crocodile deathroll

Where would one attribute the label sacred to anything? Society often uses war memorials, cathedrals, ancient burial sites, holy relics or even Earth as examples of what constitutes "sacredness" or words like "Allah" or "God".
Are these objects and concepts truly "sacred"
In the eyes of many cultures they may well be, but I do not think they are intrinsically sacred.
What are you thoughts?

Francois Tremblay

One would have to first define what "sacred" means from a secular perspective. Personally I consider a tall skyscraper, an industry, a university or a laboratory much more "sacred" than any cathedral.

It's easy to play with loaded words and symbols, and that's what religion does when it redefines words to its liking. It is a common cultist tactic. Therefore, when we seek to reclaim those words as our own, one must be prudent. I would say that many words should be eliminated : but I'm not sure whenever "sacred" is part of those.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>

Ojuice5001

What about the sun and earth? If any objects are intrinically sacred, it is the sun and earth. The gods of the sun, the sky, and the earth held the record for being worshipped before Jesus, and are good competitors for it today. And for good reason--the sun is the largest and hottest object in the solar system, it was necessary for the existence of every last object above the surface of Earth, it sacrifices its own thermodynamics so that the life of Earth may progress. The earth produces marvelous plants, draws disparate objects into one community, and is very beautiful. Would that civilization had stuck with forces like these instead of coming to believe that they are less important than things like atoms or allegedly divine writings.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Laurentius

And how about Man himself. As a secular Humanist I should say that anything related to Man's humanity should be held sacred: life, freedom, and potential happiness of each, you know, the works.

And then every community draws its own conventions, within the frames of which the absolute is defined according to both universally human predispositions and locally geographical and historical determinations, and consequently behaviors can be labeled as either reverent or sacrilegious.
AVE

crocodile deathroll

If you live in Manchester you may find soccer is very sacred. OOps they don't call it soccer they call it the one and only legitimate code to football <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Steven Carr

Theists often like to say that life is sacred.

However, I have yet to hear any of them say that life is sacrosanct.

'Sacred' means nothing.


A better question is - Is anything intrinsically sacrosanct?

crocodile deathroll

Why do so many thiests eat meat?
Why do many of them support capital punishment?

Amos

Nothing is intrinsically sacret or sacrosant because if eternal life in heaven is possible we cannot die. It can be argued that in heaven we are God and since nothing is greater than God nothing can be above (or below (?)) us and therefore noting can be sacret.

Only from oblivion can things be called sacret and the word sacret most often makes reference to the divine. From this would follow that life can only be sacret because eternal life is possible.

To consider our humanity as sacret is to search for images of reality while in pursuit of happiness and remaining distant from it or the search would end.

Amos

copernicus

Amos, that is pure bullshid.

Amos

It is a philsophical truth well suited to answer the question posed in this forum.

It has nothing to do with our physical dying (which is what you are thinking), but just the juxtaposition of eternal life with temporal life.

The question was, is anything sacret? The answer: yes while in oblivion and no from Gods perspective with the addition that while eternal we are God.