Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Would you care to back this up with a reference to scripture or is this more of your opinion about Christianity?
Rolls eyes? Your Bill Mahar quote gets more ironic every time you post something about Christianity.
The cross is not a symbol of torture according to Christianity. It was a painful method of execution at that time in history. The cross is a symbol now used in Christianity but it does not symbolize torture.
Every time you make one of these "your misinformed opinion as fact" posts you lose credibility.
The cross represents the ultimate sacrifice and as such is something which represents all that is good on heaven and earth.
We are never to forget the sacrifice our Lord made for us. It isn't like it was a 'mistake" or something out of God's hands.
Crucifixion - Cause of Death. (Nope not torture......lol)
The length of time required to reach death could range from a matter of hours to a number of days, depending on exact methods, the health of the crucified person and environmental circumstances.
Death could result from a variety of causes, including blood loss and hypovolemic shock, or infection and sepsis, caused by the scourging that preceded the crucifixion or by the nailing itself, and eventual dehydration.[22][23] A theory attributed to Pierre Barbet holds that, when the whole body weight was supported by the stretched arms, the typical cause of death was asphyxiation. He conjectured that the condemned would have severe difficulty inhaling, due to hyper-expansion of the chest muscles and lungs.
The condemned would therefore have to draw himself up by his arms, leading to exhaustion, or have his feet supported by tying or by a wood block. Indeed, Roman executioners could be asked to break the condemned's legs, after he had hung for some time, in order to hasten his death.[24] Once deprived of support and unable to lift himself, the condemned would die within a few minutes.
Experiments by Frederick Zugibe have revealed that, when suspended with arms at 60° to 70° from the vertical, test subjects had no difficulty breathing, only rapidly-increasing discomfort and pain. This would correspond to the Roman use of crucifixion as a prolonged, agonizing, humiliating death. Zugibe claims that the breaking of the crucified condemned's legs to hasten death, as mentioned in John 19:31-32, was administered as a coup de grâce, causing severe traumatic shock or hastening death by fat embolism. Crucifixion on a single pole with no transom, with hands affixed over one's head, would precipitate rapid asphyxiation if no block was provided to stand on, or once the legs were broken.
It is possible to survive crucifixion, if not prolonged, and there are records of people who did. The historian Josephus, a Judaean who defected to the Roman side during the Jewish uprising of AD 66 - 72, describes finding two of his friends crucified. He begged for and was granted their reprieve; one died, the other recovered. Josephus gives no details of the method or duration of their crucifixion before their reprieve.
Would you care to back this up with a reference to scripture or is this more of your opinion about Christianity?
First, what about those causes of death are NOT torture.
Secondly, one cultures purpose still does not change that others do. Even in this text it states the word torture and confirms that it was purposeful. Thanks for proving my point even better.
Some of you just boggle my mind.
Who ever said the cross wasn't used for torture? I said that in my first post on the subject. The cross isn't a Christian symbol of torture. Beyond that I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
Nothing about those quotes is not torture...it is nothing but torture.....that was my point.
SARCASM..I guessed you missed it.
I think they are refering to the fact a christian church wants to post a sign "santa will take you to hell". Which is hate speech! Do I think every christian church is offensive, no!
It's not hate speech. Tasteless, maybe, but not hate speech. If hell was a real place, it would be a real threat.
I consider it hate speech but I'm not entirely convinced that's a good enough reason to take it down.
What bothers me is that it's basically a threat.
'You'll be punished for all eternity if you don't change your ways now, Santa will rape your kids (or something like that). Join us ... or else."
How on earth is it hate speech? What group is it threatening with physical harm? Who is it inciting hatred against?
Santa?
You guys are complete idiots. YOu know that, right?
And religion is religion. Yeah, the belief is that if you aren't saved, you don't get to heaven. That is not hate speech because it isn't inciting people to HARM others.
What a bunch of small minded twits. It's a waste of air, space and time to talk or listen to you, honestly. I wish you'd all leave your mommy and daddy's homes and return to school, and perhaps actually try supporting yourself before you try to impress the world with your well-thought-out and pseudo-intellectual bigotry.
The point (repeating myself again for you, starting to get old) is that it is VERY offensive to display it for other religions and even to many atheists, but we don't push this. So why push someone elses 'offensive' statements to have them removed? If you start that then almost all your religious idols can be removed by the same law from ALL public places, even places where it can be viewed by the public.
Once again. Who is being incited to violence by this "hate speech"?
Nobody. Hence, it isn't hate speech.
