But he refuses to follow Eliade's tempting advice to return to some sort of precosmic primitivism and to recover the sacred in the way
archaic religion did.
He is the greatest living contemporary interpreter of the whole world of primitive and
archaic religion.
While the Christian's confession of Christ has provided the principal model for the present analysis, it also finds support in Mircea Eliade's discussion of theophanies or hierophanies in
archaic religion, especially in their function as ontophanies, manifestations of the «real.»
Mircea Eliade's studies of
archaic religion have highlighted the uniqueness of the biblical perspective at this particular point.
The characteristic orientation of the myths and rituals of
archaic religion, he notes, is toward a primordial time and a primordial reality.
Archaic thinking from
an archaic religion.
They had grown up out of
archaic religion and continued in little broken continuity with it.
Modern interpreters of
archaic religion as diverse as Lucien Levy - Bruhl and Eric Voegelin have found this phenomenon, though of course they have differed in their theories about it.
In
archaic religion each man finds meaning by repeating the creation, or to put it the other way about, he finds meaning by projecting the pattern of his own little story into the great story which explains not only his own little life but how things are.
On the surface, this collapse of the supernatural into the natural would appear to represent a return to the more undifferentiated type of worldview evident in primitive or
archaic religions.
Not exact matches
The
religion is cruel,
archaic and by today's standards, immoral and unethical.
Freud's notion of
religion, which presents
religion as a way of attaining the
archaic memory of the race, seems to contradict our presentation of
religion here, following Teilhard, as eschatological in orientation.
Every one of them tries to perpetuate an
archaic belief set derived using the world's worst decision - making technique — faith — and survives only because it provides a handy social outlet for people, most of whom aren't even aware of as much as 5 % of what their
religion supposedly teaches.
Most
religions have completely alienated humans from their true nature by imposing
archaic, repressing standards to live by.
Eliade's deep interest in myths, symbols and in
archaic and Indian (oriental)
religions will have paramount significance, first of all, for opening up religious dimension of the NT Christianity.
One of the striking findings of modern scholarship in
religion is the enormous similarity if not identity of the experiences of the world of
archaic peoples.
In either case,
religion is a backward movement to an
archaic, or sacred, or a timeless past, i.e., a past having only a negative relation to the concrete actuality of the present.
Our first question must be to what extent the recurrence of the phenomenon of the Spirit implies a return to
archaic patterns of
religion.
In the mid-sixties I opposed a unilinear view of human progress, but I continued to trace in the history of
religions a progress from primitive, through
archaic, civilized, and axial forms.
Even before the axial period,
archaic or primal
religions already had an at least embryonic sense of a sacral dimension that could interrupt life and bestow on it a wider significance than that given in ordinary existence.
Hey, I don't like certain
religions and their violent ignorant ways, its all
archaic, BUT, don't mess with my Baby Jesusss or Santa or my CHRIST - mass tree you wacko fellow atheist!
I long for an America where
religion and references to «god» are removed from our government... where such
archaic beliefs are restricted to the fools that believe in such tomfoolery and not forced upon all citizens of our nation.
this is the kind of
archaic thinking that is pushing
religion into the shadows.
So Altizer lays out the problems raised for him by the death of God in terms of the sacred and the profane, and this enables him to make interesting use of Eliade's studies of the meaning of the sacred in
archaic and modern
religion.
He finds these forms in the «primitive»
religions of
archaic civilizations and preliterate cultures today as well as in the «higher»
religions.
Thus emerged rational
religion as opposed to
archaic systems of meaning.
DAN... calling all
religions cults is rather shortsighted as you are not differentiating between the
archaic definition of the word «cult» from the modern usage.
To gain a basis for understanding the Indian development in its distinctness, it is necessary to risk a few generalizations about the role of
religion in
archaic civilization.
In this regard the contrast between Japan and the United States may be especially instructive since in Japan in the recent past and to a certain extent even today there seems to have survived a civil
religion of
archaic type (involving a fusion of divinity, society, and the individual), whereas the United States has a civil
religion of distinctly modern type (with a high degree of differentiation between divinity, society, and the individual).4
Whereas in
archaic society ordinary people relate to the divine through the mediation of the divine king, once the historic
religions arise there can be a direct relation to the divine, unmediated by political authority.
The emergence of the historic
religions, though never fully overcoming
archaic tendencies (or primitive ones either, for that matter), does mark a new degree of differentiation between the religious and the political.
A careful observation of even the
archaic forms of
religion clearly discloses the function which Whitehead attributes to them.
There is warrant for this broader usage in the origin of the term itself, in that «civil
religion» is pretty clearly an outgrowth of the term «civil theology» that Augustine used to characterize the
religion of pre-Christian Rome.5 That
religion was, in terms of my typology, distinctly
archaic.
The Japanese case discussed in Chapter 2 of this book is particularly interesting because it is an example of a full - fledged
archaic solution to the religio - political problem (or a full - fledged
archaic civil
religion) that has survived into the twentieth century.
Even within the historic
religions,
archaic forms reassert themselves, as when Christians divide the world into «Christendom» and the pagan realms of devil worshipers, or when Muslims divide the world into «the house of Islam» and «the house of war» — that is, all those domains beyond the reach of Muslim political power.
For many years — perhaps since the Scopes trial in 1925 — the eastern secular and liberal Protestant establishments treated evangelical
religion as though it were an
archaic religious form, peculiarly persistent in some regions of the country, but not a significant factor in American culture.
(Obviously, a theology of the history of
religions will be obliged to take into consideration all these
archaic and primitive religious experiences.
But the historian of
religions aims to familiarize himself with the greatest possible number of
religions, especially with
archaic and primitive
religions, where he has a chance to encounter certain religious institutions still in their elementary stages.
I have to add that your god's apparent need for a physical book to get its message across is just one more demonstration that your whole
religion is man - made, as well as
archaic and silly.
The historian of
religions finds himself in an analogous situation when he deals with
archaic symbols that have been modified by cultural influences and events, for example, the World Tree, which in Central Asia and in Siberia received a new value by assimilating the Mesopotamian idea of the seven planetary heavens.
I have to add that your god's apparent need for a book to get its message across is just one more demonstration that your whole
religion is man - made, as well as
archaic and silly.