No, it’s called “The Passion…” because the story of Christ’s suffering and death has been called “the Passion story” for centuries.
I think if most of it’s proponents actually understood it, they wouldn’t say that Pagans, Hindus etc… are devil worshippers. Hell I think if they understood it they’d realize that Satan wasn’t a seperate entity from Christ, and just his own temptation for the alternative to the route he took.
And I’m sure there was no reason to call it that for all those centuries.
Erek
There was, but not the reason you think. Passion used to just mean “suffering.” It was only after it got conflated with Jesus’s suffering out of love for humanity (sometime around the Norman invasion) that it can to have the emotional conotations it does today. Cite.
Just as you say: belief and understanding are two different things. If one can believe without understanding, then one can surely understand without believing, no?
mswas, you are right that it is inappropriate to comment on others’ experiences of their belief as being ‘wrong’.
But can one say there is a correct way to apply religious symbols? Yes.
How does one know the correct way?
By comparing several religions and their use of symbols. (Stepping outside of one’s belief to re-valuate it.)
That is a vital duty of every religious believer.
And if they do not do this, then they will be guilty of what Miller points out: believing without understanding.
And that is ‘wrong’.
So, perhaps it wasn’t inappropriate of me?
beajerry: I don’t believe in objectivity. I don’t believe one can step outside of what they believe. I don’t think there is a “correct” way or not. Maybe it’s correct for you however. Sure I like to shift my viewpoint, but when I understand another viewpoint I understand it as filtered through my own.
This assumes some universal axiom of truth. Which I do believe in, but I don’t believe the details are it, and I don’t believe it can be described and I don’t believe there is any viewpoint that is not privy to it, only viewpoints that have convinced themselves that are not.
In otherwords, I have no real way to verify anything, so I just accept what I see. The rest are just intellectual mindgames.
Erek
What?
The bolded section below, where the Jews could be said to take responsibility for Jesus’ death:
Matthew 27:24: When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25: Then answered all the people, and said, **His blood be on us, and on our children. **
Could somebody please point out the specific verses of Scripture in which this scene is mentioned? After all, Mellieboy’s propaganda has, over and over, stressed how UTTERLY FAITHFUL to Scripture his little movie is. Therefore, since it is so VERY FAITHFUL to Scripture, this scene must be therein. Where is it?