Passion of the Christ (the movie)

[ZombieHorde]

Poll question: Passion of the Christ (the movie)

[bigwillq]

1. I never saw it (nt)

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

2. It was muddled

but it still had some moments of poignancy and horrible beauty. Casting Jim Caviezel as Jebus was a stroke of brilliance: the dude has the most haunting eyes.

[ropi]

3. I saw it.

I was raised Catholic. I remember sitting there thinking that it was the Stations of the Cross for the big screen.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

4. I was the only person in the theatre not crying.

My defense was, "What, we know He comes back later." Apparently, I was the only person in the theatre with a sense of humor, too.

[rrneck]

5. That movie proves

that if you kiss enough ass you can sell anything.

[ZombieHorde]

7. Who was kissing who's ass?

[rrneck]

9. It pandered to the

wing nut christian right by telling them their favorite story in exactly the way they wanted to hear it. Churches were buying theater tickets in bulk so they could troop in there and watch that shit.

[ZombieHorde]

10. How did they want to hear it?

[rrneck]

12. They wanted to experience

(through sight/sound etc.) the martyrdom of Jesus Christ in the most graphic detail available to modern technology. If the technology for "smelleround" had been available we would have been assaulted by the odor of the blood of Christ.

For most of the wingnuts in question religion is little more than a drug. They got to experience their imaginings somewhere other than inside their heads. The movie failed to do what art is supposed to do. It is supposed to require some relationship with the viewer above and beyond consumption. It should compel them to reexamine their beliefs and actually learn something. It was religious pornography.

I was raised Southern Baptist and it pushed all the right christian buttons in me. And I haven't set foot in a church in over forty years.

[ZombieHorde]

15. "It was religious pornography."

Do you enjoy pornography? I think that pornography can be deeply moving, although not necessarily on an intellectual level.

The movie failed to do what art is supposed to do.

I have a hard time with, "what art is supposed to do." Who determines what art is supposed to do? Does art in general really have rules? I understand that rules for drawing perspectives exist, but those are for technical reasons.

If my eight year old draws a picture of a dog, is it art?

They wanted to experience (through sight/sound etc.) the martyrdom of Jesus Christ in the most graphic detail available to modern technology.

The movie did have some gory scenes.

If the technology for "smelleround" had been available we would have been assaulted by the odor of the blood of Christ.

Bwahahaha! I bet your right. 'Smelleround' would be interesting for porn as well. The movie 'Hairspray' may have been unwatchable!

Southern Baptist

Do Southern Baptist do 'The Stations of the Cross' in church? Roman Catholics make a big deal out of it every year.

[rrneck]

19. Art provides the potential for change.

I think that pornography can be deeply moving, although not necessarily on an intellectual level.

Not on an intellectual or an emotional level either. Only one part of you is supposed to enjoy porn, and it ain't above your belt.

Does art in general really have rules?

Absolutely.

Who determines what art is supposed to do?

Time. Art is like cultural DNA. It provides for us a way of looking at the human condition and our place in it. It requires us to reevaluate who we are and what we want. It helps us understand others on their own terms. And just like biological DNA, it provides the potential instructions for how to structure our experience as humans. As time goes on we can keep returning to a work of art to learn more from it. By using our relationship to the work to understand ourselves over time a culture is better equipped to withstand the changes that invariably occur and respond to them with the ideas embedded in our "cultural DNA" by art. The phrase "the more you look, the more you see" has almost nothing to do with the formal details of the work, and everything to do with what you see inside yourself.

And yes, if your eight year old draws a picture of a dog it's art. And if people are still looking at it in five hundred years it's great art.

Do Southern Baptist do 'The Stations of the Cross' in church?

Nah. They mostly want you to show up and put money in the plate.

[ZombieHorde]

22. Insert witty subject line here.

or an emotional level either

Some hentai goes for an emotional reaction. The Passion of the Christ definitely goes for an emotional reaction.

Art provides the potential for change.

How does 'The Mona Lisa' live up to this standard?

Absolutely. (art has rules)
Time. (determines what art is supposed to do) Art is like cultural DNA. It provides for us a way of looking at the human condition and our place in it.

I don't think that art has to do any of those things. Why would it have to? Some art has never been recorded, but is still art.

(My brain is starting to suck on me again, this is my fourth day w/o a cigarette, and sometimes I can't think straight because of it. I hope that my post is readable.)

[rrneck]

26. The movie went specifically

for an emotional reaction to the exclusion of any real intellectual content at all. People pay for emotion and titillation, they are much less likely to pay anyone to force them to think.

Art that never makes it into a gallery or a museum is still seen by the person making it. For every piece of famous art in the textbooks there was a lot more made by the same artist that was never seen by anyone else. The works may have been essays in the craft, or judged failures by the artist, or simply reused as materials for another piece. Not long ago charcoal drawings were found on the back of a Rembrandt I believe. Marcel Duchamp worked for forty years on one piece and didn't exhibit it until just before he died. I'll bet your child learned more than you may realize from drawing that dog. Just the act of drawing that dog helped give her a deeper insight into the human condition.

Leonardo displayed one of the earliest understandings of atmospheric perspective in the Mona Lisa. (Since there is water vapor in the air things appear to be more blue as they get farther away.) It is also structured in a pyramid format, which was not unusual in post plague Renaissance. He understood the world in which he lived and represented that thought masterfully. That makes it an important historical document. She has also been known for her enigmatic smile. It has intrigued viewers for hundreds of years. As I recall, researchers only a few years ago figured out why. It seems that her smile doesn't match her eyes. She has a "smiling smile" but her eyes do not exactly exhibit the muscular response that goes with it. So, just thinking about that leads us to the ideas of human contradictions and duplicity...



And that's just what little I recall from art history class. Actually standing in front of it is the best way to experience it.

Good for you for kicking the habit. Stay with it, that shit'll kill you.

[ZombieHorde]

27. I still don't see how that painting provides a potential for change.

Additionally, I still don't see where the rules for what is or what is not art come from. There is no authority on this subject, because the subject is totally subjective.

[rrneck]

39. This one's gonna run a little long.

A culture is really just a set of ideas used by people to deal with changes in their environment and solve whatever problems arise from those changes. In that context, technology, ethics, religion, logic, and art are just tools in the toolbox that is our culture. The more tools you have, the more options you have when something happens like, for example, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a meteor strike, or the career of David Hasselhoff.

There is a common misconception that a single work of art can provide a clear and easily recognizable connection to it's cultural utility. That is far from the case. In fact, it could be argued that the works with the greatest utility exhibit their greatest worth only in the minds of the people thinking about them when those thoughts arise.
Here's an example:

The Nike swoosh is universally recognized as - the Nike swoosh. No matter what you think about it, good or bad, right or wrong, your thought is always directed specifically at the product represented by that logo to the exclusion of everything else. That is its function. It is designed to be identified with a single thing (the thing that makes Nike money) and nothing else. If it is working at its best, you will never think about anything else but Nike. It's function and it's impact on the viewer is clear, simple, to the point, and culturally barren.

The vast overwhelming number of images seen by the public are generated by corporations to perform that same function. They are designed to focus attention and reflection on the object that will make those corporations money. There is, for want of a better term, no feedback loop. All reflection is directed one way, toward the logo and what it stands for. Art works the other way.

This is a painting by Rene' Magritte designed to reveal that feedback loop:



The caption below the image reads, "This is not a pipe." It is also the title of the work. Well, of course it's not a pipe, it's a painting. But we recognize the image as that of a pipe, and we call it a pipe, so why is it not a pipe if that's what we call it...? It's like standing between two mirrors staring into a sort of infinite regression, trying to decide whether the goddamn thing is a pipe or not. The painting sets up a contradiction that refuses to answer the question that is quickly embraced by the corporate logo. It makes you think. A lot. About a goddamn pipe.

Now today you may decide it's just a painting of a pipe. Maybe sometime somebody will need to know what a pipe is and somebody else will be able to point to that painting and say, "there's one." Who knows, in a different state of mind you may decide it actually is a pipe. It's possible, we do it in movies all the time. It's called the suspension of disbelief. That feedback loop, and the self reflection it facilitates, is where the utility of art can be found. It's use is not in the work itself, but in what we are able to make of it. The feedback loop that is created by all of the arts serves to create possible circumstances in our minds that may or may not ever come to pass. It also creates the potential for responses to those circumstances. To put it in scientific terms, if you want to test a hypothesis, push it to the limits of its testability. In the end, art is just cultural R&D.

So if art is the addition of tools in our cultural tool box that gives us the potential for change, it would be safe to say some tools are better than others. When is the last time you needed one of these?



These, on the other hand, have been around a long time and will continue to be of use for a long time to come:



The egg slicer slices eggs. That's about it. Archimedes screw just keeps showing up all over the place all the time. The idea of the screw has a great deal more cultural utility than the idea of an egg slicer. Those are, of course, just examples to make a point. The egg slicer is a series of "knives" and the tool known as a knife will be around a long time as well. But the contrast between Archimedes screw, a principle with great potential for a variety of uses, and the egg slicer, the application of a tool for an extremely limited number of uses, highlights the difference between great art and corporate logos. One offers great potential, the other reduces it.

Basically a meme is an idea within a culture. Cultures develop along an evolutionary model, and the DNA of cultures are ideas. The utility of art (which are ideas) has been well illuminated by the science of Memetics. A meme is just a bit of cultural DNA. If in the process of evolution, a culture is able to frequently find a use for an idea, it keeps it in its DNA. If an idea is of little use, it is disposed of in the process of cultural evolution. Thus, a persistently useful meme has cultural utility. And a work of art that stays around for a long time is also a meme with cultural utility. But it only works if you use it.

So with that in mind, let's set the Mona Lisa next to Mr. Gibson's movie and see how they fare.

This is a still from the movie:



I realize that this will be an uneven comparison since I can't make the entire movie play in this post, but bear with me. The film was touted by its producer, Mr. Gibson, as an accurate portrayal of the story of the trial, scourging, and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Thus, he has already admitted that there will be little real investigation of why it happened, or what the event actually means. He guarantees no feedback loop right off the bat. What he has done is to make clear to people that he is going to tell them exactly what they want to hear. He then proceeds to make the depiction of the events appear to be visually accurate, while simultaneously creating inaccuracies that compound the one way focus on the object itself to the exclusion any real self reflection. For example, the punishment that Christ endures at the hands of the Romans is well in excess of what any normal person could endure and survive long before he got to the hill at Calvary. But it affords Mr. Gibson the opportunity to apply liberal doses of violence and blood to generate tremendous empathy for the character of the Christ, emotions that preclude any critical analysis of that character. And that's just one example, here here are a few more. Watching this movie is a one way street from the viewer to the object being viewed, with very few stops along the way.

Now, here is the Mona Lisa:



People for centuries have been confounded by her inscrutable smile. Who is she? Why is she smiling? What does her smile mean? Was she just one person, or a combination of the features of multiple sitters? How am I, as the viewer, to respond to the gaze directed out of the canvas at me? There is a relationship between the viewer and the artwork that is absent from the above mentioned film and its viewers. There is a feedback loop. In addition, the innaccuracies in the rendering of the face facilitate that feedback loop.

Now, there are no absolutes here. It could be that he cultural utility of the Mona Lisa is nearing it's end and that smile will become of increasingly little use as the years go on, although the value of the painting as a historical document will endure for much longer. And it is entirely possible that there are those who can create a viable feedback loop from Mr. Gibson's movie and actually learn something from it. But there won't be many. The Mona Lisa was designed to prompt questions, while Mr. Gibson's movie was designed to ask no meaningful questions and provide a single answer: Christ died for your eternal salvation, you owe Christ, and the church works for him. If Nike could just figure out how to get its logo in there, it will be a match made in heaven.

[ZombieHorde]

40. I really like the part of your post about the Nike swoosh and the egg slicer.

But I disagree with most every thing you said about TPOTC (The Passion of the Christ).

TPOTC is mostly about a Roman Catholic ritual called 'The Stations of the Cross'. The movie has other scenes inserted into the ritual, such as the washing of the disciples feet. Theses inserted scenes showed Gibson's interpretation of The Stations of the Cross, and were rather thought provoking.

I believe that many of these interpretations went over most people's heads for several reasons:
1) They were not raised Roman Catholic, and may have not even heard of 'The Stations of the Cross'.
2) They were shocked by the graphic violence.
3) Their minds were made up before viewing the movie.
4) They were sober when they watched the movie.

I like your questions about the 'Mona Lisa', and I feel that similar questions could be asked from viewing TPOTC.

[crim son]

6. I didn't see it.

That story's been done to death!

[anonymous171]

8. I thought it was OK. It was very Catholic though.

A LOT of emphasis was placed on the suffering of Christ, rather than the resurrection.

[Nihil]

63. Agreed.

I wasn't going to bother watching it but was offered a free preview
so decided to give it a try. (We were about to stage JC Superstar at
that time and one of the "apostles" was the manager of a local cinema.)

There was (IMO) too much emphasis placed on the suffering - they could
easily have cut 10 minutes of gory sadism without damaging either the
message or the impact of the remaining suffering. As the previous reply
said, it was "very Catholic" but so is the concept of "Stations of the
Cross".

There were also some excellent parts too. Not sure there were enough to
over-ride the above though - and it's not as if the "Director's Cut"
would be any better in this case!

[juno jones]

11. Mel Gibson's a misogynist drunken freak

I don't give him my money, period.

[exboyfil]

13. I only saw it once

not because it was a bad movie, but it is just so emotionally riveting for a believer.

Folks like to argue that it was no big deal for Christ to take on human flesh because He knew He would be raised again, but to see his suffering helped me to understand what it was like for Him to be human.

If you don't believe in the Risen Christ, then I don't see a reason for you to see the movie. If you are then you understand the sacrifice to free us from sin.

I will probably see it again this Lent season as I examine and confess the sin in my own life and how I can, with Christ's strength, be a better person to others.

[ZombieHorde]

16. "If you don't believe in the Risen Christ, then I don't see a reason for you to see the movie."

A non-believer may wish to see the movie because it was so controversial.

A non-believer may wish to see the movie because he or she loves fucked up movies.

A non-believer may wish to see the movie because he or she is a fan of Gibson. (a lot of people loved Braveheart)

A non-believer may wish to see the movie because he or she hate Jewish people, and heard that the movie has strong anti-Semitic themes.

A non-believer may wish to see the movie because he or she is a film critic.

with Christ's strength, be a better person to others.

I hope that you succeed in this endeavor.

[exboyfil]

20. That is my point exactly

I don't consider myself anti-semitic, and I loved the movie. If folks are seeing the movie to foster your anti-semitism then don't bother. It follows what is in the Bible. You will just as likely develop a hate for Romans (or Italians) as Jews. A mature Christian understands that the blood guilt for Christ's execution rests with all mankind. His resurrection wipes the slate clean.

I have no desire to see a snuff movie (or a pseudo snuff film like Saw), and this movie was every bit as graphic as one of those films. Without a purpose to the sufferring then the movie is just another Saw.



As a tool for evangelism the movie does not work in my opinion. This is a movie for a believer. Unbelievers will just be confused and/or offended by the movie. Of course anyone who wants to can see the movie. I am just giving my opinion.

Someone who understands the whole story but is not yet a believer may benefit from viewing the movie, but, the movie, out of a Christian context, is as I described it above.

I do think that churches went overboard (both for this movie and the first Narnia movie) with the internal promotion of it.

[ZombieHorde]

25. I did not find the movie to be anti-Semitic either.

Most of the Jewish people in the movie seemed to be peace loving people.

[Feron]

65. I was a believer when I saw it.

It came across to me like those horror movies that think gallons of blood and gore is an acceptable substitute for a plot and/or character development. The result is a boring and bloody mess.

I don't know. I fail to see how something like Passion of the Christ could be inspiring. The movie is postively dreadful.

At least the rapture movies are bad and entertaining. Passion is just bad.

[bbinacan]

14. I saw it but could not watch it again

too emotional for me.

[ZombieHorde]

17. I heard that some people took their kids to this movie. I don't if that is true or not, but how old

do you think someone should be to view this film?

I would not let my eight year old watch it, but I let her watch a lot of things that most parents would not allow.

[exboyfil]

21. My kids were 7 and 8 when it came out

and I would not let them see it. They still have not seen it 5 years later.

[frogmarch]

18. I didn't see it. I was going to, but

I heard on The Daily Show that "They got him pretty good." :puke:

[cynatnite]

23. My mom wanted me to go with her...

I knew it was going to be a gore-fest. I don't care for movies like that and it was a major reason for my giving it a thumbs down. If it wasn't for all the gore, I think this movie would have been much better, but a lot of RW Christians do believe that Jesus' suffering is a cornerstone of their religion. It's a part of that whole 'he died for our sins' thing they believe.

There is a compelling message of peace, love and hope that comes across in other movies about Jesus.

It's not in this movie which is why it did nothing for me.

[ZombieHorde]

24. "message of peace, love and hope"

I saw these things in "The Passion...", but I was trained to see them (raised Roman Catholic).

In Catholic churches, "The Passion..." is called, "The Stations of the Cross", and is preformed every year.

[elshiva]

28. Horrible and Anti-Semitic.

I hated the scene at the end where the Jewish Temple was broken in two. That's not in the Bible.

[GSPowner]

29. What was anti-semitic the jews called for him to be crucified

Its historically accurate unless I am misunderstanding what you are talking about.

[elshiva]

30. I didn't say anything about that scene because it is in the Gospel

of Matthew about the Jews saying, "Crucify him...His blood be upon us and our children." That's in there and it is anti-Semitic, but not the part about God punishing the Jewish people by destroying the temle. That is just heavy-handed addition.

[GSPowner]

42. I'm having a hard time following how this is anti-semitic

24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” 25 And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” 26 Then he released Barabbas for them; but after having Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.

Pilate is saying that he does not want to be held accountable for crucifying Yeshua as he was not guilty. I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.”

He recognized the priests felt threatened and that crowd was being wipped into a frenzy and told them that was on them. So they speak up and accept that. However they are not allowed to carry out the punishment hence they claim that responsibility.

Am I missing what you are saying is anti-semitic?

[Meshuga]

44. The traditional church interpretation is anti-semitic

This biblical excerpt has been widely used in blaming the so called "blood thirsty Jews" to justify hatred and massacres. There was a huge move to repudiate such interpretation by the church. But instead, Gibson pushed for the traditional view in his movie by including this excerpt but taking away the subtitles. However, in context with the rest of the movie (that chooses the traditional view that enabled classic European antisemitism) the except fits in pretty well. In fact, the movie takes away most of the blame from the Romans and puts it all on the Jews.

I think that even one of the gospels shows Caiaphas having a dilemma in context to Jesus being killed as the Jewish messiah (in the Jewish context) so the Romans would kill only one Jew as opposed to all. I wonder why that view was excluded from the movie giving preference instead to portraying Caiaphas as wanting Jesus dead for pure hatred and for other theological reasons.

There is a move here by some posters in R/T to dismiss the role of religion in the holocaust. But unfortunately this traditional view of Christian scripture eventually helped enable the holocaust. Give credit to the Christian leadership that made a move in the last 40 to 50 years to change things to avoid such hatred. But I can see that there are still people who want to keep this traditional view alive. This movie and the people who support its views is an example of the resistance to change. That's interesting but sad at the same time.

[elshiva]

45. Sorry, I guess I should have said that it has been

interpreted as anti-semitic. The way you interpret it, GSPowner, is that they were a frenzied crowd. That's a valid interpretation. However, it is on the basis of such passages that Jews were and are still called "Christ-killers."

[Meshuga]

43. First, you cannot say that the gospels are historically accurate

And even if they were, does it say anywhere that the Jewish temple was damged as it is portrayed in the movie? I thought the Catholic Church and other protestant sects were moving away from the traditional biblical interpretation that led to centuries of Jew-hatred and killing of Jews. And it is amazing that you, like Mel Gibson, are trying to cling to the traditional view.

[GSPowner]

53. actually I don't cling to any traditions or customs that are not scripturally

supported...I have come to my conclusions through study, prayer and historical facts...and try to check them backwards and obtain support through other sources. I don't foment anit-semitic rhetoric...and I know you did not say that but I believe the Jews instigated the killing of Yeshua and that Pilate was simply a guy trying to navigate a politically charged crowd. In fact I am what you would call a Hebrew. I follow The Torah and believe Yeshua to be the Messiah...I'm not a Jew simply becasue I have not gone through the legal steps to become one so to speak...however I love the Jewish people and it feel a calling to one day go there...possible to live and raise my family.

[Meshuga]

58. Sorry to rain on your parade but...

I have a feeling that you are not going to be able to find a rabbi willing to convert you.

[GSPowner]

60. not really looking for that...we are grafted in...there are some messianic

groups that do..but i dont feel it necessary and it is not commanded

[On the Road]

61. I Believe the Film Was Referring to Matthew 27:

⁵⁰ After Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, he died. ⁵¹ At that moment the temple curtain was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook. The rocks split. ⁵² Tombs broke open.

In many cases Gibson went beyond the Gospels and included elements from later Catholic tradition, many of them mythological. If the Catholic Church had a tradition that the damage to the Temple was greater than the veil being torn, I would have expected that Gibson might include it in the movie.

[Goblinmonger]

51. You forgot to put "historically accurate" in quotation marks. n/t

[GSPowner]

54. there is historical support for many of the Yeshua's miracles....

[Goblinmonger]

55. Being that there is very little to no

support for there even being a historical Jesus, I think the leap to the miracles is pretty big.

[laconicsax]

31. Why should I willingly shell out money to watch a half-naked guy get tortured to death for 2 hours

If it inspires religious faith in some people, then that's their thing.

[ZombieHorde]

32. Your question answers it self.

[and-justice-for-all]

33. Im an Atheist and I watched it...

it's a bloodbath, more blood and torture then in most horror flix. But, fiction is fiction....and it's will rather lame, so don't waste your time on it.

[Meshuga]

34. I saw the movie when it came out

I wonder how much of the Jewish portrayal is extra-biblical. For example, the Jewish preference for Barabbas. Is that how it is portrayed in the gospels or is it extra-biblical? And the scene where the earthquake upon Jesus' death damages the Jewish Temple? Was that a biblical account or Mel Gibson's take on God punishing the murderers of Jesus?

In any case, the movie reinforces the notion of collective deicide which has been used as an excuse to kill Jews for centuries enabling events such as the Holocaust. And it is unfortunate that this notion is kept alive by this movie given the fact that vatican II rejected this notion and (in my perception) other protestant groups followed suit.

The movie is not about Jesus and his message but a graphic take on how he supposedly died and about the people responsible for his death.

[ZombieHorde]

37. Most of the Jews in the movie were peaceful.

The movie is not about Jesus and his message

I think that many people were too shocked to see the message.

[Meshuga]

41. But I am not referring to the proto-Christian Jews portrayed with the nice Roman noses

I am talking about the hook-nosed ones in the movie. :-)

[Sanctified]

46. The Damage to the Temple and the request for Barabbas are both Biblical.

I do think the depiction of the damage to the Temple was over the top in the movie but the account of Barabbas was pretty accurate to the Scriptures. In the Scriptures it describes the damage to the temple as tearing of the veil that separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple. The tearing of the veil is symbolic of God no longer having to be separated from man because of mans sin since Jesus acted as the ultimate sacrifice.

[Meshuga]

47. Then it is pretty sad how the Bible enables ugly antisemitism

As it did for centuries with all the massacres and persecution as a consequence to what is in scripture about the Jews.

[Sanctified]

48. The authors of the scriptures were all Jewish and the early church was mostly Jewish. n/t

[Meshuga]

49. So what?

What does that have to do with anything?

It certainly doesn't change the fact that the bible is a book that has enabled centuries of massacres and persecution of Jews.

[Sanctified]

50. The Bible did not enable centuries of massacre and persecution of Jews, man did.

Man is a fallen creature who will twist even the most Holiest of things to justify his evil. If man uses God as his excuse to commit evil does that mean God enabled the evil? I am not going to lie, the Catholic Church was fucked up and they were wrong when they persecuted the Jewish people. But the Church itself was totally fucked, they killed Jews, Muslims and Christians all alike during the first Crusade. And some Christian Churches today are a complete reverse of the early Roman Catholic Church in that they put the people of Israel above all others including Arab Christians and will encourage and support Israel for no other reason than they believe that the Jewish people are Gods chosen and favorite people.

Now I personally support Israel and recognize their right to defend themselves and that has nothing to do with scripture but if I feel Israel is in the wrong especially if what they are doing is against scripture I will call them on it.

[Meshuga]

52. Jews are not God's favorite people

The concept of "Chosenness" is used to explain the traditional story that God chose the Jewish people to receive the Torah at Sinai. And Jewish tradition says that God offered the Torah to all the nations of the earth and the Jews were the only ones who accepted the task. Another anecdote says that Jews were offered the Torah last and only accepted the Torah because God held a mountain over their heads. There is also the traditional story suggesting that God chose the Jews because they were the lowliest of nations and their success would be attributed to God's power rather than their own ability.

The concept of chosenness has been used through history against Jews in the accusation that Jews believe in their own inherent superiority. That's why the idea that "chosen people = favorite people" is rejected in Jewish tradition and teachings.

[Sanctified]

56. Maybe not favorite but certainly Blessed.

The Jewish people have been a perfect testament to God's greatness, throughout their history they have consistently been forgiven and Sanctified by God. I can think of no other group who has been removed from their homeland, scattered to the four corners of the earth yet kept their traditions and culture and were able to be restored back to their homeland 1,878 years later. I think a lot of Christians changed their tune about the Jewish people in 1948 after seeing the Nation of Israel restored and realizing that it was only possible through God.

[Meshuga]

57. What I posted was written by Jews to avoid the killing of more Jews

That stuff was not supposed to be taken literally.

Editing to add: I am not comfortable with the whole role you are giving God in all this especially when it deals with Israel because it is a step close to the sentiments of religious fanatics who take this position in a literal way and create trouble. And the Jewish people survived due to the people's efforts in keeping the tradition going.

[Sanctified]

59. I apologize if I made you uncomfortable.

I personally do believe that there had to be Divine intervention with the creation of Israel, when I read Chaim Herzog's account of the 1948 war in his book "The Arab-Israeli Wars" I was pretty surprised that Israel as a new country was able to withstand the initial attack of the war. Obviously Israel received a lot of help but for the first couple of days they were seriously outnumbered and out gunned and should have probably fallen.

[Evoman]

35. I liked it. It makes me hungry for Hamburgers.

After I watch it, I like to go out for burgers and spaghetti in meat sauce.

[Meshuga]

36. Throw some grated parmesan cheese on his back

And use some French bread to dip. Sounds tasty. But something tells me it wouldn't taste like tomato sauce. The flavor would probably be closer to red wine.

[ZombieHorde]

38. Jesus = sexxxy man meat

[hunter]

62. Never saw it, never will.

Mel Gibson's drunken hot tub fantasy with Monica Belluci, Rosalinda Celentano, Claudia Gerini...

Gibson's got so many demons in his head if he actually met Jesus he'd ruin the American pork industry.

Matthew 8:28-34 says, "When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 'What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. 'Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?' Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, 'If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.' He said to them, 'Go!' So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region."

link to a fun site all around

Or maybe the demons just went home with the Romans. This is all so confusing. But I do know Mel Gibson creeps me out. Someday there's gonna be a picture of him and George W. Bush partying with hookers in Dubai, and these photos will be gross and disgusting, and the very worst won't be published but you'll be able to find them on the internet by searching for: Gibson and Bush licking...

:scared:

"What are you looking at sugar tits???"

[Feron]

64. Shitty movie.

Granted we all know the plot, but Mel seemed to focus more on the grossout factor than in developing the characters.

The only things I remember about that movie were the blood and how boring it was.