Jesus and the Cross

[cacian]

I was trying to see if I could find anything in the bible that says one is allowed to erect Jesus body on a cross and semi nude and paraded as such publically in churches.

Then I wondered how would he feel about it all ?
If Jesus died on a cross would he have wanted to be paraded in such for the rest of his existence perched on the very cross that met his end?

Is it right to assume it is OK to parade the deads in this way?
How would you feel if it was you?

[MANICHAEAN]

The previous Pope displayed his affliction in public before he died.

Perhaps it was motivated by what is deemed Christ's "passion." A strange use of words, but I believe there is a beneficial, spiritual side to suffering, especially when ones demise is a foregone conclusion.

Another example is Muhammed Ali. There is no hiding away from his mortal condition. It's thrown at you like raw, red meat. It defines a humility beyond superficial human embodiment that I personally find both dignified and courageous.

[cacian]

[QUOTE=MANICHAEAN;1164443]The previous Pope displayed his affliction in public before he died.

Hi MANICHEAN thank you for the post it is most interesting.

I am not aware of this instance. What did the Pope do and was it his own wishes?


Perhaps it was motivated by what is deemed Christ's "passion." A strange use of words, but I believe there is a beneficial, spiritual side to suffering, especially when ones demise is a foregone conclusion.

I am always intrigued by such words as passion and suffering.
Together they seem to jolt as if confounded and compressed to doom and gloom and almost makes me feel uneasy.
There is a feeling of letting go as if we humans are here by guilt and not by achievement.
Relgion is full of guilt fears sins mustnot and terrorism and having to face it to by looking at a body of a prophet laid onto a cross in a desolate position weeping pain is not very my idea of endearement and feeling sorry. It is rather depleating to the mind.

It is images like that strike me rather backward and darkagy and leads me to think we still have not reached the intellectual ladder where we learn to let go of destituism at the expenses of others.

I cannot help but think that had Christ been alive today he would have wanted his image of that of a leader and not of a weaper weak and unchalenged forever stood in this aukward painful position.
I suppose it is not to be expected from his fellow worshippers to raise the bar and question such images of him being depicted at his lowest.
I guess one's blindness with worhips and words take over judgement and principles are out of the window.




Another example is Muhammed Ali. There is no hiding away from his mortal condition. It's thrown at you like raw, red meat. It defines a humility beyond superficial human embodiment that I personally find both dignified and courageous.
I find boxing most demeaning almost tyranical I wish it a quick end.
I myself find no courage nor dignity in someone's exposition of flesh and blood in this way.
I wish what I understood what you mean but alas I see things rather differently.
I find people most inspiring and invogirating when their intellect challenges mine. Only at this lever where I can compare and equal my other fellow human. I have not g the physiology embodiment of a muscle menbecause I am woman but I have is morals words and the intellect to challenge and in equal measures with any person men or women without feeling ever threatened or sorry.
Physical attributes and damages to one's body in such a vicious violent mean never entice me but leads me to think of desolation and a cry for help.

[Scheherazade]

Thought this thread was about a pub... 'Jesus and the Cross'.

[cacian]

Thought this thread was about a pub... 'Jesus and the Cross'.

Hehe not a bad name actually :lol:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

So, should there be contracts every famous, or even semi-famous, person needs to sign to give permission to have a memorial erected of them, and also this contract should have stipulations. Maybe Jesus would have signed but a condition would've been "Must not be shown had naked and nailed to a cross." Is that what we're discussing here?

[togre]

Would Jesus mind the prominent display of his body on the cross?
Well...you need to answer a few questions first.


Like...Is the cross (and by extension, death on a cross) associated with ignominy, shame and defeat?

--The answer is a resounding "Yes!" It was the most painful and degrading method of death the Romans could contrive. So despised was crucifixion, that no Roman citizen could be punished that way--a better death would be provided for them. Also, death on a cross was considered by the Jewish mind to be "death on a tree" and the executed was considered to be under a curse. Furthermore in our depictions of the cross, "semi-nude" is most likely an inaccuracy adopted because the reality is even more shameful and unappealing. Finally, it is death, which by itself is sad, shameful and defeat. Why would Jesus want this moment of his life portrayed?


Yet, is the cross a symbol of defeat or victory?

--While Jesus' death doesn't seem "happy" it was the focus of his life. He came to die to pay for sin and win salvation. As such, the cross becomes a symbol of what he accomplished by his death.

Colossians 2:13b-15
He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

So the cross, in conjuring up images of Christ's death, memorializes his victory, not his defeat.


The final caveat I'd include is that the cross itself dare never be worshiped or venerated or anything of the sort. It is a symbol and as such it teaches, reminds and focuses our thoughts. The reality is Christ, who alone is worthy of praise.

[cafolini]

Would Jesus mind the prominent display of his body on the cross?
Well...you need to answer a few questions first.


Like...Is the cross (and by extension, death on a cross) associated with ignominy, shame and defeat?

--The answer is a resounding "Yes!" It was the most painful and degrading method of death the Romans could contrive. So despised was crucifixion, that no Roman citizen could be punished that way--a better death would be provided for them. Also, death on a cross was considered by the Jewish mind to be "death on a tree" and the executed was considered to be under a curse. Furthermore in our depictions of the cross, "semi-nude" is most likely an inaccuracy adopted because the reality is even more shameful and unappealing. Finally, it is death, which by itself is sad, shameful and defeat. Why would Jesus want this moment of his life portrayed?


Yet, is the cross a symbol of defeat or victory?

--While Jesus' death doesn't seem "happy" it was the focus of his life. He came to die to pay for sin and win salvation. As such, the cross becomes a symbol of what he accomplished by his death.

Colossians 2:13b-15
He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

So the cross, in conjuring up images of Christ's death, memorializes his victory, not his defeat.


The final caveat I'd include is that the cross itself dare never be worshiped or venerated or anything of the sort. It is a symbol and as such it teaches, reminds and focuses our thoughts. The reality is Christ, who alone is worthy of praise.

The fisherman goes beyond fishing. It has to be read very carefully to realize that. The Romans do make fun of him: Why has thou forsaken me, father?

[cacian]

The fisherman goes beyond fishing. It has to be read very carefully to realize that. The Romans do make fun of him: Why has thou forsaken me, father?

Cafolini what does

''Why has thou forsaken me, father''

mean? where is the making fun of him bit here?

[RetsixArp]

...death on a cross was considered by the Jewish mind to be "death on a tree" ...Can't recall which book, but "death on a tree" or words to that effect is mentioned in the Old Testament. & The Gospels alternately cite cross & tree when recounting the crucifixion.

Nothing in the Bible about parading the cross as symbol; that came later (along w/ rewriting much of the Bible), mainly to enforce, as some here note, that notion of suffering.

[cafolini]

Cafolini what does

''Why has thou forsaken me, father''

mean? where is the making fun of him bit here?

Another one that's more famous, Cacian, is "So, you are the king of the Jews?"
"Well, if you say so."

[cacian]

Would Jesus mind the prominent display of his body on the cross?
Well...you need to answer a few questions first.


Like...Is the cross (and by extension, death on a cross) associated with ignominy, shame and defeat?

--The answer is a resounding "Yes!" It was the most painful and degrading method of death the Romans could contrive. So despised was crucifixion, that no Roman citizen could be punished that way--a better death would be provided for them. Also, death on a cross was considered by the Jewish mind to be "death on a tree" and the executed was considered to be under a curse. Furthermore in our depictions of the cross, "semi-nude" is most likely an inaccuracy adopted because the reality is even more shameful and unappealing. Finally, it is death, which by itself is sad, shameful and defeat. Why would Jesus want this moment of his life portrayed?

Why a tree when it is a cross?
Do the Jews negate the existence of a cross?
A curse? In what sense?

About Jesus wanting this moment protrayed there are no references whatsoever about him wishing this to be portrayed so there is no such a question.

And to answer your first question yes I think anyone including Jesus would mind being paraded on the cross to this day without their prior consent.


Yet, is the cross a symbol of defeat or victory?

--While Jesus' death doesn't seem "happy" it was the focus of his life. He came to die to pay for sin and win salvation. As such, the cross becomes a symbol of what he accomplished by his death.

I think for me a cross is symbol of some sorts. I have wondered about the idea of symbols in christianity and what their true meaning are.
A symbol carries a meaning hence it word it has other connotations.

I find the cross and Jesus to be TWO SYMBOLS.

One:
The cross ia PLUS shaped object made out of wood.
Two:
Jesus a prophet a figure representing God.
Why would one anyone want to represeng God in such a way because let's not forget that Jesus is a representative of God at the end of the day.

My thoughts are thus this:
Jesus might have died on the cross but God has not.
This assuming that evertime one looks at Jesus one thinks of God and not the weather.

Now the CROSS its literary meaning are at the top of my head:


'to cross is an movement that suggest crossing something out of the equations for example hence the expression 'cross that out'
And
'to be cross as in angry not very happy'.

These are my initial thoughts when the word CROSS is mentioned.
Is the cross in this instance a good thing I am not so sure now.
Now at this stage I am thinking what would I want a cross if it is not a nice thing to say or do. It is rather doom and gloom.

And the next thing is
Jesus is depicted alive on the cross and not dead.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Miguel_Angel_Crucifixion_La_Redonda_Logrono_Spain. jpg/398px-

I find it difficult to look at someone that is alive on a cross and worship that at the same time.
It is a scary image the one that gives kids nightmares.



Colossians 2:13b-15
He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Unless we are talking DaVinci I am not sure what this written code is about?
The whole thing is defeatest because if a code is written then it is going to be found. This rather brings into question this saying.
I would have understood it if it was a mental code that no one knew but Jesus.



So the cross, in conjuring up images of Christ's death, memorializes his victory, not his defeat.

One does not 'conjur up an image of death' but what one conjurs up is the'' idea that someone has died''.
Two different concept.

When people die we do not have/keep or cherish how they died but more that they died.

In other words one does not commemorate how one died and when someone died.




The final caveat I'd include is that the cross itself dare never be worshiped or venerated or anything of the sort. It is a symbol and as such it teaches, reminds and focuses our thoughts. The reality is Christ, who alone is worthy of praise.

Well I find that hard to believe because what the priests usually carries is a cross and more often it is used to touch people with it.
This is a symbolic act that translated literally as crossing someone with the cross.
Is that a good thing considering the meanings I higlighted earlier?

It is a bit like a teacher with a ruler at school. You hand out your hand to be hit with the ruler.
The same concept different image.
A punishement is it or something else?

[cacian]

Another one that's more famous, Cacian, is "So, you are the king of the Jews?"
"Well, if you say so."

Ah well not as famous as this

''I have got news for you.''
''Yeah?''
''You are not Jesus''.

[cafolini]

Ah well not as famous as this

''I have got news for you.''
''Yeah?''
''You are not Jesus''.

Precisely. But you pretend to have figured him out with your senses. And so...
My case is closing in the same vein. Have fun until maybe you get it; or not. It makes no difference to Him. Love you.

[cacian]

Precisely. But you pretend to have figured him out with your senses. And so...
My case is closing in the same vein. Have fun until maybe you get it; or not. It makes no difference to Him. Love you.

Haha. All is good that end's good. :p

[togre]

Why a tree when it is a cross?
Do the Jews negate the existence of a cross?
A curse? In what sense?

A tree is wooden. A cross is an upright wooden post. I believe impalement (on a wooden spear or stake) also was understood to be "death on a tree."


No, the Jews didn't negate (deny?) its existence. They just understood this method of execution to apply to the statement "cursed is everyone who dies on a tree."

A curse in the sense of accursed by God, rejected by him, and dying apart from him and under his judgment.




Unless we are talking DaVinci I am not sure what this written code is about?
The whole thing is defeatest because if a code is written then it is going to be found. This rather brings into question this saying.
I would have understood it if it was a mental code that no one knew but Jesus.


The 'written code' in Colossians 2 is not that kind of a code (secret message needing deciphering). It's a legal code or standard (think zoning codes, or Hammurabi's Code). It is the expectations that Almighty God has placed on people. The law code demands obedience and punishes failure with eternal death. Jesus overcame the law by fulfilling the law in our place and then suffering our punishment, again in our place.



Finally, the symbol of the cross has been used by hundreds of millions of people for nearly 2,000 years. It has been used to remember that Jesus saved us from sin in his death. Your personal feeling that it is inappropriate or disrespectful or against Christ's wishes (how would you know?!) really don't matter.

[cacian]

A tree is wooden. A cross is an upright wooden post. I believe impalement (on a wooden spear or stake) also was understood to be "death on a tree."


No, the Jews didn't negate (deny?) its existence. They just understood this method of execution to apply to the statement "cursed is everyone who dies on a tree."

A curse in the sense of accursed by God, rejected by him, and dying apart from him and under his judgment.






The 'written code' in Colossians 2 is not that kind of a code (secret message needing deciphering). It's a legal code or standard (think zoning codes, or Hammurabi's Code). It is the expectations that Almighty God has placed on people. The law code demands obedience and punishes failure with eternal death. Jesus overcame the law by fulfilling the law in our place and then suffering our punishment, again in our place.



Finally, the symbol of the cross has been used by hundreds of millions of people for nearly 2,000 years. It has been used to remember that Jesus saved us from sin in his death. Your personal feeling that it is inappropriate or disrespectful or against Christ's wishes (how would you know?!) really don't matter.

I raise my case.
I said what I had to say.
My conscious is clear whether you agree or disagree is not the point.
Sin or no sin I know I am no sinner and what would Jesus save me from I do not know but I know one thing quite clearly and that is that I need not to be saved from me myself or anything else.
What matters in all this is that I think it is innappropriate and I stand by it.
I formed an opinion and so long as I am able to form opinions on anything and everything I see, including God or Jesus, then I can fully say I am entirely happy with my views and my ability to think for myself first and foremost.
Everything that should come after that is entirely secondary .

[cafolini]

I raise my case.
I said what I had to say.
My conscious is clear whether you agree or disagree is not the point.
Sin or no sin I know I am no sinner and what would Jesus save me from I do not know but I know one thing quite clearly and that is that I need not to be saved from me myself or anything else.
What matters in all this is that I think it is innappropriate and I stand by it.
I formed an opinion and so long as I am able to form opinions on anything and everything I see including God or Jesus then I can fully say I am entirely happy with my views and my ability to think for myself first and foremost and everything that should come after that is entirely secondary.

Love you. :driving:
:leaving:

[Freudian Monkey]

Some time ago I had a discussion with a Indian Hindu about the holy river of Ganges. He is a well-paid engineer, working in a high position in a power plant. He told me that there has been multiple studies that Ganges is one of the cleanest and most sanitary rivers anywhere. However according to my reliable source (The Internet) it's one of the five most polluted rivers on the planet. When I pointed this out, he quickly changed the subject.

Maybe this example illustrates a bit the difference between a religious symbol and an everyday object. To a Hindu, Ganga (Ganges) is a sacred mother - and how could a mother be unclean? Similarly to Christians the body of diseased Christ is not something disgusting but rather a symbol of deliverance - the purest object that there is. It makes little sense to compare a religious symbol to an irreligious object.

[cacian]

Some time ago I had a discussion with a Indian Hindu about the holy river of Ganges. He is a well-paid engineer, working in a high position in a power plant. He told me that there has been multiple studies that Ganges is one of the cleanest and most sanitary rivers anywhere. However according to my reliable source (The Internet) it's one of the five most polluted rivers on the planet. When I pointed this out, he quickly changed the subject.

Maybe this example illustrates a bit the difference between a religious symbol and an everyday object. To a Hindu, Ganga (Ganges) is a sacred mother - and how could a mother be unclean? Similarly to Christians the body of diseased Christ is not something disgusting but rather a symbol of deliverance - the purest object that there is. It makes little sense to compare a religious symbol to an irreligious object.

You make a very good point here because beliefs myths and truht are often crossed without any understanding.
Blind belief is quite scary and it does take us back a giant step backwards unlike Amstrong's giant leap forward.

There is no point in looking for the sun if blind beliefs still lurk in the dark.

I find terms such sacred with reference to mothers or fathers, considering the nazis called their dicator one, rather depleating and worrying.
I feel that implicating everyday people with religons in this sense a puzzle.
I could not refer to God as 'father' because I have not seen confirmed with my own eyes that God is a man.
In the same breath I could not believe Jesus was the son of God because I have no proof that he was.
I could not believe that Mary was a virgin because statistically the possibility of a virgin getting pregnant is about as rare as a speck of diamond floating in the air.
I can only believe what I see and what makes sense until then I will not.
Blind belief is unhealthy and frankly goes against any logic science or mind.

[Alan Smithee]

Although it's not scriptural, the Old English poem 'The Dream of the Rood' is both interesting and relevant.

The poet writes of a dream he had in which he is spoken to by the cross (rood) upon which Christ was crucified. What's fascinating in this poem is that Christ is not a passive victim of Roman brutality, he is a proud, strong Anglo-Saxon leader who defiantly goes to his death.

The poem seems like an attempt to conflate pagan concepts with Christian theology. Instead of a cross, the rood is an animated tree. Initially, it speaks of its reluctance to be a participant in the execution of Christ. We then find out that, far from being an instrument of oppression, the cross is an essential ally in the battle for mankind's salvation.

Here's a link (http://www.lightspill.com/poetry/oe/rood.html) to a translated version if anyone's interested in reading the poem.

[cacian]

Love you. :driving:
:leaving:

Haha me too Cafolini :D

[stlukesguild]

I was trying to see if I could find anything in the bible that says one is allowed to erect Jesus body on a cross and semi nude and paraded as such publically in churches.

Then I wondered how would he feel about it all ?
If Jesus died on a cross would he have wanted to be paraded in such for the rest of his existence perched on the very cross that met his end?

Early Christian artists, confronted with the need to develop an iconography speaking to the Christian stories and beliefs... but lacking a great tradition of Christian art upon which to base these, drew heavily from Greco-Roman and Hebrew examples. Jonah, borrowed from the Hebrew Bible, was a favorite subject:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_5821503085_491a4a74ac_b.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=5821503085_491a4a74ac_b.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_7137578487_777fed4757_h.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=7137578487_777fed4757_h.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Jonah_Praying_280-290_CE_marble_late_Roman_Asia_Minor_Cleveland_Muse um_of_Art.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Jonah_Praying_280-290_CE_marble_late_Roman_Asia_Minor_Cleveland_Muse um_of_Art.jpg)

Jonah was seen as a precursor to Jesus. Like Jesus, Jonah was a prophet. The tale of his being swallowed by a great fish and then vomited forth after 3 days is seen as analogous to Jesus' death and resurrection from the tomb after 3 days.

Early Christian and Byzantine art often portrayed Jonah with hands raised looking toward the heavens... in a pose that would become familiar in later Christian art for portrayals of Jesus and various saints.

Jonah lying under the shade of the vine was another popular image, and the vine was seen as alluding to Jesus' sermon, "I am the vine..." as well as to the cross (a plant or tree through which mankind is saved).

Another major source of early Christian iconography was the Greco-Roman god, Apollo. The iconography of Christ owes a great deal to the iconography of the Greco-Roman god, Apollo. The various forms or attributes of Apollo are mirrored in those of Christ. Apollo was the son of God (Zeus), a bringer of light, a healer, a teacher, as Apollo Virotutis he was worshiped as the benefactor of all mankind, and he had the gift of the visionary or oracle... able to divine the future. Apollo was quite often portrayed as a shepherd (the "good shepherd"):

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Apollo_2.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Apollo_2.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_ACMA_Moschophoros.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=ACMA_Moschophoros.jpg)

The image of Christ as the "Good Shepherd" is clearly rooted in Greco-Roman examples:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_l_pl1_71324_fnt_tr_c82ii-2.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=l_pl1_71324_fnt_tr_c82ii-2.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_6991506522_fcf75ca949_b.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=6991506522_fcf75ca949_b.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_030marblestatueofChristasGoodShepherd_4thc.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=030marblestatueofChristasGoodShepherd_4thc .jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_goosdshepperd.png (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=goosdshepperd.png)

Apollo, as the sun god, was often portrayed resplendent... with glowing halo... expressive of his power:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_39499-640px-Apollo1.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=39499-640px-Apollo1.jpg)

The setting and rising of the sun were seen as analogous to Christ's death and resurrection, and Christ was commonly portrayed with a glorious halo... or surrounded by an entire aura of light.

With time, however, there was a push to abandon Greco-Roman examples and develop a a wholly unique Christian iconography. It was only obvious that theologians and artists would turn to the narratives of the New Testament... and especially to the Passion narrative which follows Christ's torture and crucifixion through the resurrection. No narrative was seen as more central to Christian faith... and more laden with the possibilities for emotional impact. Ultimately, the image of Christ on the cross is perhaps the single most powerful religious image. The Church obviously recognized the emotional power of the image of Christ's sufferings in its ability to inspire heart-felt confession and devotion, and entreaty for atonement and absolution... which only the Church might offer.

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_GrunwaldComposition.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=GrunwaldComposition.jpg)

Only the image of the Virgin Mary, which became something of a cult during the Gothic era... in connection with the development of the concept of "courtly love" and love poetry and love songs... might be seen as having attained a similar iconic status within Christian iconography.

[cacian]

Hi Stulke again I thank for such an indepth analogy about Chirst and his visuals.

Jonah was seen as a precursor to Jesus. Like Jesus, Jonah was a prophet. The tale of his being swallowed by a great fish and then vomited forth after 3 days is seen as analogous to Jesus' death and resurrection from the tomb after 3 days.

I have to admit I have never heard of Jonah until now.
This story reminded me of Little Red Riding Hood. She also gets swallowed by the woolf and then spat out again.
It is my research to find links in literature across the board and thus find this similarity rather astonishing considering I have never of Jonah.
There is a truth that there is always a link between two very different resources in the world world of literature and it is up to one to find them.

I also find numbers quite relevant in many passages of different literatures and texts. They do not have to be related they have just to be similar.

In any case and there are few new bit about Cleopatra or as I like to spell it Cleo~patra.
They are in the same stream of thoughts as the Virgin Queen Elizabeth the First being a man in disguise rather a woman hence her not bearing any children.
This apparently would explain why Cleo's body was never found.
She was famous for her beauty and many do say because she was a male rather then female.
Anyway you do not have to believe me or take my words for it but that is what I working on at the moment.

[dark desire]

One question that I have had regarding Abrahamical religions is the compulsion of faith. One MUST believe.

In the case of Jesus, he sacrificed himself to salvage all of humanity of their sins. My question is - was there not a single human being who was fine, who was not guilty, who was free of sins, who led a pious life when Jesus was crucified? If there was such a person or there were such human beings present, what does Christianity say about them? And if Christianity says that everyone was and is compulsorily guilty then it is simply the case of Christian institutions using Jesus's sacrifice to legitimize their own power and preaching by holding the entire human race guilty. I think this is a great abuse of Jesus's sacrifice.

But then anything that is institutionalized is abused. That is a rule of the human race although not mentioned in the Bible. :P I am not sure if Jesus meant the institutionalization of his teachings. But how can we expect the power-seekers of the world to let go of such a great opportunity to control people's lives.

@stlukes

I am trying to understand the foundations of Christianity myself as there is much that from Christianity that courses in this semester draw from. There is Paradise Lost, Divine Comedy and Absalom and Achitohpel and others in the syllabus. Thank you for your insightful post.

[Whifflingpin]

"But then anything that is institutionalized is abused. That is a rule of the human race"

It seems you have answered your own question - "was there not a single human being who was fine, who was not guilty, who was free of sins?"

The argument runs something like this:
The first axiom (if that is the right word, 'observation' might be better, since it seems fairly obvious that no-one is perfect) is that humans are sinful as a species.
Sin separates one from God, hence the whole species is separated from God.
One way of removing the barrier of sin is by (repentance and) sacrifice. However, the sacrifices of a sinful person must fail because the sinful nature a) makes the sacrifice imperfect, and b) means that the sacrifice needs to be repeated endlessly.
The only way for the species to be reconciled to God is for there to be a sinless member of the species, offering himself as a sacrifice on behalf of the whole species.
Such a person was Jesus, who could and did.

[You don't have to accept the argument. I, for instance, do not accept that the concept of "the only way" makes any sense when talking about God. God is not constrained by any limitations that humans could imagine.]

But, the argument pre-dates any Christian institutions. It is based on the Old Testament conceptions of law, disobedience, punishment and atonement. The argument liberated people from the power of the religious institutions of the day, because it stated that Jesus had made the great Sacrifice, so there was no longer a need for priests to make all the lesser sacrifices on behalf of the people. The only need was for evangelists - i.e. bearers of the good news that the human species had been reconciled to God.

In due course, Christians did institutionalise themselves. Humans love institutions, with leaders and followers, even if God may not. And, although institutions like all human things, are tainted with sin, they are not, in themselves, bad. How could, for instance, the Good News be spread effectively if the messengers did not organise themselves?

As for the "one must believe" issue, the question is "what is the consequence of not believing?" In the Old Testament, clearly, not believing in God was seen to be displeasing to Him and worthy of punishment. To Christians, not believing simply means cutting oneself off from the community of believers, (which might have severe consequences in certain societies.) However Christ's sacrifice is the atonement for all sins, which would include the sin, if such it is, of unbelief. So, not believing in God on this Earth would not be a barrier to uniting with Him in His own domain.

[cacian]

I personally do not believe there is such a thing as pure person without any griefs mistakes or wrong doings.
I also do not believe in sin.
Sin is a fabricated punitive tool to force people to adhere a religious belief.

[Bonsai Ent]

Sin is a fabricated punitive tool to force people to adhere a religious belief.

This is circular reasoning, sin IS a religious belief :P

[Neo_Sephiroth]

I was trying to see if I could find anything in the bible that says one is allowed to erect Jesus body on a cross and semi nude and paraded as such publically in churches.

Then I wondered how would he feel about it all ?
If Jesus died on a cross would he have wanted to be paraded in such for the rest of his existence perched on the very cross that met his end?

Is it right to assume it is OK to parade the deads in this way?
How would you feel if it was you?

Well, I don't think there's anything in the bible that says anything about parading semi-nude and whatnot.

But the way I see it is simple. You asked "How would you feel if it was you?"

Well, I would ask you this in reply "How would you feel if it was your own son or daughter?

I asked that not to offend anyone, we are adults here, though I do apologize if I did offend anyone. It was not my intention. But I asked that to see it from a different perspective.

So, continuing on...God's Son just died on the cross. As a Father, would He want to see the images of His Son's death in a symbol of coss everywhere? I think that would just be painful. To see one's child scene of death and bringing to mind the memories of that moment.

On another more positive note, I believe, Jesus Christ did not stay dead for long. He resurrected and return to full glory. So, for me, there's no need to see the cross because Jesus Christ is very much alive. Why have a symbol of a person's death when he or she is very much alive?

[cacian]

This is circular reasoning, sin IS a religious belief :P
Hi Bonsai I think not. I see it differently.
Sin is a manipulative belt that religion uses in order to terrify people into submission ie belief.
Take the sin out of if and there is no purpose for people to believe or not.
The whole image of Jesus on the cross is based on sin.
His death is because of sin.
Confessions are because of sin.
Need I go on.

[cafolini]

Hi Bonsai I think not. I see it differently.
Sin is a manipulative belt that religion uses in order to terrify people into submission ie belief.
Take the sin out of if and there is no purpose for people to believe or not.
The whole image of Jesus on the cross is based on sin.
His death is because of sin.
Confessions are because of sin.
Need I go on.

So, if you pig out and confess that you ate more than half the icecream by yourself, is that because of sin? Shall we agree?
:driving::driving::driving:
:leaving:

[cacian]

So, if you pig out and confess that you ate more than half the icecream by yourself, is that because of sin? Shall we agree?
:driving::driving::driving:
:leaving:

LOL
It really depends on whether anyone is bothered about the icecream.
I am not bothered whether you ate the whole or not.
There is no law out there that says it is a sin and until it does so then it is not. ;)

[cafolini]

LOL
It really depends on whether anyone is bothered about the icecream.
I am not bothered whether you ate the whole or not.
There is no law out there that says it is a sin and until it does so then it is not. ;)

But when it does, it does. You decide when?
:leaving:

[cacian]

But when it does, it does. You decide when?
:leaving:

Ok
oh :idea:
It might never happen though:gnorsi:

[Bonsai Ent]

Hi Bonsai I think not. I see it differently.
Sin is a manipulative belt that religion uses in order to terrify people into submission ie belief.
Take the sin out of if and there is no purpose for people to believe or not.
The whole image of Jesus on the cross is based on sin.
His death is because of sin.
Confessions are because of sin.
Need I go on.

Yes but your argument is still circular. In order to believe in sin, you need to believe the religion in which sin is a concept. So if you don't already believe in one of the Abrahamic religions, then sin isn't going to scare you. And if you DO believe in one, then you believed in it before sin could scare you into believing it.

So saying that sin exists to scare people into belief doesn't make sense on a very fundamental level.
It's like me saying "if you don't believe there is a tiger under your bed, I'll get the tiger under your bed to eat you..."

The threat is nonsensical unless you already believed in the tiger. And if you already believed, the threat is redundant.

This isn't a defence of sin as a concept (I don't believe in sin, I'm a Buddhist), just saying that this particular critique of sin doesn't make sense.

[cacian]

[
QUOTE=Bonsai Ent;1167068]Yes but your argument is still circular. In order to believe in sin, you need to believe the religion in which sin is a concept.

The issue I have with sin is this:

Religion is a belief and sin is an act someone commits.
Religions manipulate an act of misjudgement or error by calling it a sin.
Someone who believes in a religion will automatically think sin and religion are related and therefore won't question the fundemental idea of what a sin is about.
So although I have a belief that a God exists I do not believe in a sin to be a sin in terms of God's wrath and punishement and hell.
God is perfection and everyone else isn't and so it is expected for people to make mistakes and errors. To call someone a sinner because of an error or a misjudgement is rather tough.
And with all this whiltst religion grows so does the element of fear amongst believers.
It seems that religion is not only punitive throught the element of sin but it also terrifying in terms of what God is goind to do to that believer if he or she step out of line ie commit a sin.
What I am trying to say is that one needs not confuse having faith with having sinned because the two do not necessarily coincide.



So if you don't already believe in one of the Abrahamic religions, then sin isn't going to scare you. And if you DO believe in one, then you believed in it before sin could scare you into believing it.

Sin deos not scare because one can commit many things without knowing they have done wrong. It is what comes after that is scary and that goes with the element of hell.
I do not believe in the idea of hell because it makes no sense.
Wht would a god waste time and effort in an afterlife punishing people after they have worshiped him. It sounds pointless and illogic.

So to bring back to what I was saying it seems that religions rely on sin to gather more followers by promising a heaven and scaremongering them with sin and hell if they decide to step out of line.
It is therefore a manipulative tool to keep people in line with a belief and get them to stay so.



So saying that sin exists to scare people into belief doesn't make sense on a very fundamental level.
It's like me saying "if you don't believe there is a tiger under your bed, I'll get the tiger under your bed to eat you..."

The tiger example is simple:
IT is a general knowledge that tigers are wild and that in itself is fine.
I also know that tigers cannot go under the bed for obvious reasons.
It is not the concept of a tiger that is scary it is the fact that it is mighty and wild that is scary.

The threat is nonsensical unless you already believed in the tiger. And if you already believed, the threat is redundant.
The threat of a tiger still stand if and when I get closer to one which I am not going to do anytime soon believe me.:p

[Bonsai Ent]

Lol, yes, I understand what you've said, but sin is a religious concept that exists within a very specific framework of pre-existing beliefs. You can't use it to scare people into belief unless they *already hold those beliefs*
I'm saying your statement about sin relies on circular logic. It's like the "hole in my bucket" song, it simply doesn't make sense. The argument is circular.