Tu quoque (ea quoque?) isn’t much of an excuse.
I have the distinct impression that when we mention crucifixes in our churches we get criticized for portraying Christ in His weakness, pain, and all.
I am not trying to minimize what JA said. I am trying to distinguish it from saying “an epistle of straw,” or saying that Paul shouldn’t be in the Bible.
I do not share her opinion of Paul.
Sorry, I’m ignorant or have forgotten about:
Tu quoque (ea quoque?) isn’t much of an excuse.
I don’t know, personally, as a Protty, that Christ on the cross as in a crucifix . . . is so much an issue for me of displaying Christ in his weakness, pain etc.
as it is an issue of not emphasizing
THE RESURRECTION LIFE.
As Paul noted . . . without the RESURRECTION, we are of all men, most miserable.
Emphasizing his death on the cross by displaying it so persistently is a WRONG FOCUS, to Prottys.
Also, as we OBSERVE *MANY* Roman Catholics et al
vis a vis their crucifixes . . . there seems to be a tailisman/magical attitude toward them—which Prottys find idolatrous.
Certainly SOME [seems to me a minority percentage-wise] Prottys have a SIMILAR magical attitude toward their cross jewelry (USUALLY, even then, such attitudes do not seem to be quite as intense on the part of MOST Prottys). MOST PROTTYS just relate to such jewelry crosses as an advertisement of their relationship with Christ—which is something quite different in purpose, feeling and attitude.
I think the empty crosses Prottys use are, for us, more like an empty tomb advertisement as well as a reminder of the cost Christ paid and to crucify our flesh daily. Most Prottys don’t likely think of all that very often even when looking at such a cross. They just relate to it as a simple advertisement of their Christianity.