The cross= a negative symbol?

[InChrist]

I think the symbolism of a torture/execution device is inherently negative.



Atonement theology is inherently negative too, IMO.

You are entitled to your opinions. I can certainly agree that torture is negative, but it was the price Christ paid for the sins of humanity. My perspective is based on God's Word which I believe to be superior to my limited, faulty human thinking. Besides that, Jesus and saved me personally and I understand and know the extent to which He went to demonstrate His love and deliver me from bondage to sin and darkness and give me freedom, joy, and eternal life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are entitled to your opinions. I can certainly agree that torture is negative, but it was the price Christ paid for the sins of humanity.

... and I think the idea that God would demand this price from Christ is negative.

Atonement theology says that God's attitude toward Jesus was, effectively, "I'll erase the debt of humanity (something that an omnipotent deity could just do without any fuss if he was truly omnipotent), but I'll only do this if you allow yourself to be horribly tortured and killed and/or suffer in Hell (depending on your brand of Christianity)."

If Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary, then it's a negative thing. If Christ's sacrifice was necessary, then it implies that God is evil. I would consider an evil God to be a negative thing, but maybe this is just my " limited, faulty human thinking."

 

[Iti oj]

Surely and omnipotent Deity knows better than you the way in which humanity must be saved.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

Surely you have been coned by a demon. Hey wana buy a bridge i got a good deal for you.

 

[Desert Snake]

Surely you have been coned by a demon. Hey wana buy a bridge i got a good deal for you.

Wow, is that necessary? Isn't everyone entitled to their religion?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Do you think the cross is a negative symbol for Xians? Do you wear a cross?

It is close to a + so, by that logic, it's positive... Joking.

But, the cross isn't necessarily negative. Sure, it shows the killing device of their Lord, but it's meaning is so much different; that is the way Jesus gave us freedom, through the cross.

 

[Desert Snake]

It is close to a + so, by that logic, it's positive... Joking.

Lol, I know, right?

But, the cross isn't necessarily negative. Sure, it shows the killing device of their Lord, but it's meaning is so much different; that is the way Jesus gave us freedom, through the cross.

Perhaps...but a more positive symbol, or just a rendition of Jesus, even, do you think that might be a more positive symbol? I'm thinking along the lines of Jesus with the crown of thorns, that illustrates adequately Jesus's message, doesn't it? iDK just throwing out ideas.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think the symbolism of a torture/execution device is inherently negative.



Atonement theology is inherently negative too, IMO.

I've always had a problem with the "sacrifice" concept, for more than one reason actually.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sacrifice concept...(problems)
1 Takes the responsibility off of everyone else
2 Everyone is 'saved' by the action, yet according to doctrine, that's a false assumption....huh?
3 Doesn't represent a living faith any better than the actual teachings/actions of Jesus

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Perhaps...but a more positive symbol, or just a rendition of Jesus, even, do you think that might be a more positive symbol? I'm thinking along the lines of Jesus with the crown of thorns, that illustrates adequately Jesus's message, doesn't it? iDK just throwing out ideas.

A lot of Christians use the cross as a rendition of Jesus. But yes, if Jesus had his very own symbol (the christian fish would work actually), then it'd be a lot more useful than the cross.

 

[InChrist]

... and I think the idea that God would demand this price from Christ is negative.

Atonement theology says that God's attitude toward Jesus was, effectively, "I'll erase the debt of humanity (something that an omnipotent deity could just do without any fuss if he was truly omnipotent), but I'll only do this if you allow yourself to be horribly tortured and killed and/or suffer in Hell (depending on your brand of Christianity)."

If Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary, then it's a negative thing. If Christ's sacrifice was necessary, then it implies that God is evil. I would consider an evil God to be a negative thing, but maybe this is just my " limited, faulty human thinking."

The gospel message is really very simple. God does not tolerate sin. Sin is destructive and harmful. It ruins people's lives, it has ruined the beauty of God's creation. God's way of dealing with sin is to put it to death. Anyone who clings to sin faces eternal death or separation from God, life, and goodness. (Romans 6:23)

God did not demand that Jesus pay this price, but He does demand the price be paid. Jesus chose to pay the price of death to save humanity from having to do so, because true love sacrifices for loved ones. God is not evil, He is loving in the extreme in allowing a way of escape (through His beloved Son) from the consequences of sin. Evil would be to allow sin and its awful impact on this universe an all life to endure forever.

 

[crossfire]

Deuteronomy 21:

22 “If anyone is found guilty of an offense deserving the death penalty and is executed, and you hang his body on a tree, 23 you are not to leave his corpse on the tree overnight but are to bury him that day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse. You must not defile the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.​

 

[The Sum of Awe]

... and I think the idea that God would demand this price from Christ is negative.

If you're a Trinitarian this is already solved - God willed it in the flesh which he incarnated into. Jesus would've just been the human flesh that God used, it would be sacrificing a humanized, representation of God.

If you're a non-Trinitarian, it still can be solved. Jesus was anointed, it wasn't God's demand, Jesus knew it would happen and let alone wanted it to happen; he's an altruistic superman.

Atonement theology says that God's attitude toward Jesus was, effectively, "I'll erase the debt of humanity (something that an omnipotent deity could just do without any fuss if he was truly omnipotent), but I'll only do this if you allow yourself to be horribly tortured and killed and/or suffer in Hell (depending on your brand of Christianity)."

Jesus suffered in hell?

If Christ's sacrifice was unnecessary, then it's a negative thing. If Christ's sacrifice was necessary, then it implies that God is evil. I would consider an evil God to be a negative thing, but maybe this is just my " limited, faulty human thinking."

Why would it imply God is evil if it were necessary?

 

[Shiranui117]

The Cross is a reminder of how Christ trampled down death by death. It's a victory memorial, more than anything. It also calls to mind the great love Christ has for us, and this same love we should have for others. And, through the Cross, Jesus shared fully in what it means to be human--He suffered, died, and in doing so, fully reconciled our humanity to His Divinity. Plus, don't forget that the Cross is linked inextricably to the empty tomb--Christ rose from the dead, that we might share in God's life, too, just as Christ shared in ours.

It's hard to imagine Jesus being very thrilled having everyone around him reminding him about it...

ROFL

 

[InChrist]

Surely you have been coned by a demon. Hey wana buy a bridge i got a good deal for you.

Or you are spiritually blinded by satan... But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 2 Corinthians 4;3-4

 

[crossfire]

Hebrews 6:4-5

4 For it is impossible to renew to repentance those who were once enlightened, who tasted the heavenly gift, became companions with the Holy Spirit, 5 tasted God’s good word and the powers of the coming age, 6 and who have fallen away, because, to their own harm, they are recrucifying the Son of God and holding Him up to contempt.
​

 

[InChrist]

The Cross is a reminder of how Christ trampled down death by death. It's a victory memorial, more than anything. It also calls to mind the great love Christ has for us, and this same love we should have for others. And, through the Cross, Jesus shared fully in what it means to be human--He suffered, died, and in doing so, fully reconciled our humanity to His Divinity. Plus, don't forget that the Cross is linked inextricably to the empty tomb--Christ rose from the dead, that we might share in God's life, too, just as Christ shared in ours.

Exactly, the cross of Christ is linked to victory over death and new eternal life.

..."Death is swallowed up in victory.” 1 Cor. 15:54

 

[Tristesse]

Or you are spiritually blinded by satan... But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 2 Corinthians 4;3-4

Quoting the bible to those who do not believe it is like quoting lord of the rings to validate a point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wow, is that necessary? Isn't everyone entitled to their religion?

He put it a bit indelicately, but he does have a point. As soon as you declare that your god is beyond your understanding, you've implicitly declared that you don't have the resources to tell your god apart from other supernatural things that would also be beyond your understanding.

What's God to a human being? An impressively powerful supernatural entity that is good. What's Satan to a human being? An impressively powerful supernatural entity that is evil.

If, when it suits you, you argue that God is doing good even when it seems evil to humans, then you take away any way for a human to distinguish between God and Satan. Both could conceivably wield miracles well beyond human imagination, so the only way you could distinguish them is by the quality of their actions... but InChrist's argument implies that we can't assume that the apparent quality of God's actions corresponds to the actual quality of God's actions.

So... when confronted with a supernatural entity that you think might be God or might be Satan, how would you go about telling the difference?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you're a Trinitarian this is already solved - God willed it in the flesh which he incarnated into. Jesus would've just been the human flesh that God used, it would be sacrificing a humanized, representation of God.

That's not Trinitarian. It's... something else. In the Trinitarian formulation, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all separate persons, and all co-equal, and are each God individually but also God when taken together.

If you're a non-Trinitarian, it still can be solved. Jesus was anointed, it wasn't God's demand, Jesus knew it would happen and let alone wanted it to happen; he's an altruistic superman.

That doesn't make him altruistic; it makes him masochistic: "I needlessly hurt myself to show I love you." It would be psychotic.

Jesus suffered in hell?

In some versions of Christianity.

In many of them, Jesus spent the time from the Crucifixion to the Resurrection in Hell, however, I've heard two versions of what was supposed to have happened there:

- at that point, Hell was just a "waiting room" and not a place of suffering and punishment (since in their view, that comes after the Final Judgement). He spent the three days preaching and ministering to the souls that died before he came to Earth so that everyone would have an equal chance of accepting Christ and salvation, even the people who were born too early to hear about him in life.

- Hell was a place of suffering and punishment, and over those three days, Jesus was punished for all the sins of humanity.

Why would it imply God is evil if it were necessary?

Because nothing is necessary to an omnipotent God, so if Jesus' suffering is necessary, it would only be because God made it necessary. God could have chosen a suffering-free option, but instead chose this one.

 

[Desert Snake]

He put it a bit indelicately, but he does have a point. As soon as you declare that your god is beyond your understanding, you've implicitly declared that you don't have the resources to tell your god apart from other supernatural things that would also be beyond your understanding.

What's God to a human being? An impressively powerful supernatural entity that is good. What's Satan to a human being? An impressively powerful supernatural entity that is evil.

If, when it suits you, you argue that God is doing good even when it seems evil to humans, then you take away any way for a human to distinguish between God and Satan. Both could conceivably wield miracles well beyond human imagination, so the only way you could distinguish them is by the quality of their actions... but InChrist's argument implies that we can't assume that the apparent quality of God's actions corresponds to the actual quality of God's actions.

So... when confronted with a supernatural entity that you think might be God or might be Satan, how would you go about telling the difference?

Well, I'm not a fan of the "sacrifice" concept, I've posted other threads asking about the church doctrine regarding redemption and the answer seems to be, 'well you can't assume forgiveness'.........