WTF is "cold iron", and why's it so special?

Zhaleskra

Adventurer
Re: Iridium. I think that's what people mean when they're saying "meteoric iron". Either they forgot the word or never knew it in the first place. I think.
 

Beleriphon

Totally Awesome Pirate Brain
Well, since the thread is undead...

On uranium being hard and dense. It is denser than led, but less so than gold or tungsten. I don't recommend making a uranium weapons, they'd be both dangerous to the user and not very good weapons.
 

aramis erak

Adventurer
As you note, though, iron is already described as anti-magical by pagan writers. And if iron's status were tied to the Judeo-Christian worldview, I'd expect to see it appear as part of official Church doctrine in some way. Instead, it's folk superstition that stands outside the Church and which the Church kind of frowns upon. In short, it looks very pre-Christian to me.
If by Church, you mean the Catholic Church, there are lots of folk traditions arising from local faith that are not archaic, not approved, and still widely believed despite official dismissals. Medjugorje, for example. The SSPX claims of invalidity of the Mass. The Charismatic movement. Liturgical dance outside Africa and Alaska (where the forms are narrowly limited and used only for specific cultures). Belief in Consubstantiation instead of Transubstantiation.

The Catholic Church has always focused on suppression of theological issues over local supernatural beliefs; so long as those didn't interfere with the interpretation of theology, they were seldom addressed. Hence, no active suppression of the shamrock, horseshoe, or other luck talismans, instead gently suggesting approved modes: Scapulars, Medals, crosses, ritual private prayer... Some, like the communion wafer on the tongue of the dead are actually part of medieval praxis in general, not a "prevention of rising from the dead," but literal to its name: viaticum (food for the journey).

Many folk interpretations of church practices are suspect, and often misattribute practices.

So, the medieval church not condemning the beliefs is not proof that they're archaic. Nor is it proof that they're more modern. It's just proof that they weren't considered a theological issue. Just like belief in the Færie.
 
If by Church, you mean the Catholic Church, there are lots of folk traditions arising from local faith that are not archaic, not approved, and still widely believed despite official dismissals. Medjugorje, for example. The SSPX claims of invalidity of the Mass. The Charismatic movement. Liturgical dance outside Africa and Alaska (where the forms are narrowly limited and used only for specific cultures). Belief in Consubstantiation instead of Transubstantiation.

The Catholic Church has always focused on suppression of theological issues over local supernatural beliefs; so long as those didn't interfere with the interpretation of theology, they were seldom addressed. Hence, no active suppression of the shamrock, horseshoe, or other luck talismans, instead gently suggesting approved modes: Scapulars, Medals, crosses, ritual private prayer... Some, like the communion wafer on the tongue of the dead are actually part of medieval praxis in general, not a "prevention of rising from the dead," but literal to its name: viaticum (food for the journey).

Many folk interpretations of church practices are suspect, and often misattribute practices.

So, the medieval church not condemning the beliefs is not proof that they're archaic. Nor is it proof that they're more modern. It's just proof that they weren't considered a theological issue. Just like belief in the Færie.
This is an impressive display of religious erudition, but if you think I was claiming (a year and a half ago...) that the attitude of the Catholic Church is the only reason to infer the belief is pre-Christian, then I'm afraid you need to read the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted again.
 

aramis erak

Adventurer
This is an impressive display of religious erudition, but if you think I was claiming (a year and a half ago...) that the attitude of the Catholic Church is the only reason to infer the belief is pre-Christian, then I'm afraid you need to read the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted again.
No, but you listed it as a support. It's not a valid one. Which weakens the whole argument.
 
No, but you listed it as a support. It's not a valid one. Which weakens the whole argument.
Okay. I have a few questions.

Are you confident that you have a fair reading of "the whole argument" within its twenty-months-dead conversational context?

Do you actually disagree with it?

Are you going anywhere else with this?

And is it important enough for you to keep @ing me about so long after the fact?

(N.b.: All these questions are rhetorical.)
 

CapnZapp

Hero
Okay. I have a few questions.

Are you confident that you have a fair reading of "the whole argument" within its twenty-months-dead conversational context?

Do you actually disagree with it?

Are you going anywhere else with this?

And is it important enough for you to keep @ing me about so long after the fact?

(N.b.: All these questions are rhetorical.)
I note the irony in you complaining about being quoted... in a post where you yourself quote...

End of note
 

Advertisement

Top