[LibertyJihad]

Christopher Kelly is a critic for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. He is a loud and proud homosexual. If everyone on earth followed the teachings of Christ, Mr. Kelly's entire lifestyle would collapse. Last week, he wrote an article ("Holier than Mel) saying that when it comes to Mel Gibson, he could no longer "separate the art from the artist" and that Mr. Gibson had "forfeited that privilige".

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/entertainment/7989006.htm

A critic states that he can not be unbiased in assessing a work of art or movie. What should his newspaper publisher do? Why, assign him to review the film of course. Not surprisingly, Mr. Kelly rips "The Passion".

You might ask, "what makes a good movie to Mr. Kelly?" According to the June 12, 1996 edition of the Dartmouth Review, Mr. Kelly, a 1996 graduate of Dartmouth selected films featuring explicit depictions of castration and pederasty for the Dartmouth Film Society's 'Sex in the Cinema' festival. The Dartmouth review quotes Mr. Kelly as saying his favorite part of pornographic films is "watching the male ejaculate".

http://www.dartreview.com/archives/1996/06/12/week_in_review.php

As if this were not enough, in October of 2002, Mr. Kelly listed Mel Gibson as number one on his list of people with "too much power." He also wrote that Mr. Gibson "must be stopped" because Gibson "is now using his clout to finance a long-standing ambition to make a film about the life of Jesus."

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/startelegram/living/4260887.htm

Among his past work, is an article explaining how he gets sexually aroused watching Tom Cruise movies.

http://www.salon.com/people/feature/1999/06/30/cruise/index.html

There is an article explaining that an "exemplary gay film" is one "wholly willing to allow its characters orgasm".

http://faculty.oxy.edu/tobin/documents/gayfilm.html

Despite these anti-Gibson and anti-Christian positions, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram found it appropriate to assign Kelly the task of reviewing "The Passion". He, of course, disliked the film. Today, I'm cancelling my subscription and would ask anyone else in Texas who takes this rag to do the same.

[anniegetyourgun]

The cross is certain to be an offense to the non-believer. They are, after all, enemies of the cross.

[commish]

Another review to be summarily dismissed.

So far every review savaging this film has been done by a "critic" who had an agenda and an ax to grind. As such these reviews are nothing but an anti-Christian screed.

The one negatie review by a Non-Believer so far that I have found halfway decent is the review by James Jacoby of the Boston Globe. he clearly states what he took away fromthe movie , and the questions it left him with. His review was very well thought out and to me is a great example to use when trying to figure out what non-believers will take away from this movie.

Kelly's screeching histrionics are nothing more than gutter trash. This guy is a fruitckae (Literally and figuratively)

[rocky88]

Stinks of much self-hatred to me.

[JackDanielsOldNo7]

You have just got to love tolerant liberals.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

"The film would've been OK if Christ had been crucified in the nude while an orgy surrounded the cross," Mr. Kelly added. /sarcasm

[magglepuss]

I just started taking the Star Telegram to see if it was better than the Morning News. I couldn't believe they had this review on the front page of their paper this morning. I am looking up the number to call and cancel as soon as I finish typing this.

[Quix]

Sounds like the FWST needs some emails expressing how sanity still has a place in America.

[Gunner9mm]

"...if you're not a believer the way Gibson thinks you should believe, you have no place at his (or His) table."

What a hypocritical statement! This is an exact description of the Liberals and the Democrat party. If you're not a believer in blatant, in your face homosexuality; if you're not a believer in unrestricted murder of innocent unborn children, you have no place at their table.

[T.Smith]

"The message -- that if you do not embrace Jesus Christ, you will go directly to hell"

Congratulations, you got the message! BTW, it's not Mel's message.

[MayflowerMadam]

"The message -- that if you do not embrace Jesus Christ, you will go directly to hell..."

This isn't the movie's message; it is THE message, and has been for 2,000 years.

And why is everyone shocked at the violence? This type of death was the most violent. Then you add the fact that Christ took on the sins of the world at His crucifixion. A movie couldn't possibly portray how awful this event was.

[MainFrame65]

Unlike Abe Foxman, I do not intend to define Christianity to Christians from my Jewish point of view. But I HAVE read the book, and I have seen or heard some of what Mel Gibson has to say about his intent with this film.

I heard a critic this morning claim that the film omitted the true gospel of Christ because it portrays only the few hours of the crucifixion, with little reference to his earlier teachings. Those are not insignificant, but without a doubt the seminal event of Christianity is exactly what this film describes.

And with the same certainty, all of the degradation, torture, pain, suffering, and violence were elements critical to the validity of the sacrifice. I am perplexed to hear criticism of this aspect of it from some nominal Christians, who fail to understand that this is the punishment for all of the sins of all mankind, from Adam to the end of mankind, whenever and however that comes about. (Opinions vary here.)

This is the price for every sin, by every man or woman, past, present, and future, forever. The cumulative punishment for that burden of sin must be the most terrible that the mind of man can imagine. And in the legend, it must be borne by one without sin, voluntarily, or else it would be merely the usual punishment for a common criminal. Lethal injection fails to measure up to the crimes being expiated, and critics who fail to understand that fail to measure up to their task.