Saved!

[ash]

Saved!... we talked a bit about Saved! in Bible class today. I only heard negative stuff about it from friends... it's just too close for comfort in my "christian school."


Saw Gattaca last night. Whoa. It has been a few years since I've seen it, and I'm surprised at how much wittiness is in that movie.  

[Vlad!]

Gattaca is a great movie. Don't want to ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it, but the encounter between Hawke's character and the doctor near the very end is incredible.

I haven't seen Saved!, but I think a lot of people at your school could stand to see it--parts of it probably do hit home, and I think that's the intent of the film. The director isn't the only one who is disgusted with people who use Christianity as an excuse to spread hate.

[Aaron]

I thought Saved! was boring because of the acting (especially Mandy Moore...barf), but it has a good message.  Too bad most Christians are too ignorant and hypersensitive to actually find out the moral of the story

[danny316]

On Saved!, i thought they should have tackled the issues more all-around (Where was the abortion debate?).

As for my comment that it's out of date....the top reason people make fun of evangelical groups now isn't because of stuff like the move, but because many people say voting Bush is voting God. Thankfully, soon they'll forget the election again and find something else overly hypocritical and idiotic about us to pick at.

Anyway, i thought the acting was alright. Mandy's character seemed pretty believable from where i was sitting, but i thought some of the other characters weren't as well developed. I can't tell if that's bad writing or bad acting, someone more film-literate would have to fill me in.

Dad rented Shrek 2, I'll be watching that next.

[Josh]

A few thoughts regarding Saved!:

I recently saw the film for the second time and need to revise my review of it quite a bit. I still think it makes some excellent and much-needed jabs at the naive world of broad evangelicalism. And Vlad! is absolutely correct when he says that pholks at ash's school could stand to see the film. I went to the same high school, and found Saved! to be a sickeningly accurate portrayal.

I applaud the film for these strengths. And yet, I am more and more troubled by its weaknesses. For one thing, its message of tolerance goes way too far, and its acceptance of misbehaviors such as premarital sex and homosexuality is extremely bothersome.

Additionally, I am offended by its stereotypical portrayal of Christians. There really aren't any examples of loving, Christ-like Christians in the whole film, so, consequently, I think themovie could be very damaging to the church when it is viewed by non-believers, especially those who already have a dim view of Christianity.

I need to downshift my B+ rating to the B-/C+ range.

[Aaron]

Additionally, I am offended by its stereotypical portrayal of Christians. There really aren't any examples of loving, Christ-like Christians in the whole film, so, consequently, I think themovie could be very damaging to the church when it is viewed by non-believers, especially those who already have a dim view of Christianity.

I

This is how I see that aspect:  Christians are portrayed in Saved! the way that the writer/director, etc.  has experienced them and wants to shed some light on the hypocritical lifestyle that many Christians lead.  

[Josh]

Additionally, I am offended by its stereotypical portrayal of Christians. There really aren't any examples of loving, Christ-like Christians in the whole film, so, consequently, I think themovie could be very damaging to the church when it is viewed by non-believers, especially those who already have a dim view of Christianity.

I

This is how I see that aspect:  Christians are portrayed in Saved! the way that the writer/director, etc.  has experienced them and wants to shed some light on the hypocritical lifestyle that many Christians lead.

I don't disagree with that.

But it doesn't excuse the film for being an unfair and dishonest portrayal of evangelical Christianity.

[Guest]

Additionally, I am offended by its stereotypical portrayal of Christians. There really aren't any examples of loving, Christ-like Christians in the whole film, so, consequently, I think themovie could be very damaging to the church when it is viewed by non-believers, especially those who already have a dim view of Christianity.

I

This is how I see that aspect:  Christians are portrayed in Saved! the way that the writer/director, etc.  has experienced them and wants to shed some light on the hypocritical lifestyle that many Christians lead.

I don't disagree with that.

But it doesn't excuse the film for being an unfair and dishonest portrayal of evangelical Christianity.

What about pastor Skip's son?

[Josh]

Additionally, I am offended by its stereotypical portrayal of Christians. There really aren't any examples of loving, Christ-like Christians in the whole film, so, consequently, I think themovie could be very damaging to the church when it is viewed by non-believers, especially those who already have a dim view of Christianity.

I

This is how I see that aspect:  Christians are portrayed in Saved! the way that the writer/director, etc.  has experienced them and wants to shed some light on the hypocritical lifestyle that many Christians lead.

I don't disagree with that.

But it doesn't excuse the film for being an unfair and dishonest portrayal of evangelical Christianity.

What about pastor Skip's son?

He comes the closest of any character, to be sure, but the film downplays his supposed Christian faith more and more as the movie progresses, until, by the end of the film, everyone has pretty much lost track of the fact that he's a Christian.

They also portray him getting into other kinds of misbehavior, which doesn't really help matters.

So I guess he kinda fits, but he's not a clear enough example to redeem the movie from its narrow-minded stereotypes.

[Vlad!]

Thought I should split this off, though I'm sure we already have a topic about Saved! lying around somewhere.

Side note: although evangelicalism is a word, it offends me.  

[danny316]

Unfair? If we're going to act like stupid hypocrites, we deserve to be called on it. I don't think any lines were crossed, except to sterilize the thing too much. We'd be much more cruel to the pregnant teenager, and we'd also preach pro-life stuff to her the entire time while judging her for her mistake.

Anyway, I will not complain about the alleged stereotyping because generally - we're even worse. I'm not going to say this is making Christians look bad here, because i think this movie is making us look good.

Josh - is there something wrong with accepting homosexuality and premarital sex? They both happen, and i think we should be willing to forgive both. Generally, Christians disagree with me on this will treat "gays" and "whores" terribly, which again, was toned down in the movie. I'd think that accepting it would fall under the idea of His grace - i mean, Jesus wasn't exactly railing on Mary Magdalene for being a prostitute, He accepted her and encouraged her to follow Him anyway.

*watches this go off into theological discussion*

[Vlad!]

The point that I think Josh is trying to make is that the movie appears to say Christians are wrong in condemning these things. Christ did accept prostitutes, but he also said "go forth and sin no more." There's a difference between forgiveness and acceptance.

And I don't know what subset of Christians you've been exposed to, but in general I think the film IS a caricature. From the previews I've seen and the discussions I've read, compared to even my own 14 years' experience of the often superficial, hypocritical, and legalistic Christianity in a private Christian school the portrayal becomes somewhat extreme. I admit there are people who are completely out there and would view Saved! as an instructional documentary for young Christians, but by and large I think Josh is right: it is a stereotype and a caricature.

[Josh]

Unfair? If we're going to act like stupid hypocrites, we deserve to be called on it.

It's unfair because it portrays ALL Christians as acting this way, which we don't. It also fails to acknowledge that, as fallen men, we are ALL hypocrites-- non-believers and believers alike.

We'd be much more cruel to the pregnant teenager, and we'd also preach pro-life stuff to her the entire time while judging her for her mistake.

Again, this is a generalization that applies to MANY Christians, but not ALL Christians.

I'm not going to say this is making Christians look bad here, because i think this movie is making us look good.

Danny, I am deeply troubled by the fact that, apparently, you don't have a single positive Christian role model in your life. (And, if you do, you apparently don't think too highly of them, for some reason). Are you implying that your entire church body behaves like the kids in Saved!? Your parents (if they're Christians)? The rest of us Phorum participants?

Josh - is there something wrong with accepting homosexuality and premarital sex? They both happen, and i think we should be willing to forgive both.

Yes, there is something wrong with that. We should accept the sinner, but not the sin. And acceptance and forgiveness aren't really the same thing; just because we forgive them doesn't mean we have to condone their bad behavior.

 

[danny316]

The point that I think Josh is trying to make is that the movie appears to say Christians are wrong in condemning these things. Christ did accept prostitutes, but he also said "go forth and sin no more." There's a difference between forgiveness and acceptance.

And I don't know what subset of Christians you've been exposed to, but in general I think the film IS a caricature. From the previews I've seen and the discussions I've read, compared to even my own 14 years' experience of the often superficial, hypocritical, and legalistic Christianity in a private Christian school the portrayal becomes somewhat extreme. I admit there are people who are completely out there and would view Saved! as an instructional documentary for young Christians, but by and large I think Josh is right: it is a stereotype and a caricature.

True. We don't tend to do that though, and i think they should have shown that in the film. We like to get mad at the idea that anyone could possibly be like that. I don't know why people don't just accept the way things are and move on towards forgiveness from there....but they usually don't.

I've been seeing a lot of rather crazy Christians lately. Usually the whackiest are on CMC, with the next stupidest set being the ones my dad hears about in the news. Still, i think that it wasn't even over-the-top enough to be a good charicature, although i can see how it was trying for that. Even the stereotypes seem tame from where i'm sitting.  

[danny316]

It's unfair because it portrays ALL Christians as acting this way, which we don't. It also fails to acknowledge that, as fallen men, we are ALL hypocrites-- non-believers and believers alike.

 

The majority of us do act that way, so the stereotype is easy to draw, and it almost seems fitting these days. Sure, there are Christians out there who don't act like that, but they're the exception, not the rule.

Yes, there is something wrong with that. We should accept the sinner, but not the sin. And acceptance and forgiveness aren't really the same thing; just because we forgive them doesn't mean we have to condone their bad behavior.

Whoever said anything about condoning it? The movie seemed to imply that they had accepted it and tried to move on from there, but it didn't do a good job of showing that at all. I'd say that condemning that kind of behavior isn't as important as trying to share Christ's love, so i don't think that it was overly accepting at all.  

[bloop]

A few thoughts regarding Saved!:
I applaud the film for these strengths. And yet, I am more and more troubled by its weaknesses. For one thing, its message of tolerance goes way too far, and its acceptance of misbehaviors such as premarital sex and homosexuality is extremely bothersome.

Those don't seem like weaknesses but philosophical differences.  Personally, when I see films, I try to separate the two.

I still want to see the movie.

[Josh]

A few thoughts regarding Saved!:
I applaud the film for these strengths. And yet, I am more and more troubled by its weaknesses. For one thing, its message of tolerance goes way too far, and its acceptance of misbehaviors such as premarital sex and homosexuality is extremely bothersome.

Those don't seem like weaknesses but philosophical differences.  Personally, when I see films, I try to separate the two.

I still want to see the movie.

To a certain extent, so do I, but I draw the line when a film is blatantly promoting misbehvior, as this one does.

The majority of us do act that way, so the stereotype is easy to draw, and it almost seems fitting these days. Sure, there are Christians out there who don't act like that, but they're the exception, not the rule.

But it's still not fair to those of us who are exceptions...

Whoever said anything about condoning it?

The movie did. In the final act, one character basically says that homosexuals are not living a sinful lifestyle, but simply celebrating the fact that God made them different than others. And that's a bunch of crap.

[bethany]

Bloop does raise an interesting point...do you have to agree with the message of a piece of art for it to be good art?  Do the conclusions a movie draws have to be the ones I draw for me to appreciate it/say it's good?

I'm intrigued as to what y'all think about this. I am guessing Josh would say that you do have to agree with the ultimate message for it to be good (e.g. his comments on Saved!, his F grade of Dogville despite saying it's an artistically worthy film, etc.) It sounds like Bloop is saying that it's an agree-to-disagree thing, not an inherent weakness of art.

What say you?

[Vlad!]

A fair question, bethany. I don't expect movies to line up exactly with what I believe, well, pretty much any of the time. In fact, I have enjoyed greatly movies that come to what I would call the wrong conclusion (or don't come to any conclusion at all). But when a movie seems designed specifically to make a statement about something (as Saved! seems to have been), and one doesn't agree with that statement, I think it injures the enjoyability of that movie. For example, I dislike Michael Moore and disagree with his political standpoint, so I probably woudn't enjoy sitting through Fahrenheit 9/11.  

[ash]

The majority of us do act that way, so the stereotype is easy to draw, and it almost seems fitting these days. Sure, there are Christians out there who don't act like that, but they're the exception, not the rule.

We should force ourselves (if we are Christians) to be the exception... we should stop talking about it and start doing exceptional things. Start making a difference... you know, get off the couch and start doing selfless things for others. anyway... most of the day I hear hypocritical people banter about the other hypocrites... doesn't really make much sense...

[bethany]

Vlad! : Good points. For the record, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely trying to think through this.

The Michael Moore thing is a bit different to me, because his films are (purportedly) documentaries. Then again, maybe it's not so different. I greatly enjoyed Bowling For Columbine - I found it to be very entertaining, well-made, and while I didn't agree with a great deal of Moore's conclusions, I did agree with some of them. I did not enjoy Fahrenheit 9/11 - It was not entertaining, poorly crafted, thinly-veiled hateful propoganda.

Hmm. I'm trying to think of examples to figure out how I think about this issue. I guess I would probably say that I am bothered by conclusions I don't agree with, when they're condoned in films, but I don't necessarily think it makes it a bad piece of art. For example: The Piano, Ocean's 11, Chicago, etc.

*ponders*

[danny316]

The majority of us do act that way, so the stereotype is easy to draw, and it almost seems fitting these days. Sure, there are Christians out there who don't act like that, but they're the exception, not the rule.

We should force ourselves (if we are Christians) to be the exception... we should stop talking about it and start doing exceptional things. Start making a difference... you know, get off the couch and start doing selfless things for others. anyway... most of the day I hear hypocritical people banter about the other hypocrites... doesn't really make much sense...

Amen, preach it sista!
 
As for the other debate starting here, i'd have to say i like disagreement sometimes. I'd even go as far as to say i'd rather see someone completely disagree with me than somewhat agree with me but miss the point. I'd say the movie somewhat agreed with me but missed the point - the point it made wasn't that we need to try harder as Christians (and incorporate some tolerance as a part of that), but rather, that faith is entirely meaningless and should be pushed behind tolerance.

Anyway, i didn't think it was a great movie either - it could have been much more over-the-top and a little shorter without much more effort. It could have been worse on the agreement point too - what if it said Christianity is true, but that tolerance never is? I'd have been upset if it said that killing gay people was a good thing to do.  

[Vlad!]

Re: movies that reach conclusions that the viewer doesn't agree with

I, too, have been trying to think of examples of this (the Michael Moore thing was the first one that came to mind; it does indeed have its flaws as an example).

Other things I came up with:

The X-Men movies were very enjoyable, even though their premise depends on a refinement of the evolution theory called punctuated equilibrium that I don't believe in. This is not the greatest example since I don't think the movies are preaching either punctuated equilibrium or evolution in general, any more than the Spider-Man movies actually suggest that being bitten by a spider will give you super powers.

Several movies I have seen seem to ask questions that they don't really answer. The movie Collateral is probably the most recent example, though perhaps not the best. It, and others, seem to ask questions beneath the surface such as "what really is the purpose of life?" and "why do we do what we do?" In the end, the question is either left up in the air, brushed aside by a hollywood ending (as it was in Collateral), or answered by something trite like "life is what you make of it" or "follow your dreams."

Finally, I resort to a hypothetical example, mostly because my moviegoing experience is somewhat limited. If there was a movie about a young Christian who, through the teachings of science and the application of his mind, decides that there is no God and turns to a hedonistic or nihilistic lifestyle, I cannot think of any amount of artistry that would make this movie palatable to me. I do not object to propaganda in movies, as long as the propaganda (as in Gattaca with eugenics and gene manipulation or even X-Men with tolerance and civil rights) is secondary to the story and fairly subtly played. But if the movie embodies propaganda that goes against something I strongly believe, I think it would bother me enough that my enjoyment would be hindered as a result.

[bloop]

F grade of Dogville despite saying it's an artistically worthy film

I haven't seen "Dogville", but I would never award an F grade after granting that the film is artistically worthy in my estimation.  I do know that much.

I think I just try to think of movies in the philosophical or theological sense on a different strand than whether it serves an artistic good, and no amount of philosophical disagreement is likely to make downgrade a film that's otherwise excellent to such a low grade (I'm sure you can come up with an extreme example, but they aren't really material to the modern mainstream film industry).

With this particular movie, I can't help but wonder if the exaggeration of evangelical Christians (which, face it, deserve some lamthingying) isn't just a by-product of its genre (comedy).  A potential philosophical pitfall in comedy is it does tend toward gross overexaggeration, and it's very rarely fair to groups of people, so I usually don't try to apply to myself because I know it is speaking in generalities, played for laughs.

[Josh]

If my movies are going to say something philosophical or theological, I like it to have some merit for me.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Sometimes a film arrives at conclusions that I dislike, but it prompts me to ask so many important questions and wrestle with so many big issues that it is still an edifying film for me. A couple of recent examples that come to mind are Hero and I Heart Huckabees.

But sometimes a film arrives at conclusions that are, for me, spiritual poison. They leave me feeling disgusted and sickened. Dogville made me physically ill because I found its view of Jesus Christ to be so offensive. Saved! offers some insight, but it also offends me because of the stereotypes and assumptions is makes about Christians, a group that I myself am a member of. The Notebook had the nerve to equate true love with irresponsible, reckless affairs, and it portrayed marriage in such a negative light that I left the theatre angry and depressed.

So its a pretty fine line for me.

[bloop]

I know what you're saying, Josh, and I'm not saying you're wrong or anything.  I just try to remove my own philosophical judgments from films, and music for that matter, perhaps in response to the fact that I see we have enough moral watchdogs, many of whom aren't nearly as perceptive at the movies as you are (and whose morals are slightly skewed politically anyway).  I think of nearly everything in direct contrast with those particular "reviewers" (and you know who I'm talking about).

[Josh]

I know exactly who you're talking about, and can hardly blame you.  

And I don't have any poblems with your approach either, bloop. So long as you're aware of a film's philosophical implications, I don't care about how that affects your enjoyment of the movie.

Personally, I rather like the Decent Films rating system: A rating for the film's craftsmanship, a rating for its moral and spiritual value, and then an overall recommendability rating. That makes a lot of sense to me.

[bethany]

Personally, I rather like the Decent Films rating system: A rating for the film's craftsmanship, a rating for its moral and spiritual value, and then an overall recommendability rating. That makes a lot of sense to me.

I think that probably makes the most sense.  Because otherwise it's not really an "objective" (as objective as an review/critique is) grade of the movie, it's just a "how it made me feel" grade, and that's not helpful to someone reading a review.

If I read a review I want to know primarily if it is artistically worth spending time on, and only secondarily what the reviewer thought of the philosophy of the movie.  

[bloop]

I like Decent Films, too, but it seems like the moral/spiritual value has a bit more weight than the artistic there whereas I would rather that be reversed.  Still, rating them both separately like that can help me deduce my own "overall recommendability".

[Josh]

You know, I've been thinking about this question of how philosophy and morality should come into play when evaluating films, and I'm interested in posing this question over at the A&F board, just for giggles.

Should be fun...  

[worldofcm]

Here's my take.  There were times I cringed at some of the stuff in this movie (particularly the "speaking in tongues" and Mandy's "song"), but I thought the movie made some really nice points.

However, I'm very upset at the fact that Danny keeps chiming in this bull that this is the MAJORITY of Christians.  That's hogwash.  I don't see that kind of attitude and hypocrisy where I'm sitting.  My church body doesn't act this way, nor did the last one that I attended in a different city.  Did some people act this way?  Sure.  One bad name can leave a bad image about EVERYONE.

I don't like macaroni and cheese.  I got sick off of a bad batch one time.  Does that mean that all macaroni and cheese is gross and nasty?  No.  In fact, most probably are very good and taste wonderful.  But to me, they are all nasty due to one bad serving.

Get my point?

[Brett]

I recently watched Saved, and I don't really know how to take it. There were a lot of parts that were kinda disturbing to me, the way Mandy acted in the movie was just bothersome i guess...maybe it's just me. It just really bothers me to see how people can judge people like she did in the movie, and think that it's her place to change the person herself....??...

I think that if some non-christians watched it, they would probably think that christians do act that way all the time, which is not cool at all. But on the other hand it made some good points too, so i don't know about it yet.

[ash]

However, I'm very upset at the fact that Danny keeps chiming in this bull that this is the MAJORITY of Christians. That's hogwash. I don't see that kind of attitude and hypocrisy where I'm sitting. My church body doesn't act this way, nor did the last one that I attended in a different city. Did some people act this way? Sure. One bad name can leave a bad image about EVERYONE.

I guess it depends on where you live and the Christians you are surrounded by. Where I'm at... Christianity is based purely on knowledge and mercy (greatly taken out of proportion)... and of course "warm fuzzies"/feelings. What a Religion. What about God? That must make Him sick or sad. I don't know, but I can't imagine Him being pleased when He gives us His presence and we go on living for that feeling again...never stepping out of our boxes and out into His world. Being a Christian involves obedience and serving the Lord SELFLESSLY. In other words, it's not about how i feel or where I'm going. It's all about Jesus. Instead of gaining knowledge without actively applying it, we need to DO. I think the majority of Christians act like they do in the movie Saved!, whether it be direct with their actions or more under the surface (heart issue) by the way they think.

I doubt that made any sense  

[danny316]

However, I'm very upset at the fact that Danny keeps chiming in this bull that this is the MAJORITY of Christians.  That's hogwash.  I don't see that kind of attitude and hypocrisy where I'm sitting.  My church body doesn't act this way, nor did the last one that I attended in a different city.  Did some people act this way?  Sure.  One bad name can leave a bad image about EVERYONE.

Do you realize how entertaining that sounds coming from you to where i'm sitting?

I think it's safe to say that none of us realize quite how bad we are, but i think it's also safe to say that we're all in pretty sorry shape when it comes to acting like good Christians.  

[Vlad!]

You have to understand the gradations of the thing, danny. Yes, most of us are hypocrites in one way or another. Sometimes, we do fail to show love, or are so caught up in the words and the rules we forget the people. But those portrayed in Saved! have not overcome this at all. They are the epitome of the dysfunctional Christian, and though I certainly have seen some of this in the world around me, I have also seen a lot of people who have overcome it. I'm not saying that most Christians (or any Christians) are perfect, or that we "get it right" all of the time, but some of us try to show love and compassion and, perhaps just as importantly, realize that we're flawed.  

[dgp11776]

I personally get sick of hearing the evangelical Christians get bashed.  Guess what?  I consider myself to be an evangelical Christian.  On Sunday night at 6:00, I will be preaching for 30 minutes at my church (Hickory Gospel Hall, a non-denominational, evangelical Christian church) in what is titled a Gospel Meeting.  The whole point of the service is to tell people how they can be saved.  I will mention sin, judgment, and the Cross.  A lot of words are thrown around concerning people like us, such as Bible-thumpers or "hell-fire & brimstone preachers."  I get tired of hearing about it.  Most of the time, it comes from people that, while Christians, show little fruit in their lives for the Kingdom.  They don't want to "cram the message down people's throats."  While I see the point of that at times (like sidewalk preaching, which consists mostly of yelling out things to passing strangers), I think a lot of that reasoning is just a copout for lazy Christians.  Which is easier to do:  1) blatently tell my friends, co-workers, and neighbors about the Gospel, or 2) keep my mouth shut and "let me life show it."  You know what I think?  I think #2 should only be the standard when it comes to strangers.  When it comes to friends, co-workers, and neighbors, it should be support for #1...my life should prove what I claim to be.  I just find it sad that there is all of this finger-pointing going on, all of this discussion going on, and all this "boy, those evangelicals are wackos" going on when, let's face it, one of our friends could be in Hell tomorrow.    

[Josh]

Here's the rub: OF COURSE Christians are hypocrites; how could they not be? To be human is to be a hypocrite. What other population does the church have to draw on or its membership? Where can you find people who aren't hypocrites. You can't, and that's going to be the same in any religion, so I don't see it as an especially good critique of the church.

[bloop]

Wait - I thought the movie's primary criticism is a lack of love from certain kinds of Christians.  It plays into hypocrisy, sure, but if that's the criticism then I'd say it's a very compelling indictment.

[ash]

Here's the rub: OF COURSE Christians are hypocrites; how could they not be? To be human is to be a hypocrite. What other population does the church have to draw on or its membership? Where can you find people who aren't hypocrites. You can't, and that's going to be the same in any religion, so I don't see it as an especially good critique of the church.

Josh, I'm pretty certain that idea isn't correct. Not everyone is a hyprocrite. Anyway, just wanted to say that...homework calls...

Why are you so certain that everyone is a hyprocrite? Did you meant to say that no human perfectly obeys their own inner rulebook?

Christianitytoday.com says:

1. Christians are hypocrites.

A hypocrite is an actor, a person who pretends to be something she isn't. Jesus' harshest words were reserved for hypocrites.

The reality is, there always have been and always will be some hypocrites in the Church. But Jesus doesn't ask us to follow others; he asks us to follow him.

Although Christians can represent Jesus either poorly or well, the real question isn't whether there are hypocrites in the Church, but whether Jesus is a hypocrite. If someone can prove that Jesus was a hypocrite, then the whole structure of Christianity falls into ruin. The Bible, God's Word, presents Jesus as nothing less than perfect. Jesus' disciples testified that Jesus was without sin (1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Even Jesus himself challenged others to prove that he'd ever sinned (John 8:46). click clickety click click

Edited 7.14pm 11/18/04

[Josh]

Why are you so certain that everyone is a hyprocrite?

Such is the nature of fallen men.

Did you meant to say that no human perfectly obeys their own inner rulebook?

Everybody sometimes behaves in a way that contradicts their own values and beliefs. Everyone is guilty of saying one thing and doing something different.

The reality is, there always have been and always will be some hypocrites in the Church.

And outside of the Church. Yes.

But Jesus doesn't ask us to follow others; he asks us to follow him.

Um, yes... I agree...

Although Christians can represent Jesus either poorly or well, the real question isn't whether there are hypocrites in the Church, but whether Jesus is a hypocrite.

Actually, no, that's not the real question. That doesn't really seem to have much of anything to do with the subject that is at hand...