Why reverence of the cross isn't considered "idol worship"?

[beastmaster]

Title edit: Idolatry instead of "Idol worship"

Biblical references to the cross by the apostles do not focus upon the cross as having any inherent importance; instead they refer to the "cross" to highlight the saving work of Christ.

Although biblical references to the cross use it as a symbol for Christ's suffering, I'm not sure that it was intended for use as a visible iconic reminder. Though I do not believe that churches or their members intend to worship crosses themselves, it seems a risky business to have them where worship could be misdirected to them.

Here are some opinions I've compiled from self-proclaimed Chrisitans who reject reverence of the cross:

" The cross is an idol, and God’s people must never adore the cross, or bow down to it.
Nowadays, nearly every church uses the cross to symbolize Christ; however, the cross had been utilized as a pagan religious symbol long before Christ’s crucifixion. The Bible never condones the use of the cross, and not a single verse reads, "The cross is to be the symbol of the church," or, "The cross should be erected on top of the church," or even, "The cross should be treated as a sacred symbol because it represents the precious blood of Christ."
Historically, the cross was only used as an executioner’s tool. The apostles never believed or testified that the cross should be erected within the church and revered by God’s people. The truth of the Early Church did not include any teachings about the cross. The Early Church did not use the cross to symbolize Christianity and they did not believe that the cross held any power to drive out evil spirits."

"Why, then, was this pagan symbol promoted? Apparently, to make it easier for pagans to accept “Christianity.” Nevertheless, devotion to any pagan symbol is clearly condemned by the Bible. The Scriptures also forbid all forms of idolatry. (Exodus 20:4, 5;1 Corinthians 10:14) With very good reason, therefore, true Christians do not use the cross in worship."

"The Cross was the symbol of the sun god that Emperor Constantine turned into the symbol of Christianity. For me, the cross represents an instrument of torture and I would no less worship it than worship the knife that killed my mother."
______________________

With that being said....
It's a little unsettling to remember the crucifix is essentially a torture device.
If Jesus Christ was hanged instead of crucified would you all be adoring necklaces of miniature nuce-and-gallows?

 

[razeontherock]

Biblical references to the cross by the apostles do not focus upon the cross as having any inherent importance; instead they refer to the "cross" to highlight the saving work of Christ.

You pose a false dilemma. The saving work of Christ is at least somewhat synonymous with "the Cross," as a Biblical term. what you're expressing is not having a full understanding of what is being referred to here; that's ok, no one alive does. Are we journeying towards a better understanding, or blotting that out? Those are our options, and that is what's important.

Although biblical references to the cross use it as a symbol for Christ's suffering, I'm not sure that it was intended for use as a visible iconic reminder. Though I do not believe that churches or their members intend to worship crosses themselves, it seems a risky business to have them where worship could be misdirected to them.

1) Modern society seems to have little awareness that Biblical concern expressed re: idolatry is EVERY BIT AS VALID NOW as it ever has been.

2) The Cross is a symbol of FAR more than "just" Jesus' suffering!

3) The greater the understanding of "the Cross," the more appropriate our worship. (the converse may also be true, but neither worship nor Salvation are based on our own intellect)

Here are some opinions I've compiled from self-proclaimed Chrisitans who reject reverence of the cross:

Any of this written by Bishop John Shelby Spong, perchance? (I'll give you 3 guesses who's diocese I was raised in; and the first 2 don't count)

Sorry, but I'm not going to read what follows. My ears (nor mind) aren't garbage cans. No offense meant.

With that being said....
It's a little unsettling to remember the crucifix is essentially a torture device.
If Jesus Christ was hanged instead of crucified would you all be adoring necklaces of miniature nuce-and-gallows?

You've entirely missed the point; we do not reverence a torture device. What then do we reverence, and what is actually expressed by the Cross? I'm afraid the best answer you can understand now, is that before you can even see the Kingdom of G-d, you will have to be born again. (And just seeing it isn't enough for what you ask about; for that you actually need to enter it)

What prevents you from being born again?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Reverence/veneration isn't the same thing as what we typically call today "worship".

Greek has two words, the first is dulia, meaning "reverence", "respect", "veneration". This is the honor given to parents, to rulers, and in Christianity to the Saints, Scripture, in some traditions also to Icons, and even the symbol of the cross (though it's important to understand that the use of the cross traditionally is because of the paradox of the cross, it's why we traditionally sign ourselves with the cross because it draws us to Christ and the work of Christ). I think we pervert the cross when we use it in a "Constantinian" sense (i.e. "in this sign, conquer").

The other term in Greek is latria, as in eidol-latria (idolatry), which is "idol-adoration". This is "adoration", worship in the common sense, and is due only to God. Only God is worthy (worship) of adoration.

We don't give latria to the cross, to the Saints, to Scripture, or to anything other than God; such would be idolatry and to treat the creaturely like it were God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[beastmaster]

Sorry, but I'm not going to read what follows. My ears (nor mind) aren't garbage cans. No offense meant."

That's a pretty ignorant statement- in the purest sense of the word. By that same token, why should they listen to you?

You've entirely missed the point; we do not reverence a torture device. What then do we reverence, and what is actually expressed by the Cross? I'm afraid the best answer you can understand now, is that before you can even seethe Kingdom of G-d, you will have to be born again. (And just seeing it isn't enough for what you ask about; for that you actually need to enter it)

I'm having a hard time making sense of this statement. Are you admitting that from an external perspective it can't be justified rationally? In order for me to comprehend reverence of the cross I first have to accept Christianity? You say I've missed the point, so what is the point? Why can't you explain it in words?

Apologists seem to have no problem at least trying to explain much more arcane and mysterious aspects of Christianity and the bible to non-Christians in ways they can understand (rationally).

What prevents you from being born again?

The same things that prevent me from believing in Zeus, Allah, Purple space pixies, and Leprechauns- the lack of a reason to believe in them, lack of evidence, lack of personal experience to justify such a belief …….and a LOT of reasons to justify disbelief.

I consider myself agnostic because I can be convinced with the right kind of argument/evidence. It doesn’t have to be tangible evidence; I'd even accept a reasonable or philosophical argument. I've just yet to hear a sound argument or see evidence for the Christian God or any God for that matter. The default position to anything should be disbelief until it has been proven or justified

I know his forum doesn’t condone debate, but you asked me and I've answered.

 

[razeontherock]

Are you admitting that from an external perspective it can't be justified rationally?

No. To make any valid attempt at understanding, you will no longer have an external perspective.

In order for me to comprehend reverence of the cross I first have to accept Christianity? You say I've missed the point, so what is the point? Why can't you explain it in words?

Because the Kingdom of G-d is not in word. If you would like to turn your attention to something relevant, that would be a very qualified sort of Power; as in, the Kingdom of G-d is in Power. Here are the relevant definitions of that word, that we have translated into power:

strength power, ability
inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and puts forth
power for performing miracles
moral power and excellence of soul

Apologists seem to have no problem at least trying to explain much more arcane and mysterious aspects of Christianity and the bible to non-Christians in ways they can understand (rationally).

And I make no apologies for not attempting what is clearly futile.

The same things that prevent me from believing in Zeus, Allah, Purple space pixies, and Leprechauns- the lack of a reason to believe in them, lack of evidence, lack of personal experience to justify such a belief …….and a LOT of reasons to justify disbelief.

Your answer is like me asking you what the square root of 4 is, and you responding that you need to put on a new roof. It just doesn't follow logically. One might almost surmise that you don't comprehend the subject matter at hand

I consider myself agnostic because I can be convinced with the right kind of argument/evidence. It doesn’t have to be tangible evidence; I'd even accept a reasonable or philosophical argument. I've just yet to hear a sound argument or see evidence for the Christian God or any God for that matter.

The reason and philosophy that will benefit you at this point, includes refining your concept of what is referred to by the word "God." Unfortunately that has to begin with removing false concepts associated with it.

 

[beastmaster]

Your answer is like me asking you what the square root of 4 is, and you responding that you need to put on a new roof. It just doesn't follow logically. One might almost surmise that you don't comprehend the subject matter at hand

This is asinine. For one to decide to begin the process of "being born again" he needs a REASON first. You're clearly an advocate of Christianity (as opposed to other religions and atheism) but you haven't provided a reason WHY anyone should be interested in beginning the process of being a "born again" Christian.

To address your question more directly and bluntly….

I think your question is malformed/loaded- it implies that I accept the validity of the concept "born again". I think that "being born again" is a silly, delusional, superstitious concept with no basis in truth or reality.

I fear it won't be long before the moderators start deleting my posts. Perhaps it's best you reply in a private message if you choose to.

 

[razeontherock]

You just missed the point, that's all. I was speaking of action, and you immediately diluted it to "beliefs." If either of us could walk into thh early Church and put forth the idea that Christianity is about beliefs, they'd look at us like we were crazy.

Your concept of the usage of the word "God" is no doubt a silly and delusional concept, as is what idea you conjur up via the phrase "born again." Neither is what is meant when G-d's people use those words

 

[beastmaster]

You just missed the point, that's all. I was speaking of action, and you immediately diluted it to "beliefs." If either of us could walk into thh early Church and put forth the idea that Christianity is about beliefs, they'd look at us like we were crazy.

Your concept of the usage of the word "God" is no doubt a silly and delusional concept, as is what idea you conjur up via the phrase "born again." Neither is what is meant when G-d's people use those words

As a non-Christian, what kind of definitions of "born again" and "God," can you possibly expect one to have other than literal ones? If you argue that there is a different pathway to truth and knowledge apart from logic, reason, and evidence, you will have to demonstrate that. So far your all propositions have been utterly unsubstantiated assertions that in order to accept, one must already have accepted.

I'm willing to hear you out. What are your definitions of God and the term "born again"?

 

[razeontherock]

As a non-Christian, what kind of definitions of "born again" and "God," can you possibly expect one to have other than literal ones?

You demonstrate not having "literal ones." Instead, you impose falsehoods upon those. If we could do a vulcan mind meld on your concepts of these, I'm sure i would agree with you that they are false.

I'm willing to hear you out. What are your definitions of God and the term "born again"?

You're speaking of the Kingdom of God, and that is not in word. This is why you don't see the Bible make any attempt to give a concise definition of either of these. Intellect does not arrive at Spiritual Truth in a vacuum, which is what it seems you are attempting to do. It would be wrong of me to enable that. Instead I will point out what is wrong with it, which might just be idolatry of our own intellect, from G-d's vantage point!

There is a journey to be undertaken with all the things you are asking. You can't get a good answer to "what is like to be in California" while you sit in Kansas, for (a rather crude) example.

 

[ebia]

The default position to anything should be disbelief until it has been proven or justified

Should it? Why? Have you proved that?