Quote from: tekla on February 14, 2011, 12:07:09 AM
Buddhism is NOT a pagan religion.
Actually, Buddhism is one of the religions that established the need to create the term paganism. Specifically, Paganism was given as a moniker referring to religions that were polytheistic or indigenous. Later Ethnologists adapted the term to refer to religions that involved shamanism, polytheism, animism or pantheism, and specifically in reference to historical or traditional faiths. It was only in the late 20th century, in fact, that the term paganism was adopted to refer to the increasing number of new religious movements that Wicca was a part of.
It's a good thing Buddhism is a pagan faith too ... thanks to Buddhists and Taoists, the pagan faith was legitimized on government documents and recognized as a religion without having to prove itself in order to benefit from state funding. Because of that, we are able to have places of worship sponsored by the government, and our clergy (like myself) are able to legally apply for funding in order to create places of worship that aren't backyards, basements, and backrooms.
We tend to be very reactionary and protective of the term "Pagan" because a great many of us have sacrificed much for our faith. However, we often forget that we are using the terminology of the same society that stamped out the old faiths to begin with, and therefor the term is not "ours." Nor should it be, for our faith is larger than something that can be quantified by convenient labels and sterile terms.
Quote from: Kiera on October 30, 2011, 04:05:02 AM
I am a "Natural Scientism-ist" ( lol ) who, in advocating postgenderism and of predominately "lucky" social/economic/genetic decent ( a Jesuit priestly class educated, "PanAm world" denomination of non-drinking Irish Catholic persuasion ), believes HYDROGEN is God much like the ancient Egyptians studied and worshiped their sun god called "Ra".
I've always thought that what we term "science" is merely a religion whose followers don't have a lot of Faith. Most scientific work relies upon a foundation made of "Theories" - those things that are taken to be fact until disproved, but not (in themselves) proven. They are repeatable to a sufficient degree to accept as common and thus factual, yet they are not the end of the debate. There are "Laws" that are taken to be infallible, yet they also can be overturned if some later fact serves to break them.
To me, this is no different that believing in a deity, it just takes much less (and more) effort to believe. While Faith is an almost bottomless resource for the faithful, it is a carefully rationed thing for the secular.
To the point of the actual post, I am High Priest (yea, I have issues coming soon) of an eclectic circle of the Ouroboran trad.
(edited for grammar fail)