Mel Gibson is nuts — Page 7

Gaffer Tape said:

I don't really see that as a fair comparison because you're confusing people's independent reactions to the intent of the creator of a work.  I don't believe that The Bible has a verse where it advocates the murder, persecution, and hatred of Jews.  So just because certain people interpret it that way doesn't mean the work itself should be suppressed.

It sounds like the more modern video game scaremonger tactics.  Those kids who killed those other kids played Doom, so Doom is to blame, blarrrrggghhh!!!

There is a lot in the Bible which is frankly evil and to a large number of people it is seen as the direct and perfectly transcribed word of God in two handy to thump volumes.

Like the majority of religious texts, unless you are well versed in the long history of it's creation and translation it can be used as justification to persecute just about anyone.

Bingowings said:

There is a lot in the Bible which is frankly evil and to a large number of people it is seen as the direct and perfectly transcribed word of God in two handy to thump volumes.

Like the majority of religious texts, unless you are well versed in the long history of it's creation and translation it can be used as justification to persecute just about anyone.

I don't think that this is a problem with the Bible itself, but rather the intentions a reader brings with him when reading the Bible.  If you go in looking for justification for your actions, you are likely to find it, even if it means ignoring the rest of the text.

xhonzi said:

TheBoost said:

BUT, the Passion Play, and specifically the lines from Matthew have been used repeatedly for two thousand years to whip people into a frenzy to murder Jews with impunity. Vatican II and all the lengthy explanations about who really killed Christ (or why Christ died or this and that) don't change the actual history of bloodshed.

So when Gibson's movie comes out in our wonderful modern post-racial era and repeats what for twenty centuries has been real bad news for the Jews, and makes 600 million dollars, I can understand the Jews not being happy with the state of affairs.

Can you offer any examples of Jews being murdered linked to Passion Plays or Mel Gibson's movie?  I still have a hard time believing this one.  Does the number of murders of the Jewish people go up at the Easters?

I never said there was a murder linked to Gibson's film, only that given the materials history I can sympathise with the Jews not liking the film.

I don't have a page number, but Eliade's Encyclopedia of Religion contains a pretty good article on the violence linked to the Passion Play throughout European history. A quick google search gives me this from the ADL website:

Throughout nearly 1900 years of Christian-Jewish history, the charge of deicide has led to hatred and violence against Jews of Europe and America, and various forms of anti-Semitic expression. Historically, Holy Week (the week leading up to Easter Sunday) was a period when Jews were most vulnerable and when Christians perpetrated some of the worst violence against their Jewish neighbors.

and here's a bit from ChristianityToday.com

Unfortunately, deicide has not been the lone charge directed collectively against Jews. As recently as the early twentieth century, pogroms sometimes erupted during Holy Week in Eastern European nations when rumors spread about Jewish crimes. Inflamed by outlandish accusations, such as the claim that Jews killed Christian children and used their blood to make matzo bread for Passover, unruly gangs searched out Jews to kill and maim.

This style of pogrom dates back to the First Crusade. Until this point European Jews largely eluded organized violence, but marauding crusaders on their way to the Middle East in 1096 stopped to slaughter Jews in the Rhineland. One crusader's account recalls, "Behold we journey a long way to seek the idolatrous shrine and to take vengeance upon the Muslims. But here are the Jews dwelling among us, whose ancestors killed him and crucified him groundlessly. Let us take vengeance first upon them. Let us wipe them out as a nation."

 

Outbreaks of Christian anti-Semitism related to the Passion narrative have been so numerous and destructive that theologian and Holocaust survivor Eliezer Berkovits concluded, "the New Testament is the most dangerous anti-Semitic tract in human history."

It's because of that history of violence that things like Vatican II or the American Council of Bishops are so defensive about the meaning of the Passion Play and so specific about how it is performed.

Gaffer Tape said:

RE:  Bingowings

Maybe so, but I certainly have a pretty hard time believing that THE BIBLE is intended to be anti-semitic.  I mean it's a collection of documents written by Jews, about Jews, for Jews.

Most of it is but the New Testament becomes less and less Jewish centred as it progresses.

The laws and punishments laid down in the Old Testament were created specifically for Jews living in a specific time but have since been used by ignorant people of many faiths to justify everything from the slave trade to killing homosexuals. Even now it's used by people who break other rules in the same bundle as justification for interfering with the liberties of people within and without those faiths.

I don't want to tell people what to do with their religions but if someone was peacefully worshiping Adolf Hitler The Repentant Ghost but kept Mein Kampf as the first volume of a religious text I would be worried even if the second volume was full of peace and love.

TheBoost said:

It's because of that history of violence that things like Vatican II or the American Council of Bishops are so defensive about the meaning of the Passion Play and so specific about how it is performed.

so let me get this straight,  Vatican II and the American Council of Bishops have a problem with putting on the Passion play as exactly as written in the Bible itself?  The Book they believe to be the word of God?

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

It's because of that history of violence that things like Vatican II or the American Council of Bishops are so defensive about the meaning of the Passion Play and so specific about how it is performed.

so let me get this straight,  Vatican II and the American Council of Bishops have a problem with putting on the Passion play as exactly as written in the Bible itself?  The Book they believe to be the word of God?

There are the words and there are ways of presenting them and they have problems with some of the presentation styles of the past which put all blame on the Jews and let the Romans and humanity in general off the hook.

Judea was under occupation and while they would have put a 'false prophet' to death under their laws they couldn't because of the terms of the occupation. In the story they get around this by taking him to Pilate who 'reluctantly' puts Jesus to death (historically Pilate had very little reluctance to killing Jews especially Jews creating a bit of a stir, this detail seems to have been dropped in to make the new cult more palatable to the Romans who later adopted it as their state religion and had an interest in keeping that slant on the story).

The Gospels tell of many Jews and non Jews who didn't want Jesus killed or even punished, some actually trying to relieve his suffering.

There is a tendency in story telling in general to make the perceived villains look 'other' and the perceived 'heroes' look like 'one of us'.

Traditionally this has been done by placing all the stereotypical ethnic markers of Jews on the 'bad Jews' and to Christianise the 'good Jews' (by making them look less like the stereotype of a Jew).

To their credit the Catholic Church has seen the dangers in this (all be it very very late in the day) unfortunately Gibson hasn't.

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

It's because of that history of violence that things like Vatican II or the American Council of Bishops are so defensive about the meaning of the Passion Play and so specific about how it is performed.

so let me get this straight,  Vatican II and the American Council of Bishops have a problem with putting on the Passion play as exactly as written in the Bible itself?  The Book they believe to be the word of God?

There are the words and there are ways of presenting them and they have problems with some of the presentation styles of the past which put all blame on the Jews and let the Romans and humanity in general off the hook.

well, I don't think the movie lets the Romans or humanity off.   The movie depicts the Romans as the ones who actually carried out the execution.   Sure some the Jews wanted, but that didn't mean the Romans had to comply.   Also if look at shot very close to the end of the movie, it shows Mary holding Jesus looking into the camera.    According the audio commentary, she is looking as if the say, "what was your part in this?"  The movie multiple times, indicates that Christ in dying for the sins of everyone.  Christ stops and says as much to his mother in one scene.   

Maybe the depiction of Pilate in the movie isn't much like the Pilate in real life, but it is the way the Bible depicts him.

I guess what I'm saying is this, if Vatican II and the American council of Bishops really has a problem with the way the movie depicts the Jews, they should press for the removal of the parts of the Bible that  the depictions come from.    Its seem hypocritical to me to say "you can't use Matthew 27:25 and John 19:11 in your movie, but we're going to keep them in our Bible and call them the word of God"

^Amen.

Gaffer Tape said:

I don't really see that as a fair comparison because you're confusing people's independent reactions to the intent of the creator of a work.  I don't believe that The Bible has a verse where it advocates the murder, persecution, and hatred of Jews.  So just because certain people interpret it that way doesn't mean the work itself should be suppressed.

It sounds like the more modern video game scaremonger tactics.  Those kids who killed those other kids played Doom, so Doom is to blame, blarrrrggghhh!!!

There's a lot of things the Bible doesn't say that people have used to to justify. Those are questions of theology, not history.

Last I checked no one here is advocating suppressing the Bible. I'm not talking about any of the Biblical authors intentions, nor the intentions of the groups that put it together, or King James' translation teams, or Mel Gibson's father. The intention is irrelevant. I'm talking about fact. This is not a case of confusing correlation with causation.

It is UNDENIABLE FACT FROM THE HISTORIC RECORD THAT ALL SIDES, CHRISTIANS, JEWS, AND SECULAR HISTORIANS, AGREE ON that the Passion Play, and specifically the charge of deicide that many versions of it promote, has been repeatedly used to stir up and promote violence and murder against Jews.

Given that extensive history of bloodshed, to dismiss Jewish 'sensitivity' to this portrayal as somehow on par with videogame 'scaremonging' or German people being embarrassed by Nazis strikes me as either naive or irrational.

Warbler said:

I guess what I'm saying is this, if Vatican II and the American council of Bishops really has a problem with the way the movie depicts the Jews, they should press for the removal of the parts of the Bible that  the depictions come from.    Its seem hypocritical to me to say "you can't use Matthew 5:40 and Luke 6:29 in your movie, but we're going to keep them in our Bible and call them the word of God"

Do you approve of Fred Phelps and the "God Hates Fags" Westboro Baptist church? The ones that protest military funerals?

If not, how can you disapprove of them without trying to change the verses in the Bible they cite as their theological justification? Is that hypocritical?

Must be on your end - looks fine to me.

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

I guess what I'm saying is this, if Vatican II and the American council of Bishops really has a problem with the way the movie depicts the Jews, they should press for the removal of the parts of the Bible that  the depictions come from.    Its seem hypocritical to me to say "you can't use Matthew 27:25 and John 19:11 in your movie, but we're going to keep them in our Bible and call them the word of God"

Do you approve of Fred Phelps and the "God Hates Fags" Westboro Baptist church? The ones that protest military funerals?

If not, how can you disapprove of them without trying to change the verses in the Bible they cite as their theological justification? Is that hypocritical?

first off, in my original post I typed in the wrong verses, I've corrected them here and will go back and correct my original post. 

As for Fred Phelps,  just where in the Bible does it say that God hates fags?  where does it say that the funerals of gays and those that support them are to be protested?  Sure, the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, but it does not say to hate the sinner.   At least that is what Christ would preach. 

But I do see your point,  there many things in the Bible I disagree with, yet I'm not pushing for their removal. 

I guess the question is this does or does not the Vatican and the American council or Bishops believe that Matthew 27:25 and John 19:11 are inerrant and the word of God? 

If Mel was a stick figure:

*sigh*