posted on March 1, 2004 08:22:19 PM new
Taken from MSNBC 'First Read'
The Boston Globe reports, "Kerry, who once served as an altar boy and later felt a calling by God that led him to consider the priesthood, said yesterday that he was interested in seeing the new film 'The Passion of the Christ' but has yet to decide if he will, and expressed concern about news reports that the movie may convey an 'anti-Semitism message.'"
posted on March 1, 2004 08:34:57 PM new
Also taken from MSNBC's 'First Read':
Kerry's response yesterday to a question on the role of religion in politics, per Diamond: "I'm a person of faith but, like a lot of New Englanders, I supposed all of us believe very deeply, it's a great thing that's been ingrained in us, the excesses of religious zeal in Massachusetts is what sent Roger Williams and others to Rhode Island and Connecticut.
Providence, RI was founded by refugees of excesses of religion in Massachusetts and likewise Connecticut and that's why the Founding Fathers put into the Constitution the 'no establishment of religion' clause and the separation of church and state. Now I think it's appropriate in America for a president obviously -- we are a nation under God -- and that's something we have accepted. But I do not believe it is appropriate for a president to put policies in front of this nation that crosses the line that's been so accepted... since the late 1700s in this country that separates church and state."
The Wall Street Journal says yesterday's debate "also showed the difficulty the Democrats have in talking about religious and cultural issues such as gay marriage.
That could be a major contrast between the Democratic nominee and President Bush, who frequently invokes morality in policy discussions."
---------
Looks to me like Kerry's professing to be a religious man too. And believes we're a
'nation under God'.
posted on March 2, 2004 10:28:11 AM new
The churches buying the tickets and giving them away will run out of money sooner or later and the ticket sales will drop.
I wonder how much more money Lord of the Rings or Titanic would have made if the churches bought and gave away tickets for those movies ?
Gibson got more free publicity for this movie than other movie in history - plus another $25 million in paid publicity. He even created a contraversy over what the Pope actually said about the movie and got worldwide press.
Gibson is a modern day P.T. Barnum, and there is apparently a multitude of suckers out there.
History will recall his flim flam promotion more so than the actual movie.
posted on March 2, 2004 03:56:47 PM new
I just got back from seeing it. I would have to say this movie is everything people have been saying it is - for better and worse.
Here are my views on the two major critical points.
Violence
Wow. I'm a big fan of horror movies and this was very possibly the goriest movie I've ever seen. No one is exaggerating the bloodiness of this movie. Seriously gross and disturbing. I do not see how anyone could take that kind of punishment and not die long before Jesus did. I think the violence portrayed was probably a lot more excessive than real life would allow.
Anti Semitic?
For a bit of background, I really don't know many Jews. They are not plentiful in my area, and I didn't know any growing up either. I have nothing either in their favor or against them. To me, they've always been a lot like Canadians . I don't care one way or the other... Just a shrug. So I would call myself totally neutral on the Anti-Semite subject. It's just never been a big concern to me.
I'm not historian or Bible scholar either. The movie clearly shows the Jews screaming for crucifiction over and over while Pilate just wants the issue resolved. If what I saw in the movie is true, then the Jews are guilty as anything and it explains a lot about where the anti-Jew sentiment comes from. I did read the Bible many years ago and know the basic story. This is pretty much the opposite of the way I was taught, but then again, I'm no scholar. But I do believe the claims that the movie is anti-Semitic has validity. I just wonder how much of this portrayal is accurate and how much of it is just Mel's opinion?
I thought it was a well-made movie and certainly drove it's point home with plenty of force. I'm just not quite sure what the point of the MOVIE is. A definite tear-jerker in some places and a cover-your-eyes movie in others. Definitely worth seeing.
-------------------
We do not stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop playing -- Anonymous
posted on March 2, 2004 04:44:16 PM new
Reamond, he made money. So What? I don't see any 'PT Barnum' in Gibson. So he had to get his own publicity for it, Hollywood would not.
I don't understand why you seem so angry over this movie. Did you feel this way when The Robe, or any of the other Bible epic 'HOLLYWOOD' movies came out?
Btw.... I have not had any churches offer me a free ticket, nor have I seen any advertising to give them out. I do know they did buy out some of the opening night ones. I don't think the various churches made it the weekend blockbuster it was. Find the stats and I'll bet ya they are NOT the reason the movie sold as much as it did.
And, as replay critiqued it, it didn't seem to 'convert' him, and I'll bet he bought his own ticket too
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on March 2, 2004 06:03:59 PM new
"... I'll bet he bought his own ticket"
I sure did, but in Reamond's defense, it *WAS* a matinee
Actually, it was an interesting moviegoing experience even without the movie... It was the the 3:30pm showing on a Tuesday afternoon, and I've never seen a matinee like it. The theater was PACKED with OLD PEOPLE. I think I was the only one there who didn't have gray hair.
I'd bet many of those old folks haven't been in a movie theater in years. Good or bad, the movie is drawing attention from all over.
[ edited by replaymedia on Mar 2, 2004 06:08 PM ]
posted on March 2, 2004 11:07:31 PM new
realplay, I dont know how the Jews determine its anti-semitic. They were part of the 'story' and you cant change that. I understand their current day fears, but if that is the history of the story -- what was he supposed to do, change it?? I imagine quite a few (Jews) did find this man Jesus blasphemous especially being a Jew, then claiming to be God. They probably did call for his death, albeit maybe not as emphatically as portrayed. But many movies are embellished for drama's sake.
Well, I don't care if it rains or freezes,
Long as I have my plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Through all trials and tribulations,
We will travel every nation,
With my plastic Jesus I'll go far.
CHORUS
Plastic Jesus, plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car
Through my trials and tribulations,
And my travels thru the nations,
With my plastic Jesus I'll go far.
I don't care if it rains or freezes
As long as I've got my Plastic Jesus
Glued to the dashboard of my car,
You can buy Him phosphorescent
Glows in the dark, He's Pink and Pleasant,
Take Him with you when you're travelling far
I don't care if it's dark or scary
Long as I have magnetic Mary
Ridin' on the dashboard of my car
I feel I'm protected amply
I've got the whole damn Holy Family
Riding on the dashboard of my car
You can buy a Sweet Madonna
Dressed in rhinestones sitting on a
Pedestal of abalone shell
Goin' ninety, I'm not wary
'Cause I've got my Virgin Mary
Guaranteeing I won't go to Hell
I don't care if it bumps or jostles
Long as I got the Twelve Apostles
Bolted to the dashboard of my car
Don't I have a pious mess
Such a crowd of holiness
Strung across the dashboard of my car
___________________________________
posted on March 3, 2004 07:49:03 AM new
What is the complex issue to resolve about the Jews responsibility for Christ's death?
The institution of the Jewish religion and the high officials at the time obviously wanted the man dead and the only reason they didn't grab him and kill him was the Roman's reserved capital punishment for their own justice.
But does that mean a Jewish person today is personally resaponsible for what the high officials of their religion did 2000 years ago?
What rubbish.
If that is the case every Catholic is personally responsible for the Crusades and the Holly College of the Inquisition.
We almost all belong to institutions that have blood on their hands.
Most of the time we have no chance at all to do anything about it.
As an American citizen I don't want to be responsible for the thousands of innocents dead in Afganistan and Iraq any more than the thousands killed on 9/11. These events happen beyond the scope of what I can control.
posted on March 3, 2004 08:17:56 AM newI have not had any churches offer me a free ticket, nor have I seen any advertising to give them out. I do know they did buy out some of the opening night ones
That had one preacher on FOX that purchased over $40,000 worth of tickets to give out.
One of my own children went for free - a friends church was giving them away for free and she went.
So he had to get his own publicity for it, Hollywood would not.
Why would Hollywood publicize Gibson's movie ? They didn't own any of it. Gibson spent $25 million to publicize it and created a false stir over it. You keep blaming the mainstream media and Hollywood for disparaging the movie, when all along this is what got the movie into theatres and a ton of free press.
It seems as though Hollywood and the mainstream media were in cahoots in making a money maker out of a film that would have probably been a flop. The media did one favor after another for Gibson.
It was pure P.T. Barnum. Cause a commotion and they will flock to it.
profe51 - that is the song Cool Luke sings in the movie Cool Hand Luke .
posted on March 3, 2004 08:30:33 AM new
gravid - a "true" christian that knows his/her Bible understands that the Jews nor Romans could be responsible for the death of Jesus. He was bound on an irrevocable course set by god to commit suicide at the hands of the state.
It is just another one of those facts about their own mythology that christians either ignore or never occured to them.
posted on March 3, 2004 06:59:16 PM new
It occurs to me and I reject it.
If an innocent man chooses to stand before your justice and you tell him - "You know I have no honor so you are a fool to stand there." - well it simply does not wipe the blood off your hands and absolve you of your responsibility.
By that standard nobody should ever go to court for a capital crime in Texas. They should flee or stand mute if captured. They'll burn you for sport.
posted on March 26, 2004 09:37:30 PM new
First off, let me say I have seen the movie, and I believe it is as accurate a film as one could hope for. I give it 5 stars, for certain.
Now, on to more important matters. It seems that some "learned" people here think Christianity is a myth and a hoax. How wrong they are. I wonder if they have even taken the time to check out information on the Bible and it's historical accuracy. Do you know the evidence out there?
First; Jesus said He was God. He never said He was a great teacher, philosopher or anything like that: He stated He was God incarnant. No other person from any religion ever made such a claim.
Second: as to the accuracy of the Bible, it has been handed down to us in a form that is "99.5% free of textual discrepances, with no major Christian doctrines in doubt. The criteria used by the early church to determine which books should be considered authoritive have ensured we have the best records about Jesus," Dr. Bruce Metzger.
3rd; "We have better historical documentation for Jesus then for the founder of any other ancient religion," Dr. Edwin Yamauchi. One expert documented 39 ancient sources that corrobrrate more then 100 facts concerning Jesus' teachings, life, crucifixition, and resurrection.
4th; Archaeologist John McRay has stated that archoloigical findings have enhanced New testiment credibility. It has been established that Luke, who wrote 1/4 of the New Testiment, was an espically careful historian.
5th; Jesus alone matched the idenity of the Messiah. The Old testiment created a fingerprint that only Jesus could match. the odds of someone matching the O.T. prophesies are 1 in trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. Only Jesus matched the prophicies, and it confirms His idenity to an increadable degree of certianity.
6th; According to medical and historical data, Jesus death was not a sham or hoax. As the movie points out really well, there was no way He would have survived the scourging, never mind the crucifixion. And if He had, who would have wanted to follow Him with the way He would have appeared?
7th; The empty tomb: Christ did indeed rise up from the dead. If He didn't, where was His body? The site of His tomb was known to Christians, Jews and Romans: that is why they had to make up the silly story about the diciples comming in and stealing the body.
8th; The evidence of post-ressurection appearances of Jesus didn't develope over time. According to Gary Habermas, "the Ressurection was the proclamation of the early church from the very begining." British theologian Michael Green has stated "The appearances of Jesus are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity......there can be no rational doubt they occured."
9th; There are many supporting facts that the Ressurection occured. The Diciples were in a unique position to know it happened: why else would they go to their death? No one willingly dies for a lie. Aside from Christ, there is no good reason that James (the brother of Jesus) and Saul (Paul, who was going around with orders to arrest and kill Christians) would have converted to Christianity. Also, withen weeks of the Ressurection, thousands of Jews began to abandon key social practices, ones that would have led them to hell if they were worng. The early sacriments of baptisim and Communion affirmed Jesus Ressurection and Diety. Lastly, the emergence of the church in the face of brutal Roman perscution "rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Ressurection," C.F.D. Moule.
Jesus is not a myth: He is a fact of life. He is eternal life, aquired by only accepting Him as your Lord and Savior. There is no other true alternitive. Let me close with a quote from C.S. Lewis:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not accept His claim to be God." That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic....or else he would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
Mere Christianity
[ edited by ChristianCoffee on Mar 26, 2004 09:46 PM ]
posted on March 27, 2004 10:06:30 AM new
And reamond calls it a "flim-flam" production. What about all other movies, you know, the ones that have trailers at the begining of movies. Hollywood supports all that stuff, but wanted nothing to do with Mr. Gibson and his movie. Anything nasty they will produce, but something that shows real truth they want nothing to do.
What I have found comicial is the lack of replies to my post above: certain people wish to call Christianity a myth, but have no evidence to back it up.
One last point on the movie, it really did show how badly the Jewish ruling council wanted Christ put to death: that does not indite a whole race. WE ALL PUT HIM TO DEATH; it was the only way we can be reconciled to God.
posted on March 27, 2004 12:56:20 PM newFirst; Jesus said He was God.
So does the Wino down on the corner.
Second: as to the accuracy of the Bible, it has been handed down to us in a form that is "99.5% free of textual discrepances, with no major Christian doctrines in doubt. The criteria used by the early church to determine which books should be considered authoritive have ensured we have the best records about Jesus," Dr. Bruce Metzger.
All christian doctrines are in doubt. They are all faith based. If they was no doubt, there could be no faith. However, are you claiming to be a Gnostic ? If so then you are a heretic according to official christian orthodoxy and considered no different than us atheists.
3rd; "We have better historical documentation for Jesus then for the founder of any other ancient religion," Dr. Edwin Yamauchi. One expert documented 39 ancient sources that corrobrrate more then 100 facts concerning Jesus' teachings, life, crucifixition, and resurrection.
Better documentation about Jesus as god or Jesus as a man ? In either case there is just as good or better documentation for other religious personalities. But yet again, is christianlty attempting to be a "fact" based mythology or a "faith" based mythology ? If "fact based" you've lost the argument right out of the gate. If faith based, we might as well argue about the divinity and worship of Mickey Mouse.
4th; Archaeologist John McRay has stated that archoloigical findings have enhanced New testiment credibility. It has been established that Luke, who wrote 1/4 of the New Testiment, was an espically careful historian.
Archaeology has never "enhanced" the credibility of any claim for the existence of any god, or man/god. I am still trying to figure out what use the statement "espically careful historian" might offer the argument.
5th; Jesus alone matched the idenity of the Messiah. The Old testiment created a fingerprint that only Jesus could match. the odds of someone matching the O.T. prophesies are 1 in trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion. Only Jesus matched the prophicies, and it confirms His idenity to an increadable degree of certianity.
So there is no such thing as self fullfilling prophesy ? Do you actually believe that the "Jesus" you speak of is the only one that "matched" the OT fingerprint ? A wholly baseless claim.
6th; According to medical and historical data, Jesus death was not a sham or hoax. As the movie points out really well, there was no way He would have survived the scourging, never mind the crucifixion. And if He had, who would have wanted to follow Him with the way He would have appeared?
What medical and historical data ? Are you claiming that when the Romans kill someone they actually die ? I guess we could agree on that, but it does nothing to support your argument. The Romans Crucified thousands of people - I think it is safe to say they all died.
7th; The empty tomb: Christ did indeed rise up from the dead. If He didn't, where was His body? The site of His tomb was known to Christians, Jews and Romans: that is why they had to make up the silly story about the diciples comming in and stealing the body.
Do you really think that this is/was the only tomb in all of middle eastern history where the body was stolen or placed somewhere else on purpose ? The Egyptians did this all the time. The Diciples moving the body is far more plausible than any other explanation.
8th; The evidence of post-ressurection appearances of Jesus didn't develope over time. According to Gary Habermas, "the Ressurection was the proclamation of the early church from the very begining." British theologian Michael Green has stated "The appearances of Jesus are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity......there can be no rational doubt they occured."
"The appearances of Jesus are as well authenticated as anything in antiquity......there can be no rational doubt they occured." This statement is a hoot. But tell me this, what do you make of the Elvis sightings after his death ? And all the other sightings of dead people. It happens all the time.
9th; There are many supporting facts that the Ressurection occured.
There are no supporting facts for this myth.
The Diciples were in a unique position to know it happened: why else would they go to their death?
They went to their death for the same reason thousands of others died at the hands of the Romans. Do you actually think that the christians were the only ones killed for their religion ? Ever hear of Socrates ?
No one willingly dies for a lie.
People do all the time.
Aside from Christ, there is no good reason that James (the brother of Jesus) and Saul (Paul, who was going around with orders to arrest and kill Christians) would have converted to Christianity.
There are many reasons people convert to different religions. It happens all the time.
Also, withen weeks of the Ressurection, thousands of Jews began to abandon key social practices, ones that would have led them to hell if they were worng.
And Jews were doing this weeks/months/years before the death of Jesus. You are very ignorant of middle eastern history.
The early sacriments of baptisim and Communion affirmed Jesus Ressurection and Diety.
Yes, and having Easter egg hunts confirms the existence of the Easter Bunny.
Lastly, the emergence of the church in the face of brutal Roman perscution "rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Ressurection," C.F.D. Moule.
The only hole it creates is in the tortured circular logic of the above statement. In fact the decline of the Roman empire left a void that the christian was able to fill in parts of the empire, and Islam filled the void in other, and other pagan religions filled yet other voids. Being the official state religion of the Roman Empire at its fall also kinds blows holes the "emergence" theory too.
But now, please indulge my questions.
Let's discuss the true nature of your religion.
Do you believe in free will ?
Do you believe your god is omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing)?
Does your god control everything or even have the abiltiy to control everything ?
posted on March 27, 2004 01:01:44 PM new
[i]Box office receipts as of last Thursday....$302,558,804
+ Overseas Gross: $32,300,000[/i]
How about that. A movie about Jesus comes in behind all of these listed below. You'd think god would have caused his son's movie to do a lot better wouldn't you ? Especially when it got all that fake publicity from the Vatican and elsewhere.
Titanic (1997) $600,743,440 -
2 Star Wars (1977) $460,935,655 10
3 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $434,949,459 241
4 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $431,065,444 -
5 Spider-Man (2002) $403,706,375 -
6 Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The (2003) $371,147,794 4
7 Jurassic Park (1993) $356,763,175 -
8 Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (2002) $340,478,898 5
9 Finding Nemo (2003) $339,714,367 83
10 Forrest Gump (1994) $329,452,287 121
11 Lion King, The (1994) $328,423,001 -
12 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $317,557,891 -
13 Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The (2001) $313,837,577 9
14 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) $310,675,583 -
15 Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) $309,064,373 131
16 Independence Day (1996) $306,200,000 -
17 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) $305,411,224 218
posted on March 27, 2004 01:06:08 PM newOne last point on the movie, it really did show how badly the Jewish ruling council wanted Christ put to death: that does not indite a whole race. WE ALL PUT HIM TO DEATH; it was the only way we can be reconciled to God.
Jesus actually committed suicide, that is, if you really believe your own mythology.
He could ahve saved himself, but he committed what we now call suicide by cop.
posted on March 27, 2004 01:11:15 PM new
I guess you could call it suicide. God loves us so much He paid the price for our sins through His death. We deserve death but He gave us mercy by paying with His death so we can live.
posted on March 27, 2004 01:21:04 PM new oh reamond....the success of this movie just appears to irritate you so much. What does it matter to you that it's been so successful? It doesn't change your life in any way, nor change your views on religion/faith. But it has made a difference to a lot of believers to see a religious film can not only be made and made with an "R" rating, but can also be so very successful.
A movie about Jesus comes in behind all of these listed below.
That it's been this successful at all says a lot.
You'd think god would have caused his son's movie to do a lot better wouldn't you? Nope....I'd have no reason to believe God's disappointed at all.
posted on March 27, 2004 01:26:34 PM newoh reamond....the success of this movie just appears to irritate you so much. What does it matter to you that it's been so successful?
It does irritate me to see the people use the movie to validate their religion or as an article of faith.
It doesn't change your life in any way, nor change your views on religion/faith. But it has made a difference to a lot of believers to see a religious film can not only be made and made with an "R" rating, but can also be so very successful.
Basing your religious convictions/conversion on a movie is sacrilegious.
posted on March 27, 2004 01:27:26 PM new
Christ is not a god, he is a demi-god, being the offspring of a god and a mortal woman.
I've always wondered how Christians get away with calling their religion monotheistic when they actually worship 1.5 gods -- God and the demi-god Jesus. And didn't their god say "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? So how come Jesus, for modern Christians, is put first?
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on March 27, 2004 01:28:29 PM new
Reamond! I thought your were in accounting, or some other marketing business, and NOT a theologian. Course you can, of course, be both
I like ChristianCoffee's posts, and welcome to the 'square table'
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on March 27, 2004 01:31:37 PM new
Oh about being born to a mortal human woman. The old Testament prophets said that He would be born of the House of David. And he was.
__________________________________
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known."- Carl Sagan
posted on March 27, 2004 01:33:46 PM new
bunnicula - You're raising the dreaded Arian Heresy. Thousands of people lost their lives after the Council of Nicaea said christians couldn't ask questions about the trinity.
Most "christians" have never bothered to address or look into the Arian, Pelagian or Manichean Heresy.
Just as the vast majority of christians never look into the history of their bible or their church. Their "leaders" tell them not to worry about such things, just listen to them and fill the money plate.
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
. I don't care one way or the other... Just a shrug. So I would call myself totally neutral on the Anti-Semite subject. It's just never been a big concern to me.
