From: markbr%radian@natinst.com (markbr)
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:12:10 GMT
Organization: n.o.y.b

In article <1992Dec31.054444.27043@wam.umd.edu> angelai@wam.umd.edu (Angela I.) writes:
>In article <30DEC199203090145@elroy.uh.edu> lib1p@elroy.uh.edu (Tammy Stark Blandino) writes:
>>
>>That's perfectly fine and I see nothing wrong in it.  If she wants to call
>>herself a pagan/christian thats fine.  However, don't you see that what she
>>is doing is far more pagan than christian?  A pagan can accept this, but a
>>christian never could...not by the definitions of the religion.
>
>Well, it depends on how you define/interpret the teachings....
>Honestly, is it fair for pagans to impose the definition of what it
>is to be Christian on others?  Wouldn't we be rather incensed if,
>whenever we believed or acted in a way that happens to overlap with
>someone's Christian beliefs, that person said that we were being
>"more Christian than pagan"?  Sorry, but that gets into that gray
>area, leading towards "oh, that <ethnic minority member> is okay;
>(s)he acts like <ethnic majority>."  
>
>Anyway, paganism can't be defined easily because the individual beliefs
>of modern pagans is so incredibly varied...  I would argue that
>the same is true for Christianity...  Instead of trying to enforce
>that which _divides_ pagan and Christian, perhaps we could try to
>look for common ground, so that we can eventually learn to co-exist
>in peace.
>
>All I'm saying is that the Christian/pagan Jaguar mentioned is on her own
>Path and it is right for her.  Don't force her into your molds, 
>or you are perpetuating much of what we tend to resist from others...
>
That kind of live&let-live is all fine & good, if everyone agrees. 
Unfortunately, it ain't that way. First, xians usually do try to force
their definitions on us. Second, I suggest that it would be *real* *hard*
to find a Xian, who most other xians would agree was xian, who did *NOT*
follow the logic of J.C. purportedly saying "I am the only way", and 
"therefore *everything* else is false, and I'm letting all these people
go to Hell if I don't show them the Right Way(tm)" If one side says,
all paths are equally valid, and another side says, "there's only *ONE*
right way: MINE", then the first group, if they do not push their own
definitions, and defend themselves, wind up like the Democrats in the
80's, who sat in the corner and acted like they were saying "please
don't kick me (whimper, whimper)".

I will agree with Tammy. One thing that bothers me, as I've said before on
the newsgroup, is that we seem to have *lots* of folks who *LOVE* sophomoric
arguments, and can't agree on *ANYTHING* as a definition of paganism. Yes,
I agree with Janis, that labelling can be bad (saith the hippy), but we
all need to consider that the flip side is that if there *is* a label we
*can* apply to *ourselves*, then we become a group or class of people,
which allows us to generalize, and defend, and with the ability to *force*
others to take us seriously ("oh, you're a witch, riiiight. Turn me into
a newt!", or "Oh, you're a witch. Tell me, how long have you had these
delusions of ....").

	mark, the flame-proof

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc