How important are symbols?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

How important are symbols?

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: How important are symbols?

Post #2

Post by JehovahsWitness »

[Replying to post 1 by 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. 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. Jehovah's Witnesses dont render reverential gesture to a statue, a symbol or picture with a view of said gesture pleasing God. By "reverential gesture" I mean the following:
  • - genouflexing before or singing a religious song or anthem to a symbol, statue or flag
    - parading them at the heads of processions (as if they are holy objects)
    - focusing on them as we pray ( as if we needed visual reminders of who we are praying to)
    - lighting candles around them or placing flowers or food before a statue as part of a religious rite (we view such gestures as idolatrous)
    - carrying (or placing in our vehicles) a picture , a symbol or an object because we believe that its presence will mean God will protect us from harm or accident (using them like a talisman)


JW


RELATED POSTS


What did Jesus look like?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 494#925494

Does the bible prohibit idolatry?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 598#856598

Can Jeremiah 10:3 be applied to Christmas trees?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 871#947871
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Re: How important are symbols?

Post #3

Post by bjs »

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

I would consider symbols which “make us hurt with pity for him or make us feel guilty� would qualify as “ugly.�

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but prior to Di Vinci many paintings of Jesus were at least less classically handsome.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: How important are symbols?

Post #4

Post by Tcg »

marco wrote:

How important are these pictures in Christianity?


They must be very important. This is an image of what scientist think Jesus looked like:

Image


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.


As is so often the case, like kids with Play-Doh, Jesus gets morphed into what believers want him to be, ignoring what he most likely would have actually been.

Would an uglier face of the Lord be less acceptable?

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.



Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: How important are symbols?

Post #5

Post by William »

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Symbolism is important not only to religious institution, but to every institution.

Imagery is very important as a means to advertise something for sale.

In organised religion, what is for sale may not be presented in that manner - directly - but somewhere along the line, if the imagery does its job, then those who allow themselves to be influenced by it, will eventual buy it.

In the thread:

Do JW's examine the nature of the imagery of their sect?

the focus is on the imagery of that particular sect of Christendom, and I am satisfied that not much thought is placed in examining the nature of the imagery presented by the sect artists and published into the world, by those who go out of their way to proselytize the sect.

The main reason I focused upon this sect of Christianity had to do with the fact that there is prevailing proselyting by sect members in this message board, and that they also claim not to be a part of Christendom and go to some lengths to demonize it.
Yet they still - most obviously use tried and true methods which have been instituted by Traditional Christianity, to promote and sell their brand...and the imagery is pretty much the same. Images of European's are frequently portrayed in the roles of the biblical hero's...
Q: How important are these pictures in Christianity?
As with all advertising, imagery is very important. Taking into account that words form images, a lot of Christian imagery is taken from the bible, and re-imaged to attract a certain type of clientele. Perhaps that is what Paul meant when he said "be all things to all men..."
It appears that this is what Christianity really is...a re-imaging of the parent religion(s) which themselves are children of even more ancient religious imagery, which was re-imaged to suit the prevailing culture.
Q: Would an uglier face of the Lord be less acceptable?
If 'ugly' in this context equals "Less acceptable to the target audience" then - humans being humans - images to worship are less meaningful if they are less identifiable with images one has of ones self.

This is why GOD is often imaged upon a throne, and just as often is costumed in the skin of a European.

To accept such imagery is to imply that IF ones self were GOD, THEN this is how GOD would 'look'.

Culturally, this is understandable enough. But culture is a base human consignment, and has about as much to do with the reality of GOD, as anything else which constitutes base human activity.

User avatar
SallyF
Guru
Posts: 1459
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:32 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #6

Post by SallyF »

Would an uglier face of the Lord be less acceptable?
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.



Putting aside for a moment the unfairness of a mythological god who punishes children for the sins of their parents, it's quite clear that there should be NO images made of the "Lord".

However, given the lengths believers go to dilute or ignore this very clear commandment, and produce all manner of statuary and paintings, is clear evidence that imagination alone is not sufficient in religion for many of the faithful, and representative imagery is required for many Christians. 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".
"God" … just whatever humans imagine it to be.

"Scripture" … just whatever humans write it to be.

jgh7

Post #7

Post by jgh7 »

The church I go to doesn't have a cross anywhere in it. That is how important symbols are; theyre unecessary. I dont view them as bad though. If a Christian likes wearing a cross, good for them. I dont really judge either way.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: How important are symbols?

Post #8

Post by JehovahsWitness »

[Replying to post 1 by marco]



Image


WAS JESUS A BLACK MAN?
  • While social norms and lexicon change with each generation, the the term "black" often refers to possessing the features commonly associated with the majority of people from sub sahariian Africa. Some common features might be brown or black (not olive) skin , broad relatively flat noses, black or brown almond shaped eyes, thick tightly curled hair, and as Scott MacEachern of Bowdoin College put it in his paper on biological anthropology "everted" (full outward turning) lips. While some bible scholars tend to be very liberal in their application of certain verses for example in the bible book of Revelation, the gospel accounts on the ethnicity of Jesus of Nazareth are quite clear in that they depict him as a Middle Eastern Jew. The Jews were a nation that for centuries inhabited the region of palestine and who genetically resemble modern day Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Given the above it seems reasonable to conclude that no, Jesus was not black.

...in terms of physical appearance the average Judean of the time would have likely had dark brown to black hair, olive* skin, and brown eyes. - Wikipedia :Race and appearance of Jesus
* It could be considered somewhat misleading to describe Jesus was "brown skinned" rather than olive skinned based on any possible tanning from the sun, as firstly most white skinned northern europeans can tan brown and the term usually evokes images of ethnic groups which are naturally dark skinned.


FURTHER READING: The Times of Israel Article
https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-a-fore ... look-like/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 003653.htm






JW


To learn more please go to posts related to ...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS ARTWORK , APPEARANCE OF JESUS and ...DEPICTIONS OF YHWH
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: How important are symbols?

Post #9

Post by marco »

Tcg wrote:

They must be very important. This is an image of what scientist think Jesus looked like:

Image

I can honestly say that had this demented Christ presented himself to my boyhood I would have neglected church visits long before I lost his address.

It seems not to matter if hymns and pictures are false.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: How important are symbols?

Post #10

Post by Tcg »

marco wrote:
Tcg wrote:

They must be very important. This is an image of what scientist think Jesus looked like:

Image

I can honestly say that had this demented Christ presented himself to my boyhood I would have neglected church visits long before I lost his address.

It seems not to matter if hymns and pictures are false.

I'm not sure why you describe this as a demented Christ. Very different than the images the church presents, but not demented in my view.


Your reaction seems to make the case that it matters very much that hymns and pictures are false, and that they remain so. Perhaps this answers why the church refuses to update it's images; a real Jesus would scare off it's customers.



Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Post Reply