America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I know there’s a lot of opinions on Bill O’Reilly. I’m not looking for opinions on him per se (although I know I’ll get them anyway,) however I’m looking for opinions on this quote:

http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/general/genericpage.jsp?pageID=83

“Frank Rich's rantings have now become embarrassing both to him and to The New York Times. I mean disagreement about an issue is one thing; trying to destroy someone like Mel Gibson is quite something else.

The New York Times is ground zero for the elite media, and you would think executives at that paper would understand how detached from American reality it has become. But they do not. In fact, a day before Rich's column, The Times music critic gave thug rapper Ludacris a positive review.

That's right. In the world of The New York Times, Ludacris is good, "The Passion" is bad.”

_____________________________________________________________________

I think this hits it right on the money. Somehow we have a culture where rapping about cop killing and rape is good, but discussing Christianity is bad.

Thoughts????

dbguru,

Let me think about your reply a bit. However, for those of you who refuse to sign up for the NY Times... like myself, see this link:

http://www.iht.com/articles/110553.html

thank you all for the sites. they have been printed and will be read tomorrow or fri, in the back yard, with a decent cigar and a good pot of coffee.

i like to watch o'reilly sometimes. as macenroe said to him, i've grown up around guys like you, so i can handle whatever you've got.

i have decided not to see this movie, not because of any religious displeasure, i don't have any religion, but i don't like scary movies or movies with excessive violence.

This is a repost but appropriate to this thread. A few comments and then a link which really goes into depth on differences in perpesctive on this topic. If your stance is that the only source of understanding is absolute faith in the writings of the New Testament, then you are closed to understanding why the controversy exists. Unfortunatly this closed minded attitude has proven to be a seed for the sin of ate over the centuries. However if the opportunity to gain wisdom though understanding why others feel differently is something you'd like to embrace then consider reading on.

I'm not going to comment on Mel's movie because I haven't seen it. But I am a Jewish person who has done considerable study of the New Testament both in many denominations of Christian venues and Reform Jewish venues as well. The conclusion that I reach in studying the New Testament from a Jewish background and upringing was that the New Testament was written to build and promote Christianity to a predominantly non-Jewish, Roman, Greek and Egyptian audience. The New Testamant is not represented by the majority of Christian denominations as a document with pure historical intentions. Of course I'm aware that those of you who take a fundamentalist approach to Cristianity will claim the New Testament is history. On that point we will always disagree. But hopefully you are open minded enough to appreciate the difference and respect it as it is essential to your own befiefs.

Most historians and theologians in many Judeo Christian faiths understand the Christian effort both to avoid 1st and 2nd century Roman persecution and attract Roman citizens. This agenda is evidenced in a non historical slant in the New Testament's portrayal of Romans, most noticably Pilate in the documentation of the death of Jesus. There are inconsistencies that are notable, but the main one is that Pilate was documented historically to be a nasty tyrant who had absolute power in Judea and was know to instigate the Jewish people (placing Roman idols and statues in the Temple) to later slaughter them while protesting to send messages who was the boss. He was anything but a merciful, benevolent governer as the New Tesatment portrays. This is well documented in the writings of Josephus and in recollections in early Common era Jewish texts. Other inconsistencies involve how Jesus was welcomed warmly into Jerusalem by huge crowds of Jews only to have those huge crowds turn on him in a matter of days. This massive change of heart is also considered by most theological historians as highly unlikely.

My main point is, as the gospels in The New Testament were written 50-100 years after events occurred, it can plainly be seen to be written in a way that would not offend Roman govenrment or instigate Roman terror against Christian believers. The Jews were very difficult subjects in the Roman empire. Prevailing Roman attitudes were very negative to both Jews and Christians early on. But Christians decided that separation from Judaism was essential for survival. Deflecting blame onto Jews was another survival strategy intstitutionalized in the New Testament along with this separation. Essentially from early on the conclusion to many situations have taken there cue from the portayal of the Passion which is, "It wasn't us, it was those unruly Jews that were the source of all trouble." This is a major tragedy of human history woven into the stories of the New Testament and for the last 1,900 years that have caused much suffering and death among the Jews. And regardless of your faith, you should always be sensitive to that. If your focus is on what Jesus said in his life then you focus on ideas that are Jewish ideas that we all agree on. On the story of his death, please be sensitive to our differences and try to understand.

For more details please I would ask that you read this Jewish perspective which I think you will find most illuminating.

http://www.geocities.com/returningtofaithofjesus/dejudazing_jesus.htm

dbguru wrote: "Unfortunatly this closed minded attitude has proven to be a seed for the sin of ate over the centuries."

the "sin of ate" -- that's gluttony, right? ;)

just a little humor, folks. drive by.

i do have to say upfront (er, well, after the fact actually) that i have NOT seen this movie. the way i feel at the moment about lining mel gibson's pockets, i'll not see it until it's out on video either, but i WILL see it.

and what i wrote before is my last commentary about it until i do.

whether i think the movie is great or crap remains to be seen -- but that "red hot seller" of "official TPOTC jesus nail necklace" thing just *really* offends me on so many levels. the very idea of making money from a replica of the nails that crucified christ jesus, of selling them at $16-20 a pop as "cool fashion accesories" just makes me want to puke.

i wonder what christ would say about this kind of modern day marketplace item?