NationStates Jolt Archive

As strange as it is to say, i find myself in agreement with Jehovah's Witnesses on this one.

Firstly, it is entirely likely that at alleged time of Jesus they were just as likely to be using Upright poles/stakes, X-shapes, or T-shapes as they were to be using the crosses christianity has adopted.

Secondly, what kind of sick group tries to glorify its messiah by displaying the instrument of their death?

All seems pretty sick and twisted and insulting to me. If i was murdered and everyone was glorifying the thing i'd been killed with i'd think they were happy someone had finally killed me.

"A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back, he's really going to want to see a fucking cross? Maybe that's why he hasn't shown up yet... it's like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a sniper rifle pendant... 'Just thinking of John, Jackie. We love him. Trying to keep that memory alive, baby.'"

-- Bill Hicks

So true...

Yeah, I've always wondered about that myself. Like you don't see some "New Age" religion that's leader died of drug OD carrying around little metal syringes inset with gems, do you?

Maybe they just want to spread a simple message to everyone. "This is a great way of killing people off. Someone should try it sometime."

It's a goofy religion. (but arent they all)

I don't like crosses. not regular, not burning ones and not inverted ones.
maybe christians unknowingly hate Jesus? ( he seems like a ok dude after all) :p

Doesn't Jesus want us to remember what he did in life and why he allowed himself to die to begin with? The death itself isn't that important.

Doesn't Jesus want us to remember what he did in life and why he allowed himself to die to begin with? The death itself isn't that important.
I guess it depends on your outlook on Christian Theology, I mean to some the death is the important part.

We could take to wearing drugs around our neck and call John Belushi our messiah. Then when the authorities wish to take those drugs we can claim we are being discriminated against :D

I guess it depends on your outlook on Christian Theology, I mean to some the death is the important part.

I suppose it gives people an excuse to hate Jews...

I don't like crosses. not regular, not burning ones and not inverted ones.
maybe christians unknowingly hate Jesus? ( he seems like a ok dude after all) :p

They sure seem to ignore his teachings alot...

Oh... the ironies of religion!

Oh... the ironies of religion!

Yes, I understand that their are many parts of the true cross with pieces of metal in them.


A cookie to the first person who figures out what I'm referring to.

I suppose it gives people an excuse to hate Jews...

or the Romans.....

or the Romans.....

What have the roman's ever done for us?

Sorry had to get that one in.

Also as a side note do you think that carving and gilding all these crosses goes against the 'do not make graven images' commandment?

or the Romans.....

Unfortunately the Romans are gone so they can't exactly be targeted by hate. Now, going after the "Christ killers" is still possible and gives people a "reason" to be anti-Semitic.

But then again, I'm sure most of the people who feel that way also think Jesus was a white guy. :rolleyes:

Yes, but that's in the old testament. Only filthy people follow that.

..Guess who I'm referring to. Sounds like exactly the kind of thing Pat Robertson would say.

Sorry had to get that one in.

Also as a side note do you think that carving and gilding all these crosses goes against the 'do not make graven images' commandment?

it probably is... but then so would owning Barbies, and My little ponies, and my D&D figures... I think you actually have to worship it or something, but there is debate, some "brands o'Christianity" even object to the Statue of Liberty and owning garden gnomes.

Yes, I understand that their are many parts of the true cross with pieces of metal in them.


A cookie to the first person who figures out what I'm referring to.

I see what you did there, you're talking about large nails.

I would guess Christians use the cross becasuse they want to remember how he died as a reminder of why he did so. But that was a long time ago, and now, the cross is the symbol, so what're you going to do? Suggest that all Christians worship another shape?

it probably is... but then so would owning Barbies, and My little ponies, and my D&D figures... I think you actually have to worship it or something, but there is debate, some "brands o'Christianity" even object to the Statue of Liberty and owning garden gnomes.

Damn those Garden Gnomes and their sneaky ways. I bet they are in on this whole cross conspiracy. Just like how they keep hding my car keys.

I'd argue that people do worship the cross in its own right sometimes. Kissing crosses, wearing crosses, crossing themselves, calling themselves "the followers/soldiers/armies of the cross.

I would guess Christians use the cross becasuse they want to remember how he died as a reminder of why he did so. But that was a long time ago, and now, the cross is the symbol, so what're you going to do? Suggest that all Christians worship another shape?

How about a Banana? Because it is so well designed by God to fit the human hand ;)

Damn those Garden Gnomes and their sneaky ways. I bet they are in on this whole cross conspiracy. Just like how they keep hding my car keys.

I'd argue that people do worship the cross in its own right sometimes. Kissing crosses, wearing crosses, crossing themselves, calling themselves "the followers/soldiers/armies of the cross.

oh I know a great number of people worship crosses, a great number pray to saints and Mary, and put them on high... but.....you know off topic and sort.

Also as a side note do you think that carving and gilding all these crosses goes against the 'do not make graven images' commandment?
Oh, but didn't you know? Jesus brought a New Covenant, meaning we can disregard the Old Testament. That's why we can eat shrimp, can cut our hair and beards, and don't have to sacrifice our cows and sheep.

Oh, except guys still can't do guys, because that's just icky.

And for the people who don't get it: </sarcasm>

As strange as it is to say, i find myself in agreement with Jehovah's Witnesses on this one.

Firstly, it is entirely likely that at alleged time of Jesus they were just as likely to be using Upright poles/stakes, X-shapes, or T-shapes as they were to be using the crosses christianity has adopted.

Secondly, what kind of sick group tries to glorify its messiah by displaying the instrument of their death?

All seems pretty sick and twisted and insulting to me. If i was murdered and everyone was glorifying the thing i'd been killed with i'd think they were happy someone had finally killed me.

In part to remind those of his sacrifice, but also to rejoice in his saving humanity by dying for their sins. Protestants use just the cross shape while Catholics have the Crucifix.

Besides, the cross is an icon. In early Christianity there was a huge debate over whether to use icons or not. It may seem gruesome, but it depends on how you are looking at it.

In part to remind those of his sacrifice, but also to rejoice in his saving humanity by dying for their sins. Protestants use just the cross shape while Catholics have the Crucifix.

Besides, the cross is an icon. In early Christianity there was a huge debate over whether to use icons or not. It may seem gruesome, but it depends on how you are looking at it.

If it is there because it reminds of the sacrifice, then its symbolism is intrinsicly linked with the crucifixion, and thus it is a guesome symbol. If it is merely an iconic symbol to represent christianity and is not supposed to be taken as the instrument of Jesus' execution wouldnt a different symbol be more appropriate and less morbid?

Oh, except guys still can't do guys, because that's just icky.

And for the people who don't get it: </sarcasm>

Ever notice how the bible only prohibits gay sex? Not Lesbian sex? Do you suppose some of the apostles had a...thing?

What an odd thread.

Christ dying as the perfect sacrifice that can pay the debt for all of mankind's sin is a, if not THE foundational tenet of Chrisitianity.

To Chrisitianity, Jesus is not just a nice teacher with some great ideas on how to treat each other. His death, willingly, is where Chrisitians begin their spiritual journey. So, the "cross" whatever it's true design was, represents the seminal event in Christianity and is therefore an obvious choice for its symbol or icon.

Of course, for far too many Christians, it's as if they met Christ at the foot of the cross and continue to mill around there chatting with each other about the cross, the cross the cross, and haven't gotten to the whole LIFE thing he taught them about and how his teaching and sacrifice should be making them into noticeably "better" people.

What an odd thread.

Christ dying as the perfect sacrifice that can pay the debt for all of mankind's sin is a, if not THE foundational tenet of Chrisitianity.

To Chrisitianity, Jesus is not just a nice teacher with some great ideas on how to treat each other. His death, willingly, is where Chrisitians begin their spiritual journey. So, the "cross" whatever it's true design was, represents the seminal event in Christianity and is therefore an obvious choice for its symbol or icon.

Of course, for far too many Christians, it's as if they met Christ at the foot of the cross and continue to mill around there chatting with each other about the cross, the cross the cross, and haven't gotten to the whole LIFE thing he taught them about and how his teaching and sacrifice should be making them into noticeably "better" people.

How is it odd? Sorry, i really am failing to understand.The cross may represent the "seminal event" of the christian faith but as you said yourself the teachings he gave during his life are supposed to be the important parts. Or am i mistaken? So shouldn't the main symbol of christianity come from his life?

Do you not see how the use of the cross is an incredibly morbid and macbre symbol? From my non-religious point of view its really quite disturbing.

I just dont get why christians would give the cross positive connotations. I dont get most of christianity. But all that is for other threads.

I suppose it gives people an excuse to hate Jews...


So why do Secular Liberals hate Jews so much these days?

If Jesus had never taught us anything, but had died on the cross, it would still have saved us. If Jesus had taught more and greater things than anyone else (and I believe He did), but had never died, according to Christianity, we would all still be hopelessly lost.

It is the Cross that saves us, the sacrifice that heals us. That is why Christians venerate (not worship) the cross as they worship Christ who died on it. If there was no cross, there would be no salvation. The Cross is central to our faith, in a way that nothing else can be.

We both wear the cross remembering that this was the cost of our own sin, and the source of our salvation, and to remind us that we ourselves must make our own sacrifices in following Jesus. He did, after all, tell us to take up our own crosses and follow Him.

I must say, though, that this thread really brings out the meaning of 1 Corinthians 1:18: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

How is it odd? Sorry, i really am failing to understand.The cross may represent the "seminal event" of the christian faith but as you said yourself the teachings he gave during his life are supposed to be the important parts. Or am i mistaken? So shouldn't the main symbol of christianity come from his life?

Do you not see how the use of the cross is an incredibly morbid and macbre symbol? From my non-religious point of view its really quite disturbing.

I just dont get why christians would give the cross positive connotations. I dont get most of christianity. But all that is for other threads.

His life is celebrated and his teachings are held dear, but his death and subsequent Resurrection are what make him the Savior and the messiah.

This is all very basic and can be explained in any Christian theology book or the gospels.


or are you just looking for a "Buddy Jesus"? (from the movie Dogma)

The cross is a very old symbol used for many many years before christianity by Egyptians, Hindus and other religions. The Christian symbol is the fish, but was changed, as many other things, to make it easier for other people to convert.

The cross signifies the union of earth and sky, it's a symbol of creation. The Irish cross, with a circle over it, means the cycles of nature and it's a symbol of rebirth. The swastika is an stylized for of that same symbol.

His life is celebrated and his teachings are held dear, but his death and subsequent Resurrection are what make him the Savior and the messiah.

So, why not use a symbol of the Resurrection instead of the death? Lots of people died, lots of people died on crosses, but only Jesus came back. Seems like the resurrection is more fundamental and Christians used the cross because it was more... dramatically interesting in a morbid, rubber-necking brutality-fascinated population.

His life is celebrated and his teachings are held dear, but his death and subsequent Resurrection are what make him the Savior and the messiah.

This is all very basic and can be explained in any Christian theology book or the gospels.


or are you just looking for a "Buddy Jesus"? (from the movie Dogma)

Buddy Jesus pwns j00.

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/buddyjesus-41418.jpg

So, why not use a symbol of the Resurrection instead of the death? Lots of people died, lots of people died on crosses, but only Jesus came back. Seems like the resurrection is more fundamental and Christians used the cross because it was more... dramatically interesting in a morbid, rubber-necking brutality-fascinated population.


I'll pass a message to the Pope next time I see him.

look, all i know is, as a Protestant, the Cross is a comforting symbol to me. The Crucifix is a little more morbid but when I was in the hospital in serious condition, there was a Crucifix on the wall (it was a Catholic hospital). I never gave much thought to religion before, but seeing that Crucifix with Jesus' tortured body on it and all actually gave me hope. I mean, look what he went through, surely I can hang in there.

I mean, look what he went through, surely I can hang in there.

Considering he died from it, did he really make it through?

I'll pass a message to the Pope next time I see him.

Also tell him I know the location of the secret rebel starbase.

look, all i know, as a protestant, the Cross is a comforting sign to me. The Crucifix is a little more morbid but when I was in the hospital in serious condition, There was a Crucifix on the wall (it was a Cathilic hospital). I never gave much thought to religion before, but seeing that Crucifix with Jesus' tortured body on it and all actually gave me hope.

I understand, but I think you'd feel the same way if they'd used some other symbol. The meaning behind your religion wouldn't be changed just because a different icon is there.

BTW,

I mean, look what he went through, surely I can hang in there.

I dunno if that was intended or not but it made me chuckle. :)

If Jesus had never taught us anything, but had died on the cross, it would still have saved us. If Jesus had taught more and greater things than anyone else (and I believe He did), but had never died, according to Christianity, we would all still be hopelessly lost.

I think death is unavoidable ... But i assume you mean if he hadnt been executed after leading his 'perfect' life. But then this raises the question of why God can't forgive people as long as they genuinely dont wish to harm other people. Regardless of what particular deity and story they choose to believe. I thought God was supposed to be all powerful.


It is the Cross that saves us, the sacrifice that heals us. That is why Christians venerate (not worship) the cross as they worship Christ who died on it. If there was no cross, there would be no salvation. The Cross is central to our faith, in a way that nothing else can be.

So the manner of jesus' death actually matters? Not just that he died? If he were stoned to death would you be wearing a little rock on a pendant? And it still doesnt get away from the fact that you are venerating an instrument of torture.

We both wear the cross remembering that this was the cost of our own sin, and the source of our salvation, and to remind us that we ourselves must make our own sacrifices in following Jesus. He did, after all, tell us to take up our own crosses and follow Him.

And that cant have been meant as a symbolic thing? To take on your own hardships (whatever they may be) to grow your faith? And why would you need reminding anyway? A) it should be more valid if you can actually internalise those concepts and make them part of yourself and not need ANY external symbols of rememberance. B) I would think to true christians that needing to be reminded of these things would be as unnecessary as being reminded to put pants on before you go to work.

I must say, though, that this thread really brings out the meaning of 1 Corinthians 1:18: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

So i make an honest enquiry about the cross symbol because i understand the 'yes' reasons but do not understand how christians dismiss the 'no reasons' and i get called a fool. It seems prevelant in the bible to just dismiss anyone who doesnt agree as a fool.

So Cross = Gruesome Torture Device that Jesus sacrificed himself on. But thats ok to shove up around the place because believers are saved by it...

So, why not use a symbol of the Resurrection instead of the death? Lots of people died, lots of people died on crosses, but only Jesus came back. Seems like the resurrection is more fundamental and Christians used the cross because it was more... dramatically interesting in a morbid, rubber-necking brutality-fascinated population.

Thanks. That was what i was trying to get at.

The cross is a very old symbol used for many many years before christianity by Egyptians, Hindus and other religions. The Christian symbol is the fish, but was changed, as many other things, to make it easier for other people to convert.

The cross signifies the union of earth and sky, it's a symbol of creation. The Irish cross, with a circle over it, means the cycles of nature and it's a symbol of rebirth. The swastika is an stylized for of that same symbol.

Actually, while the cross (a rather basic geometric formation) may have been used in various cultures and religions before Christianity (proving nothing, really), the Cross for Christians does in fact refer to Jesus' death. It was never "changed" and other Christian symbols (such as the fish) still are used to represent Christianity.

One of the earliest archaelogical finds pertaining to Christianity was a grafitti drawn on a Roman school of a donkey-headed man crucified and a figure kneeling toward it in prayer, with the caption, "Alexamenos worships his god". Thus, the Crucifix was obviously a known symbol of Christianity very early on.

And the fact that the Gospels spend 1/3 to 1/2 of their entire account of Jesus' life on His Crucifixion also shows that the prominence of that aspect of the faith was front and centre from the start, as do the earlier epistles of the Apostle Paul, such as the passage from 1 Corinthians that I quoted above. Just a few verses later, Paul states, "I determined to know nothing among you, except Jesus Christ, and Him Crucified" (1 Cor 2:2).

The centrality of the Cross in the Christian faith was not a "later development", but truly is the central part of the Christian faith.

To answer Greater Trostia, it is the Cross (or Crucifix, if you're Catholic like me), that brings Salvation. Yes, Jesus is the only one to resurrect from it, and the Resurrection is a unique event in that regard, but it is not the saving moment. The Cross was the payment of the debt of sin. The resurrection was the confirmation that Jesus was truly able to pay the debt--the "proof of purchase" if you will. Without the Cross, there could be no resurrection. Thus, as important (and it is important) as the Resurrection is, it is still the Cross that is central.

To answer Greater Trostia, it is the Cross (or Crucifix, if you're Catholic like me), that brings Salvation. Yes, Jesus is the only one to resurrect from it, and the Resurrection is a unique event in that regard, but it is not the saving moment. The Cross was the payment of the debt of sin. The resurrection was the confirmation that Jesus was truly able to pay the debt--the "proof of purchase" if you will. Without the Cross, there could be no resurrection. Thus, as important (and it is important) as the Resurrection is, it is still the Cross that is central.

Well, one could make the argument that without proof of purchase, we at www.salvation.com cannot verify your sin-savings account. No proof, no salvation.

And let me ask you this, if Jesus was impaled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement) instead of crucified, would you consider the wooden pike as important and holy a symbol as the cross was?

Actually, while the cross (a rather basic geometric formation) may have been used in various cultures and religions before Christianity (proving nothing, really), the Cross for Christians does in fact refer to Jesus' death. It was never "changed" and other Christian symbols (such as the fish) still are used to represent Christianity.

Sorry, you're right. "Changed" is not the word I should have used. Rather that it took prevalence over the other symbols precisely because it was familiar to people and made it easier to explain Jesus' sacrifice. It also made it easier to hide from persecuting authorities, precisely because it wasn't exclusive to Christians, unlike the fish.

It certainly has been central to Christian belief from the start.

And let me ask you this, if Jesus was impaled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement) instead of crucified, would you consider the wooden pike as important and holy a symbol as the cross was?

I sure am glad he didn't go through the supplice of the superwedgie.

I've often wondered if this was an influence on Native Americans when the White Man arrived.
"Can you understand what they're saying?"
"No, but it looks like if we don't go along with them, they'll nail us to a tree!"

Also tell him I know the location of the secret rebel starbase.



I understand, but I think you'd feel the same way if they'd used some other symbol. The meaning behind your religion wouldn't be changed just because a different icon is there.

BTW,



I dunno if that was intended or not but it made me chuckle. :)


LOL, pun unintended. :p

Dude, way too much. I'd done a rather lengthly reply to CoV, and something went screwy with the board and it was lost. Sorry. I'll try to briefly reply to all three of ya, and then I think I'm done. Sorry. Bed time and priorities and such...

Iztatepopotla, actually, it was the fish that was a defence against persecution, as a secret sign between believers.

Greater Trotsia, no resurrection, no salvation. You're absolutely right. But the thing is, the Resurrection wasn't what paid the debt, the death was. That's why I made sure to state that both are important, and nigh equally, but the Cross is the central point.

And if he'd been impaled, then yes, I'm sure we'd be wearing pikes.

Children of Vodka, I'm going to try to condense my earlier, vanished-into-the-ether reply:

God can't just forgive, because He is also all-holy, and perfectly just. Justice demands the satisfaction of wrongs. It cannot "just forgive"--thus, in God's divine mercy, He became a man, to represent us, so that He could satisfy Justice on our behalf, on the Cross.

How Jesus died is indeed important, because it fulfilled several prophecies and types throughout the Old Testament. If they had predicted Stoning, then I'm sure He would have died in that manner, and we'd all be wearing stones. But the way He died was not incidental to the story, no.

Yes, "taking up your cross" is a symbolic thing, and in no way fulfilled by wearing a cross around your neck or some such thing. I merely was drawing the relation between Jesus' suffering and our own need to many times follow suit in following Him. He drew the relation in how He phrased His statement. I simply used it to further the point that the Cross is, indeed, central to our faith.

Why do we need reminding? Because even those of us who have come the farthest in internalising our beliefs, and truly living out our morals, are still not perfect, and still slip and fall, and still need reminding of God's forgiveness and at the same time, the ugliness of sin. Moreover, such invisible, spiritual realities are often "out of sight, out of mind", especially in the midst of tangible and very persuading temptations. If needing a visual reminder makes us weak, then weak we are. But God is great in Mercy, and even affords us these visual cues without condemning our need for them. He has even chosen, in the sacraments (such as baptism and the Eucharist) to bestow His grace to us through physical reality.

So i make an honest enquiry about the cross symbol because i understand the 'yes' reasons but do not understand how christians dismiss the 'no reasons' and i get called a fool. It seems prevelant in the bible to just dismiss anyone who doesnt agree as a fool.

No, I never called you a fool. The verse never called you a fool. The verse said that those who don't believe in the cross often don't do so because they think it's foolishness, not the other way around. So I'm not sure where your offence lies.

The Cross is indeed a brutal torturous killing device--and yes, Jesus' death on that Cross forgave our sins and saved us. The ugliness of sin, the depth of grace, and the reminder of the need to suffer ourselves at times all entwine in that one event and in that one icon. That is the mystery of the Christian faith. It is, pardon the pun, the crux of it.

God bless.
Gregory

No, I never called you a fool. The verse never called you a fool. The verse said that those who don't believe in the cross often don't do so because they think it's foolishness, not the other way around. So I'm not sure where your offence lies.

Oops. Yeah. I misread that part. Sorry about that. my bad.


God can't just forgive, because He is also all-holy, and perfectly just. Justice demands the satisfaction of wrongs. It cannot "just forgive"--thus, in God's divine mercy, He became a man, to represent us, so that He could satisfy Justice on our behalf, on the Cross.

Why cant he just forgive those who truly do try to be good people but do not follow Jesus? I personally dont think God exists to forgive. But assuming God did what is so special about a particular belief as opposed to the way you life your life? The whole actions speak louder than words principle. And what about for people who never hear of christianity, what about people raised in a fashion they would never forsake their own faith that is just as strong as a chrsitians, what about people who arent mentally capable of understaning (children and people with mental disorders) and what about people who just simply arent convinced there even is a God because no one has ever provided them with reason and/or evidence enough to believe? (Should i be moving this to a different thread?) And if the punishment for this is eternity in hell, how do you rationalize that as just?

Anyway you've shown me why the cross is so important to christians and how the brutality is integral to the symbolic nature of the cross. However, on a personal level, i think its still incredibly sick and in very poor taste. Each to their own though.

As strange as it is to say, i find myself in agreement with Jehovah's Witnesses on this one.

Firstly, it is entirely likely that at alleged time of Jesus they were just as likely to be using Upright poles/stakes, X-shapes, or T-shapes as they were to be using the crosses christianity has adopted.

Secondly, what kind of sick group tries to glorify its messiah by displaying the instrument of their death?

All seems pretty sick and twisted and insulting to me. If i was murdered and everyone was glorifying the thing i'd been killed with i'd think they were happy someone had finally killed me.

I've wondered the same. You know why I think Jesus isn't coming back anytime soon? It's because of all these fuckers walking around with crucifixes, reminding him of what he went through.

Also, because it's not physically possible for someone who's been dead for 2000 years to come back to life. But that's besides the point.

I've wondered the same. You know why I think Jesus isn't coming back anytime soon? It's because of all these fuckers walking around with crucifixes, reminding him of what he went through.

Also, because it's not physically possible for someone who's been dead for 2000 years to come back to life. But that's besides the point.

he already came back to life, 3 days after his death. ;)

he already came back to life, 3 days after his death. ;)

Jesus was the worlds first Zombie!!?!! Maybe the bread should represent brains and the wine should be white so it can serve as a tasty wash down of cerebro spinal fluid.

Jesus was the worlds first Zombie!!?!! Maybe the bread should represent brains and the wine should be white so it can serve as a tasty wash down of cerebro spinal fluid.

What Zombies do you know that can walk on water? Don't be silly! this proves he was not a Zombie.

and if you're still not sure, well, if you're around for the second coming then shoot him in the head and see what happens. I personally would not recommend that...but if you just have to be sure...

Sorry had to get that one in.

Also as a side note do you think that carving and gilding all these crosses goes against the 'do not make graven images' commandment?

hehe

REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education,
wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public
health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

What Zombies do you know that can walk on water? Don't be silly! this proves he was not a Zombie.

and if you're still not sure, well, if you're around for the second coming then shoot him in the head and see what happens. I personally would not recommend that...but if you just have to be sure...

He walked on water when he was alive.

If Jesus tries to eat my brain he's goin' down. Son of God or not. And wouldnt shooting Jesus in the Head have the same effect whether he is zombie or alive? unless hes more like the T1000 out of Terminator 2. Then his head would just reform and he'd come after me with giant blades for hands and i'd have to run to Linda Hamilton for help.

REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education,
wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public
health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

bought peace?

How about a Banana? Because it is so well designed by God to fit the human hand ;)

NO! My worst nightmare!! *runs around in circles*

That was a hilarious show. Funny too, it promoted shoving beliefs down other people's throats.

bought peace?

SHUTUP!!!

To paraphrase the great George Carlin,

Would you want to be the inspiration for a religion whose chief symbol is a man nailed to a cross? Especially if that man is you??? :p

As strange as it is to say, i find myself in agreement with Jehovah's Witnesses on this one.

Firstly, it is entirely likely that at alleged time of Jesus they were just as likely to be using Upright poles/stakes, X-shapes, or T-shapes as they were to be using the crosses christianity has adopted.

Secondly, what kind of sick group tries to glorify its messiah by displaying the instrument of their death?

All seems pretty sick and twisted and insulting to me. If i was murdered and everyone was glorifying the thing i'd been killed with i'd think they were happy someone had finally killed me.

I might make one of my heretical arguments here....

The choice of 'The Cross' is not based on the manner of the alleged death of Christ, at all... instead it is the straightforward subversion of a pre-existant symbol.

The Ankh is the symbol of life, and of fertility. Symbolically, it is a vagina.

Christianity repeatedly supresses the sacred feminine (Jesus is his own 'father' - through being the offspring of his god-aspect and Mary, AND his own 'mother - through 'birthing' himself in his self-ordained resurrection).

'The Cross', then, is the symbol for life, subverted - the vagina removed, and replaced with a phallus.

I don't like crosses. not regular, not burning ones and not inverted ones.
maybe christians unknowingly hate Jesus? ( he seems like a ok dude after all) :p

Would explain why they're pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-big moneyed interests, and everything else that Jesus opposed.

Jesus was the worlds first Zombie!!?!! Maybe the bread should represent brains and the wine should be white so it can serve as a tasty wash down of cerebro spinal fluid.

You ignorant heretic!

He wasn't a zombie, and it's blasphemous that you should say so.

He was a vampire. That's why drinking his blood gives you everlasting life.

I might make one of my heretical arguments here....

The choice of 'The Cross' is not based on the manner of the alleged death of Christ, at all... instead it is the straightforward subversion of a pre-existant symbol.

The Ankh is the symbol of life, and of fertility. Symbolically, it is a vagina.

Christianity repeatedly supresses the sacred feminine (Jesus is his own 'father' - through being the offspring of his god-aspect and Mary, AND his own 'mother - through 'birthing' himself in his self-ordained resurrection).

'The Cross', then, is the symbol for life, subverted - the vagina removed, and replaced with a phallus.

maybe that was just an unintended benefit?

Would explain why they're pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-big moneyed interests, and everything else that Jesus opposed.

sure seems that way

Would explain why they're pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-big moneyed interests, and everything else that Jesus opposed.

or maybe you're just an anti-christian spiteful atheist who refuses to recognize that there are hundreds of millions of christians in America and well ober a billion in the world who different interpretations, different political ideologies and practice the Free will God gave them to do what they believe is right.

it is funny how non-believers like New Domici are even worse with the invasive preaching than Fundies like Pat Robertson who they despise. Can't even smoke a cigarette with out someone Atheist screaming "Heretic!" before you even light up.

it probably is... but then so would owning Barbies, and My little ponies, and my D&D figures... I think you actually have to worship it or something, but there is debate, some "brands o'Christianity" even object to the Statue of Liberty and owning garden gnomes.

*deep, deadpan voice* D&D... Satan's Game....

*higher voice* I ATTACK THE DARKNESS!

>.> Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I don't want to be moonleaf! I want to be Debbie!

*deep, deadpan voice* D&D... Satan's Game....

*higher voice* I ATTACK THE DARKNESS!

I remember that, that was hilarious. I haven't heard it in years, what was it on?

So why do Secular Liberals hate Jews so much these days?

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't hate Jews. I beleive what you're talking about is the fact that many of us dislike the policys of Israel. This has nothing to do with Israel being a Jewish state and everything to do with thinking them bad policys.

His life is celebrated and his teachings are held dear, but his death and subsequent Resurrection are what make him the Savior and the messiah.

This is all very basic and can be explained in any Christian theology book or the gospels.


or are you just looking for a "Buddy Jesus"? (from the movie Dogma)

That would be a "Buddy Christ" actualy, and who WOULDN'T want one?

-snip bill hicks quote- So true...

Hehe, I was going to post the same thing as soon as I saw the title. :p

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't hate Jews. I beleive what you're talking about is the fact that many of us dislike the policys of Israel. This has nothing to do with Israel being a Jewish state and everything to do with thinking them bad policys.

I agree

Children of Vodka, glad I was able to clarify, and more glad that you accepted it :)

As to your "Why couldn't God forgive those who truly do try to be good people but do not follow Jesus?" question, the Catholic Church teaches that, if your premise is true that they really do try to be good, but, for various reasons have never heard of Jesus, or, as the technical term for it would be, are "invincibly ignorant" of the truth of Christ, they still can possibly be saved. If it truly is not their fault that they don't follow Christ, God will not hold them responsible for something they couldn't do. Only those who know that Christianity is true, and nevertheless reject it, are definitely condemned--and that is their choice.

Nevertheless, even those who could be saved even without believing in Jesus, are still saved by Jesus and His sacrifice on the Cross.

Now, I know many fundamentalist protestants who will disagree with what I said, but I'm giving you the Catholic perspective, since I am a Catholic youth minister.

So I hope that clears that up. :) God's grace to save is always bigger than our ability to follow. It's just, one is a lot more sure to be saved by following Jesus explicitly.

Grave n Idle, your Da Vinci-esque view of religious symbolism is rather skewed. If the Cross had nothing to do with the Crucifix (ie, there were no crucifixes, only empty crosses) then your argument might have an iota of weight. But that the crucifix is specifically a model or image of Christ's death, saying that it has nothing to do with how He died is flat out ridiculous.

If you took The Da Vinci Code and its sources at face value, I would urge you to check out my response to its claims, at Grace for the Wayward Heart (http://www.waywardheart.blogspot.com). It's a 6-article series (an introduction and 5 parts), examining some of the claims of the books. It is by no means exhaustive, but still, it will hopefully correct some of the bad history presented in the DVC.

Introduction (http://waywardheart.blogspot.com/2006/06/adversus-da-vinci.html)
Part 1 (On Jesus) (http://waywardheart.blogspot.com/2006/06/adversus-da-vinci-pt-1.html)
Part 2 (On the Church) (http://waywardheart.blogspot.com/2006/06/adversus-da-vinci-pt-2.html)
Part 3 (On the Bible) (http://waywardheart.blogspot.com/2006/06/adversus-da-vinci-pt-3.html)
Part 4 (On Women) (http://waywardheart.blogspot.com/2006/07/adversus-da-vinci-pt-4.html)
Part 5 (On the Art) (http://waywardheart.blogspot.com/2006/07/adversus-da-vinci-pt-5.html)

Feel free to leave non-insulting comments there. :)

New Domici, as Daemonocracy "right"ly pointed out, not all Christians can be represented by the Evangelical right-wing fringe that many on this board seem to associate us with. Up here in Canada, our political right wing is still politically left of the Democrats down in the States. Very few Canadians support Bush and his policies, and the Church as an institution has social policies that are just right of Communism at times. The Catholic Church is anti-war, typically anti-death penalty, supportive of big business only if big business is supportive of supporting the poor, and everything else that Jesus stood for! It is the institution that brought hospitals to the world, that first opposed slavery, that first exalted the place of women to that of equality with men (check out the link to "Part 4" above), and a host of other great things to the betterment of this world.

Yes, at times, Christians and churches have done a crap-load of evil things, as well, but the Church is full of sinful people, who do sinful things. But the Church still calls the sinful things done by its sinful self, sinful, rather than trying to ignore or justify those sins.

So I would suggest that your characterisation of the Church is a little off.

God bless
Gregory

Children of Vodka, glad I was able to clarify, and more glad that you accepted it :)

As to your "Why couldn't God forgive those who truly do try to be good people but do not follow Jesus?" question, the Catholic Church teaches that, if your premise is true that they really do try to be good, but, for various reasons have never heard of Jesus, or, as the technical term for it would be, are "invincibly ignorant" of the truth of Christ, they still can possibly be saved. If it truly is not their fault that they don't follow Christ, God will not hold them responsible for something they couldn't do. Only those who know that Christianity is true, and nevertheless reject it, are definitely condemned--and that is their choice.

So what is the position on those of us who know Christianity exists but do not know it to be true?

Or firmly know it not to be true.

So what is the position on those of us who know Christianity exists but do not know it to be true.

Or firmly know it not to be true.

I would think the Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations would recommend you be buried in your summer suit, 'cause it's going to be a tad warm where you're going.

Eris Rising and Koroser, I believe I covered that with the "invincible ignorance" point.

If a person does not believe the claims of Christianity, it is either because they wilfully reject it (in which case, Farnhamia's point to you would apply :wink:, or, depending on possible mitigating circumstances, God could judge the person to be invincibly ignorant--meaning that certain predispositions, or traumas, or various reasons that are individual to a person, prevent them from being able to hear and respond favourably to Christianity's message. Only God knows, of course, if a person is truly invincibly ignorant--but for those who are, God may save them anyway.

Koroser, since Christianity is a matter of faith, and since I believe it to be true, I can't accept the claim that anyone can know it to be false. Unless of course, they're dead and have found out first hand--in which case, they're not in much of a position to let us know :wink:

As strange as it is to say, i find myself in agreement with Jehovah's Witnesses on this one.

Firstly, it is entirely likely that at alleged time of Jesus they were just as likely to be using Upright poles/stakes, X-shapes, or T-shapes as they were to be using the crosses christianity has adopted.

Secondly, what kind of sick group tries to glorify its messiah by displaying the instrument of their death?

All seems pretty sick and twisted and insulting to me. If i was murdered and everyone was glorifying the thing i'd been killed with i'd think they were happy someone had finally killed me.

I don't like crosses and I'm not a church going person at all, I never go to be honest. I'm "Catholic" though.

I understand the cross to have had the same effect as other things when dealing with martyrdom of an indevidual but it doesnt have to be a physical thing such as the cross ie the Irishmen who were killed by British fireing squads that had the effect of others joining the cause and winning freedom so the Republic is the symbol of their loss. Many other things can be the same way.

Grave n Idle, your Da Vinci-esque view of religious symbolism is rather skewed. If the Cross had nothing to do with the Crucifix (ie, there were no crucifixes, only empty crosses) then your argument might have an iota of weight. But that the crucifix is specifically a model or image of Christ's death, saying that it has nothing to do with how He died is flat out ridiculous.

If you took The Da Vinci Code and its sources at face value, I would urge you to check out my response to its claims, at Grace for the Wayward Heart (http://www.waywardheart.blogspot.com). It's a 6-article series (an introduction and 5 parts), examining some of the claims of the books. It is by no means exhaustive, but still, it will hopefully correct some of the bad history presented in the DVC.

Introduction (http://waywardheart.blogspot.com/2006/06/adversus-da-vinci.html)
Part 1 (On Jesus) (http://waywardheart.blogspot.com/2006/06/adversus-da-vinci-pt-1.html)
Part 2 (On the Church) (http://waywardheart.blogspot.com/2006/06/adversus-da-vinci-pt-2.html)
Part 3 (On the Bible) (http://waywardheart.blogspot.com/2006/06/adversus-da-vinci-pt-3.html)
Part 4 (On Women) (http://waywardheart.blogspot.com/2006/07/adversus-da-vinci-pt-4.html)
Part 5 (On the Art) (http://waywardheart.blogspot.com/2006/07/adversus-da-vinci-pt-5.html)

Feel free to leave non-insulting comments there. :)


A little patronising, no?

I don't blame any of my thoughts on The Da Vinci Code... there may even be posters on this very forum that can testify to the fact that my interpretations are personal, and pre-date (not only the movie, but also) Dan Brown's book.

Believe it or not, Brown did not invent skepticism, or the idea of symbolism in iconography.

Let's correct a few of your assumptions:


One - you assume Jesus died on a 'cross'. The Greek word 'stauros' is the one we translate as 'cross'... but it can simply be translated as 'stake' also. As far as I recall, the scripture never actually describes the instrument of death.

So - assumption that Jesus died on 'a cross' is just assumption.


Two - you assume that Jesus died, at all. Or that he lived, at all. Neither can be proven. You take it on faith, perhaps. I'm discussing symbolism, and that doesn't need there to be ANY truth in the Jesus story... but, if your refutation of the symbolism is going to be 'historicity' of the text, you should bear in mind the fact that there is no physical proof that 'Jesus' or any of 'his followers' even existed.


Three - you assume some significance to the body on a crucifix. When did 'crucifix' representations appear, as opposed to iconic crosses? Add to which, embellishment proves nothing... I have seen crosses with Celtic knots. It doesn't mean Jesus was Irish.


I started looking at your Dan Brown links anyway, as a matter of courtesy and curiousity - but, I'll admit I didn't read far. It made the usual spurious claims (like, Dan Brown is not true to the architecture, because he uses a fictional bathroom window as a plot device. I admit, I've not been to the Louvre... I can't honestly contest the window, either way). The fact is, Brown often gives words or thoughts to his characters that might not be true... but those are the words and thoughts OF characters... you can't seriously argue the whole book is made a lie by the presence of lies by characters?

Plus, of course, the site makes the hypocritical error of setting out to 'correct' history, while an honest approach would be to admit we don't KNOW most of it... and that the knowledge we do have, is based on the evidences we have found... which means what we 'know' could be turned-over tomorrow.

A little patronising, no?

I don't blame any of my thoughts on The Da Vinci Code... there may even be posters on this very forum that can testify to the fact that my interpretations are personal, and pre-date (not only the movie, but also) Dan Brown's book.

Snip goodness


Ill testify to that!

Ill testify to that!

I find it frustrating... ever since mainstream America discovered Dan Brown, he has become the 'conspiracy theory' favourite of the Christian majority.

Don't believe Jesus was Messiah? Must be because you read Dan Brown.

Skeptical about Mary being a virgin? Must be because you read Dan Brown.

Think that some religious symbols MIGHT just be symbols? Must be because you read Dan Brown.

... :rolleyes:

I find it frustrating... ever since mainstream America discovered Dan Brown, he has become the 'conspiracy theory' favourite of the Christian majority.

Don't believe Jesus was Messiah? Must be because you read Dan Brown.

Skeptical about Mary being a virgin? Must be because you read Dan Brown.

Think that some religious symbols MIGHT just be symbols? Must be because you read Dan Brown.

... :rolleyes:

Agreed … and it pisses me off cause Dan Brown is not all that good

I suppose it gives people an excuse to hate Jews...

(I'm not a Christian, but...)

Even if Jews were responsible for his death it is a dumb thing to use as an excuse for hate. Under Christianity Jesus was sent here to die for our sins (hence the death being important...). Rather than have humans make animal sacrafices God sacraficed his own son to attone man for all future human sins. Blaming Jews for Christs death would be like saying a paintbrush created a painting, and not the artist. He was sent to die. God indended on him dying - the Jews played their part in Gods intent.

The reason the cross is important in christianity is that it symbolises the sacrafice made by Jesus for mankind. That and it is an easily constructed symbol that can be painted easily and is easily recognisable as a rallying call for christians.

Agreed … and it pisses me off cause Dan Brown is not all that good

He's not all bad, either. He's just not the 'definition' of the argument- good, bad, or indifferent.

The cross represents Christ dying for mans sins (which was the whole point to his existance in the first place), thus is a central symbol of Christian faith. Without the idea of Christ dying for mans sins, then Christianity has no meaning. Thus the Christians turn a symbol of execution into a symbol for what Christ died for, not what He died of.

*I think that made sense*

The cross represents Christ dying for mans sins (which was the whole point to his existance in the first place), thus is a central symbol of Christian faith. Without the idea of Christ dying for mans sins, then Christianity has no meaning. Thus the Christians turn a symbol of execution into a symbol for what Christ died for, not what He died of.

*I think that made sense*

Actually, I disagree.

The principle of Christianity is salvation. The idea of Jesus dying (on a cross or otherwise) without sin is one mechanism by which salvation might be argued as gained... but not the only mechanism possible.

In the Old Testament, a number of figures are 'translated' directly, without the need for a vicarious substitution... based on their relationship with God. Whether or not God can 'tolerate' sin, he could chose to forgive it - and thus, to grant salvation PERSONALLY, on a case-by-case basis.

Jesus, then - is the mass production model... but with an infinite, omnipresent God, individual salvation is not unreasonable.


The point I'm making is that the LIFE of Jesus - spreading the Good News, is ample 'meaning' for Christianity - even without the idea of vicarious substitution. That would make the 'birth' of Jesus the important part... not the 'death'.

Doesn't Jesus want us to remember what he did in life and why he allowed himself to die to begin with? The death itself isn't that important.

Well, His death was His stated reason for coming. Christians believe that because Jesus died, they do not have to have an eternal death. The death is not something to be excited about, except for the fact that because of that death, Christians believe they have eternal life through Jesus. It's everthing behind grace and substitutionary atonement. I mean, that's what Christianity is really all about.

As strange as it is to say, i find myself in agreement with Jehovah's Witnesses on this one.

Firstly, it is entirely likely that at alleged time of Jesus they were just as likely to be using Upright poles/stakes, X-shapes, or T-shapes as they were to be using the crosses christianity has adopted.

Secondly, what kind of sick group tries to glorify its messiah by displaying the instrument of their death?

All seems pretty sick and twisted and insulting to me. If i was murdered and everyone was glorifying the thing i'd been killed with i'd think they were happy someone had finally killed me.

I wear a cross (not to be confused with a crucifix). It's not worn as an "instrument of Jesus's death" or as something that is in any way meant to glorify His death, but rather is a symbol of what Jesus did for us - died on the cross for us, ...along with being a symbol of His power (even after they killed Him on the cross, he STILL wouldn't be beaten - he rose back up from the dead), hence why a cross is used for its third reason: protection.

I wear a cross (not to be confused with a crucifix). It's not worn as an "instrument of Jesus's death" or as something that is in any way meant to glorify His death, but rather is a symbol of what Jesus did for us - died on the cross for us, ...along with being a symbol of His power (even after they killed Him on the cross, he STILL wouldn't be beaten - he rose back up from the dead), hence why a cross is used for its third reason: protection.

Not really that amazing of a feat … supposedly being divine himself with the knowledge that for sure (without faith) that he would be saved …

Personally not all that impressed, more impressed at people that in all their ignorance that stand up for what they believe in (even if I think they are wrong)

I'm not sure what the point of the discussion is. It may seem strange that a religion took an instrument of execution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion) as its dearest symbol, but they did, so go figure.

Not really that amazing of a feat … supposedly being divine himself with the knowledge that for sure (without faith) that he would be saved …

Personally not all that impressed, more impressed at people that in all their ignorance that stand up for what they believe in (even if I think they are wrong)

Not that impressed? He brought himself back to life! Bringing someone else back to life is one thing, but bringing YOURSELF back to life?! Wow! (plus He like parted the sea and stuff)

I'm not sure what the point of the discussion is. It may seem strange that a religion took an instrument of execution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion) as its dearest symbol, but they did, so go figure.

1. But just as Christmas was transformed from a negative ritual into a positive one, so was the crucifix transformed from a negative symbol into a positive one (apparently - I'm not Roman Catholic, so I don't have much to do with crucifixes) - see above

2. Wikipedia is an unchecked source of "information" where just about anyone from around the world can stick their 2cents in and make a supposedly valid "article". It's useful ONLY for basic background info (which then needs to be double-checked with reliable information sources)

3. A crucifix is a cross with an image of Jesus dying. A cross is different.

Not that impressed? He brought himself back to life! Bringing someone else back to life is one thing, but bringing YOURSELF back to life?! Wow! (plus He like parted the sea and stuff)


I wasn't there... I didn't see it.

On the other hand, I have read that Atlas bore the heavens on his shoulders. That sounds more impressive than some little 'resurrection' trick. Hell, I've seen David Copperfield do that.

Well, the story goes that once upon a time, in a land far away...Jesus was nailed to one. And Jesus is, like, the shit here in America. It's like how people wear gold chains to show how much they love Mr. T, except for Jesus.

I'm not sure what the point of the discussion is. It may seem strange that a religion took an instrument of execution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion) as its dearest symbol, but they did, so go figure.

Because Jesus' death is the most important thing that He did for us, if you're a Christian. It's really not that odd.

Isaiah 53: 3-11, 3 He was hated and men would have nothing to do with Him, a man of sorrows and suffering, knowing sadness well. We hid, as it were, our faces from Him. He was hated, and we did not think well of Him.

4 For sure He took on Himself our troubles and carried our sorrows. Yet we thought of Him as being punished and hurt by God, and made to suffer. 56 But He was hurt for our wrongdoing. He was crushed for our sins. He was punished so we would have peace. He was beaten so we would be healed. All of us like sheep have gone the wrong way. Each of us has turned to his own way. And the Lord has put on Him the sin of us all.

7 Men made it very hard for Him and caused Him to suffer, yet He did not open His mouth. He was taken like a lamb to be put to death. A sheep does not make a sound while its wool is cut and He did not open His mouth. 8 He was taken away as a prisoner and then judged. Who among the people of that day cared that His life was taken away from the earth? He was hurt because of the sin of the people who should have been punished. 9 They gave Him a grave with the sinful, but with the rich at His death, for He had done no wrong, and there was nothing false in His mouth.

10 But it was the will of the Lord to crush Him, causing Him to suffer. Because He gives His life as a gift on the altar for sin, He will see His children. Days will be added to His life, and the will of the Lord will do well in His hand. 11 He will see what the suffering of His soul brings, and will be pleased. By what He knows, the One who is right and good, My Servant, will carry the punishment of many and He will carry their sins. (NLV)

Because Jesus' death is the most important thing that He did for us, if you're a Christian. It's really not that odd.

And ultimatly it was both un-nessisary and really cost him nothing but some pain (which plenty of normal humans have endured) and his time

Crosses are very practical things to wear. They protect you from vampires.

Crosses are very practical things to wear. They protect you from vampires.

I know a jewish vampire that would disagree.:cool:

And ultimatly it was both un-nessisary and really cost him nothing but some pain (which plenty of normal humans have endured) and his time

No it wasn't. Read this: http://bibleprobe.com/angiefenimore.htm (from about the 7th paragraph from the bottom anyway)

No it wasn't. Read this: http://bibleprobe.com/angiefenimore.htm (from about the 7th paragraph from the bottom anyway)

Why? What is the point you are trying to make? That there are some crazy people out there?

Or, that Jesus - since he took his own life, must be in Hell?

Why? What is the point you are trying to make? That there are some crazy people out there?

Or, that Jesus - since he took his own life, must be in Hell?

Wasn't the point of the resurrection that he came up out of hell?

Wasn't the point of the resurrection that he came up out of hell?

Not my fairytale... I can't give you an authoritative version of which message you are 'supposed' to take from it.

Not that impressed? He brought himself back to life! Bringing someone else back to life is one thing, but bringing YOURSELF back to life?! Wow! (plus He like parted the sea and stuff)

snip

If true that would be impressive ... but if also true that would sevely deminish the actual "sacrafice" that he made

Ultimatly what did it cost him besides pain and some time. Nothing that has not been suffered by other people including children. And he nulified the death part of the sacrafice

Like I said does not seem all that big of a loss

whole christianity, as it is today, is just stupid.
the pope still is against condoms (where in bible is written that you shouldn't use condoms to protect you from aids? huh?) and someone told me that they agreed in the 90's that the sun doesn't move around the earth.
plus they killed lot's of wise woman (witches...wtf?) in the middleages. oh, that's nice.
i don't think that the christian church represents the ideas of jesus. i kinda like see myself as a christian but do not believe in god. i simply follow the main ideas of treating each other nice and stuff.