IS NOTHING SACRED?

Agreed.

I would add caring for children.

I'm having trouble with the word "sacred." It seems to imply something more than what I think you meant, Set.

Common usage doesn't, necessarily, imply a deity

Check Websters

highly valued and important

Using Merriam-Webster's online dictionary definition, i am referring to defintions 1.b, 2.b and 5.a.

OK. By tthat definition, I agree with everything you said. And Finn, too, strangely enough.

Oh don't worry Merry, if I could agree with Setanta and the world not end, you certainly can agree with me.

I agree, Set. But I do not--as I think you do not--mean by "sacred" something instrinsically divine or supernatural. Maybe I'm fostering a false distinction here, but I think of sacred as the complement of profane, a distinction that is "consstructed" by humans in their attempt to organize life meaningfully. I feel that equity is to be treated as sacred rather than , something we can take for granted, as we do with all things "profane".

I don't think the operative word here is 'sacred'. I think the more pertinent word is 'equity'.

Whatever does that mean, and who gets to decide it?

I won't speak for Setanta but for me, in this case, equity is synonomous with the principle of The Golden Rule.

The list of things sacred is pretty short, it seems. Depending on one's personal slant, of course. The only thing I would add to what has been generally agreed upon is that certain personal freedoms not be infringed upon. If I decide to treat myself by alternative methods rather than give my body to the doctors, it may be my folly, but as long as I only make the decision for myself and no others, it should be unquestioned by others. I use that as example because it pertains to me, but by extension it could cover a multitude of personal freedoms.

Yes ed, personal freedom is sacred. Good on you!

I suppose that when I agreed that the value, equity, is sacred, I was saying in part that it is non-negotiable.

I asked a question, and people are free to answer it as they choose. I meant no religious implication, and the word can be used without religious implication. By the same token, i would not think to tell anyone they cannot think of their answer in religious terms.

Sacred? Yes, life is sacred. However, different societies may treat individual human life with a contempt, such as communistic societies.

Also, many of us are still at the level of wanting vengeance as a synonym for justice.

My point is, if life is sacred, then why is it oftentimes treated with such disdain? Stupidity? Self-serving survival instincts?

If we treat life with an oftentimes frivolous attitude, the concern about "sacredness" might be just wishful thinking that we as humans really have a knowledge of the sacred, and do treat things as rightfully sacred. Similar to the religious question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, it presupposes that we are evolved enough to really value sacredness (or that there are angels that DO dance on the head of a pin). We might be quite close to savages, but with reading, writing, and 'rithmetic, plus the gift of gab (aka, rhetoric).

P.S.: This was not a hard question. Questions like this will never allow me to cure my superiority complex.

[quote="Foofie.
"My point is, if life is sacred, then why is it oftentimes treated with such disdain?"

The point I've tried to make is that nothing is essentially sacred, we call it "sacred" when it is highly valued--as sacred--by someone. In other words "sacredness" is an ascription not an essential trait. Life can be treated with "disdain" by some people but not by others.

Not my opinion. I believe life is inherently/objectively sacred, because it cannot be understood as to why it is here. We do not agree.

Yes, we do agree that we disagree: I am a constructivist (we construct our world) and you are an objectivist (we find it readymade).
No problem.

I am sacred...



... of spiders.

I don't believe there are any in this thread. If any show up, i'll get rid of them for you.