PeterDavid.net

This is what truly freaks me out:

A friend: I'm going to see "The Passion of the Christ" on Tuesday. My sister can get tickets for just $2!

Me: Wow... how?

A friend: Through her church.

That is, to me, really really really creepy.

There will always be morons whose self-esteem derives from belittling and demonizing others. Whoever put up the sign already believed the "Christ-killers" drek, and so would latch onto anything that might in any way seem to support that view. Most likely the person who made up the sign hasn't even seen the movie, and is instead working on expectations drummed up over a month ago.

While one can't completely ignore this sort of thing, it's a mistake to give it too much attention. Mel and company will almost undoubtedly be continuing to work overtime to dispute any such interpretation of the film. I don't get the impression that he's looking to market the DVD in 10 months with the tagline "See the film that lynched 1000 Jews."

i don't think your anti-free speach I just think your anti-religion.

Fight club had a better chance of setting off a revolution then the passion.

Get over it

I have GOT to go with YOU, on this one, Peter. I've seen the movie...is it brutal? Yes. Is it the truth? WHO but God and Christ himself, can really say? I am not now, nor have I ever been, anti-semitic. Seeing this movie did not make that way, either.

Because, in the end, as Peter says...it's just a MOVIE, folks. Mel Gibson is NOT recognized as some "Prophet of the Truth", for God's sake. He makes movies, plain and simple.

By the way, I don't let so-called "stars" tell em how to vote, either. Does that make me ~different~, PAD? LOL.

Until later.

I am a marraige-minded bisexual Jew with a Methodist boyfriend... Should I be scared?

Daniel

Mel's a member of such a "devout" sect of Catholicism that he's been quoted as saying something about his Episcopalian wife being the most wonderful, sweet, caring, charitable saintly soul he's ever known....and it's such a shame she won't be in Heaven with him. And isn't it nice that Daddy Gibson has denied the Holocaust? What happened to the Polish Jews? Are they on vacation in Miami during the 1940's?

I am not amused.

NO doubt about it, Jay. Hutton Gibson (Mel's Dad) is one STRANGE guy with some drastically skewed views of the world. If Mel wants to follow in Dad's foot steps, then that's up to him. Note, though, I am NOT berating either man's religious views nor their rights to have those views...I just don't happen to agree with them, either.

Kalev: In think it's a mistake to view the film as anti-Semitism. That church groups would support it makes perfect sense, as the focus of the film is supposed to be on the sacrifice of Jesus.

(Please keep in mind that I was raised Roman Catholic, came all the way up through all the ceremonies and attended Catholic schools through high school, but have been an agnostic with strong atheistic leanings most of my life. To me it's mostly fable with some underlying historical elements.)

The focus of this film (much as with THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST several years back) is to focus on Jesus as a man. So much of the mainstream has presented him walking the Earth as a glowing, almost ethereal figure, and what films like this are trying to do is re-emphasize that regardless of what happened eventually, he lived and died as a man. The alternative is having Jesus be nothing more than God playing dress-up. The doubt, the terror, the pain of the sacrifice are what make it a sacrifice.

For me, the sickest thing about comparing the two films is that there was more of an outcry against TEMPTATION among the faithful, apparently because whereas PASSION emphasizes the bloody pain, TEMPTATION dared to suggest that he had sexual urges.

What a country.

OK Let me see if I have this straight. Some people hate the Jews because the Jews killed Jesus. Now Jesus was a Jew so do they hate Jesus too. Lets remember that Jesus forgave his killers. All us sinners killed Jesus.

I hate to flail a deceased equine, but...

As a devout Christian, I cannot sit idly by while someone mouths such nonsense as, "The Jews killed Jesus."

The Jews did not kill Jesus.

We did.

All of us - all of humanity, all the whole squabbling, hating, sinful bunch of us - made the Crucifixion necessary. Only the torture, humiliation, and death of God's only Son was a huge enough sacrifice to pay for the sins of an entire species.

All of you who espouse violence - you killed Christ.

All of you who would deny others rights you reserve to yourselves - you killed Christ.

All of you who see love, and want to kill it because you disapprove of who is doing the loving - you killed Christ.

All of us who know how to do right, yet continue to do wrong (and that's everybody, folks) - we killed Christ.

The Jews and Romans were just the people present at the actual event.

Not to belittle Peter's concerns, but until there are news reports of Passion-inspired hate crimes, I'd be a little wary about giving too much weight to this one letter. There will always be bigots and hate-mongers and just plain clueless folks who will use whatever's convenient to justify their ignorance; The Passion is merely the convenience du jour.

No, I have not seen the movie, nor am I Jewish nor Christian. But one report of one idiot does not a trend make.

Who's going to see this movie? It's too violent for the average church-going America, and it's too solemn to satisfy slasher fans. I have a friend who saw it at the Butnumbathon. As Jesus was being slashed by a venal-looking hooked whip, he went out for ten minutes to take a break and check his car. When he came back Jesus was still getting slashed. I don't see what audience it's for. Maybe FCC Chairman Powell's family.

First off I'm not racist, anit-semetic or anything else like that that springs to mind. I hate everyone! (old, but I like it)

That's the problem with the human race, we as a whole are incapable of living up to the ideals of our religions, all the faiths I can think of advocate peace and tolerance and respect for others. And yet there have always been wars et al in the name of whichever god takes somebodies fancy. The idea of religion is good but we just aren't mature enough as a speices to be able to handle it, the sad thing is that if we ever evolve enough to cope with religion we'll most likley have outgrown the need for it.

Also, Has hollywood actualy made a film that is meant to be fact based and not completely re-written history? Yeah right, That'll be the day! And before you start on, I know their job is to entertain not to educate, but come on they can do both at the same time, or are the vast majority of Americans so self obsessed that they realy think the U.S. is the center of the universe?

The Jews killeed Jesus? I thought the Romans killed jesus and they had all sorts of gods and godesses

apparently all of these people seem to forget that Jesus was in fact Jewish in the first place

Got no intentions of seeing it. A New York Times critic, I think it was, said that this film crushes hope, and isn't inspiring at all. There are probably some S&M freaks who'll go see this for prurient reasons unrelated to any theological views they may hold.

Jesus -- if he existed -- was a Jew. I think the most likely story is what's found in Thomas Jefferson's translation of the Bible, which ends with his death. And I think that if he heard all the trinitarian ideology that came along later, he'd laugh or cry.

And at this point, it becomes relevant, proper and necessary to share what my mother once said to a prosletyzing Baptist:

"At my age, I'm interested in any man who can come twice."

I love my mother. :^>

I don't know if it's part of a "wave" but I can see how you'd find it disturbing. I hope that you're wrong about this, Peter. We've already got too many thing deviding us in this poor sad world of ours.

Irony time: I currently have in front of me, this weeks issue of Newsweek. In their Perspective section there is a quote by Hutton Gibson on the Holocaust. It reads, "It's all--maybe not all fiction--but most of it is." People like that are frightening.

You think that marriage-minded gay jews have it bad? Some of my friends are marriage-minded gay pagans. For a "melting-pot of the world," Our Nation (under whichever deity you see fit) has never been particularly tolerant one.

As a matter of historical fact, there's not question who killed Jesus - it was the Romans. Crucifixion was reserved by the Romans for their highest crimes, and the Jewish authorities could pass a death sentence - only it was death by stoning.

This film does perpetuate the basic historical error single most responsible for perpetuating anti-Semitism - that the Jewish people (either a group or as a whole) were responsible for Jesus's death. Pilate executed Jesus in all likelihood for crimes against the state; his entrance into Jerusalem was likely interpreted as an attempt to foment revolt against Roman rule. While The Passion may not - in and of itself - be anti-Semitic, it perpetuates the historical myths repsonsible for anti-Semitism.

I won't give a dime of my money to watch a violent movie in the best of times, but pair it with a point of view that I find offensive? Tis is certainly not the way to get the average person in the theater. Of course, many people will go see it just to find out what all the controversy is all about. Let's hope the unstable personalities who may be swayed by this propoganda stay at home.

As a Jew, as a human being and as a person who takes responsibilty for my own actions, I can say with absolute certainty that I did not kill Jesus Christ. I was born some 1,958 years after he was and never even got to Israel until 32 years after that.

Whether other Jews killed Jesus, again, any evidence is hearsay since I wasn't there and none of y'all were there either.

Mel's film? I hear it is brilliant and brutal and I probably won't see it - not for any boycott but simply because I'm not interested. I know the story. I know how it turns out.

Don't get me wrong. I have utmost respect for the messages that Jesus taught his followers. I have tons of respect for those who follow the precepts of their religion even when they're NOT in church.

But like PAD, I've got a bad feelin' in my bones about some ignorant people who might like to use this movie as an excuse to justify a new wave of anti-semitism.

I hope we're both wrong.

Oh my gosh, there are bigots...IN AMERICA?!?

Having seen the film this morning, which is more than Peter David seems to be able to say, I can comfortably state that the film is not antisemitic in any way, shape or form. Those who wish to be offended will be offended, regardless of what is or is not in the film.

Antisemites can get a hard-on for a Jew-bash when the wind blows in the right direction, so it seems wrongheaded to point the finger of blame at a film that's surprisingly evenhanded in its treatment of all parties involved in the Gospel narrative.

As a Christian, I've never seen the point of anti-Semitism. After all, Jesus was born a Jew- from the line of David, lived life as a Jew, came first to the Jewish people, died a Jew and on the third day rose again- still a Jew. We Christians are the adopted children of the promise made to Abraham.

If I believe that Jesus died for my sins so I may go to heaven, why does it matter who killed Christ?

I haven't seen the film myself, but doesn't it stand to reason that if the movie is considered anti-Semitic, then shouldn't the source material itself be considered the same? I've always disagreed with the idea of blaming something for the way it's interpreted by radicals.

Let us also not forget that if there are Christians that blame Jews for killing Christ, then the RC church itself should accept some responsibility for this. As recently as the late 1800s the Vatican was openly advocating the idea that Jews carry a collective guilt for Christ's crucifiction.

I just saw this movie today, and speaking as someone who is agnostic. I didn't find it all that great.

I liked CBS' Jesus mini series from a few years ago better.

Come to think of it, I don't remember anyone crying antisemitism back then, and truthfully, there wasn't much difference between Mel's version and that version.

Except to say that the CBS version went more in depth about who Jesus was and what he was destined to do.

This is very disheatening to hear about. Although, in truth, these bigots don't need a movie to set them off - it just presents an excuse to them. Which really is just sad. That society feels the need to be inexpressive just becuase there are idiots without a lick of sense or morality.

I have to admit I haven't seen the film, but from the few clips I've seen, it looks like a very well made, and an inspiring movie. I was surprised to hear how much was apparently displayed accurately. I know the Bible didn't go into every detail, and every blood-soaked moment, but we do have historical knowlege about what dying on the cross involved. (The cross was just the end of the ordeal) It isn't known as the most painful form of execution for no reason.

To me, with the level of detail and vision, this movie wasn't thrown out there just to inflame bigots.

I suppose the concept of not letting the movie release crossed everybody's mind's? Correct? Well, I think that would have been just as big a disaster - fueling thoughts that Jews stopped the movie. Really, in the end, it's an no-win situation. Idiots will find ANY reason to do these horrible things.

Then again maybe I'm wrong. Maybe society simply needs to give up freedom of expression, just to tow down to the violent acts of hate mongers. Either which was this is sad.

Please tell Mr. Seltzer that our prayers are with him, that such acts like this won't happen again.

to quote the above comment 'as recently as the late 1800's the Vatican was openly advocating the idea that Jews carry a collective guilt for Christ's crucifiction' That was over a hundred years ago at the least, and what bugs me about how people harp on with religion is that the past is persistently found to be the driving force of these inter-religious frictions. (not that i'm taking it out on B. Vladimir mind, just an example situation he mentioned) How many people who bugger on about how so and so wronged so and so a thousand years ago and that's why we should kill all (fill-in-the-blanks) actually talk about the future? For their people, for their religion, for their planet? We can argue over what happened and why over the crucifiction et al until we build a bloody time machine, then go back and check it out, but for now how about a little living in the present? Maybe even thinking about the future.

we're all human, we ALL f**k up, we all need to get over ourselves and look forward as well as back.

"Always look on the bright side of life..."

I'm not a Roman Catholic myself, but it's my understanding from discussions with some online thta the Roman Catholic church didn't actually abandon the "collective guilt" idea until the Second Vatican Council, in (I believe) 1968.

That was rather less than a hundred years ago - although if you're still intent on sweeping it under the rug, I guess you could point out that it was during the last century - or even the last millennium...

Me, I just don't get any of it. See... I was raised atheisist. Up until recently I knew about religons but I didn't understand the need for them. It wasn't until reading, oddly enough Supergirl of all things, that I understood why some people even NEEDED a god. I mean why believe in perfect thing that sits in judgement of you especially one who no matter what you do, you can never live up to? Or one that you can never live up to but he forgives almost everyone for anything? Or one that created everything and then doesn't do anything? I mean really, what's the point. Then I realized that those same gods also, somehow, gave people hope. Made them want to be some something more than themselves. Me, I find the ability to be more than myself through my friends and family.

Thus whenever I see any story about members of one religion hating another, well, it makes me sick. Mainly because, if I'm right all the anger, hatred, and loss of life is for nothing. That all of it, and I do mean all of it, is just a sick joke.

Ditto to Jonathan's post. That's Christianity in a nutshell. As a wee little Catholic, I was taught that the Crucifixion of the Savior was God's Will. That's where the buck stops. Any "Christians" looking to say otherwise are just looking for a reason to hate. If the press can just control themselves and report news instead of inciting it, maybe this can blow over quickly.

ooPS--I was dittoing Jonathan's post from 6:03 PM (about 20 posts up)

From John Judy: "Always look on the bright side of life..."

"Judas, I can see your house from here."

I'm gonna see this movie. I want to base MY judgements about it on the actual work, not just what someone else has said on the talking-heads shows.

But I have to give credit to the Jewish groups out there, they have gotten everyone to worry about the response that will come about because of The Passion. Hopefully the movie will make people think more about how things are spun, and how public opinion can be swayed, without the majority having seen the material that is being discussed.

Again, I haven't seen the movie, yet, but I will, and at that time I'll make the decisions about what has been said.

Maybe more people should do that.

Agreeing with Janice here...I went to Catholic school for a grand total of 12 years, and I can say with pretty certainly that I was taught Jesus' "dying for our sins" was a good thing. If Jesus didn't die in that way (meaning if he lived a full life and died of natural causes)...then God's plan wouldn't have been brought to fruition. So assuming everything catholics and christians learn from our religion is true, it shouldnt be a question of who we should blame, but who we should thank.

Mike

Anyone who holds a grudge against an entire people for something that happpened long before anyone doing the blaming or being accused was born is just plain stupid. I don't care how important Jesus may or may not have been (depending on your faith or lack thereof), no one alive today was there or involved. So, blaming the Jews, blaming the Romans, blaming the shaved sasquatches and their infernal ufo's is pointless. It's kind of like some black people who's parents aren't even old enough to have been slaves holding slavery against any white person alive today, despite the fact that said white people weren't themselves slave owners, and some of us don't even have slave owners in our ancestry. And this is also in spite of how open-minded and completely non-rascist those same white people could be.

And as far as Mel's dadyo, he should be (and others of his mindset) sat down in a large room with every still living holocaust survivor for a chat. He is entitled to his (informed) opinion, but blatantly ignoring fact and history is another issue.

Monkeys.

This has been brewing for over a year. Mel promised to remove scenes and they're STILL in the film. While I knew Mel's dad Hutton was “off” - it's sad that his brand of HATE spanned both generations. Hutton has been condemned by sensible Christians. (http://www.wfn.org/2004/02/msg00160.html).

AOLers likely know of my opinion of “Jesus” — & I don't think Jews can be blamed for the death of an imaginary person. That won't stop those full of hate.

- Alan AKA Sparky

There are some things about the Passion that should be recognized. from Newsday, on the 23rd of february:

http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/ny-p2twoside3682268feb23,0,1496034.story

(i will reproduce key points, head to newsday.com to read the whole article)

The mystical visions of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) are the basis of some of the more stunning, non-biblical scenes in Gibson's movie - from Jesus' confrontation with Satan in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the explicit details of his scourging by Roman guards, to a crucifixion scene in which his arm is pulled out of its socket, according to a reading of her work.

Gibson has said that he based his film in part on the visions of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich recorded in "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

Emmerich's 19th century biographer, the Rev. C.E. Schmoeger, wrote about how she had one vision of an "old Jewess Meyr," who confessed to her "that Jews in our country and elsewhere strangled Christian children and used their blood for all sorts of suspicious and diabolical practices."

Gibson, who carries a relic of Emmerich in the form of a faded piece of cloth from her habit, vehemently rejects characterizations of the nun as anti-Semitic. "Why are they calling her a Nazi?" he is quoted by New Yorker writer Peter Boyer as saying. "Because modern secular Judaism wants to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church. And it's revisionism. And they've been working on that one for a while."

I dunno, but basing your non-gospel stuff in the movie on the words of a nun who propogated blood-libel seems a little iffy to me.

I'm curious: Has any other religious film about the last days of Jesus been hated and protested so much? I tend to think that folks have such hated notions will just find this film as an excuse to express their hatred. Weren't we supposed to be above this?

oops... copy and paste that link into your browser, i dont know why it didt make the whole thing clickable.

The worst thing to do is judge a group by it's exterme elements.

Just because some bozo put a sign out like that doesn't mean all Christians feel that way!

I guess one might as well judge all Muslims for Osama's theology and subsequent deeds and so on.

Oh and since they started it:

**Brian: There's no pleasing some people.

Beggar: That's what Jesus said. **

Denise wrote:

If I believe that Jesus died for my sins so I may go to heaven, why does it matter who killed Christ?

I know it's rude to waste time and bandwidth to say that I agree, but... what she said.

Seems to me that, if anyone really wants to say that the Jews were responsible for Christ's death (and how on earth can you blame a whole people for something like that?*), they shouldn't be too upset about it anyway -- if He hadn't been killed (regardless of who's responsible), it seems that we'd be missing an important part of that "died for our sins" thing.

The worst thing to do is judge a group by it's exterme elements.

Just because some bozo put a sign out like that doesn't mean all Christians feel that way!

Amen (no religious pun intended), Zeek. And kudos on quoting Life of Brian—I was just about to.

That said, I suggest that whatever we hear about an church posting a anti-Semetic message has come to us through a second-hand email posted on the Internet (and the quoting of it is in fact the classic 'friend of a friend' format).

I'd treat this 'sighting' as suspect until proven otherwise.

After all, everybody knows you can't believe a message was actually on a church board until you see it with your own two eyes, or if you see it at 8PM (7PM central) Sunday nights on Fox.

It would definitely be a shame if anti-Semitism was the result of anyone seeing this movie. I hope Mel doesn’t mean it that way as the Bible speaks of the Jews as God’s chosen people. After all, Jesus was a Jew.

This movie focuses on such a small part of what Jesus really did for us. I am concerned that it doesn’t present the whole picture of the good news and true hope of the gospel. I would like to present a few verses from the Bible that shed more light on the subject.

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23

“No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” John 3:3

“”I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” John 14:6

“If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, ‘Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’” Romans 10:9-11

“He died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who dies for them and was raised again.” 2 Corinthians 5:15

“’Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.’” Revelation 3:20

Some closing questions to think about:

Are you a sinner?

Do you want forgiveness

for your sins?

Do you believe Jesus dies on

the cross for you and

rose again?

Are you willing to surrender

your life to Christ?

Are you ready to invite

Jesus into your life

and into your heart?

If the answer to these questions is “Yes,” here is a prayer:

Heavenly Father, I have sinned against You. I want forgiveness for all my sins. I believe that Jesus died on the cross for me and rose again. Father, I give You my life to do with as You wish. I want Jesus Christ to come into my life and into my heart. This I ask in Jesus’ name. Amen.

This has always been a country brimming with divisiveness, hatred and bigotry. But I don't think it's been this prevalent--or this sanctioned at the highest levels--in half a century.

God help you if you're a marriage-minded Gay Jew.

PAD

Peter, just what do you mean by the "highest levels" here? Are you suggesting that just one anti-Semitic sign on one church constitutes bigotry sanctioned on a "high level". Seems like a stretch to me.

>God help you if you're a marriage->minded Gay Jew.

It could be worse. You could live in a European democracy where the anti-Semitism is much more prevalent and the government doesn't aid Israel in its efforts to, well, exist. And you probably still wouldn't be able to marry someone of the same sex, although that's not quite the painful life-threatening bummer that anti-Semitic violence is. Or you could live in a dictatorship. I imagine that would be much worse.

Hey, maybe America's not such a bad place after all.

-Dave O'Connell

(Now the whistling part!)

Not gonna see the movie. No interest in it. The subject matter isn't exactly my favorite mythology, particularly in light of the behavior of some of the more agressive modern followers of it.

That said, a local church member (not the church...a single member) bought out an entire movie theatre to the tune of $42,000 for his fellow church-goers to be able to see the movie at a midnight showing.

The local media has covered such screenings and the high attendance of the "faithful" with the attitude of, "Ain't this great, that all these people are coming together to see this story that means so much to them."

The same local media, when big-name, highly anticipated movies such as //Star Wars// have equally long lines for midnight shows and high attendance on opening day (or, for that matter, attendance at the few local comic conventions), cover it with the attitude of, "Hey, folks, look at the weirdos wasting their time and energy over this stuff."

Maybe if Lucas titles Episode III "The Passion of the Jedi...."

"Posted by Karen @ 02/25/2004 08:26 PM ET

I won't give a dime of my money to watch a violent movie in the best of times, but pair it with a point of view that I find offensive?"

Wow...way to keep an open mind. Wouldn't want to judge something before we see it, would we?

People, go see the movie for yourself, and make up your own mind. Remember, this type of thinking can (and is) carried over to TV and Comics. Remember how upset everyone here was about CBS not airing the Reagans? Yet I see people here condeming the movie without seeing it themself. A closed mind is a very very small mind.

As for the story of the church marquee, I find that very hard to believe. If I see it myself, or in the news, then I will believe it. I remember post 911 there were emails about arabic owned or staffed gas stations being burned down. A couple of news sites actually ran these as facts. Turned out, there was no basis for the truth. It's something that sounds like it COULD happen, so people are eager to believe it.

Jerry

During the first vatican council from AD 322 to AD 324, many aspects of modern christianity were cast. Which books would appear in the bible, which would not, and whether Christ was divine. I sometimes wonder what our world would have like if the vote on Christs' devinity had gone the other way.

Peter, just what do you mean by the "highest levels" here? Are you suggesting that just one anti-Semitic sign on one church constitutes bigotry sanctioned on a "high level". Seems like a stretch to me.

Not PAD, but...

Seems fairly clear to me that, in light of our current so-called government continuing to support, endorse and impliment policies, procedures, and approaches in dealing with the citizenry that are incredibly divisive...a proposed Constitutional amendment to ban one form of marriage in the name of supporting marriage (what? preventing marriages from happening helps the institution of marriage? How does that work?), the continuing policy of fear-mongering, not to mention the general "Yer either fer us 'r agin us...if'n ya don't agree with 'Dubya,' yer a traitor!" mindset that seems to continue to grip this country...that this divisiveness is supported at the "highest levels."

And it's certainly more than a single church sign.

Have never understood the hoo-ha one way or the other at all.

It's Marketing 101.

"Christ died for your sins" is a more punchy slogan than "Christ lived to a ripe old age and passed away peacefully in his sleep for your sins."

As for anti-Semites, let 'em out fully in the open (not just preaching to the choir) to froth and rant. Sunlight is a wonderful cleanser of filth.

I don't think this Church sign -- one sign, put up in one area -- is representative of either the movie THE PASSION or overall attitudes to Jews. Bigots can find a rationale for their bigotry in almost anything ("If it rains, it means the Jews killed Jesus; if it doesn't, that means Jesus was killed by the Jews.") It says a disturbing amount about that one Church's attitudes towards respecting other relgions.

I haven't seen THE PASSION -- twelve years of Catholic school was enough for me, thank you -- but as a reminder of the fact that this is an interpretation, here's a quote from WAITING FOR GODOT (which is, to my delight, fully available online). Enjoy!

VLADIMIR:

Ah yes, the two thieves. Do you remember the story?

ESTRAGON:

No.

VLADIMIR:

Shall I tell it to you?

ESTRAGON:

No.

VLADIMIR:

It'll pass the time. (Pause.) Two thieves, crucified at the same time as our Saviour. One—

ESTRAGON:

Our what?

VLADIMIR:

Our Saviour. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the other . . . (he searches for the contrary of saved) . . . damned.

ESTRAGON:

Saved from what?

VLADIMIR:

Hell.

ESTRAGON:

I'm going.

He does not move.

VLADIMIR:

And yet . . . (pause) . . . how is it –this is not boring you I hope– how is it that of the four Evangelists only one speaks of a thief being saved. The four of them were there –or thereabouts– and only one speaks of a thief being saved. (Pause.) Come on, Gogo, return the ball, can't you, once in a while?

ESTRAGON:

(with exaggerated enthusiasm). I find this really most extraordinarily interesting.

VLADIMIR:

One out of four. Of the other three, two don't mention any thieves at all and the third says that both of them abused him.

ESTRAGON:

Who?

VLADIMIR:

What?

ESTRAGON:

What's all this about? Abused who?

VLADIMIR:

The Saviour.

ESTRAGON:

Why?

VLADIMIR:

Because he wouldn't save them.

ESTRAGON:

From hell?

VLADIMIR:

Imbecile! From death.

ESTRAGON:

I thought you said hell.

VLADIMIR:

From death, from death.

ESTRAGON:

Well what of it?

VLADIMIR:

Then the two of them must have been damned.

ESTRAGON:

And why not?

VLADIMIR:

But one of the four says that one of the two was saved.

ESTRAGON:

Well? They don't agree and that's all there is to it.

VLADIMIR:

But all four were there. And only one speaks of a thief being saved. Why believe him rather than the others?

ESTRAGON:

Who believes him?

VLADIMIR:

Everybody. It's the only version they know.

ESTRAGON:

People are bloody ignorant apes.

Ain't gonna see it, either. The simple descriptions of any number of critics of the content of the film will keep me away. Not simply the violence, but the fact that the violence is pointless in the context of the film. Jesus taught a message of peace and understanding, which is found nowhere in the film.

What I might find amusing, if I was a dark and cynical soul, is the spectacle of many conservative Christian churches - especially in the Bible Belt where I live - buying blocks of tickets and taking children to see this film. It isn't going to inspire the kids to anything - not even the anti-Semitism that some are using the film for. It sure isn't going to teach "Christian values," since the film is largely a Fangoria gorefest.

I bet most of the kids forced into this "religious experience" will become sick and traumatized by the experience. It may even destroy what trust they had in the ministers that shoveled them into the theatres.

**That said, I suggest that whatever we hear about an church posting a anti-Semetic message has come to us through a second-hand email posted on the Internet (and the quoting of it is in fact the classic 'friend of a friend' format).

I'd treat this 'sighting' as suspect until proven otherwise.**

ABC World News Tonight showed this very sign on tonight's 6:30 national news report.

I don't believe everything I see on TV, but I'd say this constitutes pretty conclusive evidence that the sign existed.

As for the last time a movie about Christ was protested this vehemently before it came out, as I recall that would be Scorcese's "LAST TEMPTATION" which was protested by Christian groups.

Alright, before I say anything, I'm going to confess my beliefs so you'll know who's saying this and why.

I'm a Christian. I believe in a lot of what the Bible has to say (though not all). I have come to embrace this, shall we say, spiritual path, after doing research into the various religions. In spite of this, I consider myself to be intelligent, progressive, and, incredibly enough, tolerant.

So, as far as The Passion of the Christ and anti-semitism, anyone who thinks that the Jewish people killed Christ has the IQ of ear wax. I would like to say that the majority of people who are Christians don't believe that the Jews killed Jesus. If they honestly believe that, they have missed the message and are so far off target that they're aiming 180 degrees away from the bull's-eye. They're idiots, pure and simple, and I will admit that I despise people like that. It may be a failing of mine, but I really can't stand them.

As far as the film itself, I think it's supposed to be about sacrifice, and sacrifice, while it can be noble and occasionally romantic, is rarely uplifting. I don't know how it will resonate with audiences, but I'm going to be reminded of a sacrifice made for me, and what someone had to go through for that sacrifice to be made. I know it sounds cheesy, but there you have it. And when I leave the theater, I will not be leaving cursing the Jews under my breath--I hope to be again reminded of how great life is to have a God that can inspire such love.

I wonder if either Mel or his father have ever been to either the Holocaust Museum in the US or Yad Va'Shem in Israel. I think if they have not, the trip might do them some good. Certainly the father.

*sigh*

The Romans killed Jesus. Pilate had wanted to release Him, but seeing that things could get rather ugly, he freed Barabbas at the request of the crowd, and sent Jesus to die in his place. Pilate then washed his hands of the affair.

The call to have Jesus tried was led by a man named Caiaphas. He was the High priest of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death. According to Biblical records, it was he, and the Sanhedrin (or Torah Sages) that brought Christ before Pilate.

So, while it was not the Jews that killed Jesus, were it not for the actions of the Jewish leaders of the time, Jesus would NOT have been brought before the Roman court to have the decision of his execution on a cross decided.

If this opinion, made in the understanding of what is written in The Bible, makes me anti-Semitic, or says that I hold the Jews responsible for the death of Christ, then I guess I can't get away from that.

I guess I don't get why so many people think that they have to point out Jesus was a Jew.

The Jewish leaders of the time wanted to have Jesus killed by Pilate. Judas Iscariot, Jesus' betrayer, was a Jew.

I think that anti-Semitism is pointless. There is no call for it. To worry that this film will cause a wave of it is absurd.

That is like saying what has happened in San Francisco will spawn more anti-gay crimes. The two events are almost totally removed from each other.

If people wish to hate, they will. They don't need a movie to tell them it's okay.

Personally, I think it's hilarious that this posting...

There will always be morons whose self-esteem derives from belittling and demonizing others.

...was IMMEDIATELY followed by this posting...

i don't think your anti-free speach I just think your anti-religion.

Jesus loves irony.

Just so we don't get off on a false track, I should point out that I have meticulously said nothing about the film itself, becaue I haven't seen it. I don't speak out against movies I haven't viewed. Nowhere did I say *I* thought it was anti-Semitic (although I will note that reviews are giving solid ground for supposition). For that matter, nowhere did I tell people I thought they should boycott it or that it was an insult to the Bible (sentiments, I should mention, that were avidly expressed by Christian protestors in regards to "The Last Temptation of Christ," as picket lines filled with folks who had no personal knowledge of the film marched around theaters in protest.)

All I spoke about were the concerns voiced by others who had seen it. I said that I hoped that they were wrong, but was worried (thanks to that e-mail I received) what might happen if they weren't wrong.

Making such an observation doesn't mean you're (or, if you wish to be ungrammatical, "your") anti-religion. It just means I'm anti the prospect of having people come after me saying I killed Jesus when I didn't. (I did, however, frame Roger Rabbit.) I'd like to think the two aren't inseperable.

PAD

Doesn't Cartman always say that Jews killed Jesus? It must be true if Cartman says it.

And didn't Jesus die saving Santa last year?

Jerry

I have read the reviews, which I do for most movies. This one does not seem like one I would enjoy. I have had people tell me I killed their Christ. (I am Jewish.) I don't need to see the film to be worried about the message it may send. I don't need to see "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" to know it is not my cup of tea. Jewish leaders are worried about the movie. I am listening to them as they may know more than I do about anti-semitism. My great grand parents came to this county to get away from the pogroms. Anything that may prove divisive should be confronted.

First they came for the Communists,

and I didn't speak up,

because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up,

because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,

and I didn't speak up,

because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,

and by that time there was no one

left to speak up for me.

—Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

This is why people try to speak up before there is a major problem.

That's it. I'm giving up organized religion for Lent.

The church with the anti-semitic sign (ironically called "Lovingway United Penecostal Church") has a website that lists their contact info and location here: http://www.lovingway.org/index2.html

Be an awful shame if somebody misused that info. Just terrible.

"As a matter of historical fact, there's not question who killed Jesus - it was the Romans....."

As a matter of HISTORICAL FACT, there is no evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed. At least not in any way, shape, or form as depicted in the bible.

In fact, if you want to take a look at history and theology with an UNBIASED viewpoint (which no one who claims to belong to any relgigious group can do) then it cleary shows that the christ mythology was all appropriated and rewritten from older pagan relgions. Everything from the Romans to the Egyptions, Hercules to Horus, and beyond is in there and they were around long before Christ. In fact the worship of the SUN GOD (not the son of god) has been totally upsurped by Christianity, and that so many think of Jesus Christ as a historical figure is downright sad.

There likely was a man named Jesus (Joseph actually, Jesus is a Greek translation of Hebrew, and Christ just means The Messiah) who taught peace and love. Some old school hippie insurectionist who was put to death for stiring things up a bit. Everything else that has been attributited to him though is plain BS.

The big controversy about this movie shouldn't be about the Jews killing The Christ (hey, you silly Christians, read your own propoganda, he HAD to die for you to be saved. The Jews saved you from damnation) but the very fact that this is being presented as history instead of mythology. Though seeing as how Gibson is a religious zealot in that crazy cult called Christianity (and Christians don't be offended, the Jewish and Muslims cults are just as nuts) I'm not one bit surprised.

I'm not sure if god laughs or cries when he/she sees what we do in his/her name and the mythology, dogma, and superstition organized religion has created to brainwash people into following their particular sect so that they can control them and maintain their base of power and influence.

Interesting take on this topic (especially the final paragraph about the Koran) here:

http://www.juancole.com/2004_02_01_juancole_archive.html#107778513556398947

rambunctious says: "Who's going to see this movie? It's too violent for the average church-going America..."

There are a good number of "church-going Americans" who are going to be *theatre*-going Americans, at the behest of their ministers, etc. Some have announced their intentions of taking their children along as well.

Jason Henningson says: "I'm curious: Has any other religious film about the last days of Jesus been hated and protested so much?"

Well, there *was* The Last Temptation of Christ -- although, I get the feeling that many who were outraged about that one are the same who are flocking (pun not intended) to purchase tickets this time 'round. I think in both cases, all the fuss is only *increasing* the ticket sales.

I'm not sure if bringing up "Life of Brian" would be fair -- I know others have beaten me to the punch, albeit indirectly. ;)

I've seen neither Passion nor Temptation... I won't judge either. I'd watch them for myself first. Eventually, I will. Most likely in the same sitting. ^.^

Wildcat

Mike quoted me, so I'm qoting Mike:

"As a matter of HISTORICAL FACT, there is no evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed. At least not in any way, shape, or form as depicted in the bible."

Well, that's not entirely true - he shows up in Josephus's history of the region - but by and large you're speaking accurately. Perhaps had I said "assuming Jesus really existed and was crucified..." then the rest of my post would be a little more historically accurate.

But (and keep in mind, I'm a second-generation agnostic) I've never found the "Jesus never existed" crowd very convincing. I just don't think he's anything particularly holy either; I think he's a revolutionary leader whose message got a bit oddly twisted.

Well since you brought it up:

Jesus is actually from Joshua (Yashua)

Which actually comes from the root words

Yahovah & yasha`

Jehovah = "the existing One"

yasha= "to save, deliver"

& actually Christ = "anointed"

also He was called Emanuel "God with us"

AND I'm a believer not because I literally see him, but because I have Faith (believing in the unseen).

Faith is one thing you can't take from someone, if it's strong enough. You can torture them, ridicule them, kill their loved ones, but it isn't gonna change their minds. Whereas I don't mind hearing their arguments, certainly nothing an atheist or agnostic can say is gonna change my mind or any other belieiver in a higher power's mind, no matter how "logical" the arguments. (and really if a person of Faith is studied enough they can conteract every argument) However I do love having these discussions is a civilized manner!

I just love how this movie brought about the ability to actually have these discussions in places where usually one is derided when discussing their faith! (Not saying just here either!)

From the quotes of Lazarus Long, faithfully misremembered by a practicing agnostic:

God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent....it says so right here on the label! If you are capable of believing all three of these diving attributes simultaneously, I have a great deal for you. No checks, please. Cash, and in small bills only.

When Melvin sang to the dog in As Good As It Gets....

Some of the nicest people in the world take their faith very seriously, such as that Polish guy in Italy who likes breakdancing and the Dalai Lama. And some of the most dangerous people take it too seriously and think that their faith is the only way. I don't know the last time you heard of a bunch of Hindus leaving a Burning Krishna on the lawn of a Shintoist, but I can't recall anything like it.

I have absolutely no doubt that the Jews killed Jesus. I'd be willing to bet that the Passion of the Christ is more accurate than some would like.

Having said that, I have to say, "So what?"

I don't feel that the current generation of Jews should be held accountable for what happened in the past. Just as I don't believe there should be any reparations for slavery (How can someone be penalized for something that happened before anyone in the current generation was alive?). It is a bit silly to think that someone should be punished for something that happened 2,000 years before they were born.

If you really, really, really want to get technical and you really believe in the Bible, then we are all responsible. After all, Noah and his family, at one point, were the only surviving humans on the Earth (and they were Jews). Since we are all extremely distant relatives we are all part Jewish since some people seem to think you should have to pay for what happened in the past no matter how long ago it was.

Maybe it's rewatching "Black Adder Goes Fourth" that made me think of this, but I'm looking as forward to seeing this movie as attending a snuff film festival starring my wife and loved ones entitled "Fun With Blades, Blowtorches, and Pointy Objects".

Exactly Jay...

Like I said before though, The worst thing to do is judge a group by it's most extremem elements...

ummm didn't an EXTEME element of Hindus attack (or even massacre as was reported) Muslims in Gujarat, India not long ago? (Course Hindus said they were attacked first...) But I'm not holding ALL Hindus as muderers. MOST Chrisitans don't hold Jews as murderers either. (In fact most modern mainstream Christians have an affinity for the Jewish Race BECAUSE it was out of her their Savior was born.)

:sigh:

For me religion of man has nothing to do with with my Faith.

1) The really ironic thing is that in the Bible it states very clearly that the Italians killed Jesus. There is no separate race called Romans. They are Italians. It was a Italian procurator that sentenced Jesus to die, and a Italian soldier that drove in the nails. When the Roman Emperor Constantine decided to usurp the Christian religion as a way to extend the power of the decaying empire he made sure the texts were altered to show that it was not his people at fault but the Jews. Any texts that stated any differently were considered false and banned. I won’t go into the errors in the Gospels like those of Jerusalem’s geography and the fact that under Jewish Law (which they were really strict about following back then) no trial could have been conducted as stated during the Passover. Which is why the Catholic Church to this day holds back portions of the texts found at the Dead Sea. So for two thousand years Italians have clung to exerting religious power over the world long after their temporal hold ended. Catholic priests to this day dress in the clothing of an upper class Roman citizen. The proliferation of saints is just an extension of Roman polytheism. The Dark Ages were dark simply because the Catholic Church was an agent for stagnation and maintaining the status quo by suppressing scientific advances to hold on to its power through the use of superstition. Only with the Protestant Reformation came the Renaissance. Even if the Sanhedrin could have taken on the blame for all Jews for all time, does that mitigate the Italian guilt as the guy in charge did not have to kill someone for which the text clearly says had committed no crime under Roman law? So it’s settled; Italians killed Jesus.

2) The theory that Jesus dies to redeem people is kinda silly when you look at it at face value. How many people have ever sinned so much that they need someone to die on a cross to make up for it? (I’m discounting the Catholic theory that we are all born stained by the sins of Adam and Even in the garden.) And would all the sins of people down through the ages be covered by one person’s twelve-hour ordeal? It doesn’t make sense. The sick part of this is that the Jews have suffered in huge proportion because one emperor could not face that a minor official in his government killed a guy nearly three hundred years before, so he chose a convenient scapegoat. Compare what Jesus went through to the tortures that were subjected to Jewish people during the Inquisition and the Holocaust. Did Jesus suffer enough to make up for all of what the Catholic inquisitors and Christian Nazis did? What about the centuries that Christian forbearers of those sanctimonious people in the Bible Belt who treated other people like animals in slavery. Even if Jesus was actually the son of God (more so than we all are God’s children) if the Blood Debt balanced? In what lawyer’s mind or cleric’s heart are those scales balanced. Who can honestly say that there is not something wrong in the concept that one twelve hour tribulation and death equals millions and millions of people suffering and murders for years and years? I would say using these examples that the Jews and Blacks died because of the sins we continue to commit.

The Jews did not kill Jesus.

We did.

All of us

And this is the biggest point that I think people are missing when it comes to this movie.

I read a couple of reviews last night. One from Ebert, one from a guy at the Boston Globe (who's name isn't worth remembering).

Ebert "got" what Gibson is doing with this movie.

The guy from the Globe didn't, imo.

Ebert also said that this is the most violent movie he has ever seen.

I think it was the Globe guy that said that if it wasn't Jesus being crucified in this movie, it would automatically be an NC-17.

I think that those comments say alot, too.

But, all in all, I don't think this movie is going to turn somebody into a anti-Seminist if they aren't one already.

Take it from somebody who knows: an agnostic who on these very boards last month got accused (by a Jew) of being anti-Seminist, a terrorist, and a few other things.

All because I had the "nerve" to not support Judaism and Israel 100%.

Which just goes to show that the truly dangerous people will do what they are going to do do regardless of what a movie shows.

Anyways, reviews are mixed, and I've read as many comments from people saying they came out of the movie enlightened as there are saying they came out disgusted.

Of course, comments like those from the Mike fellow above, calling Christianity a cult and such, never help matters.

The church with the anti-semitic sign (ironically called "Lovingway United Penecostal Church") has a website that lists their contact info and location here:

I checked the address.

These guys are, quite literally, just down the road from where I work.

They are located on a major Denver boulevard.

Disgusting.

Oh, and I hope that too many people aren't judging the son based on the comments of the crazy, half-witted father.

Ok, so Mel Gibson's father thinks that there is some giant Jewish-Freemason conspiracy to take over the world... that's not exactly a new opinion.

But I honestly haven't seen alot to indicate that Mel himself belives that load of crap; only that he won't speak out directly against his father, which is understandable.

My comment wasn't meant to represent religions attacking another. In some way, ALL relgions do that, and 99.9% of folks do no harm. Buddhists are mostly known as meditative, peaceful quiet contemplative folk. I've still seen a demonstration of the Shaolin warrior sect. And I've never been convicted of a violent crime....

My comment was based off of fear tactics. Burning crosses, as I alluded to? To inspire fear. Osama's bombs? To inspire fear.

And what I fear is that on some level Mel is portraying my people unfavorably in hopes of maybe scaring or coaxing us into seeing his light. Ain't gonna happen. But some moron is going to see Caiphas (sp?) and go "Well now it's okay for my son to take Harry Goldfarb's teeth! Who cares if his dad stormed Normandy!"

The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits.

Mel's no genius.

Self-deception has no limits either.

Well Ralph, I could get into why Christians believe that Jesus's suffering did indeed pay for all mans sins, for all time, (and part of that has to do with Mosaic Laws) but it's too much for here and probably inappropriate.

Suffice to say we believe exactly that, illogical or silly as it seems!

Ewww this is fun!

Mel happened to choose to depict if not THE most contraversial then certainly one of the most contraversial parts of a story of the most contraversial man who ever walked this earth! (If you believe he did...which obviously I do!)

I happen to think that's courageous.

I haven`t seen the movie and don`t intend to see it. The more I hear about it, the more it puts me off.

Whatever its content is, at the end it is a movie. That movies are often not historical accurate and unfortunately also in many cases lacking in taste is nothing new. If it is really so bad, I don`t think it deserves all the attention it is getting now.

I am a German and I have seen numerous films portraying Germans in ways I find annoying and extremely one-sided. Of course a movie showing Jews in general in a bad light (if this is what happened here), is worse because of what Hitler and his followers did and anti-Semitism is still a problem. Nevertheless, I don`t think we should lose sight of it that also this movie is a piece of fiction using historical elements. It is certainly not a documentary.

At least in Germany and Britain, it is a crime to incite violence and racial hatred. If "The Passion" does that, it should be banned. If not, it is at worst just an annoying movie.

What I find much more serious is that Mel Gibson`s father denied that the holocaust took place. In Germany, doing this publicly is a crime and he would have been arrested for it.

I think that there is such a wave of negative emotions about this movie should be seen as a good sign. I am more worried that what actually happens in Israel could make it more acceptable to criticise Jews and that could result in more anti-Semitism. This is not the topic in this thread, therefore I just want to say, looking at this wall makes me sick. This is the Iron Curtain all over again. What is missing now are the automatic guns, mines and dogs.

Karen,

Well, you basically just invoked Godwin's Law. Although you didn't use the word "Hitler", you might as well have. I mean, come one, what the hell does that poem have to do with this discussion?

That's like the Bush administration. Everytime a serious discussion comes up, out trots the "911" response. Get into a discusion relating to jews, and you get the poem. Every time. Wow.

I HAVE seen this movie. From what I saw, Mel didn't put anything anti-semitic in the movie, unless you are so sensitive, that you consider the gospel to be Anti-Semitic. And if that the case, then I hope you all feel the same way about "Jesus Christ - Superstar", because it also shows the jewish leadership as the ones who wanted Jesus put to death. But I guess you haven't seen that movie either.

So it's all right for you to judge things sight unseen, but hey, people shouldn't judge you by your religion, sight unseen, correct?

Like I said, closed mind, small mind.

Jerry

I only have one fear from this movie.

I've always felt that so many Christians believe what they do because they are told whate to believe. They don't crack the Bible outside of when they're told to read a verse. They don't understand the historical settings or the very history of their book (most seem to assume that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John sat taking notes on everything as events transpired).

Now, instead of having to do any critical thinking, they can point to a Hollywood movie and say, "That's what I believe!"

The best thing I've heard in this is a local minister that was interviewed by the paper who said he was urging his congregation NOT to see it. Why? Not because of content, but because the churches in the area had been sent CD and DVD previews, press materials and instructions for how to contact theatres to buy out showings and schedule special performances. His quote (from the Indianapolis Star), "I have not promoted that movie. They provided us with video clips and CDs, and all this promotional stuff. I really have a problem with churches being used to market."

I have no problem with people seeing the movie, but I have my doubts that the movie will inspire deeper study. Nearly every news report that features interviews with post-screening viewers includes people saying, "That was my faith up on the screen."

THAT is what scares me.

I've always felt that so many Christians believe what they do because they are told whate to believe.

Many is a pretty broad generalization.

\\This is what truly freaks me out:

A friend: I'm going to see "The Passion of the Christ" on Tuesday. My sister can get tickets for just $2!

Me: Wow... how?

A friend: Through her church.

That is, to me, really really really creepy. \\

Dear God, someone must save us from the spectre of discounts on bulk weekday ticket purchases! Think of the CHILDREN! THE CHILDREN!

"We turn to Rome to sentence Nazareth/We have no law to put a man to death/We need him crucified/It's all you have to do."

Sorry. I love that movie.

Anyway, I'm an atheist but I find the Christ story compelling historical fiction (loved Last Temptation of Christ, as well). I am, of course, disturbed when I see people debating over "who" killed Jesus ("Jews!" "No, it was the Romans!" "OK, it was the Jews but not *all* Jews, obviously").

"Men" killed Jesus. If you are so busy looking at the race or religion of those men, then you've missed the point. It's the same with Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Men killed them. It doesn't matter the race (white and black, respectively). I could go one better and quote "Sympathy for the Devil" if you'd like.

I also don't see how anyone could claim that a film is anti-semitic because the villains are Jewish, yet the hero is Jewish and all his followers are Jewish. All the sympathetic characters are Jewish. It's like saying Superman II is anti-white because the bad guys are white.

As for the violence, it's probably more appropriate than it was in Fight Club (and it was very appropriate in that film). What happened to Christ should be painful to watch. Crucifixion is a mother f***er. We've had it white-washed for so long that I find it interesting to see it taken to the extreme for once.

"All of us - all of humanity, all the whole squabbling, hating, sinful bunch of us - made the Crucifixion necessary."

While I do come from a religious background (very religious parents, attending grade schools run by nuns, that sort of thing), I fear I let my membership lapse as it just stopped making sense. And the above phrase shows why this is - at least in part.

We're not responsible. If one wishes to be logical about it, God is. Being omniscient (at least as he's described in the faith I used to belong to) he KNEW people were going to screw up, sin and generally be a problem. Being omnipotent, he could have created humans with free will (a big part of the religious sorts' arguments - the need for God to have free-willed followers rather than puppets) BUT given them sufficient WISDOM to resist temptations to sin. He did not, despite knowing what would come of it.

Too, I was taught that the crucifixion was arranged to cleanse Man from the Original Sin (Adam & Eve's little faux pas) rather than all that came after. Talk about visiting the sins of the father onto the following generations.

But it does make more sense than Christ being dying to absolve Man of the sins since the Original one because, if not, the event was pretty much wasted, given how many sins have been committed since then. If someone wishes to suggest that "oh, it takes care of those, too", then this says "Christ's dying gives us carte blanche to do what we want and we've already been redeemed for it."

Either way, this just doesn't make much sense.

PAD said

It just means I'm anti the prospect of having people come after me saying I killed Jesus when I didn't. (I did, however, frame Roger Rabbit.)

Yeah, but did you shoot the sherrif and/or the deputy?

Sean

Mel Gibson does not share the sentiments of his father. The jews did promote the death of Christ, but only because they were sinners. Had no jews been around, someone else would have done it. Jesus' perfection offends us. His authority intimidates us.

Other thoughts.

Jesus did exist. Josephus and Roman histories record his existance and the beliefs surounding him.

Jesus dieing for our sin suggests that our sin is a bigger deal than we think it is. Believe me, when just a sliver of the truth about yourself convicts your heart, you will fall down and beg for Jesus (I did).

Why do people go see this? Don't know for unbelievers, but for believers, when you realize what Jesus did for you in it's unmasked horror, you may take his sacrifice a little more to heart than before. What I think of each time he is hit is that he took that hit for me. Shakes me a bit out of my complacency. Also, when I see what he went through, it reminds me how much he loves YOU to go through that, so I better treat each of you in that light. If he loves you that much, I should too.

Jerry

I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me closed and small minded minded. I did NOT invoke Hitler, I was simply making a point that we must speak up if we find something wrong, before the masses get carried away. I have stated that I did not see the movie and do not intend to. I have also stated that I am afraid that it may incite people who have a tendency toward violence or instability. Because my opinion does not coincide with yours does not mean I am small or closed minded, but your attacks of my character certainly reveal a lot about your state of mind.

If someone wishes to suggest that "oh, it takes care of those, too", then this says "Christ's dying gives us carte blanche to do what we want and we've already been redeemed for it."

uHH Not if you read the rest of the Bible.

"So since God's grace has set us free from the law, does this mean we can go on sinning? Of course not!" found in the book of "Romans" no less!

And yes God is Responsible..That's why it's believed HE (God) became Man (in Jesus) to set it straight. He set the rules in the Mosaic Laws and He set it straight through them.

Why'd He set it up this way? Hmmmmm interesting thing to ponder huh?

(Well, for some people anyway.)

(And I really am not trying to proseltyze here, just throwing in another Point of View.)

Karen,

It would be one thing to choose not to see a movie based on comments, reviews, or preconcieved notions. Coming out speaking against a movie without having seen it however is different. It is close minded. Period. If you see the movie, and wish to discuss your viewpoint being different than mine, then feel free. Until then, you're just noise.

I despise when people protest or come out against a TV Show, Movie, or Book, they have neither seen nor read, and that most people have not seen nor read yet.

Again, this movie says nothing worse than any passion play or the musical Jesus Christ Superstar says, yet small minded people are coming out against the movie, judging it before seing it.

I respect PAD's position, because he merely expreses concern over where the movie will direct people. He doesn't speak on the movie itself, or if anyone should see it. That is character. Get some.

"People, go see the movie for yourself, and make up your own mind. Remember, this type of thinking can (and is) carried over to TV and Comics."

Oh, come on, there's nothing wrong with the type of thinking that says "I don't think I'll care for this entertainment product, so I won't be watching/listening to/buying it." Exercising consumer preference (upon seeing enough of a preview of the entertainment in question to decide whether you think it fits your personal taste) is a valid decision, is done all the time, and is essential with the number of entertainment choices out there.

"Oh, and I hope that too many people aren't judging the son based on the comments of the crazy, half-witted father."

[poor taste] Are we talking about the Gibsons here, or God and Jesus? [/poor taste]

Elayne,

It's fine to make a decision about a product, and choose not to consume. But to activly work against the product, speak against it, protest it, encourage others not to, or to boycott the product, without trying or sampling the product yourself? That is wrong. There is a big difference here. People can silently choose to see or not to see the movie. It's funny, many of the same people who are throwing a fit about this movie (sight unseen) are the same people who say "just change the channel" when others talk about decency on television.

Admittedly it was about 50 posts north of this one, but in response to what Jonathan said... what do you mean taking my comments about people's use of the past as 'sweeping it under the rug?'

Did I ever say I didnt care about the past, didnt think it deserved to be remembered? No. Actually, if you'd care to read the post again you might notice. I said that I see people fighting over stuff that happened in the past as though it was going to make a bloody difference to the future... and is it? C'mon... is it?

Is harbouring hate over who killed who before any of us were born going to help our understanding of our faiths and religions? All it helps me understand is that people have long and sometimes questionable memories and would rather look back than forward.

So take the time to read what people write Jonathan, rather than slamming it before you take time to understand (which seems to be a recurring theme on this board at the moment, yes?)

Why should she see the movie to comment on it?

There is so much hype surrounding this movie, so many reviews by both "professionals" and "Joe Average" that we all already know the plotline and story and the brutality. Does that mean we have to see it to comment on it?

By your logic, no one can comment on slavery, it was abolished so long ago none of us have actually SEEN IT!

Very few people can comment on the Nazi atrocities, as so few of us have actually seen them! Sorry, I don't have to see people being mindlessly slaughtered to take a stance and say "I'm against it." I've seen and read enough ABOUT the holocaust to form an opinion.

I've never seen your god and neither have you, so you can't comment about him either by your logic.

Have I seen the movie? No. When/if they translate it to english or at least put in subtitles I will. Why? Because form mulitple sources I trust and several I am nuetral about, it's two hours of brutality. I don't care WHO killed Jesus (partially because I don't believe in religion or god anyway) because the people responsible haqve theoretically been DEAD FOR 2000 YEARS!!!

The responsible parties are dead and gone, you cannot blame the descendents for the crimes of their long past "parents".

Everyone is an individual, and the idiots who seek to use this movie as an incitement to violence would use an epsiode of Barney as an excuse to exercise violence.

Bladestar

"Everyone is an individual, and the idiots who seek to use this movie as an incitement to violence would use an epsiode of Barney as an excuse to exercise violence. "

I agree with that line 100%. Come out against the idiots, the racists, all you want. The movie is just that. A movie. No more hateful than any other Passion Play, Muscle, Program or Movie. It happens to be that 90% of the characters are jewish. Doesn't make the movie racist.

I can condem the holocaust (to use your analogy), but I can't in good faith condemn or reccoment Schidlers List without viewing the movie first.

Jerry

Apologies if someone's already said this, and it's a repeat.

But it is somewhat hypocritical to bring up Mel's Father's holocaust denial...it's laying the sins of the parent unto the children. It doesn't matter if it's one generation, or one hundred. It's wrong.

Eric Carpenter wrote:

Now, instead of having to do any critical thinking, they can point to a Hollywood movie and say, "That's what I believe!"

This is what scares me, too. Talking with a friend this morning, she told me she had been discussing the movie with someone else who had seen it. She told her friend that she loved the movie, but that the book was better. Her friend replied, "There's a book? Where can I get it?" That's the kind of Christian reaction I'm worried about.

That said, I've every intention of seeing the movie, if only because I really don't trust what most of the media has been telling us about it, and I want to make up my own mind. (An opinion reinforced by having watched Diane Sawyer treat Mel Gibson like a schizophrenic when interviewing him about it.)

However, I have read the book and do know the story; if Gibson portrayed it remotely accurately, anyone who comes out of the movie feeling anti-Semitic is just dumb as dog s##t. The Roman government put Christ to death to keep the Jews under control, and a few bad Jews in charge asked the Roman government to do it in order to preserve their power base. Doesn't reflect on any live Jew or Italian today at all.

and Wolfknight wrote:

I guess I don't get why so many people think that they have to point out Jesus was a Jew.

Actually, this does need to be pointed out to certain sects of Christians regularly and often. My mom pulled me out of a Church of Christ private school in first grade because one of my spelling words was "jewish" and I came home spouting about how evil the Jews were and how they were all going to hell because they didn't believe in Jesus. She spent the evening deprogramming me and then sent me to public school.

Now that I'm older and know better, I'm really embarrassed by Christians like the church PAD referenced. Freakin' idiots need to practice what they preach, literally.

Jesus did exist. Josephus and Roman histories record his existance and the beliefs surounding him.

Actually, most credible scholars believe that the reference's in Josephus' writings (written several decades after the crucifixion) were inserted later by a different writer. The writing style does not match with the rest of the text.

As for the Roman historians who make mention of Christians, Tacitus and Pliny the Elder, they both wrote nearly a century after the crucifixion and all of their passages regarding Christians were attempts to discredit their beliefs, not support them.

"But it is somewhat hypocritical to bring up Mel's Father's holocaust denial...it's laying the sins of the parent unto the children. It doesn't matter if it's one generation, or one hundred. It's wrong."

Hey, it's good enough for God and the Original Sin, ainnit? ;-)

At least MY point in being the first to bring up Papa Gibson is not to condemn Mel for being related to someone strongly in denial of reality. My point is that someone who rasies a child shares a belief structure wiht their offspring. Hutton doesn't believe in Vatcian II. He doesn't believe in the Holocaust. And he raised the writer/director/producer of this film that may not be out and out antisemitic but IS historically inaccurate, biased, and does portray the us in an unflattering light.

Not that anyone cares, but here are my beliefs about religion. I think religions exist to fulfill societal and personal needs, to assuage people's fears about death and the unknown, to take people's mind off the fact that life may be random (which is scarier than saying it is at least controlled or watched over by someone), and to get people to play nice with each other (which has helped establish civilization as we know it). Now, I believe that it is all superstition, fables and myths, everything from the greek and egyptian gods to the christian god. I don't care if people follow a religion, as long as they don't try to push it on me, or instigate violence or wars and as long as they have taken the time to do a little research and "soul searching" to determine what they believe for themselves (as opposed to following a faith because the rest of your family tells you to). But in that searching, don't neglect science (I don't consider science a religion, however).

To whoever posted above that someone well versed in religion/the bible could go toe to toe with anyone well versed in the field of science: I'd pay good money to see that, as long as there were some stipulations. One, each side would be civil, open minded and listen to the other. Only verifiable information could be presented. "Because I say so" or "that's just how it is" from a scientist is not allowed as an explanation, and "it's in the bible" or "god works in mysterious ways" wouldn't be allowed as explanation from the religious side. Nor would any permutation of those or of the phrase "my faith in god proves that he exists." It would make for some good tv, though I doubt it would ever happen because both sides stand to lose credibility (though in my opinion, the religious side stands to lose more likely than science).

Monkeys

There is no separate race called Romans.

There was 2000 years ago. This why knowledge of history is useful. If you read the writings of the period, it's clear that the people of the city of Rome considered themselves a distinct people apart from other inhabitants of the peninsula.

Actually, the concept of "Italians" as a unified people is a new idea, dating back to the nineteenth century when the peninsula became united. Before that, people from the region referred to themselves as Genovese, Venicians, etc, and yes, Romans. They may have all spoken the Italian language, but they never thought of themselves as "the Italian people."

And, if you listen to my wife's family talk, they still don't consider Sicilians to be "true" Italians.

the continuing policy of fear-mongering, not to mention the general "Yer either fer us 'r agin us...if'n ya don't agree with 'Dubya,' yer a traitor!" mindset that seems to continue to grip this country...

Yeah, yeah, it's a regular jackboots to the throat dictatorship, I tells ya. If ONLY people felt free to criticize the president on TV, newspapers, blogs, books, awards shows...Oh well, we can dream.

I feel bad for the folks who see anti-Semitism in THE PASSION, since their sad need to see evil where this is none prevents them from experiencing an example of truly excellent filmmaking. Their loss.

Too bad Mel didn't just dip a crucifix in urine or make a Madonna figure out of mandrill dung. He might have gotten a federal grant instead of all this flack. It's amazing when you look at all the wacky stuff avant-garde artists go through to appear transgressive when all you REALLY have to do to kick up a fuss is adapt a section of the most read book in history.

I'm afraid the avant-garde has been avant for so long they're just plain old garde now.

Scariest comments so far regarding the film--From the New York Times:

Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen, the principals of DreamWorks, have privately expressed anger over the film, said an executive close to the two men.

The chairmen of two other major studios said they would avoid working with Mr. Gibson because of "The Passion of the Christ" and the star's remarks surrounding its release.

Neither of the chairmen would speak for attribution, but as one explained: "It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally that's all I can do."

I hope those who normlly are quick to condemn censorship will do so now, even though defending traditional religions doesn't sell well with the brie and crackers crowd.

Weirdest remark so far: from Andy Rooney on Don Imus' radio show:

"I'm not going to spend $9 just for a few laughs"

(cue twilight zone theme)

To whoever posted above that someone well versed in religion/the bible could go toe to toe with anyone well versed in the field of science: I'd pay good money to see that, as long as there were some stipulations.

I think that was me and I would pay good money too!

Ahh defining God empirically? (defined as "capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment")

That's been going on for ages. The problem is much about God is in the 'Mystical' realm. But I personally feel it can be done by science itself... But that's just my opinion and interpretation.

I see scientific evidence in a different light then some. (Take for expample Matter/Anti-matter. Didn't Hawkings say If things weren't set up EXACTLY the way it is in that realm we wouldn't be here. How can that be accidental? (though I know Hawkings doesn't see it that way) (And isn't also true if stars far off wouldn't go Super Nova every couple thousands of years, there wouldnt be life here either? I think I read that somewhere anyway...Wow isn't that cool how the universe just happened like that?)

BUT science is not my sphere of influence...so bring it on those for who it is!

Let's chat.

I'm getting the destrinct impression that this back and forth banter is between those who haven't read the book and those who read the "Classics Illustrated" version. The scriptures are a collection of history and lessons (whether one thinks they are factual or not) that are to be studied and learned from. To dismiss them you dismiss what people believe, and to dismiss what people believe, you begin to underestimate them.

Sort of like Charlie Manson has his beliefs...

...or Ted Bundy...

...or Osama Bin Laden...

...or Saddam Hussein...

...or George W. Bush...

...or Peter A David...

...or Bladestar...

Peter, just what do you mean by the "highest levels" here? Are you suggesting that just one anti-Semitic sign on one church constitutes bigotry sanctioned on a "high level". Seems like a stretch to me.

Not PAD, but...

Seems fairly clear to me that, in light of our current so-called government continuing to support, endorse and impliment policies, procedures, and approaches in dealing with the citizenry that are incredibly divisive...a proposed Constitutional amendment to ban one form of marriage in the name of supporting marriage (what? preventing marriages from happening helps the institution of marriage? How does that work?), the continuing policy of fear-mongering, not to mention the general "Yer either fer us 'r agin us...if'n ya don't agree with 'Dubya,' yer a traitor!" mindset that seems to continue to grip this country...that this divisiveness is supported at the "highest levels."

And it's certainly more than a single church sign.

I was referring to the anti-Semitic part of PAD's 'bigotry at the highest levels' remark. Where in the highest levels of society (aside from one church, which I doubt has enough national influence to exist on a "high level") does anti-Semitism exist?

Nothing in your response answers that question.

-Dave O'Connell

Dave O'Connell

I was referring to the anti-Semitic part of PAD's 'bigotry at the highest levels' remark. Where in the highest levels of society (aside from one church, which I doubt has enough national influence to exist on a "high level") does anti-Semitism exist?

Nothing in your response answers that question.

His phrase, "bigotry at the highest levels" was aimed at the current headline-grabbing bigotry towards gay people, not the anti-Semitism of the church sign. Not that the two kinds of bigotry are much different. Bigotry is bigotry, plain and simple. The persecution of one group by people in power encourages persecution in general.

All of which struck me as patently obvious but I guess you needed this spelled out for you.

Peter, while I am irritated by the non-issue that this film has created, I don't see how vandalism by one inbred retard spraying graphitti constitutes a new "wave" of Anti-Semitism, let a lone at "high levels." That son of a whore was obviously already an Anti-Semite.

Btw, I was just talking to my wife about the church that had the "the Jews did it"-esque sign here in Denver (well, Glendale technically).

It was on the news last night that a woman went to the church with a ladder and too the part of the sign down that had the word "Jews".

Atleast somebody is in their right mind.

Holy $#%%$@!

I just agreed with Luigi Novi!

Heh :P

Please save me from small minded people. I think that this movie is getting entirely too much press. PEOPLE IT IS JUST A MOVIE, the last time I check Mr. Gibson wasn't alive 2,000 years ago. I can't believe that with all the troubles that the world is currently experiencing that this movie is going to make it worst. This movie makes me want to sit and watch the SuperBowl halftime fiasco again. NOT.

Regards:

Warren S. Jones III

Don't blame us for talking about it, blame the religious nuts who get all extreme over silly stuff like this...

And then there's this:

http://www.datejesus.com/

Just my two cents. . .

I'm curious how many people who posted above have actually seen the film. It seemed to me that many who were arguing had not seen the movie and did not intend to do so, and were over generalizing. Note that I do not believe that what I said was an overgeneralization because there were many posts like that, and I skimmed all of the posts. I was just a bit disappointed that people would argue this passionately (no pun intended, honest) when they do not have the knowledge from seeing the film to back up their opinions. Granted, people frequently do so, and its their constitutionally given right, but an informed debate is a lot more meaningful.

I saw the movie on Monday in a pre-screening, and have to say (to paraphrase what Yoda tells Luke as he goes into the dark cave in "Empire") that what you will find will be only what you take in with you. If you go in looking for every minute example of anti-Sematism, you can always make that argument. But if you go in with an open mind or skeptical, you will not be hit over the head by it. I must admit my bias that I am an active Christian, but would like to temper that with the fact that there were several Jews at the screening I attended, and they did not find it anti-Semitic, and even (dare I say it) enjoyed the film. Yes, there are a few scenes here and there that are clearly interpretaion, but for the most part it is accurate and true to the Gospels. Is it violent and brutal? Yes. Is it just a movie? Yes. Is there a Message there for people who want to find it? Yes.

Also, on the anti-Semitism aspects, Jesus and all the disciples were Jews. And the Jews didn't directly kill Jesus, though they brought Him before the Romans and argued for his crucifiction. And that the reason Jesus came to the Earth was to die on the cross for our sins. So somebody had to kill Him, and if it did not happen in this form, God would have found a way, because Jesus had to die in order to fulfill the Scriptures in order to be resurrected. Moreover, for all the people who want to blame the Jews and harm them in some way/shape/form, remember that God says that "Vengeance is Mine." As in His, not yours, so turn the other cheek, silly.

God bless,

Chris

I've seen it.

It's awful. Really just awful. It's the story of someone being beaten to death. You get no sense of why it's important, of the real theological and historical significance of the man...if you went in never having heard of Jesus, you might well think it was a snuff film, the way it lovingly lingers over his flagellation.

On the one hand, I do find that they show violence for the wretched, loathsome thing it is to be useful and good. But as a movie, I found it to be empty and hollow. It has no message, no context of its own: it says nothing save "Here is a man tortured and killed." You barely get a sense that it was his unpopular opinions that made others move against him, that he was killed for speaking out against the government and religious authority.

The Last Temptation of Christ was an infinitely superior film.

Not having seen the film and not really intending to, I can't help feeling that either this is all hype or the film misses the point of the passion entirely.

Yes, we do get that bit in the bible where the crowd, who happen to be Jewish (or time travellers...) pressure the Romans into killing Christ. Which is why he was made man. Without which the entire incarnation was a waste of time.

So if the film leaves people not understanding this, the central, most important, critical aspect of the Christian faith, then it surely fails as a film.

I forgot to mention that I understand why people might think the film is anti-semitic. I don't believe that was the intention of the film, however. Pilate comes off better than Caiphas does, and Pilate's wife gets a lot chummier with Mary than I remember from my reading of the Bible, but honestly, I think the film takes the tack that Jesus' death is on the hands of all human beings.

Hopefully those who see it will keep that in mind.

I just don't get the conflict over this movie, unless it's the unguarded hatred unbelievers have toward Christ and His church.

Think about the vitrol surrounding the subject of this movie, and suddenly it's not so hard to believe that Jesus would have been murdered no matter where or when he came to earth, or to whom.

When the Life of Mohammad movie is made... and it will be, now... no one will make a peep. It's the same reason people use Jesus' name as blasphemy and not "Oh, Mohammad!" The name of Jesus has power. It enrages people who are not submitted to Him.

The reason unbelievers didn't make a peep about the Last Temptation of Christ is because the movie presented a Jesus who was a sinner. It mocked Him, so they didn't have to. It's when Jesus is exhalted that He is mocked.

You have to wonder why that is...

The reason unbelievers didn't make a peep about the Last Temptation of Christ is because the movie presented a Jesus who was a sinner. It mocked Him, so they didn't have to. It's when Jesus is exhalted that He is mocked.

If you saw anything exalting about that movie...like say, a scrap of the power and majesty of the Christian message...then you were watching a different film than I was. The Last Temptation of Christ showed me a Christ who was human, who came to this world fully as a man, subject to the foibles of being a man. His choice was infinitely more powerful because he made it as a fallible, fragile, uncertain man who feared death and pain and cried out to God in his moment of torment.

This film is just sloppy, pure and simple. I'll match my lifetime of searching and questing for the truth against your smug superiority any day. I've grappled with it all my life, and I'll keep grappling with it. This film mocks Christ. Unless you think Christ should be shilled out alongside Wellbutrin and Interstate Batteries, which I personally find to be far more derisive of Christ.

When the Mohammed movie is made, plenty of people will peep. Most of them will be Muslims, of course. I peep about this movie because I was raised a Catholic, and therefore Christ matters to me, the message of Christianity matters to me, to my identity, to everything I was taught to believe and which I later chose to believe. In my reading, my speaking, my thinking I have meditated often on Christ, and I find this movie to be pointless and reductionist.

Dennis Potter's Son of Man was infinitely better. The Greatest Story Ever Told was better. Even the TV miniseries Jesus was better. That's how anemic I find this movie.

The Mohammed movie has been made...The Message.

And the problem with IT was, it was boring...

Over my 34 years as a Christian it has never once occurred to me to hate any or all Jews due to the supposed fact that a Jewish man with Jewish followers may have been killed due to political pressure applied by another group of Jews. I mean where the hell is the logic in that?

Let's just deal with the fact that stupid people are going to hate other people for stupid reasons. Once we realize that that is simply a fact of life, we can then spend our energies trying to educate everyone to achieve a level of understanding about each other's beliefs and POVs rather than worrying about how a set of beliefs and ideas submitted in any format will cause a group of wackos to react.

This whole argument this country is having over this movie reminds me of France's recent ruling that bans religious clothing such as crucifixes, head scarfs, etc. I thought that as Americans we could at least agree to disagree with the French in all things.

"I see scientific evidence in a different light then some. (Take for expample Matter/Anti-matter. Didn't Hawkings say If things weren't set up EXACTLY the way it is in that realm we wouldn't be here. How can that be accidental? (though I know Hawkings doesn't see it that way) (And isn't also true if stars far off wouldn't go Super Nova every couple thousands of years, there wouldnt be life here either? I think I read that somewhere anyway...Wow isn't that cool how the universe just happened like that?)" -Zeek.

Personally, I'm only some what a science nut (in so far as it fuels my art and I do trust and believe, if you will, in it, but I take it with a grain of salt when it comes to the theoretical stuff). I hadn't heard the Hawking's stuff (and I think that falls into the theoretical and not yet provable category anyway). But, think for a second that we aren't the only rock in the entire universe with life on it, and it seems less planned and special that everything in the universe happened the way it has. The universe happened in such a way that life could start. Hmm, I don't think I'm expressing my point well here. I think you're looking at it as everything specifically happened to bring about our existence (by the hand of the god you believe in), whereas I'm looking at it as the universe happened and life was a biproduct. Cause and effect, I guess.

I was talking to my wife (who's a trained biologist) about a discussion she had with a friend who happens to be a creationist. I think the topic had something to do with whether or not she thought the human race was special (or the be-all and end-all). She brought up the fact that there have been other homo species before homo-sapians (like the neanderthals) and our extrememly close genetic relationship to apes and that other homo species could potentially arise. I guess this little anecdote is a long winded way of asking what the religious take on neanderthals is, I guess. Although, none of any of what I have said here, and probably in previous posts, has anything at all to do with the topic, and I apologize for taking up the space. I guess I have penchant for digressions and tangents.

Monkeys

When the Life of Mohammad movie is made... and it will be, now... no one will make a peep.

Wow you don't know much of the Muslims do you? Not even a painting or a sketch of Mohammed is allowed by them. A movie about him would set the muslim world afire.

The reason unbelievers didn't make a peep about the Last Temptation of Christ is because the movie presented a Jesus who was a sinner. It mocked Him, so they didn't have to.

And you know crap about that book/movie too! Wow. Listen, if you actually saw it, you should know that the object of that story was in no way to mock christ, just to shed a different light of him. Talk of ignorance, but then what else to expect from someone who addresses people as 'unbelievers'.

About Mel's beliefs, in everything I've read about what he's done and said, I see nothing that makes me think he has even the slightest different beliefs than his father.

What bothers me most about the movie, apart from the odd choice of saying nothing about Jesus' teachings about love and forgiveness and only focuses on blood and gore, is how he hides behind the gospels every time he is criticized.

The gospels don't even tell the same story and what he did take, was purely by HIS choice, no one elses. Only Matthew has the 'his blood be on us' line, none of the others do. So it was his choice to leave it in despite his promises he would cut it out. (Beacuse as he said otherwise 'they' would come to his house and murder him! You know, 'they'.)

But apart from that, he made so many things up it's ridiculous. The moment where Jesus stands up in defiance is pulled out of his a@@ apparently, and is pure macho, action hero BS. And to pull so many 'facts' from some 17th century nun, whose 'visions' apparently had to add some very anti-semitic nonsense to the world does very little to plead for him in this.

For the record, I was raised a christian, and when I started thinking for myself and reading about other religions and world history, I happily left the fold. Many of my reasons are those that others have mentioned already.

Main point about this element is indeed, it's God's fault. Since he's omnipotent and omniscient, there is no real free will anyway, and it was completely and utterly his choice then to decide to have someone horribly tortured to death to make a point.

Our current sins are obviously still not forgiven unless we repent and want forgiveness, like it already was before Christ, and the notion I'd be guilty of a woman eating fruit thousands of yeas ago is laughable. I don't think the grandson of a bankrobber should go to jail for his grandpa's crimes either, ok? And if we carry guilt for Adam and Eve (No I don't believe in them anymore than in Odin or Hercules, just for argument's sake) it is only because God decided we should still pay for that 'crime'. And it's only God's idea that Jesus should be tortured to death for it.

Without wanting to offend anyone, it is inconceivable to me that intelligent adults not only believe this, but find it 'good'.

But then they also think a God who orders his followers to massacre whole cities down to the infants and livestock is 'good' so I shouldn't be surprised.

I think Jesus was an inspired young man who preached to jews about the jewish faith, and how true spirituality is more important than blindly following the rules and rituals and who stood up for the usually despised people in society. He made too much noise, and the roman ruler Pilate, who was exceptionally cruel even in the eyes of his colleagues, and who considered the jews 'rabble' had no patience for any 'noise'. Seeing how there were rebellious groups everywhere, and they wanted to nip every notion of that in the butt, Pilate probably had him crucified. Like he did to many, many others on a weekly basis.

Oh and the roman historians' references to Jesus are only references to the fact that there were FOLLOWERS of Jesus. We already knew that. It proves nothing certainly not considering the dubious nature of their validity.

I am also sorry that Gibson chose to bless us with his 'vision' right now that we have a moronic president who believes he was 'appointed by god' and is now forcing his christian faiths down the throat of a population of a country that is supposed to have religious freedom.

Oh and I feel sorry for the many children who will be traumatized by the sight of this movie. I remember being horrified at the story being told, I can't imagine having to see these scenes at that age.

**I was referring to the anti-Semitic part of PAD's 'bigotry at the highest levels' remark. Where in the highest levels of society (aside from one church, which I doubt has enough national influence to exist on a "high level") does anti-Semitism exist?

Nothing in your response answers that question.**

Well, Deuce answered this one dead on target before I even had a chance to see your own post.

Anti-semitism may be bigotry, but not all bigotry is anti-semitism. I saw nothing in PAD's statement suggesting that the bigotry he was speaking of was anti-semitism specifically.

Toby, I'm a bit of a science buff myself. That's how we found ourselves here I suppose!

I don't presume to know exactly what Hawkings believes, but I took what I mentioned before from "A Brief History of Time" Chapter 5. He states "We know that every particle has an antiparticle with which it can annihilate. (In the case of the force-carrying particles, the antiparticle are the same as the particles themselves.) There could be whole antiworlds and antipeople made of antiparticles. However, if you meet your anti-self, don't shake hands! You would both vanish in a great flash of light!".. (In other words "You can't fuse matter and anit-matter, it just isn't done Captain" )(and yes, you're right, I'm sure this is all in the realm of the theoretical!)

I'm personally not exactly sure we ARE the only rock in the universe that sustains life...although I can't prove it doctrinly, it's just my own belief.

And yes, I suppopse I do believe I'm looking at it as everything specifically happened to bring about our existence. Rather arrogant of me huh? Whether you believe that or not (I guess not LOL! ) doesn't really matter to me. I personaly love the give and take of it all!

Perhaps someday on another planet you, your wife, and me and my man (yes, I am female!) can sit and sip a glass of wine and discuss it more in depth then this forum would allow!

Cheers!

I just felt I should comment on something Ralph A. Gessner said earlier. He said that the Catholic Church has suppressed parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is impossible given that the Scrolls are in the possession of the Israel Antiquities Authority. The only Christian with ownership of any of them was a Syrian Orthodox archbishop who later sold them back to Israel.

I've no problems with sane Christians. And I've plenty people who dislike me for other reasons than being Jewish. I've seen Mel Gibson is very much his father's son. So I won't be seeing the film.

AOLers could check old posts in the Mike S. Miller message board. I'll repeat some key points: There is no HISTORIC proof of “Jesus” existence.

I cite:

• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/ — shows us no proof

• http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/sources.html

Summing the latter:

Jewish Sources:

Philo of Alexandria — not a single allusion to “Jesus” or to his followers

Justus of Tiberias — not a single reference was made to “Jesus”

Flavius Josephus — as the man was a Pharisee the “Jesus” remarks have to be added by an overzealous early Christian copyist

Roman Sources:

Cornelius Tacitus — echoing popular opinion with no independent source of information. Thus, as a separate historical evidence for “Jesus”, the passage in the Annals has no value

Suetonius — wrote "He drove out of Rome the Jews who were perpetually stirring up trouble at the instigation of Chrestus." Claudius was emperor between 41-54 CE. At that time “Jesus” was obviously already dead. The Christians referred to “Jesus” as their leader and Suetonius took it literally that their leader was alive and the chief instigator. His erroneous use of the title Chrestus as though it was a proper name again points to the fact that he got his information from popular opinion.

----

Real believers don't care about proof as they have faith. And they're not the ones who think Jews run the world or are full of hate. We've got to watch us for hatemongers and they're out there.

----

Life of Brian seems more plausible to me than any other story I've heard or read about a failed messiah.

----

That said — we'll see attacks on the marginalized because the haters will misinterpret the message that was attempted to be sent.

The real sad thing is the movie will RE-STATE that VIOLENCE is okay but SEXUALITY is bad.

- Alan

PS I worry it will signal violence against Jews is okay to some.

This has always been a country brimming with divisiveness, hatred and bigotry. But I don't think it's been this prevalent--or this sanctioned at the highest levels--in half a century.

God help you if you're a marriage-minded Gay Jew.

His phrase, "bigotry at the highest levels" was aimed at the current headline-grabbing bigotry towards gay people, not the anti-Semitism of the church sign. Not that the two kinds of bigotry are much different. Bigotry is bigotry, plain and simple. The persecution of one group by people in power encourages persecution in general.

All of which struck me as patently obvious but I guess you needed this spelled out for you.

But PAD said "marriage-minded gay Jew", implying some sort of equivalence between a government official supporting an amendment that limits marriage to a man and a woman (a very high level, if not the highest) and one church (a low level---just one church out of how many kazillion?) displaying an anti-Semitic sign. Which is absurd, given that the former's statement, if translated into action, would be legally binding while the latter's anti-Semitic sign would not enjoy any legal power whatsoever. There's a huge difference between the power of one church and the power of the entire Bush adminstration (or any presidential administration) and to lump them together as "the highest levels" of anything is ridiculous.

Antii-semitism may be bigotry, but not all bigotry is anti-semitism. I saw nothing in PAD's statement suggesting that the bigotry he was speaking of was anti-semitism specifically.

Nothing aside from the fact that his entire post deals with anti-Semitic reaction to Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ", that is. At the end, he dovetails into a reiteration of a point about gay marriage from a previous post, but even then he's still on-topic with the "God help you if you're a marriage-minded gay Jew." So when PAD says "This has always been a country brimming with divisiveness, hatred and bigotry. But I don't think it's been this prevalent--or this sanctioned at the highest levels--in half a century" in a post about anti-Semitism which, up until that point, has made no mention of gay people (or any other discriminated against groups), I'm inclined to think that at the bare minimum, he's suggesting that anti-Semitism is sanctioned at the highest levels of American society. Perhaps I'm too much of a literalist.

Which brings me back to my original, still unanswered question: What "highest level" of America does anti-Semitism enjoy prevalent status? I'm buying into one-half of PAD's equation because of Bush's anti-gay marriage statment and my belief that the American government is one of the "highest levels" (if not "the highest level") of society. But the other half simply doesn't hold up.

-Dave O'Connell

Jerry,

I am tired of your insults. I have not critiqued the movie, or said anything about it's value. I have decided not to see it based on exactly what your first sentance said. I have said I am afraid of the movies affect on certain people. This is the last time I will respond to you. As far as I am concerned, when next I read your name on the top, it will be notice for me to pass to the next comment. You think because you've seen the movie your opinion is the only one that counts. Fine. Stay in your little world where yours is the only voice. I have better things to do than read what someone who does not know me has to say about who they think I am.

Dave O'Connell

Dave, I'm trying to be patient here. I really am. But for Christ's sake (so to speak) - it was a _joke._ An offhand comment. One part of a sardonic grouping of random thoughts on hatred. When PAD said "God help you if you're a marriage-minded gay Jew.", he was making a quip about the general unpleasantness of the current American climate, not some sort of McCarthy-esque speech hinting at a high-level, anti-Semitic conspiracy.

While I am not PAD, nor can I read his mind, I take this as one author's droll commentary on current events. I'm pleased you're at least admitting to the possibility that you might be taking this a bit too literally. Because frankly? You are. Add "too seriously" to that caveat while you're at it. There's an argument about cavemen vs. astronauts going on upthread, for God's sake. Please relax before you start reading some sort of PAD-belief for/against Creationism or Nasa into that as well.

"All of us - all of humanity, all the whole squabbling, hating, sinful bunch of us - made the Crucifixion necessary."

See, whereas I would think that the sky cracking open and a sepulchral voice blasting from one end of the globe to the other, bellowing "LISTEN TO MY SON! ALL THE SQUABBLING AND HATING AND SINNING...KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF!!," not unlike an irate father telling his kids to turn down the racket in their room, would pretty much have done the trick.

But I guess it falls under the whole moving in mysterious ways thing.

PAD

Which brings me back to my original, still unanswered question: What "highest level" of America does anti-Semitism enjoy prevalent status? I'm buying into one-half of PAD's equation because of Bush's anti-gay marriage statment and my belief that the American government is one of the "highest levels" (if not "the highest level") of society. But the other half simply doesn't hold up.

I was referring to both Bush's anti-gay stance which endorses an overall spirit of bigotry and intolerance. I wasn't saying that Bush was anti-Semitic. But the so-called compassionate conservative is unquestionably intolerant. And intolerance breeds more intolerance.

PAD

"See, whereas I would think that the sky cracking open and a sepulchral voice blasting from one end of the globe to the other, bellowing "LISTEN TO MY SON! ALL THE SQUABBLING AND HATING AND SINNING...KNOCK IT THE HELL OFF!!," not unlike an irate father telling his kids to turn down the racket in their room, would pretty much have done the trick."

I dunno - didn't work too well in the desert, after the Exodus... :)

Arco - I think it's interesting that you point out that Jesus said it was more important to have love in your heart than to blindly follow rules. The bit about the Sabbath being made for the benefit of man, and not man being made to follow the Sabbath rules.

Basically what this means is that Jesus was not a fundamentalist, so it's strange he should have so many fundamentalist followers.

Ben, while the Israeli government physically has possession of the scrolls in that they are in Israel, it is a Vatican research team that has control over the museum that they are housed in. Only a fraction of them have been released to the public. It was in a Time or New Yorker article from a few years ago. Sorry I don't have the attribution.

The sad part for me is that very few Christians focus on what Jesus said versus the magic acts and death. To me that a man who lived in such a brutal existance that was the Roman empire at that time could coume out with such gorgeous axioms is a true miracle. Though the thing he is best known for, the "love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself" was cribbed from a famous Rabbi named Hillel who lived thirty years before Jesus.

Anyway, I wrote a novel about Jesus that is more historically accurate than most. I don't know if it's cool to do this and I'm sorry to Mr. David who I greatly admire but I'm giving it away free as a locked PDF to anyone who wants to read it. Just send me an e-mail with the subject, SEND ME THE BOOK. It's both funny and touching and shows the man as a man. The first line is "We are all born needing love and how we find it, or don't, makes us who we are."

"I see scientific evidence in a different light then some. (Take for expample Matter/Anti-matter. Didn't Hawkings say If things weren't set up EXACTLY the way it is in that realm we wouldn't be here. How can that be accidental? (though I know Hawkings doesn't see it that way) (And isn't also true if stars far off wouldn't go Super Nova every couple thousands of years, there wouldnt be life here either? I think I read that somewhere anyway...Wow isn't that cool how the universe just happened like that?)" -Zeek

Certainly never would deign to speak for Mr. Hawkings, but it isn't accidental by any stretch of the imagination.

It had to turn out some way, and happened to turn out the way it did because (this is a simplified argument) the elements in play, and their proportions, interacted in such a manner to come out that way.

Had the mix of things been a bit different, the outcome would have been different. We may (or may not) still have been here, but that is irrelevant - perhaps some other life forms would have existed -- perhaps not.

In short (again, a simplistic distillation of Hawkings and other quantum physics), our form of life happens to be here because the pre-existing situation was/is amenable to development of that particular form of life, rather than everything having been set up specifically to accommodate our form of life. Ockham's Razor in this case points more readily to us existing because we CAN exist, rather than so-called intelligent design, which would have things set up so that we MUST exist.

"...while the Israeli government physically has possession of the scrolls in that they are in Israel, it is a Vatican research team that has control over the museum that they are housed in. Only a fraction of them have been released to the public. It was in a Time or New Yorker article from a few years ago. Sorry I don't have the attribution."

While there was a dust-up some years ago about the slow pace of scholarly work and translation and philological debate on the Dead Sea Scrolls, that did lead to the full release of copies (at least to the scholarly community):

http://www.crosscurrents.org/deadsea.htm

Note that this links to a journal article from 1995, somewhat after the release, and refers to the 'Vatican cover-up conspiracy' in in the paragraph about 1/2 way down the page, just prior to the "What's New?" sub-chapter heading (footnote 11 is cited in the relevant paragraph).

The work of translation and resolving contradictions in various texts (many in fragments) is ongoing.

Whatever you do Karen, don't read this!

Go live in your shell. You're the worst type of bigot. The reverse bigot. You're like the black man you boycots a TV show because there are not enough black people in it, but love the UPN show that's all black...

You attacked the movie, called it anti-semetic, without ever seeing it, based on third had reports...

But hey, you're right...let's all jusge things sight unseen from now on. I've certainly judged you.

But I know you're not reading this, so have a nice day!

Third hand reports nothing.

This movie is everywhere and not just the useless talking heads on TV and radio and the newspapers reporting on it. Tons of people are seeing it and talking about it.

There's no reason to see it to form an opinion on it if you have reliable sources for information.

You're the one being close minded.

Like I said, I'll see it when it gets subtitles or translated to English... I find dialog too important to most films to just stare at moving pictures and ancient dead languages....

Bladestar wrote;

Like I said, I'll see it when it gets subtitles or translated to English...

It does have subtitles, although I understand from friends who've seen it that the subs don't track every piece of dialogue, just most of it.

It does? So Mel backtracked on that?

Interesting, I have to speak to a few people on that one... and ya think you can turst your friends to give you the whole story...

Pad wrote "See whereas I would think that the sky cracking open and a sepulchral voice blasting....would've done the trick."

According to the New Testament, Jesus, aka the Lamb of God, was sacrificed to attone for our sins.

Interesting, I have to speak to a few people on that one... and ya think you can turst your friends to give you the whole story...

Kind of disproves your previous post!

Please clarify for this unenlightened daughter of the chosen people: If the Jews/Romans/Whoever had not killed Jesus... then what would have happened?

**It does? So Mel backtracked on that?

Interesting, I have to speak to a few people on that one... and ya think you can turst your friends to give you the whole story... **

Obviously you don't have reliable information. Which is why you should see a movie before you codemn it as antisemetic or racist or anything else. This goes for TV shows, comics, books, movies, radio, or anything else.

But yes, the movie is subtitled. He did leave the subtitles out in some areas where the words (which were taken directly from the bible) might be seen as antisemetic.

Hmmm...

But hey, his dad's a jerk, so let's judge him!

If the Jews/Romans/Whoever had not killed Jesus... then what would have happened?

I suppose (Like some of the Jewish faith now? dunno about that one..) leave the people who were paying attention still waiting for the prophesied Messiah.

Please clarify for this unenlightened daughter of the chosen people: If the Jews/Romans/Whoever had not killed Jesus... then what would have happened?

Who the heck are you directing this to? Noone here, that I've noticed, has attacked anyone for "killing Jesus". Or is there a post I'm not seeing.

Or did you not mean this as defensive as it sounds?

Jerry

But hey, his dad's a jerk, so let's judge him!

You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,...

...you are to be stoned to death.

**You have been found guilty by the elders of the town of uttering the name of our Lord, and so, as a blasphemer,...

...you are to be stoned to death.

**

"Bring forth the Bong of Execution, and the Killer Weed!!"

(I'm sorry - once again, I couldn't help myself...) :)

(I'm sorry - once again, I couldn't help myself...) :)

me neither!

Please clarify for this unenlighted daughter of the chosen people:If the Jews/Romans/Whoever had not killed Jesus...then what would've happened?

I'm no expert here, but I've taken a shot at that question before while teaching 3rd grade at a Lutheran school, so here's what I said then:

*If God sent His Son to be the Lamb, then it was His will that Christ be sacrificed in the manner fortold by the Prophets. It was predestined, and therefore HAD to happen. (This was then followed by urgent questions about free will from a bunch of 8 year-olds.)

*If God had not chosen to send His Son to be the Savior and the Messiah, or had not chosen to do so yet, then there'd be no Christianity.

The Religion curriculum that I had to teach back then was predominantly Old Testament; they got into New Testament much more in 4th grade. It was enjoyable watching the little guys realize that the difference between Jews and Christians is really pretty minor.

Why am I getting the feeling that just because I'm a White, Christian, Heterosexual, Republican, I have now become a member of the most Politcally Incorrect party to live in the US.

It could be worse,I guess. I could be a man too.

It makes me want to apoligize all the time for being who I am.

While I am not PAD, nor can I read his mind, I take this as one author's droll commentary on current events. I'm pleased you're at least admitting to the possibility that you might be taking this a bit too literally. Because frankly? You are. Add "too seriously" to that caveat while you're at it. There's an argument about cavemen vs. astronauts going on upthread, for God's sake. Please relax before you start reading some sort of PAD-belief for/against Creationism or Nasa into that as well.

It's odd that you would consider this to be a (and maybe this isn't the most precise term) light-hearted discussion. To me, the tone of PAD's post, devoid as it is of humor, and suffused with a 'things are going to hell in a handbasket' sensibility, combined with the fact that the responses to his post haven't exactly constituted a joke-fest would seem to indicate that this isn't exactly comparable to the 'astronauts vs. cavemen' discussion. Which, by the way, wasn't going on when I took issue with Peter's original post, and at any rate, is quite obviously a continuation of a running gag from his week's Angel. As a wise man named Homer Simpson once said, "I get jokes." I just don't see any in Peter's post.

In light of that, I don't see what is so problematic about closely scrutinizing his words for serious meaning. Isn't that what you're supposed to do in a discussion: read carefully what one person has said and then reply to it in a civil manner?

Anyway, PAD just offered up a response, so let's move on to that.

I was referring to both Bush's anti-gay stance which endorses an overall spirit of bigotry and intolerance. I wasn't saying that Bush was anti-Semitic. But the so-called compassionate conservative is unquestionably intolerant. And intolerance breeds more intolerance.

If anything, I think Bush is guilty of overreacting. He is, as I imagine a lot of conservatives are, concerned about the future of a marriage as a foundation for raising children, knowing that the one man, one woman, and x amount of children family unit leads to fewer problems down the road than the alternatives (which unfortunately, aren't as socially unattractive as they once were, owing to the liberalization of our culture over the last 40 years or so.) I think he's thinking that marriage has already been weakened so much that if we make any drastic change to it, the whole thing could very well disintegrate further.

But it's not so much the change as it is the nature of the change. If gays, within the context of marriage, want to adopt kids or use outside help to conceive their own, that's fine with me because they're using the foundation of marriage in starting their family. And if they don't, that makes them no different than heterosexual couples who get married and choose not to have children. Which is fine. The problem has more to do with factors like teen pregnancy, out-of-wedlock births, single parenting and overuse of the two working parent model (too often used as a cover for the parents' inability to distinguish between wants and needs, which leads to an overreliance on day care centers and schools to raise one's children and an increase in the sort of problems that arise from inattentive parenting.) But I don't see gay marriage intrinsically contributing to any of those problems.

Is it bigotry for Bush (or any 'compassionate conservative') to support a 'defense of marriage' amendment? No, because I see a reasoning, however flawed, behind the idea, and a justification for some sort of action, even if I think their action is not the action to take. Is it comparable to hanging anti-Semitic signs or expressing one's anti-Semitism by attacking Jews with "fists, knives and torches"? Again, no. There is a distinction between disagreement expressed through free speech conducted in a civil manner (in this case, a proposed amendment free of slurs and insults) and disagreement expressed in a violent manner.

However, it's not one that Peter is willing to make. It's too much of a stretch for me to accept that a mild sort of intolerance (a statment by Bush supporting an amendment that would not actually deny them anything they already have) breeds a very extreme sort of intolerance (the stabbing of a Jew by an anti-Semite, which would deny that Jew the right to live in a blessedly stabwound-free state.) To do that would require me to equate two things that are very much unalike, and that's why, even though I'm basically on Peter's side, I think his post was a little too grounded in liberal hysteria. I know Peter doesn't like President Bush (I am only moderately supportive of him), but it really is unfair to drag him into a post about anti-Semitic hooligans.

-Dave O'Connell

It had to turn out some way, and happened to turn out the way it did because (this is a simplified argument) the elements in play, and their proportions, interacted in such a manner to come out that way.

I understand this, I just happen to see design behind that. It's like wanting to bake a chocolate german cake and suddenly (or over a length of extreme time) my cupboards were filled with exactly what I needed for that specific cake, AND then the ingredients suddenly just came together. Can't see that just happening, sorry.

If that makes me silly, and naive then so be it.

Look, I see how ordered this world is. I see (though I confess to not understanding)the exact mathmatics behind everything. I gotta go with Einstein on this one. "God does not play dice with the Universe."

I also KNOW we will discover the link between the seemingly chaotic Quantum world and Grand order of Einstein's theroy, and thus find that even the Quantum world has order. (Be it "String Theory" or otherwise.)

"In the beginning there was chaos..."

To the Christians saying "The Jews killed Jesus": the Jews in question are no longer alive. If Jesus was supposed to be a sacrifice to eliminate the sins of the father from the son (i.e. Adam & Eve's original sin), then you cannot hold Jews today responsible (let's not forget the Romans, too). Of course, my biggest problem with Christianity is the concept of original sin, but that's a different discussion.

To the Jews complaining of anti-Semitism: if we are not supposed to forget the Holocaust and the way Jews were tortured/killed by the Germans, should we also not forget the way Jews were tortured/killed by the Romans?

I don't buy either side of the debate: it's just a movie, folks.

I certainly am not asking anybody to discuss NASA, for/against Creationism, Big Bang, or whatever if they don't want too. And really it just started out as a comment, sorry if it got off on a rabbit trail.

You can just skip past my posts if it bugs you so much. I do that all the time in this forum.

Lighten up baby I'm in love with you.

Einstein's famous comment was part of his last-ditch defense against quantum theory. The problem there is, quantum mechanics as a field is/are (never sure of which verb form to apply) a better, more accurate way to describe the universe than Einstein's classic neo-Newtonian physics.

I kind of like the variant Stephen Hawking used, when describing quantum black hole theory: "It turns out that not only does God play dice with the Universe, sometimes He throws the dice where they can't be seen."

You know, I hate to say this, but I'm starting to get the feeling that *some* Jews think they are the center of the universe or something.

Its the only reason I can think of that they are the only ones saying The Passion of Christ is anti-Semitic.

But then, those Christians saying "the Jews did it" probably think they are the center of the universe as well.

Either way, it's sad.

"It turns out that not only does God play dice with the Universe, sometimes He throws the dice where they can't be seen."

I think it's true He does throw the dice where they can't be seen. It's His joy to see if His children will find where He hid them! Hide and Seek everyone!!!

"[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter."

What the article referred to is saying is that there have been accusations of a cover-up, but they are completely absurd. Plus, just because priests worked on the team doesn't mean the Vatican was in control of what was shown or not. Most of the problems with the slow speed of translation were from the fact that the members of the scroll team would not allow anyone outside of their group to even look at the scrolls. This was because they enjoyed the statue and prestige of their position. Also, the most of the scrolls are in terrible condition consisting of a patchwork of fragments. However, it could be that the Israel Antiquities Authority is in a vast conspiracy with the Vatican, the Free Masons, the Teamsters, the CIA, the FBI, the Tri-Lateral Commission, and Microsoft. Sorry to get insulting, but if the priests refused to release documents, why would the Israeli government go along with them? Why wouldn’t they kick them out and put a new team in? Finally, photographs that were taken when the scrolls were first found are in the possession of several libraries, so copies exist in other locations.

"I understand this, I just happen to see design behind that. It's like wanting to bake a chocolate german cake and suddenly (or over a length of extreme time) my cupboards were filled with exactly what I needed for that specific cake, AND then the ingredients suddenly just came together. Can't see that just happening, sorry."-Zeek.

Just out of curiosity, would that be made with real germans?

Sorry, had to.

Seriously, you make a good case, not that I agree with you, but you made a good point. I'm trying to come up with a good counterpoint, but I'm not sure I can as yet come up with a good example/analogy that you, personally, couldn't turn around and see design in it. Because, quite frankly, if you're looking for it and want to see it, you will. Kind of like starring at the grain in a wooden board. If you want to, you can see faces. Or clouds, too perhaps. Doesn't necessarily mean the grain or the clouds actually are those things, or are even trying to appear to be those things. Well, let's try to go back to the cooking analogy. If you had an almost infinite number of kitchens (metaphor for all the stars and planets and everything that makes up the vastness of space/universe), isn't it plausible that in at least one of those kitchens, the correct ingrediants would happen to be there? Of course, you could still say that someone must have put them there. Hmm. I'll work on this when I'm less tired (being a stay at home dad with my five month old is tiring me out).

Thanks for something to think about.

Monkeys

p.s. sorry to everyone else for slightly hijacking the thread.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/gibson.asp for a bit more on Mel Gibson, his dad, and their favorite Imaginary Friend.

• Gibson claims that this movie was based solely on the New Testament. Some have more recently claimed that it is informed by the writings of a 19th-century nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich, whose writings were accused of promoting anti-semitism. This claim has not been substantiated, and Gibson personally refutes it, claiming he has indeed tried to base his movie on the Gospels. The free Wiki Encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Catherine_Emmerich has an entry on her — “… In 1833 appeared the first-fruits of Brentano's toil, "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich" (Sulzbach). These visions include grotesque anti-Semitic characterizations of Jews. …”

• Bush made May 10th State “Jesus” Day in Texas. Bush doesn't think Gay people should have the same rights Straights do. Bush worries me more than those Gibsons or a dead hate-filled nun.

I have to say I share the concerns Peter voices. He has a valuable POV that needs to be heard.

- Alan

PS Let's get some sun on those hate-filled SOBs and make them squirm. The blood curse is marginally less offensive than the standard blood libel bs I've dealt with.

Toby-

Ah ha! Gotchya!

No just kidding.

Because, quite frankly, if you're looking for it and want to see it, you will.

Actually I was waiting for this one and I suppose it is true! But then I can say the same for you and the others who see it your way!

Deh well! I await your response and I totaly understand about the tired thing! (Although I have no kids, a fulltime job and an active lifestyle makes me fried by the end of the day too!!)

Just out of curiosity, would that be made with real germans?

Why not, since the ingredients just happened to appear anyway! KIDDING! I KID! ;)

(dang, I mean't German Chocolate Cake, Entschuldigung!)

The below is quoted from the letters page of The Incredible Hulk #414.

Dear Ms. Chase,

On behalf of the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), this nation's largest Asian American civil rights organization, we are writing to express our serious concern about your July issues of the INCREDIBLE HULK.

Specifically, we are deeply disturbed by the Japanese tourists on page 3.We find the stereotypical depictions in your story both inappropriate and insensative. We are particularly offended by the Japanese tourists having cameras slung around their necks and "nerdy" appearances.

While Asian American characters are highly underrepresented in comics, these images are very damaging to Asian American. Comic books such as the INCREDIBLE HULK have the power to influence both Asian and non-Asian people's perceptions and attitudes. Thusit should be your responsibilty as a publisher to be aware and sensitive, and provide accurate portrayals of Asians and Asian Americans.

The JACL continues to see a disturbing increase in Anti-Asian violence incidents around the nation. Negative stereotypical characters of Asians serve only to exacerbate this nation's existing problem of anti-Asian sentiment and violence committed against Asian Americans.

We hope that THE INCREDIBLE HULK will in the future demonstrate sensitivity and awareness of our multi-racial and multi-cultural society.

PAD responded in part:

While I respect your feelings, I must disagree with your interpretation of Hiro and Larry. There was nothing in their depictions intended to give insult of defamation. There is, to my mind, a world of difference between two "typical" tourists and two "STereotypical tourists...

You are focusing on one aspect, the visual, and reading a world of hostillity into it. Equating tow camera-toting comic book tourists with violence committed against Asian Americans is trivializing the seriousness of the latter. END QUOTE

What is my point in posting all this? Only that it is easy to disregard negative stereotypes unless it is YOUR group that is being negatively portrayed. It is also possible to upset a segment of society without consciously intending to. This is a comment meant for everyone, not just Mr. David. We should all attempt to portray all people fairly and accurately.

And as far as Mel's "Imaginary Friend," I am reminded of a line from a song by Michael Card called God's own Fool:

So come lose your life for a capenter's son/ for a madman who died for a dream/ and you'll have the faith the first followers had/ and you'll feel the weight of the beam.

So surrender the hunger to say you must know/have the courage to say "I believe"/ for the power of paradox opens your eyes/ and blinds those who say they can see.

Sorry for the long post.

Ben

Zeek--

I understand your point, and your perception, but posit that you see order because that is what you have been conditioned to see.

The chocolate cake analogy is putting the cart before the horse a bit -- you start with the outcome and then rely on the pre-existence of specific ingredients to construct that outcome, rather than a choclate cake being the result because it is one of tthe likeliest possible outcomes from the ingredients available.

Another outlook would be that, in such a case, with the cabinet of ingredients, the outcome of a chocolate cake is more likely, but not pre-ordained.

Suppose the cabinet contained all the ingredients for a chocolate cake, PLUS a tin of anchovies. A chocolate cake could still be created, but the 'order' or 'intelligence' of the ingredients would be in question, but the cake would still be precisely the same.

Anyway, don't want to clutter up PAD's board with snippets of cosmology -- will leave it here with, one hopes, food for thought.

The movie was not intended to be an attack on the jews nor to express an attitude about them.

As David Niewert has shown on his blog, the movie is more of a statement by Mel Gibons, about his own devote pre-vatican2 Catholic church dedication.

The movie was meant to bring to the forefront what Mel thinks Christ endured for mankind, and that it is our quest as 'christians' to live up to that crime. So it's not that he is badmouthing the jews of the period, he's simply trying hard to hammer home the point that Jesus went through some serious shit back them and in the church I perscribe to we make for damned sure we try to live up to that sacrifice. Which is not the compassionate, and merciful jesus that we try to promote, but a kickass jesus, and harsh love. Sort of a 'spare the rod and spoil the child' kind of tough love.

This is what the movie is trying to promote. Not anti-semitism, but more so of anti-modern-day-vatican-catholic-church type of hatred.

MYOB'

.

I haven't seen the movie, either. But I plan to. I'm looking forward to it very much so.

However, I would just like to add something. Somewhere up here, someone mentionned there was no historical proof Jesus existed. I was told and taught that there was indeed a Jesus of Nazareth that was crucified. Now, that doesn't force anyone to beleive this was God's only begotten Son. But I do.

Can someone clear this up? Does anyone have Roman Scrolls handy, perhaps dating somewhere between 2015 and 1995 years ago. Because that it where it was transcribed.

Alright Zeek, here it is at the end of the day, and I'm still without a good response. Between raising the kiddo (but not having a full time job-my wife is cool for doing the earning in our family), trying to stay active and trying to get into my studio (I got in about 8 hours today, woohoo!), my brain is fried long before this time of night. But, I do have to say "ditto" to what skring said (I know that's pretty much a copout on my part).

Hey, maybe at some point PAD will actually start a thread that would actually cover this topic so the few of us discussing it wouldn't be hijacking this thread.

Monkeys.

Ben? Jay Gee Kay?

I'm the one who posted there is no historic proof for Mel Gibson's imaginary friend. I also explained why it shouldn't affect your faith.

Cool? I believe that the whole shebang was a whisper campaign to rid Judea of the Romans which failed in a rather spectacular way. One key to the story is the subject is called the word of GOD.

And if it wasn't for Paul — we humans would have some other mortal god stand-in so we could be inhumane to people we don't like.

I expect PBS to rerun Frontline: From Jesus to Christ this Easter. Watch it - as nowhere in the program is any proof of the historicity of “Jesus” offered.

S'okay? For the record — I'm intolerant of evangelists.

- Alan

PS Tammuz, Dionysus, and Hercules had a good chance of being in JC's shoes ...

Well, since Evangelists are accused of being the worst of intolerants, then I suppose you could have some common ground to build a bridge of communication on...See there's a bright side to every situation.

Quick question; have you ever encountered any explanation why, if the Biblical Paul states that Jesus had to die for the salvation of believers, the crucifxion stands as such a hated event?

According to Pauline theology, if the perpetrators had refused to kill him, no person could achieve salvation.