(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   Even though the Vatican already gave Turkey an Eddie Bauer sweater for Christmas, Turkey really just wanted St Nicholas' bones back

24 Dec 2012 09:22 PM   |   3557 clicks   |   Daily Mail
Showing 1-40 of 40 comments
Refresh
fusillade762     
GIS for turkey sweater.

randomwithjenn.files.wordpress.comView Full Size

24 Dec 2012 07:34 PM
Angry Monkey    [TotalFark]  
I've been to the crypt of St Nicholas. I keep pictures in case the kids are particularly bad one year.

/I kid!

24 Dec 2012 08:31 PM
Lionel Mandrake    [TotalFark]  
"No problem.  We'll trade you for Constantinople"

24 Dec 2012 08:32 PM
AverageAmericanGuy    [TotalFark]  
i.dailymail.co.ukView Full Size


I want to believe.

24 Dec 2012 09:19 PM
Indubitably     
To paganade: e.g. trade idols.

24 Dec 2012 09:24 PM
Bit'O'Gristle     
I would rather ask that they give back the billions of dollars that they have bilked the world population out of with their continuing teachings of invisible sky wizards and demons poking at you with spears. Noting like using the fear of death and the unknown to make people cough up cash for God.

24 Dec 2012 09:36 PM
Seth'n'Spectrum     

Lionel Mandrake: "No problem.  We'll trade you for Constantinople"


... yeah, but the papacy had absolutely nothing to do with the Crusaders softening up Constantinople for the Turks right?

24 Dec 2012 09:39 PM
yelmrog     

Seth'n'Spectrum: Lionel Mandrake: "No problem.  We'll trade you for Constantinople"

... yeah, but the papacy had absolutely nothing to do with the Crusaders softening up Constantinople for the Turks right?


I just want to know why it got the works.

24 Dec 2012 09:40 PM
mekki     
How about a big, freakin' "NO!" One of the best places, if not the best place in the world for antiquities, religious and non-religious is the Vatican. If you stored something there in the 16th century, there's an excellent chance that it still will be there in the 21st century. Probably, one of the worst places for a Christian relic right now is Turkey, given the growing anti-Christian resentment there among the overwhelming Muslim majority. If the bones were to go there, I can see them "disappearing" easily. Or worse, being smashed to bits as a demonstration

Even if you don't believe in Christianity, we are talking about our collective history here. I wouldn't send any of the Roman deity statues the Vatican has in its archives to Turkey either, for the same reason. .

24 Dec 2012 09:40 PM
ocschwar     
That's a lot of farking hutzpa.

We're talking about St. Nicholas of Smyrna here. That's Smyrna, now Izmir, which 90 years ago was emptied of its Christian population by a massacre that would take a certain Austrian corporal to outshadow. And the Turks have the nerve to ask for his bones?

The Vatican should find out which city in Greece has the most people descended of Smyrna's Greek community, and send the bones there.

24 Dec 2012 09:44 PM
whatshisname     
I can't see Turkey wearing Eddie Bauer.

24 Dec 2012 09:44 PM
Lionel Mandrake    [TotalFark]  

yelmrog: Seth'n'Spectrum: Lionel Mandrake: "No problem.  We'll trade you for Constantinople"

... yeah, but the papacy had absolutely nothing to do with the Crusaders softening up Constantinople for the Turks right?

I just want to know why it got the works.


That's none of your business

24 Dec 2012 09:44 PM
Rush Limbaughs Gay Porn Collection     
There's nothing in Turkey but moozlim ayrab terrists. There aren't even any turkeys! Why should they have Kris Kringle's bones?

24 Dec 2012 09:47 PM
Wittenberg Dropout     
Weirdest white elephant gift exchange ever.

24 Dec 2012 09:48 PM
Galf Eht Teg     
yelmrog: Seth'n'Spectrum: Lionel Mandrake: "No problem. We'll trade you for Constantinople"

... yeah, but the papacy had absolutely nothing to do with the Crusaders softening up Constantinople for the Turks right?

I just want to know why it got the works.

That's none of your business


Besides, it's been a long time gone, Constantinople.

24 Dec 2012 09:57 PM
Bondith     

yelmrog: Seth'n'Spectrum: Lionel Mandrake: "No problem.  We'll trade you for Constantinople"

... yeah, but the papacy had absolutely nothing to do with the Crusaders softening up Constantinople for the Turks right?

I just want to know why it got the works.


That's nobody's business but the Turks'.

24 Dec 2012 10:33 PM
Rockstone     

Seth'n'Spectrum: ... yeah, but the papacy had absolutely nothing to do with the Crusaders softening up Constantinople for the Turks right?


Actually, the Pope ordered the Crusaders not to sack Constantinople. The order did not reach them in time.

24 Dec 2012 10:37 PM
TV's Vinnie     
travelerfolio.comView Full Size


Seeing as how some of the muslim-y muslims have a thing for wanting to destroy stuff that isn't of islam, I'd say let them go pound sand.

24 Dec 2012 10:38 PM
hdhale     

Seth'n'Spectrum: Lionel Mandrake: "No problem.  We'll trade you for Constantinople"

... yeah, but the papacy had absolutely nothing to do with the Crusaders softening up Constantinople for the Turks right?


Actually...it didn't. The Pope called a Crusade to the Holy Land. It was western Europeans nobles that decided to attack Constantinople instead.

24 Dec 2012 10:41 PM
The One True TheDavid     
Lionel Mandrake:

"No problem.  We'll trade you for Constantinople"

"Istanbul not Constantinople!"

The fact of the Muslim conquests of Asia Minor and subsequent conversion of most of its people to Islam means he's no longer their saint. Islam recognizes prior prophets but especially eschews praying through intercessors, so what use would the Turks have for a saint? This is a matter of theology, not tourism or "national pride." I say give 'em the bones of St. Nick when the ulama and the Saudis allow other Peoples of the Book to make the Hajj: the Kaaba was established by Abraham, who was also a prophet for the Jews and by extension Christians, so it's only fair they also get to pay their respects. And remember, the Qu'ran says Muhammad only restored the proper practice of ages past, not that he invented them. Jews and Christians would follow the rituals of the Hajj just as Catholics follow those of Lourdes or the Jews daven at the Wailing Wall: there would be no sacrilege and need be no disruption. It is written in the Qu'ran in Hujurat 49:9 that "Allah loves the equitable," is it not?

24 Dec 2012 10:46 PM
Seth'n'Spectrum     

hdhale: Actually...it didn't. The Pope called a Crusade to the Holy Land. It was western Europeans nobles that decided to attack Constantinople instead.


Rockstone: Actually, the Pope ordered the Crusaders not to sack Constantinople. The order did not reach them in time.


True, but the pope did kind of set the whole chain of events in motion and indirectly allowed the nobles to legitimate it.

/come on, stretch with me here

24 Dec 2012 10:47 PM
Rockstone     

Seth'n'Spectrum: hdhale: Actually...it didn't. The Pope called a Crusade to the Holy Land. It was western Europeans nobles that decided to attack Constantinople instead.

Rockstone: Actually, the Pope ordered the Crusaders not to sack Constantinople. The order did not reach them in time.

True, but the pope did kind of set the whole chain of events in motion and indirectly allowed the nobles to legitimate it.

/come on, stretch with me here


It wasn't his intention. The Church always considered any differences between it and the Orthodox Churches (other than a few, very, very minor religious differences) to be political and not religious. (Orthodox Church members are allowed to receive Communion at Mass, for example)

The Orthodox Church still hasn't totally forgiven us for what happened though.

24 Dec 2012 10:52 PM
whatshisname     

TV's Vinnie: Seeing as how some of the muslim-y muslims have a thing for wanting to destroy stuff that isn't of islam, I'd say let them go pound sand.


Turkey's about as moderate as they come.

24 Dec 2012 10:57 PM
The One True TheDavid     
The article says that "Arab forces who occupied Myra in the 11th century excavated the bones and brought them back to the Italian port of Bari where they are buried to this day." Presumably Arab Muslim forces. If so he was donated, not stolen.

That's not the legend the Wikipedia article cites, according to that "sailors from Bari in Apulia seized part of the remains of the saint from his burial church in Myra, over the objections of the Orthodox monks," but if that's the case they rescued the relic from Muslims who had no religious use for them.

In either case the fact remains that bones of a Christian saint lie entombed at a Christian shrine. Where better?

Personally I don't give a damn, I'm an atheist who was raised Methodist, but fair's fair: they can have this Christian relic when Baptists can make the pilgrimage to Mecca.

24 Dec 2012 11:01 PM
hdhale     

Seth'n'Spectrum: hdhale: Actually...it didn't. The Pope called a Crusade to the Holy Land. It was western Europeans nobles that decided to attack Constantinople instead.

Rockstone: Actually, the Pope ordered the Crusaders not to sack Constantinople. The order did not reach them in time.

True, but the pope did kind of set the whole chain of events in motion and indirectly allowed the nobles to legitimate it.

/come on, stretch with me here


Explains the excommunications....

24 Dec 2012 11:05 PM
The One True TheDavid     

Rockstone: Seth'n'Spectrum: hdhale:

Actually...it didn't. The Pope called a Crusade to the Holy Land. It was western Europeans nobles that decided to attack Constantinople instead.

Rockstone: Actually, the Pope ordered the Crusaders not to sack Constantinople. The order did not reach them in time.

True, but the pope did kind of set the whole chain of events in motion and indirectly allowed the nobles to legitimate it.

/come on, stretch with me here

It wasn't his intention. The Church always considered any differences between it and the Orthodox Churches (other than a few, very, very minor religious differences) to be political and not religious. (Orthodox Church members are allowed to receive Communion at Mass, for example)


You're saying the Filioque is only a minor, political issue? Not an issue of doctrine and practice? Really?!?

24 Dec 2012 11:06 PM
Rockstone     

The One True TheDavid: You're saying the Filioque is only a minor, political issue? Not an issue of doctrine and practice? Really?!?


The Church considers it to the only religious difference between them

24 Dec 2012 11:18 PM
Proteios1     
F the islamic cultists. They think they can abuse women and scare us all into submission, hells no

24 Dec 2012 11:20 PM
TV's Vinnie     

whatshisname: TV's Vinnie: Seeing as how some of the muslim-y muslims have a thing for wanting to destroy stuff that isn't of islam, I'd say let them go pound sand.

Turkey's about as moderate as they come.


So was Egypt, and now look how coo-coo for Sharia Puffs they've become.

24 Dec 2012 11:41 PM
The One True TheDavid     

Rockstone: The One True TheDavid:

You're saying the Filioque is only a minor, political issue? Not an issue of doctrine and practice? Really?!?

The Church considers it to the only religious difference between them


The only religious difference?

There's also the matter of papal primacy: I'd be surprised if the Eastern Orthodox churches recognized the Pope as boss of them. This is a theological and political issue, and is not at all minor. And there are several others, Original Sin for one.

Is Sarah Palin really President on your planet?

Seriously, this sounds to me like another example of the Papists making shiat up. Their "minor" differences would involve surrendering 1000 years worth of bureaucracy, for one thing, and the perks and prerogatives associated with that. Maybe instead of talking theology the Holy See should try a hostile takeover? Since Redstone got Viacom that's been a normal part of doing business in the law-abiding secular realm (as it always was in the "underworld").

25 Dec 2012 12:10 AM
Mouser     

Bit'O'Gristle: I would rather ask that they give back the billions of dollars that they have bilked the world population out of with their continuing teachings of invisible sky wizards and demons poking at you with spears. Noting like using the fear of death and the unknown to make people cough up cash for God.


Well, I can see someone's getting coal in their stocking this year.

25 Dec 2012 12:14 AM
Rusty Shackleford    [TotalFark]  
Mmmmm.  St. Nicholas soup.  Delicious.

25 Dec 2012 12:21 AM
rpl     
i.crackedcdn.comView Full Size


"Ho ho ho! Someone's been very naughty this year!"
/also, what the FARK is up with the dude in the transparent pink number?!

25 Dec 2012 12:30 AM
Lionel Mandrake    [TotalFark]  

Rusty Shackleford: Mmmmm.  St. Nicholas soup.  Delicious.


There's still plenty of meat on those bones. Now you take these home, throw 'em in a pot, add some broth, a potato, and baby, you got a stew goin'

25 Dec 2012 12:32 AM
Gyrfalcon     

Seth'n'Spectrum: Lionel Mandrake: "No problem.  We'll trade you for Constantinople"

... yeah, but the papacy had absolutely nothing to do with the Crusaders softening up Constantinople for the Turks right?


Actually, no. The Pope pretty much had nothing to do with the Fourth Crusade almost until the boats were docking under the walls; at which point he figured it would be pretty awesome (not to mention lucrative) to go ahead and bless the Crusade and get a cut of the loot. Prior to that, the Crusaders had been under threat of excommunication if they stopped off at Constantinople.

The Fourth Crusade was the Iraq War of Crusades.

25 Dec 2012 01:12 AM
llachlan     
Funny, I always thought Saint Nicholas was buried in Ireland at Jerpoint Abbey in County Kilkenny.

25 Dec 2012 03:04 AM
Major-General     
Turkey can have them back when they can prove they can have nice things without destroying them, like say the Church of Hagia Sophia. Same with Greece and the Elgin marbles.

25 Dec 2012 11:27 AM
Rockstone     

The One True TheDavid: There's also the matter of papal primacy: I'd be surprised if the Eastern Orthodox churches recognized the Pope as boss of them. This is a theological and political issue, and is not at all minor. And there are several others, Original Sin for one.


Papal Primacy is considered a political issue. Original sin is considered a very, very minor issue in religious matters. It is not considered enough to impede them from receiving communion. The Church thinks it's not a big difference, anyway. (There's also Eastern Churches that are a part of the Catholic Church that allows their priests to marry)
It's minor, especially when you compare, say, even a Lutheran to a Catholic.

25 Dec 2012 02:21 PM
The One True TheDavid     

Rockstone: The One True TheDavid:

There's also the matter of papal primacy: I'd be surprised if the Eastern Orthodox churches recognized the Pope as boss of them. This is a theological and political issue, and is not at all minor. And there are several others, Original Sin for one.

Papal Primacy is considered a political issue.


By who? The Vatican? You'd think the issue of who has the final authority in doctrine, faith & morals would be more than political, even if the bishops of the other major sees are Very Nice Guys.


Original sin is considered a very, very minor issue in religious matters.

Again, by who? Most Protestants -- from the "mainline" (Presbyterians et all) to fire-baptized snake handlers -- consider papal primacy to be heresy if not apostasy; and of course the Eastern Orthodox views on damn near anything would be closer to the Romans' than say Baptists', but I'm so used to hearing that Original Sin (if not Total Depravity) is a sine qua non that it's hard to imagine otherwise from any Church within the bounds of what's usually meant by "Christian" (not, e.g., LDS or U-U).


It is not considered enough to impede them from receiving communion. The Church thinks it's not a big difference, anyway.

Not between the Romans and Constantinopolitans, no. I'll grant you the issues that divide them are minor compared to those, say, between the Pentecostals and the Copts.

It's just that ~150 years ago the issues of "paedobaptism" and immersion vs. sprinkling, would have had Presbyterians and Baptists chasing each other around with curses, swords and petitions to the Powers The Be if they thought it would have done any good, as they had done in the Holy Roman Empire three centuries before that. Has Christianity progressed to the point that doctrine is barely relevant? The differences between the Presbyterians and Baptists do have more to do with governance than doctrine, while most Methodist churches are farther away, closer to the Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox in both matters, but it would seem that ideology would have at least as much to do with these separations as polity.


(There's also Eastern Churches that are a part of the Catholic Church that allows their priests to marry)

Yeah, Uniates. Now the Romans are also allowing married Anglican priests who cross over.


It's minor, especially when you compare, say, even a Lutheran to a Catholic.

Actually the more I learn the more I'm amazed at how close the Lutherans and Catholics always have been in most things. It's almost like the 30 Years War was more about politics and money than Faith.

Could it be that the various Christian churches are drawing from an ever-diminishing pool and are increasingly willing to square circles and sing Kumbaya in order to maintain the power and wealth they still have? Are ministers of the Gospel that afraid of having to earn an honest living?

Of course before Romney 2012 I'd have expected Baptists to cut off their hands rather than vote for a Mormon. Much in life is amazing these days.

25 Dec 2012 07:56 PM
Rockstone     

The One True TheDavid: By who? The Vatican? You'd think the issue of who has the final authority in doctrine, faith & morals would be more than political, even if the bishops of the other major sees are Very Nice Guys.


It's considered political because it involves Church governance, and not say, faith and works.

The One True TheDavid: Again, by who? Most Protestants -- from the "mainline" (Presbyterians et all) to fire-baptized snake handlers -- consider papal primacy to be heresy if not apostasy; and of course the Eastern Orthodox views on damn near anything would be closer to the Romans' than say Baptists', but I'm so used to hearing that Original Sin (if not Total Depravity) is a sine qua non that it's hard to imagine otherwise from any Church within the bounds of what's usually meant by "Christian" (not, e.g., LDS or U-U).


From what I can tell, the Orthodox believe that man inherited the consequences of original sin, but are not guilty of it, while most other Christians believe man is guilty of sin through original sin. This is such a minor difference, and in practice it actually matters little. (Eastern Orthodox also believe the consecration happens later during the Blessing of the Sacred host than Catholics believe- but since both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox go through the whole consecration, this also doesn't matter in practicality).


The One True TheDavid: It's just that ~150 years ago the issues of "paedobaptism" and immersion vs. sprinkling, would have had Presbyterians and Baptists chasing each other around with curses, swords and petitions to the Powers The Be if they thought it would have done any good, as they had done in the Holy Roman Empire three centuries before that. Has Christianity progressed to the point that doctrine is barely relevant? The differences between the Presbyterians and Baptists do have more to do with governance than doctrine, while most Methodist churches are farther away, closer to the Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox in both matters, but it would seem that ideology would have at least as much to do with these separations as polity.


Politics still matter but ideology is still considered more important. However, the practical ideology differences between Catholics and Orthodox are very very small. Regarding the Filioque- a visiting Eastern Orthodox Adherent would just skip over that part of the Nicene creed.

The One True TheDavid: Actually the more I learn the more I'm amazed at how close the Lutherans and Catholics always have been in most things. It's almost like the 30 Years War was more about politics and money than Faith.


Lutherans have become more and more like Catholics over time, but a lot of it did have to do with faith. However, I think a lot Martin Luther's complaints were political, not religious.

The One True TheDavid: Could it be that the various Christian churches are drawing from an ever-diminishing pool and are increasingly willing to square circles and sing Kumbaya in order to maintain the power and wealth they still have?


No, I think it's more because the religious are seeing the similarities and not the differences between faiths.

25 Dec 2012 09:52 PM
Showing 1-40 of 40 comments
Refresh
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined