RE: Skeptic, In Christianity, the cross is the intersection of God’s love
and His justice. Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the
world (John 1:29). Jesus is the Lamb of God points back to the institution of
the Jewish Passover in Exodus 12.Jesus called His followers to take
up their cross and follow Him (Matthew 16:24). This concept of
“cross-bearing” today has lost much of its original meaning.
Typically, we use “cross-bearing” to denote an inconvenient or
bothersome circumstance (e.g., “my troubled teen is my cross to
bear”). However, we must keep in mind that Jesus is calling His
disciples to engage in radical self-denial. Remember, the cross meant only one
thing to a 1st century person—Death.
RE: donn, So is your point that a bronze snake or a pole would be a better
symbol than Pi, ? mark or +. That sounds reasonable, just keep them off public
property and no problem.
RE: Skeptic,The idea of the cross wasn't introduced until many years after
the death of Jesus. “… the message of the cross is foolishness to
those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of
God”(1Cor 1:18)Prophecy, "As Moses lifted up the serpent
in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever
believes will in Him have eternal life.(John 3:14-15)The LORD said
to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can
look at it and live."So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole.
Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they
The cross isn't relevant to Jesus. Jesus was crucified on a wood slap.
The idea of the cross wasn't introduced until many years after the death of
Jesus. A better symbol would be the Pi symple. Or perhaps the question mark.
And they should be painted on every fence post and peoples fore heads.
LDS LiberalTrouble is, these days, two crossed bones could in the
mind of some constitute a religious symbol. Much like those two crossed steel
beams found at the World Trade Center.
Regardless of a cross or some other display, I find the whole concept of leaving
basically a permanent memorial where one was killed on public property annoying.
I get that the family is grieving, but 2 years later, they're still leaving
stuff out on a public highway? If it was anything else, it would be considered
What would Christ have done? From all of what I have read, he would have put
his hand out to those who belong to the Humanist Society and he would have
provided them with service and given them his Love. What an example. We need
to follow him in all he has done. Let us find an act of kindness and service we
can do and put forth all our Love towards these misguided and misdirected
people. I know it is hard when a loved one dies and we want to memorialize
their lives but the best way to do that is to follow in the footsteps of the
resurrected one, Jesus Christ and teach them what Love really is. They are sad
people who have lost something in their lives and have lashed out at their God
by acting like a patulous teenager and telling everyone if they can’t have
it no one can. Christ taught us to share his love.
I keep asking, are cross erectors asking for your money to establish a religion,
no, then leave 'em be.
I don't find a roadside cross, star of David, or star and crescent
offensive.These memorials do not establish religion anymore than the
religious symbols on gravestones in a veteran's graveyard establish a
particular religion. As long as long as the ability to put up a memorial is
open to all under the same circumstances, this should be okay.But I
am no fan of roadside memorials. If allowed, I think it should be for year,
maybe two at the most. After that, the memorial should be removed (and it
doesn't matter who it was, how old they were, or whether they were a police
officer, etc., etc.).
RE: Tyler D, Crosses are patriotic: The Air Force Cross is the second highest
military award that can be given to a member of the United States Air Force. The
Air Force Cross is the Air Force decoration equivalent to the Distinguished
Service Cross (Army), the Navy Cross (Navy and Marine Corps), and the Coast
Guard Cross (Coast Guard).The Red Cross is a sign of comfort,
i.e… donut dollies in Vietnam. I was in the jungles of Vietnam and
Thailand and the (Christian)Chaplains wore and had crosses. I once entered a
village it was comforting to see Nuns with crosses at the Orphanages not VC. I
worked with Thai army patrols (Buddhists) and they had no problem with crosses.
The ambulances on military bases(flight line) had crosses, that was really
comforting.RE: LDS Liberal, I find the cross offensive,
“… the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God”(1Cor
copacetic"I take it that when denoting your online moniker, the
liberal part is where the emphasis is placed"Ya, you're
noticing it too. Let's just put it this way: don't believe everything
people tell you. Monikers are made up if you catch my drift. I'm not even
Mormon and not even I believe it.Anything that upsets the liberals
is typically a good idea.Don't like crosses? Deal with it.
@ LDS Liberal:Seriously... you find a cross more offensive than
"a skull and crossed bones"??The idea is to honor a dead
person who believes in the resurrection of Christ, rather than just "to
denote a death".I take it that when denoting your online
moniker, the liberal part is where the emphasis is placed.
I find the cross offensive.If you want to denote a death, and
not imply any religion, try using a universal and non-religous symbol like
Skull & Crossed bones.
@ Tyler D:Tell Dearborn, MI to have at it... if something so
simple makes the majority happy and it's in honoring their deceased. Just don't try pressuring me or anyone else to join that particular faith
(per the Constitution). As to #2... yes, I was.
Of course the Humanists are legally in the right, but why complain?If
people want to put up symbols that celebrate an imaginary being, but give them
some peace of mind, why not let them?Live and let live.
If I found the sight of a cross in public offensive, I would move to a different
@Copacetic – “I'd like to know which religion did they
establish?”Are you just as comfortable applying this same
logic to any religion (e.g., if Dearborn MI, with its large population of
Muslims, started displaying the crescent on city property)?What
about any other religion, including new ones most may think are nutty (I
don’t see the relevance of whether a religion is new or old)? If a city
had a large population of witches who wanted to display Wiccan symbols on public
property, you good with that? And you are aware that citizens are
free to display whatever religious symbols they like on private property
(assuming they’re not large & gaudy thus violating zoning codes), yes?
Disagreements like these puzzle me. One person wants to see a cross or Star of
David, while another does not. Why is one person's desire or preference
honored over another person's desire or preference? How do the majority of
the people in that area feel? Is it not the majority of the people who pay for
the public spaces?
The Humanistic Society complained that the city violated "a constitutional
ban on government establishment of religion". I'd like to know which
religion did they establish? Christianity was established long before the USA
existed and in and of itself is not an organized sect..Displaying a
cross is universally recognized symbol of respect for people who have died. By
doing so, no one is asking anyone else to join a particular sect or organized
religion. The misunderstanding and misuse of the separation of church and state
as described in the Constitution is ridiculous. Our government has never once
forced any particular religion onto anyone. Seeing any particular religious
symbol in public isn't even close to being "a government established
religion".Once again, activist judges are allowing a single
digit percentage of citizenry to rule itself over the vast majority of citizens.
Another classic example of the tail once again wagging the dog... as our country
continues in it's path of sad moral decline.