kirking of the tartans...an american invention?

[hospitaller]

no, I meant anathema. religious reasons is the operating word remember?

;)

Hello Hospitaller.

Instead of "anathema" I believe the word you want is "adiaphora".

Matt

[Balaamsass51]

no, I meant anathema. religious reasons is the operating word remember?;)

Fair enough. Therefore, when you said in your original post that the ceremony of "kirking" or "blessing" of tartans was an "anathema tradition" you meant that those who participate in this ceremony are cursed or damned. They have separated themselves from God as a result of their actions.


Again I ask you, would not it have been better to use the term "adiaphora"? This term applies to things which God has neither forbidden nor commanded, which are in themselves indifferent - therefore it is no sin either to do or not to do them.

Kindly reconsider.

Matt

[macwilkin]

Fair enough. Therefore, when you said in your original post that the ceremony of "kirking" or "blessing" of tartans was an "anathema tradition" you meant that those who participate in this ceremony are cursed or damned. They have separated themselves from God as a result of their actions.


Again I ask you, would not it have been better to use the term "adiaphora"? This term applies to things which God has neither forbidden nor commanded, which are in themselves indifferent - therefore it is no sin either to do or not to do them.

Kindly reconsider.

Matt

Let's take this aspect of the thread to a PM, gents.

Thanks!

Todd

[gilmore]

Let's take this aspect of the thread to a PM, gents.

Thanks!

Todd

Why? I am learning quite a bit of interesting things. I didn't know the difference.

[macwilkin]

Why? I am learning quite a bit of interesting things. I didn't know the difference.

Because when we start dicussing people being "cursed or damned", we run the risk of crossing the line on religious discussions.

As I suggested earlier, it's probably best to take it to PM.

Regards,

Todd

[hospitaller]

I see where you're coming from, but, and this is WITHOUT intending this to enter a religious clash, simply a statement of curiousity, I intended anathema.

I am aware that adiaphora refers to something that, as you stated, is neither commanded or forbidden.

Now, my original statement including the anathema portion, was intended for the supposed 'spirit of the ceremony', regarding the act of proscription and all that. Back in the mid 1700s.

And even then earlier than that, as it is understood that Calvin and others were 100% linear in their interpretation of religion and what was and was not allowed.

Based on their belief, God had been clear as far as what and how He wanted us to behave, and most importantly, to 'communicate' with him, religious services being the obvious method.

So, along with images and other tidbits, they would have thrown a fit at the thought of conferring any sense of religious power (even if it was just a blessing) to a piece of tartan (an object).

So, with that sliver of history, I meant anathema, as it would have been for them, in the spirit of '45. Not necesarily damnation but more in the spirit of 'against the teachings of the church'.

2-3 centuries later, and plenty of denominations later, things have gone from anathema to adiaphora. Things that would have gotten you in trouble back then are now accepted, and labeled as 'if He doesnt tell me NOT to do it, then it means I CAN do it' sort of thing.

One way or another, again, I hope we do not deviate into a religious argument which is not my intent, everybody can believe any way they want, fine with me.

I was just pointing out that if I don't agree with a 'religious ceremony' that may or may not be part of a Clan, I am not sure whether that would close some doors or not.

That was all.

And thanks Matt for bringing this back to the original intent of the question.

Fair enough. Therefore, when you said in your original post that the ceremony of "kirking" or "blessing" of tartans was an "anathema tradition" you meant that those who participate in this ceremony are cursed or damned. They have separated themselves from God as a result of their actions.


Again I ask you, would not it have been better to use the term "adiaphora"? This term applies to things which God has neither forbidden nor commanded, which are in themselves indifferent - therefore it is no sin either to do or not to do them.

Kindly reconsider.

Matt

[Balaamsass51]

Hello Hospitaller!

Adm has asked that this go to private messaging. Quite frankly I have no interest in doing that unless you would like to. My question was one of semantics, not individual religious beliefs.

Why you are interested in what a group of former Calvinists would think about some modern ceremony is beyond me. But you are wrong in saying that the words involved, "anathema" and "adiaphora", have changed meaning. These words were in common usage prior to Calvin, just examine the Lutheran and Roman Catholic writings. And they had specific meanings, which I mentioned in my first post. You are incorrect when you say that "they" would have used "anathema" in the sense of "more in the spirit of 'against the teachings of the church'.

When Calvin used anathema he meant "damn to hell". Methinks thou dost protest too much.

In kilted friendship, Matt