Rat wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>> The sriptures I read say "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good
>>> evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put
>>> bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
>
>> Yes, I've quoted that to Karen many times now. She usually snips it.
>
> Because it is a matter of opinion whom it applies to.

No, there is no doubt to whom it applies. It applies to you in every
instance.

> I could quote
> the same verse as applying to you, but I won't,

You *can't*. I don't diminish the Law one bit, nor do I diminish the
power of the Gospel. I hold both up. You diminish one at the expene of both.

> because I believe in
> charity toward those who disagree with me.

Yes, I remember how you don't want the church door to hit the Anglican
traditionalists on their butts as they leave the apostacy you've supported.

> I assume you are honest
> in your beliefs, although I do consider them both misguided and
> potentially dangerous.

I realize you have an axe to grind with historic Christianity. That is
why you've joined the assault on those who uphold the Bible in your
church and why you support homosexual "marriage" and ordaining
homosexual bishops.

> The same goes for Mel Gibson. I was watching his interview last night,
> and I'm convinced he's honest in his beliefs, and he has a legitimate
> right to make a literalist version of the Passion.

Yes, he sure does.

> His critics are
> also right that his version ignores much of modern scholarship

Yes, as do most Christians. Wonder why other Anglican bodies around the
world are disfellowshipping your apostate sect?

> and
> has serious potential to encourage anti-Semitism.

Ipse dixit. I've read some of the reviews and concerns expressed about
this and find the concerns unfounded.

> I do find it
> disturbing that Jews were evidently refused access to early showings
> of the film,

Bullshit. Many ADL leaders were brought in to review it throughout
production. Their feedback was used throughout production and
post-production, and Gibson even added disclaimers and removed scenes --
some scenes which those who screened it earlier wish had stayed in the
final cut.

> and had to sneak in to see it. Swan and I will go see the
> movie, certainly, and it will undoubtedly be a hot topic of
> conversation for a while, like the earlier "Last Temptation of Christ"
> or "Jesus Christ, Superstar".

Neither of which is even comparable to what Gibson sought to portray in
the Passion. The former was pure fiction in which Christ was presented
as imperfect, the latter was a ghastly, overdone musical.

> I like "Jesus Christ, Superstar" in its
> own way; it asks interesting questions and is stylish, if a bit dated
> now.

What interesting questions?

> A graphic portrayal of the Crucifixion is a good corrective to
> some of the more sanitized versions.

I agree, but I don't see it as merely "corrective."

> I do hope people who see Gibson's
> version will _also_ read some of the criticisms of it and perhaps see
> some other versions to get a more balanced view.

I think Gibson's is more balanced than most of the critics' views --
especially all the baseless histrionics about anti-semitism. Gibson
believes the Bible and wanted to make a film that captured the suffering
of Christ. Others have already made films which ignore, take license
with, or grossly distort what the Gospels say. Why should he have
followed their lead? That kind of redundancy may win the praise of those
of you who reject the clear teachings of Scripture, but it's unfaithful
to what he believes. He wants to serve God, not his critics.