Difference between revisions of "Talk:Holy hash achievement"
imported>CJ (I like the holy hash) |
imported>Robyn (Explanation of change to description of Holy Hash requirements.) |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:Hehe. Just came across this page for the first time - absolutely love it (especially the ribbon logo). In terms of definitions I would take it to mean the actual church building as well as the grounds on which it lies (ie essentially the 'church property') If a hash fell anywhere within the grounds of the church I go to I would count that as a Holy Hash Achievement. In reformed Protestant theology the church building is simply the place where Christians meet - it's not actually seen to be 'more holy' than any other place...--[[User:CJ|CJ]] 01:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC) | :Hehe. Just came across this page for the first time - absolutely love it (especially the ribbon logo). In terms of definitions I would take it to mean the actual church building as well as the grounds on which it lies (ie essentially the 'church property') If a hash fell anywhere within the grounds of the church I go to I would count that as a Holy Hash Achievement. In reformed Protestant theology the church building is simply the place where Christians meet - it's not actually seen to be 'more holy' than any other place...--[[User:CJ|CJ]] 01:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | I added the note about religions that do not consecrate, religions that consider the whole country sacred and using your good sense in response to [[2009-03-17 31 34|Yerushalmi's expedition]] in which he points out that the entire country of Israel is considered holy ground, but individual synagogues are not consecrated. This is probably true also for native sites. If I had a hash at a Coast Salish transformer rock, I'd have to call that holy, but not one on the banks of the Fraser, even though it has spiritual significance. By this token I'd say that a hash in the Ganges wasn't a holy hash, either. Consecration, as CJ points out, isn't universal even to Christian religions, so maybe we should remove that bit all together. Gee, I never though geohashing would be so theological! -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 16:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:56, 18 March 2009
Someone who achieves this is known as a "hashi", analogous to the "haji" of Islam. -- 134.84.10.26
- Yay. And if you drag along your father and grandfather, you may even bear the title "hashi ben hashi ibn hashi". -- relet 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Question for those versed in such things, how far does the holy ground extend from the altar or altar analogue in various religions? Is it the whole area of the building dedicated to worship? Including the administrative wing? Including the grounds? Inluding the parking lot? -17:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I hope so, otherwise mine won't count, as it was on the grounds...Actually, I come from a tradition in which we have no holy ground, no blessed areas, but I suppose the definition would change through various groups, I'd kind of assumed that holy ground would only encompass the building itself (or the stone circle, I suppose, if that's your thing) but that doesn't mean our acheivement has to, does it? *looks lovingly at his batman ribbon* -- UnwiseOwl 22:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea, but I know that for some religions it is not just an expression, and that churches need to be officially de-sanctified before they get turned into condos or daycares or whatever. I have a "church grounds" hash, too, but I haven't counted it. I was hoping we'd have someone on the wiki who is in the know. -Robyn 00:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it will be possible to make fixed rules for this, but there should be some guidelines. I'm not exactly sure how exact a consecrated ground is defined by those confessions which are rather strict about it (like roman-catholic or orthodox). Opposed to that, protestant theology defines the sacred grounds by usage, not by consecration, and a graveyard in Germany is basically defined by the land usage entry at the municipal real estate register, not by any kind of religious consecration, as it's usually state-run and open to all religions including atheism.
- Myself, I would count the building itself along with a churchyard or similar grounds directly belonging to the building. Most old churchyards are former graveyard anyway here, which makes the surroundings definitely sacred grounds. In the case of a (former) monastery, the entire site would probably be sacred. In the case of a wayside cross - oh well, let's say: Within of the usual accuracy, i.e. like 10 or 15 m. Anyway, the parking lot (if there is one assigned to the church - those around here have only very small ones or none at all) will rarely be sacred ground. Mind, we are only talking of those religions that call themselves a religion, so, although the cult of the car is the most common and mightiest religion in our culture, and definitely a religion by the definition proposed by Martin Luther, these places of worship called highways, parking lots, and car dealers, don't count. --Ekorren 01:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, so the entire building in which worship is performed, and the entire grounds that you would say "that's church property" but not the parking lot and not land or buildings owned by the churhe but used for something else (e.g. school, apartments, museum). I'll have to go down to take another picture of mine and decide if it qualifies. -Robyn 01:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hehe. Just came across this page for the first time - absolutely love it (especially the ribbon logo). In terms of definitions I would take it to mean the actual church building as well as the grounds on which it lies (ie essentially the 'church property') If a hash fell anywhere within the grounds of the church I go to I would count that as a Holy Hash Achievement. In reformed Protestant theology the church building is simply the place where Christians meet - it's not actually seen to be 'more holy' than any other place...--CJ 01:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I added the note about religions that do not consecrate, religions that consider the whole country sacred and using your good sense in response to Yerushalmi's expedition in which he points out that the entire country of Israel is considered holy ground, but individual synagogues are not consecrated. This is probably true also for native sites. If I had a hash at a Coast Salish transformer rock, I'd have to call that holy, but not one on the banks of the Fraser, even though it has spiritual significance. By this token I'd say that a hash in the Ganges wasn't a holy hash, either. Consecration, as CJ points out, isn't universal even to Christian religions, so maybe we should remove that bit all together. Gee, I never though geohashing would be so theological! -Robyn 16:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)