(Prefatory appeal: can you please use a standard reply mode that
retains the hierarchy of the dialogue? Whenever you post it looks like
all remarks are on the same level....)

"mel" wrote in message m...

By not answering my question

I did answer your question. You just didn't like the answer. Cry on
your own time.

You're killing me here. What's this, the 8th post or so of yours in
our sub-thread? It's the *first* one where you've addressed the
questions I posed. Not a very impressive record, and a bit late to be
playing the martyr. Under the circumstances, Mel, you getting huffy
about someone not answering a question is a bit like Harbor Freight
being miffed that Lee Valley sold a sub-par plane...

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.

Oooo, ouch, Mel, you're such a devastating name-caller. And you repeat
it to such novel effect later in the post, several times. You must
like this phrase. "Voicing your belief", is that what you call it?
Huh...and I thought it was just inappropriate proselytizing, which of
course takes no courage at all. I mean really, courage on an anonymous
NG? One more boner I'll let stand....

OK, let's check your answers:

1) Do you think that in Mel Gibson's theology you will be saved?
snip circumlocution
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.

Wow, that's courage, Mel? What a load of crap! Here, I'll make the
question easier for you:

Will a fundamentalist Catholic be saved according to Evangelical
Protestant doctrine? Will you be saved according to the doctrines of a
fundamentalist Catholic?

C'mon Mel, you're big on courage, so spit it out (but given your
record I won't hold my breath that you'll answer this
straightforwardly, if at all...).

Batting 0/1

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.

An honest answer, thank you. Now was that so hard?

I would offer my opinion that drawing the line here is not best done
"in the heart" nor by looking at "the intent of the portrayer", not
only because the latter is near impossible and the former rather
nebulous, but because the material is right there to be judged, and
with clear indications of how to judge such material by using your
mind. But if you were to prefer your methods then I say more power to
you.

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

....nor significant enough for MML&J to elaborate it. And some of them
actually saw it, no?

but bad enough it eventually killed him. snip

Are you saying that the flogging killed him? Luke certainly doesn't
paint that picture....

I too see Gibson's Passion as illustrating Jesus' determination.

That's 2/3 on a "reasonable discourse" level. Great....

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

I guess you were too busy avoiding the question to read my caveat the
first time. I admitted they each could be argued, but they were 1) not
unreasonable arguments, 2 [and most importantly]) based on the text,
and 3) absent any counter arguments from the text that I could find. I
asked if you could find any counter arguments in the text. There
followed the usual silence.

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.

A short speech is still a speech, and that's beside the point. The
question is, why not include it in the film? It's because the speech
would not have had any verisimilitude if Gibson's Jesus tried to
deliver it. It contradicts Gibson's Jesus because Gibson's Jesus is
not the Jesus of MML&J.

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?.

Not a bad point, although I have my doubts that Roman soldiers
would've anticipated the fame of this crucifixee enough to want to
take his bloody torn rags. Moreover, the text in John clearly makes an
issue of the *quality* of Jesus' undergarment: it "was seamless, woven
in one piece from neck to hem, so they said to one another, 'Instead
of tearing it, let's throw dice to decide...'"

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.

You've lost me here. I don't understand your questions. The first
(conditions of the wounds missing the point?): It doesn't miss *my*
point, which is that one significant wound (spear in side) Jesus uses
as a means of identification for the disciples could not possibly have
been distinguished from the (hundreds of?) bloody gashes on Caviezel's
character's body. The second (why the wounds were left in the first
place) makes me wonder which wounds you are talking about. I carefully
distinguished the wounds I was talking about. Why both sets "were
left" (???) seems obvious, so I don't understand what you're getting
at. Could you explain?

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)

A most reasonable comment. However, I have heard Gibson claim that "it
follows the scriptures" in two interviews (and I've only seen three),
and most every one of my posts is an objection that Gibson's Passion
does NOT follow the text, so it's reasonable to assume that this
sub-thread is considering that aspect.

The ways it does not follow the text are significant in my opinion,
which is based not only on the text but on the abundant scholarship
about the medieval image of Jesus and sadomasochism, in addition to
its anti-semitic influence. If you're unconcerned about that, if you
got what you got from it and liked Mel's interpretation, fine.

that's 3/4 questions discussed reasonably. We're on a roll now....

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.

I disagree with your decision 100% and feel sorry for your 13 yr-old,
but I agree with your reasoning 100%.

4/5

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.

Well, the text always says "he," if I remember correctly.
Cinematically I loved Gibson's female Satan, but theologically as well
as socially it's troubling. The portrayal of Satan in the West since
the New Testament has been long, varied and of great importance. If
you're interested you might read Elaine Pagels "Origin of Satan: The
New Testament Origins of Christianity's Demonization of Jews, Pagans
and Heretics". Of obvious interest to debates on the portrayal of
Satan in Gibson's film.

5/6

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.

If my sentiments were historically hateful and obviously untrue, and
especially if he were about to make a big film that broached the same
topic, I hope to god that I had taught my son to respect the truth
well enough to disavow my sentiments, and I can't understand why
anyone else wouldn't want him to also.

Does familial loyalty count more than the truth? Hell, it's not even a
question of that, since Gibson could disavow his father's hurtful
lie-propagation and still maintain filial loyalty. The sad conclusion
seems to be that Mel Gibson agrees with his father. And if you don't
see how that could affect the movie he made, and why it worries both
Jews and anti-anti-Semites, then you're historically ignorant.

6/7 (...but credit given on this mostly for trying. The try was not
particularly reasonable)

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

Hey, you left out the Jews, MML&J's pick. You also left out Jesus,
your first pick in an earlier post. At any rate your answer is the
same kind of answer students will sometimes try on a test. But the
question asks *you* to pick.

Nevertheless, 7/8 (I usually don't give my students credit for those
answers)

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.

Very honest. Very straightforward--and from which you might be able to
guess why I was aggravated by your presumption when you first tried to
answer this question.

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?"

It's a common question, Mel, don't pretend I'm being arcane. In the
same sense we use the phrase, "responsible adult". Given that passion
plays were the cause of horrific acts of anti-Semitism, a responsible
person would neither patronize nor encourage them, and a courageous
responsible person would resist them.

It's pretty straightforward.

Nevertheless, if your intent (tongue deep in cheek) was a serious
question, 8/9

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....

[assuming your point is because of the "true" adjective in the
question. If not I have no earthly idea what you're point is:] Who
first made that distinction? Oh yea--it was you: "You would have us
believe that anyone calling themselves a Christian must in fact
represent all true Christians." (Date: 2004-03-16 16:02:03 PST).

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.

Great. You're learning.

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

Yea, I don't think I stuttered on that one. Good. 9/10, although I
would caution you, since you were the one who began making that
distinction, to make your criteria clear before calling anyone else
that (i.e., not a "true" Christian). The vast majority of those who do
so use fallacious reasoning. I'm not saying you have, I'm just warning
you.

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.

When someone has to circumlocute around a simple question, they either
don't understand it or they won't answer it straightforwardly because
they know how bad it makes them look.

In the hopes that it is the former circumstance for you, I'll point
out two things about that question. 1) honesty is NOT the same thing
as perfection (I mean what I say, and I said honest), 2) "expectation"
means, etymologically, too look out for, to hope for. It is not a
question of a status once something is attained.

You would also gain much goodwill if you should excise the phrase
"What you have to understand..." from your vocabulary, which you often
use. You are condescending enough as is, don't make it worse.

Oh, and we are still punished for our sinful natures. Even if god is
not the punisher, we still pay a price for doing and saying stupid
things. Which brings me to the next question...

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

Is this your question?

No, I believe that Jesus himself hacked into my computer to ask you
this.

Can you see inside me and know whether or not this
was pretense?

Even if I could, I would not. I could care less what's "inside" you,
I'll leave the inside to god. I did, however, read your sub-thread
with Gregg (keep reading...)

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 snip some convenient reasoning that ignores the relationship of table thread to religion sub-thread, then more courageous name-calling

In a similar vein, but with a bit more candor, here's what you said in
Gregg's thread:

"I started this thread knowing full well it might "fire" some people
up is because when you love the story of the salvation of man as much
as I do you hope you can share it with someone..."

"...knowing full well that the subject matter of replied posts would
quickly deviate from wood working to religion. I not only initiated
but welcomed the opportunity to share a belief I hold dear in a public
forum..."

I know you argued your case with Gregg, mostly on the basis of your
initial subject heading, but you ended up looking foolish in that
exchange. A "hypocrite" originally meant an actor. You seem, and not
only to me, to have exploited the WW topic, however interested in it
you were, in order to further your other goal. You were acting.

That is a dissimulation you may be able to justify, but most
non-Christians are offended when they get a whiff of that Willy
Loman/Og Mandino bull****--I'm telling you this as a favor to your
proselytizing. Just come out and say what you want to say, then show
some respect for what the responses indicate--just common sense. On
the Wreck, if you were to do that, you would be met with an
overwhelming majority asking you NOT to proselyte on it for several
reasons, the most prominent one being that it is not the appropriate
public forum.

If you can't accede to the wishes of your fellow Wreckers, they in
turn will not respect you. Perhaps that's why you felt the need to be
sneaky about it? Regardless, it is not an honest tactic and if you
don't readily see that then I doubt there's much I can say to convince
you.

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.

What, your interests can't be honest/dishonest? As if.

If you view
it as dishonesty then maybe you're not just a coward but a dishonest one at
that.

That non-sequitur is a bit glaring. And expecting unequal
relationships with others is clearly dishonest, especially in a
Christian context: "do to others what you would have them do to you,
for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"--so it's pretty fundamental
Christianity. Again, if you don't readily see that then I doubt
there's much I can say to convince you.

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?

Of course assumptions can be honest and dishonest. If you assume the
above (that you have something to teach someone you don't know) then
you're arrogant and sanctimonious. Those are vices, engaging in them
is dishonest. It's your dishonesty that allows you the presumption to
be arrogant. Or do you find arrogance and sanctimony to be qualities
of an honest man?

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

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

Yes. No. Passive-aggressives are honest neither to themselves nor
those around them.

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.

You don't "know [it] to be true", Mel, because you dont' know anything
about the semantic requirements of a word without knowing the
language. You do not know a language just because you can look up a
word in a dictionary. That's not how languages (or words) work. If you
believe that then I suspect you're not fluent in any foreign language.
Your pathetic attempts at understanding the Greek of a passage by
looking up a word or two in a dictionary goes way beyond ignorant. And
I do classify what you did above as a pretense. You have absolutely no
idea whether those dictionary definitions are correct or not (what,
you think dictionaries are perfect?), let alone whether they are
correct in that context.

Words do not have meaning outside their semantic, syntactical context.
Either learn Greek or don't. But don't cite a word you merely looked
up and expect to get the context right.

It's a bit like being a Christian, your point above: you either are or
you aren't. There's no use dicking around with dictionaries. I know
it's a common vice in Sunday Schools and pulpits, but that doesn't
make it right, although a lot of publishers and authors are making
money off it.

You might be able to have a Greek reader illuminate a passage for you,
and by corollary a written work about the Greek do the same. But that
doesn't give *you* the knowledge to argue even that same material to
anyone else who does know Greek.

Too many non-sequiturs, circumlocutions and name-calling to get credit
on this one. And the sophistic dancing around the word honest! Honest
and dishonest are the umbrellas under which all other virtues and
vices recline. If you exercise a vice then you are not being an honest
man. You have exhibited several vices in this thread that preclude
readers from accepting you as an honest man, that's it in a nutshell.
Whether you are an honest man generally, or outside this newsgroup, or
except for those vices, I have no idea, nor do I much care. But you
won't exhibit those vices around the NG without comment.

9/11.

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.

Well, tt's what you did, so by your own admission you were being
dishonest.

10/12

But soft!--you still counter:

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.

Oh, but it is honest, Mel. You are proselytizing on the Wreck and
that's inappropriate. The way you did it was dishonest. The fact that
I don't submit something inappropriate on the Wreck and criticize you
for doing so is not dishonest.

Nor is it honest to
feign participation in a discussion when really all you do is spew
implication after implication in effort to impugn.

What part of the discussion was I faking, Mel? And they weren't just
implications, they were proofs. I don't remember implying anything.
It's not my fault that you have a hard time making sense or being
honest.

I've challenged you about as impassively as I know how to

Well...thank god you haven't been passionate about all this then,
because I don't know what I'd do if you, courageous he-man that you
are and all, got all angry and came after me on the NG. My panties are
bunched up just thinking about it.

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
snip more boring repetitions of name-calling already cited above

Let's see now.
1) I did already answer you (and you were too cowardly to accept
the challenge)
2) You don't need my answer--so you say
3) You know that I think it's inappropriate to post those kinds of
beliefs on the Wreck

....yet you still ask the question. You are one sick puppy. Get a
handle on that control-freak tendency while you can, Mel.

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.

Coming from you, Mel, that's a compliment.

Thank you,
H