# The Passion of The Christ



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 22, 2004)

I was invited by an Evangelical to attend this film, and declined.   I kept thinking he was hoping I'd have a "Come to Jesus" moment after the screening.

I was disturbed by the trailers, and the subsequent ads by tacked on them by local churches inviting people to attend services or call if they had any questions.  It seemed so...commercial.

Then there is the portrayal of Jesus and Mary as absolutely beautiful people.  The actor and actress they hired for these roles could be models...if they're not allready.   Is it so improper that they be AVERAGE in appearance?  Couldn't Jesus have buck teeth?  Couldn't Mary have bad skin?  Or does God incarnate HAVE to be a hunk?  

Anybody want to throw thoughts out on this?  Have you seen it?  Do you intend to?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ceicei (Feb 22, 2004)

No, I haven't seen it, and I'm not in any hurry.  It is just another "hollywood" interpretation.

- Ceicei


----------



## Tgace (Feb 22, 2004)

Im sort of amused by the concern about the violence in this movie. It was a crucifixion for Gods sake (pun intended) what do people think the event was really like? A few drops of blood around the head, side,hands and feet like the cross in church? It was a bloody, savage, painful death preceeded by flogging, what do people expect?


----------



## MisterMike (Feb 22, 2004)

I plan to see it opening night. I've only heard good things about it and from what I have read, it was a goal of Mel Gibson's for nearly a decade. I think it will be more accurate than what we typically see coming out of "Hollywood." Actually I think there is no Hollywood in this picture. Started, funded and produced under Mr. Gibson. A true message.

From the previews, I think it would be a moving picture for anyone to see regardless of faith or lack thereof.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 22, 2004)

I'm going to see it because it was a message by Mr. Gibson.  It is truly an artistic statement of his belief.  And even though I don't count myself among Christian ranks (UU) I respect that greatly.  Also, I want to see the portrayal.  I want to see if it follows the strict historical story or if it diverges into some of the more heretical versions.  The pope liked it.  Mr. Gibson gave him a private screening and the pope sent a letter back with one sentance...

"It is as it was."


----------



## OULobo (Feb 23, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Then there is the portrayal of Jesus and Mary as absolutely beautiful people.  The actor and actress they hired for these roles could be models...if they're not allready.   Is it so improper that they be AVERAGE in appearance?  Couldn't Jesus have buck teeth?  Couldn't Mary have bad skin?  Or does God incarnate HAVE to be a hunk?
> Steve


For the sake of argument:

-The people of most early and primative cultures had physiques that were sculpted and wiry, and would most likely be considered very attractive by modern standards, due to the everyday hard work needed to survive. That's not to mention that average today means overweight.

-I think its pretty safe to say that Jesus must have been a charismatic person to acheive so much fame. That kind of charisma in early cultures was always tempered by at least moderate physical attractivness or beauty.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 23, 2004)

But neither would have looked like a white European :ultracool


----------



## OULobo (Feb 23, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> But neither would have looked like a white European :ultracool


Tru nuff.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 23, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> But neither would have looked like a white European :ultracool



Do they really look like white Europeans in the movie?

I'd like to see it because Mel Gibson usually does good work. I'll reserve my opinions until AFTER I see the movie.

PAUL


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 23, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im sort of amused by the concern about the violence in this movie. It was a crucifixion for Gods sake (pun intended) what do people think the event was really like? A few drops of blood around the head, side,hands and feet like the cross in church? It was a bloody, savage, painful death preceeded by flogging, what do people expect?


I don't know, we spend so much time trying to convince ourselves that our civilization is better than ancient Rome. Rome flaunted death for its people to see and so they would never forget the glory of Rome. Yet, although most of us choose to forget that the Christians were just as guilty of feeding pegans to the lions as the other way around, there seems to be a pull toward the days of colleseum. Christians seem to be out in force trying to get people in the theaters to see the blood and guts for the glory of the Christ. At least we can all agree that boobs are evil. :uhyeah: 
Sean


----------



## OULobo (Feb 23, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> At least we can all agree that boobs are evil. :uhyeah:
> Sean




Says who!


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 23, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I don't know, we spend so much time trying to convince ourselves that our civilization is better than ancient Rome. Rome flaunted death for its people to see and so they would never forget the glory of Rome. Yet, although most of us choose to forget that the Christians were just as guilty of feeding pegans to the lions as the other way around, there seems to be a pull toward the days of colleseum. Christians seem to be out in force trying to get people in the theaters to see the blood and guts for the glory of the Christ. At least we can all agree that boobs are evil. :uhyeah:
> Sean



Save your anti-Christian rant heathen, or I'll have to send you to the.... 

"IRON MAIDAN!"

"Excellent!" (as I play air guitar). 

"Execute them!" 

"Bogus!" 

Bill and Teds excellent adventure aside, I think your leaving out the fact that there is evil and violence in all cultures...and thats what people forget the most when they play the "blame Christians" game.

PAUL

ps...I like boobs. I just wanted to say that.  :boing2:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 23, 2004)

ok then...don'cha love one topic can turn into another topic...let's stay on track here...THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, NOT BOOBS!!!!...

anyways, Yeah, my church bought out two theatres for like the opening night and the next day too...and the tickets sold out in like 60 seconds per each sermon...pretty fast, eh?...anyways, I hope to see the movie and I agree: too many people think that Jesus just got on the cross, hammered a few pins in, had some crown of meshed thorns just placed on his head, some digging in some, and just a small amount of blood from the wounds in his hands and feet, along with some scrapes on his head...I mean, I saw that pic on the main page, and it made me wanna cry...Yeah, it's R rated, but come on, the Bible isn't rated G...

Anyways, yeah I wanna see this movie bad...Gibson  has been an on and off fav...I just had some issues with him, but anyways, I think he's taking a step in the right direction. So, Rock on!


----------



## Zepp (Feb 23, 2004)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../en_afp/lifestyle_us_film_gibson_040218200542 

I don't blame Mel Gibson for his father's lunacy, but his silence on the issue worries me.  I'm not going to be giving any money to him for having made the film.


----------



## OULobo (Feb 24, 2004)

Zepp said:
			
		

> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../en_afp/lifestyle_us_film_gibson_040218200542
> 
> I don't blame Mel Gibson for his father's lunacy, but his silence on the issue worries me.  I'm not going to be giving any money to him for having made the film.




A key christian virtue is respecting your elders. Silence may be the only way he can respect his father and still show he doesn't agree.


----------



## TonyM. (Feb 24, 2004)

I'll probably not see the movie as it's being hyped too much. I've also not seen the last temptation of crist, titanic, harry potter, LOTR or anything with JLo. 
I won't blame Mel for his dad's assininity, but he needs to convince dad to have his meds adjusted. I was in the VA with plenty of WW11 vets so I bristle when idiots try to downplay the holocaust.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 24, 2004)

From what I understand the movies accuracy isn't to historical or anthropological accounts as much as it's accuracy to particular gospels from the new testaments.  Since these testaments were not intended to be historical accuracies, but validations of Jesus as the Christ, they will also be sprinkled with biases that will color certain individuals and groups in either a bad or good light.  I have heard that the Jewish community is really against this movie because of the potrayal of ancient Jews and their treatment of Jesus.  Depending on who you talk to from the Christian community, they will say that Jesus is portrayed too human or not human enough.  Personal preferance.  Few Christians are really scholars of the faith as much as faithful people.

Some of the images in the movie are more folk perpetuation than historical accuracy, Cross images and such.  That does not take away from the power of the movies message.  It does feed off of or perpetuate the religious folklore accepted around the subject, more than any historical accuracy... I can get into a good story though.  Look at Braveheart or We Were Soldiers, good stories that focused on certain positive characteristics more than trying to be accurate to the persons or situation.  We need inspiriational stories along with the accuracy.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 24, 2004)

yeah, well, with the Jews...it's conviction...plain and simple...

With the "story", well The Bible is God-breathed, meaning every word of the Bible is true and accurate. Yes, man's hands wrote the Bible, but the whole thing is 100% accurate. If it weren't, then why believe in a god who writes only part of the truth, history, or philosophy? God talked to each author of the Bible and basically wrote what he dictated. God doesn't talk in thee's and thou and such, He talks in a language that we all understand...

Anyways, I think the exaggeration probably isn't strong enough as it is...I mean have you read the physician's report of Jesus' death? I know who ever wrote it wasn't there when He died, but it's pretty close to what is known to be historical in all ways, physical and what is true about the roman empire's ways...not that it took place in Rome...
well, here's the physician's look...

http://www.carolebevanirby.com/physicianslook.shtml


----------



## Andi (Feb 24, 2004)

Looking forward to this even though the hype being generated is a bit distracting. I read somewhere that the only appearance Gibson makes is as a soldier hand's hammering a nail into Jesus. A nice touch I think- at least it's something I'm sure believers can relate to. Some people I've spoken to think Gibson's playing Jesus himself! Now that would be quite an ego-trip. 

Also, I can understand the Anti-Defamation League's concerns about the portrayal of the Jews, but who will actually go watch this? It's going to be hard going by the sounds of it, especially without a word of English being spoken, which makes me think that the kind of people who thinks its ok to Jew-bash aren't too likely to attend. Perhaps they're more worried about the mere attention the film's attracting could cause outbreaks of anti-semitism. But then they're making a bit of a fuss about it and getting even more attention anyway.

Not to mention the fact that most people that understand the crucifixion realise that it wasn't only the Jews to blame.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 24, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm going to see it because it was a message by Mr. Gibson.  It is truly an artistic statement of his belief.  And even though I don't count myself among Christian ranks (UU) I respect that greatly.  Also, I want to see the portrayal.  I want to see if it follows the strict historical story or if it diverges into some of the more heretical versions.  The pope liked it.  Mr. Gibson gave him a private screening and the pope sent a letter back with one sentance...
> 
> "It is as it was."




I read that was later retracted by the Vatican, and that the spokesman who issued that quote was in error.  I believe the Pope hasn't said anything officially in regards to the film.

One note on Jews protesting the film...one Jewish scholar said that the Jews did indeed crucify Jesus (albeit via the Romans as executioners) because he broke Jewish law.  This guy was not apologetic at all.  It was sort of..."Yeah, we killed him.  What of it?  He had it coming."   Keep in mind of course that they didn't view him as the Messiah nor as God incarnate.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 24, 2004)

And so, they don't want the real truth to come out...I mean, ever since they turned their back on the Real God, they just think that everything is going their way...Well what of the middle eastern wars, hmmm?...heh...I think we need a movie that show the truth of the story on both sides, not just the truth of Jesus only. I'm not prejudice against the Jews, only their religion. They think that they are God's chosen people still and they totally missed the message. Don't you think that God has the option of saying who is and who isn't his people? LOL. If anything, Christianity is open to everyone, even Jews. Jewish belief is kind of different. It's open, but a little harsh. If you aren't a Jew, excommunicate them or at least ignore them until they understand that they should be of jewish religion. BAH! Christians accept people, of course we want people to change, but we don't excommunicate people if they don't change after they have accepted Christ as LORD and SAVIOUR...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 25, 2004)

I realize that reason and facts will have very little effect in this case, but, "to excommunicate," somebody means to remove from them the Sacrament of Communion, to throw them out of the body of communicants who make up the Church.

It is, therefore, something that has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism, which to my knowledge has no custom or ritual whatsoever of drumming people out of its ranks.

Cheer up--I could  have made some crack about the behavior of Christendom during the Crusades.


----------



## OULobo (Feb 25, 2004)

I have to say Mr. Gibson has the right to make any movie he wants and he has exercised that right. He also has the attitude that while he isn't striving to rustle feathers, he isn't going to stray from his vision for any reason. I think that is quite admirable. just as long as people remember that Mel is a dedicated Catholic and the religion's mysticism and doctrine will be evident along with the "realism" or "direct translation" of the bible that he is trying to portray.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 25, 2004)

"With the "story", well The Bible is God-breathed, meaning every word of the Bible is true and accurate. Yes, man's hands wrote the Bible, but the whole thing is 100% accurate. If it weren't, then why believe in a god who writes only part of the truth, history, or philosophy? God talked to each author of the Bible and basically wrote what he dictated. God doesn't talk in thee's and thou and such, He talks in a language that we all understand..."

I am not disputing the divinity of the Bible, I am saying that the books of the Bible are represented as Gospels, not historical records, therefore they are proclaiming and attesting to the validity of the Christ.  Even historical documents can be biased.  The Godly intention is one thing, the human expression is another - regardless of religion.  The new testament gospels don't agree on specifics of locations, events at times.  There may be facts and accuracies in the text, but they only serve to proclaim the Christ.  

The books were not set in written form until long after the original event - and usually not by the person the book is named after, but a well meaning disciple who may, at the earliest, have written down an account that was 80 years or more after the event itself - which the disciple hadn't even witnessed himself.

Plus there are so many vague descriptions of what the cross looked like and so on.  The Gibson film is relying on the old Bible movie images to link people emotionally to this film.  There are written correspondence by other Roman Prefects about Pontius Pilot that make him out to be a mean, by the book, ambitious man.  The movie is reputed to make him out to be a sympathetic character, who knows because we weren't there.  And, quite honestly when did Jesus have time to recount the story of his interviews with P. Pilot to any of his disciples for them to pass the story on, or write it down.  He was a little busy being abused, beaten and crucified.  

I am still faithful to my faith, in spite of these arguable points, maybe that is how I have to know that I believe or don't.  That is faith at it's root, believing inspite of the lack of definitive proof, not ignoring the 'anti-faith' logical arguments.

My main point is that Gibson is touching audience emotions and inspirations with this film, more than he is trying to make an accurate image film.  In the end, who will really know, we can only guess as best we can.

Paul M


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> And so, they don't want the real truth to come out...I mean, ever since they turned their back on the Real God, they just think that everything is going their way...Well what of the middle eastern wars, hmmm?...heh...I think we need a movie that show the truth of the story on both sides, not just the truth of Jesus only. I'm not prejudice against the Jews, only their religion. They think that they are God's chosen people still and they totally missed the message. Don't you think that God has the option of saying who is and who isn't his people? LOL. If anything, Christianity is open to everyone, even Jews. Jewish belief is kind of different. It's open, but a little harsh. If you aren't a Jew, excommunicate them or at least ignore them until they understand that they should be of jewish religion. BAH! Christians accept people, of course we want people to change, but we don't excommunicate people if they don't change after they have accepted Christ as LORD and SAVIOUR...



If I may...

1.  The God of Abraham...same God for both Judaism and Christianity.  Your statement of the Jews turning their back on "The Real God" is incorrect.  True, they deny that Jesus was God in the flesh, but they have NEVER denied the God of Abraham.

2.  The Jews hardly think since the time of Christ "everything is going their way."  Your knowledge of the history of persecution of the Jews is abysmal. Prior to the Holocaust Jews were hounded and killed by Christians.  The Inquistion, Russian pogroms, scapegoating of Jews and their murder during the various plagues that afflicted Europe...the list goes on.  The Jews joke that they are "The Chosen People", but they wish God would chose someone else once in a while.

3.  Christians do in fact excommunicate.  They invented the word and the concept.  They also have a history of killing other Christians.  Apparently you've not heard of the struggles between Catholics and Protestants over the last 500 years.

Please understand I really have no problem with Christianity per se, but I will not brook bigoted malignment of the Jews.  At risk of censure by the mods I will say without hesitiation that your post was one of the most ignorant, ill informed, biased and damnable pieces of drivel I have ever read on this forum.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If I may...
> 
> 1. The God of Abraham...same God for both Judaism and Christianity. Your statement of the Jews turning their back on "The Real God" is incorrect. True, they deny that Jesus was God in the flesh, but they have NEVER denied the God of Abraham.
> 
> ...


Even the Muslims who worship the same God, recognize the prophets including Jesus Christ and Mohammad the Last Prophet (* As the Muslims believe *)

Both the Sunni and the *****e factions believe this.


----------



## OULobo (Feb 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Even the Muslims who worship the same God, recognize the prophets including Jesus Christ and Mohammad the Last Prophet (* As the Muslims believe *)
> 
> Both the Sunni and the *****e factions believe this.



True, but most christians state that Jesus was infact God by the Trinity and so not accepting him as highest is sin. Another problem is that many Muslims believe in Mohammad as the most high prophet and since his coming was after the split of Christianity from Judaism, most christians don't recognize him as a prophet at all. The disagreement isn't in the root of the religion, the Judaic God, but in his followers and their methods.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Even the Muslims who worship the same God, recognize the prophets including Jesus Christ and Mohammad the Last Prophet (* As the Muslims believe *)
> 
> Both the Sunni and the *****e factions believe this.


Most Christians I know do not believe this. I can give a few reasons but I got enough problems on this site without ticking off muslims.


----------



## someguy (Feb 25, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If I may...
> 
> 1.  The God of Abraham...same God for both Judaism and Christianity.  Your statement of the Jews turning their back on "The Real God" is incorrect.  True, they deny that Jesus was God in the flesh, but they have NEVER denied the God of Abraham.
> 
> ...


Quite right you also left out some things but I'll leave that alone for now. With the possible exeption on the one true God.  I personally am christian but there are other religions on this board that may take offense.

As to you Shaolin wolf perhaps things came out wrong the sound some what anti-jewish.  Please be more carefull with your words.

If something I said offends some one I apologize my words may have come out wrong or been in error.
                                    :asian: Peace. :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> True, but most christians state that Jesus was infact God by the Trinity and so not accepting him as highest is sin. Another problem is that many Muslims believe in Mohammad as the most high prophet and since his coming was after the split of Christianity from Judaism, most christians don't recognize him as a prophet at all. The disagreement isn't in the root of the religion, the Judaic God, but in his followers and their methods.


I agree it is the followers of a religion or sect of a religion that have the disagreement. If you look and the basic beliefs, there are close.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Most Christians I know do not believe this. I can give a few reasons but I got enough problems on this site without ticking off muslims.


Yes, it is funny (* Wierd *) in my mind how the Christians one of the most accepting groups do not recognize Islam or Muhammad.

Maybe, just maybe, God sent different people at different times to help people out. Who is to say another prophet is not on this earth today? I do not know.

Most of the Muslims would have heard the reasons, yet I appreciate you views and hesitation.


----------



## Andi (Feb 25, 2004)

> Yes, it is funny (* Wierd *) in my mind how the Christians one of the most accepting groups do not recognize Islam or Muhammad.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe, God sent different people at different times to help people out. Who is to say another prophet is not on this earth today? I do not know.
> 
> Most of the Muslims would have heard the reasons, yet I appreciate you views and hesitation.



The thing is though Rich, why would Christians recognise Islam or Mohammed? True, Christianity teaches acceptance and tolerance, and Christians by their own standards should treat Muslims with all the respect they deserve. However, the Bible is clear on Jesus being the only way to God, and the resurrection as the ultimate redemption. So Mohammed's message cannot be acceptable to christians as "another route". The two just aren't compatible.

So fair enough, if you don't believe the bible, then the (superficially) minor differences between Islam and Christianity won't matter to you too much, but if you're going to be a Christian, you can't pick and choose what you'd like to believe (even though many do in my experience!).


EDIT: Rich, I've just read your Group A vs Group B post on the Gay Marriage thread. I see where you are coming from now. I'll have to read all the threads before posting from now on I think! The dangers of multiple religious threads.


----------



## OULobo (Feb 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I agree it is the followers of a religion or sect of a religion that have the disagreement. If you look and the basic beliefs, there are close.




They are more than close, they are dead on. The principles of a "decent person" are the same the world over.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

Andi said:
			
		

> The thing is though Rich, why would Christians recognise Islam or Mohammed? True, Christianity teaches acceptance and tolerance, and Christians by their own standards should treat Muslims with all the respect they deserve. However, the Bible is clear on Jesus being the only way to God, and the resurrection as the ultimate redemption. So Mohammed's message cannot be acceptable to christians as "another route". The two just aren't compatible.
> 
> So fair enough, if you don't believe the bible, then the (superficially) minor differences between Islam and Christianity won't matter to you too much, but if you're going to be a Christian, you can't pick and choose what you'd like to believe (even though many do in my experience!).


Andi,

If Christians (* And other religions as well*) , would accept that others believe differently and allow that there is a difference and accept that. Then there would be less problems. If you could accept that the Muslims and the Jews believe differently and maybe just maybe received a different word from on high, the people could get along. I do not believe it is the only way, I believe it is the best way for Christians. Others may believen differently.

I agree with you and your last sentence completely. I should cut off a thief's hand. I should not eat meat on Friday. I should not work on the Sabbath (* Friday Sunset to Saturday Sunset *). I should stone those who have sex out side of marriage. All or nothing. We should not eat pork.

Let us take it even furhter though shall not kill is one of the big ten.

Not eating of animals at all. You are killing or causing something to be killed for you. Then only being a vegitarian is correct. 

I do not know of any one religion or church or holy person (Male or female) who follows the complete book of the Bible. And as everyone insists it is either 100% or nothing then, I choose to live my life my way. 

I am not trying to be difficult here, yet there are things in the Bible that are forbidden that pious people do today. Just read and think. Listen to others even if you do not believe what they say, if you truly listen then you may at least begiin to understand where they are coming from. And after that you or anyone else might just begin to have tolerance and love for thy brother.

Peace and Respect keep you point of view coming. It helps me learn.
:asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> They are more than close, they are dead on. The principles of a "decent person" are the same the world over.


SHHHH! you do not want to start any wars, about how we have things in common, in the big ways of life, and only the little semantics of which knee is bent or which name is mentioned or ..., . Yet, the basics of society and how to treat your neighbor and brother are all there. WOW!

Sorry , SHHH! to myself, I should nto have yelled


----------



## Andi (Feb 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Andi,
> 
> If Christians (* And other religions as well*) , would accept that others believe differently and allow that there is a difference and accept that. Then there would be less problems. If you could accept that the Muslims and the Jews believe differently and maybe just maybe received a different word from on high, the people could get along. I do not believe it is the only way, I believe it is the best way for Christians. Others may believen differently.



I tend to agree. I also wish that Christians could accept that others believe differently, and leave it at that. However, personally, I would not be able to reconcile my own faith with accepting Islam and Judaism as 100% correct (although I recognise the shared history) even if it was just "true for them". Neither would I expect the reverse.




> I agree with you and your last sentence completely. I should cut off a thief's hand. I should not eat meat on Friday. I should not work on the Sabbath (* Friday Sunset to Saturday Sunset *). I should stone those who have sex out side of marriage. All or nothing. We should not eat pork.
> 
> Let us take it even furhter though shall not kill is one of the big ten.
> 
> ...




Hehehe, Touche! Yes, I left myself open for that. If you like I can go into why I think those particular rules no longer apply. I don't think you're being difficult.
And I don't know anybody that follows the principles of the Bible perfectly either. So yeah, I see your point. If everybody claims their way is right, but their actions say the opposite, why believe them? Gandhi once said (apparently) something along the lines of "if it wasn't for the Christians I would have become one."

Secondly, I think a lot of Christians forget that their religions founder superceded the traditional ten commandments with two more all-encompassing behavioural principles.

1) "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your mind".

2) "Love your neighbour as yourself".

If only.
Cheers mate.


----------



## Andi (Feb 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> SHHHH! you do not want to start any wars, about how we have things in common, in the big ways of life, and only the little semantics of which knee is bent or which name is mentioned or ..., . Yet, the basics of society and how to treat your neighbor and brother are all there. WOW!
> 
> Sorry , SHHH! to myself, I should nto have yelled




Hehehe, hey you guys didn't bow your heads enough to pray! I'm gonna kick all your asses...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

Andi said:
			
		

> I tend to agree. I also wish that Christians could accept that others believe differently, and leave it at that. However, personally, I would not be able to reconcile my own faith with accepting Islam and Judaism as 100% correct (although I recognise the shared history) even if it was just "true for them". Neither would I expect the reverse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Andi,

I would not expect that one would accept the other one 100%. I would expect them to be adult like and patient enough to allow others to believe differently and maybe just maybe learn from the other one. Not looking for one message or one religion, just looking for some understanding and tolerance.


(* As to your other message, Come and get some   *)

:asian:


----------



## Andi (Feb 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Andi,
> 
> I would not expect that one would accept the other one 100%. I would expect them to be adult like and patient enough to allow others to believe differently and maybe just maybe learn from the other one. Not looking for one message or one religion, just looking for some understanding and tolerance.



Yep, I agree. It'd be great. I find myself cringing at the ram it down people's throats approach many people take to arguments (religious or not). Momentary consideration for other people's point of view? Nah, let's just jump in feet first all guns blazing.

Heheh. I'm pretty sure you guys could find some places I didn't know I could hurt.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

Andi said:
			
		

> Yep, I agree. It'd be great. I find myself cringing at the ram it down people's throats approach many people take to arguments (religious or not). Momentary consideration for other people's point of view? Nah, let's just jump in feet first all guns blazing.
> 
> Heheh. I'm pretty sure you guys could find some places I didn't know I could hurt.


You see, I would expect it to be mutual and you find places as well


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 25, 2004)

Ok, I think I'm keeping my mouth shut on all this, because I'm already in trouble with plenty of people on this site...lol...I've ticked off plenty of you...heheheh


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Ok, I think I'm keeping my mouth shut on all this, because I'm already in trouble with plenty of people on this site...lol...I've ticked off plenty of you...heheheh


I am not mad nor ticked off. Yet, I might think bad of you if your laughter is because you intentionally was trying to piss people off.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 25, 2004)

The fact that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are dead on is in fact true in a theological sense, not necessarily a 'political' sense.

All three faiths share the old testament as the foundation for religious texts.  This is commonly called the Pentuigent (sp?) or the first five books of the old testament.  Jews call this the Torah, Islamics call it Koran, and Christians call it the Old ... well you know that already.

Politically, each of these faiths have picked and chosen, interpreted and justified behaviors for earthly and political reasons.

This was one of Jesus's criticisms of the old Jewish institution (please take the time to look at the current views and practices and you will find a practice and ideology similiar to most current faiths).  

His point about his movement being like a mustard plant wasn't a message of flourishing and growth, but a message of being a stubborn pain in the 'garden of the Jewish faith'.  Mustard plants are tough, weed like plants that are near impossible to get rid of when you try and grow something else there.  It is not a beautiful, flowering or nourishing plant, it is a weed that is bitter to taste and tenacious.

Please remember that Jesus was as much a political radical as he was a religious radical of his day because church WAS state.

Christian, Jew, Islamic all promote the personal choice/free will aspect of the faith.  Since this is one of the key components, individual followers of each of these faiths are imperfect - including me - it in not my place to tell others that they are wrong if they don't agree.  It is my place to be an example of why I think I am on the right track.  Do not judge, lest you be judged... sound familiar?
Paul M.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 25, 2004)

no, my intentions were not to tick anybody off...and I'm not happy that I did Rick...ok?!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> no, my intentions were not to tick anybody off...and I'm not happy that I did Rick...ok?!


Wolf,

All is well. If not I would not have asked. 

You see I have to accept what you say, until you either prove it otherwise or show me otherwise.

Peace


PS: It is Rich,


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 25, 2004)

The rick thing was a typo, sorry...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> The rick thing was a typo, sorry...


No Big Deal, I did not take offense hence the  in the PS.


----------



## psi_radar (Feb 25, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> If anything, Christianity is open to everyone, even Jews. Jewish belief is kind of different. It's open, but a little harsh. If you aren't a Jew, excommunicate them or at least ignore them until they understand that they should be of jewish religion. BAH! Christians accept people, of course we want people to change, but we don't excommunicate people if they don't change after they have accepted Christ as LORD and SAVIOUR...



No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

or the Children's Crusade

or the Crusades...

Most religions have bones in their closets, so it's best leaving the doors closed.

Your faithful agnostic, 

Pete


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 26, 2004)

I walked out of the theater last night and noted that everyone was silent. None of the usual banter about this scene or that one or how good/bad the movie was. The people I was surrounded with were all silent as if they witnessed an actual execution.  This is the profound effect this movie has had on audiences in Provo Utah (aka Mormon Central). 
For me, watching this movie was basically unnecessary because I already _know_ how brutal Christ's "Passion" was, I know how he died and I find that not as important as to WHY he died. The atonement for our sins. 

Critically speaking of the film: It was very well made. Very brutal and realistic (but that is Gibson's style). Good moments with the flashbacks and revealing the inner-struggles of Judas Iscariot and Pontius Pilate as well as his wife Claudia. There were some errors that by my (personal) studies that were "forgivable". The trial scene with the Sanhedrin was inaccurate as the trial was reportedly done in private and in the middle of the night.  Also Jesus had a huge arresting party. Caiaphas had enlisted the help of Pilate who had sent a small contengent of soldiers (approx. 50) to arrest a "dangerous rebel". Jesus was then taken to the house of Annas (Caiaphas' father in law) and held there (illegally) until members of the Sanhedrin were summoned from their beds. 

My source of this and other information comes from many, many books dealing with the "Passion Of The Christ" over the years. One of my favorites is "The Christ Commission" written by Og Mandino (author of The Greatest Salesman in the World). I highly recommend it. 
I found the information in it to be very revealing and furthers (my) understanding of the horrible miscarriage of justice that Jesus had to endure along with his physical suffering. 
For example: (keep in mind that these were laws at the time of Jesus) 

1. The arrest was illegal according to Jewish laws. No formal charges were ever brought before the Sanhedrin for the issuance of a warrant, so the arrest took place without one. 
2. When he was arrested he was not informed of his crime.
3. The arrest took place at night.
4. It involved the treachery of another.
5. He was tried at night and according to the Mishnah it is written that a capital offense may be tried during the day but must be suspended at night.
6. No case involving a man's life can be tried on the day before the Sabbath, but Jesus was tried in the early hours of the day before the Sabbath. 
7. It is forbidden a relation or a friend or an enemy of the accused to sit in judgment of a prisoner and yet many of those present at the trial had plotted for weeks to destroy Jesus.
8. At the mouth of two witnesses or three, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death. But they had been unable to find two witnesses to agree on anything and since the power of accusation is vested solely in witnesses they had NO case at all.
9. No one can bring an accusation against himself, according to Jewish law but if they do, it still cannot be used against him unless it is properly attested by two witnesses.
10. It is forbidden to put a question to a prisoner that would condemn him if he answered.
11. When Caiaphas asked the Sanhedrin for a verdict after Jesus responded they all cried "For Death!" A majority of one vote is required for acquittal, two for conviction, but the Mishnah also states that a unanimous verdict of guilty has the effect of an acquittal and a sentence of death forbidden.
12. Jesus was tried and convicted in one sitting of the Sanhedrin. The Mishnah says that a criminal case resulting in the acquittal of the accused may end on the day it begins, but if the sentence is death the trial cannot be concluded before the following day so that a full review of the evidence may be made. 
13. After Jesus was found guilty, Caiaphas neglected to impose formal sentence on him. 

All of these and more made the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazereth a gross miscarriage of justice in every sense of the phrase. 

He was oppressed and he was afflicted yet he opened not his mouth. <paraphrased> from the Bible. 

 :asian:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 26, 2004)

Yeah, it stinks. Jesus didn't deserve 100% it at all. And he had the power to just make them all go flying back. That's just the tip o' the iceberg. But he loved/loves us so much that he was willing to die for us. I mean, yeah I agree about it being illegal 100%. And he could have said so, even before everyone he was presented to. But he didn't say anything that would get him to be blasphemous to the people, other than what they didn't want to hear. It's amazing that words from God's mouth condemn's God to death for being blasphemous to God. That's what's so amazing. That's what they think, anyways. Kind of cancels out any need for demands of Jesus' death. And to think they missed that entirely. If they had only known the truth, even after he came back to life, I'm sure there would have been more Deaths like that of Judas Iscariot.


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 26, 2004)

Oh yeah, and I'm hopefully going to see it Sunday...YIPPEE!!!


----------



## OULobo (Feb 27, 2004)

One of the local theaters here had a reporter recording some of the conversations that were occuring after a screening of the Passion. There was one person who described himself only as an "unbeliever". This guy asked questions like, "Would all these people go and see a movie about the life of Muhammed?" My personal answer is absolutly yes. Especially if it turns out to be a wonderful peice of entertainment and art, not to mention the opportunity to see why he was seen as such a glorious savior for a good percentage of the world. Still it is a good question to examine. I'm going to see it tonight.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 27, 2004)

There have been stories circulating that some people have actually died in the theaters during the crucifixion scene.  Do these have any merit?  I have come across one on MSN.  A woman in her 50s in Missourri.  What do you all think this is about?


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 27, 2004)

Well, I don't have any plans to see a Mohammed movie...maybe a mohammed ali movie...lol...but not an islamic movie...the only reason MIGHT be for historic data, but other than that, there is no reason why I would see an islamic movie


----------



## OULobo (Feb 27, 2004)

ShaolinWolf said:
			
		

> Well, I don't have any plans to see a Mohammed movie...maybe a mohammed ali movie...lol...but not an islamic movie...the only reason MIGHT be for historic data, but other than that, there is no reason why I would see an islamic movie



Many people would see it just for the reason you stated, percieved historical data on the life of a man that has had a tremendous impact on the world, but it would also be a good way to help understand the outlook of musilims and their roots of the religion.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 27, 2004)

Oulobo,

I would be there too.  This idea came up during a meeting at my church right after 9/11.  The possibility of visiting an Islamic service and building a relationship to promote understanding.  The goal was to break down the stereotype of the fanatical Islamic terrorist.  Unfortunately the idea was not recieved well.  

The one common thread that connects all cultures and faiths is hospitallity.  I would be a hospitible guest and hope that they would be hospitible hosts... lead by example, do unto others and all that.

I say if you are strong and confident in yourself and faith, go for it.  Jesus did not exclude 'non believers' when he asked for forgiveness on the cross, he sat with whores and money changers... he wanted to understand and be understood on a personal level.  How can that be a bad thing?

Paul M


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 27, 2004)

Ok then, I guess that's a large reason to see it, but I'd probably wait til it got to a cheap theatre or there wasn't any other good movie out at the time...it'd probably be one of those late night, almsot midnight kind of things...lol


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 27, 2004)

Rebirth of hate feared after 'Passion' film

Jews brace for new wave of anti-Semitic sentiment

By Gwen Florio 
Denver Post Staff Writer


It's been two decades since white supremacists murdered a Jewish talk-show host in his Denver driveway; a quarter-century since the Klan marched on an Orthodox synagogue here. 

Nonetheless, the Ash Wednesday release of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" makes some in the area's Jewish community wary.

*Those fears were heightened Wednesday when the Lovingway United Pentacostal Church posted a billboard along South Colorado Boulevard proclaiming, "Jews killed the Lord Jesus ... Settled."*

Article:  http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E24769%7E1979021,00.html



Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 27, 2004)

> 1. The arrest was illegal according to Jewish laws. No formal charges were ever brought before the Sanhedrin for the issuance of a warrant, so the arrest took place without one.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...




I read the speculation of a sceptic that suggested that the "trial" Jesus received was contrived by the authors of the Gospels...that they weren't fully aware of Jewish law and as a result wrote scenarios that wouldn't have actually taken place.  He also took exception to the accounts of machinations of the Sanhedrin, Caiaphas, Pilate.  Who witnessed these events to give account of them later?  This was in the days before electronic survelliance....

This scepticism is supported by Pilate's behavior, which was unlike historical accounts of him...he wouldn't have "washed his hands" of Jesus' blood.  He was a murderous thug who wouldn't have hesitated to crucify someone he thought seditious...AND he wouldn't have necessarily sought the counsel of the Sanhedrin.

I read in Lee Strobel's "The Case For Christ" the following by Craig Blomberg:  "It's important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the Gospels are anonymous."  

We literally don't know who witnessed what, or when...and have to take it on faith that it was indeed witnessed.  The accounts of Jesus' trial and execution are literally unverifiable.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 27, 2004)

Isn't this how "The Historical Jesus" thread got locked?  

 :jedi1: 

Time to fight....


----------



## OULobo (Feb 27, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> This scepticism is supported by Pilate's behavior, which was unlike historical accounts of him...he wouldn't have "washed his hands" of Jesus' blood.  He was a murderous thug who wouldn't have hesitated to crucify someone he thought seditious...AND he wouldn't have necessarily sought the counsel of the Sanhedrin.




I'm not a huge fan of the depiction of Pilate in the new movie. Mel seems to protray him in a sympathetic light and the show him debating and wrestling with himself. I don't think he was anything like that. I also don't think he was a brutal bloodthirsty thug. I think he was a typical arristocratic arrogant ruler. He was a man who could care less what the Jews do as long as it doesn't get in his way. I see him as stern and uncompromising, but very detatched from the trial of Jesus. When basic logic failed him on why he should have this man (Jesus) killed, he just shrugs and says "Okay have it your way! I could care less." I have read about Philo's depiction of him and some of the other famous historians and I don't see any description that couldn't and hadn't been leveled on any other ruler in the lands. Very few effective and efficient rulers are seen in a positive light, especially in an occupied area.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 27, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There have been stories circulating that some people have actually died in the theaters during the crucifixion scene.  Do these have any merit?  I have come across one on MSN.  A woman in her 50s in Missourri.  What do you all think this is about?



Ohhh PLEASE tell me that people aren't going to fall for THAT one??? geez 
 :idunno:


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 27, 2004)

Man...I hate not having anyone to go see The Passion of The Christ...everyone already bought tickets that happen to be on the night I work...phooey...oh well, maybe I'll make it next weekend...maybe next saturday...to a nice theatre...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 28, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Ohhh PLEASE tell me that people aren't going to fall for THAT one??? geez
> :idunno:




A woman actually had a heart attack and croaked while watching the movie.  This isn't an urban myth...its been on the news sites.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 28, 2004)

So, was it a pre-existing condition, or an act of God?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 28, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So, was it a pre-existing condition, or an act of God?



Maybe we should blame the Jews for her death.  We blame them for everything else.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 28, 2004)

Well, I think she went into shock...and then died...I don't think the Jews had a hand in it...not unless they are becoming terrorists, which does not seem likely at all...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 29, 2004)

*Well, I think she went into shock...and then died...I don't think the Jews had a hand in it...not unless they are becoming terrorists, which does not seem likely at all...*


Uh...I was being facetious.  Puh-leeeeze don't tell me that you took that seriously.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## ShaolinWolf (Feb 29, 2004)

About what? the Jews or the lady dying?...It's a fact that Peggy Scott did die like the second day it was out...

And yes, I was just kidding about the Jews thing...unless they seriously targeted some woman and poisoned her...which, as I said is highly unlikely. I wasn't taking you seriously about the Jew thing...lol


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 1, 2004)

Uhh, I think it would be appreciated that no jokes at all (on this particular thread) be made concerning prinicpals in the movie. I am taking a rough guess here but I'd say we got folks of all races and beliefs on this forum and thus it would be (IMO) bad taste just to be joking around. 
Forgive me if I stepped on a few toes just now. But I tink I might be making a point....just not 100% sure where...  :asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 1, 2004)

Just got done watching History Channel's History vs. Hollywood about the Passion of the Christ

They get a panel of topic experts and try and determine the chosen movie is more history or hollywood.  They have done movies like Braveheart, Patton, Last Samurai...

The general agreement was that Gibson's movie was more hollywood than history - not because it was corporate or a money machine - but because the panel of theologians, movie critics understood that the gospels were primarily about inspiration than historical accuracy and Gibson was attempting to be as true to the gospels as possible.  Also, he was upholding a tradition of earlier passion movies that used the euro-handsome hero images of Christ and others instead of the ethnically accurate images of Semetics of the time as well as movie devices like cross images, tomb structure and so on that audiences would recognize from earlier movies.

The use of language was mentioned as a great way to make the movie feel more intimate and bring the audience into the time.  Some might not like reading subtitles so it might backfire and create a detachment for those not comfortable with subtitles.

The general idea was that, it would be a great age appropriate conversation starter or revealer for those who had questions about the gospels of Christ of any kind.    

Paul M.


----------



## OULobo (Mar 1, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Just got done watching History Channel's History vs. Hollywood about the Passion of the Christ
> 
> They get a panel of topic experts and try and determine the chosen movie is more history or hollywood.  They have done movies like Braveheart, Patton, Last Samurai...
> 
> ...



Some of those shows are worse than the movies they are examining. Look at how educated the recent XMA "documentary" was. I just saw the movie yesterday and although Mel chose handsome Europeans for the film, I don't think that it's too hard to see them as Middle Eastern or Semetic. I do have to say that the actor that plays Jesus has blue eyes and the brown contacts they gave him looked more red and distracted me quite a few times. I don't really remember seeing a tomb in the movie, except at the end and it was hard to see anything then. Otherwise I guess their examination sounds pretty close; an artistic representation of the "passion" of christ that shakes things up and seeks to give an interpetation of gospels. I do have to say the movie is extremely powerful and I cried many times.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Mar 1, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Uhh, I think it would be appreciated that no jokes at all (on this particular thread) be made concerning prinicpals in the movie. I am taking a rough guess here but I'd say we got folks of all races and beliefs on this forum and thus it would be (IMO) bad taste just to be joking around.
> Forgive me if I stepped on a few toes just now. But I tink I might be making a point....just not 100% sure where...  :asian:




I've allready stated my strong (very strong) stance against anti-semitism.  Other than Shaolinwolf I doubt too many would take my facetiousness as anything other than that.  I doubt anything I wrote (when put into context)will cause Jews to take umbrage.


Regards,


Steve


Regards,


Steve


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 1, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Just got done watching History Channel's History vs. Hollywood about the Passion of the Christ
> 
> They get a panel of topic experts and try and determine the chosen movie is more history or hollywood.  They have done movies like Braveheart, Patton, Last Samurai...
> 
> ...



I cut and pasted here a post from a different discussion group. I found it to be rawther interesting related to the current thread. 

Film: The Passion of the Christ
February 29, 2004
Reporter : Peter Thompson

Peter's verdict: violent and heavy going
Director: Mel Gibson
Genre: drama

As a non-believer, I've always been mystified by the story of the martyrdom of Christ. It seems to me that an omnipotent God could have found a better way to save us from ourselves than sacrificing his son. I don't mean any disrespect to Christians  we're all free to say and think what we like within generally accepted limits, at least here in Australia. The problem with Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is that it's almost impossible to see it clearly outside the inflated controversy that surrounds it. Indeed, Gibson himself has thrown down the gauntlet by suggesting any criticism of his film is
the work of dark forces. More of that in a minute, but first, the loaded question of anti-Semitism which has dominated so much of the discussion in recent months.

If you go looking for hatred of Jews in the film, you won't find it. The Jewish leaders scream for Christ's blood but even they are ultimately shocked by the depth of his suffering and there are many sympathetic Jewish figures. Although he's played by the non-Jewish Jim Caviezel, Christ's own Jewishness is acknowledged. And Gibson has explicitly distanced himself from anti-Semitism in his interview with the American journalist Diane Sawyer

MEL GIBSON: "To be racist in any form, to be anti-Semitic, is a sin! It's been condemned by one Papal Council after another. There are encyclicals on it. To be anti-Semitic is to be un-Christian and I'm not."

But no matter how sincere these protestations are, it's hard to see how The Passion of the Christ can help to bring Jews and Christians, or anyone else, closer together. Any attempt at balance in Gibson's film is almost totally submerged under its unremitting, almost indescribable violence. It crowds out every other impression and yet it's precisely what he intended 

MEL GIBSON: "I wanted it to be shocking and I also wanted it to be extreme. I wanted it to push the viewer over the edge. And it does that. I think it pushes one over the edge. So they see the enormity, the enormity of that sacrifice, to see that someone could endure that and still come back with love."

We can't show you just how extreme that violence gets but I don't think it's unfair to predict that audiences will be initially nauseated and ultimately numbed by what they see. Gibson's defence is that, as the Pope may or may not have said, it is as it was. And this raises possibly the film's biggest conundrum. On the one hand, Gibson claims his film to be historically accurate

DIANE SAWYER: "Do you have a literal belief of The Bible, every sentence of it?"

MEL GIBSON: "Yes, you either accept the whole thing or you don't accept it at all."

And yet he also confirms what would seem to be patently obvious: it's his own, often poetic, elaboration on what's found in the four New Testament Gospels

MEL GIBSON: "It really is my vision. Boy! I'm not taking myself out of the equation here. I'm a proud bugger! I did this! But I did it with God's help. I mean, this is my vision of what happened, according to the Gospels, and what I wanted to show, the aspects of it I wanted to show."

The other controversy, largely fuelled by Gibson himself, is that dark forces marshalled themselves against the making of the film and are now working to undermine its message.

MEL GIBSON: "For me, I think evil is something, when it comes to you, it's not necessarily going to come with a sign saying 'I'm evil'  it will usually come in an enticing form."

DIANE SAWYER: "And you said at one point 'the big dark force doesn't want us to make this film'. What was the force?"

MEL GIBSON: "It's the thing you can't see. See, I'm a believer, by the way. So if you believe, you believe that there are big realms of good and evil and they're slugging it out."

It reminds you of the fevered gossip surrounding the making of The Exorcist, a film I greatly admire, all those years ago. But apparently there were no Satanic manifestations on the set of The Passion of the Christ. Gibson is, like the rest of us, free to hold to his beliefs. But it's a bit rich to claim victim status in any debate over the film.

Spending a large slice of the personal fortune he's made as one of the most popular movie stars of all time, and an Oscar-winning producer, he's made exactly the film he wanted to make. It's a film of prodigious energy and overwhelming emotional intensity. But as passionately as he believes in the literal truth of the story he's telling, he also believes he has enemies.

DIANE SAWYER: "Is the world full of conspiracies to you?"

MEL GIBSON: "See, it's gotten a bad name, conspiracy. Ha ha. It's only logical to assume conspiracies are everywhere because that's what people do. They conspire! If you can't get the message, get the man. So I think that's what we're engaged in here. We're engaged in character assassination."

But a last word on what he believes is the true message of his film

MEL GIBSON: "Jesus Christ was crucified for all men of all creeds for all time and he died for all of us."

Hopefully, Mel Gibson has been reassured by the unanimous support he's received from the churches and by the large audiences flocking to see The Passion of the Christ. Personally, I found it heavy going but, even as a non-believer, I'm convinced there is enormous value in the Christian tradition.

One only has to listen to Handel's Messiah, for example, to be overwhelmed by its inspirational power. And whatever the failings of the churches over the centuries, many devout Christians have proven themselves extraordinarily courageous people.
But, like Islam and unlike many other religions, Christianity is also a proselytising faith; it actively seeks converts. In the service of that faith, Mel Gibson has produced not a thoughtful treatise on the nature of the divine like Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ but a blood-soaked battering ram.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 2, 2004)

"All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire.
Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)"

Men communicate faith in the imperfect language of man, with imperfect understanding and imperfect intentions.  To be perfectly human is to be imperfectly divine.  My Tolkien signature speaks to that.

Faith is inspiration and outline of what it ultimately possible, but men will fall short of that perfection.  "The Church" or any other institution is made up of men, therefore it will not make perfect decisions.  

This is one of the reasons for the Protestant movement and where the personal study and relationship is emphasized.  Even under Vatican II, Catholics are encouraged to study scripture and make personal discoveries.  Martin Luther may not have intended to break from the church, but it went that way, and the emphasis on personal relationships with God also, politically, was like the difference between Republican and Democratic views of representation and citizenship - in a religious sense.  Again, human structures, not necessarily divinely blue printed.  Remember that Nations without a National Religion is a very young occurance, but the same rhetoric/values are translated from faith to patriotism.

There are some who would say that the Roman Empire, later the Holy RE, still exists in the form of faith if not geographical borders because of the similarities between values of citizenry and loyalty (not practice in all cases, thank god) from then to Vatican I.  Vatican II is different, but still very demanding.

My big problem with language like "The Church" this or "Christians" that is it is prejudice in root.  Good intentions or no, it is prejudice.  We find it horrible to start phrases with "Those Blacks" or "Those People" in general because it lumps the actions and behavior of a few with all of a type.  How can it be acceptable for "Christian" or any other faith discussion, yet it is wrong everywhere else.

"Jews" or "Christians" as a whole didn't do the horrors or ugly things that a group from within that culture have done through history.  It was the corrupt or misguided actions of a few in power of that political/religious body that started it, other individuals jumped on board....

I have used this language as well, with good intentions, but it when I do, I know that I could have to clarify and that it is imperfect description.  Here, in this forum, it seems commonly accepted because we are treating each other maturely, but, for my own sake, I have to remember that I have to consciously remember this is a short hand description only. 


Analogy:  Did you see people who voted for Clinton getting lumped in with Clinton when the Lowinski incident was in the paper?  He was taken to task for his action, but those who voted for him were not lumped in with that incident.

Paul M.


----------

