Feminist "Theologian": Breast Should Replace The Cross

[Bonnie]

Originally Posted by TexasRN

Poor Bonnie.

~Amy

Yeah, she couldn't figure out why that baby kept cry'n since she had just fed her!

Do you ever wonder what babies would say IF ONLY they could talk?

Originally Posted by Bonnie

Thank goodness breast milk isn't required to get into heaven....cause I didn't get any. Not only that, but my momma fed my twin twice and I didn't get ANY milk then either! True story!

I'm sorry, Bonnie, but that one just turned my tickle box upside down!!

Originally Posted by NateR

This woman is simply a heretic, nothing more.

Although I would say that neither the "lactating breast" nor the cross are appropriate symbols for Christianity.

The symbol of the cross is purely pagan in origin and was not retroactively attached to Christianity until nearly 3 centuries after Christ's Resurrection.

I we just have to assign a symbol to Christianity, then something like the Messianic Seal would be more appropriate.

Yes.

I have noticed that the "cross" has been secularized. It is becoming a jewelry item. In movies and tv shows unsavory characters are shown wearing crosses. I asked one of my students if the cross he was wearing was a statement of faith. He said no,he wore it because his girlfriend gave it to him.
And then there are these "prayer crosses" being sold on tv commercials. Disgusting.

[VCURamFan]

Originally Posted by Play The Man

http://www.layman.org/News.aspx?article=26756



If you attend a Presbyterian PCUSA Church, I would bet that some of your offering money is being funneled into garbage like this.

I pass UTS just about every week as it's between me & my church. This is more angering than anything else I've read coming out of there.

[Tyburn]

Early Christians used other symbols to represent Christianity, but none of them were anything other then monograms.

Some were crosses with two horizontals, because they chose to incoorperate the name plate that was put above Christ. Some chose to use the Icthus Symbol which is part of the Messianic Seal of the Jewish Faith. Some used the PandX symbol which is simply Jesus name in russian I think or some such language.

We have to remember, symbols in themselves have no meaning except what we ascribe to them, thats why they can have multiple valid meanings...they, in themselves mean nothing, they are known as Ikons, Ikons are symbols that point to something else, they are supposed to be like Windows, you are not supposed to gaze at the glass, but at the vista through the glass.

Thats why political statements of radical feminism are as foolish as strict patriarchy in the Church. Both miss the point, it doesnt actually matter what the symbol is, because it has no meaning, the symbol is unimportant, it cant protect you, or aid you. You can desecrate an object that has no purpose in and of itself.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

We have to remember, symbols in themselves have no meaning except what we ascribe to them, thats why they can have multiple valid meanings...they, in themselves mean nothing, they are known as Ikons, Ikons are symbols that point to something else, they are supposed to be like Windows, you are not supposed to gaze at the glass, but at the vista through the glass.

This is true, the symbol of the cross has no intrinsic power of its own. So it is worthy of neither respect nor reverence. The idea that the symbol of the cross itself must be held in respect is a form of idolatry.

Also the idea that the cross holds special powers (like keeping away evil spirits or vampires ) is rooted in pagan ritual, not in any form of pre-Roman Catholic Christianity.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by NateR

This is true, .

you dont know how long I've waited for you to quote something I have said in this section and say THAT

[Play The Man]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

Early Christians used other symbols to represent Christianity, but none of them were anything other then monograms.

Some were crosses with two horizontals, because they chose to incoorperate the name plate that was put above Christ. Some chose to use the Icthus Symbol which is part of the Messianic Seal of the Jewish Faith. Some used the PandX symbol which is simply Jesus name in russian I think or some such language.

We have to remember, symbols in themselves have no meaning except what we ascribe to them, thats why they can have multiple valid meanings...they, in themselves mean nothing, they are known as Ikons, Ikons are symbols that point to something else, they are supposed to be like Windows, you are not supposed to gaze at the glass, but at the vista through the glass.

Thats why political statements of radical feminism are as foolish as strict patriarchy in the Church. Both miss the point, it doesnt actually matter what the symbol is, because it has no meaning, the symbol is unimportant, it cant protect you, or aid you. You can desecrate an object that has no purpose in and of itself.

Good point. There have been many Christian symbols over the centuries: Anchor, Chi Rho, Agnus Dei, ICHTHUS, Phoenix, Peacock, Pomegranate, etc. Of course, the Madonna and Child image has been used extensively in Christian art. The part of the article that made me mad was:

Miles suggested that the cross is inappropriate as a symbol of God’s love because “it presents a violent act as salvific.”

If you take away this "violent" "salvific" act from Christianity, you might as well close down all the Churches and sell them.

Originally Posted by NateR

This is true, the symbol of the cross has no intrinsic power of its own. So it is worthy of neither respect nor reverence. The idea that the symbol of the cross itself must be held in respect is a form of idolatry.

Also the idea that the cross holds special powers (like keeping away evil spirits or vampires ) is rooted in pagan ritual, not in any form of pre-Roman Catholic Christianity.

Absolutely! Anyway, the cross was only act one of what He did for us then. Paul said if He had not risen from the dead then we have believed in vain, and that is where the power to live victorious lies. I don't know how you would symbolize that, anyway. Certainly not with a lactating breast. Maybe these feminists and other apostates should get past these kinds of things and concentrate on more important things like salvation for a dying world, then this other stuff would kind of take care of itself. It seems these things become a distraction to keep people's minds off the Truth, and nothing more. "Let's talk about changing the symbol for Christianity instead of that I should repent of my sins and follow Jesus."

Originally Posted by surveyorshawn

Absolutely! Anyway, the cross was only act one of what He did for us then. Paul said if He had not risen from the dead then we have believed in vain, and that is where the power to live victorious lies. I don't know how you would symbolize that, anyway. Certainly not with a lactating breast. Maybe these feminists and other apostates should get past these kinds of things and concentrate on more important things like salvation for a dying world, then this other stuff would kind of take care of itself. It seems these things become a distraction to keep people's minds off the Truth, and nothing more. "Let's talk about changing the symbol for Christianity instead of that I should repent of my sins and follow Jesus."

if I was the devil, That's the kind of stuff I would get people thinking about.
also:
calvinism vs arminianism
King James version vs. Everything else
baptist vs Non-denomination vs presb. vs apiscp. vs. meth. vs. holiness vs. ect.
Anything that takes the focus off of, salvation by grace, through faith.

Thats why we get along so well Shawn.