The Passion of Christ

[krsna]

Wow ,this will really rouse up the faithful.

Hari Hari

[krsna]

Media Alert: Don't Mess with God

By April Shenandoah

March 1, 2004

 

The network and cable stations are showing their ignorance and Godless agenda's by spewing Biblical opinion without reading the scriptures. They also have gone out of their way to find and televise Rabbis' and Priests' who are willing to claim inaccuracies and speak negative of Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ." These men are being used and circulated from news room to news room. The unrelenting name calling and screaming on dozens of TV and radio shows, calling the film dangerously inaccurate, is an attempt to dissuade and discredit. The anti-Semitic charges are laughable at best, yet this subject is continually hammered (ratings at any cost). How do you media folks who are spouting your arrogant, destructive, verbiage, against your once beloved fair-haired movie-star filmmaker, sleep at night?

 

 

For clarity -- it was our sins that crucified Jesus and it was by God's own hand. Jesus went to His death willingly, knowing the Father was using Him as a sacrifice for the world. My Jewish brethren, there is no reason to be offended when in fact it was God's ultimate plan. Jesus is Jewish, therefore Christians worship a Jew. Seven hundred years before Christ was born Isaiah had a vision of the Lord, seeing His destiny.

 

 

 

But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; upon Him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so He opened not His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away; and as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made His grave with the wicked and with a rich man in His death, although He had done no violence, and there was no deceit in His mouth. Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise Him; he has put Him to grief; when He makes Himself an offering for sin...

 

ISAIAH 53: 5-10 (King James)

 

 

Violence? Yes! Jesus was marred, beyond human semblance! Isaiah 52:14

 

When one hears Andy Rooney, who professes not to have any faith at all, call Mel Gibson a wacko, it is profoundly sad. But then again, the Bible says that unbelievers will think Believers are crazy. So there you go! Then we have Paul Harvey's heartfelt synopsis of the film, which makes us wonder if Rooney and Harvey are referring to the same film. Bill Press was extremely disturbing to listen to as he accused Gibson as being one of the biggest hucksters to ever come along. He could barely contain his anger as he said," Mel Gibson suckered us all into talking about this film for the last six months." CNN's Aaron Brown commented that The Passion is the most brilliantly marketed film he has ever seen.

 

With all due respect, you're not getting it guys! It's a God thing! Gibson is only going with the flow (suffering for God). It is God and God alone who marketed this movie (10 million in advance sales). What this film is doing and what it will do for years to come is unprecedented. Those who are appalled because Gibson said the Holy Spirit directed him to make this movie, have obviously not had that experience. One innocent but grave mistake many annalists are making is dismissing this epic as just a movie. The Passion has been blessed (anointed) by God. Therefore, the human spirit is being moved to see it, and touched as if they were seeing Jesus himself. Those who are not stirred emotionally, most likely have never had their spirit awakened. Thousands of people have an intellectual understanding of God but do not know Him in their hearts.

 

It is no coincidence that on February 25 (Ash Wednesday) most every newspaper in the country headlined two distinct hot button issues -- The Passion of the Christ and Gay Marriages. Our nation is morally divided more than anytime in the history of the United States. Did we not learn anything from the downfall of the Roman Empire? For three thousand years marriage has been between a man and woman, as God ordained it. Today's societal mores have desensitized the spiritual man. It has been prophesied that in the future we will be seeing celebrities having sex on TV, plus bestiality. Sodom and Gomorrah is rapidly approaching our cities - and the mainstream media has the nerve to criticize Mel Gibson for producing a realistic crucifixion of Jesus (who died for the sins of all mankind). The Good News is that God is all about Faith, Hope, Love - and Forgiveness!

 

[Guest guest]

Now thats a title for a mel gibson flick.

 

Sorry, I aint buying the hype. Jesus didnt die for anyones sins, that is what the sinner must do. Lord Jesus Christ mission is not a vehicle for us all to wipe our bloody sins upon, Lord Jesus Christ is the truth and the life, all this butchery is a concoction. So, gibson is seen as the great guru who has delivered christ to the 21st century? The miracles, including the resurrection, are for the faithless. Ill take Didyamous thomas any day of the week. The ignorant christians call him a doubter, but Jesus calls him brother, and gives him authority of the Father. The church is about the blood the torture, the stuff of faithlessness, but the sanatana dharma taught by Lord Jesus Christ does not demand that he die a criminals death so we can get off our backsides and do something for the world. Hell, the christian world, headed by the bushwhacker himself, uses Jesus name, but they fail to do the will of the father. They bathe in his blood, but they dont love their enemies, they drop bombs on their enemies countrymen and women, guilty or not.

 

What does Jesus say about all of this, how about "In the final days, many will baptize in my name, heal the sick and raise the dead, saying they are mine, but I will say to them, "Get away from me you workers of iniquity, for you fail to do the will of my Father"".

 

This so called rejuvenation of christian spirit because of a dispicable movie is par for the course. Here in militaryville, I see a similar christian surge as they see Bhagdad go up in smoke, they all pray for the soldiers hoping they will sooon come home after they hurry up and kill hundreds and thousands of innocent men wo9men and children while the oil buddies of the fanatic christian devil who bomb us are given protection.

 

Sorry mel, your right wing christ dont jive with doing the will of the father, who says love me with whole heart, mind, body and soul and love your neighbor as you ;love yourself, Not two commandments, one, the greatest one. Go ahead and cricify him again, show how he died, but where is the one depicting His life giving potency>

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

I do not know whether Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite or not. All I know is that The Passion of the Christ brings up many important religious and historic questions for individuals to consider.

 

Most importantly, I was shocked that Mel Gibson had Jews in a movie set in a period two thousand years ago. Why, for at least one hundred years, the Arabs and Moslems have been telling the world that the Jews don't come from Israel and have never lived there. They have been telling everyone who will listen that the so-called "Palestinians", or Arab inhabitants of the Land of Israel, are the genuine inhabitants of Israel and that the Jews are nothing more than foreign invaders, or as they like to call them, "colonialists."

 

Furthermore, the movie is completely bereft of any Arabs, who, after all, have been the real inhabitants of the Land of Israel since time immemorial. How could this be? Strangely, there is not one shot of the Al-Aqsa mosque or discussion of it in the entire film. This must be an oversight, as it has always been there and the Temple Mount is a Jewish fabrication. The absence of Arabs in the story of Jesus is an important omission that must be questioned. After all, why would the Arabs want to be omitted from such an important part of their history?

 

If the Arab claim is true that they have always been the historic presence in "Palestine", as the world body has readily accepted (since they are de facto forcing the creation of an Arab Palestinian state), it raises important questions about the story of Jesus, the origin of the Jews and the very foundations of Western civilization.

 

Let us examine the Arab claim that the Jews do not originate from the Land of Israel and have never lived there. If this is so, then thousands of years of world history have been recorded incorrectly. This poses an epistemological challenge of momentous proportion to history and Judeo-Christian belief. And most importantly, if the Arabs are right, it renders Mel Gibson's movie nothing more than a fanciful tale and erroneous in conception.

 

If the Jews do not originate from Israel and never lived there until their sudden invasion around the turn of the Twentieth Century, then Jesus could not have been Jewish, nor could he have been killed by Jews, as the Gospels claim. According to the Arab point of view, they have been the main inhabitants of Israel since the dawn of time. Therefore, if this is true, either Jesus was an Arab or he never lived in Israel. If Jesus was a Jew and the story unfolded as described, then it must have happened somewhere else, like Babylonia, and then later transposed to the Land of Israel by the writers of the Gospels in an attempt to refute the existence of the true Arab inhabitants of Israel. Proof of a vast Jewish conspiracy would be exposed.

 

If, however, Jesus' crucifixion indeed happened in Jerusalem, then perhaps the story has a problem in that it tells of Jesus as having been born of a Jewish mother, because Jews never lived in Israel. In this version, Jesus was born of Mary, an ancestor of Palestinian Arabs, steeped in early Islamic traditions, although inexplicably the religion of Islam was not created for another thousands years. Equally baffling is Jesus' direct references to Judaic teachings and reference to the Jewish concept of God. This version obviously requires a leap of faith, but one I'm sure many would be willing to take.

 

Now, if we are to accept that the Jews never lived in Israel and Jesus was not a Jew, but an Arab, then it must be the case that the Jews had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. Firstly, they never lived there, so it would have been impossible for them to have convened a court there to pass judgment on his activities. The only way the version in the existing New Testament could have transpired is if the Jews had somehow convened a court and then sent it to Israel to pass judgment on a man who was not a Jew and preached in an Arab country under Roman dominion (perhaps, according to the Arabs, the Romans were never really in Israel either – another Jewish conspiracy!). Or perhaps, a court, not unlike t he World Court in the Hague, was formed by the Jews to pass judgment on a case over which it had no jurisdiction. One thing this version does not explain is why the Arab inhabitants of Israel would submit to a foreign Jewish court's ruling over one of its inhabitants? Obviously, more research is required in this area.

 

Secondly, there could not have been shouting mobs of Jews present calling for Jesus' death, as Mel Gibson would have us believe. The only way this could have happened is if thousands of Jews were shipped to Israel from another country to watch the crucifixion and scream for Jesus' death. Maybe this was a mercenary mob that was sent on such excursions. They could have been shipped on Roman vessels from the Isle of Manhattan, a.k.a. "Hymietown", from whence Mr. Gibson's father would have us believe the Jews originate. (There is an account in Josephus of a Jewish mob being shipped to watch a concert of Jethro Tull at the Paladium.)

 

There is another possibility: The story of Jesus is entirely an Arab story. Perhaps Jesus lived in Israel, but not as a Jew, as most accounts presume, but as an Arab in an Arab land. This being the case, it must have been an Arab court that passed judgment on Jesus and an Arab crowd that called for his crucifixion. According to this version, the Romans did the Arabs' bidding by crucifying Jesus. It was the Arabs who said, "May his blood be on us and that of our children."

 

Obviously, this version, the true version according to Islamist scholars, has tremendous ramifications. For thousands of years, the Jews have been blamed for the death of a man who was not even Jewish, nor had they any hand in his demise since they never lived in Israel. Like a character from a Kafka story, the Jews have been pursued through history for something they had nothing to do with.

 

According to the Arab version of history, it must have been the Arabs who put Jesus to death and Christianity emerged from early Islamic theology. Therefore, all of Western civilization is based on the fallacy that Christianity emerged from Judaism. For thousands of years, Jews and Christians have been living a lie - there is absolutely no relationship between Judaism and Christianity. This conclusion will obviously have important ramifications for Western civilization. Christianity is really rooted to Islam, not Judaism, as we have erroneously been led to believe for the last two thousand years.

 

However, if this version, on the other hand, is not true, then there is an important picture that emerges.

 

The Arabs did not live in the Land of Israel at the time of Jesus' existence and were not even a noted presence by either Jewish or Roman historians. That means that in some period between the death of Jesus and the present day, the Arabs invaded a country that belonged to the Jews and built a mosque on the holiest site in all of Judaism and colonized the country.

 

If that is the case, then someone has been perpetrating a big lie. If the story of Jesus "is as it was," it invalidates all Arab claims to the Land of Israel. It shows that the Jews lived in Israel and were indeed the original inhabitants and, de facto, have a claim to their indigenous homeland.

 

Mel Gibson's movie may have an unforeseen consequence; the Arab colonialists may realize that Israel is not the country of their origin. Perhaps, they might realize that it is they who are the colonists and that it's time for them to pack up and head back to the countries from which they originate - east of the Jordan River.

 

It might even be the right time to move the Al-Aqsa mosque to the place where it should be and correct an historic fallacy. After all, Mohammed died thousands of miles away from Jerusalem. The mosque should really be built where he died, since that is the place from which he assuredly ascended to heaven. That is, unless he astrally projected himself to Jerusalem to ascend to heaven for some inexplicable reason. Again, a giant leap of faith is required here.

 

It seems that Mel Gibson's' movie raises important epistemological and theological questions that must be answered. It reminds me of Pontius Pilate's famous jest to Jesus up on the cross, when he asked, "What is truth?" This questions seems more important than ever.

 

Either the Jews lived in Israel and are the indigenous people of that country or the Arabs did. Who's telling the truth? I don't know and certainly don't want to be the one to cast the first stone. All I know is a guy could get himself crucified for these kind of omissions.

[Guest guest]

I think Mel Gibson was perhaps well-meaning, but it will probably not serve any good and will surely fuel the bigotry and aggression of the "Christian" Right.

 

A big problem with his movie and book about the last 12 days in the life of the Christ is that he injects a lot of misguided interpretation, speculation and opinion, and presents it as truth.

 

The biggest problem is that it's based on the doctrine and dogma of the Nicene Creed, fabricated in the 4th Century to elevate and enhance the status of the Christ and Christianity for the then-new "Holy Roman Empire." And, by the way, that doctrine was used to justify many centuries of theocratic imperialism, oppression and cruelty we now call the Dark Ages.

 

The biggest problem is that the same doctrine is used now to justify the bigotry of the Christian Right, which claims that "only by accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior can you receive salvation," because "Jesus died for the sins of humanity." Even worse, the Religious Right uses it to claim that everyone must agree and march in lock step with them or else be damned to eternal hell. And by making this movie and book Mel Gibson has aligned himself with the Christian Right.

 

The thing is, it's really a question of why Jesus did what he did. And it WAS NOT to justify religious bigots and hypocrites who claim only they know The Way and anyone who disagrees is in league with Satan. And it WAS NOT to create a religion for imperialists who seek worldly wealth and power and live by the sword (gun and bomb).

 

The real truth is that Jesus allowed himself to be arrested knowing he would face death to show us a perfect example of the loving and forgiving pacifist and martyr, who would rather judge not, resist not evil, love his enemies, and turn the other cheek. THAT is real Christian doctrine.

 

In contrast with that, the doctrine about Jesus "dying for our sins" and being "the only source of salvation" makes little sense, if you really think about it. After all, our sins are certainly our own, and we certainly live with the consequences of our sins. And our salvation is in asking for forgiveness from God, and achieving the feeling of being forgiven.

 

Granted, most Christians hold the Nicene Creed as true to the gospels. But it now raises many questions: Are the gospels as we now know them true to the actual teachings of Jesus? Were they embellished and redesigned by the writers of the gospels when the oral tradition was finally written down between 40 and 70 years after Jesus died? Were certain things added to the gospels in the 4th Century to justify and suit the purposes of the "converted Christian" emperor Constantine who lived by the sword to rule the then-new "Holy Roman Empire?" Is it not in fact a man-made doctrine designed to justify the building of a theocratic empire that holds all other religions as false?

 

I believe in Jesus and his Golden Rule, which is the true core principle of Christianity and all other genuine religions. I do not believe he ever said or implied in any way that "unless you believe in me you will suffer eternal damnation in hell." I think that is the man-made doctrine of the hypocrites that Jesus warned us about. And the idea that only by professing belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior can you receive salvation is a big part of that false doctrine. I learned that from the messenger for the Spirit of truth that Jesus said would come, in the message entitled Real Prophecy Unveiled, and in my heart I know it is true.

 

If you'd care to read a summary of Real Prophecy Unveiled, visit:

 

http://realprophecyunveiled.netfirms.com

 

It respects and honors all religions, and the book honors the Siddhi Gurus, Avatars, and Sages.

[krsna]

Movie Review: The Passion of the Christ

By Michelle Anderson

Feb 29, 2004, 17:31

 

Email this article

Printer friendly page

 

 

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. -- Isaiah 53:5

 

Having read the book a few times, I was compelled to see the movie despite the pronouncements that it was graphically violent and that it would reinforce anti-Semitism.

 

So I steeled myself and, along with my family, went off to see it on opening night.

 

"The Passion of the Christ" was not a movie about His resurrection, or even the vast majority of His ministry. It was about the extent of His torment for the last twelve hours of His life.

 

It did not make me hate Jews...or anyone else, for that matter.

 

It has, however, forever changed the way I think of the Crucifixion and the sacrifice Christ willingly made. It made me want to be a better Christian. It made me realize yet again that His love for all mankind is infinite and incomprehensible.

 

The movie begins with Jesus praying in the garden. Satan appears, trying to convince Jesus that the burden is too heavy for any one man to bear. Gibson's androgynous Satan has a serene face which is beautiful and without wrinkle or blemish, the way Satan -- and indeed temptation -- always appears to be.

 

Thereafter, he haunts the worst scenes in the movie.

 

Those who ended up cheering for His crucifixion were, in large part, the same people who laid palm leaves and cloaks at His feet less than a week earlier. There is but one explanation as to how this could have happened: Satan was indeed present.

 

The portrayal of Judas, constantly antagonized by demons, was excellent, and the depiction of those demons was chilling.

 

Gibson is, it turns out, a master at knowing just when to stop. Every time I thought I could not bear to see one more thing, he flashes back to earlier, calmer, times; never for long, but just long enough to allow the audience to breathe again.

 

He takes the audience right the very edge, then grabs their collective hand and yanks them back from the precipice.

 

For me, His near-unrelenting agony was not as disturbing as the sudden realization that I have focused almost entirely on the agony of the crucifixion itself and have, until now, never given a lot of thought to the misery He suffered in the hours prior to that time.

 

Anyone who believes that this movie was anti-Semitic misses the entire point of not only the movie, but of Jesus's entire mission here on earth.

 

This movie was about the love, forgiveness, and sacrifice Jesus has for us –- all of us. Those who didn't like the movie probably didn't like the book, either.

 

 

 

© Copyright 2003 by Magic City Morning Star

 

[Guest guest]

When He returns one day to take us all home to heaven, you will change your way of thinking. Jesus is real not a Myth.

 

 

Alan

[krsna]

Gibson's violence is the wrong message

 

 

ERIC KALISHER

Editorial Writer

 

Mel Gibson's new smashing box-office success, "The Passion of the Christ," has at its disposal many potential taglines from its critical reviews. It is unlikely, however, that any of these will make it into the film's advertising publicity:

 

 

"The first Jesusploitation film."

 

"The goriest story ever told."

 

"A sickening death trip."

 

"The first spiritual splatter film."

 

All of these one-liners indicate the defining feature of this film: its violence.

 

The film, which has been endorsed by the religious right, is not about Jesus' love, but his brutal death.

 

"The Passion," it appears, is yet another troubling combination of religious piousness and violence.

 

Gibson has been quoted as saying the film is "about faith, hope, love and forgiveness — something sorely needed in these turbulent times."

 

Unfortunately, this is not the message that the film sends.

 

Instead, Gibson's portrayal reflects a society obsessed with violence and death in film, in the media and in everyday life. It's a fitting statement for the post-9/11 world.

 

And, in this new age, the Jesus film is no longer a tame reflection on the life of a man; it has become a searing portrait of a man's destruction.

 

While "The Passion" is a defining religious art film, with magnificent cinematography and a strong score, its single-mindedness hurts the film considerably. Intensity of the violence appears to trump all other concerns.

 

Yet, religious groups have championed this film not only as a testament to their faith, but also as a tool for evangelicalism.

 

These same groups that condemn Hollywood for its violence, sex and lack of morality are triumphing and utilizing a film that Roger Ebert says is "the most violent film (he has) ever seen." How do we explain this change of face?

 

In one word: Jesus.

 

Religion has been used as a justification for violence for millennia and this film is no exception. Instead of actual violence (as in wars or burning people at the stake) it uses the guise of religion to display images of violence.

 

In its deep reverence for violence, the movie suffers from extreme tunnel vision. It makes no attempt to consider any other facets of Jesus. In Gibson's portrayal, "The Passion" reflects negatively on the faith it represents.

 

Violence, or at least the endurance of it, appears to be the core of its beliefs. In spite of this, religious groups have recommended the film with great zeal. The Christian Coalition has a bulletin on its Web site that encourages "all Christians and their families to see Mel Gibson's movie 'The Passion.'"

 

In fact, many of the viewers of this film have been youth group members. Thousands of churches have even paid for tickets so that their 12- and 13-year-old parishioners can see "the bloodiest film ever made." These, of course, are the same children who will supposedly be "scarred" if they see a sex scene in a film.

 

Similarly, the MPAA has overlooked the violence in this film. It did not give this "gospel according to the Marquis de Sade" a NC-17 rating. Instead, it let the film off with an "R," the same rating given to a film with at least two f-words.

 

Essentially, Jesus' presence seems to be the sole justification that religious groups are inexplicably kind to this horrendously violent film. Ironically, however, the film ignores much of who Jesus is.

 

It barely references the Christ that most Christians know, the great teacher preaching love.

 

President Bush named Jesus as his favorite philosopher. Gibson, meanwhile, merely makes him his favorite martyr; a body ravaged, nothing more. Jesus' message, his words and many of the great parts of the Gospel have been eliminated.

 

Such a depiction forces the audience to bring their own feelings into the film, because most of what they see onscreen is blood.

 

Nevertheless, some may argue that the excessive violence is justified in the name of accuracy. Yet, no proof exists to support this claim.

 

Scholars differ considerably over the Gospel, especially regarding the significant contradictions between its main books.

 

In fact, even the Bible itself does not describe the torture of Jesus to the extent that Gibson does. As Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Times noted, only three of the books even mention the scourging. Historical realism, therefore, is simply not a reasonable goal in dealing with a subject so old.

 

Accuracy aside, others feel that their faith has been strengthened by this portrayal of Jesus' intense suffering.

 

The extent of Jesus' suffering, however, was never taught to me as the paramount principle of the story. Instead, the reason for his sacrifice was emphasized. I care more about meaning than visceral reactions.

 

Thus, while gallons of blood might work for some, the film's lack of ideas still seems to me a sinister omission.

 

A bloody image of Jesus should never being given more importance than the words he spoke. By doing so, violence — one of humanity's weaknesses — is emphasized over ideas, one of its strengths.

 

In spite of this, one woman was quoted in the New York Post as saying that she knew Jesus suffered, but never knew how much until she saw this film.

 

Many people like her might see this film as the new authority on Christ. S.T. Karnick of the National Review said the he "shall never read or hear the Biblical passages regarding the scourging of Jesus without recalling these images which vividly show how truly horrendous it must have been."

 

It is sad that such a violent image, one that no one can prove is accurate, will be deeply associated with so many people's faith.

 

The crucifixion of Christ has often stood for the abstract concept of self-sacrifice for others. Now, however, it indicates a bloody spectacle of torment.

 

Unfortunately, this "harrowingly violent" film is being co-opted by organized religion. "The Passion" and its surrounding controversy preach the message that religion should be a greater part of society. But this message comes at the cost of the intense violence that the film shows and hypocrisy that it reveals.

 

The right seems to see Gibson's film as the exception, when in reality it is just another product of Hollywood's love for splatter. For them, religion is an excuse for the film's violence, but it is a bad one.

 

In a day when religion is used to justify heinous acts of violence, this use of bloodshed in a religious context is beyond distasteful.

 

[Guest guest]

Clearly the authors of the Christian gospels picked up on what is briefly mentioned in Isaiah 53:2-12 about "his stripes" (often interpreted as meaning marks left by lashes). However, the point that needs to be made is that FOCUSING on the "stripes" and the death of Jesus as "payment for the sins of humanity," as Mel Gibson’s movie does, is misleading and does not serve the true core principles of Christianity.

 

In fact, it slights the Christ’s core doctrine of peace, love, charity, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, and PACIFISM ... which is consistent with the Christ’s great advice that we should judge not, lest we be judged. If we are tempted to judge we should resist not evil, and overcome evil with good. We should turn the other cheek, love our enemy, live not by the sword, etc.

 

Great Christian martyrs like Martin Luther King understood the core doctrine of Christianity. So did other great martyrs with backgrounds from other religions, like Mahatma Gandhi.

 

In making his movie, Gibson has, whether unwittingly or by design, merely fueled the bigotry and aggression of the American "Christian" Right, which usually IGNORES the core doctrine of Jesus in favor of focusing on the mostly man-made doctrine of preeminence, that to be "saved" we must "accept Jesus as God," and if we don’t we’ll suffer in hell for eternity.

 

This is in fact imperialistic idol worship. It is very much AGAINST the religion of Abraham, David, Jesus, and all other true prophets and servants of God. It can, has and still does lead to religion bigotry, which can, has and still does lead to terrible things.

 

That’s why I recommend the book Real Prophecy Unveiled, a summary of which can be viewed at:

 

http://realprophecyunveiled.netfirms.com

 

[krsna]

N Y Times :

 

Hooked on Heaven Lite

 

By DAVID BROOKS

 

Published: March 9, 2004

 

Who worries you most, Mel Gibson or Mitch Albom? Do you fear Gibson, the religious zealot, the man accused of narrow sectarianism and anti-Semitism, or Albom, the guy who writes sweet best sellers like "Tuesdays With Morrie" and "The Five People You Meet in Heaven?"

 

I worry about Albom more, because while religious dogmatism is always a danger, it is less of a problem for us today than the soft-core spirituality that is its opposite. As any tour around the TV dial will make abundantly clear, we do not live in Mel Gibson's fire-and-brimstone universe. Instead, we live in a psychobabble nation. We've got more to fear from the easygoing narcissism that is so much part of the atmosphere nobody even thinks to protest or get angry about it.

 

Albom is far from the worst of the schmaltzy shamans, but his fable "The Five People You Meet in Heaven" happens to sit at No. 3 on the Times best-seller list and pretty much exemplifies the zeitgeist. It's about an 83-year-old man who feels lonely, adrift and unimportant, and who dies while trying to save a little girl from a broken carnival ride.

 

He goes to heaven and meets five people who tell him that he is not alone and that his life was not unimportant. They reconcile him with his father, who had been cruel to him. They remind him of what a good person he was. He gets to spend time with his wife, whom he'd neglected and who died young. He is forgiven for the hurts he accidentally committed while alive.

 

All societies construct their own images of heaven. Most imagine a wondrous city or a verdant garden where human beings come face to face with God. But the heaven that is apparently popular with readers these days is nothing more than an excellent therapy session. In Albom's book, God, to the extent that he exists there, is sort of a genial Dr. Phil. When you go to his heaven, friends and helpers come and tell you how innately wonderful you are. They help you reach closure.

 

In this heaven, God and his glory are not the center of attention. It's all about you. Here, sins are not washed away. Instead, hurt is washed away. The language of good and evil is replaced by the language of trauma and recovery. There is no vice and virtue, no moral framework to locate the individual within the cosmic infinity of the universe. Instead there are just the right emotions — Do you feel good about yourself? — buttressed by an endless string of vague bromides about how special each person is, and how much we are all mystically connected in the flowing river of life.

 

"Plagued by anxiety, depression, vague discontents, a sense of inner emptiness, the 'psychological man' of the 20th century seeks neither individual self-aggrandizement nor spiritual transcendence but peace of mind, under conditions that increasingly militate against it," Christopher Lasch wrote in "The Culture of Narcissism." Lasch went on to call the therapeutic mentality an anti-religion that tries to liberate people from the idea that they should submit to a higher authority, so they can focus more obsessively on their own emotional needs.

 

Reading "The Five People You Meet in Heaven" is a sad experience because it conjures up a mass of people who, like its hero, feel lonely and unimportant. But instead of offering them the rich moral framework of organized religion or rigorous philosophy, instead of reminding them of the tough-minded exemplars of the Bible and history, books like Albom's throw the seekers remorselessly back upon themselves.

 

The flap over Gibson's movie reminds us that religion can be a dangerous thing. It can be coarsened into gore and bloodshed and used to foment hatred. But we're not living in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Our general problem is not that we're too dogmatic. Our more common problems come from the other end of the continuum. Americans in the 21st century are more likely to be divorced from any sense of a creedal order, ignorant of the moral traditions that have come down to us through the ages and detached from the sense that we all owe obligations to a higher authority.

 

Sure, let's get angry at Mel Gibson if he deserves it. But let's not forget that the really corrosive cultural forces come in the form of the easygoing narcissism that surrounds us every day.

[Gauracandra]

 

In fact, it slights the Christ’s core doctrine of peace, love, charity, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, and PACIFISM ... which is consistent with the Christ’s great advice that we should judge not, lest we be judged. If we are tempted to judge we should resist not evil, and overcome evil with good. We should turn the other cheek, love our enemy, live not by the sword, etc.

 

 

This film is probably the most pacifist film I've ever seen. From the very beginning Jesus tells Peter "Drop your sword. He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." A soldier who has his ear cut off trying to arrest Jesus, instead has it healed. He is taken, without any attempt to escape. He is beaten and never protests. This is all in the first 5 minutes.

 

Then he is brought before the puppet court. He is spat on, accused, but never defends himself. At all times in the film it is made perfectly clear that he is allowing this to be done. In fact, he says "No man can take my life. Only I can give it willingly and only I can take it back again."

 

The film is from beginning to end, about the cruelty man inflicts upon his fellow man. And how, by not resisting, and taking the suffering, instead praying for those who persecute you, you will be divine. This film over and over and over again makes this point. I don't see how anyone can watch this film and come out not moved to try to follow a similar example.

[krsna]

The film is from beginning to end, about the cruelty man inflicts upon his fellow man. And how, by not resisting, and taking the suffering, instead praying for those who persecute you, you will be divine. This film over and over and over again makes this point. I don't see how anyone can watch this film and come out not moved to try to follow a similar example.

-----------

So are we gonna allow ourselves to get crucified for what we beleive?

[Guest guest]

Yes, the film shows the Christ's pacifism, which is sorely needed in the world today.

 

However, the point I was making in a previous post is that the film fuels the aggression and bigotry of the "Christian" Right, which obviously does NOT BELIEVE IN PACIFISM.

 

They focus on the sacrifice of Jesus as his "paying the price for the sins of humanity," a doctrine which they extend to the extreme of claiming that "unless you believe that Jesus is God, you will suffer in hell for eternity."

 

They use that to claim that all other religions are false, and that is simply not correct. That's why I said that Mel Gibson has, whether unwittingly or by design, aligned himself with the Christian Right, which is in fact Wrong.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Myra says:

'...but when another takes special care to be true to the real-life story, he is vilified'.

 

Gibson is not being 'true to the real-life story'. He has deliberately distorted the story so as to vilify the Jews (does Myra condone this?), and is rightly condemned for it.

[Guest guest]

Krsna says:

'The anti-Semitic charges are laughable at best'.

 

Really? Portraying the Jews as the ones who got Jesus crucified, when it was really the Romans who were ruling the country - and crucified thousands of Jews - is not antisemitic? You don't know much about antisemitism, mate.

[Guest guest]

Haribol. I dont defend romans here, but the wife of tiberius was a follower of LJC, as was the wife of pontius pilate. The jews were given opportunity by pilate to have Jesus freed, and the jewish mobs called for barabus instead. The romans may have been murdering jews, but jews were murdering jews as well, for the 500 year macabbean era prior to LJC appearance. Jesus was despised by the sanhedrin community of priests because he protested their materialism in the name of religion, he was also an outsider, even though he was rightful king from the family of both solomon and david.

[gHari]

And really how many of those Jews were real Jews? How many Jews of today are really Jewish? We, we fallen masses, envious of God and everything associated with Him, it is we who killed and disowned Jesus of Nazareth. It is we who continue to kill the soul, to offend God.

 

Only a fool will form any impression about Jews from the book or film.

 

But then, we are surrounded by fools.

 

 

[krsna]

We are crucifying Jesus Christ afresh

everytime we go against the God's principles

 

"It is we who continue to kill the soul, to offend God."

 

We are killers of the soul,atma -ha!

 

[Guest guest]

And really how many of those Jews were real Jews? How many Jews of today are really Jewish?

 

- and this ignorant antisemitic nonsense is supposed to mean what, exactly?

[gHari]

Otherwise how can one conclude that it is ignorant, that is it anti-Semitic, that it is nonsense? Which is it? You understand my words or not? Are you for real or not?

 

[Guest guest]

Nonsense. A rant about whether Jews are 'real' Jews is ignorant and antisemitic by definition, regardless of the fact that it is meaningless nonsense. OK - you tell me what it means, and let's see if you can do that without posting further ignorant antisemitic drivel.

[Guest guest]

... This world is indeed filled with people of all sorts of imaginative opinions to back up their atheistic views. They often cloak themselves as "scholars" to add legitemacy to their speculations in order to gain some idolization from people in general and to sell more books.

 

It's theists who have been blackmailing humanity for thousands of years, under a mendacious cloak of 'scholarship'. Atheists simply stand up for common sense and intellectual honesty and freedom.

[Guest guest]

atheists have no intellectual honesty to speak of. If they did they would refer to themselves as agnostics. But instead they boldly claim they know the truth and that truth is there is no God. As if they have analyzed everything and come to the final conclusive truth. Such arogant minds.

[krsna]

UK: The Passion 'is anti-Semitic '

From correspondents in London

March 15, 2004

 

A SENIOR British lawmaker on Sunday accused Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" of being "damagingly anti-Semitic."

 

The film, which opens in Britain on March 26, depicts the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ and features scenes of graphic violence. It has drawn criticism from Jewish leaders in the United States who fear it will lead to anti-Jewish sentiment, while winning praise from some Christians for its portrayal of Christ.

 

"What you are in for is sadism, gratuitous violence, ugliness, wallowing in blood and, it has to be said, crude anti-Semitism. That is what this movie is about," said Gerald Kaufman, a member of Britain's governing Labour Party and chair of the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee.

 

"The Jews depicted are depicted as almost caricature Jews who demand (Christ's) blood," he told commercial television station ITV.

 

"I am not accusing him (Gibson) of being a deliberate and overt anti-Semite but there is no doubt that the message of the film is seriously, damagingly anti-Semitic.

 

"People who do not know the story will see it as the Jews wanting to murder this saintly man while the Roman ruler of the country didn't want to do it but was forced to by their pressure.

 

"If this is the film that Mel Gibson has always wanted to make then so much the worse for Mel Gibson."

 

The Associated Press

 

[gHari]

I have said and written, even on this very forum, the very same sentences replacing the word Jew/Jewish with the words Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Vaishnava; not chastising any particular school of religious thought, but merely acknowledging the insincerity that keeps each one of us distant to the perfection endorsed by each of our respective religious ideals.

 

Perhaps you do indeed fulfill the visions of Moses and Abraham in every moment and breath, but surely you will agree that not all following your path walk it on equal footing. I remember Charlton Heston at the foot of Mount Sinai throwing the commandment tablets into the frenzied crowd below who had become drunken with lasciviousness. Certainly there is much more evidence that G-d was not pleased with at least some of the children of Abraham.

 

In many circles it is customary to be 'religious', therefore one will rubber-stamp one's forehead with a religious creed, yet continue acting and feeling however they damn well want. It is as though accepting the religious teaching is simply an outward show. I guess that to a certain extent, each of us who is not perfect is guilty of such insincerity in the face of G-d.

 

I am not anti-Semitic. Let's leave it that way.