[familyop]

"We? Did you write this? Are you Aho?"

No--closer to Calvinist. We're into reading scripture exclusively without intercessor (except Holy Ghost) or "inner light." On the film, we disagree with the stuff from Emmerich, the greater emphasis on the crucifixion than Jesus' life and resurrection, the greater emphasis on Mary, the untimely woman androgynous Satan, and so forth.

Hmmm. Check out something about 17th Century England and Cromwell, sometime, for more entertaining background info.

And BTW, I disagree with anything defending Lyndon Larouche's material, too. He's way out there--distraction propaganda.

[Texas2step]

we disagree with the stuff from Emmerich, the greater emphasis on the crucifixion than Jesus' life and resurrection, the greater emphasis on Mary, the untimely woman androgynous Satan, and so forth.

Why didn't you just say so, instead of linking in to the delusional writings of Barbara Aho? This article that you are linking to adds nothing whatsoever to a cognitive arguement about the directors "artistic license".

I can understand someone's view who would disagree with Gibson's use of "extra biblical" props. I personally do not believe the ones used are in any way in disagreement with the scripture, but I won't attack you for thinking otherwise.

However, to use Aho's garbage for your defense is disingenious, at best, but closer to a dishonest smear campaign against the movie, Mel Gibson, and the others involved in the making of this movie, in my opinion.

Smearing Mel through half-truth's, innuendo, and deluded theories sure isn't biblical either, is it? It's closer to the attacks that the libs are throwing around.