Jason Wingate here. On the question how Abrahamism looks to a 'polytheist' has anyone read S. N. Balagangadhara? (aka Balu). Strongly, strongly recommended. I have a pdf of his 'Heathen in His Blindness' book if anyone wants it -- the original is hundreds at least of any currency.
This vid gives an idea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSfNyGSiRck
Bottom line, a radical explanation of why initial Abrahamic missionaries often said there was 'no religion' in India, why there is no word for 'religion' in Chinese etc. etc. -- there actually =isn't= religion there -- Abrahamic religion is a fundamentally separate cultural category from other spiritual traditions which is why there has never been a rigorous definition of 'religion' that includes everything people point at when they say it.
Includes a great analysis of the handover from Roman 'religio' to Christianity and how the argument proceeded so as to cover up a lot of awkward ignorance. And does define religion in a way connected with what I wrote on my blog today about 'wild attachment to a text-based “understanding” that we have to cheerlead as it “explains everything for our own good”'.
His stuff swept through a lot of Gordians in one fell rhetorical swoop for me, I will blog on it in two weeks' time.
I take the supernatural question far more seriously than 'pagans' do and have blogged about that in the past I think.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Very interesting exchange with @tonhoberlinense
Date: 2012-04-07 04:54 pm (UTC)This vid gives an idea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSfNyGSiRck
Bottom line, a radical explanation of why initial Abrahamic missionaries often said there was 'no religion' in India, why there is no word for 'religion' in Chinese etc. etc. -- there actually =isn't= religion there -- Abrahamic religion is a fundamentally separate cultural category from other spiritual traditions which is why there has never been a rigorous definition of 'religion' that includes everything people point at when they say it.
Includes a great analysis of the handover from Roman 'religio' to Christianity and how the argument proceeded so as to cover up a lot of awkward ignorance. And does define religion in a way connected with what I wrote on my blog today about 'wild attachment to a text-based “understanding” that we have to cheerlead as it “explains everything for our own good”'.
His stuff swept through a lot of Gordians in one fell rhetorical swoop for me, I will blog on it in two weeks' time.
I take the supernatural question far more seriously than 'pagans' do and have blogged about that in the past I think.