Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Mel Gibson's Film
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 16 2004, 08:26 PM
What do you think about mel gibson's passion movie?
What do you think about all the preachers who are using it as an "outreach program."
What about all the fundie preachers who encourage their members to go to this movie which is rated R even though they are against rated R movies?
ANy other comments about this movie or mel gibson in general.
Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Feb 16 2004, 09:05 PM
At best, it's potentially very dangerous. That is really all that should need to be said.
Posted by: fortunehooks Feb 16 2004, 09:29 PM
spacefalcon,
i feel for you. i know that the film must get on your nerves,and i agree that it can be harmful to people's health.
i think the film will have the box offices on smash. it will gross over 200million. i don't know if i want to see it. i like fictional movies based on fictional characters so it will be entertaining and uplifting to folks who believe in the bible's hero jesus christ. i have ideas about many jesuses that were in existence and not one comes from nazareth.
i guess when folks realize that this hero only exists on centuries old papers,then they could finally break the belief cycle.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 16 2004, 09:50 PM
QUOTE (fortunehooks @ Feb 17 2004, 12:29 AM)
spacefalcon,
i feel for you. i know that the film must get on your nerves,and i agree that it can be harmful to people's health.
i think the film will have the box offices on smash. it will gross over 200million. i don't know if i want to see it. i like fictional movies based on fictional characters so it will be entertaining and uplifting to folks who believe in the bible's hero jesus christ. i have ideas about many jesuses that were in existence and not one comes from nazareth.
i guess when folks realize that this hero only exists on centuries old papers,then they could finally break the belief cycle.
I for one will not be going to it. For one thing, passion plays in christianity started in the middle ages as a way to incite hatred of the jews and jewish pogroms. (although earlier mystery religions had "passion plays" of their dying/rising savior gods...the motivation was never to incite hatred of another group of people.)
Knowing the history of passion plays...and the brutality of this film with jews blamed at every turn in the movie for the death of a FICTIONAL character, I won't be going.
That's what disturbs me the most, I believe the evidence is very very very strong in favor of the fact that there NEVER was a jesus of nazareth, he's a mythical figure, so for hundreds of years passion plays have taken place presented as history and jews have been hurt because of the death of a fictional person. It's just too much for me to deal with.
My mother is the drama director of her fundie church, they always do passion plays, and they always include the line: "let his blood be upon us and our children."
I also remember my family telling me that the holocaust was wrong and horrible but the jews DID say in the bible "let his blood be upon us and our children." So while they would never ever admit to being anti-semitic, somehow in their twisted minds, god allowed the holocaust to happen because some fictional jews in a book asked for the blood of a fictional jesus to be placed upon their heads.
its all just too sick.
Posted by: michelle Feb 16 2004, 09:54 PM
I havent seen it, Im thinking I probably wont waste my money on it if its the same old story Ive always heard. How about if they play the movie Girl Interupted right after it because thats about the fucking size of it. Or maybe one of those holocaust movies, or a movie about gay bashing, thats about what it all lead to. Im begining to see Christianity as violence.
Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Feb 16 2004, 10:14 PM
QUOTE (michelle @ Feb 17 2004, 12:54 AM)
I havent seen it, Im thinking I probably wont waste my money on it if its the same old story Ive always heard. How about if they play the movie Girl Interupted right after it because thats about the fucking size of it. Or maybe one of those holocaust movies, or a movie about gay bashing, thats about what it all lead to. Im begining to see Christianity as violence.
It's not. Just the last 12 hours of the story you heard, except the focus is on violence instigated by the Jews who control the scenes, and a Pontius Pilot who has a 180 degree moral turn from real life.
Although that is a good idea, they should follow the viewing with something about the holocaust.
Posted by: Outsider Feb 16 2004, 10:22 PM
I was confronted by a christian that tried to show that the movie is such a controversy because it is about Jesus. "People do not want to hear about Jesus and the Devil is doing everything he can to stop the film from being shown."
I can understand the Jewish argument, but is this movie really a big deal? It is not like we have not read, heard, or seen this story before. Is the christian right to say this movie is facing persecution because it tells the Jesus story? Or do most people don't really care about this movie? For me this movie is not a big deal and, besides the Jewish argument, cannot see why this movie is creating so much debate or is it?
Posted by: CodeWarren Feb 16 2004, 10:24 PM
I will see it, viewing it at more or less a technical and aesthetic level. I will see it by myself as to avoid christian friends blathering about it...
Posted by: toecutter Feb 17 2004, 12:15 AM
I've seen it, and from a purely asthetic viewpoint, it's a well made film. good, great, even.
Posted by: sexkitten Feb 17 2004, 02:13 AM
Mixed impressions...
I don't get the anti-Semitism debate. By that I don't mean that I don't understand why some people are concerned about it feuling anti semitism. I just don't get the rationale behind those who have the "the Jews killed Jesus" mentality that is fueling the concerns. When I was a Christian, I was taught that *all mankind* killed Jesus, including you and me and all our past, present, and future sins. Besides, Jesus had to die for our salvation according to the story, why be angry at the pawns in this supernatural drama? Especially when their unknowing acts help you get avoid hell?
I also find it irritating that the movie is being treated by the Christian community as an us verses them thing. Some people are worried about the film encouraging anti-Judaism, so they must be anti God. Hollywood didn't bend over backwards to support this film, so they must be against Christians. Puh-lease. There are so many things that go into the decision on whether to finance, produce, and promote a film project. And a deeply sectarian film in an obscure language with no subtitles is, frankly, a hard film to market in this country. Americans in general aren't too fond of foreign language films, and the audience that generally favors dubbed films is not the same audience that is interested in Christian films. The Passion isn't exactly Y Tu Mama, Tambien...
That said, the Aramaic thing is one thing that really draws me. I'm a language buff, and I want to see how well they pull this off. Plus, I want to hear Aramaic...
I'm also glad to see a religious film reflecting the violence of the story it seeks to portray. Its refreshing, after living among Christians that seem blissfully unaware of the inherent violence of their mythos.
I'll have to admit, though, that I'm much more interested in seeing an accurate adaptation of the book of Judges or I or II Chronicles. Not only is the Christ/resurrection story a bit overdone (It's the most often adapted Biblical story), but the other books are way more interesting.
I could see it now:
Child to mother: Mommy, why did the bear maul all those children?
Mother: The children teased the old, bald man, and that was bad. You shouldn't make fun of old people, because old, bald men are really hot and God has a special place in his heart for them.
Child: <pause> Mommy, is God that tall guy in the funny robes from Star Trek???
Sorry.... couldn't help it...
Posted by: .:WebMaster:. Feb 17 2004, 03:15 AM
I think it will be interesting to see what the fundies have to say about it.
After all Mel is a die hard Catholic, and therefore a Mary worshipper, and not saved at all. LOL
Posted by: UV2003 Feb 17 2004, 03:58 AM
QUOTE (sexkitten @ Feb 17 2004, 02:13 AM)
Mixed impressions...
I don't get the anti-Semitism debate. By that I don't mean that I don't understand why some people are concerned about it feuling anti semitism. I just don't get the rationale behind those who have the "the Jews killed Jesus" mentality that is fueling the concerns. When I was a Christian, I was taught that *all mankind* killed Jesus, including you and me and all our past, present, and future sins. Besides, Jesus had to die for our salvation according to the story, why be angry at the pawns in this supernatural drama? Especially when their unknowing acts help you get avoid hell?
This is the same thing I thought! Why the heck are these people upset that the Jews called for his crucifixion? That is their whole theology: his own people reject him and don't recognize him as God, the same way all of humanity doesn't recognize him and spits on him. All of humanity is responsible, and furthermore, shouldn't they even be thankful to the Jews? I mean afterall, Jesus said he HAD to die, so why not be thankful to Judas and the Jews for having the balls to do it? And furthermore, all authority in heaven and earth was vested in Jesus, so he and his father actually engineered the very circumstances of his death! Far from being upset at the Jews, Christians should praise them and Pilate and the Pharisees and anyone who persecuted them. Christians are supposed to consider it pure joy when persecuted are they not? So tell me why they get so upset? I thought they were supposed to be joyful at it!
Confused.
-UV
Posted by: UV2003 Feb 17 2004, 04:05 AM
QUOTE (Outsider @ Feb 16 2004, 10:22 PM)
I was confronted by a christian that tried to show that the movie is such a controversy because it is about Jesus. "People do not want to hear about Jesus and the Devil is doing everything he can to stop the film from being shown."
I'm hearing the same thing about demons and Satan! It's making me uncomfortable. I don't know whether I'll see the film with Christians or not. Since I'm developing my own skeptical views, I might not fit in with the crowd when I ask where Matthew's many risen saints are at the moment of crucifixion. But, I have to speak the truth and raise issues where they occur. If I did not, I wouldn't be following Jesus very well.
-UV
Posted by: JezebelLeFey Feb 17 2004, 04:08 AM
QUOTE (sexkitten @ Feb 17 2004, 02:13 AM)
Mixed impressions...
I don't get the anti-Semitism debate. By that I don't mean that I don't understand why some people are concerned about it feuling anti semitism. I just don't get the rationale behind those who have the "the Jews killed Jesus" mentality that is fueling the concerns. When I was a Christian, I was taught that *all mankind* killed Jesus, including you and me and all our past, present, and future sins. Besides, Jesus had to die for our salvation according to the story, why be angry at the pawns in this supernatural drama? Especially when their unknowing acts help you get avoid hell?
I was taught that too at my Presbyterian church. I think it depends on the sect, though. Some will lean more toward the 'Jews killed Christ' party line than others. Of course, history shows that it was the Romans who loved a good crucifixion.
QUOTE
I also find it irritating that the movie is being treated by the Christian community as an us verses them thing. Some people are worried about the film encouraging anti-Judaism, so they must be anti God. Hollywood didn't bend over backwards to support this film, so they must be against Christians. Puh-lease. There are so many things that go into the decision on whether to finance, produce, and promote a film project. And a deeply sectarian film in an obscure language with no subtitles is, frankly, a hard film to market in this country. Americans in general aren't too fond of foreign language films, and the audience that generally favors dubbed films is not the same audience that is interested in Christian films. The Passion isn't exactly Y Tu Mama, Tambien...
I hate that too. It makes it easy for real problems that need to be addressed to be ignored under the guise of sensitivity and 'persecution'. You're spot on about the foreign language films in America. We could probably count on one hand the number of foreign language films that did well in the US.
QUOTE
I'm also glad to see a religious film reflecting the violence of the story it seeks to portray. Its refreshing, after living among Christians that seem blissfully unaware of the inherent violence of their mythos.
Heh, yeah, tell me about it. Fluff bunnies. The Pagan community has them too, especially among some Wiccans who think Nature is always sunshine and daisies.
Posted by: fool_ps14:1 Feb 17 2004, 04:16 AM
I really dont care about this flick. I'm not gonna waste my money or time on it. As far as I'm conserned, the only film in the whole Jesus genre worth viewing is "Life of Brian"
Posted by: Shadfox Feb 17 2004, 06:07 AM
My family can't wait to see it. I have a feeling that after seeing it they'll go apeshit with zealousness. That's what this movie was formulated to do! Seeing their studmuffin savior in gory glory will only further their anger against all of us, Jewish or otherwise. I may have to go with them just to see what I'm up against.
Betty Bowers put it best:
QUOTE
"For those of you not within driving distance to a thriving abattoir, this film may be your only chance to delight in this many quarts of gushing blood, while still skirting criminal arraignment. As a Baptist, I don't often find myself promoting R-rated films, but I'm proud that I live in a country where witnessing two hours of bloody, barbarous torture in gloating detail is considered indicia of religious piety, whereas a mere second gazing upon a woman's breast is cause for outraged apoplexy."
http://www.bettybowers.com/melgibsonpassion.html
I thank Connie for this remark that works like ice water on any conversation or request I see this movie: "Oh, yeah! I heard Jesus was a beefcake!"
Posted by: Cain Feb 17 2004, 06:26 AM
I think that some synogages are gonna burn. I wouldn't blame the film on this directly, but I think it will be the straw that broke the crazy, dumbass, retarded camels back. I do have a question though for Mel; "If this movie isn't about blaming Jews for killing Jesus, then why the hell is Jesus lookin so damned European?!?!?!" "Dumbass." Well he looks white ta me. (Maybe he isnt - I dont know)
Posted by: JezebelLeFey Feb 17 2004, 08:36 AM
QUOTE (Cain @ Feb 17 2004, 06:26 AM)
I think that some synogages are gonna burn. I wouldn't blame the film on this directly, but I think it will be the straw that broke the crazy, dumbass, retarded camels back. I do have a question though for Mel; "If this movie isn't about blaming Jews for killing Jesus, then why the hell is Jesus lookin so damned European?!?!?!" "Dumbass." Well he looks white ta me. (Maybe he isnt - I dont know)
Exactly Cain. Jebus should look closer to someone like bin Laden (scary thought) than Jim Cavizel. Considering the Kid was always out walking around in the sun preaching, his already darker skin should be nice and tanned. The rest of the Israelites should be darker as well. Everyone looks extremely Anglo in that film.
Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 17 2004, 09:33 AM
Zoe,
QUOTE
...for the death of a FICTIONAL character, I won't be going.
That's what disturbs me the most, I believe the evidence is very very very strong in favor of the fact that there NEVER was a jesus of nazareth, he's a mythical figure...
What "evidence" that is "very very very strong" are you referring to? Care to provide/elaborate? I'm curious to know.
Thanks in advance,
Jason
Posted by: moorezw Feb 17 2004, 09:37 AM
Zoe-
QUOTE
That's what disturbs me the most, I believe the evidence is very very very strong in favor of the fact that there NEVER was a jesus of nazareth, he's a mythical figure...
But as myths go, it's a pretty dramatic one. I think it'll be good.
Posted by: brick Feb 17 2004, 11:17 AM
nope, not enough interest in the topic to spend my greens and precious time on. Its likely more of the same, about an old, tired topic that may never have actually occurred anyway...
I'll be watching to see what kind of shit it stirs up, either good or bad.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 17 2004, 12:36 PM
QUOTE (Outsider @ Feb 17 2004, 01:22 AM)
I was confronted by a christian that tried to show that the movie is such a controversy because it is about Jesus. "People do not want to hear about Jesus and the Devil is doing everything he can to stop the film from being shown."
I can understand the Jewish argument, but is this movie really a big deal? It is not like we have not read, heard, or seen this story before. Is the christian right to say this movie is facing persecution because it tells the Jesus story? Or do most people don't really care about this movie? For me this movie is not a big deal and, besides the Jewish argument, cannot see why this movie is creating so much debate or is it?
it's the most violent and brutal "passion" story ever done in film. historically the whole purpose of passion plays was to incite hatred of the jews.
Before the holocaust, hitler saw a passion play that "moved" him, in that direction.
The threat is very real. it's not because it's a movie but because christians think it's TRUE history.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 17 2004, 12:47 PM
QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 17 2004, 12:33 PM)
Zoe,
QUOTE
...for the death of a FICTIONAL character, I won't be going.
That's what disturbs me the most, I believe the evidence is very very very strong in favor of the fact that there NEVER was a jesus of nazareth, he's a mythical figure...
What "evidence" that is "very very very strong" are you referring to? Care to provide/elaborate? I'm curious to know.
Thanks in advance,
Jason
actually it's more lack of evidence for a historical jesus. care to provide us with your evidence for him?
However I could point you to two sources:
one:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
that's for instant gratification.
Now on to a book. There are many books out there that explore this...one I'm particularly fond of though is very readable and not overly "boring" It's called: "the jesus Mysteries" by timothy freke and peter gandy.
You might wonder why i'm not mentioning the proofs myself...and it's simply because I know after being an exchristian for 4 years that NO fundie christian can be swayed by the evidence. brainwashing has taken hold you cannot see reality. (think elizabeth smart who denied she was her) it's a powerful thing. I'm not going to waste my breath in a debate, do your own research, but research both sides. And if you still come away with your inane idea that jesus existed, well, all i can say is...the brainwashing took.
Posted by: TruthWarrior Feb 17 2004, 01:03 PM
QUOTE (JezebelLeFey @ Feb 17 2004, 08:08 AM)
Heh, yeah, tell me about it. Fluff bunnies. The Pagan community has them too, especially among some Wiccans who think Nature is always sunshine and daisies.
Check out http://www.whywiccanssuck.com which was written by a wiccan on the whole fluff bunny matter.
I'm sure I'll end up seeing the movie. I have a bunch o' Jesus movies. Gotta collect em all! I have the Visual Bible's movies "Matthew" and "Luke" which were word for word reenactments from the NIV. In that they have a nice happy lovin' Jesus. I also have "Jesus Christ Superstar", "Barabbas" and "Godspell".
This movie looks good, despite all the group condemning that is typical of christianity and any abrahamic religions. I really doubt the passion will start a race war. Honestly the groups against it are way too insecure and fearful (not that christianity is any less). Ironically the attempted censorship and suppresion seems to be creating much more prejudical hate against the jewish people then the movie itself would. Not to mention it's helping promote it more to the very people that will be badly effected by it.
This whole thing is where it belongs, in an artisticly embellished fiction movie, in stories and fairy tales. Now all they have to do is burst out in song at the end.
Come on, sing along...
QUOTE
"http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/brghtsd.mp3
Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best...
And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...
If life seems jolly rotten
There's something you've forgotten
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps
Don't be silly chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle - that's the thing.
And...always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the light side of life...
For life is quite absurd
And death's the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin - give the audience a grin
Enjoy it - it's your last chance anyhow.
So always look on the bright side of death
Just before you draw your terminal breath
Life's a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true.
You'll see it's all a show
Keep 'em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you.
And always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the right side of life...
(Come on guys, cheer up!)
Always look on the bright side of life...
Always look on the bright side of life...
(Worse things happen at sea, you know.)
Always look on the bright side of life...
(I mean - what have you got to lose?)
(You know, you come from nothing - you're going back to nothing.
What have you lost? Nothing!)
Always look on the right side of life...
$And don't forget about all the merchandising and tithing after the movie!$
Posted by: TruthWarrior Feb 17 2004, 01:17 PM
I was also wondering if they'll have a blooper reel at the end credits. Ooh and the uncut DVD version too with all the deleted scenes like Jesus kissing Mary Magdelene and much much more!
Check this interview with the guy who played Jesus [from "http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14011_1.html"]:
QUOTE
What was the experience of the crucifixion scene like?
When I was on the cross, I was in a loincloth in incredibly cold conditions. They stick heaters on both sides of you, but it’s useless when the wind just blows past you. I would look out and see a good hundreds of crew members, shaking from the cold, with mittens and scarves and jackets on. And there’s nothing you can do because your arms are tied up. So they move the heaters closer, and you start to feel the heat, but when the wind slows down just a little bit it fries your skin off. I remember just calling out to God at one point, “So you don’t want this movie to be made?”
One time I was up there for an hour, and because of the wind chill, I had difficulty keeping my core temperature up. It was extremely hard, and I was getting nauseous all the time.
Also, because the makeup was so severe I couldn’t see out of my right eye, which caused me to hyper-focus out of the left eye. Because of all the makeup I was wearing, my skin was just ripped to shreds. It was like the healing stages after a sunburn, when you want to itch every single part of your body and you can’t.
As a result of playing this part, I have become even more passionate about the way of the cross. It is about Our Lord’s sacrifice for mankind, for our sins, bringing us back to God, and it’s love that did this.
"Booo hoo! Waaa! Waaa! Waa!" And that's Christianity for ya folks!
Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 17 2004, 01:34 PM
Hi Zoe,
Thanks for the 2 references, I do appreciate it.
I visited the site briefly (I'm an immediate gratifiaction type of guy), and honestly I expected more of it. Granted, if I look at it longer, I might find some provable evidence that supports the claims. However, all I really saw thus far was a site full of conspiracy theories, and formed opinions or ideas. Nothing of substance. Again, I could be wrong and I'll gladly look into it more.
As for me, providing the proof or evidence to support Jesus - I intend to.
For immediate gratification:
http://www.allaboutgod.com/is-jesus-god.htm
There's tons of actual evidence there - no theories.
I'm probably going to begin a new post regarding Jesus, even though I'm sure it's been done before, many times over!
Thanks again for your references, I'll continue to research them.
Peace,
Jason
Posted by: JezebelLeFey Feb 17 2004, 02:39 PM
QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 17 2004, 01:34 PM)
Hi Zoe,
Thanks for the 2 references, I do appreciate it.
I visited the site briefly (I'm an immediate gratifiaction type of guy), and honestly I expected more of it. Granted, if I look at it longer, I might find some provable evidence that supports the claims. However, all I really saw thus far was a site full of conspiracy theories, and formed opinions or ideas. Nothing of substance. Again, I could be wrong and I'll gladly look into it more.
Yes, please do and don't make a judgement or speak as though you know, until you have.
Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Feb 17 2004, 04:26 PM
QUOTE (TruthWarrior @ Feb 17 2004, 04:17 PM)
QUOTE
I remember just calling out to God at one point, “So you don’t want this movie to be made?”
Well certainly if God thinks this movie will be the cause of something bad, I surely agree.
Posted by: _BenjaminTC Feb 17 2004, 05:02 PM
I'm a movie fan first, atheist 3rd or 4th something like that. I'll for sure see this movie. January - April usually brings the worst movies of the year, so a well made movie such as this is a rare find so early in the year. I mean look at the movies that have been #1 this year: 50 first dates, butterfly effect? Those movies look terrible!
Posted by: pitchu Feb 17 2004, 05:13 PM
Gee, Benjamin. Good to see someone who's got his human life priorities straight.
Posted by: AggieNostic Feb 17 2004, 06:01 PM
I like Mel Gibson and think he's being targeted for not being politically correct. He was raked over the coals for The Patriot because of its violence ... with accusations coming from people who don't normally mind violent movies. Anyway, I'm tempted to ask where the criticism is coming from before taking it seriously. As far as preachers using this movie for outreach, it wouldn't be the first time hypocritical fundies suspended their principles to promote their ideology.
Posted by: Gypsy Feb 17 2004, 06:35 PM
Personally, I like Mel Gibson, as an actor and a director, however I don't think I will pay money to go watch this movie at the theatre. (I may rent it after it comes out on DVD, just for asthetic purposes, and so that I won't be totally defenseless if someone wants to debate with me about it.)
Someone in an earlier post stated that there is no real evidence that Jesus from Nazareth ever actually existed. The proof of that, to me, is the unusual number of coincidences between the stories of the buybull and Jesus and the remarkably similar stories in other non-xristian religions...one example is the theme of a prophet or messiah being born only to be sacrificed and to rise again is too common among far too many religions for xristians to be able to lay sole claim to it.
What the fundies have been too brainwashed to realize is the fact that religion is a creation of humankind, not the other way around. Religion evolved as an effective means of establishing societal rules and keeping order..who needs cops when you have a society that has been brainwashed into NOT thinking for itself and just swallowing the statements of the religious leaders?
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 17 2004, 09:35 PM
QUOTE (Gypsy @ Feb 17 2004, 09:35 PM)
Someone in an earlier post stated that there is no real evidence that Jesus from Nazareth ever actually existed. The proof of that, to me, is the unusual number of coincidences between the stories of the buybull and Jesus and the remarkably similar stories in other non-xristian religions...one example is the theme of a prophet or messiah being born only to be sacrificed and to rise again is too common among far too many religions for xristians to be able to lay sole claim to it.
Yes that someone was me. You might be interested in the book: "The Jesus Mysteries" It definitely explores that theory.
As for the website i mentioned being "conspiracy theories" I would like to know on what grounds Jay thinks they are conspiracy theories. There are plenty of references historical and otherwise that are cited, he can look it up himself.
Seems pretty self explanatory to me.
On the other hand, i've read all the christian apologetics about jesus and it's all a bunch of propaganda there is not one credible source that would even cause anyone to think jesus existed as a historical being.
The only reason the truth seems like a "conspiracy theory" is because this is america and a vast portion of europe's "sacred cow" If it was anything else but Jesus it would be immediately accepted.
Apologists for some reason are able to use logic and reason when exploring anyone elses claims but their own, then their brain shuts down.
When it comes to christian apologist answers they seem to think that the existence of answers period no matter how silly or unproven somehow puts the ball back on our court. It doesnt.
The fact is, there is plenty of very good evidence on our side, and the christian apologist has to resort to flimsy reasoning and conjecture.
Also...I don't even find that Jesus didn't exist all that incredible. I mean yes there were several people named jesus, but jesus of nazareth didn't exist. at that time nazareth wasn't even a place. What I find really incredible is the exodus never happened.
never happened. there was no exodus. archaeologists (many of them christian or jewish) actually canvassed the entire area known to be the route taken out of egypt and not ONE artifact or trace of 2 million wanderers was ever found.
Nothing, natta.
At any rate i will check out the site Jay suggested, but I do expect him to state explicitly WHY he thinks jesusneverexisted is a bunch of conspiracy theories. His casual dismissal of them doesn't actually make them go away.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 17 2004, 09:42 PM
maybe i'm not looking close enough Jay but your little site is not the slightest bit scholarly. It's just more christian apologetic propaganda.
In fact the site doesn't really deal with whether or not jesus existed. It's mentioned and then skimmed over so they can go on to other questions like: "is jesus god" and other such tripe.
I would actually appreciate something that gives me real evidence for jesus' existence PERIOD. Let's not start asking if he's god or rose from the dead or any other such nonsense until we can actually confirm that he existed.
And really I didn't see any evidence on that site. Maybe my eyes glazed over from all the fundie propaganda and the majory "proselytizing" Jesus selling frenzy I perceived there. Maybe instead of asking me to go through an entire site that has NOTHING to do with whether or not jesus existed, you could pinpoint any place on that site or ANY site that shows the evidence for his existence. I don't care about the "evidence" of whether he was god or rose from the dead...that goes into a whole other area of begging the question assuming the bible is in any way authoritative.
I would think it would be a lot simpler to "prove" jesus' historical existence than it would be to prove the bible authoritative...so perhaps we should stick with the original statement. Because if he didn't exist, he didn't rise from the dead, he didn't do miracles, and he isn't god. If you can't even prove that THIS jesus of the bible existed as a historical person and not just a myth, what chance do you really have of convincing skeptics he's god?
Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 18 2004, 09:04 AM
Hi Zoe,
Wow! You're a fast browser/reader/typist! You browsed the website, read the evidence, made a decision about it, came back to this site and posted/typed a 5 paragraph criticism of it - ALL in just 7 MINUTES!
Needless to say, unfortunately I don't think you care to really examine ANY evidence provided. And I don't think you took a look at the site in any depth at all, again, unless you're a very fast reader. I would conclude this is why you've come to the decision you have about Jesus. You have your mind so closed to the possibility that Jesus existed, that if history was divided as a result of His existence, you still wouldn't believe. Oh wait, it was!
Even secular historians, expert atheists, and scientists alike, believe Jesus existed! They just don't believe in what He said, or who He claimed to be - certain aspects of His life, but not His life entirely.
I believe you're a very intelligent person Zoe, with the ability to use logic and reason. I've enjoyed your posts, your challenge, and exploring your thoughts. This is why your position on this surprises me.
As for the theories I quickly spotted on the website you provided, I'll be more than happy to include them in another post if you'd like. However, I do admit there are a few topics on the site that raise question for me, and I intend to seek answers. (I'm open to exploring arguments/evidence that don't support my belief system).
I look forward to furthering this discussion with you...
Jason
Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 18 2004, 09:19 AM
By the way Zoe...
QUOTE
In fact the site doesn't really deal with whether or not jesus existed. It's mentioned and then skimmed over so they can go on to other questions like: "is jesus god" and other such tripe.
If you spent more time there, you would've seen that all the questions surrounding the events of Jesus life, directly pertain to the existence of Jesus. Here's a more direct link on the same site:
http://www.allaboutgod.com/Jesus-Christ-1.htm
Maybe that will help? I think the issue may be again, that the existence of Jesus isn't really what people question - it's pretty universally accepted as a fact. Which could be why they don't go into that more specifically?
How do you argue the point of reference to His life, "B.C. and A.D."? I'm just wondering, because I haven't really heard a solid opposing viewpoint on that issue.
QUOTE
I would actually appreciate something that gives me real evidence for jesus' existence PERIOD. Let's not start asking if he's god or rose from the dead or any other such nonsense until we can actually confirm that he existed.
Let's begin with the question above, shall we?
Thanks again,
Jason
Posted by: Bruce Feb 18 2004, 09:50 AM
http://jesusneverexisted.com
Posted by: Skankboy Feb 18 2004, 09:51 AM
QUOTE
JayS8NT Posted on Feb 18 2004, 09:19 AM
How do you argue the point of reference to His life, "B.C. and A.D."? I'm just wondering, because I haven't really heard a solid opposing viewpoint on that issue.
I think I can help with this. I actually took a class in college on millenniumism and we discussed this topic.
The AD and BC systems of dating the years was created by a monk named Dionysius Exiguss in the 6th century. Before that Christians would use the year of the reign of the current Emporer or in some rarer cases a system based on all of creation taking place in 12 "hours" with Adam at hour 1 and Jesus returning at 11 using the abbreviation AM (Anno Mundi).
I believe it was somewhere in the 9th century that the Church officially began to reckon the years by Exiguss' system where the year "0" referred to the year of his resurrection (not birth as many people think. To that end we would think of JC as having been born around 38 BC which will really confuse some people!)
But seriously, what I'm getting at is that this is a completely arbitrary way for us to measure passing of time and has no basis in any "real" time scale. Even the date assigned as "0" by the clergy was a best guess estimate.
This is why many people (including my old history profs) began using CE and BCE for "Common Era" and "Before Common Era" to remove the religious connotations from a very non-religious idea.
Hope that helps...
Posted by: brick Feb 18 2004, 09:52 AM
[QUOTE]Even secular historians, expert atheists, and scientists alike, believe Jesus existed! They just don't believe in what He said, or who He claimed to be - certain aspects of His life, but not His life entirely.
Oh really!!!! I don't think I've ever come across any scolar from any school of thought who would make that claim. Oh, I guess you just made that up to make yourself sound authoritative.
With all the zealous hordes out there dying to prove the historicity of your cult-founder, you would think they might have been able to turn up the tiniest shred of verifiable physical evidence. But then that is the funny thing about evidence, you have to have actually existed in order to have left any.
Posted by: RowdyHoo Feb 18 2004, 11:02 AM
Are those in here suggesting that the historical Jesus did not exist? Anyone seriously interested in finding the truth about this can come to but only one conclusion: Jesus was a real, historical person.
Now, proving that he was God on earth, resurrected, etc., gets into faith issues of which no irrefutable "proof" can be provided, I admit. But I am surprised that this topic; Jesus did not exist; has gone this far without someone else calling this out and bringing this ridiculous point to and end.
(Please excuse the apparent demeanor. I don't mean for my tone to sound so rude, and I haven't the time to rewrite.)
Posted by: Dragon_Made_Flesh Feb 18 2004, 01:30 PM
I will probably see it at some point....it just sounds rather interesting to see a movie that is mostly in Aramaic. Also I would like to see if it is as anti-semetic as it seems to be.
Posted by: Starflier Feb 18 2004, 03:09 PM
QUOTE (RowdyHoo @ Feb 18 2004, 11:02 AM)
Are those in here suggesting that the historical Jesus did not exist? Anyone seriously interested in finding the truth about this can come to but only one conclusion: Jesus was a real, historical person.
Now, proving that he was God on earth, resurrected, etc., gets into faith issues of which no irrefutable "proof" can be provided, I admit. But I am surprised that this topic; Jesus did not exist; has gone this far without someone else calling this out and bringing this ridiculous point to and end.
(Please excuse the apparent demeanor. I don't mean for my tone to sound so rude, and I haven't the time to rewrite.)
I could write reams on this subject from all I've read or seen about the Jesus persona & the messages given that became christianity as it is today. And this post would probably be more an article on this subject belonging in the article forum & not here. But it applies so much to this subject it also does indeed belong here which is why I'm placing it here, lengthy though it may be.
So to continue, in all my 67 years of study on this so far, the jury is still out if an historical "real" Jesus as one man or godman who ever existed. There are many viable pros & cons that argue either way.
For myself I glean & own what I think is relative for me, mine & the world at large, from the various christ teachings & message. Whether they come from the bible or elsewhere. For there are far better, more palatable & believeable christ messages & teachings that apply to daily life & living in a wholesome, healthful manner without the mystifying parables & often confusing analogies made by the biblical christ. Who I think had words put into his mouth by the patriarchalists' agenda makers of that time.
I frankly don't know if one main Jesus figure existed or not. For there is so much ancient mythology attached to that entity. Most of which arose out of the general global pre-Judaic OT myths, philosophies, beliefs & religions. There may have been several different Piscean Age messengers, some named Jesus, others not, back then.
But for starters, the biblical Jesus' December birthdate was that of a previous male deity called Mithra. So the birtdate & even the Jesus persona for that date or world Age itself is wrong, as I've studied it. Since I've been a professional astrologer/teacher in the past, myself & my peers can see the folly in that birthdate or the Sagittarian Age, not at all Piscean Age, it represents.
What I refer to here via the Ages & their ideals, idols or symbols is also well known & accepted in all scientific astronomiical arenas. That is, lest I be accused by either religionists or atheists of coming from a fortune telling, superstitious, or bible-damning study area. So I'm not speaking only for astrology but also for the science of astronomy & the ancient religions & beliefs that formed around them or along with them.
Before I go on I want to speak to the fact that the biblical wise men who visited the babe in the manger after seeing the "star" that guided them there were the astronomers/ astrologers of their day. Even as they've been portrayed as kings or wisdom holders of various other cultures. For back then the two fields of study were one & the same & only became separated later. So I like to refer to them as astronomologers.
But back on to the point ...this is not the Age of Sagittarius we're not experinecing but is the Piscean (fish/fisherperson) Age & the longest lasting one of all due to the length of the Pisces constellation & fish tails. Therefore a Piscean avatar born in late February through late March would be far more likely to be the persona of the fisherman & fish than would that of Sagittarius/late December.
For Sag's astronomical/astrological symbol is that of the centaur, half horse, half human. But Pisces's symbol is that of two fishes facing one another with a cross-over line linking them both together as if on constant intimate communication & partnership between the two facing fishes. It is not merely one main leader fish facing a school of many-faced other fishes. It it was, the glyph for the sign of Pisces would clearly represent one fish facing many others which it does not.
There is also much to said about the Vesica Piscis interlinking circles glyph of two interlocking circles & the star gate or doorway opening that it forms. It was that inner door or archway in between the two interlocing circles that inspired cathedral architecture & such other things as the idea of the birth opening out of which the baby emerges. But that's another item for another time.
Basically tho, this makes the Pisces fishes glyph & the message & meaning of that sign & constellation are the far more likely choice of any major teacher(s) or avatar(a)(s) for this Solar Age emergence & its message. So a December born Sagittarian Age type teacher/message bringer doesn't make astrononimcal/astrological sense at all.
For the folks back then based their beliefs & teachings on the stars, planets, moon & sun as they related to life on Earth.
As well as the meanings they gave them & the constellations. Mostly as they wandered the earth or deserts & looked to the heavens for guidance & such.
So it was they who named them in fact. Mostly the Arabs & wandering Hebrews & such tribes as those. So they would know what types of heros, heroines or deitylike personae or symbol to expect for each Age change. And the constellation meanings they relied on for that knowlege & direction as they & their ancestors had done for all the preceding Ages.
Thus they were expecting a new teaching or message for the new Age of Pisces just as their ancestors did for each former Age in the past before them. Remember the OT had much to say about golden calf & ram symbols for the Taurus & Aries Ages they presented in those former biblical times. The same is true for this Piscean Age & others in the future & more ancient past. For each idol or symbol for each age is the LOGO/WORD or compacted message that would unfold as that Age's experiential teachings. That is why the Bible mentions the LOGO or WORD (one & the same) so much.
So they also were awaiting the messenger who would bring the Piscean new age teachings & looked to the heavens for signs of the coming of those qualities in a person or persons born for that new Piscean Age purpose. For it was more about the message (Logo/Word) than it was about any one or more individuals delivering it.
So even one man like Jesus wouldn't cut it as the main teacher or message bringer for the Piscean Age. For Pisces is a DUAL sign meaning a communicative partnership as it's TWO linked fish & its co-rulers are coequally both Jupiter & Neptune. Actually Neptune is more about the waters or marinelife which is linked to the name Mari or Mary (MARIne) as Mother. Jupiter is more the fetus or newborn fish (son) swimming in that womblike sea.
The male co-ruler of Pisces, Jupiter (as Jesus in this case), is the male persona, often the hero as traveling healer, teacher, message bringer, among other things, including the son meaning new "Sun" or new Age. (son/sun). This would apply also to the Sagittarian symbology & mythology as Jupiter is the lone main ruler of that sign as well & would well represent a December born individual.
For Jupiter in Greek/Roman mythology was also called Jo or Jove. Jo was another name for Jehovah in fact. So the new Age diety or Messiah/message bringer(s) were considered the son of the god Zeus otherwise personified as Saturn, the aged dying one. Or the old god Saturn as Father Time of that old Age leaving so the new babe being born for the new Age would carry on. This is more or less of course in general terms. Saturn is also "Satan" according to some sources.
However Saturn in more ancient myths or beliefs was earlier on the "seat" (sat) of the Mother. The seated Madonna with child on her lap in other words. This could mean either mother Mary or Mary Magdalene as the female Neputian MARIne watery womblike figure as the more likely candidates for the "other" fish in the dual fishes symbol.
So we can see now the major politcal & religionistic issues that arose all around the globe amongst different tribes at that time. Some Hebrews, but not all, were likely looking for their new Age kingly lone tribal deity as were the various other cultures. But some were looking for a relating pair or female/male partners, not merely a lone male.
For Pisces, in other words, being a dual sign & about two fishes linked together in partnership or relationship, also has Neptune as co-ruler, not only Jupiter as son of the dying god. So it's more likely the some ancients were thinking to expect two messengers in close partnership or relationship to one another, not only one lone celibate male. But since the Hebrews created a more patriarchal culture, they likely weren't thinking in terms of a female Neptunian partner, leader co-equal to the male Jupiter/Jo.
The actual naming of the stars & constellations applied moreso to the Arabs & Chaldeans than to the Hebrews I would think. Or at least it comes down to us as such. But I'm mainly addressing the Hebrew & Arab idealogies here for this christian religious subject.
For Jesus was said to be of Jewish extraction biblically, his mother being a Jewish girl, Mary. So the Hebrews were obviously expecting their Messiah to be a man, a kingly sort, that would carry on the royal Judaic bloodline for the new Piscean Age. As they likely had a King David type of male leader/figure in mind. They were patriarchs after all, so they wouldn't be expecting a female leader/teacherl. Though it's doubtful even other cultures thought in terms of a co-equal female teacher since it seems most of humanity at that time was well into patriarchal kingship rule & reign.
But we are now e-merging into a more gender egulitarin co-equal empowerment & partnership/relationship. So it stands to reason that the long length of the Piscean dual fishes age would naturally bring forth that conclusion before it ends. As the new Age of Aquarius is far more "human" (the human water bearer/pourer) in its symbology & also more humanitarian or humanist. Whereas the Age of Pisces, now ending, is/was more that of predator/prey or elitist/underdogs or perpetrator/victim. The latter would be more in line with the victimized, crucified Jesus.
But his biblical life & persona were never that of a either married male with coequal teacher/messenger wife or that of a brother/sister or two-gendered twins (noting Thomas as Jesus' twin) as co-teachers/message bringers which the Piscean Age represents as both Neptune & Jupiter. For Neptune is far more feminine in meaning than is Jupiter as masculine.
So basically I see the teachings or meanings of the Age of Pisces & the logo for it as what is most important. The biblical Jesus & the christian religions is thus sadly twisted & lacking. It does not fully portray the whole meaning of all it implies or what its ultimate unfoldment would be as the compacted linked fish logo-seed would bloom forth. Instead its message is that of dual opposing forces of good & evil or top dog/under dog in an eternal struggle as Jesus/God vs. Satan/Devil or Good vs. Evil. Which actually comes out as Male Deity vs. Female Deity in drag, Male to dog vs. Female under dog or Husband creator vs. Wife creature & so on. As one "opposite fish/gender" against the other in eternal struggle as opposing forces. Thus we now have the Jesus coming back in the End Times to duke it out with Satan idea.
This is not the message the original Piscean fish glyph represents at all. It is more one of unification & interdependant relationship/parthership, not merely of "brotherhood" eliminating "sisterhood" as worth-less or even as evil or demonic.
But moreso of global familyhood of we "fish" swimming in the cosmic/earthly ocean increasing & multiplying from two engendered parents or coequally partnered teachers/ message bringers breaking bread together in peace & unity. And in reverential peace & gratefulness for the earthlly ecological environment in which we live, move & have our being.
So the biblical lone male celibate Jesus was a poor analogy as xtianity has exampled him for a Piscean Age avatar. For there is no female co-equal Avatara present to bring forth this age's main message & meaning at all. Let alone continue all global species & ban global mass weapons/techological disaster in favor of the emergence & continuance of a new root race for the Aquarian more humanitarian, humanist Age.
Rather I opt for the other nonbiblical, non xtian Jesus who was married to Mary Magdalene with children of that union whom I've read about elsewhere. And they as co-equal loving wife/husband & parents of the more humanlike symbolized humanitarian Aquarian Age we are now entering. The xtian Jesus & biblical teachings in no way represent any sort of passage from the old dying Piscean Age into the Age now dawning. Unless we ressurect the married Jesus with wife & family & ban the devil/Satan figure ourselves. For only we, through biblically based xtianity, are keeping it alive.
So for myself, I trashed the bible Jesus, whether or not such a man really existed, & all its messages as dangerous for our race & the planet itself. My hope & prayer is that others will do so as well.
Posted by: =Veritas= Feb 18 2004, 03:56 PM
Brick,
Please see my answer to your assertion, on the new thread "JESUS: Did He exist?"
Jason
Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Feb 18 2004, 09:10 PM
QUOTE (Dragon_Made_Flesh @ Feb 18 2004, 04:30 PM)
I will probably see it at some point....it just sounds rather interesting to see a movie that is mostly in Aramaic. Also I would like to see if it is as anti-semetic as it seems to be.
As has been said, the movie itself is not anti-semetic, it isn't exactly sporting Hakenkreuz (Swastikas). However, the ever-present undertone is the blaming of Jews for the death of Jesus. Any recognizable Jew of status is displayed as plotting and vile, and the rest are around the scene calling for the death of Jesus, "accepting" blame for his death forever.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 19 2004, 12:30 AM
QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 18 2004, 12:04 PM)
jay i briefly scanned the site. I saw headings like "is jesus god" there was nothing about proof jesus existed. there was a historical jesus page, but even that wasn't offering the type of information i was supposed to be looking at.
I don't care to be proselytized to...and the site was like a big jack chick tract.
I AM a fast reader, I didn't read the whole site, of course not, I didn't read the whole historical jesus page. I scanned the historical jesus page and didn't see anything that would be going in the direction of providing evidence of a historical jesus...but if i scanned past it let me know.
Like i said, the rest of it is pointless if you can't prove he existed in the first friggin place!
History wasn't divided as a result of jesus existence. time was later divided up that way because some people believed stuff in him. it wasn't like a bolt of lightening came down and instantly time was divided...like "whoa...look at our history books...all the dates say B.C. how can that be? it's a miracle!"
Also, i was spoonfed jesus stuff for 18 years. from birth. and in the process of my deconversion i read every apologetic book for christianity i could get my hands on, including the ones that dealt with historicity of jesus. but apologetics wasn't the only thing i read. i read other things as well. i found the other things more believable. You are assuming i'm disingenuous, when really i've seen it all so many times i can quickly skim to the information i need. on the plus side the site was very well organized making navigation very simple, on the minus side, the one page that looked promising was information free.
Also i don't care who thinks jesus existed. I've looked at both sides, the evidence for and against and i personally believe he never existed. i don't know why you should feel threatened by that. we've also discussed elsewhere on the new thread you started the problem with appealing to authority or numbers. truth is not a numbers game. i don't find it at all shocking that most people believe jesus at least existed...it's such a sacred cow, even many atheists won't look deeper.
again, at one point in time everyone believed the earth was flat...did that make it flat?
you can't appeal to numbers and authority. you have to appeal to the evidence itself. I spent 2 years looking at evidence on both sides on this issue and several other religion related issues, can you say you've spent as much time looking at both sides honestly?
I appreciate your comment about my being intelligent, however as i said before popularity is not what makes something true or false. I realize i go against the "majority" of scholarly thought on this one, but i've honestly looked at both sides and this is what i've come to. are you asking me to lie?
Sure, share with me about the site i posted. Also i haven't read absolutely ever article on that site, some i agree with more than others as well.
I too am open to exploring arguments/evidence that don't support my belief system, however, in this case i've explored it all before. So i hope you don't think my quick responses are a way of being flippant. I've just seen it before. If you would like to show me the historical evidences you have for the existence of jesus then i can look at that. maybe you have something i haven't seen before. or maybe you will be able to understand why i don't think those 'proofs' are proofs at all.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 19 2004, 12:35 AM
you are right in that it might not be explained much because his existence is so universally accepted...but i think it's universally accepted without very much reason. It's a sacred cow and it's tradition and it was "heresy" to question it until very recently.
These i feel are all strong motivations for NOT questioning it. I will look at that site you linked and respond further in a separate post.
as for B.C. and A.D. that didn't come into effect until hundreds of years after he supposedly lived. by that time most people believed he existed. But again their belief doesn't make it a fact. The division of time, was a pious act. something meant to impress the faithful, which obviously it did.
Also, most scientists and scholars of history and archaeology refer to time in B.C.E. and C.E. so this is not a universally accepted thing.
You probably haven't heard a solid opposing viewpoint to B.C. and A.D. because it doesn't require one. The fact that many people at the time this happened believed Jesus existed and was god is really not a question here. they believed it, they split the time, it wasn't like the hand of god did it.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 19 2004, 12:39 AM
QUOTE (JayS8NT @ Feb 18 2004, 12:19 PM)
By the way Zoe...
QUOTE
In fact the site doesn't really deal with whether or not jesus existed. It's mentioned and then skimmed over so they can go on to other questions like: "is jesus god" and other such tripe.
If you spent more time there, you would've seen that all the questions surrounding the events of Jesus life, directly pertain to the existence of Jesus. Here's a more direct link on the same site:
http://www.allaboutgod.com/Jesus-Christ-1.htm
Maybe that will help? I think the issue may be again, that the existence of Jesus isn't really what people question - it's pretty universally accepted as a fact. Which could be why they don't go into that more specifically?
How do you argue the point of reference to His life, "B.C. and A.D."? I'm just wondering, because I haven't really heard a solid opposing viewpoint on that issue.
QUOTE
I would actually appreciate something that gives me real evidence for jesus' existence PERIOD. Let's not start asking if he's god or rose from the dead or any other such nonsense until we can actually confirm that he existed.
Let's begin with the question above, shall we?
Thanks again,
Jason
maybe i'm dense, but i really don't see where on that site you want me to look. As i'm not really interested in reading christian propaganda (think about how you would feel if you had to sit through a website that claimed buddhism as the one true way), I really don't wish to read through the entire thing.
All i see though is assertions. things like: "there is more proof of jesus", and "nothing new has torn down his miracles and teachings", "no serious scholar disputes jesus' historical existence" all these are are assertions, there is no proof or eveidence, just assertions. that doesn't make it a fact.
If there actually is any evidence at all of the historical jesus on this site, or any site you've read for that matter, then please please specifically point it out to me. but i'm not going to sit through the web equivalent of a praise jesus session. I want scholarly proof, not assertions and propaganda.
Posted by: Zoe Grace Feb 19 2004, 12:45 AM
QUOTE (RowdyHoo @ Feb 18 2004, 02:02 PM)
Are those in here suggesting that the historical Jesus did not exist? Anyone seriously interested in finding the truth about this can come to but only one conclusion: Jesus was a real, historical person.
Now, proving that he was God on earth, resurrected, etc., gets into faith issues of which no irrefutable "proof" can be provided, I admit. But I am surprised that this topic; Jesus did not exist; has gone this far without someone else calling this out and bringing this ridiculous point to and end.
(Please excuse the apparent demeanor. I don't mean for my tone to sound so rude, and I haven't the time to rewrite.)
if you don't have time to debate then don't post.
and i'm sorry but it's very very unintelligent to post something like "the only conclusion you can come to is jesus existed."
i don't believe he did. show me the evidence if it's so great.
Posted by: sexkitten Feb 25 2004, 02:25 PM
Back to Mel Gibson's movie....
|