What Makes An Object Sacred? (priest, ritual, Earth, mysticism)

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

Although I really love theNEWReality's thoughts on the subject, I simply do not believe in anything whatsoever as being sacred. It is yet another man-made affectation, imho. Like, c'mon... a meteorite? Sacred is just another word for attachment and any importance is solely in the mind of the believer. This does not mean that an object cannot be imbued with certain properties but it would be most helpful if people understood that it is their own minds, through the power of their beliefs that give the sacred "object" its sacred quality.

The word "sacred" means "to separate out." So, a sacred object is something that is set apart for a special purpose, or something to which special meaning is ascribed.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by sojourner

The word "sacred" means "to separate out." So, a sacred object is something that is set apart for a special purpose, or something to which special meaning is ascribed.

Isn't "separation" the very nature of "sin"?

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Isn't "separation" the very nature of "sin"?

Interesting, isn't it, that the Hebrew for "create" is bara, which means "to cut away from," or "to separate." When God performed God's first creative act, it was an act of bara -- separating light from darkness. In the Hebrew, children are cut out of their parents, hence, the title "bar."

Whatever is sacred (in our general use of the word) is something that is separated out from all the regular stuff. It's an act of creation, reflective of the creative acts of God, (but not taking the place of God's creative acts.)

Since the act of creation is an act of separation, and also the impetus of the creator (things don't create themselves, but are created, or acted upon), whatever the creator creates is seen as "sacred," in a certain sense, in that it was carved out separately from the other "stuff" in the world.

We sin because, rather than waiting for God, the Creator, to "carve us out," we act upon ourselves, taking the place of God, in that act of creation. That is sin, precisely because we separate ourselves from God and from God's own created order.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Interesting, isn't it, that the Hebrew for "create" is bara, which means "to cut away from," or "to separate." When God performed God's first creative act, it was an act of bara -- separating light from darkness. In the Hebrew, children are cut out of their parents, hence, the title "bar."

Very interesting. This is why Process Theology is particularly meaningful and significant to me.

Originally Posted by sojourner

Whatever is sacred (in our general use of the word) is something that is separated out from all the regular stuff. It's an act of creation, reflective of the creative acts of God, (but not taking the place of God's creative acts.)

The "reflection" going on is two-way. "God's" creative acts of slicing up the world are, as best as I can tell, always accomplished by humans using words. If you are aware of a separation that is not accomplished through the use of categories in reason reflected in symbolic language, I'd love to hear about it.

Originally Posted by sojourner

Since the act of creation is an act of separation, and also the impetus of the creator (things don't create themselves, but are created, or acted upon), whatever the creator creates is seen as "sacred," in a certain sense, in that it was carved out separately from the other "stuff" in the world.

Your logic is circular here. We use the word "Sacred" to mark certain things that we construct as "God's Creations" to distinguish them from "our creations" and then imagine that the distinction has a significance other than that we just invested in it by the act of defining it. Either way, "God's Creations" are "our creations." All one needs to do is leaf through a Bible to see this is so.

Originally Posted by sojourner

That is sin, precisely because we separate ourselves from God and from God's own created order.

Didn't "God" do the separating, though? "God" made light and thereby darkness, but more fundamentally, his own selfish desire to experience distinctions in the unitary substance. All creation follows from "God"'s original sin - the emanation of his first word.

[sojourner]

The "reflection" going on is two-way. "God's" creative acts of slicing up the world are, as best as I can tell, always accomplished by humans using words. If you are aware of a separation that is not accomplished through the use of categories in reason reflected in symbolic language, I'd love to hear about it.

God's creative acts are not dependent upon our understanding them. However, that something is perceived as either "sacred" or "profane" is definitely a product of human understanding.

God creates babies by cutting them out of their parents. We may not always have understood that process, but our lack of understanding did not keep babies from appearing that looked like their parents.

Your logic is circular here. We use the word "Sacred" to mark certain things that we construct as "God's Creations" to distinguish them from "our creations" and then imagine that the distinction has a significance other than that we just invested in it by the act of defining it. Either way, "God's Creations" are "our creations." All one needs to do is leaf through a Bible to see this is so.

In a certain sense, you're right. It has to do with confusion as to what is meant by the term "sacred." Sometimes, man-made objects are invested with sacred status (such as a cross, or an altar), because we feel that they are, after their creation, set apart by God. In that sense, God's acts are our acts.

Didn't "God" do the separating. "God" made light and thereby darkness, but more fundamentally, his own selfish desire to experience distinctions in the unitary substance. All creation follows from "God"'s original sin - the emanation of his first word.

Distinctiveness is not inherently either selfish or sinful. Unity does not necessarily have to be uniformity. In creating, God actor upon other things. (Remember that the primordial "stuff" was already there when God began to create with it.) In sinning, we act upon ourselves, taking the place of God.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by sojourner

However, that something is perceived as either "sacred" or "profane" is definitely a product of human understanding.

That pretty well covers everything else.

Distinctiveness is not inherently either selfish or sinful. Unity does not necessarily have to be uniformity. In creating, God actor upon other things. (Remember that the primordial "stuff" was already there when God began to create with it.) In sinning, we act upon ourselves, taking the place of God.[/quote]

There's nothing negative about "sin" unless you want to revel in being "sinful." But if "God" is working with the primordial stuff then "God" is a thing that sins just like me and you. If "God" IS the primordial stuff (or "God" is "Being" as some like to say ) then you're on to something. But you have to give up your "God is creator" conceits - otherwise "God is Being itself" is just an empty slogan.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

That pretty well covers everything else.

Distinctiveness is not inherently either selfish or sinful. Unity does not necessarily have to be uniformity. In creating, God actor upon other things. (Remember that the primordial "stuff" was already there when God began to create with it.) In sinning, we act upon ourselves, taking the place of God.

There's nothing negative about "sin" unless you want to revel in being "sinful." But if "God" is working with the primordial stuff then "God" is a thing that sins just like me and you. If "God" IS the primordial stuff (or "God" is "Being" as some like to say ) then you're on to something. But you have to give up your "God is creator" conceits - otherwise "God is Being itself" is just an empty slogan.[/quote]
No, because God acts upon stuff other than God. It's when that "other stuff" (like humans, for example) acts upon itself, that sin occurs.

If I create something out of stuff (like a bridge), that's a creative act. If that stuff acts upon itself (like the bridge falling down), that's sin, because the stuff acts contrary to its created order.

God is not the primordial stuff. That's your misconception. "Being" and "primordial stuff" are not the same thing.