Has Mel Gibson completely LOST it?

[Sapphocrat]

Did anybody see "Inside Edition" tonight? (I know, I know, I usually watch "Jeopardy!" but I had to see Nicole Kidman's uncharacteristically-awful Golden Globes outfit!).

Ol' pseudo-Aussie homophobe Gibson is bitching about being called "anti-Semitic" (because of his Jesus movie, of course), and I swear to you, he's coming across like a hybrid of his characters in "Lethal Weapon" and "Conspiracy Theory."

"Can't they see they're VIOLATING all my CIVIL RIGHTS here? Hello! HELLOOOOOO?!" twitch! twitch! blink! twitch!

My conclusion: He's nuts.

[lastknowngood]

1. Mel never had it he has always bee out there

n/t

[SoCalDem]

2. He probably saw nothing wrong when CBS was attacked for the Reagans

I think Ole Mel is full of himself. He wants love and admiration from everyone, and yet he makes a movie that will piss off 50% of the people who will "want" to see it.. Smooth move , Mel :eyes:

[Mormegil42]

10. Others from Hollywood

have said things to alienate themselves but they did so because they believe in what they see as right and truthful. What's so different about Mel Gibson?

[Sapphocrat]

15. Have you forgotten...

...the right-wing outrage over "The Last Temptation of Christ"? Angry picketing, denunciations in the press, etc., etc., etc. -- and almost all by people who'd never even seen the film.

If Christians have a right to protest TLTOC (which they do), then Jews have a right to protest Gibson's movie.

The difference is, Gibson has an agressive F.U. attitude -- he doesn't give a damn who he insults, and attacks his critics by pretending he's a "victim" of some sort of civil-rights violation.

Which is just so much bullshit. Nobody's stopping him from making or marketing his movie. But nobody has to like his message, either -- and that's when he starts wetting his pants like a crybaby.

If you're going to make a controversial statement, then you'd better be prepared to take the blows without being such a whiner.

[oldcoot]

75. I wonder if those protests helped "The Last Temptation"

I wonder if the protests of the "Last Temptation of Christ" actually helped the movie. People might have decided to see the movie just to see what the fuss was all about.

Gibson has been in the movie business long enough to know that controversy sells and is playing the "poor victim" to attract more attention to his movie. He knows that his movie may only appeal to a very select audience and wisely fears that it might be a flop. The more controversial his movie is, the more likely it will attract viewers.

I agree that no one is interfering with Gibson's civil rights. Complaining about a movie is not the same as censorship. For Gibson to claim that his civil rights are being violated diminishes the seriousness of censorship. Hopefully, movie goers will see through Gibson and will decide not to see this movie. Frankly, I am sick of this aging pretty boy, his movies, and his big mouth.

[Jim Sagle]

98. He's a piece of antisemitic filth, that's what's different.

[pinkpops]

3. I will believe he is sane until Fox

tells me otherwise. THEY know how to spot a madman.

[Sapphocrat]

16. True, they do...

...and and soon as they spot one, they hire him!

[glarius]

4. When he said "I love Jews, I pray for them" it was a dead giveaway to me

That's what the Christian zealots who are waiting for Armageddon say. They profess to love Jews and other non-Christians, but the catch is that much as they LOVE these people, they believe that the people are doomed to hell unless they convert to Christianity...

[Mari333]

5. Yep..I hope every Jewish man and woman who

watched that say OY hes a madman religious evangelistic Zealot..
I never understood why ANY jewish person would ever trust a christian extremist...

see:
http://www.iraqwar.org/Armageddonupdates.htm

[Sapphocrat]

6. Oh, yes, BUT...

...the zealots can't afford to convert all Jews to Christianity -- it's absolutely imperative that X number of Jews are left to be swallowed up by some sort of gory nightmare to ensure that the Christians are Raptured into heaven.

At least, that's what the Rushdoony-Loony Reconstructionists believe.

So maybe Mel's praying that the appropriate number of Jews stay "un-saved."

[san antonio]

91. It's called having a religious belief.

That's called having a religious belief and not compromising them because you are afraid to offend somebody. It's called having a sincere faith in something and not just calling yourself a Christian because you go to church once a year. It’s called not turning your back on what your religion teaches just because you want to be ‘open minded’.

There aren't too many legit religions that have a "freedom of religion" clause.

[Sapphocrat]

97. But you should be alarmed when...

...a "believer" starts sounding like a "crusader."

Glarius is absolutely right: "They profess to love Jews and other non-Christians, but the catch is that much as they LOVE these people, they believe that the people are doomed to hell unless they convert to Christianity..."

And Gibson has made no bones about the idea that his god is better than your god -- or my god, or anybody else's god.

These quotes from Gibson are available all over the Web (I pulled them off a David Limbaugh column, but I certainly won't link to him):

"I'm not a preacher, and I'm not a pastor. But I really feel my career was leading me to make this. The Holy Ghost was working through me on this film, and I was just directing traffic. I hope the film has the power to evangelize. ...

"Everyone who worked on this movie was changed. There were agnostics and Muslims on set converting to Christianity ... people being healed of diseases.***

"(The) point of my film really (is) to show all that turmoil around him politically and with religious leaders and the people, all because He is Who He is."

I don't know about you, but I find this to be slightly scary talk. It's the sort of fundamentalist zeal that crowds out all but the beliefs of one sect, one denomination, or one man. That may be the Gospel According to Mel, but it's wildly inconsistent with the tenets of interfaith tolerance (which is given lip service even by George Man-o'-God Bush*).

I'm not saying Gibson should be silenced -- he's free to espouse whatever views he wants. But I'm deeply concerned when a person of his influence feels as "chosen by God" as George W. Bush* does, either to wage war or to indulge in an orgy of proselytization.

Maybe there is a God -- and maybe this God chooses people for certain tasks. But I also believe that Man has perverted Christianity into something that would be completely unrecognizable to St. Peter himself. What is it they say about Man creating God in his own image?

*** What Gibson fails to mention is that lightning struck -- twice -- on the set of "Passion," once hitting a crew member, and then a few months later, hitting the same crew member, and the actor who plays Jesus. If Gibson is looking for something superhuman going on, he's got a very selective definition of "signs from God."

[roguevalley]

108. I haven't been able to stand him since he came on either letterman or

leno and talked about a joke he played on a friend. He
took a cigar, stuck it up his butt and then sent it to
his friend. He asked him after he smoked it how he liked
it. Whoever it was, Letterman I think, just looked at
him like he was nuts.

Susan Sarandon said he was a fascist. I think I agree.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. This film is causing so much controversy...

can't wait to see it!

[mike1963]

8. A few years ago, I caught a short TV show (no recall which) playing a tape

of him when he was about...maybe 18 kissing a guy on the mouth, in the back seat of a car. And "Man without a face" had strong homoerotic themes...

Just some food for thought, re the homophobia comment...

[Sapphocrat]

18. Man Without a Face...

Well, the original story sure was gay -- but anything homoerotic was excised from the film.

And as for Mel kissing any guy on the mouth -- never heard of that, but if it's so, it would say a lot. You know what they say about the most vehement homophobes.

[Mormegil42]

9. Question

Is he a homophobe because he disagrees with the life style or has he done something to openly gay bash? I ask this in all seriousness.

[Sapphocrat]

13. Openly gay-bashed...

For instance (and this is only one instance):


MEL GIBSON DENOUNCES GAYS IN SPANISH INTERVIEW
by Rex Wockner
Outlines News Service
(Article filed January 1992)

Heartthrob actor Mel Gibson, asked by one of Spain's leading magazines what he thinks of homosexuals, launched into a tirade against gay men.

"They take it up the ass," Gibson told El Pais as he got out of his chair, bent over and pointed to his butt. "This is only for taking a shit," he said.

. . .

"Do I sound like a homosexual?" he asked. "Do I talk like them? Do I move like them?"

. . .

MEL GIBSON REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE TO GAYS
by Rex Wockner
Outlines News Service
(Article filed February 1992)

Actor Mel Gibson, speaking Jan. 21 on ABC-TV's "Good Morning America," refused to apologize to gay men, who he ridiculed late last year in an interview with the Sunday magazine of Spain's largest newspaper, El Pais.

"I don't think there's an apology necessary, and I'm certainly not giving one," Gibson said. " to a direct question. If someone wants my opinion, I'll give it. What, am I supposed to lie to them?

. . .

The "Good Morning America" interviewer pressed Gibson, "Are you saying to me that you did not make any anti-gay statements at all?"

Gibson responded: "I didn't lie. Put it that way.... Liz Smith seems to be violating my right to have an opinion. I have a right to an opinion."

Robert Bray, spokesman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, was livid at Gibson's new statements. "And I have a right to respond to Mel Gibson's anti-gay defamation," Bray said. "He can kiss my queer ass. He can't defame gays and then try to wiggle out of it by blaming the translation. And he's not even denying he made the statements. He's saying he has a right to his opinion. Gay fans of Mel Gibson need to throw away their 'Mad Max' tapes and stop going to his movies until he stops defaming gay people," Bray said.

. . .

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/media/people/1995/mel.gibson.antigay.history-wockner-06.02.95

[Matilda]

19. One of his brothers is gay.

Mel offered to pay for psychiatric help to cure him.

Perhaps he's just ignorant. It wasn't an unusual attitude from
Catholics in the pre-Vatican II days, and that's where Mel is
coming from. Probably closer to today's religious right than to
most Catholics of today.

[RapidCreek]

20. As I've said before

He's nothing more than an American born Australian Redneck. There stupidity and crassness challenges that of our own.

RC

[Enraged_Ape]

25. Almost all Australians I've known have been really fun, kind people

I believe Mel Gibson's problem is not that he's Australian; he's just an asshole.

[foreigncorrespondent]

26. But he isn't a full blooded Aussie.

He was born in Peekskill, New York to an American father and an Australian mother.

But he truly is an asshole.

[Djinn]

88. don't wanna get too defensive but

He was born in the US, lived there till he was 12 and has spent pretty much ALL of his adult life in the US and you're gonna give us the blame????

If someone is going to pick up bizarro fundie religious beliefs they are FAR more likely to be homegrown in the USA - less than 10% of australians attend ANY church regularly let alone a freaky medieval catholic one - and if you want to compare national stupidity - try a comparison between the numbers of American's and Australians who beleived in the Al Qaeda = Saddam theory, the number of citizens of each country who vote, the number with a University degree, the number who have travelled to atleast one other country, or to be more relevant to the topic, a comparison of the number of citizens in each country who beleive the earth was created 6000 years ago???

I think you may be basing your stereotypical view on the myth of the Aussie outback where only 10% or so live, we may have a lot to apologise to the world for, Vegemite, the Crocodile Hunter, Ugh Boots and Kylie Minogue - but Mel's not one of them! B-)

[Sapphocrat]

89. That's why I call him a 'pseudo-Aussie'...

Gibson's an Aussie like Bush* is a Texan.

And, aside from Steve "Dingos Didn't Eat My Baby, And Neither Did That Croc" Irwin, the only homegrown Aussies you have to answer for are Cardinal Pell, that guy who shot up Port Arthur, and Little Johnny Howard. :D

Btw, LOVE your Eureka Stockade flag!

[Djinn]

96. I can think of a few more!

Phil "they throw their babies overboard" Ruddock, Fred Nile - big on banning books and gay people and Joh Bjelke Peterson - big on banning democracy

[roguevalley]

110. He reminds me of someone who moves to an area and becomes an

extreme of that particular area. Happens all the time
in Texas. (Bush anyone?) As for Oz ... it rocks the
casbah. :)

[theHandpuppet]

21. Well...

First of all, being gay is not "a lifestyle" that one can agree or disagree with, any more than being heterosexual, tall or short, blond or brunette, brown or blue-eyed, et al are "lifestyles". Describing homosexuality as a "lifestyle" is, to me, akin to gay bashing for the very nature of the question.

[Bonobo]

48. I hate when people call it a "lifestyle"

It's a ridiculous phrase IMHO. I'm a straight man, but no one would dare to define me or my "lifestyle" based solely on what I like to do with my dick. People are a wee bit more complex than that.

[Sapphocrat]

78. Thank you both, theHandpuppet & SkeptyCal!

I skipped over the "lifestyle" reference because I've ragged on it so many times, I sound like a broken record even to myself. It's nice to hear somebody else say it for a change (especially straight folks!).

I also HATE the phrase "sexual orientation," as if being gay/straight/bi has everything to do with how you employ your genitalia. AFAIC, it's an emotional orientation -- sex is just the bonus. :)

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

11. How many of you have seen the movie?

Not trying to flame, but I really need to know. Has anyone here seen the Passion? It seems to me that a lot of people who haven't even seen the movie are calling it anti-Semitic. That's bound to drive a man nuts.

[NWHarkness]

12. And those who have...

If I'm not mistaken, the film was screened for an audience of jewish leaders, who were very unhappy with it. Perhaps someone else has more info on that.

[LeahMira]

22. Check the ADL website for this into...

If I'm not mistaken, the film was screened for an audience of jewish leaders, who were very unhappy with it. Perhaps someone else has more info on that.

What I read on the ADL website was that they got a copy of the proposed script, but not a final version. They felt that, judging from the script they saw, the film portrayed the Jews as responsible for Jesus' death, as the Christian Testament does, and that also the film portrayed Jews as particularly bloodthirsty and brutish.

For centuries the Jewish people have been accused of guilt for Jesus' death, and that has been used as a rationale for terrible persecution wherever Christians and Jews find themselves together in the same general area.

I suppose there have always been people who suck up to power in order to save their own hides. Since Jews are human, there probably were some few who sucked up to the Romans in ancient times. There are certainly some around today who do that.

IMO, it's interesting that Mel Gibson apparently chose to focus on the worst representatives of the ancient Jewish people. As someone who claims that his film is unique because it shows all the graphic and horrible facts of the crucifixion without flinching, Mel Gibson might have done better to tell the unflinching truth about all the people of that time throughout his entire work... the bad and the ugly perhaps, but also the good. Maybe he wasn't looking.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

24. Jesus was a Jew as were ALL the players on the scene and why aren't the

Italians up in arms about how badly and horribly they are protrayed in this same film?...i am italian and the Romans are portrayed as friggen monsters!

all this brouhaha being made about a movie is just :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: imho

[BurtWorm]

31. All the brouhaha is designed to put fannies in the seats.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

37. i agree

[LeahMira]

60. I'm an Italian Jew...

Who shall I get upset at?

:-)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

69. LOL ...so are two of my sisters and nieces and nephews

:shrug:

[regnaD kciN]

100. Yourself!

By either ancient or modern standards, you are personally responsible for the Crucifixion!

:crazy:

[BurtWorm]

29. With all due respect, there are good reasons to think Jesus is pure myth.

One of the most harmful aspects of this movie and all Christian apologetics for the "historicity" of the Passion is that it accepts uncritically the notion that the Gospels reflect accurate history. There is no good reason to believe they do. Intelligent Christians should look a bit more closely at this question. They might save themselves from buying a fundamentally anti-Semitic myth. (There may be positive aspects to Christianity, but its legacy of anti-Semitism is far from being one of them.)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

34. With all due respect, there are good reasons to think Moses is pure myth

One of the most harmful aspects of all Jewish apologetics for the "historicity" of the Exodus is that it accepts uncritically the notion that the Torah reflect accurate history. There is no good reason to believe it does. Intelligent Jews should look a bit more closely at this question. They might save themselves from buying a fundamentally xenophobic myth. (There may be positive aspects to Judaism, but its legacy of xenophobia is far from being one of them.)

Oops! Let's do some more judging of movies that we haven't seen, and religions and cultures that we don't understand. After all, that's the liberal way, right! :eyes:

(/end sarcasm for the easily offended)

[BurtWorm]

35. I agree with a lot of that.

But it doesn't address my points. :hi:

[LeahMira]

61. My Rabbi says...

... that there is fact and there is truth.

Is it a fact that some guy names Moses went up on to the top of some mountain and saw a bush that was on fire and didn't get burned to a crisp? Probably not.

Is it true? Absolutely!

(Maybe you have to be a little mystical or spiritual to "get it" but I personally like that way of thinking. For sure, something extraordinary happened in the history of the Jewish people and whatever the specifics, what happened had an enormous impact of their history for generations to come, and right up to the present. Think about it!)

[BurtWorm]

72. That is a nice distinction.

I think what happened to the Jewish people is that they became a nation. I view the Torah as a nation-making document, primarily. But then, I'm not all that mystical and spiritual.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

43. the writings of Josephus and the DSS's disagrees with your "myth" opinion

[BurtWorm]

44. You probably won't be surprised to know I've encountered that before.

And I'm convinced by the scholars who show that the references to Jesus in Josephus are probably Christian interpolations. It's unlikely that a Jew would have referred to Jesus as The Messiah, as Josephus does.

I don't know what you mean by the DSS's.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

46. nah i do not doubt it for a NY second and DDS= Dead Sea Scrolls

[BurtWorm]

47. Do not doubt what? "Josephus?" or that there are interpolations.

And what in the Dead Sea Scrolls provides proof positive that the Jesus story is historical? Are there references to Jesus?

[LeahMira]

103. In all fairness...

It's unlikely that a Jew would have referred to Jesus as The Messiah, as Josephus does.

... at the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived, the Jews were under the thumb of Rome. We have always had the thread of a Messianic idea running through our beliefs, whether in the form of some strong person who will rescue us from our oppressors or some distant future time when the world will be perfected. Back then there were a lot of itinerant preachers going about (think John the Baptist, or the Essenes) who were preaching repentance and getting ready for the end times. Their followers sort of wondered if these men might not be the Messiah. As one of the itinerant preachers going about, Jesus would have been someone that some people might have thought was "the One." If you trust the gospels, it looks as if Jesus himself might have been aware of this when he asked "Who do men say I am?"

[LeahMira]

59. Here's a little more up to date info that I found on the Jewish ...

... Federation of Delaware website today.

http://www.shalomdelaware.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=100094

After months of speculation about the final form “The Passion of Christ” will take, the
first Jewish expert on interfaith affairs to have seen the nearly final cut says earlier fears
that the Mel Gibson film about the last hours of Jesus would foment anti-Semitism are
no longer necessary.

“A fear that this would result in pogroms against Jews is unwarranted,” David Elcott, U.S. director for
interfaith affairs at the American Jewish Committee, told The Jewish Week Tuesday night just after
leaving a screening of the film.

Elcott watched “The Passion of Christ” at the Willow Creek mega-church in suburban Chicago, an
Evangelical congregation, with 4,500 Christians who included ministers from all over the country.

Though Elcott said he planned to consult with Catholic and Lutheran theologians before issuing his full
reaction, he did say that while the movie wasn’t as dangerous as had been feared, “that does not mean
that we won’t be disappointed and frustrated by it.”

(more)

[Tinoire]

85. Gibson followed the Gospels faithfully & the Gospels

don't blame the Jews- just a certain political group and the rabble they roused to their cause. Just like Baker did when he bussed in those rabble-rousers in Fla who most certainly did not represent all Americans.

We have more to fear from the fight over this film than the film or the story itself.

Peace to all is all I can think

[BurtWorm]

28. Some Jews who have read the script and seen the movie

say it is anti-Semitic, in that it maintains the blood libel that "the Jews killed Christ."

[Tinoire]

38. In which case the entire Bible and Christianity are anti-Semitic

This would include the Old Testament, the Tanakh itself.

The position doesn't make much sense. The ADL is skirting a very fine line here and they know it. The last thing Foxman wants is to go down as saying that Christianity is anti-Semitic. THAT will start a brouhaha of major proportions.

[BurtWorm]

39. Of course he doesn't want to say that.

But that doesn't mean it isn't true. Which isn't to say all Christians are anti-Semitic, of course. ;)

(Why would the Tanakh be included in the charge? It was written separately and with a different agenda entirely from the New Testament.)

[Tinoire]

40. Because there is a lot of recriminatory talk

against the Jewish people in it. Much, much more so than in the New is painful to the ear. The Prophets are especially harsh. If you're interested, I can dig up some quotes this afternoon but that could start another brouhaha ;)

Peace

[BurtWorm]

41. But the prophets don't commit blood libel, do they?

I kinda doubt it. :hi:

[Tinoire]

64. I would say they did not

But would you say the writers of the New Testament did either?

This isn't my forte anymore... I've become too much of a heathen in the last decade.



:hi:

[BurtWorm]

66. I would say that there is outright anti-Semitism in the NT

especially in Paul's epistles. I would also say that the Church had a policy of blood libel until Vatican II.

And I will repeat that this doesn't mean Christians are necessarily anti-Semitic.

[Tinoire]

83. Is it anything worse than what is in the OT?

I could cite passages from there that would curl your toes. We could take any verses from the OT and the NT to prove points but I think the overall message of both books would disprove those single points.

Also, I am separating the Churches and followers from the book for this exercise (just as you did with the followers)... I don't recall finding the NT any harsher than the OT. Both were extremely harsh and used pretty broad brushes. Maybe my recollection is faulty but I thought the OT was especially cruel. I could research this if you want to talk about it.

It's not a subject I like discussing very much though because my ultimate belief is that God is A-ok with all those who follow His word to the best of their ability and with all sincerity. Being Jewish, Christian, or Muslim has little to do with it. I say little because my Chrisitan belief is that if, in your heart, you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, God himself who came down to earth to walk among us, and redeem us from Adam's sin but you purposefully turn your back then that is wrong & evil because you are knowingly turning your back on God. But if, you have no reason to believe that He is, then you have done no wrong and you're on the same steady ground.

I would like to think that if I were Jewish, I would make the same exception for Christians as long as they were sincere and good, and just say they had accepted a Messiah too early- like the Lubivatchers.

All three Judeo-related religions are waiting for their Messiah right now- in the same time-frame & to accomplish the same exact thing. I find that strange. More than a bizarre coincidence. I think we're all waiting for the same person and I think we're all going to get a shameful surprise when the first words out of His mouth are "How well did you love me & how well did you love your brother?".

That's just me though.

[BurtWorm]

84. No doubt about it: the OT is full of cruelty.

But we were debating, if you will, which was more anti-Semitic.



1 Thessalonians

2:14
For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

2:15
Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

2:16
Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

[Tinoire]

87. Jeremiah

This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD : "Stand at the gate of the LORD's house and there proclaim this message:
" 'Hear the word of the LORD , all you people of Judah who come through these gates to worship the LORD . This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place. Do not trust in deceptive words and say, "This is the temple of the LORD , the temple of the LORD , the temple of the LORD !" If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever. But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless.

" 'Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, <1> burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, "We are safe"-safe to do all these detestable things? Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the LORD .

" 'Go now to the place in Shiloh where I first made a dwelling for my Name, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel. While you were doing all these things, declares the LORD , I spoke to you again and again, but you did not listen; I called you, but you did not answer. Therefore, what I did to Shiloh I will now do to the house that bears my Name, the temple you trust in, the place I gave to you and your fathers. I will thrust you from my presence, just as I did all your brothers, the people of Ephraim.'
"So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you. Do you not see what they are doing in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger. But am I the one they are provoking? declares the LORD . Are they not rather harming themselves, to their own shame?

<snip>

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JER+7&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on

http://atomicshakespeare.com/word/molecule.jsp?restrict=5&molecule=Jewish%20Publication%20Society%3AThe%20Holy%20Tanakh%3ANEA0D

There are worse... But I'm at work. Let me get home and do this where I can concentrate. I think they can both be construed as anti "whoever is not following the Word of God" put forth in whichever Testament.

Thanks Burt. Just got busted lol (by my boss I mean)... I hope it looked like I was making a business deal or something!

Peace

[regnaD kciN]

101. While we're talking about interpolations...

...most non-fundie NT scholars consider verses 15 and 16, above, to have been added by a later editor, since, from a stylistic viewpoint, their Greek is vastly different from the rest of the letter.

[LeahMira]

105. Well, the Hebrew Testament speaks of ancient times...

... and it seems to me that a lot of things were commonplace in ancient times that we "modern" folk would consider cruel.

Maybe my recollection is faulty but I thought the OT was especially cruel. I could research this if you want to talk about it.

Some of the Jewish prophets of the Hebrew Testament were warning the Jewish people that if they didn't straighten up some really bad things would happen to them. The prophets did mention specifics... cities would be wasted and women and chidren would be killed. At the same time, the prophets' messages included hope and comfort. No matter how bad it got, the Jews knew that the Creator would not abandon them completely. The prophets said that also. And the prophets never once said that anyone was eternally damned. For one thing, as a tribal people the Jews wouldn't have understood the concept of personal damnation.

I would like to think that if I were Jewish, I would make the same exception for Christians as long as they were sincere and good

Absolutely. As one example, we honor the Righteous Gentiles who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. But there doesn't have to be a crisis like the Holocaust for Jews to appreciate the goodness in Christians.

All three Judeo-related religions are waiting for their Messiah right now- in the same time-frame & to accomplish the same exact thing.

I'm not sure about that. My understanding is that Christians are waiting for a Messiah to usher in an era of peace. Most Jews today who believe in a Messiah expect him to arrive when the world is already peaceful and prepared to benefit from the presence of such a person. I don't know what Muslims think about a Messiah, but you are right in saying that both Christians and Jews look forward to a time when things will be better than they are now. It's just the sequence of events on which we may disagree.

[LeahMira]

63. Why would you say it isn't?

The last thing Foxman wants is to go down as saying that Christianity is anti-Semitic.

Well, Tinoire, the Christian Testament clearly says that the Jews had a great deal to say about the death of Jesus. Christianity also says that unless you accept Jesus as your personal savior, you aren't going to get to heaven. Over the centuries, Christians have persecuted Jews with the encouragement of their religious leaders, and have come up with all sorts of libelous "tinfoil hat" sorts of stories about alleged Jewish conspiracies. I don't know what you'd call that if not anti-Semitic. Certainly there are many, many individual Christians who have been friends to the Jewish people, but the Christian churches have "officially" been pretty darn hostile.

[regnaD kciN]

99. It hasn't been released yet, but...

...an Episcopal cleric who snuck into a preview screening at a fundie "megachurch" didn't think much of it:

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/01/27/passion/index.html

[bleedingheart]

14. I think Mel should just keep quiet and just look good ...because

when he opens his mouth he scares me...and then I don't think he's so cute anymore...

I apologize for my sexist rant...hahahaha

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BurtWorm]

30. "The Jews?"

Poor word choice, in my opinion. The movie is coming out because Mel Gibson is very powerful in Hollywood.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BurtWorm]

73. Go ahead, speak the truth, as you see it.

Would a movie about Jesus made in Aramaic and Latin by anyone but Mel Gibson be making this much of a stir? I kinda doubt it.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jackstraw45]

42. I've heard that...

rampant ignorance is "very powerful" in Ohio.

Hmm...must be true.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

23. i disagree...i am looking forward to seeing Mels movie

[0007]

27. Yuck!

[noonwitch]

32. Mel has always been a bit out there

It's probably partly why he makes interesting movies sometimes. I want to see this movie and judge for myself.
I don't know how you can tell the story of Jesus' crucifixion without making the jewish leadership look bad. If one believes the New Testament, that is how the events are described. On top of that, the council bribed the crowd into yelling for him to be crucified. This doesn't make the entire jewish race responsible for Jesus' death-he was supposed to die, according to the plan, so he could reserrect 3 days later, proving that death is not the end. So, I guess his death is God's fault.

[BurtWorm]

33. His death is Christianity's fault, in my opinion.

Christianity made it all up. It made out "the Jews" to be guilty because it wanted to steal Yahweh and make Christians into the "chosen people." In my opinion.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

50. Um - OK - that's the most theologically lax response I've ever heard

:eyes:

[BurtWorm]

51. Thank you!

But this is not as lax as it may appear to you. I've thought about this a lot. I am convinced that Christianity is a Hellenic mythic, mystery religion that borrowed--or stole, to be less nice--the Jewish history, holy book and god to lend itself legitimacy. It may be that the earliest Christians were Jews, but it's not likely that they were from Israel/Judea. More likely they were from the Greek world, as Saul/Paul was.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

52. Now that's a more reasoned approach, but

Historically the early christians were jews. How else would they be followers of their rabbi? In the Acts of the Apostles we get the great rift amongst the disciples as Gentiles are allowed in so in a way you are correct. As Christianity swelled and began to outnumber the jews (who were decimated by the romans) they clung in narrower and narrower enclaves (and Christian established ghettoes).

That being said its historic (and only logical) that the Christians were jews. Throughout their history Christians did take on (or steal depending on how much you dislike them) from many sources, i.e. pagans, but their heritage was of Jewish origin.

As to this thread - there is no way for Gibson to avoid criticism in the same way that Jews and Christians are and always will be at odds with eachother theologically and historically.

[BurtWorm]

54. But it's hardly remarked that these Christians must have been

Hellenized Jews, i.e., far removed from the center of Judaism in Jerusalem. The Gospels were written in Greek. The communities in the epistles were in the Greco-Roman world. Christianity may have been conceived of by Jews, but they were not in the Jewish mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. They weren't even in Judea! They were in Turkey, Crete, Italy, Syria, Alexandria...but not Israel.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

57. The doctrine of Christianity

was stated in the writings of Paul and Peter - Jews fom the Jerusalem area. It was elaborated on by Samarians, Greeks, Roamns etc.

[BurtWorm]

58. Paul was from Tarsus, in Anatolia.

I don't know where Peter was from. I don't take the Gospels as Gospel. ;)

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

65. You are correct sir! I was wrong

Paul was from Tarsus, Peter was Galilean.

I do take the gospels as gospel - but I tolerate all views and beliefs. This is what sets our party apart from the other. I respect your view and admit that you makes some good points and it is a fascinating topic. Carry on compadre :toast:

[BurtWorm]

68. Well, I agree whole-heartedly with you there!

The subject is fascinating. I enjoy discussing it with believers in particular. And I'm glad to be in a party that truly tolerates diversity. :toast:

[LeahMira]

106. Where did you get that?

As Christianity swelled and began to outnumber the jews (who were decimated by the romans) they clung in narrower and narrower enclaves (and Christian established ghettoes).

The Jews who followed Jesus were always a minority of the Jewish people. That's what got Paul's goat, and that's why he went off to convert the Romans and other pagans... because the Jews weren't buying Christianity.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

94. not to mention historically lax as well

:shrug:

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

107. Thank You

however - I don't speak for you, of course - but it's tough to be a loving Catholic. If you're not feeling my conviction, then I'm sure you're feeling my Democratic Love for your fellow Citizen. As a TRUE Catholic - I know that the message is real love for each and every peron (i.e. - Dr. King - Ghandi - Malcom X - Hewey P Newton - John brown - Henry David Thoreaux- W.E.B.Dubois - Chuck D - Ice Cube - etc, etc etc....!!!!!!!! _ plus - Herriet Tubman, Sistah Souljah, Rita Marley, Eleanor Roosevelt, Queen Lahtifah, Etah James, Janis Joplin, Aretha Franklin, Grace Slick, and +
Johnny Depp, Jim Jarmusch, Hayao Miyazaki, Toshiro Mifune.+ Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, Harrison Ford, + Han Solo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Much Love!!!!!!

As Spike Lee would say : Do the Right Thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FlaGranny]

36. You are right on.

That's exactly my take. If he's going to make an accurate protrayal of what the bible says, then he's going to make the people responsible for the crucifixion look bad. There's no way to get around that. Funny thing, even today, some Jews are bad, some Iraqis are bad, some Europeans are bad, some Christians are bad, etc., etc., etc.

Many/most Christians, if the movie IS accurate according to the bible, will leave the film nodding their heads in agreement. The rest of us, well, it is free speech after all and Mel is entitled to make the film. We are free to see it or not.

The whole thing is a big to do about nothing, in my opinion.

[camero]

62. Another thing it proved

What happens when the leadership becomes corrupt. How soon we forget.

[LeahMira]

67. Try the truth?

I don't know how you can tell the story of Jesus' crucifixion without making the jewish leadership look
bad. If one believes the New Testament, that is how the events are described. On top of that, the
council bribed the crowd into yelling for him to be crucified.

I understand what the "New Testament" says, but the fact is that it says wrong about this.

[chookie]

45. Weird combination of religion and S&M

I haven''t seen the movie, but what I have seen of it in previews is really creepy. The torture of Jesus Christ is shown with pornographic intensity. It is a excruciatingly detailed depiction of horrific suffering.

In short -- it's a big budget snuff film.

I can't help but think of the scene in Clockwork Orange, when Alex "discovers religion" in prison -- as he reads the New Testament, he fantasizes that he is a Roman soldier torturing Christ.

I know an artist who has done a remarkable series of comparisons between depictions of the Passion of Christ, and violent gay S&M pornography. I don't think Gibson's flick is far removed from this.

You have to wonder why Gibson is focusing on depicting Christ's torture, pain and suffering in such graphic fashion....

He is probably religiously insane. "I pray for them" seems to back up this observation.

I think Gibson is very creepy. There was a scene in Braveheart that I found incredibly offensive -- he makes a mockery of the gay Edward the Second and his lover. Maybe people don't generally know that Edward the Second was executed by having a hot poker stuck up his ass -- but I do, and I bet Gibson does. I find this fact horrific, yet I suspect Gibson believes Edward got what he deserved.

[Mari333]

49. as a kid who grew up in pre Vatican 2 days

and attended Catholic schools with nuns, believe me, there was a major element of S and M combined with all kinds of weirdness...
we learned daily about saints who flagellated themselves, had their boobs cut off, were fried on open pits, etc etc etc...the nuns even told me if I bit down on the communion host blood of jesus would spurt out..we were also told (in 1st grade!!) that if we turned around in church we would be pillars of salt like Lots wife..
Scary stuff indeed and FUBAR for many kids ...for all I know they all grew up to be dominatrixes or enablers...god only knows what those images did to our brainpans as kids..
scared the living shite out of me as a kid, I can tell you that..

[chookie]

55. Lots of room for the "sick"

I too grew up Catholic, and know what you mean!

We all heard those gory stories. There's a few different ways to look at them. You can frame it in the context of what we know goes on in totalitarian cultures, and think of the lives of the saints as brave persons of moral courage who were persecuted by brutal authoritarians, or innocents persecuted under a vicious regime. OR, if you have a propensity for it, you can get off on the gory details. I think a lot of people do. Haven't you known people who just drool over the gruesome? Even as a kid I thought it was weird that some people chose to linger on the details of Christ's physical suffering, and perhaps even get stuck there, and think little about his transcendent message and his challenging philophy.

There is no doubt more to Gibson's vision of Christ than pornographic glee in S&M scenarios. Pain and suffering are shown for other reasons -- to show people what judgement awaits them, perhaps, or, beyond eliciting sympathy and compassion for those that suffer, elicit feelings of rage against their tormentors. Gibson knew what he was doing.

[Sapphocrat]

80. Self-flagellation...

That's what being Catholic is all about. I didn't realize until I saw "The Nun's Story" that modern-day novices still did that with a ritual cat-o'nine tails. (Don't know if they still do, but I guess they did in Sister Kenny's time.)

I never heard the bit about the blood of Jesus spurting out of the eucharist, but it doesn't surprise me in the least -- it's right in line with every other image of horror planted in our young minds from the age of six on.

I do remember being told that every time you get injured, you should "offer the pain up to Jesus." I also remember the nuns telling us that every time we sinned (and in those days, calling another kid a "rat fink" was a sin), we were literally driving the nails further into Jesus' hands, just as surely as if we were standing over him with a hammer.

I've mentioned here, many times, the sadistic nuns who abused us physically, mentally, and emotionally... If they didn't get some sort of sick pleasure from it, I would be very surprised indeed. ("I punish you because I love you," said one. Sound familiar to anyone out there abused by parents or spouses?)

No wonder that one line in "Eating Raoul" always makes me bust a gut... Man walks into a porn shop: "Do you have the new issue of 'Nuns & Nazis'?" Porn shop guy: "Next Tuesday."

I would love to know the incidence of BDSM play among Catholics. Anyone know of any published studies?

P.S. Is there even one Catholic/ex-Catholic out there who isn't practically obsessed with every "Catholic movie" ever made? Has any of us not watched "The Trouble With Angels" 50,000 times?

[Djinn]

90. just anecdotally

this is only based on my conversations with a couple of domanatrixes working in Melbourne 5 or so years ago (research NOT personal interest...not that there's anything wrong with it) but according to them there was definetly a connection between Catholic schooling (particularly boys only campus') and an interest in S & M

Like I said I'm only basing it on the anecdotal evidence of a couple of people but it always seemed to make sense to me

[Sapphocrat]

95. Wouldn't surprise me...

I've heard the same about British men who were caned regularly in school. (Don't jump on me, Brit guys! This too is purely anecdotal.)

Not that I have a shred of evidence to support the idea that Brits are addicted to caning -- it's just one of those things I've heard in passing, repeatedly, from sex workers and BDSM enthusiasts (not personal, not research -- I used to program computers for a company that produced stuff for the sex industry -- so I met a lot of interesting people).

Melbourne, eh? My favorite city south of the equator. :)

[LeahMira]

70. I don't get it...

You have to wonder why Gibson is focusing on depicting Christ's torture, pain and suffering in such graphic fashion....


That's exactly what I don't "get" about the film.

I'm certainly not one to expect all movies to end happily, but this focus on torture for several hours I just don't understand.

Some Christians say that they want to see exactly how much Jesus loved them and how much he suffered for their sins. But I still don't "get it."

[Sapphocrat]

76. Fascinating -- and you could just as easily be talking about...

..."Multiple Maniacs," one of John Waters' earlier films -- and the one that rocks most Catholics (and ex-Catholics) to the core.

In particular, there's a scene in which Divine and Mink Stole perform... ah, a "sex act" involving a Rosary... inside a church. Shots of this scene (which seems to go on forever, proportionate to the viewer's sense of unease) are intercut with an equally interminable and downright gory crucifixion re-enactment.

Waters' purpose for this shock? As he writes in his book, "Shock Value," it flushed Catholicism out of his system.

If Gibson is "religiously insane," then Waters is "insanely anti-religion" -- but if descriptions of Gibson's crucifixion are accurate, the line between the two is very thin indeed.

Just for the record, and for those unfamiliar with Waters (I'm sure there must be a few who have never indulged in "Divine madness"), it should be noted that Waters is the archetypal gay man that makes the Religious Right crazy: a nonconformist who delights in twisting the "Leave It to Beaver" mentality so far that he ends up exposing the underlying perversions of "traditional" society. (Think "Blue Velvet" + "Natural Born Killers," but much darker, funnier, and far more shocking.)

Say what you like about Waters' taste (or lack of), but no one can deny that his characters are honest about their own motives. ("We kidnap young girls, have our butler impregnate them, and then sell the babies to lesbian couples" ... "Crime is beauty!" ... "Being executed is like winning the Academy Award!") Nobody ever lies, or even tries to hide their true motivations in a Waters movie. Waters' truth may make you sick, but it is his truth.

I wonder if the same can be said for Gibson?

Now I'm almost curious to see Gibson's film, just to make a few comparisons. Not curious enough to pay money to see it, mind you. I won't put money in that man's pocket.

Chookie, who's the artist who's done the S&M comparisons? Is there something I can see or read on the Web?

Great post, btw -- very thought-provoking!

[chookie]

82. About the artist

Can't remember his name at the moment. He was at UF.

He scanned paintings of the passion of Christ, and images of violent gay S&M porn, and overlaid them in Photoshop. It was very eerie how the images lined up time and time again. The content was almost identical in each.

I love John Water's work. I think "straights" don't realize how bizarre they really are. Their hypocrisy makes them blind to it. Waters exposes what they are really like, and this is what they find so offensive about his work. Actually, I find his work to be strangely compassionate.

[Sapphocrat]

92. 'Strangely compassionate'...

I know what you mean, and I wish I could elaborate on that -- but I think any attempt at explanation would make no sense to anyone who doesn't see it that way in the first place.

I'm searching the Web for some sign of that artist -- I'm very curious to see what he did. In the meantime, though, I did turn up one mildly interesting thing: "Passion" co-star Whatshername Bellucci (she plays Mary Magdalene) referring to the Jesus movie as "pornographic."

[chookie]

104. I'll PM you

Sorry I am drawing a blank. If I can trace him down, I will PM info about him to you.

[Malva Zebrina]

53. a couple of years ago, Mel was in Rockland , Maine making a movie

It was reported, with his permission, that he attended the AA meetings while there.

[JohnLocke]

In a word: yes.

[JohnLocke]

56. In a word: yes.

[slappypan]

74. salon.com article on "The Passion"

Interview with a theologian who saw the film, echoes much of what was said here about grisly violence:

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/01/27/passion/index.html

"I don't see the point of magnifying the violence of his arrest, torture and death. I find it perverse and strange and really vulgar. As Ray Brown says, the Gospels are pretty straightforward. They arrive at Golgotha, and then it says, "Then they crucified him." They just say it in a little short sentence. They don't say, "They yanked one of Jesus' shoulders out of the socket and they bounced the cross around face down after he was nailed to it." I think some of that came from that wacko woman's vision. People who are psychologically disturbed push that into their religious imagination. Religious imagination is very fertile, and it feeds on human need, so you have to be really careful.

Mel already put a gratuitous crucifiction/torture scene (starring himself!) in Braveheart ... I think he is preoccupied with this stuff in a creepy way.

[Djinn]

93. IS it gratuitous

if it DID happen? sure it doesn't HAVE to be shown in detail but then again if it is about the life and death of Christ then surely the crucifiction is an integral part of the story?

It stands to reason that being crucified is a pretty painful way to go and as for the Braveheart one - in 1305 when Wallace was executed, the punishment for treason was as follows: the convicted traitor was dragged to the place of execution, hanged by the neck (but not until he was dead), and disembowelled (or drawn) while still alive. His entrails were burned before his eyes, he was decapitated and his body was divided into four parts (or quartered). That's what Wallace got - with his head and bits of his body sent to the corners of the land as a warning - personally I thought the Braveheart scene was pretty tame.

[Az]

77. Facts

There are denominations of the Christian belief system that place the blame for the crucifixtion at the feet of the Jews. There are groups that support the Jew's claim to Israel in the hopes their return will spark the end times in which the Jews will be slaughtered. Jewish and Christian beliefs are at odds with each other and do not agree on critical aspects.

Mel Gibbson is no more a nut than the particular religious sect he belongs to. Once we begin attempting to determine which religion is nuttier than the next we have a problem on our hands. Some religions claim to be absolutely correct. They back this up with dogmatic authority.

This is in large part the reason for the rise of Post Modern thought dominating society. Each side has to agree that for the purposes of social dialog no one side can claim to be absolutely correct. Allowances for the others positions must be maintained. This is not compatible with dogmatic religions. The dogmas can be contained for a time but eventually their absolute positions will come bubbling out and the conflicts that arise from them will naturally follow.

What happens when a religious belief teaches that someone else is inherantly evil for some reason? How can you reconcile this without drastically changing the religion? Remember a religion is often the very filter through which a person sees the world. Some truly believe that those that deny the divinity of Jesus are really in league with an absolute evil entity called the Devil. This is how they see the world.

[worldgonekrazy]

79. I noticed the twitching on a CNN interview

I agree with you...the man is clearly insane. Maybe he always was, but he has definitely at least gotten worse at hiding it.

[BurtWorm]

81. He has a persecution complex.

After he was criticized for making homophobic comments to El Pais of Spain, he claimed critics were "violating his rights." His right to be homophobic? :eyes:

[LeahMira]

109. He's just a dimmer bulb

After he was criticized for making homophobic comments to El Pais of Spain, he claimed critics were "violating his rights."

Well, about the only thing I see in Mel Gibson is that he is not too bright. Some people think he comes in a pretty package, but I've never heard anyone claim that he is particularly creative or intelligent... or even especially talented as an actor. So, I don't expect anything more from him than I would from, say, Bush.

[Hammie]

86. That's pretty disappointing.

I admire Mel for pushing the envelope and trying to make a bold, novel style of movie. It takes guts to risk a bunch of money on a project like this. However his complaining about his civil rights being violated based on others exercising their rights to criticize is quite unbecoming.

[Moderator]

111. Locking

From the rules

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or religion, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view. This will help avoid misunderstandings and undeserved accusations of bigotry.

Thank you.