God, Christians and Humanity

[WiseCookie]

Originally Posted by Spawn Of Cthullu

It was never a christian symbol (it's true that earlier christians considered it as a representation of Jesus' five wounds, but the roman catholic church did indeed demonize it, thus forbidding any earlier pro-christian interpretation of it ). Besides, the pentacle rarely ever made it to hollywood; the symbol that you tend to see in hollywood, particularly in the rooms of serial killers (lol) is the pentagram, and not the pentacle. The pentagram is an inverted pentacle, used mainly by occultists, and it's history dates much later than the pentacle. You're mixing up between the two symbols.

cheers

Not at all. The pentacle and the pentagram are both the same thing. They were used during Christianities earliest days, which was basically by the catholics. It represents many things. One of them is as u said, the five wounds of christ. Another is 5 characteristics of a medieval knight, which were Chivalry, Courtly Love, Christianity, Courage, something else of which I forgot. Here's an excerpt from Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which is a medieval story.

The poem describes Gawain's armor in detail. He carries a red shield that has a pentancle painted on its front. The pentancle is a token of truth. Each of the five points are linked and locked with the next, forming what is called the endless knot. The pentancle is a symbol that Gawain is faultless in his five senses, never found to fail in his five fingers, faithful to the five wounds that Christ received on the cross, strengthened by the five joys that the Virgin Mary had in Jesus (The Annunciation, Nativity, Resurrection, Ascension, and Assumption), and possesses brotherly love, pure mind and manners, and compassion most precious. The inside of the shield is adorned with an image of the Virgin Mary to make sure that Gawain never loses heart.

[Spawn Of Cthullu]

Athough the poem is mainly a Christian-oriented one, the part about the pentacle in it reveals that the author is as well influenced by celtic/wiccan symbology, relating christian meanings to it. Keeping in mind that when i stated that the Catholic Church demonized pagan symbols such as poseidon's trident and the pentacle, i did not deny that some freelance christians sympathized with the already existant symbols, and gave them meanings fitting into their own beliefs. My comment concerned catholics, evangelicans, and fundamentalists who consider white magic, celtic religions, nature worship, and other non-occult "heathen" religions as devil worshipping groups, hence, all their symbols relate to Lucifer, including the pentacle.

Pointing out single cases (sir gawain and the green knight, among other documentations) where we see a christianity-friendly pentacle is very interesting, but that doesnt come into contrast with my earlier posts, but rather engraves the idea i was communicating. I don't disagree with you that not all christians consider the pent as a satanic symbol, but the christian institutions in their quasi-totality do.

Not at all. The pentacle and the pentagram are both the same thing.

Etymologically speaking, you're correct. The word pentagram derives from the Greek: Pente means "five" (as in Pentagon). Gamma means a letter. Thus, pentagram refers to a five pointed star, or any figure of five lines. It can relate to an upright pentacle and an inverted one as well. However meanings constantly evolve, and contexts change. Nowadays, the term pentacle is oftenly used when referring to the celtic/wiccan mythology symbol (the upright one), while pentagram is used in a slightly more occultist context, mostly relating to baphomet's sign (the inverted one).

cheers.

PS : to any moderator reading this thread, i would suggest splitting this thread into two, and regrouping the posts about the pentacle issue in a new thread. thanks.

[WiseCookie]

Originally Posted by Spawn Of Cthullu

Athough the poem is mainly a Christian-oriented one, the part about the pentacle in it reveals that the author is as well influenced by celtic/wiccan symbology, relating christian meanings to it. Keeping in mind that when i stated that the Catholic Church demonized pagan symbols such as poseidon's trident and the pentacle, i did not deny that some freelance christians sympathized with the already existant symbols, and gave them meanings fitting into their own beliefs. My comment concerned catholics, evangelicans, and fundamentalists who consider white magic, celtic religions, nature worship, and other non-occult "heathen" religions as devil worshipping groups, hence, all their symbols relate to Lucifer, including the pentacle.

Pointing out single cases (sir gawain and the green knight, among other documentations) where we see a christianity-friendly pentacle is very interesting, but that doesnt come into contrast with my earlier posts, but rather engraves the idea i was communicating. I don't disagree with you that not all christians consider the pent as a satanic symbol, but the christian institutions in their quasi-totality do.




Etymologically speaking, you're correct. The word pentagram derives from the Greek: Pente means "five" (as in Pentagon). Gamma means a letter. Thus, pentagram refers to a five pointed star, or any figure of five lines. It can relate to an upright pentacle and an inverted one as well. However meanings constantly evolve, and contexts change. Nowadays, the term pentacle is oftenly used when referring to the celtic/wiccan mythology symbol (the upright one), while pentagram is used in a slightly more occultist context, mostly relating to baphomet's sign (the inverted one).

cheers.

PS : to any moderator reading this thread, i would suggest splitting this thread into two, and regrouping the posts about the pentacle issue in a new thread. thanks.

That's true, I agree with what you're saying but according to my information the author , who is uknown btw, trys to depict all the celtic symbols as demonic, such as the green knight who was a representation of one of the celtic gods. Now the question would be why does christianity shun such christian-friendly symbols. Is it because they might have two meanings behind them or is it because they do not want any ex-pagan symbols involved in their practices. Although, the catholic church has a lot of paganism mixed into its rituals, that's why we see the purification acts of protestanitism. This is really a complex issue.

[shaddow1]

I was wondering what happened to this thread. I had to go through the maze of topics thinking that the moderators may have deleted it.
Initially the intention was to debate society's priorities in people's hour of need but it turned out to be a thread on iconoclasm and iconography and christianity. I doubt whether I am really qualified to talk about these subjects. After all, like many other people, faith to me is mostly an insurance policy just in case there is eternal damnation.

[drmaalouf]

Originally Posted by Abu Jaafar

Jesus said 'Not everybody who calls me 'Lord, Lord' will enter into the kingdom of Heaven'. He was referring to many who did amazing things in His name but who had no connection with Him whatsoever.

Agreed. This is what I have also discussed in another thread when someone brought the subject of religion and wars. Many wars have been undertaken supposedly in the name of the church and Jesus, that does not mean they ARE in the name of the church and Jesus. Those people will have their wages for the sins they have commited in the name of our Lord.

Originally Posted by Spawn of Cthullu

But let's also not forget the political side of those 'reforms', being mostly tools when a new rebellious movement is done to oppose the pope and the pro-pope kings/feudals. Using the factor of religion by the pretext of reforming Catholicism is convincing enough for the peasants to defy the pope and his political orientations, and defend their new religion by all means. Practically, all those organized sects did the same thing that Catholicism did. Or does waging war in the name of reforming Christianity differs that much from waging war in the name of Christianity ?

I agree with you here. All movements have some sort of political agenda behind them. The Reformation, although it started on pure doctrinal issues (remember the 95 theses of Martin Luther), eventually took a political tone. But I have to say, it was inevitable.

You mentionned that the reformation was a rebellious movement to oppose the pope, as in, the reformation was only a pretext for a political change. Here I have to partly disagree.

When Martin Luther (a Catholic monk/priest/doctor in theology) posted his 95 objections to the practices of the Catholic Church and the pope (let's not forget the selling of indulgences, the crusades, the witch hunts, the spanish inquisition, etc...), he really was looking for improvement within the Catholic church, a re-examination of the practices in the light of the Bible. Here, it really was a pure reformation call for Christianity. On the other hand, as you have mentionned, many nobles and powerful people had benefit in backing this movement since they only wished for the power of the pope over their lands diminish. Here yes it was a political movement. But you see, these two motives found benefit in ''allying'' together. The reformers were labeled as heretics by the Catholic church and clashing was inevitable, thus the dark history: reformation from within was rejected by the Catholic church so the reformers like Luther had no other option but to split from it. That doesn't mean that the Reformation was a political movement per say; it is and still is a doctrinal call for a pure Christianity based on the Bible alone, with an inevitable political side to the whole story.

Second, I wouldn't call Protestants an ''organized sect''. Myself am not a protestant (i am greek orthodox), but I have read a lot about them and I now hold high respects for their doctrines and their call for doctrinal purity. They are avid believers and callers for the real Jesus of the early Church, and not the church as a political power/ruling organism. They are my brothers in Christ. And let's not forget, the main Christian doctrines are one and the same (God, Jesus, Trinity, Cross, Redemption, Resurrection, etc...)

[mount_amel]

I dont really want to go off topic .. But how do you interpret the word "lord" !

God or Human.

Salam

[Abu Jaafar]

Dear Mount Amel,

In Arabic, Lord = Rabb. I would have to say this means God. In English, Lord is both a title given to men of social importance (seen in the UK for example) or Rabb, God. Gathering from the context of this thread perhaps you are refering to the biblical context of this word; "Lord" in the Injeel means el Rabb, Sayyed, Master, Malek, Allah... although these are different titles of God with close meanings; the brief answer to your question is that in the biblical context the word 'Rabb' is a reference to God and that is how I use it.

Dr. Mustafa, thanks for clarifying what you did about Luther. Its also important to note that Luther had some blemishes, although I think they were not political (he couldn't understand why the Jews kept rejected Jesus and ended up disliking them very much). Then again, no body is perfect. I also wanted to add that the Protestant church may be strong in doctirine at times but you do see the opposite. In the USA, many Protestant organizations have become very political and have views that I am strongly against. Of course, it is so broad and loosely connected that generalizations about them as a distint denomination can not and shouldn't really be made.

Anyways, let us judge a man by his fruit, not by whether he is of this or that group. And while we're at it perhaps we need to examine ourselves first!

[drmaalouf]

Originally Posted by mount_amel

But how do you interpret the word "lord" !

I concur with Abu Jaafar's reply above.

Originally Posted by Abu Jaafar

Dr. Mustafa, thanks for clarifying what you did about Luther. Its also important to note that Luther had some blemishes, although I think they were not political (he couldn't understand why the Jews kept rejected Jesus and ended up disliking them very much). Then again, no body is perfect. I also wanted to add that the Protestant church may be strong in doctirine at times but you do see the opposite. In the USA, many Protestant organizations have become very political and have views that I am strongly against. Of course, it is so broad and loosely connected that generalizations about them as a distint denomination can not and shouldn't really be made.

Eh..you prolly meant Maalouf and not Mustapha :).

Again, I agree with every comment. Luther certainly wasn't perfect as his position against the jews and the peasant revolt showed. I wasn't defending the man but simply showing that the reformation was a doctrinal movement that found it's ''beneficiaries'' in the political camp. No one is perfect. My point was to highlight a bit the origin of the reformation.

As for your comment about the protestant movement, well, I agree again. The problem is, there is no such ting as a ''protestant'' denomination or the protestant ''church''! The word is more of a historical description to describe those denominations who split from the catholic church, and doctrinally speaking, cannot be grouped under one label. They do diverge quite a bit from each other. Some are even flirting with ''cultism'' if I may say. As you said, generalizing wouldn't do fair to the matter but I still say that I find the mainline evangelical currents (with the orthodox beliefs) to have an amazing quality: they heavily root their doctrines on the Bible and not on people or tradition or history.

Originally Posted by Abu Jaafar

Anyways, let us judge a man by his fruit, not by whether he is of this or that group. And while we're at it perhaps we need to examine ourselves first!

Amen to that!

[Inanna]

Initially the intention was to debate society's priorities in people's hour of need but it turned out to be a thread on iconoclasm and iconography and christianity.

please stick to the topic of the thread!

[taifoon]

This is the kind of threads that directly comes up from deep under ones feet, and like a spearhead driven by a gladiators wiry and muscular arm with impliable determination penetrates ones heart before reaching the brain.. Thank you for the reflection, shaddow :)

You ask the question:

Originally Posted by shaddow1

The question is: are these people fit to survive in an increasingly hostile environment? Do they possess the right mode of thinking to deal with poverty, unemployment, sickness, ageing, un-education and environmental degradation?

And you perfectly answer it:

Originally Posted by shaddow1

Their values are muddled up in a static way of thinking so much so that a perception of the reality in their heads is a perfect substitute for the reality on the ground.

which makes it obvious and clear enough.
No doubt that the same woman in need would also sell her remaining patched winter coat and her blanket, if she was asked to contribute with what she affords to complete Gods construction in her village.

You said it once, shaddow: Most people are usually driven by fears in their quest for survival. I disagreed on the nuances and still. What i sign under in blanco though, is that Gods fear usually lies on the highest altitude and dominates even the fear of death in nearly all religious matrixes..

To some, reality will remain to be everything which is outside their own never-existing domain of influence and therefore will accept whatever is dictated upon them as being laws of nature.. They are the naturalized inhabitants of any 'matrix', being it faith in religion, party, ideology or any other fellowship.

Still, i blame not them for being unaware preys already caught by the beast.
I blame all the free ones, the watchers and outsiders, in whose hands lies the power to help ease the pain and sufferings on the poor, hungry and the sick but choose to ignore them while enshrining their Gods inside costy constructions.