Is the Christian cross an evil symbol?

[logician]

Two things. Extraordinary claims require just as much evidence as any other type of claim.

Since when is Christ dying on the cross an extraordinary claim. It's been claimed by billions of people for thousands of years. It sounds like a pretty ordinary claim to me.

I think we're talking about the ressurection.

 

[uss_bigd]

On what basis shoudl this question be answered?

in my opinion? i think it depends what happens when you eat the cross, i will tell you after i try. based on my opinion.

 

[Azakel]

Of course, the supposed Jesus never existed, but crucifixions were usually done on stakes or straight tree trunks, not on "crosses", another hoax perpetrated by Xianity.

Nope, the Romans do use a Cross but it was a T type and not a t like Jesus is on.
At times the gibbet was only one vertical stake, called in Latin crux simplex or palus. This was the simplest available construction for torturing and killing the criminals. Frequently, however, there was a cross-piece attached either at the top to give the shape of a T (crux commissa) or just below the top, as in the form most familiar in Christian symbolism (crux immissa). Other forms were in the shape of the letters X and Y.

The earliest writings that speak specifically of the shape of the cross on which Jesus died describe it as shaped like the letter T (the Greek letter tau), or composed of an upright and a transverse beam, together with a small peg in the upright.

Thank you 2 hour special on History channel about Crucifixion. ^_^

 

[Sola'lor]

I think we're talking about the ressurection.

Well the same thing applies.

 

[shema]

This has been a problem of mine for many years. Why is it that christians had to focus in on one of the worst symbols to represent their religion. Keep an open mind for a moment so that you can see the logic without your inner fear closing your mind.

Of all the positive things Jesus supposedly did, why focus in on the worst part of his life, his death? Im sure that they could have chosen many different sysbols to represent their religion that werent murderous torture divices that were terribly feared.

Let me cut to the chase to save having to post a response to an answer I know will be comming. It represents the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross for mankind. Ok, well, instead of focusing on the negative(him hanging on the cross asking god why he screwed him over), why not focus on the resurection when he rose 3 days later. That still shows he gave his life and rose to go to heaven. A bit more positive don't ya think?

If you are still having this mental block of seeing the cross in this light, let me offer another analogy I often use that helps people. Imagine that the romans didn't use the cross for killing criminals, lets say they used the gallows and had hung Jesus. Believe it or not, going by the cross symbol of today, christians would walk around with nooses on their neck. As funny as that sounds, which it is, the cross is just as bad.

Just an opinion, but, I think the last thing Jesus is going to want to see if he came back is a cross.:slap:

I think that the cross represents death. When Jesus died on the cross all of our debts to God died along with him. Only he rose after a few days later to be with our Father

 

[uss_bigd]

On what basis is this thread meant to be answered?

Is it just on sheer opinion?

where do historical facts and theoligical facts meet?

i guess, i am asking on what view point isthe question being asked?

 

[Riverwolf]

The cross wasn't always a torture device. The Elemental Cross of pagan religions represent the four directions, and the lower part is equal to the rest. I do agree that it's kinda silly to walk around with the image of a dead man on your neck, but that's their way. I'm not going to condemn them for it, but rather tell them, "Where that crucifix proudly!" As long as the cross itself isn't worshiped as an idol, as was strictly forbidden in Exodus, but rather held as a symbol. But even then, is that still an idol? Ancient Pagan religions used to build statues to honor their gods, and those were considered idols, but if you talked to them back then, they'd say that the statues simply represent the gods and aren't the gods themselves, so what is an idol? Is it like the Golden Calf, literally worshipped, or like the Statue of Zeus, held as a symbol of the King of Gods?

Personally, I like to hold the Christian Cross not as meaning the death of Christ, but more like Christo Redeemer, which is shaped like a cross.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charity
Apparently the cross does seem to work on vampires though.

Actually, if you read Anne Rice, that's not really true.

 

[crystalonyx]

Nope, the Romans do use a Cross but it was a T type and not a t like Jesus is on.
At times the gibbet was only one vertical stake, called in Latin crux simplex or palus. This was the simplest available construction for torturing and killing the criminals. Frequently, however, there was a cross-piece attached either at the top to give the shape of a T (crux commissa) or just below the top, as in the form most familiar in Christian symbolism (crux immissa). Other forms were in the shape of the letters X and Y.

The earliest writings that speak specifically of the shape of the cross on which Jesus died describe it as shaped like the letter T (the Greek letter tau), or composed of an upright and a transverse beam, together with a small peg in the upright.

Thank you 2 hour special on History channel about Crucifixion. ^_^

Actually, the supposed Jesus never existed, which means there was no crucifixtion or ressurection.

 

[Azakel]

Actually, the supposed Jesus never existed, which means there was no crucifixtion or ressurection.

I really don't care if Christ is real or not. My point was that you said that the T type way of crucifixion was not use at all. All I did was show that it was use historically weather it was on Jesus or not.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Actually, the supposed Jesus never existed, which means there was no crucifixtion or ressurection.

Arguments such as these are so incredibly droll. No proof and no reality: just an assertion that means squat.

 

[logician]

I really don't care if Christ is real or not. My point was that you said that the T type way of crucifixion was not use at all. All I did was show that it was use historically weather it was on Jesus or not.

There was no crucifixion, so it is a moot point.

 

[sojourner]

This has been a problem of mine for many years. Why is it that christians had to focus in on one of the worst symbols to represent their religion. Keep an open mind for a moment so that you can see the logic without your inner fear closing your mind.

Of all the positive things Jesus supposedly did, why focus in on the worst part of his life, his death? Im sure that they could have chosen many different sysbols to represent their religion that werent murderous torture divices that were terribly feared.

Let me cut to the chase to save having to post a response to an answer I know will be comming. It represents the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross for mankind. Ok, well, instead of focusing on the negative(him hanging on the cross asking god why he screwed him over), why not focus on the resurection when he rose 3 days later. That still shows he gave his life and rose to go to heaven. A bit more positive don't ya think?

If you are still having this mental block of seeing the cross in this light, let me offer another analogy I often use that helps people. Imagine that the romans didn't use the cross for killing criminals, lets say they used the gallows and had hung Jesus. Believe it or not, going by the cross symbol of today, christians would walk around with nooses on their neck. As funny as that sounds, which it is, the cross is just as bad.

Just an opinion, but, I think the last thing Jesus is going to want to see if he came back is a cross.:slap:

Maybe we should follow the lead of the Orthodox, who see the Incarnation as far more important than the crucifixion -- and the act that makes salvation possible. Their "symbol" is more often an icon of the Pantokrator than a crucifix.

 

[McBell]

Arguments such as these are so incredibly droll. No proof and no reality: just an assertion that means squat.

I cry hypocrite, for no theist has any better an argument...

myself included

 

[uu_sage]

The cross need not represent death and destruction. The cross in the times of the Roman Empire was used as a way of silencing dissidents. Jesus was a radical Rabbi that preached a revolutionary message of love and radical inclusion. Roman officials claimed that if they could kill Jesus, his movement would naturally die with it. With this in mind, the cross becomes a warning that if you are to defend the weak, and the marginalized you are going to have to pay a hefty price. Further, the cross could also represent the idea that if you kill the love of God indwelling in a person that love will still persist.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I cry hypocrite, for no theist has any better an argument...

myself included

Definitely not true. There are many references to the historical Jesus and his crucifixion. Him not existing is just fanciful on their part. The same goes for him being crucified.

 

[McBell]

Definitely not true. There are many references to the historical Jesus and his crucifixion. Him not existing is just fanciful on their part. The same goes for him being crucified.

Arguments such as these are so incredibly droll.
No proof and no reality: just an assertion that means squat.

​

Fits rather nicely right here as well....

 

[Azakel]

There was no crucifixion, so it is a moot point.

Yes there was. Maybe not a crucifixion of Jesus, but there were crucifixions which is what I was talking about.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Arguments such as these are so incredibly droll.
No proof and no reality: just an assertion that means squat.

​

Fits rather nicely right here as well....

So you are saying a man named Jesus was never born in Nazareth? Who is fooling who?

It never ceases to amaze me the mental gymnastics people will go through to justify their disbelief. Next you will deny that George Washington ever existed. Good luck that.

 

[crystalonyx]

The cross need not represent death and destruction. The cross in the times of the Roman Empire was used as a way of silencing dissidents. Jesus was a radical Rabbi that preached a revolutionary message of love and radical inclusion. Roman officials claimed that if they could kill Jesus, his movement would naturally die with it. With this in mind, the cross becomes a warning that if you are to defend the weak, and the marginalized you are going to have to pay a hefty price. Further, the cross could also represent the idea that if you kill the love of God indwelling in a person that love will still persist.

Or putting to death real criminals, like we do in the U.S.

Have we turned the electric chair, the hangman's noose, or the gas chamber into symbols of some kind sacrifice for love?