Yeah it's a very similar kind of " . . . you have simplified to the point of kind of being a lie" on the history fronts of stuff that I know intimately, and pretty sure it's the same on the history fronts of stuff that I'm more passingly acquainted with.
(Like for instance no, the mediaeval Franks - for example - did not have the WORD "secular". But they certainly DID have a sense of there being things that were governed by custom that was there inheritence from pre-conversion times through the Customs and Customary Laws of the Franks that were for the most part quite disconnected from which religion they were or weren't part of, and in fact the ability of Xtianity and later Islam to be adapted to fit "over" local cultures without requiring them to rewrite from the ground up - that is, the sense that there was a "secular" culture as well as a "sacred" set of customs and divinely appointed behaviours - was actually part of the key to their success. Ditto a similar process with Buddhism in other places - that you could adopt this set of metaphysical understandings about the universe without having to cease the patterns of non-religious, "worldly" cultural behaviours and organizations that you'd had previously.
This is in fact a separation between secular and sacred. It is not the SAME separation we have, but to act like the conceptual separation didn't exist or was somehow invented by Martin Luther is LUDICROUS and ahistorical and . . . like I'll stop there because I can keep going but.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2018-06-09 09:11 pm (UTC)(Like for instance no, the mediaeval Franks - for example - did not have the WORD "secular". But they certainly DID have a sense of there being things that were governed by custom that was there inheritence from pre-conversion times through the Customs and Customary Laws of the Franks that were for the most part quite disconnected from which religion they were or weren't part of, and in fact the ability of Xtianity and later Islam to be adapted to fit "over" local cultures without requiring them to rewrite from the ground up - that is, the sense that there was a "secular" culture as well as a "sacred" set of customs and divinely appointed behaviours - was actually part of the key to their success. Ditto a similar process with Buddhism in other places - that you could adopt this set of metaphysical understandings about the universe without having to cease the patterns of non-religious, "worldly" cultural behaviours and organizations that you'd had previously.
This is in fact a separation between secular and sacred. It is not the SAME separation we have, but to act like the conceptual separation didn't exist or was somehow invented by Martin Luther is LUDICROUS and ahistorical and . . . like I'll stop there because I can keep going but.)