The Ideology behind Relics

[cacian]

How do relics affect people?

Things like the Cross, Jesus on the Cross, The Chalice, Pictures of Painted Gods and Angels and statues.

For example could you say that
God is a Relic?
or
is a Muse a relic?

[togre]

<sigh> It depends.

I know that this is the most unsatisfactory answer ever (I've heard it a lot myself), but you are going to have to be very specific on 2 points--What precisely do you mean by a relic? and To whom are you addressing the question?

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians would at one point in time have answered that a relic had some inherent power or meaning or something. Whether they would answer that way still today depends.

As a Lutheran Christian with an devotion to the Bible and to the historic Christian faith I would say a relic has no inherent value or meaning. What is of true value and use to a person spiritual is God's Word--not as a magical incantation, but as his means of communicating to us. Because the meaning is important, the Bible can (and should!) be translated. Likewise artwork, sculpture, music, etc. can be useful in ones meditation/devotion to the extent that it helps one focus on, recall or better understand the meaning of God's Word. But these things can become gratuitous or even distracting. Likewise an historic object (Church of the Nativity, the Shroud of Turin-if real, etc.) can be a useful devotional tool, but possess no power or spirituality of its own--indeed possesses no power or spirituality at all unless attaches with the message (spoken, read or remembered) that is stated explicitly in the Bible.

A couple of closing notes: I've been using relic to mean a physical object that dates from Biblical times. It is probably an understatement to say most relics are fakes and frauds--maybe ancient fakes and frauds, but still.. Also, you might also be referring to icons--the use of pictures in worship, etc. This is more heavily Eastern Orthodox where these images have deep meaning--although, I would have difficulty explaining exactly what and how. Roman Catholics have used visual images (stain glass, paintings, etc.) to teach the unlettered the accounts contained in the Bible.

[cafolini]

How do relics affect people?

Things like the Cross, Jesus on the Cross, The Chalice, Pictures of Painted Gods and Angels and statues.

For example could you say that
God is a Relic?
or
is a Muse a relic?

It depends on what context you are talking about. If you take a postmodern position, where dehumanization is complete regarless of the gossip, God, a product of humanity is a relic in the museum of history. We are moving ahead with science and it is no longer justified to confront humanistic and religious studies with science. That's my context, where it is impossible to be an atheist, theist or agnostic any longer. But the gossip goes on. It's only a fountain of satire and humor.

[cacian]

<sigh> It depends.

I know that this is the most unsatisfactory answer ever (I've heard it a lot myself), but you are going to have to be very specific on 2 points--What precisely do you mean by a relic? and To whom are you addressing the question?

Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians would at one point in time have answered that a relic had some inherent power or meaning or something. Whether they would answer that way still today depends.

As a Lutheran Christian with an devotion to the Bible and to the historic Christian faith I would say a relic has no inherent value or meaning. What is of true value and use to a person spiritual is God's Word--not as a magical incantation, but as his means of communicating to us. Because the meaning is important, the Bible can (and should!) be translated. Likewise artwork, sculpture, music, etc. can be useful in ones meditation/devotion to the extent that it helps one focus on, recall or better understand the meaning of God's Word. But these things can become gratuitous or even distracting. Likewise an historic object (Church of the Nativity, the Shroud of Turin-if real, etc.) can be a useful devotional tool, but possess no power or spirituality of its own--indeed possesses no power or spirituality at all unless attaches with the message (spoken, read or remembered) that is stated explicitly in the Bible.

A couple of closing notes: I've been using relic to mean a physical object that dates from Biblical times. It is probably an understatement to say most relics are fakes and frauds--maybe ancient fakes and frauds, but still.. Also, you might also be referring to icons--the use of pictures in worship, etc. This is more heavily Eastern Orthodox where these images have deep meaning--although, I would have difficulty explaining exactly what and how. Roman Catholics have used visual images (stain glass, paintings, etc.) to teach the unlettered the accounts contained in the Bible.

By relic I mean an object like I teh examples have listed in my post.
I have watched a programm about trying to find a relic that has supposidely belonged to Jesus, I think it was a chalice, and it is yet to be found.
I was questioning the ideaology behind the worship of these relics and people trying to hold on to objects that might or might not have belonged to any godly send figure o earth like Jesus.
Like kissing the Cross which a relics.
Kissing the stone or a statue or supposidely saint or whatever.
Does a relic have a place in modern society for example? modern society is materialistic, and material means money, are we not relying on material to justify a belife is the question?

[cacian]

It depends on what context you are talking about. If you take a postmodern position, where dehumanization is complete regarless of the gossip, God, a product of humanity is a relic in the museum of history. We are moving ahead with science and it is no longer justified to confront humanistic and religious studies with science. That's my context, where it is impossible to be an atheist, theist or agnostic any longer. But the gossip goes on. It's only a fountain of satire and humor.

would then an atheist be if he or she had not relied on relics is the question?
For example you would talk of feelings of Joy/saddness/love but you would not have an atheist of these feelings as such because they are feelings and not relics.
If I speak Of Valentine's day then I would say that is love being used as relic because it is very commercial and base itself on relics such as cards/spending money and at the same time making thousands out miserable or unhappy because they do not have a valentine person to share it with.
That is what by mean by Relic.

[togre]

By relic I mean an object like I teh examples have listed in my post.
I have watched a programm about trying to find a relic that has supposidely belonged to Jesus, I think it was a chalice, and it is yet to be found.
I was questioning the ideaology behind the worship of these relics and people trying to hold on to objects that might or might not have belonged to any godly send figure o earth like Jesus.
Like kissing the Cross which a relics.
Kissing the stone or a statue or supposidely saint or whatever.
Does a relic have a place in modern society for example? modern society is materialistic, and material means money, are we not relying on material to justify a belife is the question?

When you say modern society is materialistic you could be saying one of two things 1) that modern society believes and acts as though only things made of matter exist and that the spiritual, immaterial things are real or 2) that modern society has placed a very high value on the acquiring and spending of money so that money and possessions almost act as a 'god' or focus for people's life (sometimes called consumerism).

I'd agree that both are somewhat accurate depictions of current American society. I'd also agree that this is why most of American society doesn't find relics to be important.

However, as I tried to say before, while rejecting the two attitudes listed above, I and many Christians also reject the need for relics. Speaking of The Holy Grail is a great example of how people get crazy ideas in their minds. Why should the specific chalice Jesus used remain preserved through so many years? What good would it do to have it? Does the Bible urge Christians to seek such objects or make promises about them? No, relics have no real place within the Christian faith, and this isn't because of the 'modern' mindset--rather it is because of historical Christian mindset.

[cafolini]

would then an atheist be if he or she had not relied on relics is the question?
For example you would talk of feelings of Joy/saddness/love but you would not have an atheist of these feelings as such because they are feelings and not relics.
If I speak Of Valentine's day then I would say that is love being used as relic because it is very commercial and base itself on relics such as cards/spending money and at the same time making thousands out miserable or unhappy because they do not have a valentine person to share it with.
That is what by mean by Relic.

Atheism is a characteristic of ancient religions. What has to be grasped is that men decided to go against natural development and evolution with the postulation of religions because they wanted to move ahead with civilization by splitting classes.
Think of how free you would have to feel in order to elaborate a scam about a God of whom you know absolutely nothing about. You would have to be a first hand atheist to do it. The modern (not postmodern) day atheist was a reactionary to the BS of the actual atheist. He spoke honestly but entangled in the nonsense of the other. (example: Sam Harris) He bought the idea that the original atheist was a sincere theist, and argued the unarguable endlessly. The basic religious atheist, the apostolic, the theologian, the philosopher, etc., laughed at the modern day artheist and saw him as naive. The modern day agnostic was also a funny stooge. He would play the game of argument against the tipical stooges of the unarguable. Right now, the original atheist (the theist), the reactionary atheist, and the agnostic are museum pieces.
Sartre tried to fix it in Being and Nothing. He said that humanity was a degraded thing, with which anyone without a lobotomy would have to agree. But he said that men were thrown into nothing. Ridiculous aberration. Men simply were thrown into too much to handle. That's not nothing. Being is a lot of BS, not nothing. And so is ex-ist-ence, from being and essence (Platonic and Aritotelian considerations absorbed by the Romans).
I am of course giving you condensed history. There is a lot that happened that coincides with what I'm saying, but telling it is not easy. It can only be induced with a lot of acquaintance with history.