morfe
|
Unbelievable
Jul 30, 2003, 21:03
|
"just as I regard a present-day Christian as being wrong when he/she thinks of their local church as being sacred."
How can you say someone is 'wrong' when you are dealing with such pure subjectivity as personal sacred space?
|
morfe
|
Re: Sacred Landscapes
Jul 30, 2003, 21:11
|
'sacred' to one is maybe 'laughable to another.
But try pissing on someone's grave and the laughing changes to tears.
|
pure joy
|
Re: Are you really ...
Jul 30, 2003, 21:13
|
|
bloody good answer baza!
|
morfe
|
Interesting cross-cultural article
Jul 30, 2003, 21:14
|
|
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.URLRemapper/1997/may26/dir/Feature_How_do_you.html
|
morfe
|
Nothing is sacred
Jul 30, 2003, 21:22
|
Then presumably you wouldn't mind me bulldozing Stonehenge? We can build a computer model instead? Things are sacred for many reasons, mathematicians, archeos, religious types, farmers, artists, children, etc etc. What I can't understand is refusal to believe this.
:-)
|
wychburyman
|
Re: Sacred Landscapes
Jul 30, 2003, 21:34
|
There are two camps forming here and I'm definately in the latter - well said morfe
Here we go again.......
|
baza
|
Re: Unbelievable
Jul 30, 2003, 21:34
|
Because, as I understand it, Christians believe there is a God.
I believe that to be wrong.
I understand that churches are built for the worship of this non-existent God.
As I believe that they are wrong to have faith in a non-existent God, then I see it as logical that I believe that they are wrong to built structures for the worship of this non-existent God.
They go on to claim that this structure is `sacred` to their non-existent God.
I believe that that claim is wrong, obviously.
Can you believe that?
baz
|
Annexus Quam
|
words and power
Jul 30, 2003, 21:39
|
I will add my views on this interesting thread even though the discussion has gone too far from nigelswift's original question:
Sacred Landscapes is a term used by people like Devereux, based on his assumptions about world cultures and the lines that some monuments create. Whether one (partially or totally) (dis)agrees with the Earth Mysteries group or not, one must accept that ancient monuments were not created at random or placed anywhere. The landscape was instantly 'ritualized' (not made sacred, though). Ancient (wo)man was not innocent - rather trying to ritualize a land which (s)he had settled to farm. Megalithic monuments created a 'ritual' landscape (for lack of a better word) which meant appropriation and belonging, whilst being overlooked by bigger gods - many mountain(s) or specific hills which surrounded many megalithic monuments were left untouched, with no evidence of settlement or religious practices (like the axes, crooks or tablets found inside many antas). Therefore those spaces must have had a 'sacred' (i.e. 'untouched', 'inviolated', 'godly' or 'revered') character.
You may not like the word 'ritual' either, but we are as at odds with it as the Romans were when they wrote of the tribes they encountered. Estrabon for instance was perplexed at people going round a stone in both directions alternatively and performing libations. For the Romans, the natives were performing stupid 'rituals' they didn't understand. A bit like the impression my landlady got when she saw a programme on Australian aborigines the other day. For her, what those uncultured tribes were doing was in-comprehensible gibberish. For the aborigines, it's part of their daily life and gives meaning to their lives. However, both the Romans and we are governed by very strong rituals, though our rituals (sports, TV watching, smoking, films, going out at the same time every Fri night, clubbing etc) are not called 'sacred' or 'rituals', though they may be completely incomprehensible or stupid to someone who is not acquainted with the 'rules of our tribe'.
Regarding the word 'sacred', the opposite to what baza is saying is true of ancient peoples or remaining non-civilized tribes today. They do not (or cannot) make a distinction between sacred or not-sacred. This distinction was made much later on. Which obviously does not imply the superficial implication that everything the ancients did was serious and no-play. The kids hid behind their ancient monuments when they played hide and seek near their villages.
Ultimately, is our own perception of Reality 'real and not sacred' or part of a complex set of sacred rituals? Maybe we are just patronizing others who conspicuously manifest their beliefs by following their absurd rituals. It wouldn't be the first time in history.
|
wychburyman
|
Re: Unbelievable
Jul 30, 2003, 21:39
|
|
are so saying their right to believe is wrong or just that there is no god - they are therefore wrong?
|
pure joy
|
Re: Unbelievable
Jul 30, 2003, 21:40
|
I can't answer for Baza, but I read baza's opinions and shared them.
I would say that it is a type of principle and if you follow it through you get a logical conclusion, which can seem harsh. If you believe that belief in religion is wrong, then naturally everything they believe is 'wrong' to you. Not 'wrong' as in shout it in their face, "you are wrong, you must change", but 'wrong' compared to your stance.
This, to me, is similar (but with a lot more ownership and free thinking) to the Christian, and other religions, belief in a principle that they have been taught and have been told is 'correct', and to them therefore everything that is opposed to their principle is 'wrong' to them. However, they would rarely be brave enough to admit that they believe other people are 'wrong'. I'm afraid, in my experience, this is something that goes hand in hand with religion - the idea that everyone else is 'wrong'. Take that away from most religions and they crumble. Allow one chink in the armour to appear, one logical argument to be accepted, one leap of faith to be questioned, and down she goes.
|
