Goddess! A question about Paganism!

[Nephtys]

I use 'Goddess' as an exclaimation. IT's just a habit I picked up, not due to any religious (Atheist here) reason, but rather one that I find it novel to use. I know a few neopagans, and they happen to think that I picked it up from them, since they used it.

Now, here's the question. We've got a few on the board IIRC, but what is Neo-Paganism? From what I can tell so far with my limited info, it's a form of modern druidism... how accurate is that? And can someone get me a primer?

[Haruko]

I've read some material about the pagan religion and its differing viareties at Paganism: Past & Present.

Very recently, I've made it a habit to say "Gods" instead of "God". Not for any reason other than to be different, and I like saying it. I think I owe it to the newer version of Battlestar Galactica. And plus, I love Greek and Roman mythology. Ares and Zeus are awesome.

[Nephtys]

Haruko-Chan! Wheee. Thanks, that helps a good deal. Also reminded me that said friends were Wiccans in particular. Thanks for that!

[Mobiboros]

+http://www.religioustolerance.org/neo_paga.htm

This is a pretty good site for general information on religions. The link is specifically the neo-pagan portion.

A quick version is that "Neo-Pagan" is a catchall term used to refer to a group of religions that often encompass: Druidism, Wicca, Asatru, Khemetic and many "Earth-Based" religions.

[Broomstick]

As one the board's Neo-Pagans, I'd say the religious tolerance site link is a pretty good start.

[Spoonist]

It's too complex a topic to describe easily. Mostly because it's not an orginized religion so the practicioners themselves have very little in common and usually never agrees about what it is.

Safe to say is that it has nothing to do with pre-roman druidism however much they wishes it has. This because they where all wiped out. Going by the archeological record we can see that sacrifice was an important aspect of it and so far most people I've met that has called themselves neo-pagan druids have been both animal and human friendly.

What I advice you to do if you are really interested is read up on these topics:
Wicca (which is the largest denomination of neo-pagans)
Freemasons (where the inspiration came from)
Spiritualism (where it all started)
Satanism (which was one offshot, don't mix them up though)
New-age (which where were the flower power generation took it)

Warning signs to look for:
Neo-pagans saying that witches where prosecuted during the inquisition - something which would be an insult to all the innocent women burnt who at the time considered themselves to be falsely accused christians.
Neo-pagans saying that there only is one god and one godess, this is a modern myth and has no basis in history, all elder pagan religions have a whole pantheon of gods of both sexes and then some.
Neo-pagans saying that they are followers of an elder religion (norse/celtic/druidic/roman/greek/etc) who know nothing about that religion.
Neo-pagans mentioning the book of the dead or necronomicon, historically this was an egyptian book about the dead which is now available on the internet but none has sofar been able to make the magic mentioned to work, or it is a reference to the manmade myth of H.P. Lovecraft (you might have heard of Cthulu?).
Neo-pagans who intentionally misspell magic either with magik or magick, this in tradition of crowley and lefay, who when you look them up where not the nicest nor the most sane of people.
Neo-pagans who claim that wicca is an elder word for witchcraft, it's not. It was a name created by the spiritualists and they spelled it wica in the beginning. It loosely resembles some indoeuropean names for magic, but then why not use the real words?
Neo-pagans that claim not to be neo at all but real pagans, that can either mean that they have an ego problem or that they really are hindu or similar.

Here are som links:

http://www.infidels.org/
http://www.churchofsatan.org/
http://www.newwiccanchurch.com/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/religions/wicca/faq/index.html
http://www.runestone.org/flash/home.html

Also for that important other view
http://skepdic.com/
Look up crowley levay gardener wicca paganism
http://whywiccanssuck.com/

and for that historical comparison
http://celtdigital.org/
http://davidwiley.com/religion.html
http://www.avesta.org/
http://www.phoenicia.org/
http://www.piney-2.com/BabIndex.html
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm

[Vendetta]

Neo-pagans mentioning the book of the dead or necronomicon, historically this was an egyptian book about the dead which is now available on the internet but none has sofar been able to make the magic mentioned to work, or it is a reference to the manmade myth of H.P. Lovecraft (you might have heard of Cthulu?).

The Necronomicon was invented by Lovecraft. Any versions of it that may exist were created to feed the hoax.

Neo-pagans who intentionally misspell magic either with magik or magick, this in tradition of crowley and lefay, who when you look them up where not the nicest nor the most sane of people.

Crowley only started spelling it "Magick" to distance himself from stage magic. He was the L. Ron Hubbard of his day.

[Broomstick]

Safe to say is that it has nothing to do with pre-roman druidism however much they wishes it has.

Actually, most of the modern "druids" I've encountered are well aware that they are NOT direct, lineal inheritors of the ancient druid tradition, that what they have is, at best, a reconstruction.

so far most people I've met that has called themselves neo-pagan druids have been both animal and human friendly.

Either that, or they don't know you well enough to discuss their sacrificial practices.

What I advice you to do if you are really interested is read up on these topics:
Wicca (which is the largest denomination of neo-pagans)

Only in the US and Britain.

Freemasons (where the inspiration came from)

Highly debatable, although there is definitely an influence among Gardnerians and the related groups, including Crowley's.

Spiritualism (where it all started)

Less debatable.

Satanism (which was one offshot, don't mix them up though)

NOT an offshoot - "Satanism", in various forms, has been around a lot longer than Neo-Paganism, Wicca, and the like. The Anton LeFey version was heavily influenced by Crowley and by the spiritualism of the late 19th/early 20th Century, but LeFey's crowd is not the only "Satanists" out there, or even a majority.

New-age (which where were the flower power generation took it)

Some of us took it there... but not all of us.

Warning signs to look for:
Neo-pagans saying that witches where prosecuted during the inquisition - something which would be an insult to all the innocent women burnt who at the time considered themselves to be falsely accused christians.

Also referred to as "The Burning Times". While there is no doubt people were burned as heretics and witches in the past, it's highly unlikely most were members of organized "Old Religion" groups. Most were Christians (granted, a lot of Pagan practices survived in the Middle Ages, but those indulging would have considered themselves Christians and been members of the church), most were old, female, lacking in political allies, and frequently possessing wealth of some sort such as land which was confiscated by the religious and secular authorities upon their exectution... although I'm sure human greed and avarice had nothing to do with their accusations or convictions [/sarcasm]

Neo-pagans saying that there only is one god and one godess, this is a modern myth and has no basis in history, all elder pagan religions have a whole pantheon of gods of both sexes and then some.

Two points here - first, the Goddess/God duality is an oversimplification in almost all cases. I mean, virtually all Wiccans recognize three manifestations of Goddess, even the Dianics who reject God worship, which gives them at least three Deities.

Second, there is absolutely nothing to forbid a NeoPagan from, indeed, worshipping just two divine entities and only two. It is a perfectly legitimate approach to religion/spirituality and no more wrong than a pantheon of dozens. Such a NeoPagan might not neatly fit some arbitrary definition of a particular brand of NeoPaganism, but that would not make them less NeoPagan

Neo-pagans saying that they are followers of an elder religion (norse/celtic/druidic/roman/greek/etc) who know nothing about that religion.

And here the biggest tip-off is usually total lack of ability in the "native" language of Ye Olde Thyme Relgion. If someone claims to be "Celtic" in practice ask them to spout a few words of a Celtic language - and they'd better be speaking something like Welsh or Gaelic rather than some bizarro "Celtic" tongue. If they call themselves "Norse" they're pretenders - the term is "Asatru" (usually - arguably you could have a couple other terms which escape my exact recall at the moment) and at least some passing familiarity with Icelandic, Old Norse, or similar language. Etc., Etc.,

Neo-pagans mentioning the book of the dead or necronomicon, historically this was an egyptian book about the dead which is now available on the internet but none has sofar been able to make the magic mentioned to work, or it is a reference to the manmade myth of H.P. Lovecraft (you might have heard of Cthulu?).

The Necromonicon is a HOAX. It's part of the Lovecraft Chuthulu/Old Gods mythos, that is, based on a work of fiction.

(There is an interesting, on-going debate in the more philosophical corners of NeoPaganism about whether religion based on a work of fiction is a "real" religion or not - if you take one side of the debate (and, as usual in Pagan debates, there are more than just two sides) you can base a religion on Lovecraft's work - though why anyone would buy into it I haven't a clue. Certainly, the Church of All Worlds, which was based originally on Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, would argue you can base a religion on a work of fiction, as would those Britans who put "Jedi" down on forms asking for the name of their faith. But this is getting a little off topic...)

There really is a "Book of the Dead". In fact, there are two --

The Tibetan Book of the Dead. I don't have much familiarity with it myself, but it is a genuine religious text of many centuries antiquity.

The Egyptian Book of the Dead which exists mainly as wall texts in Eqyptian tombs, that is, it's a legitimate text of genuine antiquity. The title of the collected works is more accurately titled The Book of Coming Forth By Day and consists largely of spells/incantations/etc. to game the system by which the Gods judge your soul after death in your favor. Among other gems is the "Negative Confession", which is a recitation of all the bad things you didn't do in life.

Neo-pagans who intentionally misspell magic either with magik or magick, this in tradition of crowley and lefay, who when you look them up where not the nicest nor the most sane of people.

No, they weren't very nice people, however, MOST NeoPagans do use the distinctive spellings to, as mentioned, distinguish religious/occult "magick" from stage magic. I think some people take it to extremes, but certainly it's a very common usage in the various NeoPagan communities, even if many of us don't use it outside of that setting.

Neo-pagans who claim that wicca is an elder word for witchcraft, it's not. It was a name created by the spiritualists and they spelled it wica in the beginning. It loosely resembles some indoeuropean names for magic, but then why not use the real words?

Because there is power in names, they were basically a secret society and those tend towards secret signs, signals, gestures, rituals, and other dramatic touches, and to distinguish themselves from "evil witches" of folklore.

But yeah, most of us past "fluff-bunny" or novice stages are well aware that "Wicca" is a term only dating back to the early 20th Century. Saying it's not real would be rather like bitching in AD 92 that "Christianity" is a whack-job cult and not a real religion, and the term "Christians" was bogus because it didn't exist a century prior. New terms and words are no less legitimate for being recent enough that we can definitely trace their origins.

Neo-pagans that claim not to be neo at all but real pagans, that can either mean that they have an ego problem or that they really are hindu or similar.

Strictly speaking, practitioners of Voudoun, Santeria, Ife, Strega, Icelandic Asatru (with some debate), Native American/First Nations and several other groups would be welcome at a NeoPagan gathering (and you do find them there sometimes) but don't qualify for "Neo" in front of their names. They are polytheistic, though, and considered Pagans, at least in the sense of being non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim polytheists. So yes, there really are some Pagans who aren't Neo. But they aren't as public as Wiccans, and not nearly as well known.

[FSTargetDrone]

I've read some material about the pagan religion and its differing viareties at Paganism: Past & Present.

Very recently, I've made it a habit to say "Gods" instead of "God". Not for any reason other than to be different, and I like saying it. I think I owe it to the newer version of Battlestar Galactica. And plus, I love Greek and Roman mythology. Ares and Zeus are awesome.

I'm partial to, "Christ on a stick!"

[Spoonist]

The Necronomicon was invented by Lovecraft. Any versions of it that may exist were created to feed the hoax.

Not really, Lovecraft got the inspiration from the historical egyptian book of the dead.
Lovecraft really made a lot of research on the different topics of his books and then mixed his inspiration freely.
(Didn't know about the tibetan one though, you learn something new every day.

Crowley only started spelling it "Magick" to distance himself from stage magic.

Which is why its so ridicilous to continue with the misspelling.
You could just as well call it mana to keep up with the times...

He was the L. Ron Hubbard of his day.

So true, the similarity in the followers to quote the man but not read his original books on the topic is quite similar as well.

[Stark]

Dude, the Necronomicon isn't the book of the dead. It doesn't describe funerary rituals, or afterlife myths, or magic to placate the god of the dead, or symbols to speed the soul to the afterlife, or methods of allowing the ba to regain its strength.

It's full of wacky Cthulhu knowledge about otherworldly physics, beings from other planets, aliens on earth, insane godzilla-creatures beneath the sea, invasions from other dimensions, and describes earth as an island of relative sanity in a twisted, alien universe, etc. It's fiction, and the name doesn't even really make sense.

[Broomstick]

The Necronomicon was invented by Lovecraft. Any versions of it that may exist were created to feed the hoax.

Not really, Lovecraft got the inspiration from the historical egyptian book of the dead.
Lovecraft really made a lot of research on the different topics of his books and then mixed his inspiration freely.

You obviously haven't read either of those two books. Lovecraft may have looked into ancient Eqypt for inspiration but there is NO relationship between the Necromonicon and The Book of Coming Forth By Day. It's like saying the Bible and Stephen King's The Stand are the same thing. They aren't. They're completely different, even if both mention God and Devil.

==> And what Stark said.

Crowley only started spelling it "Magick" to distance himself from stage magic.

Which is why its so ridicilous to continue with the misspelling.
You could just as well call it mana to keep up with the times...

Actually, some Neos do call it mana....

"Magick" when used in the Neo community is used delibrately, as a form of jargon, because it's so much quicker than having to repeat "magic that isn't stage magic" all the damn time. "Misspelling" implies an accident - this spelling is delibrate, with a purpose in mind. The folks doing it don't care if you approve or not, and aren't likely to stop. Given how long the term has been used - going on a century - it's a little like arguing "steven" is a misspelling of "stephen".

Yeah, I think it's a little pretentious, too, but then I'm an old fart and a Wiccan heretic so what the hell do I know, right? The young'un's are quite fond of it and to be honest I don't think it's worth arguing about it with them.

He was the L. Ron Hubbard of his day.

So true, the similarity in the followers to quote the man but not read his original books on the topic is quite similar as well.

Not to mention the tendency of his followers to whitewash or out-and-out deny some of his criminal and unsavory acts.

[Spoonist]

Argh, I can't keep up, here is my reply to your old post I'll fix a new one for the new post later. Sorry.

so far most people I've met that has called themselves neo-pagan druids have been both animal and human friendly.

Either that, or they don't know you well enough to discuss their sacrificial practices.

Hehe. True.

Wicca (which is the largest denomination of neo-pagans)

Only in the US and Britain.

Which makes it the largest denomination world wide of neo-pagans as well. All others are marginal compared to it. It's not like druidic/celtic/greek/norse/whatever has enough followers to be recognized as a religion by the authorities.
If I would have said largest denomination of pagans, then that would be hindus no contest.
Do you know of any larger denomination of neo-pagans?

Freemasons (where the inspiration came from)

Highly debatable, although there is definitely an influence among Gardnerians and the related groups, including Crowley's.

Spiritualism (where it all started)

Less debatable.

You can't have one without the other, the organized spiritualists where heavily influenced by the Freemasons and the Rosicrucians.

Satanism (which was one offshot, don't mix them up though)

NOT an offshoot - "Satanism", in various forms, has been around a lot longer than Neo-Paganism, Wicca, and the like. The Anton LeFey version was heavily influenced by Crowley and by the spiritualism of the late 19th/early 20th Century, but LeFey's crowd is not the only "Satanists" out there, or even a majority.

I draw the distinction between the ones who calls themselves satanists but don't believe in christian mythology and those who do.
The ones who believe in christian mythology have been around for a lot longer.
Those who don't are a modern off-shoot of the spiritualist movement and those are the ones associated with neo-paganism.

Neo-pagans saying that there only is one god and one godess, this is a modern myth and has no basis in history, all elder pagan religions have a whole pantheon of gods of both sexes and then some.

Two points here - first, the Goddess/God duality is an oversimplification in almost all cases. I mean, virtually all Wiccans recognize three manifestations of Goddess, even the Dianics who reject God worship, which gives them at least three Deities.

Second, there is absolutely nothing to forbid a NeoPagan from, indeed, worshipping just two divine entities and only two. It is a perfectly legitimate approach to religion/spirituality and no more wrong than a pantheon of dozens. Such a NeoPagan might not neatly fit some arbitrary definition of a particular brand of NeoPaganism, but that would not make them less NeoPagan

I'd say that people who only look for the pop-culture version of any religion should be kept at a 10 foot pole. Especially when the "insight" comes from fictional literature. If they want to start their own religion that's fine, but then don't go around claiming that you are neo-pagan following old traditions because you are not. For a neo version to work you need to have an older version which it is loosely based upon. Like neonazis or neocommies.

If they call themselves "Norse" they're pretenders - the term is "Asatru" (usually - arguably you could have a couple other terms which escape my exact recall at the moment) and at least some passing familiarity with Icelandic, Old Norse, or similar language. Etc., Etc.,

I totally agree with the sentiment but not the facts.
Since Norse is an english term for 'the culture of the northerners' it is quite frequently used in the english world. Asatru is an englified version of what scandinavian historians called the norse religion.
I also don't think that you need to learn a language to learn a religion. Translations nowadays are pretty good. I don't believe that christians need to learn arameic for instance.

Neo-pagans who intentionally misspell magic either with magik or magick, this in tradition of crowley and lefay, who when you look them up where not the nicest nor the most sane of people.

No, they weren't very nice people, however, MOST NeoPagans do use the distinctive spellings to, as mentioned, distinguish religious/occult "magick" from stage magic. I think some people take it to extremes, but certainly it's a very common usage in the various NeoPagan communities, even if many of us don't use it outside of that setting.

Since the distinction is not necessary languagewise its just a way to make people feel more important. Most european have had the K spelling from the start and their neopagan movements have no problem with distinguishing the two in discussions. It's usually only teens in US or GB who make the distinction or people of the same maturity level. (Personal opinion).

New terms and words are no less legitimate for being recent enough that we can definitely trace their origins.

My gripe is with the ones who make claim that are false, not with the words themselves. as was clear from the context.

Neo-pagans that claim not to be neo at all but real pagans, that can either mean that they have an ego problem or that they really are hindu or similar.

Strictly speaking, practitioners of Voudoun, Santeria, Ife, Strega, Icelandic Asatru (with some debate), Native American/First Nations and several other groups would be welcome at a NeoPagan gathering (and you do find them there sometimes) but don't qualify for "Neo" in front of their names. They are polytheistic, though, and considered Pagans, at least in the sense of being non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim polytheists. So yes, there really are some Pagans who aren't Neo. But they aren't as public as Wiccans, and not nearly as well known.

? I did include the "hindu or similar" ?
Tell me if I'm wrong but you did agree with me there right?

[Spoonist]

Dude, the Necronomicon isn't the book of the dead. It doesn't describe funerary rituals, or afterlife myths, or magic to placate the god of the dead, or symbols to speed the soul to the afterlife, or methods of allowing the ba to regain its strength.

It's full of wacky Cthulhu knowledge about otherworldly physics, beings from other planets, aliens on earth, insane godzilla-creatures beneath the sea, invasions from other dimensions, and describes earth as an island of relative sanity in a twisted, alien universe, etc. It's fiction, and the name doesn't even really make sense.

Let's sort this out:
The inspiration for Lovecrafts Necronomicon was the Egyptian Book of the Dead simply because he thought the name was cool not because he thought that it worked or anything. (It was common to latinify something in those days to give it more cred).
The contents that I said are on the internet is for the historical egyptian one, in such translations as they exist, the necronomicon books on the internet is purely fictional.
It's the historical egyptian ones that people have tried to recreate spells from not Lovecrafts

[Spoonist]

The Necronomicon was invented by Lovecraft. Any versions of it that may exist were created to feed the hoax.

Not really, Lovecraft got the inspiration from the historical egyptian book of the dead.
Lovecraft really made a lot of research on the different topics of his books and then mixed his inspiration freely.

You obviously haven't read either of those two books. Lovecraft may have looked into ancient Eqypt for inspiration but there is NO relationship between the Necromonicon and The Book of Coming Forth By Day. It's like saying the Bible and Stephen King's The Stand are the same thing. They aren't. They're completely different, even if both mention God and Devil.

Either of the books? Lovecraft never wrote a necronomicon, he wrote about it.
Lets clarify again:
The inspiration was for the TITLE NAME nothing else.
The CONTENTS of the books have nothing in common since Lovecraft didn't write any CONTENT for necronomicon. It was just a book mentioned in his own fictional books.

Actually, some Neos do call it mana....

"Magick" when used in the Neo community is used delibrately, as a form of jargon, because it's so much quicker than having to repeat "magic that isn't stage magic" all the damn time. "Misspelling" implies an accident - this spelling is delibrate, with a purpose in mind. The folks doing it don't care if you approve or not, and aren't likely to stop. Given how long the term has been used - going on a century - it's a little like arguing "steven" is a misspelling of "stephen".

Yeah, I think it's a little pretentious, too, but then I'm an old fart and a Wiccan heretic so what the hell do I know, right? The young'un's are quite fond of it and to be honest I don't think it's worth arguing about it with them.

I agree that its not a misspelling since it is deliberate, I just call it that to provocate people; the ones who are offended are the ones you should usually stay clear of.
Usually its the young and immature that thinks that actually calling it magick makes any difference.

[Mobiboros]

The inspiration for Lovecrafts Necronomicon was the Egyptian Book of the Dead simply because he thought the name was cool not because he thought that it worked or anything. (It was common to latinify something in those days to give it more cred).

This might work except "Necronomicon" isnt' latin, it's a very bastardized Greek.
Dan Clores site:
+http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necname.htm
Has a very good dissertation on the naming of the book (A rough translation would be "Book Concerning the Dead", whereas Lovecraft himself intended it to mean "Book of the Law of the Dead".)
No doubt various books of the dead from around the world inspired him, but the Necronomicon itself was a fictional book made up by him.

As far as Crowley, as someone who's read much of his works, a lot of his followers have read his works. At least the members of the remnants of his OTO (and it's subsidiaries) have. You kinda have to be familiar with The Book of The Law to even join.

[Broomstick]

Argh, I can't keep up

bwa-ha-ha-HA-ha....!

Of course you can't keep up - I type 120 wpm.

It's not like druidic/celtic/greek/norse/whatever has enough followers to be recognized as a religion by the authorities.

I believe certain Norse-origin practices are recognize by the Icelandic government. [/nitpick]

Do you know of any larger denomination of neo-pagans?

No, but then I don't pretend to be conversant with all form of NeoPagansim in all countries around the globe.

Freemasons (where the inspiration came from)

Highly debatable, although there is definitely an influence among Gardnerians and the related groups, including Crowley's.

Spiritualism (where it all started)

Less debatable.

You can't have one without the other, the organized spiritualists where heavily influenced by the Freemasons and the Rosicrucians.

I don't doubt that Gardner et al and Crowley were influenced by the Freemasons and Rosicuricians... but nowadays most NeoPagans are not members of those groups. Even what now is called "Wicca" has only the most superficial derivation from those folks, to the point that over the past 10-15 years Gardnerians and their relations are no longer calling themselves Wiccans and seek to distance themselves from Wiccans, at least in North America.. I have no idea what they're doing in Britain these days, other than bitching about which direction Harry Potter points his broom whilst flying.

I'd say that people who only look for the pop-culture version of any religion should be kept at a 10 foot pole. Especially when the "insight" comes from fictional literature. If they want to start their own religion that's fine, but then don't go around claiming that you are neo-pagan following old traditions because you are not. For a neo version to work you need to have an older version which it is loosely based upon. Like neonazis or neocommies.

Except some of us use "NeoPagan" NOT to claim we're Olde Thyme Religion but rather a new form of polytheism. We're influenced by old Pagansim, but we don't feel bound by it

If they call themselves "Norse" they're pretenders - the term is "Asatru" (usually - arguably you could have a couple other terms which escape my exact recall at the moment) and at least some passing familiarity with Icelandic, Old Norse, or similar language. Etc., Etc.,

I totally agree with the sentiment but not the facts.
Since Norse is an english term for 'the culture of the northerners' it is quite frequently used in the english world.

But not by Aesir worshippers when talking about their religion. It's to distinguish the faith they practice from a scholarly approach to Norse culture. So arguing that scholars use the term "Norse" doesn't cut it with them, as they are NOT being scholars or historians when holding a blot (although they may use scholarship to influence their practices) they're being practitioners of a religious faith.

Perhaps the distinction does not matter to you, but it does to them.

I also don't think that you need to learn a language to learn a religion. Translations nowadays are pretty good. I don't believe that christians need to learn arameic for instance.

No, but you should avoid grotesque errors.

For example, a person going by the name "Edain McCoy" published a pile of shit called Witta purporting to be based on "Irish Celtic Pagansim", including the claim that "Witta" was the word used by the Old Irish to refer to themselves. Well, that's buillshit, it's just not true, and the entymology given for the term was complete horseshit. There were grotesque "translations" that even I with my extremely limited Gaelic recognized as faulty, various distoritions of what we actually do know of Old Irish mythology and practices, and so forth. You don't need to know the language fluently, but just as your average Catholic has some familitarity with Latin, and knows phrases and incantatio--- er, prayers in that tongue, and can recognize the sound of it, so too should someone purporting to follow "ancient ways" have some inkling of what the fuck they are talking about.

I mean, I see lots of people appropriating Ancient Egyptian stuff, but the only folks I've met in the NeoPagans practicing NeoEgyptian (for lack of a better term) that I had any respect for actually went to the effort of learning hieroglyphics and refered to ancient Egypt as kemet, which is the actual term. In other words, they were conversant with actual evidence instead of wandering into la-la land and claiming the pyramids were built by aliens. I mean, the Ancient Egyptians actually wrote shit down, it's not like we have to guess at a lot of stuff with them.

Since the distinction is not necessary languagewise its just a way to make people feel more important.

The distinction is not important to you - it IS important to many NeoPagans. Some of the groups I've worked/worshipped with DO use "stage magic" in their holiday, group, and public ceremonies and thus have some need to distinguish the two. I agree that some people use it with pretension but others of us use it because it's useful jargon in our sub-society. The latter, though, tend not to rub the "k" spelling in the faces of non-Pagans because we realize it can irritate the shit out of non-believers. Unlike prostelytizing religions, mine requires a low-profile most of the time.

It's usually only teens in US or GB who make the distinction or people of the same maturity level. (Personal opinion).

You are entitled to your opinion, although I like to think I'm more mature than "teen", thank you very much.

New terms and words are no less legitimate for being recent enough that we can definitely trace their origins.

My gripe is with the ones who make claim that are false, not with the words themselves. as was clear from the context.

I think it should be clear by now that I agree with you on the "false claims" people, although I usually refer to them as "fucking ignorant lazy assholes giving my religion a bad name", because that's what they generally are - lazy, ignorant assholes. I'll cut the teens some slack, since those are traits common to teens and many outgrow them. Past 25 or so, the label just sticks.

Tell me if I'm wrong but you did agree with me there right?

I'm agreeing with you in some spots and not in others. In keeping with being a perverse NeoPagan under heavy Trickster influence I refuse to accept a merely two-sided debate and insist on seeing everything in shifting shades of grey. I don't do either-or. I'm not digital, I'm analog (more proof I'm an old fart)

[Broomstick]

The inspiration for Lovecrafts Necronomicon was the Egyptian Book of the Dead simply because he thought the name was cool not because he thought that it worked or anything.

Then next time be more clear that the title was the inspiration and not the contents.

It's the historical egyptian ones that people have tried to recreate spells from not Lovecrafts

No, I've actually run into idiots who really did try to work the shit in the Necromonican. Which was an interesting mix of horrifically stupid and pathetically funny. ("Do you think we should take their red chalk away from them?" "No, then they would go back to their book and probably give themselves a fatal papercut while attempting to open it")

There's a long-running theory that you could use the New York City telephone directory to raise demons and open gateways to hellish dimensions, provided you went about it with the correct focus and technique to achieve the intended result. A corrollary of that theory is that it is fortunate no one currently in the world is that focused and no one knows the proper techniques. Another corrollary is that anyone stupid enough to actually try to raise demons will probably get what's coming to them and the problem is generally self-limiting and Darwinian in solution.

It's also been widely commented that you are more likely to find a direct way to contact demonic entities in the NYC phone directory than in the Necromonicon, as the NYC phone directory actually has some use for contacting various entities whereas the Necromonican used as toilet paper would be a waste of good shit.

Um... no, a lot of NeoPagans don't like the Necromonicon. Me, I got yelled at for laughing out loud while reading it, something about that not being an appropriate reaction.

[LordShaithis]

Reality check: The Egyptian "Necronomicon", the Tibetan "Book of the Dead", the NYC phonebook, and that crappy "Necronomicon" carried around by fat ill-adjusted teenagers who bought it at Waldenbooks all have an equal chance of putting you in touch with demons. Namely zero.

[Broomstick]

YOU know that... and I know that... but obviously other people don't know that.

I don't think we need demons and devils to explain evil in this world. We humans are quite capabable enough at generating that sort of thing.

[Broomstick]

Reality check: The Egyptian "Necronomicon", the Tibetan "Book of the Dead", the NYC phonebook, and that crappy "Necronomicon" carried around by fat ill-adjusted teenagers who bought it at Waldenbooks all have an equal chance of putting you in touch with demons. Namely zero.

Now that I'm awake and have had some caffeine let me take another shot at this.

First of all, unless I put the phrase "I believe" in front of a Pagan theory of anything, don't assume I believe it. I can discuss things I don't believe in, and usually I even find it entertaining to do so.

Second - part of the point of the "more likely to raise the devil with the NYC phone book" response is that you are more likely to find a phone number for Satan in the phone book than you are to raise demons with the Necromonicon.

Anyhow, IF demon-summoning was possible (purely as a hypothetical thing, we're not talking reality here) I somehow doubt the average dabbler in the occult would be able to control it and would be swiftly killed/consumed by said creature.... thus the "problem takes care of itself" view of the matter, and the reference to Darwin.

[Spoonist]

It's not like druidic/celtic/greek/norse/whatever has enough followers to be recognized as a religion by the authorities.

I believe certain Norse-origin practices are recognize by the Icelandic government. [/nitpick]

I would think that highly unlikely unless its a tourist consideration in which case I'd say that they are just paying homage to their history.
Iceland has a population of ~300k of those ~94% consider themselves to be christians of one denomination or other.
[/more nitpicking]

Do you know of any larger denomination of neo-pagans?

No, but then I don't pretend to be conversant with all form of NeoPagansim in all countries around the globe.

Since neo-paganism is a western movement with little to no following anywhere else I'd say that it is higly unlikely that there is a denomination that you and I haven't heard of. Since none of them even come close to wicca in size I'd say that my original statement holds true.
Wicca is the largest denomination of neo-pagans.

Freemasons (where the inspiration came from)

I don't doubt that Gardner et al and Crowley were influenced by the Freemasons and Rosicuricians... but nowadays most NeoPagans are not members of those groups. Even what now is called "Wicca" has only the most superficial derivation from those folks, to the point that over the past 10-15 years Gardnerians and their relations are no longer calling themselves Wiccans and seek to distance themselves from Wiccans, at least in North America.. I have no idea what they're doing in Britain these days, other than bitching about which direction Harry Potter points his broom whilst flying.

I only said where the inspiration came from, I don't think that it currently influences neopagans at all since freemasons have become more and more business and less and less mystery.

but then don't go around claiming that you are neo-pagan following old traditions because you are not.

Except some of us use "NeoPagan" NOT to claim we're Olde Thyme Religion but rather a new form of polytheism. We're influenced by old Pagansim, but we don't feel bound by it

Which means that you are not "a neo-pagan following old traditions".
Instead you are "a neo-pagan inspired by old traditions".

I think that we agree.

If they call themselves "Norse" they're pretenders - the term is "Asatru" (usually - arguably you could have a couple other terms which escape my exact recall at the moment) and at least some passing familiarity with Icelandic, Old Norse, or similar language. Etc., Etc.,

I totally agree with the sentiment but not the facts.
Since Norse is an english term for 'the culture of the northerners' it is quite frequently used in the english world.

But not by Aesir worshippers when talking about their religion. It's to distinguish the faith they practice from a scholarly approach to Norse culture. So arguing that scholars use the term "Norse" doesn't cut it with them, as they are NOT being scholars or historians when holding a blot (although they may use scholarship to influence their practices) they're being practitioners of a religious faith.

Perhaps the distinction does not matter to you, but it does to them.

After giving this some thought some years ago and having a few discussions with (swedish) practicioners I found that when discussing in english it doesn't matter. Norse is more effective and is widely used by practitioners as well since its known, asatru on the other hand is not known to most. It's like the spellings of Tor/Thor/Wotan or Odin/Othin/Oden. Again it is a personal opinion that only people who take themselves too seriously make the actual distinction. It's just like calling the scandinavian culture of the norsemen "viking".
Though when discussing in some european languages the distinction either doesn't exist or is so obvious that it wouldn't happen.

I also don't think that you need to learn a language to learn a religion. Translations nowadays are pretty good. I don't believe that christians need to learn arameic for instance.

No, but you should avoid grotesque errors.

Again I agree.

Since the distinction is not necessary languagewise its just a way to make people feel more important.

The distinction is not important to you - it IS important to many NeoPagans. Some of the groups I've worked/worshipped with DO use "stage magic" in their holiday, group, and public ceremonies and thus have some need to distinguish the two. I agree that some people use it with pretension but others of us use it because it's useful jargon in our sub-society. The latter, though, tend not to rub the "k" spelling in the faces of non-Pagans because we realize it can irritate the shit out of non-believers. Unlike prostelytizing religions, mine requires a low-profile most of the time.

Still in european languages the distiction doesn't exist and in any discussions I've been involved in it has never come up as an issue.
I do agree though that in some congregations of worship certain nomenclature does exist, I do respect when it is used within the congregation but not when it is used outside. In my personal experience its only the egoistically/maturity challenged that make the distinction to the layman.
It would be like describing a jewish holliday and just using the hebrew names for the objects and rituals.
Disrespectful and only intended embellish your own sense of belonging.

It's usually only teens in US or GB who make the distinction or people of the same maturity level. (Personal opinion).

You are entitled to your opinion, although I like to think I'm more mature than "teen", thank you very much.

No disrespect intended. From your replies I gather that your maturity and knowledge supercedes that of most neopagans I've met over the internet.

I think it should be clear by now that I agree with you on the "false claims" people, although I usually refer to them as "fucking ignorant lazy assholes giving my religion a bad name", because that's what they generally are - lazy, ignorant assholes. I'll cut the teens some slack, since those are traits common to teens and many outgrow them. Past 25 or so, the label just sticks.

=)
Fluffbunnies exist in all religions. It's just like when I'm talking to or debating with christians and it turns out that they haven't read the bible, usually with the excuse that "you don't need to".

I'm agreeing with you in some spots and not in others. In keeping with being a perverse NeoPagan under heavy Trickster influence I refuse to accept a merely two-sided debate and insist on seeing everything in shifting shades of grey. I don't do either-or.

Oh, in real life I'm much more grayscale and I'm usually somewhat of a devils advocate as well. The problem with the internet though is that I've become more black/white in my discussions here.

[General Brock]

Those with an interest in the Goddess might find this interesting:

Did God have a wife?

(Probably yes, but bad things happen to women who fall for jealous and vindictive men)

My reading is that the indigenous Canaanites tended to be goddess worshippers and it was a problem to a faction of the early, patriarchial monotheist Hebrews who migrated in to settle from Ur. Their descendents were concerned with excising those early, foreign influences from Judaism.

[Broomstick]

It's not like druidic/celtic/greek/norse/whatever has enough followers to be recognized as a religion by the authorities.

I believe certain Norse-origin practices are recognize by the Icelandic government. [/nitpick]

I would think that highly unlikely unless its a tourist consideration in which case I'd say that they are just paying homage to their history.
Iceland has a population of ~300k of those ~94% consider themselves to be christians of one denomination or other.
[/more nitpicking]

Not that I really want to argue about Iceland, given that I know very little about the culture and on my one stop in Reykevik (which I've no doubt misspelled) I didn't even get off the airplane since it was just a refueling stop and the middle of the night...

But 6% of 300,000 would be 18,000 Icelanders who do not consider themselves Christian. Would no doubt be unreasonable to assume they are all one group, but that could leave a few thousand Thor-worshippers in the crowd.

Things get much more complicated when you consider that many Pagans/polytheists pay lip service to Christian demoninations as well as the polytheism. Voudoun and Santeria are probably the most notorius for this, but most pagans wouldn't have a problem with going to church once a week for social/keeping the family peace purposes. Well, the angry fluffbunnies might, but I mostly ignore them.

Wicca is the largest denomination of neo-pagans.

Ya know, I'm not entirely comfortable with that word "denomination" in this context - it's like saying Christianity is the largest denomination of monotheism. Wicca is really a group of very loosely affiliated groups, not the be-all and end-all of NeoPaganism. Dianics, Radical Faeries, Gardnerians, etc. might be called denominations of Wicca... but Asatru isn't Wiccan at all, nor are Kemetics or some of the Hellenes I've known, none of whom start with the "harm none" principal but rather operate under different rules.

But I don't really feel like arguing over that one, much.

Again it is a personal opinion that only people who take themselves too seriously make the actual distinction. It's just like calling the scandinavian culture of the norsemen "viking".

I'll agree some people take themselves way too seriously...

Though when discussing in some european languages the distinction either doesn't exist or is so obvious that it wouldn't happen.

Except we're discussing this in English right now -- and in some English-speaking subcultures the distinction exists. It's nothing unusual for one language to make a distinction another doesn't, nor is it unusual for a sub-culture to adopt its own jargon.

And yes, I do agree, it can be incredibly obnoxious. Which is why, years ago, I stopped arguing about the distinctions between athame and bolline and started calling both of them "ritual knives". Except on Halloween, when I use a sickle or scythe, in which case it's a "ritual farm implement". I agree, the arcane terminology can be a hindrance, yet it exists. For that matter, why do Catholics have chalices and grails instead of just "holy cups"? But do we really want to get bogged down with this?

Still in european languages the distiction doesn't exist and in any discussions I've been involved in it has never come up as an issue.

In most European languages a big deal is made out of feminine vs. masculine nouns - so? English is different, that's why it's a language unto itself. And American and British English are diverging. It's the way of things. Living languages don't remain static.

It would be like describing a jewish holliday and just using the hebrew names for the objects and rituals. Disrespectful and only intended embellish your own sense of belonging.

Depends on context. I agree, if you have people from outside who don't know the language/terminology failing to translate would be rude. On the other hand, if everyone present knows the jargon there's no reason not to use it, is there?

Part of the social aspect of religion IS a sense of belonging to the greater group. Language usage is a part of that. Amongst themselves, Jews might well use Hebrew (although most of the time that's not required). Among Pagans, likewise, special terminology is used. And I do agree that some people use that jargon with outsiders in ways obnoxious, malicious, or even a little of both. Me - when I was Intiated it was still very much a secret society and you just didn't use the Pagan terms outside of Pagandom. The movement underwent a HUGE change in the 1980's, and unless you lived through it, it's hard to appreciate just how much it did change, and how fast.

[Spoonist]

Lets just recheck the starting point here.
We are on a canadian sci-fi site having a discussion about what a newcomer should see as "Warning signes" when asking/researching about neo-paganism.
As far as I can tell you have not actually disagreed with any of my statements. You have pointed out that my warnings didn't include enough grayscale, instead they where very black/white.
Mostly you defend other neo-pagans right to hold certain views even though you don't hold them yourself.


That makes almost everything else that we say either a difference of opinions or plain nitpicking.
Athough that could be fun in itself it is counterproductive in the sense that we have derailed the original topic of the thread and will only lead to confusion for anyone truly interested.

So in this thread we should discontinue our nitpicking, but I would wish that you write a similar post like mine what a interested newcomer should watch out for. Especially since you have the experience from within while I only have the experience from without.

If you wish to continue our other discussions in another thread about the relevance of this and that I'd be glad to continue that but I think that we agree on most points but just have different angles/experience of the topic.

I still stand by all my warnings, those are signs that the people are not serious about their studies, too much fluff too little substance, or take themselves to serious, too much ego too little knowledge.
This either leads to ignorance or to fundamentalism, regardless of faith, two paths I'd rather keep most people out of to keep the world a saner place.