What do you call yourself?

The Pagan question:
1) What do you call yourself
2)How do you describe yourself to those who won't understand what you call yourself?

The Pagan question: who is a pagan in question one, and who uses pagan in question two? I don't self-identify as Pagan any more than I self-identify as white. Those who aren't under either umbrella use either or both to describe me, but neither term really works for me as a definition because the majority of Pagan doesn't decribe me, nor does the majority of white. I am an Asatruar, a Heathen. This is a reconstructionist polytheistic movement that celebrates the old faith of the indigenous Northern European people. This is also sometimes called Norse Paganism.

To a Christian or Atheist who knows or cares nothing about our community I am called a Pagan, because my faith and a thousand more are under that umbrella, and I am not some subsect of Christianity, so the term from them to describe us is close enough for understanding. I would not use that term to another under the umbrella, because to them it would imply things that are more wrong than right. The more a person knows, the more precice the definition I would use is.

I have never called myself white. Its a north american invention anyway. I am a Canadian of primarily Scottish extraction whose ancestors were predominantly Danes, Jutes, and Saxon. I am not Pole or French or Itallian or Russian, not American, New Zealander or South African. Those are anceint tribes and modern nations that have nothing to do with my origins, but to a Detroit inner city Afro-American, I am white. I don't really mind this; I grew up in Enderby where you were either White (non Spallumchene) or Indian (Spallumchene). Other natives (full status indian of any other tribe) were as white as the Europeans, Japanese and blacks because Us and Them gets defined from the point of view of the defining Us.

I am not Pagan when describing myself to anyone who is close to me. When those who would persecute me for what I really am gather together, I am as Pagan as the next person on their target list, and they will have to go through me to get to them. As long as you have nothing against Pagans, I am only kind of/sort of/not really one. If you have a problem with them, then I am Pagan (here me roar).

I call myself Wiccan to someone who might understand what that is but then I'm not the run of the mill Wiccan either, Pagan to someone who doesn't, or none-of-your-business, mostly the latter.

Around here, the ones who fish are fishing around to discover if you a Southern Baptist, as happened today, and if you aren't, you are automatically Other, no need to narrow it down.

I don't call myself anything to anyone who has to ask. If you don't know me well enough to know that, you don't know me well enough to ask.
I find it's just easier. I get shit from non-Xtians because of "all" the evil they do, I get shit from Xtians b/c Catholics aren't "real" Xtians.
So, if they don't know, they don't get to ask.

tmarie64 wrote:I don't call myself anything to anyone who has to ask. If you don't know me well enough to know that, you don't know me well enough to ask.
I find it's just easier. I get shit from non-Xtians because of "all" the evil they do, I get shit from Xtians b/c Catholics aren't "real" Xtians.
So, if they don't know, they don't get to ask.

Case in point about how Us and Them is defined by the Us group. Even if from out here in the weeds of deep Themdom you look like a classic one of "Us", the high holy "Us" inner circle disagrees, so you are "Them". You can be "Them" with us! Its like "Us" only with a more casual dress code, better pot-luck and far cooler table conversation.

You know both the RC and Orthodox are seen by the bulk of the Protestants as not being "real" Christians where by any lineage concious Wiccan, or Lore concious Asatru or Celtic Recon, you both look like the only "real" Christians. Go figure.

Actually, I think I've become Catholic in name only. There are too too many places where I diverge from the Church's ideas. I love the mass, the traditions, but the old b@$##ards running it... well...

Well the mass was lifted in its entirety from the Mithran faith. Maybe instead of being a conflicted Catholic you are really a Mithran who is just stripping away the unwanted overlays and baggage to get back to the root?

Could be. Though, I know nothing of Mithrans... Enlighten me?

Mithra-ism was a male-dominated mystery-religion
that borrowed Zoroastrian terms and titles but was in fact a Western religion/ philosophy that used Cosmology and its changes to celebrate the triumph of good over evil
http://www.well.com/~davidu/mithras.html

I think that the majority of people don't think to deeply about their religion. They just want to fit in, be told that they believe X, Y and Z and should do A, B, and C, and do the same comforting routine anytime they gather with others so that they know what to do even half asleep.

I think it shocks them silly to discover that other people don't buy into that.

Mithranism was the dominant faith of the Roman Legions and they carried it with them wherever they went. Its central myth is Zoroastrian in that it has Ahura Mazda, the god/father/Sun/fire as supreme god of light, opposed by Ahriman the dark one. When the Dark One sent the bull to ravage mankind, Ahura Mazda could not strike, for fear of destroying mankind, so he sent his son Mithras.

Mithras fought and slew the bull, taking for himself the aspect of its power, causing him to be forever known as the "Bull God". Links to Minoan civilization are postulated, based on some of the ceremonials, but mixed with Zoroastrian and later Greek cosmology make it hard to say definitively what the origins were as it was an initiatory faith, with knowledge closely held by believers.

The ceremony of the Mass was the basic Mithran ritual, with the wine being the blood of the bull, commemerating the terrible wounds suffered by the Son of the Sun for the salvation of mankind. It was the success of the Christians in convincing Constantine that Christianity could be merged with Mithraism that made it attractive to unite two of the leading contenders as the new state cult of the Roman Empire, as Christianity was popular among the citizen women and urban peoples, while Mithraism dominated the Legions. Given the urban propertied class and Legions, Constantine had a foundation to rest his power on, and threw his influence behind the new state cult as a unifying influence on an empire that had little central culture anymore.

Following the same pattern it would use against the Celt and Germanics of co-opting the Mithran festivals and rituals with Christian overlay, Christianity spent years selling itself as really just another form of Mithraism, and then once it held a strong majority persecuted the un-seduced Mithrans out of existence. The rituals remained.

Mithrans are a strong faith in the pagan community these days. Not in the numbers of my own (probably), limited by their iniatory mystery form. They take their secrecy as seriously as the Elusynians, with no one who has not been initiated cognizant of the mysteries, and those who have been initiated have not been in the same rush to sell out as have most of the other initiatory mysteries, and every other sworn secrecy both professional and governmental in today's society. It is nice to see some people taking their holy oaths seriously.

Mithrans set great store by their virtues. It is a creed of soldiers, with the central purpose of opposition to the darkness, and harsh demands on your personal integrety. It is not a faith that is tollerant of personal weaknesses, and although its eastern mysticism make it strange from our point of view, the average Asatruar would have to admit its moral code is worthy.

It is this information about Mithranism that make a person realize just how much christianity lifted its practices from the older religions. I doubt that hardly anyone sitting in the church pews on Sunday morning have a clue about this, especially if they knew that their communion was not far removed from another religious belief.

As for the thread, . . . . I don't know what to call myself, religiously, since I still haven't found the one for me.

You can hardly blame the inheritors of the tradition for the crimes of their forebearers. They inherit it from those who learned it in good faith before them. Its just the foundation was lies.

No...I don't think that's me. I'm Christian. I believe and follow and am comforted by the teachings of Christ. I'm just not one who believes he was the hard ass that some Christians would have us believe.
Thank you, though, for the explanation, John! I know now where the "blood and body of Christ" part of our mass came from.

I think what people miss sometimes is what fiction writers know - we rip things off others, rework it and make is our own. Yes, Christianity ripped off rituals, religious myths and ideas from the pagan religions in blatant ways to people who know those pagan religions but they were reworked in a new way, or at least with new names, and became Christian. Not perhaps original to the religion, but belonging to the religious body of myth and practices after time.

I think what offended pagans is that most Christians don't seem to know that though. They think that their religion is entirely new, unique, and now we've got a group of people who think that the religious myths literally happened exactly as written. Even when there is proof that it was "borrowed" from another religion or culture. Not you Tina.

I don't have anything against borrowing: people from every religion accuse us Wiccans of borrowing most if not everything and they'd be correct. The difference is that I know where we got it and the whole emphasis of my branch is on a developing a personal relationship with the gods. I think there are many Christians who also put their gods at the center of their religion rather than the bible.

gilly, I think that is what I was getting at, and you stated so well. They believe they ARE unique, and most [if not all] would never check the veracity of the clergy/pastor/bishop/cardinal who states "its uniqueness".

New post by John T Mainer on Sat May 28, 2011 12:33 pm

1) What do you call yourself

I am Asatru. I am Heathen. But mostly, I am bear. I am introspective, and individualistic.

2)How do you describe yourself to those who won't understand what you call yourself?

However I feel I need to. Most of the time, people don't ask. If they do, I usually don't feel a driving need to be social and explain the internal workings of my self, and will give them only the amount of information that I want them to have.

all

1) What do you call yourself

I am a Gaelic Reconstructionist Polytheist of the Fálachus tradition.

2)How do you describe yourself to those who won't understand what you call yourself?

I've sort of dropped "Pagan" as my default position, preferring polytheist, and then explaining it in greater detail from there. So I will generally end up explaining each of the three components (depending on the knowledge of whoever I am speaking to). Unless I am speaking to someone who is also a polytheist/Pagan (or learned enough in NRM's), I would usually default to mentioning something about revering the Gods of Ireland/ the Gaels as well.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen[smile].
I was once upon a time a Wiccan, of the Raymond Buckland/Scott Cunningham variety, but that was years ago, and over time I have "evolved" into something else. I guess if I was to try and put some sort of a label on myself I would compare myself to something called "Appalachian Folk Magick", but suited to the life of a country bumpkin in the neo-tropic swamps of Southern Florida.
As to answering the second question, well, to most strangers, I either say "I am sorry, but I'm afraid I just don't know you well enough yet to answer that personal an inquiry.", or, "I'm just a nature lover...with benefits[mischievous smile].".
I am weird.
Perhaps in time, as we all get to know one another better, you can decide what you think I am and give me your own label[smile].
Have a good evening everyone.

No you aren't weird, you'll fit right in here. I'm Wiccan of the UEW variety although maybe I"m drifting into my own kind of practice.

Good evening, and I thank you for your kinds words, dear lady[smile].

Southern Hick wrote:Good evening ladies and gentlemen[smile].
I was once upon a time a Wiccan, of the Raymond Buckland/Scott Cunningham variety, but that was years ago, and over time I have "evolved" into something else. I guess if I was to try and put some sort of a label on myself I would compare myself to something called "Appalachian Folk Magick", but suited to the life of a country bumpkin in the neo-tropic swamps of Southern Florida.
As to answering the second question, well, to most strangers, I either say "I am sorry, but I'm afraid I just don't know you well enough yet to answer that personal an inquiry.", or, "I'm just a nature lover...with benefits[mischievous smile].".
I am weird.
Perhaps in time, as we all get to know one another better, you can decide what you think I am and give me your own label[smile].
Have a good evening everyone.

In Asatru we would call you a low lore worker: one who works with the wights or spirits of the local lands and waters. The low lore or folklore was never standardized, because the wights of each place are different, and the customs or thew that they work out with the folk that interact with them are very specific to each region, and often individual territories within even local regions.

Wights, Faery to the Celt, Kami to the Shinto, Lares to Roma Mater; there are a thousand names for them, but each village and homestead must establish its own method of interaction. Many are similar enough to instruct beginners, but each distinct enough to know you could spend a lifetime deepening your understanding and die with much yet to do.

Good evening[smile].
Low Lore Worker? As you describe it, that sounds rather spot-on, Sir[smile].
We in my family call them, "The Good Neighbors", or "Greenies". To us they are like...'Ghosts'...but much more powerful, and in/from the wild places.

I am soon going to be a Catholic. I'll always be firstly Asatru, then ponder Greek and Roman mythologies then contemplate Zen, Tao and Sophia. I just have to do all of this. The Catholic stuff is for community, I can't take any more isolation. Surprisingly I fit in with no problem at all. I might just start calling myself a Catholic. Oh the humility.

"...Jesus Christ is said by the New Testament writers to be an eternal High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:17, 24). If we use the same kind of interpretive analysis, this makes Christ the successor and embodiment of an ancient and venerable Pagan priesthood! Therefore, it can be said that modern Pagans have more of a legitimate claim upon the deified priest-king Christ than does the Christian Church itself, for His priesthood is derived, not from the Jewish Temple, but from the Pagan priest-king Melchizedek!"
- Shadwynn, The Crafted Cup 1994

usul wrote:I am soon going to be a Catholic. I'll always be firstly Asatru, then ponder Greek and Roman mythologies then contemplate Zen, Tao and Sophia. I just have to do all of this. The Catholic stuff is for community, I can't take any more isolation. Surprisingly I fit in with no problem at all. I might just start calling myself a Catholic. Oh the humility.

"...Jesus Christ is said by the New Testament writers to be an eternal High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:17, 24). If we use the same kind of interpretive analysis, this makes Christ the successor and embodiment of an ancient and venerable Pagan priesthood! Therefore, it can be said that modern Pagans have more of a legitimate claim upon the deified priest-king Christ than does the Christian Church itself, for His priesthood is derived, not from the Jewish Temple, but from the Pagan priest-king Melchizedek!"
- Shadwynn, The Crafted Cup 1994

So you'll be a heretic, then.

I'm practising keeping my mouth shut, allot. The Liberal Catholics are more concerned with accepting everyone than exclusive rigidity. The Father I'm speaking to was saying no-one in his church does confession and that is fine, it was just a phase. I've seen Buddha's in Catholic churches and now days the Pope does interfaith meetings and prayers so it does not look like I'll be a heretic after all. I've met with the orthodox Latin mas types, they probably would not put up with me, but they are like a whole different church.