The Usefulness of the Term 'Pagan'

Most people would say im pagan, only in the regard that i dont believe in monotheism.

But me myself, i dont like labels. Im just me.

I'm strongly drawn to polytheism, the idea of many possible beings which could be called gods or goddesses - beings beyond the scope of human scientific understanding. I also enjoy symbology and ritual, and so I think there is something to be said for the reconstructionist approach (despite the fact we may never truly know if the reconstruction is accurate). On the other hand, I do not dogmatically follow or believe in any specific systematic religion or pantheon. I may sometimes describe myself as "pagan", if only to disassociate myself from monotheism. Perhaps the term is only useful for hinting at a broad range of related ideas and traditions. Most people have some idea what this refers to.

Originally Posted by Animus27

And as such movements within movements grow, the whole label of pagan is becoming like saying "I live in North America!".

Woohoo! I've been singing that song for about a decade. I've really enjoyed reading the replies in this thread and I hope to read many more. I am studying linguistic anthropology and this gives me a really good modern day study.
In my opinion the word "pagan" is a word in evolution.. we have not established a firm definition of the word yet, it is still changing rapidly.

The problem with the word "pagan" to begin with, is that there is not much in the way of a definition, unless you speak latin, then of course you mean "country bumpkin" or "redneck" or some such.
There is no consensus as to *** it means, at least not among all english dialects and in all contexts.
In America, a Hindu person would be called pagan since most people figure if you are polytheist you are pagan. Funny thing is, once you investigate things, Hindu's appear to believe that all gods are emanations of Brahma.. making them what? Monotheist? Some witches have a similar belief, as well as in Candomble: The gods or Orisha are emanations of a central all-encompasing God. Once we see this, we would then have to say that some witches, Hindu's and Candomble are in fact not pagan, while in America those exact religions are seen as the very definition of paganism! Here we encounter the age-old problem of not understanding another persons religion well enough while we still try to label it... backwards thinking imo.

Another issue we encounter is that different traditions (and dialects of english... learned/learnt) use different words in different ways. One example:

If I wanted to summon a spirit of some sort to talk with it I would say I am going to evoke, evocate or "call out" that spirit, while I would say invoke or "call in" in case I wanted to call it inside myself.
People of other traditions would say that evoke would mean to get rid of the spirit (I would call this banish or exorcise) while invoke would mean to simply call it to you (evoke in my case).
Now if you are not thoroughly confused yet, the problem is simply that taking just 2 very similar traditions, the nomenclature is so different as to create an absolute inability to communicate effectively unless one defines one's terms before using them.
Fun, happy times.
It is with respect to this linguistic faux pas that I always sit down and have drinks with anyone before I engage in any specifically religious or spiritual activity with them.

Essentially it would seem that pagan, far from being a religion, is a very broad class of religions, like the term monotheist.
The only real way to define pagan is to simply ask someone what they mean when they say "pagan". When I refer to myself as simply "pagan" I indicate at once that I do not have a specific, popularly established religious tradition but that I am in some way a polytheist or animist who emphasises the feminine divine nature. I come upon this specific way of looking at the word from the definition discussed in "A History of Pagan Europe" by Prudence Jones & Nigel Pennick. Because of the title of the book, they tackle the meaning of "pagan" straight-off.
A someone who spends a lot of time and effort studying linguistics and etymology, I always prefer to take a point of view that cuts through any hangups on labels. One such way of looking at the term pagan involves not defining the word, but learning the feel of it. General you could say a pagan is someone who practices a religion or spirituality that is fundamentaly compatible with other pagans. Let me explain:
From what I have seen so far, witchcraft, asatru, and all those people who hail the pre-christian european gods can be considered pagan. Now, take a witch and an asatruar... their religions are very different, and they may be disinclined to have a blot, sabbat or esbat (their primary religious events) together, however if the witch encounters the asatruar doing a seiðr, she will immidiately understand what is going on, even if she does not get all the specifics. Likewise, if a ceremonial magician or a roman reconstructionist witnessed a witch working some kind of spell craft or preparing at an esbat, they would understand what is happening at a fundamental level, even if they worship different gods and use different methods.
Basically, if you call yourself "pagan" then you practice something that is fundamentaly cognate with other people who call themselves pagan.

wow. i made a long post anyway, this is a fun topic and i look forward to hearing other opinions.

Originally Posted by Szalvias

A someone who spends a lot of time and effort studying linguistics and etymology, I always prefer to take a point of view that cuts through any hangups on labels. One such way of looking at the term pagan involves not defining the word, but learning the feel of it.

This is very true.

Personally I don't want to put myself in a small box, I don't want to label myself in a fine precise way. What I do want to do is give people an idea of what angle I have in life.

So, for me the term pagan is loose enough to not need much explanation but defined enough to tell people that I am not of any of the other religions.

I sometimes add the term Lightworker to it to define it a little more to some.

On top of that many "ordinary" people haven't heard of asatru, don't know the what people mean when they say heathen, are scared of witch and may have fluffy bunny style thoughts about wiccan. But, when you say pagan there is enough seriousness for them to not take the mick but enough softness to not be scared of it. Well known enough to not warrant too many questions.

If people want to label themselves in a precise way that's great, but what happens when your path takes a turn away from where you thought you were heading? Do you cling to the label you have given yourself or do you start looking for a new one? What if there isn't a specific label that fits? Will you have to resort to the term pagan?

My label of pagan lightworker allows me to stray all over the place, if I want to work with Jesus as an ascended master I can, because my label doesn't restrict me.

I would like to throw a wrench in here if I may...As Norseman said in the US it was founded upon Christian premises but not all who came here were Christian. The Celtic, Scot-Irish, French, German, Italian, Polish, African and so on would disagree with this premise. Much of these cultures brought with them their beliefs and they were passed down through the families. Yes, some became blended with Christian beliefs and I believe some of that was a way to 'hide' the pagan aspects to prevent persecution. I understand that there can be Christian influence just as there was in Europe and in the rest of the world. But even in many strict pagan religions they were influenced by the cultures around them and the ones they came in contact with, purity in religions these day I think are probably rare. Just my opinion...

I would be one who considers myself to be a pagan, country dweller, folk influenced Christian believer. Christian in the sense it influences some of my beliefs but not Christian in that Jesus is God/Savior.

[norseman]

Ah but [second wrench ], when you talk about culture, you can only consider the dominant culture, and America being founded by fundamental christians, sets the original dominant. What comes after is almost unimportant. Conversely, Britain is pagan for thousands of years before the introduction of christianity and, even after the introduction, the majority of the ordinary people were still pagan. Culture, by it's very nature, is intangible - almost emotional, it sets a subconscious way of thinking. You pick this up in the work of Hutton who records the pagan Cunning Folk, openly, right up to the 20th century. Many of the Cunning Folk masqueraded as christian priests, so a "fifth-column" within the church. They used the bible not as a holy book but as a source of spells.
Not sure if I am putting this over well. As an example, I go to a major cathedral to meditate and commune in the old ways because the cathedral was originally a pagan holy place - that is my mind-set. Everywhere I turn is my pagan ancestry.
It's a fascinating subject !

Originally Posted by norseman

Ah but [second wrench ], when you talk about culture, you can only consider the dominant culture, and America being founded by fundamental christians, sets the original dominant. What comes after is almost unimportant. Conversely, Britain is pagan for thousands of years before the introduction of christianity and, even after the introduction, the majority of the ordinary people were still pagan. Culture, by it's very nature, is intangible - almost emotional, it sets a subconscious way of thinking. You pick this up in the work of Hutton who records the pagan Cunning Folk, openly, right up to the 20th century. Many of the Cunning Folk masqueraded as christian priests, so a "fifth-column" within the church. They used the bible not as a holy book but as a source of spells.
Not sure if I am putting this over well. As an example, I go to a major cathedral to meditate and commune in the old ways because the cathedral was originally a pagan holy place - that is my mind-set. Every where I turn is my pagan ancestry.
It's a fascinating subject !

heheee...let me add a couple of screws to the mix Though many of the founders were Christian they brought with them many servants and slaves that were not. There was also the indigenous people already here, so I believe the base influence was not strictly Christian. They may have been in a visible dominance as I am sure they influenced the government that followed, but in many areas of America where immigrants lived they were very influenced been their 'homeland' beliefs.

I hear what you are saying It is a fascinating subject.