surt opstød: on paganism.
I am so fucking tired of people refering to "the pagan religion". What pagan religion are they talking about? That new age stuff, where people mix and match like it's a shopping mall? And sometimes make up new stuff 'cause "they think it sounds right"? Or one of the many, many non-Christian and non-Jewish religions* that have existed in the history of mankind? 'cause there are no such thing as the "pagan" religion.
There's a reason to why Anthropologists and Historians try not to use this term when dealing with religions. It's offensive as hell and an excellent example on how we western have a history of trying to put our boxes on the people from different cultures. The religious definition of "pagans" is entirely based on the Jewish-Christian point of view in the early days of the Jewish-Christian days in the Roman empire and through-out history the religious meaning of "pagan" has not changed meaning, nor use. Nothing tells more about the origin of neopaganism than the use of "pagan" in the name: neopaganism is a western, especially protestantic, concept. The idea behind it is western and protestantic: that you can pick and choose from whatever religion and culture you feel comfortable with is western and that you can seperate this from it's social context is protestantic. The majority of the so-called neopaganists are people with roots in a western, mainly protestantic, culture.
Say "neopagan" if you want to talk about neopaganism - I don't like the concept and one day I'll probably get around to articulate why I think it's another example of neoimperalism from the west, but what the hell. It exists, it's real, they are people who actually use money one it -, but when you're talking about "the pagan religion", you're not talking about anything. There's no such thing as "the pagan religion". There are many. And we don't even know all of them as we're not familiar with all the different cultures that is a part of the history of mankin, nor will we probably never know them all. Hell, we don't even know that much about the pagan religions we do know, if you ask me. The use of "pagan" today as a religious definition is a definition without meaning. It only makes sense in a historical context: when dealing with the history of Christianity, especially the Jewish-Christian church.
/today's rant. Brought to you due to me reading a Tumblr, where it said:
"In the Pagan religion, it was the hare, rather than the rabbit, that was depicted as the symbol of fertility due to their prolific mating at springtime"
And the source? Is a wiccan source. Mmm, yeeeah, now that is what I call a trustworthy source. Or not.
(so. How many neopagans and wiccans are going to defriend me over this, mmm? EXCITING.)
*I can see that according to some definitions of "pagan" Muslims aren't pagans either. That being said, the origin of the religious meaning of "pagan" is pre-Islam and it's origin is entirely western, so I include muslims as pagans.
There's a reason to why Anthropologists and Historians try not to use this term when dealing with religions. It's offensive as hell and an excellent example on how we western have a history of trying to put our boxes on the people from different cultures. The religious definition of "pagans" is entirely based on the Jewish-Christian point of view in the early days of the Jewish-Christian days in the Roman empire and through-out history the religious meaning of "pagan" has not changed meaning, nor use. Nothing tells more about the origin of neopaganism than the use of "pagan" in the name: neopaganism is a western, especially protestantic, concept. The idea behind it is western and protestantic: that you can pick and choose from whatever religion and culture you feel comfortable with is western and that you can seperate this from it's social context is protestantic. The majority of the so-called neopaganists are people with roots in a western, mainly protestantic, culture.
Say "neopagan" if you want to talk about neopaganism - I don't like the concept and one day I'll probably get around to articulate why I think it's another example of neoimperalism from the west, but what the hell. It exists, it's real, they are people who actually use money one it -, but when you're talking about "the pagan religion", you're not talking about anything. There's no such thing as "the pagan religion". There are many. And we don't even know all of them as we're not familiar with all the different cultures that is a part of the history of mankin, nor will we probably never know them all. Hell, we don't even know that much about the pagan religions we do know, if you ask me. The use of "pagan" today as a religious definition is a definition without meaning. It only makes sense in a historical context: when dealing with the history of Christianity, especially the Jewish-Christian church.
/today's rant. Brought to you due to me reading a Tumblr, where it said:
"In the Pagan religion, it was the hare, rather than the rabbit, that was depicted as the symbol of fertility due to their prolific mating at springtime"
And the source? Is a wiccan source. Mmm, yeeeah, now that is what I call a trustworthy source. Or not.
(so. How many neopagans and wiccans are going to defriend me over this, mmm? EXCITING.)
*I can see that according to some definitions of "pagan" Muslims aren't pagans either. That being said, the origin of the religious meaning of "pagan" is pre-Islam and it's origin is entirely western, so I include muslims as pagans.