![Love :love:](./images/smilies/th_love51.gif)
*sm000ches for Anthy*
![kiss :kiss:](./images/smilies/icon_kissey.gif)
It occurs to me that I was once told that the word "holy" originally meant "the other". Dunno if that's true but it seemed relevant somehow,.
Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved March 13, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holyholy
O.E. halig "holy," from P.Gmc. *khailagas (cf. O.N. heilagr, Ger. heilig, Goth. hailags "holy"), adopted at conversion for L. sanctus. Primary (pre-Christian) meaning is not impossible to determine, but it was probably "that must be preserved whole or intact, that cannot be transgressed or violated," and connected with O.E. hal (see health) and O.H.G. heil "health, happiness, good luck" (source of the Ger. salutation heil).
Don't be ridiculous, my dear friend. It thrills me to no end to see you post here.Sassafras wrote:Pardon the intrusion
I honestly believe that the differences in our beliefs are largely a matter of semantics.Now, this is interesting to me because although I have (and do) experience wonder and sometimes awe with the, as you say, little things ... I have also in my past been privileged to feel a sort of ecstasy on a few occasions and I have called them 'spiritual' for lack of a better word. And yet, unlike many, my interpretation of these profoundly moving experiences do not lead me into a belief of a creator, a god or a higher power. Rather I prefer to think that I've been able to connect with the sentience of the planet itself and life as a whole .... knowing it as neither good nor bad but something that just is.It has been little factors that could easily be passed off as coincidences. It has been awe at nature's beauty, and the incomprehensible hand and mind of artists like van Gogh or Mamady Keita (when you say "attribute them to natural forces" to me that is just another way of saying "attribute them to God"). Most of all, and most inexplicable, it is in learning to Love that I have come to "know" God. I simply cannot accept that Love could come from any other source.
I agree with your first sentence, and I'm intrigued by your second. I'm always curious to explore new viewpoints ... so if that thread is started, I'd be there reading!vison wrote:Sadly, I think we have gone much farther down than up. And I guess this isn't the place to point out that neither greed nor capitalism are necessarily evil. Nor are they even merely necessary evils.
But that's another thread.
Voronwë, as always, your sensitivity is much appreciated.Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:First of all, I have to say to Anth and Prim that I really appreciated both of your posts. The only reason that I didn't say something at the time was that I didn't want it seem like the "believers" were ganging up on the "non-believer" (nel). I realize now that was a silly thing to think.
Prim, I didn't mean to suggest that your post did give that impression. I don't think that either your post or Anthy's post did. I was just explaining why I only responded to nel's post and didn't acknowledge both of your posts, despite appreciating what both of you had to say. I mostly just didn't want to come off as "rah rah rah" for our side. Which is silly, I know. And (as usually happens) now I've caused more problems then I would have if I had spoken up in the first place.Primula Baggins wrote:Voronwë, I didn't intend for my post to give any impression of "ganging up" on Nel.
Please don't.I will step back from this thread.
With respect to Anthy's post...it didn't bother me in the least, but it did bring home to me the difficulty of discussing this issue in a way that does not, hmmm, seem a little bit prejudicial to one side. Although I know - know - she couldn't have meant this, I can't get away from reading her analogy as, the "believers" are the ones who have accepted the more complex things as normal (i.e. they are further advanced in time), and the "non-believers" are the, er, 12th century denizens who can't understand televsion. I *know* she didn't mean that...and yet I keep reading it that way. I have every confidence that if I was to try an analogy, it would inadvertently show "believers" in the 12th century light. And I think that illustrates something about how we (all?) perceive our own positions versus our opposites' positions, maybe just at a subconscious level. But in any case, I certainly didn't feel ganged up on by her post.
Me too. I can honestly say that sometimes she expresses my own feelings about this difficult subject better then I do.I hope Anthy does.
This is a difficult issue to discuss!nerdanel wrote:With respect to Anthy's post...it didn't bother me in the least, but it did bring home to me the difficulty of discussing this issue in a way that does not, hmmm, seem a little bit prejudicial to one side.
I actually wasn't trying to address "believers" vs. "non-believers" in that post, I was trying to address the underlying theme that I read in some posts here, the one where people feel that because they have never experienced anything that would allow them to believe in something "else" going on, then they cannot accept that something "else" going on is even POSSIBLE.Although I know - know - she couldn't have meant this, I can't get away from reading her analogy as, the "believers" are the ones who have accepted the more complex things as normal (i.e. they are further advanced in time), and the "non-believers" are the, er, 12th century denizens who can't understand televsion.
And an extraI guess your sensitivity was even more greatly appreciated because I am dealing with a situation right now, in so-called "real life," where I feel that someone else is severely lacking in sensitivity, or perhaps just discernment, and I am at a loss for how to deal with it.
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
Me too. I can honestly say that sometimes she expresses my own feelings about this difficult subject better then I do.I hope Anthy does.
I agree with this, in general. And yet, I am very much the exception that proves the rule, because for me religion has never been a communal thing, nor is my concept God rooted in texts (for the most part).Look, religion is typically a communal thing, so I think the biggest measurable difference will be in how religious and non-religious people communicate with each other and find solace in difficult times. A concept of God is often rooted in texts which can be shared and a common understanding of the world established.