Pagans, heathens and infidels

[Christine Wheelwright]

Another aspect of it is that you do not refer to Biblical "mythology." Only Greco-Roman or Norse are a "mythology."
Which implies that the Bible lore is the only truth.

I think 'mythology' refers to a story that is somehow outside any recognizable time and place. This would cover most Greek or Norse myths (there is no evidence that Theseus ever existed, for example, let alone the Minotaur). Other religions, however, originate from known times and places where history was being actively recorded (although not always perfectly). I don't think there is any doubt that Pilate or Herod or other characters from the Bible existed. Even in the Old Testament there is Pharaoh (Rameses II?). I think that is how I would define myth or lore (rather than it simply being assigned to beliefs or stories that are outside the mainstream religion of the day).

 

[KGeo777]

Jesus' claim to fame is dying for the sins of humanity so it shouldn't be a surprise he is mostly portrayed as being on the verge of death.

I know- but I am speaking about the artistic symbolism--if you just walked by a church door--what do you see? The imagine of a helpless man on a stick looking miserable.
It is interesting that that image is what is most associated with the deity compared to all other religious icons. Why don't they make him smiling on the cross? Jesus smiling over the collection plate would be better marketing. Just one of those things I notice.

 

[Harpo]

Just a friendly reminder that this is supposed to be a discussion of the use of the terms "Pagans, heathens and infidels" for writing purposes - not a platform for "I have an opinion on something to do with religion, I will use this thread as an excuse to expose it"!

Remember, this is an inclusive forum that doesn't discuss religion so as not to make any particular faith or non-faith group feel disadvantaged or denigrated here.

*repeating Brian’s post from three hours ago, for those who didn’t read it*

 

[sknox]

The image is meant to convey the extent of suffering on behalf of others. Believe in me, the image says, and you can avoid this suffering, precisely because I have suffered in your place. It's a powerful message, though it is certainly not the only message conveyed by Christianity.

As others have noted, it's also a difficult message to sell on a cold call, especially to peoples whose gods are all about strength and inflicting that strength on others. The pagans I've studied (Wends, Pomerani, Lusatians, and others around the Baltic) state this quite explicitly. Why buy into the god of the Christians when he seems to be so weak? Even after conversion, there was a lot of "well, ok, your god but our gods *also*". Which helps explain why missionaries in this region were eager to tear down and destroy the statues and sacred groves and other manifestations of the pagan gods. The whole "yours but mine too" line was not acceptable.

 

[sknox]

Well, I didn't read it and Harpo's re-post came through while I was writing. Remove mine if you wish.

As for the writing angle, I would be very careful around such words (I'd add apostate as another important term), mainly for reasons illustrated on this thread: the author cannot assume the reader has the same understanding of the terms. In fact, you can pretty much guarantee there are wide differences of understanding, and that some among those will have very strong opinions about which interpretation is correct.

The place where it would fit is limited; namely, where the whole point of the story is to talk about religion and specifically about the boundaries of belief and practice and doctrine. Now, that can be terrifically interesting--one thinks immediately of Clarke's short story The Star. Science fiction in particular has explored the ground thorough, respectfully, and with insight.

Most fantasy I've seen does a much poorer job, relying heavily on stereotypes and historical misunderstanding. But the ground is fertile. Once you posit multiple fantasy peoples--elves, dwarves, orcs, and so on--you immediately have room to explore different belief systems. Not merely different gods and ideas about gods, but different practices, different traditions and histories, and--to bring it back to the topic--different boundaries where lie heresy, apostasy, ritual, and so on. The best way to do this is to begin with respect rather than with an intent to condemn. The latter is limiting and frankly boring. The former is rich with possibility.

 

[AllanR]

one thinks immediately of Clarke's short story The Star

I was thinking of the very story as I read this tread.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

As for the writing angle, I would be very careful around such words (I'd add apostate as another important term), mainly for reasons illustrated on this thread: the author cannot assume the reader has the same understanding of the terms. In fact, you can pretty much guarantee there are wide differences of understanding, and that some among those will have very strong opinions about which interpretation is correct.

But I really want to be able to use words like these according to my understanding of them (which I believe is the correct understanding). Being misunderstood by certain readers is an occupational hazard I suppose. They can go read something else. I mean, it is difficult enough using the language as a medium to transfer concepts, without having to explain individual words (or avoid them completely). Having said that, I did once read a Milan Kundera novel in which he digressed (for three pages) in order to explain his understanding of a word he wanted to use (a Czech word that he probably feared would be difficult to translate). Crazy but somehow magical.

 

[The Big Peat]

But I really want to be able to use words like these according to my understanding of them (which I believe is the correct understanding). Being misunderstood by certain readers is an occupational hazard I suppose. They can go read something else. I mean, it is difficult enough using the language as a medium to transfer concepts, without having to explain individual words (or avoid them completely). Having said that, I did once read a Milan Kundera novel in which he digressed (for three pages) in order to explain his understanding of a word he wanted to use (a Czech word that he probably feared would be difficult to translate). Crazy but somehow magical.

The problem arises when they don't go read something else, but instead finish and go around saying wild things.

Still, better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

I would also suggest that with all of writing, if a word's precise meaning is truly important, it's worth going into depth with anyway.



Incidentally, quite fun to go back and read the initial posts. Part because it's a real blast from the past with all the old names, and partly because there's some truly wince-worthy assertions

One thing I would note though - and I think this is worth pointing out from a writing point of view, in terms of what the religions would look like - the inveighing against pagans who adopt a pick and mix attitude seems odd given how many pagan religions of the past did precisely that as best as we can tell. The cults of the Roman Empire are the most obvious example, and it's Rome we have to thank for the word pagan. Were there people called pagan by the early Christians walking around worshipping a pick and mix of Mithras, the children of Don, Isis, Apollo, and occasionally Jesus as well? Quite possibly. A quick look at the development of the religions of ancient Greece also shows syncretism all over the place. To do so again merely seems to be following best practice.

Which also means any author who wishes to depict in high fidelity the religious practices of a place that doesn't believe in only one god, but does have a high level of contact with other cultures, should be looking at exactly that sort of melting pot approach. And there's good stories to be had out of it. Just ask Neil Gaiman.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

One thing I would note though - and I think this is worth pointing out from a writing point of view, in terms of what the religions would look like - the inveighing against pagans who adopt a pick and mix attitude seems odd given how many pagan religions of the past did precisely that as best as we can tell. The cults of the Roman Empire are the most obvious example, and it's Rome we have to thank for the word pagan. Were there people called pagan by the early Christians walking around worshipping a pick and mix of Mithras, the children of Don, Isis, Apollo, and occasionally Jesus as well? Quite possibly. A quick look at the development of the religions of ancient Greece also shows syncretism all over the place. To do so again merely seems to be following best practice.

Yes, true. If I was, for example, trying to introduce my shiny new religion to a group of pagans who have a female deity and are accustomed to a festival of renewal at the beginning of spring, then I might be wise to include a divine female and just such a festival in my shiny new religion. To make it more palatable to the pagans and persuade them to convert. And, um, I think that has clearly been done.

 

[Abernovo]

On a purely etymological note, the word pagan comes from paganus (plural pagani), old Latin for peasant or rural dweller, i.e. not a Roman, so probably invested in older beliefs. It might have been used pejoratively, in the divide of urbis and orbis (the City (Rome) and the world) at times, but it may also have been used as a shorthand by some.

Heathen is probably, according to Merriam Webster, a similar term, in that it most likely derives from a term for a rural person, or someone who lives on the heath (moorland, rough land with heather, etc.). On blasted heath to quote dear Will Shakespeare. Again, rather pejorative, and from a city-dweller's perspective. Typical toonser snobbishness.

Infidel, however, is much more assured in its disdain for the person. It might be used for one who is outside of a certain religion, but it really means not of the faithful, or faithless, or unfaithful. In that last, it's related to infidelity. It's the antonym of the Latin fidelis, loyal, trustworthy, faithful. To not be those things is more than to come from another part of the world or land, but is actually a stain on the character.

So, to return to Toby's original question, they may be used in similar circumstances by some writers, but they have different contexts. The first two are statements of otherness, but not necessarily anything bad. I don't understand football supporters (of any team), even think they're a bit strange, but we can live and let live. The third word, though, if a definitive statement that the person is a bad 'un, not to be trusted, It should be noted that this could be completely untrue, but that's the power of words in creating a narrative. Repeat a lie about 'them' enough times, and eventually many of 'us' will believe it. Unfortunately.

I'm not going to add any more to this conversation, or I'll likely end up in things that we rightly don't discuss on Chrons (I wish we did sometimes but, having seen the trouble it caused, I'm glad we don't).

 

[Harpo]

Next time I’ll just quote Brian’s post again, in case anyone thinks it’s just me

 

[Steve Harrison]

Interesting thread. I have nothing to offer of any significance, other than that my mother, who is Catholic, has referred to me as a heathen (in a playful way) ever since I declared my atheism in my teens.

 

[Brian G Turner]

On a purely etymological note, the word pagan comes from paganus (plural pagani), old Latin for peasant or rural dweller, i.e. not a Roman, so probably invested in older beliefs. It might have been used pejoratively, in the divide of urbis and orbis (the City (Rome) and the world) at times, but it may also have been used as a shorthand by some.

Heathen is probably, according to Merriam Webster, a similar term, in that it most likely derives from a term for a rural person, or someone who lives on the heath (moorland, rough land with heather, etc.). On blasted heath to quote dear Will Shakespeare. Again, rather pejorative, and from a city-dweller's perspective. Typical toonser snobbishness.

Infidel, however, is much more assured in its disdain for the person. It might be used for one who is outside of a certain religion, but it really means not of the faithful, or faithless, or unfaithful. In that last, it's related to infidelity. It's the antonym of the Latin fidelis, loyal, trustworthy, faithful. To not be those things is more than to come from another part of the world or land, but is actually a stain on the character.

So, to return to Toby's original question, they may be used in similar circumstances by some writers, but they have different contexts. The first two are statements of otherness, but not necessarily anything bad. I don't understand football supporters (of any team), even think they're a bit strange, but we can live and let live. The third word, though, if a definitive statement that the person is a bad 'un, not to be trusted, It should be noted that this could be completely untrue, but that's the power of words in creating a narrative. Repeat a lie about 'them' enough times, and eventually many of 'us' will believe it. Unfortunately.

I'm not going to add any more to this conversation, or I'll likely end up in things that we rightly don't discuss on Chrons (I wish we did sometimes but, having seen the trouble it caused, I'm glad we don't).

That looks like a clear and definitive reply to me - so I'm going to play safe and close this thread before it gets wrecked.