July 22nd, 2010
08:43 AM ET

Where are Mel Gibson defenders?

Conservative Christian leaders were some of director Mel Gibson’s biggest defenders when he released “The Passion of the Christ” six years ago.

Where are they now?

That’s the question Rebecca Dana asks in a provocative article for the Daily Beast entitled, “Still Defending Mel.” As most people know by now, Gibson has come under scrutiny because of a series of audiotapes released online.

The tapes allegedly show Gibson hurling ethnic and sexist slurs while threatening violence. (CNN has not independently confirmed the authenticity of the recordings).

The tapes have ignited a media storm. One of my colleagues, Todd Leopold, waded into the firestorm with an intriguing look at  “The many faces of Mel” Gibson.

Yet only six years ago, Gibson was caught in the middle of another public firestorm when his movie about the last hours of Christ’ life was released.

Critics said Gibson’s film was anti-Semitic and glorified violence. But the film became a big hit in part because so many evangelical leaders defended Gibson and even rented out movie theaters to show his film.

Dana writes:

Conservative pundits and evangelical Christian leaders have always been Mel Gibson’s biggest apologists. But now… they are almost uniformly silent.

- CNN Writer

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Culture wars • Jesus • Violence

soundoff (54 Responses)
  1. Marion

    I just rented Mel Gibson`s" EDGE OF DARkNESS" and found it way above average – loved every minute. He is a movie actor
    and has always entertained me. His personal life in not in a good place right now.

    July 25, 2010 at 4:17 pm |
  2. Amir

    Believing in the Bible or God is a personal choice. However, a large number of people who claim tro be Christians are chocolate Christians or as my grandfather use to put it, they are christian plated. In reality and according to the Bible, Christians do not follow men but God. Following God does not happen by claiming it or saying it, but by living it. Mel Gibson can only be criticized as a christian if he lives it, otherwise, he is no different than anyone else. He has his strengths and weaknesses like everyone else.

    July 24, 2010 at 4:51 pm |
  3. CatholicMom

    Anyone who would like to see....... Jews, Muslems, atheists, and unborn babies dead cannot call themselves Catholic.

    July 23, 2010 at 4:45 pm |
  4. Cheryl Cayce

    This is the first time I ever blogged-so here goes:: I want to know after some one dies wheather they are no-Christian or Musulim or any who do not the lifestyle of Jesus Christ of committment to His ideals in the Bible. I know all of 6 billon people on this earth are not perfect, where do ALL THE PEOPLE GO? IN the Bible it says that once you die, EVERYONE WILL go to either TWO places? I know it not a crapshoot, or luck in the draw to go? And what about ALL those indivduals who are going to be JUDGED BY CHRIST HIMSELF? That scares me, it should make all of you think, too

    July 23, 2010 at 3:04 pm |
    • Gary

      Cheryl Cacye or Muhammad judge you. Or Budda or hindu God judge you or Jewish God or rain God or no God?

      July 23, 2010 at 3:11 pm |
    • CatholicMom

      When all the world’s people die they go before God who created them and are judged by the way they lived their lives [life is a gift from God]; each person, by his freewill, has chosen the path they walk through life. They have a conscience [a gift from God] which enables them to make right choices.
      Some people ignore their conscience and choose to do evil.

      No one can judge whether a person’s soul is going to go to Heaven or to Hell; that judgment is solely God’s judgment to make.

      The best book to buy besides the Bible is ‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church’. When you buy a Bible make sure it is one with all the Books in it.

      July 24, 2010 at 10:49 am |
  5. Beth Boyle

    How can anyone defend those racist rants and the way he abused his girlfriend. Who want to be associated with that name now?

    July 23, 2010 at 11:30 am |
  6. Gary

    @ Daisy thanks for your reply, I never implied bible,quran or any other religious text a bunch of trash. I just stated the fact that it is a text written by men some 2k years ago. I have read it two or three times myself have read book of matthew and other books several times. I live by the Golden rule. As an agnostic though I have never met God. I have never seen or heard from him. I dont think a book written 2k years ago is any proof of a God or who God is either.

    July 23, 2010 at 10:46 am |
  7. Daisy

    I don't understand why anyone thinks that all Christians should defend Mel Gibson – is is just because the man directed a movie about Jesus?

    Gibson's behavior on the tape (i.e., threats, vulgar language, and alleged physical violence towards his ex girlfriend) clearly flies in the face of Christ's teachings as expressed in the New Testament, so no, nobody should expect Christians to defend Gibson on those points.

    Furthermore, not all Christians approved of the 'Passion' film due to the face that some Christians (Baptists and Protestants) do not agree with Gibson's Roman Catholicism (or his version of it), and many Non-Catholic Christians saw elements of what they believed to be Pro-Catholicism in the film, and therefore rejected it.

    As for me personally, I never did see the 'Passion' movie and don't have strong feelings for it either way.

    Christians do not always agree with one another on all issues (whether those issues be theological, secular, or political), so I find it ridiculous that any journalist would expect all Christians to be in totally in agreement -or walk in lockstep- in regards to Mel Gibson, or in regards to any other person or any other matter.

    July 23, 2010 at 12:44 am |
    • Daisy

      Sorry for the mistakes in the post above; "is is just because the man" was supposed to be, "is IT just because..." and "...due to the face..." was supposed to be "facT" ("...due to the fact..."), etc.

      I don't even think that Mel Gibson is a true Christian. Gibson seems to 'have religion' but lacks a relationship with Jesus Christ, and there is a difference between the two.

      Gibson seems to think that being a Christian means someone who is legalistic and who follows rules- much like the Pharisees Jesus frequently debated and argued with back in His day.

      Jesus said there is such a thing as a false convert, that is, one who *thinks* he is 'saved' and is a Christian but who is not (see the Bible, Matthew chapter 7, verses 20 – 23, and Matthew chapter 7: 16 – 18 to read for yourself what Jesus Christ had to say on those issues).

      The New Testament tells us the kind of behavior (such as gentleness, kindness, peace, etc., to cease being bitter, angry and hateful, etc*) we can and should expect to see in a true convert on a more or less consistent basis, and Gibson apparently lacks those qualities.

      *See, for example, these passages from the New Testament of the Bible: Colossians 3:8, Ephesians 4:31, Galatians 5:22, 1 Peter 2:1.

      According to a few different web sites I've seen, Gibson's politics are quite murky. Gibson went through a phase where he was highly critical of former Republican president George W. Bush, and he was said to have been interested in funding one of Michael Moore's movies. None of that behavior is indicative of conservative / Republican ideology or sympathies, so I wish journalists and bloggers would stop trying to portray Gibson as a conservative and/or Republican, because I don't think he is (or was) one.

      July 23, 2010 at 12:57 am |
    • Gary

      Daisy agree some of your post. I totally agree that no two Christians believe the exact same thing. I have friends family members Catholic,methodist,moron,pentacostal ,mesianic Jews ect. they all have their own interpretations and thats fine by me. It ony reassures me the bible is probably a collection of texts having nothing to do with a true higher power but mans interpretations of what God may be like to them.

      July 23, 2010 at 10:50 am |
  8. Marc

    The key is "allegedly" as the tapes have obviously been manipulated. It was like verbiage from out takes was cut in with a woman's voice and the context made no sense half the time.....

    Innocent until crucified by the public media. Time will tell what was truthful and what was manufactured.

    July 22, 2010 at 10:40 pm |

    Mel Gibson is human plain and simple. If you were led into an argument by someone you loved and set up and recorded to be shamed and humiliated you wouldn't look so good either. Remember – everything he's done you have either done or thought about doing so grow up and show a little grace cause your day's comin!

    July 22, 2010 at 5:38 pm |
  10. KingBoren

    First of all, it is His right to hit that b*ch, and even if He accidentily smacked His infant, then I for one am not going to believe it - punishments are only to be set forth and upon the proletariat. We must give Him our support and acknowledge that He is the Passion of the Christ. We should make life a hell for that b*ch and her p*ssy son. Support Him and you support Christ.

    July 22, 2010 at 2:00 pm |
    • Camille in Raleigh

      Mr. Gibson, please get into some anger-management classes. Oh yeah, and go die in a fire while you're at it, you racist jerk.

      July 22, 2010 at 2:17 pm |
    • Toby

      Those are the type of statements that are typically associated with the mentally ill or otherwise sociopathic individuals. Please, get yourself some help before someone gets hurt.

      July 22, 2010 at 5:36 pm |
    • CatholicMom


      Stop all the hating. Jesus said love our neighbor as ourselves….that includes every person we know and don’t know. Stop judging people’s souls…that judgment is God’s alone.…be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect….how can we achieve this? By letting Jesus Christ work through us for only He can do good.

      July 23, 2010 at 3:55 pm |
  11. Daniel

    I wouldn't mix the the actor with the real Mel. I thought his movie was of great historical value and portrayed the life of Christ as many religious groups think it was (groups I am not part of), that's not racism or bigotry, it's just showing a reality.
    A different issue are Mel's personal decisions in life, can you please tell me who'd defend such a behavior? no one with a minor degree of sanity would defend him, probably not even himself is proud of what he has said and done.

    July 22, 2010 at 1:40 pm |
  12. Eric G

    They must be playing bingo.

    July 22, 2010 at 12:13 pm |
  13. Sheila

    Google and read the article,


    It is a fantastic read about this Mel Gibson debacle by a celebrity attorney and legal analyst.

    July 22, 2010 at 12:00 pm |
  14. TAGnGA

    A combination of alcoholism, mid-life crisis and spiritual attack, can change any normal person into a Jekyll and Hyde.
    He needs prayers, forgiveness and healing.

    July 22, 2010 at 11:54 am |
    • Luke

      Prayers, forgiveness and healing? He needs rehab, anger management classes, jail time and a swift kick in the arse.

      July 22, 2010 at 12:00 pm |
    • just me

      Forgiveness ~ & Love ~ I agree...

      July 22, 2010 at 1:51 pm |
  15. james

    Mel is till hated by secular progressives and some culturally chauvinistic Jews for putting out Passion of the Christ, the biggest grossing R rated film ever.
    Hollywood attempted to blackball it by conspiring to refuse to distribute it. Israel banned it.
    The success of the film has lead to a never ending vigilance against Mel by secularists.
    From the sheriff's assistant who pulled him over a few years back, to the owners and editors of TMZ and Radar Online, all the parties involved in trying to bring Mel down are Jews. Both times they released illegally obtained private information to embarrass him publicly. Anyone who's listened to the tapes realizes they've been altered.
    Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.

    July 22, 2010 at 11:44 am |
    • Luke

      So James...what you are saying is that the Jews are out to get Mel Gibson by naming him get DUIs knowing that a Jewish officer will pull him over and forcefully made him drink a lot and allegedly beat his girlfriend, have an illegitimate child with her and doctor tapes of him yelling anti-Semitic, racist and anti-female remarks at an unknown person for an unknown reason all for the benefit of Jews bringing him down? Well, that makes sense. I'm with ya!

      July 22, 2010 at 11:59 am |
  16. Mar

    Evangelical Christians supported him because he was releasing a blockbuster highlighting their faith; they clearly do not need to support him if allegations are true.

    And I have yet to understand why that flim was anti-semitic. Just because it showed a crime pushed by Jews? Jews have committed many crimes in our history, as have Christians, Muslims, atheists, etc. We all have dirty laundry; no one group can claim otherwise and attempt to hide it with libel.

    July 22, 2010 at 10:56 am |
    • Luke

      It was considered anti-Semitic because the Jewish Rabbinical leaders continually stated that the film was both historically and mythologically inaccurate and portrayed Jewish people in a very poor light. In other words, the myth says one thing about the Jewish people, and Mr. Gibson's film very clearly said another. Furthermore, the film came on the heels of his anti-Semitic rant directed at a Jewish police office that pulled him over for a DUI. Answer your question?

      July 22, 2010 at 11:28 am |
    • Reality

      As per most contemporary NT historians and exegetes, there was no passion of the simple preacher man named Jesus. It was simply more hype added by the non-witness biographers i.e. Paul et al to make Jesus into some kind of deity. Bottom line: Jesus acted up in the Temple. Most NT experts agree on this. What happened next? He was, as were all rabble-rousers, captured by the Roman guards and summarily crucified as pre-arrangement of the Roman and Jewish authorities on how to handle any problems in Jerusalem during Passover i.e. no trial, no crowning of thorns, no nice speeches from the cross, no thieves and no preferential treatment of one Barrabas. Bang, bang went the hammers. He died and was buried not in some ornate-cave tomb but buried as all offenders of Roman rule in a shallow grave where his body decomposed and/or was eaten by wild dogs and/or vultures.

      Of course there is this somewhat dated version:

      Reimarus (1774-1779) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

      Bottom line: If you saw Gibson's film, you got taken by yet another "Christian" con man!!!

      July 22, 2010 at 12:45 pm |
    • Daniel

      Luke, the Jewish Rabbinical leaders have their version of the history, the muslims have a different one, the atheists or agnostics as myself a different one, and the Christians have their own. What's wrong with portraying the Christian version of the life of Christ? Cinema is supposed to be subjective to the director's own view and he put it together in a really well done movie. Aren't we in a free of speech society?

      Different are his rant comments, his drunk driving, his maybe (still to be proved) abuses... no one would support that, not even himself!

      July 22, 2010 at 1:49 pm |
    • Luke

      Daniel – I think you miss the point of it all. Sure, film makers can do whatever they want, but there is also being disingenuous towards a group of people; namely the Jewish people. His portrayal wasn't even close to any sort of history and myth. Considering his remarks to the Jewish officer in and around the same time of this film, it goes without question that he is anti-Semitic. Furthermore, his father is a Holocaust denier. I wish I was making that up. Mel Gibson's father is a widely known Holocaust denier and Gibson himself has made numerous remarks towards the Jewish faith. He has no excuse.

      July 22, 2010 at 2:14 pm |
    • Daniel

      Luke, I do not support the person of Mel Gibson, neither his comments... he is insane in his personal life and he has done major mistakes, I was referring exclusively to the movie... his are you jewish comments are horrible, and definitely anti Semitic, I agree 100% with that. I still have to say that I feel sorry for him because it's sad to see a talented person so humiliated, and I know it's his fault but I do feel sorry for him.

      Regarding his movies, come on, he is def a great actor and has done tremendous movies, and I consider the passion of Christ one of them. at least tell me who did not enjoy signs or braveheart?

      In summary, a great artist and a completely messed up living human!

      July 22, 2010 at 2:24 pm |
    • RDM


      Will you allow me to share some questions about the comments you made? These were put to me when I was trying to keep God at arm's length:

      Do you really believe that Jesus' first disciples, who did scatter and lock themselves in a room for fear of what might happen to them, would go and steal the body and then preach Jesus' resurrection...a proclamation based on a deliberate lie that would lead to their own sufferings, floggings, and deaths? This does not ring true.

      As for the shallow grave comments, Jesus' enemies are the ones who had the tomb sealed and guarded (this even after Joseph of Arimathea had a stone placed in front of it. Gospel of Matthew, Ch. 27). When the guards came back to report to the Jewish leaders that the body was gone (Matt. 28), why did the Jewish leaders not deny the report of the empty tomb? The disciples and the Jews both knew the tomb was empty...how to explain it though is another question. As mentioned above, the disciples stealing the body and then preaching the resurrection does not ring true.

      I urge you not to discount what the Bible has had to say for thousands of years regarding these historical events. The God Who created us also knows us; He wants us to know Him and the best place to start is in the pages of the Holy Bible. Please, ask for God's help to read His Word with an open and humble mind and then think through the facts that the Scriptures contain. On the authority of His Word He will not refuse the genuine request of a humble, seeking soul!

      July 22, 2010 at 2:54 pm |
    • Luke

      RDM – You use the bible as a history book? You fail. Go ride a dinosaur.

      July 22, 2010 at 3:35 pm |
    • Reality

      Luke, As one who appreciates "to the point comments", great summary!!!

      July 22, 2010 at 4:02 pm |
    • Daisy

      @Luke – in regards to your reply to RDM about riding dinosaurs etc.

      The Bible is a book of faith, but it is not historically inaccurate; archaeology and lower textual criticism over the years has borne this out.

      The Bible may not be a "history" (or science) book as we understand those things today, but it does not follow that a book about God's dealing with humanity automatically means it contains historical / scientific errors.

      Why can you not have a civil discussion about the matter, instead of dismissing a thoughtful post with a one or two line sarcastic, shallow remark?

      July 23, 2010 at 2:11 am |
    • peace2all


      Hi there.... I am 'sincerely' curious as to exactly what you are stating here, in reference to the bible not being inaccurate as far as historical events, especially in relationship to your statement as the bible being a book of 'faith'...?

      You mentioned that sciences such as archeology, etc.... are proof..

      Again, I am sincerely curious, with due respect, ....would you please sight some of the alleged exact accuracies you state that are in the bible in relationship to scientific evidense and proof....

      Very interested....

      Peace to you....

      July 23, 2010 at 4:24 am |
    • Luke

      Daisy – The answer, quite simply, is that first of all, I was being funny. The audience of my joke, got it. People like you didn't laugh for a reason. Secondly, and more seriously, I get bent out of shape towards people like you (and RDM) because you so easily dismiss the contradictions that the bible makes when it infringes on the sciences and natural history. But it is not that simple. You just say it is a book of faith. I say that book of faith makes very specific scientific claims and even more specific claims of history. You just glance over the nonsense and focus in on the teachings like the hypocrisies don't mean a thing. I say they do. They infringe on proper education and warp minds of followers. It makes the followers of faith cherry pickers – ignoring what is so easily proven false and concentrating on the pointless such as how homosexuality is a sin. People like me say, "What is a sin anyway?" And you have no answer other than quoting a bronze aged book riddled with inaccuracies. I mean, very specifically...Take Exodus for example. Exodus is easily one of the most important books of the bible. So some archaeologists studied the historical claims of Exodus and were astonished with their findings. No one ever lived in the dessert for 40 years. There is no evidence of any cultures in that area. No fossils. No clay cups found in the dirt. nothing. Just barren emptiness. Nothing. That means Exodus didn't even happen, yet you follow it like truth. It just bends my mind, Daisy. So, was RDM's post good? No. It is nothingness based on a foundation of a vacuum like void.

      July 23, 2010 at 10:46 am |
    • RDM

      Yes, I do use the Bible as a history book. What again am I failing? And who are you to say that someone else fails? There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the Lord God. Do you know Him?

      July 23, 2010 at 11:29 am |
    • Luke

      RDM – If you do use it as a history book, you are using false records as your foundation so easily refuted that a child could see the difference. You take this as a personal attack, and I know why, but that's not the problem. The issue is that I am merely stating concrete fact. The reason why you take this as a personal attack is because my words strike a visceral reaction in your core, which rattles your foundation. Well, I am curious, however, why you don't follow the book of the Greek gods? Do you believe in Thor? Apollo? Pan? All gods followed and reveled by tens of millions. Do you follow their teachings? No? Heathen!

      July 23, 2010 at 11:37 am |
    • RDM


      In your comment, "You take this as a personal attack, and I know why, but that's not the problem. The issue is that I am merely stating concrete fact. The reason why you take this as a personal attack is because my words strike a visceral reaction in your core, which rattles your foundation." Why do you spend time explaining if it is not the problem?

      I am sorry for the misunderstanding. You mentioned "failing" which implies to me there is some test or standard to which we are being measured. To what standard are you referring? Will you please restate your fact(s)?

      July 23, 2010 at 12:03 pm |
    • Luke

      RDM – You fail at basic grade school history and the rational thought process that all people are upheld against. If we met, at say, an interview for a job I had open at my company, and you began telling me that you were a strident believer in UFOs in your backyard or that Elvis is alive, you immediately pay a costly price because such claims are easily dismissed due to lack of evidence. In this case, you follow the bible as historical fact and immediately pay a price as one that ignores the basic understanding of remedial history taught in grammar school, secondary school and what should be your adult education. Hence, you fail and ignore the facts that surround you in favor of a bronze age book. You can't have it both ways. Either Exodus occurred and we have evidence of it, or it didn't and it is to be taken as metaphor. If you follow the bible, you think Exodus happened for real and therefore fail the common sense test of life and will not ever be taken seriously by those outside of your inner circle.

      July 23, 2010 at 1:06 pm |
    • RDM


      Don't muddy the water, Luke. Exodus occurring is not what a Christian is asked to believe. A Christian is one who believes in his or her heart that Jesus Christ is God incarnate and that He was raised from the dead. Since a Christian believes in the resurrection, he or she can most certainly believe in the rest of the Bible, including the Exodus (and even the Flood, which by the way killed most of the dinosaurs you told me to go ride...but that's a whole other post).

      If being a Christian means I fail the world's test so be it!

      July 23, 2010 at 1:46 pm |
  17. peace2all

    Even 'evangelical apologist's'...... have sense enough to know who to back for 'their cause' and who not to. Gibson is absolutely bad press for them, and until proven otherwise, I imagine they will stay away from him.

    Nice..... Only be there if for you if... you are serving their agenda, which Gibson, at this time is certainly not.

    July 22, 2010 at 10:50 am |
    • Mike

      Was "their cause" ever Mel Gibson or defending the accuracy of the film?

      July 22, 2010 at 12:11 pm |
    • Daisy

      @peace2all who said, "Gibson is absolutely bad press for them [Christians]..."

      There are several reasons Christians are not all jumping to Gibson's defense, and that ("bad press") is not one of them. First, Gibson's behavior on the tapes is obviously un-biblical (see Colossians 3:8, Ephesians 4:31, Galatians 5:22, 1 Peter 2:1). Genuine believers in Jesus usually, more often than not, try to avoid un-biblical teachings, actions, or attitudes, not defend them.

      Where you might reasonably find Christians defending Gibson would be along the lines of forgiveness and restoration. Gibson needs help. Like all of us, he's made mistakes.

      Gibson seems to have an alcohol and mental health problem, so in that regard, he maybe deserves some kind of sympathy, help, understanding, or compassion. That is *not* to say that any Christian would excuse the man's alleged violence towards his girl friend, the racial slurs, or the vulgar and crude language he used.

      Secondly, Gibson does not strike me as being a true Christian (I explain that more in depth in a post farther down this page, so I won't repeat my reasoning here).

      So why would I, an actual Christian, waste my time and effort defending a Non-Christian guy who is being slammed by secularists and atheists for being a lousy Christian?

      Mel Gibson is not Christianity's "poster boy," but he seems to have been deemed that very thing by many in the media who hate Christians or Christianity. As a Christian, I don't look at or to Mel Gibson for spiritual guidance or what to believe about God – I use the Bible for that.

      Gibson does not speak for me or for my faith, even if he made a movie about my Savior. If you want to look for the best representation of Christianity, look at Jesus Christ; you can learn more about Jesus in the Bible.

      On a last point, the Bible instructs Christians to judge other Christians (at least in *some* contexts). This means if a Christian repeatedly sins in a particular area, I am to take that sinning believer aside in private and lovingly reprimand him for the sin – not excuse his sin, or defend him for it.

      July 23, 2010 at 2:01 am |
  18. Reality

    "Poor" Mel rich in acting ability and good looks but mentally challenged in the area of love and religion.

    July 22, 2010 at 10:02 am |
    • peace2all


      In my posting you can clearly read that I did *not* say that Mel was ever 'their cause.'

      However, my statement still stands.... and since you added... the 'assumption' of "accuracy of the film" shows that you are blind to or actually are a 'believer.

      Their Cause(christians, especially the evangelicals) are out to spread radical, unverifiable 'belief'.

      Belief does not = facts....

      July 22, 2010 at 12:39 pm |
  19. Gary

    Passion ,was a movie everyone knew the setting,plot,climax before ever stepping foot in the theater. As an agnostic I didnt waste my time or money to go watch that over rated film. Just like like I dont waste my time on Sundays listening to a human repeating verses from a religious text written by other humans 2100 years ago.

    July 22, 2010 at 9:22 am |
    • Mike

      But you have no problem using the language that is 900 years old and the mathematics that are over 4000 years old?

      July 22, 2010 at 12:10 pm |
    • Ficheye

      MIKE: I will pray for you. That isn't very smart. Religion and the church have been responsible for so much violence in our world. As far as I can tell it isn't done yet. Gary has every right to doubt 'the word".

      July 22, 2010 at 1:13 pm |
    • SMTP

      Mike, if you think math or language were simply conceived hundreds/thousands of years ago, and haven't developed since those times, you obviously don't know about either subject. Your comparison of math and language to religion original, but curious. You are serious, right?

      July 22, 2010 at 1:16 pm |
    • Jason

      I think Gary obviously has an axe or issue to grind but Mikes reply is illogical. The age of a language or mathematics has no correlation to the beliefs of people that didn't understand the world around them 2100 years ago. Religion was developed as a way for man to explain that which he could not understand and also as a method of control. Ever wonder why there has to be a power structure on earth for an omnipotent being that would have no problem being involved in the life of every human all at the same time. Only prophets get to talk to supreme beings and those same prophets control their flocks. How amazing is that?

      July 22, 2010 at 6:33 pm |
    • Daisy

      @Gary. In a way, I kind of agree with some of your sentiments, and I am a Christian (and a conservative) who has never seen the Gibson movie about Jesus, and I do not know if I ever will.

      I do wish everyone would stop behaving as though all Christians are identical, that we Christians all agree on all issues, that all of us automatically applaud and stand behind each and every movie about Jesus (or that we all automatically accept other products that contain biblical characters, themes, or stories).

      Not every Christian saw the Gibson 'Passion' movie, and out of the ones who did see it, not all of them enjoyed it or approved of it.

      Some Christians who did see the Passion movie (especially Protestants and Baptists) thought that Gibson's pro-Roman Catholicism aspects of the "Passion" movie ruined it.

      Such Christians believed the movie was not a wholly, biblically- accurate description of Jesus and His life, mostly because of the Roman Catholic veneer in which the story was portrayed.

      July 23, 2010 at 1:11 am |
    • Daisy

      @SMTP, @Jason (and other critics of Mike):
      I don't think Mike's analogy was too far off base, so I have no idea why so many people jumped on Mike for criticizing part of Gary's post.

      Gary was basically saying the Bible is a bunch of trash on the basis of its old age, which is a weak argument because not everything that is old is necessarily useless, trash, inaccurate, invaluable, or stupid.

      July 23, 2010 at 1:14 am |
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.