Technically, it’s not a pentagram.
Maybe Rush used the symbols for the same reason I did, to encourage esoteric…ness. And for fun. If that makes me the devil, so be it 
More likely, it was to symbolize the struggle of our ‘starman’ against the oppression and hypocrisy of the temple priests.
It didn’t strike me that way, but it could well be. His stance is sort of ambiguous. What do you suppose his state of…uh…sexual excitement might be, and what might that mean–either way.
Starman or Neil?
You should either read the story behind 2112 or listen to the songs. There’s no sex in 2112. It’s way off-topic, though; if you want me to learn you on the finer points of Rush then you can make another thread. I promise you, the star represents bad things in the story. He’s shielding himself from the star, not getting sexual gratification from it.
Hi TPT,
You probably know that the Romans accused Christians of cannibalism and murder of children, so it is a real problem obviously. However, the association in the mind of those taking part is another one (although you will find that it varies from person to person), and with me the Host is unleavened bread because it has to be chewed on. Christ and his Way are like that, there is no easy nutrition for Christians, they have to chew their way through his teaching and his cross.
The wine, which we receive after the host, is symbolically the blood, but the wine also symbolises the friendliness of God, brings the promise of the great feast at the end of time to mind and member-ship (symbolism of Paul: members of a body) in the Realm of God. It is also symbolic of the sap of the vine and the words, “Abide in Me, and I in you. Just as the branch is not able to be bearing fruit by itself unless it shall be abiding in the vine, so neither you, unless you shall be abiding in Me.†(John 15)
I believe that Christ was giving his community a new liturgy (seder), based on the old, but transcending Passa – uncannily anticipating his death. I think that his kind of martyrdom was always threatening and he knew that he would be the victim. But he warned his followers that they must also anticipate the cross and not take discipleship lightly. For this eventuality (and probability) the order of the “Lord’s Supper†was made and later passed on.
The earliest known use of the term “transubstantiation” to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours (died 1133) in about 1079. Up until then it was a dogmatical question as to the sacramental value of the Eucharist which, in the magic orientated dark ages, accentuated the effect of an action. To me this borders on superstition but I know of enough Christians I otherwise treasure as brothers and sisters who say that it is important for them. I can live with and without transubstantiation by just accepting and honouring the practice of others but the problem is, as you say, a problem for other people who see it the way you have said.
Sorry, but if I can find out what was meant originally, I am closer to the truth than by sticking to translations.
Shalom
If that’s true why didn’t he just just sing it in the shower? Why inflict it on other people? 
On a more serious note, in your dialogue with Anthem about Rush [just a Rock band after all], I see a tendency to read a lot into artistic productions (literature, music) and then to tenaciously defend your questionable interpretation. When you run out of arguments, you just ignore the counter-arguments. Yes?
Maybe he wanted other people to hear it. Or to make money. Or both. In any case, it wasn’t infliction; you can avoid Rush (unless you’re my fiance!).
Indeed.
No, I think if you’ll look at it again, we were in pretty much general agreement that neither of us could understand why he did it but had narrowed it down to a couple of possibilities.
BTW, my silence is usually induced by necessity because there’s noting left but to re-re-re-iterate what I’ve said already. Often my most salient points are ignored and the rest just skirted. Romans accusing Christians, and Christians accusing Jews of actually drinking blood and eating children are absurd and have no place in meaningful discussion. No one yet has presented any credible evidence that the symbolic consumption of any blood, or human flesh and blood, would have been anything but blasphemy to Jews throughout their history. Instead the appeal is made that Jesus’ authority and divinity would institute one of the strongest Jewish taboos and proscriptions into a religious rite which just happen to be preceded by a nearly identical pagan rite.
That isn’t what Anthem said. He agreed with me. You haven’t produced evidence to support your argument that Jesus would not have introduced a blood and wine communion because it would have been considered blasphemy by more conventionally-minded contemporary jews. The gospel accounts state that he did introduce it. He did not avoid speaking and acting provocatively. The gospels state that he was considered a blasphemer. As Bob pointed out, you have anachronistically attributed the doctrine of transubstantiation to the apostle Paul. You have given no answer to these assertions. Apparently you have none. I’ll say it again what you have presented is unfounded conjecture unsupported by evidence.
So be it.
Off topic:
Hi, I’m a big fan of Rush (the band). Although I don’t know that Neil Peart has ever proclaimed to be atheist, his lyrics many times do question religion. The song that most points to his atheism I would say is Freewill, although Roll the Bones is along those lines as well. Both songs dismiss the idea of a higher being ruling over humans.
And the idea that Rush is Satanic is a joke. Typically cast upon the band by the misinformed.
While I don’t care at all about this topic’s concern of the communion/sacrament/etc…
(as a record, Jesus would likely have identified with the concept as he did nearly this act with the Pharisees at his famous “breakfast”. It was a custom of various sects of Judaism to share a meal, not just in a passover manner, but also as a spiritual sharing of the same “body of spirit” as it was thought. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls’ assumed living quarters has a massive table where it is clear they partook in this spiritual service often.)
At any rate…like I said, aside from all of this, here’s my problem with Paul.
He shows up admitting not to be an apostle, claims a vision, writes a bunch of letters of authority, and the writings are slapped into the Bible simply because he claims a vision.
The apostles and Paul rarely agreed as far as any evidence shows.
Now…there’s someone else that has done this EXACT same thing; aside from arguing with the apostles:
Joseph Smith.
Strangely, his writings aren’t accepted as part of the Bible by the standard body of Christianity.
So if Joseph Smith, claiming a divine vision and inspired writing, isn’t accepted, then why exactly should I accept Paul so easily based on some claim to a divine vision?