Since I did a paper on the Hundred Years War and the Shroud is mentioned contemporary to the events of the Battle of Poitiers, the Shroud is often referenced in this context. My error, admittedly, is one of pre and post battle disposition, but not of time and place. The widow of de Charny petitioned the French Court for possession of the Shroud.
It means that de Charny was the most exalted of all the knights in France... and the most trusted. He also wrote the book that established the STANDARD for knightly conduct, the code of Chivalry.
Well, whoop-de-do! So, de Charny wrote books, got himself killed and allowed his King to be taken prisoner by the Black Prince. King John II of France was transported to England where he became the house guest of the English King Edward III. I presume that this incident at Poitiers begins the French tradition of surrender. After Poitiers, the Black Prince went on to win more battles in Spain. In return, "Pedro the Cruel", King of Spain, presented the Black Prince with a large ruby known as the "Black Prince Ruby". This gem is still in the position of honor on the front of the English Imperial State Crown. It would seem that de Charny's writing books on chivalry and possessing the sacred Shroud did him little good as a combat battlefield soldier.
My, what arrogance. What if GOD arranged to leave the shroud as another testament to the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus (and if it is authentic, that is exactly a description of what happened)? You claim that you would substitute GOD's judgement with YOURS as to it value and importance.
"What if GOD..." What if, indeed? Absent any other knowledge, I would use my judgement. Were God to desire a different disposition of these relics, I would hope He would instruct me. As it is however, I think the 2nd. Commandment of the Decalogue: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them;", is the instruction that guides my judgement.
It is this very hubris that allows the Taliban to destroy ancient religious artifacts in the name of their religion.
Perhaps, but that is your perception and interpretation. Any act I would do would be in private, unknown, and the fact carried to my grave, not a public demonstration of terrorist value as did the Taliban. As well, the statues of Buddha were known to be man made and not considered to be supernaturally manufactured holy relics. Furthermore, to reference me to the Taliban is to miss the entire point. They destroyed icons in order to promote Islam. I would destroy ANY relic of ANY religion that I knew (somehow) for a fact was authentic. I would not promote Christianity by destroying Mohammed's Saddle while proffering to the public, the True Cross. I would destroy them both. Now remember, this presumes the artifacts are, indeed, "real". That means that there is a Jahveh (Yahweh), Christ and an Allah. The same Great Spirit by many names. To promote one over the other would be disingenuous. Destroying both Cross and Saddle would be the chivalrous thing to do.
If you can't see the difference, one wonders how you would react to any proven facts about the Turin Shroud. Would you go mad and commit suicide were it proven beyond doubt to be a fake? Would you murder those who proved it to be fake? More to the point, would you murder those who refused to accept its authenticity should it be proved "real"? Would you forsake your family and become a monk were it proven real? Or would you bid on e-Bay for a grilled cheese sandwich that had the image of The Virgin burned onto the bread? Just how emotionally invested are you in this dubious artifact? The question is rhetorical and I don't need to know the answer. Perhaps you and others do.
Therefore, I stand by the judgement that nothing from Heaven can be possessed on earth. It is against God's will as expressed in the Second Commandment.
Therefore, I stand by the judgement that nothing from Heaven can be possessed on earth. It is against God's will as expressed in the Second Commandment.
And what would you do with your narrow interpretation of the Second Commandment if, beyond any doubt, it was proven genuine and produced by a miracle? Would you presume justified to destroy something made by God?
Would you explain -- what -- to God?
Dan
. . .events of the Battle of Poitiers, the Shroud is often referenced in this context. . . The widow of de Charny petitioned the French Court for possession of the Shroud.
You know, Bucko, I have been reading articles, books, papers, scientific treatises on the Shroud for over 35 years and I have never seen the Shroud referenced in context to the Battle of Poiters... I have seen it mentioned only as an aside that the shroud's owner died in the battle. As to de Charney's widow petitioning the court for possession of the Shroud. She did not. She petitioned to continue the rente that the Crown had been providing to de Charny. "Within a month his widow, Jeanne de Vergy, appeals to the Regent of France to pass the financial grants, formerly made to Geoffrey, on to his son, Geoffrey II. This is approved a month later. The Shroud remains in the de Charny family's possession."
Well, whoop-de-do! So, de Charny wrote books, got himself killed and allowed his King to be taken prisoner by the Black Prince. King John II of France was transported to England where he became the house guest of the English King Edward III. I presume that this incident at Poitiers begins the French tradition of surrender. After Poitiers, the Black Prince went on to win more battles in Spain. In return, "Pedro the Cruel", King of Spain, presented the Black Prince with a large ruby known as the "Black Prince Ruby". This gem is still in the position of honor on the front of the English Imperial State Crown. It would seem that de Charny's writing books on chivalry and possessing the sacred Shroud did him little good as a combat battlefield soldier.
Non Sequitur... de Charney's success in battle had nothing to do with his respect and stature in society, nor his honesty. The point is that this guy was an upstanding citizen not prone to chicanery.
"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them;"
The evidence is mounting that it was NOT made by any human agency in which case this does not apply.
Absent any other knowledge, I would use my judgement. Were God to desire a different disposition of these relics, I would hope He would instruct me. . . I would destroy ANY relic of ANY religion that I knew (somehow) for a fact was authentic. . . Destroying both Cross and Saddle would be the chivalrous thing to do.
You are arrogant... and scary.
If you can't see the difference, one wonders how you would react to any proven facts about the Turin Shroud. Would you go mad and commit suicide were it proven beyond doubt to be a fake? Would you murder those who proved it to be fake? More to the point, would you murder those who refused to accept its authenticity should it be proved "real"? Would you forsake your family and become a monk were it proven real? Or would you bid on e-Bay for a grilled cheese sandwich that had the image of The Virgin burned onto the bread? Just how emotionally invested are you in this dubious artifact? The question is rhetorical and I don't need to know the answer. Perhaps you and others do.
Those questions are insulting... as they are intended to be. It is YOU who claim who would commit violence, all-be-it to inanimate objects, not I. I am merely following the science. The authenticity or non-authenticity of the Shroud is not something ANYONE should commit violence over. It is you who appear to be an arrogant, iconoclastic fanatic who would forcefully impose HIS opinion on others.
The answer to ALL of your "rhetorical", but actually ad hominum attack questions, is "No."