Wearing a Crucifix seems morbid. Anyone agree.?

Question

It doesnt seem any different to me than wearin a small guillitene or noose as jewelry. I get the whole Jesus died deal. What about the thousands who have been killed in the name of Jesus over time, by worse devices than the cross. This not to upset. I see people get nuts over pentagrams, which are not evil, so save the resons why, im not asking why things are evil or good, i just wonder if any one sees the morbid act that it seems to me to be.

Answer 1

I agree completely. I would like to see Christians start wearing the fish symbol, or at least *something* less grotesque! I think it must have become popular in the middle ages, when European society was already pretty violent. (Go kill some Muslims for God! was the message of the Crusades, for example. Ugh!)

I think that as a culture, we have gotten somewhat less violent, and I would hope that Christians would start to move away from wearing the cross. I would think it would only make them sad or uncomfortable, and doesn't really serve to remind anyone about Jesus' message of love and compassion to others.

Answer 2

‘But does not the Bible teach that Christ actually died on a cross?’ one may ask. To answer this, we must look into the meanings of the two Greek words that the Bible writers used to describe the instrument of Christ’s death: stau‧ros′ and xy′lon.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1979) states under the heading “Cross”: “Originally Gk. staurós designated a pointed, vertical wooden stake firmly fixed in the ground. . . . They were positioned side by side in rows to form fencing or defensive palisades around settlements, or singly they were set up as instruments of torture on which serious offenders of law were publicly suspended to die (or, if already killed, to have their corpses thoroughly dishonored).”

True, the Romans did use an instrument of execution known in Latin as the crux. And in translating the Bible into Latin, this word crux was used as a rendering of stau‧ros′. Because the Latin word crux and the English word cross are similar, many mistakenly assume that a crux was necessarily a stake with a crossbeam. However, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part.”

The book The Non-Christian Cross adds: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros [pole or stake]; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross.” Christ could well have been impaled on a form of crux (stau‧ros′) known as the crux simplex. That was how such a stake was illustrated by the Roman Catholic scholar Justus Lipsius of the 16th century.

What of the other Greek word, xy′lon? It was used in the Greek Septuagint translation of the Bible at Ezra 6:11. In the New World Translation this reads: “And by me an order has been put through that, as for anybody that violates this decree, a timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it, and his house will be turned into a public privy on this account.” Clearly, a single beam, or “timber,” was involved here.

Numerous translators of the Christian Greek Scriptures (New Testament) therefore translate Peter’s words at Acts 5:30 to read: “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew, hanging him upon a stake [or, “tree,” according to the King James Version, New International Version, The Jerusalem Bible, and Revised Standard Version].” You might also wish to check how your Bible translates xy′lon at: Acts 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; and 1 Peter 2:24.

Answer 3

Like................

My son or daughter was mowed down by a thug in a drive by so I think I will wear a miniature machine gun or 9mm on a chain around my neck?

The cross actually came from Tammuz, but there is more info about it:

“Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples . . . The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times and among non-Christian peoples may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1946), Vol. 6, p. 753.

“The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”—An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256.

“It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device.”—The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p. 1.

“The cross in the form of the ‘Crux Ansata’ . . . was carried in the hands of the Egyptian priests and Pontiff kings as the symbol of their authority as priests of the Sun god and was called ‘the Sign of Life.’”—The Worship of the Dead (London, 1904), Colonel J. Garnier, p. 226.

“Various figures of crosses are found everywhere on Egyptian monuments and tombs, and are considered by many authorities as symbolical either of the phallus [a representation of the male sex organ] or of coition. . . . In Egyptian tombs the crux ansata [cross with a circle or handle on top] is found side by side with the phallus.”—A Short History of Sex-Worship (London, 1940), H. Cutner, pp. 16, 17; see also The Non-Christian Cross, p. 183.

“These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god, [See book], and are first seen on a coin of Julius Cæsar, 100-44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Cæsar’s heir (Augustus), 20 B.C. On the coins of Constantine the most frequent symbol is [See book]; but the same symbol is used without the surrounding circle, and with the four equal arms vertical and horizontal; and this was the symbol specially venerated as the ‘Solar Wheel’. It should be stated that Constantine was a sun-god worshipper, and would not enter the ‘Church’ till some quarter of a century after the legend of his having seen such a cross in the heavens.”—The Companion Bible, Appendix No. 162; see also The Non-Christian Cross, pp. 133-141.

Answer 4

Yes, I agree with you to some degree. I wear a cross but not a crucifix. Personally , I don't understand it .Jesus was taken off the cross.so why do some people want to leave Him there. I prefer not to think of Him that way, but rather a risen Christ.

Answer 5

I don't think it's morbid at all. The crucifix reminds me of Christ's intense devotion and love in ways that a plain cross simply can't. It's nice to think pleasant thoughts about Jesus, but he died a gruesome, bloody death on the Cross for the redemption of humanity. This was done for me. I look at the image, and remember this happened for the redemption of my sins. If I find my faith flagging, I can look at how far Christ went, and it reminds me that, by comparison, I've accomplished nothing. I did this to Jesus, and may as well have nailed Him to the Cross myself with my sins. Morbid? No. It's religious hope, awe, belief, love, trust and redemption in one poignant image.

Answer 6

A crucifix is a graven image. Even though it depicts a great act of love, it is a graven image. My Christ was taken from that cross, and ascended into heaven. I would never wear one. Now just a plain gold cross? Fine. That is a symbol, and not a graven image. That is a catholic thing, anyway.

Answer 7

No not really...I wear a cross in remembrance of Christ and what he did for me. If Jesus had died in an electric chair I'd wear a chair pendent around my neck. It's not how he died it's that he died.

Z->Z^2 C you are morbid for comparing Christianity with Nazis

Answer 8

In that manner of thinking, yes. It's my understanding that Christians wear them not for the symbolism of murder, but for the symbolism of sacrifice.

It does make me think of another question I saw on here once: the asker wondered if Jesus had lived in the 20th century whether Christians would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks.

Answer 9

I've actually have always seen it as disrespectful. If I were Jesus I'd think it was a bit weird to have my beaten body hung on a cross for jewelry purposes.


The cross really has nothing to do with Christianity besides the fact that Jesus died on it. Many others died on it as well..So yes, it's weird.

Answer 10

The Crucifix represents the sacrifice and the presence of Christ on earth.

There is nothing "morbid" about it as such, except to remind us that "we killed" the Christ!

The Cross is a sign of Hope for many. There is nothing wrong with it or wearing it.