[Weirdad]

Long article, but well said. The movie may be worth seeing and may help evangelize, but it is also worth thinking about carefully.

[Diva]

I once attended a conference with some of the people who write for this publication, and as a Roman Catholic I was a little frightened by their anti-Catholicism. Now, they were never cruel to me (most of them did not know I was a Catholic) and the things I heard them say described a Catholic Church that does not exist or ever existed. They are anti-Catholic because of the Roman Catholic Church they think they understand.

On the other side, these same writers are somewhat anti-Evangelical and very anti- Protestant Pentecaostal as well. They believe, or at least some of them do, that there is a world-wide conspiracy involving the Catholic hierarchy and some Protestant leaders to create a one world religion. I was having a hard time understanding how the Catholic Church fits in as there are many gradations of this one world religion theory. I think, at least some of them believe that the Catholic Church will provide the "structure" for such a "one world religion," which, in a funny sort of way is understandable. They truly believe this conspiracy exists for several reasons first, because of the current dialogue between some Evangelical leaders and Roman Catholics and second, because of the penetration into Catholicism by the Protestant Pentecostal movement in the 1960s. There was, perhaps still is, quite a bit of shared beliefs and practices between Catholic Charismatics and Protestant Charismatics.

[Not A Snowbird]

It would help if they got the title of the movie right.

[iconoclast]

The movie may be worth seeing and may help evangelize, but it is also worth thinking about carefully.

OK, here's a place to start. Mr. Webb's anti-Cathlic diatribe is apparently extracted from something called Banner of Truth (subtitle) Biblical Christianity Through Literature.

Are we to gather that Mr. Webb sometimes finds something of theological worth in literature?

But, no, we soon find him incensed that 'The script for The Passion of the Christ contains much extrabiblical material, and is based in part on a mystical Roman Catholic devotional work by an 18th century German Nun (Sister Anne Emmerich)"

Then can literature only contribute as long as it is not written by a Priest or Nun?

Puzzling. Something to think about, indeed.

[VOA]

As Mel Gibson, a devout Roman Catholic put it so well; "It reflects my beliefs."

Hmmm...I'm no expert on all the variants, but Mel Gibson is a
"traditional" Catholic -- part of a group that basically disagrees with
the Vactican II changes.

A fair and even-handed article in The Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine
covered this a few weeks ago.

The idea that "The Passion" would have a Roman Catholic "flavor" shouldn't be a
suprise to anyone who gets a standard dose of news from TV, radio, newspapers or periodicals.

[LowOiL]

I imagine you have by now recieve a bunch of flack over this article (and I have not read past page one, to be honest), but I wanted to thank you for posting it. It was a good read and does make some good points worthy of mentally noting.

I appreciate your posting it.

Keep Freepin...

LowOiL

[Zechariah11]

The Second reason why all visual representations of Jesus are lies is that they can never hope to represent the glory of Christ in His true nature. The best an image of Jesus can do is to represent him as a man, and while Jesus was truly a man, He was not merely a man. Jesus was also God, and no artist or filmmaker who has ever lived could hope to create an image that captures the true Glory of Jesus as God.

Except for the harsh term "lie" I'd say this is an outstanding point.

[WhiteGuy]

Reason # 6...................................

It's just a remake of "Life of Brian"

[AmericaUnited]

The author is another self-righteous, religious pipsqueak who just totally misses what God is doing. He's no different than the religious types of Jesus day, 2000 years ago, that missed what was really happening.

[Libertina]

Long article but lots of worry and negativity. See the movie - it is great. I didn't as much meaning from the Mary part, but she was the mother of our Lord and why shouldn't she be shown? She believed He was the Son of God too.

[hope]

THE church will always be divided over doctrinal differences...one thing this movie does is show that Christ came for all, gave up His life for all, and rose again for all.

I'm sick to death of contentious people trying to make it other than that.

[Prince Charles]

The trouble with this article is that is was written in a language it's mouth-breathing believers can't understand. Click here to have it translated by Psyclops.

[kidd]

There are those who know why they are Protestants.

Then there are those who are so unsure about their own beliefs that they have become anti-Catholics rather than Protestants...Like the author of this piece of bigotry.

I don't think any Protestant is going to convert to Catholicism because of this movie (they might convert because they are impressed with Mel Gibson's convictions). However, I think this movie is going to make Protestants into better Protestants and Catholics into better Catholics. And clearly the attacks on this movie are going to unite Protestants and Catholics.

[Dead Dog]

5 Reasons not to be a Protestant:

1. National Council of Churches
2. National Council of Churches
3. National Council of Churches
4. National Council of Churches
5. National Council of Churches.


With that said, I am Protestant. This endless Catholic bashing and theological nit-picking is getting old.

[Quix]

HOGWASH.

Not that SOME of the points are inaccurate . . .

HOGWASH THAT GOD HAD NO HAND IN THE MOVIE.

HOGWASH THAT GOD IS NOT USING THE MOVIE.

HOGWASH THAT GOD IS AS PRISSY, PAROCHIAL, and addicted to the letter of the law of man's notions of reality as the author and supporter of this article seem to be.

By the Bible's own standard, the fruit of this Movie is impressive already--INCLUDING, RATHER MIRACULOUSLY, IN MOSLEM LANDS!

The RELIGIOUS LEADERS of Jesus' dusty pathed days found long lists of reasons to not only avoid Christ, but to crucify HIM.

The mentality, tone, motivation etc. of this article strikes me as from the same source.

THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB THAT I KNOW; THE RISEN CHRIST THAT I KNOW--GOD--IS BIGGER THAN SUCH MINISCULE MINDEDNESS.

He even uses satan. He can certainly use such an anointed and well done movie.

By their fruit shall you know them.

P*ssy-moany 'AGIN-IT' mentalities strike me almost always as from the pit instead of from the Heart of Jesus THE CHRIST, OUR RISEN LORD.

Sigh.

[Natural Law]

I don't think we need a mullah-like assessment of what we ought to think or believe.

[smith288]

My Baptist pastor concludes this movie is NOT evangelical. There is too much missing to teach a nonbeliever anything besides Jesus suffered greatly. It is up to the evangelicals to present the Gospel.

This article seems to be written with the mindset that all evangelicals are trumping it as evangelical.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[EternalHope]

Just got back from seeing the movie... AGAIN. Is it perfect? Of course not. Does it further the Kingdom of God? Yes.

I'm a Christian FIRST, a Protestant a distant second. I'm proud to call Catholics my brethren.

And I find attempts to drive a wedge between fellow believers quite suspect. This article is in that category.