What would the Christian symbol be if Jesus was shot?

@It's a hex gore- I think it would still be perceived as a symbol of Christianity. So what if it's a gun pointed at his head? They put him nailed onto a cross, that's worse.

So if I was Arabic instead of saying "Oh my God!" I would be saying "Oh my Allah" ?

 

...You would be saying the whole phrase in Arabic, not just the God/Allah part.

 

@ Darktemplar_L. Firstly, just to clarify, 'Itza' doesn't mean or stand for 'it's a', but that's irrelevant at the moment.

The point is that the symbol would be blatantly recognisable as one of death and violence, but the crucifix, seeing as no-one is crucified any more, it's lost that meaning and now symbolises Christianity in its entirety. In other words, it's no longer recognised as a crucifixion, per se, but as a symbol of Jesus' sacrifice. If it was a gun pointed at Jesus' head, then it wouldn't just be recognised as the Christian symbol, as a gun will always symbolise death and violence. In short, crucifixes are no longer relatable, which is why the symbol of the crucifix has lost its original meaning, but guns are 'still' relatable, so would retain their violent symbolism. Do you see what I'm trying to say?

And yes, if you were Arabic, you'd basically be saying "Oh my Allah", keeping in mind that the whole thing would be in Arabic, not to mention that it's a Western expression so they probably wouldn't be saying the direct translation of 'Oh my god'.

 

Maybe they would, we do. Although it's probably just a coincidence

I don't think "relatability" matters at all. If it was made into a symbol of Christianity when it still was widely perceived as means of death, why would it matter what exactly the symbol is? Wether it's a gun, crucifix or anything else, it was made into a symbol when it still represented means of killing. The fact that it isn't seen as one now, doesn't change it's origin

 

Expressions differ widely across cultures. I remember being told in German back in year 7 about a foreign exchange student who, when in Australia, said to someone something like 'you run me up the alarm clock', which was basically the German equivalent of saying 'you drive me crazy', only when it's translated word-for-word into English, it makes no sense whatsoever. Not to mention that in this case it's both a different language as well as a different religion, so not only might the same thing be said differently, but they'd also have different cultural views about it.

Relatability might not have been the best word to use. Basically, regardless of what the symbol could have been back then, it would have been one of death, amongst a whole lot of other things, seeing as it was the symbol of his death. Personally I don't think it would have bothered them much, as they were a very violent culture, and a lot of religions stemmed around violence and punishment. However nowadays, it's definitely not the symbol it was back then, and we're definitely not the culture we were back then, so if the symbol retained the meaning of its origin, what would our new culture think of it?

 

After like 2000 years? I think it'd grow on them. It's not like you suddenly change the symbol into a gun. It was (hypothethicaly speaking) a death/violence related thing to begin with, it was like that for the next 2000 years and it still is now. I don't think too many people would give it much thought

 

That's assuming it would still have lasted that long with a more violent symbol.

 

That's what we are talking about here, no?
It started as a violent symbol and lasted that way. As I've said the fact that it's not seen as violent now is irrevelant.

 

It started as a violent symbol, yes, but that was when crucifixions were still a common method of execution. That's why I started talking about relatability. Those people would have had to have related the Christian symbol to one of crucifixion, and they would have also known about crucifixion first hand, but that was within a very violent culture. As crucifixion died out, the relation of crucifixion would have also. So if the symbol was of something more violent, that's still relatable today and would still be thought of as a violent symbol, what would people think? Other symbols would not have been in the same boat as the symbol of the crucifix, as most other symbols would still be thought of as violent, whereas the crucifix is not.

 

You just went back to the first page >.>
That's what I'm talking about all the time. If it lasted when it was introduced and still relatable to all the death there's no reason it wouldn't stay longer. It would just have the other meaning of death penalty, violence whatever.

 

So you're saying there would be no difference at all? And that people would just think of that symbol as having two meanings? I'd find it hard to believe that the Church sharing their symbol with one of violence and death wouldn't make a difference. I'm not saying your opinion's wrong, but if the was always thought of as a violent symbol, then the view of the Church as a whole would be very different, which would lead to the Church itself being very different.

 

Does the phrase "died for our sins" tell you something?
It's all about how Jesus sacrificed himself (died) for our sins. It's not trying to hint at Christianity being violent, or anywhere near that, it's how through that violence we are being saved

 

I sense a lurking evil and vile threat posting around this thread.. He is with us!!

 

@ Meee. Dude, I'm not talking about the story of Jesus, I'm purely talking about the symbol. The symbol does symbolise his death, regardless of how he was killed, but that, by no means, means that regardless of the symbol, people will think the same of Christianity.

Also, it's through that violence that you believe we are being saved.

@ freedom23. Nah. That presence is probably just jiffy. Either that or marinefreak's getting ready to write up some massive text wall relating all this to socio-economics.

 

I don't really see why would they think otherwise if the symbol was different.
Also, what do you mean by that separate sentence?

 

maybe not a gun, but a guy preparing to get shot(on knees, hands behind head)

 

Hmmm, maybe I should put it another way. Instead of what if there was another symbol for Christianity, what if crucifixion was still used as a punishment nowadays? You'd hear of people being sentenced to crucifixion, you'd see them being crucified, you may even know people who have been crucified. Do you think that all that would have no impact on the general populous' views of Christianity?

And I just meant to keep this from becoming a debate about religion itself.

@ ijffdrie. Don't you think that would be a little complicated for a symbolic icon?

 

I still don't see any major changes. People get crucified and Jesus went through that pain so that we don't suffer eternally in pain. Kinda cool of him, no?

You know you're doing the exact opposite by pointing it out? We are talking about Christianity and their symbols here, I thought that details like adding "according to Christian religion" are unnecessary here. I just skipped it, since I thought we're all on the same page here.
You, on the other hand, imply that I believe things I not necessarily do.

 

So do you think that the symbol of Christianity has any impact on it or how it's viewed at all? Do you think they could have anything and nothing would be different?

No, I'm just trying to keep people's personal beliefs to themselves here. That way it's being linked back to the symbol, instead of religion as a whole.

 

The reason crucifixion is not viewed as a method of execution any more is because it's a method of execution that was discontinued ages ago. It lost its original significance over time and became the symbol of Christianity. When something or someone as influential as Christ is associated with an object it's bound to lose its original meaning as its new meaning will be so much more powerful. Seeing as how crucifixion was outlawed in the 4th century as an homage to Christ, it's entirely possible that the same could happen with a noose.

Having said that, I doubt an actual weapon could be a symbol. The more use an object sees in people's lives, the more powerful is its original meaning, and consequently, the harder it is to change its meaning. Seeing as a weapon such as a sword or a gun is much more common than a method of execution, it would have been quite a lot harder to associate it even with a religious figure as influential and powerful as Christ. If he was shot or beheaded, I would bet that the Christian symbol would be a fish, a lamb, the chrismon, or a triquetra.