Replies

For 2000 years scripture as written has been suffcient(sic) to convey the passion of the Christ. Now all of a sudden scripture is not enough and everybody has to flock to a sensational movie. Makes no sense.

This was your initial statement. My reaction is that you felt there was no need to make the movie, since the Scriptures were all that was necessary. However, your problem, if I understand your last post, is that people are going to see the movie. This makes less sense than your first statement. Your objections are still, it seems to me, an attempt to attack the movie without addressing the real issue for attacking it. If you have a problem with anything extra Biblical, then you must have a problem with hymns, Ben Hur, the Ten Commandments, and many other extra Biblical attempts to illustrate faith and bring the Gospel message to people who may not have heard it.

In your last post you stated that you're getting the impression that Christians want to make seeing the movie almost mandatory. Trying to chase your arguments around is getting a little too much like the dead parrot skit, so, I'll just accept that you're pinin' for the Fjords and leave you alone.

I did NOT object to the fact that Gibson had made a movie. The key word in my statement was "sensational." For it seems to me that this movie is more graphic, violent and sensational than the scripture itself. I gather that because so many people, who must surely have read the bible accounts of the passion, have said they "never realised" what the passion of Christ was like until they saw this movie. It does beg the question as whether or not the biblical accounts alone are able to provoke sufficient realization of Christ's sacrifice. It would not make much sense if they were not sufficient. It would mean that millions of Chrisians who read the book but never saw this movie are at a serious disadvantage.

I agree with you that there are many ways to spread the gospel. A movie is one way. This a movie, a work of art, one man's personal vision. Because of that is it not mandatory that William Safire or anyone else likes it. And because of that people of good will can like it, dislike it, like parts of it, dislike parts of it, or ignore it.