I really take issue with a lot of the Christians who've told me that it was the "Real Story of What Happened". But Gibson used sources other than Scripture as the basis for the movie, as has been mentioned before. If there's any movie which I think would be best termed as the Real Story, I'd have to say it was that massive word-for-word movie version of the Gospel of John that came out last year.
Hearing what a lot of Christians have told me, you'd think that if you didn't like this film, you wouldn't be considered as a "real" Christian. I still haven't had the chance to see it, but all of the hype and overall madness surrounding this movie have already soured me on it.
Unfortunately from everything I've heard, while it might be accurate to the book, it's not historically accurate. That's too bad.
That's because a movie about this man and exactly what happened to him -- by definition -- can always be argued to be "historically inaccurate", regardless of which book you model the movie after.
There is no hard, cold evidence of exactly how the final days of this man's life concluded, nor what exactly he endured at the hands of the Jewish high priests and subsequently the Romans (except that everyone seems to believe he *was* crucified).
So if Gibson had made a movie based on Jewish historical interpretations or Muslim interpretations or Agnostic interpretations, all could be tagged with the "historically inaccurate" label with equal ease by the opposing camps. That is because all of the interpretations are just that: guesses based on fragments of text, our own biases and anthropological clues (not facts).
Gibson told nearly the exact same story Christians have been told for decades at least and probably centuries (how would I know, because I never attended church services centuries ago). The only things that can be called embellishments are the amount of violence (but again, easily argued the other way because which specific physical abuses he endured, nor how many times / for how long), and the satan character (which to my knowledge is not mentioned as being "physically present" in any of the mainstream Christian renditions of the story).
So again, ultimately, those who oppose this movie (officially and otherwise) will either have the balls to come out and say "we have a problem with the way Christians tell this story" or they'll dodge the issue and blame it on Gibson because he's the easier target and the politically correct target.
Mel Gibson is expected to make 500-700 million dollars himself off this movie (WaPo). I hope everyone realizes that buying a ticket for this movie indirectly subsidizes the wacko agenda he wants to promote. With that kind of dough, he could easily drop tens of millions on his favorite pro-life, anti-birth control, or perhaps anti-holocaust groups. Maybe Gibson will use the money to controversially wallow in another group's history. Who knows? I just know the same applies for any Gibson/Icon movie, so that concern overrides any interest I have in his movies.
The sheer profit Gibson made also forced me to look at the controversy differently. I admit that I was wrong here. The New York Times, The New Yorker, the ADL- they never should have raised the profile of this movie. And I think they definitely did. Maybe it would have been best to ignore it? It just angers me to think the money spent paying the salaries of writers or the resources spent criticizing the movie only fed right into the movie's popularity- and right into into Mel Gibson's pockets.
....angers me to think the money spent paying the salaries of writers or the resources spent criticizing the movie only fed right into the movie's popularity- and right into into Mel Gibson's pockets.
\
That is an odd statement. If it works for George Clooney and the Dixie Chicks why isn't Gibson entitled to the same marketing mechanisms?
As for "keep the movie quite" they tried; since we have the internet it simply isn't possible any longer for the Times, Newsweeks, CNNs, and Old Gray Ladies of the media world to squelch opinions and movies they don't approve of. It used to be possible for a book or movies to simply "not exist" in the public consiousness. It was a great tool, and was used often.
The fallback plan was to play the anti-semitism card---a Hail Mary pass at "reporting on controversy", i.e. poisoning the well for Gibson. Anyone with the I.Q. of a cheesburger knows that the very last thing this movie would ever do is cause Christians to flip out and burn synagoges.
You should be greatful they went as far into the land of intellectual dishonesty for your cause as they did.
I don't blame you for being angry. In a culture that encourages expressions like Courtney Love topless on top of Letterman's desk but is busy "branding" (and I mean that as a marketing term) Christians as idiots, assholes, and bigots, allowing a movie that galvanizes Chirstians on the reality of the sacrifice of Christ, is very bad news for those who smear Christian lifestyles and "intentions". We have the internet now, the old ways of cowing Christians aren't going to be effective in the future. If we can't get fair coverage of our beliefs, or funding for pro-Christian entertainment, we'll simply go around the existing obstacles. Gibson just did this in spades.
That is an odd statement. If it works for George Clooney and the Dixie Chicks why isn't Gibson entitled to the same marketing mechanisms?
snip
ve in the future. If we can't get fair coverage of our beliefs, or funding for pro-Christian entertainment, we'll simply go around the existing obstacles. Gibson just did this in spades.
Dude, don't bother to post any more. Seriously. The second anyone contests anything you say, you simply disappear. There's no point in your posting a damn thing. You might as well stop.
I would gently remind everyone that personal attacks get threads closed and members banned for a time, but I don't think anyone would listen. Lay off each other for the love of God!
Dude, don't bother to post any more. Seriously. The second anyone contests anything you say, you simply disappear. There's no point in your posting a damn thing. You might as well stop.
First of all, I rather enjoyed his post, since it framed the "religious sub-culture" as being empowered in the light of the internet age and I hadn't really thought of it that way before.
Secondly, if I may add, this is an open board for members, so don't be telling any member not to bother to post or how often they should.
Usually people wait to get the 'Moderator' title before they go on power trips.
First of all, I rather enjoyed his post, since it framed the "religious sub-culture" as being empowered in the light of the internet age and I hadn't really thought of it that way before.
Secondly, if I may add, this is an open board for members, so don't be telling any member not to bother to post or how often they should.
Usually people wait to get the 'Moderator' title before they go on power trips.
It doesn't matter whether you enjoyed his post or not because if you wanted to actually take issue of with any of it in any depth he'd simply disappear.
As for the 'power trip' thing, you haven't actually tried arguing with him. It's very frustrating.
It's great that he (or she) makes the huge declarations and out-there assertions that he does but it's immensely annoying that he makes them with no intention of actually discussing them. It's like being hacked by a priest and in my opinion it's not on. This is a forum, not a personal pulpit.
As for "keep the movie quite" they tried; since we have the internet it simply isn't possible any longer for the Times, Newsweeks, CNNs, and Old Gray Ladies of the media world to squelch opinions and movies they don't approve of. It used to be possible for a book or movies to simply "not exist" in the public consiousness. It was a great tool, and was used often.
You have them confused with the book burners. Squelching things they don't approve of is more of a Church/Republican thing. Don't give me this "liberal media is repressing christians" horse dung. There are just as many if not more conservative outlets, and you can't trip and not fall on some religious channel. I never see any signs that say "Christians not welcome" or "No Christians allowed". You were never rounded up and sent to death camps or used as cheap labour on plantations, because you were Christian. There aren't organizations out there to hang you because you're Christian. Please get over it.
Quote:
I don't blame you for being angry. In a culture that encourages expressions like Courtney Love topless on top of Letterman's desk but is busy "branding" (and I mean that as a marketing term) Christians as idiots, assholes, and bigots, allowing a movie that galvanizes Chirstians on the reality of the sacrifice of Christ, is very bad news for those who smear Christian lifestyles and "intentions". We have the internet now, the old ways of cowing Christians aren't going to be effective in the future. If we can't get fair coverage of our beliefs, or funding for pro-Christian entertainment, we'll simply go around the existing obstacles. Gibson just did this in spades.
People didn't brand Christians as anything. You guys do more than enough "branding" for yourselves. Like the town banning gays, or the preachers that stand on corners and scream their heads off that everyone around them is going to hell (mostly because they aren't screaming like idiots as well). Then we have the televangelists, Oral Roberts being told by G-d that he'll go to hell unless he raises 1 million dollars, 9/11 being caused because we're a country of sinners, AIDS being the way G-d will destroy Gays... the list goes on and on.
Christians don't want "fair" coverage for your beliefs. Christians want anything that disagrees with their view and religion banned. Christians want anything that challenges them at all banned. You want your beliefs legislated as law. Kind of like the Taliban did.
Sounds like you have everyone figured out and categorized into little boxes.
Quote:
Originally posted by FaydRautha
You were never rounded up and sent to death camps or used as cheap labour on plantations, because you were Christian.
Well, according to your version of history, maybe not. There have been many people sent to death camps and many people taken into slavery over the years.
Back to the movie. I have not seen it and don't intend to see it. It just sounds too violent and not faithful to the underlying spirit of the Bible. He suffered and died, yes, but what about his teachings, the real meaning of the Ressurection, and the long-term relationship of faith?
Mel's gotta ask himself what he - Mel - was trying to achieve and whether he achieved it. Mel also has to ask himself whether what he was trying to achieve is consistent with Christ's teachings.
Also, I think that Christians, generally, should ask themselves why Christianity has become associated, in many people's minds, with extreme right-wing political beliefs. That's just wrong, in my opinion. Jesus was a liberal - perhaps even a socialist (although he's available for right-wingers too, if they act real nice.)
Hollywood star Mel Gibson is already planning his next foray into the weighty world of religious film-making - he wants to make a movie about the origins of the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. Gibson - who was criticized by some quarters of the Jewish church, who accused his epic The Passion Of The Christ of blaming Jews for Jesus Christ's death - has hinted he may make a filmed account of the Revolt Of The Maccabees, the story behind Hanukkah. The 46-year-old says, "The story that's always fired my imagination is the Book of Maccabees. "The Maccabees family stood up, and they made war. They stuck by their guns and they came out winning. It's like a western." The Maccabees led a three year war, 200 years before the birth of Jesus, against Antiochus, a king who forced the Jews to worship false gods. The war led to the liberation of Jerusalem. Gibson's interest in Jewish history concerns the Jewish Anti-defamation League. National director Abe Foxman says, "My answer would be, 'Thanks but no thanks.' The last thing we need in Jewish history is to convert our history into a western." Meanwhile, Gibson is set to become the richest star in the world thanks to a series of clever financial tie-ins to his self-funded film. The Passion's soundtrack has already rocketed to the top of the Christian and Soundtrack charts in America, becoming one of the best-selling albums in both territories. And other Passion merchandise is flying off shelves too - photography book The Passion: Photography from the Movie The Passion of the Christ has debuted high on America's new bestsellers' list, and jewelry items such as "The Passion Nail Pendant" have become fashion statements for fervent Christians.
Back to the movie. I have not seen it and don't intend to see it. It just sounds too violent and not faithful to the underlying spirit of the Bible. He suffered and died, yes, but what about his teachings, the real meaning of the Ressurection, and the long-term relationship of faith?
Mel's gotta ask himself what he - Mel - was trying to achieve and whether he achieved it. Mel also has to ask himself whether what he was trying to achieve is consistent with Christ's teachings.
Amen to that. I was really disappointed when I kept on hearing about the gore and the violence. People go on about how it'll change people to "see the light", but it seems to me that this movie would actually drive people away from Christianity. Where's the positive message? I for one, was very disappointed to hear that they barely glossed over Peter's triple denial of Jesus in the courtyard. To me, that's a very important aspect of the Crucifixion, as was Jesus' appearance to the apostle Thomas.
And of course, the money thing. I wouldn't mind so much slapping down $12 or so to see his movie if I knew that it was all going to a good cause, like going to Christian charties and relief organizations in Africa and Asia, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Quote:
Also, I think that Christians, generally, should ask themselves why Christianity has become associated, in many people's minds, with extreme right-wing political beliefs. That's just wrong, in my opinion. Jesus was a liberal - perhaps even a socialist.
I've asked myself that many, many times. The jaded part of me tells me that it's just a raw power trip. These people want to be the ones calling the shots, and really, what better way to hold unequivocal power over other people than to hold total power over their religion? I'm sure it's occured to people like Robertson and Fallwell that they hold tremendous mindshare in the United States, even if it is somewhat marginalized by mainstream Christianity.
I'd love to see more "left-wing" associated movements in Christianity; maybe a PBS TV series on how Christians are changing their attitudes towards the LGBT community, or opening up dialog with other religions. It'd be nice to see something about Christianity in the mainstream that isn't like or associated with The Wedge Strategy.
A friend of mine went to see another movie which was sold out . . . so she saw the Passion. She said that it was one of the single worst movies she has ever experienced . . . .she said that whatever inclination towards Christianity she had before the movie she has NONE afterwards!
She said that it was so unnecessarily brutal and violent that it actually became FUNNY and that whe couldn't help laughing by late in the film.
She said that it was obviouse that 'This Gibson guy' was screwed up psychologically, that the film was seriously Sado/masochistic and had no value in any spiritual sense
She described scenes that were incredibly gratuitous: such as, when all the beatings, in slow motion, were done with and the cross was being put up . . . it slips and falls face down on the ground . . .
. . . I don't get it? what sort of pleasure does Gibson get from brutalizing the image of Jesus . . . because that's what it sounds like . . . he is getting pleasure, in some sort of repressed way, out of attacking the image of Jesus . . . there seems to be no sorrow in it but rather some sort of pleasure . . . getting his kicks out of beating Jesus.
She also said that it was not made well and reminded her of a low budget slasher film
She described a scene where there are two people at teh base of the cross: one fellow starts to feel remorse but the other fellow is laughing . . then all of a sudden a crow flies down and plucks out the eyes of the laughing fellow! - - I have to agree with her that that sounds absurdly stupid and simplistic . . . but that's just me . .
She hadn't followed any of the hoopla at all but seemed to know a little of the complaits about the movie . . . but, she said that it was undoubtably and obviously anti-Semitic . .. in so many ways that she couldn't believe it . . . in its characterizations and in its general tenor as well as the way it pitted the 'throngs' of Middle-eastern looking mobs against the gentle Roman and teh European looking esus and his gang . . .
Anyway . . . she seemed to think that the film was unbelievably bad and would NOT act as a recruitment for Christians at all because it revealed some sick and twisted psychology that was not at all spiritual or graceful.
She told me that the only way that I would ever be able to sit through the movie would be to rent it and make some kind of game out of it: like maybe a drink everytime that he hits the floor in SLOW MOTION . .. or iis beat senselessly . . . \
A friend of mine went to see another movie which was sold out . . . so she saw the Passion. She said that it was one of the single worst movies she has ever experienced . . . .she said that whatever inclination towards Christianity she had before the movie she has NONE afterwards!
She said that it was so unnecessarily brutal and violent that it actually became FUNNY and that whe couldn't help laughing by late in the film.
She said that it was obviouse that 'This Gibson guy' was screwed up psychologically, that the film was seriously Sado/masochistic and had no value in any spiritual sense
She described scenes that were incredibly gratuitous: such as, when all the beatings, in slow motion, were done with and the cross was being put up . . . it slips and falls face down on the ground . . .
. . . I don't get it? what sort of pleasure does Gibson get from brutalizing the image of Jesus . . . because that's what it sounds like . . . he is getting pleasure, in some sort of repressed way, out of attacking the image of Jesus . . . there seems to be no sorrow in it but rather some sort of pleasure . . . getting his kicks out of beating Jesus.
She also said that it was not made well and reminded her of a low budget slasher film
She described a scene where there are two people at teh base of the cross: one fellow starts to feel remorse but the other fellow is laughing . . then all of a sudden a crow flies down and plucks out the eyes of the laughing fellow! - - I have to agree with her that that sounds absurdly stupid and simplistic . . . but that's just me . .
She hadn't followed any of the hoopla at all but seemed to know a little of the complaits about the movie . . . but, she said that it was undoubtably and obviously anti-Semitic . .. in so many ways that she couldn't believe it . . . in its characterizations and in its general tenor as well as the way it pitted the 'throngs' of Middle-eastern looking mobs against the gentle Roman and teh European looking esus and his gang . . .
Anyway . . . she seemed to think that the film was unbelievably bad and would NOT act as a recruitment for Christians at all because it revealed some sick and twisted psychology that was not at all spiritual or graceful.
She told me that the only way that I would ever be able to sit through the movie would be to rent it and make some kind of game out of it: like maybe a drink everytime that he hits the floor in SLOW MOTION . .. or iis beat senselessly . . . \
Don't watch the silly film then pfflam. I find it interesting that you spend so much time ripping Gibson as claim you are appalled at his (ripping) of Jesus in the film. I am not so sure that you are not the one with a bigger ripping reputation.
As for anti-Semitic that is pure Bullshit. Anyone who watches this film themselves and not making reference to (well so and so saw it and they said...) knows there is a very specific scene with Mary in it looking at the audience (as to indicate that it is all of us who are responsible) for nailing Jesus to the cross.
If you want to rent it and play drinking games go right ahead.
As for anti-Semitic that is pure Bullshit. Anyone who watches this film themselves and not making reference to (well so and so saw it and they said...) knows there is a very specific scene with Mary in it looking at the audience (as to indicate that it is all of us who are responsible) for nailing Jesus to the cross.
Fellows
Sorry guy, I got to disagree. There were two types of Jews portrayed in the movie, those that believed in Jesus and those that didn't. The ones that believed were moderate and compassionate, but the Jews that didn't were blood thirsty and demanding for Jesus to be killed at every moment. It's a matter of opinion .
Now this has bugged me, should Christians be happy that the Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans? If they hadn't how would he have fulfilled the "die for your sins" thing?
Comments
Hearing what a lot of Christians have told me, you'd think that if you didn't like this film, you wouldn't be considered as a "real" Christian. I still haven't had the chance to see it, but all of the hype and overall madness surrounding this movie have already soured me on it.
Originally posted by bunge
Unfortunately from everything I've heard, while it might be accurate to the book, it's not historically accurate. That's too bad.
That's because a movie about this man and exactly what happened to him -- by definition -- can always be argued to be "historically inaccurate", regardless of which book you model the movie after.
There is no hard, cold evidence of exactly how the final days of this man's life concluded, nor what exactly he endured at the hands of the Jewish high priests and subsequently the Romans (except that everyone seems to believe he *was* crucified).
So if Gibson had made a movie based on Jewish historical interpretations or Muslim interpretations or Agnostic interpretations, all could be tagged with the "historically inaccurate" label with equal ease by the opposing camps. That is because all of the interpretations are just that: guesses based on fragments of text, our own biases and anthropological clues (not facts).
Gibson told nearly the exact same story Christians have been told for decades at least and probably centuries (how would I know, because I never attended church services centuries ago). The only things that can be called embellishments are the amount of violence (but again, easily argued the other way because which specific physical abuses he endured, nor how many times / for how long), and the satan character (which to my knowledge is not mentioned as being "physically present" in any of the mainstream Christian renditions of the story).
So again, ultimately, those who oppose this movie (officially and otherwise) will either have the balls to come out and say "we have a problem with the way Christians tell this story" or they'll dodge the issue and blame it on Gibson because he's the easier target and the politically correct target.
Originally posted by Moogs
The only things that can be called embellishments are the amount of violence
That's my exact complaint actually. I think that's historically inaccurate, not that we can ever know for sure.
Originally posted by pfflam
. . . hows that for 'childish rant'!
Well done, sir! <golf clap>
The sheer profit Gibson made also forced me to look at the controversy differently. I admit that I was wrong here. The New York Times, The New Yorker, the ADL- they never should have raised the profile of this movie. And I think they definitely did. Maybe it would have been best to ignore it? It just angers me to think the money spent paying the salaries of writers or the resources spent criticizing the movie only fed right into the movie's popularity- and right into into Mel Gibson's pockets.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
....angers me to think the money spent paying the salaries of writers or the resources spent criticizing the movie only fed right into the movie's popularity- and right into into Mel Gibson's pockets.
That is an odd statement. If it works for George Clooney and the Dixie Chicks why isn't Gibson entitled to the same marketing mechanisms?
As for "keep the movie quite" they tried; since we have the internet it simply isn't possible any longer for the Times, Newsweeks, CNNs, and Old Gray Ladies of the media world to squelch opinions and movies they don't approve of. It used to be possible for a book or movies to simply "not exist" in the public consiousness. It was a great tool, and was used often.
The fallback plan was to play the anti-semitism card---a Hail Mary pass at "reporting on controversy", i.e. poisoning the well for Gibson. Anyone with the I.Q. of a cheesburger knows that the very last thing this movie would ever do is cause Christians to flip out and burn synagoges.
You should be greatful they went as far into the land of intellectual dishonesty for your cause as they did.
I don't blame you for being angry. In a culture that encourages expressions like Courtney Love topless on top of Letterman's desk but is busy "branding" (and I mean that as a marketing term) Christians as idiots, assholes, and bigots, allowing a movie that galvanizes Chirstians on the reality of the sacrifice of Christ, is very bad news for those who smear Christian lifestyles and "intentions". We have the internet now, the old ways of cowing Christians aren't going to be effective in the future. If we can't get fair coverage of our beliefs, or funding for pro-Christian entertainment, we'll simply go around the existing obstacles. Gibson just did this in spades.
Originally posted by dmz
That is an odd statement. If it works for George Clooney and the Dixie Chicks why isn't Gibson entitled to the same marketing mechanisms?
snip
ve in the future. If we can't get fair coverage of our beliefs, or funding for pro-Christian entertainment, we'll simply go around the existing obstacles. Gibson just did this in spades.
Dude, don't bother to post any more. Seriously. The second anyone contests anything you say, you simply disappear. There's no point in your posting a damn thing. You might as well stop.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Dude, don't bother to post any more. Seriously. The second anyone contests anything you say, you simply disappear. There's no point in your posting a damn thing. You might as well stop.
First of all, I rather enjoyed his post, since it framed the "religious sub-culture" as being empowered in the light of the internet age and I hadn't really thought of it that way before.
Secondly, if I may add, this is an open board for members, so don't be telling any member not to bother to post or how often they should.
Usually people wait to get the 'Moderator' title before they go on power trips.
Originally posted by Frank777
First of all, I rather enjoyed his post, since it framed the "religious sub-culture" as being empowered in the light of the internet age and I hadn't really thought of it that way before.
Secondly, if I may add, this is an open board for members, so don't be telling any member not to bother to post or how often they should.
Usually people wait to get the 'Moderator' title before they go on power trips.
It doesn't matter whether you enjoyed his post or not because if you wanted to actually take issue of with any of it in any depth he'd simply disappear.
As for the 'power trip' thing, you haven't actually tried arguing with him. It's very frustrating.
It's great that he (or she) makes the huge declarations and out-there assertions that he does but it's immensely annoying that he makes them with no intention of actually discussing them. It's like being hacked by a priest and in my opinion it's not on. This is a forum, not a personal pulpit.
Originally posted by dmz
As for "keep the movie quite" they tried; since we have the internet it simply isn't possible any longer for the Times, Newsweeks, CNNs, and Old Gray Ladies of the media world to squelch opinions and movies they don't approve of. It used to be possible for a book or movies to simply "not exist" in the public consiousness. It was a great tool, and was used often.
You have them confused with the book burners. Squelching things they don't approve of is more of a Church/Republican thing. Don't give me this "liberal media is repressing christians" horse dung. There are just as many if not more conservative outlets, and you can't trip and not fall on some religious channel. I never see any signs that say "Christians not welcome" or "No Christians allowed". You were never rounded up and sent to death camps or used as cheap labour on plantations, because you were Christian. There aren't organizations out there to hang you because you're Christian. Please get over it.
I don't blame you for being angry. In a culture that encourages expressions like Courtney Love topless on top of Letterman's desk but is busy "branding" (and I mean that as a marketing term) Christians as idiots, assholes, and bigots, allowing a movie that galvanizes Chirstians on the reality of the sacrifice of Christ, is very bad news for those who smear Christian lifestyles and "intentions". We have the internet now, the old ways of cowing Christians aren't going to be effective in the future. If we can't get fair coverage of our beliefs, or funding for pro-Christian entertainment, we'll simply go around the existing obstacles. Gibson just did this in spades.
People didn't brand Christians as anything. You guys do more than enough "branding" for yourselves. Like the town banning gays, or the preachers that stand on corners and scream their heads off that everyone around them is going to hell (mostly because they aren't screaming like idiots as well). Then we have the televangelists, Oral Roberts being told by G-d that he'll go to hell unless he raises 1 million dollars, 9/11 being caused because we're a country of sinners, AIDS being the way G-d will destroy Gays... the list goes on and on.
Christians don't want "fair" coverage for your beliefs. Christians want anything that disagrees with their view and religion banned. Christians want anything that challenges them at all banned. You want your beliefs legislated as law. Kind of like the Taliban did.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
You were never rounded up and sent to death camps or used as cheap labour on plantations, because you were Christian.
Well, according to your version of history, maybe not. There have been many people sent to death camps and many people taken into slavery over the years.
"Christians" are to ____________
as ____________ is to "Taliban"
Mel's gotta ask himself what he - Mel - was trying to achieve and whether he achieved it. Mel also has to ask himself whether what he was trying to achieve is consistent with Christ's teachings.
Also, I think that Christians, generally, should ask themselves why Christianity has become associated, in many people's minds, with extreme right-wing political beliefs. That's just wrong, in my opinion. Jesus was a liberal - perhaps even a socialist (although he's available for right-wingers too, if they act real nice.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
You have them confused with the book burners. Squelching things they don't approve of is more of a Church/Republican thing.
In America at the present time, this is simply not the case.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
Christians don't want "fair" coverage for your beliefs..............You want your beliefs legislated as law. Kind of like the Taliban did. [/B]
This is simply a truism, all people would like to see their concepts of right and wrong codified.
(but if you can't get those beliefs codified democraticly you can always go see the mayor of San Franciso)
Gibson Planning Jewish Movie
Hollywood star Mel Gibson is already planning his next foray into the weighty world of religious film-making - he wants to make a movie about the origins of the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. Gibson - who was criticized by some quarters of the Jewish church, who accused his epic The Passion Of The Christ of blaming Jews for Jesus Christ's death - has hinted he may make a filmed account of the Revolt Of The Maccabees, the story behind Hanukkah. The 46-year-old says, "The story that's always fired my imagination is the Book of Maccabees. "The Maccabees family stood up, and they made war. They stuck by their guns and they came out winning. It's like a western." The Maccabees led a three year war, 200 years before the birth of Jesus, against Antiochus, a king who forced the Jews to worship false gods. The war led to the liberation of Jerusalem. Gibson's interest in Jewish history concerns the Jewish Anti-defamation League. National director Abe Foxman says, "My answer would be, 'Thanks but no thanks.' The last thing we need in Jewish history is to convert our history into a western." Meanwhile, Gibson is set to become the richest star in the world thanks to a series of clever financial tie-ins to his self-funded film. The Passion's soundtrack has already rocketed to the top of the Christian and Soundtrack charts in America, becoming one of the best-selling albums in both territories. And other Passion merchandise is flying off shelves too - photography book The Passion: Photography from the Movie The Passion of the Christ has debuted high on America's new bestsellers' list, and jewelry items such as "The Passion Nail Pendant" have become fashion statements for fervent Christians.
(IMDb)
The Passion made Mel Gibson "THE RICHEST STAR IN THE WORLD."
Originally posted by Chinney
Back to the movie. I have not seen it and don't intend to see it. It just sounds too violent and not faithful to the underlying spirit of the Bible. He suffered and died, yes, but what about his teachings, the real meaning of the Ressurection, and the long-term relationship of faith?
Mel's gotta ask himself what he - Mel - was trying to achieve and whether he achieved it. Mel also has to ask himself whether what he was trying to achieve is consistent with Christ's teachings.
Amen to that. I was really disappointed when I kept on hearing about the gore and the violence. People go on about how it'll change people to "see the light", but it seems to me that this movie would actually drive people away from Christianity. Where's the positive message? I for one, was very disappointed to hear that they barely glossed over Peter's triple denial of Jesus in the courtyard. To me, that's a very important aspect of the Crucifixion, as was Jesus' appearance to the apostle Thomas.
And of course, the money thing. I wouldn't mind so much slapping down $12 or so to see his movie if I knew that it was all going to a good cause, like going to Christian charties and relief organizations in Africa and Asia, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Also, I think that Christians, generally, should ask themselves why Christianity has become associated, in many people's minds, with extreme right-wing political beliefs. That's just wrong, in my opinion. Jesus was a liberal - perhaps even a socialist.
I've asked myself that many, many times. The jaded part of me tells me that it's just a raw power trip. These people want to be the ones calling the shots, and really, what better way to hold unequivocal power over other people than to hold total power over their religion? I'm sure it's occured to people like Robertson and Fallwell that they hold tremendous mindshare in the United States, even if it is somewhat marginalized by mainstream Christianity.
I'd love to see more "left-wing" associated movements in Christianity; maybe a PBS TV series on how Christians are changing their attitudes towards the LGBT community, or opening up dialog with other religions. It'd be nice to see something about Christianity in the mainstream that isn't like or associated with The Wedge Strategy.
She said that it was so unnecessarily brutal and violent that it actually became FUNNY and that whe couldn't help laughing by late in the film.
She said that it was obviouse that 'This Gibson guy' was screwed up psychologically, that the film was seriously Sado/masochistic and had no value in any spiritual sense
She described scenes that were incredibly gratuitous: such as, when all the beatings, in slow motion, were done with and the cross was being put up . . . it slips and falls face down on the ground . . .
. . . I don't get it? what sort of pleasure does Gibson get from brutalizing the image of Jesus . . . because that's what it sounds like . . . he is getting pleasure, in some sort of repressed way, out of attacking the image of Jesus . . . there seems to be no sorrow in it but rather some sort of pleasure . . . getting his kicks out of beating Jesus.
She also said that it was not made well and reminded her of a low budget slasher film
She described a scene where there are two people at teh base of the cross: one fellow starts to feel remorse but the other fellow is laughing . . then all of a sudden a crow flies down and plucks out the eyes of the laughing fellow!
She hadn't followed any of the hoopla at all but seemed to know a little of the complaits about the movie . . . but, she said that it was undoubtably and obviously anti-Semitic . .. in so many ways that she couldn't believe it . . . in its characterizations and in its general tenor as well as the way it pitted the 'throngs' of Middle-eastern looking mobs against the gentle Roman and teh European looking esus and his gang . . .
Anyway . . . she seemed to think that the film was unbelievably bad and would NOT act as a recruitment for Christians at all because it revealed some sick and twisted psychology that was not at all spiritual or graceful.
She told me that the only way that I would ever be able to sit through the movie would be to rent it and make some kind of game out of it: like maybe a drink everytime that he hits the floor in SLOW MOTION . .. or iis beat senselessly . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
A friend of mine went to see another movie which was sold out . . . so she saw the Passion. She said that it was one of the single worst movies she has ever experienced . . . .she said that whatever inclination towards Christianity she had before the movie she has NONE afterwards!
She said that it was so unnecessarily brutal and violent that it actually became FUNNY and that whe couldn't help laughing by late in the film.
She said that it was obviouse that 'This Gibson guy' was screwed up psychologically, that the film was seriously Sado/masochistic and had no value in any spiritual sense
She described scenes that were incredibly gratuitous: such as, when all the beatings, in slow motion, were done with and the cross was being put up . . . it slips and falls face down on the ground . . .
. . . I don't get it? what sort of pleasure does Gibson get from brutalizing the image of Jesus . . . because that's what it sounds like . . . he is getting pleasure, in some sort of repressed way, out of attacking the image of Jesus . . . there seems to be no sorrow in it but rather some sort of pleasure . . . getting his kicks out of beating Jesus.
She also said that it was not made well and reminded her of a low budget slasher film
She described a scene where there are two people at teh base of the cross: one fellow starts to feel remorse but the other fellow is laughing . . then all of a sudden a crow flies down and plucks out the eyes of the laughing fellow!
She hadn't followed any of the hoopla at all but seemed to know a little of the complaits about the movie . . . but, she said that it was undoubtably and obviously anti-Semitic . .. in so many ways that she couldn't believe it . . . in its characterizations and in its general tenor as well as the way it pitted the 'throngs' of Middle-eastern looking mobs against the gentle Roman and teh European looking esus and his gang . . .
Anyway . . . she seemed to think that the film was unbelievably bad and would NOT act as a recruitment for Christians at all because it revealed some sick and twisted psychology that was not at all spiritual or graceful.
She told me that the only way that I would ever be able to sit through the movie would be to rent it and make some kind of game out of it: like maybe a drink everytime that he hits the floor in SLOW MOTION . .. or iis beat senselessly . . .
Don't watch the silly film then pfflam. I find it interesting that you spend so much time ripping Gibson as claim you are appalled at his (ripping) of Jesus in the film. I am not so sure that you are not the one with a bigger ripping reputation.
As for anti-Semitic that is pure Bullshit. Anyone who watches this film themselves and not making reference to (well so and so saw it and they said...) knows there is a very specific scene with Mary in it looking at the audience (as to indicate that it is all of us who are responsible) for nailing Jesus to the cross.
If you want to rent it and play drinking games go right ahead.
You big man.
Fellows
Originally posted by Fellowship
As for anti-Semitic that is pure Bullshit. Anyone who watches this film themselves and not making reference to (well so and so saw it and they said...) knows there is a very specific scene with Mary in it looking at the audience (as to indicate that it is all of us who are responsible) for nailing Jesus to the cross.
Fellows
Sorry guy, I got to disagree. There were two types of Jews portrayed in the movie, those that believed in Jesus and those that didn't. The ones that believed were moderate and compassionate, but the Jews that didn't were blood thirsty and demanding for Jesus to be killed at every moment. It's a matter of opinion
Now this has bugged me, should Christians be happy that the Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans? If they hadn't how would he have fulfilled the "die for your sins" thing?