Notre Dame cathedral burning

[Mithrandir]

Aren't librarians supposed to be super passionate about books? You wouldn't run in to save some old manuscript or something?

Nope. While I understand the value of such items, they aren't worth risking my life for.

[Hornsby]

Nope. While I understand the value of such items, they aren't worth risking my life for.

A Gutenberg Bible?

[Sour Masher]

I get the cultural significance and importance of some precious and irreplaceable artifacts. Before I had kids, I would have put myself in harm's way to save such things. Of course, I also had my first serious girlfriend in high school break up with me (not exactly, but the beginning of the end), because I said I'd die to save just about any random person. This statement was an unnecessary addendum after her question, "would you die to save me?" I should have just stopped with, "yes" and not added "but I'd probably do that for just about anyone."

[Mithrandir]

A Gutenberg Bible?

No. Would you?

It's really just a book.

And I'm selfish

[Hornsby]

No. Would you?

It's really just a book.

And I'm selfish

I like to think that I would...but really, who knows until such a situation presents itself?

[Steve 2.0]

..but really, who knows until such a situation presents itself?

This.

[Mithrandir]

I like to think that I would...but really, who knows until such a situation presents itself?

Not for me. I know I wouldn't do it.

[Steve 2.0]

Not for me. I know I wouldn't do it.

This.

[umjewman]

A Gutenberg Bible?

I loved his work in Police Academy, but he can save his own bible.

[Kevin Seitzer]

At the risk of

I think we've already covered the question of the extent to which people would be willing to expose themselves to risk to save an object. But as to why this particular relic is something people would care deeply about, I think on that note, it's not just that it's believed to be an object of great historical value, but it also has a symbolic value for some Christians as representing the love of someone they care deeply about. So perhaps rather than the Gutenberg Bible or Declaration of Independence manuscript, one might ask whether you would be willing to expose yourself to risk to save a special picture of a departed loved one, or some other similarly meaningful memento of that person. The answer might not be any different, but I think that captures the emotion of it a little better.

The crown of thorns is special to some people because it is a stark reminder that Jesus did not become king the way so many others in this world become king, by the power of military force and stepping on the necks of weaker opponents. He was crowned king with a crown of thorns because he became king by suffering at the hands of rulers and forces who used lethal force and stepped on the necks of weaker opponents in order to cement their power. He became king because he did not assert his own right to fight back against those forces with the power he had as creator of the world. He suffered injustice as an innocent man, exposing the brutal reality of the world's power structure for the awful, ugly thing that is, that it would crown an innocent man with a crown of thorns, mock him, beat him, strip him naked, and torture him to death in public. By standing up to the system and exposing its ugly reality, he saved his friends and followers from going down that same path as real rebels, waging violence against violence to throw off the oppressive occupying power of Rome (a path many of the other Jews of that age would pursue to their destruction in the following decades), and showed them how a different path of love and self-sacrifice could change the world. He doesn't wear a crown of gold symbolic of the wealth he has taken from his subjects, he wears a crown of thorns symbolic of the suffering and injustice he has taken and overcome on behalf of his subjects, whom he has called his friends.

[In the Corn]

The crown of thorns is special to some people because it is a stark reminder that Jesus did not become king the way so many others in this world become king, by the power of military force and stepping on the necks of weaker opponents. He was crowned king with a crown of thorns because he became king by suffering at the hands of rulers and forces who used lethal force and stepped on the necks of weaker opponents in order to cement their power. He became king because he did not assert his own right to fight back against those forces with the power he had as creator of the world. He suffered injustice as an innocent man, exposing the brutal reality of the world's power structure for the awful, ugly thing that is, that it would crown an innocent man with a crown of thorns, mock him, beat him, strip him naked, and torture him to death in public. By standing up to the system and exposing its ugly reality, he saved his friends and followers from going down that same path as real rebels, waging violence against violence to throw off the oppressive occupying power of Rome (a path many of the other Jews of that age would pursue to their destruction in the following decades), and showed them how a different path of love and self-sacrifice could change the world. He doesn't wear a crown of gold symbolic of the wealth he has taken from his subjects, he wears a crown of thorns symbolic of the suffering and injustice he has taken and overcome on behalf of his subjects, whom he has called his friends.

Save the preaching for Good Friday.

Oh, wait.

[Mithrandir]

At the risk of

I think we've already covered the question of the extent to which people would be willing to expose themselves to risk to save an object. But as to why this particular relic is something people would care deeply about, I think on that note, it's not just that it's believed to be an object of great historical value, but it also has a symbolic value for some Christians as representing the love of someone they care deeply about. So perhaps rather than the Gutenberg Bible or Declaration of Independence manuscript, one might ask whether you would be willing to expose yourself to risk to save a special picture of a departed loved one, or some other similarly meaningful memento of that person. The answer might not be any different, but I think that captures the emotion of it a little better.

The crown of thorns is special to some people because it is a stark reminder that Jesus did not become king the way so many others in this world become king, by the power of military force and stepping on the necks of weaker opponents. He was crowned king with a crown of thorns because he became king by suffering at the hands of rulers and forces who used lethal force and stepped on the necks of weaker opponents in order to cement their power. He became king because he did not assert his own right to fight back against those forces with the power he had as creator of the world. He suffered injustice as an innocent man, exposing the brutal reality of the world's power structure for the awful, ugly thing that is, that it would crown an innocent man with a crown of thorns, mock him, beat him, strip him naked, and torture him to death in public. By standing up to the system and exposing its ugly reality, he saved his friends and followers from going down that same path as real rebels, waging violence against violence to throw off the oppressive occupying power of Rome (a path many of the other Jews of that age would pursue to their destruction in the following decades), and showed them how a different path of love and self-sacrifice could change the world. He doesn't wear a crown of gold symbolic of the wealth he has taken from his subjects, he wears a crown of thorns symbolic of the suffering and injustice he has taken and overcome on behalf of his subjects, whom he has called his friends.

Would Jesus want someone to risk their life for the crown of thorns? He died for mankind, so wouldn't he be against someone risking their precious life that he gave his for?

[Kevin Seitzer]

Would Jesus want someone to risk their life for the crown of thorns? He died for mankind, so wouldn't he be against someone risking their precious life that he gave his for?

I don't know.

I honestly don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the fire chaplain taking a measured risk to save it. It's unclear how much risk he put himself in. Had he actually died, that would obviously have been tragic.

One could ask the same question, I suppose, about the firefighters trying to save Notre Dame itself. Once all the people were safe, maybe just safer to let it burn to the ground?

[The Feral Slasher]

I'm considering never leaving my house at all. It's a dangerous world out there.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I'm considering never leaving my house at all. It's a dangerous world out there.

I've heard that you can find intruders in your house in the middle of night. Better retreat to a closet and hole up there until you receive further word.