The Passion of Christ
 

I'm defintley not starting this to become a debate about anything, I just wanted to know what anyones thoughts on the movie were, who saw it. I got out of the movie about an hour ago and was just in complete shock. Watching the movie for me, wasent even enjoyable cause I was just so shocked at what I was seeing. I mean it was a great movie, but it was hard to watch/enjoy it, if that makes sense. Reaction's from any others whove seen it?

A lot more grusesome than I thought....good film....not anti-semitic. In fact it left out the quote "Let his blood be on us and our children." That was a direct quote from the Bible which meant that Jesus' blood was on all of us (not just on Jews) but it can be construed to be anti-semitic so Gibson left it out.

Haven't seen it and I don't plan to. Just doesn't interest me.

I did hear a good quote about it though, not sure where I heard it but someone said that "you'll get out of it what you take into it".

I'm curious to see it, as much as I hate Mel Gibson I'd like to see what the movie has to offer.

Check out the review on Bozzy's World website. I can't remember where I found the link for it, but it was a pretty good review.

Do the subtitles make you miss much of the movie? Or are the important parts not even subtitled, but you understand them.

They could completley throw out the subtitles, and your really wouldnt miss much, imo.

[QUOTE=Daseal]I'm curious to see it, as much as I hate Mel Gibson I'd like to see what the movie has to offer.

Check out the review on Bozzy's World website. I can't remember where I found the link for it, but it was a pretty good review.

Do the subtitles make you miss much of the movie? Or are the important parts not even subtitled, but you understand them.[/QUOTE]
Wow, thanks for the props man!
[url]http://www.bozzysworld.com/archives/2004/02/27/the_passion_of_the_christ.php[/url]

Here's my review so you dont have to click:
[quote]I just saw The Passion of the Christ, and before I say anything, let me tell you that I am not religious, I pretty much have zero bias towards any of the events the movie depicts. So, how was it? As far as a story goes, it's not your typical movie. They capture Jesus, chastise him, then crucify him. The end. There's no love interest, there's no real plot, just a capture, death march, and death. Now, I still enjoyed it. It is a very moving film, and I think it captures Jesus' message quite clearly: that you should always love and embrace everybody no matter how bad they are.

Jim Caviezel (The Count of Monte Cristo, Frequency) plays Jesus rather convincingly, Monica Bellucci plays Magdellan, but it's a small role in the film, as most of the screen time is given to Caviezel. The rest of the cast is pretty much unkown actors, but nobody sucks.

Did I like it? Yeah, I guess I did, it moved me, it just wasn't a very good film, plot wise, but I guess you could say it wasn't your average plot, hehe.

I do think that the violence in this movie is important. If Christians are to worship Jesus as their Messiah, then they deserve not to have His story sugar-coated. He didn't die for you not to remember Him. Now, should you only focus on His death? Of course not, focus on His teachings, but do not forget His death.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]They could completley throw out the subtitles, and your really wouldnt miss much, imo.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, exactly. It's a very visual movie.

The violence got to be so over the top that I almost got desensitized to it. Upon leaving the theater I thought "that wasn't so gruesome" but it's the kind of movie that several hours later you start to think about it again and suddenly just how gruesome the movie was comes back to you. I understand what Gibson was trying to do though, too often you just see Christ up on the cross and don't realize all the pain and suffering he went through. The word Passion, of course, comes from the latin word meaning "the suffering" (Wow, I feel like SportsCurmudgeon dropping all this knowledge)

The movie was emotional and didn't really even need the subtitles, but it had no true character development or substantial background. If you're not at least remotely familiar with the story of Christ and others (such as Mary Magdalene) you can't really grasp the movie quite the same way as those who do.

You must not get many compliments if you think 'pretty good review' is a huge one! I'm not putting it down, your review was excellent and straight to the point, without the unneeded fluff many professional critics include.

I really enjoy your site, and many of the links on it. Seems we have similar political views.

I saw the movie Saturday and I'm still somewhat in an emotional overlode. I've never pretended to be highly religious but this movie hit me very deeply. As far as the violence, I went in feeling fully prepared and I've seen my load of graphic violence but this was something so much different than the violence you'd see in a movie like Kill Bill. I think of myself as someone who's not really sqeamish, but during the scourging(sp?) I found myself flinching away at times as well as the nailing of the palms. I don't even feel embarrased that I was openly weeping during parts of the movie. I never thought that in my lifetime I could ever have something impact me this much (and this is from someone who turned 21 on september 11th, 2001), but I still can't fully put into words what this movie opened my eyes and soul to.

Christ's Life
 

Christ's life has impacted my own beyond measure. I cannot watch the brutality until and unless it comes out on DVD. I have seen the picture book from the Christian Bookstore, and that was enough. I never want to sugar coat Christ's death for all, but I feel the emphasis was and is from the three days later, when he arose to prove victory over sin, death, the grave, sickness, and disease. He provides more than just a path to heaven. He provides a daily relationship, a peace, a plan for our lives, health, and most of all his love! Most of all, God didn't die for our sins! He died to redeem us from our sins! He arose again to give us new life, and is only a simple prayer away!

He has given me a good wife and home, wonderful kids, wonderful grand-kids, and a purpose and reason to talk of his love. Jesus preached of God's love, his grace and mercy. I can only do the same! This has been a great forum topic, because we all are more than just Redskin fans!

[QUOTE=backrow]Christ's life has impacted my own beyond measure. I cannot watch the brutality until and unless it comes out on DVD. I have seen the picture book from the Christian Bookstore, and that was enough. I never want to sugar coat Christ's death for all, but I feel the emphasis was and is from the three days later, when he arose to prove victory over sin, death, the grave, sickness, and disease. He provides more than just a path to heaven. He provides a daily relationship, a peace, a plan for our lives, health, and most of all his love! Most of all, God didn't die for our sins! He died to redeem us from our sins! He arose again to give us new life, and is only a simple prayer away!

He has given me a good wife and home, wonderful kids, wonderful grand-kids, and a purpose and reason to talk of his love. Jesus preached of God's love, his grace and mercy. I can only do the same! This has been a great forum topic, because we all are more than just Redskin fans![/QUOTE]

Man oh man, let me puke now. What do you think Jesus would say about fighting terrorism alongside your cowroids or whatever? What would he say about pre-emptive invasions of foreign countries for reasons that are later proven 100% false? What would he say about all the people -- American and Iraqi (yes they are human beings too) -- who have died violently in the last year in this so-called war on terrorism? What about turning the other cheek? What about loving your brother? What about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you? All you so-called Christians should spend more time thinking about Christ's message -- namely forgiveness, compassion, unconditional love and NONVIOLENCE -- and less on the resurrection mythology. You're not a Christian just because you go to church on Sundays and can quote the bible ... you've got to walk the walk. I find your references to fighting terrorism completely inappropriate for this web site.

"All you so-called Christians should spend more time thinking about Christ's message -- namely forgiveness, compassion, unconditional love and NONVIOLENCE -- and less on the resurrection mythology."

Amen, Ghost.

[QUOTE=Ghost]I find your references to fighting terrorism completely inappropriate for this web site.[/QUOTE]

Then why did you take it and create a rant on it?
Just leave it alone, and it will go away.

The way I look at the war on terrorism is this:
If we didn't invade Afghanistan/Iraq and al-qaeda once again attacked under the guidance of UBL, what would your stance be? Suppose he obtained weapons from Iraq (which they were actively persuing) and used them to murder 10k people here in the states, say they detonated a bomb during Mardi Gras. Would your opinions change then? Or how about if a close relative was in the WTC when the planes hit? Come on. We have to protect ourselves. As for pre-emptive strikes, its better to crush a known enemy when you know where they are, rather than trying to catch them in the confusion brought about by them striking us. It's funny that everyone grasps to David Kay's report about the existence of WMD, but then ignores his opinions about where they are now, and about Hussein's actions prior to the invasion.

As for non-violence, you should realize that Jesus did not let himself get pushed around by those he believed were doing wrong. Read his about his actions in the synagogue if your memory fails.

I just do not see how we can sit around and do nothing until we get hit. It does not make any sense. If we do nothing, they will kill us all. Plain and simple. For those who believe in survival of the fittest, or Darwinism: how do you think we exist!?

Let the fun begin. Oh boy, here we go...

cpayne ... Afganistan is one thing, Iraq is another. There simply was never any link between Saddam and Osama ... that's just BS the Bush Administration used to justify their war. Attacking Iraq was high on their list before 9/11 ... the unforgivable thing is that they've used a terrible tragedy like 9/11 to justify their actions. This was a power play for oil and money, and to make amends for Papa Bush's failures during the first Iraq war. These people in the White House are nothing short of criminals and I hope they go to jail someday (let's not forget about their Enron connections either).

Though I'm philosophically opposed to war, I can understand going after Bin Laden. There simply is no justification for attacking Iraq. None. Zero. The reasons we were given ... WMDs, al Qaeda link, possible 9/11 connection, attempts to obtain nuclear material ... were all proven false in time. Bush lied in his State of the Union address. Cheney berated CIA officials because their evidence concerning WMDs wasn't convincing enough. Essentially Bush/Cheney cooked the books. Now we're stuck in Iraq for 2-3 years or more and our troops will be targets for every fundamentalist fanatic in the world. It's Vietnam. Our soldiers and the Iraqi people will now pay the price for the Bush Administration's greed and foolishness. As Americans, we have a duty to question our leaders and not follow them blindly. It's an American tradition to distrust our politicians but in this instance most of us have failed in our duty. We have become fat, entitled and lazy because we are too comfortable. We are also very, very selfish.

It's true that Jesus didn't let himself get pushed around but he NEVER used or condoned violence in any way. He was an incredibly strong and devout person and he was a pacifist. These characteristics are not contradictory, cpayne. The strongest thing you can do is handle a difficult situation without resorting to violence. A "christian" is someone who follows Christ's example, the way he lived his life. Too many people focus on the resurrection, which is meaningless if you don't buy into the teachings. My point is that a lot of people who claim to be christians are really far from it and that's a shame. It's not enough to go to church and put money in the basket. You have to really try to live your life like Jesus did and that's a really, really hard thing to do. Is it even realistic? I don't know but you have to try ... it's a spiritual ideal that christians must strive for every day ... if we fail sometimes that's okay, but we must keep trying. If someone thinks racist wars and pre-emptive invasions of sovereign countries is cool, that's fine. But it ain't exactly christian, is it?

Militarily speaking!
 

Militarily speaking!
I work for a small outfit, called the U.S. Navy, ever hear of it? We are big in ships and planes! Daily military news excerpts prove there was a need to go into Iraq as well as Afghanistan! Those news excerpts were all from valid news agencies, like the London Times, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Tampa, Baltimore, and a miriad of other daily public publications! And, just because the mainstream press has covered up, or not picked up the stories of what we found as first reported doesn't mean it never happened. Or never existed. You believe everything you read, or hear, which I'm sure is only a small amount of what is actually happening, and you become brainwashed. 9-11 changed the world, lest we forget! We were after all, attacked first. Information is the key! I'm in favor of any effort to go after those responsible, including Saddam and his associate, Osama! At whatever the cost! Yes, there is a substantial connection, and a need to be there! Just remember, the Liberal left controls the air, and most of the news, so why do you think you lean one way, and an old Vet like me, and active duty personnel lean another way? Maybe we know, and just don't say because of certain degrees of secrecy in the government! I say we need to support the President! And, listen with more than your eyes and ears. Granted, you folks don't have the ability to look at a compilation of daily news, but, all of the publications I see cited in military news are all from purely public sources! It's no secret!

Yes, I'm pasionate about Christ, but also about the need to support and pray for our leaders. That is scriptural!

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]I'm defintley not starting this to become a debate about anything, I just wanted to know what anyones thoughts on the movie were, who saw it. I got out of the movie about an hour ago and was just in complete shock. Watching the movie for me, wasent even enjoyable cause I was just so shocked at what I was seeing. I mean it was a great movie, but it was hard to watch/enjoy it, if that makes sense. Reaction's from any others whove seen it?[/QUOTE]

so much for your plan of not starting this to become a debate about anything

[QUOTE=Ghost]There simply is no justification for attacking Iraq. None. Zero. The reasons we were given ... WMDs, al Qaeda link, possible 9/11 connection, attempts to obtain nuclear material ... were all proven false in time.[/QUOTE]

David Kay (who's report I'm assuming you're going by) doesn't seem to think so.

Transcript of an interview with David Kay on the Today Show, being interviewed by Matt Lauer. This interview came after the report.

Lauer: "Is it true that in 2000 and 2001 Saddam was pushing his nuclear progarm?"

Kay: "[B]Yes, he was pushing hard for nuclear and long range missiles[/B]. Look, it's clear the man had the intent. He simply wasn't successful."

"He clearly lied to UN and was in material breach."

In a key moment in the interview, Lauer asked: "Based on everything you now know, was it prudent to go to war against Saddam?"

Kay: "It was absolutely prudent to go to war. The system was collapsing, [B]Iraq was a country with desire to develop WMDs[/B], [B]and it was attracting terrorists like flies to honey[/B]."

Lauer: "Are your earlier comments being exploited for political reasons?"

"Inevitably yes, but what we have is a national security issue that shouldn't be exploited as a political issue."

Lauer: "Should we continue to search for WMDs as VP Cheney has suggested?

Kay: "Absolutely."

The story I was referring to is the one in which Jesus becomes angry, storms into the synagogue, turns over tables, cracks a whip, and forced people to leave. Sounds kinda like the war on terrorism. People (terrorists) made us mad, we got mad, go after them, turn over their tables (bomb weapons factories, etc), and then disperse the enemy combatants (take them into custody). If one of those priests had stood up to Jesus, he surely would have dealt with him, in the same manner we are dealing with UBL and his gang.

The Priests Did!
 

The priests did stand up, albiet, later! They conferred, schemed, and had Jesus arrested! Not just for over-turning the money changers, it was to protect their form of religion! They had a cash cow, and didn't want to lose it! They would sell a sacrificial lamb, or bird several times over!

Add to that, Judas betrayal of his Master/Teacher.
Add to that the fact that neither the Pharisees or the Herodians were in charge!
Add to that, Pilate, however he reacted! Or as the kids say, "Whatever!"
Add to that, the crowd, chanting Hosannah! one week, and Crucify him! the next week!
Add to that, the abandonment by Jesus' disciples!
All fomented and aided by Satan and his lies!

Then, our Lord willingly sacrificed himself to take away our curse of sin! He literally became cursed!

He died, arose the third day, and was seen by his disciples. He also was able to allay some of their misgivings about his ministry during that very personal time between the resurection and his ascention into heaven. He further commisioned his disciples to wait & receive power, his same Spirit.
That power enables the believer to witness about Jesus love, grace, mercy, life, and peace, and divine health.

The entire New Testament was a testament (witness) of his love and teachings!

His soon return will unite the world under one Lord!
His Kingdom will reign forever, just as he has dominion over all of creation, because, after all, he is the creator!

The Passion of The Christ could have easily touched on more than just his cruel death. It could have been much more!

As the Bumper sticker states: Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven!
And I stand Forgiven, on Christ, the Rock!
And I pray for all of you to come into a real, and personnal relationship with Christ also!

Thanks for clearing that up.

I thought it was a great movie...I saw another movie depicting the same situation in "passion" on tv the other night..It was pretty pathetic...Though, I did notice that caesar in the tv movie was the one that told the jews "to bring jesus to him, and he would eliminate him." In Passion, caesar tries to help, but the jews don't hear it and refuse to have nothing else happen except the crucify...

I think I prefer South Park's version.....

I couldn't stay up to watch it last night...just watched the one before it..lol..

GHOST EARLIER POST: "It's true that Jesus didn't let himself get pushed around but he NEVER used or condoned violence in any way. He was an incredibly strong and devout person and he was a pacifist. These characteristics are not contradictory, cpayne. The strongest thing you can do is handle a difficult situation without resorting to violence. A "christian" is someone who follows Christ's example, the way he lived his life. Too many people focus on the resurrection, which is meaningless if you don't buy into the teachings. My point is that a lot of people who claim to be christians are really far from it and that's a shame. It's not enough to go to church and put money in the basket. You have to really try to live your life like Jesus did and that's a really, really hard thing to do. Is it even realistic? I don't know but you have to try ... it's a spiritual ideal that christians must strive for every day ... if we fail sometimes that's okay, but we must keep trying. If someone thinks racist wars and pre-emptive invasions of sovereign countries is cool, that's fine. But it ain't exactly christian, is it?"


First, let me say this - Ghost if you review the post to which you originally responded and complained of christians condoning terrorism, I think you will find that the person posting made NO references to terrorism but, instead, simply spoke of his gratitude to Christ and the example he gave us and, specifically, to the good things that the poster attributed as gifts from God.

As for christians who act, say and believe things which contradict the teachings of christ - as christ himself said "all have sinned and fallen short of the nature of God." This is not an excuse, but, dammit, I am only human do not expect me to be perfect and do not use my imperfections as a basis to tarnish the ideal for which I strive (and, undoubtedly fail to achieve). Before you condemn those who "go to church and put money in the basket" recognize that they, at least at some level, have some understanding that God is important and "religion" is something that should be part of their lives - isn't this an important first step in any deeper spirituality? Have you spoken with them and discussed yours and their differing spirituality? Your statement of the obvious that christians should strive to live as christ did reeks of self satisfaction and superiority. Scholars, theologians, and wiseman of all faiths have debated just how to accomplish that easily phrased but difficult journey and most have come up with different answers.

As for the pacifist nature of Christ, well that depends on how you define pacifist. If you mean one who thinks violence, even for a just cause, is always wrong, I disagree. I believe, while violence was repugnant to Jesus, Christ understood, accepted and condoned violence as a last resort individually and as a neccessary evil corporately if appropriately used in the pursuit of ultimate justice (I don't think Christ would have had any problem launching a pre-emptive strike against Hitler).

Your statement that Christ never condoned violence or used violence is simply wrong. The most obvious example is the scourging of the temple; Christ violently threw the money changers out of the temple (he made a whip and lashed them). Further, Christ respected and understood the military (although most of his miracles were reserved for jews, the Roman Centurian's daughter was healed through the Centurian's faith and respect for authority). Also, Christ clearly recognized the authority of governments to order the civil lives of citizens (give unto ceasar that which is ceasar's, give unto God that which is God's). As the ultimate example to us as individuals, however, Christ surrendered himself to the violence of others and demonstrated the power that peace can have.

Finally, I take great exception to your statement that "Too many people focus on the resurrection, which is meaningless if you don't buy into the teachings." If your disclaimer in the predicate's subjunctive clause is intended to mean that the resurrection without context is meaningless, fine, I agree. If on the other hand, you disagree with christianity's focus on the resurrection as THE focal point of the religion well I couldn't disagree more. The teachings, surrender and sacrifice of christ are no more then another martyr story without the justification brought out by the resurrection. Whether or not you believe that he rose from the dead in physical form, the central christian resurrection message that total surrender to God brings you to a state of being in which you are one with God is essential to the teachings and life of Christ. It is the climax of Christ's story, the end of his journey, the focus to which his life and teachings pointed - not just an epilogue to the story of his death.

IMHO, Christianity is a long, hard journey filled with spirituality and wisdom from those who have gone before us. Christ challenges us in every moment and in every decision to "live like Christ" and, for each person, how to accomplish that will be a different facet on the central christian tenets of love and self sacrifice. Equally so, for each nation, state, city, or any other setting where humans live and act corporately, "christian" action is a matter of much debate as it should be. To summarize and judge other actions as christian or non-christian as you appear (to me) to be doing (especially with erroneous statements) discounts your assertions and discredits your criticisms.

That's my two cents. Peace Be With You.

BTW - Missed the South Park version. I am sure it was appropriately irreverent. Kenny and Eric are sure to burn in hell (But then, I understand Satan has a very nice, suite with room service, reserved for them).

I believe the essence of the South Park message was 'Moderation in everything'. Eric Cartman was an absolute ass as always.

Southpark finally portrayed Mel Gibson as he should be. A right winged conservative looney!

I would however attend his church to see him play the banjo!

The only time I laughed during that episode was when Eric and Stan were "throwing it down" over the phone. The rest of the episode was just a waste of time to watch and I love South Park. I still think one of the funniest episodes was the one with Osama bin Laden and another was the one making fun of Pokeman.

JoeRedskin ... peace to you as well. The person to whom my comments were directed originally had a signature that mentioned fighting terrorism, and it made me angry to see that sentiment contrasted with statements about following Jesus. The signature has since been changed so I can see why that didn't make any sense to you. If I came across as self-satisfied and superior, that was not my intention and that's not the way I feel about myself. I certainly was not condemning people who go to church or have spiritual beliefs ... I just wish people were generally less hypocritical. Our religions teach us, over and over, that violence is wrong and we nod our heads and turn around and fight ill-conceived wars and execute people and beat our wives and it just sickens me sometimes. Frankly your statement that Christ condoned and supported violence as a "last resort" -- and that he would have supported a pre-emptive strike against Hitler! -- made me laugh out loud. I think you are missing the point. For thousands of years we've known what we have to do to take the next step in our spiritual evolution, but we lack the collective will.

"In this world, hate never yet destroyed hate. Only love destroys hate. This is the law, ancient and inexhaustible. You too shall pass away ... knowing this, how can you quarrel?" The Buddha said that 2,500 years ago. In our hearts we know it's true ... it's basically the same thing Jesus was saying, the same thing other enlightened men and women have said throughout history. But the ends justify the means and we always make exceptions, excuses for using violence, as you have done in your essay. And this is part of the reason why we are a doomed species ... the violence that we continually spawn and attempt to justify will eventually snuff us out. Our efforts in Iraq will probably create a generation of people who feel that violence is wrong except when your country and your people are being attacked and suppressed, so these young people will take up arms against the U.S., we will attack them back, and the cycle keeps rolling on and escalating ... we have to stop making excuses or it will never end.

Jesus booted some merchants from the temple but that doesn't mean he supported violence. People always point to that story like it's some sort of legal loophole. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek and love our enemy ... the message seems pretty clear ... he did not qualify it with, "But violence is OK in these situations: when there are WMDs, when a major part your economy is dedicated to the development and export of military technology, when someone takes my name in vain ..."

To me, and this is just my personal opinion, it seems that some people think it's fine to wink at Christ's message of nonviolence and unconditional love as long as they go to church somewhat regularly and believe that Jesus rose from the dead and is waiting for them up in heaven. I also think it's human nature to take the easy way out. Am I some sort of superior person with a unique take on all of this? Absolutely not. I'm flawed in countless ways, like everyone else. I'm just calling it like I see it on this issue and if I've offended anyone, I'm sorry. It's all in the spirit of debate, nothing personal.

There's a movie called "Witness" starring Harrison Ford about an Amish child who witnesses a murder, and Ford plays a detective who winds up in hiding with the Amish. The little boy is caught playing with the detective's police revolver and the conversation that follows between the boy and his grandfather is one of the finest moments I've ever seen in a film. It's an argument that goes back a long time.

OLD MAN: "This gun of the hand is for the taking of human life. We believe it is wrong to take a life. That is only for God. Many times, wars have come and people have said to us: 'You must fight. You must kill. That is the only way to preserve the good.' But Samuel, there is never only one way. Remember that. Would you kill another man?"

BOY: "I would only kill the bad men."

OLD MAN: "Only the bad men, I see. And you know these bad men on sight? You are able to look into their hearts and see this badness?"

BOY: "I can see what they do. I have seen it."

OLD MAN: "And by seeing, you become one of them. Don't you understand? What you take into your hands, you take into your heart."

[QUOTE=skinsfanthru&thru]The only time I laughed during that episode was when Eric and Stan were "throwing it down" over the phone. The rest of the episode was just a waste of time to watch and I love South Park. I still think one of the funniest episodes was the one with Osama bin Laden and another was the one making fun of Pokeman.[/QUOTE]

My favorite South Park is the Lord of the Rings spoof, Butters "My Precious"

[QUOTE=smootsmack]My favorite South Park is the Lord of the Rings spoof, Butters "My Precious"[/QUOTE]

I can't beleive I forgot that one. That one had me laughing so hard I almost wet myself. and I also love the one making fun of striesand as a godzilla type monster.

I haven't seen the movie yet but...I have read the BOOK.
lol

peace

Ghost: Again, peace be with you and to your spirit.

Your response provides fair criticisms and hard questions. Please bear with me, just as I may have misunderstood your original intent, perhaps you misunderstand mine. Based on your response, I think we have some basic disagreements but that they are the type that reasonable, spiritual people have been having for thousands of years - part of "the long, hard journey filled with spirituality and wisdom" towards greater personal and (hopefully) corporate enlightenment. I think we may agree on more than we disagree but that we have a fairly large, central disagreement.

First of all let me say this, hypocrisy exists and is a problem for all of us both individually and corporately. However, sometimes what one person believes is hypocrisy is really another individual's honest attempt to carry through on beliefs which fundamentally differ from the first person's value system. While I do not agree with all of Backrow's statements, based on what he has written, I do not believe he is a hypocrite. He firmly believes that his statements are correct and are based on principles which he believes to be supported by his understanding of Christianity. An understanding which not only he but many other good, reasonable people accept. Clearly, their understanding of these principles differs significantly from yours. You and they may reasonably debate the underlying principles but this doesn't make them hypocrites. In my opinion, what you believe to be obvious, inherent truths have subtleties and complexities which you are refusing to acknowledge but which form the basis of the alleged "hypocrisy" of those who believe as Backrow does.

With that said, undoubtedly, hypocrisy exists. Many people who attend church, take part in peace rallies, or join in any number of other functions where corporate beliefs are being expressed, have either ulterior motives for attending, may be personally at odds with the corporate goal, or may not have taken the time to try and understand what is really being said and done. Of these, it appears you are most frustrated at the last. A fair and common feeling. With all due respect, please be sure that your frustration is directed at those who really are just "wink[ing] at Christ's message of nonviolence and unconditional love" and not those whose philosophical understanding of Christ's teachings and the factual conclusions to which they are being applied differ significantly from yours.

As to the main point I wish to address, your right - Jesus, Buddha and other enlightened individuals have always said "do unto other as you would have them do unto you" and "turn the other cheek". I may have been a bit flippant in the way I addressed the non-violence of Christ but, I stand by the assertion that Christ (and probably other "enlightened" people) understood the need to respond to evil in a manner appropriate to the evil presented which, at times, may include the need for violent measures.

I believe that, in fact, when discussing the appropriate use of violence, the discussion revolves around a much more basic and fundamental conflict: Good v. Evil. What is good? What is evil? We could debate that one for thousands of years. But let me start with these very brief summary of my understanding: Both good and evil exist as concepts and the concepts are put into effect by the actions of humanity; "Good" means living (both individually and corporately) in accord with creation and, in general, nurturing and promoting life; "Evil" means promoting selfish goals (both individually and corporately) and, in general, being either destructive or negligent towards to life. Further, as concepts, good is diametrically opposite and opposed to evil and vice versa. Also, the two concepts are not codependent: without evil, there would still be good; without good, evil would still exist.

So how does violence fit in to this conflict? First let me be clear on how I define violence. Although most often used to accomplish evil ends, violence is not in and of itself "evil". Rather, violence is a term used to describe the use of power in a particular manner. Specifically, violence is the use of sudden, disruptive, and coercive force by one individual or corporate entity to change or stop the actions of another individual or corporate entity. Obviously, violence is easily adapted to the expression of hate, destruction and selfishness. Not so obvious is the use of violence to promote and nurture life.

Do you let the weeds grow to choke out your garden or do you use sudden, disruptive and coercive force to remove the weeds? If your child is being approached by a man with a knife who appears to have evil intent towards your child, will you stand by and wait till he stabs the child or will you use sudden, disruptive and coercive action to prevent the attack once it becomes clear your child is about to be stabbed? Do you think Christ (or Confucius or Buddha for that matter) would ask that you stand by and let the child be stabbed? Certainly, Christ would not approve of the use of excessive violence to stop the attack i.e. killing the attacker after he has been disarmed and subdued. I have no problem believing from his teachings and life, however, that Christ would expect me to protect the life of an innocent from the evil use of violence. In doing so, I believe Christ would expect, and even command, that I use violent measures if needed to protect the innocent. Such protection should extend, if necessary, even to the sacrifice of my life. Simply put, on an individual level, we are confronted with many situations where appropriate violent responses may be necessary to nurture and protect life.

On a corporate level, the appropriate use violence is much, much more difficult to ascertain. I believe this is so for two reasons. First, the corporate use of violence in response to a corporate evil almost always involves causing injury to those not part of the corporate evil presented. Secondly, if you review my previous paragraph, it is filled with qualifiers: "appears to have evil intent", "excessive violence to stop the attack", "the evil use of violence", "appropriate violent responses", "may be necessary to nurture and protect life". These qualifiers are the crux a corporate entity's debate to as when to use violent means to accomplish good ends whether it be by act of war, sending in police to quell a riot, or applying the death penalty.

As an example of such corporate use of violence, I stand by my earlier statement that, although deeply saddened by the incredible suffering that innocents would have had to bear, Christ would have supported a pre-emptive war against Hitler to remove the evil he represented prior to Hitler's infliction on others of death, disease and destruction on an unprecedented scale. Hitler is easy because he presents such a stark target. To me, the only question for debate is when such a strike would have been "appropriate" to prevent the incredible evil he unleashed. I have no doubt, however, based on his abhorrence of evil and his ability to perceive events and people as they really were, that Christ would have recognized the evil presented by Hitler and advocated that the world use appropriate force to end threat he presented. If my position in this matter still makes you "laugh out loud", then I suggest your reaction ignores the true subtlety and complexity of Christ's existence and teachings.

As I stated in my previous post, the scourging of the temple provides an excellent lesson into when Christ found violence acceptable and what "appropriate" violence may be. Confronted with what he perceived to be evil, the desecration of the temple, Christ adopted appropriately violent methods to protect the temple's integrity so it could truly act as a place of worship to God. Christ did not grab a sword and start slaughtering the merchants. Rather, he simply drove them from the temple with tree branch whip. In doing so, Christ used what he felt was an appropriate level of violent force to protect and nurture the worship of God (which he saw as essential to the nurturing of life in general). This does not mean violence is always acceptable. Nor does it mean excessive violence is ever acceptable. Rather this "legal loophole", as you describe it, reflects the lack of simple "bright line" rules in the application of Christ's underlying principles of love and self sacrifice.

Violence is merely a tool which we humans can use to destroy or protect life. It is a dangerous tool with many facets and is often difficult to use correctly. Those factors, however, do not negate the fact that it is we who ultimately decide whether it use will be for good or for evil.

Your rejection of my reliance on Christ's actions against the temple priests fails to address the underlying example set forth in the episode and is simply your own way of "using a means to justify and end". Rather than analyze the story, review its context and discuss how I have mistakenly relied upon it, you simply dismiss the episode as being inappropriately used by others and, thus, find that it poses no barrier to your conclusion that violence is never justified.

Quote: Jesus booted some merchants from the temple but that doesn't mean he supported violence. People always point to that story like it's some sort of legal loophole.

As is true with so many verses of the Bible, Koran, and other holy texts taken out of context, some people will use them as a means to justify the ends. I am not, however, relying on this as a "legal loophole". Rather, and as noted above, I use it as an example of the appropriate use of violence. Regardless of its misuse by others, your own dismissal of this episode without some comparative analysis as to its context and symbolism simply ignores the passage's relevant teachings so that it poses no conflict to your ultimate conclusions.

Then, after simply dismissing the temple episode, you then do exactly what you accuse the "loophole" finders of doing by taking Christ's "turn the other cheek" quotation out of context.

Quote: Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek and love our enemy ... the message seems pretty clear ... he did not qualify it with, "But violence is OK in these situations: when there are WMDs, when a major part your economy is dedicated to the development and export of military technology, when someone takes my name in vain ..."

The "turn the other cheek, love your enemy" passage is one of the Bible's most misused verses. It was NOT a generic condemnation of violence. Rather, it is from Christ's sermon on the mount in which he addresses the inappropriateness of using violence to acheive vengeance. The entire passage sets forth Christ's rejection of the Hammurabbic Code which called for "an eye for an eye" (by the way, the Hammurabbic Code was also a limitation on vengeance in its own right. Prior to Hammurabi it was "two arms, a couple of legs, your sister and your kids for an eye"). Again, in his sermon, Christ provides guidance as to when violence is appropriate. This time by showing us when it is NOT appropriate. Very simply violence is never justified in order to simply take vengeance. Further, we should seek reconciliation with our enemies and when wronged we should seek a peaceful resolution. To extrapolate from these reasonable precepts the conclusion that violence is NEVER appropriate or that Christ would never approve of violence is simply leap of logic not justified by the actual statement or its context. As you accurately highlighted in erroneously dismissing the temple episode, biblical passages cannot be taken out context if you wish to find the true wisdom contained in them.

Further, I do not share your dim view of humanity's future violent end. I agree, violence generally begets violence, but this need not mean it will generate an escalation of the violence. After WWII, the allies, mostly the USA, poured treasure into the defeated powers to help them rebuild and, in Japan's case, create democracies. Although not done for purely selfless reasons, Americans responded to this challenge with a large portion of truly good will which, literally, helped build a better safer more stable Germany and Japan. I have no doubt that the war itself generated much hatred towards the allies. I also have no doubt that our subsequent actions created more friends than enemies both in the short and long term.

Also, an evolution towards the ideal of peace and harmony can be seen throughout history. As I stated earlier, the Hammurabic Code recognized a need to limit the extent of vengeance. Subsequently, the Mosaic Code provided a set of rules to guide people in how to avoid actions which would take them out of accord with the "Is" of the universe. More recently, Christ provided an example, on a very personal level, as to how we could live our lives and actively work toward being one with the ultimate "Being".

Finally, I simply disagree with the conclusion from the "Witness" quote. While the entire passage contains much wisdom, I think the conclusory line is just flat out wrong. Christ's life shows us that it is not necessarily true that "What you take into your hands, you take into your heart". Rather, Christ demonstrates that what is in your heart dictates what you do with your hands and what is in them. Those things we hold in our hands are tools, no more, no less. Based on what is in our hearts and minds, we then decide how to use the tools given us. It is for that reason that the Church routinely prays that God's laws will be written on our hearts.

While we are undoubtedly creating enemies in Iraq, it is my sincere hope and prayer that we are creating more friends both in the short term and in the long term by helping to create a stable, democratic state. While we are undoubtedly creating individuals who hate us, let us hope we cultivate more who will be our friends and create a corporate entity that recognizes the sacrifices we, as a country, have made for them and that seeks reconciliation with us, as we seek reconciliation with them.

To me, this, really, is the crux of your various posts. Not that violence is never appropriate but that it was not appropriate in Iraq and will absolutely have nothing but negative consequences for us in the short and long term future. While I have mixed feelings on the first assertion and disagree with the second, I think your classification of the facts accepts as absolute truth some propositions which are highly debatable and which go to the heart of whether or not the pre-emptive use of violence was appropriate.

With all due respect, I find that your analysis is seriously flawed both in your analysis of the principles which you apply (Christ would never condone violence) and in your application of those principles to the facts (by assuming that your characterizations of the facts are THE correct factual conclusions). Given your factual conclusions that the Iraqi war is "racist" and the result of Bush's "greed and foolishness", no amount of argument about Christian principles could (or should) persuade you to a different conclusion in this matter. If your very debatable conclusions are accepted as an accurate statement of the facts, Christ would most certainly condemn the war, as would I.