Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is ugliness in every crucifix. As CR pointed out, the degree to which crosses are beautified is the degree to which the artist has removed it from its original significance and given it a new significance.
I wear a beautiful cross around my neck, which has a significance for me that turns this trend upside-down, as it was worn by a dying man, who was my friend. Others see beauty, but it represents death. In a way, it is the opposite of what we do when we flower the cross on Easter Sunday.
That paradox between beauty and ugliness is a large part of the meaning of the cross for Christians.
Yes, and that is a paradox, isn't it? The mystery of the gospel?How sad that it is so alien to you, because there is no paradox. There is the miracle that Love came out of the worst that man could do to man.
That out of the blackness of death came New Life.
They call it the Resurrection.
I have problems with these, not because I think they are ugly, but I do think they obscure the truth of the cross & we do need to remember Christ was crucified on a Roman cross between two thieves, not on an altar between two candles. Sorry, I can't remember where the quote is from. Crucifixtion is about the cruelest, ugliest death imaginable.
You are saying this is ugly, then:
Perhaps we need to alert Raven?
While we are at it, get these out of the Religious Special Items:
Those are very lovely trinkets. But they are not representative of the nature of crucifixion. Christ did not die in a beautiful, peaceful way. There was blood and stench and suffering and unbearable pain. None of the crosses you posted show any of that, because it is offensive to people to see that kind of suffering.
The only thing I would change about the chocolate sculpture is, I would make the face broken to represent the beatings and the suffering he took for us. He had been torn apart by the scourging. He would have been filthy from falling bloodied onto the dirty street. He would have been covered in welts and sweat.
Over the centuries, artists have cleaned Christ up and given him a countenance of slumbering, but he really died in agony.
This is more like he would have looked on the cross:
But even that image has cleaned away the blood, sweat dirt and tears. All those hideous renderings of the crucifixion in old gothic cathedrals are more accurate than anything we hang in our churches today.
I used to agree with you that portraying Christ on the cross denied his resurrection and triumph over sin and death.
Now I've started to think that Evangelicals miss out on a deeper understanding of Him because they never look at the suffering, the death and the gore. No, He's no longer on the cross, but that doesn't mean we should never think of the time when he was on the cross. Those six hours were the pivotal event of this universe.
Jesus should be portrayed both ways--the agony of Good Friday, the joy of Easter Sunday. The whole story, not one half or the other.
Agreed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?