@fmf saidNo, again, you are just wrong.
Well, as I say, there is plenty of evidence that it was. And, for the most part, the Christians I've been surrounded by all my life don't really worry care one way or the other, aside from the JWs I have known and fanatics like sonship.
The cross is NOT an idol, nor a "graven image". There is NO worship involved in the cross. It is just a symbol. Christians worship Jesus the Christ, as they worship God, not the cross. So it doesn't matter how many times you try to insert "paganism" into the conversation, it has nothing to do with it.
@suzianne saidI am not saying that the cross is a "graven image". Nor have I said that Christians "worship the cross". But I see what you did there.
The cross is NOT an idol, nor a "graven image". There is NO worship involved in the cross. It is just a symbol. Christians worship Jesus the Christ, as they worship God, not the cross. So it doesn't matter how many times you try to insert "paganism" into the conversation, it has nothing to do with it.
I am simply saying it is a symbol that was a pre-existing pagan symbol that the creators of Christianity adopted.
@fmf saidBut from this perspective... why even bother countering the claims?
It was a cross according to people creating a religion based on the life of Jesus decades after his death, people who consciously appropriated pagan ideas and symbols into their fledgling mythology/narrative.
You believe, without evidence, that it was a tree or a post... for an event you do not believe happened..?
... but it's definitely not what the Apostles say it was.
But I think this is about par for the course: rejecting the only tradition given to us about a religion, and instead just speculating as you see fit, and not bothering with whether or not it's called out because this is all a motte & bailey for atheists, anyways: if the absurd primary statements do not count, just go back to the steady line of
- I only accept publicly verifiable evidence
- You can't provide any
- Your religion is false
A bold foray, but it's just hot air.
@philokalia saidSo getting back to the other point ... what is it about graven images being an abomination to God do you not understand?
But from this perspective... why even bother countering the claims?
You believe, without evidence, that it was a tree or a post... for an event you do not believe happened..?
... but it's definitely not what the Apostles say it was.
But I think this is about par for the course: rejecting the only tradition given to us about a religion, and instead ...[text shortened]... evidence
- You can't provide any
- Your religion is false
A bold foray, but it's just hot air.
@philokalia saidLook into it if you are interested. If you then decide there is no evidence, so be it. What event is it you are saying I "don't believe happened"?
You believe, without evidence, that it was a tree or a post... for an event you do not believe happened..?
@philokalia saidIf you think the thing I mentioned is "absurd", that's OK. If the details of the "tradition" that you have subscribed to and internalized make you believe that your particular opinions about supernatural causality are true, that's also OK.
I think this is about par for the course: rejecting the only tradition given to us about a religion, and instead just speculating as you see fit, and not bothering with whether or not it's called out because this is all a motte & bailey for atheists, anyways: if the absurd primary statements do not count, just go back to the steady line of - I only accept publicly verifiable evidence- You can't provide any- Your religion is false
@philokalia saidNascent Christianity either did or did not adopt pagan symbols.
But from this perspective... why even bother countering the claims?
1 edit
@suzianne saidA graven image is anything made by human hands out of wood stone or metal and which is a representation of things in heaven, earth or under the sea. Your bogus definition of 'graven image' is what I do not understand.
What is it about the cross not being a "graven image" do you not understand?
@suzianne saidWhat is the definition of a graven image; some item used as an object of worship!
What is it about the cross not being a "graven image" do you not understand?
I agree with you; no one worships the cross as if it is something worthy of worship;
instead, it is merely an object used to remember what Jesus did for our sins. The
cross isn't something that empowers unless you are watching a vampire movie; it
only serves to cause us to recall, which is not much different than last supper's
bread and wine. Now some take the bread and wine and believe it is transformed
into the actual body and blood, which is not an act of remembrance but is
something in the mind of those who believe God is actually in them. When that
is done, something is taken out of context and used to cement someone's authority
to keep people in line.
@kellyjay saidYou are fabricating definitions to suit your dogma.
What is the definition of a graven image; some item used as an object of worship!
I agree with you; no one worships the cross as if it is something worthy of worship;
instead, it is merely an object used to remember what Jesus did for our sins. The
cross isn't something that empowers unless you are watching a vampire movie; it
only serves to cause us to recall, which is ...[text shortened]... e, something is taken out of context and used to cement someone's authority
to keep people in line.
Graven is anything cut or fashioned by human hands.
Image is a representation of some being or entity.
God said not to do it.