quote:

---

Woman Collapses During Showing of "The Passion Of The Christ"
Wichita
KAKE News

A woman collapsed in an East Wichita theatre this morning, during a showing of "The Passion Of The Christ". Peggy Law apparently suffered a heart attack. She was pronounced dead a short time later at a Wichita medical center.

Peggy Law, also known to some by her married name Peggy Scott is a respected figure in the local broadcasting community. The tragedy has hit some here at KAKE especially hard. She was a former employee.

People viewing the movie at the Warren Theatre East say Law collapsed during the portion of the movie where the crucifixion of Christ was shown.

A few off-duty doctors and nurses who were in the audience tried to revive her. But when she was taken away in the ambulance, authorities say Law still had no pulse.

The movie has been criticized for it's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death. Religious leaders around the country and here in Wichita say people need to be prepared for the graphic brutality.

Whether Law's death and the timing in the film are related, we will never know, but religious and medical officials stress this film is not for the faint-hearted.

---

http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/653662.html
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
I don't think anyone died, but a few people got up and left the theatre during the flogging sequence. I didn't blame them.

Here's my review: Possible Spoilers for those who haven't read the books .
*
*
*
*

This is a good movie.

This is a graphic movie. Incredibly so. I did not relish in the violence. I turned away more times than I want to reflect on. Some images that I didn't turn away fast enough on are still in my head. Jesus was an absolute hamburger by the time they finished flogging him. Like I said, some people got up and left, unable to handle it. And noone should be able to handle it, really. Those who relish in those scenes are not Gibson's intended audience.

But I walked out of the theatre thinking that this was the most profound portrayal of the love between Jesus and his mother Mary that I have ever seen or will ever see in my lifetime.

Mary is a gem. She is loathe to leave Jesus' side, fighting to get to where she can be close to him. There are numerous occasions where Mary doesn't flinch at the sight of the blood and embraces, kisses, or holds her son whenever she can.

There is one flashback scene of Jesus working at his carpentry and he and His mother share a moment of the simple pleasure of everyday life. It was beautifully done. Mary fulfills her role as protector to great extent, especially with one scene, also involving a flashback. Whenever Jesus and Mary look at each other you can practically see their thoughts: Mary is going "oh my baby, what can I do for you?" and Jesus, "Mom, don't worry, everything's going to be okay." Then, at the end of his life, in the middle of all the horribleness that Mel Gibson portrays, Jesus takes a minute to fulfil his role as Mary's protector, leaving her in the care of John.

It would be interesting to reflect on this movie in ten or fifteen years when I (inshallah) have children of my own.

As far as antisemitism--I can only say that from my own feelings as I was watching this movie (and I was somewhat open from the beginning to the idea that antisemitism was there) that there isn't any. The disapproving glares and shouts from the Jewish high priests are nothing compared to the laughter and bloodlust of the Roman torturers as Jesus' blood splattered their faces, or when Pilate had every opportunity to absolve him yet did not. This is also paired with the good actions, such as the Pilate's wife interacting with the Maries, and the sympathetic Roman sentry who felt nothing but pity for Mary, letting her get closer to the cross without any fuss. Added to that is the Jewish man who helped Jesus carry the cross, the Jewish woman who mopped his face and tried to offer him water (according to my friend RC's think the Shroud of Turin is the cloth she used) and of course, Mary, Magdalene, John, Peter, and Jesus himself. As Jesus passes the high priests on his way to Golgotha, it instantly flashes back to His sermon on loving thy neighbor.

All in all, it was an emotionally draining movie. I was in tears within the first ten minutes, and was in near silence all the way back home. I would not recommend everyone see this, but if you decide to, then great. It's a very interesting view on one man's view of a very important event and the impact in his own life. Though my beliefs don't mesh completely with Mel Gibson's, I'm glad I saw his take on it.

Edit: Turin, not Torah. Silly me. And TAG's comment on how it isn't really it makes it a moot point anyway.

[ February 26, 2004, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 

---

Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
 
as an RC, I just thought I would clarify... The woman who wiped Jesus' face was, I think, named Veronica, and tradition holds that his face was imaged on the cloth she used.

The Shroud of Turin is supposedly the cloth he was buried in and is also imprinted with his image. The image on the shroud is responsible for most modern ideas of what Jesus looked like. There has been much controversy over this. I believe the RC church has declared it authentic, but not dogmatically: i.e. -- "we think it's real, but everyone's free to disagree with us on that and if we're wrong about it it's not doctrinally significant."

[ February 26, 2004, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
 

---

Posted by Zemra (Member # 5706) on :
 
So, I just went and saw "Passion of Christ" and I thought that it was an excellent movie but also one of the sadest. I thought that it was very violent compared to the other movies with the same theme but I think that the director was trying to make it as real as possible and in my oppinion he has succeded. I cried through out the whole movie and it made me want to be better. Watch it
 

---

Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
 
I just saw the movie, and yes, it has several powerful messages. In my opinion? Well, I'm still debating those messages.

I think Mel Gibson accomplished his goal, at least how I understood what his "goal" was. I admire him for having the courage to produce this.

However, I probably won't watch this movie ever again. I can stand to watch some violence, some forms moreso than others. It's like a debt to me. A violent scene should be compensated for with other scenes that actually have a message. Balance in all things, I think, is my mantra for violent movies. Therefore, Gibson's next movie should be a documentary about daisies.
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
Wow. I just came back from seeing the movie with Zemra, Anti-Chris, Raventh1 and some non-Jatraqueros. Zemra is in the other room writing what she thought while I'm writing this, so I don't bias her opinion.

I think I can safely say that this was by far and without exception the heaviest movie I've ever seen, and if anyone makes a heavier movie, I hope I never see it. Not that I wish I hadn't seen this one, but I don't think I could see it again, at least for a very long time. I haven't been this traumatized by a piece of celluloid since I saw A Clockwork Orange.

First, the technical aspects. Mel did a really good job directing overall. Based upon the first ten minutes, I thought that it was going to be really heavy on the slow-mo, but it tapered off to a reasonable level throughout the rest of the show. The soundtrack got a little shrill and distracting, but it wasn't completely inappropriate. The imagery was amazing. Seeing Judas go through the process of damnation was especially powerful, as was all the Satanic imagery, and Jesus' torture and death were just as shocking as you've heard. I think I've grown fairly callous and desensitized to violence, but every once in a while a movie like this proves me wrong. Mel Gibson makes Quentin Tarantino look like Chris Columbus. The only problem was that by the end I was kind of numbed to it. It truly was unrelenting. Barrabas provided a bit of comic relief, but other than that they kept racheting up the horror until my right brain shut down. Amazingly powerful stuff.

James Caviezel did a surprisingly good job of playing Jesus. Talent aside (which he had plenty of), the sheer energy it must have taken to play that role for all those months of filming must have been exhausting.

I found the flashbacks to be very effective and skillfully pulled off. Seeing the life that Jesus willingly gave up, and hearing him preach about loving your enemies as he's being hauled to the top of Golgotha, really gave the scenes relevance. I was surprised how well the director, writers and editor made them work.

Finally, the big topic. The anti-Semitism. I didn't see it. Sure, most of the Sanhedrin looked pretty bloodthirsty. But, if it hadn't been made such a big deal of, it never would have entered my mind that this could possibly reflect upon the nature of any modern Jews, any more than seeing Braveheart made me hate my English friends. For one thing, as unfeeling as they were, I got the idea that they were acting upon sincere but misguided convictions. Contrast that with the attitude of the Roman soldiers, who were reveling in the actual torture and murder of Jesus. They seemed positively joyful to be carrying out their orders, even though they had nothing personal against Jesus. And the award for bigger sin goes to... The Romans. As for Pilate being portrayed sympathetically, I didn't see that either. Sure, he didn't want to kill Jesus. But he also came across as someone who hated Jews, and who was so spineless that he'd rather kill an innocent man than stand up to them. Seemed a right bastard to me.

And as for the director's view on the Jews, I think it is worth noting that he did bend the scriptures in their favor at one point. In Luke 23, when Jesus says, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do...", it seems to indicate when read in context that he is referring to the Romans. However, when Jesus said that line in the movie, it was clearly directed at the Jews. This isn't necessarily a change of scripture, but it would be easy to argue that it wasn't what Jesus intended, according to Luke, when he spoke the line. Seems to me, from that scene anyway, that Mel was going out on a limb in favor of the Jews. Makes the case for anti-Semitism a little bit harder to build.

In all, I found it to be a powerful, thought-provoking and well-made movie. If you've got a very strong stomach... I mean, if Kill Bill made you laugh... go see it. Worth the experience.
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
By the way, Raventh, nice to meet you. Email me if you want that stuff I was talking about before the movie. And nice to see you again, Nate. I think the comment you made as the credits rolled win the "MST3K Moment of the Year" award. I was laughing all the way home.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
I can't believe AJ beat me to linking a story about my own hometown!!

Of course, I heard about Peggy Law's death yesterday, but didn't have time to post it on here.

They are doing an autopsy on her -- I don't know if she had prior heart problems or not. This was a special screening just for members of the media that she went to.

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
I knew it was Kansas and thought of you, Farmgirl. I didn't know it was your hometown though!

AJ
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Well, not exactly hometown -- but it's where I work. So I spend 85% of my life here in Wichita.

Glad for the reviews everyone is giving. I'm real apprehensive about going to the movie (because I don't tolerate violence well in movie form) yet I feel I MUST go see it or I will always regret not going...

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I left in the middle of this movie. Later I was told that the resurrection scene was very short, just seconds of filming after the death. The only reason I even stayed as long as I did was because I was hoping the resurrection would save the movie, but after I realized there could only be about 45 minutes left and he still hadn't been crucified, I left.

I hold to the opinion that any merits this movie may have do not outweigh the demerits.

I realize that the severe torture the Jesus character endured was supposed to make people think. And it did. I made me think about the fact that I, and the other 200 people in the theater, paid money to see a man brutally murdered. The fact that it was supposed to represent my God didn't make me feel better about it, but worse.

That, along with the fact that Gibson's use of "creative license" went beyond it's necessity, make me unwilling to ever watch this movie again, nor to recommend it to anyone. Yes, it was powerful, and it's possible that it may make a few people think or ask questions about Jesus, but I don't feel that the end justifies the means in this situation.

The torture scenes were not just brutal, they were sadistic. It is one thing to portray Jesus' death in such a way as to stir up painful emotions in the person watching, but it is quite another do it the way Gibson did. He went over and beyond anything we could possibly know from scripture, using every method that existed to inflict pain upon him.

It wasn't a painfully accurate account of Jesus' death and resurrection...it was a snuff film.

And besides...it was a little too "Hollywood" for me.

As I sat there I kept thinking of Philippians 4:8-

quote:

---

Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these things.

---

quote:

---

It is one thing to portray Jesus' death in such a way as to stir up painful emotions in the person watching, but it is quite another do it the way Gibson did. He went over and beyond anything we could possibly know from scripture, using every method that existed to inflict pain upon him.

---

So, taking historical information about what Romans did to criminals they were going to crucify bears no weight on the probability that he was treated that sadistically? Are you a biblical literalist?
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Did you see the movie, John?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Today's shocker from work:

Weightlifter Bob asked me what "anti-semitism" was and why they were talking about it in a Passion review. He is a college-educated engineer in his late thirties, and he genuinely didnt' know.


I told him that anti-semitism was generally seen as anti-Jewish, however could be broadly expanded to include other semetic peoples including Arabs.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
As some critics have observed, the movie is as much a portrayal on the big screen of the Roman Catholic Stations of the Cross as it is of the gospel narratives. However, I saw no obvious contradiction to what the gospel narratives say.

A number of thoughts come to mind about this movie, or rather, about the reality that the movie portrays. First, all the abuse heaped upon Jesus was unnecessary and gratuitous. In the ancient sanctuary services, which enacted the Plan of Salvation in type, the sacrificial lamb was never mocked, beaten, whipped, and scourged. Jesus should have been allowed to just lay down with dignity upon the altar, and voluntarily give up His life, without a human hand being raised against Him. That is all the Plan of Salvation needed. God in His foreknowledge knew how Jesus would be treated, and this is reflected in many prophecies. But the abuse was not essential for the Plan of Salvation.

As Satan inspired humans to a frenzy of hatred and cruelty, trying to break Jesus and turn Him aside from His purpose, he gave Jesus an opportunity to demonstrate the incredible power of self-restraint God has--the greatest power an Omnipotent Being can manifest--and he exposed the true enormity of sin, showed what rebellion against God really amounts to. Every stripe Jesus endured was evidence against Satan. And the extremity of the abuse guaranteed with all the more certainty that sin will never arise again in the universe.

Satan failed to turn Jesus aside from His purpose to save us. Jesus went the extra mile and far beyond, enduring what He should never have had to endure, and still went through with it, so that we could be saved. Thus all Satan's efforts, and the efforts of demon-driven humans, only served to reveal all the more the magnitude of God's love for His creatures, even for us, His fallen children.

If I should say that the movie is too violent for my tastes, what can I say to the fact that it comes closer than ever before to the reality of Salvation History? These scenes were no less horrific than what really transpired.

If I should say that the movie is too grievously bloody for me to endure, what should I say to the holy and pure angels of God, who had to see the reality as it unfolded, and were forbidden to intervene?

The closing scenes of Jesus' life which the movie portrays, encompass the central event of the Christian religion. Not only that, it is also the central event of the history of the universe.

[ February 26, 2004, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Well said, Ron.

quote:

---

If I should say that the movie is to grievously bloody for me to endure, what should I say to the holy and pure angels of God, who had to see the reality as it unfolded, and were forbidden to intervene?

---

quote:

---

And as for the director's view on the Jews, I think it is worth noting that he did bend the scriptures in their favor at one point. In Luke 23, when Jesus says, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do...", it seems to indicate when read in context that he is referring to the Romans. However, when Jesus said that line in the movie, it was clearly directed at the Jews. This isn't necessarily a change of scripture, but it would be easy to argue that it wasn't what Jesus intended, according to Luke, when he spoke the line. Seems to me, from that scene anyway, that Mel was going out on a limb in favor of the Jews. Makes the case for anti-Semitism a little bit harder to build.

---

quote:

---

Christ endured what he did so I wouldn't have to, and that includes seeing the movie. I

---

So wrong... and yet so funny.
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
I don't remember a second call for forgiveness directed to the Jews, and I can't find it in the gospels. In any case, the full "father forgive them..." line I'm referring to is the one that seems to be directed to the Romans. I'd be interested in knowing where the second line is. Can you find it?

Book: Read Luke Chapter 23 and tell me how you came to the conclusion that he was referring to the Jews with that line. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but all the pronouns on each side of the quote obviously refer to the Romans (there they crucified him; they parted his raiment and cast lots), and when that evidence is combined with the disposition of the writer (Luke is more understanding of the Romans and more critical of the Jews than the other gospel writers, throughout this gospel and his book of Acts, as many people feel that Gentile converts are his intended audience) it seems to make more sense that he's referring to Roman soldiers with the line. If you have any evidence to the contrary, though, I'd like to hear it.

[ February 27, 2004, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Speed ]
 

---

Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 
I haven't seen the movie, but someone mentioned that they hammered the nails into his hands. Did they, really? Nails into hands?

Jen
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
You know, I just have to ask this: if you expect that you're going to live forever in eternal bliss, and/or come back from the dead, are a few days of pain and torment an unbearable sacrifice if it means the redemption of the entire human race?
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Would *you* volunteer for that?

There are an awful lot of people I just plain don't like. I don't know that I'd be so thrilled to go through that kind of ceaseless, excruciating pain for more than an hour, let alone for days, especially for people I don't know and haven't even been born. He did it, even for the likes of Jeffrey Daumer. Even with the certain knowledge of eternal life, and that the task is done for the redemption of the entire human race, I know that it wouldn't be enough to make me go through it. Heck, I couldn't even do a shadow of that for my daughter, whom I love to absolute distraction -- I had an epidural instead.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yes, I would do it. I'd do it in a heartbeat, as a matter of fact. I mean, let's face it: we're talking temporary discomfort versus the fate of humanity, here.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
But could you do it? Christ could have opted out at any moment. I might be able to volunteer for it, but once it's happening I don't know if I could resist stopping it.

Dagonee

[ February 27, 2004, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
"...when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53:10, 11)
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I've got to admit that I can't figure out why Ron bold-faced the clauses that he did; does anyone have any idea?

----

Dag, I have no way of knowing whether I, while being viciously tortured, would be able to keep the bigger picture in mind. I know that, in altogether less horrific circumstances, I've behaved less admirably. I imagine that not having any fear of death would help, but it's impossible for me to even speculate on how much help it'd be.

I'm just routinely bothered by a handful of things about the death of Jesus:

1) That the sacrifice, by all accounts, was merely a temporary one.
2) That the sacrifice, given an omnipotent God, was cruel, arbitrary, and completely unnecessary.
3) That the issue should not be how horrible the sacrifice was -- which seems to be the angle played up by "The Passion," and by numerous other stories of this sort -- but rather the fact that people killed God at ALL.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
So...the question isn't so much why are we making such a big deal over a sacrifice that didn't seem so sacrificial, but is really, why even have a sacrifice at all? Is that right?
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Psalms 22 and 23 give Jesus' very thoughts and feelings as He was on the Cross, and unique things that happened to him. None of the things related in Psalms 22 ever happened to King David. By the Spirit of Inspiration, he recorded the experience of Jesus on the Cross, a thousand years before the event.

And we also know that this Psalm which Jesus caused David to write, served to give Him comfort on the Cross. We know that Jesus must have rehearsed in His mind this Psalm, because on the cross He repeated the first sentence of the first verse: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

As we read down this Psalm, we see the anguish of His torment. He can no longer see or directly perceive His Father's presence, for God the Father has treated Him as He must treat sin, by turning away His face from it. The sense of separation was the greatest thing Jesus suffered.

And yet, even when He no longer could go by sight or by direct perception, Jesus still had faith, knowing God's character and promises. As we read down toward the end of Psalms 22, we see Christ's spirits revive as He triumphs ultimately by faith and not by sight. This triumph of faith gives Him peace, and confidence. The 23rd Psalm continues this same theme, for it is the confession of faith by Jesus upon the Cross as He rests by faith alone on His Father.

After Jesus reaches this point in recalling Psalms 22-23, and experiences the victory of faith they guide Him into obtaining, then Jesus can bow His head in assurance and peace, and say, "Father, into Thy hands I commend [commit] my spirit." (Luke 23:46)

The 24th Psalm continues further the same theme; for it gives the antiphonal choirs of angels heralding the entry of Christ into Heaven upon His Ascension.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Ron, I'm sorry, but I still don't see your point. Who are you addressing?

-------

Partly, yeah, it's "why did this sacrifice have to happen at all." But it's also "Gee, you know, as sacrifices on behalf of all mankind go, this one wasn't really all that bad."
 

---

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
 
Tom:

It's a very good point. I have a friend who was once struggling with his faith, and he wasn't as tactful as most of the people on this forum. He was in a church meeting in which someone was testifying of her gratitude to Jesus for giving his life for her, and Milo said, "So what? He took it back three days later and was glorified on high." Killed the mood in that room pretty quickly.

It's a question that many Christians ask themselves when they're trying to determine the relevance of the atonement. I wondered about it myself at one point, and as I was researching the question, I came to a couple conclusions that aren't readily apparent from this film or a cursory reading of the Bible.

1) The physical suffering wasn't the point. Not that it didn't happen, and not that showing it was completely gratuitous in this film. But when I read about the physical suffering, I see it as a metaphor for the spiritual suffering and physical death, which was the real trial. I think we all have experienced some level of spiritual suffering for things that we've done wrong, unless we're sociopaths. But according to the story, we can't comprehend the type or degree of such suffering that Jesus experienced on our behalf, in the garden and on the cross. People have suffered more physical pain than Jesus did, but no one has ever broken his record for spiritual suffering.

2) It is said that Jesus was the only person who could have withstood the pain of the atonement. But even if one of us could have endured the pain, we could not have performed the atonement because, to some degree, we all deserve it. The reason that Jesus had to suffer and die for us was only partly because he was stronger than us. It was also because he'd lived a sinless life. He had earned the right to exaltation for himself, and he suffered for our sins anyway. So even if you could have endured a few days of unimaginable torture, knowing what awaited you on the other side, you still could not have saved us. The work that Jesus did for the atonement lasted 30 years, and only culminated in that final few days.

Of course, both of these points require a great deal of faith to believe, but they do secure some internal consistency for the story. Helped it make a bit more sense to me.

[ February 27, 2004, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Tom, you asked: "...are a few days of pain and torment an unbearable sacrifice if it means the redemption of the entire human race?"

I quoted the passage in Isaiah and bolded the portions I did to show that the answer is yes. That is one of the things that got Jesus through the suffering: He could see by faith that by His sacrifice, He would have a seed--the redeemed of mankind, justified because of His sacrifice. God considered paying any price, suffering any pain, to be worth it if He could save us.

By the way, the greatest pain Jesus suffered was the sense of separation from His Father. When Jesus was made "to be sin for us" (2 Corinthians 5:21), God the Father had to turn away His face and withdraw Himself, for God can have no fellowship or compromise with sin. This is what caused the deepest pain of all for Jesus, for from eternity He was One with God.

In experiencing the separation from the Father, Jesus experienced the separation from God that all sinners who cling to sin must ultimately experience. This separation from the Father is what the Bible calls "the second death" (Rev. 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8)

Since God is the Source of Life ("in Him we live and move and have our being"--Acts 17:28), no creature can continue to exist when finally separated from God. We all die the first death, but there is a resurrection for the righteous, and a resurrection for the wicked yet to come. Only those who refused salvation are at the end cast into the Lake of Fire and are permanently separated from God. Only they suffer the second death, because Jesus has suffered the second death on behalf of those who have faith in Him.

This is why only Jesus could have been our Savior. No creature could have suffered the second death, and yet arisen from the tomb to create a new righteous heritage for humanity in a redeemed race with Christ at its head as the new Adam. Because Christ had life in Himself, unborrowed and underived, He could endure separation from God the Father, and not cease to exist. After resting in unconscious sleep, He could respond when called to come forth from the tomb, and take up His life again.

What Jesus risked was the possibility that His sacrifice, His victory (finally of faith), and His life of perfect obedience, might not have been good enough to be fully accepted by God the Father, and by the demands of perfect justice that the Father must observe in order to remain a righteous God. Had that been the case, Jesus might have had to sleep in unconsciousness forever, and we would not have been redeemed.

God risked everything at Calvary. It was no make believe risk. Had Jesus failed, the Trinity would have been torn asunder forever, as God must refuse to accept sin into Himself. Humanity would have been doomed. The universe would have come to doubt God, and the rest of the angels and unfallen people on other worlds might eventually have come to side with Lucifer, and God would have had to sweep away the entire universe, and start over, if He had the heart for it.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Tom, I've struggled with the same question. I still struggle with it sometimes. Frequently, actually. I think I struggle with this question because I have a very hard time remembering that I sin. Sure, I make mistakes, and sometimes I'm thoughtlessly cruel, and there are times I'm not very proud of what I've done (or not done, as the case sometimes is), but it's very hard for me to think of that as sin. Even the things I can't honestly justify away, it's hard for me to think of those things as sin.

Beyond that, even if I did see myself as sinning, why should the cost for it be death, as the Bible asserts? That's like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer.

Then I am reminded, usually by my mistake or thoughtlessness coming to bite me in the butt, that I do sin...that I'm wrong a lot of the time. (fwiw, I can dig like this right now because I had a VERY humbling evening last night...horrors...I'm cringing thinking about it) And I think about God, who is pure and perfect, who made me and the flowers and the sun. Who, like someone wearing white doesn't eat something messy, won't or can't come anywhere near my imperfection. I can't change time and go back to fix what I did...I can try to make amends, to learn from my errors, to be a little more thoughful for the future. But I can't go back and unmake my unmaking. It's there and immutable.

From there, I don't know why, but it starts to make a little more sense to me why the cost of sin is sacrifice...and that because it can't be unmade, that sacrifice has to be huge. It has to tear at time, and undo what I did. The only thing I truly own, the one thing I cannot live without, is my life. It's the biggest thing I can sacrifice.

Only it appears that I don't have to. And you know the rest.

To me, that's why Jesus' sacrifice was necessary. That's why it had to be horrifically painful -- because I know he was God in the flesh, that he had certain knowledge of heaven and of what he was doing -- it had to be a genuine sacrifice, that I could look at and see he didn't just skate through it. I think too, that for me to identify at all with God, knowing that he suffered pain in his life I feel less alone in my own life's hurts. To me, the extensive pain he suffered also keeps the resurrection from making the sacifice totally meaningless. The resurrection shows me that if his death isn't final, neither is mine. And that even death doesn't stop God.

I know you know all this stuff, Tom. These are just the answers, inadequate as they often are, I've found for myself. I don't like them most of the time. But they ring as truth for me when I'm stripped of my self-confidence, when I don't have much to recommend to myself. The rest of the time, I forget, and it doesn't seem so important.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Along with the great things that have already been said, I'd like to address another point that Tom said: Why did it have to be THAT way if God is omnipotent?

True omnipotence is something of a paradox. There is the whole problem of "Can God create a boulder to heavy for Him to lift?" My answer is that God doesn't need to be paradoxically omnipotent to create the universe and ourselves in it. I believe there are several metanatural laws that God must follow, or else he ceases to be God. The flaws of our spirits, the sins, had to be paid for, and only someone who was not guilty of any of those sins could come back from the punishment to remain with God.

My second point is that despite the fact that within our existance the spiritual torment of the Christ lasted for just a few short hours, imagine what memory is to a god? Perfect. Infinite. He is cursed with the intimate knowledge of every horrible thing ever done by humans, as if he had done those things himself. He loves the ones that did those things, and understands them in ways no mortal can concieve, and he loves their victims just as much. And for those who do not take advantage of his Atonement, he knows just how horrible their suffering will be. Every suffering we cause our fellow man is known by the Savior who loves us deeply and with passion for our well being.

That sounds a little more sacrificial than a few hours of pain to me.

[ February 27, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 

quote:

---

if you expect that you're going to live forever in eternal bliss, and/or come back from the dead, are a few days of pain and torment an unbearable sacrifice if it means the redemption of the entire human race?

---

quote:

---

Ultimately, the violence was not, for me, where the power of the movie dwelt. It was the softer parts, like the scene where Mary cannot endure it any longer and runs to her son as he struggles to drag the cross through the streets. His words to her tore my heart.

---

quote:

---

I believe the RC church has declared it authentic, but not dogmatically: i.e. -- "we think it's real, but everyone's free to disagree with us on that and if we're wrong about it it's not doctrinally significant."

---

This brings to mind a question about the RC church. Is it doctrine of the RC or folk belief that artifacts from saints (body parts, slivers of the cross, the shroud, etc.) hold power to perform miracles?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"As someone who remembers what it was like to walk though life without the Holy Spirit, I can tell you now that were I to lose that, were God to abandon me to allow me to suffer all my sins (not to mention the sins of the world) without him, it's the worst thing I could imagine."

It's not easy, let me tell you.
 

---

Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
 
God has not abandoned you, Tom.
 

---

Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
 
Very good movie. Surprisingly, it didn't seem all of two hours.

But why couldn't they get the same guy from the Book of Mormon movie to play Jesus in the sequel?

Seriously, though, I really enjoyed the acting and the adaptation. It was very close to what I saw in my head from the book. And the fact that I knew the story didn't keep my eyes and ears from remaining locked at attention any more than did my unbelief.

I didn't find it Hollywood-ized at all. Exaggerated to drive home a point, maybe, but never betraying the source.

Worth my $6.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"God has not abandoned you, Tom."

Prove it.
 

---

Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
 
mr_porteiro_head ,

Your question has some subtle shades to it, so I'll do my best to answer as precisely as possible... if you want to take the word of a less-than-perfectly obedient layman.

The Church does not have a general teaching regarding relics, as far as I know. It will comment on the authenticity of individual relics and on miracles attributed to those relics and, it does, indeed, teach that miracles have happened from contact with or meditation on Relics of Saints. That teaching is, like the opinion on the Shroud, is not binding... you can be a Roman Catholic and disbelieve that a particular item is miraculous or genuine.
 

---

Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
 
Taalcoon - thanks for the post to Uncle Orsons review.

All we've really heard over here in the UK is that Mel Gibsons had made this film - and how graphic it was.

From all the discussions about the brutality and horror in the film I must admit I was getting put off. However, now I'll wait until it comes out here in the UK and then think and pray about whether I should go and see it or not.

[ March 01, 2004, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: cochick ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

"God has not abandoned you, Tom."

Prove it.

---

We can't. God is very personal, he relates to each of us differently, I could give you countless examples from my own life that prove to me that God is real and has never abandoned me, but that will mean nothing to you.

All I can say is if you ever want someone to pray with you, let me know.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Cochick:

Only one "o", man. Come on. It's not that hard a name.

You're welcome, tho

[ March 01, 2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
 
Taalcon - using this as a grovel of apology - not worshipping ya - you're welcome
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Taalcoon = Dave having won The Apprentice and become Donald Trump
 

---

Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
 
Ron:

quote:

---

However, of all the divine attributes and powers that God the Son voluntarily laid aside when He came to earth to dwell among us as one of us, there does seem to be one power that He has permanently given up--the power of omnipresence. He must depend upon the Holy Spirit to represent Him everywhere at once. He can only be in one place at one time now, for He has taken humanity upon Himself permanently.

---

I find that very interesting, Ron. Is there any evidence for this, biblical or otherwise, or is this a personal theory? I always thought he went back to being his same old self, but with first-hand knowledge of humanity and suffering... not that i'm a bible expert or anything.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Tom:

You think he'd be omniscient and practically omnipotent, but decide to forget you?

Demanding him to approach on your terms is not the same as seeking him on his.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
kat, I spent a good portion of my life seeking Him on His. The only other thing the Bible seems to suggest might work is persecuting a bunch of Christians before staring into the sun, but it's hard to get that kind of work in America nowadays. I recognize that you have to believe that God shows up for every honest seeker -- but, frankly, you don't actually have to be right.

[ March 02, 2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
How do you get answers to prayers, and knowledge of the mysteries of God?

quote:

---

If any of you lack wisdom, let him as of God, that gveth to tall men liberally, and upgbraideth not; and it shall be gen him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.
James 1:5-6

---

quote:

---

Whatsoever thing ye shall ask in faith, beliving that ye shall recieve in the name of Christ, ye shall recieve it.
Enos 1:15

---

quote:

---

And now I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the worlds that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.
Ether 12:6

---

quote:

---

40 And it came to pass that the Lamanites said unto him: What shall we do, that this cloud of darkness may be removed from overshadowing us?

41 And Aminadab said unto them: You must repent, and cry unto the voice, even until ye shall have faith in Christ, who was taught unto you by Alma, and Amulek, and Zeezrom; and when ye shall do this, the cloud of darkness shall be removed from overshadowing you.

42 And it came to pass that they all did begin to cry unto the voice of him who had shaken the earth; yea, they did cry even until the cloud of darkness was dispersed.
Helaman 5:40-42

---

quote:

---

I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.
Doctrine and Covenants 82:10

---

quote:

---

11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will bhearken unto you.

13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

14 And I will be found of you, saith the LORD...
Jeremiah 29:11-14

---

He thinks thoughts of peace toward us, will listen when we pray, and when we seek with all our thoughts, will be found.

But rarely all at once. And almost never as we think he should.

Try again.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
I know from experience that answers are rarely what you deep down go in wanting. But in my case, at times when I kept doubting the Still Small Voice that DID give me an answer, and it wasn't really what I wanted to hear, and i kept asking. Eventually some metaphorical rocks were thrown at me, and even then I doubted. It wasn't until a leap of faith - an action on my part - that the slew of confirmation really started to jump out at me.

I've had those moments of crying out, inwardly and outwardly, wanting to know the truth. Wanting it to be personally confirmed to Me. I spent a few years doing it myself. And I did keep getting what seemed like answers, but they were subtle, and still not what I really wanted to hear, and I kept writing them off as coincidences and wishful thinking.

I know what it's like.

Don't expect the bright light and the personage to show up. Don't expect a stranger to walk up to you and say something that is exactly what you needed to hear, and have it totally wierd you out that it happened the day after you asked in prayer for an sign. Don't ask for specifics.

But that's what a lot of people can't stand about Faith - that for the most part it requires Action before Confirmation. And to act on it, it often requires a "broken heart and a contrite spirit" in willing to be able to accept an answer when it comes.

Which believe you me - isn't fun to go through. And I think you know that, and have been there.

I've been at times that where parts of me really wanted to believe, but inwardly I was scared of what it would mean for my life if it WAS all true, and that part of me kept on acting on it.

It wasn't until I was completely broken that I could start acting on it, having Faith, Hoping it was true. Faith and Hope are two very important things that do play side by side - they are not the same thing, but do reinforce each other.

At least, that's how it worked for me. Results may, and do, vary.

[ March 02, 2004, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Here's the deal:

I have complete faith in my ability to brainwash myself into anything I'm determined to believe. Moreover, I don't see the POINT in brainwashing myself if I'm not going to get any kind of response from a hypothetical God that will be recognizable as God, or even comprehensible.

I can get unrecognizable, incomprehensible messages from my subconscious NOW, and I don't have to deliberately turn off all logical thought to do it.

I've made plenty of good faith (*heh*) attempts to hear from God, but the one thing I will NOT do when searching for Him is convince myself that He's already out there. Because, well, obviously THAT would work.

"You'll hear from God once you start hallucinating and not second-guessing the hallucinations, which by the way don't need to make any sense" is not in fact the way any God worth worshipping is going to communicate.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
If you're going to ignore God until he comes to Tom terms, no wonder you're still waiting.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Wait, if you are going to ignore him when he knocks, even with the special knock you secretly think he might use, on the principle that a getting a feeling that you want automatically implies that BECAUSE you want it, that's WHY you're feeling it, you've trapped yourself in a tautology.

This can't be God because I figured God would feel like this, and I want to hear from him. So, that's not it. Now, where is God? He said he'd come.

It's called a leap of faith for precisely that reason. Let go of a bit of control and take the leap. You'll do it when you want it enough.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
No, no, see, you don't understand.
I've already done the "have faith and listen" bit. But people keep insisting that I didn't have ENOUGH faith, or didn't go far enough towards believing to properly have a chance of hearing.

But I know for a fact that if I went any farther towards believing as a precondition of listening again, I would have already convinced myself of the truth of the thing I was looking to confirm, thus making a mockery of the whole exercise.

Because, see, I don't want to believe in God because it's COMFORTING. I want to believe in God because He EXISTS. And while I'm sure I can brainwash myself into some comfortable fictions, I'd rather wind up believing what's actually True. And to do that, I'm afraid I need to remain more discerning of truth than some people claim the process requires.

Hopefully, God will have some respect for that.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Tom, you CAN'T say that you've NEVER gotten ANYTHING. I know you have - you've said you have. But it does dissapear if you talk yourself out of it.

[ March 02, 2004, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
And if you're objecting to the scriptures, why should the rules be different for you than for the rest of humanity?

"This is the way, except for Tom."
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Kat, what I've gotten has never been anything more than the hint of a feeling. But, y'know, I can give myself the hint of a feeling -- the exact same feeling, speaking from empirical experience -- by listening to music with a lot of tremolo and drinking Vernors and thinking about the future. Frankly, I expect more from God.

-----

Edit: Let me reiterate my fears. Basically, I know I want to believe. I know that it's very easy to make oneself believe something, and know that the vast majority of people out there who think they've talked to God must have convinced themselves of this, as they clearly haven't all talked to the SAME God. Ergo, the traditional approach of "you have to convince yourself before you receive any proof" can effectively be reworded "once you've convinced yourself, your subconscious will manufacture all the fake proof you need."

It's for this reason that I'm not going to budge any farther down the road to potential self-delusion. If God cares, He can meet me halfway.

[ March 02, 2004, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
(...)
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
But it's receive no witness until AFTER the trial of your faith. Why should you be the exception to the scriptures? You're placing more faith in your own processes than in God.

Tom, you really think God hasn't met you halfway yet?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Kat, by the time I had convinced myself, I would no longer NEED the evidence, would I? And if I didn't actually receive any evidence -- as I suspect happens more often than not -- I would be more than glad to manufacture my own, because I would have already reached the point where I had become emotionally invested in my own belief.

It's unsurprising to me that so many of the scriptures in religions that believe in invisible gods teach that the gods work in inscrutable ways, or manifest only to believers. Because, well, duh.

------

And, yeah, I'm CERTAIN God hasn't met me halfway. Because I've gone halfway -- MORE than halfway, in fact -- and haven't seen Him waiting there. And if He's just waiting around the corner, snickering into his sleeve and waiting for me to yell "ollieoxenfree," that's just petty.

[ March 02, 2004, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
But you'd get the evidence anyway.

Ask Taal about the last 10 percent thing.

---

As for the last, I'm going to call you on it. You're gainfully and satisfactorily employed, in a great city, happily married, and blessed beyond most of Hatrack, not to mention the world.

All the Lord wants is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Halfway HIS terms, not your terms. Standing at your front door shouting, "Come out, dagnabbit! Show yourself! Don't make me come find you!" is not halfway.

[ March 02, 2004, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
If you're scared of deluding yourself, you can always apostasize. People do it all the time.

----

*thinks* Nope, that doesn't work. It's like getting married thinking you can always divorce. It poisons the process of devotion in the first place.

Plus, you'd be much worse off. Okay, don't do that. I was being flippant, then felt horrible for it.

[ March 02, 2004, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"As for the last, I'm going to call you on it. You're gainfully and satisfactorily employed, in a great city, happily married, and blessed beyond most of Hatrack, not to mention the world."

And I worked my butt off to get there.
When I had a broken heart and contrite spirit, and looked to God for support and assistance, none was forthcoming.

When I got off my posterior and stopped being so contrite all the time, my life turned around practically overnight. And I mean this. I was once a much nicer, much kinder, much humbler, and much more sympathetic person -- and a miserable, unambitious failure.

If I'm going to say that my success is evidence of God's hand, doesn't that also mean that a) my earlier failures were ALSO evidence of God's hand and b) my own desperate labor to improve my lot was ultimately meaningless?

I never got a "lucky" break. Never. Every opportunity I ever found -- from my first job to relocating to Madison -- I had to turn over a dozen rocks and kill a hundred scorpions to find. If God killed, say, one out of those hundred scorpions FOR me, He didn't do it in a way I noticed.

[ March 02, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That's different from what you said at the time.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I knew I should have saved that thread.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Man, there was an Onion piece on just this topic. Let me see if I can locate it.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

If I'm going to say that my success is evidence of God's hand, doesn't that also mean that a) my earlier failures were ALSO evidence of God's hand and b) my own desperate labor to improve my lot was ultimately meaningless?

---

quote:

---

Kat, what I've gotten has never been anything more than the hint of a feeling.

---

Most people don't get the flash of light. I'm convinced that's because for most people, the flash of light would do nothing.

Like...Alma the Younger.

Alma the younger was going about seeking to destroy the church. Quite dreadful. He and his buddies met with an angel, and it stopped him in his tracks. They repented, and changed their lives.

But later, when Alma was teaching about having a change of heart, he didn't share that experience. He shared the following one:

quote:

---

45 And this is not all. Do ye not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold, I testify unto you that I do know that these things whereof I have spoken are true. And how do ye suppose that I know of their surety?

46 Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of revelation which is in me.

---

quote:

---

As I don't know which of those is more likely to be true, I continue to wait for God to contact me and make it clear. p

---

quote:

---

To rationalize this, I have to assume either that people are misconstruing the messages they're getting from God, that God's deliberately giving people contradictory messages for some reason, that there are multiple gods giving contradictory messages, or that at least some of those people merely think they're getting messages from God.

---

Just my opinion...I think the first and last choices are most correct.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*nods* I'm glad.

Have you tried reading scripture? I have to say, I get more answers to prayers during scripture study than during actual prayers. Together, it's a pretty powerful combo.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm not reading scripture more than I already do, precisely because I don't want to commit to any given scripture. It's not like I KNOW God's a Mormon, after all, and I don't want to tick Him off and blow my chances. Besides, scripture study always backfires on me, anyway; I wind up pointing out the inconsistencies and silliness.

[ March 02, 2004, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Heh. I didn't actually say the Book of Mormon, but you know I wanted to.

But either way, I'm pretty sure you can't tick off the Lord by searching. I'm telling you, the BoM works, but studying any scripture is...giving the spirit opportunity to work within you. Maybe Isaiah?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Well, it’s not scripture, but I still think you should read Schleiermacher. If you can stomach 18th/19th century German romanticism, that is.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

I wind up pointing out the inconsistencies and silliness.

---

(...) Maybe your pride could give you a break for a minute to...allow you to read from the less educated.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Tom, have you tried sitting in a dandelion patch for a bit and not worrying about it?

(It's odd that Kat endorses 'scripture' as something that helps one to become closer to God. I myself find most scripture to be about as spiritual as lint. YMMV, I suppose. )

[ March 02, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

precisely because I don't want to commit to any given scripture.

---

A first date is NOT a commitment. You can read the Bible or the BoM without pledging your will.

[ March 02, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Dana, all I remember about Schleiermacher is that he was a Calvinist who thought that the Gospel of John was the only "accurate" gospel and believed that dogma got in the way of the proper "intuition" of God. Is that right? I've got to admit that I largely dismissed the guy in philosophy class, but I vaguely remember that his theory of hemeneutics (?) reminded me of memetics -- the idea that language was the natural expression of certain inherently shared social concepts born into every human.

Now that I think about it, Schleiermacher was also big into semiotics, wasn't he? The idea that words with multiple denotations simultaneously SHARED those denotations as subconscious connotations, and that these connotations actually were inevitable constructs of which conscious thought would be composed?

If I remember correctly, Schleiermacher always bothered me in a religious sense because he was actually quite areligious -- claiming that a conscious God was not actually necessary for the benefit of religion, and belief in a life after death absurd -- but encouraged belief in Christian monotheism because he felt monotheism offered the most psychological benefits, and Christian monotheism in particular offered the best balance between the feeling of dependence on a higher power -- which is how, IIRC, he wound up defining religion, and which he argued was an essential feeling for human growth -- and personal responsibility.

I haven't read anything by him, as I recall, that specifically discussed the idea of being contacted by God, but I DO remember that he was rather insistent that things like dogma and practice were irrelevant, and that the actual worship was, definitionally, the whole point of religion. That always struck me as being particularly apologetic.

----

Edit: I guess this comes back to my primary quibble with modern Protestantism: the idea that believing SOMETHING, as long as you're humble and submissive enough, is good enough -- even if it's not necessary The Truth.

Frankly, I believe that believing something which is not The Truth is not only a complete waste of time but downright psychologically harmful, and want to be convinced of Truth before I commit to Belief.

[ March 02, 2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
*laughs*

Isaiah was going to be my suggestion too. I love that book, it's my comfort food. Whenever I'm feeling down and need to reconnect, I pick up the Bible and turn to Isaiah.

Isaiah 54:10 is a fav.

The mountains may fall, and the hills depart, but my lovingkindness will never leave you and my covenant of peace with you will never be shaken.

That's from memory, not an exact quote, so I encourage you to look it up yourself.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Trust me, you guys, I'm familiar with Christian scripture. It's not like I'm going to read a passage and go, "Oh, I haven't seen THAT before! That changes the whole way I look at God!" *grin*
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Tom, give it up. No religious doctrine will ever measure up enough for you. No religion that is non-doctrinal will ever be good enough for you because you demand doctrine.

Unless you like being miserable, what's the point? Why do you want religion in your life? Why not be happy with what you have?
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Back to the topic. Dana, what did you think about the movie?

***very curious

AJ
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 

quote:

---

Trust me, you guys, I'm familiar with Christian scripture. It's not like I'm going to read a passage and go, "Oh, I haven't seen THAT before! That changes the whole way I look at God!"

---

quote:

---

Scripture seems like a remarkably second-hand way to learn about the nature of God if one posits that God is capable of communicating His nature to people directly.

---

quote:

---

Even if you rather generously assume that half the people saying they talk to God have in fact talked to God, we're still talking about literally millions of Americans who've fooled themselves into thinking that they've communicated with the Creator of the Universe -- which would, I'd think, normally be an event that'd be fairly difficult to mistake for something else.

---

quote:

---

I guess this comes back to my primary quibble with modern Protestantism: the idea that believing SOMETHING, as long as you're humble and submissive enough, is good enough -- even if it's not necessary The Truth.

---

quote:

---

if someone could explain to me why we should bother to worship one.

---

• The first scene. It's good that it portrayed the fear and doubt.
• The point-of-view of Mary. This was a woman who watched as her son was beaten, mocked, and killed. It's about time this was given serious thought.
• The ruthlessness of the Romans. They were brutal. They get off easy with all the "Jews killed Christ" rhetoric.

• Ciaphas. If the man had really talked to Pilate like that, he'd have hung right next to Jesus. Sorry, folks, but while he was a manipulative bastard, he did not handle things like that.
• Latin. Now, I understand that Latin was the vernacular in Rome's heyday, but it wasn't the language of choice for people like Pilate. Pilate spoke Greek (wrote some in Latin, but was Greek at heart).
• History. While this was a very... Catholic movie, but not quite historically correct. That bugged me from a strictly historical POV.
• The lowercase "T". Really, why does this baloney need to be propagated?

quote:

---

Da'ek teleyfoon methta'naanaak, pquud. Guudaapaw!
Please turn off your mobile phone. It is blasphemous.

---

quote:

---

Ayleyn enuun Oorqey?
Which ones are the Orcs?

---

quote:

---

B-zabnaa d-qeenduunos, tayyeb lkuun uurkhaa d-mapaqtaa.
In case of emergency, prepare ye the way of the exit.

---

quote:

---

No one seems to be writing the most significant story about The Passion at this point, which is that after almost two full weeks in at least three English-speaking countries, there has not been a legit report of violence stemming from the film. Not one. And while I still maintain that the film is clearly anti-Semitic – not because it claims that Jews had the lion’s share of responsibility for the death of Christ, but because every other “bad guy” gets an out and the Jews who are not Christ’s family or disciples are all pretty cartoonish – I must say that this reality is yet another reason why The Passion is moving to the inside pages of the papers this week.

---