Neo-Paganism: the natural state of becoming!

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I feel as though some people here are misrepresenting paganism, and dragging it through the mud. This thread is intended to revive and cleanse the traditional idea of paganism. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are non-paganistic, monotheistic religions which dominate the globe today. However, I want to bring back the idea of spiritual alternatives, beginning with a few key premises and ideas.

Paganism does not necessarily imply deistic beliefs in god-beings or god-becomings. Paganism does not necessarily imply “magic” or supernatural belief. The key concepts and foundations of paganism, I will argue, is ideological, moral, ethical, and derived straight from values and virtues.

[size=150]A man need naught believe in magical or any supernatural beliefs, to call himself pagan or paganistic.[/size]

Atheism, rationalism, cynicism, and scientology have essentially destroyed concepts of “magic” and “supernaturalism”. Everything can become broken down into “science”. This is the core claim of postmodernism.

So let’s add Postmodernism together with Neo-paganism. A “spiritual” system of belief can become created, or defined, or rationally explained, without appeals to nature, supernatural phenomenon, or magic. Spirituality can become deconstructed without removing its essential parts, which coincide with the emotions of fear and hope, respectively.

I want to open up a new conversation, topic, discussion, argument here. Let’s begin a new discourse.

People can “believe in things” without appealing to super-natural ontologies, can’t they? I say they can. I say that “true” paganism is about values, virtues, beliefs, and genes. It’s about “respecting nature” and respecting your traditions. These traditions can be rationalist, or, mystical. Either way, does not matter. The core idea of paganism is understanding nature and its antithesis, artificiality.

Paganism will not take the side of “nature” or artificiality. For example, I will later argue that the “Transhumanist” movement, the paganistic humanist ideology of merging machine together with man, although scientific, is perfectly within the realm of “paganism” today. There are no rules “for” or “against” merging machine and metal, with man.

But there will be ethical and moral consequences for transhumanism. This can fit within the realm of neo-paganism.

2

I assume that your preferred neo-paganism won’t believe in transhumanism, so what will it be about?
Personally, I don’t think the word paganism is necessary for these ideas, I do think the natural artificial dichotomy is interesting. I assume you’re aware, with your use of the quotations marks on the word “nature”, that the dichotomy itself is artificial, so any list of that which is natural and artificial will be entirely opinion based. Still, I’d like to see such a list of yours.

3

Atthet,

As long as you’re not advocating, with your machine and man, that we become cyborgs I’m with you.

And having dismissed paganism I’m completely ignorant of neo-paganism. So maybe I’ll learn something.

4

Out : Paganism or polytheism is basically of Greek-Roamn origin consisting of the worship of dieites projected upon ideas, places and virtues, in the form of human beings. Later on it had a wider meaning of other non monotheistic religions such as Islam, hinduism, and the religions of the primordial Americas.

 Paganism did indulged in magical rites, mystical traditions and image-worship.  With time, "paganism" came to be associated with an array of other religions, leading to a confusion as to what Paganism actually was.
5

I don’t see why this is called, “pagan”, and not just “human spirituality”.
“Pagan” is a political term in origin which inversely referred to no specific arrangement of beliefs at all, nor does it even do so today, nor does it really help clear anything up.

Saying that label only actually adds confusion, rather than remove it.

For everything that you are referring to by the name “pagan”, I would argue that you are far better off just saying, “spirituality”, or “human spirituality”.

6

What about things like bio-engineering? If you modify natural environment or natural material what is then is natural and what is man-made.
We’ve have practically evolved our modern selves by modifying our natural environment (and diet), we-ourselves are already some kind of mixture of natural and man-made. If nature had its way without our interference maybe none of us would have been alive today.

7

Etymology :
pagan (n.)
late 14c., from Late Latin paganus “pagan,” in classical Latin “villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant” noun use of adjective meaning “of the country, of a village,” from pagus “country people; province, rural district,” originally “district limited by markers,” thus related to pangere “to fix, fasten,” from PIE root *pag- “to fix” (see pact). As an adjective from early 15c.

Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for “civilian, incompetent soldier,” which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (e.g. milites “soldier of Christ,” etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908.

8

According to the etymology of pagan I’m a pagan because I’m a country person. And all these Bible Belters in this area are pagans too.

9

I see that transhumanism is already a type of paganism. It is cultish, regarding technology worship. It promotes the loss of “weak” flesh to “strong” steel. Why feel through flesh, when you can “feel” and sense the world through more advanced, more responsive, more manipulative electronic sensors and recordings?

As for the “natural v artificial” dichotomy, I reject it. Nothing is artificial. All is natural. What the nihilists call “evil” is natural. Good or evil, both are natural. Neither can ever become “nurtured out” by liberal education. Some people are born “good”. Some people are born “evil”.

I am not opposed to evil. I am not opposed to good. This pits paganism directly against the monotheists, like christianity.

10

I lean toward post-humanism, the consciously selective process of breeding certain human individuals and groups together, or genetic engineering and experimentation. I also could include some transhumanistic elements into this. If a baby could be grown with a metallic alloy internal skeleton, then why not try this out? Why not create a real “wolverine” x-man baby?

I promote people to consciously breed selective, specialized traits. Athletically superior human beings, like those playing in the NFL or navy seals, or marines, should breed together. Similarly, artistic people should breed together, and create a superior artistic race of people.

Intellectuals should do the same, breed together, create heightened intellects. Philosophers should breed with other philosophers. Scientists should breed with other scientists. Religious should breed with other religiosos. This should become consciously selected for, and consciously chosen by both men and women.

I promote cultural eugenics. Like should breed with like, as the norm. I promote advanced specialization of humanity.

11

Because there is no such thing as a “spiritual person”. Calling him or her “pagan” is easier and simpler.

A pagan is the best way to say “I’m not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim”. It’s the most direct way to convey this point.

12

People just call themselves “Pagan” when they want to indicate that they aren’t Christian and feel provocative while doing it. It doesn’t mean anything further. You can’t drag ‘paganism’ through the mud, because the whole point of self-applying the term is to drag YOURSELF through the mud so you can feed off that sweet, sweet victim cred.

13

All is natural. Artificiality is impossible. There is no such thing as “artificial”. The distinction is a false one.

Man is nature. All that he does is natural. “Evil” is natural. This is the biggest distinction, good and evil. Judaeo-Christians seek to assert that “man is born good” or “many is only good” or “man should only ever become good”. It rejects evil. But this paradigm is false. What is “evil” in the first place? Who dictates good and evil, except the moralists, dogmatists, and Christians?

It is not YOU or I who lay claim to good and evil. The definitions of good and evil are claimed by the most religious. Pagans are left with nothing, except to fight for a (minority) morality or culture.

There is no “nature had its way without our interference”.

Man is nature. I am not a Christian, nor a Jew, nor a Muslim. I am pagan. There is no such thing as a disconnection between man and nature. This disconnect from man and nature is a monotheistic element, philosophical moral dualism. I am not a dualist.

All that man does, is natural. What possible belief is more “pagan” than this?

14

I don’t think pagans are “victims”. Christianity relies more on pagan absorption (Santa Claus, Christmas tree?) than pagans do on Christian absorption.

What does Christianity offer the world in terms of “good”? Christianity is no longer a religion of “good”. There is nothing “good”, or even useful about Christianity today, not after Nietzsche. God is dead, and Christianity with Him.

15

In Christian theology, Satan represents “nature”. God represents transcendentalism and artificiality. God is the Artifice, in Christianity.

Paganists are thusly seen as Satanists by Christians. This is how Christianity vilifies proper paganism.

16 
How does this disagree with anything I said?  People choose the word 'pagan' because simply being non-Christian isn't good enough for them. They want to be non-Christian [i]aggressively[/i], so they choose a label (along with infidel, heathen, wiccan, and Satanist) that they hope will start a fight or provoke an extreme reaction so they can get all self-righteous.  That's why the term is so hard to pin down, why we just got done with a giant thread of people arguing over what a pagan is- a group classification that exists purely as a political bludgeon is by it's nature going to be vague. The person who created the thread that you seem to have a problem with reacts to mentions of Christianity in the exact same way you just did- as a rebellious teenager who's resentful of Christianity because it's too 'mainstream'. Paganism is religious hipsterism, simply put.

It would be like if there was a group of Christians who called themselves ‘Inquisitors’ - they’re just like normal Christians, but they choose a name that will cause controversy and make non-Christians resentful, because they want to get all pissed off and ranty about non-Christians, and having a provocative name is a good way to start many fights. You can dig and dig and try to find what a ‘neo-pagan’ is, and you won’t get any deeper than that, sorry.

17

Not that pagans are victims though, right?

18

Taunting me isn’t going to work, Christian. It seems that you detest paganism, which is very sensible and reasonable for you.

Do you find paganism or neo-paganism threatening? Do any of the points I made, threaten you?

Does it disturb you how I claim that all that man does, even the “most evil” of actions, is natural?

Does it dig under your skin, does it make your nerves vibrate, conflicting with all the indoctrination you’ve endured as a child?

Remember, Uccicore, tolerance. Can a Christian truly tolerate something so thoroughly non-Christian though?

Let’s test your tolerance. Can a pagan and Christian share the same society and culture peacefully???

19

Atthet, wasn’t this tried by Hitler. Are you shooting for Nietzsche’s Übermensch? or human cyborgs?

20

No, I’m not a racialist. I don’t care about ethnicity or race. I only care about function and fluidity of motions. If we can breed a better warrior, farmer, basketball player, comedian, lawyer, businessman, whatever, then I see no recourse or drawback for doing this.

My goal is human efficiency, not politics. Let’s raise all people of the world. I am a bottom-up ideologue. Let’s raise all boats together.

I will help the thief to steal, just as well as I help the police officer to catch him. Let’s increase the action of both. Both are human, all too human.