Dear nagasiva yronwode et al
Picking up the thread from a week back -
and you response to the idea of Abrahamic faiths as reactive or counter-
religion"
you say this is in no way unique, but can you give examples?
I'm recalling this idea either from David Frankfurter or Jan Assmann -
other religions of the ancient world,
although aware of their differences with
other cultures nevertheless operated a principle of "inter-translation"
(Sorry to repeat myselt on this but it seems an important point worthy
of attention)
So for example although the Romans didn't like native British faiths,
they nevertheless translated the names into their own system -
thus Sulis-Minerva (Sulis= celtic, minerva = latin) - one can image what
for example the Christian response would be -
Sulis is a demon and its sanctuary is to be destroyed and replaced by
such and such a saint or angel.
This "intertranslation" is a feature of almost all other ancient
religions apart from the Abrahamic.
In a sense it is a distinct trend in history of religions and what
distinguishes Paganism from Christianity.
The early identity of early Christianity is very much determined by
these kinds of reactions or counters to existing faiths -
thus the need to erase previous religious history and indeed the history
of its own construction??
BTW I'm not saying this is all there is, just one important feature.
It's just a theory but an interesting one and important for current
Pagan identity I would think;
connected as it is with the roots of fundamentalism.
: )
bb/93
Mogg
>
>
>> Other commentators have shown how the Abrahamic
>> faiths are counter or reactive religions,
>>
>
>
>
>> defined in contradistinction to others.
>>
>
> this is in no way unique. religions separate
> themselves from proximate cults all the time by
> stipulating things they do not do which their
> sibling religious are known to do comparably,
> or which they do that the others forbid.
>
|