might later Norse beliefs be considered at least lightly syncretistic? Syncretism is a pretty standard way religions evolve.

Baldr is more likey the a legendary hero/warrior (Like Sigurd the Volsung), but elevated in status (maybe by Snorri). Saxo's depiction of him seems (to me) more likely, and there is something in Snorri's Edda that tends to chime with that too, i believe in Hermods ride to Hel..

[SF_and_Coffee]

And good riddance to bad rubbish. I agree. Understand I'm not saying you *should* do these things, but whereas Christians and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Mormons and whomever can point to the history of their faiths and say "Well, this is where we stopped doing that, and here's why" So you see an evolution, as opposed to Group A ceases to exist, and Group B turns up several centuries later claiming to be Group A, but does practically none of the same stuff.

Ah, but this right here is the crux of the discussion. Modern Pagans aren't claiming that their faith is identical to ancient Paganism. They're claiming that it is the descendant of ancient faiths. No one expects a child to be identical to its parent, so why should the modern Paganism descended from ancient Paganism be required or expected to be identical to its ancestor? Modern Judaism and modern Christianity aren't identical to the versions practiced centuries ago, either.

It's starting to sound to me like this whole discussion has been based on a false initial premise.

No, not at all. As was explained upthread by someone else, and as I said just two posts back, with the mainstream faiths you can *see* the evolution. With Neopaganism you can't. It happened offstage so to speak. Does that make it invalid? Probably not. But:

Suppose a thousand years ago the people of the village of quiesenart worshiped Hoobajoob, and had 10 very important rituals, and a philosophical understanding of what these meant. They get wiped out, or simply get bored with it ("Remind me: Why do we have to burn everything we own twice a year again? Christianity is looking fairly appealing right now...") and the faith is dead, excepting a few second-hand references.

Then, 2011, people decide to revive the worship of Hoobajoob. They only know 5 of the 10 rituals, the others long forgotten, and they don't know *any* of the philosophical understandings behind them, as that was oral tradition. And they don't practice, let's way, two of the 5 rituals they know, one because it's stupid, another 'cuz it's illegal.

Since when is it impossible to convey philosophical understandings via oral tradition?

*ARE* they really the Hoobajoobians from 1000 years ago? Can they lay legitimate claim to it? Would people from Quiesenart laugh at their claims to Hoobajoobian piety? Probably.

Now: the new guys *CAN* argue to be Hoobajoob worshipers, but they can *not* claim a terribly authentic connection with the original faith. They're a NEW religions worshiping an old god.

Make sense?

It would if that were even remotely what we've been talking about, but it isn't. Again, NeoPagans aren't claiming to practice a faith identical to ancient Paganism. As a matter of fact, if you read most of the material that NeoPagans write about their own faith, you'd see that most of them mention straight up that they are only working with a reconstruction at best, precisely because so much was lost in the intervening centuries.

Again, the initial premise of this thread is beginning to look more and more like a strawman.

To expand on something that Gatefan1976 mentioned, in many Pagan (and even Wiccan) traditions, it is customary to regularly pour a libation to one's deity or deities -- meaning that a ritual beverage (often ale or wine, but it can be anything) is poured into a glass or cup, and then a portion of what's in the cup is ceremonially spilled on the ground as an offering. The person who does this then drinks what's left in the cup, and shares it with others if they are present. A similar ritual may be performed with food items such as bread, sweet cakes, cookies, etc. wherein the food is consecrated to the deities but then consumed by the people participating in the rite. These are modern-day remnants of or stand-ins for ancient sacrificial practices.

If you think about it, this isn't all that different from the bread and wine of Christian communion being a substitute for the flesh and blood of ancient Jewish Temple sacrifices, is it?

Your point being?

Please do tread cautiously here. Communion means something to me, I'm a believer. I've been trying really hard to avoid insulting anyone, and when I step over the line, I apologize and take it back. Say what you want, but please don't poke at one of the central tent-poles of my faith.

When you've been poking at the central tent-poles of other faiths? Sorry, but Christianity isn't going to get special treatment in this thread; certainly not from me. And in any case, read again what I've bolded for emphasis. Likening the symbolic sacrifice of bread and wine in Pagan ritual to the symbolic sacrifice of bread and wine in Christian ritual by pointing out that both are stand-ins for ancient sacrificial practices is hardly "poking at" communion. I was raised Christian myself, and at one point was quite devoutly a believer. I understand full well the meaning of communion, and I also understand its history and the symbolism behind it. The idea is that Jesus was giving himself as a sacrifice for sin, the same way the Jews had traditionally sacrificed animals such as lambs as a sin offering. (Where do you think the reference to Jesus as 'the Lamb of God' comes from?) So in the Last Supper, his symbolic offering of bread and wine and his reference to them as his body and blood are a foreshadowing of his coming sacrificial death, and the reenactment of this in the Eucharist is therefore by extension a symbolic stand-in for the Temple sacrifice of the flesh and blood of a lamb as an atonement for sin.

There are Pagan rituals mentioned here and there in the annals of history which involved offerings of animals, but also some that involved offerings of bread and wine or other foodstuffs and beverages. That modern-day NeoPagans use the latter type of offerings should not be surprising, and these modern usages are a stand-in for older ones in exactly the same way as the bread and wine of communion are a stand-in for the flesh and blood of a sacrificial lamb, or Lamb. I fail to see how drawing that comparison is in any way insulting, for it comes directly from a combination of Christian teachings and personal observation.

There's a difference between a gradual evolution over time, and a revival of a dead faith. One is a gradual change of one organism into another. The other is an attempt to clone a mastodon from partial DNA found in a tusk in Siberia.

Even reviving an older faith can involve evolution of new practices to replace old ones. Ever hear of punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary terms? It can be applied to the evolution of religion and thought, too. Also, why should a revivalist religion be required to practice every element of its ancient ancestral faith to be valid in your eyes?

At this point, the entire discussion here is beginning to read like a thinly-veiled attempt to paint NeoPaganism as inherently invalid, without coming right out and saying so. I hope I'm wrong about that, of course.

It's really not a double standard. It's a process. The venerable faiths have a lot of evidence of change you can point to (The Old Testament actually records *massive* amounts of this kind of thing), whereas the pagan faiths I'm aware of really don't, or don't talk about it.

Which doesn't invalidate them, but it does argue that they're *new* religions.

For the nth time, of course they're new religions, and they don't claim not to be. A huge hint is right in the term NeoPagan. "Neo" means "new". I have yet to meet a single Pagan of any stripe who claims to be following exactly the religion of a thousand years ago, in exactly the way it was done then. And I doubt seriously that Heather's group told her they were, either.

[SF_and_Coffee]

My own several years in Unitarian Universalism convinced me that the "Unitarian" aspect was more or less vestigial, and that the "Universalist" aspect had won out. I'd be interested in your opinion on this.

I'd say that's true in most congregations.