|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:42 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:05 am
|
Sanguina Cruenta Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:22 am
|
|
|
|
Sanguina Cruenta To me "Abrahamic" implies that the religion has evolved from the faith of Abraham, not that it specifically worships YHWH. So I'd stick Marcionites in there because their religion is a direct descendant of Abraham's religion. It wouldn't exist without the OT, wouldn't exist without the concept of YHWH, wouldn't exist without breaking away from early Christianity. Okay thanks for clarifying that for me.
Quote: But let's be honest here; the defining lines of "Pagan" are more intuitive than definite in practise. In practise, the word it used - and has been used in the past - to mean pre-Christian, to mean a religion that isn't a major world religion (thus happily excluding Buddhism and Hinduism), to mean indigenous religion, to mean old religions of Europe specifically. And in many cases which vague meaning Then should such a vague term be used academically to describe world religions?
Quote: I don't think it creates an "us vs them" thing. Any two groups will have bias naturally simply because two groups exist, but it's only an "us vs them" deal if the individuals involved want it to be. Notice I said "can have implications". I offered one possible consequence I've seen this dichotomy falsely imply.
Quote: And fair's fair. The vast majority of people who identify as "Pagan" are using it as an abbreviation of "Neo-Pagan" or "Palaeo-Pagan". Well aware of that and thank you for addressing this. I had a feeling you would be the first to bring this up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:29 am
|
Sanguina Cruenta Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 1:42 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:06 am
|
Sanguina Cruenta Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|