The Armour Archive

Snaebjorn Hakonarson wrote:... 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.

Not being a Christian, perhaps I can (in a detached manner) better explain Piers' objection.
The joke was based on poking fun at the religious belief and ritual in the veneration of relics.
In challenging that belief, the joke is offensive to the believers. Its very funniness is based on offensiveness. That is the nature of religious and political jokes.
That does not necessarily make it "wrong" -- at the very least it is in good company (ie: Monty Python)
But I believe what Pierce called you "idiot" for is that you didn't want to acknowledge this.
And I think this needs to be acknowledged.
Civilized people must be able to take offense and leave their reaction to a simple note ("I am offended" "I would prefer if you did not do this")
And the would-be social critic should be able to acknowledge that and then make the choice - If I know that this joke offends those people, do I still think the joke to be valuable/ appropriate... do I still want to make that joke?

In the 15th century the Skomorohi (Russian comedian Bards) risked their lives to make offensive jokes they thought worthwhile -- and were indeed all slaughtered by Ivan IV for it.
The guy who wrote "Last Temptation of Christ" was excomunicated from his church - but he thought his message was worth it.
You are not in any way threatened (unlike South Park for their Mohamed cartoon) -- but the right thing to do would be to acknowledge that you are making the choice to offend - but the offense is worthwhile.

Defending it by saying "How can you say X is offensive if Y is going on?" misses the point.
X is offensive because it touches a central point of the offended person's religion. Y does not.

Thomas Powers wrote:Piers; my mention of my faith was to provide evidence that I am actually involved in it enough ...

Again, as a side observer -- I understood Piers' comment (perhaps reading between the hurt) to perhaps indicate that since Episcopaleanism has rejected the veneration of relics, your statement that you are Episcopalean and are not offended is not indicative of anything -- there is not realy a reason for you to be offended, this is not part of your religion.

Now contra-Piers -

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

Starting from aproximately 1140 in England and France, a number of Jewish communities were killed out based on the myth that Jews practice human sacrifice ("the Blood Libel").
(this was a community crime - and a judgement of guilty was against the whole community)
In many cases, the situation was instigated by a Priest, in others it was instigated by someone with financial interest in the matter and fueled by a priest.
In the Holy Roman Empire the mass execution of Jewish communities for human sacrifice was normative until Rabbi Judah Lowe of Prague convinced Emperor Rudolph II to legislate against it (I think in 1592).
The last big case I am somewhat familiar with was Baghdad 1869 - again the testimony of a Catholic Priest was foundational (unlike the medieval cases, the Jews were exonerated but the accusations were the basis for a spurious "anthropological work" by Sir Richard Burton - "the ritual human sacrifices of Sephardic Jews"). I do not know much about the Russian case early in the 20th century but believe that the Russian Priesthood was involved.
At least in the case of Roman Catholicism, it is my unerstanding that the Blood Libel myth was not condoned in official church doctrine. That would put all those centuries of Jewish deaths on illiterate priests -- priests who did not know or bother to know official church doctrine.
I do not know if this was the case in the Russian church.


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

Norman wrote:Now contra-Piers -

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

That would put all those centuries of Jewish deaths on illiterate priests --

Once again that would not make them illiterate in a modern sense. In this case obviously for worse it was not a parish priests job to be familiar with every aspect of church policy. BTW on this note if you have not read Trent 1475, you should, very well written book.

Cilléne mac Conghalaigh wrote:Now Piers Brent, your sweeping denouncement of my faith was exceedingly offensive.

It actually was a denouncement of your church body not your faith, sorry if that was not clear. Yall have lost the respect of your own communion let alone outside of it.

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

Actually you repeated my explanation of the distinction. "A Thor's Hammer and a Cross and other such items are not artifacts they are religious symbols." But we'll get back to this in a moment.

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

Actually at no point have I preached anything about being a good Christian. Those who know me know that I'm not and that I make no claims at being so.

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.

Perhaps you aren't an idiot but you haven't realized that you just answered your own question. You can't have a fake symbol by your own admission. A symbol is a symbol is a symbol. It cannot be real or fake, at least not in the terms we are discussing. A relic inherently has a real or fake state in regards to the terms we are discussing. Therefore all the questions and statements you made that equated the two were logically false even if they had merit. It should also be noted here that I did not take offense to the advertised 'relic's' realness or falseness.

And yes I do take offense to people simply wearing a cross as jewelry although it is generally not a problem as I rarely if ever know what a person wearing one believes, but I did take offense when my cousin told me that her sister in law, my cousin in law simply wears them as jewelry because she likes the way they look, although I do have to say I have never had a conversation with this cousin in law so I can not verify her beliefs.

According to the born and raised catholic sitting to my right without a blessing a cross or crucifix has no real meaning.

This gets in to complicated stuff but let us just say what you said above that material put in to the shape of a symbol is just that.

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.

As I showed above I already had. If you can't handle one distinction, and a rather big one then explaining others is a waste of time.

The Episcopal church has gained my respect.

We follow someone who spent a lot of time with the riff-raff: sinners, publicans, tax collectors, prostitutes, even a zealot or two! Choosing which people are allowed in the church seems to be a very *un*-christian thing...

I once worked with a fellow who was horrified to hear that my church had an "exotic dancer" as a member and told me that his church would *never* allow anyone like that in it. I replied that I would never be a member of a church that wasn't full of sinners! (besides she was a very nice lady; used to babysit my daughters every now and then!)

Piers; I'll mention you during prayers this Sunday.

Thomas

Thomas Powers wrote:The Episcopal church has gained my respect.

We follow someone who spent a lot of time with the riff-raff: sinners, publicans, tax collectors, prostitutes, even a zealot or two! Choosing which people are allowed in the church seems to be a very *un*-christian thing...

I once worked with a fellow who was horrified to hear that my church had an "exotic dancer" as a member and told me that his church would *never* allow anyone like that in it. I replied that I would never be a member of a church that wasn't full of sinners! (besides she was a very nice lady; used to babysit my daughters every now and then!)

Piers; I'll mention you during prayers this Sunday.

Thomas

LOL.. don't bother Thomas.. Piers has already proven God doesn't listen to _your kind_...

Thomas, I never said anything about any of the issues of which there are actually many, not just that one. And I believe the Archbishop of Canterbury who said behavior on both sides has been inconsistent with Christian teachings.
But my reference was to the Episcopal Church's standing in general, which is pretty low for a wide variety of reasons not just the main crux between itself and its global communion of churches.

Two words:

Bishop. Spong.

Effingham wrote:Two words:

Bishop. Spong.

Three words:

Reverend Ivan Stang

[img]http://jmason.org/slack/S-or-D.gif[/img]

What exactly is a religious artifact if not a symbol of the religion?

Unblessed symbols are the same as an artifact that has not been confirmed a true artifact.

As for the line about you preaching about being a good Christian I will retract that as after re-reading I see I had accidentally filed a part of another persons post with your own in my mind. That was an accident.

Symbols can be faked with ease. If I make a cross or carve a crucifix it does not mean that they are truly symbols of the faith. They are simply an interpretation of a symbol of a particular faith. I'm not Jewish and I have carved several Star of Davids. All of them had to be blessed by a Rabbi before I could give them to anyone. I was informed by the Rabbi that if I gave someone a Star of David that wasn't blessed than it was consider nothing more than a piece of wood.

I am planning on talking to a long time Catholic priest (several decades in the priesthood) about whether a cross counts as anything if not properly blessed.

As for you having explained anything, you hadn't until your last post. You only continued your rhetoric about not bothering to. Even then your explanation is still a broad based one with no supporting evidence that I have seen.

Snaebjorn Hakonarson wrote:What exactly is a religious artifact if not a symbol of the religion?
Symbols can be faked with ease. If I make a cross or carve a crucifix it does not mean that they are truly symbols of the faith. They are simply an interpretation of a symbol of a particular faith. I'm not Jewish and I have carved several Star of Davids. All of them had to be blessed by a Rabbi before I could give them to anyone. I was informed by the Rabbi that if I gave someone a Star of David that wasn't blessed than it was consider nothing more than a piece of wood.

Do you mind if I ask which rabbi told you this? As far as I know there is no such thing in judaism. For that matter the Star of David is not even a holy symbol as such, but more a cultural thing. Even after this blessing it would be just another piece of wood.

Disclaimer: I follow the Orthodox way, and many of the Reformists do things strangely.

Snaebjorn, you have once again shown that you simply don't have the intellectual depth to have the conversation. You are stuck on step one and if you can't get that going beyond that isn't worth the time.

A symbol is something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention.

An artifact is an object (some will say it has to be made or influenced by people).

It doesn't matter if they are religious or political or nationalistic.

Saying a symbol is religious means that its association, resemblance or convention is religious.

An artifact can be a symbol but it does not have to be.

Perhaps you need to think of it this way when you do something, bless it or whatever, to a symbol it becomes an artifact.

Now that doesn't breach the theological issues.

BTW seeing your priest friend isn't a bad idea if you haven't been following other parts of this thread, parish priests aren't always as knowledgeable as we sometimes think they should be, especially as RC theology is a mess. If you want to read there is a big nasty book called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You might try starting with 1667 but realize that unless your used to reading that kinda stuff one can be easily confused.

While this thread has clearly devolved into the pedantic I would simply say, Piers the invitation stands. If you ever make it to Colorado please look me up and let’s chat or send me a PM. I’m curious as to what your litany of transgressions are that are attributable to the Episcopal Church as a body.

I do appreciate your clarification as to Faith v. Church as they are two very different things. Not looking to defend or argue but sincerely interested in your perspective.

As to artefact v. symbol, the splitting of hairs here has slid right into the region of the silly.
sym•bol–noun
1.
something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign.
2.
a letter, figure, or other character or mark or a combination of letters or the like used to designate something: the algebraic symbol x; the chemical symbol Au.
3.
a word, phrase, image, or the like having a complex of associated meanings and perceived as having inherent value separable from that which is symbolized, as being part of that which is symbolized, and as performing its normal function of standing for or representing that which is symbolized: usually conceived as deriving its meaning chiefly from the structure in which it appears, and generally distinguished from a sign.

So in my laymen’s interpretation it’s something that represents something else and holds an inherent value or meaning. Weather it has been through a ceremony of blessing or not is irrelevant. A #2 pencil can be a symbol or education, youth, creativity, or any other meaning I place upon it.


ar•ti•fact–noun
1.
any object made by human beings, esp. with a view to subsequent use.
2.
a handmade object, as a tool, or the remains of one, as a shard of pottery, characteristic of an earlier time or cultural stage, esp. such an object found at an archaeological excavation.
3.
any mass-produced, usually inexpensive object reflecting contemporary society or popular culture: artifacts of the pop rock generation.
4.
a substance or structure not naturally present in the matter being observed but formed by artificial means, as during preparation of a microscope slide.
5.
a spurious observation or result arising from preparatory or investigative procedures.
6.
any feature that is not naturally present but is a product of an extrinsic agent, method, or the like: statistical artifacts that make the inflation rate seem greater than it is.

So again in my laymen’s interpretation it’s something that is not naturally occurring. Period. A #2 pencil can be an artifact simply by virtue of the fact that it is manmade.


This argument in no way relates to the crux of the issue raised, that being that a joke, religious in nature was presented and that offended some and did not offend others. That’s life. Some things piss others off while they send others into stitches. I say good. Variety and difference are the spice of life.

YMHoward wrote:Do you mind if I ask which rabbi told you this? As far as I know there is no such thing in judaism. For that matter the Star of David is not even a holy symbol as such, but more a cultural thing. Even after this blessing it would be just another piece of wood.

Disclaimer: I follow the Orthodox way, and many of the Reformists do things strangely.

It is possible that this Rabbi followed a Reformist view. I'm not really sure of the various sects of the religion. I never really thought to ask him about that as he was the only Rabbi I knew. If I get the chance I will ask him about it. Thank you for that bit of clarification.

Piers. You seem bound and determined to show that a piece of the cross is different in some way from any other symbol of the church. Fact is that it isn't in anyway.

If any piece existed it would still only be a symbol. Any piece of any of the crosses used by the Romans for any of the thousands of others who were crucified could be considered an artifact but when speaking of the True Cross than you are merely making a symbol out of an artifact.

It doesn't matter whether or not you think I have the intellectual depth for the conversation. And frankly the constant remarks about my intelligence mean nothing.

I am not debating the meaning of the words symbol and artifact. I know damn well what they both mean by the dictionary.

What I am debating is whether or not a symbol made today is any less a symbol than an artifact such as a section of wood that may have been part of a cross that was used to crucify one particular person?

Cilléne mac Conghalaigh wrote:This argument in no way relates to the crux of the issue raised, that being that a joke, religious in nature was presented and that offended some and did not offend others. That’s life. Some things piss others off while they send others into stitches. I say good. Variety and difference are the spice of life.

I happen to agree with you on this one Cilléne. It was joke and if people were offended than they could have just left it alone and went on their way. This is not to say that they don't have the right to be offended.

Piers Brent wrote:

Norman wrote:contra-Piers -

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

[ ... discussion of the Blood Libels instigated by local Priests ... ]
That would put all those centuries of Jewish deaths on illiterate priests --

Once again that would not make them illiterate in a modern sense. In this case obviously for worse it was not a parish priests job to be familiar with every aspect of church policy. BTW on this note if you have not read Trent 1475, you should, very well written book.

We can quible whether "ignorant" would be better than "illiterate" --
However if the the Priest believes "X" while the Pope is saying "not-X" and if in this case "X" is the justification for locking a group of men, women, and children (an entire village) in a building and burning it to the ground -- that's not a minor detail of church policy!

I will look into the book you recomend. Thank you.

Snaebjorn Hakonarson wrote:What exactly is a religious artifact if not a symbol of the religion?
Unblessed symbols are the same as an artifact that has not been confirmed a true artifact.

I think better terminology is "relic" versus "symbol"
The normal understanding that I believe Piers is dealing with is the difference between an object that is identified as having a specific provenance - like a sliver of the "True Cross," the skull of John the Baptist, a letter written by Maimonides, Vladimir Lenin's body ...
Versus a symbol as an image that identifies an ideal - like a Hammer and Sickle, a Jewish Star or seven branched candelabra, a cross
All of the power of the relic comes from that specific provenance - a random skull is irrelevant - that of JB may be worthy of reverance, likewise a random corpse versus the corpse of Lenin

Say, if a Synagogue possessed the actual seven branched candelabra from the Temple of Solomon - then it would probably atract a steady stream of pilgrims looking to personaly connect in even the smallest way to this piece of ... (I don't know how to characterise this properly) .. the divine light to the world

But the power of the symbol is integral to the very ... geometry -- a seven branched candelabra made by a random devout Jew and placed in a synagogue may actualy be less ... powerful in representing Judaism then the seven branched candelabra in an anti-semetic cartoon. The one in the synagogue may well simply fade into the background while the one in the anti-semetic cartoon will specificaly draw attention and reaction as a symbol of Judaism -- both to offend Jews and to amuse-inspire those who pray for the destruction of Judaism.
In fact sometimes, a symbol gains its power expressly because it was used by the enemies of those it winds up representing -- like the pink triangle adopted by Gay Rights proponents which started as the identifier forced upon Homosexuals in NAZI death camps.
(in this case, to contrast - a relic may be the actual cloth triangle worn by some martyr killed in the camp)

Symbols can be faked with ease. If I make a cross or carve a crucifix it does not mean that they are truly symbols of the faith. They are simply an interpretation of a symbol of a particular faith. I'm not Jewish and I have carved several Star of Davids.

Per above --
If you draw a cross then it would be contextual -- it could be a plus sign or a symbol of Christianity
if a cross with a man on it -- it could be an image of a generic Roman criminal, or Spartacus, or Jesus
if it is a cross with a man on it and a tag on top then it is most likely Jesus (if the tag says INRI, then you are definitely representing Jesus)
Your belief is irrelevant -- the context is everything.

All of them had to be blessed by a Rabbi before I could give them to anyone. I was informed by the Rabbi that if I gave someone a Star of David that wasn't blessed than it was consider nothing more than a piece of wood.

Man! Someone is royally yanking your ...
This is total crap with respect to all three of the formal theological branches of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform) and certainly with respect to the two non-theological ones.
The Star of David is a piece of heraldry - pure and simple
The artist's faith or purpose in its creation is as relevant to a religious Jew as would the artist's faith or purpose in painting a shield or one of those hokey Coat of Arms scrolls they push by junkmail.

(again to contrast -- a friend of mine has the cloth yellow star which had been worn by his ancestor in the NAZI death camps -- this is no longer a simple piece of heraldry - it is a family relic)

...the only version of what the rabbi meant that may make sense is sort of the opposite concern -- that a religious Jew may be concerned that the necklace was "blessed" for a religious purpose contrary to the Jewish purpose. But that would apply to every item of life -- the Talmud details concerns with buying a rooster from an idolater because that rooster may have been dedicated to Saturn or Astarte or some such.

With respect to a crucifix, from my Italian and Irish neighbors, my understanding of the Catholic view is that any sanctification would happen AFTER purchase. The artist's or store owner's faith is again not relevant -- you buy the object, then take it to the priest.


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

Norman. Thank you. That was the first clear, concise explanation I've seen thus far. It was actually quite informative and I appreciate that.

I have admitted that the Star of David thing may well have been a local sect. *shrugs* Maybe it was just something that that Rabbi himself felt should be done. I don't know.

I do know that one of them is still sitting in his living room on his wall.

Again thank you. Your explanation was well put. It helped make the distinctions between one symbol over another quite clear.

miscreant,

You are obviously a lunatic.

miscreant wrote:And if you order today you will also receive a nail from the one true cross! A value of $29.99 is yours, FREE, if you order today!

While wood generally rots away, the one True Cross' wood would not. Therefore, there are many, many more shards of wood than nails. You are vastly underestimating the value of the nails. They are worth at least $129.99 if not more.

Folks, micsreant is crazy. I've aleady sent my money. Jump on this deal before it goes away. Remember, supplies of the nails are limited so act today!

PS - my new religious order will crush your new religious as soon as I enlist a few more religious zealots.

PPS - Religious Zealots: We have just purchased two (not one, but two) holy relics and will be receiving them shortly. Join now and get in on the ground floor of this new holy enterprise. Member ship dues are a low $5 per month (no titheing, ust a little off the top), or 4 weeks of manual labor (your choice).

Wilhelm. Thank you for lightening the mood of this thread again.

I think we've (by this I mean especially ME) forgotten that the point of this thread was to laugh and that reply made me laugh!

chef de chambre wrote: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.

OH SSNAP!

Yeah when I started studying the Middle Ages I was pleasantly surprized to find out that most of what was "common knowledge" about religion and more importantly christianity, was totally wrong. In fact I think this may be the reason for how dumbed down European medieval culture has become.

If you consider how invincible, noble, intelligent, and spiritually moral the Samurai has been depicted in the past 30 years in contrast to how feeble, ignorant, and wicked the knight has been depicted in the same time frame it becomes quite clear.

True the knight and samurai are the most similar warrior elite class in form and function But the Samurai only had one master. A knight had God, His King, and the church.

What we do in researching the middle ages is very important. The Middle Ages is where people of european descent found out who they were. It was our golden age. We brought the world out of darkness.
Most of the virtues that built the modern world and built America, the virtues that have sheltered the homeless, fed the hungry, and fought off tyrants were found in the middle ages and have their root are in something called christianity.

Questions:
So why was the part about the middle ages in my highschool world history book like 2 pages long and the part about ancient rome took up a forth of the book? Why has hollywood potrayed the European Middle Ages so inaccurately and worked hard to make anything about other cultures atleast look historically acurate? Why did we use to watch EL Cid and now we watch kingdom of heaven? Whats so wrong with the european middle ages that its treated so bad? I mean wheres the movie Alfred the Great. That one would be great but it'll never be made. If it is it will be lie after lie.

Anyways, if you aim to live a medieval style life and you aren't religious, you're going to have a hard time unstanding what it means to be medieval.

For me its rather hard to do my portrayal honestly. My persona was required by law to be christian but I am not. I honestly would like to know what I can about the church in denmark around 1020 so I can at least have some idea of what I should be doing to be a good christian.

Does anyone know who was pope at that time? That would be a nice little piece I could add to my information.

Snaebjorn Hakonarson wrote:For me its rather hard to do my portrayal honestly. My persona was required by law to be christian but I am not. I honestly would like to know what I can about the church in denmark around 1020 so I can at least have some idea of what I should be doing to be a good christian.

Does anyone know who was pope at that time? That would be a nice little piece I could add to my information.

Reading the bible couldn't hurt.

Norman wrote:We can quible whether "ignorant" would be better than "illiterate" --
However if the the Priest believes "X" while the Pope is saying "not-X" and if in this case "X" is the justification for locking a group of men, women, and children (an entire village) in a building and burning it to the ground -- that's not a minor detail of church policy!

Norman, nothing justifies it, but as with anything what is decided at the top doesn't necessarily make it to the bottom. A priest was and is not there to be an agent of papal policy. They are there to be the spiritual father to the parish, just like in life some fathers should get awards and some beat their kids. There actually was no papal policy before the mid-13th century as these cases by and large start in the mid-12th century. They are still men of their time and place. You'll definitely like the book.

I'm glad Norman was able to make it clearer.

Zorro_ZX3000 wrote:

Does anyone know who was pope at that time? That would be a nice little piece I could add to my information.

Reading the bible couldn't hurt.

Actually yes it could. Trying to understand 11th century northern European religion through reading the Bible is a horrible idea.

There is a good chance you wouldn't have a clue who the Pope was at the time. Germanic Christianity is actually very interesting you might consider asking someone who is well read in the subject for a good book on it. I've not read a lot on it and unfortunately mostly Anglo-Saxon. You might consider starting a different thread on the historical research forum.

Zorro. I've read the bible. It was a book and I had no social life as a teenager. I was also given one by my grandfather. Its the only christmas present I remember from him before he died.

Unfortunately knowing a modern edition of the bible has little to do with how a person would behave in their community a millennium ago.

Not a bad idea to start another thread.

Zorro_ZX3000 wrote:Anyways, if you aim to live a medieval style life and you aren't religious, you're going to have a hard time unstanding what it means to be medieval.

I'm not sure what you mean by "life a medieval style life", but to claim that people cannot understand medieval life without following a modern religion (will pastafarianism do?) is just flat out silly.

-Derian.

Piers Brent wrote:

Norman wrote:We can quible whether "ignorant" would be better than "illiterate" --
However if the the Priest believes "X" while the Pope is saying "not-X" and if in this case "X" is the justification for locking a group of men, women, and children (an entire village) in a building and burning it to the ground -- that's not a minor detail of church policy!

Norman, nothing justifies it, but as with anything what is decided at the top doesn't necessarily make it to the bottom. A priest was and is not there to be an agent of papal policy. They are there to be the spiritual father to the parish, just like in life some fathers should get awards and some beat their kids. There actually was no papal policy before the mid-13th century as these cases by and large start in the mid-12th century. They are still men of their time and place. You'll definitely like the book.

I'm glad Norman was able to make it clearer.

Zorro_ZX3000 wrote:

Does anyone know who was pope at that time? That would be a nice little piece I could add to my information.

Reading the bible couldn't hurt.

Actually yes it could. Trying to understand 11th century northern European religion through reading the Bible is a horrible idea.

There is a good chance you wouldn't have a clue who the Pope was at the time. Germanic Christianity is actually very interesting you might consider asking someone who is well read in the subject for a good book on it. I've not read a lot on it and unfortunately mostly Anglo-Saxon. You might consider starting a different thread on the historical research forum.

Well, there is evidence is all time periods of bible readers who adhered to the bible rather than what was popular at the time. Even if it was unpopular and they were persecuted. There were literate people in all periods who read the bible and truely believed in it. This is not hard to document.

Derian le Breton wrote:

Zorro_ZX3000 wrote:Anyways, if you aim to live a medieval style life and you aren't religious, you're going to have a hard time unstanding what it means to be medieval.

I'm not sure what you mean by "life a medieval style life", but to claim that people cannot understand medieval life without following a modern religion (will pastafarianism do?) is just flat out silly.

-Derian.

I never said modern religion. And as far as christianity goes, there are few. They are scattered throughout history and their thread seem to be of the same colour.

I said you have to understand religion to understand medieval life. Not modern religion or ancient religion. Just religion.


though I never brought up faith which may be more important.

Snaebjorn Hakonarson wrote:Zorro. I've read the bible. It was a book and I had no social life as a teenager. I was also given one by my grandfather. Its the only christmas present I remember from him before he died.

Unfortunately knowing a modern edition of the bible has little to do with how a person would behave in their community a millennium ago.

Not a bad idea to start another thread.

Not really. As far as words, the bible can mean many things in todays way to interpretive english, no matter the language. Even if you could read it in your personas tongue it is doubtful you'd come to the same interpretation as a person living at the time. Though this may be why they call it the living word. It means different at different times. Perhaps for a reason.

Snaebjorn Hakonarson wrote:Does anyone know who was pope at that time? That would be a nice little piece I could add to my information.

Benedict VIII

Zorro_ZX3000 wrote:Well, there is evidence is all time periods of bible readers who adhered to the bible rather than what was popular at the time. Even if it was unpopular and they were persecuted. There were literate people in all periods who read the bible and truely believed in it. This is not hard to document.

Ok, I would officially like to take this moment to apologize to Snaebjorn. I'm sorry I called you an idiot because this guy takes the cake.

Piers Brent wrote:

Zorro_ZX3000 wrote:Well, there is evidence is all time periods of bible readers who adhered to the bible rather than what was popular at the time. Even if it was unpopular and they were persecuted. There were literate people in all periods who read the bible and truely believed in it. This is not hard to document.

Ok, I would officially like to take this moment to apologize to Snaebjorn. I'm sorry I called you an idiot because this guy takes the cake.

cake is good but I don't see how I've taken it? Please enlighten us oh wise one.

Do I take the cake because my statement is unpopular of because you can prove it false. I'm going to guess the former.

Piers Brent wrote:

Zorro_ZX3000 wrote:Well, there is evidence is all time periods of bible readers who adhered to the bible rather than what was popular at the time. Even if it was unpopular and they were persecuted. There were literate people in all periods who read the bible and truely believed in it. This is not hard to document.

Ok, I would officially like to take this moment to apologize to Snaebjorn. I'm sorry I called you an idiot because this guy takes the cake.

Really. enlighten us! I mean if that wasn't the case the Protestant Reformation might have never happened. Well Mr. Guru?

Piers Brent wrote:.If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off.
Jesus Christ

I agree.

Thank you Alvar. I'm not sure if I would be looking to the pope or not but just in case I will keep that info stored.

Zorro_ZX3000 wrote:I said you have to understand religion to understand medieval life. Not modern religion or ancient religion. Just religion.

One does not have to be religious to understand religion.

-Derian.

Zorro, here is the thing that your not going to understand. Snaebjorn made a statements not logically true because it would appear he had been mislead in regards to religious symbols. Your statements don't qualify for even that as you have tons of issues you've tied up in to what you think are simple statements. You came in to a thread with nothing useful, that had already moved away from even an attached tangent and wrote something with no foundation other then your own detached reality. So either go and study and learn or stay out of that which you obviously know nothing about.

Crimthann of Fid-Nemed wrote:SCA related relics.

A feather from the arrow Caradoc first used to declare the first Pennsic War!

Cariadoc. Cariadoc of the Bow, the king who declared war on himself - and lost.

Zorro_ZX3000 wrote:

Piers Brent wrote:

Zorro_ZX3000 wrote:Reading the bible couldn't hurt.

Actually yes it could. Trying to understand 11th century northern European religion through reading the Bible is a horrible idea.
...Germanic Christianity is actually very interesting you might consider asking someone who is well read in the subject for a good book on it...

Well, there is evidence is all time periods of bible readers who adhered to the bible rather than what was popular at the time. Even if it was unpopular and they were persecuted. There were literate people in all periods who read the bible and truely believed in it. This is not hard to document.

There were plenty of Bible-observant Jews being persecuted in medieval europe but Snaebjorn was asking about information on 11 century Scandinavian Christianity.
Christian communities which followed the Biblical laws were in Ethiopia from the 4th century but there is no evidence of such folks in Europe until the Novgorod-Moscow heresy - aprox 1480. These folks were killed out in no time flat and the next groups (unless you count the "new Christians" of Iberia - who were realy just forcibly converted Jews sticking with their old religion) don't come about until post-period -- the Subbotniki in the time of Catherine the Great in Russia and possibly (though I think this is stretching things) the Seventh Day adventists starting in later 19th century America.

*
Zecharia