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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


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

Legend
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

Legend
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

Legend
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
 




gator001

Villager
Was very obviously answered by my question. Person 1:"Hey Mike! You wanna go to Vegas with us?" Mike:"Did Mike Tyson hit like a ton of bricks?"



Humans are naturally occurring. Nature provided them, unless you are arguing creationism.



Dunno. I didn't say that. What I said is that some acts are natural and some, probably most, are not.
List them.
 

gator001

Villager
Stop feeding the troll.

It's a philosophical troll, but a troll nevertheless.

If he can't see that D&D cold iron is a pop-culture appropriation of an ancient mythical concept, he's either arguing in bad faith or genuinely new to role-playing.

Given his eloquent argumentation, I'm inclined to guess the former - hence the troll label. (It is at this stage a good-natured conversationalist removes his fake troll costume and says "You got me; yep, I was only trying to trigger y'all with philosophy. Ha ha. No harm, no foul."

If it is the latter, my apologies. Then my answer becomes: "Because. Next question?"
"It is at this stage anyone who disagrees with me says they weren't being honest, because that's easier for me than actually trying to refute any arguments presented."
 



gator001

Villager
I'm going to have to have a serious conversation with my mother about storks.

Seriously, though, reproduction is a natural act. It's not as if we have to go smelt a bunch of metal to forge us some babies.



It takes more than an act to make something unnatural, though. See my comment on the difference between an ant hill and a beehive. Yes reproduction and cars both require human acts, but one is an act of nature and the other involves unnatural acts.
Which acts are unnatural, and why?
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top