The Cross

Goduznt Xzst

Split from this thread.

FC

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It is one ugly and violent album cover. Sickening to look at and I would seriously question someone who found it edifying.

This really grinds my gears :mad:

I personally take exception to Christians allowing children, from only a few years of age, to view and sit for hours in front of scultures and images of Jesus being tortured on a cross.

They have a human up there with nails through his wrists and ankles, writhing in pain, with blood pouring out of his mutilated forhead from his crown of torns and with a hole cut open in the flesh of his abdomen... and then we have a Christian saying this album cover is "ugly and violent"?

What flagrant hypocrisy.

I find it sickening that the Church uses an implement of torture as its symbol. If Christ had been killed in an Iron Maiden would we assume that they would of hoisted these above their places of worship and made miniture versions of them to hang around their neck?

robindch

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

They have a human up there with nails through his wrists and ankles, writhing in pain, with blood pouring out of his mutilated forhead from his crown of torns and with a hole cut open in the flesh of his abdomen

This stirs two memories. The first was driving down to Cork after a long gap of not being in a church. At some point around half way, on the right hand side of the road I think in or near to a cemetary, there's a white crucifix, perhaps twenty feet high, with Jesus nailed to it, pretty much as you describe. I remember seeing it out of the corner of my eye as I drove by and for half a second, it looked real -- frightening the life out of me.

The second was of the main catholic church in Kiev, which is pretty much empty of the usual churchy stuff -- white walls abound beneath the large dome. But as you stand at the main door, looking at the altar, the only visible ornaments are three crucifixes, one dreadfully gorey one each (around a foot high) on the left and right, and one vast one, perhaps fifteen feet high, dead ahead and dangling almost life-like from the north wall. As I was taking in this view, I overheard a voice telling somebody that christianity was a "religion of love".

BrianCalgary

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

This really grinds my gears :mad:

I personally take exception to Christians allowing children, from only a few years of age, to view and sit for hours in front of scultures and images of Jesus being tortured on a cross.

They have a human up there with nails through his wrists and ankles, writhing in pain, with blood pouring out of his mutilated forhead from his crown of torns and with a hole cut open in the flesh of his abdomen... and then we have a Christian saying this album cover is "ugly and violent"?

What flagrant hypocrisy.

I find it sickening that the Church uses an implement of torture as its symbol. If Christ had been killed in an Iron Maiden would we assume that they would of hoisted these above their places of worship and made miniture versions of them to hang around their neck?

And what grinds my gears is that you accuse me of doing something that I don't do nor is it something that a great number of Christians do.

Examine the Christian faith Goduznt Xzst, and don't presume that it is all equal to the RC church.
The only church that has what youmention is teh RC church. No statues, no crucifix's in my church nor I assume in the churches of PDN, wolfsbane, FannyCraddock, excelsior or any of the non-Catholics on tehse boards.

So for you to make th eimplication that I am a hypocrite is dead wrong. :mad:

philologos

Agreed, I haven't seen any crucifixes in any Anglican church that has Jesus on the cross also. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but as far as I know it doesn't happen.

Goduznt Xzst

BrianCalgary wrote: »

And what grinds my gears is that you accuse me of doing something that I don't do nor is it something that a great number of Christians do.

Examine the Christian faith Goduznt Xzst, and don't presume that it is all equal to the RC church.
The only church that has what youmention is teh RC church. No statues, no crucifix's in my church nor I assume in the churches of PDN, wolfsbane, FannyCraddock, excelsior or any of the non-Catholics on tehse boards.

So for you to make th eimplication that I am a hypocrite is dead wrong. :mad:

You said:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57854442&postcount=18

Is this not the symbol for your religion?



There's a crucifix on the main page of this religion here:

http://www.cmalliance.org/

Can I assume that if Christ had been hung, drawn and quartered that the C&MA would of incorporated these tools of torture and execution into your symbol?

I do not, currently, have access to literature of this organization so I cannot say if they have ever illustrated Christs death.

Fanny Cradock

Well, there is a rather large, plain cross in my church. There are no other adornments, just this cross. Despite the nature of crucifixion, the cross is not something that I find to be a symbol of revulsion, however. It's quite the opposite; it symbolises life, love and a promise fulfilled.

jimbling

I grew up very catholic. My early childhood was surrounded by it. I lived in the holy land for a while also.

This thread reminded me of something. When I was no more than 7 I used to have a keychain of Jesus Christs head*. It was one I cherished for years. At times I used to handle it at night and cry myself to sleep because I couldn't understand how the horrid jews could have let this happen to our saviour. It just made no sense to me.


*The back was flat, but the front was shaped. The crown of thorns was protruding from his head, and the drips of blood flowing down around it.

You know... I have this feeling that it might be thrown in a press with all the other keyrings I used to collect. Must go have a look for it next time I'm home to visit the folks.

philologos

It's important to know that Christians aren't intending to be anti-Semitic in describing the Crucifixion. Jesus Himself, and His disciples were Jewish. We believe that Jesus gave the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham to the Christian people across the world (Genesis 12). Infact I would be one to say that Christianity was a blessing to the world originating amongst the Jews.

Puck

It's not a crucifix unless it has a corpus (body of Christ) on it. Why don't you go and do some research before you and tell us what symbols we use?

Goduznt Xzst

Puck wrote: »

It's not a crucifix unless it has a corpus (body of Christ) on it. Why don't you go and do some research before you and tell us what symbols we use?

Ok, I was mistaken. I am refering to the crux ordinaria (the cross). It still doesn't change the fact that within the Christians religions the cross is the symbol of the torture device that Christ was killed on.

I am asking whether it is right to use such a thing?

If Christ had been killed by any other means would we expect to see this weapon or torture device used as a symbol of "love and life" for numerous Christian religions?

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

This stirs two memories. The first was driving down to Cork after a long gap of not being in a church. At some point around half way, on the right hand side of the road I think in or near to a cemetary, there's a white crucifix, perhaps twenty feet high, with Jesus nailed to it, pretty much as you describe. I remember seeing it out of the corner of my eye as I drove by and for half a second, it looked real -- frightening the life out of me.

Genuinely, how real did it look? Usually the corpus is painted white.

Maybe it was a sign from God to remind you that Jesus died for you...

robindch wrote: »

The second was of the main catholic church in Kiev, which is pretty much empty of the usual churchy stuff -- white walls abound beneath the large dome. But as you stand at the main door, looking at the altar, the only visible ornaments are three crucifixes, one dreadfully gorey one each (around a foot high) on the left and right, and one vast one, perhaps fifteen feet high, dead ahead and dangling almost life-like from the north wall. As I was taking in this view, I overheard a voice telling somebody that christianity was a "religion of love".

Christianity certainly is a religion of love. Christ was willing to be tortured and killed in order to pay the price of your and my sins. If that isn't love, then I don't know what is.

The crucifix reminds us all that we're sinners and that Jesus gave up His life so we could have eternal life. Nobody on this earth hasn't sinned.

Puck

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Ok, I was mistaken. I am refering to the crux ordinaria (the cross). It still doesn't change the fact that within the Christians religions the cross is the symbol of the torture device that Christ was killed on.

I am asking whether it is right to use such a thing?

If Christ had been killed by any other means would we expect to see this weapon or torture device used as a symbol of "love and life" for numerous Christian religions?

There is only one Christian religion, many denominations, get that straight. A few more wikipedia/google searches before each post would do a lot to stem the demonstrations of your ignorance on this subject.

Yes, if Christ had died in modern times then I guess many Christians may even be wearing the symbol of a hangman's noose, an electric chair or a syringe around their necks. These symbols in and of themselves, however are not gory or gruesome, much like the plain cross. The point is not to shock people but to remind them of the sacrifice of Christ. Yes this is a religion of love and of life and if you do not understand how remembering my Lord's death for me reminds me of his great love for me then I can hardly say I'm surprised, you have already demonstrated great ignorance regarding my faith, that doesn't seem to slow down your attacks on it though.

Puck

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

They have a human up there with nails through his wrists and ankles, writhing in pain, with blood pouring out of his mutilated forhead from his crown of torns and with a hole cut open in the flesh of his abdomen...

This is clearly referring to the crucifix in particular and not just the "crux ordinaria" as you claim.

LordSutch

Jakkass wrote: »

Agreed, I haven't seen any crucifixes in any Anglican church that has Jesus on the cross also. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but as far as I know it doesn't happen.

YES you are indeed correct Jakkass, we do not have Jesus on the Cross (because on the third day he ascended into heaven) so why would he still be on the Cross? (According to the Reformation).

Come to think of it, we dont have any statues of Jesus, with or without wounds on the Cross, neither do we have any Statues of the Virgin Mary, because although we think of her as a very Good & Holy mother, "we dont pray to her" in the same way as Roman Catholics do > hence their Statues & Pictures of her also .................

P.S. even if we did have Statues the kids would'nt get much time to look at them, because they go off to Sunday School after the first or second Hymn, leaving those weighty religious matters to us adults, while they are next door drawing pictures of Noah's Ark

(Church of Ireland = low Church) some Protestant 'High' Churches may have Statues . . .

Nailz

To be fair, Catholics wears the cross as rememberence for when (as they believe) he resurrects again, but, wouldn't you honestly think, the Cross would be the last thing Jesus would want to see!

Bottle_of_Smoke

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Split from this thread.

FC




This really grinds my gears :mad:

I personally take exception to Christians allowing children, from only a few years of age, to view and sit for hours in front of scultures and images of Jesus being tortured on a cross.

They have a human up there with nails through his wrists and ankles, writhing in pain, with blood pouring out of his mutilated forhead from his crown of torns and with a hole cut open in the flesh of his abdomen... and then we have a Christian saying this album cover is "ugly and violent"?

What flagrant hypocrisy.

I find it sickening that the Church uses an implement of torture as its symbol. If Christ had been killed in an Iron Maiden would we assume that they would of hoisted these above their places of worship and made miniture versions of them to hang around their neck?

This is PC gone utterly mad. I grew up a Catholic and don't remember anything liek you described. Have you been in churches where there's stuff like that?

The picture you're referring to in the other thread is far more gruesome than anything I've ever seen in a church

kelly1

Nailz wrote: »

To be fair, Catholics wears the cross as rememberence for when (as they believe) he resurrects again, but, wouldn't you honestly think, the Cross would be the last thing Jesus would want to see!

You've got that wrong. Jesus embraced the cross. You don't seem to understand that He *wanted* to die for us. It was an act of pure love.

Nailz

kelly1 wrote: »

You've got that wrong. Jesus embraced the cross. You don't seem to understand that He *wanted* to die for us. It was an act of pure love.

Ah now, if I were to die for a minority contain billions of people, I'd prefer they didn't glamorize my method of death thank you very much!! I died for ya's, now, do us a favour and don't remind me!

Pompey Magnus

kelly1 wrote: »

You've got that wrong. Jesus embraced the cross. You don't seem to understand that He *wanted* to die for us. It was an act of pure love.

Did he want to die for us though? From what I remember from the story of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane he selfishly wanted to be given a way out and save himself (thus condemning humanity even though he knew full well it would be only a minor incovenience for himself as he would be soon risen) but luckily for you Christians God the Father wouldn't allow Jesus have his way.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Genuinely, how real did it look? Usually the corpus is painted white.

Yes, the corpse was painted white. As I said, it looked real just for half a second against the sky. If the religion was "about love" then why not have a heart as the symbol instead? Using a corpse to represent love is quite bizarre.

kelly1 wrote: »

Christianity certainly is a religion of love. Christ was willing to be tortured and killed in order to pay the price of your and my sins. If that isn't love, then I don't know what is.

The christian deal is so unconvincing. According to current belief, Jesus organized it so that the Sahedrin would have him killed by the Romans, when really, he was having himself killed in in order to fulfill a deal he made with himself? Bizarre too.

If he was interested in helping humanity, then why didn't he stay around and give us a hand, instead of getting himself killed?

Given the religious problems of Palestine at the time though -- problems that are distressingly familiar despite the passage of 2,000 years of religious influence in politics -- I'm inclined to think that committing suicide may have been the easier choice.

Pompey Magnus

Out of interest what was so special about the cross that Jesus chose that as his means of death? Why didn't God just not warn the Magi about Herod's intentions and instead instruct them to lead Herod and his soldiers to "worship" Jesus, thereby allowing them to kill the baby Jesus and let that be the means of death in which God saved humanity from sin? It would have saved time and it also would have saved the lives of all the male children later slaughtered by Herod.

Or why didn't Jesus just let the people of Nazareth throw him off the cliff instead of running away? Why did he evade death up until his mid 30s when crucifiction became an option? If the point of his existence on Earth was to die to save humanity from sin then why not get it out of the way quickly, does crucifixion have magical powers of transferring all of human sin onto the incarnation of the Son of God which Herod's sword or a big fall just don't have? Or was it just that he wanted the thanks?

Fanny Cradock

Charco wrote: »

Out of interest what was so special about the cross that Jesus chose that as his means of death? Why didn't God just not warn the Magi about Herod's intentions and instead instruct them to lead Herod and his soldiers to "worship" Jesus, thereby allowing them to kill the baby Jesus and let that be the means of death in which God saved humanity from sin? It would have saved time and it also would have saved the lives of all the male children later slaughtered by Herod.

Or why didn't Jesus just let the people of Nazareth throw him off the cliff instead of running away? Why did he evade death up until his mid 30s when crucifiction became an option? If the point of his existence on Earth was to die to save humanity from sin then why not get it out of the way quickly, does crucifixion have magical powers of transferring all of human sin onto the incarnation of the Son of God which Herod's sword or a big fall just don't have? Or was it just that he wanted the thanks?

I fail to see the point of this post. If Jesus was killed as a baby then we would have nothing of his teachings and consequently nothing to base the whole Christian thing on. If he was thrown of a cliff then I could imagine you posting a similar thread asking why he was not crucified.

BrianCalgary

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You said:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57854442&postcount=18

Is this not the symbol for your religion?



There's a crucifix on the main page of this religion here:

http://www.cmalliance.org/

Can I assume that if Christ had been hung, drawn and quartered that the C&MA would of incorporated these tools of torture and execution into your symbol?

I do not, currently, have access to literature of this organization so I cannot say if they have ever illustrated Christs death.

C&MA is NOT my religion, it is simply the denomination of the church that I attend.

It does NOT contain a crucifix it shows a cross. Both quite different.

Any Christian denomination is not going to change history. Jesus was tortured and hung to die on a cross.

You can assume whatever you wish, there is no answer.

BrianCalgary

Nailz wrote: »

Ah now, if I were to die for a minority contain billions of people, I'd prefer they didn't glamorize my method of death thank you very much!! I died for ya's, now, do us a favour and don't remind me!

I think it is important to remember how Jesus died and the suffering He went through for us. It is too easy to say, well Jesus died for me. He did a lot more than die. He suffered and He was humiliated.

Charco wrote: »

Did he want to die for us though? From what I remember from the story of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane he selfishly wanted to be given a way out and save himself (thus condemning humanity even though he knew full well it would be only a minor incovenience for himself as he would be soon risen) but luckily for you Christians God the Father wouldn't allow Jesus have his way. !

He asked God for a way out. His desire was to be in God's will no matter how difficult it was on Him personally.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

If the religion was "about love" then why not have a heart as the symbol instead? Using a corpse to represent love is quite bizarre.

I don't find it bizarre at all. I think we need constant reminding about what Jesus did for us. A heart doesn't remind of the suffering the Jesus took upon Himself to save us from damnation. I think the heart would make us complacent.

robindch wrote: »

The christian deal is so unconvincing. According to current belief, Jesus organized it so that the Sahedrin would have him killed by the Romans, when really, he was having himself killed in in order to fulfill a deal he made with himself? Bizarre too.

Jesus didn't organize His crucifixion. He knew it was going to happen but He didn't orchestrate it. He came to the Jews as their promised Messiah and the leaders had Him put to death by the Romans to keep their own hands clean.

robindch wrote: »

If he was interested in helping humanity, then why didn't he stay around and give us a hand, instead of getting himself killed?

Are you forgetting all the miracles He performed for the poor and destitute!? Does that not qualify as giving a hand?

Are you so ignorant of Christianity that you don't realize that Jesus' primary mission was to die and save us? You make it sound like He accidentally got killed while He should have been helping people. Helping people materially only has a temporary effect. His death on the cross has eternal effects. Which would you think is more important?

kelly1

Charco wrote: »

Did he want to die for us though? From what I remember from the story of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane he selfishly wanted to be given a way out and save himself (thus condemning humanity even though he knew full well it would be only a minor incovenience for himself as he would be soon risen) but luckily for you Christians God the Father wouldn't allow Jesus have his way.

You think scourging, crowning with thorns, carrying a cross and crucifixion (being nailed etc) is a minor inconvenience??? Do you have any idea how cruel and cold that sounds???

The below is taken from revelations to Blessed Anne Emmerich:

At first Jesus looked calm, as he kneeled down and prayed, but after a time his soul became terrified at the sight of the innumerable crimes of men, and of their ingratitude towards God, and his anguish was so great that he trembled and shuddered as he exclaimed: ‘Father, if is possible, let this chalice pass from me! Father, all things are possible to thee, remove this chalice from me!" But the next moment he added: ‘Nevertheless, not my will but thy will be done.’ His will and that of his Father were one, but now that his love had ordained that he should be left to all the weakness of his human nature, he trembled at the prospect of death.

Full chapter is at http://my.homewithgod.com/israel/acemmerich2/#14

I suggest you read it.

Pompey Magnus

kelly1 wrote:

You think scourging, crowning with thorns, carrying a cross and crucifixion (being nailed etc) is a minor inconvenience??? Do you have any idea how cruel and cold that sounds???

Its not a minor inconvenience for most people, indeed plenty of people experienced similar and worse deaths than Jesus through history, but I do indeed regard it as a minor inconvenience for an eternal, all powerful being fully aware of its own immortality, especially when it was that being's own fault in the first place for cursing humanity with original sin, thus dooming countless numbers to an eternity of far worse punishment than a few strokes of a whip and an hour on a tree.

The death Jesus suffered could have easily been avoided if he, in his role as God, had just forgiven humanity for the original sin. No curse means no need for him to lift the curse. Instead he chose petty retribution and therefore I think Jesus got away very lightly to be honest considering the torment his curse will inflicted on his many eternally damned children.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I fail to see the point of this post. If Jesus was killed as a baby then we would have nothing of his teachings and consequently nothing to base the whole Christian thing on. If he was thrown of a cliff then I could imagine you posting a similar thread asking why he was not crucified.

Well lets face it, Jesus didn't provide humanity with anything that it hadn't already thought up itself, we wouldn't have missed an awful lot if he hadn't given us his teachings.

As for the cliff I don't think I would have been asking why he wasn't crucified because this would have been the first opportunity for him, as an adult, to be killed. He went out of his way to avoid death in one instance and then (eventually) accepted death later on. Would falling off a cliff not have liberated humanity from sin?

kelly1

Charco, that is a truly evil and hateful post! You might indeed be "Staring down the barrel of a gun" with that kind of attitude.

Having said that I sincerely hope the Blood of Christ saves you from yourself.

Pompey Magnus

kelly1 wrote: »

Charco, that is a truly evil and hateful post! You might indeed be "Staring down the barrel of a gun" with that kind of attitude.

You mightn't like it, but did I say anything that isn't basic Christian teaching with the sugar-coating removed?

kelly1

Charco wrote: »

You mightn't like it, but did I say anything that isn't basic Christian teaching with the sugar-coating removed?

What you've done is to totally pervert and twist what God did for us.

Pompey Magnus

kelly1 wrote: »

What you've done is to totally pervert and twist what God did for us.

I have provided an alternative view on the whole story. Was there anything I said there which was incorrect? If so please point it out.

Did Jesus/God not curse humanity for original sin?
Will this curse of Jesus/God not doom countless millions to eternal damnation in the unquenching fires of Hell?
Could this (including his own crucifixion) not have all been avoided if he had just forgiven humanity?
Is an eternity of torture not a worse punishment than a few hours of torture?

Are any of these things factually untrue? If so then I will take it all back, but if what I said is just the cold hard facts of Christian teaching then I have nothing to apologise for and you should stop looking at your religion with rose tinted glasses.

kelly1

Charco wrote: »

Did Jesus/God not curse humanity for original sin?

Original sin isn't a "positive" curse placed upon man. It is the privation of sanctifying grace, a gift witheld, which the whole human would have inherited had our first parents not sinned grieviously against God.

Sanctifying grace is not an inherent part of our nature. It is a gift from God which He chose, for reasons only known to Himself, to deprive us of at birth. Sanctifying grace can be restored via baptism but we still lack other gifts which our first parents had. These are the preter-natural gifts of bodily immortality, integrity and infused knowledge.

Charco wrote: »

Will this curse of Jesus/God not doom countless millions to eternal damnation in the unquenching fires of Hell?

No because ever sin involves a decision to sin. There is nothing in our nature that compels us to sin. Without original sin, we would have very little tendency to sin but now it becomes an option because our original integrity is compromised.

Charco wrote: »

Could this (including his own crucifixion) not have all been avoided if he had just forgiven humanity? Is an eternity of torture not a worse punishment than a few hours of torture?

I suppose God is an accountant who doesn't cook the books and simply write off bad debts. The balance was upset by sin and had to be restored by Christ. Where man was disobedient, Christ was obedient (to His Father). Where man were proud, Christ was humble. Where man sinned in the flesh, Christ was crucified etc, etc.