well, doing a english rewrite, i found a article called "God in the Hands of Angry Sinners" and i said awsome! (i had to write about "sinners in the hands of an angry god" and "huswifery")
and i found this statement to be pretty interesting.
"In Gibson's film the union of the divine and human in Jesus is not explored or explicated. He is just a sponge for punishment. Which makes one wonder why so many call their viewing of the film a conversion experience. From what, or to what, are they being converted? From Christianity to philoflagellationism?"
-Garry Wills, "God in the Hands of Angry Sinners"
it would be cool to get a quote or two to put in my essay about this statment, so, anyone wanna argue against this?
*note, used word "interesting" lets keep racism on the sidelines*
and i found this statement to be pretty interesting.
"In Gibson's film the union of the divine and human in Jesus is not explored or explicated. He is just a sponge for punishment. Which makes one wonder why so many call their viewing of the film a conversion experience. From what, or to what, are they being converted? From Christianity to philoflagellationism?"
-Garry Wills, "God in the Hands of Angry Sinners"
it would be cool to get a quote or two to put in my essay about this statment, so, anyone wanna argue against this?
*note, used word "interesting" lets keep racism on the sidelines*
Comment