The Passion Of The Christ

When I saw it it did. But that won't bother you. It's very well done.

Actually, I'm quite relieved.

I already know the story, obviously, but it'll be good to have a better understanding of it I think.

When I first heard about it, I was told it was 4 hours long without subtitles, but I still would have gone to see it, so now that it's 2 hours with subtitles I'll definitely be there.

I haven't seen it and would love to except it is a 18 rating in England and I am only 15. I only want to see it for the production though, not for religious insruction or the fact that too much love killed him!! I will stick to the Buddha thanks very much

And remember-dudes in tight whight pants are hot and deserve a good fucking

Good post, Paul. And yes, it does have subtitles. I think if you do like this story, you will enjoy it a lot. I saw it twice and probably would see it again.

Sorry to harp on about this (although I saw it the other day, and was impressed on many levels, none of which I will bore you with now) but I just re-read the post, and realised that I didn't answer back when I could have.

So, I posted.....

Well, atheists don't believe in it, and Agnostics are undecided.

If you've got to disprove the existence of God to be an athesist, haven't you got to prove the existence of God to be a believer?

Since neither can be done, by that reckoning, we're all agnostic.

-----------------------------------------------------
To which Guy wrote this reply:

"If you've got to disprove the existence of God to be an athesist, haven't you got to prove the existence of God to be a believer?"

The word 'believe' doesn't reuquire any kind of proving.

---------------------------------------------------------

I'd just like to reply with:

That's true, and Zeni had said that if you say you're an atheist that means you can disprove the existence of God. It's a completely daft argument anyway, that's what I wanted to say, if you go by those rules we're all agnostic and that's not true either so we should stick to what we believe in. Sorry, I'm rambling now.

Freddie-B wrote:

Sorry to harp on about this (although I saw it the other day, and was impressed on many levels, none of which I will bore you with now) but I just re-read the post, and realised that I didn't answer back when I could have.

So, I posted.....

Well, atheists don't believe in it, and Agnostics are undecided.

If you've got to disprove the existence of God to be an athesist, haven't you got to prove the existence of God to be a believer?

Since neither can be done, by that reckoning, we're all agnostic.

-----------------------------------------------------
To which Guy wrote this reply:

"If you've got to disprove the existence of God to be an athesist, haven't you got to prove the existence of God to be a believer?"

The word 'believe' doesn't reuquire any kind of proving.

---------------------------------------------------------

I'd just like to reply with:

That's true, and Zeni had said that if you say you're an atheist that means you can disprove the existence of God. It's a completely daft argument anyway, that's what I wanted to say, if you go by those rules we're all agnostic and that's not true either so we should stick to what we believe in. Sorry, I'm rambling now.

Thank you. This is what we've been trying to say all along.

I saw the film anyway, and thought it was very good.

I also thought it wasn't in the slightest bit anti-semitic, which relieved me.

I for once don't believe in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) because it's so full of contradictions that it's obvious that it's not "God's word" but the word of someone who wants people to believe that it's indeed God's word.

I believe in God because I believe that the way the living beings in this planet, nature, earth, and the universe work in such a prefectly organized way that to me all that stuff just couldn't have come out of nowhere and spontaneously be there and working for a purpose. Yet still there are too many doubts and too many questions to be answered that I could not possibly follow a certain religion or faith. So perhaps that's why I'm mostly an agnostic.

I'm not 100% sure if Jesus was the son of God, but a big part of me believes that he was. What people have to keep in mind is that Jesus never told people... "I am the son of God, and therefore you should fight, torture, abuse, opress and kill everyone who doesn't believe in me". Jesus advocated for peace, compassion, love and respect even towards those who hated us the most. Sadly many so called "christians" like Jerry Falwell don't believe so and they think that all non-christians are wrong, and everyone else will go to hell for "supossedely" not following Jesus. Falwell is not the only one, and it sickens me to think that there are many religious freaks like Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter who think that all Muslims are evil and we should expel every single muslim out of this country unless they're willing to convert to christianity. Not only that, but they also think that we should invade their countries and convert them to christianity.

And we call Muslims religious freaks? The truth is that there are about as many Muslims who advocate for violence and revenge against christians, as there are christians who advocate the same towards Muslims.

Amen to that!!

I totally agree that the world couldn't have just accidentally happened, nobody seems to take this argument seriously down my way, but the facts are all there to suggest it's more than a coincidence!

Anyway, great post-and good point about the fact that whatever his pros and cons might have been, Jesus advocated peace and love and there's a lot to be said for that.

"Jesus advocated for peace, compassion, love and respect even towards those who hated us the most"

And that just shows how little did we (as humanity) understand this, for it was / still is mostly the RELIGION that divides us, causes wars, etc...

Anyway: how come this topic is still alive...?:)