How important are symbols?

[marco]

A lot of Christianity comes in pictorial form. We never saw Christ but the world knows the handsome young man given to us by artists. The face of Christ has become recognisable.

At Christmas we have a baby which we adore; we have a famous picture of the exposed heart of Jesus; we have innumerable hymns that make us hurt with pity for him or make us feel guilty for having crucified him; and most powerfully of all we have the cross of Christ. In the Middle Ages people sought bits of the true cross; the wonderful tale of the enchanted chalice grew up. In Turin we may or may not have the shroud that caught his dying blood.


How important are these pictures in Christianity?


Would an uglier face of the Lord be less acceptable?

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

Di Vinci’s The Last Supper had an immeasurable influence on pictures of Jesus. Prior to that, paintings of Jesus were less uniform in their appearance.

As a child I found Caravaggio's David with Goliath's head rather stirring and frightening. The Bible is a rich source for horror.

As for the importance of symbols: Words themselves are symbols. We communicate almost entirely by symbols. So yes, symbols are important.

I don't doubt this. Elsewhere I compared the poppy and the cross, powerful symbols that draw responses from people. Of ccourse many have been crucified and indeed Peter is alleged to have been crucified upside down, though how this would have worked medically to bring on death I don't know. The cross became important when we learned Jesus willingly had himself crucified to pay some debt we owed for some nebulous misdeed.

[marco]

I believe illustrations, especially drawings or paintings that illustrate bible scenes can be a helpful teaching aid and can be upbuilding for the faithful.

Odd really if you also think that Christmas is a false celebration on 25 December. The idea behind pictures and feast days is exactly the same: to bring something to mind.

As one of Jehovahs Witnesses however, I draw the line at using art or pictures or symbols as part of the worshipful actions reserved in my opinion to God.

It is possibly hard to understand another person's religious beliefs. The Catechism says pointedly "We do not pray to images, statues or pictures as they can neither hear, nor see nor help us." We are splitting hairs if we populate our pages with nice diagrams of a future heaven yet condemn pious statues of Mary holding her dead son. Of course the statue isn't worshipped: the poem or thought behind the statue is what is important.

[marco]

The sublime genius of Muslim geometric - and consistent with the clear commandment - design in places of worship just doesn't do it for Christians who need depictions of a brutal Roman form of execution to bring them closer to "God".

Recruitment is important of course. To be told an innocent man was slaughtered because he stood up for US, usually has some appeal. There's no brutality in the Christmas baby sleeping beside ass and ox, but it attracts followers.

Muhammad wisely avoided contravening God's jealous command not to paint pictures but used as a magnet for his male audience the promise of sexual delights in Paradise. The male imagination does the rest, without photos.

[William]

[Replying to post 13 by marco]

Yes. Images are created through words, not just pictures.

[marco]

[Replying to post 13 by marco]

Yes. Images are created through words, not just pictures.

And words can burn cities down. We have hate preachers who never seem to be adequately punished when their words have massacred children.

I do not think Christ was himself innocent of preaching hate. Take Matthew 23:27

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs..."

[William]

[Replying to post 15 by marco]

Yes. Images are created through words, not just pictures.

And words can burn cities down. We have hate preachers who never seem to be adequately punished when their words have massacred children.

I do not think Christ was himself innocent of preaching hate.

Perhaps speaking truth is also speaking hate...at least to those who are in the firing line. Certainly Jesus would not be allowed to write that kind of stuff on this kind of message board...unless it is 'from the bible' and not aimed at anyone 'personally'.

I guess the PC helps the frogs not notice the water slowly coming to boil...

...but I sincerely wonder about how people can act so sensitive and easily hurt and offended on the one hand...
...while they have no problem using hate-speech to demonize everything which they identify as 'different' from them, on the other hand...

Perhaps that is what is meant by 'not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing'? Blissfully willfully ignorant of hypocrisy, except when seen in others and expressed as 'hate' speech.

[1213]

They must be very important. This is an image of what scientist think Jesus looked like:
…
As with so many aspects of religion, scientific probability is ignored for the sake of religious bias. At least in the West, Jesus is presented as a blue eyed, pale skinned specimen. This image is much more likely, but has yet to be accepted by his followers.
…
If the image above is indeed uglier, then the answer would be yes given that so many prefer the fair haired light skinned Jesus of folklore.

It is interesting why “science� has the need to make Jesus look “uglier�. We don’t have real image of Jesus and I think it is not necessary. However, if we begun to imagine it “scientifically�, the problem is: allegedly Jesus was born by Holy Spirit. If that is true, Jesus was not probably similar looking than ordinary people at that time in that place. It is not possible to make scientific image, because we don’t have enough knowledge for that. However, it doesn’t mean the “religious� images are true either.

But, there is saying, “inner beauty shows on the outside�. By my experience that is true. What person is inside (mental state), also shows outside. And by what Jesus taught and by what he did, he would have looked good.

[Tcg]

It is interesting why “science� has the need to make Jesus look “uglier�.

Science has no need to make Jesus look uglier. The image is an accurate replication of what a Palestinian man from Jesus' time would look like. The question is why would the church need to make him look prettier.

The answer seems to be quite clear. People would reject an accurate depiction, just as you have, and therefore a false representation must be presented.

However, if we begun to imagine it “scientifically�, the problem is: allegedly Jesus was born by Holy Spirit.

According to the myth, the Holy Spirit is invisible. Are you suggesting Jesus was half invisible and half visible?



Tcg

[marco]

Perhaps speaking truth is also speaking hate...at least to those who are in the firing line. Certainly Jesus would not be allowed to write that kind of stuff on this kind of message board...unless it is 'from the bible' and not aimed at anyone 'personally'.

That's true - if he joined us and declared all X are whited sepulchres he would receive a warning. I suppose he would then behave. But when he lived nobody was able to restrain him. Somebody could have taken him aside and told him he had no right to push out people from a place that didn't belong to him. Today he might have been put in a straitjacket - but times change.

[marco]

It is interesting why “science� has the need to make Jesus look “uglier�. We don’t have real image of Jesus and I think it is not necessary.

Cromwell insisted on being painted "warts and all". We only have hints of Christ's warts. Science has no reason to distort Jesus or Muhammad or Alexander the Great or anyone else; it attempts to see things as they actually are or were. When we get a better picture of our ancestors, science adjusts previous ideas. Jesus didn't write anything even though he insisted his words were of vast importance. Because we have a variety of messages, none from him, we can suppose he was a god, a lawyer, a good preacher or maybe someone deranged orat best deceived. Ultimately people make their own Jesus from bits and pieces of information.

I see him as rude to his mother and family, quick-tempered, demanding and insensitive to family needs. He uses magic to impress, not to benefit society as a whole. Humanity is not helped by having one leper cured or one blind man's sight restored. If Christ had possessed the ability or knowledge to explain how leprosy could be cured, medically and not by abracadabra, that would have been a greater benefit. But he was a self-publicist.

In Mark 7 we have: "And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it."
Tsk, tsk - such convenient disobedience!