If Jesus was burnt at the stake, Would you pray before a box of Matches?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


It's relevant in that Christians go out of their way to observe some symbols, but not others. Just one more detail in a long list of discrepancies.

Focus less on the physical and more on the IDEA...a cross is a piece of wood, or metal, or whatever. The IDEA is where the power is. If all the crosses in the world vanished mysteriously overnight, would you spend more time praying or more time complaining about where the crosses went?


It seems to me that the more physical it is, the more meaning it has...which, to me, is a grave mistake to make in spiritual matters. The stuff we make breaks down and goes away. Ideas are forever.
edit on 20-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I see both sides on this.
My logic tells me that Jesus is coming back soon and he will not be carrying a cross.
I'm thinking that many people use the cross as a crutch and i know that no symbol is needed to receive his gift.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 



My logic tells me that Jesus is coming back soon and he will not be carrying a cross.


Logic is based on empirical evidence. Care to share yours?

And, FYI: it's called "faith", not logic.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] refers to both the study of modes of reasoning (which are valid and which are fallacious)[2] and the use of valid reasoning. In the latter sense, logic is used in most intellectual activities, including philosophy and science, but in the first sense is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. It examines general forms that arguments may take. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.[3] Logic is also studied in argumentation theory.[4]


en.wikipedia.org...

Don't have a cow man!



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 


I'm not having any sort of creature. I am pointing out that your use of the word "logic" is erroneous.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
So...now that we got that long stream of bs out of the way....

If the cross is so important to Christianity, why isn't crucifixion, or a reenactment of it, more common? We have the baby Jesus in the manger, we have the paintings of various scenes, we have movies about it...and yet no one carries a cross on their back or does anything with the cross besides worship before it.

Why not take a more physical part in it, if we're going to be so absorbed in physical form instead of just enjoying the idea in our heads?


I have been in many churches that had crucifixion reenactments, it's called Passion Plays. I even directed plays in church. We do take it serious and do reenact it. The directing I did was difficult because I cannot watch a Passion Play without crying.

And there was a man who walked across the world with a cross on his back. But the important thing is not the cross, but what the cross is about. It is about the cruel death of an innocent man sent into this world to redeem the world.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Stonedhenge
 


No sidestepping anything, I don't worship the cross, I worship the person murdered on it. I've never bowed to or prayed to a cross. I pray to Jesus and He's not still on that cross.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Stonedhenge
 


No sidestepping anything, I don't worship the cross, I worship the person murdered on it. I've never bowed to or prayed to a cross. I pray to Jesus and He's not still on that cross.


Greater hope in the Resurrection. That is what defeated death, and it has no more hold on those who receive the Living Christ within them. We are no longer sepulchers with dead men's bones.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Well, this isn't a question for Catholics, it is a question for you:

Would you display a picture of a burning stake as your avatar if that is how Jesus died? Or an axe if he was beheaded? A sword if he was slain? A rope if he was hanged?


I'd imagine so.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Stonedhenge
 


No sidestepping anything, I don't worship the cross, I worship the person murdered on it. I've never bowed to or prayed to a cross. I pray to Jesus and He's not still on that cross.


Greater hope in the Resurrection. That is what defeated death, and it has no more hold on those who receive the Living Christ within them. We are no longer sepulchers with dead men's bones.


Correct, but Calvary is where He exclaimed "it is finished".. the resurrection showed that the Father accepted our redemption. How's it goin Hoosier, haven't seen you around in a while.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Stonedhenge
 


No sidestepping anything, I don't worship the cross, I worship the person murdered on it. I've never bowed to or prayed to a cross. I pray to Jesus and He's not still on that cross.


Greater hope in the Resurrection. That is what defeated death, and it has no more hold on those who receive the Living Christ within them. We are no longer sepulchers with dead men's bones.


Correct, but Calvary is where He exclaimed "it is finished".. the resurrection showed that the Father accepted our redemption. How's it goin Hoosier, haven't seen you around in a while.


It is finished. That means no other man coming after Him, no other faith system will appease or atone, no other philosophy can do what has been finished, no other work, no other faith, nothing else is coming because it is finished.

I have been posting again for several weeks now, I took a break for a while. Technically, I am a Buckeye, I just have to live in Indiana for a while....



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


lol, we're allowed to think as we will. It is good to be as accurate as possible, mind you.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Christmas is the baby. Easter is the death. Easter and Passover overlap. Christ did die during the week following Passover, or the end of Passover, so it's much more easy to follow. Catholics do make a very big deal out of this time. They have Mardi Gras, which leads to Lent. Lent is, what, 40 days of sacrifice for the one who sacrificed His life for us? It's a really big deal.

reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Do you kill puppies, or do you feed them? If a dog wanders out, onto the road, do you try to miss the thing? How many people get in wrecks trying to not run over animals? Is a dog your equal? No! And a dog has far more in common with you than a Creator God has with humanity. Not everything is about reasoning. There is no reason to put your life on the line for the next bit of roadkill, but people do it every day, due to having compassion for the animal.

Why can't a Creator God have the same compassion for us?

reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


See, that's another verse that's taken out of context. In the full context, yes, we are supposed to judge. Want me to give you the full quote?


Originally posted by deadeyedickMy logic
Would have been better to say: "my logical conclusion". The reasoning that got you there was Logical, and you presented the conclusion, not the logic that went into it.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Firstly a funnily stupid question because you would worhip in front of a burning stake, not that which lit it. Your interpretation would have them worshiping an adze that shaped a cross....!!!

But.... praying before a cross does nothing. It's religious not Christian. A cross is a piece of wood, an idol.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Does everyone not understand what a symbol is?

I certainly do, having studied symbols for many years.


Nobody knows what dying for our sins means?

There is no evidence of that. What I wonder is why most Christians worship in front of an Ancient Pagan Symbol, stolen by the Early Church, and claim it as their own?

Pagan crosses

Latin Cross

The cross is a remarkable shape. Usually just two intersecting lines, the symbol is used in mathematics, it stops people parking their cars at the road side, and stops people at international border checkpoints. It's a kiss at the bottom of a love letter and it's a vote for a politician. A death cross in financial terms means a situation where long-term and short-term averages converge. The cross is used extensively in black magic and in innumerable religions.

The Cross - an Emblem of Christianity explains how this simplest of symbols has evolved from its Pagan roots. We explain how it has caused as much grief as it has comforted. A torture instrument, a threat to entire civilizations, and yet used as jewelry and sometimes worshipped. It has associations with illegal psychedelic drugs, BSE and bird flu, Prince Harry, hatred and despair, love, valour and heroism, World War I, World War II, the Crusades, the invasion of Iraq (again), mythology, Satan, and salvation.
source
I hate to copy and paste, but here it is, better said than I could:

The Cross

A tradition of the Church which our fathers have inherited, was the adoption of the words "cross" and "crucify".

These words are nowhere to be found in the Greek of the New Testament. These words are mistranslations, a "later rendering", of the Greek words stauros and stauroo. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says, "STAUROS denotes, primarily, an upright pole or stake ... Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pole, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two-beamed cross.

The shape of the latter had its origin in ancient Chaldea (Babylon), and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) ... By the middle of the 3rd century A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith.

In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross piece lowered, was adopted .

Dr. Bullinger, in the Companion Bible, appx. 162, states, "crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian Sun-god ... It should be stated that Constantine was a Sun-god worshipper ... The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle."

Rev. Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, pp. 197-205, frankly calls the cross "this Pagan symbol ... the Tau, the sign of the cross, the indisputable sign of Tammuz, the false Messiah ... the mystic Tau of the Cladeans (Babylonians) and Egyptians - the true original form of the letter T the initial of the name of Tammuz ... the Babylonian cross was the recognised emblem of Tammuz."

In the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, vol. 14, p. 273, we read, "In the Egyption churches the cross was a pagan symbol of life borrowed by the Christians and interpreted in the pagan manner." Jacob Grimm, in his Deutsche Mythologie, says that the Teutonic (Germanic) tribes had their idol Thor, symbolised by a hammer, while the Roman Christians had their crux (cross). It was thus somewhat easier for the Teutons to accept the Roman Cross.
source

Care to comment?



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sin is a noun, a common name of a God in Ancient Times.

Sin (mythology)

Sin (Akkadian: Su'en, Sîn) or Nanna (Sumerian: DŠEŠ.KI, DNANNA) was the god of the moon in Mesopotamian mythology. Nanna is a Sumerian deity, the son of Enlil and Ninlil, and became identified with Semitic Sin. The two chief seats of Nanna's/Sin's worship were Ur in the south of Mesopotamia and Harran in the north.

source
"Sin" the name of the Moon-God in Babylonia and Assyria, also known as Nannar, the "Illuminer."
If you really study the words used in the Bible, and have a good grip on Ancient History, you will notice that many common words used by Christians every day are really, and originally, the names of Ancient Gods and Goddesses. Perhaps if you all keep calling their names, they will return.



posted on Aug, 22 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 

Can you please supply supporting links? One person's word is, well, you know. The source page of your link is decidedly Christian/Jesus oriented. Show me other sites, and more evidence, so I can investigate.



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Pedro4077
 


Pedro,

Your name, why do you ask, aren't you Roman Catholic?

A cross is worthless, sweet but no....

God wants us to remember his greatest act and love for us, His suffering
death on the Cross. Do you know Jesus suspended there, lost all His blood?

Very important, exorcists, priests and some Protestant ministers
use a CRUCIFIX to fight the evil one, never a cross. The power is in the Crucifix. Satan can't stand it!@!!

Put a small crucifix over your outside doors, it is a great protection.
Proof, houses go untouched by weather disasters. Why, Jesus is
the New Covenant Passover Lamb crucified.

And place crucifixes throughout your house.


love,

colbe



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CynicalDrivel
 


Logic...thinking...why all these descriptions of a process you didn't really perform? I can take several sections out of the Bible, take a preconception of what you think "God" is like, and logically rip a hole straight down the middle of the entire volume. And you, as a result of thinking, can validate the whole thing? See, I don't believe you have the ability to think.

And because I believe you don't have the ability, that makes it true, right? Because we're in the game of "I believe it, which makes it true, so there!" aren't we?

Again, cheap spirituality reeks of excrement. No wonder I smell bullcrud on your posts.


edit on 23-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


First: you can use logic and still be wrong.
Second: you can "blow holes in someone's logic" and still be wrong.
Third: I didn't address right or wrong. I addressed the concept of conclusions (which he gave) verses logical reasoning.

Ok, now for the technical crap:

LIMITATIONS OF LOGIC
Many philosophers are distinctly uneasy about the wider sense of logic. Some of their apprehensions, voiced with special eloquence by a contemporary Harvard University logician, Willard Van Quine, are based on the claim that relations of synonymy cannot be fully determined by empirical means. Other apprehensions have to do with the fact that most extensions of first-order logic do not admit of a complete axiomatization; i.e., their truths cannot all be derived from any finite—or recursive (see below)—set of axioms. This fact was shown by the important “incompleteness” theorems proved in 1931 by Kurt Gödel, an Austrian (later, American) logician, and their various consequences and extensions. (Gödel showed that any consistent axiomatic theory that comprises a certain amount of elementary arithmetic is incapable of being completely axiomatized.) Higher-order logics are in this sense incomplete and so are all reasonably powerful systems of set theory. Although a semantical theory can be built for them, they can scarcely be characterized any longer as giving actual rules—in any case complete rules—for right reasoning or for valid argumentation. Because of this shortcoming, several traditional definitions of logic seem to be inapplicable to these parts of logical studies.
Here

I'm not going into explaining this one paragraph. The link goes into 7 pages of explanations--and the attempt to explain it on a level that is explicit is likely to be too limited--and likely needs the other 6 pages to explain it.

This is just to introduce the concept that logic can be limited by the parameters it's used in. Pretty much every belief system can be applied in a logical manner, without touching whether it's :right, wrong, or accurate. So: a Christian, who chooses to believe the Bible can be extremely logical about it. And when someone claims that they did use logic to come to their conclusion, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

And by the way, the parameters of your argument (not yet presented) that you can use is likely to be as logically limited.
edit on 23-8-2012 by CynicalDrivel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Pedro4077
 


Wow.

So let me get this straight - you hate the military, you hate religion ... I bet you suffered some sort of abuse as a child, to make you so anti-everything.

I feel sorry for you...





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join