The main tenet of Christian doctrine?

Sounds simple enough to me Bags. And bloody difficult. If not impossible.

The slim Buddhas are rather nice though if you pick one with a calm expression.

One of the things I do (italics, how do you do that?) find difficult about Christianity is the crucifix.

As I say to my Christian friend (a vicar), why not pick something more uplifting to focus on? Why the emphasis on such suffering, on and on for the last two thousand years?

I think the slim Buddhas are the Indian ones.

I find it difficult, if not impossible, to come to terms with the cruelty of the crucifixion. A father to his son?

Getting deep here.

yes, very off-putting. Any god who needs to do that doesn't get my vote. Follows naturally from Old Testament cruelty though.

Yes - I agree. The whole death cult/crucifixion aspect of Christianity is grisly.

But it does accord with nature in the raw - which is about dog eat dog and survival of the fittest. That is how the world works. And whoever/whatever created the world or caused it to come into being set it up in that way.

I often think (somewhat flippantly) that if the whole christian story were re-enacted today, people would finish up hanging an effigy of an electric chair round their necks (instead of a cross and chain), or decorating their places of worship with a lethal syringe!

I hate it when I hear children being burdened with this crucifixion stuff - it is a bit beyond the pale for me. And the fact that they are not told that what they are hearing is a belief rather than a fact is not honest. That really does disturb me.

I know there is a reason why it was (according to Christian theology) important that Jesus died. Something to do with absolving us all from our sins for the rest of time?

Crucifixion was, of course, a common method of execution in those days so not special to Jesus.

I like having a few Buddhas around and I would like something Christian as well but not the crucifix.

Although has anyone seen versions of the cross painted with flowers in lovely colours?

petallus how about the sign of the fish (early Christians recognised each other by that) or the white dove - sign of peace?

The concept of human sacrifice is repugnant. I have never understood the belief that killing someone would absolve future generations of their sins. That is a preposterous idea to me.

It was not a big feature of the earliest Christian teachings as it was not a punishment for Kings and Lords, but used for the lowest offenders. Very early art shows Jesus as a princeling not a criminal. Crucifixion was something to be ashamed of.

I think it was a concept that was added later when Christians were a vocal and unpopular minority, and were being martyred for sticking to their faith. It encouraged them to accept the suffering if they believed that their founder had suffered more than they did.

Some of it is an echo of the sacrificial lamb which pleased the old God and diverted his attention from the sins of those presenting the sacrifice. All that was supposed to be changed by the "New Covenant" between God and Man inaugurated by the incarnation of Christ.

Yes. You're right petallus. It was to absolve us of our sins. And, yes, crucifixion was the method of the times.

TBH it does make it very potent. Think the three crosses on the hillside. It is a story that has lasted until now.

Does seem very hard though.

Yes Elegran I agree with you too. It was partly to shame and belittle Jesus.

Like the "crown" of thorns.

He was regarded as a rebellious trouble-maker by the rulers of Palestine at the time, and so they crucified him. Or so the story goes. There were, of course, a lot of other people claiming to be the Messiah at the time. I sometimes wonder what he did to become the famous one. Or maybe all of them – the idea of the man/god messiah – were kind of rolled into one. I don't suppose we'll ever know. The whole story is a myth, or a bunch od myths, based on a few facts, just like all the other ancient myths – equally violent and gross – from other parts of the world. Fine if you like violent myths.

I like Budhas , have quite a lot them .

First one I ever was given was from DH when he came back fron India .

* petallus* How about a Christ in Glory? No crosses. Like the one in Rio. Or an ikon?

Bags you could probably say the same (myth based on a few facts) about much of history from a couple of thousand years ago.

Or even more recently. It is now being questioned whether Richard lll ever did have the princes killed in the Tower.

The fish as a symbol of Christianity sounds much better.

However, go into Roman Catholic churches today, especially when abroad, and there seems to be a huge emphasis on the crucifixion and Jesus's wounds.

Did anyone see The Passion of the Christ? Gruelling!

Yes, indeed, petallus. History is often coloured by who tells it and what they want you to think, possibly always – as much story (fiction) as fact. I' m sure that's partly what makes it interesting. I love Michael Wood's approach to history for that reason. I like his conjectures, whcih are always based on something fascinating that he has uneartherd. Do you know Josephine Tey's book about Richard III? First published in 1951, I think. It's a very good read. If I remember rightly, written like a detective novel.

Lilygran - makes refernce to 'evidence' - but provides none, which is par for the course.

The Resurrection is the crux (pun intended) of Christianity - if that fails, so does Christianity. And as it would seem to be impossible... we draw our own conclusions.

You draw your conclusion, I draw mine!

The cross is the main symbol because Christianity is a sacrificial religion. Christ died on the cross as a sacrificial lamb for the forgiveness of all our sins. We recogise and remember that sacrifice in the Mass. We sacrifice ourselves to God by obedience to his wishes rather than following our own.

Not saying it's right or wrong btw. Just stating doctrine.

Yes feetlebaum, we should not forget the resurrection.

How does anyone tell what is god's will rather than their own? Why is submission to an imaginary other's will good?

If you say 'imaginary', of course, you answer your own question on your terms. We don't believe in an imaginary God but in a real, living presence. And there is a copious body of material from the last 4 to 5,000 years which make it quite clear what God's will is.