Shevek (shevek) wrote,

"Ba'al z'vuv", literally, "Lord of the Flies" became "Beelzebub". The change of the v into the b isn't a suprise since the difference in hebrew script is only a dagesh (punctuation). The rest is simply distortion. Someone wrote "Ba'alzebaah" on a mailing list. Replying would be utterly pedantic, and a waste of many people's time. I'm becoming increasingly irritated by the amount of badly transliterated or misrepeated language used nowadays. I see much of it in Books of Shadows on the internet.

The church chose to drop the Latin (or other historical) service in favour of a more modern native service. Historically, this was for political reasons to do with the Church of England. We have a history of Church music influenced strongly around that era by Royal commissions for music for the "new church".

Nowadays, religious groups undergoing a modern reform have also dropped original languages in the service. The modern theory is that by making the service more undersandable to the congregation, the congregation will relate better to it, and it will have more meaning for them. It is a delicate choice, to maintain the history of the service, or to discard much if not all of the history, as necessarily happens when an original text is discarded, and produce something not unrelated which is directly comprehensible in simple terms to the congregation.

In general, it depends on the case in point as to whether this is a good or a bad choice to make. However, my thesis tonight is:

In the case where the historic details of a religion or tradition have been so distorted as to become almost unrelated to the original other than perhaps by concept, we should actively attempt to redefine the tradition in contemporary terms.

For: My introduction consists entirely of favourable points. I would emphasize only the importance of being able to relate to a simple idea and to see a simple truth in one's beliefs. The whole concept behind something like a Book of Shadows is that it is unique to the owner; they are not shared because the works therein are tied irrevocably to the owner. So should it be with any true belief.

Against: Most religious communities existing today are defined not necessarily by the accuracy of their beliefs in historical terms, but by the fact that the beliefs are common to all members of the group. Any attempt to redefine the traditions would immediately fragment and destroy these groups and any value within them.

Do you accept the thesis?

For with some reservations
Against with some agreements
The thesis is not clear
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment