The bare cross isn’t AS offensive to me and in places where a symbol is needed, I prefer an empty cross, but I would equally question a person who worshiped an empty cross.
The life, death and purpose of Jesus can not be contained on that cross.
And just as a side note, the star of David is annoying to me as well, for the same reasons as a crucifix bothers me.
I study a Messianic( baptist) interpertation, and I equally reject the Star of David as a symbol of my faith.
I read somewhere, where someone was blogging about their trip to Jerusalem, and this person’s observation that the early church did not use a cross, but a flower, as a symbol of their belief in Jesus.
I think there is something to learn there.
Historical question: Did such an objection ever arise amongst Christians, in, say, the first 1800 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus?
"the early church did not use a cross, but a flower, as a symbol of their belief in Jesus."
I never heard this, and I'm inclined to doubt it. I don't, for instance, know of any particular floral theme from the catacombs --- the earliest extant examples of Christian art --- or from Dura-Europos (Link), the earliest identified Christian house church. Follow the link and see for yourself: no flowers. Do you have a link showing the flower, or explaining this notion that the early Christians used the flower and not the cross? ?