OK. I have a lot of questions:

What do you consider to be an ecclectic pagan?

How do you pick and choose what beliefs and practices you want to follow?

What is the fundamental difference between ecclectic paganism and unitarian universalism?

Do you ever get into serious "magickal" trouble with spirits and other things as a result of your hodgepodge of traditions?

im not the most experienced person on this forum and dont claim to be and i could very well be doing something wrong... but i take things from magiks and religions that have a meaning to me... if something makes sense from one thing and not the other... ill take it and mold it into my belief... sometimes it doesnt work and then i just go well i still really like that idea. like i dont know to much about reincarnation, but i do for now believe in heaven and hell (at least for a time...) and so its in my belief system.

and so far i have had no reprucussions of magik with rituals or anything... but i usually call upon multiple pantheons anyway, and still acknowledge most of the others.

To be honest, the word 'paganism' is rather.. Misleading. You see; it means nothing but 'farmerism,' as it is derived from the word 'pagani,' or countryfolk.

As for religion, paganism is often considered any religion other than the big 4: Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, and the only thing Hinduism has in common with the other three, which are very connected to one another, is sheer size.
So basically: Whatever elements you pick, as long as the majority of those elements are not from the big four: You're an eclectic pagan.

Since everything from Flying Spagetti Monsters and Pink Unicorns to Ctulhu Mind-Flayer Worship to Celtic Faerie Wicca can be considered paganism, and just picking beliefs from a long list is called 'eclectic,' the term has little weight, really.

Just believe whatever you want. That's good enough.

Er, Lopting, I don't think you'll get too far with literalism and ethymology there... it's too syntactic. You'd be absolutely right on that if connotations hadn't changed, but they have. "Pagan" describes in current meaning, even if not by original meaning, someone "heathen" (which is today probably really someone not believing in those "Big 4", + very probably Buddhism), and "Paganism" hence the religion of that person. Sorry to spill semantics all over your shirt, I didn't do it with bad or personal intentions.

What basically is understood as "Paganism" over here is not a religion as such, but a variably close collection of things like revivalist Asatru, Celtoi, Greek and Roman Pantheons, modern creations like modern Druidism (some shady ones claim to have traditions "thousands of years old", though) and Wicca, more or less informal traditions of all kinds and of course individualists who build their own.
The common ground seems on the one hand being not a flavour of a big, established religion on the one hand and on the other a common trend towards polytheism, or at least duotheism. You may think of it as the cutlery drawer labelled as "other" where you find the sometimes really strange things in that are not forks, knifes or spoons. Since there is generally no accepted formal hierarchy within them, all these religions with their differences get along better than many different flavours of Christianity...

An ecclectic Pagan in that light is someone who picks and mixes from the various different religions under the roof term "paganism". Some forms that have started out as Ecclectic Paganism have reached a status of their own, for example Norse Wicca, or as it is also sometimes called, "Wiccatru". Guess what went in there...

EDIT - For contradicting myself in the same paragraph..



I think an updated meaning of 'pagan' is supposed to be any traditional European religions, most people I know (including myself) count most non-abrahamic religions into the pagan group..

Heathen: A Heather person; person from heather lands.
Heathen: Uneducated, barbaric, poor.
Heathen: Non-Christian.

Those are a few definitions of the word Heathen, but they all started with the first.

Etymology does count. Especially when things like Voodoo, the modern practice of which is a catholic tradition, are counted as paganism. And I say 'things like,' because to be honest, the modern definition of paganism actually means: Anything other than the 'world religions.' The world religions are the Big 4.
Someone with a native Kenyan religion would be a pagan.

You can say 'European,' but that's not really the whole truth.
Now; let's cite Collins Cobuild on this one:
Pa|gan:
1: Pagan beliefs and activities do not belong to any of the main religions of the world and take nature and a belief in many gods as a basis. They are older, or are believed to be older, than other religions.
2: In former times, pagans were people who did not believe in Christianity and who many Christians believed to be inferior people. [] The new religion was eager to convert the pagan world.

The meaning that is most prevalent - next to exclusiveness - is what you list as 3. You may of course drop the other two in every conversation and completely derail the flow of it by claiming only the first original meaning is relevant... but does that really help the matter? No. I know they exist, but in this context they seem like deliberate misunderstanding.
Of course you may challenge the contemporary connotation anywhere "Pagan" is said... but what would you think of a person who, for a similar example, insists that "barbarian" originally just comes from Latin "beard" and as such only applies to someone having a beard, signifying nothing else? I'd think that person should shut up if he had nothing really to say about the matter.

How much Voodoo do you know? I know quite some. My estimation is that everything "Catholic" about it is just enough to satisfy overzealous missionaries at a glance with some names taken over, and then get on with the real stuff. I have my information about the Cuban flavour Santeria first hand. It has a lot more to do with Yoruba traditions than the odd name of a Catholic saint thrown in.

That was a very stupid thing to say.

Also, you seem to forget some key points.
First: Shinies. You may have noticed that, with the whole rise of eclectic paganism, the amount of 'ooh, shinies!' have sky-rocketed. Sorry, but if you take religions, some thousands of years old, and then rip stuff out, saying: No, no, that wasn't how it really went.. This is, because I wanna!

Then there's now the elevation of Eclectic Paganism. It has become a fad, while it rests on nothing. The words 'Eclectic Paganism' have no real meaning, yet, to be of any significance in the modern spiripop world, you have to be an 'eclectic' pagan from an old oral tradition. If possible, you have to be female, and your mom have to have taught you everything about this really old eclectic path.
Now; I know of several flaws in this paragraph, and they are intentional.

I am not opposed to Eclecticism as such. Studying a religion, and simply coming to different conclusions, is already eclecticism. Going back in history, and tracking down the influences of other religions, and adopting some of the beliefs of these religions.. Well; that's part of religious revolution. And eclectic.

And that's why I say: Just believe what you want to, already. There's no need to make it a pretty-sounding main-stream word, because, as 'Eclectic Paganism' stands, now, it's just a load of conformative rubbish, where people are just as dogmatic about their 'eclecticism' as anyone else is about their more orthodox faiths.
Basically, what I'm saying is: Eclecticism is good. Just don't follow the mainstream, because then, you'll end up knee-deep in Earth Angels.

Maybe after reading this, you'll understand why I care a bit more about semantics than might make me popular.

What, telling you what I'd think?
Have I asked you to shut up? Or do I discuss with you? You might take note of the slight difference of what might come to my mind as thought first glance and what is carried out as action after further thought.

But now you've said something that made sense of what you said before. Why haven't you said it before?

It still doesn't make sense of syntactic ethymologizing "Pagan" and "Paganism" before. In themselves they are used as quite empty umbrella-terms. But they are useful to state a general orientation, in contrast to an in-depth analysis of beliefs. Not everyone wants to hear the latter if asking you what you believe, as well as not everyone wants to hear an in-depth clinical report if they ask "How are you?"
It's as empty as saying "I'm a Christian". That can have any meaning from so different parts of a spectrum that contains complete opposites. It ranges from people taking the teachings of a certain JC to heart to televangelist-crazed, homophobic, race-stereotyped warmongers. Where the latter may even backed up by an official church, while the former may be solitary practitioners.
Nevertheless, the statements give a certain idea of a background, as vague as they are. "Christian" means that in some way the bible is involved, "I'm well" means "No topic to talk about, but you may feel good about it", and "Pagan" mainly separates you from the major official religions of your surroundings.

I have not noticed "sky-rocketing" shinies in the serious parts of that scene. Which is because they usually get a good talking-to, and then they leave because they can't handle discussing with others on the basis of their shaky "pick what you like". No one cares if they leave in a bad mood.

Which is really something different from people who have thought about different pantheons and traditions, feel sense in them or subsets of them and try to merge something sensible from them because of that. The ones I know don't argue on any "tradition" as they know how shaky that may be as ground, and are the first to admit that they don't know and will have to think about it if there's a gap in their construct. Obviously I know different people from the field of Eclectic Paganism than you. Maybe it's a difference of definition: While you seemingly take that statement at face-value from anyone, I'm used to a certain quality connected that I dismiss the label for anyone not showing it.

Where we probably need a statement of clarification. I use the god-figures of different religions as tools. They are strong focus points, and are often well crafted to specific fields. I don't need to reinvent the wheel - if I need a focus point, I look if I find an existing one. Actual belief is in none of them.
It'd be pretty pointless to belief in a screwdriver just because it suits a particular purpose. Nothing else is a god of a religion for me: A tool to fit a psychological or spiritual need. And I don't see a reason to restrict myself to a single set of tools if I can use the whole range and find more fitting tools for particular purposes that way.

Nope. Using the highly aggressive words 'shut up,' in a sentence constructed in such a manner as to apply to my previous statements, effectively telling me to shut up. Thát was stupid. Phrased in a less assaulting fashion, there would have been nothing wrong with the statement.

And clearly, you and I know a very different public of eclectic paganism. It may be due to my location, and yours. It may be that the eclectics I meet are far more new-age and fluffy than what you meet, or are. We derive from what we perceive, and that goes for all of us.
So far, I've only ever met two eclectics who weren't off their rockers. They didn't refer to themselves as 'eclectic,' though, but their beliefs fit the bill.
As for me taking definitions at face value: Because of what I've seen in the world of spirituality, I now operate on a 'guilty until proven innocent'-basis. Hugely unfair, perhaps, but it works. I see a phenomenon. I take the majority of happenings in this phenomenon, and decide that these are the deciding factors of this phenomenon. Democratic creation, perhaps, but the majority, or average, is always the most trustworthy to go by, as a source of information, because it's a group effort. Exceptions will always be there, but they do not define the phenomenon in which they operate.
Therefore, exceptions have to show that they are, in fact, exceptions, in order to be excepted.

So clearly, I've seen an entirely different world of spirituality than you have.

As for why I didn't write those things before: I honestly thought it'd be pretty self-explanatory. Turns out I was wrong.

-Ducking the e-bullets to go at the OPs other questions-

I consider myself an integrated polytheist. I sometimes use 'eclectic paganism' when talking to the very non-pagan people I know IRL, because its something they can grasp without looking up a definition.

I'm mostly focused on the Kemetic pantheon and its traditions/beliefs. I've always, always been drawn to that faith. I kinda dabble in Norse and Greek things, and starting to research different Native American cultures.

The thing is, whenever I'm working with one pantheon or another, I try to do so in the traditional way native to whatever pantheon it is and not just mix it all up into one ball. Which is one reason I dislike Wicca, being that it crams any pantheon into its Celtic-inspired presets.

i like that approach, i kinda do similiar, i respect and devoted to a few deities, but when i work with say a norse one i use their customs and if im working with a greek one i try and use more towards theirs... so i hear ya on it

Purdy much. I don't necessarily think its dishonorable to use the customs from one pantheon to another, I just find it much more respectful to keep with the traditional way of doing things, lol.

I am an Eclectic Pagan, and I believe we are the combination of what feels right to each of us. You don't pick and choose for yourself, the rights paths pick you. I believe the difference between Eclec. Paganism and UU is that UU caters to multiple religions.

I have never gotten in trouble with this because I still respect everyone/everything and their own traditions.

Rosen, ecclectic pagans, by virture of practice, cater to multiple religions too. A least, the ones I met do. UU people. . .I've had one of them explain theology to me by way of describing the toilet bowl theory.

Actually, the only real difference I am seeing at the moment (without tangible distinction) between UU and EP is what time thier meetings start.