God's ruling on the Cross?

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Jan 21, 2010
23,669
4,178
290
National Freedmen's Town District
This morning while driving to work, I had a vision of what God would say to resolve the court issue of the Cross in the Mt. Soledad case and also the Mohave case.

The best explanation of the Cross I ever heard came from a Lutheran Pastor.
To paraphrase, he explained that the Relationship between God and Man was represented by the Vertical Bar, where Grace is given freely by God without condition or earning it.

However, the Horizontal Bar represented Man's relationship with Man, and here there is forgiveness and restitution earned and given in order to keep just relationships; it is not freely given, just because you are forgiven by Grace from God does not mean you do not owe restitution to your neighbor if you commit a fault or a trespass.

So the position of Jesus Christ on the Center of the Cross fulfills both and joins them both.
He is the center of both Man's Relationship with God, and Man's relations with Man.

So the message I got from this vision, which I believe is from God,
is that the atheist(s) suing to remove the Cross have every right to remove the Vertical Bar, but the Horizontal Bar includes and represents them as well.

They may either offer a different way to hold this bar up, without a Vertical Bar as a support, so they do not have to acknowledge the religious part they do not believe in.
(Does this mean to leave the Bar on the ground? To suspend it in air with no support?)

Or if they remove the whole thing, they are also removing and rejecting the part of the Cross that represents them, as secular gentiles living in the real world with real world relations with others. They are included in this paradigm, which is offered to them freely, but if they wish to reject that, that is their choice and must be respected as God respects free will.

Either way, the message would be offered and accepted by those who find wisdom in it.
That is the point, to share the message and meaning, and not the Cross itself.

That is the interpretation and message I got this morning.
Do you believe it comes from God, that it speaks universal truth or there is wisdom in it?

If I follow this line of thinking, and write a letter to the Court and to all parties,
what do you imagine might be the response? How would you respond?
Any comments or suggestions?

I thought this was an interesting idea, regardless what it means or where it came from.
I credit Sr. Pastor Moore at Christ the King Lutheran Church for this interpretation of the Cross, which includes secular gentiles and the real world relationship and does not excuse abuses as if God's forgiveness makes these go away without responsibility to fellow man.

Thank you for this!

Yours truly,
Emily
 
Whether or not your vision is of God, remains an issue between you and God. I have long learned never to question people when they claim this or that is from God, since I am aware anything is possible: I simply search the scriptures to see if a matter affirms or contradicts the very character of God. Searched article "Godliness Does Not Mean Stupidity" will give you more details on my view.

Anyway, I love the cross Jesus died on and know at the cross I am safe. Whether they remove the cross from school or court house or even church, no one can take the cross away from my heart, my life and my house hood. There at the cross of Jesus my debts, faults and all accounts were settled. I am free, alive and whole today because of the finished work of Jesus my Ebenezer on the cross.
 
Whether or not your vision is of God, remains an issue between you and God. I have long learned never to question people when they claim this or that is from God, since I am aware anything is possible: I simply search the scriptures to see if a matter affirms or contradicts the very character of God. Searched article "Godliness Does Not Mean Stupidity" will give you more details on my view.

Anyway, I love the cross Jesus died on and know at the cross I am safe. Whether they remove the cross from school or court house or even church, no one can take the cross away from my heart, my life and my house hood. There at the cross of Jesus my debts, faults and all accounts were settled. I am free, alive and whole today because of the finished work of Jesus my Ebenezer on the cross.

Thank you for a beautiful message!
 
Emily, it's OK. Jesus is fine, I promise you.
Hi Jake!

The other questions remain, if public resources or authority should be involved
in efforts to REMOVE crosses because of personal unresolved conflicts between parties
regarding their differences in religion or interpretation.

It makes sense to me, if people resolved these on their own,
public expenses would not be spent on such cases that could be put to other use instead.

By the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, public officials should
seek more economical and efficient means of accomplishing tasks.

By mediating and reaching a consensus between parties, this saves public resources
spent on conflicts such as this. I believe conflict resolution should be urged not only for this purpose, of saving public resources, but to protect the interests of all parties equally as required under Constitutional laws.

ethics-commission.net
 
Emily, it's OK. Jesus is fine, I promise you.
Hi Jake!

The other questions remain, if public resources or authority should be involved
in efforts to REMOVE crosses because of personal unresolved conflicts between parties
regarding their differences in religion or interpretation.

It makes sense to me, if people resolved these on their own,
public expenses would not be spent on such cases that could be put to other use instead.

By the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, public officials should
seek more economical and efficient means of accomplishing tasks.

By mediating and reaching a consensus between parties, this saves public resources
spent on conflicts such as this. I believe conflict resolution should be urged not only for this purpose, of saving public resources, but to protect the interests of all parties equally as required under Constitutional laws.

ethics-commission.net

Good points all. The issue is this: some want crosses on public property and some don't, and many of them are not interest in "economical and efficient means" of conflict resolution. They want what they want.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top