The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian

Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   General Discussion Forum Start a topic | Search
The Modern Antiquarian
Re: sacred in the eye?
208 messages
Select a forum:
You Baza stick to the rigid dictionary definition of sacred which I guess is fair enough, but is indictative of the rigidity in which you are selfbound to percieve any matters spiritual.
I have argued that that definition is too narrow, and unrealistically inflexible when one considers the potency of the idea of having a sacred 'thing' or space. A space, regardless of it's history, can me made sacred by belief.
I would also argue that even the most scientifically rigid of brains have their own notions of sacred space; a space that has a deep emotional resonance to their beliefs (belief being in 'fact' or something other) . For example I would wager that to some astronomers, deep routed in their science , the obersvatory at Greenwich would be a kind of sacred space, even if they would balk at the term, purely because of the impact of the place in the history of their beliefs. And the same might go for 'sacred' science spots everywhere in many disciplines.
Sacred is bigger than God and religion to me.


Reply | with quote
Moon Cat
Posted by Moon Cat
30th July 2003ce
23:46

In reply to:

Re: Nothing is sacred (baza)

1 reply:

Re: sacred in the eye? (morfe)

Messages in this topic: