Posted on 03/16/2002 6:42:19 AM PST by LarryLied
It's the most familiar symbol you can imagine, but ponder for a moment how odd it is that Christians display an "emblem of suffering and shame," as the hymn says.
The cross reminds us that Jesus was executed as a common criminal, hardly the upbeat message a publicist might choose.
Yet two decades after Calvary, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Galatians 6:14). Under this mysterious emblem, the early Christians vanquished the empire that had crucified Jesus.
The symbol holds 21st-century power. Two days after the World Trade Center attack, a rescue worker wept as he discovered a 20-foot cross -- two fused metal beams buried in the rubble. This cross provided comfort to impromptu worshippers amid the mourning.
Yet the cross is spurned by Christian liberals Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker. They find belief in Jesus' saving death repellent, saying this sanctifies violence and submission to evil.
"To say that Jesus' executioners did what was historically necessary for salvation is to say that state terrorism is a good thing, that torture and murder are the will of God," they say in their book Proverbs of Ashes (Beacon).
Brock, a Harvard Divinity researcher, has chaired the joint global ministries board of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and United Church of Christ, and was a theology speaker at the Disciples's national assembly last year. Parker is a United Methodist Church minister and president of the Unitarian Universalist seminary in Berkeley, Calif.
Roman Catholic leftist John Dominic Crossan has joined in, hailing the authors' attack upon what he considers "the most unfortunately successful idea in the history of Christian thought." And the current Unitarian Universalist magazine features Brock and Parker in a cover story headlined "Violence and Doctrine: How Christianity Twists the Meaning of Jesus' Death."
"Perfect . . . sacrifice"
By contrast, another current author joins Paul in glorying in the cross. Fleming Rutledge, a traveling Episcopal preacher who lives in Port Chester, N.Y., embraces the Book of Common Prayer's Communion affirmation that Jesus Christ made "a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world."
Rutledge has collected seasonal meditations in her book The Undoing of Death (Eerdmans). Though sermons often fall flat on the printed page, this book is unusually readable devotional fare.
She believes the cross is misunderstood if we forget that Jesus the Son is equally God along with the Father (which liberal Christians and Unitarians deny). And some conservatives portray "a wrathful Father piling condemnation on an innocent, victimized Son. This mistake must be strenuously resisted," she writes.
The heart of the atoning sacrifice on the cross, Rutledge insists, is "the fact that the Father's will and the Son's will are one. This is an action that the Father and the Son are taking together." They are "accomplishing our redemption together," acting in united love for humanity.
However, her Good Friday sermons worry less about such liberal or conservative theories than about people's inclination to pretend their sins aren't all that bad so they have no need of a Savior.
"We do not like to believe that we deserve condemnation," she says.
Some seek to justify themselves by the kind of people they like to think they are -- more moral, sensitive, loving, intelligent, thoughtful, patriotic, fashionable or socially aware than others. Then there's the opposite, people who tell themselves they're more misunderstood, long-suffering and deserving than anyone else.
But Christianity says we're all sinners in the light of God's holiness. Despite sin, Rutledge believes, when Christ looks at someone "he sees a person that he loves more than life, more than glory, more than power, more than riches, more than divinity itself."
She also contends that the cross shows us Christianity is true. The reason? Mere human imagination or wishful thinking would never have concocted "a despised and rejected Messiah."
The truth about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is bright, beautiful, and Biblical. Very much so!
Doesn't matter how many times you deny it.
Again, that is misleading, and not true. Even though it is not required, everybody knows my faith, and the new posters find out very quickly.
I guess you just can't help it. There is no point in replying to your posts, but since there are others reading this thread, I may do so anyway.
Wallbuilders Christian Documents on Founding Fathers *******************************************************************
To: restornu
What you speak of is Braddock's Massacre or Braddock's Defeat or The Battle of the Monongahela, as it is known by different names. This occurred at the outset of the French and Indian War, near Fort Duquesne (present day Pittsburgh) on July 9, 1755.
Approximately 1600 British and Colonial troops (mostly Brits with the colonials mainly Virginians and North Carolinians) were surprised by about 350 French and Indians. Young Washington (he was but 23) was a volunteer aide de camp for Braddock, but the old crusty general would not listen to the colonials, George among them, who warned about Indian fighting techniques.
About 900 Brits and colonials died that day with very few of the enemy being taken. Washington, who had been very sick in the days preceeding the battle, had to ride with pillows under his butt because of the discomfort. He had two horses shot from under him, four musket balls went through his cape and--as you said--his hat was shot from him. He was untouched, however.
Almost all the officers had been killed or wounded (and in that battle, wounded was as good as dead since the Indians killed and scalped--or scalped and killed--when they came to you wounded on the field of battle). Braddock was hit and GW carried him from the field under fire--fearlessly. Washington (as well as many of the Virginians) were praised for their selfless bravery that day and word of Washington's valor reached George II.
And you are correct in another thing: Washington believed his entire life that Divine Providence had extended its hand that day to protect him, and continued to do so during the RevWar.
Your Obdt. Svt.
Pharmboy
25 posted on 3/24/02 8:14 PM Pacific by Pharmboy
*********************************************************************
The same has to do with the history and teachings of the Mormon church. One of your own Mormon breathern, a professor at BYU, proved that the the Book of Abraham was a hoax.
By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri Charles M. Larson
You spend your time carrying others fountain of hate.
Whoever made that claim probably wrote a number of negative things that should be likewise discounted.
As for carrying others water of hate. Are your beliefs so weak that you have to say an opposing viewpoint is one of hate? Is it not possible that what is written is the truth, and it is the truth you really hate? As I mentioned earlier, I have read books about the Mormon religeon. Now these books are pointed in pointing out the differences between Christianity and Mormonism, and where the Mormons have got it all wrong. But I do not see any hate in them. That whole hate argument is just a device that is used not to listen and discount.
Before you compared my arguement to that of the democrats, something I found laughable. Tell me, what does the African-American community in general do to those it disagrees with. They say that we are racists, that the ideas are full of hate to keep them down. Now tell me, who acts more like the democrats?
In 1978 your president had a "revelation" that blacks could become priests, both Aaronic and Melhizadec, forgive my spelling error. Before that revelation there was a ton of heat on the Mormon church that many of it policies and beliefs were racist, which was causing growth problems. Now tell me that wasn't done for both political and public relation reasons. Also, if we gentiles are wrong in our theology and your mormon theology is correct, why would you change your theology? Your theology took on more of a Gentile shape. Your history is based on the idea that Christians bent the religeon, and that J. Smith was sent to bring it back to the truth. If the truth was that blacks and other dark skinned people were not capable to be priests, why the change? Did Smith get it wrong? What other bit of your theology is wrong that will also have to be changed by a special revelation?
Don't pass this on to WM or anyone else. This is directed at you. Answers, not websites.
1 Cor.2
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Mosiah 3: 19
19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
If I carried the spirit of contention, like you I too could not received the blessings, nor understand the ways of the Lord for our ways are not the Lords way.
Mormon 9
10 And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.
11 But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.
12 Behold, he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man.
13 And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the presence of the Lord; yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God when the trump shall sound; and they shall come forth, both small and great, and all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death, which death is a temporal death.
14 And then cometh the judgment of the Holy One upon them; and then cometh the time that he that is filthy shall be filthy still; and he that is righteous shall be righteous still; he that is happy shall be happy still; and he that is unhappy shall be unhappy still.
15 And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles.
16 Behold, are not the things that God hath wrought marvelous in our eyes? Yea, and who can comprehend the marvelous works of God?
17 Who shall say that it was not a miracle that by his word the heaven and the earth should be; and by the power of his word man was created of the dust of the earth; and by the power of his word have miracles been wrought?
18 And who shall say that Jesus Christ did not do many mighty miracles? And there were many mighty miracles wrought by the hands of the apostles.
19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.
20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.
21 Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth.
To: Ward Smythe
Here is something else that might hurt...
I just finished an interesting book on the Mormons. Did you know that Wesley was one of the people that the Mormons baptized into thier "church" after he died? I now know why you were willing to agree with the Mormons a few threads ago.
Seriously though, I was amazed with who the Mormons posthumously baptized.
112 posted on 3/19/02 5:43 PM Pacific by Wrigley
********************************************************************************
I did not bring up the subject it was Wrigley who spoke of Wesley and if the Book was by Donna Hill he did not report correctly. but,I am not supprised!
I learn of that in one of my books, The Holy Temple, by Boyd K Packer P. 193 - Sept. 6 1878 the request for baptism was made.
Now we are in year 2002 some publicity stunt, only a handful know.
You are nearly correct here. That's why I said I can see how some people might consider us universalist.
Just as the Apostle Paul saw, we believe in different degrees of heaven. Clement of Rome also made reference to that, sort of in passing, while commenting on how much the Apostles knew but never wrote down. And we believe that unless one commits the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, he or she will eventually end up in one of those "levels" of heaven.
I realize that your beliefs are different but if you're interested, for purposes of avoiding misrepresenting our beliefs in future discussions, you can see a fairly complete but still reasonably brief description of our beliefs about each level and who goes there right here: "Hell", Highest heaven, Middle, and lowest.
can a non Mormon be saved?
Sure. Similarly, a Mormon can be damned.
Insight for Living- Chuck Swindoll
click on- Broadcast Archives
there are talks on the Cross and Trails
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.