1 posted on
02/27/2004 3:40:32 AM PST by
ejdrapes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-99 next last
To: ejdrapes
I saw the movie last night. I must have missed all the anti-semitism.
Not all of the Jews portrayed (apart from the Disciples) were blood thirsty. Not all of the Romans were blood thirsty through out the entire movie.
289 posted on
02/27/2004 6:57:06 AM PST by
Jaded
To: ejdrapes
What do you expect from a guy who has the balls to bash Mother Teresa on the day of her funeral?
And people are calling this man a conservative.
Like hell.
291 posted on
02/27/2004 7:03:21 AM PST by
Houmatt
(The FMA: For your children's future.)
To: ejdrapes
Hitchens hates the violence of the lashing of Christ by the Romans then turns around and lashes Mel with his own cat of nine tails tongue. Must be the Gin.
297 posted on
02/27/2004 7:11:00 AM PST by
fish hawk
("I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more")
To: ejdrapes; All
While I can appreciate Hitchens's secular prose when it comes to the minutiae of politics, I REALLY have my doubts of the veracity of his atheistic opinions when it comes to matters of Religion.
307 posted on
02/27/2004 7:23:36 AM PST by
DoctorMichael
(Thats my story, and I'm sticking to it.)
To: ejdrapes
He is an Atheist, par for the course.
To: ejdrapes
Hey Chris. Let God forgive you..I won't. BTW: EAT ME you sorry sack of journalistic pablum.
[Go ahead Indie, tell 'em how you really feel!]
311 posted on
02/27/2004 7:25:26 AM PST by
Indie
(The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.")
To: ejdrapes
I saw the movie last night with 4 relatives, two of whom are not Christian. We were all very moved; you can be moved by Gibson's vision and exact depiction of his faith even if you are not Christian. It is powerful.
As a Democrat leaning Independent, I am again stunned by the Democratic Party almost seeming to take a party position on this movie. Insane. If you're against this movie, if you believe this movie should not have been made and people shouldn't see it, then you believe people shouldn't be allowed to be Christians. Its really that simple.
To: ejdrapes
Damned atheists have their panties in as bad a know as the Jews. Bedfellows, huh? Hmmmmmm ...
325 posted on
02/27/2004 7:56:34 AM PST by
68 grunt
(3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
To: ejdrapes
So Hitchens...."Have you ever seen a grown man nekid?.....Do you like to watch Gladiator movies?"
326 posted on
02/27/2004 7:57:47 AM PST by
nobody_knows
(<a href="http://tomdelay.house.gov/" target="_blank">moral coward)
To: ejdrapes
Hitchens hated Mother Theresa, and ran hateful hit pieces about her in the early nineties. He's an anti-Catholic and anti-Christian bigot. He has had some worthy things to say about the Clinton impeachment and after 9/11, but this piece just goes to show he hasn't really changed his stripes.
Not liking the movie is one thing. Calling Gibson and the millions of people-mostly Conservative Catholics and Evangelicals-hateful names is another thing entirely.
This is probably Hitchens way of trying to get back in a little bit with the crowd who has dissed him since his Clinton and 9/11 opinions.
To: ejdrapes
The Hollywood power brokers are very powerful. Hats off to Mel Gibson.
To: ejdrapes
I'm seeing the film tonight, and I have the sinking feeling that I'm going to end up agreeing with some of what Hitchens says. A film which focuses entirely on the beating and crucifixion of Jesus, without providing any lead-up or context, might very well fail from an artistic and dramatic point of view. Another thing: the film is supposed to be historically accurate, but stills from the movie depict Jesus carrying the entire cross, not just the crosspiece, and very few scholars think that's how it was. Also, an out-take shows the nails about to be driven through the palms of his hands, whereas most scholars believe they were driven through the wrists.
330 posted on
02/27/2004 8:06:30 AM PST by
Steve_Seattle
("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
To: ejdrapes
reviews tell more about the reviewer than they do the movie.
332 posted on
02/27/2004 8:11:12 AM PST by
the invisib1e hand
(do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
To: ejdrapes
He detests the film because, just as the atheist delights in casting doubts upon my faith, it casts doubts upon his atheism.
To: ejdrapes
So my advice is this. Do not go.
Leave it to the sickoes who like this sort of thing, and don't fill the pockets of the sicko who made it.
-----
Hey Pistoper: I guess It takes a sicko to know one. Hey guess what- Gibson knew he was a sicko he found escape from his sickness. What's your escape from your sickness? Also, Gibson's sickness looks washed way. Your sickness appears alive and well -Exposed..
The Devil Always Overplays His hand. I would be ashamed to be used as his pen--pal.
343 posted on
02/27/2004 8:51:40 AM PST by
juzcuz
To: ejdrapes
The best thing one can say about a writer who excels at his craft is that he need not have anything important to say.
To: ejdrapes
You have to expect this from people who haven't realized that this was done because of their sins and that Christ rises.
To: ejdrapes
Was Hitchens among the adoring crowd at last year's Oscars giving a big Standing O to "the courageous" Roman Polanski?
346 posted on
02/27/2004 8:58:13 AM PST by
nutmeg
(Why vote for Bush? Imagine Commander in Chief John F’in Kerry)
To: ejdrapes
INTREP - THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST
To: ejdrapes
Hitchens is not apparently objective: witness his overtly political biased judgment against Mother Teresa's beatification:
Mommie Dearest
The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Oct. 20, 2003, at 1:04 PM PT
[During the deliberations over the Second Vatican Council, under the stewardship of Pope John XXIII, MT (Mother Teresa) was to the fore in opposing all suggestions of reform. What was needed, she maintained, was more work and more faith, not doctrinal revision. Her position was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms. Believers are indeed enjoined to abhor and eschew abortion, but they are not required to affirm that abortion is "the greatest destroyer of peace," as MT fantastically asserted to a dumbfounded audience when receiving the Nobel Peace Prize *. Believers are likewise enjoined to abhor and eschew divorce, but they are not required to insist that a ban on divorce and remarriage be a part of the state constitution, as MT demanded in a referendum in Ireland (which her side narrowly lost) in 1996.… ]
348 posted on
02/27/2004 9:04:26 AM PST by
antonia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-99 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson