Quote:
|
Originally Posted by angelic star
We all define similarly or differently, and sometimes we evolve in our definitions of those very terms.
For example lots of words, terms in modern language has come from ancient languages of Sanskrit and Latin. For example Latin for love is 'amare' and french for love is 'amour ' and Spanish for love is 'amor'. It's human to evolve, to understand and to redefine. As long as the message is conveyed, I think that would be fair to not grammatically correct errors.
Maybe even the new agers made some attempt to understand and redefine, perhaps even be more creative and original, than the very original thought/ creation of mythological characters from the past that is being quoted for understanding by others. As long is it is genuine thought, life/ spiritual experience or belief system , it says enough.
|
The example you gave for love - is still the same meaning.
Soul mate was always
meaning two halves of a whole.
A person having their own truth is a nice airy fairy way of choosing not to acknowledge something. A thief may well see themselves as a "liberator of items" but the consequences are the same for the victim.
Someone not wishing to commit to a single partner is free to do as they please however "soul mate" is also something they are choosing to relinquish in this process.
A Soul mate is supposed to be extra special - something shared between two.
Redefining is not new, nor is it evolving & let's not pretend that lots of new age authors haven't made lots of money repackaging older concepts that perhaps they didn't earn for themselves.
Presuming only good intention is as bad as presuming negative intention - I merely pointed out that if Romeo & Juliet refer to soul mates: it will be in the classical sense (otherwise its not unique).