4 ms·

Because in the historical context, they were considered sacred.

mmooss 2y ago
Thanks. It's not that I'm ignorant of that. I'm trying to explore which historical contexts - and possibly modern ones - consider Alexander to be 'sacred' and why.
- 1659447091 2y ago
  Haven't most royal figures been considered "sacred" as their claim of, and acceptance by others, of being hand picked by a god or two; of divine right? Since people would never actually see a real god in the physical world, this sacredness is projected onto those being "divinely appointed". Thus "sacred" to some. As in people who held this view wont just stroll up to them and chat about the Dodgers (or weather etc) or give them a hug (unless that person is Michelle Obama) and not be marched out of town, jailed or worse, and is why they enjoyed so much personal space. Unless, I am misunderstanding what you mean by "sacred".
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Many royal figures in many cultures have claimed some divinity, divine blessing, etc. What I'm wondering is, who saw Alexander as divine? Contemporaries? Later ancient people in Greece or Rome? Authors or religions since then? Anyone today, in some way or to some extent? > people would never actually see a real god in the physical world fwiw I think people in many cultures believed they saw gods in human guise, including the Greeks.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
  We still would call some of the items in the vatican "sacred". Why is that different?
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Many people today believe some items in the Vatican are connected to actual divine beings. Few today believe Alexander the Great was divine.
    - usrusr 2y ago
      Are you suggesting that only people who believe in objects being sacred (whatever that means) should be allowed to use the term? To those who don't, why would the current liveness status of those who do/did matter in their usage of the term?
      - mmooss 2y ago
        Only the people who believe something is sacred are likely to apply the term, though others may use it out of respect for the believers. Dead people don't say much.

Thanks. It's not that I'm ignorant of that. I'm trying to explore which historical contexts - and possibly modern ones - consider Alexander to be 'sacred' and why.

1659447091 2y ago
Haven't most royal figures been considered "sacred" as their claim of, and acceptance by others, of being hand picked by a god or two; of divine right? Since people would never actually see a real god in the physical world, this sacredness is projected onto those being "divinely appointed". Thus "sacred" to some. As in people who held this view wont just stroll up to them and chat about the Dodgers (or weather etc) or give them a hug (unless that person is Michelle Obama) and not be marched out of town, jailed or worse, and is why they enjoyed so much personal space. Unless, I am misunderstanding what you mean by "sacred".
- mmooss 2y ago
  Many royal figures in many cultures have claimed some divinity, divine blessing, etc. What I'm wondering is, who saw Alexander as divine? Contemporaries? Later ancient people in Greece or Rome? Authors or religions since then? Anyone today, in some way or to some extent? > people would never actually see a real god in the physical world fwiw I think people in many cultures believed they saw gods in human guise, including the Greeks.
TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
We still would call some of the items in the vatican "sacred". Why is that different?
- mmooss 2y ago
  Many people today believe some items in the Vatican are connected to actual divine beings. Few today believe Alexander the Great was divine.
  - usrusr 2y ago
    Are you suggesting that only people who believe in objects being sacred (whatever that means) should be allowed to use the term? To those who don't, why would the current liveness status of those who do/did matter in their usage of the term?
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Only the people who believe something is sacred are likely to apply the term, though others may use it out of respect for the believers. Dead people don't say much.