Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I think that to stand the statement «a supposed figure of worship of the Knights Templar», it should be referenced to an article of a serious writer or a book from a subject-dedicated author. This statement lack referencing.

This statement (whether I believe it or not) looks like the subjective point of view of who wrote it, not a rational, objective point of view. — Unsigned, by: Lobaluna / talk / contribs

1. Hello!
2. On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
3. We're not neutral in our point of view.
4. Did you have any particular sources in mind? Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
And FWIW, the role of Baphomet in the Templar trials is referenced to contemporary accounts in the discussion of the origin of the name. No one is claiming that the Templars actually worshipped Baphomet; only that the name appears in these accounts of the obtained-by-torture confessions of some Templars. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
...And as the men and women of the STASIWikipedia worked so hard to prove, there's nothing as trustworthy as a confession made under torture. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it true the Knights Templar worshipped Baphomet?[edit]

"As the next day dawned, they [i.e. the inhabitants of Antioch] called loudly upon Baphometh; and we prayed silently in our hearts to God, then we attacked and forced all of them outside the city walls" Barber & Bate 2010, p. 29.

Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Templars". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 599. In the 19th century a fresh impetus was given to the discussion by the publication in 1813 of F. J. M. Raynouard's brilliant defence of the order. The challenge was taken up, among others, by the famous orientalist Friedrich von Hammer-Purgstall, who in 1818 published his Mysterium Baphometis revelatum, an attempt to prove that the Templars followed the doctrines and rites of the Gnostic Ophites, the argument being fortified with reproductions of obscene representations of supposed Gnostic ceremonies and of mystic symbols said to have been found in the Templars' buildings. Wilcke, while rejecting Hammer's main conclusions as unproved, argued in favour of the existence of a secret doctrine based, not on Gnosticism, but on the unitarianism of Islam, of which Baphomet (Mahmoed) was the symbol. On the other hand, Wilhelm Havemann (Geschichte des Ausganges des Tempelherrenordens, Stuttgart and Tübingen, 1846) decided in favour of the innocence of the order. This view was also taken by a succession of German scholars, in England by C. G. Addison, and in France by a whole series of conspicuous writers: e.g. Mignet, Guizot, Renan, Lavocat. Others, like Boutaric, while rejecting the charge of heresy, accepted the evidence for the spuitio and the indecent kisses, explaining the former as a formula of forgotten meaning and the latter as a sign of fraternité!--Back2theroots34 (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)