FlaSoxxJim

But, the internal contradictions between just the Gospels alone is enough to tell us that we are not reading historical documents. Rather, we are reading the culmination of four different recountings passed among the early Christians as oral tradition for 30-40 years before they were put to text by the Gospel writers. As such, it is understandable and even expected that details differ, sometimes to a great degree, because of oral embellishments and mis-transmissions over the years. Just consider the seemingly simple and presumably important accounts of the resurrection in the Gospels. They do not even agree on the who, how, or when concerning the discoveries of the resurrection. - John has Mary Magdalene first discovering an anger-flanked resurrected Jesus in the tomb, has her going to tell the apostles who were hiding behind closed doors, and then has Jesus appearing there to them all. - Mark puts Mary Magdalene, Mary Mother of James, and Salome on the scene, and they are told to tell the apostles that Jesus will see them when they get to Galilee. - For Luke, it’s the Two Marys, Joanna, and “the other women” who make the discovery and are told by a pair of dazzling angels to go tell the others. I couldn’t find Luke mentioning Judas’ suicide in his Gospel, but he does mention it in Acts. But, he has Judas dying by spilling his guts on the field he bought with his blood money, very different from the better known hanging version. -Matthew credits just the two Marys with the discovery, relates that it is an andel that tells them to deliver the news to the others to find Jesus in Galilee, and the Jesus appears to them while they are on their way from the tomb. Matthew also happens to mention that many other dead people rose up at the time of Jesus resurrection, which seems an event striking enough to warrant inclusion in the other accounts. None of this is meant to denigrate the Gospel accounts, just to demonstrate that they differ quite a bit on many details. It is an interesting irony that we refer to irrefutable matters as ‘the Gospel truth,’ when in fact the Gospels themselves don’t recount identical events. If detectives took four people into separate interrogation rooms and they each came up with such differing versions of the way things happened, the veracity of all accounts would certainly be questioned.

Precisely - and there is noone here more aquipped to show the film for what it is. cw's remark to baggio about the different way they would take in a baseball game is exactly what is happening here. As an honest scriptural scholar with decades of study and examination of a multitude of sources both scriptural and historical, who else is there here that can offer truly informed insights on this? That the film is viscerally numbingly powerful is not in question. But is it a service to Christianity to make a religion-themed equivalent of a snuff film? Those are also purported to be viscerally powerful and unsettling, be they actual on-camera killing or just sly fabrications passed off as thereal thing. I left the Catholic Church precisely because it seemed so much more hung up in its own morbid fascinations and attendant guilt over the same than with actually trying to be a positive source of spiritual strength and community.

Very sorry to hear of your loss, friend. 98 is a good long run, but it always hurts to lose a loved one. My thouhts are with you. Jim

I've been out of the belief business for a while, but the tearing of the temple veil is a symbol of utmost importance, and to obscure that with the temples destruction does that symbolic event great injustice. The veil separarated the rest of the temple from the 'holy of holies' - the one place where the pure God could reside in the temple. Even the church elders were only allowed to enter once a year, and they did so to perform a ritual sacrifice to God. Thering tthe veil breaks down the barrier between man and God - man does not need to go through the high priests to get to God and doesn't need to make sacrifices at the alter because now it is God that has made the ultimate sacrifice to bring man to him. As far as the Jews being on the hook for Jesus' death in the Gospel accounts, cw has already pointed out that explanation. Judea was fallen by 70 AD when the early Christian oral traditions were put to text in the Gospels. Rome was the cener of the world, and the Jews were well out of power in the region. Laying it on the Jews keeps the full wrath of Rome off the still minority Christian cults and also is a jab back at the Jews for their persecution of Christians over the previous 40 years. Doesn't it seem to you that the whirlwind events of Holy Week just happen way to fast for anyone BUT those at the top to be calling the shots? Palm Sunday has a triumphant arrival of Jesus and his followers to joyous masses, who are then somehow the same people who vote to free Barabas and crucify Jesus 5 days later? That's a very fast turn of events. The speed with which a socially disruptive self-proclaimed Messiah is dispatched is believable if the occupying Romans feel that social unrest is going to cause them problems (and it has already been noted that Pilate is historically known to have been ruthless and to have had hundreds of people crucified while he was calling the shots). The same speed with which tthe tide turned against Jesus becomes difficult to accept if it done at the behest of the Jewish high priests who were prettty much dogs to the occupying Romans, and had only what little authority Pilate saw fit to grant them.

But in the Kangaroo jack Last Supper scene, they at least get it right and eat unleavened bread, right?

LOL. Way to kick a fella when he's down. I bet Cotts would love the chance to pitch again at Yankee Stadium, to excorcise personal demons if nothing else.

I appended my thoughts to your post of this in the extant Mel thread, but again, many thanks for toughing it out and sitting through it, and for sharing with us your expertise in the field to point out just how non-historical/non-Biblical this film actually is. Whether or not anybody gets that is an entirely different matter...

Thanks most sincerely for the first-hand review cw. There are no others of us here who have actually devited a couple decades to biblical scholarship, and for me your appraisal of the film versus the written Word holds more water than all the armchair theologizing the rest of us together could ever do. And some day if you are up to it (not that you could sit through another viewing), I would appreciate a scene-by-scene reconciling between the film and the Gospels. I haven't seen it, and I'm not setting aside any time to do so. But, a couple of friends did see it. Relative to your 'count' comment, they too had to confer with me as to whether they still had their Sunday school facts straight, because they said that a reported 40 lashes seemed more like a couple hundred in Mel's version, and three well-detailed falls while carrying the cross turned into a couple-dozen in the film. If these simple, stay-with-you-for-your-entire-life Biblical details were so badly screwed up, then how the hell is the film supposed to get the subtle but vitally important parts of the story right? As for your nod to JC Superstar and (to a lesser degree for me) Godspell, I have always felt those works to be completely moving because of their accessibility and human portrayal of Christ, and also for their emphasis on celegrating the LIFE and message of Christ, rather than the visceral details of the death. As far away from the Church as I personally am, I still sneak in Pilate's Dream ("I dreamed I met a Gallilean...") occasionally when performing acoustic music here and there - I guess as a personal homage to what I grew up with and also to see if anyone is paying attention. I also sneak in stuff like the themes from Scooby Doo and Green Acres though, so I don't read a whole lot into it. I do think that that vintage of Rice/Lloyd-Webber was them at their best though, and it had a profound effect on me. It wouldn't play these days though. Now you need blood and lots of it. If there's lots of blood and lots of Latin dialogue it MUST be 'as it was'.

What a Micky Mouse operation, huh? Seriously, I sincerely hope Eisner is on his way out, he's been at the helm about 10 years too long.

Yeah, "How to Lie With Statistics" great little book. I have used parts of it as a cautionary tale in biostatistics and experimental design lectures and workshops for several years. Huff's term 'statisulation' - to describe the use of statistics to intentionally mislead - is a part of my working vocabulary It was out of print for quite some time, but it is now available again. Huff also has a couple of 'how things work' kind of books out that show studenst how much math and science there is in their everyday lives. I haven't picked any of these up yet, but I know some middle school and high school teachers that have found them to be quite good.

Actually, people lie with statistics all the time, and Darryl Huff and others have actually written books about it. But the site you provided is very informative, so thank you. A lot of the more interesting information on the site: Only 19% of women getting abortions are teens. More than 60% of women getting abortions already have at least one child, so they KNOW what it takes to raise a kid and the know that they can't make it work with another one. Black women are more than three times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are two-and-a-half times as likely. There is a tight correlation between race, socioeconomic status, education, and the incidence of abortion. Maybe most interesting, as much as 43% of the decline in abortion between 1994 and 2000 can be attributed to the use of emergency contraception. Wow. There is no reason to believe that if teens were given confodentiality in getting access to and education about preventive birth control, that it wouldn't similarly result in a decline in the need for abortion.

It will be pointless to initiate this debate again, and all sides chiming in now have done so in the past. For what it's worth, I think a lot of people who think women should have more say in their reproductive rights than the government think that there is something to be said for not propagating errors, perpetuating the cycle of a bad situation. calling abortions matters of "convenience" (I know you did not here) is an epic understatement. Most abortions that are not done for reasons of health of mother or fetus are NOT things entered into lightly. On the contrary, this would be one of the most difficult decisions in a woman's life. 14 year old girls usually are not as mature as one would ideally hope when faced with a decision like that. But they are also not mature enough - let alone educated enough or psychologically and monetarily able to successfully take on motherhood. Similarly, many of them do not have a network of family support to fall back on. So, a legal solution forcing this girl to drop out of school and dash any hope of living above the poverty line to have a baby who has still less chance to succed in his/her own life? It's all so easy when you don't worry about considering any lives in the situation other than that of the fetus. Once the fetus pops out and is just another of the millions of a poor, neglected, hopeless kids then screw it. Unfortunately, girls can and do get pregnant at that age, and far too many of them at that. A reactive approach is to make damn sure that girl has that baby regardless of her ability to raise it or turn to family who can. A proactive approach is to address the disease an not the symptoms. A big, should-be obvious part of the solution is education, access to honest information and effective birth control, etc. - as noted by Apu (who is apparently a very bright 13 year old if Bob was right about his age). It's infuriating whhen the people who so oppose reproductive choice are soooo often the same people that make sure sex education in the schools is firmly rooted in the 30s, and that condoms are not made freely and anonomously available to this at-risk sexually active age group because that somehow promotes/endorses/condones teen promiscuity. Teens have been having sex for 1000s of years and will continue to do so despite all efforts to stop it/ignore it/moralize against it, etc. There isn't another person here who wishes that open dialog within loving, supportive families was the rule an not the exception as much as I do. Sadly, that's not the case.

I wish more hitters would use protective padding in Spring Training, to minimize the risk of a spring injury before the season even gets underway. There should also be a more reasonable limit to what you can wear during the season - the Bonds body armor is ridiculous.

That should bbe for each congregation to decide for themselves. If a particular church decides not to do gay marriages and as a parishoner you oppose the decision, you find a church whose beliefs are more in line with yours. Vice versa, f your churchs decides to perform gay marriage services and you are opposed, you have the right to find a different church. Saying they "shouldn't be performed in ANY churches" is too broad a proclamation, and presumes you can speak for the values of individual parishes better than the leaders of those churches.

The argument in favor of parental notification is important and valid for many reasons, I do not oppose the debate (not saying I think legally forcing notification of requiring consent is right - but I respect the debate), and I understand the desire of parents to be informed. But that is not the issue here. The issue is the threat to the expectation of doctor-patient confidentiality for EVERY PATIENT serveed by Planned parenthood and similar agencies. Remember, 90% of the visits are NOT abortion-related. Patients will think twice before getting AIDS tests, cancer screanings, and regular OB/GYN stuff that these agencies do and these clients need. Is our nation's self-proclaimed commitment to a new era of proactive health care is just more lip service? It seems that way if teh Justice Department is allowed to bully doctors, clinics, and patients to the point that patients beging to opt against needed services (including the vital patient education that takes place during visits). If the Justice Department wants data, they should commission a study NOW, that doesn't bully doctors and patients and doesn't compromise medical confidientality. Clinics could answer questions about each new early-second trimester abortion requested/performed on separate, non-identifying forms, and limiting responses to the necessity of the procedure. I mean, when you think about it, all JD says it is interested in is those relatively few specific cases. Why should the privacy of all first trimester/medical (chemical) abortion records be jeopardized? What about all the non-abortion records? The answer is that part of the reason this is happening is because Ashcroft means to intimidate the doctors and clinics who perform abortions and the women who receive them.

He's using the same argument he did in requesting medical record a few weeks ago. Medical professionals have protested the "partial-birth" ban, saying that the procedure is medically necessary in cases of emergencies. Do decide if this is indeed the case, the Justice Department has decided that medical privacy of thousands of patients should be invaded and the records examined. The entire ABCnews story is here The article raises an important point in that now the expectation of privacy for patients using Planned Parenthood is undermined by this action.

You should clarify that you only want PK numbers that look like the first half of 2002. Between the second half of 2002 and the first three months of last season, that's a solid year of Bad Pauley. Chalk it up to a bad foot, bad hip, whaterver... Just seems like now's as good a time as any for PK to put together a solid FULL year.

Even when the man says the right things ("I was mad about the contract situation last year and felt I deserved better, but I'm past that"), people want to paint him as the bad guy. And it's already been said here, but its a lose-lose situation for Frank. If he speaks his mind - even if he says the right things and tries to clear the air - and gets slammed for it. If he refuses to give the media the sound bytes they want to turn into soap opera plots, then he's a jerk. grumble grumble grumble...

Awwww, you made Frank all squishy!!

The Evil Misquoter strikes again...

One more vote for Southwest. They were the one airline smart enough to realize that they could do their own direct Internet marketing and not have to go through an online broker. As such, Southwests tix don't show up on Expedia and tthe others so it's always good to check them out separately at the same time as you are searching the other airlines. The downside of Southwest's online sales is that you don't get a specific seat, you just get a boarding card and it's a free-for-all to get a seat. IIf you're traveling as a party of just one or two, it's no problem.

Of course OUR marketing people can't figure out that this is a good idea. I'd rather have a shot at something like this once in a whilew instead of a stupid ESPN Sox rain poncho. 1-in-200 Gameday Jersey Giveaways

The Tick was destined to fail as live action, but was great and really funny as a saturday morning cartoon and in its original form as an indie comic book. I think they had to do it because casting Putty as the Tick was perfect even if the show sucked arse. I was upset when they cancelled The Critic, but I concede it lost a little in the end compared to the first season.

Sports Night I really liked. And it LITERALLY just dawned on me when you mentioned it that Peter Kraus was in that. It's been bugging me ever since I got hooked on Six Feet Under where I had seen hime otther than the Truman Show. I didn't know that was created by the West Wing guy though.

I have yet to see a single episode. You're saying now is not the time to start watching, right? I have yet to see a single episode from any season of 24. I have yet to see Survivor or any of the reality shows other than a little bit of the Apprentice because I'm nesnerized by the small furry mammal living on Trump's head. My dirty secrets are all out and I feel much better.