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
• 
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 whørë 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 😛
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 hëll 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 HÊLL 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 HÊLL 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.