Let's move on (Was: Passover/Easter (was: Italogallic in Zera,and other languages.))

At 7:08 pm -0400 28/4/00, Steg Belsky wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:58:23 +0200 BP Jonsson <bpj@...> writes:
>> True only if _pagan_ means "traditional ethnic religion",
...which, of course, its adherents might well regard as (partially)
revealed   :)

IME when one starts to distinguish between revealed & non-revealed
religion, one is beginning to step into a mine-field.  Divine revelation
IMHO can take on many forms and in every case, it seems to me, it has to
revealed through some imperfect human 'filter'. Therefore, while believing
there's slightly better revelation in my religion (perfectly natural belief
IMO), I happily accept that other religions are also open to divine
revelation and even, maybe, I'll discover beyond the grave that my own
religion's revelation was just as faulty as everyone else's.

[...]
>-
>
>I've always used "paganism" as a synonym for "polytheism" or
>"animism"...sort of an imprecise category of "many deities or powers".
>But i've hardly ever used the term, so...
My dictionary defines 'pagan' as: "one who is not a Christian, Jew or
Muslim."   That is basically what I've understood the term to mean; tho I'd
certainly not describe, e.g., a Sihk or Baha'i as pagan.  But what about
our Philip?  By this negative definition, I guess he is a pagan; but I'd
never think of describing him as such any more than I would use the term
for any of my Hindu students.

I guess that because of my classical background, I've nearly always heard
the word used in connexion with the religion of the pre-Christian
Graeco-Roman world (itself not, in fact, a uniform set of beliefs) and of
similar polytheistic religions.

There is no evidence that I'm aware of that Jesus of Nazareth practiced any
of the non-Jewish religions around him or subscribed to any of their
beliefs.  All the credible evidence I'm aware of is that he grew up in a
traditional Jewish milieu and followed the Jewish religion as practised in
1st cent Palestine.

I know Robert Graves puts forward a very different account of Jesus's life;
but this account relies upon accepting the views Graves puts forward in his
book "The White Goddess" - which I have read more than once.  The
linguistic arguments Graves puts forward in that book certainly suck; and
all reputable scholars I've met - and there have been quite a few; in the
1970s & 80s I made quite a detailed study of the Minoan/Mycenaean world -
are fairly equally dismissive of his other arguments.

Why yl-ruil made the assertion "Christ, only begotten son of the LORD God
was actually a pagan himself", I do not know.  I would like to think it was
not to provoke or cause offense.

We often, on this list, do go off topic.  And Rosta observed, rightly IMO,
that this showed we are a bunch of _chums_ interested in conlanging.  But
chums respect one another's beliefs, even if they don't agree with them.

But if someone does positively assert that I am wrong about something, then
I am inclined to ask for the evidence.

But let's not get into another tedious thread about what is and what is not
a pagan, and whether Jesus of Nazareth does or does not fit into that
category.  It will, in the end, get us nowhere except, possibly, to cause a
lot of offense & bad feeling and, probably, many people to leave the list.

The thread actually started with ItaloGallic!  How about returning to it -
or even to conlanging.

Ray.










=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================