Question About The Holy Cross - With All Respect

[Alceste]

Good question! I've always found paintings of this sort very discomforting. I've always wondered about their purpose.

I find it discomforting too, but the Christians have got nothing on the Sikhs! Back in the good old bohemian days my other artist friends and I used to go to the Sikh temple for a free meal once in a while. The food was absolutely gorgeous, and there was no preaching or anything, but the dining room was decorated with dozens of images of martyrs being horrifically tortured to death, so I got some very strange ideas of what Sikhism is all about. (In fact, maybe they should have preached a bit - then maybe the images would have made sense). Having just seen a glancing overview of Sikhism on the BBC's "Around the world in 80 religions", I see they're a pretty standard, peaceful, Abrahamic religion, and the violent imagery is mainly a relic of the difficult, dangerous times in which their religion was formed. I know Christians believe Jesus was not a martyr, but since the celebration of the faith of Abrahamic martyrs (i.e. Christian saints) so often centers around the exact manner of the martyr's death, I often wonder whether the cross is primarily a relic of the violent culture of his contemporaries.

 

[Kathryn]

I have noticed that apart from the imagery of the crucifixion, there is often also graphic depictions of the exact manner of the deaths of numerous Christian saints. Is this symbolic of a belief in life after death, or the concept that salvation is achieved through the endurance of incomprehensible suffering without the loss of faith in everlasting life?

Most paintings of this sort are not contemporary paintings - they are usually medieval (with a few exceptions). The medieval mind was more focused on the mystery of death. Also - European society in general was more morbid and harsh. Look at their forms of the death penalty and punishment!

But even today, in Christian and non Christian art, we see graphic depictions of our heroes' deaths. Take the movie "300" for example.

For that matter, what about "Saving Private Ryan?"

That being said, the graphic descriptions of the deaths of saints has been used to give believers examples of great bravery in the face of persecution. It's not meant to convey the idea that salvation is achieved by martydom - that is not a Christian tenet. Though of course, martyrdom is considered an honorable death - as it is in most societies, both Christian and non Christian.

 

[Heneni]

What if the means of execution had been the electric chair. Would certain sects make the sign of the electric chair and would there be electric chairs on the top of churches and on chains around one’s neck?

Cursed is anybody that hangs on a tree - the bible says.

I think it was always going to be a cross made of a tree. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is the garden of eden, is what the tree that jesus was crucified on represents.

 

[sojourner]

We're dealing with several different issues here. First, is the preoccupation we all have with our own mortality, and how we deal with it in a healthy way. The crucifixion is an icon to our mortality -- that God made us mortal and we have to learn to live with that boundary.
Second is the concept of how we evision Christ. Two Mormons have emphasized that they don't use crosses, because they celebrate the living Christ. so do I. But those statements beg the question, "what is a better representation of human life than ultimate mortality?" It's an age-old argument in the Church, in which Christ is sometimes depicted as actually two different Jesuses: the human Jesus (who died on a cross) and the living Jesus (who abides in heaven). which is "more important?"