Re: Sacred tangent (was Re: just checking...)

Try this on for size: my reading of the word 'sacred' presumes something
that has been blessed by God, not something that has been blessed by man. In
that context, the secondary definitions hold less value for me.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Karl <[email protected]> wrote:

> FWIW, I'm willing to extend the term to other religious artefacts as well
> -- icons, the Eucharist, etc.  "Sacred" does not necessarily mean "uniquely
> divinely inspired", but it *does* mean "religious" -- and the problem with
> calling any secular document "sacred" is that you elevate it beyond its
> purely
> secular function and into something else.
>
> **which bible?  The catholic>  Protestant?  The KJV or the NAS or the NIV?
>  The
> OT or the NT?
>
> **I really enjoy that you refuse to accept the alternate definitions too.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot