Christian Skepticism - new look!

[panta dokimazete]

We have a new look - what do you think of the design with 2 columns on the right?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Very nice, JD!

 

[panta dokimazete]

Thanks, Steve - I freely ripped off Puritan Lad's structure.

 

[Matthias]

We have a new look - what do you think of the design with 2 columns on the right?

I like the site but I am concerned about the Occult symbol you have on your homepage. You, like many other people may have been told that it is just a symbol for the trinity, but that symbols roots extend much farther back in time than that and it comes straight from paganism. Even elemetary research will confirm this, but here is a good starting point:

The New King James Bible: Counterfeit

Acts 17:29, clearly FORBIDS such symbology: ". . . we ought NOT to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, GRAVEN BY ART and man's device."

 

[BobVigneault]

I thought that was just an innocent little celtic knot. There's so much I don't know. Next someone is going to say this one is bad. (Truth is.... I wish I had a million of them.)

http://www.Jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/dollar_ase.gif

 

[puritan lad]

Thanks, Steve - I freely ripped off Puritan Lad's structure.

I'll send you the Bill later. I like peanut butter cookies

 

[panta dokimazete]

We have a new look - what do you think of the design with 2 columns on the right?

I like the site but I am concerned about the Occult symbol you have on your homepage. You, like many other people may have been told that it is just a symbol for the trinity, but that symbols roots extend much farther back in time than that and it comes straight from paganism. Even elemetary research will confirm this, but here is a good starting point:

The New King James Bible: Counterfeit

Acts 17:29, clearly FORBIDS such symbology: ". . . we ought NOT to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, GRAVEN BY ART and man's device."

I hear you, good brother - I think many symbols of Christianity can be traced to pagan roots - even the cross.

Truth is, symbols, like words, can mean many things - I think the symbol on our site is fairly well contextualized.

That being said, if anyone on the CS team is uncomfortable with the symbol and has a recommendation for another, I can certainly remove/replace it.

Pax!

 

[panta dokimazete]

I thought that was just an innocent little celtic knot. There's so much I don't know. Next someone is going to say this one is bad. (Truth is.... I wish I had a million of them.)

http://www.Jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Illuminati/dollar_ase.gif

 

[bookslover]

I hear you, good brother - I think many symbols of Christianity can be traced to pagan roots - even the cross.

Truth is, symbols, like words, can mean many things - I think the symbol on our site is fairly well contextualized.

That being said, if anyone on the CS team is uncomfortable with the symbol and has a recommendation for another, I can certainly remove/replace it.

Pax!

I think the symbol you're using is just fine. I wouldn't be too inclined to take the word of an obvious KJVO nut, which is what that page link goes to...

 

[Matthias]

I hear you, good brother - I think many symbols of Christianity can be traced to pagan roots - even the cross.

Truth is, symbols, like words, can mean many things - I think the symbol on our site is fairly well contextualized.

That being said, if anyone on the CS team is uncomfortable with the symbol and has a recommendation for another, I can certainly remove/replace it.

Pax!

I think the symbol you're using is just fine. I wouldn't be too inclined to take the word of an obvious KJVO nut, which is what that page link goes to...

You missed the whole point of my pointing out that link. It was discussing the history of the SYMBOL, and it was just one I picked out of THOUSANDS available. Just because the person may have beliefs you do not share about Bible versions does not mean the history of the symbol is incorrect. It can be researched on thousands of sites... its a FACT, not somebody's opinion.

And someone who chooses to read the KJV only is no more nutty than someone who chooses to read all versions, or just the NIV, ESV, NSAB etc etc..

Just following the logic of your post.....

 

[Matthias]

We have a new look - what do you think of the design with 2 columns on the right?

I like the site but I am concerned about the Occult symbol you have on your homepage. You, like many other people may have been told that it is just a symbol for the trinity, but that symbols roots extend much farther back in time than that and it comes straight from paganism. Even elemetary research will confirm this, but here is a good starting point:

The New King James Bible: Counterfeit

Acts 17:29, clearly FORBIDS such symbology: ". . . we ought NOT to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, GRAVEN BY ART and man's device."

I hear you, good brother - I think many symbols of Christianity can be traced to pagan roots - even the cross.

Truth is, symbols, like words, can mean many things - I think the symbol on our site is fairly well contextualized.


Pax!

I agree 100% about the cross and its roots, and that symbols can mean many things. I am sure that is why Scripture forbids Christians from using them...that includes the symbol of the cross. God is not the author of confusion. No offence intended, but I feel contextualizing something of this nature is splitting hairs. Pagan symbols being used as Christian symbols?? Why bother? I go back to the Light of Gods word on this one...
29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Even if we ignore a symbols pagan roots and try to make it "clean", and if we were to suppose in this Context it just symbolized the Trinity(THE ENTIRE GODHEAD) Calvin would still have this to say..... as well as other commentators

Calvin on Acts 17:29

29. "Therefore seeing that. He gathereth that God cannot be figured or resembled by any graven image forasmuch as he would have his image extant in us. For the soul wherein the image of God is properly engraven cannot be painted; therefore it is a thing more absurd to go about to paint God. Now, we see what great injury they do to God which give him a bodily shape; when as man’s soul, which doth scarce resemble a small sparkle of the infinite glory of God, cannot be expressed in any bodily shape.

Furthermore, forasmuch as it is certain that Paul doth in this place inveigh against the common superstition of all the Gentiles, because they would worship God under bodily shapes, we must hold this general doctrine that God is falsely and wickedly transfigured, and that his truth is turned into a lie so often as his Majesty is represented by any visible shape; as the same Paul teacheth in the first chapter to the Romans, (Romans 1:23.) And though the idolaters of all times wanted not their cloaks and colors, yet that was not without cause always objected to them by the prophets which Paul doth now object that God is made like to wood, or stone or gold, when there is any image made to him of dead and corruptible matter. The Gentiles used images that, according to their rudeness, they might better conceive that God was nigh unto them. But seeing that God doth far surpass the capacity of our mind, whosoever attempteth with his mind to comprehend him, he deformeth and disfigureth his glory with a wicked and false imagination. Wherefore, it is wickedness to imagine anything of him according to our own sense. Again, that which worse is, it appeareth plainly that men erect pictures and images to God for no other cause, save only because they conceive some carnal thing of him, wherein he is blasphemed.

The Papists also are at this day no whit more excusable. For what colors soever they invent to paint and color those images, whereby they go about to express God, yet because they be enwrapped in the same error, wherein the men of old time were entangled, they be urged with the of the prophets. And that the heathen did use the same excuses in times past, wherewith the Papists go about to cover themselves at this day, it is well known out of their own books. Therefore, the prophets do not escape the mocks of certain, as if they laid too great grossness to their charge, yea, burthen them with false accusations; but when all things are well weighed, those who will judge rightly shall find, that whatsoever starting holes [evasions] even the most witty men have sought, yet were they taken with this madness, that God is well pleased with the sacrifice done before images. Whereas we, with Erasmus, translate it numen, Luke putteth [θειον] in the neuter gender for divinity or godhead. When Paul denieth that God is like to gold, or silver, or stone, and addeth afterward, graven by cunning or invention of man, he excludeth both matter and form, and doth also condemn all inventions of men, which disfigure the true nature of God."

I appologize for the length of this post, but in light of these things I do not believe we can trivialize issues such as these. I believe the issue at hand is more important than that, and that it does fit under the above guidelines.

To brush them off is not being good stewards of Gods Word.

With all Charity,

 

[panta dokimazete]

Dear brother - the symbol is meant to graphically represent a concept - 3 in 1 - just as the combination of numbers (3, 1) and letters (in) symbolizes the concept we also symbolize with letters called the Trinity.

Your vigilance is appreciated and encouraged but misdirected in this instance.