IT was originally about politics

[SpyMoose]

Somehow the thought of Mel sitting at home and pondering if god has called him on a holy crusade to produce this movie, seems more realistic to me than Mel sitting in his home steepling his fingers and wondering how he can swindle the suckers. I guess I find him far more likely to be a fanatic than a kingpin.

 

[Rappaccini]

haha, did you just make a pun?
He really thought it was important to make a movie that shows how Christ suffered was tortured and then executed. Surely this is the important part of Christ’s life, yes? When he was being tortured and executed, not when he was talking all that radical philosophy that changed the world?

In case you cant catch the sarcasm, I do think this movie was the misguided passion of a fanatic who follows a faith that is inherently hateful towards Jews. It was not a crass capitalistic decision.

Ummm....
... it's pretty sad that you're so ready to denounce Christians as irrational and yet so poorly versed in their faith.
The movie is based on the Bible, yes? Well, if so... then...

The crucifixion is infinitely more important than the teachings.
According to the Gospels, He was the lamb, a sacrifice to atone for all the sins that men could possibly commit. Without the crucifixion, the execution of divine plan, all the teachings are useless; without it, there can be no salvation for anyone. NOBODY gets into heaven at all.

Jesus' death at Golgotha is the integral, defining moment of Christianity, the ultimate exhibition of God's grace and the climax of the whole, big deal.
It's the epitome of suffering servitude; it's paradise regained.
That is why the movie centers on it, not the birth, not the temptation, not the sermon on the mount, but the crucifixion.



From your perspective, definitely an irreligious one, the teachings may seem more significant than the death.

But guess what... the movie is a religious tale, based on Scripture, not a historical account...it wasn't made to accomodate people who don't believe the shit, and that means you.

 

[thefountainhed]

No rational Christian could possibly blame the Jews for His death.

I"ll leave the sardonic alone. I said indirectly responsible-- instruments or not, they accept choice, no?

 

[Rappaccini]

I'm just the messenger here, buddy.

This is what most Christians today think of it; they don't blame the Jews.

I'm not going to try to explain it to you 'cause, chances are, it's a load of crap anyway.


But you know what?
That really doesn't matter, because the problem here is whether or not Mel Gibson is anti-semitic, not whether or not his religion is horse-shit.

If Mel Gibson fits todays definition of a Christian, rational or not, he feels no resentment toward the Jews in regard to the killing of the Christ.

What would actually lead you to believe that he does?

 

[Mystech]

The crucifiction is infinitely more important than the teachings.

He's got you there, moose. Even a cursory glance at Christianity today will make it evident that they don't give a crap about what Jesus had to say. What they're interested in is death, suffering, outrage, and the moral high ground that it somehow makes them believe they are entitled to. The way that they celebrate it, you've got to wonder if they'll nail him to a cross again if he ever shows up, that damn tree hugging brother loving hippy!

 

[Rappaccini]

From a Christian standpoint, which is the one the film uses, the crucifiction is the central theme and colorful cherry-on-top of the New Testament. It is THE THING.

Your complaints aren't going to change the Bible or the movie. Whether or not you like it, that's the way it is.

 

[spidergoat]

From your perspective, definitely an irreligious one, the teachings may seem more significant than the death.

It is irreligious to pay attention to the teachings of Jesus? I'm not sure Jesus would agree with you.

Had it not been for his crucifixion, however, we may have never even heard of Jesus. But the murder of this good person by the powers that be, left a horrible wound in the psyche’s of those who witnessed it; a wound so painful, a blow of such impact, that it has itself become paradigmatic and remains open and bleeding to this day. Again, it is my contention, that Christianity is a Band-Aid that attempts to cover this wound that obviously needs a tourniquet and a number of stitches instead. Jesus died 2000 years ago and we still haven’t dealt with it. We haven’t grieved the loss of Jesus. For how can we grief his death when Christianity tells us he has risen?

...

The message of Jesus becomes lost under the guise of Christianity. His unjust death which adds great emphasis and value to his teachings, is overshadowed by a theology of Resurrection that portrays the crucifixion as part of God’s divine and just plan, and ends up downplaying the importance of his lessons about love, peace and justice. Hence, Christianity has allowed us to safely cross the open and bleeding wound, the great gap left in the Dominator Paradigm by the teachings of Jesus, and continue our patterns of violence and hatred and oppression, without ever grieving the death of Jesus and his better way.

from here

 

[thefountainhed]

"I'm just the messenger here, buddy."

huh?

"This is what most Christians today think of it; they don't blame the Jews. "

Who said they did?


"I'm not going to try to explain it to you 'cause, chances are, it's a load of crap anyway.
are you high?"

explain what?

"But you know what?
That really doesn't matter, because the problem here is whether or not Mel Gibson is anti-semitic, not whether or not his religion is horse-shit.

If Mel Gibson fits todays definition of a Christian, rational or not, he feels no resentment toward the Jews in regard to the killing of the Christ.

What would actually lead you to believe that he does?"
who said i did?

get this through your stupid head: Although Jesus came to die for man- it was his fate to die for man, and that the Jews who asked for his crucifixion were merely living out their parts, christians believe in choice-- an ability for one to choose for themselves, what is right and wrong; were they unable to choose, the notion of sin would be nonsensical. Hence, the jews chose to ask for his cruxifion and hence indirectly-- they did not give the order or commit the act, killed Christ. The controversy has been whether or not to include a scene in which the jews in the audience ask that Jeus be crucified. Gibson originally had the subtitles in the movie. It is no more. The argument was that Christians in seeing those images, would blame the jews. In the bible that Gibson uses, the characterization of the crucifixion, and the behaviour of the crowd was correct. Succint enough?

 

[spidergoat]

As for Gibson’s father, he is a senile old man and thus should be ignored.

Gibson's dad sounded perfectly clear and coherent when he was interviewed about his view of Jews. He suggested that 6 million Jews simply moved to brooklyn, and were not murdered during WWII. His views are extremely racist, and it is a valid question how much of this idiot's ideas rubbed off on Mel.

 

[Rappaccini]

It is irreligious to pay attention to the teachings of Jesus? I'm not sure Jesus would agree with you.

It really doesn't matter what you or anybody else thinks about it.
In Christianity, it's plain that humanity, without Jesus' sacrifice, is incapable of entering heaven. Thus, the crucifixion is more important than the teachings; without it, they're purposeless.

by thefountainhed
explain what?

Explain the obvious paradox between the free will of the Jews and the destined death of Jesus.

who said i did?

Nobody.
What makes you think that I believe you do?
I'm simply asserting that there is nothing anti-semitic about any of this.

EDIT: I shouldn't have addressed it "you".

The controversy has been whether or not to include a scene in which the jews in the audience ask that Jeus be crucified. Gibson originally had the subtitles in the movie. It is no more. The argument was that Christians in seeing those images, would blame the jews. In the bible that Gibson uses, the characterization of the crucifixion, and the behaviour of the crowd was correct. Succint enough?

The film is simply an illustration of the Biblical account, yes?

Well, since most Christians read that account and do not persecute or detest Jews but instead simply view them as helpless instruments of God's plan, it seems reasonable to assume that neither that original account nor the film is anti-semitic in nature.

As I stated before, I'm not going to argue the logic of the predominant Christian viewpoint, seeing as it's probably untenable anyway. I'm just making it clear that there's no reason to assume the movie and its creator are anti-semitic, even by suggestion.

 

[spidergoat]

It really doesn't matter what you or anybody else thinks about it.
In Christianity, it's plain that humanity, without Jesus' sacrifice, is incapable of entering heaven. Thus, the crucifixion is more important than the teachings; without it, they're purposeless.

Forget about me, does it matter that the early Christians, the Gnostics, considered such orthodox Christian views to be heresy?

 

[spidergoat]

from CNN:

The number 666, which many Christians recognize as the "mark of the beast," is appearing on movie tickets for Gibson's film at a Georgia theater, drawing complaints from some moviegoers.

.....................


How appropriate, God has recognized this heretical movie as the work of evil that it is, and is trying to tell us, thanks for looking out for us, bro!