Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 11:23:05 GMT -5
If it were anything but Latin, I wouldn't correct, but religio does not mean to bind. You're thinking of religo. Different term, though religio may have been derived from religo, going back to the Etruscans. Religio basically means "respect for what is sacred", which is essentially what it means today. Yeah I think that that link agrees with what you've said here about religio. "To return to the word “religion,” it is a curious fact that, although all the ancestors of today’s Europeans had (like the ancestors of all the world’s inhabitants) what we would call religions, no ancient Indo-European language had a specific word for religion, Latin having been the first — which is why the great majority of modern European languages have some version of religio as their term for it. Probably this was because, precisely since religion was everywhere in the ancient world and no activity was divorced from it, it never struck anyone as a distinct aspect of life calling for a name of its own. There were names for specific gods, ceremonies, rituals, forms of worship, cults, sects, etc., because all these were discrete things; religion itself was the unnamed totality of them all, the forest that couldn’t be seen for all its trees.It took the Romans, who in conquering the world were forced to become its first anthropologists, to realize that behind all this multifariousness was something about which it was possible to generalize. From its original meaning of “punctilious respect for the sacred,” religio came to denote any comprehensive human system of organizing and expressing such respect. Religio was, Cicero wrote, cultus deorum, “the worship of the gods.” Whether he was also right about where the word came from would appear to be anyone’s guess."
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 10, 2013 11:25:42 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, I was actually hoping you would jump in here, B. Yeah, I've seen the same explanations elsewhere. So, what are you telling us here. There is no certainty? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize No. Just lettin' everyone know where the term 'religion' comes from. Dear Dude/Dudette, Your input is very much appreciated on that topic. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 10, 2013 11:27:07 GMT -5
If it were anything but Latin, I wouldn't correct, but religio does not mean to bind. You're thinking of religo. Different term, though religio may have been derived from religo, going back to the Etruscans. Religio basically means "respect for what is sacred", which is essentially what it means today. Yeah I think that that link agrees with what you've said here about religio. "To return to the word “religion,” it is a curious fact that, although all the ancestors of today’s Europeans had (like the ancestors of all the world’s inhabitants) what we would call religions, no ancient Indo-European language had a specific word for religion, Latin having been the first — which is why the great majority of modern European languages have some version of religio as their term for it. Probably this was because, precisely since religion was everywhere in the ancient world and no activity was divorced from it, it never struck anyone as a distinct aspect of life calling for a name of its own. There were names for specific gods, ceremonies, rituals, forms of worship, cults, sects, etc., because all these were discrete things; religion itself was the unnamed totality of them all, the forest that couldn’t be seen for all its trees.It took the Romans, who in conquering the world were forced to become its first anthropologists, to realize that behind all this multifariousness was something about which it was possible to generalize. From its original meaning of “punctilious respect for the sacred,” religio came to denote any comprehensive human system of organizing and expressing such respect. Religio was, Cicero wrote, cultus deorum, “the worship of the gods.” Whether he was also right about where the word came from would appear to be anyone’s guess."Yeah, okay. This gets my nihil obstat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 11:43:44 GMT -5
Yeah I think that that link agrees with what you've said here about religio. Yeah, okay. This gets my nihil obstat. Ah good, good.
So do we have to let go of any argument that says religio is rooted in religo, meaning to bind?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 10, 2013 11:52:49 GMT -5
Yeah, okay. This gets my nihil obstat. Ah good, good.
So do we have to let go of any argument that says religio is rooted in religo, meaning to bind?
I would, yes. As I say, religo might be a root from the Etruscans, which is ancient history even to the Romans, but I don't think anyone would have those records, even if it were the case, which I don't think it is, as just dropping an 'i' isn't the way Latin evolved from Etrurian. I'd let it go. 'Religion' stems from religio.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 10, 2013 11:55:43 GMT -5
'swhat it sounds like ta' me anyways! Is it possible that you also believe that there IS an 'ultimate' or 'ineffable' beyond the realm of ideas? Edit: And to be clear, I'm not saying that I believe there isn't! To say anything about "the ineffable" other than it is "the ineffable" is nonsense. I can't claim to have never spoken nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 12:06:52 GMT -5
Is it possible that you also believe that there IS an 'ultimate' or 'ineffable' beyond the realm of ideas? Edit: And to be clear, I'm not saying that I believe there isn't! To say anything about "the ineffable" other than it is "the ineffable" is nonsense and/or art.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 12:08:17 GMT -5
If it were anything but Latin, I wouldn't correct, but religio does not mean to bind. You're thinking of religo. Different term, though religio may have been derived from religo, going back to the Etruscans. Religio basically means "respect for what is sacred", which is essentially what it means today. cool, what does sacred mean?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 10, 2013 12:10:04 GMT -5
<mas?> this is not a rose </mas?>
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 10, 2013 12:15:05 GMT -5
If it were anything but Latin, I wouldn't correct, but religio does not mean to bind. You're thinking of religo. Different term, though religio may have been derived from religo, going back to the Etruscans. Religio basically means "respect for what is sacred", which is essentially what it means today. cool, what does sacred mean? Whatever it means to you, Max. 'Sacred' also comes from the Latin, sacrum, which means, well, sacred. For me, it means something that's worshipped, devoted to, or even attached to (like the proverbial 'sacred cow'). But, my Catholic friends certainly don't like that definition.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 10, 2013 12:16:06 GMT -5
<mas?> this is not a rose </mas?> Correct. It's actually an image of a rose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 12:22:22 GMT -5
cool, what does sacred mean? Whatever it means to you, Max. 'Sacred' also comes from the Latin, sacrum, which means, well, sacred. For me, it means something that's worshipped, devoted to, or even attached to (like the proverbial 'sacred cow'). But, my Catholic friends certainly don't like that definition. If the meaning of sacred is something which is revered, then religion, respect for the sacred, seems a little redundant, eh? sacred in wikipedia: I can get down with sacred meaning "whole, uninjured, sound, healthy, entire, complete." The spatial sense -- referring to the area around a temple or sanctum -- seems most likely to be the meaning that our common use of religion is based. Something related to churchiness or mosquiness, etc.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 10, 2013 12:26:28 GMT -5
Is it possible that you also believe that there IS an 'ultimate' or 'ineffable' beyond the realm of ideas? Edit: And to be clear, I'm not saying that I believe there isn't! To say anything about "the ineffable" other than it is "the ineffable" is nonsense. I can't claim to have never spoken nonsense. By definition that's true, but its not what I am asking/wondering....what I am wondering/asking is if you believe there IS an 'ineffable' beyond the realm of ideas (and to be clear, I am not saying I believe there isn't).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 12:28:15 GMT -5
Whatever it means to you, Max. 'Sacred' also comes from the Latin, sacrum, which means, well, sacred. For me, it means something that's worshipped, devoted to, or even attached to (like the proverbial 'sacred cow'). But, my Catholic friends certainly don't like that definition. If the meaning of sacred is something which is revered, then religion, respect for the sacred, seems a little redundant, eh? sacred in wikipedia: oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sacred
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 10, 2013 12:39:44 GMT -5
please elaborate on that bolded sentence what is your interpretation of 'not-knowing'? Dear Dude/Dudette, What do you want me to elaborate on that? It's about truthin', of course, not if Tzu's guitar was actually stolen or not or if Laozi did actually write the Daodejing or not. About that kind of stuff we might actually bang heads, hehe. Provide a little more background about 'not-knowing', please. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize Speaking with absolute certainty is not the same as speaking an absolute certainty. I am. I am not the mind constructing these thoughts. I am not the body typing these words. Although I have no doubt in them, if these words were absolute certainties there would be no more talk.
|
|