By not answering my question you've re-enforced my belief you are nothing
more than an antagonistic coward with a malicious intent to impugn anyone
who has the courage to voice their beliefs.

1) Do you think that in Mel Gibson's theology you will be saved?
I cannot honestly answer this question since I truly do not know his
theology but if you simply mean do I believe the crucifixion of Jesus was
adequate to secure my salvation then I would have to answer yes... I do,
provided I accept Jesus as lord of my life, make a faith proclamation and am
baptized.

What about Mel Gibson: will he be saved according to the soteriology of
your beliefs? I am not sitting in a position to say. If you are asking me
if I believe that he could be then yes..but I do not know his relationship
with Jesus nor would I presume to guess.

2) Is it possible to exaggerate Jesus' suffering, or to turn it into a
pornographic fascination with sadomasochistic torture, blood, and
punishment? yes

If yes, where do you draw the line? in my heart.

By what criteria do you distinguish a portrayal of suffering from a
sadomasochistic
titillation? I haven't felt the need to form such a criteria but if I did I
would have to first attempt to determine the intent of the portrayer.

3) The Gospels, in the section known as the Passion, spend about 2% of
the text on the physical abuse Jesus endured; Gibson's The Passion is
anywhere from 25% to 75%. Is Gibson's choice to amplify that suffering
(not only in quantity, but in quality also) a better choice? I think this is
something we each have to decide for ourselves. Exactly how severe the
beatings were is a subject that we can only speculate about. I see the
portrayal as an attempt to make the viewer aware of the determination of
Christ. According to the text he was flogged then he was crucified. How bad
was it? Not bad enough to keep him from following through with the will of
God but bad enough it eventually killed him. That was what I got from it.
You see something else and unless you've developed the ability to read minds
then your opinion of the intent is speculation also.

4) In addition to the paucity of material in MML&J on Jesus' beating,
there are at least three texts that contradict the brutality of
Gibson's vision:

hardly rock solid contradictions

Jesus' speech to the women at Lk. 23.28-31 hardly what I would call a
speech. Depending on the english translation you choose, you are talking
about roughly 74 words, 8 sentences.


the soldiers coveting Jesus' clothing at Jn. 19.23-24;

your implication here is that his clothes wouldn't be worth enough to value
as usable garments but this is again speculation as to why they wanted the
garments. Are you implying that soldiers have never kept gruesome
souvenirs?.

and the resurrected
Jesus' spear wound easily distinguished at Jn. 20.24-27, all discussed
above.

He has just been resurrected.. brought back from the dead. Seriously... the
conditions of his wounds is really kind of missing the point here isn't it?
You tell me why the wounds were left in the first place.

Are there any texts that argue FOR Gibson's amplification? none other than
he was flogged and he was crucified. Here is where i want to interject
something. On one level I feel Mel Gibson over exaggerated the scourging.
But I feel his motives were to show Christ's determination. This is after
all a movie. It shouldn't be viewed as 100% factual and as far as I know a
claim as such has never been made. It's an interpretation. The text
doesn't mention Christ defiantly standing back up after collapsing as if to
say "I came to do more. I came to die." (my interpretation of the
interpretation..before you go off)

5) Do you encourage children to see a film where the camera's focus is
on a man being flogged until the gashes cover most of his body? I took my 13
year old daughter to see it after my wife and I had first viewed it for
ourselves. I didn't take my 10 year old. Every parent should make their
own determination. It is not for me to tell them what to do with their
children nor should I rely on other's to tell me what to do with mine.

6) Is an accurate portrayal of Satan an important issue? yes

What do we know of Satan from the texts? he is evil and hates God

Does that information accord with the film's portrayal? all we know from the
text is he was present and I say "he" simply because we tend to refer to
Satan in a gender specific sense. If it make you more comfortable we could
say she but I'd bet neither would apply.

7) Hutton Gibson has denied that the holocaust was anywhere near as
bad as is generally acknowledged. Do you think Mel Gibson should
disavow his father's sentiments? not any more than I think your son, if you
have/had one, should disavow your sentiments concerning the suffering of
Christ for my sins.

8) Who killed Jesus, exactly?

pick one-
1.according to the literal interpretation of, "..into your hands I commit my
spirit" I would have to say nobody.
2. God decided he must die.
3. mankind through our sinful nature


9) In what way is Gibson's The Passion different from a passion play? I have
never seen a passion play so I can't answer this.
Are there similarities that would make a responsible person hesitate? this
doesn't make sense.. your use of the word "responsible" doesn't provide the
ability to discern "responsible for what?"

10) Are "true" Christians expected to make good use of their brains
and learn basic principles of reasoning?

you are either a Christian or you're not. Wearing the moniker "Christian"
doesn't make you one.... yes... we are expected to learn not only basic
principles of reasoning but we are also expected to mature in wisdom. We
are also expected to seek first the kingdom of God so I would have to say we
are expected to learn and apply all reasoning skills to seek and find the
will of God as it applies to his kingdom.

Does that include
establishing criteria for what makes a "true" Christian before the
fact, before you call others not-"true" Christians?

huh? I'll assume you ask if we should establish a criteria which we use to
differentiate between a Christian and a non-Christian.... yes

11) Are "true" Christians expected to be honest?

if you ask are you expected to become perfect once you become a Christian
then I would answer no. If you could have become perfect then the
crucifixion wouldn't have been necessary. If you ask should you try to
avoid situations that damage your credibility then I'd have to answer yes.
Is this always possible.. no. What you have to understand is salvation
doesn't free us from our sinful natures... it frees us from the punishment
deserved by our sinful natures.

Is it honest to pretend interest in one topic only as an excuse to
proselytize?

Is this your question? Can you see inside me and know whether or not this
was pretense? Yes I admit I wanted to share the story I love but I also
would have enjoyed and welcomed any discussion of the techniques used in the
construction of the table used in the movie. My query about a table used in
a movie and my obvious desire to discuss the symbolism of the table as it
related to the story is hardly what one could justify calling a false
pretense...... unless of course you are an antagonist and a coward.

Is it honest to ignore another's questions but expect yours to be
considered?

This isn't a question of honesty... it's a question of interest. If you view
it as dishonesty then maybe you're not just a coward but a dishonest one at
that.

Is it honest to assume you have something to teach others whom you do not
know?

Once again...this isn't a question of honesty and if it were would your
assumptions be dishonest?

How about that passive-aggressive tendency, is
that honest?

is this really relevant and isn't using this question in fact
passive-aggression?

Is pretending to understand Greek honest?

there has been no pretense. all Greek references I have made are easily
found in reference bibles of various forms. I've never proclaimed to be
fluent in Greek but what I have referenced I do know to be true and is all
easily verified.

12) The balance between salvation by works and/or grace is encumbered
by many texts that appear at odds, and these have been the source of
major divisions within Christian theology, with brilliant thinkers
weighing in on both sides. Is it honest to choose one side and only
quote the texts ("prooftexting") that support your position, ignoring
all those that do not?

if that is what one does then I would have to honestly answer no.. it is
not. Nor is it honest to claim that someone is guilty of it when you don't
have the guts to do anything but talk about how that is wrong or that isn't
correctly following the text yet you don't have the courage enough to say
what is your beliefs and how the text supports it. Nor is it honest to
feign participation in a discussion when really all you do is spew
implication after implication in effort to impugn.

I've challenged you about as impassively as I know how to stand up and
answer this question. How does man secure his salvation?
Not because I need your answer for I already have my own beliefs but because
I don't think you are anything more than an antagonistic coward who gets his
kicks out of impugning the beliefs of others and you don't have the courage
to voice your own. I have more respect for the atheists who have
contributed to this thread. I don't agree with them but I respect them.....
more than you.