Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by John Hodgson, Feb 20, 2004.
With a father like Mel has, who needs enemies.
In interviews from several years ago, long before the controversy with this movie, it was clear that Mel and his dad are cut from the same cloth. Mel has been one of the more radical fundamentalists for quite a while. He makes the Pope look liberal.
Mel is a traditional Catholic. That is a little different from a "fundamentalist". I am really not sure what a "radical fundamentalist" even is. In fact many, if not most, members of fundamental protestant churches have views on Israel that are more supportive than those of many Jews.
I'd like to have that guy take a tour of Dachau, Germany. I visited the camp while stationed in Germany back in the mid 70's and I'll tell you: it was real. That had to be the most depressing and saddening experience of my entire life. As soon as we walked through the gates we could feel the oppression and horror that hovered over these camps more than 30 years prior to my visit. Utterly Disgusting.
keep in mind that we can't choose who our relatives are...
mel gibson made it perfectly clear that he knows the holocost happened and how devestating it was-he says he is not anti semetic and if you, the reader, decide based on this movie that he is, then logically, you must also decide that anthony burgess, franco zefferelli, george stevens, carl sandberg, cecil b. demille, hb warner, martin scorseses, willem dafoe and myriad others who since the beginning of film have been involved in movies based on the life of christ are also anti semetic...to accuse anyone of this based on a film(that most of you haven't even seen yet)is just an example of intellectual moronism...
My understanding is that Mel, and his father, are members of a Catholic sect that rejects the authority and legitimacy of the Pope. Call that traditional Catholic if you wish. But to some it may appear a little radical and perhaps a tad fundamentalist.
But as I've said before, you're all out of your tree! Some of you have merely fallen off of further out branches. :icon_stup
I'm going to have to go and see it. I hate to admit it, but I am sucked into the hype.
If you don't know what a fundamentalist is, then you have further issues. Mel has stated that he does not recognize the Vatican II counsil of the early 1960s, which liberalized a lot of Catholic dogma. He believes in a strictly literal interpretation of the scripture. That is fundamentalism.
I think what some have interpreted as "anti-semetic" is that Mel did a "pick and choose" of the scripture to base his movie upon. He took a verse from one account, another verse from a different account, etc. which does give a distorted viewpoint on the culpability of the jews at that time. Whether that was intentional or not is up to debate, only Mel knows for sure.
so you've seen the film...or at least read the shooting script????I haven't, so I can't say it is or it isn't-I WILL give someone the benefit of the doubt if they say they aren't and there isn't any corrabative evidence t0o the contrary(and no-quoting what someone's father says is not that evidence)
I would hard pressed to find ANY film on the life of Christ that's filmed up to this point that's one hundred percent accurate-the closest might be Jesus of Nazareth, because they at least spent about six to eight hours telling the story-the question is if what they DID film has fidelity to at least the spirit of the scriptures...
keep in mind that this film is not the match that sets off the flame of anti semetism in a person's life-i doubt seriously that anyone of intellegence is going to walk into this film and experience an epiphany of bigotry-someone with a preidlection toward these beliefs would find something else to support their thinking had this film never been made...
Anybody want to go with me on March 7? I've got 50 tickets. $5 a pop. I expect them to go fast tomorrow. After we see the flick we will be getting together to discuss it.
:lol: :hurah: :rotfl: !rolling
That's a good one Jack! Accurate to WHAT? The scriptures? I've offered this challenge before and no one has been able to complete it. Give me an "accurate" description of the most important day in Christ's life, and arguably the most important to the life of every Christian, the first Easter Sunday. Things like- Who discovered Christ's dead body was no longer in the tomb? What was in the tomb? What time did they discover it? Who, if anyone, was in the tomb? Where IS the tomb? What was said and by whom? Where did the discoverers go afterward and who did they tell? Where did the risen Christ go after His "resurrection"? Things like that. You know, a timeline. What happened to whom, and when. You don't need to justify the entire New Testament, just start with the four main gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
You can't do it. Not even for, again, the most important day and event in Christendom. I won't even get into less important dates like Good Friday or His birth. If a detective were to review the testimony of the four gospels, for Easter or His whole life, they would be likely conclude they were four different stories about four different groups of people and events. The only thing remaining constant is the same general cast of characters. And speaking of dates, we have no fixed dates for any of this. A few years before, to a few years after is as "accurate" as anyone is willing to commit to. Of course the next logical step would be to check the historical record. But, THERE IS NONE!
Jon, I did that for you some years ago. You left out one little qualifier. It had to be to YOUR satisfaction. Since you will more than likely never be satisfied with the answers in this lifetime, I'm not going to all that work again.
C'mon Bogy, the details are all over the map, more then subtle nuances. You know that and I know that. I remember as a child every Sunday at Easter & Christmas, etc., and doing a kind of juvenile double take each week as the story changed when our Pastor read from different gospels. Maybe I was the only one paying attention.
What is agreed in the gospels is that Christ was born, time and place undetermined.(That is, if they bother to address His birth.) He lived a rather mundane life(or at least much of his life is undescribed) until a thirty-something. Then, for various, rather obtuse reasons, he was tried and sentenced to crucifixion which was carried out on a Friday, exact date unknown. Then the most important(and fantastic) part, because after all, without it He would have been just another inconvenient preacher excuted by the state, He came back to life. All I'm asking for is a coherent, non-contradictory explanation of what happened that day, the day that Christians believe the most significant day in history.
And once again, history! Aside from the gospels(questionable historically) there is nothing in history to confirm any of the above events except the oft-cited, disputed, cursory reference to Jesus' followers by Josephus.
Again, I feel like I'm the only one paying attention.
Finally they actually made a movie that the Asyrian Christians in Iraq can understand.
The Asyrian Christians in the Middle East are native Aramaic speakers.
You may find it hard to believe, but the selection of movies in Aramaic is rather limited.
I just hope that someone doesn't find evidence that the bible (or the writings it was based on) were really the "national enquirer" of that time...
y'know-i thought about doing the disertation, but your problem, jon, is without the faith factor(i know, i know-the sop we christians fall back on), the rest of it is meaningless to you anyway-it becomes a wasted arguement, and as bogy has pointed out, the facts HAVE been laid out before you like a luby's buffet and that's STILL not enough-IF you want to go back and reread some of this, it will save us some time and chris some bandwidth-without FAITH, without the NEED to believe-all this is bitter to you anyway...
there are a lot of simalarities between my dad and myself, but there are a lot of differences also-mel gibson has made it clear about his understanding of the holocost and he has also made it clear he won't get into a situation that has him slamming his own dad-THAT, to me, indicates the respect a son has for his father, even if there are issues they disagree on...if anyone feels that mel should get into a dissfest on his dad publicly, then i submit that one should reexamine their own relationship with their father AND the rules of proper comportment...
Well, what has been "laid out before" me is faith, not facts. As you've so ably pointed out, with faith, you don't need facts. In reality, facts are usually just inconvenient to faith. This is the reason for the ridiculous "evolution debate" in public schools. People are afraid facts will get in the way of or confuse faith. The "facts" you've laid out before me are not even agreed upon in your own book and that's what I've tried to point out here. The predictable response of course is "I don't care what the facts are(or are not), I'm going to believe anyway because I want to and that's what's been pounded into my brain since infancy."
Oh, BTW, please have the courtesy to spell and capitalize "Holocaust" correctly. I know you probably don't mean to but it IS disrespectful not to bother. And it undermines your arguments that you and/or Mel and/or his dad really do respect the memory of these victims.