Slashdot Mirror

> When I think of a red cross, I immediately
> think of emergency relief, supplies, etc.

That's what I thought of as a kid. Now, I know the history previous to that. Now, I think of the Crusades and the terrible things done in the name of Christianity during them. That's where the red cross on a white background originated.

The Knights Templar (Temple Mount Knights, who took a vow of poverty (communal property, as the term meant at that time) and allegiance to the order, who originally protected the pilgrims during a period when most other knights were ignoring them because there wasn't profit in their protection, who were a time the most powerful Military Christian order after so many donated so much in turn, who set up the first European and Crusader banking system, had as their naval flag the original white skull and crossbones on a black background later associated with pirates, who traded with the Muslims and introduced gauze (from Gaza, the city), muslin (from Muslim), and candy (from al-kandiq) these were one of the orders that flew the red cros on a white background, the original symbol of the crusades.

Similarly with the Knights Hospitaller, whose order founded and staffed the medical "hospitals" the pilgrims and Crusaders used. This is actually the origin of both the word "hospital" and the association of the red cross with medicine. Of course, while they were a welcome sight to many a wounded Christian Crusader or pilgrim, obviously, the Muslims had a rather different viewpoint! No WONDER they couldn't tolerate the Red Cross as a medical symbol! To them it meant the rape and pillage, the savagery of the Crusades! So they went with the Red Crescent.

However, the Red Crescent is also a religious symbol, so today there's a third symbol coming into use, designed to be religiously neutral while still being unmistakable for anything else. It is often used in international contexts, particularly in the mid-east. This is the Red Crystal, a diamond shape.

So, ideally, the Red Crystal will eventually come to have the positive associations of the Red Cross and Red Crescent today, without the sectarian and cultural negatives. It's also worth noting that Cross, Crescent, and Crystal, all start with C, so the ARC (and other "Red Cross and Red Crescent" organizations worldwide) could adopt the Crystal without even changing initials.

Wikipedia is a place to start, anyway. There are links from there elsewhere, and I've included another informative link on the Knights Templar as well as a Google link, below.

Wikipedia Red Cross/Crescent/Crystal (and some others)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross_(symbol)

Wikipedia Knights Templar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar

Wikipedia Knights Hospitaller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Hospitaller

Also see Wikipedia Teutonic Knights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutonic_Knights

A rather informative (altho obvious viewpoint taken) history of the Knights Templar (on first page of the below google)
http://www.electricscotland.com/HISTORY/kt1.htm

Google on: "red cross" history crusades
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22red+cross%22+history+crusades

Your web link clearly supports my position that defining "the bible" is difficult to do, and there are valid reasons to question what constitutes canon. I quote from your source: "The canon of the New Testament was not closed historically by the early church. Rather, its extent was debated until the Reformation. Even then, it was closed in a sectarian fashion. Therefore the question must be asked, is it then heresy for a person to question or reject a book of the present canon ? There have been repeated reevaluations of the church's canon. This happened during the initial sifting period. It happened again during the Renaissance and Reformation period, and it is beginning to happen again now. In such instances the fringe books of the canon have been repeatedly questioned. "

Out of curiosity what Bible are you reading that says man was made before Cattle?

Well, according to the KJB as I sited previously, on of the creation stories in Genisis has man created last: 1:24 lists "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." as happening on the forth day, before 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Yet in 2:7 through 2:19 we have a slightly different creation story, and the order of creation puts man first among the creaturs.

believe in Genesis 100%. I think a lot of people started to not believe it because science was reporting to have proved the Bible wrong. It actually proved it right as long as you interpret the Bible correctly and know what translation errors there are.

I think the important point you make is "as long as you interpret the Bible correctly", which I might tend to agree with. But with that "interpretation" going on, it is difficult to be "literal".

Your quote from Pope John Paul II seems to me to clearly refute your assertation that Catholic theology derrives from paganism - I would say that the statement "only in the worship of Christ, true God and true Saviour" is surely Christian based. One might argue that good people without having been revealed Christianity were all dammed, but it doesn't seem particularly anti-scriptural to have a theology that good people's good actions come from the all-good God. The whole scriptural discussions on preaching to non-jews and revalations to the whole world tend to support this sort of arguement.

There are plenty of things that go directly against the Bible with Catholicism. Asking a priest for forgiveness is not from the Bible. Saying a Hail Mary to earn forgiveness is not from the Bible. Last Rites do not get you into Heaven. Purgatory is not a real place. Baptism is nothing more than a symbol that you have accepted Christ as your savior. The list goes on and on and the internet is filled with articles on the subject. I will say though I don't like some of them because they try to belittle Catholics and make fun of them.

Well, you should probably look into these sorts of things a bit more if they bug you so much - most of your characterizations seem a bit off, particularly when looking at what the Catholics actually say about their beliefs. As you are aware, debating theology over the Internet is "not in the Bible", yet you still do that, eh?

Catholic theology does not require a priest for forgiveness of sins. Saying a Hail Mary (taken directly from scripture) does not earn forgiveness according to Catholic theology. Catholic theology does state or at least imply that being in a 'state of grace' makes you a shoe-in for heaven, but how is that different from "accepting

Wee, sleeket, stalwart, non-tim'rous beastie,

O, what panic's in my breastie!

Thou need na start tward me sae hasty,

Wi' bickering brattle!

I wadna be laith to rin fae thee,

Wi' yer murd'ring pattle!

After the bard - http://www.electricscotland.com/burns/mouse.html

I'm sure they would balk at a simulation of the death of William Wallace. Which by the way would be more fun than just three bullets:

"At that time (and for the next 550 years), the punishment for the crime of treason was that the convicted traitor was dragged to the place of execution, hanged by the neck (but not until he was dead), and disembowelled (or drawn) while still alive. His entrails were burned before his eyes, he was decapitated and his body was divided into four parts (or quartered).

Accordingly, this was Wallace's fate. His head was impaled on a spike and displayed at London Bridge, his right arm on the bridge at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, his left arm at Berwick, his right leg at Perth, and the left leg at Aberdeen."

from

Point for historically acurate body part placement.

" The man behind the demonstration was a 37-year-old Scotsman called John Logie Baird. And what he showed on screen, 19 months before Farnsworth, was far superior to Farnsworth's "blob of light", as it was famously described by Albert Abramson in The History of Television."

Well, congratulations. You're a whining brit who thinks he's really interesting and smart. We always love to hear your opinions about the history of inventions.

Here you go.

No, the movie industry doesn't call sequels versions. That is a programmer slipping up.

But they might as well for the lack of originality generally shown.

Cheers,
Ben

PS Don't trust the fortunes to be very accurate. The fortune as I am posting this is Wad some power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us. -- R. Browning I happen to know that this is due to Robbie Burns. Which makes me wonder about others out there that I don't know about...