[Michael.SF.]

we are the clear majority, he proceeds to explain why we are merely a vocal minority:

The power of this minority within the Christian majority

"minority within the Christian majority"

Sounds more like is is discussing only one segment of Christians and not all.

BTW, I also thought the whipping scene was over the top. Shards of flesh being torn repeatedly by the whip, as shown in the movie, being the prime example.

[Always Right]

The left continues to go postal. It is amazing that a Newspaper once highly respected has fallen to this level of vile.

[mowkeka]

The New York Times would never print this crap about any other religion than Christianity.
Folks, it's time to take back Hollywood.

[wideawake]

Its prurient and interminable wallow in the Crucifixion, to the point where Jesus' actual teachings become mere passing footnotes to the sumptuously depicted mutilation of his flesh

The Crucifixion and the Resurrection ARE THE TEACHING.

The sermons, miracles and parables are the footnotes Christ gave to His central teaching: His own glorious death and Resurrection.

[danno3150]

Is there is a more loathsome person on the planet than Frank Rich? He is a plagiarizing, condescending, bigotted jerk who hides his racist leanings behind his jewish heritage. Anyone who thinks any of the aove statements are hyperbole should read his writings and the writings of other journalists about him.

Total sleaze and bigotry - that's what is "pervasive" at the Slimes.

[BillyCrockett]

Looks like the New York Times and the BBC are in a race to the bottom...

[meema]

bump

[madconservative]

"Its prurient and interminable wallow in the Crucifixion, to the point where Jesus' actual teachings become mere passing footnotes to the sumptuously depicted mutilation of his flesh..."

I have to say that I somewhat agree with this statement. The whipping scene was ridiculous. Search the scriptures and you will find no indication that the whipping was as portrayed. Don't get me wrong, I believe that Christ was whipped and beaten horribly. I also am aware of what the cat-o-nine-tails and other implements used by the Romans do to the flesh, but the beating portrayed in the movie was just stupid. Next time you watch it, count the number of lashes with the cat. Its like sixty something.

That beating would certainly have killed any human being, to say nothing about shredding musculature necessary for walking or standing. Please do not misinterpret what I am saying; I believe Christ was God incarnate. Could Christ, operating in the capacity of God incarnate, incur this beating and survive? Of course. He could have made the whip bounce off of him without a scratch. He could have made the guy whipping the cat-o-nine-tails become an Arby's. But he made a self-limiting choice to incur the Crucifixion, operating solely in His spotless humanity. Christ's humanity is what made the sacrifice sufficient. At least that is my understanding of the atonement and the Hypostatic union.

The bottom line is that I wonder if any non-believers got the point of Christ's sacrifice from the film. It was definitely there, but I don't know that a non-Christian could pick up on them.

Theologically speaking, it was Christ's spiritual torment (i.e. separation from the Father, spiritual punishment incurred as a just payment for sin - SEE ISAIAH 53) that was redemptive (and far worse than any physical pain possible to inflict on a human). I will admit that portraying spiritual torment visually is far harder than embellishing physical pain, but a true artist could and would attempt to do so. Just giving Him more lashes is a cop-out.

[RottiBiz]

His jealousy of Mel Gibson seems to be eating him alive.

[Pahuanui]

Wow. If that's perhaps the most 'horribly bigoted piece' he's ever read in his life I suggest he get's out on the web a little more. Maybe even reading other pieces might help.