Religion

[Nelle]

Thanks for sharing Patch! As a Christian, we obviously won't see eye to eye on these things but this isn't an exclusive thread.
So, how do you view the world then? Do you believe in any sort of supernatural? What do/will you do when your children ask questions about God?

Oh, and as for the extremist thing, all I can say is - when someone becomes a Christian (or takes on any other faith) they still are capable of acting outside what their belief teaches. Any Christian who hates, judges, treats people harshly, etc, goes against what the bible teaches. I'm sure this is very similar for many other faiths.

[Ca Plane Pour Moi]

Wars were most often fought for land, money or (latterly) oil. Just because they were done in the name of religion doesn't mean they were done because of religion.

Oddly enough, I've found most people of faith are polite and willing to share their beliefs in a civilised manner. Yes, there are always extremists, but then there are in Star Trek fans or FRIENDS addicts come to that. Only athiests seem to be so scared that other people can be happy that they feel the need to knock, knock, knock something they can't understand and be rude about it. Calling my faith or anything to do with that abhorrant is just ignorant and rude.

[paradise lost]

This has been a really wonderful thread everyone, and that has been down to the tolerance and love we have extended to one another and the genuine interest we've all shown in one another's beliefs.

It would be a terrible shame if it had to be locked after 11 pages of such understanding. It has already been proven over many, many pages that we are all capable of talking about our own beliefs without attacking one another's. A little tact can go a l-o-n-g way, yes?

I was in Iona Abbey this weekend. Has anyone else ever visited? Ryn, you're the only fellow UK'er in here i think, have you been? The Abbey has existed since 563 when Colum Cille, an Irish Abbot, founded it. Nowadays we know him as Saint Columba. It is the most peaceful place i have been to on earth. I'm not particulary Christian, but the year after year, decade after decade, century after century of worship has undoubtedly done something to the land there. It feels so restful and wonderful. Little birds come right up, unafraid, to sit with one, the air smells sweet, everywhere there is calm and serenity. If you are ever in Scotland i urge you to visit!

Bec

[Ca Plane Pour Moi]

I've never been there, Bec. I haven't done too much north of the border - save shopping, of course!

Hmm, may see if DH fanciesa Scotland holiday at some point, the west of Scotland is supposed to be the driest place in the UK right now. Shame we've already organised holidays for this year and next now!

[paradise lost]

I'll email you some of the photos we took. It's a lovely part of the world, and the Celtic Church is a) very old and b) survived the Reformation a little better (in terms of artworks etc.) than the English churches because many places were too remote to bother going to to burn.

Bx

[Lulu]

I'd be there in a second....have to wait a few years......sniff......

[paradise lost]

Hun i can honestly say it will be worth the wait. It's such a magical place. I'd compare it to seeing Michelangelo's Pieta in St. Peters. Like being hit in the chest with something warm and vast - i cried and cried and was so happy. LOL. It's funny how i can go as a not-particularly-Christian and still be so moved by it.

In both cases i think it's something to do with what (wo)man has been inspired to create in the name of faith, from long traditions to beautiful pieces of art, architecture or music. There's something humbling about (wo)man's greatest achievements and so many of them were made in the name of faith. As much as people can hide behind it (or anything, if they're that sort of person) to excuse or justify evil acts, in so many more cases it is the seed for the creation of truly remarkable wonders.

Bec

[Heaven]

Oh I would love to go. Hopefully we will go there one day as DH and I both want to coz we have Scottish heritage.

It would be a terrible shame if it had to be locked after 11 pages of such understanding. It has already been proven over many, many pages that we are all capable of talking about our own beliefs without attacking one another's. A little tact can go a l-o-n-g way, yes?

Very true which is why I am choosing not to even respond to one particular misinformed post.

When I started this thread I hoped for the type of understanding discussion that we have been having so thankyou guys and keep up the good work I'm glad we're talking again!

[Heaven]

Something that I was just wondering, thought it was interesting.
Often christians, or anyone for that matter, wear crosses, on necklaces or whatever. I have one myself, I think it's pretty and I love jewlery but I also like that it reminds me of Jesus. But then I was thinking why do we wear them?? It was the thing that caused him so much pain and he died on!!

And the bible says: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. "
Is this what we're doing?
What do other people think?

[Jennifer13]

This was what was taught in my parents' religion, that using the cross, etc, was like idolising the means of Jesus' death. So we never had it as kids.

I think a form of cross is used in a lot of religions, though, and I have a feeling it was adopted as a symbol by Christianity when they were converting the 'pagans', a bit like Easter and Christmas dates and festivals. Incidentally, there is some conjecture that Christ was not actually crucified on a cross, since during his time the Romans were still using a stake to nail people to (nice, huh?). And the original language in the New Testament translates to 'stake' rather than 'cross'.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm relying on memory here!

[Jennifer13]

Okay, I found some further information by googling cross vs stake and this page came up with the following summary of the original language used:

So far, now, this is what we have:The words "stauros" and "xulon" are both used for references to the device of Christ's murder. Both refer to wooden logs in some manner. Stauros means stake or cross, Xulon means beam, cross, stocks, staff, or tree. In the bible, Christ is referenced as being put on a cross, stake, or tree. At this point though, there is still no proof either way whether Christ was nailed to a simple stake, a living tree, or a cross.

The words used are used for cross, stake and tree throughout the bible, so there's no indication from the language. The conjecture then comes in the way he died (none of his bones were broken, so when the Romans went to break the legs of the robbers, they found Jesus already dead. Victims suffocate once their legs are broken, so Jesus must have already done so.)

As for the death resulting from being nailed up, the most popular thought is that Christ would die of suffocation/asphyxiation. According to Frederick T. Zugibe, adjunct associate professor of pathology at Colombia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, he performed extensive experiments to test this theory: He took volunteers and crucified them (they weren't actually nailed, they were suspended by belts and straps on a sturdily constructed cross). He conducted variations of crucifixion: with a suppedaneum and without. (Suppedaneum = a block of wood on which the victim's toes would touch, keeping the knees flexed while suspended on the cross/stauros)... These experiments show that a man on a cross would NOT suffocate to death, even when the body was unsupported by anything else. By way of comparison, Hermann Moedder, a doctor of radiology from Austria, carried out an experiment in the 1940's in Cologne, Germany, with medical students. He strapped them with their wrists directly above their heads Within minutes the students grew pale, their lung capacity and blood pressure dropped significantly, and their pulse rates increased. Moedder concluded suffocation would occur in minutes if they were not able to stand and rest. Though we don't have complete information about this experiment, it appears that a suppedaneum wasn't used, neither was a sedile (sedile = block of wood attached to the stauros to support the buttocks slightly). This makes a difference because such devices can act as supports that the victim on the stauros could use for breathing purposes. Now the comparison of the two experiments is interesting, because according to the bible, a crucified man's legs were broken in order to hasten death (John 19:31-32). This would indicate, according to the results of the above mentioned experiments, that Jesus Christ and the two robbers were killed on simple stakes. Breaking their legs would take away the usefulness of the suppedaneum's support, thus hastening their deaths by suffocation. This could not happen on a cross, according to Dr. Zugibe's experiments.

There's also the point that Christ carried the 'cross' to the execution place, and if it were an actual cross, it would likely be too heavy and unweildy to be carried by just one man (Simon takes it to carry on his own during the journey as well). Whereas a stake, although heavy, could more easily be carried.

It's all interesting, if not conclusive!

The cross vs stake site also links to some other sites that point out the cross as a symbol was not used until some time after Christ's death, also indicating use in converting pagan nations.

[Jennifer13]

Okay, this is it, I promise!

Further proof of its pagan origin is the recorded evidence of the Vestal Virgins of pagan Rome having the cross hanging on a necklace, and the Egyptians doing it too, as early as the 15th century B.C.E. The Buddhists, and numerous other sects of India, also used the sign of the cross as a mark on their followers' heads.

I'll drop it now!

Are there symbols used in Islam or wiccan?

[Heaven]

There's also the point that Christ carried the 'cross' to the execution place, and if it were an actual cross, it would likely be too heavy and unweildy to be carried by just one man (Simon takes it to carry on his own during the journey as well). Whereas a stake, although heavy, could more easily be carried.

I think Jesus carried the cross-bar bit of the cross, then it was hooked onto the other half when he got there. That's what I thought, does that make sense?
Anyway, I like my necklace!! lol, but I also do think it has pagan origins

[Jennifer13]

I wouldn't necessarily take it as a bad sign, even if it wasn't how Christ was killed. We don't view Christmas as a negative thing just because the date is not right. The symbol has taken on a meaning over time. If it is based on the pagan symbol, then it was really people's recognition of a greater power before they learned about Christianity (if you would like to see it that way). Well, that's what I think anyway. After all, if you take the view that we really don't know what religion is 'right', it's the way we follow our beliefs that's important.

[Jennifer13]

To your point about only carrying the cross part, I found this:

The bible states that Christ carried his stauros to the execution site (Luke 23:26). Most believe that this was actually just a patibulum - a cross beam for the arms - not the actual entire cross. But this isn't sensible, because Christ told us, according to the interlinear bibles, that we had to carry our own "stauros" (Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 14:27). If we are to translate "stauros" as "cross", then to carry solely the patibulum would be carrying only a part of it, not the whole thing. This would contradict the very thing Jesus himself told us to do. Also, as seen in scripture, a man named Simon was selected to help Jesus carry the stauros (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21). This implies something other than a patibulum. Also, if stauros were to be translated as an entire cross, according to some this could weigh approximately 200 - 300 pounds (about 91-136 kilograms) with the main beam weighing in at about 125 -175 pounds (57 - 80 kilograms). This could probably be managed with the two men, however scripture shows that Simon actually took the stauros to carry on his own (Luke 23:36, John 19:17). However, having just the main stake without a patibulum would be much more manageable weight-wise.

But again, it's all conjecture, since none of us were actually there!

[Heaven]

Yeah, hmm....I wonder what actually happened. Maybe if we could read Hebrew we would know better, I think that's how it's meant to be read. All the translations seem to have some mistakes because of translating issues.

[kerry]

Like most things christian there are pagan links and origins, as too the cross.

Ok this is what "I" believe to be true (from my Catholic teachings) the most significant event in the religious calander is the cruxifiction & then the ressurection. The fact that we (catholics) believe Jesus dies for our salvation makes his crucifiction the significant thing that it is. That is why we wear crosses, to remind us of the great deed Jesus did for us. It is our symbol for the promise and gift of our g-d (the son). For us Jesus' death is the most joyous thing not something to be sad or regretful of, we believe that his death opened the kingdom of heaven to us.

Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity, that g-d has 3 distinct faces, G-d the Father, G-d the Son (Jesus) and G-d the Holy Spirit... ergo for us Jesus and the HS are god, they are just different aspects of him. Its a bit wierd for people who don't believe it, maybe even a bit schizophrenic when you look at it but all of these aspects are god, and they are one in the same.

In regards to the cross vs stake theological argument, 'personally' its all just semantics. As far as I am concerned religion is belief, a true believe doesn't need proof. IMO a lot of the stories in the bible are parrables, fables even, but the cornerstones of what they say are what I give credence to. I don't take everything in the bible as fact. That said I do believe Jesus died on a cross, just as I believe St Peter died on an inverted cross. Again what I was taught was that Jesus actually only carried the cross bar. Historically crucifiction was preformed on a stake or tree but Jesus was to be made an example of, hence the use of a cross. The stakes/bolts were driven through his wrists and up near his ankles not his palms and feet. True stigmata suffers (as opposed to hysterics) will have their wounds on the wrists not palms.

On the topic of extremism and crimes committed in the name of religion... it has been said a few times in this thread... all religions (and organisations/groups/fans) have the potential and incidence of extremist. Most religions have things in their past to be ashamed of. I know the catholics/christians sure as hell have a lot to hang their heads in shame about, but you know what... it wasn't me, being catholic makes me a better person, as does religion/spirituality do for many millions of people all over the world, and so I now turn my other cheek.

[~Trish~]

But then I was thinking why do we wear them?? It was the thing that caused him so much pain and he died on!!

And the bible says: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. "
Is this what we're doing?
What do other people think?

I think crosses that show Jesus still hanging on it are pretty depressing, but most neckaces have just a cross and this to me is a symbol that death was defeated and Jesus rose again, which is something to be happy about!

I don't believe wearing a cross means you are making it an idol, it is just a symbol, just like other Christian rituals (such as communion) that are used to remind us of what Christ did for us.