=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
'Sacred' sites
Log In to post a reply
97 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: 'Sacred' sites
Mar 09, 2011, 07:20
Littlestone wrote:
Bump.

The OED gives two definitions of the word ‘sacred’. The second definition is something, “Set apart for or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration or respect; consecrated, hallowed (in names of animals and plants indicating ancient or traditional veneration).”


A place, “Set apart for or dedicated to a religious purpose...” Most of our ancient sites have now been ‘set apart for or dedicated to a religious purpose’ either by many or just a few (or even one). If we’re accepting the letter of the OED then it’s not really a question how we define sacred but how we define religious :-)


Now that is much closer to deconstruction .


But if we are accepting the letter of the OED , a lot more than two even excluding the compuinds , and many with no religious connotation ,then . bump

lots of examples in the OED without the need for a god . Cultures that had no god(s) , e.g. the old Soviet union still had a place for the sacred e.g. "Sacred Lenin's banner "etc .


lots of examples in the OED without the need for a god . Cultures that had no god(s) , e.g. the old Soviet union still had a place for the sacred e.g. "Sacred Lenin's banner "etc .
In reply to:
Re: 'Sacred' sites (Littlestone)
Topic Outline:
The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index