The Passion

[hw]

Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson
Paul Harvey's words:

I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have
been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.

I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion," held in
Washington, DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened.

From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.

In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an
artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing.

I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.

One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the
weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face.
Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving
eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new."

These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.

At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to
recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be 'anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer.

A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely
presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree.

There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way.

Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who
identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art.

Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it.

After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.

We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel
narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion."

Please copy this and send it on to all your friends to let them know about this film so that all go see it when it comes out.

P.S. From Julie: My daughter, Kristin, tells me they learned
at her church Youth Group that Mel Gilbson stated he did not appear in
his own movie, by his choice, with one exception: It is Gibson's hands seen nailing Jesus to the cross. Gibson said he wanted to do that because it was indeed his own hands that nailed Jesus to the cross (along with all of ours.)

[hw]

Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson
Paul Harvey's words:

I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have
been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.

I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion," held in
Washington, DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened.

From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.

In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an
artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing.

I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.

One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the
weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face.
Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving
eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new."

These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.

At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to
recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be 'anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer.

A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely
presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus" I agree.

There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way.

Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who
identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art.

Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it.

After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.

We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel
narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion."

Please copy this and send it on to all your friends to let them know about this film so that all go see it when it comes out.

P.S. From Julie: My daughter, Kristin, tells me they learned
at her church Youth Group that Mel Gilbson stated he did not appear in
his own movie, by his choice, with one exception: It is Gibson's hands seen nailing Jesus to the cross. Gibson said he wanted to do that because it was indeed his own hands that nailed Jesus to the cross (along with all of ours.)

[Naturist Mark]

That is a great article, but it has been misattributed to Paul Harvey, the author is Keith A Fournier (http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID5339|CHID14|CIID1615818,00.html), a constitutional lawyer and a graduate of the John Paul II Institute of the Lateran University, Franciscan University and the University of Pittsburgh. He deserves the credit.

-Mark

[hw]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
That is a great article, but it has been misattributed to Paul Harvey, the author is Keith A Fournier (http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID5339|CHID14|CIID1615818,00.html), a constitutional lawyer and a graduate of the John Paul II Institute of the Lateran University, Franciscan University and the University of Pittsburgh. He deserves the credit.

-Mark <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks Mark...Even if it was not written by Paul Harvey, it is a very good article. I would be interesed to get opinions here from those who may have seen the film. I usually don't go to theaters myself, but I think in this case I may make an exception. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Bob S.]

I have a few questions/comments concerning the movie, which I have no intention of seeing. No major reason, just doesn't appeal to me.

The first one is why so many Christians are suddenly so passionate (no pun intended) about seeing a movie directed by Mel Gibson? It is almost like he has suddenly become akin to a saint who could do no wrong in telling the story. I understand the subject is what they are interested in, but many religious movies have come and gone.

Also related to that quetsion is why some parents and church leaders would suggets that this movie, which is rated-R, is fine for children? I would think that all of the violence would negatively affect some children just as regular movie violence affects them. And this is worse. But as Mel Gibson mentioned, there is no gratuitous violence.

What if the idea was not excess violence but excess nudity? What if someone made a movie about Adam and Eve and the fall from Grace? And in the movie, Adam and Eve were as the Bible said, naked and innocent? Would there still be a crush to allow children to watch the movie with all of the nudity?

Another is that many people have suggested that the movie is very accurate to the story as written in the Bible. But I have heard that Jesus was crucified on the cross naked. From the trailers that I have seen, he has a covering or do they strip him after they put him in place?

Bob S.

A true depiction of Adam and Eve in their complete nude glory...Now there's a movie I'd like to see and probably recommend for children of all ages....I am interested in hearing reviews from people who have actually seen this movie...Our newspaper critic gave it a C...Lets here it moviegoers...Odb /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The first one is why so many Christians are suddenly so passionate (no pun intended) about seeing a movie directed by Mel Gibson? It is almost like he has suddenly become akin to a saint who could do no wrong in telling the story. I understand the subject is what they are interested in, but many religious movies have come and gone.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, Mel Gibson has made a lot of pretty good movies and certainly is not your average Hollywood star. I'm not saying I approve of certain views he holds, but I do credit him with having relatively unique perspective. (I'm assuming here that the anti-Semitic allegations are false.)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also related to that quetsion is why some parents and church leaders would suggets that this movie, which is rated-R, is fine for children? I would think that all of the violence would negatively affect some children just as regular movie violence affects them. And this is worse. But as Mel Gibson mentioned, there is no gratuitous violence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Assuming the movie is as violent as I've heard, I would NOT think children (14 and under) should see it no matter what its redeeming features (they could perhaps see an edited version now and the full version when they're old enough). Though requisite violence is more acceptable than gratuitious violence, that wouldn't change my opinion in this case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Another is that many people have suggested that the movie is very accurate to the story as written in the Bible. But I have heard that Jesus was crucified on the cross naked. From the trailers that I have seen, he has a covering or do they strip him after they put him in place? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good question!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What if the idea was not excess violence but excess nudity? What if someone made a movie about Adam and Eve and the fall from Grace? And in the movie, Adam and Eve were as the Bible said, naked and innocent? Would there still be a crush to allow children to watch the movie with all of the nudity?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not sure what "excess violence" would be. The level of violence has to be appropriate for the subject matter, which may be justifiable in this case. One commentor, a Catholic priest who has seen the film, felt the violence was out of proportion to the Gospel account.

I'm not sure what "excess nudity" would be. Can one have excess nudity except maybe where it is harmful due to environmental conditions?

If a realistic movie about Adam and Eve (or Christ) was ever made, I suspect most North American social conservative Christians would be be horrified about any depiction of full nudity and want it banned, never mind letting their children see it. As an aside, one of the BEST versions of Adam and Eve I've ever seen was Hanna-Barbera's "The Creation":
http://www.0ne-shop.com/vhs/Genres/Animation/Religious/Christian/P-0000000a000057645a5364565a6b5456/Greatest-Adventure-Stories-from-the-Bible-The-Creation/Greatest-Adventure-Storie s-from-the-Bible-The-Creation.php (http://www.0ne-shop.com/vhs/Genres/Animation/Religious/Christian/P-0000000a000057645a5364565a6b5456/Greatest-Adventure-Stories-from-the-Bible-The-Creation/Greatest-Adventure-Stories-from-the-Bible-The-Creation.php)
(While the characters are obviously naked, Eve's long hair and foliage coincidentally cover up their dangly bits throughout.)

[nudebynature]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
I have a few questions/comments concerning the movie, which I have no intention of seeing. No major reason, just doesn't appeal to me.

The first one is why so many Christians are suddenly so passionate (no pun intended) about seeing a movie directed by Mel Gibson? It is almost like he has suddenly become akin to a saint who could do no wrong in telling the story. I understand the subject is what they are interested in, but many religious movies have come and gone.


Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have followed this story closed since before they cast the film. Mel Gibson is not a saint, but he is a man on a mission. While he is a successful Hollywood actor, he is very unHollywood in his every day life.

Mel Gibson is a devout Roman Catholic and has a large family and a long time wife to whom he is devoted. Those things make him different from your everyday superstar.

He has wanted to make this movie for many years. He could not get any help in Hollywood. He ended up in putting up $25 million of his own money to begin production. He took many risks along the way.

He continued to have trouble getting any supporters and as of last fall he had no distributor.

Word has spread largely by the pre-screenings and the reactions to them. It is being distributed and is released today. There is some promotion, but not nearly the hype that even modest movies get.

I find it interesting that people are opposed the making of it, were skeptical all the way along and now are criticizing Gibson for making a graphic, and realistic movie about the foremost person in all of history. Whether you believe it or not, you have to admit the story is compelling.

The story was not made to be a blockbuster, although initially it looks that it may be an unlikely hit. It is told in Aramaic with subtitles. It is graphic and not pretty to look at. The music is haunting, not greatest hit material. The whipping scene goes on for a long time. It is sure to turn people off. In short, Mel did everything that he could to make it realistic and nothing to make it a Hollywood smash hit.

In the whipping scene, the actor who plays Jesus is being flailed. He had a metal plate on his back. One of the lashings hit his bare skin, leaving a nine inch scar. James Caviezel said that he could feel the breath being sucked out of him such that he thought that he would die. That was from a single lash of the whip. Think of how many Jesus endured!

As for charges of anti-semitism, the fact that he was crucified by the Jews is hardly news. Some will argue that he wasn't really. It was the Romans who did it.

Jesus was crucified by the Romans against their own better instincts at the request of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish governing council. When pardon was offered the Jewish mob insisted that Jesus die. That is history. You can't change it or tidy it up.

It should not be blamed on the Jews, however. They are God's chosen people. The crucifiction was foretold by the prophets. It was necessary for the remission of sins and the salvation of all believers.

I plan on seeing the movie, although I am probably the most sqeamish person on the planet. I owe it to my Savior to see, hear and feel what He endured for me.

_________________________________


"I believe that every particle of dust that dances in the sunbeam does not move an atom more or less than God wishes"--Charles Spurgeon

[Bob S.]

When I replied, I was not interested in the controversy surrounding anti-semitism. Those who are anti-semites will find this movie to prove their side, those who are not will use this movie to prove that their is no reason to be anti-semitic.

"I'm not sure what "excess violence" would be...I'm not sure what "excess nudity" would be."

With those terms hm, I was using traditional societal usage. One of the charges against this movie is that the violence, the whippings, are so excessive that some moviegoers may be turned off. So what if the argument was that there was excessive nudity (as would be used in other movies)?

And just so you know, I do not plan to watch the movie. Tis not my cup o' tea.

Bob S.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One of the charges against this movie is that the violence, the whippings, are so excessive that some moviegoers may be turned off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just for the record, I am concerned (without having seen it) that the movie is too violent. As a Christian, I know that too many co-religionists have an unhealthy obsession with suffering. To me, one of the beneficial aspects of religious belief should be the ablility to deal with suffering to a degree at least where one can be more joyful than despairing. While there is a time for suffering, there should be time, more time, for joy. Unfortunately, too many religious people I know get so involved in the suffering part, they almost seem to disdain the joy part as if doing so was a sin. Worse, they can consider their moral duty to ensure others are receiving their share of adequate suffering.

And I'm not just talking about individuals, most of us know of unfounded rules some churches impose that seem to have no good reason other than keeping people from getting too happy. As I recall, at least in pre-Vatican II times, certain orders of priests had to wear a miniature barbed wire around one ankle, no doubt to continually remind them of the suffering of Christ.

So one concern I have with the movie (without having seen it) is its potentially unbalanced focus on suffering and the sort of unhealthy mindset that implies and promotes. It would be nice if Mel's next movie could be joyful and violence-free.

[hm0504]

FYI, a review of "The Passion of the Christ" from one of my favourite religion web sites:
http://christianity.about.com/cs/themovies/a/passion.htm

[nunne]

I really appreciate the review which you cited. I have felt that I really did not want to go and see the movie because it was entirely based upon the last few hours of Christ's life. That gives nothing to what is the real foundation of my belief. Henderson has expressed that feeling much more eloquently than I ever could.

[ncognito66]

Aside from the spiritual value, some of us want to see the movie for political reasons.

Mr. Gibson took a huge chance with his career by basically doing an end-run around the established Hollywood hierarchy. He spent $50 million of his own money to bring this movie to the screen. Yesterday "unnamed Hollywood executives" stated they would never work with him again. I support him for having guts.

Even if I do not find the time to see the movie, I will still purchase a ticket, then throw it away.

[NuTex]

Everyone,
Here's some of my concerns about the movie. I will say I haven't seen it and will probably not see it in the theaters.

My first concern is the level of violence. Have we degraded as a society that the only way we can show the suffering of the cross is by being as graphic as possible? What's next? A movie about King David with an NC-17 rating with a graphic sex scene of David and Bathsheba because "It is as it was"? Will the evangelicals be sending their flock to see that?

I also have a concern about the odd way it's being promoted. There seems to be an almost deliberate attempt by some Christians to put out false endorsements. First was the claim by one of the movie's producers, Steve McEveety, that Pope John Paul II has said, "It is as it was." Later, the Vatican said he had not said that or endorsed the movie. Now there's the endorsement credited to Paul Harvey but wasn't (I don't fault HW. Someone doctored that before she got it without her knowledge).

My next concern is the importance placed on His suffering and death rather than the Resurrection by this movie. While His suffering is important it's only important because of the resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15:14 Paul wrote,"...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."

I'm not trying to say someone shouldn't see it. But I think only adults should due to the violence. And if you do see go see it go back and read the bible. Especially the parts before and after the Passion. As Paul Harvey would say for "the rest of the story".
God bless,
NuTex

[nudeM]

Originally posted by NE Alan: Mr. Gibson took a huge chance with his career by basically doing an end-run around the established Hollywood hierarchy. He spent $50 million of his own money to bring this movie to the screen. Yesterday "unnamed Hollywood executives" stated they would never work with him again. I support him for having guts.

But look at them now. They are frowning on him as he laughs his way to the bank. Also, from what I understand, he spent $30 million and on the first days showings, the gross receipts were $23.6 million. I am not disputing the figures, it's just another source I read. There are also those who gave him a hard time, calling it anti-sematic. They have since did an about face and are now crediting him for the picture.

I plan on watching the picture, not because of it's religious theme, but because if the picture is anything like the others that he produced and starred in (Braveheart), the acting is supurb, with a great storyline.

[ncognito66]

Actually I heard $25 million to produce, and another $25 million to promote and distribute. Who knows, more than I'll ever see! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Naturist Mark]

I haven't seen the movie, but I liked the book! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
-Mark

[NuTex]

I heard Mel was going to make a sequel, but the title "Return of the King" has already been taken.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
NuTex

[Fresh Air]

I saw the movie. On one hand, it is just a movie, made by a man. Nothing man does will ever be perfect in everyones eyes. On the other hand, from my perspective, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit is using this film for good.

Whether we choose to promote this film by seeing it or not see it for personal reasons, we should not judge it. If we want ot judge how it affects people in general, we should look to those people and not the critics or our own personal beliefs.

This film is changing peoples lives. Many people have a flawed concept of who or what Jesus is/was. If anything this film paints a clearer image of Jesus for them.

Not every "Christian" is a church going, bible reading, or learned Christian. I find it amazing that a film like this can be successful in the secular entertainment industry (remember that it is not made or promoted by any specific church).

My hat goes off to Mel, because if I was in his shoes I am not certain I would have had the conviction or guts to do what he has done. Also, until I am in his situation and make a film by my own standards I will not judge the intents and works that he did. The man is worshiping and giving an offering to his God as best he knows how.

So, I liked the movie (even though my faith doesn't correlate 100%). I don't feel any harm can come of this movie. If you think about it the only thing that can come from it is that someone might discover Jesus and give their hearts to Him. For me, that is plenty enough good to call this film a blessing.

Fresh Air

[vsusinga]

Hey everyone. ALlow me to say this. I saw the movie las tnight and it changed my life. I cried more than I have ever cried before. I see everyone says that there was excess violence in this movie. Ther ewas NO excess violence... That is what Jesus actually went through! Those poictures you see of jesus on a cross wiht a couple scratch marks and a drop of blood on his face,,, thats fake. He actually got beaten like that. Mel Gibson was right on target to get the point across to us that someone went through all that torture, even though he had the power to walk away from it, so that God's will wold be fullfilled and that is what made it possible for us to be here living free today. How dare anyone criticize that! He was beatn and executed like a criminal for us and all we can think of is how much so-called 'extra violence' is in the movie. See y=how you would handle beaing nearly beat to death and nailed to a cross. Stop all the controversy about "this doesnt agreee with my faith 100%" blah blah. You know as well as i do that Jesus was crucied for us so don't try to make it controversial. Just get the message of the story. SOrry if i seemed harsh but this movie changed my life. Its one thing to read about it, its another to watch it happen. Thank you

[TXK NUDE]

I have not seen the movie yet, but I hope to this next weekend. I have purposefully kept out of this thread until now because I know that there are certain people on this forum who just LOVE to stir up trouble and this movie, with all it's controversy, is the perfect fodder for them. But I wanted to agree with the previous post. This movie could never show all the violence that Christ endured, whether at the hands of the Romans or Jews. It was "exruciating", which has the same root word as "crucifixion". He had to endure such agony and pain to truly pay the price demanded by our sins (which were the real villians of this tale--OUR sins crucified Christ!), and we in the modern age could never understand what that entails. We cannot imagine the vileness, the evil, and depravity of the ancient world, and the forms of punishment and death they inflicted on others. The Holocaust, while a great tragedy, was almost humane compared to what the Romans did to early Christians, and what the ancient Syrians did to their captured enemies. In this age of Humane Societies, PETA, and Amnesty International, we cannot even endure the thought of someone literally being flayed alive, and then beaten mercilessly by total strangers, having spikes driven through his flesh and then forced to suffocate by being suspended on a heavy, rotten, splintery wooden beam that he had been made to carry in his nearly dead condition for nearly four miles, with no one protesting--in fact, the crowds were cheering it on! Even the Romans of that time considered a crucifixion to be the cruelest and vicious form of execution, and they loved it!
I, for one, am truly grateful to Jesus for suffering that great agony and dying in my place...a place I should have been in because I was guilty of sin.

[David77]

Quote -
"our sins (which were the real villians of this tale--OUR sins crucified Christ!)"
<hr width= "30%">
May I respectfully submit the idea that no sins of those of us living today, could have contributed toward crucifixion of a man who lived about 2000 years ago.

I hope this statement is not considered as "stiring up trouble" but merely as a different view.

[namedun]

I agree with you David. I would add too (although this WILL stir up trouble), why do people say Christ died for our sins? Firstly, Christ died 2000 years ago, so how would my "sins" have anything to do with him? Secondly, Christ didn't die to save people from their sins, Christ was a pacifist and became the number one martyr in the known history of man.

Namedun

[Trailscout]

Namedun,

Jesus' death must be understood in context. For thousands of years, people sacrificed animals to cover their sins until Messiah could come to provide forgiveness once and for all. The prophets foretold Messiah's coming beginning in the book of Genesis and with greater clarity and detail in subsequent books of the prophets.

In the fullness of time, it was revealed that Messiah was Jesus of Nazareth. Because he was not a mere prophet, but God incarnate in human flesh, his death had power far greater than any of the previous animal sacrifices.

While an animal sacrifice could only temporarily cover over the sins of one man for one year, Jesus death could forgive sin, past, present and future for all who believe in him.

[hm0504]

Timelines, like spatial distances, are irrelevant to God. For Christians, and other religions with an omnipotent Deity(ies), theistic events like death and resurrection of Christ can have scopes independent of the limitations of our physical realm.

[Ren]

I didn't want to see it, but I wound up going anyway. I saw it with two others who grew up Catholic and one who is a non-Catholic Christian. So, the reaction was funny as the NCC expressed her misgivings about some of the issues --- she doesn't regard the Catholic Bible too much and knows more about this stuff anyway. She felt Jesus wouldn't have needed the help and Mary was in it too much. Catholic versions see Jesus as more human on earth and Mary's involvement.

I felt like I went to school, but it presented a much more helpful version of what Jesus taught than years of childhood church-going ever did. I think it actually shows his humanity most of all, and it's funny in today's political climate, how people are using Christianity to promote hatred and bigotry and to take rights away from citizens of this country. The Jesus I grew up knowing and saw in the movie would probably be saying his "They know not what they're doing" about today's conservatives. So, it's interesting that it was marketed solely to conservatives before opening day.

I found the depiction of the reluctant Romans and the the haranguing Jews to be a little incongruous with my learning, but relatively close. What I grew up with was a more stentorian Pontius Pilate, not one with a midlife crisis. Can it be considered anti-Semitic? Seems that the New Testament disavows Jewish belief in Jesus as the son of god. So, I guess that could make it anti-Semitic. But, really, it's just an inside job.

The scenes of Mary and Jesus during his walk were the most moving to me. As for the violence, well, what better way to depict the crucifixion, but accurately? As for nudity, this was pretty chaste, even in a den of iniquity scene. I often wonder why we allow kids to see such violence and tell people to turn religious when it is such a violent thing. It should've been NC-17 if the MPAA wants to be consistent with it's ratings.

I thought it was a good movie. Am wondering if it isn't just another work of fiction. And realized that while the right doesn't like to think it, Jesus was a liberal.

[Uurgu]

The film is not as violent as I expected. What is not there is the sinister motives that ususally accompany brutal scenes. The punishments are underscored with Claudia and Mary looking on with sympathy, thus greatly tempering the whole affair.

We all were a party to the crucifixion, not just the authorities of that day. We all owe our very lives to the God who gave himself up freely for us.

I remember the first time I heard that Mel Gibson had made a film about this. I am not sure what surprised me more, that he had made the film or that he was a Catholic. Or maybe that it was that he had made the film AND that he was a Catholic. Very nice.

[NakedMex]

Uurgu,

All I can say is WOW!! To say that the movie was not as violent as you expected is a statement that kind of answers a question that I left with leaving the movie. I left asking myself how could a human being torture or put someone through an experience like what the romans did to Jesus in the whipping scene. I am a male and pretty manly but just about walked out of the theatre because I was getting so mad that they would not stop. I could really not conceive of a human being able to put another fellow human through so much pain like that.

For you to say that
"The punishments are underscored with Claudia and Mary looking on with sympathy, thus greatly tempering the whole affair"?
I am understanding that you seeing a persons mother watch her own son go through an ordeal like that made it more tempering or more acceptable? To myself it made it even more painful and brought out more anger.

To hear opinions like this, it does kind of open up my mind to why Jesus was crucified. For people like yourself. I am not very religious but this movie did open up my mind.

[TXK NUDE]

You say it made you angry...that you can't understand how anothe human being could do such violence to another...now you are beginning to understand what Jesus really endured...not just for people like me or Uurguu...but for you too. He took all of that pain, suffering, and humiliation for you...because he loves you that much. No one else could have endured it, and no else would have wanted to because we as loathsome human beings are hardly worth it, but Jesus (the son of God) loves us so much that he thought we were worth going all the way to the cross for us.
You say you are not terribly religious...that's a good thing. Jesus wasn't terribly religious either...he wasn' a liberal as has been previously posted, but rather he was a radical! He came and shook people's beliefs to the core, and challenged the status quo at every level of society...not for his own personal gain (he sought no kingdom on earth) but to proclaim the truth of God. He wants to radically change your life for the better...not easier, mind you...for the sake of eternity. You can be changed simply by accepting what he did on that cross as if he had done it personally for you and choosing to follow his teachings and living as set the example. That's not religious...that's radical! Jesus lives! Now you can too because of what he did for you!

[hw]

Wonderful movie! Mel Gibson did a fantastic job depicting the pain and suffering Jesus had to endure. Believer or not, this movie will have an impact on anyone who views it.

[tarsus]

i have not seen nor will likly see the movie. i have heard a lot about it however. many are saying it anti-sematic. the bible traces jesus back to adam,moving forward from there we see abraham will father a nation chosen by God. it was these people that jesus spoke to. only a few recorded times did he speak to a non jew.all twelve he hand picked were jews only. for the most part his followers were jews. it was the relgious leaders of his time that seeked to put him to death,because he exposed them for nothing more then gory seekers. it was not till later that peter was told to go to the gentiles that non jews became belivers in great numbers. all who belive in christ,who belive he died so we could live,are accepted by God,not just the white race. [jesus was not white but had dark skin,common sense would tell you this].

[nudeM]

The movie was a classic. Very well thought out and acted upon with a great storyline. The acting was supurb. Violent as it may have been advertised, it was nothing more than pure torture, which the Romans believed in. It's just that Mel Gibson chose not to "edit" the torture. Graphic - yes. But then again, torture isn't a beautiful sight, expecially since it involved whipping.

I agree, that when you leave the movie, it makes one want to take a step back and re-evaluate their life. Was this a religious movie? Not at all, but it did open some eyes of the curious, as to the story about the crucifixion.

Too bad this movie was not up for the Academy Awards this year. I plan on seeing it again. Personally, it's that good.

[TXK NUDE]

I would love to see it win at the Oscars next year, but the Academy as typically shied away from controversial films...and fantasys too. However, this year, LOTR walked away with 11 Oscars and it was a fantasy! So...who knows?

[hairyhomer]

Very powerful movie, watching Mary?s' pain as she watched her son be beaten and die brought back painful memories of when our 17 year old son died 13 years ago. My wife cried through the whole movie and couldn't talk about it for 3 days. It showed the real suffering Jesus went through it was not any thing like the beautiful crosses and picture they sell at the religious stores.

[Uurgu]

Here is a Catholic's review of the film. Scroll down to February 29, 2004.

http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/

[Fresh Air]

vsusinga,

By saying "even though my faith doesn't correlate 100%" I did not intend to down play this movie an any way. I feel that for people in general, the Lord is working through the film for good. I mentioned it because while the suffering of Jesus is a key foundation of many peoples beliefs it is not in mine. It is a component, but my focous is more on His life than His death. Even so, the movie is a perfect description of how Christ suffered for mankind.

Which leads to another point, which other brought up. This event that took place 2000 years ago is not a simple man dying on a cross for those who believe He was the Messaiah. If He was just a man, then yes, it would not apply to me. But for those who believe Jesus was our God, who came to earth to embrace ultimate justice in his future actions against Satan, it did matter. Not only would He have done it for one of us, but in Him doing this it is the most important act(for us) that has ever taken place.

It's kind of like the decleration of independence. One might ask, "how could a document written hundreds of years ago affect me?" Clearly, the implications of the question would show a lack of insight, or at least a lack of interest in the topic in general.

Fresh Air

[HansM]

Jesus was never a liberal or a conservative. He believed and died for dignity of all humanbeings. I would say he was a radical, fighting the establishment every inch of the way. I also agree that he is horrified over the present condition of our country and the world. He would never support the attrocities that we are doing to the most helpless beings, our children and elderly. We talk about them and treat them like non-beings. Note I talk about this in the present tense, because he is not dead he is as alive now as he ever was, just not physically.

I personally think the movie was very accurate, I like to see how they depict all the characters and not just the primary character, in this movie Jesus.

I loved the character of John the silent desciple and most favored. I think John's character was one of the most challenging to protray accuratly. He was always there right to the end, lending his silent support.

If you can get the book "A Guide To The Passion: 100 Questions About "The Passion Of The Christ"
http://shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-B0505.html?L+scstore+tgvl6080ffbd16bd+1080928715

It does a gret job of explaing most of the scenes. What was added for effect and what was scriptural, plus other sources that he used that were not scriptural.

I actually saw it twice and will watch it many more times once it comes out on DVD. I did not have a life changing moment, but I do believe it to be the most accurate movie ever of a Biblical event.

I also am concerned over the focus on the death of Christ, that is not the really important part, because he rose again and still lives even today. That is what we need to focus on, but it was a very good depiction of his death.

I do not believe it was to violent, I recomend parents to see it first. Then determine if their children should see it. I think many kids are mature enough to see it, but I also believe that are many that are not.

It also assumes that the viewers have a pretty good understanding of the Gospels to be able to understand it.

Peace in Christ,
Hans

[nudewheelchairTodd]

Did any one notice at the end Jesus did not put on the worldly clothes back on?

[BareDebCNA]

I did Todd, I noticed it too. I saw it twice.. once the first time with my hubby and then the following Sunday night with my girlfriend. It has had a hugh impact on me and my hubby. Famiy is watching it and when it comes out on DVD we will watch it again and offer to watch it with others if they care to do so.
Have a great nude day,
Deb

[Luketor]

I went to see the movie a couple of nights ago. Before doing so I had read reviews and criticisms of how the film may possibly fail too much in a literalist worldview as well as a literalist view of scripture itself. While, of course, I would agree with much of this analysis, I personally, however, wanted to approach this movie more as something that would touch into my own faith experience. That?s what I felt really important. I speak here of a faith very much placed in Jesus, the Son of God, in whose humanity and brokenness the kingdom of God is made tangible and real in what we know as the very clay of our own human and day to day struggles. This is the reality, I believe, in which we can truly find grace, hope and joy in the human journey that belongs to each of us.

Anyhow, after having now seen the movie I can say that it was everything I thought and hoped for - a very beautiful rendering of the powerful reality of Christ's suffering and death. Yes, it was incredibly violent, for so these events were. Why try to escape the truth of these happenings? Too much in the past, I think Christ's passion been somewhat sanitized in history?s various visual depictions,thus possibly helping to reduce something of the stark reality and power of these events to a much more popular and palatable sugar-coated piety. All in all, I felt very moved and inspired by what Mel Gibson has been able to capture in this movie of the mystery of God's mercy present in those awful realities of the events which led to the Crucfixion.

[feelingpositive]

Hi! Yes, I agree, this was quite a change from sanitized silver, gold, polished turquoise crosses. I believe this part of Jesus life was effectively presented. Thanks for your comments. Sincerely, Feeling Positive.

[a1922stanley]

As to films about the life of Christ I would have to say this one was by far the best and the closest to how the Romans and the Pharasies treated Christ. It brought a tear to my eye realizing that I myself put him of that cross due to my sin as did all human kind. It is very moving that Christ loved us so much that he would take our punishmant upon himself on the cross to pay for our sin.


CWR

[Daz]

UURGU,
When you say, "We all were a party to the crucifixion, not just the authorities of that day. We all owe our very lives to the God who gave himself up freely for us." This concerns me as I feel what you are saying is loaded with guilt. I do not agree and take no responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ nor should I be expected to feel guilty about something that happened almost 2000 years before I was brought to this earth. I respect others right to follow their religion in their own way, I take exception to being accused of such a ghastly act though or even implicated in such a way. Personally I try not to be intimidated by the fear and guilt that is often evident in religous views and I try to look for the positive. I don't want to beleive in something because I'm supposed to feel guilty or fearful. To me that would be a living hell. But again, I understand that you have your beliefs and I respect your freedom to do so.

Take Care
Daryl

[Trailscout]

Daryl,

There is a more positive way of viewing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Since the dawn of time, all humanity has recognized that there is something incomplete or askew with creation and with humanity itself.

For thousands of years, the Hebrew prophets showed a way back to God. It was not an end in itself, just a path that culminated in God coming to earth in the person of Jesus. Those who believe in Jesus to the point of becoming one of his disciples can have peace with God. God will come to dwell in their hearts and their sins will be forgiven and forgotten. This teaching is the opposite of guilt and fear, it is the abolition of both!

To make this all possible, Jesus had to die. He died for all people, even those who were not yet born.

Jesus is not asking you to take responsibility for his death; by his death, he is taking responsibility for anything you have ever said and done that was wrong. If you accept his offer, that is, if you believe that Jesus is God the Son, then no one can accuse you of anything ever again, your record is clean, perfect and guiltless. To me that would be a living heaven. But again, I understand that you have your beliefs and I respect your freedom to do so.

[nunne]

Originally quoted by Daz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Personally I try not to be intimidated by the fear and guilt that is often evident in religous views and I try to look for the positive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunately, Daz, you have good reason to feel the way you do as one looks over the history of Christianity. From the time of the Puritans, and maybe even before, the use of fear and guilt was a major emphasis of our religion. The hell-fire and damnation message that has been so popular in Christianity is a very strong example of this type of feeling.

Just as much of the restrictions against nudity come from Victorian era prudery, so the feelings of guilt and punishment tied up with Christianity come from the sermons and teachings of the past. Hopefully, as we move further and further from the prudery of the Victorians, so also we are moving from the past emphasis on guilt with reference to the Christian Church.

I believe that more and more Chistians are accepting that salvation is from grace, and a lot more emphasis is being placed upon the more positive, i.e., loving and merciful, character of God. This appears to be what is attracting more people today than in the past.

Having said that, however, I also agree that we are responsible for the death of Christ. That does not mean that we have to feel guilty about it. I certainly do not accept any personal, individual responsibility for his death. But I am a mortal human being, and have a lot of flaws in my character. This simply comes with being human, and we may characterize these flaws as "sin".

If Christ came to die for my sins, and I, therefore, am the beneficiary of that act which gives me new life, then I must also accept that his death was meant for me, and I am responsible for it. It can't be personal to me without my accepting responsibility for it.

I will not feel guilty about it, but instead will rejoice that it was done for me and because of me.

[namedun]

" This simply comes with being human, and we may characterize these flaws as "sin"."
I submit that this is one of the largest falacies in organized religions. It wouldn't make much sense for god to create a flawed race would it? Afterall, supposedly we are created in his image, wouldn't that imply that he too is flawed? Even if you don't like that line of logic, why would he create a flawed race? No no, I beleive it is our way of life that is flawed. Our way of life produces murder, adultery, poverty, vanity, and above all, greed. Ask someone who's people have been living off the land for the last two hundred years, cut off from society, what "sins" they have seen recently.

It's all too easy to blame human nature for the troubles we all see in our world today, it's much harder to change the way we live.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Wow! What challenging posts for Christians....Really gets you thinking.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Trailscout]

Namedun,

No humanity was not flawed from the beginning. We were created with the capacity to love each other and to love God.

With the capacity to love, must also come the potential to reject love, to say "no".

A long time ago, someone said "no" to God's love and his descendants have lived with the consequences of that choice for millenia.

God continued to love us dispite mankind's acquired predisposition to rebel.

We can't just "change the way we live". We don't even know how to change or what to change. God had to help us and he did.

He made a plan, a way we could return to peace with God. His long-term plan even includes restoring creation to perfection, a new age when we won't die or get sick. We will be metamorphosed into a higher state of being, but even the apostle Paul could not provide the exact details.

Trailscout..."Mankinds acquired predisposition to rebel" If we were created perfect( without flaws) would we be capable of acquiring such a predisposition?...But then if we were created perfect...we would be Gods...Hmmm? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Trailscout]

Before the fall of man, there was no predisposition to rebel, only the possibility.

Prior to sin entering the world, Adam and Eve were not gods, but were in God's image in microcosm. Even in our fallen state, we still bear his image to some degree. Perfection means that we were in right relation with God, nothing more.

After the fall of man, Adam, Eve and all their offspring (that's all of us) are inclined to rebel, but we can still respond to God's call to return to right relation with him.

[nunne]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> No, No. I believe it is our way of life that is flawed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The evils which you listed (adultery, murder, greed, etc.) come from the very nature of being human. And you are correct in saying that it is our way of life that is flawed. Whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or humanist, all religions and philosophies accept this basic prinicple, i.e. we are human and less than divine, and it is only in separating ourselves from our base instincts that we can ever achieve a closer relationship with our creator.

God did create us in his image spiritually, and in doing so, he gave us the power to choose right from wrong. When, because of our carnal desires -desires to satisfy our lust or greed -we make the wrong choices, it is not because God created a flawed creature. It is rather because he created one which is capable of making decisions that may be harmful to us, but which also gives to us the hope and potential of becoming God-like.

Talk about liberation and freedom!! It's just so sad to see that so many choose the way of murder, adultery, greed, etc. And if we are to change these things, then we must continue to condemn such actions wherever we may confront them.

Why did God allow sin to enter the perfect world of Adam and Eve? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Why do so many choose a way of murder ,adultry, greed, etc.? ...and do all the religions and philosophies even try or care to achieve a closer relationship with their creator?

[Nude in the North]

God did not allow sin to enter the world. Adam and Eve did.

God gave us free will to make our own choices.
In order to use our free will, there has to be good and evil, right and wrong.
If the only choices we had, were to make the right ones then they wouldn't be choices would they.

Steve

[sawdust]

From my Catholic education,I was taught the reason for mankind being in existance was to "Know, Love and Serve God." Mankind was the greatest of God's creations and in it He gave us the gift of free choice; to make decisions of our own reasoning. God was not interested in having robots with not free will to fellowship with. Man is allowed to exist out side of God's rules as concerns nature. When it gets cold, we developed systems to heat our enviroment including putting on more clothing. When it is hot, we sit in aircondition homes and get naked. The general animal population migrates from hot to cold and back again to accomplish what we do at the push of a button. We are able to function out side of nature because of our free will to do so. That is when free will used in a good and positive way.
If free will is used in a defiant way, such as Adam and Eve did, problems develop. When a person is following God by knowing what He expects of them, and has shown their Love for God by following His commands, then they will find them selves Serving God as He expects them to. The three are linked to go in one Godly direction. Adam and Eve chose to do their own thing. They knew His will for them and chose to do otherwise. In doing that they stopped Loving Him and by not loving Him they Sinned by not Serving Him. Our own free will and our paths to do good or sin lead us to the same ends even today. Daily, with each choice we make, we choose to be with or against God. That is the blessing and the curse of our free will(choice). The OT bible, at Johusa 24:15, put it this way, "Choose you this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!" Certainly something to think about the next time you have to make a serious decision to make. Sawdust

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Why did God allow sin to enter the perfect world of Adam and Eve? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When the man and woman gained knowledge of good and evil, they gained the ability to do right and wrong. Given the complexity of life and having free will, sin then becomes inevitable.

[namedun]

The evils which you listed (adultery, murder, greed, etc.) come from the very nature of being human. And you are correct in saying that it is our way of life that is flawed. Whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or humanist, all religions and philosophies accept this basic prinicple, i.e. we are human and less than divine, and it is only in separating ourselves from our base instincts that we can ever achieve a closer relationship with our creator.

I think you missed my point entirely Nunne. NOT all philosophies agree that man is fundamentally bad. And before any of you pick apart the phrase "fundamentally bad" I mean the following: sinners; with a tendancy to sin; giving in to sinful carnal desires. There are philosophers who, rather than dismiss what you call sins on the instinctual nature of humans, teach that the culture in which we live has more to do with sin. Christians usually have a problem with this, as it is beaten into their brains from day one that they are sinners (like it or not).
There are many people on Earth who don't live the way we live. Tragically, their lifestyle is being murdered.
Hypothetical situation: A few children around the age of eight are left on an island at see with rudimentary survival skills and no contact with the outside world.
William Golding proposed the very same thing in his novelle "The Lord of the Flies", where the children initially tried to mimick the society they had left behind but "degenerated" into a tribal violent group. I seriously doubt that these children would be that violent. If Golding truelly beleived that human nature would create an evil, stereotypically pagan and violent culture, perhaps he should explain tribes in Africa, which are still around and are not constantly murdering amongst themselves.

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[hm0504]

Sin doesn't necessarily mean humans are fundamentally good or bad, it just means they do things that distance themselves from God.

OutdoorBare,

You pose an interesting question:

"Why did God allow sin to enter the perfect world of Adam and Eve?"

Theologians argue it is what is called "free choice" but everything was pretty much setup for a Fall.

First we have God creating an angel who rebels, and falls from Heaven. This angel then tempts man and the woman takes the fruit. At this point, they are banished from the Garden of Eden.

An interesting sidelight is when you read the NT and find that a Saviour was predestined before the world. To predetermine a Saviour means you have to predetermine a Fall-because one depends on the other.

[Trailscout]

God's foreknowledge of the future does not negate the possibility of free choice by his creatures.

The Fall was not a "setup", just a possibility. There was equal possibility of continued obedience.

It was only after the Fall that we became predisposed to sin.

By God's grace we become predisposed to righteousness.

The Savior restores all things, but this time around we have all learned our lesson and sin and death are banished forever.

[namedun]

Sin doesn't necessarily mean humans are fundamentally good or bad, it just means they do things that distance themselves from God.

I still fail to see how most of the christians I've talked to can say exactly this. I mean, you're basically saying, sin is bad and all humans are sinners, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are fundamentally bad. This makes no sense!

[Trailscout]

The terminology needs some explanation.

Fundamentally bad, or the doctrine of the total depravity of man is a largely disavowed view that teaches that fallen humanity beginning with the day of our birth has no good remaining in the individual (prior to coming to a state of redemption or salvation).

The overwhelming majority of Christians believe that children are born innocent into this world. They inherit a predisposition that will eventually lead to rebellion against God, but for the moment, small children are sinless before God. Not only that, most Christians believe that God is covertly at work for good in the lives of all people, even those who reject God. As long as we have breath, there is always the potential for us to turn away from our life of sin and come to peace with God.

There is a danger though. With knowledge of God comes responsibility for that knowledge. In very rare cases, someone who knows there is a God and that Jesus is his son and the Holy Spirit is the messenger, may become so hardened in his heart that he says, "I reject God, in the full knowledge of who he is". Note: this is not the same as an atheist nor is it the agnostic, neither of whom have a certain knowledge of God.

After we become Christians, we lose our appetite for sin, but we may fall into it from time to time.

So to sum up: sin is bad, all humans are sinners at some point in their lives, and no mortal is sinless, but God is at work in all lives too, leading those who are willing to salvation and eventual perfection at the end of time.

[namedun]

They inherit a predisposition that will eventually lead to rebellion against God, but for the moment, small children are sinless before God.

Alright guvna, I can finally agree with you on something, but please explain to me what you think leads to this predisposition that leads to rebellion.

[Trailscout]

Not sure namedun. You asked to speculate and frankly it baffles me.

Let's look at what theologians do affirm:
Before the fall of man there was no tendency to sin, only the possibility.
After the fall, not only did Adam and Eve develop the tendency to sin, but all their offspring were born with it.

The one exception to this acquired universal tendency to sin in all of Adam's offspring is found in the person of Jesus, and he was born from a woman only (presumeably from sperm specially created to fuse with Mary's egg).

Was there some minor genetic mutation in our ancestors brains that we inherited? Is it passed on the Y chromosome? It's my best guess until I hear a better explanation.

[namedun]

Might I suggest (and allow me to view the story of Adam and Eve as a fictional analagy), that when Eve ate the fruit, it symbolized leaving the grace and bounty of god. Rather than be content with living at his leisure, just doing whatever he said and eating whatever he provided them directly, Adam and Eve decided to take matters into their own hands by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (thus attempting to become more like gods themselves).

This is going to sound really far out, but it's the only interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve that I like (I don't even beleive the story literaly). Lets say this symbolic "taking matters into their own hands" could be represented by humans choosing to "advance" beyond the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, choosing to settle down and produce their own food, rather than just looking for it "wherever god put it".

Namedun /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Trailscout]

I have no more problem believing that Adam and Eve existed than in believing I exist or namedun exists.
They were my ancestors, no big deal. Did people exist prior to Adam and Eve? The Bible is largely silent about the ages that preceed ours. There have been some veiled references in Genesis to God replenishing the earth, hinting that there might have been bygone ages prior to Adam and Eve. Any author must decide when to begin his story.

Did the tree of knowledge of good and evil have magical powers to make you wise? I don't think it is necessary to postulate that. The simple act of rebellion against God, whatever physical manifestation drives it, provides a first-hand "experimental" knowledge of evil that one hitherto did not have. I have no problem believing that they rebelled by eating from a forbidden tree. That does not require a miracle at all.

The garden also had a tree of life. Did God create a tree that makes you immortal or was the tree like Moses's burning bush? That is, is God the actual source of life in whatever object he inhabits? It is possible that there were some co-enzymes and nutrients in the fruit of the tree of life that completely halted human aging, but I prefer to think that God himself was in that tree in a life-giving capacity.

We shrink back from embracing the possibility of such intimate interaction between God and man, forgetting that in a sinless world, God could walk in our midst in unbroken fellowship with us. It was not strange to Adam and Eve as it would be for us.

The story of Adam and Eve is rich in significance because it deals with subject matter that captures the essence of the human experience. Very powerful stuff. Taking it literally or figuratively would not lessen the impact of the message.

When I give illustrations from my life, they are not fictional simply because I use them to illustrate concepts that have universal import.

Trailscout...You say that only after the" Fall"did we have a predisposition to sin...but isn't the "Fall" sin in itself ..and therefore it seems logical to assume that they were created with more than just the possibility to sin...I know this is nit picking and at my age I find it hard to remember all that I've read here and even what I've written..but I find my faith being challenged here along with many of my other long held beliefs and I am seeking to find what I can logically believe in....My early Catholic teachings were that Mary was also born without Original sin..but I never knew if that meant she was incapable of sin... Hmmmm?..maybe logic doesn't work in matters of faith /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif ... Odb

[namedun]

Logic and faith often veer away from each other, that's why faith is blind.

[Trailscout]

outdoorbare,

Adam and Eve walked in sinless perfection and fellowship with God until the day they ate that fruit. The fact that they chose to eat the fruit only proves that they were free to choose, not inclined to do evil. If anything their original inclination was to do good.

When we were babies, we were innocent, but sometime in our childhood, 100 percent of us eventually sinned, which constitutes rebellion against God although often in ignorance.

Jesus was capable of sin just like Adam, but Jesus did not inherit the tendency to sin. Unlike Adam, Jesus did not act on his freedom to sin, instead he chose obedience to God the entire time he was on earth.

I am not aware of any Bible verses that teach the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary (lack of original sin)and the Bible is all I use for spiritual guidance, not church tradition or doctrine. From my reading of the Bible, I believe that Mary was a very good person, but I believe she was prone to sin just like you and I. Lacking biblical evidence to the contrary, I also assumed that she sinned at several points in her life and needed to turn to Jesus for salvation as all of us do. I also believe that the most logical reading of scripture is that she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit, but also conceived several children by her husband Joseph.

The Bible teaches nothing about Mary's bodily assumption into heaven, so I assume that she died and her soul went to be with the Lord while her body remains here on earth awaiting the Resurrection Day. If you disagree with any of these opinions, I won't argue the point and of course, I respect your right to differ.

namedun,

I do not believe in blind faith. Occasionally I observe or read about events that do not conform to natural law, but I believe that a higher law sometimes overrides the laws of the physical world. Call that a miracle if you wish. I have come to respect the teachings in the Bible as I have studied prophecies and the wisdom of Solomon. From this respect for God and the Bible comes faith. It's a tested faith rather than a blind faith.

When we study purely physical phenomena, sometimes the results of the interactions of various physical laws upon an object are not intuitive; they may seem to defy logic. An unexpected outcome does not mean that the event did not happen. It simply means that we have a lot to learn. The same is true when the spiritual realm interacts with the material world.

[Elton]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by outdoorbare:
Why did God allow sin to enter the perfect world of Adam and Eve? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay, here goes. God Allowed Sin to enter the perfect world of Adam and Eve so that you can be born.

God gave Adam and Eve two simple commandments: "Thou Shalt not Eat of the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil" (Don't eat the fruit of Knowledge, or you will die), and "Be fruitful and multiply" (have children).

These two commandments were dichotemous commandments: one cannot be followed without breaking the other. Adam and Eve had Immortal Bodies: they had all the parts needed for reproduction: a penis, and testicles for Adam; a utereus, ovaries, and a vagina for Eve. But they did not function in their Immortal state.

If Adam and Eve hadn't taken the fruit, you and I would never be born. Sin is important in our life experience. Through sin, we gain perspective between happiness and misery. Therefore, Adam and Eve had to fall so that we may have mortal bodies.

However, thanks to our sins, we could not return to God. God is a perfect God of Justice; His responsibility to the Order of the Universe is Awesome to us. He governs all, Intelligence, Element, Plant, Animal, Human. But God is also a Perfect God of Mercy. But he cannot extend that Mercy to us. So, someone else had to pay for our Sins. This person was Jesus Christ. He was born into the World and made that Payment so that we may return. If not, then God will be forced to throw us into Prison.

Sin is necessary for the mortal experience. However, thanks to Christ, we have the opportunity to return to our Father if we so wish it.

Elton ...Hmmm? Interesting perspective...I s that "Prison" that "H" word and who is being thrown in?

[Elton]

Sprit Prison is the proper term for Hell, yes. As to who is thrown in?

Those people who did not accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ as well as those who knew the Gospel but sinned without repentance. Fortunately for everyone, God judges all based on what they have, this is part of his Mercy. This means that someone who follows Islam fervently can go to the highest heaven, and a Christian who has sinned very grieviously will be thrust into Darkness.

[Trailscout]

Elton,

I must disagree with your premise that Adam and Eve were sterile until they sinned.
God told them to be fruitful and multiply BEFORE they sinned. God would not give them a command that had to be fulfilled through disobeying the other commandment he gave them.

Adam and Eve were mortal before they fell from grace. Only by eating from the tree of life would they remain alive in their mortal bodies.

Sinners cannot enter into God's presence, and there is no forgiveness of sin apart from saving faith in Jesus the Messiah. The punishment in the Place of Darkness will be less severe for those who did not know any of the Gospel. Christians by definition have had all their sins forgiven so they will all go to heaven. Not all who profess to be Christians are.

[Hooked]

God would not give them a command that had to be fulfilled through disobeying the other commandment he gave them.
------------------
God works in mysterious ways. How do you know this(your statement above) to be true? The paradoxes(or is it paradoxi ?) of the universe are a little too complicated to sum up so hastily. Just my opinion on that one. One could ask, "Why would God allow his Jesus to die on the cross?" This doesn't make much sense to me, and to say, "So the world's sins would be forgiven." doesn't make sense because who are we being forgiven by? God. So why must he allow Jesus to be crucified? It just doesn't make sense...but maybe someday it will.
----------------------------------------------
Adam and Eve were mortal before they fell from grace. Only by eating from the tree of life would they remain alive in their mortal bodies.
----------------------------------------------
Tree of Life? I thought they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Forgive me if I have repeated something already said...just some observations on that last post. (I can't bring myself to read any religious thread spanning three pages)

[Trailscout]

God may be mysterious, but he always expects us to obey his commandments. If he said be fruitful and multiply, then Adam and Eve already had the ability.

If Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of Life, they would have lived forever. That tree was available to them as long as they lived in Eden, but they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Lord drove them out of the Garden:

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" -- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

[Elton]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hooked:
God would not give them a command that had to be fulfilled through disobeying the other commandment he gave them.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, He would. And He did. We came to this Earth to experience Mortality, which is part of the Plan of Happiness. Adam and Eve had to cause the Fall, or they could not have children. Adam and Eve had to transgress one commandment. If they did not, then we would not have bodies. God set everything up to Fall. The Tree of Knowledge was in the middle of the Garden, and He gave them two commandments that could not be fulfilled without Breaking one or the other.

What God did was give them a choice. They can live in the Garden in an innocent, childless state or they could partake of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and reproduce. The Consequences of the Latter was that they had to suffer Spiritual Death, or separation from God. The consequences of the Former is eternal ignorance.

[TXK NUDE]

HUH? I didn't read that in the story of creation and Adam and Eve in the Garden! The command to be fruitful and multiply was clearly given BEFORE the fall...and then again AFTER the fall!

[Trailscout]

Elton, I guess where we disagree is that I reject all other religious books and teachings except the Holy Bible.

Adam and Eve had mortal and fertile bodies from the day they were created.

Satan is the only one who teaches that disobedience to God is necessary.

The Bible says that all of God's commandments must be kept, not one.

[Trailscout]

TXK, you are right on target. Glad you spoke up too!

[TXK NUDE]

Trailscout, well said...and the definition of sin is a conscience disobedience to the will of The Father.

[nudewheelchairTodd]

Now Jesus saved the world and renewed the fall surposely,It funny how people don't see that unless they really have a loving relationship with the savior and the father also with brothers and sisters who r out & in the world.