[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I did find it peculiar that he did not portray Jesus with a beard and well his usual portrait and instead portrayed as a Roman (the irony). That said, it might be a chronology issue. [/quote]
Alot of people, if they were not told directly, would not realize that was supposed to be Jesus.
[quote]Indeed, and that may explain Roman aggressive expansionism lol. But I have little knowledge on hormones and how they affect psychology. [/quote]
Testosterone directly effects aggression levels. It's why body builders who use steroids (artifical testosterone) are known and notorious for being excessively agressive, violent, and even over-sexed. And big winkies are often (though not always accurately) assoxciated with high levels of testotserone.
[quote]The greatest example of course is Michelangelo's David. But what is very interesting is the "Romanization" of art (classicism), barring phallus size. This mirrors Enlightment obsession with the Roman Republic as somesort of lost Golden Age. Very similar to modern obsession of Arabs with a lost Golden Age, and I believe many other cultures share that obsession, and create a fantasy version of history to express their hopes and grievances. [/quote]
That's very true, and very likely. It is quite clear, when you look at how Rennisance and Enlightenment thinkers portrayed or visualized Rome and Greece, that it was through rose-tinted glasses and often an unrealistic portrayal. Of course, as you pointed out, it wasn't limited to them, as many people do this. Even the Jews have done this, with their reverence of the lost Golden Age of King david and King Solomon. Even in the US, you often have people waxing poetically about the wonderful "Golden Age" of 1950's America, when the reality was far from golden, especially if you were anything other than a White Anglo Saxon protestant male. Like Flemmeth said, people believe what they want to believe, reality or logic be damned.
[quote]It is interesting how visionaries indeed often resorted to the past to give grounding to their vision (whether deliberately or sb-consciously). I think humans by nature feel more comfortable when you are telling them that what you want has historical precedent and is not completely alien. The greatest example is the Meiji Restoration. It's called a restoration becaus it was framed as a return to something historical. Prophet Muhammad or Moses referencing Abraham and Ismael / David can also be seen in that way. Augustus of course portrayed himself as a restorer of the Republic. [/quote]
The past is often safer and more comforting than the unknown future, which is why, especially when times get rough or chaotic, people often look to the security of the past, regardless of how unrealistic. The past offers certainty.
[quote]The only ideology that I can thnk of at the moment that was completely new was communism. It is based on the fact that there is no historical precedence of it. But I believe it got "grounded" via other means, and of course resorting to a glorious past and nationalism were used by Stalin in his speech at the battle of Moscow.[/quote]
Yeah, as much as I personally oppose the ideas of communism and socialism, they were indeed very new and revolutionary ideas, at least in the west and civilized world. Though many more primitive societies to practice various forms of communalism, it had never been thought of nor utilized in the context of a more technologicallt and culturally advanced society. After all, the idea of everyone being economically equal, the annihilation of class, and redistribution of wealth were things no civilization ever considered, perhaps because such ideas would have been considered bizarre or insane. No one willingly gives up wealth, ambition, and status, nor would a person possessing such things want to. Why would they? Given that even in antiquity, thinkers and philosophers often came from either wealthy or respectable backgrounds (even slaves who became philosophers did so because their masters schooled them and blessed them with very comfy lives compared to other slaves).
I believe it was the new realities of the new industrialized world, combined with the explosion of scientific knowledge, reason, and technology, things that had no historical precedent or similarity, were key factors in the creation and promotion of communist ideals, and part of the success in implementing them.
[quote]I am not sure if Quraysh used a green banner. Don't know about the Hashemites either. The Abassids, being Hashemites, used black as their color. In the Jordanian flag, the red triangle is supposed to represent the Hashemites. So I don't know where they got that from. It's possible that Quraysh used green though, not sure. The green in Arab tri-color flags / Arab revolt flag (black, white, green) is supposed to represent the Fatimids, but I do not know if they historically used green in the same way the Abassids used black and the Umayyads used white.
The sufi theory makes sense as well, though I am not sure they would identify themselves with a color. But my knowledge of Sufism is not that extensive. Another theory is that the Ottomans, in addition to their national flag, also had a flag for the caliphate that was green. So it could have come from there.
Interesting stuff though, and I like green personally.
[/quote]
If you ever manage to find out, let me know. I'm rather curious now. Especially as you pointed out the tribal symbolism of the other two colors common in Arabic national flags, black and white, and their associations with the other tribes. Perhaps that's it. Or perhaps not. But regardless, I find the connection to tribal banners a very interesting one, especially when one considers that Muhammed united them all under a single banner. Perhaps that is why many Arabic flags feature this combination, as a symbol of the unity Mohammed brought to the Arab people? (Made ironic even more given his rejection of such symbols, lol)
[quote]Indeed. Sadly that also means that some Sunnis reject other Sunnis or Shi'as for being too influenced / "corrupted" by foreign alien elements. It's true that Shia'ism in particular was heavily influenced by non-Arab and non-Semitic elements, and that some veer very dangerously close to idolatry imo. But I would not reject their "Muslimness". [/quote]
It is not limited to Muslims, as I'm sure you know. Many rival Christian sects often bash and accuse each other of being "idolators" and "devil worshipers".
But it is unsurprising that the Shia, given their foothold and dominance in Iran, an indo-European nation, would evolve away from the core, Semetic traditions and doctrines, and end up taking on alot of foreign and alien practices or traditions. Similar to the way the mainland Europeans did with Christianity, or even many east Asians did with Buddism. But yeah, still, I wouldn't totally reject them as completely un Islamic, as they still follow the fundementals, such as the Five Pillars.
Question: Just how different are the Shia from the Sunni? I know the split happened shortly after Muhammed died, and was over who would take his place (Ali or the other fellow, I don't remember his name). But as far as core beliefs, doctrines, and practices, what are the major differences?
[quote]Islam is not a monolothic bloc, contrary to what extremists say (ironically, extremists from the opposite ends of the spectrum). It's a big umbrella comprising a lot of religious, philosophical, cultural and artistic differences. What it does not suffer from however are fundamental deviations when it comes to theology. Indeed most differences are at their core political. [/quote]
Very true. Islam has far few schisms due to core theological beliefs than Christianity does. Even with all the many philisophical differences and interpretations, the vast majority still agree on the the fundementals and do not dispute them like Christianity does. Everyone agrees on the basics: Mohammed as the last prophet, the singularity of God, the Five Pillars, and the correctness and authneticity of the Quran. Differences seem to stem more from interpretation as well as the Surahs.
[quote]That is very interesting. I must admit, protestantism, barring its fundamental beliefs and history, is somewhat alien to me because we have little to no protestants in the Arab World (at least officially). My Christian friends were all Orthodox and Catholic. And of course when invited to their homes, they had a lot of religious symbols. [/quote]
One thing to remember about Protestants, is that the term is a general blanket term for numerous sects of Christianity outside of the Catholic or Orthodox churches. That's about the only similarity. The numerous Protestant sects are so varied, that doctrines, beliefs, and practices are hard to group. And even some protestant sects themselves are hard to define, as there are many denominations that are very informal in their practices and doctrines.
I can only relay my own experience and knowledge of the Protestant sects I grew up with. basically, there no emphasis on religous images, in fact, I was raised to believe such things were idol worship. My grandmother, who was a very spiritual Christian, had a couple pictures of Jesus in the house, but these pictures were purely a way of expressing and identifying to visitors that they were in a Christian home. Beyond that, they held no signifgance, nor were they revered. In fact, my Grandmother believed that it was sinful to even believe that such things held any power. Many American Protestants are similar. My grandmother was more fond of displaying artistic renderings of Bible verses, or inspirational sayings.
Another aspect of my Protetestant upbringing was Bible studies, and this is something very common in several protestant sects. Every believer is expected to read the Bible themselves, and figure out how it applies to their lives, or how they can better integrate Christian beliefs and virtues into daily living. With a Bible study, people meet somewhere (usually someone's house) and discuss a specific Bible passage chosen for study and contemplation. People discuss and share interpretations, or debate on what they percieve is the intended message. In that respect, it is quite similar to what many Muslims do. from what I gather, every Muslim, from the lowliest peasant to king, is not only expected to read and study the Quran themselves, but discussion and debate over the interpretation and application is encouraged as part of one's spiritual growth and development. No one is considered more "holy" or an expert, and I remember several accounts of even uneducated peasants going toe to toe, and even winning, arguements with more educated scholars. The same basic principle exists in most Protestant denominations. Even the minister/reverend is not considered the authroity or expert of his congrgation, his role is to advise, inspire, and guide his flock in Christian doctirine, but he is not considered above the congrgation, in the same way that the Catholic clerical heierarchy is. Congregation members are free to disagree and even challenge him on any issue, provided their arguement has solid basis in Biblical doctrine.
Another thing, is that I was never raised to revere any saint. In fact, praying to or appealing to any entity but God or Jesus was considered indisputably as idolatrous. In fact, there were no saints period that were even aknowledged. The various Biblical figures, such as the 12 diciples, Mary Mother of Jesus, Mary Magdelene, ect, were respected and held up as examples of good Christians, but beyond that, they are still considered mortal sinners like everyone else. they have no power to intercede, they do not grant blessings, nor are any of them believed to have been blessed with any supernatural powers, beyond what God or Jesus allowed them to do in their name. Just as you found the idea of God having a son to be strange when your Christian friends brought it up, I found it equally bizarre when my Catholic friends talked about patron Saints, using the Rosary, appealing to Saints for help, ect. these things were alien to the doctrine I had been taught.
We also did not have many rites of passage or rituals that were considered required to be a believer. The only two rites that were practiced that were considered requirements of faith were baptism and The Lord's Supper (the term holy communion is used by other protestant sects, though, as well as the Catholics). Beyond that, nothing. marriages and funerals are rites that are common to all religions. However, there was no signifigance or requirement that one had to be married by a minister or reverend for the marriage to be considered valid. Many people I knew were married in civil ceremonies by judges or other officals, and those marriages are considered equally valid and blessed by God. There are no specific guidelines for funerals, either, or how one disposes of the earthy remains, and its a matter of one's personal desires and choice rather than religous requirement. We also did not have Christening (naming Bapstism cereminies for infants) or other rites of passage. It was against doctrine, in fact, to baptise an infant, because a person must be of an age where they can consent to baptism. I was baptised first at the age of 10, because i was able to give consent, as well as understand the signifgance of this.
As far as what is required to become a Christian in the sect I was raised, again, no ritual or such. The requirement was that one personally aknowledge themselves as a sinner whose only path to salvation is by accepting Jesus as the Son of God and personal savior from sin. Some sects have certain prayers, but a specific prayer is not required. This acceptance and belief is really the only true fundemental requirement of the faith i was raised in to be considered Christian (or saved, as another common term for it). of course, after such an aknowledgement of belief, one is expected to read the Bible and follow its teachings to the best of one's ability, and live as best a Christian life as possible. If one sins, there is no confessional to go to. The sinner is required to appeal/pray directly to God to ask for forgiveness. A priest or another person does not have the ability, power, nor mandate to forgive one of sins. And naturally, if the sin was committed against another person, one is expected to make amends with the offended party.
Anyways, that's just a basic description of the particular sect I was raised in. I can't really speak for many other sects, as I know little about them. As I've said, I am no longer a Christian, and have not been for a couple of decades. naturally, this hasn't made the members of my family particularly happy, but thankfully, they have not disowned me, they just keep sending me religous tracts and emails in the hopes they will turn me back from my wicked ways.
Not bloody likely, lol. I have embraced the dark side completely.
Though I am far from an athiest, or even antagonistic towards religous faith
[quote]It was interesting growing up with friends from a different faith, all of us being religious (at least when young), but not actually fully realizing we have a different religion. At one point I remember one of my best friends saying something about God's son and I was like "lol what?" and I recited the Qu'ranic verse that is all about the unity of God, because I genuinely did not understand what he was saying. It was only later in retrospect, that I realized what happened. [/quote]
Yeah, i did the same. Where I grew up, it was extremely mixed and diverse, as california is, with "white people" being greatly in the minority. I was the only person of my particular persuiassion. My friends were all Jews, Catholics (mainly Mexicans and other Latinos), Buddists, Hindus, and even a Zorastrian girl whose family had left Iran after the Islamic revolution for obvious reasons. Naturally, I made some dumb remarks and assumptions myself in many cases too. But that's more a case of being young and not understanding any better.
[quote]Sounds trivial, but it was interesting growing up in a mostly tolerant environment with friends from several denominations, and only learning that later, our friendship being based on somethign completely different. My one regret is that I never had a Jewish friend when young, for somewhat obvious reasons. It would have saved me a few years of pointless hatred as a kid.
[/quote]
I actually had more jewish friends than non-Jew. I actually found them to be more accepting of people who show intelligence, and even like people who are a bit offbeat and quirky. In fact, where I was often an outcast amongst my fellow gentile because I was different and not trendy/coo, I found alot of the Jewish kids actually liked and adopted me. It was my Jewish teachers who actually encouraged me to think outside the box and seek knowledge beyond what the school curriculum taught. Of course, this was unsurprising when I thought back years later, given that Jews revere education, knowledge and wisdom as an integral part of their culture and identity, and they admire people, even gentiles, who also value such things. And of course, they also tend to sympathize easily with people who are pariah, outcasts, or who are bullied, since it's something they are all to familiar with.
And naturally, as you can see, given this, anti-semetism was something I could never comprehend nor understand, since my opinions and experiences with Jewish people were far more positive than those with "my own kind".
Modifié par Skadi_the_Evil_Elf, 22 août 2011 - 12:48 .
Retour en haut
