Christ on the Cross - Time for a Rebranding?

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'm sure it was matzoh buttercruch candy.

OMG, Thank you for the link. My wife will love this!

[Thor]

Thats too homo

[kirant]

Originally Posted by getbak

Too vulgar

http://www.cracked.com/article_19909...you-think.html

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Sliver

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Are you sure you're not hitching your horse to someone else's cart? Your interpretation of Christianity is pretty meaningless if you aren't a Christian. Not to mention that Christianity has a broad umbrella with many different sects focusing on different things.

Also you need to stop using your daughter fears to impose your will on the world. A little girl being afraid of something she hasn't seen before isn't enough justification to change something important to a lot of people (whether you agree or not).

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Are you sure you're not hitching your horse to someone else's cart? Your interpretation of Christianity is pretty meaningless if you aren't a Christian. Not to mention that Christianity has a broad umbrella with many different sects focusing on different things.

Also you need to stop using your daughter fears to impose your will on the world. A little girl being afraid of something she hasn't seen before isn't enough justification to change something important to a lot of people (whether you agree or not).

I'm not. Her fresh perspective sometimes spurs me to view things in a new light, like in this case.

And non-Christians can't interpret Christianity? You should get down to the religious studies department at the U of C and let them know this. They have people from all different faiths studying various religions.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Yes really. If Jesus led a normal life (grew up, became a teenager, went through a rebellious stage, banged some chicks, learned carpentry, got into construction, whistled at cute girls as they walked by the job site, got hammered at the pub on Fridays, etc.), then pissed off the wrong guy and was crucified, there wouldn't be the bible we have today. It is because of the life he led that his death became important.

BTW, he didn't actually rise from the dead because that is absurd. They wrote that bit in after the fact. His teachings are what made him popular and are what was important.

My "Really???" was regarding the juxtaposition between your statement about studying and minoring in religion and then your complete lack of understanding of the relevance of the crucifixion to Christians.

You don't have to believe it, like it, agree with it, but one would think you'd understand the general premise behind the religion due to being so edumacated on the topic.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I'm not. Her fresh perspective sometimes spurs me to view things in a new light, like in this case.

And non-Christians can't interpret Christianity? You should get down to the religious studies department at the U of C and let them know this. They have people from all different faiths studying various religions.

He didn't say non-Christians can't interpret Christianity, he said that "Your interpretation of Christianity is pretty meaningless if you aren't a Christian". Those are very different things, and when you're calling for the disposal of a symbol that has immense meaning to those who practice the faith he has a very strong point.

The fact that staunch atheists and others who don't have any direct religious involvement here think you're being absolutely ridiculous speaks volumes.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Your interpretation of Christianity is pretty meaningless if you aren't a Christian.

I don't really have a horse in this race (though I do find the discussion hilarious), but this comment is all kinds of stupid.

Originally Posted by valo403

He didn't say non-Christians can't interpret Christianity, he said that "Your interpretation of Christianity is pretty meaningless if you aren't a Christian". Those are very different things, and when you're calling for the disposal of a symbol that has immense meaning to those who practice the faith he has a very strong point.

That isn't what he said at all. What he said is literally that non-Christians have a meaningless interpretation of Christianity.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I don't really have a horse in this race (though I do find the discussion hilarious), but this comment is all kinds of stupid.



That isn't what he said at all. What he said is literally that non-Christians have a meaningless interpretation of Christianity.

Umm he said exactly what I wrote, seeing as that's a direct quote. Unless of course you're claiming that the cut and paste function on my computer altered his words.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

Umm he said exactly what I wrote, seeing as that's a direct quote. Unless of course you're claiming that the cut and paste function on my computer altered his words.

Maybe read his quote again, because one of us is interpreting it wrong. I think it is you.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I don't really have a horse in this race (though I do find the discussion hilarious), but this comment is all kinds of stupid.

Let me rephrase then. Someone who isn't a Christian telling Christians (what Sliver is doing) what is an important aspect and what isn't, is meaningless in this discussion. I specially said "your interpretation" because Sliver is specifically taking his viewpoint on Christianity and applying it to how Christians view their own religion.

Basically he doesn't view the crucifixion as important enough to be the main logo for the faith. He thinks the messages of the Jesus are more important so the cross shouldn't be so front and center. Fair enough. Doesn't mean that is the reality of the Christian faith (not to mention different sects).

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Maybe read his quote again, because one of us is interpreting it wrong. I think it is you.

I'm sure you think that, and I think it's you.

You accused him of saying that "non-Christians can't interpret Christianity" which he quite clearly did not. He said that "Your interpretation of Christianity is pretty meaningless if you aren't a Christian". I believe his point is that you can go ahead and interpret all you want, but if you're not a Christian, and other Christians don't subscribe to your interpretation, it's meaningless. That is particularly accurate in the case of something where there is no verifiable right or wrong answer, it comes down to the interpretations of believers to decide what their faith says.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Basically he doesn't view the crucifixion as important enough to be the main logo for the faith. He thinks the messages of the Jesus are more important so the cross shouldn't be so front and center. Fair enough. Doesn't mean that is the reality of the Christian faith (not to mention different sects).

I get that it is important, but I think the cross by itself covers that. So do millions of other Christians as it seems to be a predominantly Catholic thing to affix Jesus to the cross when thousands of other Christian churches use the cross alone. It's a violent, grizzly, morbid, shocking image, and it's unnecessary to use in my opinion. It's ridiculous to say that opinion isn't valid considering the church flaunts it and my tax dollars fund institutions that have this underwear-clad, beaten down individual hanging half dead in the front foyer.

Frankly, I'm surprised nobody has acknowledged it's a bit on the graphic side and in poor taste. It's indisputable to me.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm sure you think that, and I think it's you.

You accused him of saying that "non-Christians can't interpret Christianity" which he quite clearly did not. He said that "Your interpretation of Christianity is pretty meaningless if you aren't a Christian". I believe his point is that you can go ahead and interpret all you want, but if you're not a Christian, and other Christians don't subscribe to your interpretation, it's meaningless. That is particularly accurate in the case of something where there is no verifiable right or wrong answer, it comes down to the interpretations of believers to decide what their faith says.

Let me get this straight, "non-Christians can't interpret Christianity" and "your interpretation of Christianity is pretty meaningless if you aren't a Christian" mean two different things to you? I'm trying to follow along with your logic, but I can't. I guess we'll have to move on.

[Minnie]

I think it depends really, on what 'flavor' (denomination) of xianity you are. For example, in the denom I was raised in (Pentecostal), they don't seem to like that Catholics leave the figure on the cross. To them, the cross should be empty, as the tomb was eventually empty, because Christ conquered the cross, conquered death and left this world for his heavenly world.

For me, it's all bunk. I don't believe in any of it, so it's neither here nor there that people fight over stuff like this, LOL. Mostly it amuses me.

[worth]

Sliver, I was just at the barber shop in Avenida and some dude was going off about dogs. Was that you? Didn't mention anything about Christ, so not sure.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by minnie

i think it depends really, on what 'flavor' (denomination) of xianity you are. For example, in the denom i was raised in (pentecostal), they don't seem to like that catholics leave the figure on the cross. To them, the cross should be empty, as the tomb was eventually empty, because christ conquered the cross, conquered death and left this world for his heavenly world.

for me, it's all bunk. I don't believe in any of it, so it's neither here nor there that people fight over stuff like this, lol. Mostly it amuses me.

wtf?

[Minnie]

Have you never seen that shorthand?

X is the Greek letter “chi,” the initial letter in the word Χριστός. Χριστός means “Christ.” X has been an acceptable representation of the word “Christ” for hundreds/thousands of years. This device is known as a Christogram.

The use of 'x' is said to date back to Constantine.

[YYC in LAX]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I had to pick up my daughter's seven-year-old friend from Catholic school the other day, and when my daughter and I walked into the school the first thing we saw was JC nailed to a cross. My girl found it shocking, which got me thinking how ridiculous the image is to continue using. It's cheap shock advertising for the cause.

So I take it you and your daughter didn't enjoy All Dogs Go to Heaven?

Originally Posted by Sliver

It's a violent, grizzly, morbid, shocking image, and it's unnecessary to use in my opinion.

LOL, you know you're a ##### when Catholicism is too racy for you. Sorry for piling on but this thread is just too out of control and I couldn't help myself.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by valo403

He said that "Your interpretation of Christianity is pretty meaningless if you aren't a Christian". I believe his point is that you can go ahead and interpret all you want, but if you're not a Christian, and other Christians don't subscribe to your interpretation, it's meaningless. That is particularly accurate in the case of something where there is no verifiable right or wrong answer, it comes down to the interpretations of believers to decide what their faith says.

1. A non-Christian's interpretation of Christianity is meaningless.
2. Different denominations of Christianity do not generally count the others as true Christians, making all Christians a non-Christian to at least one other self-proclaimed Christian.
3. Per #1, a non-Christian's interpretation of Christianity is meaningless.
4. If all Christians are non-Christians to someone, every Christian's interpretation of Christianity is meaningless.
5. All interpretations of Christianity are meaningless, and is therefore pointless.