# Scary Anglican Crucifix removed.... **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 8, 2009, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383 "2009-01-08T16:05:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/21 "2009-01-08T19:39:37Z")
> [@Terrifel](#): > > Oh come on, that isn’t Jesus on that cross, it’s a Xenomorph. > > The kids at that church weren’t scared because it depicts horrible suffering, they were scared because it’s an image of the gaunt whispering thing that lives under the bed. A proper crucifixion image should evoke sympathy, not fear that the Redeemer might suddenly wrench himself free and eat your face off. 😃 The way the arms are positioned – and the chains – make it look like he’s barely restrained from busting free and doing some severe face-munching. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/22 "2009-01-08T19:41:31Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > And not a lot of eating. Unless you were wealthy, you were probably quite thin. It’s not like you could just pick up a box of Ho Hos at the Galilee Safeway. Hey, he’s _Jesus_. He could just miracle some Twinkies out of stones or something. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/23 "2009-01-08T19:52:38Z")
> [@EJsGirl](#): > > I once heard John Larroquette say that one reason he wasn’t “down” with the Catholic Church anymore is that he couldn’t be a member of a group whose logo was a dead boy on a stick. Yeah, its kinda funny. If you went out of your way to come up with the grossest thing to venerate, you’d have a tough time surpassing a crucifix. This thread made me wonder. Is there any generally accepted understanding as to whether Jesus is represented as alive or dead on the crucifix? I guess for some reason I kinda assumed he was almost-dead. I seem to remember seeing him with his eyes open, looking upwards, and assumed he was looking toward God/heaven/whatever. But he could have died with his eyes open. And even if his eyes are closed, he could just be resting… ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/24 "2009-01-08T20:00:50Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Yeah, its kinda funny. If you went out of your way to come up with the grossest thing to venerate, you’d have a tough time surpassing a crucifix. > > This thread made me wonder. Is there any generally accepted understanding as to whether Jesus is represented as alive or dead on the crucifix? I guess for some reason I kinda assumed he was almost-dead. I seem to remember seeing him with his eyes open, looking upwards, and assumed he was looking toward God/heaven/whatever. But he could have died with his eyes open. And even if his eyes are closed, he could just be resting… Given how little most christians actually care about or try to follow the teachings of Jesus, I’ve always assumed they want him dead on the crucifix. That way he can’t open his mouth. ---
**Author:** ![TroubleAgain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e480ec/32.png) [@TroubleAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroubleAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/25 "2009-01-08T20:01:30Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Are Xians unable to bear the sight of what was done for them? > [@tdn](#): > > My thoughts as well. The entire religion is sort of built around one guy suffering horribly. Steeples on Christian churches all over the world are topped with instruments of turture. > [@cher3](#): > > I grew up in the Protestant church and still kind of have a bias towards an empty cross, representing death _and_ resurrection. Like **cher3** , my Protestant upbringing focused more on the resurrection than the suffering and death. Yes, those were incredibly important, but they would have been more-or-less just plain ol’ martyrdom like any other saint without the resurrection part. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/26 "2009-01-08T20:11:18Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Re Jesus’s skinniness- two things are clear from every Gospel account about the man. He walked a lot AND he liked to eat. If he wasn’t praying and preaching and healing and walking, he was eating. You think he didn’t have some of that Cana wine and multiplied loaves and fishes? Even risen from the dead, He walks with the disciples to Emmaus and sits down to eat, He asks for a piece of honeycomb to eat & prove His corporeal resurrection, He cooks up some fish for Peter & the boys. The man liked his food! Yeah, but it was lean protein like grilled fish, and unleavened bread. The wine would contain some calories, but even that might have been watered down. > [@C3](#): > > I find it a little worrisome that that’s what it takes for you not to hit someone. Really? Driven by baser instincts but reminded of Way he would like to follow instead? Seems reasonable. > [@Dinsdale](#): > > This thread made me wonder. Is there any generally accepted understanding as to whether Jesus is represented as alive or dead on the crucifix? If He has the wound in His side, He’s being represented as dead. The centurions came to break His legs to ensure His death, but saw that He was already dead. So they stabbed Him in the side. Thus fulfilling the prophesy that they would break none of His bones, but look upon Him whom they have pierced. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/27 "2009-01-08T20:18:52Z")
> [@gigi](#): > > If He has the wound in His side, He’s being represented as dead. Cool. So are you saying that there is no generally accepted practice, and the viewer must examine each crucifix to decide whether the figure is supposed to be dying or dead? I wonder how many believers or church designers go to what lengths to decide whether they want to choose a dead or a dying Jesus. I noticed the original article quoted the museum curator as saying the crucifix in question depicted “pain and suffering.” My initial interpretation of this suggested the figure was still alive such that he was viewed as he experienced pain and suffering. But I guess he could just as well be saying that it depicted an incident in which pain and suffering _had been inflicted/experienced._ ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/28 "2009-01-08T20:20:57Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Jesus is supposed to have a died an extraordinarily painful death so that all mankind’s sins would be forgiven. His agony and death are key to his mission on Urth. Are Xians unable to bear the sight of what was done for them? It’s about time they get over it. He suffered for what, 2 or 3 days? Like 2000 years ago. And he’s spent the last couple millennia either at God’s side or as God or both (never got that straight). I’m not sure why people make such a big deal out it, to be honest. Many of us reading this very thread may suffer much longer on our deathbeds, or in other ways. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/29 "2009-01-08T20:27:31Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Cool. So are you saying that there is no generally accepted practice, and the viewer must examine each crucifix to decide whether the figure is supposed to be dying or dead? I wonder how many believers or church designers go to what lengths to decide whether they want to choose a dead or a dying Jesus. Well, it depends what it is depicting. There’s the crucifix by itself, but then it may also be portrayed in relation to the thieves, or Mary and John, as in paintings. > [@Revtim](#): > > It’s about time they get over it. He suffered for what, 2 or 3 days? Like 2000 years ago. And he’s spent the last couple millennia either at God’s side or as God or both (never got that straight). I’m not sure why people make such a big deal out it, to be honest. Many of us reading this very thread may suffer much longer on our deathbeds, or in other ways. I’m sure it’s covered much more eloquently in the “Jesus gave up a weekend for my sins” thread, but there’s a difference when someone all-powerful who could escape suffering doesn’t for the sake of others. ---
**Author:** ![Omegaman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e480ec/32.png) [@Omegaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omegaman)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/30 "2009-01-08T20:33:22Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Many of us reading this very thread may suffer much longer on our deathbeds, or in other ways. We have and we will. That is _our_ cross to bear. To each his own. You don’t have a clue what I’ve seen nor do I know what you’ve seen. You know Reverend, judging others is the spark that ignites the inferno of hate. ---
**Author:** ![lisacurl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/41988e/32.png) [@lisacurl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisacurl)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/31 "2009-01-08T20:37:14Z")
That’s considered scary? I’ve seen much more graphic stuff in older Catholic churches… heck, in the homes of older Catholics for that matter. Depictions of the Sacred Heart images of Mary and Jesus have been freaking out little Catholic kids for generations. And that’s not even bringing the more gruesome martyred saints into it. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/32 "2009-01-08T20:45:04Z")
> [@gigi](#): > > Well, it depends what it is depicting. There’s the crucifix by itself, but then it may also be portrayed in relation to the thieves, or Mary and John, as in paintings. I was pretty much thinking of just the physical crucifix - a cross with the figure nailed to it. Whether in the front of a church, hanging on someone’s wall, on a rosary, whatever. I guess this is the kind of niggling distinction that seems more significant to a non-believer than a believer. In my mind, if I were praying to or seeking solace or whatever from an icon, I would want a clear idea of exactly what that icon was supposed to represent. But I guess I take this and other things too literally and concretely to permit for belief. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/33 "2009-01-08T20:53:57Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > I was pretty much thinking of just the physical crucifix - a cross with the figure nailed to it. Whether in the front of a church, hanging on someone’s wall, on a rosary, whatever. > > I guess this is the kind of niggling distinction that seems more significant to a non-believer than a believer. In my mind, if I were praying to or seeking solace or whatever from an icon, I would want a clear idea of exactly what that icon was supposed to represent. But I guess I take this and other things too literally and concretely to permit for belief. Believers don’t pray to paintings, statues, crucifixes, or any other images. They pray to God. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/34 "2009-01-08T20:59:03Z")
> [@lisacurl](#): > > That’s considered scary? I’ve seen much more graphic stuff in older Catholic churches… heck, in the homes of older Catholics for that matter. Depictions of the Sacred Heart images of Mary and Jesus have been freaking out little Catholic kids for generations. And that’s not even bringing the more gruesome martyred saints into it. Which saint was it who had all the arrows sticking out of him? Yuck. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/35 "2009-01-08T20:59:23Z")
> [@lisacurl](#): > > That’s considered scary? I’ve seen much more graphic stuff in older Catholic churches… heck, in the homes of older Catholics for that matter. Depictions of the Sacred Heart images of Mary and Jesus have been freaking out little Catholic kids for generations. And that’s not even bringing the more gruesome martyred saints into it. My reaction, too. I was expecting a lot more when I clicked on the link. I think it’s quite a nice crucifix, personally. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/36 "2009-01-08T20:59:34Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > How would you know? Same way I know he didn’t have two heads. If he were that hideously emaciated, the Gospels would have remarked upon it. “Lo! A miracle! He walks upright, even in high wind!” > [@](#): > > And one feast doesn’t make you fat. I didn’t say he was fat, I suggested that he wasn’t the living skeleton depicted on the cross in the OP. As **FriarTed** cited earlier, the Gospels testify that Jesus wasn’t averse to a good meal when the opportunity presented itself. It’s not like he was living out in the desert subsisting on a diet of bugs like his cousin. I expect he was fit but wiry. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/37 "2009-01-08T21:10:50Z")
> [@EJsGirl](#): > > Which saint was it who had all the arrows sticking out of him? Yuck. Saint Sebastian. Weirdly enough, that wasn’t how he was martyred. He supposedly survived being shot through with arrows, was nursed back to health, then went right back to preaching Christianity. The Roman authorities found out about it and had him executed a second time-- this time bludgeoning him to death instead. In church art he’s always depicted stuck with arrows though. I guess “The Skull-Caving-In of St. Sebastian” isn’t as artistically inspiring. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/38 "2009-01-08T22:36:44Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > In my mind, if I were praying to or seeking solace or whatever from an icon, I would want a clear idea of exactly what that icon was supposed to represent. But I guess I take this and other things too literally and concretely to permit for belief. Or you could take the image and reflect on the various aspects of it. Instant subject matter for meditation when you can’t think of other things! ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/39 "2009-01-08T22:49:42Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > And even if his eyes are closed, he could just be resting… Look, matey, I know a dead Savior when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now. The only reason he’s sitting on his perch is because he’s been _nailed_ there! ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383/40 "2009-01-08T23:07:20Z")
> [@Terrifel](#): > > Same way I know he didn’t have two heads. If he were that hideously emaciated, the Gospels would have remarked upon it. “Lo! A miracle! He walks upright, even in high wind!” Which Gospel writer ever saw Jesus? > [@](#): > > I didn’t say he was fat, I suggested that he wasn’t the living skeleton depicted on the cross in the OP. No, you said he wasn’t skinny, and suggested that if he had been that skinny, the previous day’s feast would have left sufficient meat on his bones even after dragging a cross. > [@](#): > > As **FriarTed** cited earlier, the Gospels testify that Jesus wasn’t averse to a good meal when the opportunity presented itself. It’s not like he was living out in the desert subsisting on a diet of bugs like his cousin. I expect he was fit but wiry. I suppose you mean _suspect_, not _expect_. But you don’t _know_. Which is what I asked you. And since no one who was alive when Jesus (presumably) was alive has written anything about his physical appearance, suspect is the best you will be able to do. I suspect he never existed at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scary-anglican-crucifix-removed/480383.md?page=3)