Disrespect to baby Jesus?

[Alcott]

Maybe that guy needs to be asked: If a thug used his fists to assault your wife, mother, kids, or anyone else close to you-- unquestionably "disrespect," and worse than that-- does that prove that you worship them?

 

[HankD]

Umm, did you ask him how he knows what Jesus looks like? :smilewinkgrin:

He has a photo?

HankD

 

[menageriekeeper]

You know, some people can't handle the freedom Christ bought us. This is just an example of an excuse not to celebrate _______ wrapped up in a little right sounding, out of context scripture, and tied with the bow of "if the RC did it we shouldn't".

Christ freed us from the Law and if we are worshipping Him, then we aren't out there worshipping the facade we call "baby Jesus".

How do you respond to his declaring no man has seen God, by telling him God sent us Christ and man most certainly did see Him! Can we know exactly what baby Jesus looked like? Why would it matter? Nativity scenes are meant to represent the EVENT rather than the person.

If he doesn't want to celebrate Christmas, he doesn't have to. "one man celebrates one day, another doesn't, let each be convinced according to his own mind." (Cindi's paraphase of Romans 14:5)

 

[Zenas]

No one I know bows down to worship a manger. Now I know some who bow down to crucifixes. I have broken those before, on purpose and without remorse.

We don't have any crucifixes but if you came on to our property and damaged something, we would expect you to replace it. If you did not, we would sigh a criminal complaint against you and have you prosecuted.

 

[freeatlast]

We don't have any crucifixes but if you came on to our property and damaged something, we would expect you to replace it. If you did not, we would sigh a criminal complaint against you and have you prosecuted.

Would you be disobeying the bible. 1Cor 6:1-8?

 

[Jerome]

Several centuries ago this man's sentiments would be commonplace. Mobs of Reformed iconoclasts would descend upon churches, smashing stained windows, smearing excrement, etc. Or they would deface (literally) figures they found to be "idolatrous".

Photo from a church in Utrecht, Netherlands:

http://www.smba.nl/en/exhibitions/defacing/

the faces of the other figures have been completely obliterated. The infant Jesus has entirely disappeared from the arms of Mary.

A wood panel of Mary in Geneva received similar precise treatment: the faces of both the Virgin and the Child have been carefully chiselled away

Photo of what they did to Baby Jesus in Geneva

 

[Zenas]

Would you be disobeying the bible. 1Cor 6:1-8?

No we would not be disobeying the Bible. The passage of which you speak goes to civil suits between church members.

I find it shocking that a member of this board would state with pride that he has smashed crucifixes. It's not a matter of whether you disagree with the group or their ways of worship. It's a matter of obeying the Golden Rule, and the law (which forbids the deliberate destruction of another's property), not to mention the sensibilities of the group or the person whose property you are destroying. It is barbarous act, no different than my going into the mosque which has sprung up not very far from where I live and destroying their items of worship.

 

[matt wade]

No we would not be disobeying the Bible. The passage of which you speak goes to civil suits between church members.

I find it shocking that a member of this board would state with pride that he has smashed crucifixes. It's not a matter of whether you disagree with the group or their ways of worship. It's a matter of obeying the Golden Rule, and the law (which forbids the deliberate destruction of another's property), not to mention the sensibilities of the group or the person whose property you are destroying. It is barbarous act, no different than my going into the mosque which has sprung up not very far from where I live and destroying their items of worship.

I find it shocking that a member of this board would state with indignation that he knows for a certainty that MexDeaf was talking about destroying someone else's private property. Nothing MexDeaf said indicates that he destroyed another's property and for you to assume as much and get up on your high horse is appalling.

 

[Mexdeaf]

We don't have any crucifixes but if you came on to our property and damaged something, we would expect you to replace it. If you did not, we would sigh a criminal complaint against you and have you prosecuted.

Thank you, Matt. I did not go on someone else's property and destroy crucifixes- and certainly not without their permission.

 

[Zenas]

Thank you, Matt. I did not go on someone else's property and destroy crucifixes- and certainly not without their permission.

Mexdeaf, there are 3 possibilities here and this last post raises more questions than answers.

1 You destroyed your own crucifixes. No problem.
2. You destroyed someone else's crucifixes with their permission. Fine.
3. You destroyed crucifixes belonging to others without their permission. That makes you a criminal.

Which is it? The context of your first post sure sounded like #3, but I could be wrong.

 

[matt wade]

Mexdeaf, there are 3 possibilities here and this last post raises more questions than answers.

1 You destroyed your own crucifixes. No problem.
2. You destroyed someone else's crucifixes with their permission. Fine.
3. You destroyed crucifixes belonging to others without their permission. That makes you a criminal.

Which is it? The context of your first post sure sounded like #3, but I could be wrong.

You are wrong. He already told you that you are wrong. Why are you so concerned about the exact manner in which he has destroyed crucifixes? Obviously you must hold them in an idolatrous state. You are an idolator.

 

[Gina B]

I am extremely uncomfortable with any representation of the image of Christ.

That includes the one in the typical manger scene, which in and of itself is a false representation of the truth anyhow.

It includes paintings.

It includes people acting out the role of Christ in plays, movies, or skits.

It includes drawings.

It includes those silly Jesus dolls.

Anything.

Not only is it trivializing the object of our devotion, it gives rise to possibility of making an idol out of the representation or at least mentally seeing that item as having some type of specialty/holiness that it doesn't deserve because we relate it to Christ himself. If one was to look at a representation of Christ and not feel some sort of desire to cherish/protect it, that in itself would be very odd for a believer.

Best not take the chance. You're gonna screw up either way, so just do what scripture appears to recommend and don't make any images at all of any part of the Trinity. It's just begging for a problem cuz you'll hold it too high, disrespect it, or see it just the same as anything else. All of them are wrong, there's no way you can have such an item and do right. So don't have it.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Mexdeaf, there are 3 possibilities here and this last post raises more questions than answers.

1 You destroyed your own crucifixes. No problem.
2. You destroyed someone else's crucifixes with their permission. Fine.
3. You destroyed crucifixes belonging to others without their permission. That makes you a criminal.

Which is it? The context of your first post sure sounded like #3, but I could be wrong.

Please read carefully- I did not go on someone else's property and destroy crucifixes- and certainly not without their permission.

That is as plain as I can put it without having to reiterate all of the circumstances, which are NOYB anyway.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I am extremely uncomfortable with any representation of the image of Christ.

That includes the one in the typical manger scene, which in and of itself is a false representation of the truth anyhow.

It includes paintings.

It includes people acting out the role of Christ in plays, movies, or skits.

It includes drawings.

It includes those silly Jesus dolls.

Anything.

Not only is it trivializing the object of our devotion, it gives rise to possibility of making an idol out of the representation or at least mentally seeing that item as having some type of specialty/holiness that it doesn't deserve because we relate it to Christ himself. If one was to look at a representation of Christ and not feel some sort of desire to cherish/protect it, that in itself would be very odd for a believer.

Best not take the chance. You're gonna screw up either way, so just do what scripture appears to recommend and don't make any images at all of any part of the Trinity. It's just begging for a problem cuz you'll hold it too high, disrespect it, or see it just the same as anything else. All of them are wrong, there's no way you can have such an item and do right. So don't have it.

Since we do not know what Jesus, God or the Holy Spirit look like I don't think we have too much to worry about, other than the bowing down to the idols part.

I'm curious though... how do you teach children about Jesus without using any pictures?? I work with the Deaf and I would have an extremely hard time teaching without using any pictures since the Deaf learn primarily visually.

 

[Zenas]

You are wrong. He already told you that you are wrong. Why are you so concerned about the exact manner in which he has destroyed crucifixes? Obviously you must hold them in an idolatrous state. You are an idolator.

The original post was about whether a crèche is idolatrous. Abcgrad wrote of a person who posited the hypothetical that if he broke or defaced the baby Jesus, people would call it an act of disrespect toward Jesus. Therefore, he believes the act of putting up a crèche is idolatrous. Subsequent posts had to do with destruction or defacing these images, the response to such behavior and whether even having the images amounted to idol worship. Good discussion, and several viewpoints being expressed.

Then Mexdeaf says: “No one I know bows down to worship a manger.” Good beginning to a potentially constructive post. Then he goes on to say: “Now I know some who bow down to crucifixes.” Interesting observation and the beginning of what could be a constructive discussion of the difference between having images that we use to remember certain events and other images that we actually worship.

But then he proudly states: “I have broken those before, on purpose and without remorse.” Up to this point the thread was about vandalism toward church property in general and crèches in particular. It wasn’t about people breaking their own property or breaking others’ property at their request or permission. So when Mexdeaf says “I have broken them before,” it sure sounds like he is committing an act of vandalism. The law calls it criminal mischief. And that is shocking to me, that someone who purports to be a Christian claims responsibility for doing something like that “without remorse.” Why would remorse even enter the picture if what you had done could not possibly have been construed to be wrong?

That is was a crucifix is immaterial. It would be equally shocking if it were baby Jesus, a bible, a hymnal, a church sign or a basketball. So yes, I am quite curious as to the circumstances under which Mexdeaf would do what he said he did.

And Matt, since you want to engage in name calling, I have one for you. You are a slanderer.

 

[Gina B]

A friend of ours believes any image of Christ is an "idol," including nativity scenes with the baby Jesus. He says most evangelical Christians worship the nativity scene, and to prove it, he used this illustration: If he were to break, deface, or crush the baby in the manger, people would say it was a sign of disrespect to Christ. He believes we have borrowed an idol from the Roman Catholic church and that's one reason why he will not celebrate Christmas.

I never heard this argument before, so I'll ask y'all, in your opinion, is removing, breaking, or damaging the "baby Jesus" part of a manger scene showing disrespect to Christ? Do you think nativity scenes are idols?

Wait a minute, I just noticed that this is part of his reason for not celebrating Christmas. A manger scene.
Shoot, if that's the case, forget Christianity.
There are messed up things in every part of everything.
There's a plethora of reasons to reject all things great and small, sacred and secular. If that's how one chooses to live, it's very hypocritical to reject one thing and not another when the basis is how some things about it aren't perfect, cuz ain't nuthin' perfect!

 

[Mexdeaf]

The original post was about whether a crèche is idolatrous. Abcgrad wrote of a person who posited the hypothetical that if he broke or defaced the baby Jesus, people would call it an act of disrespect toward Jesus. Therefore, he believes the act of putting up a crèche is idolatrous. Subsequent posts had to do with destruction or defacing these images, the response to such behavior and whether even having the images amounted to idol worship. Good discussion, and several viewpoints being expressed.

Then Mexdeaf says: “No one I know bows down to worship a manger.” Good beginning to a potentially constructive post. Then he goes on to say: “Now I know some who bow down to crucifixes.” Interesting observation and the beginning of what could be a constructive discussion of the difference between having images that we use to remember certain events and other images that we actually worship.

But then he proudly states: “I have broken those before, on purpose and without remorse.” Up to this point the thread was about vandalism toward church property in general and crèches in particular. It wasn’t about people breaking their own property or breaking others’ property at their request or permission. So when Mexdeaf says “I have broken them before,” it sure sounds like he is committing an act of vandalism. The law calls it criminal mischief. And that is shocking to me, that someone who purports to be a Christian claims responsibility for doing something like that “without remorse.” Why would remorse even enter the picture if what you had done could not possibly have been construed to be wrong?

That is was a crucifix is immaterial. It would be equally shocking if it were baby Jesus, a bible, a hymnal, a church sign or a basketball. So yes, I am quite curious as to the circumstances under which Mexdeaf would do what he said he did.

And Matt, since you want to engage in name calling, I have one for you. You are a slanderer.

You just won't quit, will you? Your assumptions are wrong. So wrong in fact, that if I were to publish the truth, you would be red-faced with shame. And you should be ashamed for jumping to conclusions and accusing me of doing something criminal which I have not done.

 

[Amy.G]

I am extremely uncomfortable with any representation of the image of Christ.

What about a cross? Is it ok to wear one around your neck?

 

[ituttut]

A friend of ours believes any image of Christ is an "idol," including nativity scenes with the baby Jesus. He says most evangelical Christians worship the nativity scene, and to prove it, he used this illustration: If he were to break, deface, or crush the baby in the manger, people would say it was a sign of disrespect to Christ. He believes we have borrowed an idol from the Roman Catholic church and that's one reason why he will not celebrate Christmas.

I never heard this argument before, so I'll ask y'all, in your opinion, is removing, breaking, or damaging the "baby Jesus" part of a manger scene showing disrespect to Christ? Do you think nativity scenes are idols?

I would say your friend is right, and knows an idol when it is seen. I believe every Christian should ask, "Why do I do what I do?" About the only way we can answer this is, "well, "everybody else is doing it". Every Christen knows (or should know) Christmas is not found in the Bible. Since it is not, shouldn't we find out where this honoring the death of Christ came from?

Before the 1900's, Baptists did not observe Xmas, along with some others, in their churches; much less take unto themselves any thing that smacked of Idol Worship. The Old Testament tells us the heathen would cut down trees; decorate them so they could worship their god/gods on the appropriate date/s. Sound familiar?

It is well documented the Mass of Christ came to be Christmas, and we should know that Mass means death. One thing leads to another. What is so Merry about Death? So why is it Baptists need little fishes that God said not to make, or any other t novelties of man to say, come look and see the little baby we have at our church. Such things will really impress the unsaved when we say, "LOOK!!" "See what little baby Jesus looked like".

Also the date is bogus.

 

[abcgrad94]

Before the 1900's, Baptists did not observe Xmas, along with some others, in their churches; much less take unto themselves any thing that smacked of Idol Worship. The Old Testament tells us the heathen would cut down trees; decorate them so they could worship their god/gods on the appropriate date/s. Sound familiar?

It is well documented the Mass of Christ came to be Christmas, and we should know that Mass means death. One thing leads to another. What is so Merry about Death?

Thank you for the explanation. Okay, so hundreds of years ago some pagans worshiped a pagan god and used decorated trees. That was THEIR worship, not mine. I really don't believe that anybody does that anymore. Over time, the Christmas tree has taken on a new meaning, that is the celebration of the gift of God's son, sent to us. Maybe the roots had a bad connotation, but nowadays it means something different.

Even the angels came to earth and rejoiced at Christ's birth! They celebrated and sang for joy that a savior was born to mankind. Should we do less? In celebrating his birth, death, and resurrection, we worship him and remember the awesome gift of salvation. For me, a nativity scene is a reminder of this, not an idol. I don't worship the nativity scene, I see it and am reminded to worship God. Same thing whenever I see a group of crosses while driving down the road. I don't worship the cross, I worship the One who died on the cross.

I think for some, like my friend, this is "wrong" because the Roman Catholic church did it. I guess my response to that would be, the Catholic church has given money to feed people, to start missions to aid the sick and helpless, and they have housed orphan children. Should I as a Christian not do any of those things just because the Catholics did?