Posted on 03/06/2004 8:42:17 PM PST by woofie
Then why don't they say that rather than criticize Christians who support this film.
It makes little sense to diss your friends when you might fear that they would do something stupid like being critical of you.
I hope you understand what I just said because I am about to check out for some sleep.:-)
And it was a very young democracy and didn't have as many checks and balances as our republic does.
Nor was it a culture predominantly made up of peoples from all over the world.
That being said in favor of America, yes, "IT" could happen here. But I am more worried about "IT" being homosexuals or Hispanics than Jews.
As you say. But I am hearing that there are other aspects too. One man, Christian, on our local radio station who saw it said that it was the most violent movie he had ever seen or will see and you should not let anyone bully you into going to see it. He also read a positive review that described Jesus after the scourging as "as dripping scare crow of agony." More than one description says the torture scene is almost gothic.
Beyond that I just have a hard time with thinking that a movie is that important in the scheme of Christianity or that Mel Gibson is God's only annointed film maker. He's okay I guess but I think I'll just stick with the Bible and the Mass.
You know nothing or you would of NEVER let these words flow from your mouth!
The Jews invented THICK SKIN.
BigMack
Let's assume you are honest, sincere, and asking the question because you do not know. I'll try to find some links from the parties themselves to give you an idea of how they view themselves. The short answer is the there are at least two distinct groups of churches with differences in who they accept as genuine.
First, many of today's evangelicals have a lower view of Scripture than the Church of Rome had in the sixteenth century. Leading evangelical institutions doubt the Bible's trustworthiness and infallibility--unless, of course, it happens to agree with what they've already decided to be true. Others believe the Bible is inerrant, but add new rules or revelations to the canon. "The Bible is enough ," the Reformers would counsel us. Sermons are very often "pop/inspirational" pep-talks on "How To Raise Positive Kids" or "How To Have Self-Esteem" rather than serious expositions of Scripture. According to Gallup, "America is a nation of biblical illiterates," even though 60 million of them call themselves "evangelicals." Second, many evangelicals today do not believe that Christ is enough, either. Sometimes even very good and noble persons replace Christ as our only mediator, such as the Holy Spirit. While we worship the Spirit along with the Father and the Son, the Son has the unique role as our only Advocate and Mediator. We must not look to the Spirit's work in our hearts, but to Christ's work on the cross. Sometimes, we have human mediators other than the God-Man Christ. We need other go-betweens, like the role of the pastor in the "altar call" to which I referred. Not long ago I saw a leading televangelist pick up the receiver of his phone (a prop) and inform his viewers that, "This is your connection to God." Evidently, I'm not alone--a secular band, "Depeche Mode," sings of "Your Own Personal Jesus" who can be reached by picking up a phone and calling in your confession. As long as we're on the subject, we might as well point out that it was John Tetzel's selling of "indulgences" (time off in purgatory for sums of money) which inspired Luther's "Ninety-Five Theses," sparking the Reformation. "When the coin in the coffer rings," the choir sang, "a soul from purgatory springs." Is this really different from the selling of salvation we have seen on Christian TV, radio, and even in many churches? Money and salvation have become intertwined among many of us. "They sell you salvation," sings Ray Stevens, "while they sing 'Amazing Grace.'" And as for "Grace Alone," most evangelicals today believe that something--free will, a decision, a prayer, a walk down an aisle, a second blessing, something we do for God that will give us the confidence that we are in His favor. Doctrines like election, justification, and regeneration are hardly ever discussed because they paint the picture of a humanity that is helpless and that cannot even cooperate with God in the matter of salvation. If we are to be saved, it is God and God alone who must do it. How about "Faith Alone"? Many evangelicals believe that faith isn't enough. If one believes in Christ, but then goes out and blows it, is faith enough? If Christ comes back to find a believer in the arms of a prostitute, will He take that person home with Him? Some insist that faith plus surrender or faith plus obedience or faith plus a sincere desire to serve the Lord will serve as the formula. The fact that evangelicals struggle today with these questions indicates that we have not heard the "certain sound" of "faith alone" in our churches. Faith is enough because Christ is enough. How do today's evangelicals compare with their predecessors on the matter of "To God Only Be Glory"? Self-esteem, self-glorification, self-centeredness seems to dominate the preaching, teaching, and popular literature of the evangelical world. Today's evangelicals know little of the great God of the Reformers--a God who "does as He pleases with the heavens and the peoples of the earth" and "who works everything after the plan and purpose of His own will" (Dan. 4; Eph.1:11). Evangelicals today, reflecting their broader culture and society, are intimidated by a God who is God. But what other God can be trusted? In short, what other God exists? To worship the god of personal experience or the god of personal preference is to worship an idol. The Reformers took that seriously and those who would be "evangelicals" in more than name only must as well. Conclusion Many people wonder why "Reformation" folks appear angry. Nobody wants to be around angry people--and I certainly don't want to be known as an "angry" person. But we must face the fact that these are especially unfaithful times for God's people. We have been given a rich faith, with Christ at the center. But we have traded in our rich diet for a bag of popcorn and are malnourished to show for it. If evangelicals are going to have the same spiritual health which they have had in past ages, they will have to return to the truths which make "evangelicals" "evangelical." The Bible--our only foundation; Christ--our only hope; Grace--our only gospel; Faith--our only instrument; God's glory--our only goal; the priesthood of all believers--our only ministry. This original evangelicalism is still enough to make even our slightest gains enormous.
What is a Fundamentalist? by David C. Innes A fundamentalist is one who believes and obeys everything that is clearly taught in the Scriptures. All that is clearly taught, whether for belief or conduct, is fundamental and therefore essential to the Christian faith. A fundamentalist will separate on the basis of any kind of denial of that which is clearly taught. He will not compromise that which is fundamental. He will separate on the basis of two distinct categories: Heresy — belief Willful disobedience — practice A fundamentalist will separate from either unbelievers or believers who violate fundamental truths or commands of Scripture. A fundamentalist takes seriously the clear command to love his brethren and to promote biblical unity among his brethren. A fundamentalist will fellowship with all who believe and obey what is clearly taught. A fundamentalist will participate with other fundamentalists to the extent that agreement on other non-fundamental beliefs renders it possible. A fundamentalist operates on the basis of principle (what is involved), not personality (who is involved). Eight Characteristics of New Evangelical Thinking (Given by Dr. J. B. Williams) They emphasize love and unity to the exclusion of the truth of separation. They will not separate from religious groups on the ground of doctrinal error. They emphasize scholarship and intellectualism. They praise liberal theologians for their scholarship. They emphasize participation in politics and in social and moral issues. They criticize the fundamentalist even more than the liberals do. They remain strangely silent about apostasy and its evils. They are success oriented -- the end justifies the means.
The word "Fundamental" means that the Baptist church uses the New Testament strictly as its authority for faith (doctrine) and practice. In recent years the news media has called doctrinally unsound church such as the Charismatics and Pentecostals "fundamentalists." Even some TV evangelists have referred to themselves as being "fundamentalist." But they should not be confused with Fundamental Baptists. They are in fact worlds apart. Many of the TV evangelists and all of the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches promote teachings which are not Biblical. Fundamental Baptist use the name in its strictest sense as meaning holding to the fundamentals of the New Testament teachings without error. True Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches uphold the purest teachings of the early church as revealed in the New Testament
I suspect that this will get more press.
This movie fandom is not limited to Passion.
And as much as I liked Passion; it is still simply a movie. I never ever got confused and thought it was really Christ up there on the screen.
The first statement is false. Antisemitism is not a meaningless term. It has a dictionary definition, which I linked from Antisemitsm. You are not being intellectually honest in this discussion.
You may not like the definition. You may want to erase it from memory and history but even on this night of Purim, it and the Jews are still here. You will have to live with that.
He spun it, he never apologized for his raunchy post, its rude behavior and he needs to called on it, and besides that I don't care what your opinion is. BigMack
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.