There's another of the periodic discussions going on online over the word "Pagan" to describe a religious movement. (These things tend to recur, like malarial fevers, every so often, despite the best efforts to settle them once and for all.) As has happened before, the point has been made that Paganism, as a religious movement, is hard to define because there are so many things that can't be said categorically to define us all. Some of us aren't polytheist (or theistic at all); others aren't earth-centered. Some revere ancestors and attempt to follow their ways, while others don't. And so on. As is probably clear, I find attempts to define the word "Pagan"--or to get us to abandon the word--frustrating. Still, just because I keep having the same conversation again and again doesn't mean it isn't a good conversation to have. And Scott Reimers, at Patheos , has a point when he says that, to the extent that Pagan is a label that d...
Welcome to the online journal of a pair of Quaker Pagans.