Originally posted by VargOriginally posted by Varg
Don't you think that walking around with a representation of a human nailed to a bit of wood around your neck is slightly morbid?
Don't you think that walking around with a representation of a human nailed to a bit of wood around your neck is slightly morbid?
Christ's death and ressurection is a symbol of celebration for believers, thus no , it would not be morbid.
Would you have a problem with someone wearing a cross without the figure of jesus on it ?
cheers
cheers
Originally posted by pcaspianWhether one makes a crucifix more beautiful with ornateness or removes Jesus from the cross, the intent is to avoid the reality of a gruesome execution.
Originally posted by Varg
[b]Don't you think that walking around with a representation of a human nailed to a bit of wood around your neck is slightly morbid?
Christ's death and ressurection is a symbol of celebration for believers, thus no , it would not be morbid.
Would you have a problem with someone wearing a cross without the figure of jesus on it ?
cheers
cheers
[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by kirksey957
Whether one makes a crucifix more beautiful with ornateness or removes Jesus from the cross, the intent is to avoid the reality of a gruesome execution.
Nothing was mentioned about beatifying the cross.
A plain cross is used as a symbol of faith in Christ, not the actual act of Christ's excecution. That faith in Christ is a celebration that the sins of Adam and Eve are forgiven and man can be close to God again, all sins forgiven.
The cross serves as a powerfull symbol, a monumental event in history. You see only a gruesome death, other's see much more.
Originally posted by pcaspianI think you are making some assumptions about me. I am not criticizing anyone's faith. My contributions to this thread have been around the theme of the event of the cross being trivialized in a variety of ways, one of which that I mentioned was the desire to avoid the horror of it by making it beautiful. I happen to like aesthetics as much as anyone else. My commentary was simply an acknowledgement that anything can be turned into a 'graven image" to put it in Old Testament terms.
Originally posted by kirksey957
[b]Whether one makes a crucifix more beautiful with ornateness or removes Jesus from the cross, the intent is to avoid the reality of a gruesome execution.
Nothing was mentioned about beatifying the cross.
A plain cross is used as a symbol of faith in Christ, not the actual act of Christ's excecution. That ...[text shortened]... symbol, a monumental event in history. You see only a gruesome death, other's see much more.
[/b]
Originally posted by kirksey957you mention the "Gaven image" this is true of a god. Not his son and holy earthly prophets etc. To this day and eternity hope that helped
I think you are making some assumptions about me. I am not criticizing anyone's faith. My contributions to this thread have been around the theme of the event of the cross being trivialized in a variety of ways, one of which that I mentioned was the desire to avoid the horror of it by making it beautiful. I happen to like aesthetics as much as anyone ...[text shortened]... wledgement that anything can be turned into a 'graven image" to put it in Old Testament terms.
Originally posted by kirksey957Sure, I agree. Wearing a cross or any other symbol of faith, or symbol of membership to an organisation should be a considered a responsibility to represent one's belief /organisation in a favourable fashion instead of a fashion accesory.
My commentary was simply an acknowledgement that anything can be turned into a 'graven image" to put it in Old Testament terms.