Talk:Sacred (version 2)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .
This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Not all Christian believe in transformation of the host - Protestants don't, Catholics do, not sure about Orthodox.
I doubt the NPOV-ness of the definition with which this article begins. Some people who do not believe in the supernatural nonetheless call things sacred that are awe-inspiring and not-to-be-violated. Michael Hardy 23:50 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
_______
I agree. I think a very important issue to be adressed here is the idea of the secular sacred. Religion is just one route to the sacred. In contemporary usage, the word is much broader. I regularily teach workshops on this subject, and ask people to define the word. Out of maybe 200 participants over the last year, only one has used the word religious to describe the sacred, and that person said, 'the sacred is the opposite of religious'. So a broader definition is badly needed. Velcrow Ripper. May 25, 2005
[edit] Article name
Shouldn't this be "sanctity" or "sacredness"? --Revolución (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merger
This page and the sanctity page both refer to holiness and are stubs. In fact, the three terms are synonyms—see wikt:sacred and wikt:sanctity. It seems silly to have three pages (viz Holiness, this, and Sanctity) when they all tend to the same subject, and only the first has any worthwhile content.—Red Baron 18:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
