Well, I suppose that is true, Bubblecar, but does any insignia of any organization accomplish that purpose? It’s just a symbol (though, as previously stated, I think it’s inappropriate).

Yes, I agree, the “died for our sins” is syrupy in its meaningnessless. It this explanation more consistent?

http://tinyurl.com/a5ge9q

Of course, you won’t believe it, I understand, but is it at least consistent?

I run the risk of being thought of as an interloper. Hope no one minds. Still, Dave has not told me to shut up, and all others have been reasonably polite to me…..except for one comment a few posts ago, but that does not seem to have been contributed by a regular. So until that happens, I may add my two cents from time to time, as I like the quality of this blog, and I represent a viewpoint I haven’t seen anyone else express.

The usual “he died for our sins” stuff would be pretty cryptic even if Jesus was just a man, but when he casually resurrects himself afterwards, then wanders off into obscurity, it all becomes doubly farcical. But how often do you hear Christians admitting that they don’t really have a clue what the significance of Jesus on the Cross is supposed to be? I’d suggest that the removal of this sculpture is itself as close as you’ll get to a frank confession of the ugly foolishness of it all.

Similarly, that Mel Gibson Passion movie was almost required viewing for the evangelical churches. I can’t imagine it. By all accounts, it’s two hours of non-stop torture. I’m not sure why anyone would revel in it.