Cross removed by William and Mary's President

Well, Curtis, I don't think symbolism per se is forbidden in the New Testament.

However, when a cross becomes a substitute for the cross, we have a problem.

 

I think it is in the O/T. And judging by reactions, I can see why. And nowhere do I see Jesus telling us to make sure crosses are everywhere.

BTW pizza, thanx for not calling me a muslim. I disagree with crosses, and all religious symbols. The idea that someone can be closer to God, or represent him better by sticking up crosses everywhere is completely lost on me. And I think the furor expressed in this thread is especially silly.

 

The early Christians didn't use crosses as symbols because crucifixion was a pretty embarassing and disgusting way to die. Phillip Yancey makes the observation that the cross didnt become a symbol of Christianity until after the last person to have seen a crucifixion had died.

Rather, the early church used the Icthus (fish) symbol, and imagery of a shepherd with a sheep across hish shoulders. If memory serves, the earliest Christian sculptures depicted Jesus as a short-haired, cleanly shaven man, after the fashion of Roman and Greek gods.

I think on some level (and, with you as evidence, this is not universal), humans need some kind of symbolism for identification, and sometimes for focus. That this need for symbolic identity can become the focus of worship is a sad fact.

Muslim? Not in a million years. I think we agree strongly on the "what's the big deal" front concerning this story, and to be honest if all the crosses disappeared next week, I'd still know who I was and Whose I was, so I see no need to disagree at all.

Crosses are things, and things are not neccesary for salvation, evangelism, or Christian growth.

 

Don't forget, we know of at least two sinners to die on crosses, one saved, one not.

Yup.:thumbs: One of my problems with Christianity used to be that baptists claimed catholics were in grievious error for looking at statues when they pray, (which I agree with) but would put crosses everywhere. Further, they would say, "our crosses are better because Jesus ain't still on it...."

The whole thing is baloney. I contend that Paul is preaching, and telling us to preach the events at the cross. I further contend that there is no power in the cross it'self, but in the shed blood of Christ. The only thing I see that could remotely be a symbol that Christ personally endorses is the bread & wine at the last supper. That is why I believe communion is a biblical sacrament, but rarely see it performed in a biblical way. (I'm really a snob, aren't I ?)

That first part was me being a hothead. The second part is the absolute bottom line.

 

There were thousands, perhaps millions, of people crucified in the Roman Republic and Empire. The details of how this was typically carried out are hideous - it was, in fact, so hideous a process that breaking a person's legs was thought to be merciful!

I think if someone's going for symbolic importance, a cross without a figure of Christ is the opposite of better...

If you are, then I am as well. Communion is a symbolic action, and one of only two that jesus commanded. The rest is fluff, to be honest.

Agreed emphatically. The bottom line part, not the hothead part.:laugh:

 

Yes, I forgot, baptism is a sacrament, as well.