Actually, the back story generally has a kernel of reality in it... it's when the story hits smack dab up against the desire to force something down people's throats that it starts to need to be embellished.
Well, I for one can't wait to see the movie. I am a big Roman history buff and think that the occupation of Judea is one of the most interesting periods of time. Also the movie is not entirely in Aramaic, it's in Latin too Oh, Gibson's father is a nut job and Mel is only slightly less of a nut job and the Jews didn't kill Jesus, the Italians did.
Hey i don't think he denies it, he's opinion is that Jews make it bigger than it actually was.
I gaurantee that you don't take it as BIG ENOUGH!!
it is impossible to concieve of, and retain a sense of such systematic and routinized murder on such a grand scale (all of Europe) where a whole infrastructure was calculated in minute detail simply to irradicate an entire people from the planet . . .
, not simply to irradicate them, but also to squeeze every last possible worth out of them: through slave labour (but fed only enough that they could be worked to death) through appropriation of property, through medical testing, through various body part reappropriation.
Also, I would dare say that Schindler's list is most likely a VERY FAR CRY more historically accurate than any film Gobson has made . . . look at Braveheart . . . a TOTAL travesty of teh history portrayed!!
I gaurantee that you don't know the half of the horror of the Shoa and neither does Gobson!!
I gaurantee that you don't take it as BIG ENOUGH!!
it is impossible to concieve of, and retain a sense of such systematic and routinized murder on such a grand scale (all of Europe) where a whole infrastructure was calculated in minute detail simply to irradicate an entire people from the planet . . .
, not simply to irradicate them, but also to squeeze every last possible worth out of them: through slave labour (but fed only enough that they could be worked to death) through appropriation of property, through medical testing, through various body part reappropriation.
Also, I would dare say that Schindler's list is most likely a VERY FAR CRY more historically accurate than any film Gobson has made . . . look at Braveheart . . . a TOTAL travesty of teh history portrayed!!
I gaurantee that you don't know the half of the horror of the Shoa and neither does Gobson!!
. . . that dispicable prick!
pfflam, i said it was his father's opinion not mine,
And i'm polish and believe me i know what a concentration camps look like.
There are more atrocities in our history. not only Jews were killed there you know, ... Close to 10 million people died of HUNGER when Stalin was around, there were hundreds of thousands of people murdered in Yugoslavia, people are being killed now as well. We all know that Jews suffered and no-one denies it here.
I have read this and that about Schindler, also from people who met him, and what Spielberg portrayed is not accurate in many people's opinions, just as what Gibson does will not be accepted as true.
edit: 10 million casualties includes Ukraine, but i was inaccurate by saying it was in Ukraine alone
then again, how many people did Stalin systematically murder? i thought it was something over 9 million.
Yes that is also inconcievable . . . and it has its own variation of strange horrible means . . a country eating itself with nobody stepping up to the challenge, I mean noone: there were no resistance groups at all-!! (that I know of)
They are both horrible genocides . . . each has a form to it that is somehow emblematic of how the civilizations that fostered them have huge blind spots. Blind spots as to their own inherent qualities that partly define that civilization that contributed formation of the genocide: for instance a constituent aspect of the West is its industrial-technological qualities where all of the world is seen as a "standing reserve" which lies at a distance and which is simply to be taken control of and manipulated as our Will would have fit. . .
But anyway, the point is is that people are too facile when they claim that the hollocaust has been missused - (I'm not saying that missuse of history has never happened) but what I am saying is that few who will start to puppet Gobson's claims . . . or even just discuss them, has ANY IDEA of the magnitude and the horror of what took place
I've yet to hear one Jewish commentator come up with specific passages of the movie that are demonstrably "anti-semitic". All I hear is that "the general tone of the movie might evoke feelings of anti-semitism". Yah, and it might not. So what? Can we really hope to control the behavior of ignorant people who are so weak-minded that they are "looking for an excuse"? If we could, would we really want to? Free will?
Are we going to start making or recommending only those movies which contain no scenes or dialogs that could be construed as "offensive" to everyone in the audience?
Is being offended against the law? Would life be better if no one was ever offended by anything? Maybe we should all sequester ourselves away and live in such a way as to be insulated from every word, idea and image that isn't "pleasant" to us. Jewish leaders in this country and Europe seem to be enamored with the idea of a modern-day "Pleasantville" where political or religious discourse are concerned. You can say anything you want about someone or some group that happens to be Jewish, just as long as it's nice.
Any criticism directed at anybody who happens to be Jewish, now or in the past = anti-semitism, apparently. Don't criticize the Sharon government, that's "walking the fine line of anti-semitism"... don't criticize any of the Jewish media moguls who have their hands in today's marvelous television programming, that's hateful. Don't talk in a negative way about the behavior of Jews who were present during Christ's persecution, that's just thinly veiled bigotry.
My preliminary conclusions about the movie:
1) If this movie was made by someone no one ever heard of, it wouldn't yet be news.
2) If we could only pretend that there were no Jews present during the hardships Jesus faced, or that they were all just innocent bystanders, everything would be just peachy.
Enough already. No one is above criticism of any kind, not even Jews, despite the attrocities they've endured. If you are human, you are worthy of criticism, and you will still be worthy of it when you are no longer alive on this earth. It doesn't matter if you're a Jew, a Catholic, a Muslim... gay or straight... light- or dark-skinnned... working man or working woman... a teenager or senior. WHY is that so hard for people to accept? People screw up; it's a part of life.
1. The nail necklaces or crosses made out of two pewter nails have been on the market for at least five years (that I've seen) and probably longer. They're now making more of an appearance, probably in part due to the movie. Also, Christian retail has been selling Nail Ornaments for years. No one has a problem of putting Jesus' name on cheap plastic crap to make a buck. At the Christian bookstore where I work, they even have bobble-head Jesus, Moses, Samson, and Noah. Christianity will always be marketed for people who want to make a buck, it has nothing to do with movies, just capitalism at its finest.
2. Stalin is credited with over 20 million deaths during his reign. Mostly he ordered them done, but he liked killing people himself. Many of his targets were Jews and like Hitler he wanted to get rid of them. Hence when Israel established the right of return in the 1950s, the majority who took advantage of it were Russian Jews looking for an escape.
3. As Rogue Master said, The Gospel of John was written during an intense period of hatred and violence between Jewish Christians and the orthodox Jewish leaders (Pharessies and the like) and hence Jesus is portrayed in the Gospel as really lashing out at the leadership and the author makes a big point of painting the Jewish leadership as responsible for the death and crucifixion of Christ. Christians in general really don't pay much attention to the historical background of biblical books and so things can be misinterpreted.
4. Just for fun, it was Rachel at the well when Jacob saw her, fell in love with her, and then married her sister Leah, who had bizzare eyes and when Jacob learned he had been tricked into marrying Leah, he then married Rachel as well. It wouldn't suprise me if it was fairly accurate, since it was common practice for men to marry multiple wives, even for the early Hebrews.
5. It's a movie. There have been scores of films made about the Passion. The only reason this is a big deal is because Mel Gibson is associated with it. If he hadn't been, I doubt anyone would care one way or the other.
One aspect of Jesus (actually the very center of christianity) I never understood was this: Jesus died for our sins. Through our belief in he being the son of god we are suppose to be forgiven. And the reason I hear is that his death was so horrible.
But a lot of other have died, knowingly, a much MUCH more horrible death because they tried to save other people. Think about those people on the roof of Chernobyl shoveling material on the open core. How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered? Jesus death was in anyway you see it a very normal death.
The thing that bothers me allready about this movie, and which few people are even aware of, is how Gobson started with a PR campaign of "they (read 'Jews') are calling this film Anti-Semitic"
He started this along time ago
Which, as I have said in other places, is itself an Anti-Semitic gesture . . . to stir up false enmity between groups of people (Jews and Christians) inorder to create a hub-bub . . . OR, perhaps he really is paranoid
and the kind of hub-bub would be even more Anti-Semitic if in fact the movie wasn't Anti-Semitic (wrap your head around that paradox, hey\) because the alarm was sounded, supposedly by "them" (read 'Jews') and it was unfounded.
But a lot of other have died, knowingly, a much MUCH more horrible death because they tried to save other people. Think about those people on the roof of Chernobyl shoveling material on the open core. How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered? Jesus death was in anyway you see it a very normal death.
Someone please expain this to me
I wouldn't call Jesus' death (as we know it) to be "normal" by any means, and I wouldn't characterize it as anything but "awful" either. Even so I'm not sure I understand the point of your larger question: "How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered?"
Are you suggesting that those who have endured more trying deaths in attempts to save the lives of others is more "Christ-like" than Christ's own death, in terms of the sacrifice made? Or that we should recognize his sacrifice less than those who by circumstance chose more difficult deaths to save a few lives?
Not arguing one way or another, just trying to understand what you're asking / implying.
The thing that bothers me allready about this movie, and which few people are even aware of, is how Gobson started with a PR campaign of "they (read 'Jews') are calling this film Anti-Semitic"
He started this along time ago
Maybe so (I don't have any information on this one way or another), but if it was that obvious a ploy, why on earth would the leaders in the Jewish community dignify it by the actions they have taken? Better to just ignore it and wave Gibson off as a "quack" in that case. Why cry wolf, if that's what he's trying to bait you into?
Just doesn't make any sense to be ourtaged over something like this. That's another disease Americans in general have: they love to feel outraged and slighted so that they can bitch about it publicly. Either for sympathy or attention... or something. It's really sad. A culture of victims are we....
I wouldn't call Jesus' death (as we know it) to be "normal" by any means, and I wouldn't characterize it as anything but "awful" either. Even so I'm not sure I understand the point of your larger question: "How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered?"
Are you suggesting that those who have endured more trying deaths in attempts to save the lives of others is more "Christ-like" than Christ's own death, in terms of the sacrifice made? Or that we should recognize his sacrifice less than those who by circumstance chose more difficult deaths to save a few lives?
Not arguing one way or another, just trying to understand what you're asking / implying.
That Jesus died the then-equivalent of the electric chair. Thousands of criminals died pretty much like he did... so why is his death singled out as one of great suffering? Others have suffered more during their deaths, often precisely to save others, so why make a big deal about *his* suffering? Was it just the public humilation? Honestly, I don't get it either.
That Jesus died the then-equivalent of the electric chair. Thousands of criminals died pretty much like he did... so why is his death singled out as one of great suffering? Others have suffered more during their deaths, often precisely to save others, so why make a big deal about *his* suffering? Was it just the public humilation? Honestly, I don't get it either.
Whether one person was crucified or one million, I think we can agree it is a very cruel and unusual way to put someone to death. Imagine if the electric chair didn't kill you in 30 seconds but 30 hours... the effect is the same essentially. So, I don't think we can dismiss what Christ went through out of hand, because many others also went through it. They're having done so doesn't make it any less agonizing or drawn out.
I suspect you might be more satisfied on the matter if not only Jesus' death were talked about so much, but if others like him that have died since were also paid attention to on a regular basis? IOW, I think your real gripe is not to exclude Jesus' death from the discourse, but to INCLUDE the trials and tribulations of others who "died horrible deaths to avert the death of others". You are correct in that sentiment I think. I just wouldn't reduce the significance of Jesus as a solution but rather increase the significance of those who aren't spoken of often.
Whether one person was crucified or one million, I think we can agree it is a very cruel and unusual way to put someone to death. Imagine if the electric chair didn't kill you in 30 seconds but 30 hours... the effect is the same essentially. So, I don't think we can dismiss what Christ went through out of hand, because many others also went through it. They're having done so doesn't make it any less agonizing or drawn out.
Who said I was dismissing it?
Quote:
I suspect you might be more satisfied on the matter if not only Jesus' death were talked about so much, but if others like him that have died since were also paid attention to on a regular basis? IOW, I think your real gripe is not to exclude Jesus' death from the discourse, but to INCLUDE the trials and tribulations of others who you correctly deduce are also very important.
Mmmmmmperhaps.
I just don't understand the fixation in some sections of Christianity on "Jesus *suffered* for your sin", when the suffering was a minor part of the entire picture of humanity. Others have suffered more, for much less (if we believe that he suffered for the sins of all humanity, it seems like a pittance to pay, doesn't it?), and yet they're forgotten.
Why the fascination with pain and suffering in a religion supposedly based on love and peace?
Then again, the folks I see who seem most entranced with the crucifixion are generally the fire and brimstone folks who tend to ignore most of what I think makes Christianity a worthy religion anyway, so...
For the record, I was raised Jehovah's Witness until I was 9, so I know my fundies.
I've yet to hear one Jewish commentator come up with specific passages of the movie that are demonstrably "anti-semitic".
actually i think they have complained that gibson gave satan a phyical form and he has satan standing with the jews on a couple of occasions...sort of equating jews and satan...
that and the curse heard of "a curse on your children's children" or something to that effect...sort of saying jews are damned forever
Comments
Sales marketing, you know.
Originally posted by Kickaha
All I can think of after seeing the nail necklace for sale is...
I want a t-shirt that says "I got nailed at Golgotha".
you are soooo going to hell...
g
Originally posted by thegelding
you are soooo going to hell...
g
Yes, but I'll have all of you to keep me company!
Originally posted by piwozniak
Hey i don't think he denies it, he's opinion is that Jews make it bigger than it actually was.
I gaurantee that you don't take it as BIG ENOUGH!!
it is impossible to concieve of, and retain a sense of such systematic and routinized murder on such a grand scale (all of Europe) where a whole infrastructure was calculated in minute detail simply to irradicate an entire people from the planet . . .
, not simply to irradicate them, but also to squeeze every last possible worth out of them: through slave labour (but fed only enough that they could be worked to death) through appropriation of property, through medical testing, through various body part reappropriation.
Also, I would dare say that Schindler's list is most likely a VERY FAR CRY more historically accurate than any film Gobson has made . . . look at Braveheart . . . a TOTAL travesty of teh history portrayed!!
I gaurantee that you don't know the half of the horror of the Shoa and neither does Gobson!!
. . . that dispicable prick!
Originally posted by pfflam
I gaurantee that you don't take it as BIG ENOUGH!!
it is impossible to concieve of, and retain a sense of such systematic and routinized murder on such a grand scale (all of Europe) where a whole infrastructure was calculated in minute detail simply to irradicate an entire people from the planet . . .
, not simply to irradicate them, but also to squeeze every last possible worth out of them: through slave labour (but fed only enough that they could be worked to death) through appropriation of property, through medical testing, through various body part reappropriation.
Also, I would dare say that Schindler's list is most likely a VERY FAR CRY more historically accurate than any film Gobson has made . . . look at Braveheart . . . a TOTAL travesty of teh history portrayed!!
I gaurantee that you don't know the half of the horror of the Shoa and neither does Gobson!!
. . . that dispicable prick!
pfflam, i said it was his father's opinion not mine,
And i'm polish and believe me i know what a concentration camps look like.
There are more atrocities in our history. not only Jews were killed there you know, ... Close to 10 million people died of HUNGER when Stalin was around, there were hundreds of thousands of people murdered in Yugoslavia, people are being killed now as well. We all know that Jews suffered and no-one denies it here.
I have read this and that about Schindler, also from people who met him, and what Spielberg portrayed is not accurate in many people's opinions, just as what Gibson does will not be accepted as true.
edit: 10 million casualties includes Ukraine, but i was inaccurate by saying it was in Ukraine alone
Originally posted by alcimedes
then again, how many people did Stalin systematically murder? i thought it was something over 9 million.
Yes that is also inconcievable . . . and it has its own variation of strange horrible means . . a country eating itself with nobody stepping up to the challenge, I mean noone: there were no resistance groups at all-!! (that I know of)
They are both horrible genocides . . . each has a form to it that is somehow emblematic of how the civilizations that fostered them have huge blind spots. Blind spots as to their own inherent qualities that partly define that civilization that contributed formation of the genocide: for instance a constituent aspect of the West is its industrial-technological qualities where all of the world is seen as a "standing reserve" which lies at a distance and which is simply to be taken control of and manipulated as our Will would have fit. . .
But anyway, the point is is that people are too facile when they claim that the hollocaust has been missused - (I'm not saying that missuse of history has never happened) but what I am saying is that few who will start to puppet Gobson's claims . . . or even just discuss them, has ANY IDEA of the magnitude and the horror of what took place
I've yet to hear one Jewish commentator come up with specific passages of the movie that are demonstrably "anti-semitic". All I hear is that "the general tone of the movie might evoke feelings of anti-semitism". Yah, and it might not. So what? Can we really hope to control the behavior of ignorant people who are so weak-minded that they are "looking for an excuse"? If we could, would we really want to? Free will?
Are we going to start making or recommending only those movies which contain no scenes or dialogs that could be construed as "offensive" to everyone in the audience?
Is being offended against the law? Would life be better if no one was ever offended by anything? Maybe we should all sequester ourselves away and live in such a way as to be insulated from every word, idea and image that isn't "pleasant" to us. Jewish leaders in this country and Europe seem to be enamored with the idea of a modern-day "Pleasantville" where political or religious discourse are concerned. You can say anything you want about someone or some group that happens to be Jewish, just as long as it's nice.
Any criticism directed at anybody who happens to be Jewish, now or in the past = anti-semitism, apparently. Don't criticize the Sharon government, that's "walking the fine line of anti-semitism"... don't criticize any of the Jewish media moguls who have their hands in today's marvelous television programming, that's hateful. Don't talk in a negative way about the behavior of Jews who were present during Christ's persecution, that's just thinly veiled bigotry.
My preliminary conclusions about the movie:
1) If this movie was made by someone no one ever heard of, it wouldn't yet be news.
2) If we could only pretend that there were no Jews present during the hardships Jesus faced, or that they were all just innocent bystanders, everything would be just peachy.
Enough already. No one is above criticism of any kind, not even Jews, despite the attrocities they've endured. If you are human, you are worthy of criticism, and you will still be worthy of it when you are no longer alive on this earth. It doesn't matter if you're a Jew, a Catholic, a Muslim... gay or straight... light- or dark-skinnned... working man or working woman... a teenager or senior. WHY is that so hard for people to accept? People screw up; it's a part of life.
*steps off soap box*
1. The nail necklaces or crosses made out of two pewter nails have been on the market for at least five years (that I've seen) and probably longer. They're now making more of an appearance, probably in part due to the movie. Also, Christian retail has been selling Nail Ornaments for years. No one has a problem of putting Jesus' name on cheap plastic crap to make a buck. At the Christian bookstore where I work, they even have bobble-head Jesus, Moses, Samson, and Noah. Christianity will always be marketed for people who want to make a buck, it has nothing to do with movies, just capitalism at its finest.
2. Stalin is credited with over 20 million deaths during his reign. Mostly he ordered them done, but he liked killing people himself. Many of his targets were Jews and like Hitler he wanted to get rid of them. Hence when Israel established the right of return in the 1950s, the majority who took advantage of it were Russian Jews looking for an escape.
3. As Rogue Master said, The Gospel of John was written during an intense period of hatred and violence between Jewish Christians and the orthodox Jewish leaders (Pharessies and the like) and hence Jesus is portrayed in the Gospel as really lashing out at the leadership and the author makes a big point of painting the Jewish leadership as responsible for the death and crucifixion of Christ. Christians in general really don't pay much attention to the historical background of biblical books and so things can be misinterpreted.
4. Just for fun, it was Rachel at the well when Jacob saw her, fell in love with her, and then married her sister Leah, who had bizzare eyes and when Jacob learned he had been tricked into marrying Leah, he then married Rachel as well. It wouldn't suprise me if it was fairly accurate, since it was common practice for men to marry multiple wives, even for the early Hebrews.
5. It's a movie. There have been scores of films made about the Passion. The only reason this is a big deal is because Mel Gibson is associated with it. If he hadn't been, I doubt anyone would care one way or the other.
But a lot of other have died, knowingly, a much MUCH more horrible death because they tried to save other people. Think about those people on the roof of Chernobyl shoveling material on the open core. How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered? Jesus death was in anyway you see it a very normal death.
Someone please expain this to me.
Originally posted by Moogs
*walks up to soap box*
The thing that bothers me allready about this movie, and which few people are even aware of, is how Gobson started with a PR campaign of "they (read 'Jews') are calling this film Anti-Semitic"
He started this along time ago
Which, as I have said in other places, is itself an Anti-Semitic gesture . . . to stir up false enmity between groups of people (Jews and Christians) inorder to create a hub-bub . . . OR, perhaps he really is paranoid
and the kind of hub-bub would be even more Anti-Semitic if in fact the movie wasn't Anti-Semitic (wrap your head around that paradox, hey
Here, there should be enough of it for the rest of that thread, so can we drop using this phrase now?
But a lot of other have died, knowingly, a much MUCH more horrible death because they tried to save other people. Think about those people on the roof of Chernobyl shoveling material on the open core. How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered? Jesus death was in anyway you see it a very normal death.
Someone please expain this to me
I wouldn't call Jesus' death (as we know it) to be "normal" by any means, and I wouldn't characterize it as anything but "awful" either. Even so I'm not sure I understand the point of your larger question: "How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered?"
Are you suggesting that those who have endured more trying deaths in attempts to save the lives of others is more "Christ-like" than Christ's own death, in terms of the sacrifice made? Or that we should recognize his sacrifice less than those who by circumstance chose more difficult deaths to save a few lives?
Not arguing one way or another, just trying to understand what you're asking / implying.
Originally posted by pfflam
The thing that bothers me allready about this movie, and which few people are even aware of, is how Gobson started with a PR campaign of "they (read 'Jews') are calling this film Anti-Semitic"
He started this along time ago
Maybe so (I don't have any information on this one way or another), but if it was that obvious a ploy, why on earth would the leaders in the Jewish community dignify it by the actions they have taken? Better to just ignore it and wave Gibson off as a "quack" in that case. Why cry wolf, if that's what he's trying to bait you into?
Just doesn't make any sense to be ourtaged over something like this. That's another disease Americans in general have: they love to feel outraged and slighted so that they can bitch about it publicly. Either for sympathy or attention... or something. It's really sad. A culture of victims are we....
Originally posted by Moogs
I wouldn't call Jesus' death (as we know it) to be "normal" by any means, and I wouldn't characterize it as anything but "awful" either. Even so I'm not sure I understand the point of your larger question: "How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered?"
Are you suggesting that those who have endured more trying deaths in attempts to save the lives of others is more "Christ-like" than Christ's own death, in terms of the sacrifice made? Or that we should recognize his sacrifice less than those who by circumstance chose more difficult deaths to save a few lives?
Not arguing one way or another, just trying to understand what you're asking / implying.
That Jesus died the then-equivalent of the electric chair. Thousands of criminals died pretty much like he did... so why is his death singled out as one of great suffering? Others have suffered more during their deaths, often precisely to save others, so why make a big deal about *his* suffering? Was it just the public humilation? Honestly, I don't get it either.
Originally posted by Kickaha
That Jesus died the then-equivalent of the electric chair. Thousands of criminals died pretty much like he did... so why is his death singled out as one of great suffering? Others have suffered more during their deaths, often precisely to save others, so why make a big deal about *his* suffering? Was it just the public humilation? Honestly, I don't get it either.
Whether one person was crucified or one million, I think we can agree it is a very cruel and unusual way to put someone to death. Imagine if the electric chair didn't kill you in 30 seconds but 30 hours... the effect is the same essentially. So, I don't think we can dismiss what Christ went through out of hand, because many others also went through it. They're having done so doesn't make it any less agonizing or drawn out.
I suspect you might be more satisfied on the matter if not only Jesus' death were talked about so much, but if others like him that have died since were also paid attention to on a regular basis? IOW, I think your real gripe is not to exclude Jesus' death from the discourse, but to INCLUDE the trials and tribulations of others who "died horrible deaths to avert the death of others". You are correct in that sentiment I think. I just wouldn't reduce the significance of Jesus as a solution but rather increase the significance of those who aren't spoken of often.
Originally posted by Moogs
Whether one person was crucified or one million, I think we can agree it is a very cruel and unusual way to put someone to death. Imagine if the electric chair didn't kill you in 30 seconds but 30 hours... the effect is the same essentially. So, I don't think we can dismiss what Christ went through out of hand, because many others also went through it. They're having done so doesn't make it any less agonizing or drawn out.
Who said I was dismissing it?
I suspect you might be more satisfied on the matter if not only Jesus' death were talked about so much, but if others like him that have died since were also paid attention to on a regular basis? IOW, I think your real gripe is not to exclude Jesus' death from the discourse, but to INCLUDE the trials and tribulations of others who you correctly deduce are also very important.
Mmmmmmperhaps.
I just don't understand the fixation in some sections of Christianity on "Jesus *suffered* for your sin", when the suffering was a minor part of the entire picture of humanity. Others have suffered more, for much less (if we believe that he suffered for the sins of all humanity, it seems like a pittance to pay, doesn't it?), and yet they're forgotten.
Why the fascination with pain and suffering in a religion supposedly based on love and peace?
Then again, the folks I see who seem most entranced with the crucifixion are generally the fire and brimstone folks who tend to ignore most of what I think makes Christianity a worthy religion anyway, so...
For the record, I was raised Jehovah's Witness until I was 9, so I know my fundies.
Originally posted by Moogs
I've yet to hear one Jewish commentator come up with specific passages of the movie that are demonstrably "anti-semitic".
actually i think they have complained that gibson gave satan a phyical form and he has satan standing with the jews on a couple of occasions...sort of equating jews and satan...
that and the curse heard of "a curse on your children's children" or something to that effect...sort of saying jews are damned forever
g