The Armour Archive

Piers Brent wrote:Snaebjorn if you can't see the difference between the two then frankly <b>your</b> an idiot.

His an idiot what?

-Derian.

First off, for those offended, read how Jesus treated people, the ONLY people that he let offend him where the "leaders" of the "church", everyone else he treated with compassion and understanding. Being offended at what has been posted, is like some one with a cat allergy getting upset at a photo of a cute kitten.

Now for another potentially offensive pic. Me and a friend built a reliquary a couple years ago, complete down to a prayer book (written in Latin with English translation). Being as we are in the SCA we decide to have fun with the historical side of religion without bringing in actual religion. As such for our holy relic.....................................a roll of duct tape, Saint Ductus. To further add to the fun, there are candles (broken and repaired with duct tape), someone brought and left a miniture duct tape and twig medieval crutch at the alter at one event that now stays with it. Even the prayer book has been repaired with duct tape. To date no one has ever said a ill word of it being in our camp, or even when he had it carried before us at A&W war.

We have had people come looking just for it so they can pay there homage. At A&W war a couple years ago (debut of the reliquary) we had the pleasure of watching a man in robes walk into camp, not say a word and go right to the reliquary, kneel down and in an awesome voice, sang/chanted the Latin litany, then quietly got up and walked out. It was an awesome experience and greatly added to the medieval flavor of the game we play.

knitebee wrote:First off, for those offended, read how Jesus treated people, the ONLY people that he let offend him where the "leaders" of the "church", everyone else he treated with compassion and understanding. Being offended at what has been posted, is like some one with a cat allergy getting upset at a photo of a cute kitten.

Actually you should go and read how he treated various people in various situations, he treated those in need of compassion and understanding with understanding and compassion. The most obvious exception to what you said above would be the money changers. And at no point has anyone miscreant of being a bad person, he put together something which had potential for being offensive to people and some people took offense to it.

And at least to me your photo isn't offensive. Now part of that may be because I classify the duct tape thing as a stupid joke that I can see why people in the SCA might find amusing. Someone else might put it in the column of offense but it fits at least one category over from miscreant's.

Its about time we got the Christians riled up about something.

Anyone who looks at the above picture actually expecting to see a real piece of the true cross is going to be disappointed and upset.

Then again, anyone expecting to see a real piece of the true cross, on a forum like this where we are always trying to make modern recreations of old stuff...........

I personally think there is a large "emperors new clothes" syndrome here, the church has for centuries venerated Holy relics that, at one time were bought, sold and traded to "inspire" pilgrimages and effectively generate congregations for (and revenue from) worship wherever these relics were housed.

For anyone to actually point out that some of these "saintly relics" were possibly not real and that the Church has maybe been duped -or worse, was complicit in the creation of such relics- is very much like the kid who says "that man has no clothes on!"

The sale of religious relics was good business in the medieval period, in the modern "litigation period" I guess you need to be a little more careful (although you can still find some holy "relics" on ebay )

As I see it, the OP was intended to make light of the business of selling fake religious relics not the death of Christ. Any offence from this should be directed at the real fakers who still make money from the belief of religious people

Otherwise, nice reliquary, though I think the piece of the cross is too big- any businessman (then or now) would see the sense in selling many more smaller relics rather than just one large one.

JonT

Brent,
I don't think that it's niavety at all, I just think it's your judgmental attitude on all others who think not like you. Just because I may be a protestant and see this in my light doesn't give you the right to call us, who find this funny, idiots and such. You're trying to force your belief's on us with your lofty attitude and accusations. If you feel attacked, as your responses definately show, then don't read this thread. Very simple.

Now, with that said, I applaud your religious convictions. It's not seen much these days. And with that I salute you.

Derian le Breton wrote:Eh, some people will get offended at <i>anything</i>. That's their problem, not yours.

Exactly. I found it amusing as well, as it was obviously intended tongue in cheek. Unknot thy knickers.

Jon Terris wrote:
Otherwise, nice reliquary, though I think the piece of the cross is too big- any businessman (then or now) would see the sense in selling many more smaller relics rather than just one large one.

JonT

Indeed. The reliquaries in the Museum of London and British museum, as well as the one currently on eBay are only big enough to hold a tiny splinter of wood.



This one opens up to reveal a chamber inside holding the relic. MoL link with dimensions

Piers Brent wrote:Miscreant, if you did not realize the possibility of this possibly being offensive then your naive. Posting a photo of a piece of wood with ketchup on it with the bottle still in the frame entitled. "Here's the piece of cross with Jesus blood on it." and thinking no one would be offended. It wasn't taken out of context it was horribly executed.

That doesn't even go in to butchering the history of religious orders.

Snaebjorn if you can't see the difference between the two then frankly your an idiot.

Name calling now. How very Christian of you.

Mathew 7.1-5

Piers seems to know two things, offended and offensive. He is always some combination of the two.

English Steel,
Do you know of any photos of that cross reliquary open?

Mac,
If you are out there are you able to make something like this?

Derian le Breton wrote:Eh, some people will get offended at <i>anything</i>. That's their problem, not yours.

Alot of humor is based specificaly on the offensiveness of the joke.
(from Lenny Bruce to South Park ... to John Stewart's "f.. you" song dedicated to the Islamic fundies who threatened South Park )

If you are an honest man you will recognise that fact.
Then you will make the choice whether you want to give that particular offense.
If you lacked the knowledge to recognise that some particular joke was offensive and then were told that you offended,
then be a man -- re-analyse your choice and decide whether it is worthwhile to give the particular offense.

miscreant wrote:English Steel,
Do you know of any photos of that cross reliquary open?

Mac,
If you are out there are you able to make something like this?

Unfortunatly not. I could email the museum and ask them though.

At the risk of creating a far worse religious conflict
this raises an interesting issue

addressing this especialy to those Christians who were offended --

the joke pokes fun at "veneration of relics" - a religious belief and practice of your Church
the defense for the joke, as presented in this conversation is essentialy "valuable social commentary"

and an analogy was raised to Jesus' mistreating the money changers at the Temple on the presumption that this was perhaps paralel valuable social commentary

at the same time, an objection was raised to your objection - that by advising that you were offended you are pushing your religious belief in veneration of relics
or perhaps conversely disrespecting the protestant belief which rejects relics

And this juxtaposition was interesting to me for the following reason
(and I hope I can properly verbalize it)

Most people in the modern world see the story of Jesus mistreating the money changers at the Temple as a strong social commentary on his part.
Even the secular, especialy on the left, point to this as a very important social message rejecting the commercialization of faith and so forth (in the movie "Jesus Christ Superstar" he smashes up souvenir stands).
However, seeing as I do not assume that he is in any way divine, and having studied the source materials on the role of these Temple money changers, I find his action to have been an offensive and wrongheaded one and the continuing idealization of that action ... perhaps problematic

The situation was this -- these money changers were not private actors who were padding their pockets from naive pilgrims.
They were employees of the temple and they served two important functions:
1) Purely religious - they allowed a way for any worshiper from anywhere in the world to perform a religious act of great importance (one of the baseline Biblical commandments) either by comfortibly traveling to Jerusalem and transfering his local coinage for the sacrificial coin with no concern that these may be unavailable when he gets there
or he could even participate in the relevant ritual from abroad by interacting with the "money changer" in his local area - in effect conveying the sacrificial coin to the Temple by direct transfer.
2) Social - the fees generated by these money changers were brought into the Temple treasury and specificaly earmarked for social care projects - ie: distribution to widows, orphans, etc. (the paralel of the commandment of the half-shekel and the ideal of social justice and unity is often made in Hebrew philosophical writing - and therefore the connection of the two activities was a natural one)

His attack on the money changers was thus a direct attack against
(1) a Biblical commandment "from God" that each of the children of Israel give a half-shekel once per year;
(2) Moses' and the prophets' repeated admonitions to care for the disenfranchized in society

So -- on the one hand, the idealization of this story by Christian society can be seen as offensive to followers of the Mosaic laws
(this ritual, with necessary modification due to the current lack of the Jerusalem Temple, is still practiced today)
but on the other hand, my criticism of Jesus' actions can be seen as offensive to Christian religious sensibilities



Discuss

====================
Norman

I seem to remember some issues with idols, graven images, and that sort of thing..

Just a couple of points.

There is a huge, sometimes deliberate misinterpretation of Medieval religious practise being perpetrated here. Some of it is modern anti-religious attitude, some is low church protestsnt 'humour' based largely on ignorance of historical practise.

1. Many, if not most Medieval relics were quite genuine. That is, they were the objects they claimed to be, without considering the claims made for their efficacy. Everyone points out the obvious relics of apostles, and other 1st century goodies, which were most often fraudulent (not always, look at relics of St. Mark, appropriated by Venice in the 4th crusade), and then represent that as the "typical" Medieval relic.

In point of fact, most relics floating about were relics of local martyrs and saints, often quite genuine as to origin. It isn't terribly hard for the Franciscan order to have relics of St. Francis, in example.

2. The idea that the Medieval Church was in the business of peddling fraudulent relics intentionally really is offensive. In point of fact, the Church often had a vested interest in exposing and decrying fraudulent relics. For an example of this historically that readily springs to mind, is the Medieval churches attitude towards the Shroud of Turin. Many relics that were probably fraudulent were earnestly and devoutly believed in as true, so no fraud was being perpetrated oin the part of the church.

3. Saints and relics were not worshiped, they were venerated as holy, as being objects imbubed with holiness by the piety of the saint in question. Think of them as a conduit to Almighty God, and acting as a focus for religious meditation and prayer - people didn't go about literally worshiping relics.

In point of fact, the Church at various times (usually when the practise became rampant) condemned the practise of turning various saints or relics into a cult, as being in error.

Religion was a daily part of life, inextricably bound up in it - there wasn't a seperate aspect of peoples livers that was religious, and another that was secular. Medieval religion ranged from what theologians of the day condemned as superstition, to sublime contemplation of the Almighty that we associate today with Asian religions with extensive monasticisim as a part of them.

I get sick and tired of the old saws bandied about twisting anti-clericisim into anti-religion, which often gets propigated both in Reenactment and SCA circles. To remain in ignorance of Medieval religion, and its impact on daily life, is to be as ignorant in topics Medieval, as someone who is incapable of mastering college mathematics is of quantum physics.

Yup. I'm an idiot. I use proper spelling and punctuation. I proofread each of my posts to make sure it's correct though I will admit to sometimes making mistakes and missing something.

Am I an idiot because of the fact that I refuse to be offended by something that is obviously a tongue in cheek joke concerning the sale of faked relics?

Am I an idiot because I see one more faked religious item as yet another in an ever growing list of such items?

Or is the fact that I don't see religious zealotry (of which I am not blaming all those offended) as a viable excuse for attacking others verbally.

So please, continue referring to me as an idiot. I'll happily take any name a person wishes to call me over taking offense to a joke of any form. I see no reason to ever be offended by anyone for something meant as a joke.

Miscreant I didn't call you or anyone else an idiot other then Snaebjorn and even that was predicated on the question of whether or not he actually does not see the distinction. If he doesn't then yes I classify him as an idiot.

And here is the thing about people doing things others find offensive. Some people are just like oh people shouldn't be offended and oh it was just out of fun or whatever. Just like everyone thinks that the West is just afraid of insulting Islam because they might get violent. When a big part of the reason is because the Islamic market is one of the fasted growing in the world. Just like being offensive and insulting to people on here is doing something in a market place. You affect your place in that market place by doing things possibly offensive, insulting or inflammatory. Oh but how could someone who is so insulting and inflammatory realize this and still be like he is, because I have much less to get out of the market place and more to offer it. The market place is often heavily changed by this kind of thread.

I'm not going to get involved in an argument with you about doctrine and dogma, Bob, because that's no fun. So I'll leave the whole veneration of saints and relics thing alone, apart from saying that the average illiterate priest - not to mention peasant - during the later Middle Ages was absolutely incapable of making the sort of "relic as conduit for prayer" distinction you're making. Even today you find people like my besainted mother in law, who view such things as saint's medals clearly as animistic totem items, not "conduit to God".

I will say, however, that I have a wide and deep knowledge of religion, specifically the Church in Christendom from ca. 1400 until well well after the SCA's period (I used to love shouting Leveller stuff at 17th-century events).

When you claim that "many, if not most" relics were genuine, you're talking through your hat. That they were believed to be genuine is indisputable. Whether or not they were objectively genuine is another matter entirely.

You're right that to prove fraud one must prove the seller had knowledge the object sold was not what it was purported to be.

From the crass commercialism shown in the widespread sale of indulgences, I find it very difficult indeed to imagine that the Church would choose to be pious about one salable item and not another; were not all manner of theological tricks developed to defend indulgences? The leopard cannot change his spots; neither does the confidence trickster vary his game. I can't prove fraud, but based on that knowledge I can permit myself to think not twice but thrice about the legitimacy of such an item or idea.

Regards,

Bob

Which distinction is that Piers? The distinction between one faked religious artifact and another?

Or the distinction between a joke and an honest attempt to sell one of the faked artifacts?

Either way making judgments based on an opinion about whether something is offensive is far more offensive than another faked artifact.

Wow...so many special snowflakes

Snaebjorn Hakonarson wrote:Which distinction is that Piers? The distinction between one faked religious artifact and another?

Or the distinction between a joke and an honest attempt to sell one of the faked artifacts?

Either way making judgments based on an opinion about whether something is offensive is far more offensive than another faked artifact.

A Cross or a Thor's hammer at a store are not religious artifacts real or fake. They are symbols. An artifact would be say a cross owned by Mother Teressa.

Brewer Bob, the myth of the late medieval illiterate priest has been thoroughly refuted.

Piers Brent wrote:Brewer Bob, the myth of the late medieval illiterate priest has been thoroughly refuted.

Really? Must have missed that. Seriously, no snark. If I need to update my knowledge, I will. If you cite some sources, I will seek them out.

See, I was always under the impression that various De vita et honestate clericorum denunciations, which appear with distressing regularity throughout Christendom throughout the Middle Ages, were evidence to the contrary. I'm very interested in scholarship which refutes this.

Bob

Piers Brent wrote:Thomas mentioning anything Episcopalian trying to get credibility in regards to religion basically kills any chance of having any.

And a picture of a piece of wood with ketchup on it is offensive when done in relationship to any mention of the true Cross.

So, at the same time you state that the original post is offensive to your denomination, you go and deride someone else's entire denomination?

Do you see the irony in that?

1100 or 2010 the selling of the real or fake cross is discraceful. Not to mention highly unnecessary as it is free to those who seek it.

A Thor's Hammer and a Cross and other such items are not artifacts they are religious symbols. Ones which traditionally are supposed to be blessed and worn by believers of the faith.

Selling ones that were made simply to make a buck to is not offensive to you?

Or the fact that they are often worn with no more meaning than the cheap walmart watch they bought the same day?

It seem hypocritical to claim one faked item isn't as bad as another. All should be revered for what they are. Representations of items that show the belief of their owner.

brewer wrote:Really? Must have missed that. Seriously, no snark. If I need to update my knowledge, I will. If you cite some sources, I will seek them out.

See, I was always under the impression that various De vita et honestate clericorum denunciations, which appear with distressing regularity throughout Christendom throughout the Middle Ages, were evidence to the contrary. I'm very interested in scholarship which refutes this.

By and large every book on parish or secular clergy show that there is no basis for the claim but if you want something that deals with the question and its historiography "The Competence of Parish Clergy in Thirteenth Century England." in The Church and Learning in Later Medieval Society; essays in honour of R.B. Dobson; proceedings of the 1999 Harlaxton Symposium by Jeffrey H. Denton. Part of the 'regularity' of them is that they come from the regular clergy about the secular clergy. Now this is not to say that they are as educated as they might should have been which is why you find seminaries as a reform both in the north and the south in the sixteenth century.

Snaebjorn, you are still showing that you don't understand the distinction or about a half other distinctions. If you showed real desire to understand I might spend the time to try and explain every little facet you bring up but you haven't shown yourself either interested or capable of understanding so frankly not worth the time when there are other things to spend time doing.

This is another one the quite guy feels the need to shoot off his mouth about so forgive me or ignore me as any may see fit to do.
As an Episcopalian I thought the original post was very funny.
Now Piers Brent, your sweeping denouncement of my faith was exceedingly offensive. Being a faithful sort however I would ask you why you feel this vehemence? Perhaps if we met we could sit and talk and enlighten each other in the spirit of commonality and a desire to grow.
In the SCA, the persona I portray is 100% fuelled by religion. I portray a staunch catholic (a Scotsman loyal to Mary) who is joining a religious battle against protestant rule (joining the Armada to sail against Elizabeth). As such I have done extensive research into the religious practices of the time, belief structures, etc. I carry a crucifix, in my pouch, and wear another. I am making a paternoster as well.
The point? In the SCA I portray a persona whose view I personally do not share 100% but I enjoy it as it is an opportunity to learn historically what another might have thought, believed and acted like. I personally have no hatred or Protestants in real life what so ever.
In real life I was brought up and baptized an Episcopalian. Yet I was married by a strict Catholic priest. I am close friends with several Jews who have allowed me to attend various religious ceremonies. One of my closest friends and mentors in High school was a devout Muslim who was delighted to share his beliefs. One of my dearest friends now is a Gothe for a local Norse Kindred. I have attended countless Blotes and learned a great deal from him.
And through it all I have maintained a broad sense of humor. And more over a sense that it is more important to open one’s mind, learn from others, and find and enjoy the humor in life rather than waste it being offended and in so doing possibly offending others.

Piers; my mention of my faith was to provide evidence that I am actually involved in it enough to sacrifice my time and money on a regular basis---I got less than 6 hours of sleep last night because while I stayed up reading SF past midnight I got up for B&BS---Breakfast anbd Bible Study (our Vicar's name for it) early this morning for example. I meet a lot of "Sunday Christians" who are easily offended by things I just don't see.

Frankly I am not offended by *your* take on *my* religion; my religion is between me and my God and I regularly pray that he has a great sense of humour! (I also *never* pray for justice; but always for mercy!)

And about the Money Changers; Jesus Christ was all about the *new* *rules* replacing the "old ones".

Thomas

Thomas Powers wrote: I regularly pray that he has a great sense of humour! Thomas

Just look at the platypus!

Taken from one of my favorite movies about religion, Dogma:

Disclaimer:
1) a renunciation of any claim to or connection with; 2) disavowal; 3) a statement made to save one's own ass.

Though it'll go without saying ten minutes or so into these proceedings, View Askew would like to state that this film is - from start to finish - a work of comedic fantasy, not to be taken seriously. To insist that any of what follows is incendiary or inflammatory is to miss our intention and pass undue judgment; and passing judgment is reserved for God and God alone (this goes for you film critics too...just kidding).
So please - before you think about hurting someone over this trifle of a film, remember: even God has a sense of humor. Just look at the Platypus.Thank you and enjoy the show.

P.S. We sincerely apologize to all Platypus enthusiasts out there who are offended by that thoughtless comment about the Platypi. We at View Askew respect the noble Platypus, and it is not our intention to slight these stupid creatures in any way.
Thank you again and enjoy the show.

While I do fully understand how religions was used to shape the history of the world. I am a staunch Dawkinsist.

Thomas Powers wrote:Piers; my mention of my faith was to provide evidence that I am actually involved in it enough to sacrifice my time and money on a regular basis---I got less than 6 hours of sleep last night because while I stayed up reading SF past midnight I got up for B&BS---Breakfast anbd Bible Study (our Vicar's name for it) early this morning for example. I meet a lot of "Sunday Christians" who are easily offended by things I just don't see.

Frankly I am not offended by *your* take on *my* religion; my religion is between me and my God and I regularly pray that he has a great sense of humour! (I also *never* pray for justice; but always for mercy!)

And about the Money Changers; Jesus Christ was all about the *new* *rules* replacing the "old ones".

Thomas

Yes and no.. he said "I do not come to change the law, but fulfill it".

The issue with the money changers was that the Church had become totally isolated from the Common Man, and was an old boys network controlled from within by the rich and powerful, and offering little to no hope or support for those most in need of it.

(Hmm.. that sounds familiar...)

Thomas Powers wrote:And about the Money Changers; Jesus Christ was all about the *new* *rules* replacing the "old ones".

Precisely what I'm saying --
1) your belief is that the old ones needed replacing -- certainly a position in direct opposition to those who still keep the old ones.
2) from a non-Christian point of view - the story is about a guy who beat up a bunch of civil service workers who were going about their job of collecting funds for unemployment insurance.
(I suppose from a radical Libertarian POV, this may be laudable)

Incidentaly, your summary of his intent seems (from my non-Episcopalean POV) to contradict Matthew (chapter 5) “17. Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets... 18. because I tell you with certainty that until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law ... 19. So whoever sets aside one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heavenâ€

Piers you haven't attempted to explain any of those distinctions. You just keep reiterating your same hateful rhetoric towards me.

Seems you preach being a good Christian really well but so far I haven't seen you actually act like one.

What exactly is the distinction here between a faked relic and a faked symbol?

Without the proper blessings on a religious symbol it is nothing more than just some metal or wood shaped like the symbol. According to the born and raised catholic sitting to my right without a blessing a cross or crucifix has no real meaning.

So instead of just continuing your wonderfully small minded, blatant, and frankly, ignorant insults of my intelligence how about you actually attempt to explain one of these distinctions.

Snaebjorn Hakonarson wrote:Piers you haven't attempted to explain any of those distinctions. You just keep reiterating your same hateful rhetoric towards me.

Dude, that's what he does. Look at other threads. He comes in and says how everyone is wrong but him but since they are obviously too stupid to understand he won't waste his time trying to explain. That way he gets to think that he looks superior without ever actually saying anything worthwhile whatsoever.

I'd started to notice that and normally I just glaze over Piers posts. I haven't seen a single post on this board yet that includes anything informative on any subject. Until now he'd left me be.

So now I'm calling on it. If he wants to call me ignorant than I want a clear, concise definition of the differences that I am so ignorant of. If it can't be provided than as far as I'm concerned he's another zealot with no real basis for his arguments.