I have been telling myself over and over–in hopes that I’ll believe it, perhaps–that “The Passion” will not set off a wave of anti-Semitism. That although it will undoubtedly reinforce those who already hate Jews, it won’t take anyone who doesn’t hate Jews and turn them into anti-Semites. And that people will have the intelligence to realize that it’s just a movie with a singular point of view that is not automatically the truth just because Mel says so.
Then Marc Foxx sent me the following e-mail, forwarded from Robert Seltzer of the American Jewish Committee. It reads:
Subject: This is what we are concerned about….
My AJC Denver colleague reports that outside a church there stands a new, large sign which reads:
The Jews Killed Jesus. Settled.
Having seen the Gibson film, I am not surprised, tho it is shocking.
I have always believed, and still do, that the best response to free speech is more free speech. It is difficult to respond with more free speech, however, if people are coming at you with fists, knives and torches.
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.
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) . . . dámņëd.
ESTRAGON:
Saved from what?
VLADIMIR:
Hëll.
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 hëll?
VLADIMIR:
Imbecile! From death.
ESTRAGON:
I thought you said hëll.
VLADIMIR:
From death, from death.
ESTRAGON:
Well what of it?
VLADIMIR:
Then the two of them must have been dámņëd.
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 dámņáŧìøņ) 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 hëll 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 hëll 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