The Passion Of The Christ

[inkhana]

The post shall not be reinstated. You have already stated your opinion on the subject many times and the staff deemed it was excessive. Please stand aside and let others voice their opinion unhindered and uncondemned, ok?

[Azier the Swordsman]

I saw this movie the other day.. very hard to watch, but very well done. Not to mention that many people have gotten saved from it. As my co-worker says: Mel is going to have a lot of jewels in his crown when he gets to heaven.

[ZiP]

I agree wiht Michael on this subject course that aint saying much because im his bro so its expected of me from the CAA already... but anyways...

[Michael]

I only posted my opinion on this movie once before and defended my opinion. I made a warning post, not an opinion. I only was going to make one post, but I was unfairly censored. Aren't you supposed to warn people? No one ever PMed me telling me to stop posting my opinion.

[YesIExist]

Though I disagree with him, I respect Michael's opinion, for what it's worth.

[inkhana]

To keep this discussion on-topic, I will take this to a PM, Michael.

Everyone else, resume posting as before...

[Hitokiri]

sorry if i over-reacted...

I feel this movie can be a real out-reach tool. Then aagain, it can always make hearts harder towards Christ as we have seen by all the attacks made on it.

[Kisa]

*sigh* I tried to keep it on topic . . .

[uc pseudonym]

I hope I do not open this topic unnecessarily, but I found this quite amusing. I wish I could say that I wrote it, but that credit goes to Gerard Baker of the Financial Times. I would hope all of us could put aside our feelings about the movie for an area that should mean the same to all of us.

In advance I apologize for any errors on my part, and for one or two things I altered for humor value.

-

A new religious uproar is sweeping the US amid the furore over Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. This time, it is over a controversial book.

The book, a new edition of The Bible, an ancient classic, has revived fears of inter-ethnic strife and religious wars in a deeply divided nation.

The controversy has focused on the book's portrayal of the gospel story of Jesus Christ, and its explosive claim that the man regarded by millions of Americans as the "Saviour of the World" was executed as a result of intense Jewish lobbying of the Roman authorities.

Jewish groups have expressed unease with their portrayal. "At this sensitive moment in Jewish-Christian relations this is a dangerous and deeply irrepsonsible work," says a represetnative. They are not the only ones upset. Italian-Americans say the book misrepresents their ancestors' generally positive role in civilizing the Middle East two millennia ago.

Philistine-Americans are outraged that their name has become a byword for unciviised behavior as a result of their depiction in the book. Egyptian-Americans, meanwhile, have focused on the book's first part, the Old Testament- particularly the claim that they held the Jewish people in bondage for centuries. "At this sensitive moment in Arab-Israeli relations, this is a deeply irresponsible and offensive publication," says one person from a coalition of Arab-American groups.

Gay groups are fuming over the book's account of an episode in which sexually permissive behavior in the communities of Sodom and Gomorrah is punished by the cities' destruction. "There is not a single positive image of gays or lesbians in this grotesque work," thundered a New York Times editorial. "At this sensitive time in gay-straight relations this is a deeply irresponsible project."

The book is also likely to offend a range of professional organisations. Tax collectors are unhappy with the repeated slurs on their profession, as are the money-changers and lenders. The 127th Local of the Amalgamated Union of Scribes and Pharisees has condemned the book as a low blow to its hardworking members.

The book has also drawn criticism fro its explicit and apparently gratuitous violence. Animals and children are routined sacrificed, armies destroyed and innocents massacred. Leaders of Hollywood film studios have expressed shock at the violence, calling it "deeply irresponsible" and formed a coalition of prominant film directors led by Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese to urge a boycott of the book.

The enigmatic figure believed to be the ultimate author of the project, who goes by various names including "God," was unavailable for comment. But, throuh a spokesman, he expressed dismay at the hysterical reaction of Americans: "It's time people in that country grew up and started worrying about what really matters. If they don't I might stop supporting their president."

-

Hilarious ending. Sheer genius.

[skynes]

^ I GOTTA add something to this

Furthermore the scientific community is in uproar over the beginnings of this book who's literal wording contradicts scientific teaching. Richard Lewontin stated "materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foor in the door."
SC Todd further adds "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"


Seems that this book causes offense to everyone of all fields of research and belief.

[Gypsy]

I liked that, UC. Quite interesting when put into those terms. And nice addition, skynes. And yet, it's all too true ...

[Towi Wakka]

I finally got to see it. The movie was really good and made me really think about what our faith is based on.

[Fsiphskilm]

Thanks UC, thos

[Stephen]

Easy now...TCM was a good movie....*shoves volt*

[Lochaber Axe]

Alright, no shoving you two... if you want to settle this than we do this like gentlemen. Gentlemen settle their disagreements with a duel. Which weapon would you prefer, pistol or sword?

[Bobtheduck]

Chainsaw... It's more topical.

[CDLviking]

Speaking of topic... would anyone care to get back on it?

[uc pseudonym]

I doubt it. But regardless of what anyone wants, I'm about to.

There was an interesting note that came to my attention the other day. Many nonChristian reviewers of the movie were extremely negative, which is to be expected. What was new to me was perhaps a reason why.

The violence portrayed within the movie is senseless (ie the Roman guard's brutality); no denying it. And the protagonist responds completely nonviolently. Quite the opposite actually. And that, you see, is extremely offensive to this society that is so extremely steeped in a philosophy of redemptive violence. An interesting thought.

[madphilb]

[quote="uc pseudonym"]The violence portrayed within the movie is senseless (ie the Roman guard's brutality)]
Actually that almost isn't too surprising a reaction considering the norm.

They just cannot understand how a man would subject themselves to that much violence and not hit back.

[Fsiphskilm]

Don't worry SH I wa

[Bobtheduck]

I doubt it. But regardless of what anyone wants, I'm about to.

There was an interesting note that came to my attention the other day. Many nonChristian reviewers of the movie were extremely negative, which is to be expected. What was new to me was perhaps a reason why.

The violence portrayed within the movie is senseless (ie the Roman guard's brutality)]

Funny that another Christian movie won awards for the same sort of "turn the other cheek" philosophy, but that's because everyone knows that the Japaense millitary was brutal... Still, there are people that complain about "To End All Wars" for that very reason: The one who did hit back was really portrayed as in the wrong, and the hero and the catalyst (I don't know the literary term, but it's the one that makes the hero become the hero) are the ones who turned the other cheek. I heard one person say that the portrayal of Campbell made it so

If you would consider revenge if someone tortured and killed all your family, in other words if you are a human being, this movie has you cast as the villain, so avoid.

Even something with as much historical backing and testimony offends people because the road that Jesus gave for us to walk is narrow and the gate is small... Few people can really accept it. The truth of the events in Thailand during WWII can't really be denied because it was witnessed by many people on both sides who are either alive today or haven't been dead very long.

Because the events in the Bible happened so long ago, however, it doesn't take much to say "It never happened" and that be the end of it. And, since they can then treat it as a work of fiction, the story that was in the Bible can be considered "inaccurate" in all sorts of ways.

The plain fact of the matter is, as this pseudo-christian culture starts to fade away, we're not going to be accepted and we will be persecuted. Every effort is going to be made to discredit our faith, but we really can't listent to it... See, it said right in the Bible that those sorts of things would happen. People are affraid of the message of the Bible because it requires change on their part and it decries selfishness.