20210917

Fri Sep 17 06:00:02 EDT 2021 ======================================== Slept from ten-thirty to six-thirty. Woke briefly around five. Partly cloudy early in the morning then clearing. Patchy fog early in the morning. Highs in the lower 80s. South winds up to 5 mph shifting to the southwest in the late morning and afternoon. Thirty-minute walk in the morning. Sunny. Saw a couple crows. Work ---------------------------------------- - Julie says to buy the Comcast Ethernet for the Main Office Done. - Review invoices Done. - drop user Robin Carie Done. Home ---------------------------------------- https://sarkos.tumblr.com/post/662577460988231680/prokopetz-hyperewok1-prokopetz-a-bit-of-fun > Historically, it’s true that the medieval Church did, at various times, issue rules against members of the clergy owning and wielding weapons of war. These rules were issued because many priests and bishops were also wealthy landowners, and often became involved in military entanglements with other landowners – and at least some of those priests and bishops weren’t satisfied with leading from the rear. Many were apparently very keen on getting their hands dirty in person, and had to be firmly reminded that it’s not great optics for a bishop to be out there lopping people’s heads off. > > However, there’s no historical evidence that any priests ever tried to work around those rules by restricting themselves to blunt weapons in order to avoid shedding blood. This is not surprising; for one, Church dicta against priests getting involved in combat weren’t always phrased in terms of bloodshed, and even when they were, nobody could reasonably claim that bashing someone’s head in with a mace doesn’t shed blood! Even so, the idea of priests wielding blunt weapons in order to avoid violating rules against shedding blood is not a modern invention; it’s basically a thousand-year-old urban legend. > > Now here’s the twist: some martially inclined priests did make a point of carrying staves or rods in battle, but not for that reason. The preponderance of evidence suggests that it wasn’t about avoiding bloodshed, but about plausible deniability: a staff or rod could reasonably be claimed to be a symbol of office rather than a weapon, and rules against participating in battle typically didn’t rule out simply being present at a battle in order to rally the troops. > > So, you know, if you were a priest or a bishop who preferred the personal touch, and somebody was like “we literally caught you on an active battlefield carrying what is clearly a weapon”, you could be all hey, this isn’t a mace, it’s a rod, and it’s a symbol of your ecclesiastic authority. You were present at that battle purely to lend moral support to your side’s troops – and if you just happened to be approached by hostile soldiers, and consequently were obliged to bash their heads in with this heavy metal rod that you just happened to have on your person, well, that’s unfortunate, but self-defence is self-defence, right? Minutes spent packing: 35 Servings: grains 3/6, fruit 1/4, vegetables 2/4, dairy 1/2, meat 2/3, nuts 0/0.5 Brunch: popcorn, banana, egg, coffee Lunch: ramen with avocado and sausage Dinner: -35

< ^ txt