tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post8575366125313844951..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: Cicero: The Inventor of Religiongcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-56763418705687083742015-08-10T18:27:57.090-04:002015-08-10T18:27:57.090-04:00Ahh! Yes, I see now. Thanks. Okay, well that is...Ahh! Yes, I see now. Thanks. Okay, well that is interesting in light of how we see religion today: compartmentalized, and 'private'. I have yet to read Voegelin's work on the Ecumenical Age. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00053155617490357148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-34824045534299369002015-08-10T18:24:23.485-04:002015-08-10T18:24:23.485-04:00The idea is that there was not a separate sphere o...The idea is that there was not a separate sphere of human life called "religion": it was simply an integrated part of how a people lived. For instance, Greek drama was not religion or art or government: it involved all of these things that we have later separated into different bins.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-83716413343709870552015-08-10T16:08:36.539-04:002015-08-10T16:08:36.539-04:00Gene, I am not sure that I understand what is bein...Gene, I am not sure that I understand what is being said here, because it's conclusion seems odd. Voegelin seems to be stating that religions did not exist because there weren't any symbols (or simply a symbol) to associate with them. But it seems as though we can talk about something existing without having a definite name or symbol for its existence - and in fact, this seems like a recurring theme in Voegelin, who often shirks precise, analytical formulations of what he says in order to convey his message! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00053155617490357148noreply@blogger.com