Oh, temptation.

[silveradept]

Well, the important bit first. Final Look tomorrow, for the Rose Bowl. Need luck and skill to make bowl block. Hope I've got the stuff for it.

Second, yay for Women's Basketball - they rallied, and the crowd got energized, and even though they threw bricks from the charity stripe for a large part of the second half, they were victorious.

Third, The Ancient Goddess Barbi, Don't throw a Brick Straight Up, folk singers may be mare raunchy than you thought, and Bradbury says we need more madmen.

The thesis works. Well, for now, anyway. More thought to arrive eventually, but I can't dig in full-force yet because I have a Greek Sport paper that needs to get done as well.

Last, I've been irked. And it was a good irk, too, being simple and not too long. Here it is, in its entirety:

You guys do know the first tenant of chivalry don't you? Honour the Lord your God with all your soul and All your might. Without this even the best intentions are meaningless.

Now, knowing what you do about me, and hopefully, the organization that would provide an appropriate context for such an irking, can you understand why I might be just a tiny bit put out at such a remark? The urge to snap back something somewhat vicious was quelled, of course, by the very nature of the thing that's taking a hit. Besides, I can understand his point of view, and my thesis research actually supports that religious activity is a necessary component of creating the ideal knight.

And for the medieval period, when there really wasn't much in the way of religious diversity or tolerance in the Latin world, the religious component would naturally be assumed to be Christian, or at the every least monotheistic. Since the organization wants to promote a chevalerie moderne, the substance of the argument stays valid. A religious (even atheism is a religion IMHO) component is necessary to the ideal. However, I reject (rather forcefully) the implication that Christianity is the only acceptable component to the ideal. I would like to explain as much to the person who sent the mail, but I have suspicions that it may be misinterpreted and some sort of flame will arise from attempted explanations.

Can someone suggest wording that would allow me to drive the point home with a minimum of margin of error? Or would it be best simply to let such things pass on by?

Comments

[the-entity.livejournal.com]

Suggested wording: "you, sir, are talking bollocks." I suppose it works best if you're english, though.

I'm not a historian so I could be wrong, but from what I remember, chivalrous ideas predate Christianity - the Goths & other germanic races had (proto)chivalrous ideas as pagans. Chivalry was first codified (or known to be codified, for all we know there might have been some order of ancient sumerian knights wandering around being good and valiant and rescuing damsels in distress from lions, whose deeds have now been lost to history) by their Christian descendants, but it's not as if Christianity pulled the ideas out of nowhere.

You could take a more philosophical angle and argue the point about what honouring the Lord your God actually means (kudos to the guy for including the "u" in honour in these depraved times when so many omit it, though) and claim that serving ideals of Chivalry is honouring such an omnipotent God as may exist as best you know how, as He's not exactly going to criticise you for it, even if He does disagree with your religious beliefs; but that way lies madness and heated arguments, possibly.

[silveradept]

As the historian - Tacitus, of Roman fame, is generally credited with having observed in the Germanic tribes a ritual of conferral of arms as part of swearing loyalty to a particular war-band.

With regards to a reply, now that I've thought a little bit about it, I think it would be interesting to invoke the passage about the separation of the people at the end of time. You know, "When I was hungry, you gave me food", etc, "When did we do these things? Whenever you did these things to the least of my people, then you did them to me." (Matthew 25:33 to 25:46) There's no specific reference to needing to be a Christian to perform those deeds and be welcomed into heaven, only that those deeds need be performed. Good idea, or bad idea?

[the-entity.livejournal.com]

H'mmm. I wouldn't have thought conferral of arms counted as "chivalry" - it's a fairly obvious ritual for warlords who have housecarles or a similar set of elite warriors. I was thinking more along the lines of the Goth's attitudes towards women, which were more chivalrous than your average barbarian's would be expected to be. I think this is supposed to be what Christian chivalry grew out of.

Regarding quoting the New Testament and that bit in particular... good idea, if presented more as a question than a challenge (picking holes in someone's ideas by quoting something they regard as authoritative but you don't being a good way to irritate them). Matt. 21:28 also suggests deeds are more important than declared loyalty without deeds; might be brought up in any protracted exchange. Romans 2:12-15 likewise.