From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Please hear me out before ousting me. Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:21:56 -0500
Perry wrote: > Kevin's posts may indeed be Baptist commentary, but > If the Baptists agree with scripture then, by all means, > lets "read" Kevin's commentary.
I think the Baptists disagree with Scripture MORE than Roman Catholics in many areas, but that is another thread altogether. :-)
Well dip my baby! I had no idea you felt that way.
Perry wrote: > In fact, I worry that someone may join TT and, not > being as aware as most of us about the Bible, will > be extremely confused and led astray by the many > things that are posted here.
TruthTalk is not for unknowledgeable and immature individuals. Such individuals surely will unsubscribe and be edified elsewhere. There are more sites that will cater to them than sites like TruthTalk that allow a little rough and tough tumbling over issues.
Perry wrote: > DavidM, would you go to the BoM to learn about Jesus? > No, you would go there to learn about the heresies of > the Mormons. I would watch the Passion if I wanted > to learn about the heresies of the Catholics, and > mystical visions of a nun from the 17th century.
What in the world are you talking about? What heresy of the Catholic church is being taught by this movie? This movie is nothing like the Book of Mormon. It is a pictorial sermon by Mel Gibson about the passion of Christ. Why do you want to demonize it? This smacks to me of witch hunting for Roman Catholicism and religious bigotry.
Yep, it is. Mel didn't come up with all of that inaccurate imagery on his own, ya know.
Perry wrote: > But, to do so requires an excellent grounding > in biblical truth.
Name for me one thing in the movie that would hurt people if they did not have an excellent grounding in Biblical truth?
I did below.
Perry wrote: > if one is a new Christian, or perhaps > not yet a Christian, it could be disastrous.
How? Would it be more disasterous than the Lethal Weapon movies? Why have you been silent about the Lethal Weapon movies but critical of this movie about Jesus? Exactly what about it offends you? All I hear from the critics is gossip and innuendo, from people who have not seen the film themselves. That bothers me. Let them rail against the Lethal Weapon movies if they want, but not this movie.
I haven't seen the lethal weapon movies, do not allow R rated movies into our house, and have asked my older kids (both over 18) not to watch R rated movies, and have told our youngest (15) not to watch R rated movies. We discussed the MG movie over dinner before any of us saw it. I again told the 15-year old not to see it, and told the two over 18 that they would have to make their own decisions about it. Our oldest (23) saw it. No one else in the family has. If my wife chooses to see it that is her choice.
Perry wrote: > Case in point: My Bible study group met last night. > We are studying a 3 week presentation of "the Passion" > put out by Rick Warren of Saddleback. They praise Mel > Gibson and his commentary, and want to put out material > that rides the current tidal wave created by the movie. > I think their motive is pure, but their vehicle is flawed.)
I'm skeptical of anything like this. I smell the love of money around all books and studies like this. I don't know Rick Warren so I'm not saying this applies to him, but there will be many who will want to cash in on the success of this movie.
Yeah, I occasionaly have problems with their approach, too.
Perry wrote: > One of the group members was explaining something > about one of the thieves. She made a statement, > as fact, that I knew to be non-biblical. I asked her, > "did you get that from the movie, or from the scripture" > AND SHE COULD NOT SAY! She had seen the movie twice > and already was confusing the "artistic license" and > catholic heresy with biblical truth!
This is not a case in point if you do not tell us what she said. Was it about the crow picking at the eye of one of the thieves?
She commented that the theives were carrying the crossbars of their crosses on their shoulders, and she commented that she did not realized that they carried theirs like that. I do not recall it saying that in the accounts in the scripture. If I have missed something let me know.
People confusing Bible with artistic license is certainly going to happen, but that happens with sermons all the time. How many times have you heard things like, "God helps those who help themselves" or some other such unbiblical proverb? Does that mean we should never listen to someone giving a sermon because we might confuse what is said in a sermon with something said by the Bible? I find that a most ridiculous conclusion. We should simply help each other understand what is Biblically based and what is not, and that which is not Biblically based is not necessarily wrong.
The railings against the appearance of Veronica in the movie is one such case in point. Kevin might rail against her being in the movie because she is absent from the Bible, but there is historical reason for including her there. He ought to consider history rather than assume that the silence of Scripture suggests that such historical accounts are false. History indicates that Stephen was one of the Seventy sent out by Jesus in Luke 10, but the Bible does not indicate such. Does that mean history was wrong? Of course not. Just because the Bible does not assert a particular truth does not mean that we must forever remain in ignorance of that truth.
No, but didn't someone once said, paraphrasing, "where the Bible remains silent, so shall I". Maybe that is not a bad policy.
Perry wrote: > That is what I object to about the movie. People see > this and confuse the no-biblical parts with scripture. > Does that not bother you at all?
Not at all. It affords us an opportunity to share truth with them and to discuss the Bible in more detail. Darkness is always an opportunity to shine our lights and edify others.
Are you equating the movie to darkness here?
Perry wrote: > Now, for someone as well studied as yourself, you > may be able to ignore the untruths and catholic > mystical elements and glean the truth, but for most > it is not that way, and most stand a great chance > of being led astray of the truth.
Those who do the truth will come to the truth, while those who walk in iniquity will be led astray no matter who is preaching to them. I know someone who came to Christ at a Van Halen concert. I think you put too much importance on the messenger rather than the work of God.
If you have liberty to watch an R rated movie and you can stomach some violence, I would strongly encourage you to see this movie. It is by far the best, most Biblically accurate movie I have ever seen about the passion of Christ. If this movie is not acceptable, then I would have to conclude that no movie about Christ would ever be acceptable, and if I accepted that, then I would be led also to conclude that no sermon would ever be acceptable and that none of us should teach or preach, but rather we should just go home and read our Bibles and tell others to do the same. From my perspective, this path goes the wrong way.
Perry wrote: > She (the group member) also stated that she > didn't realize that Jesus was beaten so much, > and I asked her, "do you think in the movie he > was beaten more or less than the scriptures report?". > She said "more", which indicates an untruth in the > movie, but she was about to believe that the scriptures > inaccurately reported how badly he was beaten.
The Scriptures say that Jesus was marred more than any man. If we take this in a literal sense, then it is possible that Gibson's perspective is more accurate than what you have gathered from reading the Scriptures. If we take it in a spiritual sense, then Gibson was simply using imagery to depict what was spiritually happening, just as he used a person to represent the devil and children to represent demons.
Perry wrote: > Give me a break, DavidM, there are problems > with this movie.
Yes, there are problems with this movie, just as there are problems with every movie and every sermon and every post made on TruthTalk. None of us are perfect in knowledge. Nevertheless, the problems with this movie are far less than any movie I have seen about any Biblical event.
Perry wrote: > It includes gratuitous violence, beyond what > the scripture states,
Not the way I read my Bible, but even if you don't read the Bible literally in this way, then he certainly depicted a spiritual situation using visual imagery. Either way, I think you have missed an important message of the film because of your desire to criticize it because of who did it. What people really object to is Gibson's statements of how he saw God's hand in doing this. People don't like God to use someone else, and especially NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC! Never mind that the Bible speaks of heathen men being used of God, and of harlots being heroes of faith. It is fine in history but not when it happens in our own generation.
I could care less who's hand Mel saw in this...that does not make it so. I could care less who "did it". I care about the message it delivers. Jared's brother inthe BOM saw the finger of God!!! Does that make it true?
Perry wrote: > with no reason for doing so other than serving > to prolong the beating that Jesus took for > theatrical effect (I am not one ounce diminishing > the excrutiating and painful ordeal he suffered > at the hands of His enemies)
Yes you are diminishing it. You have failed to grasp the very message that Gibson is presenting to the world, that Christ suffered for our sins, that we killed Christ, and that all of us should bow and submit unto this great man, this great God, our Creator, who became flesh for us so that we might have life eternal.
Do you think I am diminishing it because you saw the movie and I didn't? Are you saying God did not provide enough information in the bible for us to understand the suffering?
Perry wrote: > at the expense of misleading many and causing confusion > with the truth. WHY DID MEL GIBSON FIND IT NECESSARY TO > BEAT OUR LORD AND SAVIOR SO BADLY? Was he taking his > OWN agression out on Him ABOVE AND BEYOND what He already > suffered?
Your lack of appreciation for what Christ went through at the cross tells me exactly why God thought it necessary to raise up Mel Gibson to present this message to the world.
I am offended that you assume I have a lack of appreciation for what Christ went through at the cross. I do not have to go see a profane, inaccurate, contrived abuse of an actor Jesus to have an appreciation for what Jesus went through. Then, you are also saying that anyone who was not present at the cross, up until MG made his movie, had no appreciation for the suffering of Christ. How arrogant to think that no one except those that have seen the movie or were present at the cross can "appreciate" it. (What a terrible word to use for Jesus' torture...I usually think of appreciation in a positive sense).
Perry wrote: > Maybe, if every movie viewer has a solid Christian at > the end of a 24-7 hotline to explain the truth, otherwise, > many will end up with an unrealistic view of the passion.
I mean no offense, Perry, but I think your viewpoint is the unrealistic view of the passion. From my perspective and from my studies of Scripture and history, I found Gibson's viewpoint much more in line with the Bible than your viewpoint. I'm not trying to say that as a slam. I am speaking soberly. His movie has come closer to depicting what I have envisioned from reading Isaiah about the crucifixion than any other message I have heard, whether sermon or movie.
Then continue to revel in the movie. No need to read the book...it does not do justice to Mel's interpretation, right?
The woman next to me at the movie was sobbing like a baby when the movie ended. Some people may not like such emotional displays, but such often changes a person's heart toward God and causes them to walk more circumspectly and with faith toward God. If holiness is increased in the life of a person because of someone's message about Christ, all I can say is, "praise the Lord!"
At this point, I have had much much much more interesting conversation and meaning from NOT seeing the movie than by seeing it! Had I seen it, and perhaps liked it (heaven forbid!) we would not be having this most valuable conversation...we would be stroking each other's egos over how wise and intelligent we are that we can separate the truth from the fiction, and celebrating that, even though we are men, we were moved, etc. We would probably be holding ourselves as better men, more righteous or holy, because we saw it. Maybe even secretly counting ourselves a little better, a little higher, and a little closer to Jesus because we saw it? No thanks.
Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
_________________________________________________________________
Find things fast with the new MSN Toolbar – includes FREE pop-up blocking! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
