The Passion of Christ

[Ternian]

This has to be one of the most brilliant movies I think I have ever seen.

And I could not for the life of me see how this was anti-sematic...

[bacta]

As a Christian, I don't think I could handle all the violence they say is in it. I'll make myself see it anyway.

[Ternian]

It's violent - but not over the top. It's more sad than anything, and very emotionally draining. I don't think there were too many dry eyes in my watching.

[Silence]

Does Jesus die in this one?



I'll get it on DVD. I'm not really the subtitleomanic. :wink:

[Lords name in vain]

Does Jesus die in this one?

No, he gets medieval on some Roman asses.

[bacta]

It's violent - but not over the top. It's more sad than anything, and very emotionally draining. I don't think there were too many dry eyes in my watching.

That's the main reason why I don't want to see it. I don't want to come out of there feeling guilty because of all the stuff Jesus went through for me, but on the other hand, I think I need that. It's sad that I need a guilt trip to appretiate God.

[derek]

not to spoil the movie guys but jesus comes back to life and kills the romans by leaping into pontius pilate and destroying his code

[Zion]

As a Christian, I don't think I could handle all the violence they say is in it. I'll make myself see it anyway.

I think it's kind of funny that the violence is such a big deal to Christians. The Bible is one of the most graphic and sexually explicit pieces of work I've ever read. This stuff did happen to Jesus, and people (especially those who claim to believe in him) need to realize that.

It's about time someone depicted Jesus' life like the Bible does, IMO.

Being a Christian myself, I can't wait to see this movie.

[bacta]

As a Christian, I don't think I could handle all the violence they say is in it. I'll make myself see it anyway.

I think it's kind of funny that the violence is such a big deal to Christians. The Bible is one of the most graphic and sexually explicit pieces of work I've ever read. This stuff did happen to Jesus, and people (especially those who claim to believe in him) need to realize that.

It's about time someone depicted Jesus' life like the Bible does, IMO.

Being a Christian myself, I can't wait to see this movie.

Reading it in a book, especially the watered down versions that are mass produced is completely different than watching it in a movie.

Tony: I think we did, yea, and I think my step dad was pissed.

[Zion]

Reading it in a book, especially the watered down versions that are mass produced is completely different than watching it in a movie.

I don't think reading it is any different. Watering down the message doesn't change the fact that it happened. All it really does is change the way people view it. That's why there's so much controversy over this movie. No one realizes how bad Jesus was beaten to near death or how much pain and suffering he endured just to take a single breath while on the cross. If all you see is a fairy tale about a man that claimed he was the Son of God and was killed for it, the story loses it's impact.

[bacta]

I know what happened to Jesus, and the pain He went through, I know all of that by heart, but seeing it can only make it more real for me, and make a bigger impact. Maybe I'm one of those people who learns by seeing, I don't know, but from my Bible experiences, it's always been focus on His ressurection, not so much on the days before His death.

[Zion]

seeing it can only make it more real for me, and make a bigger impact.

I agree. And I don't think it'll take anything away.


I don't know, but from my Bible experiences, it's always been focus on His ressurection, not so much on the days before His death.

I think the resurrection is the whole key to Christianity, but a lot can be learned from the people that killed Jesus, and their reasons for doing so.


In my own experience, I've never really been part of a single church or denomination. I did have the opportunity to study the Bible book-by-book when I was a kid, so that might explain my reasoning...

[bacta]

Yea, they don't really focus a lot on who killed Jesus and why they did it in Sunday school when you are a kid. I think maybe taking a class on it or something would be better than going to church.

In other news.. fucking banned from JC again. I don't know why I even bothered to go back. Fucking cunts, why can't they just leave me alone.

[Ternian]

I didn't really come out of it feeling very religious or how Jesus died for me. I came out of the movie understanding how cruel people, and the times, were. The movie is really no more disturbing than watching the Jews being killed in concentration camp in WWII.

[bacta]

That does not sound like a kid's movie.

[Zion]

I didn't really come out of it feeling very religious or how Jesus died for me. I came out of the movie understanding how cruel people, and the times, were. The movie is really no more disturbing than watching the Jews being killed in concentration camp in WWII.

Does the movie not do a good job of explaining Jesus' story, or do you just have to know the story fairly well to pick up on it?


My boss is very deeply Catholic. He is bringing his kids (6, 9) along with 2 of his nephews (5, 7) and their father. From what I've read this is not a good idea.

I agree. Kids that young can stick with the watered down Sunday School stories until they're old enough to appreciate it.

[bacta]

I think (not quite sure), that two of the gospels mention that Pontius Pilot found Jesus to be innocent, but then an angry crowd who was there protested and wanted Jesus killed. Pilot then offered the crowd a choice. Either let a murderer named Barbaros go or let Jesus "The Messiah" go. The crowd wanted Barbaros set free, so then the Romans gave Jesus the punishment that Barbaros would have otherwise receieved.

That's the way it's depicted in that TV movie Jesus (http://imdb.com/title/tt0199232/) that came out in 99.

And yes, in Christianity who exactly killed Jesus is irrelevant, it's more about what His death meant for believers, and the fact that He came back as He said He would. Pilot was a ruthless Roman, yes, but to ignore the fact that Jewish priests wanted Jesus dead would be stupid. I really don't fucking get how the facts are anti semetic. Jewish people wanted Jesus crucified, and so did a lot of other people, so it's stupid to target one group and give them all the blame. I don't know, it's just fucking stupid in this day and age to call a movie anti semetic. Get the fuck over it.

[bacta]

Exactly what I was trying to say.

[Ternian]

Does the movie not do a good job of explaining Jesus' story, or do you just have to know the story fairly well to pick up on it?

You don't have to know Jesus' story - that's the beauty of it. It's all politics and hidden agendas, IMO - really no different to events that transpire today. Many interesting questions arise from this movie.

As for the Jews: this was the great schism that rocked the Jewish religion and the centre of this schism was the death of a man called Jesus. What I liked about the movie was the it showed the rift in the Jewish High Court, the pressure of the Emperor in Rome on the outer regions of the Empire, and Jesus' radical replies on his newly growing sect in this part of the Empire and its impact on the Roman Empire.

Oh yeah, there is NO WAY ever, I would take a kid to see this movie. If you want your kids to see a man tortured, you need your head checked out and social services in your life.

[Zion]

You don't have to know Jesus' story - that's the beauty of it. It's all politics and hidden agendas, IMO - really no different to events that transpire today. Many interesting questions arise from this movie.

As for the Jews: this was the great schism that rocked the Jewish religion and the centre of this schism was the death of a man called Jesus. What I liked about the movie was the it showed the rift in the Jewish High Court, the pressure of the Emperor in Rome on the outer regions of the Empire, and Jesus' radical replies on his newly growing sect in this part of the Empire and its impact on the Roman Empire.

Awesome stuff. I can't wait till this movie comes out here on base. (living on a Korean Air Force base sucks)

[SI]

I watched some documentary and it freaked me out that the guy who plays Jesus (tchnically) as the same initials and got hit by lightning while he was shooting on the cross. His ears smoked. Fucking weird.

His name is Jim Cavizel (sp) and he is.....wait for it......33!!!!

//plays Twilight Zone theme

[Zion]

His name is Jim Cavizel (sp) and he is.....wait for it......33!!!!

I think there are a few more unnecessary vowels in his name, but yeah that's wierd.

I also read that he got smacked by the whip a couple of times on accident. He had a pretty big gash in his back.

[SI]

Caveizel could be the correct spelling. He was also in Frequency and The Count of Monte Cristo.

[bacta]

Leno fucking sucks. He's so ball-less. Gibson talked more about the shit he's taken than Leno even asked. This movie has done well and it will continue to do well because it has such a big audience. Christians want to see it because it's their Lord, Jews want to see it because of the controversy, and everyone else wants to see it because of all the hype. I've only met one person so far who doesn't want to see it and that's my car loving "2Fast 2Furious is the best movie ever", best friend, and so I'm not hanging out with him this weekend.

BTW, did anyone see Sam Jackson on Conan, I missed it.

[Zidious]

Concerning the anti-Semitic nature of the movie, Christopher Hitchens is, as always, quite lucid:

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=20 ... EFC29D193C

[Kyyle K]

I just got back from seeing it and I enjoyed it. For the record, I am a devout Christian and while I did apprieciate the film because of my faith, it also stands on it's own artistic merits as well. The whole film is an emotional rollercoaster and portrays a fairly accurate retelling of the story according to Scripture. I also liked what happened after the crucifixion with the earthquake and the shock of the Jewish leaders at the tearing of the temple curtain.

What really got me was how Gibson also showed the more human side of Christ. Things such as showing Jesus building a table, taking a stumble as a child, and some of his teachings, really made Him seem more real and less of the larger than life figure which he has been shown as by some people. Having Mary and Mary Magdaline throughout the whole film was also a nice touch as it also added some more emotional depth to the film and made it so that it wasn't just one person's struggle, but the struggle of many: Mary as she sees her son get put to death in one of the most humiliating ways possible; Mary Magdaline as she sees a dear friend get killed; Peter for betraying his friend after he had said he would never betray Jesus; and Judas after his realization of just what he had done. Gibson did an excellent job in weaving all of these stories in with the main story of Christ's death and resurrection, and as a writer myself, I know how difficult it can be to work in one subplot, but managing to get multiple subplots in and still keep the focus on Christ is commendable to say the least.

As far as anti-Semitism is concerned, I didn't see any of it. If one wants to say the story is anti-Semitic, then so be it, but it's best they know that they accuse the right person, the authors of the Gospels (msot of whom were Jews themselves) and not Mel Gibson. This film could have gone with the anti-Semitic ball and ran with it, but it did not and opted to just stay true to the story as presented by the Gospels, thus negating any anti-Semitic themes in my mind.

The only thing I wasn't all too fond of was the excessive showing of violence. I know that what Christ went though wasn't a picnic by any means, but showing the actual flogging and lashing of Christ as it hit and tore into his skin was a bit much. It wasn't all that bad for me as I've seen far worse, but the overly sensitive are probably best to look away. I personally don't favor showing much violence as I've always been among the "it's scarier if they don't see it, yet know it happened" school of thought. However, it also does work to effectively show just what all He went through and endured for our salvation, so it can be justified to an extent, but this ought to be the exception and not the rule as this kind of violence is seen in far too many films today.

Overall I recommend this film and I plan on seeing it again. I've got a feeling that this film will end up in my dvd rack along with the dvd racks of millions. Of all of the films about Christ's death and resurrection, this by far outclasses them all.

[bacta]

What really got me was how Gibson also showed the more human side of Christ. Things such as showing Jesus building a table, taking a stumble as a child, and some of his teachings, really made Him seem more real and less of the larger than life figure which he has been shown as by some people.

That is what makes me want to see this so bad. (I still havn't ) I'm sorry but Jesus is not from the Old Testiment, he didn't burn buses and create great specticals, that's why I'm so sick of films making him into one. I'm glad this movie doesn't.

[Kyyle K]

What really got me was how Gibson also showed the more human side of Christ. Things such as showing Jesus building a table, taking a stumble as a child, and some of his teachings, really made Him seem more real and less of the larger than life figure which he has been shown as by some people.

That is what makes me want to see this so bad. (I still havn't ) I'm sorry but Jesus is not from the Old Testiment, he didn't burn buses and create great specticals, that's why I'm so sick of films making him into one. I'm glad this movie doesn't.

You'll be in for a treat. This film really excels in making Christ seem more like us than a lot of other films have.

[Zion]

Excellent review Kyyle!


Of all of the films about Christ's death and resurrection, this by far outclasses them all.

I'm lovin' it!

[SI]

Wasn't terribly impressed with your review, Fatboy, if you could even call it a review. I thought a pre-requisite for reviewing a movie was actually seeing the movie first, reacting to it - not basing your assumptions from others.
If you've read the bible - and I'll assume you have then you'll know what to expect. Read any of the gospels from the Garden of Gethsumane to the Ressurrection of the Christ and there you have it. Gibson hasn't thrown in the "buckets of blood" to line his pockets anymore than Spielberg when he filmed the storming at Normandy. Graphic violence is as much a part of war as it is in the final hours of Jesus' life. Why gloss it over?
What you also failed to mention was the political standings of the day. Why did the Jews persecute their leader? Why did the Romans believe Jesus was innocent but order the crucifixion anyway?
The title of the film was warning enough that there would be a great deal of suffering and while a lot of the film is graphic in it's detail, there is a very powerful story in there.

I think the Pope summed it up best, after he viewed it, when he said:
"It is, how it was."

[Ternian]

Fatboy,

I can understand your view point from someone who hasn't seen the film, but it is flawed by the fact you haven't seen it and are basing your editorial on other people's opinions. It sounds ignorant to me to write an editorial on something you haven't seen - almost tabloid-ish.

I was raised Catholic, even though I don't believe in any gods now, and I have seen crucifictions before in movies - hell, I see them every Easter in the Phillipines where people get nailed to the cross in rememberance of Jesus. I have never flinched at these, and I didn't flinch in the Passion of the Christ either. The violence is far less disturbing then, say, Gladiator, where a women is cut in half, or part of the history of my nation of convicts who were flogged regularly. It's not really the violence that makes PotC; its the emotion that is captured by those around Jesus.

I don't agree that the movie is like 'Saving Private Ryan' because that was a war declared by nations. It wasn't someone persecuted because of political and religious intentions.

I also don't agree that this is a good film simply because it tells a graphic account of a religious leader's death. Stories of Jesus have been told before. I think it is a good film because it captures the emotions of the people around Jesus (malice, hate, love, compassion) - and that is what I think your editorial lacks to understand, and the reason I believe people are seeing this movie - to experience it. I do not agree that the violence is the point of the story. If that is all someone got out of the movie, then they have missed a major part of the story.

I watched this movie from an historical view point and I don't really get your editorial as a whole, although, if I was to look at it from a religious view, I would agree with you on your 'belief' points. I do firmly believe that the movie has dusted the crap of the historical part of the stories and brought them back to their original intents - a bit like restoring an old film whose original colours have been revealed after being dulled by dirt.

If you think this movie is solely about a violent death, you are mistaken. But you will never know if you only base your opinions on others and never experience it for yourself.

[Ternian]

It depends on how you view it - Is the glass half full or half empty? I saw it as an historical movie about the death of religious figure. You seem to imply it is a religious movie simply about violence.

I am unsure whether or not you are against violence in movies in general. Perhaps you could clarify? There are far more violent movies out there than this one. The question you should be asking is; Why does it affect people so? That is what I asked myself from a non-religious stand point. I personally didn't find this movie overtly violent. I found it more disturbing because of the emotion captured by those in the story.

How is it my "opinion" that, outside of a couple flashbacks, approximately 90 percent of this movie is focused SOLELY on Jesus' torture and death?

Well, the movie doesn't focus entirely on the torture and death. Yes, it is there, but a lot of the time is spent on those around Jesus - Mary, James, High Priests, Herod, Pontious and his wife etc. I think people may remember the violence more than the times when the camera was on others, simply because of the realistic portrayl of persecution in Roman times.

However, 90% of this movie is NOT torture nor death, at the most I would say about 55% and most of that is in the 30% whipping scenes, 15% crucifiction, 5% trial, 5% others.

I guess until you see the movie, anything you say about it is opinion, no?

Of course the people around him show emotion--they've invested into this man, and they're watching him die.

The views portrayed represent a variety of people's thoughts - not just pro-Jesus. Many times during the movie I would think what I would have done if I was certain characters in thier positions. I think a good movie makes you think, and this did just that.

[Ternian]

I think I fail to understand your stance a bit, Fatboy. It seems you are saying that you don't want to see the movie because it deals with Jesus (who's story you are already familiar with), and because it uses violence to pull in crowds?

I've seen many tales of Jesus on the big screen before, and I am not religious, as I mentioned before; so why did I feel emotionally drained after it? Why do I feel for all these characters when I have never felt that in a 'Jesus' movie before?

Yes, the tale is old and adding graphic violence could be a way to pull in crowds to a well worn tale. But does that make the movie bad?

I am trying to reason that out under your views so I can understand where you are coming from.

[SI]

Fatboy wrote:

That's funny--from all accounts, reviews, breakdowns and analyses I've read--neither does the movie. As a matter of fact, it's this bubble the movie is set in, with almost no context and no help as far as story goes AS A MOVIE that also deters me.

Well, in fact, the movie does. If you've read reviews that state there was no political agenda shown in this movie then they need their head read, or at the very least they need to watch it again. It's painfully obvious. Hell, one of the biggest outcries is that the movie carries anti-sematic messages. So, yeah, the politics of the day are there for all to see and were one of the highlights of the film for me - how the people around Christ reacted and their reasonings.

An audience member has to know the story and the ins and outs, because the movie won't tell you shit. It's all stuff you already know.

You've kinda answered yourself there. Yes, this is shit we already know. I don't have to read the bible to know what happened. The audience doesn't need to know the ins and outs because the movie explained enough to fill in the gaps, IMO.

...it's not bringing anything new to the table. What IS new--is that Jesus gets really bloodied the fuck up. And that's it.

No. While the torture scenes are brutal and intense it wasn't excessive IMO. While the book may not go into graphic detail one can only summize what would have happened. Too many eye witnesses to discount. History tells us what the Romans were like at dealing out punishment. What's to say Jesus' suffering was worse than what was in the movie. We'll never know...

Anyhoo, it sounds to me like the graphic betrayal of Jesus' death is what is keeping you from this movie. If the movie had dealt with other aspects of Jesus' last 12 hours on earth, and not solely portraying his betrayal and torture, would you have seen it?

[bacta]

I still have yet to see this movie.

Today a lunch I listened to a speaker talk about The Passion and Aramaic.

From my journal:
- When Jesus is on the Cross, He says “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” Which directly translates into "My God, my God, why have you spared me?" Like, Jesus was saying why have you allowed me to live so long. The cool part about it is, that in any Bible, any language, it has the Aramaic version followed by the local language translation which in our case is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" So that translation is not directly correct, however, it is what Jesus meant. Jesus said those words in the same tune as David's Psalm 22 so that the people would make that connection. Even to the last, He was our teacher. AWESOME.
- Another cool thing was that old idiom that goes something like it's as easy for a rich man to get into Heaven as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Well in Aramaic the word for camel, gamlo, has another meaning which is like a large rope or line, so it's funny how a different meaning of a large rope passing through the eye of a needle, is equally as ridiculous as a camel.
- The last thing, I'm gonna say is that Mike talked about the word Behlehem. The Aramaic translation of "I am the Bread of Life" uses the same root word for the city Bethlehem. Basically Bethlehem translates into house of bread, which is interesting since Jesus says He is the Bread of Life.

[Ternian]

Faith is belief in something that can't be proved--and yet this movie seems to want to do nothing more than PROVE that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TO JESUS.

Jesus is a historical figure that is known to exist. There is no faith needed to believe he existed. The rest of it is left unexplained - which most would call 'miracles.' MG never tried to explain these which means no ones faith is altered. The bible is only some fact and mostly fiction.

And it says something even more about our faith that what is getting us in the theater isn't an uplifting message, isn't a movie about the miracles, the love, the compassion--but a movie full of anguish and pain and people suffering, backbiting, betraying and clamoring for death.

Sorry, but the movie does no such thing. Miracles are left as miracles and it is only your faith that will take you further; love - there is, compassion - there is.

It's sort of distasteful, to me.

It seems no more distasteful than doing a movie on the Nazi war profiteer Oscar Schindler.

[BOBAFETISH]

Fatboy, I liked your article, but the focus on his suffering was needed. Otherwise you are re-making all the other Jesus movies.Only by seeing the horrors he endured when he could have opted out by calling down some lightning or angels or whatever can we really get a picture of what he did for us. (I'm agnostic actually, but I'm playing Jesus's advocate..ha! Jesus's advocate! get it!...well, maybe not).And only by showing a good chunk of it can it stick in the minds of today's ADD audiences. Anyway, the movie(had you seen it) first shows Jesus crying, knowing what's coming. Then they show him as a human, horsing around with his Mom, falling down as a little kid...this is what makes the suffering worth watching, because the audience can really get a feel for what Jesus endured for us and our sins, and know he suffered as much as we would have. It is this act of sacrifice that made Jesus more than just another prophet. Well, that and his dad being God, I guess.

I didn't find it anti-semetic because the Jews killed Jesus in the movie- they did kill Jesus, as would any group in power that had a rablle-rouser like him around. It was the way the Jews were depicted, dirty and snearing, short and evil, wearing eye-patches, while Jesus was blonde, tall, and Anglo looking, clearly meant to show him as someone different from the Jews, despite the fact that he was one.

I read your article and thought you had some valid points, but I have to agree that it is a good idea to see a movie before reviewi..I mean commenting on the impact of it. Maybe not entirely neccessary as yours was an interesting read(as usual- I read you and Crazy Old Man all the time at Sombrero), but a good idea anyway.

[Zion]

I doubt Jesus meant for his death to be a five dollar matinee entertainment. Faith is belief in something that can't be proved--and yet this movie seems to want to do nothing more than PROVE that THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TO JESUS. If it's supposed to be a lesson, okay--the Bible should be enough there. But like I said--most people are having their most religious experience in a Movie Theater. That says something pretty profound about our society and how far downhill our faith has gone.

You're focusing on the negative, Fatboy.

If people are having their most religious experience in a movie theater, then (a) this movie isn't just about a distateful crucifixion, and (b) people are experiencing a part of Christianity they have never experienced before.

Movies are one of the biggest influences on our lives today (sheep like us are a perfect example). If someone decides to use this medium for something other than entertainment, great. It's one thing to read about an event in a Book written 2000 years ago. It's another to experience it visually and audibly on a medium very familiar to us.

[SI]

pfft.

he gets shot by a shotgun and has his hand blown off.

whoopty fucken doo doo.

[BOBAFETISH]

It's pretty harsh. I usually laugh at movie violence(not get aroused by it), but I found myself squirming a bit. It's pretty unrelenting, as violence goes, without being over the top like a Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street, where it's so violent it becomes cartoonish.

[SI]

It's all presented in a pretty fucking cold-blooded way to me, and I like to beat off to pain4. I'm wondering if Christ's torture is as unsettling in this movie, or if it just looks like a big ball of goofy, unrealistic shit.

Graphically realistic - not cartoonish at all. In fact it's the realism which makes Robocop look like a 3 stooges skit.

[Zidious]

... people are experiencing a part of Christianity they have never experienced before.

Yeah, the mythical part.

KUWAIT CITY (AP)--A top Shiite cleric on Saturday urged Kuwait to let Mel Gibson's controversial film ``The Passion of the Christ,'' be shown in this conservative Muslim state because it ``reveals crimes committed by Jews against Christ.''

Just lovely.

[SI]

The middle east would make a great car park.

[SI]

The middle east would make a great car park.

I generalised here and I hope I didn't offend too much. There's a few girls here at work who come from this area, and in particular Kuwait, and she's great and pretty hot too.

[SithDewd]

It would be a cool place if not for all the religion and what not.

[Kyyle K]

I don't have a problem with the Middle East or any other region of the world, just the arsehats who populate the region and all other regions in the world.

And I agree with ya, SI, some of those Mid Eastern ladies are quite attractive. I dated a Lebanese girl in high school and she was one of the most beautiful ladies I've ever seen. Even now, some ten years later, I kick myself for not continuing our relationship even after she moved.

[BOBAFETISH]

I also know some Arabic people. The reason I got to know and like them is they had the sense(Sam Kinison obligatory rip-off) to move out of the FUCKING DESERT.

To stay in that fucking pile of dust and sand, and risk getting your hands cut off for stealing water, or having your daughters sexual organs cut off to keep them from enjoying sex must be the most horrible thing in the world. The place is barbaric, and hasn't changed in thousands of years.

Combine that with the majority there blaming their miserable existence on the US(which is ludicrous because they've been in the same boat for years), and actively praying and/or working for our destruction, and I hope you'll understand why being too politically correct to make a camel joke is not a priority for me.

Bacta- Sorry you never liked me. Of course, I don't have a fucking clue as to who you are. So go fuck yourself.

[SI]

ok, let's leave it at that and move back onto topic, which of course is Gibson's biblical tale depicting the last hours on Earth for Jesus Christ.

[bacta]

It would be a cool place if not for all the religion and what not.

Without the Religion? If it weren't for the Middle East, religion as we know it today would be completely different. I suppose you don't care about this Chewbs, being the pagan that you are (:wink:) but for me, the Middle East is a huge part of my faith, and I hope some day to learn more about Christianity in the East.

[SithDewd]

It would be a cool place if not for all the religion and what not.

Without the Religion? If it weren't for the Middle East, religion as we know it today would be completely different. I suppose you don't care about this Chewbs, being the pagan that you are (:wink:) but for me, the Middle East is a huge part of my faith, and I hope some day to learn more about Christianity in the East.

Let me clarify my statement.

It would be a cool place if not for all that organized religion.