Disdaining the Cross

[the Ogre]

I'm bowing out of this discussion. I've been off my depression medication for about a week now, and it's beginning to affect my judgment and thinking. I cannot respond to anything now without resorting to childish insults, so I'm getting out of this discussion for my own sake . . . I've been off my meds for a while, too.

Ogre... I wish I could respond to your claims in a civilized manner (what ever civilized maner you are worried about will undoubtedly be patronizing and evident of self-constrictions within a social construct, so don't bother . . . I won't) . The fault lies with me, not you, . . . sigh . . . but I ask that you not come into a discussion in the '9th inning', so to speak, and blast someone for a position that person doesn't actually adhere to. I will follow this thread- just not post- so I am curious: which system of logic am "I relegating to the toilet"? Relativity

Look don't patronize me. I and anyone else can post what I/we want when I/we want . . . we are on the internet. Duh. Pretty chaotic mess the internet -- people doing all sorts of uncivilized things. As such, it makes the perfect realm to experience "relativity" regarding opinion and experience.

Look, I responded because what you said (a position preferencing one logic system over another) was the first thing in this tread that was interesting at all. Otherwise, the simple answer seemed self-evident and worth avoiding and obvious waste of time.

[Snow]

I'm bowing out of this discussion. I've been off my depression medication for about a week now, and it's beginning to affect my judgment and thinking. I cannot respond to anything now without resorting to childish insults, so I'm getting out of this discussion for my own sake.

I am sorry you are not feeling well and hope you will be feeling better soon.

Snow, I actually saved my post (via Word) in case you took to insulting me for trying to avoid the contention it would cause. As of right now, it should be in your inbox. My hope is that you read and at least think about it.

Now I'm confused... you saved it in case I insulted you. I didn't insult you so you sent it to me? Thanks for the thought but I generally don't entertain acrimonious private message so I'll take a pass. Feel free to say anything you like to me publicly - I can assure you that I don't mind.

p.s. It's just an internet message board. Try not to take it more seriously than it should be taken.

[BenRaines]

I think the rainbow bumper sticker has nothing to do with racial equality. As I understand it the rainbow is the banner of the Gay-Lesbian movement.

Sorry to go off topic but in response to prospectmom's statement, I think it was her.

Ben Raines

[BenRaines]

Lets all please keep this civil or the thread will be closed.

Ben Raines

[MarginOfError]

I think the rainbow bumper sticker has nothing to do with racial equality. As I understand it the rainbow is the banner of the Gay-Lesbian movement.

Sorry to go off topic but in response to prospectmom's statement, I think it was her.

Ben Raines

The rainbow has been in use as a symbol of diversity and tolerance for a long long time. It was effectively hijacked by the gay/lesbian community. Perhaps my use of the bumper sticker specifically was a little too specific. In general, however, the goals of the G/L and Diversity camps are pretty similar.

Rainbow flag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Moksha]

More thoughts and history from Bill, since the first was appreciated:

I don't wonder. I suppose. And what I suppose is that the cross - which preexisted Christianity (the way the plus sign does) - was adopted by Coptic Christians for its similarity to the Egyptian ankh, the traditional symbol of healing and the resurrection. I think Coptic Christians had every reason to link Jesus with the Egyptian Osiris, god of healing who was murdered by his brother, entombed in a tree, brought back to life by his wife, Isis, and whose job now, as the god of the Nile, was to judge the souls of the dead.

I also suppose that the cross replaced ichthus somewhere around the time of Christianity's rise to power in Rome. The Emperor Constantine, who was baptized on his deathbed, already knew about the cross, as he had painted that symbol onto the shields of his soldiers. He would not have made the gesture had the cross not already become THE symbol of Christianity. The real question is why. At what point did the cross replace ichthus as the dominant symbol of the faith?

I suspect that the cross gained ascendancy at about the moment when Christians began to have the upper hand. Hated, despised, persecuted, tortured and slaughtered, there had to come a time when Christians - as enemies of the state - became potent symbols of all that had gone wrong in Rome. During the rise of the empire, killing Christians was like killing Jews. These were hated enemies of the empire. They were cast as insurrectionists. Their refusal to participate in the perfunctory rites of emperor worship - considered vital as a symbol of loyalty to the empire - made them popular scapegoats. In the endless wars to maintain the empire, certain groups were fun to hate. One inevitable cost of expanding and defending the empire were the casualties of war. In the days before the Romans drafted locals - and then mercenaries - to fight their wars for them, a certain number of Roman families made the ultimate sacrifice, as they fed their young sons to the army. Tagging Christians as insurrectionists gave Roman families the release of a vicarious slaughter. If they couldn't kill the insurrectionists responsible for their sons' deaths, they could at least kill someone who deserved a similar death.

While the execution of insurrectionists was based on fear and revenge, the murder of Christians was pure politics. An insecure state was giving the crowd what it wanted. It was less about protecting the state from perceived terrorists. It was more about pandering to a peasantry who hated Christians as outsiders.

The change didn't come - as some have suggested - by successful conversions, where more and more Romans became Christians. It came when people lost faith in the empire. As corruption, high taxes and the cost of feeding mothers' sons to the war machine became overwhelming, insurrectionists started to become heroes. If you look at the history of Rome, there's an endless cycle of violence. Every warlord who ascends the throne does so in the guise of the reformer. As with the Chinese rebels-turned-rulers, the successful campaign was built by consolidating power from among the discontented. It was in this context that Christianity became an effective weapon of the party out of power. There came a time when the dew was off the rose, and the love affair with Caesars began to grow cold. It was in this light that the Christians went from being useful whipping boys to useful martyrs.

It was always about politics.

Christianity wasn't adopted to give the empire a unifying religion. It was co-opted to defuse it from dethroning the ruling class. Christians may have started out as Jesus Freaks worth killing but by the time of Constantine, they were Sally Struthers children, the kind you can save for pennies a day. Jesus became the poster child of those calling for real reform, which is why Constantine's enemies stoked the fires of the Christian movement. This is where the cross became a potent symbol, not of Jesus's victory over sin but of Jesus's execution. To churn up sympathy for the dying Christ was to churn up hostility for the ruling regime. That's one reason Christians were martyred early on. But by this point, greater public sympathy could be churned up by defending Christians as a means to gaining power.

That's where Constantine outsmarted his enemies. He stole their thunder. He co-opted the movement and put the cross on the shields of his soldiers. It was an attempt to steal the movement and use its newfound popularity to launch a successful restart of the old empire. The adoption of Christianity has to be seen in the light of the move to Byzantium and its conversion to Constantinople. Casting the town as the first truly Christian city, Constantine clearly intended to harness the power of the new faith while taking it away from his enemies. Moving the government to a new city - closer to the centers of trade - also let Constantine screw his enemies. As he got richer, they lost their connection to power.

But make no mistake about it, once the cross was co-opted, it became the means by which all rivals were destroyed. Once Constantine had an official version of what Christianity was, he could enforce it, allowing him to destroy pagan rivals. Heresy became a weapon by which to eliminate one's foes. But once a defined Christianity was embraced, the new regime would have to round up any Christians who failed to follow the franchise. A rival, new-and-improved version of Christianity could not be allowed to challenge the monopoly. This became the start of a long and inglorious tradition of torturing, imprisoning and possibly killing anyone whose rival franchise might be used to turn the peasantry against the emperor.

[Faded]

This is where the cross became a potent symbol, not of Jesus's victory over sin but of Jesus's execution. To churn up sympathy for the dying Christ was to churn up hostility for the ruling regime. That's one reason Christians were martyred early on. But by this point, greater public sympathy could be churned up by defending Christians as a means to gaining power.

That's where Constantine outsmarted his enemies. He stole their thunder. He co-opted the movement and put the cross on the shields of his soldiers.

Did Bill explain that the symbol adopted by Constantine wasn't the cross? It was the Chi-Rho.

I think that it begins a general precedent of the need for establishing the idea of a symbol for Chirstianity, but obviously, it isn't the cross, nor is it terribly similar to the cross at all.

It sounds like Bill has some good insights on these things, but I wonder if he was handed the same distortion that everyone else was: "Constantine saw and adopted the Christian Cross just prior to the Battle of Milvian Bridge."

Constantine I and Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Milvian Bridge

Christian sources record that Constantine experienced a dramatic event in 312 at the Battle of Milvian Bridge, after which Constantine would claim the emperorship in the West. According to these sources, Constantine looked up to the sun before the battle and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Εν Τουτω Νικα" ("by this, conquer!", often rendered in the Latin "in hoc signo vinces"); Constantine commanded his troops to adorn their shields with a Christian symbol (the Chi-Ro), and thereafter they were victorious.

The Chi-Ro symbol adopted by Constantine

also rendered

The "cross of light" Constantine sees was apparently the Chi-Ro and not the Christian Cross as we see it today. I would says it's perfectly fair to say that it was a prototype of sorts, but obviously it's a completely different symbol.

I do enjoy the way Bill thinks, so I think this would be a valuable tidbit to run by him.

[Moksha]

Faded, why not tell him yourself? :) I think he would like to hear your thoughts and information. Here is the link:

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Hey, the link works...

[Hemidakota]

What's behind the LDS antipathy towards the Cross?

Mormons and the cross - Salt Lake Tribune

... but is that the whole story?

When I do enter a room where there is cross hanging on the wall, when we have that room assignment, I would simply remove it. I for one, do not worship a symbol or a dead Christ but worship the living Christ and do not require a symbol to worship by.

[prisonchaplain]

When I do enter a room where there is cross hanging on the wall, when we have that room assignment, I would simply remove it. I for one, do not worship a symbol or a dead Christ but worship the living Christ and do not require a symbol to worship by.

Who does worship the cross or a dead Christ? I've yet to meet these people who do so.

[Elgama]

Did Bill explain that the symbol adopted by Constantine wasn't the cross? It was the Chi-Rho.

I think that it begins a general precedent of the need for establishing the idea of a symbol for Chirstianity, but obviously, it isn't the cross, nor is it terribly similar to the cross at all.

It sounds like Bill has some good insights on these things, but I wonder if he was handed the same distortion that everyone else was: "Constantine saw and adopted the Christian Cross just prior to the Battle of Milvian Bridge."

Constantine I and Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Chi-Ro symbol adopted by Constantine

also rendered

The "cross of light" Constantine sees was apparently the Chi-Ro and not the Christian Cross as we see it today. I would says it's perfectly fair to say that it was a prototype of sorts, but obviously it's a completely different symbol.

I do enjoy the way Bill thinks, so I think this would be a valuable tidbit to run by him.

The PAX symbol is still in use have seen it on several churches and monasteries.

-Charley

[Faded]

Who does worship the cross or a dead Christ? I've yet to meet these people who do so.

Converselly, if I entered a room and I saw a cross hanging on the wall, I'd know I was in a room used by a Christian that was not LDS and not Jehovah's Witness.

I don't think that anyone who uses the cross thinks of it as a symbol of a dead Christ. I would say we need to be careful when characterizing each other's symbolism. Some Latter Day Saints have similar things to say about the Cross. Many Christians like to refer to Temple Garments and "holy underwear." I don't see the point in making light of things that other people hold sacred.

There are a significant number of Christians who like to beat us over the head as "unChristian" because we do not revere the Cross. I think more than enough information has been presented to show that reverencing the Cross is definitely not an absolute requirement for a denomination to be considered Christian. If failure to accept the cross as your symbol makes you unChristian, then all of the Apostles and a minimum of 300 years worth of believers would get kicked out of the fraternity. I'm still strongly suspicious that the Hammer of Thor has more to do with the adoption of the Cross as THE Christian symbol than anything else. But in the end, it's all "full of sound and fury signifying nothing." I don't think it's worthy of getting upset over.

[Faded]

Faded, why not tell him yourself? :) I think he would like to hear your thoughts and information. Here is the link:

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Hey, the link works...

Looks like security settings here at the ol' workplace are mucking with getting onto that site. I'll try it when I get home - whenever I get time. Missionaries coming to dinner and busy weekend.