Let me just set the overall tone for this site. Two themes: I'm pissed and I don't care what you think. If you think you can keep that straight, great. We'll have no interaction and, therefore, we will get along just fine. If you can't, well, blow me.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments




Dismiss the Pretense and Unveil the Truth

Ah, the libs…once again they’re on the warpath, this time masking firmly rooted anti-Christian sentiments with high-minded laments and accusations of anti-Semitism and harmful depictions of violence. Of course, I’m referring to the leftist crusade du jour: the secular war against Mel Gibson and his production of “The Passion of the Christ.” Naturally, we all realize that Mr. Gibson isn’t the true target of their unholy war, nor is the film for that matter. Instead, their sites are intently focused upon Christianity as a whole. What better way to achieve that end than to call into question—in a very public forum—the founding principles of Christianity: the accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection as found in the Gospels. As has become the favorite tact of the liberators of historical truths—freeing said monolithic constructs from the oppressive binds of reverent study of past events and adherence to their factual origins—the libs have now undertaken the daunting task of compelling a revisionist accounting of the Gospels themselves. They are attempting said feat through an attempt to hijack public opinion with baseless accusation and the promulgation of widespread misinformation about the scale and magnitude of the purported public outcry against the imagery and message contained in the movie.

The “violence” that they’re all up in arms about is used to demonstrate the brutality that Jesus had suffered, thereby emphasizing the magnitude of His sacrifice. All too often, His ordeal had been characterized by “He suffered, died and was buried…” in effect, marginalizing His gift. This unintended reduction of salience is largely attributable to those who practice Christian faith. The movie, however, reverses that trend by clearly demonstrating the reality of the situation as set in the historical context of the time of Jesus’ life. It was necessary and not at all overstated to demonstrate the brutality of His ordeal in order to drive home the point and poignancy of His sacrifice and how truly difficult it would have been for one to voluntarily submit oneself. I find it ironic that only now, when an ages-old historical account is retold on screen, are the libs suddenly concerned about the violence factor. Of course, if this had been superfluous violence placed on screen only to draw audiences to the theatres for a secular film (a morally superior and critically exempt product, of course), this would not be an issue. Consider, for example, the countless films that have been released in the past thirty or so years—fraught with violence, gore, sex, drug use and virtually every other vice known to man—which garnered nary a comment from the suddenly now “concerned” critical base. One could go so far as to characterize their sudden “concern” as little more than thinly veiled Catholic/Christian bias aimed solely at denigrating the movie (or if the truth be told—Christianity) with unabashed, hypocritical vitriol—all coming from an amoral, hedonistic, revisionist crowd with oscillating sensibilities that are only activated through convenience of political advancement rather than adherence to a structured philosophy.

The anti-Semitism of which they speak was a concern brought forth even before the movie went public, which begs the question “how could they level such charges without being witness to the events contained in the film. The answer is quite simple, really. All they had to do was look to the movie’s source material: the Gospels. The Gospels recount the trials and tribulations Jesus faced in the last hours of His life. These stories are the historical documents we draw upon to learn of these events. Whether or not it casts those who were directly responsible in a negative light is irrelevant and, frankly, quite insignificant to the larger meaning attributed to the stories. To those now aghast at the depiction found in the movie, I offer you this: get over it. It happened and no amount of protestation can change that—a condition, by the way, that holds true for the historical accounting of any example of man’s inhumanity to man.

That said take a moment to reflect upon how the situation was demonstrated in the film. The viewer sees a frenzied mob whose collective emotions were given rise by the events unfolding before them—events that were fueled by protagonists who clearly relied upon the presence of an angry mob to secure their own desired result. That which cannot be denied is the dark figure that is found lurking about the agitated crowd, as well as the protagonists themselves. It should be quite obvious even to the layman that this figure is the physical manifestation of evil—or Satan, if you will—whose mere presence stimulates hateful emotions in those embroiled in the situation. It also prompts Jesus’ own followers to betray, deny, and abandon Him.  So even those closest to Jesus engage in unfathomable acts against the one they profess to love. It is clear that taken in aggregate, His followers, the Romans, and the Jews, are a small, representative sample of humanity as a whole, and as such, the sins of all mankind are responsible for His death. By freely accepting that death, He bestowed upon all the gift of forgiveness and salvation. It is this theme, of course, that is the root of Christianity and has been taught to present day in Christian theology. To argue otherwise merely underscores one’s ignorance and willingness to draw conclusions without the benefit of knowledge and understanding. Or perhaps, rather, it represents their outright rejection of the facts in favor of bolstering their unfounded claims of racial or religious intolerance for the sole purpose of advancing their own suspect agenda. Either is a possibility, however, it is the latter that seems most likely.

Write a comment