prior to the film's release,  a number of churches--including some with large evangelical congregations--purchased large blocks of tickets.  in a few locations, they bought out every seat in the house for several showings.  a number of pastors characterized the phenomenon as a 'cultural movement' and an opportunity to attract and spread the message to a public they might not otherwise reach.  as to the red and blue thing, the so-called bible belt--if it were an actual belt--would be more appropriate worn by santa than a guy with a blue suit so its possible it was promoted more successfully there.

i do think the timing of the dvd release, while possibly coincidentally close to the election, worked more to the advantage of the 'moral values' campaign.

as far as the film itself, i was most surprised no romans felt sufficiently defamed to protest their protrayal as being such incompetent scourgers even a passive hippie type like jesus survived 45 minutes of their best moves.  makes ya wonder how they conquered any group of barbarians...even the gauls.

as far as the film itself, i was most surprised no romans felt sufficiently defamed to protest their protrayal as being such incompetent scourgers even a passive hippie type like jesus survived 45 minutes of their best moves. makes ya wonder how they conquered any group of barbarians...even the gauls.

Well, I know the Romans looked like ignorant assholes in my opinion after leaving the movie.

Another thing we agree on kingbee...

Another thing we agree on kingbee

works for me

I think Michell Cottie completely showed the ignorance of Michelle Cottie. Period.

Exactly.

Definitely, but she is a syndicated columnist for Time magazine. The whole article was an attempt to uplift Democrats and liberals around the country that their time was coming. She was speaking on behalf of the liberals in our country of which she included herself.

Syndicated columnist or not, anyone can speak, or believe that they speak, on behalf of any group that they mention. It wouldn't be fair of me to judge all Republicans based on the comments of Alan Keyes, although he is a Republican, and believes he speaks on behalf of the Republicans he wishes to represent.

Michell Cottie should be criticized doubly, for her comments and for the generalization she made about Democrats. Democrats should not be criticized for being generalized.

Democrats should not be criticized for being generalized.

thats way too logical to be true aint it?  (it does deserve an insightful rating tho)

thats way too logical to be true aint it? (it does deserve an insightful rating tho)

Not sure I get what you mean...but thanx for the insightful.

I've seen the movie, and I admit I too was angry at the Romans.

But what I would like to ask is that, why was that the impression you kept after you've seen the movie?
My anger dissipated when it reached the part where Jesus prayed and said that the Romans did not know what they were doing. And if Jesus was always destined to suffer so our sins may be forgiven, why feel disgusted over the group of men who were part of that fulfillment?

All I'm trying to say is, I don't think that vengeance (did I spell that right?) is not the kind of emotionthat we should have when we see hurtful things, and this reflects on the real world situation here.

I realise I'm off topic and I don;t mind the comment being deleted

That just caught my eye. Might be a tough assertion to confirm. Perhaps "biblically accurate" would be a better description? If I'm not mistaken, there is considerable disagreement among respected historians, both secular and religious, about how that day went down, including some who vehemently disputed aspects of the movie.

I think Mel Gibson was trying to be 'Biblically accurate", and so I have to agree with you here.

I've seen the movie, and I admit I too was angry at the Romans. But what I would like to ask is that, why was that the impression you kept after you've seen the movie? My anger dissipated when it reached the part where Jesus prayed and said that the Romans did not know what they were doing. And if Jesus was always destined to suffer so our sins may be forgiven, why feel disgusted over the group of men who were part of that fulfillment? All I'm trying to say is, I don't think that vengeance (did I spell that right?) is not the kind of emotionthat we should have when we see hurtful things, and this reflects on the real world situation here. I realise I'm off topic and I don;t mind the comment being deleted

You are not off topic, and right on with the movie.  I guess we were trying to show the 21st century Zealots that it was not the Jews that earned the scorn, but man itself represented by the romans were to blame.

Any Jew that is insulted by this movie is insulted by Christianity and the Bible.  And is not a true jew, but a chip holder.

As I dared one, I can give many names of jewish friends of mine who saw it, and it was awe inspiring for them.  But not in a religious sense.  Just in the sense of how man can be so cruel to fellow man.

It was apolitical.  Only Mikey Moore and his ilk would think it was political, or AS.

I guess we were trying to show the 21st century Zealots that it was not the Jews that earned the scorn, but man itself represented by the romans were to blame.

That is exactly the point, Dr. Guy. I am not still angry with the Romans. If anything, I am saddened by humanity in general. I was like you just trying to make a point that if one ethnicity or race, etc were to be singled out as sinister, it was the Romans.