Talk:Christian symbolism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with Christianty as I know it. What are we writing about here? Rmhermen 18:20, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

I agree: this article needs complete rework. I guess that Jewish symbolism is a good benchmark for the type of information that we could have in such an article. olivier 21:10, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is written from a very esoteric point of view, using peculiar terminology from an uncommon approach. My first impulse is to blank it entirely, and start over with more standard stuff dealing with symbols typically used in Christian art, such as the cross, traditional emblems of apostles and saints, common symbols of Christ (e.g. lamb, lion, fish), and of the church, etc. Mkmcconn 23:49, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why don't you add what you are mentioning in the form of additional paragraphs and somehow keep the existing paragraphs, maybe at the bottom of the article, while potentially editing them? That would be my suggestion for a first round of edit, rather than a complete blanking. olivier 01:52, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The existing paragraphs are pseudo-theological ruminations representative of no one (except, apparently, the author). It's just wrong, all through. But you are right. It would be bad form to blank it. I'll give it a day or two and look at it with fresh eyes. In the meantime, I hope Wesley, or someone else versed in iconography or symbolism could add something off the top of their head. Mkmcconn 02:48, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It does seem rather odd and idiosyncratic, on a first reading. It does get some things right; Christian symbolism evolved from Jewish/Hebrew symbolism in many respects. Christ's death on the cross was a victory over death, but I would personally call it a "real" victory, rather than a "merely symbolic" victory which the current text seems to suggest. I think my concern with this sort of article is that it include some notion of the relationship between symbols and sacraments; sacraments are one way we see God's grace imparted to people, with some physical "stuff" involved. "Symbol" comes from the Greek "sym" + "ballo", to "throw together" two or more different things, and this happens in sacraments through use of symbols. But to say this well in this sort of forum may not be possible within NPOV.

It would be good to include some basic and relatively less controversial information on basic symbology like Mkmconn mentioned above: cross, lamb, ichthus, etc., as well as vestments for clergy. In Orthodoxy, many very practical things have symbolic meaning added to them; a candle in front of an icon symbolizes the saint being illumined by the light of Christ... and of course makes it possible to see the icon at night in an age without electricity. Same goes for the light of the Gospel, represented by the torches held near it while it's being read; the words of the Gospel illumine the peoples' hearts as they hear, which the torches symbolize, but the torches also had the initial purpose of letting the reader see the text; electricity comes, darkness is no longer a problem, but candles and torches stay out of tradition and to maintain the symbolism. Some day I want to add some iconography basics to some article, maybe the one on iconography, or some specific notes on the article with images of Jesus. Wesley 16:47, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It looks like some interesting ideas are being discussed here. Could someone start including them in the article? I think that would help to further define what we want to see in the article and how it should be structured. Thanks! olivier 19:07, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If the approach taken in the new paragraphs doesn't solve the old problem, I'd like to discuss alternative approaches. I hope the new direction lays a better foundation, upon which the issues alluded to by Wesley, for example, can be expanded and broken off into more new content and new articles. Mkmcconn 09:23, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Contents

External links

My compliments to the editors on a very well-presented external links section. I have removed a couple:

Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Beehive

The Beehive is a genuine Christian symbol (see the link to the woodcarvings at the bottom of the article page, for example, or http://home.att.net/~wegast/symbols/symbolsb/symbolsb.htm at a site also linked to from the bottom of the page), though a rather minor one... AnonMoos 20:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


Covering the Cross (Crucifix) during Lent

Can you assist me with the origin and meaning of the practice of covering the crosses and crucifix during the season of Lent?

Removed image with unverifiable contents

I removed the Coptic bust.jpg image that supposedly shows a 3rd or 4th century Egyptian Coptic bust with an ankh changed into a cross. The contents of the image is completely unverifiable, dateable and sourceble for any 3rd party, yet carries a profound "evidence" message.

I’m not disputing the contents per say nor disputing the ankh to cross idea; I’m simply asking who has this bust that is on the image? who has examine it for authenticity?, like date and origin, and where and when exactly was it found?

It has been inserted into a number of articles on Wiki since January 8, 2006, with a range of different image comments and textural additions, like;

  • “3D stereo image of transitional ankh into coptic cross” User:3dnatureguy
  • “The illustration of the Christian 4th Century bust with a transitional "ankh becoming a cross" , found in the 1960s in the Fayeum acheological region, as a kind of "archeopterix" fossil. A "Dinosaur into Bird", relic.” User:3dnatureguy
  • “A Christian bust from the ruins of a church in Fayeum, Egypt, shows an anhk partially evolved into a cross being worn as a necklace. (see image)” user:Nativeborncal
  • “Coptic bust from the transition period, as the ankh become "christianized". Found in the Fayeum in the 1950s. posted in 3D.” User:3dnatureguy
  • “An example of the ankh in transition was discovered in the Fayaom, oasis region on a 3rd century christian bust, excaveted in the 1960s”. User:3dnatureguy
  • “Earliest use of cross symbol by Christians. Egypt 250C.E.in 3D.” User:3dnatureguy
  • “Early use of the Ankh modified slightly to use as a Christian symbol 280.C.E. in 3D” user:Nativeborncal

Apparently the two persons that have added (I believe 3dnatureguy is the actually photographer) it to articles, does not seem to have even rudimentary knowledge of its date, location and origin. They cannot agree on the exact details, even among themselves. I believe this image actual contents is very spurious and unless someone can add some verifiable details to this image, it is very unsuited for an encyclopedia. Twthmoses 03:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why omit the Pentagram?

The pentagram was a symbol of Christianity. It is appropriate to have it in this article. Removing my edits should be considered va[n]dalism. (pardon my quick fingers). Bytebear 23:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of things have been symbols of Christianity at one time or another in the global history of Christianity over the course of 2,000 years, but that doesn't mean that we need a detailed discussion of a relatively unimportant symbol (which also delves into tangential aspects of occultism etc. which are quite irrelevant here) on this broad overview article -- and you loosely and carelessly tossing around negligent accusations of "vandalism"[sic] does absolutely nothing whatsoever to set a good tone for fruitful and constructive collaborative editing on this article. AnonMoos 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The occultism of the pentagram is not even relatively new, but extremely recent. It really took on that persona in the 20th century, and not before. You do not understand the history of the symbol. It was a Christian symbol for far longer than it has been associated with Satanism. Bytebear 00:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The association of the Pentagram with occultism may be an extremely interesting topic to explore, but it has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER to this particular article. What part of "it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to this article" don't you understand? Furthermore, SALVS was actually a pre-Christian thing (see Image:Crotona Pentagram ring.png). At least you're no longer trying to include a Satanism image into a Christian symbolism article!!! AnonMoos 07:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
According to the pentagram article, it was part of christian symbology, and yet, there is no mention of it at all on this page. See Wikipedia:Information suppression. It is POV. And the image was part of the paragraph in the pentagram article (hense a cut-and-paste) so when I realized it didn't fit the subject, I removed it. I am not pushing an agenda, but you are supressing information. I can see why, but if the SALVS is pre Christian, then find a reference. I have references for the material I added. Why not balance it out with yours. Instead you want to hide the facts, and pretend they never existed, or that they were insignificant. Your arguments are weak, and you attack me personally for not using a spell checker. This article shoud mention symbols and how and why they are/were used, including the cross, the crucifix, the stations of the cross, the pentagram, etc. Instead you push the Shield of the Trinity (which from your home page, is clearly your obsession), which should be included in the article but not with such undue weight as you give it. You think I am being offensive, but I am just completing the article. You are supressing it. Bytebear 19:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, there is no List of Christian Symbols article. It apparently has been decided that it should be included in this article. I also note that you have no objection to the Tree of Jesse which I only learned about from this article, so why the undue weight and ommision of information? Ask yourself that before you slam me for being complete. Bytebear 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Dude, I have no problems whatsoever adding a link to the Pentagram in the "Examples" section (which is the closest thing we currently have to a "List of Christian symbols" article), and in fact I did so in my most recent edit to the article. However, this article has NOT been a compendious discussion of the individual meanings of various Christian symbols, and it was not helpful for you to try to enforce a radical change in the scope and focus of this article by means of edit-warring. This article has been a discussion of the GENERAL NATURE of Christian symbolism and its uses -- and if we want to change that in any major way, then it should be discussed here first. The "Tree of Jesse" bit is actually a minor appendage to the discussion of the Christmas tree in the previous section. I've changed the header-level to reflect this, and if you want to integrate those few sentences appropriately within the preceding paragraphs, then I won't object. As for the Shield of the Trinity, if you look at its article page, you'll notice that I never claim it to be anything other than it was -- a relatively minor symbol. It was somewhat well-known within its own particular niche during the 15th century and the first half of the 16th century in England and northern France, yet it seems very likely that there were pious believing Christians living in England and northern France during the 15th century and the first half of the 16th century, who lived long lives, and yet went from cradle to grave in complete ignorance of the existence of the Shield of the Trinity diagram. And yet for all that, the Shield of the Trinity is still more prominent than the Pentagram in traditional Christian symbolism! AnonMoos 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The image of the coat of arms of the Anglican Diocese of Trinidad and Tobago is included on the article page not because of any claim that the Shield of the Trinity diagram is a major symbol, but because when I finished assembling this image out of abstract vector elements, I was proud of my graphics-editing work, and thought it would be neat to include it on this page (since it includes three separate Christian symbols). I'm open to suggestions for a suitable replacement image (preferably not a Satanism symbol!). Look at Talk:Christianity/Archive_27#Shield_of_Trinity_image_in_.22Creeds.22_section for my past evaluation of the importance of the Shield of the Trinity symbol... AnonMoos 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Major problems with your edits

1) You tried to change the scope and focus of this article radically, without bothering to discuss anything here on this talk page first.
2) You mechanically cut-and-pasted material from article Pentagram into this article, without considering whether or not this material was appropriate and suitable when placed into the Christian Symbolism article (not to mention the question of why such material should be duplicated into two separate articles in the first place...).
3) You included an irrelevant Satanism symbol in a Christian Symbolism article!
4) Your edits conspicuously failed to include the word "Pentalpha" (which is a name frequently used of the Pentagram in a traditional Christian context).
5) You maliciously used the word "vandalism" in an edit summary, when you were fully aware that in fact no "vandalism"[sic] was involved. AnonMoos 18:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Assume good faith. Bytebear 17:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why didn't consider doing the same for me, before you maliciously used the word "vandalism" in an edit summary, when you were fully aware that in fact no "vandalism"[sic] was involved? It's a little late to appeal to principles of mutual respect, after you've already tried to stab the other person in the back... AnonMoos 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's it. it was all a conspiracy to make you look like a vandal. When you revert someone's edit, you should give a reason. and you were the one yelling at me on my talk page. If you are so emotional about this subject, them I suggest you step away from it. It clouds your judgement. I have no interest in this subject, but I do think the article as it stands is crap, and non-informative. Bytebear 22:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Dude, if you want to set a tone of civility for a discussion, you shouldn't maliciously accuse someone of "vandalism", when you're fully aware that he hasn't done any such thing -- I didn't "yell on your talk page" until you had already done that. You've kind of pissed in your own pool on this one, and since you never apologize and you never admit that you've made any mistakes, I guess there's nothing you can do to remedy the matter... AnonMoos 06:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I did nothing of the kind. Bytebear 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes you did -- you maliciously used the word "vandalism" (or actually "valdalism"[sic]) in your edit summary of 23:21, 3 August 2007, even though you were fully aware that in fact no "vandalism" was taking place. I already lost most of my patience with your style of charging in and making poorly-thought-through edits without previously consulting with anyone first, and then bull-headedly refusing to admit to any mistakes, back in the tempest-in-a-teapot associated with Template:Christianity -- and when you made a deliberately false and malicious accusation of "valdalism"[sic], my remaining patience with you ran out right at that moment... AnonMoos 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You are the agressor. I am simply trying to make an uninformative article better. I never claimed to be perfect, but I don't go picking fights with people over petty issues either. Do you want this article better or not? If not, then let's request for its deletion and move on. Alternatively, you could try to be a bit more civil, discuss the issue publically on this talk page, ask me what my intentions are before reverting them instead of sending nasty messages to my talk page. Bytebear 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Dude, it's still up to you to explain why this article should be changed from a discussion of the GENERAL NATURE of Christian symbols and their use (with in-depth examination of a very few selected examples -- not even including the Cross), to a compendium of the specific meanings of a whole long list of Christian symbols (so that a lot of material in the individual articles in the Category:Christian symbols category will be copied into this article). Providing such an explanation here was the very first thing you should have done (before editing the article page itself). AnonMoos 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain by example:
"Daddy, is the Christmas Tree a Christian symbol?"
"I don't know son. Let's look on Wikipedia and find out... Well it looks like it isn't, but apparently Christians do use the Tree of Jesse as a symbol."
"Thanks daddy, that clears things up."
Now do you see why I think this article is useless? Bytebear 21:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Really, the probem is that you are explaining the symbols from a theological point of view, which is very narrow given the wide audience who uses Wikipedia. Would someone who came to this page knowing nothing about Christianity come away with any knowledge about the subject? Hardly. They would get your theological slant on the issue and walk away thinking the Tree of Jesse is more significant to Christians than a Christmas tree. Sure, it has become a secular symbol, but it is still Christian, and should be elaborated upon. How did it come to be? What is the relgious symbolism of it? This article answers none of those questions. Wikipedia is not a theological project. It is a secular project, and as such, religious topics like this need to be written with secularism in mind. So what are symbols of Christianity that are most important? Well, there's the cross, the Easter Bunny, Christmas Tree, Santa Clause, the Eucharist, I suppose. But the point is, this article points people to really obscure and tangential information presented as if they were common place, with no history, usage or relivance to Christianity today. Middle age symbols are interesting, but how do they relate to the people today? How has the pentagram, for example, become a satanic symbol, when it once was a symbol of Christ, and how have Christians reacted to it's use in recent times, even by other Christian denominations? This article fails at all of these issues. I think a complete reworking of it is required, but you think it's perfectly sound. If you think this article is so perfect, why not submit it for evalutation. I think my points will resonate more with the average Wikipedian. Bytebear 21:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.