hinduwoman

I understand the importance of the cross symbol, but why do many religious institutions and lockets worn by Christians have the image of the crucified Christ? Let me tell you it is very gruesome. The arms stretched and bound, the whole body writhing, face twisted in pain and blood streaming down --- it is enough to put you off Christianity for life! In many of the Indian churches and convents there are huge pictures and statues of this painful death. Some of them are good works of art, but I assure the Christians it does not arouse the feeling that God is merciful or loving or even a sense of awe. Quiet a number of Hindus coming face to face with it for the first time (specially the children) simply feel nauseous.
I get the theological implications of sacrifice, but for all that the images seem to be a celebration of pain and victimhood rather than anything positive.

Joke about non-Christian reaction:
The parents of a young Hindu were very upset because their son failed in maths constantly. In despair they decided to send him to a missionary run school. They were worried that their son might convert to Christianity but the school was the best one. So their son was enrolled there.
The very first day when he came home, he took out his maths books and began to study. Over the next few months the parents watched amazed their son practicing maths without having to be prompted --- he even stopped watching TV. Finally the exams were held and their son had a perfect score. The overjoyed parents asked -- "Son was it the teachers?"
"No"
"Was it the curriculum?"
"No"
"Was it your friends?"
"No"
"Then what was it?"
"In every room they had a guy nailed to a plus sign. That is when I knew they were serious".

Rhea

I've always found that to be gruesome, too.

Like the Civil Rights Activists should wear rifle necklaces with MLK and his gunshot wound. Weird custom.

But then, I never understand the whole "he suffered and died" wailing either. He suffered less than milions of others and didn't even die. ~shrug~

Magus55

What an obnoxious comment. Because of course, crucifixion is such a trivial form of suffering. And He absolutely did die. He just happened to be ressurected, which will happen to every other human on Earth too. Guess when the rest of the world is ressurected, we can say no human actually ever died or suffered

Rhea

Obnoxious? Howso? And what is the point of that comment, anyway? To discredit my post? Why not just address the content?

Actually Crucifixion is hardly the "worst" way to go. It is certainly not the worst suffering possible. To treat it like it was the worst death EVAH is simply unsupportable, yet that's what they do.

You are going there yourself, "Because of course, crucifixion is such a trivial form of suffering". Well compared to all of the suffering in history, actually, yes, a 3-hour death could be called trivial by comparison. Especially when endured by someone who is a God, yanno?

I mean, look at Prometheus. You think that was Trivial? He got his guts ripped out every day for hundreds of years!

Rhea

Oh and yes. If the rest of the world is ressurrected, it would be correct to say that no one ever died.

Arctish

I was raised catholic, so I saw a lot of crucifixes. I didn't really think about the blood and gore much until I was about 10 or 11. The icon that I thought was really creepy was the "sacred heart" pictures. Have you seen those, hinduwoman? It is the image of a human heart ( not anatomically correct but close enough) surrounded and peirced by a crown of thorns and surmounted by a cross. Usually it has drops of blood coming from the thorn punctures. Ick
It is supposed to represent how much Jesus suffered for us. It was implied by the nuns at my school that we all are supposed to suffer, too - it's good for the soul you know

theoscholar

Jesus death on the cross was the worst possible death, but not necessarily from the manner of death. (1) He bore the sins of the world on his shoulders-- pretty miserable. (2) His Father turned his back on his Son.

As far as the symbol today, I agree with your post. But again, for a different reason. Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven. He's not stuck on a cross.

theoscholar

My idea of suffering is going to a Catholic school.

Rhea

1) that's the only explanation that has any merit in measuring/comparing "suffering" since it is abstract and can be assumed to be as bad as you want it to be. That's the only one that merits further debate.
2) His foather turned his back on his son for a cosmic instant, that one falls in the same bucket as, "welcome to the club".


...

1, cont'd) He bore the sins for how long? This is where is is open for dispute. Is he still suffering? I contend that most people are willing to endure finite suffering when they know the cause is good. When the Cause is world salvation and the sufferer is an eternal being, it begins to look a lot like suffering that many humans have endured. After all, is the GOD "smaller" than the world? No. He's still a god.

I am not convinced this is a formidible suffering. As good as 1) is, it still doesn't withstand scrutiny of A God suffering for humans . What further evidence do you have that the suffering for Humanity's sins was difficult for A GOD?

theoscholar

Jesus died on a cross fully as a man. I would say it was excruciatingly difficult.

And, by the way, I don't ascribe to a Jesus that died for the whole world. Otherwise, everyone would go to heaven. But we know that's not true, because most of you choose to live apart from God. He'll make it happen.....