>>That film is an abomination of the Christian religion. It
>>was disgusting.
>
>are you Christian? I mean yeah it was excessively gory, but
>aside from that, this is what Christians believe.

I'm Catholic. Depending on who you are and what you believe that means yes or no.

>>That film was one man's interpretation of a
>>great man's death. Not his life, mind you, but his death.
>
>That's why it was called The Passion of the Christ instead of
>The Life and Times of Jesus.

It's a difficult point to argue, but just because the film is called The Passion, doesn't mean Mel couldn't include more flashbacks.

>>Jesus' message wasn't about torture and his crucifixion.
>His
>>message was about his life, how he lived his life, and how
>he
>>wanted people to live their lives. I didn't see any of that
>>in the film.
>
>Jesus' crucifixion and death are central to the Christian
>faith. I really don't get how people don't get that.

Really? I was under the impression his life was more important than his death. Maybe Catholicism is different than the other denominations. For his death to mean anything his life had to have meant something. I'm not denying the story of the Passion and crucifixion isn't central to Christianity, but what are the most celebrated days in the Christian tradition? Christmas - a celebration of Christ's brith and Easter - a celebration of his resurrection. Those are two celebrations of life and rebirth. Yes, the death was necessary for rebirth, but then why isn't Black Friday as celebrated? And as a Catholic I've been to far more Holy Friday services than most protestants that I know.

>>It's one thing to make a Divinci Code or Last Temptation of
>>Christ -films that are upfront in that they deal with
>>speculation. The Passion was presented as factual truth.
>>Some of it was, some of it wasn't.
>
>almost none of it is "factual" truth to begin with. it's based
>on a religious text, not an objective historical account.

Wrong. It is well documented that there was a Jesus of Nazareth who was put to death by crucifixion around 30 AD (or CE if you prefer). It was known that his teachings were not looked up favorably by the Jewish leaders of the day. I can trot out the sources if you would like. What's at issue is the miracles he performed and whether or not he was resurrected.

>>Mel took a great deal of
>>artistic license and really only presented the very, very
>END
>>of the story.
>
>again, that's exactly what a Passion play is about.

Again, I'm aware. But I would assume that you're aware that the Passion is preceded by about 3 years of important material. To appreciate the Passion, it helps to be familiar with the man's life. You're assuming that everyone who went to see the film, was either a) Christian or b) knew everything they needed to know to truly grasp the end of the story.

>>JC would not have been happy with that movie.
>
>well he wouldn't be happy with Mel personally, but that's
>another story.

Not really, but we've got enough to argue about for now.