Moth
|
Re: Ritual
Jan 10, 2006, 00:44
|
Well, you made me laugh! :^D
love
Moth
|
Paulus
|
Re: Ritual
Jan 10, 2006, 00:50
|
Badly termed I'm afraid - considering there is no self to be had in the first place. Though in ritual, there is the decisiveness to act, which we call - well, what do we call it? Though the 'sacred' itself is the fullness of things in their entirity - from dew-drops and rabbit-shit, to farts and stars. Or am I just mad!? (probably) There is nothing in the natural order of things which isn't sacred in my strange view of the world.
Would participator be a better word than self? I note your Buddhist background. What would you say?
|
BuckyE
|
Re: Ritual
Jan 10, 2006, 06:47
|
|
The analagous operation would be "sporing" mushrooms. I think one does it by gently fanning the mushroom's gills.
|
BuckyE
|
Re: Ritual
Jan 10, 2006, 06:55
|
Try contrasting and comparing the terms "rite" and "ritual," with the former a religious instance of the latter. Does that help with the definition thing? As a start?
In reply to:
Ritual (fitzcoraldo) |
|
goffik
|
Re: Ritual
Jan 10, 2006, 07:36
|
I just found this:
"by the fifteenth century Xmas emerged as a widely used symbol for Christmas. In 1436 Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press with moveable type. In the early days of printing typesetting was done by hand and was very tedious and expensive. As a result, abbreviations were common. In religious publications, the church began to use the abbreviation C for the word "Christ" to cut down on the cost of the books and pamphlets. From there, the abbreviation moved into general use in newspapers and other publications, and "Xmas" became an accepted way of printing "Christmas" (along with the abbreviations Xian and Xianity). Even Webster's dictionary acknowledges that the abbreviation Xmas was in common use by the middle of the sixteenth century."
So there! If it's good enough for 15th century typesetters, it's good enough for me. ;o)
G x
|
PeterH
|
Re: Ritual
Jan 10, 2006, 09:12
|
What do you mean by "sacred" ? - serious question and not a wind up
The word has no meaning to me - none at all.
|
morfe
|
Re: Ritual
Jan 10, 2006, 09:20
|
"Though the 'sacred' itself is the fullness of things in their entirity - from dew-drops and rabbit-shit, to farts and stars. Or am I just mad!? (probably) There is nothing in the natural order of things which isn't sacred in my strange view of the world."
Reminds me of the 'sacred shit' conversation here some time ago.
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=12273&message=120468
So count me as mad too, Paulus :-)
|
Jane
|
Re: Ritual
Jan 10, 2006, 09:34
|
No, I don't consider justice, morality, compassion, humanity, charity and kindness to be true christian characteristics, or indeed the characteristics of any other specific faith.
Those WITH religious faith often trot out these characteristics as 'their own', as if they have a monopoly on them. I think these are innately HUMAN characteristics and have little to do with any organised religion. I find it deeply offensive when people assume that as atheist I must be immoral, anarchic, unjust, rude or mean.
I work very hard to be just, moral, show compassion, behave humanely, be charitable and kind. I don't need the fear of God or Allah or Amon Ra or Jupiter to want to be a good person.
Prof Richard Dawkins was brilliant on 'Root of all evil' last night. I love what he says, it makes complete sense. Here's some stuff on him.
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/index.shtml
|
StoneLifter
|
Re: Ritual
Jan 10, 2006, 09:50
|
|
His birthday's March 26th, incidentally, so close to Vincent's. Another Aries. And he has a church - 'Neo-darwinism'.
|
Jane
|
Re: Ritual
Jan 10, 2006, 09:51
|
|
Another Aries, eh?! Like me and Moth!
|
