Mel Gibson..(crazy?) [Archive]

SpYnalChRd81

02-19-2004, 05:57 AM

Science as in physical evidence that he existed.

To say Jesus didn't exist is the same thing as saying Darwin didn't exist or Buddha didn't exist or Abraham Lincoln didn't exist.

They all existed and all did something really big to make big news in the world. Especially Jesus. That's why you hear him and the other big names everywhere to this very day. If you look at the history of the Christian church, you will find out that they have sprouted around the time of Jesus's death and resurrection when he told his disciples to go around the nations teaching the word of God.

Also, Jesus never "went a separate direction" from the Jews. The word of God and the traditions of men told in the Old Testament are vastly different. Jesus broke a lot of these traditions in favor of the word of God.

I can give you a basic outline of why Jesus is savior and that is because he is the only one out of all the Buddahs and Confucians and Taoists and them who has actually claimed that he was the Son of God and also has fulfilled every single prophecy from the Old Testament.

If you want to find out more if Jesus is the savior of makind or not then you can research into theology and separate facts from fiction. Don't ask for answers on a message board because chances are nobody here is really in depth into theology.

If you have questions about politics, you ask a politician. If you have questions about fixing cars, you ask someone who works at an auto body shop. The same goes with religion. You want to prove/disprove if Jesus is savior, ask someone who is well-versed in the Bible and in theology and history.

Write up a list of all the questions you have, goto a Christian church, and give it to a Reverend or lead Pastor there and see what he has to say about it.

As for Mel's getting saved or not according to denomination, I don't think method really matters. Sticking close to Jesus and the word of God is what matters. That's all. It's the heart that counts.

To say that your wife is going to hell for following a different denomination...... now, I have not seen the interview, and would like to know what denomination his wife is from. If her denomination does not put Jesus in front, then Mel Gibson is probably correct in what he said.

But from reading what you guys posted here, I feel that Mel Gibson is not really doing this out of love.

Instead of saying, "She will goto hell for not attending my denomination," he should say something like, "I believe in this and that, but my wife doesn't particularly agree. Hopefully, with God's love and mercy, and through prayer, we can work things out." Now THAT would be more out of love...

You know that whole debate of why religion is supposed to be about peace and love and yet it brings about destruction and death?

Well guess what, destruction and death are the responsibility of the sinful nature that man carries.

A lot of people claim they are "Christian" or "Jew" or whatever, but their actions are not out of love. This is what gives religion a bad name.

If only they followed what they are supposed to follow. God defines love in the book of Corinthians as patient, kind, not envious, not boastful, not proud, not rude, not self-seeking, not easily angered, and keeps no record of wrongs. It does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

If we all tried to be a little more loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, seeking goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control then wouldn't the world be a little more agreeable to live in?

That is all I need to say. I am not a Pastor of any sort. I am just a Christian who goes to church regularly and has paid attention in class.

Any further questioning should be directed to a Pastor, as he/she will have more knowledge than me.

As for the movie
I'm a little skeptical about it
cuz Catholics tend to focus more on us being sinners and the need to repent all the time...
and they like to show bloody Jesus everywhere

Wheras Christians (evangelical, baptist, methodist, lutheran, church of praise.. the list goes on...all rolled into one) understand that we are sinners, but tend to focus more on being joyful about Jesus' love for us and preaching the gospel so others can find happiness and singing happy songs about it.

I would rather watch a movie based on Jesus' life, death, resurrection, and his entire ministry instead of focusing only on his death.

Okay, I'm out.. that's my two cents...

mpt_yellowRX8

02-19-2004, 08:39 AM

Well said. I believe what I believe and others believe what they believe, but who knows the truth? We will all find out one day and see who was correct. But while here on Earth we should try to live peacefully together and not argue about who is right or wrong. Mel could be a lunatic, he could be a genius, only time and death will tell the full story.

By the way, If you are planning to come to Louisiana for Mardi Gras please clean up after yourself a little. This state is hard enough to make look nice in the first place.

Have a great day and God Bless You All.

kwolfman

02-19-2004, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by SpYnalChRd81
Science as in physical evidence that he existed.

Yes, physical evidence would be nice, but not entirely necessary. Actually, any substantiated evidence outside of the bible would be nice too. The bible itself is highly suspect since the new testament books were written at least 30 years after Jesus supposedly died. I find it hard to remember what I said yesterday, let alone 30 years ago.

Originally posted by SpYnalChRd81
To say Jesus didn't exist is the same thing as saying Darwin didn't exist or Buddha didn't exist or Abraham Lincoln didn't exist.
[/B]

An extremely weak argument that really says nothing. I could just as easily replace "Jesus" with "Santa Claus" and it would be about as convincing.
There is ample physical and forensic evidence for the existance of Darwin and Lincoln. I'm satisfied with a high degree of confidence that the evidence strongly supports that they had actually existed. Budda, I'm not so sure about. I don't know the evidence for him. By the way, Budda is/was not, nor claimed to a god .

Originally posted by SpYnalChRd81 They all existed and all did something really big to make big news in the world. Especially Jesus. That's why you hear him and the other big names everywhere to this very day. If you look at the history of the Christian church, you will find out that they have sprouted around the time of Jesus's death and resurrection when he told his disciples to go around the nations teaching the word of God.
[/B]

So, just because you hear something a lot it must be true? Well sorry to say, "truth" is not a democratic process. The truth of some fact is totally independent of how many people vote for it. The Earth revolves around the Sun is true regardless of how many people say no it doesn't.

Gee, the Christian church started around the supposed time of his death. So what? Belief in the Roman or Greek gods started around the time they were supposedly alive. Big deal. By the way, look into the the Greek god Mythras which predated Christianity. There are a great many similarities in his story to Jesus. I wonder where the early Christian church stole/borrowed some of their ideas. Those early Christian folks had lots of stories and demi-gods to choose from.

Originally posted by SpYnalChRd81
Also, Jesus never "went a separate direction" from the Jews. The word of God and the traditions of men told in the Old Testament are vastly different. Jesus broke a lot of these traditions in favor of the word of God.
[/B]

Are you saying we should ignor the Old Testament? Personally, I do. I find the god of the old testament to be a gastly ill tempered bully.

"Ask a politician about politics", yes, I'm sure I'll get an unbiased objective answer. Same goes for a minister or what ever. They have devoted their lives to something that didn't exist and they will go to any lengths to justify their belief. You seem to make the assumption that I have never spoken to these people "in the know". Not true. I have lots of contact with religious folks, both lay people and leaders. Never have any of them provided any more evidence or convincing arguments other than "is so because the bible says so".

I have a question for you. What is this whole concept of dying to absolve "sins". That to me sounds like a rather primative idea, on the level of sacrificing goats/humans/whatever to appease a god or gods. Step back and think what does that really mean. Why would a just and all powerful god require something to die? Why not just snap his celestial fingers and POOF all is now made well in the universe. Wasn't it all ultimately god's fault anyhow...he/she/it supposedly made everything and controls everything down to the minutest detail. (Keeps the electrons spinning around each atom's nucleus, etc.) So, no matter what happens god supposedly made it that way.

I'll stop here. Mel Gibson's delusions are his own.

offdaheeze

02-19-2004, 09:04 AM

Sorry, but I need to see the raw data

Baller

02-19-2004, 09:47 AM

Good work SpYnalChRd81 I also follow your logic.

Kind regards,
Brother Baller

MP3Guy

02-19-2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
I thought the pope made one of the best quotes of all time about the movie.....

"It is as it was."

That was a misrepresentation- the Pope never made such a statement, and it came out of Gibson's PR team. Regardless of how you view the film, Gibson is playing to the controversy like a master- hyping it far further than it ever could have gone otherwise. Shrewd.

MP3Guy

02-19-2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by ELX13
i'm confused at what point you're trying to make 93...

the existance and crucification of jesus isn't in question by either theologians or historians. the science has already proven that he did exist. what has always been in question is whether or not jesus was the son of God (and thus the savior of mankind).

Not all historians would argue that he did in fact exist. The Gospels were written decades after his supposed crucifixion, and the Jesus story does resemble many Greco-Roman characters. For example, the Greek god Demeter turned water into wine long before Christianity. There is a great deal of mother and child iconography in the Egyptian cult of Isis, whose portrayal is shockingly similar to that of the iconography of the Virgin and child. Ressurected saviour gods were prevalent throughout the Near East as well.

There are several books by scholars exploring this subject, the fitst of which was called "Pagan Christs," written in the late 1800s. Many others have expanded on this theme through more recent discoveries in archeology. It's a fascinating subject.

kwolfman

02-19-2004, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Baller
Good work SpYnalChRd81 I also follow your logic.

Did you read the same message I did? The word "logic" didn't immediately come to mind.

Plays with Cars

02-19-2004, 02:46 PM

Back to...faith. What ever you believe we still are a people that kills in the name of religion. The difference in religions has caused families to splinter and nations to destroy each other. If, however, every person is free to choose by faith then how can the government say a Morman can have only one wife? Why does the President of the US want to spend millions on promoting hetrosexual marriage?

I have no evidence the Jesus Christ existed (no bones or DNA) or that he is the Son of God. I believe so by faith. I think the concept of sacrifice is best understood when you look at it as a father sacrificing his only son. As a parent it is unimagineable that anything would mean enough to me to allow my child to be taken.
I do know that the male heirarcy in religion stems in both the old and new testament in some very masaginistic ways and any concepts of a godess is dispelled or even buried as witchcraft.

As a Catholin by my parents choice I have had problems with the inequality in the church as it relates to women. But that is another subject eh?

RX8Z

02-19-2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by ELX13
the science has already proven that he did exist. what has always been in question is whether or not jesus was the son of God (and thus the savior of mankind). [/B]

The science? Uhmm what science is that, Because I havent seen any DNA samples on Jesus. Sorry, I dont have a religion and though I dont have anything against anyone who does have a belief, I just dont see how someone can say that Jesus is real, when really it cant be proven, it just mainly hope and faith.

Honestly, back then.. I think religion was for those who had no options. Back in time when people had nothing to live for, uneducated and didnt know any better, religion came about. In a way , it was for the weak...

Kind of like the Salem Witch trials, where a faux image was wrongly placed upon others because of what? Because they didnt agree? because they looked different , their ways of life was not the same etc..

in this day and age, we are so much more advanced and educated but yet people still seem to go on without questioning.

What i dont understand is this, and please correct me if im wrong.. Is it not true that , there is no other living existence besides humans, in other words if you believe in Jesus, you cant believe there are aliens and so forth?

My pt is, we know there is Extraterrestial life, it is a fact .. so doesnt that contradict the bible and everything else?

Please dont get upset for anyting I say, I mean no disrespect to your beliefs , your religion or anything, you have your way , I have my way.. thats all.

Z

klegg

02-19-2004, 03:00 PM

Really, this thread was supposed to be about mel gibson, NOT religon..

Kaliken

02-19-2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by RX8Z
The science? Uhmm what science is that, Because I havent seen any DNA samples on Jesus. Sorry, I dont have a religion and though I dont have anything against anyone who does have a belief, I just dont see how someone can say that Jesus is real, when really it cant be proven, it just mainly hope and faith.

Honestly, back then.. I think religion was for those who had no options. Back in time when people had nothing to live for, uneducated and didnt know any better, religion came about. In a way , it was for the weak...

Kind of like the Salem Witch trials, where a faux image was wrongly placed upon others because of what? Because they didnt agree? because they looked different , their ways of life was not the same etc..

in this day and age, we are so much more advanced and educated but yet people still seem to go on without questioning.

What i dont understand is this, and please correct me if im wrong.. Is it not true that , there is no other living existence besides humans, in other words if you believe in Jesus, you cant believe there are aliens and so forth?

My pt is, we know there is Extraterrestial life, it is a fact .. so doesnt that contradict the bible and everything else?

Please dont get upset for anyting I say, I mean no disrespect to your beliefs , your religion or anything, you have your way , I have my way.. thats all.

Z

some good points but...

first of all i may not be DNA evidence or proof but AFAIK they have historical proof that a man named Jesus lived and died around the time period in question. Granted this is not 100% undeniable proof but it does at least establishs that there was a guy by that name. heck for all we know it could have been a popular name?

ok so where my real problem is that you first claim that there is no undeniable proof about the life of JC, but yet you then say that extraterrestrial life is a fact!!!

whoa nelly! where is my undeniable proof there?

this leads me to a really really good article about the Fermi Paradox. I read in Scientific american a couple years ago so parts of it are abit outdated(number of planets found etc).. here is a link.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009CDEA-33FC-1C74-9B81809EC588EF21

I honestly mean no offense as religion, politics etc are very touchy subjects.

jniamehr

02-19-2004, 04:17 PM

Much of the controversy of this movie is over the Jews-killed-Jesus aspect. Ive studied theology for much of my life, and I just left a Jewish-day school because I dont agree with much of the way they practice religion (or any religion in that regard) dont get me wrong, Im a very proud Jew, I was born one, and will go to my grave as one. But as a human in a non-vegatative state I have my own belief as to most of the religion and I believe that religion was put so vaguely (in almost every holy book that I have ever read (Torah, Old/New Testament, Quar'an)) for a reason... Its put so vaguely so everyone can practice it to their ability there is no right or wrong so long as you make your best effort to serve God, and when God does want something done in a very specific manner, you know it, and you can read it, and no one argues about what God is saying.

Now to address the issue of the Jews killing Christ, we all know how open to discussion that really is. But take my perspective and totally unbias approach to this.

The Jews not at that time and not now - did/do not believe that the Massiah has come (most Jews that is) and at the time period of Christ the Jewish courts (called the Sanhedrin) have 100's or maybe even 1000's of records of people claiming they were the Massiah and many even followed some of these people to the most bizaare scenarios imaginable... THE SANHEDRIN NEVER PUT ANY OF THESE PEOPLE TO DEATH. Nor did they have any reason to at all, Ill tell you why they didnt kill Christ, the Jews didnt kill people who claimed they were Christ because WHAT IF THAT PERSON WAS REALLY CHRIST?!?! They would never have that blood on their shoulders its forbidden and it didnt happen.

Now Pontious Pilot, hes a man known for Crusificition and murder, and hes known for that method of death, and doesnt it make sense that he was feeling a little scared because the amount of followers Jesus had... Furthermore, Jesus NEVER claimed he was the Massiah, not once did he say that he was the son of God... (Please show me otherwise if you feel that I am incorrect)

In my unbias opine, I do not have enough evidence to even believe the Jews killed Christ, the evidence clearly points more at Pontious Pilot than anyone else, and many ministers believe that the Jews did not kill Christ, and Ive sat down and talked to many, and Ive attended Church, and shared my opinion with them... hell I spent a summer at Georgetown University!

If you feel that I am wrong please dont just say YOUR WRONG, prove me wrong through means of debate (and I want to clearly say NO HARD FEELINGS!!) This topic should really not be taken to heart because there really is no clear cut answer...

RX8Z

02-19-2004, 04:21 PM

You know what, your right . I dont have any proof on me to show there are aliens, I guess in way though. .what im saying is that Im open to the belief that there is such a thing

But truth is, I believe what I see and If Jesus comes down, then hey, theres the proof but then, theres Allah, and Virgin Mary, and on and on..

If im not mistaken, there is only one god correct? But as we know today, many groups around the world have many gods, and all believe their god is the only one

I give you much respect, because as you say.. Religion is a touchy subject. Im glad that we can discuss this matter without stepping on each others toes =)

Anywas, back to the movie.. How ironic that this Mel Gibson movie is causing all this hype, meanwhile in our world. there is alot more stuff that we should worry about then this..

Irony is the word im looking for..

cumpressor4u2nv

02-19-2004, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by noahprtlnd
Gibsons crazy, he has 7 kids because he believes in populating the earth with his holy seed. It's why he made this piece of propaganda.

I love you. Will you have my babies?

jniamehr

02-19-2004, 07:59 PM

The point we are missing is, there is no such thing as bad publicity (most of the time)! The fact that there is so much controversy sorrounding this movie just makes more people go and see it, and for him to come on and seem like a mental-case is okay so long as hes out there and he sticks it in your minds, same thing with neo-nazi grampa too...

RX8Z

02-19-2004, 08:21 PM

I honestly think all this negativity is actually helping the movie

And I give Mel Gibson major props for having some balls and making a movie that isnt the same ol crap they keep giving us year after year...

Alot of these critics are such hyprocrites, because I can almost guarantee that if the movie is well praised by the public, they'll change their views.

Its like the weatherman, they tell you OH its going to snow, bad weather.. then if the weather turns out good, they say.. WOW, arent we lucky, We got SUNSHINE !

Plays with Cars

02-20-2004, 12:08 AM

It is a bit refreshing to see all of our "car nut" friends on this forum speaking to a different subject. Look at the brilliant minds we have out there (I am not pandering here..I am serious!)
I was born and raised a Catholic...married a guy whose family was dessimated by the Holocaust. I have the honor to be the parent to a Presbeterian (I know I will misspell that one), an Episcapalean (sp?)...which by the way is what my husband is today, a Baptist and and a few who are undeclared.

I love the concept that there is a god and something after this life...can't prove it /don't have to. I don't even try to argue faith (it is like describing love...good luck!).

I have shared openly my felings with my family and allowed them to express themselves in whatever religion suited them (even if it was no religion at all). All we can do is put a foundation down which reflects our own beliefs and then each person has to build their own buiilding and move in.

What I detest is any kind of persecution in the name of religion. I am friends with Jews, Christians(all flavors), Muslims and a number of folks following Buddah. I love them, I respect them and I honor them...and hope we all figure it out in the end (May I have the envelope please....the Winner IS!!!!!)

If someone slaughters people in the name of religion they are my enemy Other thank that I say viva diversity!

noahprtlnd

02-20-2004, 01:57 AM

Gibon's Father: Holocaust Mostly 'Fiction', Jews Want to Take Over World (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040219/ap_en_mo/passion_gibson_s_father_2)

mqandil

02-20-2004, 04:00 AM

This is great. I love all the posts. I say viva diversity too.

on the subject of anti-semetic nature of this movie, I really think it was never inteded to be that. People have to remember without JC dying on the cross, Christian religion would never been born or amounted to anything. So what if a Jew killed JC. It was all meant to be, in order for a new religion to be born. It is God's will. I think we owe all the Jews a thank you note.

jniamehr

02-20-2004, 06:51 AM

mqandil, I was having this coversation with a catholic friend of mine, who grew up down south, she tells me many people down south including herself feel that way... All in all its very true... Lets not forget JC is a Jew... He never started his own religion he was like any other Rabbi with any other school, his followers were the ones to create a sect of Judaism out of his teachings, later on is when the church and religion was created...

RX8Z

02-20-2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Plays with Cars

If someone slaughters people in the name of religion they are my enemy Other thank that I say viva diversity!

Then I guess you are your own enemy? If im not mistaken, Christians strayed away from non christians, and I swear someone told me that a true believer, believes thats only Christinanity is the only religion to exist, and everyone else is not accepted

I praise you to be open about others religiions, but something isnt right.. if you believe in god, you really arent suppose to acknowledge other religions and their gods , correct?

Honestly, I see religions in a way kind of like being prejudice. My brother in law is very active in the Christian community, he is a peer leader and studying to be a pastor, but do you know how many times when I was hanging out with him, the people of the church looked at me as if I was like the devil. In fact, he couldnt even marry my sister untill she devoted her faith to god and became a christian. Not that he wouldnt, but his own church was against it.. you think this is right? I dont . .. .

Everyday, I live a world trying to understand why I am judged because of my culture and background, meanwhile great masses of people do it everyday unknowingly through religion.

klegg

02-20-2004, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by noahprtlnd
Gibon's Father: Holocaust Mostly 'Fiction', Jews Want to Take Over World (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040219/ap_en_mo/passion_gibson_s_father_2)

I knew it!!!! we must hunt them.....hold on, my mother is jewish and I am a mason....uhhhhh, .....hmmmmm.......he is a psycho
!!!!!

Plays with Cars

02-20-2004, 05:52 PM

Well I guess I am a lousy Christian (or maybe a really good one). I am not really high on man made or manipulated laws, I do not believe only Catholics (or Christians) go to heaven. I do not believe that babies who are not baptized go to purgatory.
What I do believe is that a father (human or diety) wants his children to be happy. No parent wants a child molested, murdered, killed in war, or to experience any horrific end. The human parent can only try to protect but the child is not always in their care (my son in law lost his mom and brother to a drunk driver. I know that mom would have protected her baby if she could have). I think God allows free will. It am sure it is painful for a father to see his kids acting like idiots!
So do Christians kill? I have not but I vote for a president who orders people to war so I am indirectly responsible. I suscribeto a legal system that puts murderers to death so I guess I am responsible as well.
But I don't think Christians kill (or Muslims or Jews). I thin bad people do bad things and do it under the cloak of some belief or religion.

jniamehr

02-20-2004, 06:05 PM

I agree religion is a very powerful thing, and can be manipulated... Ill use the Muslim world as an example... I have Muslim relatives all of which are very good people, as well as many muslim friends... Most of them will agree with me that people use religion to manipulate the less fortunate (muslims in this case) to kill, and do evil things... So yes its bad people who do bad things, but those bad people use religion to get others who may not be bad people to begin with to do bad things...

khoney

02-20-2004, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by Plays with Cars
...
So do Christians kill? I have not but I vote for a president who orders people to war so I am indirectly responsible. I suscribeto a legal system that puts murderers to death so I guess I am responsible as well.

Responsible for what? Voting for a president who removed from power a man and his family who tortured and killed thousands of their own people?

I'm a Christian who voted for the George Bush, and I have no regrets about it. Yes, Christians do kill, and it is an ethical dilemma. I wish everyone loved each other as Christ loved us, but it just ain't so. So which is better, to allow a ruthless dictator to continue to terrorize his own people and possibly our nation, or to send our military to do what it is that a military force does - fight for good (at least I believe that's what the US does). We have lost brave and selfless heros in Iraq, and I am eternally grateful for their sacrifice.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
John 15:13

rx8rookie

02-21-2004, 08:54 AM

Religion should be personal and not pushed onto others. Nor should one man condemn another purely on their religious beliefs or lack of beliefs. This is supposed to promote civility and not to promote balkinization. Isn't that the whole idea of Freedom of Religion?

Also, I truly don't believe in trusting politicians (whether they be a lowly local representative, congressman, state office holder, senater, or even President--regardless of party lines). This is nothing to do with being cynical, it's about keeping society decent and honest.

Lets face it, politicians have lots of power (which can easily be abused in granting special favors for friends and family who usually returns the favors). Those with power must always be kept in check and be watched carefully lest they abuse their power.

Those who live in other countries with much longer histories know that since the beginning of civilization, politicians continue to abuse their power regardless of political system. It makes me wonder why some people think some politicians should be trusted as if they are a kind, just God, and not a mere imperfect, ultimately selfish, human being like everyone else since the beginning of human existance.

That being said and getting back on topic, while I'm not Christian nor a Gibson fan, I do admire Gibson for sticking by his beliefs to make his motion picture a reality without bowing out to the mighty powers of the ADL (which is known to defame others for holding beliefs contrary to their own) and J politicians and J media monguls that have dominated the country and most of the Western world for several years.

selmeralto

02-21-2004, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by rx8rookie
... and J media monguls that have dominated the country and most of the Western world for several years.

I don't think that this kind of unsubstantiated negative generalization helps to advance the discussion.

klegg

02-21-2004, 10:27 AM

Zio

02-21-2004, 10:37 AM

Oh yeah the jews have all the power :rolleyes.

Thats the same crap people have been spewing for years and its utter bullshit.

ByeByeSaturn

02-21-2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by jniamehr
But as a human in a non-vegatative state I have my own belief as to most of the religion and I believe that religion was put so vaguely (in almost every holy book that I have ever read (Torah, Old/New Testament, Quar'an)) for a reason... Its put so vaguely so everyone can practice it to their ability there is no right or wrong so long as you make your best effort to serve God, and when God does want something done in a very specific manner, you know it, and you can read it, and no one argues about what God is saying.

Jniamehr, I think many wise rabbis have argued over the centuries in places like Tiveria and Tzfat about how to interpret G-d's word (yeah I know, the dash - it's sort of a respect thing for me, because even though I'm not religious, I grew up going to Chabad - that, and I reserve the right to become religious in the future - sort of an insurance policy :D ) I'm not well versed in this, but I believe that most of the specific laws religious Jews live by are set out in the Talmud and Mishna, not the Torah, which as you said, sort of lays out the broad framework.

As for Mel Gibson's dad, that interview he gave should be interpreted in the context of a quote by Mel Gibson - "My father never lied to me"

hmmmmmm

jniamehr

02-21-2004, 02:23 PM

Exactly byebyesaturn, most/all Jews in all honesty no matter how devout in faith they are, still follow the mishnah and the talmud. these were two groups of rabbis (mishnah came first) who debated as to the way the religion should be practiced (the talmud was after the mishnah and were the great/great-great grandchildren of the mishnah rabbis) then the talmud debated over what the rabbis of the mishnah had meant and wrote the mishnah and talmud... the two books had been oral untill a head rabbi decided to write them down because he was afraid that it would eventually be forgotten... EVERY RELIGION HAS A STORY JUST LIKE THAT! So why do men decide how I should practice my religion? Are they better than me? Can I not make my own decisions? Who is to say that they knew all, and everything they teach is correct? Every man needs to do his own thing, man cannot let people brainwash them into thinking a certain way like drones...

and rx8rookie, you are the epitome of ignorance... yes jews have lots of power, yes jews certainly have become well off... but you have no idea what kind of struggle our people have gone through... my father came to this country with zilch, nada, 0, nothing, except for the clothes on his body, and the strong sense of morals his parents had given him... with hard work he got to where he wants to be, he didnt cheat, he didnt steal, he didnt lie. Through honest business, and using his mind, he worked his way up, and now provides a very comfortable living for his family and up to this year, sent me to a 26,000 dollar school (per year) and Im talking about High School... and I decided to leave on my own... So dont tell me we control the media and dominate the western world... and dont make us out to be evil when we are really not... thats just plain and simple ignorant.

Plays with Cars

02-21-2004, 09:29 PM

Responsible for what? Voting for a president who removed from power a man and his family who tortured and killed thousands of their own people?

YUP...it is not enough to say we voted for someone and then say we are not responsible for their actions...we are. I voted for G Bush too. I support our troops (under any circumstances as I believe in patriotism). What I don't understand is why we also this same etnic cleansing to take place in countries without stores of oil and gold bars. Human rights are human rights.
I am a Christian married to a man who had his entire family killed in the holocaust. What we know first hand is that religious intolerance KILLS. I don't care how many politicians or newspeople we have that are Jewish or Christian or Black or Asian (etc etc) as long as they use their position to try and preach a universal dogma. (This is an issue I have with G.Bush...pushing marriage, denouncing Same sex marriage seeking for the reversal of Roe vWade). As a 'straight" woman I guess I lucked out. I don't want to have a same sex relationship. But lets say all of a sudden someone made a law that I could no longer marry a man and started spouting religios reasons for it....well I can't turn my sexuality into what people demand is the will of God so I go umarried, or sneak around or ? The point is we spend so much time trying tocontrol otheres in the name of God (Christians, Jews, Muslims, everbody is guilty) that we waste precious energy fighting the real enemy...those who commit attrocities on other human beings.

klegg

02-22-2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Plays with Cars
As a 'straight" woman I guess I lucked out. I don't want to have a same sex relationship. .

Now, lets not be hasty here....you could be denying yourself un imagined pleasures...Tell you what, try it once, see if you like it...and POST PIXS!!!

And yes, this is a joke, just trying to lighten the mood here..:)

ByeByeSaturn

02-22-2004, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by rx8rookie

That being said and getting back on topic, while I'm not Christian nor a Gibson fan, I do admire Gibson for sticking by his beliefs to make his motion picture a reality without bowing out to the mighty powers of the ADL (which is known to defame others for holding beliefs contrary to their own) and J politicians and J media monguls that have dominated the country and most of the Western world for several years.

You know rookie, I normally don't reply to such ignorant statements, because it is almost my firm belief that such ignorance is so ingrained in the tiny minds of most humans that it isn't worth my effort to change others, only to deal with my own ignorance by educating myself on the subjects I'm likely to have a strong opinion on.

That said, you can admire Gibson all you want, but if you want to look into what really happened in the run up to the film, you'll learn that groups like the ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center only expressed their concern that such a movie could reignite hatred for Jews on a dangerous scale, and requested that Mel Gibson take this into account and allow for dialogue with them. Mel Gibson wasn't exactly entirely generous in granting those requests, and instead, in his arrogance, said that the ADL, etc. were only trying to defame him and make sure "he never works in Hollywood again" - not so subtly suggesting that since he's upsetting Jews, and 'Jews run Hollywood," that he's some sort of martyr for Christianity that is sacricificing his own career and livelihood to "get the truth out."

Let me remind you of two other Hollywood films, one (can't remember the name) about terrorists threatening buses in NYC, and one based on the Tom Clancy novel "The Sum of All Fears" In the former, the screenwriters agreed to change a lot about the film in response to criticism and concern from Council for American Islamic Relations and others worried about the promoting of stereotypes of Muslims. In "The Sum of All Fears," a book which I read (I didn't see the movie), the terrorists were changed from being Islamic Fundamentalists to some non-Arabic secular group. Now does this mean that the Muslims run Hollywood, and control the media? I think not. It means that responsible filmmakers realize their film can carry a message, and that they want to entertain the audience, not promote bias against any group of people.

Now as for you believing that Jewish politicians and media moguls control the Western World, you might as well go join the KKK or Lyndon LaRouche's campaign, or go to your nearest bookstore and delight over a copy of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" because you are clearly too weak-minded to understand the difference between the collective success of individuals and a conspiratorial threat manifested by a group of successful people born to the same religion. I would say you make me sick, but honestly, what makes me sick is to see what happened today in Jerusalem partly as a result of indoctrination into beliefs like yours. You don't make me sick, you just make me shake my head and feel sorry for you.

klegg

02-22-2004, 08:50 PM

You go...

Racer X-8

02-22-2004, 11:24 PM

Those of you who would prefer to listen to the ADL and others who claim that a movie, that has been made to portray the crucifiction of Christ in the closest measure of truth attainable, should not be shown due to a confilct with their own interests...

Truly you must not be christian if that mentality fits your priorities...

Those of you...who go on with your petty, worthless, meaningless, shallow forms of existance... I have one, no, two questions.

1) What are you going to do when the rapture occurs, and you find yourselves still here?

2) Will you then be one of those who remain mindless enough to continue to curse God, even after the rapture, when the events described in Revelations unfold, should you be fortunate enough to survive a few of them before you die?

Hot Ticket gave this movie "Two BIG Thumbs Up" and collectively said that those who are speaking negatively of this movie simply haven't seen the final version, and need to actually go see the movie first before they formulate their own opinions and stop parroting the views that were formulated by others.

Some of you seem like you are the very spit of Satan himself. Cut it out. Makes me sick...

ByeByeSaturn

02-22-2004, 11:34 PM

Oh man, now all of us "non-believers" or "un-true Christians" are now being told to fear the rapture and the malicious "agenda" of those Jews.

OK, moderator, where are you?

Time to close this thread down, please - this forum was not designed for prostletizing (sp?).

Aratinga

02-22-2004, 11:53 PM

Racer X-8 --

I'm not going to see the film because everything I've read about it describes the extreme violence and gore it portrays. I simply can't handle watching horrific images of torture and splattering blood, so I'm staying away.

I really question why I should buy into a religion that glorifies such a hideous ordeal and worships a deity that would cause such abuse to be inflicted on an innocent as some sort of sordid payment for the "sins" of humankind. Thanks, but NO, THANKS.

And as for planning around the Rapture... I'm just hoping it'll improve the traffic situation. Of course, if it happens during rush hour there'll be a mess of abandoned cars mucking up the freeways. Ask your deity to plan around that, would ya? TIA. ;)

IBTL....

Racer X-8

02-22-2004, 11:57 PM

Answer my two questions.

Surely the rapture means nothing to people who do not already fear God. Fearing the rapture is, what? After that fact maybe? You reap what you sow? Go on with your bad selves. Enjooy what little "lives" you may have for now. God lets you do as you may with them. And don't worry, be happy. :)

slothrop

02-23-2004, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
1) What are you going to do when the rapture occurs, and you find yourselves still here?

When the rapture comes, can I have your 8?

jniamehr

02-23-2004, 05:49 AM

Racer X-8, are you for real?

tpryor

02-23-2004, 06:21 AM

Beliefs are for INDIVIDUAL consumption, not to try and convert others to your "way" by demeaning what they believe.

Let's leave the name calling and slander to the elementary schools, where it belongs...................

Have a meaningful discussion, or don't, but no more "preaching", one way OR the other.

And, you have NO idea of my beliefs, yet I made my point.

Racer X-8

02-23-2004, 07:05 AM

The ADL is behaving here as a junk yard dog for their special interest group. Mel Gibson and his movie have gotten them barking and running around as such. They're doing what they're supposed to be doing, and so what? It's all this attention given to it that's upsetting. It's upset Mel too, and now he's called mad Mel. satan is at work. Plain as day. But I have satan under my feet. He's powerless in my life. Thank you Jesus for your inheretence, and for your ultimate sacrifice.

Yes, I'm for real. I wasn't for a very long time, ignoring God and my beliefs, testing my ability to live a life apart from Him. But I very much am for real now, aknowledging that God (the Holy Trinity) is for real and omnipresent, nomatter what I do nor how I want to act or think.

slothrop, I don't care who gets my 8 when the rapture comes, just pray to Jesus to not rapture me while I'm driving it. :) Popular bumper sticker "Caution: In case of rapture, this vehicle will be pilotless". You may have a fight with those who remain in my immediate family though. Ah, gee, darn...

tpryor, like Mel, I may not behave in a politically correct posture such as yourself, but I really couldn't care less that people know of my beliefs, no, I do care, they should know of my beliefs. And I hope to have made my point clear, I'm done preaching. Now if a mod would like to give the benediction and amen, I'm all for that!

Elara

02-23-2004, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by tpryor
Beliefs are for INDIVIDUAL consumption, not to try and convert others to your "way" by demeaning what they believe.

Let's leave the name calling and slander to the elementary schools, where it belongs...................

Have a meaningful discussion, or don't, but no more "preaching", one way OR the other.

And, you have NO idea of my beliefs, yet I made my point.

Yes, thanks, I think you said it very well.

kwolfman

02-23-2004, 08:07 AM

Racer X-8

02-23-2004, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by kwolfman
It's interesting how this kind and loving god is always dangling a hammer of fear over his little sheeps heads.

X-8, I've never understood this whole concept of Rapture. Why would you need your body in heaven? Isn't your supposed soul enough? For that matter, why would Jesus bring his body up to heaven?

Religion is full of unfulfilled promises. When things go wrong, it's your fault. When things go right, it's a god's. Although things like natural disasters such as tornados, hurricanes or floods don't seem to fit with a "right-doing" god.

Religions are the most divisive and stupid sets of arbitrary rules created by man.

Nothing fails like prayer. Oh wow! I never thought of those things before! Geez! You are so right! What was I thinking? Doh! Thanks guy! Come over to my place Saturday night. We'll have a bible burning all-night kegger. woohoo! no more God, yay! Wow...

rjenk

02-23-2004, 09:44 AM

Well...this is probably stepping further off topic but…

One of the things that really irks me about how our (U.S.) society has changed is that a person that is religious or is a Christian is often persecuted if they profess it. While other beliefs or societal positions are presented with little if any recourse, the moment a Christian expresses his/her faith its “oh boy, there goes the bible thumper…”. We have become so intolerant to others, it is really scary. Why is it such a big deal for a person to express his faith whereas in the same forum others express their disbelief? These days you must have respect for a person to profess what they belief knowing that there will be those that will lash out against them. Healthy debate is one thing, attack is another.

Like it or not, our political, legal and societal beliefs were built upon the foundation of Christianity by our forefathers. Religion was and is one of the most important foundations of our country wether you believe in God or not.

As for Mel and the movie…if nothing else comes out of the movie, it is fantastic that it has brought religion into the forefront of discussion.

slothrop

02-23-2004, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by rjenk
Well...this is probably stepping further off topic but…

One of the things that really irks me about how our (U.S.) society has changed is that a person that is religious or is a Christian is often persecuted if they profess it.

Refusing to take someone's beliefs seriously ain't the same thing as "persecuting" 'em. (Dictionary.com sez 'persecute' means "to pursue in a manner to injure, grieve, or afflict; to beset with cruelty or malignity; to harass; especially, to afflict, harass, punish, or put to death, for adherence to a particular religious creed or mode of worship.")

If people wanna believe that one day soon they're gonna fly up into the sky to be with Jesus while all us sinners stay down below to suffer torments, that's their business. But I reserve the right to hoot. Now, I may cause some hurt feelings by not taking 'em seriously, but I guess that's a risk you hafta take if you're gonna believe outlandish stuff.

kwolfman

02-23-2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by rjenk
One of the things that really irks me about how our (U.S.) society has changed is that a person that is religious or is a Christian is often persecuted if they profess it. While other beliefs or societal positions are presented with little if any recourse, the moment a Christian expresses his/her faith its “oh boy, there goes the bible thumper…”. We have become so intolerant to others, it is really scary. Why is it such a big deal for a person to express his faith whereas in the same forum others express their disbelief? These days you must have respect for a person to profess what they belief knowing that there will be those that will lash out against them. Healthy debate is one thing, attack is another.

I presume you wrote this in reply to me. I wasn't attacking Racer X-8 personally, however I was lightly attacking his/her beliefs. I see no reason that religion should be permitted this "hands-off" special exemption. Religions are irrational belief systems and should be treated as such.

By the way, weren't we being "attacked" with the threat of Rapture? I don't need someone threatening me with damnation and hellfire just because I don't believe in their god.

Like it or not, our political, legal and societal beliefs were built upon the foundation of Christianity by our forefathers. Religion was and is one of the most important foundations of our country wether you believe in God or not.

Totally incorrect. Our Government is based on the US Constitution, a secular document. There is no mention of God/Yehweh/Zues/Pele or any other god. Religion was deliberately left out. The "founding fathers" were generally deists, not Christians. Thomas Jefferson in particular did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. If you mean the Ten Commandments (which set, there are two in the Bible), the first three have absolutely no counterparts in any of our laws.

The last time religion ruled the western world was known as "The Dark Ages".

As for Mel and the movie…if nothing else comes out of the movie, it is fantastic that it has brought religion into the forefront of discussion.

Followers of religion are always pushing themselves into the forefront. They've even managed to get "In God We Trust" embossed on our money, even though the original motto "E Pluribus Unum" is much better, secular (shouldn't offend anyone) and more appropriate.

Racer X-8

02-23-2004, 11:31 AM

I wasn't threatening anyone. Personally, I don't have a hell, nor a heaven to put anyone in. Neither does anyone else. That's good news, for sure. As for the other jargon, talk about irrarional. But that's how it works, isn't it?

kwolfman

02-23-2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
I wasn't threatening anyone. Personally, I don't have a hell, nor a heaven to put anyone in. Neither does anyone else. That's good news, for sure.

(from a previous message) Surely the rapture means nothing to people who do not already fear God. Fearing the rapture is, what? After that fact maybe? You reap what you sow? Go on with your bad selves. Enjooy what little "lives" you may have for now. God lets you do as you may with them. And don't worry, be happy

Sounds like a veiled threat to me. Why do you think I (and lots others on this forum) are "bad"? What do you mean by that?

As for the other jargon, talk about irrarional. But that's how it works, isn't it?

What irrationality are you talking about? Where was I being irrational? I'm not the one stating as fact that there is some sort of invisible sky daddy watching over us. Nothing that I said requires an unproven, unknowable, supernatural entity for support.

The invisible and the non-existant look very much the same.

Racer X-8

02-23-2004, 12:30 PM

As in "Yeah, I'm bad, uh huh..." bad. If you want to call that a threat, fine, but don't kill the messenger. It's all written in the Bible, all over the place in the Bible. It was prophesized in the OT, it's spelled-out as plain as human beings (John, anyway) could understand it at the time in Revelations when it was revealed to him while he was imprisoned on the isle of Patmus. Thinly veiled it most definitely is not. If you don't believe, nor take the Bible seriously, then don't with me either. You want me to start quoting the Bible now? I thought not.

That other stuff in your last post should not have been written if you wished to maintain any kind of conversation with me.

Genom

02-23-2004, 01:27 PM

This is one of those pointless arguments, especially online. The ones that dont beleive in religions and the ones that do, and nobody is gonna convince the others they are right or wrong. So before people end up getting banned over it (I've seen it happen before), ya might want to consider whya re you continuing the argument?

MadRonin

02-23-2004, 02:37 PM

"The man who says nothing is impossible has never tried to slam a revolving door."

The same can be said for attemps at civil discourse regarding religion...

Racer X-8

02-23-2004, 02:48 PM

Hehe... somebody say "Ding!"

rjenk

02-23-2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by kwolfman
I presume you wrote this in reply to me. I wasn't attacking Racer X-8 personally, however I was lightly attacking his/her beliefs. I see no reason that religion should be permitted this "hands-off" special exemption. Religions are irrational belief systems and should be treated as such.

By the way, weren't we being "attacked" with the threat of Rapture? I don't need someone threatening me with damnation and hellfire just because I don't believe in their god.

I was not really directing at any one person, just speaking on a whole. Nor was I stating that anyone or particular viewpoint be placed off limits. I was just stating that today people appear to be much quicker to jump onto a person professing his/her faith.

Totally incorrect. Our Government is based on the US Constitution, a secular document. There is no mention of God/Yehweh/Zues/Pele or any other god. Religion was deliberately left out. The "founding fathers" were generally deists, not Christians. Thomas Jefferson in particular did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. If you mean the Ten Commandments (which set, there are two in the Bible), the first three have absolutely no counterparts in any of our laws.

I disagree. The basis of the laws of our land are built upon religious beliefs. While our founding fathers understood the need for separation of church and state, that does not mean that religion played no part. The writers of the Constitution were careful as to not impart religion into the document but it was not done so to create a secular state but to leave religious matters to individual citizens and state governments. At that time, religion in civil government was defined in state constitutions. Our forefathers felt it inappropriate for the federal government to encroach on state jurisdictation in these matters.

As for Thomas Jefferson in his treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe he declared "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." The same can be said for the other founding fathers as well (Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to name a few).

SpYnalChRd81

02-23-2004, 09:48 PM

Furthermore, Jesus NEVER claimed he was the Massiah, not once did he say that he was the son of God... (Please show me otherwise if you feel that I am incorrect)

Luke 22:70
They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He (Jesus) replied, "You are right in saying I am."

Matthew 4
"If you are the Son of God," he (Satan) said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[3] "

The first verse shows Jesus said or implied. he was the son of God.

There's also another verse about Jesus asking Peter who he was, and Peter said, "You're the son of God" and Jesus said Peter was correct and commended him.

SpYnalChRd81

02-23-2004, 10:16 PM

It's interesting how this kind and loving god is always dangling a hammer of fear over his little sheeps heads.

X-8, I've never understood this whole concept of Rapture. Why would you need your body in heaven? Isn't your supposed soul enough? For that matter, why would Jesus bring his body up to heaven?

Religion is full of unfulfilled promises. When things go wrong, it's your fault. When things go right, it's a god's. Although things like natural disasters such as tornados, hurricanes or floods don't seem to fit with a "right-doing" god.

Religions are the most divisive and stupid sets of arbitrary rules created by man.

Nothing fails like prayer.

Beliefs are for INDIVIDUAL consumption, not to try and convert others to your "way" by demeaning what they believe.

Let's leave the name calling and slander to the elementary schools, where it belongs...................

Have a meaningful discussion, or don't, but no more "preaching", one way OR the other.

Racer X-8

02-23-2004, 11:02 PM

Really, I study the book of Revelation every Wednesday night for the last three years. Now, when I have a chance to tell somebody what I've learned, they say I'm "preaching". Somebody else says that my beliefs are "outlandish", yet another, "stupid", and on and on. It all comes together, if you care to try to figure it out, you know? But no. I'm preaching, yeah, right. Sure I am. I wonder how many people don't even know that it's Jesus that's directing what's being revealed to John? Revelation 101. And that body of Jesus as described therein sure aint the same one that was on the cross! But, who cares around here anyway. Aint nobody wants to be preached to round here. Think I'll just go back and catch up sommore on CZ stage 1 stuff...

kwolfman

02-24-2004, 07:38 AM

As soon as someone starts making religious claims as if they were factual then as far as I'm concerned that opens up the discussion. I don't see why religion always has to be handled differently.

Let's get back closer to the original topic. How about this: why would a god require human sacrifice to "absolve" other people's sins? Sounds like a pretty primative idea to me. Sacrifices to the gods to appease it/them and get in their good graces.

It also doesn't appear to have done much good since it looks to me like there has been as much death, destruction and "sin" occuring both before and after this human sacrifice.

In reply to rjenk, when Thomas Jefferson said he was a "real Christian" he meant in terms of agreeing with much of the ideas that Jesus supposedly said. However, that is not the same as believing in the divinity of Christ, which he didn't. He also abhored organized religion, especially the various sects of Christianity.

jniamehr

02-24-2004, 11:32 AM

I studied religion since Pre-K 6 days a week, I still didnt act in the manner you did Racer

BRx8

02-24-2004, 12:44 PM

Kill Christ (http://www.moviecitynews.com/arrays/media/2004/Kill_Christ.html)

(it's not really funny or anything, just on-topic)

Racer X-8

02-24-2004, 12:47 PM

Well, there are times it's best to just bite your tounge. Maybe that's what I should have done. Even Jesus felt it was the right thing to destroy the people's goods being sold in God's house. I took offense to what was looking to me like a bonding session for non/anti-christian types when the topic had everything to do with the crucifiction of Jesus. You didn't and I did. That doesn't make either of us wrong, nor right in our reaction.

BRx8, you're a trip. :) Hey! It's not coming-up on quicktime. :mad: oh well. Might have to wait till I get home to a better system. :(

BRx8

02-24-2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
BRx8, you're a trip. :) Hey! It's not coming-up on quicktime. :mad: oh well. Might have to wait till I get home to a better system. :(

it's just a parody of The Passion of Christ trailer with the theme song from Kill Bill playing in the background...then at the end it says, "In 2004...The Jews Will...

Kill Christ"

...and then it ends...nothing special

ZoomZoomH

02-24-2004, 05:06 PM

so, the movie's opening tomorrow, anyone here planning to see it??

Reeko

02-24-2004, 06:22 PM

Yes.
I hope it does well.

Racer X-8

02-24-2004, 09:56 PM

Wouldn't miss it if I ws blind in one eye & couldn't see out the other!

RX-GR8

02-24-2004, 11:40 PM

i will see it but not on opening day.

mpt_yellowRX8

02-24-2004, 11:51 PM

Seeing it in about wo weeks when there will not be as much of a crowd. It should be around for a while down here in the South.

mdw33333

02-25-2004, 11:30 AM

It seems "most everyone" on this forum has spoken a piece about religon and the existance of a "God" in one form or another. Most of you term your "God" as the creator of all mankind and the universe as we know it.

Set aside all the religious publications you've ever read and/or heard of and ask yourselves a question. Time and space are a continuum, that is, infinite in all directions. If there "was" in fact a "creator" of all that we know, then at what point in time and in what space did the "creation" take place?

I'm no scientist, so I'll ask is this in a plain and simple manner. Pick a point in time at whick "you believe" that all was created and ask yourself what existed "one second" (a relative figure) before that? The answer, for anyone who can comprehend it and accept it, is "the universe." It has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be. Thus, eliminating the possiblility of a "creator."

Now, I'm no Einstein, but even I can grasp that. The problem is, everyone can, but most choose not to. Why? It is within our human nature to "want to believe" in creation, the existance of an "all powerful god," and an eternal afterlife. It makes it easier to cope with living, believing that our lives will continue beyond the life of our physical bodies.

Most humans have chosen a form of faith over time, because the alternative is less attractive to live with. Sad but true.

Reeko

02-25-2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by mdw33333
It seems "most everyone" on this forum has spoken a piece about religon and the existance of a "God" in one form or another. Most of you term your "God" as the creator of all mankind and the universe as we know it.

Set aside all the religious publications you've ever read and/or heard of and ask yourselves a question. Time and space are a continuum, that is, infinite in all directions. If there "was" in fact a "creator" of all that we know, then at what point in time and in what space did the "creation" take place?

I'm no scientist, so I'll ask is this in a plain and simple manner. Pick a point in time at whick "you believe" that all was created and ask yourself what existed "one second" (a relative figure) before that? The answer, for anyone who can comprehend it and accept it, is "the universe." It has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be. Thus, eliminating the possiblility of a "creator."

Now, I'm no Einstein, but even I can grasp that. The problem is, everyone can, but most choose not to. Why? It is within our human nature to "want to believe" in creation, the existance of an "all powerful god," and an eternal afterlife. It makes it easier to cope with living, believing that our lives will continue beyond the life of our physical bodies.

Most humans have chosen a form of faith over time, because the alternative is less attractive to live with. Sad but true.

So, I guess you would use the same argument against the "Big Bang" theory?

MP3Guy

02-25-2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by rjenk

As for Thomas Jefferson in his treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe he declared "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." The same can be said for the other founding fathers as well (Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison to name a few).

He meant that as a slap towards organized religion. If you read his other works, Jefferson wrote vociferously (to put it mildly) against the Church, practically calling it Satanic.

Finally. those who wish to say this nation in inculcated with Christian values are confusing that with values of the Enlightenment- and other Western European precepts regarding religious liberty.

In the battle between faith and reason- I'll choose reason every time.

MP3Guy

02-25-2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
Answer my two questions.

Surely the rapture means nothing to people who do not already fear God. Fearing the rapture is, what? After that fact maybe? You reap what you sow? Go on with your bad selves. Enjooy what little "lives" you may have for now. God lets you do as you may with them. And don't worry, be happy. :)

Correction- the rapture means nothing to people who do not fear YOUR god. But that kind of exclusion is the big problem with religion in general.

mdw33333

02-25-2004, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Reeko
So, I guess you would use the same argument against the "Big Bang" theory?

Yes, because the "Big Bang" theory (I believe) states that at a given point in time a "mass of physcal matter exploded into the "universe" as we know it. Now there are variables here. Did this "matter"always exist and just change form at this point in time or did the "matter" just appear out of empty space. Assuming the second is true, one might then make an argument that the "matter" was "created." But, lets expand our thinking and consider that in scientific terms, even "empty space" is something. The fact that empty space (as we know it) IS something, that would eliminate one's argument of a creation.

Again, I state, the universe (including empty space) has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be. Space really isn't the proof for me, it's the TIME that prooves creation not possible.

Racer X-8

02-25-2004, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by mdw33333
...Again, I state, the universe (including empty space) has ALWAYS been and ALWAYS will be... To answer your question, take your statement above, remove "the universe (including empty space)" and replace with "God". There you have it. "The alpha and the omega." God is infinite in regards to time as well. Time is not a dimension to God like it is for us here on earth, nor will it be for us when we ascend to heaven either. I could go on and quote all sorts of verses on this, but it would benefit you more to just pick up a bible (one that has a lot of references in it for study) and dig-in. (I didn't mean that as an assault to your intellegence, by the way, really.)

Racer X-8

02-25-2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by MP3Guy
Correction- the rapture means nothing to people who do not fear YOUR god. But that kind of exclusion is the big problem with religion in general. OK, MY God. I'm not following your line of thought though, sorry...

MadRonin

02-25-2004, 01:05 PM

Actually, the universe is not infinite. It is finite, though it is expanding. Eventually, it will stop expanding and then collapse in upon itself; only to expand again.

Of course long before that happens, our aging sun will have expanded beyond the inner planets, scortching and then swallowing the earth...

:D

mdw33333

02-25-2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
To answer your question, take your statement above, remove "the universe (including empty space)" and replace with "God". There you have it. "The alpha and the omega." God is infinite in regards to time as well. Time is not a dimension to God like it is for us here on earth, nor will it be for us when we ascend to heaven either. I could go on and quote all sorts of verses on this, but it would benefit you more to just pick up a bible (one that has a lot of references in it for study) and dig-in. (I didn't mean that as an assault to your intellegence, by the way, really.)

Let's not forget, the Bible is "written word," not scientific fact. Inserting "God" into that statement, as you suggested, wouldn't provide any scientific proof of "his" existance. We can, however, prove that time and space do.

mdw33333

02-25-2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by MadRonin
Actually, the universe is not infinite. It is finite, though it is expanding. Eventually, it will stop expanding and then collapse in upon itself; only to expand again.

Of course long before that happens, our aging sun will have expanded beyond the inner planets, scortching and then swallowing the earth...

:D
OK, let's get our facts straight. Our galaxy (solar system) is finite. The universe "is" infinite. Our sun and the planets that surround it are a tiny portion of the vast universe that we inhabit.

Just as space is infinitly big it is infinitly small as well. This sounds a bit crazy but imagine entire galaxies that would exist inside a single sub atomic particle- that's an example of infinite smallness.

mdw33333

02-25-2004, 01:54 PM

I would be a bit more content if religions would disassociate "God" with "creation." I can almost understand one insistance that a "God" exists, but don't say that he "created" what has always been.

I do believe in a "higher power" of some sort. But I believe that the form in which it exists is FAR beyond human comprehension.

RX-GR8

02-25-2004, 02:05 PM

actually i didnt know that there was definitive evidence either way that the universe was infinite or finite. there is new evidence based on the radiation from the big bang that the universe might take the form of a soccer ball with the patchwork being universes unto themselves and combined form one big finite universe. others think that it is finite but has no boundary.

Racer X-8

02-25-2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by mdw33333
I would be a bit more content if religions would disassociate "God" with "creation." I can almost understand one insistance that a "God" exists, but don't say that he "created" what has always been.

I do believe in a "higher power" of some sort. But I believe that the form in which it exists is FAR beyond human comprehension. Well, with this last post, I don't know whether to say "welcome, my brother" or not. Hmmm.

In your first paragraph, you are stating that creation is a known scientific matter of fact that it "has always been". RX8-GR8 then provides an argument that the universe is actually neither infinite in size, nor age. He's not the only one, I've heard of all sorts of theories. Do you realize how often sceintific "fact" gets shot down? And so it should be, with human civilization strugling to attain whatever knowledge possible. A mere 100 years ago, human race was pretty darn ignorant (to put it politely), compared to what we know of these things today. I would hardly say that of these things, we know all there is to know.

In your second paragraph, hey, now we're talkin'! :) "Your thoughts are not of my thoughts." "Trust in the Lord with all thy heart, lean not unto your own understanding, in all thy ways, acknowledge Him and He will direct thy path. Don't be wise in thine own eyes, fear the Lord and depart from evil". Doesn't that sound just a little like "the form in which" ...GOD... "exists is FAR beyond human comprehension"? The fact that He is able to communicate to us, that Jesus was able to live on earth with us, has you thinking that He is lesser than you want Him to be, me thinks.

Read Revelations, it's awsome to think that such things (that haven't even happened yet) could possibly be for real. It's beyond my comprehension, that's for sure! :D

MP3Guy

02-25-2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
OK, MY God. I'm not following your line of thought though, sorry...

What I mean is that it is your particular revelation from which your beliefs flow, whether it is the rapture, resurrection, transubstantiation of the host, or anything else, by necessity, must exclude anyone else's revelation. People can fear God without subscribing to any of the beliefs you do.

mdw33333

02-25-2004, 04:15 PM

RX8- GR8 had the "universe" confused with the solar system. I was simply stating that the solar system IS finite, the universe in its entirity IS NOT.

MadRonin

02-25-2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by mdw33333
OK, let's get our facts straight. Our galaxy (solar system) is finite. The universe "is" infinite. Our sun and the planets that surround it are a tiny portion of the vast universe that we inhabit.

Just as space is infinitly big it is infinitly small as well. This sounds a bit crazy but imagine entire galaxies that would exist inside a single sub atomic particle- that's an example of infinite smallness.

What facts? There are no facts regarding the definitive nature of the universe. Everything is theory.

Substantiate your statment please.

Here's some data to backup my statement (as well as RX-GR8):

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992759
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994250
http://luth2.obspm.fr/Compress/oct03_lum.en.html

mdw33333

02-25-2004, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by MadRonin
What facts? There are no facts regarding the definitive nature of the universe. Everything is theory.

Substantiate your statment please.

Here's some data to backup my statement (as well as RX-GR8):

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992759
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994250
http://luth2.obspm.fr/Compress/oct03_lum.en.html

When I referred to "getting the facts straight," I was referring to his confusion about the difference between our solar system and the entire universe. Our solar system is finite, obiously. It ends at the orbit of Pluto, our outermost planet. The universe is believed to be infinite. Our solar system may one day be engulfed by the enlarging sun, however, the universe expands beyond our system. Fact.

Zio

02-25-2004, 04:26 PM

Whether the universe is finite or not is theory. But it is believed to be not finite and have limitless boundaries.

RX-GR8

02-25-2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by mdw33333
RX8- GR8 had the "universe" confused with the solar system. I was simply stating that the solar system IS finite, the universe in its entirity IS NOT.

i didnt have the solr system confused with the universe at all. you quoted madronin about that originally not me. and i still say the entire universe is not definitively known to be finite or infinite.

Racer X-8

02-25-2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by MP3Guy
What I mean is that it is your particular revelation from which your beliefs flow, whether it is the rapture, resurrection, transubstantiation of the host, or anything else, by necessity, must exclude anyone else's revelation. People can fear God without subscribing to any of the beliefs you do. Oh, I think I got it. Ok, well, there's only one God (capitol G). He is God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Ghost (or, Spirit). If someone would choose to believe in another supreme being, I would simply prefer that he or she use a name for it other than "God". Thats like calling a charmin tissue a kleenex. Wrong name. But, that's just me. I know that "god" is a generic term when it comes to gods. But, yeah, people can fear other gods if they want, but I do hereby declare that they have nothing to fear from those gods, they're all dead, or never lived at all. Problem with it though is that whether one knows it or not, its true that, if God isn't your father, than guess who is? Yup, it's a two-way street and going the wrong way is just as real a thing as going the right way. I don't like that. I try to help. Most refuse it, but that is my obligation. At least I try, then I move on. (Once people stop calling me out in this thread, watch how quickly I stop posting here. I'm done here if everyone else is.)

So, anyway, my belief is a package deal, and honestly, it came way before I learned of revelation & what the rapture was. And yes, honestly, I'm still not all knowing. Yeah, it's true... but along with my saying that, I'm still learning too. Speaking of which, I gotta get going. Got bible study in 80 minutes & I'm 40 minutes still from my home.

Kaliken

02-25-2004, 05:01 PM

geez a mel gibson movie that gets threadjacked onto space and time! yes!

ok first problem. Space and time are not mutually exclusive. Its been proven through mathematics and through measurments. Mainly from relativity and the bending and warping of space time due to heavy masses.

seriously a good read would be Hawkings book The Universe in a nutshell. or Brian Green's The elegant universe.

Both are excellent books. But to say 'Look once second before the big bang" is erroneous as the definition of time loses sense. It almost seems like you are trying to use Aquinas's ontological arguments for the existance of God in reverse?

As for the big bang, the best models we have break down at this time. so to know what happened before this is still up in the air. I believe hawking calls the point the singularity.

but for the universe to be finite, well that would presume that there is a limit to which it can grow. we know the universe is expanding. Interesting question is why is it speeding up? Currently we don't know much as there are a lot of questions that modern physics cannot answer right now, thus much of this stuff is theory. M-Brane theory is still in its infancy! And string theory i think was just barely unified. (I think) as for the universe colapsing that is one of the many many possible solutions. other involve thermal death etc. and we aren't even going to start talking about Fineman's infinite paths and quantum mechanics which can lead to the inifinte universes question. also the universe constants to lead to life are anothe big topic to debate.

point of the post is umm.. i think i may have rambled.. but point being is that time and space are not mathematically speaking linear independent.

MP3Guy

02-25-2004, 06:39 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Racer X-8
[B]Oh, I think I got it. Ok, well, there's only one God (capitol G). He is God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Ghost (or, Spirit). If someone would choose to believe in another supreme being, I would simply prefer that he or she use a name for it other than "God". >>

That is precisely what I am talking about. Why should you "prefer" that they do not use the word "God," and since most of the world is not Trinitarian, does this mean they are going to hell? Don't you see where this leads to??? Why would you insist that others convey a respect to you that you would not offer them?

<< But, yeah, people can fear other gods if they want, but I do hereby declare that they have nothing to fear from those gods, they're all dead, or never lived at all. >>

So you say. Others feel differently with every ounce of surety and sincerity that you do.

jniamehr

02-25-2004, 07:02 PM

LOL, do you realize that your religion is based on my religion Racer RX-8? Do you realize that my religion came first and my people were the first to believe in one God? Or are you just too ignorant to know that? JESUS WAS A JEW, JESUS DIED A JEW... HE NEVER STARTED HIS OWN RELIGION, HIS FOLLOWERS DID! THE JEWS DID NOT KILL ONE OF THERE OWN, AND I DONT CARE WHAT BILL OREILLY SAYS (EVEN THOUGH IM A BIG FAN) THEN SANHDERIN (JEWISH COURTS) HAD NO GRIPES WITH HIM OR ANY PREACHERS OF HIS TYPE... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE EVEN POINTING TO THEM HAVING A GRIPE WITH HIM... AND IF THE JEWS DID KILL JESUS, DONT YOU THINK GOD WOULD HAVE WIPED ALL OF THEM OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH AND NOT ALLOW THEM TO CONTROL THE WORD, LIKE YOU SUGGEST??? YOU MAKE NO SENSE, YOUR POINTS CONTRIDICT EACH OTHER!!!!!

kwolfman

02-25-2004, 10:04 PM

Well this thread has degenerated into the biggest pile of hog wash. First someone puts out a variety of "facts" about space, and infinite universe and time. He admitted not being a scientist or knowing a lot about what he was talking about.

Then someone else (who shall be nameless) starts trying to use this misinformation as a basis for evidence for his God. What a mess! Oh but science is just a theory... Well a scientific theory is not the same as a wild-assed guess, or any other crazy idea. Scientific theories must be consistent with the existing data and information. They must make testable predictions (not prophecies). They must be falsifiable, as in it is concievable they are wrong. As new data and evidence becomes available, those theories that no longer can account for the new information are discarded. Other theories that continue to be supported by the evidence are maintained and in a sense the probability they are correct is increased. This is the self correcting nature of science.

Religion, on the other hand tends to start with a supernatural answer (hence it is outside of science) then tries to find data to fit the model. Rather than fit inconsistant data, the data is simply ignored. Take a look a Creation Science as a fine example of this technique.

Even if all of science was totally incorrect, that does not provide any evidence for any God theory. I could come up with lots of equally valid God theories that are just a sound and provable as the Judeo-Christian God. Every culture on the planet has their own Creation theories. But these have been simplistic answers to tough questions. All these God theories try to explain a mystery with another mystery (their God). This is scientifically invalid and it provides no information.

By the way, the latest evidence about the universe is quite perplexing. The universe is finite and expanding. But what is really hard to grasp, it is accelerating in it's expansion. There is apparently a repulsive force in nature that is pushing everything away from everything else. Based on what we currently know, the universe will continue expanding forever to the period in time where every subatomic particle is so far away from another that it is essentally by itself. I'm not sure what is expected after that. I suppose the particles with simply cease to exist. A rather cold thought.

Don't worry though. This is suppose to take about 1 GoogleYears (a 1 followed by 100 zeros). We will all be long dead along with all of our gods.

Kaliken's message was a breath of fresh air.

mdw33333

02-26-2004, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by kwolfman
Well this thread has degenerated into the biggest pile of hog wash. First someone puts out a variety of "facts" about space, and infinite universe and time. He admitted not being a scientist or knowing a lot about what he was talking about.

Then someone else (who shall be nameless) starts trying to use this misinformation as a basis for evidence for his God. What a mess! Oh but science is just a theory... Well a scientific theory is not the same as a wild-assed guess, or any other crazy idea. Scientific theories must be consistent with the existing data and information. They must make testable predictions (not prophecies). They must be falsifiable, as in it is concievable they are wrong. As new data and evidence becomes available, those theories that no longer can account for the new information are discarded. Other theories that continue to be supported by the evidence are maintained and in a sense the probability they are correct is increased. This is the self correcting nature of science.

Religion, on the other hand tends to start with a supernatural answer (hence it is outside of science) then tries to find data to fit the model. Rather than fit inconsistant data, the data is simply ignored. Take a look a Creation Science as a fine example of this technique.

Even if all of science was totally incorrect, that does not provide any evidence for any God theory. I could come up with lots of equally valid God theories that are just a sound and provable as the Judeo-Christian God. Every culture on the planet has their own Creation theories. But these have been simplistic answers to tough questions. All these God theories try to explain a mystery with another mystery (their God). This is scientifically invalid and it provides no information.

By the way, the latest evidence about the universe is quite perplexing. The universe is finite and expanding. But what is really hard to grasp, it is accelerating in it's expansion. There is apparently a repulsive force in nature that is pushing everything away from everything else. Based on what we currently know, the universe will continue expanding forever to the period in time where every subatomic particle is so far away from another that it is essentally by itself. I'm not sure what is expected after that. I suppose the particles with simply cease to exist. A rather cold thought.

Don't worry though. This is suppose to take about 1 GoogleYears (a 1 followed by 100 zeros). We will all be long dead along with all of our gods.

Kaliken's message was a breath of fresh air.

You don't have to be a "scientist" to understand the space-time continuum theory.

hotpot

02-26-2004, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by mdw33333
.... The universe is believed to be infinite. Our solar system may one day be engulfed by the enlarging sun, however, the universe expands beyond our system. Fact.

Care to explain how something that's infinite can be expanding?
I just can't grasp this concept.

Racer X-8

02-26-2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by hotpot
Care to explain how something that's infinite can be expanding?
I just can't grasp this concept. Duh? It's just getting infiniter, at an accelerated pace, I might add. :D

jniamehr, we disagree, for sure, but I don't know why you have lost control of your caps lock key. I didn't even know that you are jewish, or that my belief in Jesus would anger a jew. Obviously though, your contentions are contrary to mine and you believe what you say. If you don't know the christian answers to those points you bring up, I suggest you speak with someone that you have some semblance of respect for. Adeu...

Racer X-8

02-26-2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by MP3Guy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Racer X-8
[B] ...Why should you "prefer" that they do not use the word "God," and since most of the world is not Trinitarian, does this mean they are going to hell? Don't you see where this leads to??? Why would you insist that others convey a respect to you that you would not offer them?

<< But, yeah, people can fear other gods if they want, but I do hereby declare that they have nothing to fear from those gods, they're all dead, or never lived at all. >>

So you say. Others feel differently with every ounce of surety and sincerity that you do. About the "going to hell" part, read John 14 (the last three words of verse 6, in particular). And that's definitely not the only place in the Bible that confirms what am trying to say. It's not something that I am making up here.

And about the "respect" part, I really don't see how "sky daddy" and that kind of talk deserves any. I don't recall showing disrespect to you. If I did, I'm sorry.

ZoomZoomH

02-26-2004, 01:11 PM

boy this thread sounds more and more like a typical RX-7 forum thread :p

Plays with Cars

02-26-2004, 01:19 PM

Mel Gibson...crazy? Yah about $20 million dollars in one day worth of crazy!

mdw33333

02-26-2004, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by hotpot
Care to explain how something that's infinite can be expanding?
I just can't grasp this concept.

The outward movement of matter within our universe leads of us to believe expansion is taking place. However, the empty space in the universe is what is believed to be infinite.

Assume there is an end to our universe. What type of "boundries" would there be? Walls? I think not. Let's assume their were some kind of "walls" limiting the size our entire universe, what's on the other side of those "walls?"

Keep in mind their is no way to measure "empty space," only the containment of empty space. To say that there is a boundry around our universe, would mean that it were being contained by something. What is that something? No answer, exactly...

MP3Guy

02-26-2004, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
About the "going to hell" part, read John 14 (the last three words of verse 6, in particular). And that's definitely not the only place in the Bible that confirms what am trying to say. It's not something that I am making up here."

But that's the point!!! Yours is not the ONLY "TRUE" revelation in humankind! Arghh, I give up.

""And about the "respect" part, I really don't see how "sky daddy" and that kind of talk deserves any. I don't recall showing disrespect to you. If I did, I'm sorry.

I made no such references- you must be referring to someone else.

wakeech

02-26-2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by ZoomZoomH
boy this thread sounds more and more like a typical RX-7 forum thread :p

*crosses fingers and hopes RacerX-8 doesn't own a Yammy R1* ;)

Lock & Load

02-26-2004, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by klegg
Really, this thread was supposed to be about mel gibson, NOT religon..

Having read trough the nine pages , heres my 2 cents worth .

Mel Gibson in his early days has spent to many nights on the couches of the casting Directors bitting the pillow and having his rear end stoked by the film directors in order to get work.

Now that he has become famous and wealthy he is paying the jewish directors back for the many years of being USED as a bend over merchant .

In his quest for revenge on the jewish film directors and the others that interviewed him in his earlier years on the casting couch he has managed to create
more division amongst the religions , whilst filling his pockets with money .

THE GUY IS A BIG ASSHOLE IMO.

cheers
michael

Plays with Cars

02-26-2004, 05:07 PM

So is the Bible antisemitic? The people at the time (the Jews) JC was quite a rebel (perhaps the way we would see a zealot today). Because Mel Gibson makes this movie does not make him a Jew hater no more than Schnidlers list makes Spielberg a German hater.
Historical documentaries (no mater how grand a fashion they are presented) tell a story. Sometimes the story is not a pretty one!
I gotta say "You go Mel"! You had a story to tell based on a deep and abiding faith and you'll make millions doing it. Spielberg did the same thing with Schindlers list. Viva la difference!

Racer X-8

02-26-2004, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by MP3Guy
But that's the point!!! Yours is not the ONLY "TRUE" revelation in humankind! Arghh, I give up. I never had a revelation. :D But seriously, my God says He is the only true God. Of course, that's wide open for debate, but only for those who are not true christians. He says it, so I believe it, and that's that.
I made no such references- you must be referring to someone else. That is correct, I was not (http://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=260658#post260658) refering to you making that "sky daddy" or any other disrespectful comment. I should have made that more clear in that statement. Sorry. That was unintentional.

And no Wakeech, I don't own an honorable Yammahopper any more. R1, huh? Hmmmm.....

mental pimp

02-26-2004, 06:14 PM

Muslims belive that , that as he walked with the cross , God replaced him with someone else, i really dont see why a prophet like Jesus ( pbuh ) should suffer like that.

mdw33333

02-26-2004, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Lock & Load
Having read trough the nine pages , heres my 2 cents worth .

Mel Gibson in his early days has spent to many nights on the couches of the casting Directors bitting the pillow and having his rear end stoked by the film directors in order to get work.

Now that he has become famous and wealthy he is paying the jewish directors back for the many years of being USED as a bend over merchant .

In his quest for revenge on the jewish film directors and the others that interviewed him in his earlier years on the casting couch he has managed to create
more division amongst the religions , whilst filling his pockets with money .

THE GUY IS A BIG ASSHOLE IMO.

cheers
michael

That is the most moronic assessment of Mel Gibson that anyone could possibly make. Please just have a clue...

mental pimp

02-26-2004, 07:08 PM

My very religious christain teacher told the class that he sees this movie very true and very well made. I dont see why some of you say that its a crappy ass movie made for anti-semitic reasons.

RX8Z

02-26-2004, 07:10 PM

Lock and Load, its people like you that prohibit this world to ever come to a medium of true peace without conflict

You dont know Mel Gibson personally, please dont make assumptions based on what ??? a MOVIE?

My god, I remember a time when people use to say Movies are movies, they are made for entertainment or leisure, now suddenly movies are sources of credentials and personal views

This world and you are nothing but hyprocrites. You watch tons of movie of rape, murder, people dying left and right, but now suddenly because it invovles a specific religion story, its not accepted??

please get over it.. .

MP3Guy

02-26-2004, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Plays with Cars
So is the Bible antisemitic? The people at the time (the Jews) JC was quite a rebel (perhaps the way we would see a zealot today). Because Mel Gibson makes this movie does not make him a Jew hater no more than Schnidlers list makes Spielberg a German hater.
Historical documentaries (no mater how grand a fashion they are presented) tell a story. Sometimes the story is not a pretty one!
I gotta say "You go Mel"! You had a story to tell based on a deep and abiding faith and you'll make millions doing it. Spielberg did the same thing with Schindlers list. Viva la difference!

The Gospels are NOT an historical document. Many Christian thinkers have learned to separate the allegory from what may or may not have happened. Many incidents are historically impossible, and many are borrowed from Greek and Roman religious constructs that predate the era.

MP3Guy

02-26-2004, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by mental pimp
Muslims belive that , that as he walked with the cross , God replaced him with someone else, i really dont see why a prophet like Jesus ( pbuh ) should suffer like that.

Pity it's a crime punishible by death to preach the Gospel in those lovely Muslim countries, isn't it???

mental pimp

02-26-2004, 07:20 PM

Your back? Oh god..........what Muslim countries are you talking about? Iraq? Afghanistan?

mental pimp

02-26-2004, 07:23 PM

You better not be talking about the countries in the Middle East becuase that is completely false.

Racer X-8

02-26-2004, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by MP3Guy
The Gospels are NOT an historical document. Many Christian thinkers have learned to separate the allegory from what may or may not have happened. Many incidents are historically impossible, and many are borrowed from Greek and Roman religious constructs that predate the era. There is only one gospel. There are four writings of the gospel in the Bible, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. But, you already knew that. :D

Elara

02-26-2004, 07:40 PM

tone it down, guys. Insulting other people's religions is not going to fly on here. Discuss it nicely, or not at all.

mdw33333

02-26-2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Elara
tone it down, guys. Insulting other people's religions is not going to fly on here. Discuss it nicely, or not at all.

When discussing religion, you almost have to expect heated discussion. In my opinion, we've kept it "light" to this point. Let's not forget, wars have been fought over this kind of stuff.

We're all "big boys" (and girls) and I'm sure we all can express our views openly on this forum without anyone losing sleep over it. Thank you.

Elara

02-26-2004, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by mdw33333
When discussing religion, you almost have to expect heated discussion. In my opinion, we've kept it "light" to this point. Let's not forget, wars have been fought over this kind of stuff.

We're all "big boys" (and girls) and I'm sure we all can express our views openly on this forum without anyone losing sleep over it. Thank you.

It's been generally polite , but in the past few pages you can almost see the tension flowing off the screen. I just don't want this to turn into a discussion about the evils of Islam, Christianity, or the Jewish faith, and some of the more recent posts seem to be heading in that direction. Everytime I've left one of these threads alone for a long period of time it's decayed into a hate-filled religion bashing, and I don't want to see that here.

mental pimp

02-26-2004, 08:23 PM

Yea, but MP3Guy cant, he brings crap here.

MP3Guy

02-26-2004, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by mental pimp
You better not be talking about the countries in the Middle East becuase that is completely false.

Really? How could you NOT notice? Why not find out what the Coptic Christians in Egypt are going through every day? Just go ahead and "google" it. Lebanon remains a hotbed of religious intolerance. Preaching the Gospel in Saudi Arabia is punishable by imprisonment and perhaps even death. And the Palestinians, despite the face they like to show to the West, is "Islamicizing" traditionally Christian cities like Bethlehem. Iran certainly doesn't tolerate any religion except it's own particular brand of Islam as well.

That almost covers it.

mental pimp

02-26-2004, 08:32 PM

Who told you that? Your internet sources?

Elara

02-26-2004, 08:34 PM

ARGH. See?? Guys, stop it.

mental pimp

02-26-2004, 08:34 PM

Have you been there to see it? Have you seen any videos or pictures to prove it?

mental pimp

02-26-2004, 08:35 PM

Guys stop it? Im not doing anything, its this guy hes trying to make Islam look bad.

MP3Guy

02-26-2004, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
There is only one gospel. There are four writings of the gospel in the Bible, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. But, you already knew that. :D

I do, but since the four have conflicting details, it's hard to know which one is the true story. They were also all written at least 40 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

One tale I have always found amusing the one about the storm in Lake Galilee. If you've ever been there, there is no way such a storm could take place, since it would be hard to run a powerboat race there.

But belief is belief, and it is your perfect right to do as you please- our nation is blessed by this social contract we all have with each other. May God preserve it always!!!

MP3Guy

02-26-2004, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Elara
ARGH. See?? Guys, stop it.

Elara, please, the kid asked a question, and I'll be happy to answer him. The internet is a wonderful thing, and a great place to exchange ideas without shooting each other. If someone gets mad, so they're mad. Perfectly human. I've been mad at my cars from time to time!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

mental pimp

02-26-2004, 08:49 PM

Well MP3Guy, im not capable of asnwering your questions, ask an older person who knows about it.

MP3Guy

02-26-2004, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by mental pimp
Guys stop it? Im not doing anything, its this guy hes trying to make Islam look bad.

My young friend, there is nothing I, or anyone else could do to Islam that it's most vociferous adherents have not already done to it.

There are legitimate sources on the Internet, including Arab ones, run by well educated and informed people with good reputations who will verify what I wrote. Learn your current events, and your history, and you'll get a better handle on the world- and your emotions. It is a noble thing to do.

mental pimp

02-26-2004, 08:54 PM

Your nuts, listening to your crap about Islam being evil is sickning, shut up before this Thread gets closed.

MP3Guy

02-26-2004, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by mental pimp
Your nuts, listening to your crap about Islam being evil is sickning, shut up before this Thread gets closed.

Will you calm down and LISTEN, for once? Here's an article from CNN you can use as a starting point, OK?? And check out some of the links on the same web page.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/01/28/egypt.alkoshe.clash/

mental pimp

02-26-2004, 09:13 PM

look, i dont trust CNN at all, and stop giving me this crap, Islam is not about this, just cause some stupid Muslims want to kill people and go to hell for it doesnt mean that Islam is asking for that, ok? Damm, you dont understand what does it mean to stop?

mental pimp

02-26-2004, 09:17 PM

If some christain guy, lets say american, decides to kill his wife, would they call him a Christain Killer? No!
So knock it off!
And dont get mad cause Islam is true and beautiful

MP3Guy

02-26-2004, 09:22 PM

I tried. Lord knows I tried......

Racer X-8

02-26-2004, 09:23 PM

A little info to share...

THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST
I. His pre-existance
A. Proved by the Old Test. Micah 5:2 Isa. 9:6
B. Proved by the New Test. John 1:1,14 John 8:58
C. Proved by works ascribed to Christ which require pre-existance Col 1:16 John 1:3
D. Proved by the appearance of the angel of Jehovah Exodus 3:2,4
E. Proved by His names
. 1. Logos "Word"
. 2. Son of God
. 3. Jehovah

II. His incarnation
A. Meaning: In flesh
B. Means: The virgin birth
. 1. Predicted Isa 7:14
. 2. Proved Matthew 1:16
C. Reasons
. 1. To reveal God to man. John 1:18
. 2. To provide an example for living. I Peter 2:21
.*3. To provide a sacrifice for sin. Heb 10:1-10
. 4. To destroy the works of the devil. I John 3:8
. 5. To be a merciful high priest. Heb 5:1-2
. 6. To fulfill the Davidic covenant. Luke 1:31-33
. 7. To be highly exhalted. Phil 2:9
D. The person: The person of the incarnate Christ
. 1. Undiminished deity - still 100% God.
. 2. Perfect humanity - 100% man.
. 3. United in one person forever - once incarnated, He will always have a (now-glorified) body.

III. His humanity
A. He had a human body.
. 1. Born of a woman. Gal 4:4
. 2. Subject to growth. Luke 2:52
. 3. Seen and handled by man. I John 1:1 Matthew 26:12
. 4. Sinless. Heb 4:15
B. He had a human soul and spirit. Matthew 26:38 Luke 23:46
C. He was subject to the limitations of humanity.
. 1. He hungered. Matthew 4:2
. 2. He was thirsty. John 19:28
. 3. He grew tired. John 4:6
. 4. He wept. John 11:35
. 5. He was tested. Heb 4:15
D. He had human names.
. 1. Son of man Luke 19:10
. 2. Jesus Matthew 1:12
. 3. Son of David Mark 10:47
. 4. Man Isa 53:3 I Tim 2:5
E. He was able to die.

MP3Guy

02-26-2004, 09:59 PM

Let's take II "b", the virgin birth. This "prediction" is a result of a mistranslation in the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, where the Hebrew word "betulah" (virgin)" was substituted for the word "almah" (young girl) which is flatly wrong. The Hebrew word "betulah" (virgin) appears in the proper context throughout the Hebrew bible, but was not used in the Hebrew bible by Jews in Is 7:14. Christians complained that the Jews, having to rely on the Oral tradition, could not prove this.

Long an area of disputation in religious polemics, the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls put an end to the argument once and for all, according to most scholars. Since the Scrolls predate the Gospels, the authenticity of the wording is no longer a matter of question.
"Almah" is the word that was used, and moreover, the discovery of the Scrolls themselves proved the integrity of the Hebrew bible even as it is written to this very day. Quite remarkable, in fact.

The virgin birth is a traditional Pagan construct. The goddess Athena was a virgin mother as well. Some Christian denominations have either eliminated or de-stressed it.

I could answer the other points, and I have in other forums, but no longer have the time or the desire to do it.

May you find peace and goodness in the way YOU find God.

babylou

02-26-2004, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by MP3Guy
Pity it's a crime punishible by death to preach the Gospel in those lovely Muslim countries, isn't it???

Maybe there is one country like this (Afghanistan) but this is not true of the Arab countries. There are Coptic and Chaldean Christians all over the Mid East. They have been there since the beginning of Christianity. These Christians are treated about the same as the USA is treating Muslims here. There are even Arab Jews in the countries.

MP3Guy

02-26-2004, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by babylou
Maybe there is one country like this (Afghanistan) but this is not true of the Arab countries. There are Coptic and Chaldean Christians all over the Mid East. They have been there since the beginning of Christianity. These Christians are treated about the same as the USA is treating Muslims here. There are even Arab Jews in the countries.

I would commend to you ANY website run by any organization run by Copts to find out how distressing their situation is. It is not a good thing, believe me.

http://www.christianweek.org/stories/vol12/no16/story2.htm

http://www.domini.org/openbook/egy90403.htm

http://www.lacopts.org/general.php?id=P1286

http://www.lacopts.org/general.php?id=P1318

khoney

02-26-2004, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by kwolfman
Nothing fails like prayer.

Works for me...

MP3Guy

02-26-2004, 10:37 PM

"There are even Arab Jews in the countries."

Correction. There WERE Arab Jews in these countries, but most were expelled after the creation of the State of Israel. In fact, these Jewish communities predate the Arab migration to these nations, and even the advent of Christianity,, much less Islam.

Over 750,000 Jews from Arab nations migrated to Israel, dwarfing the number of Palestinians who either fled or were forced out of Israel. They were never compensated for the property they left behind.

Of course, the Jews from Arab lands were integrated into Israeli society, and provided with homes, schools, jobs and a functioning government. The Palestinians were to undergo a different fate, thanks to their Arab brothers who promised them liberation.

But that's another story

Plays with Cars

02-26-2004, 10:45 PM

Because I did not witness the holocaust does not mean it did not exist. My mother in law has shared what it was like to lose her parents (I will spare you the graphic details). I am by birth a Catholic ,by action (I hope) a Christian and have entertained Muslims (as well as most every flavor of religion) in my home. I think that we have to listen to peoples points of views (without demeaning them).

What is truth? Truth to me was last Tuesday was a wonderful day. I had a good day at business , good times with my husband and family.That was my truth. At that same time a good friends sister was committing suicide 1000 miles away. Her truth at the same time was greatly different than mine.

Truth of religion is not much different than the truth in how we view the world. Not all people will see thigs the same way. OK guys...maybe a diversion from Mel but....if a person commits suicide does their soul go to hell (if indeed you believe in heaven and hell)? This is a serious question (obviousely).

Racer X-8

02-26-2004, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by MP3Guy
Let's take II "b", the virgin birth. This "prediction" is a result of a mistranslation in the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, where the Hebrew word "betulah" (virgin)" was substituted for the word "almah" (young girl) which is flatly wrong. The Hebrew word "betulah" (virgin) appears in the proper context throughout the Hebrew bible, but was not used in the Hebrew bible by Jews in Is 7:14. Christians complained that the Jews, having to rely on the Oral tradition, could not prove this.

Long an area of disputation in religious polemics, the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls put an end to the argument once and for all, according to most scholars. Since the Scrolls predate the Gospels, the authenticity of the wording is no longer a matter of question.
"Almah" is the word that was used, and moreover, the discovery of the Scrolls themselves proved the integrity of the Hebrew bible even as it is written to this very day. Quite remarkable, in fact.

The virgin birth is a traditional Pagan construct. The goddess Athena was a virgin mother as well. Some Christian denominations have either eliminated or de-stressed it.

I could answer the other points, and I have in other forums, but no longer have the time or the desire to do it.

May you find peace and goodness in the way YOU find God. Well, I had some fun doing some simple web searching. "Almah" and "Athena" were two separate searches... anyone reading this can duplicate these searches and dig-in. I no longer have the time or the desire to do it any further.

Almah - Sorry, but all I could find, with or without supporting reference to the dead sea scrolls, all I could find was debate after debate after one person's "conclusive" synopsis, after another. Nothing conclusive about this matter at all. I'm gonna give the traditional christian version the "benefit of doubt" for now. Let me know when the debate is finally over. One point that I did find not debatable though is that the use of the word almah does not rule out the chance that she could have been a virgin. It really seems like a mere choice of word issue that will never be resolved. Some people claim that almah was the correct word to use in the context that it is used in that verse. Do the search and dig-in. You won't need to look too hard at all.

Athena - I haven't found any reference to her bearing any children at all. What I did find was that she was purported to have sprang full-grown and armored from the forehead of the god Zeus, thus, it was Zeus that was the virgin, Zeus that had a very wierd anatomy, and Athena that didn't have a mother. You can believe it if you want. Uh, as for me, nope.

And thank you, may you also, kind sir, mp3guy. :)

ByeByeSaturn

02-27-2004, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by MP3Guy
"There are even Arab Jews in the countries."

Correction. There WERE Arab Jews in these countries, but most were expelled after the creation of the State of Israel. In fact, these Jewish communities predate the Arab migration to these nations, and even the advent of Christianity,, much less Islam.

Over 750,000 Jews from Arab nations migrated to Israel, dwarfing the number of Palestinians who either fled or were forced out of Israel. They were never compensated for the property they left behind.

Of course, the Jews from Arab lands were integrated into Israeli society, and provided with homes, schools, jobs and a functioning government. The Palestinians were to undergo a different fate, thanks to their Arab brothers who promised them liberation.

But that's another story

A rarely mentioned fact that gets lost in the war of words. A good link is www.jimena-justice.org. But hey, the Palestinians have already won the propaganda - they have created "facts in the encyclopedia" so to speak that can not be erased. For instance, despite the mantra "Free Palestine," there was never a nation of Arabs called Palestine, and a large percentage of the Arabs in that land now are descended from people who emigrated there during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, competing with the parallel Jewish migration to the land. Hell, Arafat was born in EGYPT! But hey, I'm willing to forgive historical distortion of monumental proportion (it's no surprise - I mean Holocaust denial literature and the Protocols sell really well in that part of the world) and accept the nationhood of a long-suffering people that want and deserve it, so long as they enforce the law and stop using terrorism as a tool and respect the right of citizens of Israel and any tourists or foreign workers there to take the bus and enjoy sitting in a cafe without the fear of horrific death or injury. May peace come soon, though I'm more cynical every day.

However, mp3 guy, regarding the preaching of the Gospel in ARab countries, you are somewhat correct. IT is a violation of Sharia law to try to convert a Muslim, and it is punishable by death for a Muslim to renounce Islam under that set of laws. However, besides the Taleban, Iran, certain parts of Malaysia and the Philippines, and Saudi Arabia, Sharia law is not widely practiced. I may be wrong about Iran also.

Citing the persecution of the Copts or the Berbers or the Kurds by Sunni Muslims in Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, etc. is not going to prove that Islam is evil. It's just another example of cultural bigotry which exists everywhere in this world. I totally understand why mental pimp is offended by what you say, and I think you should tone it down a bit and stop being so patronizing to him and a religion that he loves and practices with a good heart.

kwolfman

02-27-2004, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by kwolfman
Nothing fails like prayer.

Originally posted by khoney
Works for me...

How can you tell?

mental pimp

02-27-2004, 08:07 AM

I do belive that Palestine was a country in ancient times and it was a country before Israel , the flag of palestine was made before the 1940s, so it was officialy a country, now and i dont think that Palestine won the propaganda, especially not here in the U.S, not everybody is aware of the suffering that the Palestinians are enduring since the 1940s, when it comes to Israel, people act like they are the angels, like their the ones who get constantly attacked, while its not true, im very aware of that Israelis also suffer, they suffer from the losses of their friends and relatives, when they die in the suicide bombings, but i have been doing some researching using BBC,Ha'aretz Daily and Al'Jazeera, and from reading the reports on the suicide bombings and i noticed that the groups responsible for them have always stated that its in retaliation to an earlier killing. I dont support the suicide bombings, but i also hold Israel's actions in fault.
I also hold the Palestinian's groups in fault for their position, the suicide bombings makes Israel searches homes and is making the wall, they go into gaza and the west bank. They target those groups leaders, but at the same time, Palestinian civilians are being attacked and harrased. No one is aware about the numbers of masscres done on the Palestinians including the british people.

babylou

02-27-2004, 09:10 AM

241Commuter

02-27-2004, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by babylou
I wonder how many of those displaced Palestinians were compensated for their property they lost when they were expelled by the Israelis when occupying Palestine?

Expelled by the Israelis? They picked up their bags and left.

MP3Guy

02-27-2004, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by babylou
You are full of it. There are still Arab Jews living in Arab countries. Not was bit is. Even in Baghdad. I have done business with them. They are not cowering in fear though they do receive a hateful comment here and there. Kinda like an Moslem Arab living in Israel.

I wonder how many of those displaced Palestinians were compensated for their property they lost when they were expelled by the Israelis when occupying Palestine? Probably the same as the Jews that were expelled from Arab countries, the same as native Americans when the Euros moved in, the same as the Armenians when the Turks, the same as... Tough shit it has happened to and been done by many people. Quit the bitching and move forward.

Sorry, but I debate from facts and research, not anecdotes. In 1943, there were over 80,000 Jews in Egypt. Today, there are less than 50. In Syria, once home to a thriving Jewish community, there are only a handful of families left, mostly pensioners. In Yemen, all Jews were evacuted in 1949, another ancient community that predates Mohammed uprooted. Baghdad has very few Jews left, and their presence dates back many centuries. I will post the precise numbers later, but Jews from Arab lands make up the majority of the Jewish population in Israel.

Keep in mind most "Palestinians" left of their own volition and fear. And they do not want compensation= that's been offered 100 times. They want the destruction of Israel.

MP3Guy

02-27-2004, 11:19 AM

ByeByeSaturn

02-27-2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by mental pimp
I do belive that Palestine was a country in ancient times and it was a country before Israel , the flag of palestine was made before the 1940s, so it was officialy a country, now and i dont think that Palestine won the propaganda, especially not here in the U.S, not everybody is aware of the suffering that the Palestinians are enduring since the 1940s, when it comes to Israel, people act like they are the angels, like their the ones who get constantly attacked, while its not true, im very aware of that Israelis also suffer, they suffer from the losses of their friends and relatives, when they die in the suicide bombings, but i have been doing some researching using BBC,Ha'aretz Daily and Al'Jazeera, and from reading the reports on the suicide bombings and i noticed that the groups responsible for them have always stated that its in retaliation to an earlier killing. I dont support the suicide bombings, but i also hold Israel's actions in fault.
I also hold the Palestinian's groups in fault for their position, the suicide bombings makes Israel searches homes and is making the wall, they go into gaza and the west bank. They target those groups leaders, but at the same time, Palestinian civilians are being attacked and harrased. No one is aware about the numbers of masscres done on the Palestinians including the british people.

mentalpimp, I realize you are probably at the early stages of your research on this topic. You need to dig deeper. Of course Hamas and IJ will say it was in retaliation for this or that, but you dont' realize a couple things - 1, they are always trying to carry out bombings, but the majority of the ones are stopped by the IDF or Border Police using intelligence - the European and American press almost never report this fact, but it's a fact. Therefore the so-called quiet you see during periods has only to do with the effectiveness of a) ISrael stopping most of them, and b) the security barrier stopping others. 2- and really listen to this one please. It is the stated goal of Hamas and Jihad to DESTROY ISRAEL, not to get a state on the West Bank and Gaza. The same goes for the PLO. It is in their charter that they reject Israel - it is in Arafat's speeches and their charter that they are willing to destroy Israel in stages, and accept a "hudna" which for now includes a state on the WB and Gaza. The only difference between Hamas/Jihad and the PLO (or PA as its called now) is that the former want an Islamic state and want to destroy Israel physically, and the latter want a secular state and to destroy Israel demographically.
Now you wonder why Israel doesn't just say, ok, you can have the WB and Gaza. The Palestinians wll not stop there - it will only encourage them to use more violence. Why do you think Israel agreed to hand over the territories right after the '67 war in exchange for full recognition and peace? (that offer was famously rejected by the Arab states) Or handed over the Sinai in exchange for diplomatic relations and peace? It's not territory the Israelis want - it's piece of mind that if there is yet one more Arab state there, it won't continue to educate its children to hate Israel and to hate Jews and turn the other way when terrorists use it as a launching pad to commit more atrocities against Israel.

And please don't compare the situation of Arab citizens of Israel to the dhimmi Jews in the Arab states. You don't know what you're talking about there either. Did you know that there is affirmative action for Arabs in Israel at the universities? - that's right, QUOTAS. I've seen it myself. They don't have to serve in the IDF either, which hopefully is about to change. Go to www.jimena-justice.org and read for yourself about the Jewish refugees.

ByeByeSaturn

02-27-2004, 02:51 PM

http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstories_story_057202251.html

And they offer peace with Israel for the '67 boundaries? What kind of peace is that if they continue to promote hatred of Jews?

babylou

02-27-2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by MP3Guy
Sorry, but I debate from facts and research, not anecdotes.

Keep in mind most "Palestinians" left of their own volition and fear. And they do not want compensation= that's been offered 100 times. They want the destruction of Israel.

You must be confusing the number 100 with 0. Here is a bit of research for ya: I did a bit of googling and check this paper (http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/PAPERS/shenhav1.htm) that is written by an Israeli professor at Tel Aviv University. According to the paper it seems the Israeli Jews demanded that the expelled Arab Jews get compensation from their former governments. These governments refused. Then the Israelis told the expelled Palestinians if you want compensation go to the governments and collect the unpaid compensation demanded by the expelled Arab Jews.

In this case it appears that both sides have treated the other like shit. Not the poor me the other guys are always bad and we are good crap that you are espousing.

This shit treatment goes beyond this compensation issue. This forum is rife with hateful people on both sides. I got news for the both of you: The day is coming where there will be enough positive people that are not ruled by hate that will control the situation on both sides over there. They will make a peace in spite of you. The haters will be left to wallow in their own filth. Just like the KKK.

mental pimp

02-27-2004, 04:01 PM

Yea Saturn i blame all of those Palestinians groups for the position that the Palestinians are in right now, since some of those groups want Israel crushed, and people see them as the speakers of the Palestinians when their not, so if they say that they want Israel crushed , then people will think that what all Palestinians want when its not, i belive that the people here in the U.S should be told about the problem from a nuetral view, since both sides tend to be liars and are dirty.

mental pimp

02-27-2004, 04:02 PM

MP3Guy, i just see you as a Muslim/Arab hater, im not going to waste my time talking to you, Saturn is a much better person.

mental pimp

02-27-2004, 04:31 PM

Israelis better at manipulating media
By Dr Toine Van Teeffele

Monday 08 December 2003, 19:07 Makka Time, 16:07 GMT

Dr Toine Van Teeffele
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/0944B35C-4811-4F44-88EF-F96684DF85F7/20284/toine.jpg

As a guide and consultant living in Bethlehem, Palestine, I have regularly coordinated visits for groups of Westerners coming to see Palestinian reality with their own eyes.

Almost always those visitors felt afterwards that what they saw did not correspond with the image of Palestine they had before. Somehow the impact and scope of occupation were never really understood except after experiencing it first hand.

Why? Lots of causes are at play here, but perhaps none is so important as the influence of the media. I think three main factors have to be considered to understand the impact of the western media on the popular image of occupied Palestine (the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip):

The work situation and cultural background of Western journalists working in Palestine and Israel
The presentation of the news about the region, and
The boundaries of the debate within the media.

A journalist's job

It is a journalist's job to collect facts and interpretations. In the case of the occupied West Bank and Gaza, it is regrettable to note that from the first days of the occupation in 1967 few western journalists had the will or opportunity to live for a prolonged time in a Palestinian town such as Ram Allah or Gaza.

The large majority of local correspondents preferred to stay in Israel, West Jerusalem and sometimes in Arab East Jerusalem as their base for work, limiting their direct coverage of Palestinian affairs to brief outings to the central West Bank. They thus developed a rather fragmentary knowledge of Palestinian society under occupation and little understanding of the various social and political contexts in which Palestinians tried to pursue their lives despite the oppression.

This situation has not changed. During the second Intifada (from September 2000) it became impossible for almost all Israelis, including the great majority of Israeli journalists, to travel or stay in the West Bank and Gaza. Foreign TV crews became dependent upon Palestinian support staff who were often unable to travel freely in the occupied territories, while international crews had to acquire work permits.

Dangerous assignments

Moreover, it became quite dangerous to visit areas of tension, especially after the Israeli army increasingly harassed and shot at journalists, Palestinian and international alike. Further, the Israeli army began to systematically close off areas to foreigners and journalists, such as during the prolonged curfews of the Palestinian cities in 2002-2003.

"Israel's lies are much cleverer, more sophisticated. When an Israeli government official provides information, it seems to come from a think tank that has decided to offer its own brand of media 'spin'."

A French Channel 2 journalist

Nevertheless, despite these limiting circumstances, it still remains, in principle, possible for foreign journalists to travel and live in the Palestinian areas, a choice only a shrinking number has made. So their access to the ongoing events of the Intifada and to the Palestinian interpretations of the contexts in which the present-day events occur, remains limited.

To take one example: Western journalists are more quickly on the scene when a Palestinian attack against Israelis happens in the streets of Jerusalem than when Palestinians are killed in a clash in Hebron. Consequently, the reporting on Palestinian victims lacks the salience, immediacy, drama and contextualisation characteristic for the reporting of attacks on Israelis.

Apart from issues of access and presence, one also has to take into account the cultural background of the western journalists, who are often more familiar with modern Israeli life (including the Hebrew language, in the case of the Israeli or Jewish journalists who report for international media), than with the Palestinian or Arab way of life.

Stereotypical reports

It is hard to imagine that this does not have an influence upon the subjects and ways of reporting. On an analytic level, it is not uncommon to see that journalists resort to well-known and stereotypical labels such as "fanaticism", "fundamentalism", "tribalism", and "Islam" as all-encompassing explanation schemes for ongoing violent events on the Palestinian side, and neglect the detailed influences of occupation, domination, history, and local or personal context they would have better known when living there.

"When the Palestinians exaggerate or lie, it is apparent almost immediately"

A French Channel 2 journalist

It is also safe to say that journalists take interpretations of the Israeli government and army more seriously - although not at face value - than official or unofficial Palestinian comments.

A French Channel 2 journalist observed: "When the Palestinians exaggerate or lie, it is apparent almost immediately. The lie is raw and it is basic. Israel's lies are much cleverer, more sophisticated. When an Israeli government official provides information, it seems to come from a think tank that has decided to offer its own brand of media 'spin'." [Palestine-Israel Journal, Vol. 10, no. 2, pp.19-20].

The official Israeli PR is also logistically better equipped and better staffed in terms of checking out or following up stories than the Palestinian PR, which has only recently become more helpful, and then primarily at the NGO level (compare the increasing professionalism of media services such as the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center and the Palestine Monitor).

Moreover, Arab newspapers appear only in Arabic while some major Israeli newspapers (Jerusalem Post, Haaretz) appear in English, thus allowing for a daily stream of Israeli-oriented reports and analyses easily accessible through the internet.

In fact, most western journalists are more familiar with the realities of occupation through the critical accounts of the Israeli Haaretz journalists Amira Hass and Gideon Levi than through accounts from the Palestinian or Arab press.

The final edit

The journalists in the field are only partially responsible for how their accounts appear in the press or on the screen. The final, edited accounts tend to further filter out elements that challenge the expectations of western readers, advertisers and political elites.

There have been several pieces of research by organisations such as FAIR, the International Press Institute and the Electronic Intifada about selectivity and bias in western (especially American) media reports of violence by Israelis and Palestinians. Palestinian victims are less (and less prominently) reported than Israeli victims. (Compare the tendency in the western media to report about a period of "calm" when there are no Israeli victims while there may at the same time be scores of Palestinian victims.)

Israeli actions of violence are more often described in terms of a neutral or routine operation of a state army and also as a response to Palestinian violence ("retaliation" and the use of the Israeli term "Israeli Defence Forces" or "security forces" instead of, for instance, "Israeli army").

The vehicle in a US diplomatic
convoy blown up in the Gaza Strip
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/0944B35C-4811-4F44-88EF-F96684DF85F7/20348/2B12ECD16FAB49CBA4DEF1F234D47993.jpg

Palestinian violence is dramatised and looks somehow aggressive by nature. On the other hand, the structural violence and illegitimacy of the occupation is less emphasised in most western accounts. Mainstream news media refer to the settlements which are part of "greater Jerusalem" as "neighbourhoods", while - importantly - most accounts, especially in the US, employ terms such as "disputed territories" or "the [Palestinian] territories" rather than "the occupied [Palestinian] territories" or "occupied Palestine" when referring to the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

Such linguistic representations of the conflict steer the reader's or viewer's attributions of blame and cause-effect relationships, in other words their interpretations and viewpoints of the conflict.

Viewpoints

The media also provide space to more elaborate viewpoints through their op-ed pages, background interviews, or in solicited comments from experts, spokespersons, or the public.

What range of viewpoints is allowed for? There seem to be three major paradigms that appear in the opinion pages or programmes of the western media with regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict:

a) Israelis have the right to security and Palestinian violence against Israel is illegitimate;
b) the conflict represents a vicious circle of violence that has to be broken down through negotiations and mediation;
c) the conflict is essentially one between an unlawful occupation and an occupied, unprotected people.

Most western opinion, I suspect, can be placed, with fluctuations, within the continuum between a and b, whereas opinions on the continuum between b and c are less available, especially in the US.

This limitation has to do with the familiar causes that in general prevent an open democratic debate: the closeness of the mainstream American media to political elites, the concern for the acquisition of adverts, and the impact of a celebratory group of conservative opinion-leaders within the prestigious media.

In the case of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, an influential role in the opinion business is also played by Israeli hasbara (state propaganda).

Camp David coverage

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/0944B35C-4811-4F44-88EF-F96684DF85F7/20352/1F21040AD8494B348063EDB14473D6D6.jpg
Yasir Arafat, portrayed by
Israeli TV as a conspirator

For instance, after the breakdown of the negotiations at Camp David in summer 2000, and the beginning of the subsequent Intifada, Israeli media specialists undertook a concerted effort to disseminate a narrative which foregrounded on the one hand Israeli generosity in the negotiations (on Jerusalem especially) and on the other hand the supposed betrayal by Arafat who was presented as a conspirator whipping up an armed insurrection.

Significantly, the story undermined the Palestinian narrative in so far as that the Palestinian demands were presented as unreasonable (rather than justified by international law) while the reason for rebellion was considered not to be located in the difficult circumstances of occupation but in the dictatorial powers of one person. The same applies to the identification of Arafat with Saddam Hussein by many opinion leaders in the media.

So the general conclusion must be that the mainstream western media, even more so in the US, do not provide an empathetic, coherent, insightful, factual, contextualised and detailed account of the Palestinian narrative as rooted in the daily life under occupation and arising out of a collective longing and striving for freedom in a national state.

Obviously, the power of the media is such that an underdeveloped representation of the Palestinian story influences politics. Having international law and a worldwide consensus about the need for a Palestinian state on one's side is not enough when the main influential political actors and their audiences do not fully understand one's basic narrative.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr Toine van Teeffelen received his PhD in discourse analysis from the University of Amsterdam on the subject of images of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in western popular literature. He presently is an educational consultant as well as a representative of peace movements in Palestine. His letters from Bethlehem are distributed by, among others, the Electronic Intifada.

RX-GR8

02-27-2004, 04:33 PM

WTF does this have to do with mel gibson?

mental pimp

02-27-2004, 04:36 PM

the topic went off topic several posts ago......

klegg

02-27-2004, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by RX-GR8
WTF does this have to do with mel gibson?

mel gibson is mental pimp!!

mental pimp

02-27-2004, 05:19 PM

yea! oh wait......i wonder what that means.......anti-semitic?........????

babylou

02-27-2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by klegg
mel gibson is mental pimp!!

:D

Racer X-8

02-27-2004, 05:54 PM

Sorry to interrupt here, but I was conversing with this programmer girl (looks to be about 40 years old) who saw the movie. She said that taking communion will never be the same again. This movie really "brought it all home to her". Amazing reality kind of thing.

She kept her composure until they started using the (sorry, can't remember the real name for it) "cat-o-nine-tails" whip on Jesus, where it wrapped around His waist then they yanked-back on it, tearing Him up, literally. That's when she lost it and said she couldn't fully regain her composure.

She said NOBODY left the theater for any reason whatsoever. She said she was sitting very close to the exit and would have noticed if anyone would have walked out. She said that it lasts two hours and ten minutes, but she was suprised how short it seemed.

She said (half-jokingly) she will be there for the sequel, no doubt at all. (She said it ends when He is put in the tomb.)

This movie has opened her eyes to many other things. You think I've been a bit heavy here? She went to her mother's house and had a serious face-to-face talk with her mother (who is not very religious, presently) and told her that she needs to get real about it, and all that kind of talk.

Now, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout! This movie rocks! Saving souls is where it's at! :D

Ok, back to mental's favorite topic... :)

RX-GR8

02-27-2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
Sorry to interrupt here, but I was conversing with this programmer girl (looks to be about 40 years old) who saw the movie. She said that taking communion will never be the same again. This movie really "brought it all home to her". Amazing reality kind of thing.

She kept her composure until they started using the (sorry, can't remember the real name for it) "cat-o-nine-tails" whip on Jesus, where it wrapped around His waist then they yanked-back on it, tearing Him up, literally. That's when she lost it and said she couldn't fully regain her composure.

She said NOBODY left the theater for any reason whatsoever. She said she was sitting very close to the exit and would have noticed if anyone would have walked out. She said that it lasts two hours and ten minutes, but she was suprised how short it seemed.

She said (half-jokingly) she will be there for the sequal, no doubt at all. (She said it ends when he is put in the tomb.)

This movie has opened her eyes to many other things. You think I've been a bit heavy here? She went to her mother's house and had a serious face-to-face talk with her mother (who is not very religious, presently) and told her that she needs to get real about it, and all that kind of talk.

Now, that's what I'm talkin' 'bout! This movie rocks! Saving souls is where it's at! :D

Ok, back to mental's favorite topic... :)

racer have you seen this move yet? i cant wait to see it. my wife is a little hesitant. it's going to be brutal no doubt. but it probably was brutal for Jesus. some guy at work was talking about it with me and he said i dont want to see it it's probably too stressful. i said thats ok it probably WAS stressful for Jesus, Mary, John and everybody else who was there that cared about Him. Saving Private Ryan was stressful, Schindler's List was stressful. It's ok to laugh at a movie, cry whatever emotions it brings out. And as far as it being anti-Semitic? i'm not even going to think about that when i watch this movie. people are saying this movie doesnt display any love only brutality. but by showing this brutality we see the enormity of His love for us.

Racer X-8

02-27-2004, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by RX-GR8
racer have you seen this move yet? i cant wait to see it. my wife is a little hesitant. it's going to be brutal no doubt. but it probably was brutal for Jesus. some guy at work was talking about it with me and he said i dont want to see it it's probably too stressful. i said thats ok it probably WAS stressful for Jesus, Mary, John and everybody else who was there that cared about Him. Saving Private Ryan was stressful, Schindler's List was stressful. It's ok to laugh at a movie, cry whatever emotions it brings out. And as far as it being anti-Semitic? i'm not even going to think about that when i watch this movie. people are saying this movie doesnt display any love only brutality. but by showing this brutality we see the enormity of His love for us. Right on, brother. Breath of fresh air... Yes...

I haven't seen it yet. I'm not going until the crowds die down a little more. Like DaveT wrote to me in a PM, we older types have a lot of patience. :)

About it being anti-Semitic, I don't know if Mel intended it to be or not. But I do know that God can use people (like King James) to fulfill His will, even when their intentions are not all that humble. And the other side of the coin, satan can cause man to do things that he wants also, unfortunately. As usual, God is getting what He wants here. This is a very good thing for mankind.

Saving Private Ryan is a trip! My pastor (who is a bishop, btw) served a great many years in the army, is highly decorated and was in several tours of duty. That movie caused him to have flashbacks so bad, he went to seek professional council. Didn't tell his wife, just went to seek help.

Racer X-8

02-27-2004, 07:09 PM

News flash!

NBC has a special that just started @ 8:00

"The Power of Faith". Refers a lot to this movie...

See ya after 9. :)

Xyntax

02-27-2004, 08:19 PM

I dont get it. This society abhores Christians, Jews, and Muslims but raves on gay sex and gangsta gangsta lafstal. Get a clue people. Faith nor logic doesn't even explain what's becoming of this society.

I have seen the movie at an early showing and it moved me. I'm really tired of this "Your God is BS". It's fun when you're siding with the villains in stories, but taking it to real life is just plain ignorant and stupid. Start respecting the faithful.

Just my opinion...

hotpot

02-28-2004, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
...But I do know that God can use people (like King James) to fulfill His will, even when their intentions are not all that humble. And the other side of the coin, satan can cause man to do things that he wants also, unfortunately. As usual, God is getting what He wants here. This is a very good thing for mankind...

Reminds me of Chris de Burgh's Spanish Train.
This song illustrates my view of todays world, where Good is fighting Evil, and Evil is edging ahead. Anyone who doesn't know this song should listen to it. It dates back to when Mr. de Burgh's was making real music (late 70's). No Lady in Red crap.

Totally enjoying this thread, even with some of the biased views. Keep it up guys.

mdw33333

02-28-2004, 08:28 AM

Well, I saw "The Passion" last night. It was ridiculus. I'm not well versed in the contents of the Bible, but it appeared be an accurate depiction of what took place. However, there is one major exception to that. Gibson is completely "over the top" in his portrail of the "torture" that was inflicted upon Christ.

I don't doubt at all that Christ was beaten, punched, kicked, cut, whipped, lashed, and stabbed during the hours leading up to his crucifiction. However, not to the extent that it is shown in this movie. I'm no doctor, but I at least have "a clue" as to what the body's physical limitations are. Mel Gibson obviously doesn't. One simply couldn't endure a fraction of the torture and punishment depicted in this movie. My understanding was that Jesus Christ was a human being, not a supernatural. As seen in the movie, Christ literally has no skin left on his entire body after the lashings alone. The wounds he suffered in that series of lashings wouldv'e put him into shock and wouldv'e bled him to death within an hour or two.

To actually try to pass this off as humanly possible is the biggest inaccuracy of the film. Different denominations may argue the inaccuracies of the events that took place in the movie, but for me the excessive gore and the clear exaggeration of his physical tolerences were the biggest injustice to the story.

I, Claudius

02-28-2004, 08:44 AM

Christopher Hitchens' very negative review of 'The Passion' in Slate makes an interesting point that no one here has brought up explicitly (though mdw33333 touches on it) - Mel's new film exploits a kind of pornography of violence. Hitch also has some pointed things to say about the film's anti-semitism.

For folks who don't have the patience to read the whole thing, here's the money quote:

"Now, as the dollars begin to flow from this front-loaded fruit-machine of cynical publicity, he [Gibson] is sobbing about the risks and sacrifices he has made for the Lord. A coward, a bully, a bigmouth, and a queer-basher. Yes, we have been here before. The word is fascism, in case you are wondering, and we don't have to sit through that movie again."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2096323/

I, Claudius

02-28-2004, 08:56 AM

And here's an interesting (and related) take on the film from conservative gay guy Andrew Sullivan:

"Would our sins have been expiated if Jesus had only been flogged twenty rather than forty times? (The Gospels do not tell us how brutal this process was. For some reason, the evangelists reduced the episode to a couple of sentences. Gibson makes the flogging the centerpiece of the whole film.) If Jesus had been roped to the cross and died of asphyxiation, rather than being nailed there, would we still not be saved? If the nails had been placed in his wrists rather than his palms, would we not have been redeemed? Of course some of these details are there in the Gospels; but Gibson's loving obsession with them, his creepy love of watching extreme violence, is nowhere found in the Gospels.

Let's take a few clear examples. The Gospels do not tell us that the jailers of the High Priests beat Jesus to a pulp before he was even delivered to the Romans, or that he was thrown in chains over a prison wall, almost garrotting him. That's Gibson's sadistic embellishment - so that Jesus already has one eye shut from bruises before he is even tried. The Gospels do not say that the flogging of Jesus was so extreme and out of control that a centurion had to stop it because it had gone beyond any of the usual bounds of Roman punishment. That again is Gibson's invention. In the crucifixion scene, the Gospels do not say that in hoisting the cross, it fell down by accident so that Jesus was pinned headfirst between the cross and the earth, his crown of thorns thrust even deeper into his skull. Again, that's Gibson's interpolation. It's as if Gibson's saying that being crucified isn't bad enough - you've got be crushed face down by timber first if you are going to save all mankind.

I repeat that there is something deeply disturbed about this film. Its extreme and un-Biblical fascination with human torture reflects, to my mind, not devotion to the message of the Cross but a kind of psycho-sexual obsession with extreme violence that Gibson has indulged in many of his other movies and is now trying to insinuate into Christianity itself. The film could have shown suffering and cruelty much differently. It could have led us into the profound psychological pain that Jesus and his mother and disciples must have endured by giving us some human context to empathize with them; it could have prompted the viewer to use his or her own imagination to fill in the gaps of terror, as all great art does; it could have done much more by showing us much less. But the extremity is Gibson's obvious point. I can understand why traditionalist Catholics might be grateful that there is some Hollywood representation of their faith. But they shouldn't let their gratitude blind them to the psychotic vision of this disturbed director - and the deeper, creepier, heterodox theology that he is trying to espouse."

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

klegg

02-28-2004, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by mental pimp
yea! oh wait......i wonder what that means.......anti-semitic?........????

NO! I was making a joke, NOT an attack...your arguments have gotten much better lately, even though I fear we will never agree.....:D

mdw33333

02-28-2004, 09:00 AM

I was searching for the right words, but "pornography of violence" just about sums it up. Keep in mind, Braveheart is my single favorite movie of all time. For me to leave the theatre with a queezy stomach is a first. This movie did that to me...

Racer X-8

02-28-2004, 09:28 AM

If the nails had been placed in his wrists rather than his palms, would we not have been redeemed? Actually, :D this is probably in reference to scientific belief that He probably was nailed through the wrists. The bone structure of the hand would not help to support the weight and the flesh alone would not support the weight for very long. Yuk... So, the nail was probably driven through the wrist bones. Yuk... Driving the nail through the wrist would cause the thumb to fold into the palm. That evidence is seen in the scorched image that remains on the Shroud of Turin, which was His burial cloth.

mental pimp

02-28-2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by klegg
NO! I was making a joke, NOT an attack...your arguments have gotten much better lately, even though I fear we will never agree.....:D

Im playing around too, lol, and yea my arguments are getting better, im doing more research now, trying to hear from both sides.

mdw33333

02-28-2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
Actually, :D this is probably in reference to scientific belief that He probably was nailed through the wrists. The bone structure of the hand would not help to support the weight and the flesh alone would not support the weight for very long. Yuk... So, the nail was probably driven through the wrist bones. Yuk... Driving the nail through the wrist would cause the thumb to fold into the palm. That evidence is seen in the scorched image that remains on the Shroud of Turin, which was His burial cloth.

The way it is shown in the movie is nails through the hands, however his wrists were shackled to the cross. You're right, nails throught the hands alone wouldn't have held him up there.

klegg

02-28-2004, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by mental pimp
Im playing around too, lol, and yea my arguments are getting better, im doing more research now, trying to hear from both sides.

That's my boy!!

MP3Guy

02-28-2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by mental pimp
Israelis better at manipulating media
By Dr Toine Van Teeffele

Monday 08 December 2003, 19:07 Makka Time, 16:07 GMT

Dr Toine Van Teeffele
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/0944B35C-4811-4F44-88EF-F96684DF85F7/20284/toine.jpg
Obviously, the power of the media is such that an underdeveloped representation of the Palestinian story influences politics. Having international law and a worldwide consensus about the need for a Palestinian state on one's side is not enough when the main influential political actors and their audiences do not fully understand one's basic narrative.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr Toine van Teeffelen received his PhD in discourse analysis from the University of Amsterdam on the subject of images of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in western popular literature. He presently is an educational consultant as well as a representative of peace movements in Palestine. His letters from Bethlehem are distributed by, among others, the Electronic Intifada.

Putting aside the fact this comes from Al-Jazeera, the author fails to mention one small detail.

Before June 1967, and the ensuing "occupation" what was the Palestinian problem THEN?? King Hussein could have bequeathed the West Bank, and the Egyptians controlled Gaza.

The point of the article is that there is no point- the situation on the ground is what counts, not who is scoring the best propaganda points. I assue you that the negotiators in the diplomatic field in our State Dept. and the EU, all have had a good chuckle over Palestinians dragging empty coffins duiring their demonstrations, but nonetheless, a political settlement comprising two states must be reached.

Too bad Arafat hrought the region into chaos at Taba.

JimJimElf

02-28-2004, 10:29 AM

I don't think he is crazy. He is probably just really aggrevaited by all the critics and people who is giving so much trouble about his movie he made. I do think all the controversy is free publicity. I think I will go see it to see what the big deal is, but I will wait until the crouds die down a bit.

RX-GR8

02-28-2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by mdw33333
I was searching for the right words, but "pornography of violence" just about sums it up. Keep in mind, Braveheart is my single favorite movie of all time. For me to leave the theatre with a queezy stomach is a first. This movie did that to me...

i think that was his intention. to send people over the edge. i'm sure mel gibson is aware that a human being probably wouldn't be able to survive half of what was done to Him in this movie. for whatever reason he chose to emphasis the violent part. you could over analyze any movie and find factual fallacies in all of them. but then you probably won't enjoy many of them either.

mental pimp

02-28-2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by klegg
That's my boy!!

:D

zoom44

02-28-2004, 04:19 PM

wow. i just read thru all 14 pages of that and i am really impressed by all of you.

i dont really have anything to add but i wanted to make a point that goes back to the time and space portion of this discussion- pluto is not the end of our solar system. someone earlier said it was but there are many objects orbiting our sun that are much farther out than pluto. mostly in the ort cloud.

Speed-ER doc

02-28-2004, 04:32 PM

And sometimes, Neptune is farther out than Pluto!

Racer X-8

02-28-2004, 07:52 PM

3.5 hours have elapsed, and no Uranus comments. Now THAT's impressive! :D

I, Claudius

02-29-2004, 03:07 PM

I realize no one's much interested anymore in the original subject of the thread, but here's a little more on Mel's movie from Andrew Sullivan:

"PURE PORNOGRAPHY: At the same time, the movie was to me deeply disturbing. In a word, it is pornography. By pornography, I mean the reduction of all human thought and feeling and personhood to mere flesh. The center-piece of the movie is an absolutely disgusting and despicable piece of sadism that has no real basis in any of the Gospels. It shows a man being flayed alive - slowly, methodically and with increasing savagery. We first of all witness the use of sticks, then whips, then multiple whips with barbed glass or metal. We see flesh being torn out of a man's body. Just so that we can appreciate the pain, we see the whip first tear chunks out of a wooden table. Then we see pieces of human skin flying through the air. We see Jesus come back for more. We see blood spattering on the torturers' faces. We see muscled thugs exhausted from shredding every inch of this man's body. And then they turn him over and do it all again. It goes on for ever. And then we see his mother wiping up masses and masses of blood. It is an absolutely unforgivable, vile, disgusting scene. No human being could sruvive it. Yet for Gibson, it is the h'ors d'oeuvre for his porn movie. The whole movie is some kind of sick combination of the theology of Opus Dei and the film-making of Quentin Tarantino. There is nothing in the Gospels that indicates this level of extreme, endless savagery and there is no theological reason for it. It doesn't even evoke emotion in the audience. It is designed to prompt the crudest human pity and emotional blackmail - which it obviously does. But then it seems to me designed to evoke a sick kind of fascination. Of over two hours, about half the movie is simple wordless sadism on a level and with a relentlessness that I have never witnessed in a movie before. And you have to ask yourself: why? The suffering of Christ is bad and gruesome enough without exaggerating it to this insane degree. Theologically, the point is not that Jesus suffered more than any human being ever has on a physical level. It is that his suffering was profound and voluntary and the culmination of a life and a teaching that Gibson essentially omits. One more example. Toward the end, unsatisfied with showing a man flayed alive, nailed gruesomely to a cross, one eye shut from being smashed in, blood covering his entire body, Gibson has a large crow perch on the neighboring cross and peck another man's eyes out. Why? Because the porn needed yet another money shot."

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

mxmedina

02-29-2004, 07:17 PM

Yea think and say what you want it your choice, but the truth always hurts. It seems to really trouble you alot. Face the truth porn is additive in the most negetive way. Christ is additive in the most positive way. We will pray for you. See the light and keep enjoying your 8. Their is more important things in life then in material things! God help us all !!

mdw33333

03-01-2004, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by I, Claudius
I realize no one's much interested anymore in the original subject of the thread, but here's a little more on Mel's movie from Andrew Sullivan:

"PURE PORNOGRAPHY: At the same time, the movie was to me deeply disturbing. In a word, it is pornography. By pornography, I mean the reduction of all human thought and feeling and personhood to mere flesh. The center-piece of the movie is an absolutely disgusting and despicable piece of sadism that has no real basis in any of the Gospels. It shows a man being flayed alive - slowly, methodically and with increasing savagery. We first of all witness the use of sticks, then whips, then multiple whips with barbed glass or metal. We see flesh being torn out of a man's body. Just so that we can appreciate the pain, we see the whip first tear chunks out of a wooden table. Then we see pieces of human skin flying through the air. We see Jesus come back for more. We see blood spattering on the torturers' faces. We see muscled thugs exhausted from shredding every inch of this man's body. And then they turn him over and do it all again. It goes on for ever. And then we see his mother wiping up masses and masses of blood. It is an absolutely unforgivable, vile, disgusting scene. No human being could sruvive it. Yet for Gibson, it is the h'ors d'oeuvre for his porn movie. The whole movie is some kind of sick combination of the theology of Opus Dei and the film-making of Quentin Tarantino. There is nothing in the Gospels that indicates this level of extreme, endless savagery and there is no theological reason for it. It doesn't even evoke emotion in the audience. It is designed to prompt the crudest human pity and emotional blackmail - which it obviously does. But then it seems to me designed to evoke a sick kind of fascination. Of over two hours, about half the movie is simple wordless sadism on a level and with a relentlessness that I have never witnessed in a movie before. And you have to ask yourself: why? The suffering of Christ is bad and gruesome enough without exaggerating it to this insane degree. Theologically, the point is not that Jesus suffered more than any human being ever has on a physical level. It is that his suffering was profound and voluntary and the culmination of a life and a teaching that Gibson essentially omits. One more example. Toward the end, unsatisfied with showing a man flayed alive, nailed gruesomely to a cross, one eye shut from being smashed in, blood covering his entire body, Gibson has a large crow perch on the neighboring cross and peck another man's eyes out. Why? Because the porn needed yet another money shot."

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/

That is the most accurate review of this movie that I've seen yet. It's right on the money, and I agree with it completely. The night following the night I saw it, I went to the movies again to the "Twisted" with Ashley Judd. I saw the line of people waiting to see "The Passion," and the people in front of me were buying tickets for their 11 year old kids. I usually mind my own business, but I almost felt obligated to tell them just how ruthless and apalling the movie was. So I did. They seemed to genuinely appreciate my input, but proceeded forth to view it with their kids. I felt better though, just informing them. People really do need to listen to the critics on this one.

ByeByeSaturn

03-01-2004, 02:22 PM

And the fallout begins....

http://www.wiesenthal.com/social/press/pr_item.cfm?ItemID=8986

kwolfman

03-01-2004, 03:31 PM

The religious folks continue to battle amongst themselves over all sorts of stupid things. The problem is, us non-religious folks are indirectly affected too. Much like innocent bystanders.

I realize that some folks may get all disturbed at the use of the word "stupid", but it really is an adjective that expresses how I feel about these things. I have been an atheist all my life. I have never believed in any gods, even as a child.

I'm standing outside of the religious dogma and when I look in all I see are stupid irrational beliefs in unproven things. Lots of rituals to numb the minds of followers. Lots of repetition and the reciting of passages. I'm not just singling out Christianity and all of its derivations (some really bizarre), but all religions seem to have similar attributes. All say they are THE ONE religion. They all can't be right and they all most certainly can be wrong.

I am really concerned about this movie. The violence and depravity seem to be there to inflame the emotions. There is no basis to prove or even suggest that any of this actually took place. More likely it is all in the minds and imaginations of the bible writers and the bible interpreters (including Mel).
This stuff gets presented as fact and people are told to believe it. Sure not everyone does, but I bet there is a significant chunk of people that think this picture is an exact replica of what supposedly happend about 2000 years ago. It was divinely inspired....Yah, sure it was.

It is amazing how much uproar Janet's breast caused. The religious folks saying their children were mentally scared for life, but they then turn around and bring their kids to a movie like this because it has something to do with their god. Just unbelievable!

Reeko

03-01-2004, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by kwolfman
The religious folks continue to battle amongst themselves over all sorts of stupid things. The problem is, us non-religious folks are indirectly affected too. Much like innocent bystanders.

I realize that some folks may get all disturbed at the use of the word "stupid", but it really is an adjective that expresses how I feel about these things. I have been an atheist all my life. I have never believed in any gods, even as a child.

I'm standing outside of the religious dogma and when I look in all I see are stupid irrational beliefs in unproven things. Lots of rituals to numb the minds of followers. Lots of repetition and the reciting of passages. I'm not just singling out Christianity and all of its derivations (some really bizarre), but all religions seem to have similar attributes. All say they are THE ONE religion. They all can't be right and they all most certainly can be wrong.

I am really concerned about this movie. The violence and depravity seem to be there to inflame the emotions. There is no basis to prove or even suggest that any of this actually took place. More likely it is all in the minds and imaginations of the bible writers and the bible interpreters (including Mel).
This stuff gets presented as fact and people are told to believe it. Sure not everyone does, but I bet there is a significant chunk of people that think this picture is an exact replica of what supposedly happend about 2000 years ago. It was divinely inspired....Yah, sure it was.

It is amazing how much uproar Janet's breast caused. The religious folks saying their children were mentally scared for life, but they then turn around and bring their kids to a movie like this because it has something to do with their god. Just unbelievable!

Why be concerned about the movie? The basis to prove or suggest the truth about what happened is in the bible. You either believe or you don't. If you do, then you are going to this movie to be moved by the things Jesus went through for us. If not, don't go to the movie, it is not intended to be a feel good entertaining movie.

At least you know what will be in this movie. So don't go watch the movie, and then get all offended.

selmeralto

03-01-2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by Reeko
Why be concerned about the movie?

I would have thought that it was obvious that there are multiple concerns, not the least of which is the damage the film may be doing to tolerance and respect for other human beings.

RX-GR8

03-01-2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Reeko
Why be concerned about the movie? The basis to prove or suggest the truth about what happened is in the bible. You either believe or you don't. If you do, then you are going to this movie to be moved by the things Jesus went through for us. If not, don't go to the movie, it is not intended to be a feel good entertaining movie.

At least you know what will be in this movie. So don't go watch the movie, and then get all offended.

exactly. i'm looking forward to seeing it.

RX-GR8

03-01-2004, 04:25 PM

mdw33333

03-01-2004, 04:29 PM

Kwolfman makes a couple of valid points, one in reference to Janet Jackson breast being exposed. Parents are in an uproar in reference to it, yet somehow, "The Passion" earns an "R" rating and is being viewed by young children everywhere. Absolutely ridiculous...

mdw33333

03-01-2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by RX-GR8
exactly. i'm looking forward to seeing it.

I'm sorry to hear that.

RX-GR8

03-01-2004, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by mdw33333
I'm sorry to hear that.

i need to see it for myself. i'm not going to not see a movie becuase you or anybody else saw it already and didnt like it and advise me not to see it. no offense. would you not see a movie because a critic said it was awful? there are critics saying it's a great movie too. the pre showing reviews already said it was painful to watch but you went to see it did you not? i may regret it but i need to see it.

mdw33333

03-01-2004, 04:43 PM

The term I've heard most to describe this movie in positive reviews is "powerful." Last I checked, "powerful" didn't mean "stomach turning." To me a powerful movie is one that is emotionally or spiritually moving, not one that will make you vomit before its conclusion. I'm a violent movie lover (Braveheart, Gladiator, Pulp Fiction) and this movie made me queezy.

I'm not religious, but I do recognize the story of Jesus Christ as the greatest ever told. I went to this movie in anticipation that it would be a semi-accurate depiction of the actual events. I was sickened by the over-the-top torture scenes which made up 90% of the film. What a disapointment...

kwolfman

03-01-2004, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by RX-GR8
kill bill, pulp fiction, goodfellas, texas chain saw massacre, scarface, etc....

But churches aren't organizing whole groups of people to go see those movies. Parents aren't gathering up their impressionable children to see those movies either.

No, it is simply because this movie is some sort of religious experience that people are flocking to it. My guess is, when a church organizes a group to go, it might be hard for someone in the congregation to say "No". Peer pressure can be rather intimidating. Kind of like when I refused to pledge allegance ",under God," in grade school. While no one said anything, I got "those disapproving looks", devastating to a young kid.

I suppose reading the old testament with all its brutality is also a "good thing".

Give me the kind of pornography where people are actually enjoying themselves!

Reeko

03-01-2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by mdw33333
Kwolfman makes a couple of valid points, one in reference to Janet Jackson breast being exposed. Parents are in an uproar in reference to it, yet somehow, "The Passion" earns an "R" rating and is being viewed by young children everywhere. Absolutely ridiculous...

But they have the choice, that is what people were complaining about.
When you watch network TV, you do not expect to see a breast. It doesn't bother me, but I can see how people could be offended, not so much by the breast, as the way the top was ripped off.

And I agree that this movie is probably too violent for children. But at least the parents can choose based on information available about the content.

IMHO it is not ridiculous. PArents can choose if they want their children to go.

Reeko

03-01-2004, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by selmeralto
I would have thought that it was obvious that there are multiple concerns, not the least of which is the damage the film may be doing to tolerance and respect for other human beings.

It seems to me, that those that believe the story as told in the movie, allready believed. In this case, it is not going to change their belief.

Those that don't believe are not going to become intolerant because of the film, they don't believe it to be the truth.

selmeralto

03-01-2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by RX-GR8
there are critics saying it's a great movie too.

I'm not sure which critics you have in mind. Most professional film critics have panned the movie. See http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ThePassionoftheChrist-1129941/

A 53% rating, by the way, is one of the lowest ratings I have seen on this site.

RX-GR8

03-01-2004, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by kwolfman
Give me the kind of pornography where people are actually enjoying themselves!

LOL

Aratinga

03-01-2004, 05:00 PM

Would one of you Christians please answer this question for me in a way that makes some sense:

What on earth would make me want to worship a God who insisted that his own son must be subjected to this degree of cruelty and torture? I simply cannot buy the concept of a kind and loving God when faced with the "facts" as portrayed here.

If I want to worship a someone obsessed with inflicting suffering on innocents, I'll erect a shrine to the Marquis de Sade. If your answer involves worshipping the Christian God in order to achieve "eternal life", spending eternity in the company of a sadist ain't exactly my idea of paradise.

I don't want to hijack this thread, so please feel free to PM me with answers (if you've got 'em).

RX-GR8

03-01-2004, 05:02 PM

Reeko

03-01-2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by selmeralto
I'm not sure which critics you have in mind. Most professional film critics have panned the movie. See http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ThePassionoftheChrist-1129941/

A 53% rating, by the way, is one of the lowest ratings I have seen on this site.

Looks like (according to a list of 14 reviews) that the average was about a B. Thats not bad, but the reviews are very polarized.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Phil Kloer "This is a movie so singular, so intense, so overwhelming that it simply has to be experienced." more... B+

Boston Globe
Ty Burr "If Passion is powerful...it is only through the bludgeoning, forensic intensity with which the film dwells on Christ's suffering." more... C+

Chicago Sun-Times
Roger Ebert "I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what." more... A

Chicago Tribune
Michael Wilmington "...a passionate but gruesomely physical picture." more... B-

E! Online "...Gibson's film is more of a study in brutality than an exploration of Christ's message." more... C

filmcritic.com
Sean O'Connell "...an exquisite spiritual masterpiece..." more... A-

Hollywood Reporter
Kirk Honeycutt "This graphic depiction of the crucifixion of Christ misses any spiritual meaning to this seismic event." more... C

New York Post
Lou Lumenick "...a highly personal, provocative and in some ways riveting vision with an inspired performance by Jim Caviezel as Jesus." more... B

New York Times
A.O. Scott "The Passion of the Christ is so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours that this film seems to arise less from love than from wrath..." more... D

ReelViews
James Berardinelli "...this is a picture of acting and images, with Jim Caviezel's unforgettable performance dominating throughout." more... A-

Rolling Stone
Peter Travers "The Passion of the Christ is powerfully moving and fanatically obtuse in equal doses." more... B

San Francisco Chronicle
Mick LaSalle "The Passion of the Christ should have left audiences in a state of exaltation. Instead it just leaves audiences exhausted." more... C

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
William Arnold "...strikes me as being much less faithful to the Gospels than the earlier Christ movies." more... C-

USA Today
Claudia Puig "...there is enlightenment — even stark poetry — in The Passion." more... B

selmeralto

03-01-2004, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Reeko
Looks like (according to a list of 14 reviews) that the average was about a B. Thats not bad, but the reviews are very polarized.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Phil Kloer "This is a movie so singular, so intense, so overwhelming that it simply has to be experienced." more... B+

Boston Globe
Ty Burr "If Passion is powerful...it is only through the bludgeoning, forensic intensity with which the film dwells on Christ's suffering." more... C+

Chicago Sun-Times
Roger Ebert "I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what." more... A

Chicago Tribune
Michael Wilmington "...a passionate but gruesomely physical picture." more... B-

E! Online "...Gibson's film is more of a study in brutality than an exploration of Christ's message." more... C

filmcritic.com
Sean O'Connell "...an exquisite spiritual masterpiece..." more... A-

Hollywood Reporter
Kirk Honeycutt "This graphic depiction of the crucifixion of Christ misses any spiritual meaning to this seismic event." more... C

New York Post
Lou Lumenick "...a highly personal, provocative and in some ways riveting vision with an inspired performance by Jim Caviezel as Jesus." more... B

New York Times
A.O. Scott "The Passion of the Christ is so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours that this film seems to arise less from love than from wrath..." more... D

ReelViews
James Berardinelli "...this is a picture of acting and images, with Jim Caviezel's unforgettable performance dominating throughout." more... A-

Rolling Stone
Peter Travers "The Passion of the Christ is powerfully moving and fanatically obtuse in equal doses." more... B

San Francisco Chronicle
Mick LaSalle "The Passion of the Christ should have left audiences in a state of exaltation. Instead it just leaves audiences exhausted." more... C

Seattle Post-Intelligencer
William Arnold "...strikes me as being much less faithful to the Gospels than the earlier Christ movies." more... C-

USA Today
Claudia Puig "...there is enlightenment — even stark poetry — in The Passion." more... B

I suggest you take a comparative look at how the reviews of this film compare with the reviews of other films on the Rotten Tomatoes site. Selective quoting doesn't take us very far. I didn't say that no-one spoke favorably of the film. I am making a point about the consensus of reviews by professional film critics.

selmeralto

03-01-2004, 06:53 PM

I might add that the Rotten Tomato number approval rating of 53% puts the fillm into the league of such classics as American Pie 2 and the The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle. The "Cream of the Crop" rating (for critics in the largest media markets) of 38% speaks for itself. (Though it is another interesting question to ask why urban folk are harder on the film than others.)

I'm not saying that we ought to rely on professional film critics to determine what we see and what we don't. I want instead to make two points: (1) critics have generally had negative evaluations of the film and (2) I think some members of the forum might find it interesting actually to read some of the reviews.

Racer X-8

03-01-2004, 08:01 PM

Seems like this movie is unique in that its reviews are bound to be inherently biased. Much like the democratic / republican voting dilema that is so obvious in DC. Sure, you get a handful of voters that cross thier "party" line, but...

Non-christian members here hate this movie. Wow, what a suprise! Not! Christian members here are seeing this movie as a must-see. I haven't seen it yet, but the reviews both here and at that site haven't turned me around. The christian reviews highly favor it.

Those who truly don't understand what christianity is all about, don't ask here. Do you really expect to get an answer? One that you really take to heart? Yeah, right. John 3:16 There you go.

MP3Guy

03-01-2004, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by mental pimp
:D

As long as you're learning something, here's an article written by a very bright lady who says it better than I could:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=8667

MP3Guy

03-01-2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Racer X-8

Non-christian members here hate this movie. Wow, what a suprise! Not! Christian members here are seeing this movie as a must-see. I haven't seen it yet, but the reviews both here and at that site haven't turned me around. The christian reviews highly favor it.

It seems to me there are many Christians who are taken aback at the movie, since it focuses ONLY on Jesus' violent end, without mention of his philosophy or the main thrust of the Gospel.

One thing that no one expected is how evangelicals are embracing a film done by a Roman Catholic- a strange Catholic to be sure, but......

mental pimp

03-01-2004, 08:22 PM

Im non-christain and i dont hate the movie, i wanna see it too!

mental pimp

03-01-2004, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by MP3Guy
As long as you're learning something, here's an article written by a very bright lady who says it better than I could:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=8667

Golda Meir? Ive heard things about her, i wont waste my time readind her garbage.

MP3Guy

03-01-2004, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by mental pimp
Golda Meir? Ive heard things about her, i wont waste my time readind her garbage.

If that's your attitude, and you couldn't bother reading beyond the first sentence, there's no hope for you. You won't learn anything if you only read things from people you agree with.

READ THE PIECE.

mental pimp

03-01-2004, 08:30 PM

Ill read anything but her stuff, if im bored, ill give it a try.

MP3Guy

03-01-2004, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by mental pimp
Ill read anything but her stuff, if im bored, ill give it a try.

Mrs. Meir is respected around the world. And if you keep on this way, you are forcibly willing yourself to ignorance- not a pretty sight, friend.

mdw33333

03-01-2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Reeko
But they have the choice, that is what people were complaining about.
When you watch network TV, you do not expect to see a breast. It doesn't bother me, but I can see how people could be offended, not so much by the breast, as the way the top was ripped off.

And I agree that this movie is probably too violent for children. But at least the parents can choose based on information available about the content.

IMHO it is not ridiculous. PArents can choose if they want their children to go.

What I found to be ridiculus, is that the movie earned an "R" rating. Go see it, and you'll understand why. I understand parents have a choice to allow the kids to view it, but to rate this movie with the same rating as "Mystic River" (for example) is a breakdown in the rating system. I'm not comparing the two movies, but stating that "The Passion" belongs in a different category all together, possibly NC-17.

mdw33333

03-01-2004, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
Seems like this movie is unique in that its reviews are bound to be inherently biased. Much like the democratic / republican voting dilema that is so obvious in DC. Sure, you get a handful of voters that cross thier "party" line, but...

Non-christian members here hate this movie. Wow, what a suprise! Not! Christian members here are seeing this movie as a must-see. I haven't seen it yet, but the reviews both here and at that site haven't turned me around. The christian reviews highly favor it.

Those who truly don't understand what christianity is all about, don't ask here. Do you really expect to get an answer? One that you really take to heart? Yeah, right. John 3:16 There you go.

Hmmm, maybe "Christians" have stronger stomachs. (lol) Christian or not, this movie will be disliked by many.

mental pimp

03-01-2004, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by MP3Guy
Mrs. Meir is respected around the world. And if you keep on this way, you are forcibly willing yourself to ignorance- not a pretty sight, friend.

Is there anyway we can communicate? Other them here? I have something to ask you very important.

Racer X-8

03-01-2004, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by MP3Guy
It seems to me there are many Christians who are taken aback at the movie, since it focuses ONLY on Jesus' violent end, without mention of his philosophy or the main thrust of the Gospel... Well I wouldn't take a small child to see it, nomatter what age. (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=I+cor+2%3A12+-+3%3A4&version=KJV)

RX-GR8

03-01-2004, 09:37 PM

at a georgia theater, the number 666 is showing up on tickets for the movie. the machine that prints the tickets assigned the prefix 666 for all the tickets for the film. it was a pure coincidence. one person uncomfortable with the number on her ticket asked for a pass instead of the ticket. some said it was inappropriate. puhleeze.

Racer X-8

03-01-2004, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by RX-GR8
at a georgia theater, the number 666 is showing up on tickets for the movie. the machine that prints the tickets assigned the prefix 666 for all the tickets for the film. it was a pure coincidence. one person uncomfortable with the number on her ticket asked for a pass instead of the ticket. some said it was inappropriate. puhleeze. Argh! As one of my old high school buddies once said, "We may be christian, but we aint stupid.", I must admit, that statment, as profound as it may be, :D , is not 100% accurate, unfortunately. It don't hurt ya if ya can still throw it away, my guess. :D

If ya wanna read where that 666 thing comes from... (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+13%3A11-18&x=11&y=6)

khoney

03-02-2004, 12:54 AM

My Lutheran Pastor, Rev. Dr. Dan Mueller, wrote up his feelings after seeing the film. I thought I would share them with everyone, not to say this is my opinion of the film (I haven't yet seen it, but intend to), but to provide one clergyman's voice. I found his commentary to be a good read, and look forward to seeing if I agree with it. The link is below, but I've also included the text.

http://www.shlutheran.org/data/studies/passion.htm

*****************************************

Few movies in recent years have received as much pre-screening publicity as the latest portrayal of the suffering of Jesus. Not all the publicity has been good. Some who previewed the movie before its release or just read the script charged that it would lead to a resurgence of anti-semitism. Others suggested that it might lead to a revival of Christianity, bringing great numbers of unbelievers to faith while encouraging believers to deeper faith. A few people anointed the film as the most important movie ever made. About this work that some labeled the defining moment in his career, Mel Gibson said only that it was something he had to do; he felt “called by God” to do it. There were early reports that entire audiences that previewed the film were reduced to tears and interviews of individuals leaving the film often found viewers saying it was a life-changing experience. As so often happens, for me personally this film failed to live up to all its hype. At best I would say that it’s a movie based on a true story. At worst, I would say that a more proper title would have been, “The Gospel According To Rocky Balboa.”

Gibson claimed to have followed the Biblical Gospels closely. In point of fact, he took significant liberties with the text, adding elements not recorded in Scripture and changing some which are. It’s more true that Gibson followed the Catholic rite of the Stations of the Cross as his inspiration including scenes which are part of that religious custom but not part of Scripture. Gibson makes Mary Magdalene synonymous with the woman who was caught in adultery. That’s not true to Scripture. In Gibson’s film Jesus falls three times under the weight of the cross and the third time he receives a drink from a woman named Monica in Catholic tradition. That’s not Biblical either. While Gibson’s portrayal of Satan’s involvement in the last hours of Christ’s life is fascinating there is nothing about that in the Gospels either. Most puzzling to me was an early scene which attempted to inject humor into the movie. For a film that we were told was meant to be deadly serious this seemed to me completely out of place. Cute but out of place.

It certainly won’t surprise anyone to read that Hollywood has a peculiar grasp on reality, including violence. Some movie scenes show a person being hit over the head just once and passing out. Other movie scenes show a person being hit with the force of an eighteen-wheeler running full blast down the highway and nothing happens to the person. It’s a fantasy world most clearly portrayed in the series of “Rocky” films. Any boxing fan knows that no fight in the history of the world remotely resembled any of Rocky’s fights and that no fighter could possibly take the beating Rocky took in each fight without leaving the ring on a stretcher and with a sheet over his head. Human beings are fragile and can only take so much punishment. Watching Rocky was fun but the whole time I couldn’t help thinking, “This isn’t real.” I had the same reaction watching the violence in this film. Perhaps I’m wrong but it’s my impression that execution squads tend to be all business and I always thought, from history lessons, that Roman soldiers were the most disciplined and skilled warriors of their day. Gibson makes execution look like play time for a motley crew of almost sub-human buffoons. Did Jesus suffer? Of course. The Gospels speak about him being beaten and spit on, the crown of thorns, the 39 lashes, the cross and nails. Jesus suffered horribly but it could not have been as much as the movie suggests. I would really like to watch the movie with a medical examiner at my side asking if he thought it possible for a human being to survive the pre-crucifixion treatment Jesus endures in the film. If he said yes then I would have to change my mind but I suspect he wouldn’t say yes.

This movie says more to me about the state of American culture than about anything else. For me it’s more about Mel Gibson and films like “Lethal Weapon” and “Braveheart” than about Jesus. Gibson appears to have a thing for dislocated shoulders. He dislocates his shoulder in each of the “Lethal Weapon” movies and in this film he dislocates the shoulder of Jesus. Our culture is so attracted to violence that Gibson felt compelled to emphasize that part of the Savior’s sufferings above every other part of the story and not only emphasize it but over-emphasize it. In an interview Gibson said he wanted to destroy one of the Savior’s eyes as part of the story. Let’s face it: we love violence!

I appreciated two things about the movie: the first, its precise depiction of the hopelessly, helplessly deplorable reality of human sinfulness; the second, its depiction of the Savior’s unyielding commitment to make the sacrifice in payment for the sins of the world. What happens to Jesus in this movie is what would happen to all people everywhere if there were not some outside restraint imposed on us. Human beings are by nature sinful and unclean and because of it capable of unspeakable acts of cruelty. In the last 12 hours of his life the accumulated body of human evil came crashing down on Jesus - all the hate, abuse, brutality, barbarity, savageness, wickedness, coldness, indifference, ferocity, monstrousness, bloodthirstiness and heartlessness of which human beings are capable. If anyone is in doubt about whether human beings are basically good or evil, this movie answers the question with abundant clarity: They’re - we’re - evil. Take away restraint, the way it was taken away when the boys in the book, Lord Of The Flies, were shipwrecked, and it’s just a matter of time before evil has its way with us. In the last hours of the Savior’s death some people showed their evil side by acting out against him while others showed their evil side by failing to do anything to help him out of fear for their own safety. Either way, by what we do or fail to do, we show our innate depravity. It’s only because God has bound Satan and restricted evil that the human race hasn’t killed itself off to the last person.

The film’s greater impact on me is its depiction of the Savior’s commitment to pay for our sins. At any moment he could have lashed out with no more than human force and taken a little vengeance on his tormentors. You know the drill: since he was going to die anyway, he might as well take down as many with him as he could. But he was more than human, and at any moment, if he had wanted to, he could have lashed out with almighty power and simply pulverized on the spot those who abused him. I confess that a couple of times I found myself wishing he would have just gotten in a few licks of his own for good measure. But he didn’t. He didn’t fight back at all. He laid down his life of his own free will. For me this is the wonder in the story. None of this had to happen to Jesus. He could have avoided it all. He could have lived out his life in peace and just faded off into the sunset a happy old man. But he chose the cross. I know that not because of the film but because of the Gospels. In fact, without the Gospels and with nothing but the movie I wouldn’t know that at all because the movie never exactly explains why Jesus was crucified. While there’s a brief scene where Jesus tells his mother, “See, mother, I make all things new,” (for which there is no reference in the Gospels) there’s no adequate mention of sin or forgiveness; no flashback to that pivotal moment when John the Baptist pointed at Jesus and announced, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” Unbelievers watching the movie won’t know, without additional information, that it was for their sins and the sins of the whole world that Jesus died.

For me, what matters about the Savior’s death was not how bloody it was. Even if he had been executed by lethal injection, all quick, neat, and clean, the reason for his death and the benefits from it would remain the same. He died for me. That’s what counts. Not how he died but why he died. Jesus happened to be crucified because that’s how non-Roman citizens were executed back then and, in that regard, he was one of thousands who went to the cross. Two others were crucified with him the same day but neither of them died for the reason he died: to win the world’s salvation. As a movie, “The Passion of Christ” was more violent than I like my films to be. As a religious experience I found it shallow, in need of a lot of help.

****************************************