posted on February 26, 2004 12:13:47 PM new
Just thinking out loud here, so best not to read this Helen, as its not really 'intellectual' as should be here in the RT
If we (or rather the President(s)) did NOT support Israel, wouldn't that cause a lot of people thinking we are anti Semitic? As Israels population majority is Jewish, yes they have Christians, Muslims also do live there, but the majority is Jewish. If we didn't support Israel, I would think (DON'T READ THIS HELEN ) that many groups here would be protesting that we are not helping because we don't care for the Jewish people.
Seems you can't win either way! Boy that was really taxing my brain
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on February 26, 2004 12:16:55 PM new
Linda - Have you found any non Jewish disenters of the movie? Did you really get the gist of that article? Did you get that the people that came down against the movie were not liberals per se and that they were all in fact Jewish and objected to the following of the Traditionalist Catholic interpretation which BTW the Vatican has also come out against.
The Jewish population has spent a lifetime trying to "live down" the view of being "Christ Killers" and you really think that the only reason anyone came out against this movie is because it has a religious base? Was it shear coincidence that it was Rabbi's and representatives of the Simon Wiesenthal Center coming out against the film months ago and not representatives of American Athiests?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 26, 2004 12:50:45 PM new
fenxi - Have you found any non Jewish disenters of the movie?
Have I FOUND any? lol Wasn't looking for them.
When all this first stated up about this film, there were several Hollywood people speaking out about why they felt this movie shouldn't be being made. They too felt it might be too controversial. I really couldn't ask them, while they were being interviewed, what their religious affiliation was.
And it didn't matter to me...I was just listening to their opinions....not going 'well he's a Jew so I won't buy what he's saying', kind of thing.
....but seriously, they were 'Hollywood' types. You know the one's where everything in the world is A-okay with them....unless it's even one conservative thought or idea.....then it's not allowed.
And I don't care who came down against this movie, no matter their reasons, Gibson had a right to make this film. Saying it might cause controversity is not used as a reason to censor a film 'that might'. Especially when the left approves of putting the Cross in urine, and considers that 'ART'.
The Jewish population has spent a lifetime trying to "live down" the view of being "Christ Killers"
I agree with NTS's statement before...those days are long over, for the 'average' Jew and Christian. Just being used as an excuse, imo.
Sometimes I feel like the non-religious want to 'make' trouble between the Christians and the Jews....to separate them on the issues were there is agreement, like Israel.
posted on February 26, 2004 01:32:06 PM new
I agree. Gibson had every right to make this film. He did, afterall, fund the entire project, which gives him the right to do what he wants with films.
I did read there were Jewish protesters in NY surrounding a theater with signs. Police had to be there, I do not know what 'group' or what have you they belonged to.
but yeah, the gospels have been there for a very looooooong time. The Jewish people know they are there, and then when a film (and not the first on Christ crucifixion btw) comes out like this, that goes by the NT gospels, it amazes me that people would even think this is anti semitism.
If they think this way, they must have thought this way a long time, ever since the gospels were written.
I gotta go take my father to the drs...
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on February 26, 2004 01:39:28 PM new
I do believe and understand the Jewish community concern with the ‘Christ killer’ label, as it’s clearly been thrown at them to discredit them throughout history, even though I think the accusation would be much more accurately be directed to the Romans/Italians.
I don’t believe it is true to say that those days are long gone.
I am only in my early 40’s and yet even I have heard the accusation made many times over the years.
Even though historically that belief may be hugely diminished, I think it would be simple enough for a well-resourced propagandist to re rekindle such accusations and hatred., and so I think that the Jewish concerns are genuine.
Perhaps the ‘current’ New Testament version is to blame.
Edit The Bible!
Love thy Neighbour
Karl Marx said something to the effect; ‘If you want to make enemies, discuss religion and politics’.
posted on February 26, 2004 01:41:03 PM new
Linda is was not that hard to figure out their religious affiliation when they all carried the title of Rabbi or were representatives of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Do you really ignore when peoples titles when they are introduced? Isn't that kind of an important thing to know when evaluating the infomation they give?
Seriously - do you really think that the Rabis that came out and started the initial controversy that brought this movie to the forfront months ago are just a bunch of religion hating liberals? How do you explain that away of dismiss that fact when formulating your opinion? I'm really trying to figure out how you have formed an opinion that ignores the most public facts abot those that created the controversy.
One more point to ponder.... do you really think that Hollywood thinks a good way to squash a movie is to create a big uproar? My god - people actually paid to see Last Temptaion just because of the uproar, The Cop Killer album went multi pltinum because of media uproar. If there is one thing that Hollwood knows it is that the best way to squash something is to ignore it's existance.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 26, 2004 02:54:20 PM new
fenix - I think I could best sum up all your questions by saying you
continue to ignore that I said "Hollywood types" interviewed, NOT Rabbi's.
I have a great respect for the Jewish faith.
I think they, just like the Pope are entitled to express their concerns to anyone they wish too. It doesn't mean that their wish will be granted.
posted on February 27, 2004 12:29:05 AM new
I still dont see what the whole fuss over this movie is.
i mean, for anyone to be offended.
even if the claims and accusations towards the movie is true, its not the first time a movie makes a statement or some stereotype or some claim about some individual, group, etc.
heh, I remember when Dogma came out. people were pissed about that too. pretty lame stuff to work up so much sweat over these things.
or maybe I'm just too relaxed about decay in values. heh.
posted on February 27, 2004 07:33:52 AM new
By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Early detractors of Mel Gibson's hit film,
"The Passion of the Christ," are backing away from their critical remarks after the movie grossed a record-setting $26.6 million on its opening day.
"The Passion," which opened Wednesday on 4,643 screens at 3,006 theaters, set a record for the biggest opening day for a movie released outside the summer (May-August) and winter holiday months (November-December).
It came in third among all movies that have premiered on a Wednesday, bypassed only by "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" ($34.5 million) and "Star Wars: Episode 1 ? The Phantom Menace" ($28.5 million), according to the movie tracking service Box Office Mojo.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) retracted critical remarks made about the film last April by its ecumenical and interreligious committee, which suggested that the film might be anti-Semitic.
In remarks released Wednesday on Catholic News Service, three staff members of the USCCB's Office for Film and Broadcasting said the film might be overly violent but not anti-Semitic.
"Concerning the issue of anti-Semitism, the Jewish people are at no time blamed collectively for Jesus' death," said a review by Gerri Pare, David DiCerto and Anne Navarro. "Rather, Christ freely embraces his destiny."
The reviewers went on to call the movie "an artistic achievement in terms of its textured cinematography, haunting atmospherics, lyrical editing, detailed production and soulful score."
Hollywood film company Dreamworks also backed away from remarks published in yesterday's New York Times suggesting that Hollywood producers will blacklist Mr. Gibson.
posted on February 27, 2004 08:56:03 AM newIt came in third among all movies that have premiered on a Wednesday, bypassed only by "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" ($34.5 million) and "Star Wars: Episode 1 ? The Phantom Menace" ($28.5 million), according to the movie tracking service Box Office Mojo.
So Frodo and Luke Skywalker are more popular than Jesus ?
It is a huge mistake trying to validate religion through popular culture, just as it is a mistake to validate religion through government.
posted on February 27, 2004 10:55:16 AM new
Young Luke Skywalker wasn't born yet in The Phantom Menance...... or was he, and I have my Star Wars sagas all mixed up?
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on February 27, 2004 12:39:38 PM new
::Fenix - I think I could best sum up all your questions by saying you continue to ignore that I said "Hollywood types" interviewed, NOT Rabbi's. ::
Actual you kept saying Liberal Hollywood types and I am not ignoring that. I am disputing it entirely. I have askd you numerous times to to name these people who were speaking out and you have stated thaat you did not pay attention. With that in mind i pointed out that the individuals that originally started this furor are in fact Rabis and representatives from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, some are even Rabbis FROM the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Now your latest quoted article states two other groups
The Conference of Catholic Bishops - not a group normally considered synonamous with "liberal Hollwood types"
Dreamworks - Spielberg, Katzenburg, and Geffen (is Geffen still there?) Do you honestly think that Spielberg (the most verbal of the group) honestly thought that Gibson would be blackballed because he made a religious movie as opposed to the issue of it being what was considered to be an anti-semetic movie?
What I am asking you to do is validate your hypothesis that "Hollywood" came out against this movie because they resent religious overtones.
My arguement against that theory is that the Jewish community came out against the movie because of it's anti semetic undertones and that coincidentally part of that Jewish community exists in Hollywood.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 27, 2004 01:44:42 PM new
People always talk when there are sub-titles----
The sub titles aren't as bad as I thought they would be. I did not hear ONE word spoken by anyone during the whole movie.
His death wasn't like anyone else's be it Roman or otherwise---
Jesus took our sin and punishment on Himself for us. Do you know anyone else, ever, who has died in your place?
It isn't anti-semitic----
Jesus was Jewish, the human part anyway. Jesus laid down His own life and no man took it from Him. He willing went to the cross so He could pay the penalty for our wrongs. God made us all so how could He be anti any race?
This wasn't Mel's version of the Bible----
It followed the gospels to the word. Mel didn't add anything to the story of Jesus. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke or John in the New Testament and judge for yourself.
I saw the movie Wed. night and knew what was going to be shown. It gave the most true account of what Jesus when through than any other movie I've ever seen. Mel said he did hold back though and didn't show all of it. He did hold back. The bible said that Jesus beard was pulling out and that wasn't shown. Also the bible said that Jesus was so beaten that He was unrecognizable, but the movie didn't go quite that far. The movie did show for the most part just how He was beaten and taunted.
All I could think of was two things---
I am eternally thankful that God loves me that much to die for my wrongs.
Even today when all He does is love people, they still hate Him for no reason.
posted on February 27, 2004 02:22:10 PM newIt followed the gospels to the word. Mel didn't add anything to the story of Jesus. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke or John in the New Testament and judge for yourself.
I haven't seen the film, but I have read the gospels. They differ between themselves, so how could a film follow them "to the word"? Just for one example, the crowd scene which I hear is a great part of the controversy, with the people screaming for Jesus' death. If you'll take a close look at the gospel of John, there is no crowd scene at all....I have also read that his interpretation of Caiaphas (sp?) is very liberal, and adds quite a bit to what the gospels tell us about his motivation and actions.....
Sounds to me like Gibson's passion is no more the inspired word of god than is Matthew's, Mark's , Luke's or John's...
___________________________________
posted on February 27, 2004 02:35:59 PM new
profe51----
If you have read the gospels then you know they are the same story all told from a little different angle. Nonetheless they are the SAME story. The gospels vary in tiny degrees but not on anything of important. They repeat the same core story. So again Mel did follow the story.
posted on February 27, 2004 03:55:38 PM newThey repeat the same core story
That is what Joseph Campbell said in his book about all religions (The Hero with a Thousand Faces). They all tell the same mythology, in different languages and different perspectives, but it is always the same story whether christian or pegan.
The bible contradicts itself in thousands of passages. That is because it is not a true "book" but a compilation of stories that was ordered by the clergy to be put together. The stories that the ruling clergy didn't agree with were left out.
A large part of the christian religion was borrowed from and passed down from Mythras religions and the philosophy of Diogones.
Adding a crowd scene and especially a crowd scene with people screaming for Jesus' death is a major distortion or embellishment. It's a sad statement that we are now living in a culture of violence and that Hollywood is successfully using violence coupled with religion to sell tickets.
PURE PORNOGRAPHY: At the same time, the movie was to me deeply disturbing. In a word, it is pornography. By pornography, I mean the reduction of all human thought and feeling and personhood to mere flesh. The center-piece of the movie is an absolutely disgusting and despicable piece of sadism that has no real basis in any of the Gospels. It shows a man being flayed alive - slowly, methodically and with increasing savagery. We first of all witness the use of sticks, then whips, then multiple whips with barbed glass or metal. We see flesh being torn out of a man's body. Just so that we can appreciate the pain, we see the whip first tear chunks out of a wooden table. Then we see pieces of human skin flying through the air. We see Jesus come back for more. We see blood spattering on the torturers' faces. We see muscled thugs exhausted from shredding every inch of this man's body. And then they turn him over and do it all again. It goes on for ever. And then we see his mother wiping up masses and masses of blood. It is an absolutely unforgivable, vile, disgusting scene. No human being could sruvive it. Yet for Gibson, it is the h'ors d'oeuvre for his porn movie. The whole movie is some kind of sick combination of the theology of Opus Dei and the film-making of Quentin Tarantino. There is nothing in the Gospels that indicates this level of extreme, endless savagery and there is no theological reason for it. It doesn't even evoke emotion in the audience. It is designed to prompt the crudest human pity and emotional blackmail - which it obviously does. But then it seems to me designed to evoke a sick kind of fascination. Of over two hours, about half the movie is simple wordless sadism on a level and with a relentlessness that I have never witnessed in a movie before. And you have to ask yourself: why? The suffering of Christ is bad and gruesome enough without exaggerating it to this insane degree. Theologically, the point is not that Jesus suffered more than any human being ever has on a physical level. It is that his suffering was profound and voluntary and the culmination of a life and a teaching that Gibson essentially omits. One more example. Toward the end, unsatisfied with showing a man flayed alive, nailed gruesomely to a cross, one eye shut from being smashed in, blood covering his entire body, Gibson has a large crow perch on the neighboring cross and peck another man's eyes out. Why? Because the porn needed yet another money shot.
GUTTING THE MESSAGE: Moreover, the suffering is rendered almost hollow by a dramatic void. Gibson has provided no context so that we can understand better who Jesus is - just a series of cartoon flashbacks. We cannot empathize with Mary fully or with Peter or John - because they too are mere props for the violence. The central message of Jesus - of love and compassion and forgiveness - is reduced to sound-bites. Occasionally, such as when the message of the sermon on the mount is juxtaposed with the crucifixion, the effect is almost profound - because there has been an actual connection between who Jesus was and what happened to him. But this is the exception to the rule. Watching the movie, you can see how a truly powerful rendition could have been made - by tripling the flashbacks and context, by providing a biography of Jesus, by showing us why he endured what he endured. Instead, all that context, all that meaning, has been removed for endless sickening gratuitous violence.
posted on February 27, 2004 08:02:23 PM new
"The bible said that Jesus beard was pulling out and that wasn't shown. Also the bible said that Jesus was so beaten that He was unrecognizable"
I've heard that on TV as well. Could you point me to those verses please? Thanks
posted on February 27, 2004 08:18:55 PM new
But the torture and being nailed to the cross don't mean squat, and it misses the WHOLE MEANING OF THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY !!!
There were thousands of people tortured and crucified by the Romans.
So what if Jesus in essence committed suicide at the hands of the Romans? If he was the son of god, and a god himself in the flesh, it was a relief to be killed and leave the mortal coil -- and go home to papa, so to speak.
I am amazed when I hear a "christian" say that Jesus "suffered" so for our sins. He suffered no more than any other prisoner at the hands of the Romans.
Jesus Christ was not the only innocent person tortured and killed by the Romans.
It seems that many christians are caught up in some emotional whirlwind about Jesus' death and miss the whole point of his philosophy. And just think how selfish that emotional whirlwind is -- a religion based on my own salvation that will bring me eternal life.
All the preachers must have missed the essence of what the Christ's message was. I wonder why they skip all the important things about Jesus and just focus on the emotional salvation eternal life part? Could it be that focusing on the other things might release their emotional hold on the flock ?
posted on February 27, 2004 09:13:41 PM new
paws4God - Thank you for sharing what you got from the movie.
-------------
WHAT VARIOUS CRITICS ARE SAYING
The critic are mixed 50/50.
Roger Ebert gave it his highest rating, four stars.
Art Rooney on "60 Minutes" said God had spoken to him, saying, "I wish you'd tell your viewers that both Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson strike me as wackos." Rooney upset thousands of viewers. CBS said Monday it received its heaviest audience response to a report since Rooney's commentaries on the Iraq war last spring.
"I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what."
-- Roger Ebert, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
"In dramatizing the torment of Jesus' last 12 hours, [Gibson] has made a serious, handsome, excruciating film that radiates total commitment. Few mainstream directors have poured so much of themselves into so uncompromising a production. Whatever the ultimate verdict on Gibson's Passion, it's hard not to admire Gibson's passion."
-- Richard Corliss, TIME MAGAZINE
"Despite controversies swirling around the movie, one cannot deny that Gibson has made a stunning film, beautifully photographed in contrasting dark and golden hues by Caleb Deschanel."
-- Claudia Puig, USA TODAY
"Controversy aside, it is dramatically intense, skillfully constructed and often harrowing, in ways that should have an impact on people of any or no particular faith."
-- Chris Vognar, DALLAS MORNING NEWS
"...numerous factors distinguish this film from previous screen portraits of Jesus Christ -- the striking use of Aramaic and "street" Latin, its concentration on the final 12 hours of the subject's life, its vigorous style and complete abandonment of Sunday School niceties..."
Todd McCarthy, DAILY VAIETY
"Passion is the closest we've come to a must-see movie this year, but the real question is: How many audience members will have the stomach to actually satisfy their curiosity?"
-- Lou Lumenick, NEW YOUR POST
"Using ancient languages, vivid images and visceral violence, Gibson has brought new life to one of civilization's oldest narratives."
-- Jack Garner, ROCHESTER DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE
"A preeminently important cinematic expression of faith ? probably one of the most important religious films of all time."
-- Steven D. Greydanus, DECENT FILMS GUIDE
"An unquestionable work of conviction that should outlast the controversy and trigger constructive dialogue for years to come."
-- Sean O'Connell, FILMCRITIC.COM
"The Passion doesn't suffer from the airless, pious airs that drag down most biblical dramas: It has a muscular, pounding energy and lyrical, almost gothic beauty."
-- Rene Rodriguez, MIAMI HERALD
"A powerful, wrenching experience that makes all previous films on the subject, from The King of Kings (1927) to Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), look like Sunday School pageants, and it's not for the squeamish or the immature."
-- Jim Lane, SACRAMENTO NEWS & REVIEW
The film itself is quite beautiful. Gibson's desire to have a full-motion Caravaggio (an Italian painter who's use of shadow and light was his trademark) was ambitious, and successful in many scenes... It's a magnificent illustration of John 3:16 (For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son...)
-- John Venable, SUPERCALA.COM
posted on February 27, 2004 10:26:46 PM newIf you have read the gospels then you know they are the same story all told from a little different angle. Nonetheless they are the SAME story. The gospels vary in tiny degrees but not on anything of important. They repeat the same core story. So again Mel did follow the story.
He followed the story all right. The story that was decided upon at the Council of Nicea in 323 AD, a full 3 centuries after Jesus' supposed death and resurrection. The new testament as we know it was determined then. There were many more testaments, or "gospels" that were considered and rejected at that time, in part because they did not tell the same story. Some of them told the story of Jesus Barabbas, the "robber" we all heard about as kids, who may have been another potential Jewish king. Others told the story of Jesus' plan to falsify his own death, still others mentioned his marriage to the Magdalen, and stressed the importance of his brother, James. The ones left in the new testament told a carefully planned story. A story which would be palatable to the largely Roman audience that the emperor Constantine was interested in appealing to. An audience which would not take to the new religion kindly if it cast Rome in a poor light. A story which cast the Jews as the turncoats in the whole affair. All of this brought to you by Constantine, the worshipper of Sol Invictus, the Roman sun god. A man who was not baptized as a Christian until he was so weakened on his deathbed that he could not refuse.....
___________________________________
posted on February 28, 2004 09:31:13 AM newCould you extrapolate - (hubbys favorite word)- on this philosophy a little further?
In the words of John Lennon--I,me,me,mine.
If you look at the problems our society faces, the christian philosophy, at least what is being emphasized, is more of a problem than a solution.
My "personal" salvation is all that matters.
There is/was communitarian elements to the philosophy of Jesus that goes largely ignored - it is always "personal" salvation and eternal life that is stressed. The Gibson movie is an example of it.
Part of the reason much of Jesus' philosophy is igored is that it lends itself to socialist dogma. The socialist elements of christianity were embraced in previous centuries and led to many communes in the US (Shakers, Amish, and others). In fact, during the Progressive era, many churches and pastures used this element of the christian religion to demand justice for the poor, working people, children, and a whole host of social measures. Many churches were abandoned by wealthy patrons and business owners. They started new churches.
With the advent of communism and loss of wealthy patrons, nearly all churches abandoned this part of the christian philosophy. It became a cult of the "personal" salvation. The "southern" protestant denoms especially embraced this monolithic view of christianity - they hated unions, and any social functions might have to include blacks. The capitalistic forces demanded that the other elements of christianity disappear from the pulpits - guess who won?
Personal salvation doctrine served its purpose in the beginning. By contrast, the gods and religions that christianity wished to displace were gods of place, certain personality or miracles, or of distinct peoples, and the old gods demanded scarifice and corporeal retribution. In any event none of them offered a "personal savior" in the manner that christianity offered. There were no tasks or challenges to complete, no money or sacrifices to be offered in return for favor.
As I have said before, when those claim that we are a "christian nation", I assert that the present day christian wouldn't even recognize or have little or any accord with the American Christian of the 18th and 19th century.
Religion is mythology. It changes to meet the present realities.
What do you think Jesus would say if he could he gaze upon the multi-million dollar churches with exercise rooms, multi-media equipment, $100,000 stained glass windows, and the vast majority of the world starving?
What do you think Jesus would say to the Bishops that turned a blind eye to the predators of children in their churches ?
And when you see the bumper sticker "What would Jesus do?" 99% haven't a clue because they have never personally applied a critical analysis of the philosophy of Jesus or critically analyzed the Bible in its intended non-literal sense.
posted on February 28, 2004 11:06:23 AM new
shoes=====
I can't find about the beard but I haven't given up yet. It may not be in the bible but I think it is just can't locate it. And by chance it may not be and I will concede to that. It isn't a major point but I do want to clarify it one way or another.
Being beaten until unreconizable is from all four of the gospels. In Matthew 27:29-30. They put a crown of thorns on Him and beat Him over and over in the face and head. The swelling from all of that over a period of hours made Him look very different I'm sure.
A major difference in Christainty is this:
Christainty is NOT a religion. Religion is man trying to impress God by what they can do to earn favor from God or whatever. The problem with this is how do you know when you have been good enough. Who made the measuring stick and how do they know when how much is good enough? Can you ever get it right? It makes no sense whatever.
Christainty is a relationship. Because of Jesus bridging the gap between us and God we have the relationship with God restored after what Adam and Eve broke off in their rebellion. When you ACCEPT the free gift of Jesus dying for you, you have the Spirit of God living in you again, similar to what God created in Adam and Eve to begin with. I no longer have to try to be good enough which is impossible anyway. Nothing we can do will ever be good enough and God knew that. He loved us too much to let us go so he came to die for us Himself.
If you were walking along a country road and saw a huge ant hill right in the path of a farmer plowing his field you might want to save the ants. How can tell the ants they need to move or be killed. The only way would be if you could become one of them and tell them. This is a very simplistic view of Jesus coming to earth to save us but it make sense to some people.
Some of you are trying hard to find more questions than answers though. It is ok to question God and Jesus. Jesus didn't rebuff Thomas when he didn't believe it was really Him. He just held out his wounded hands and said touch me and see. If you will truly seek and ask God to prove Himself He will. You have to have an open mind and heart though. If you really don't want to hear the truth you won't. God never forces Himself on anyone, He wants you to love Him on your own. It is called free will. You can make the choice to believe and accept or don't and reject.
I can't answer every question. I'm not smart enough and don't have the time. Some questions don't have answers. If you honestly give God a chance He WILL prove Himself. Christians are not mindless followers. God said to question Him and prove Him. I've been where you are and not believed so I can understand to an extent. Now I'm on the other side and I'm ever so glad I'm here. There is far more to this life than what you can see.
posted on February 28, 2004 11:19:22 AM new
[/i]personal salvation[/i] me, me, mine
Sure, that is what Christ was trying to do, show you 'personal salvation' but I don't think ME ME Mine. He also went on to tell people, to tell other people, etc etc, so as they too *might* (if they accepted Christ, you or anyone else does not have to, God gave everyone Choice and Free Will ) in other words, what is *written* is what is called witnessing, something a lot of Churches or religion do not stress at all. Thats what the apostles did, went and 'spread the Word'.
Some of the above reasons that you gave Reamond, is why I am not Catholic any more, but there is even more of WHY I am not. Main reason is the Pope's being 'infallible', which he IS NOT, he is human, just like you or I. Praying to the different saints and they answer. As it is written, in the NT, not to worship or pray to anyone but God, and I mean God as in the Trinity, which I do believe. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
And thats just a few reasons for not being Catholic any longer. Does't mean my own beliefs are not Christian, because they are. And that I do believe Jn 3:16.
He suffered and died (as you mention, so did many, many others) his death was for a reason (and so were the others, they died 'for him' and they were martyrs, which I'm sure you've heard 'Would you die for him?') and the reason his crucifixion is the most important aspect of the Christian faith is he 'died for ALL our sins'.
But its a personal belief, you don't have to believe any of it.
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
LOL
