Because language cannot express the "idea of the holy" as Rudolf Otto put it. The "mysterium tremendum".
The "Idea of the Holy" (from Wikipedia) book defines the concept of the holy as that which is numinous. Otto explained the numinous as a "non-rational, non-sensory experience or feeling whose primary and immediate object is outside the self". He coined this new term based on the Latin numen (divine power). The holy is terrifying and fascinating at the same time.
Mircea Eliade built on this further:
(from Wikipedia) Eliade argues that religious thought in general rests on a sharp distinction between the Sacred and the profane;[85] whether it takes the form of God, gods, or mythical Ancestors, the Sacred contains all "reality", or value, and other things acquire "reality" only to the extent that they participate in the sacred.[86]
Eliade's understanding of religion centers on his concept of hierophany (manifestation of the Sacred)a concept that includes, but is not limited to, the older and more restrictive concept of theophany (manifestation of a god).[87] From the perspective of religious thought, Eliade argues, hierophanies give structure and orientation to the world, establishing a sacred order. The "profane" space of nonreligious experience can only be divided up geometrically: it has no "qualitative differentiation and, hence, no orientation [is] given by virtue of its inherent structure".[88] Thus, profane space gives man no pattern for his behavior. In contrast to profane space, the site of a hierophany has a sacred structure to which religious man conforms himself. A hierophany amounts to a "revelation of an absolute reality, opposed to the non-reality of the vast surrounding expanse".
Religious behavior commemorates but also recreates sacred events as in rituals.
Edit history
Please
sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):