The Passion . . Just Saw It - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-28-2004, 04:42 PM
 
kama'aina mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Watching Top Chef, eating Top Ramen
Posts: 19,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by jannan
i see jesus as a peace maker and advocater for the poor and disenfranchised. am i right? i told the kids dad what i just posted about jesus and he says i am wrong and that jesus loved and advocated for everyone, including the rich and the priviledged.

Maybe someone can help me with that.

I've studied liberation theology and i read that Jesus was a peace maker and loved all but favored the poor. is that right?
I believe you are right. He once told a wealthy man to sell everything he owned and give the money to the poor. Also that a camel had more chance to pass through the eye of a needle than rich man has of getting into heaven.
kama'aina mama is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-28-2004, 04:51 PM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yes, kama, but then again, if you read about the literary style of that day, authors were prone to hyperbole.

What would happen if every person alive sold all their stuff? Economic catastrophe!

Camel going thru eye of needle--eye of needle was a narrow gate in a walled city. A small camel would fit.

What was the saying, you must hate your parents to love me? Another exaggeration.

Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple.

Love your neighbor as yourself, but hate your family???

I think we have discussed this passage before.
DaryLLL is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 04:55 PM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Pynki
So does that mean the whole woman are eeeeviiil is what he was trying to say.. That feminine qualities lead to sin?? Or just our wiles???
It was quite common in early Xtian art to represent the serpent in the Garden of Eden as female.

(Of course, I think it was originally an attempt to put down the Goddess worship so common in Hebraic life. The Snake being a symbol of Her. The Snake represented her Wisdom, but now we all associate it/Her with evil. Sad, really. )
DaryLLL is offline  
Old 02-28-2004, 10:59 PM
 
pammysue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mountains of S. California
Posts: 1,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Pynki
So does that mean the whole woman are eeeeviiil is what he was trying to say.. That feminine qualities lead to sin?? Or just our wiles???
I just saw the movie and I thought the devil was a man and was acted by a man. I think the intent was to make the devil somewhat androgynous, that he was not specifically male or female.

It was not until I read this post that I found out the part was played by a woman. Do I think that Gibson thinks that the devil is a woman, or that evil is personified by women or that all women are evil? No, not anymore than I think Gibson thinks Jesus was a white (non-Jewish) American with blue eyes because Jim Caveziel played that part. I think Gibson chose actors for their acting ability, their "look" and many other things, not because he thought the actors were exaclty the same as the part they played.

Maybe, let's not be so sensitive and pick everything apart to this degree. It is after all, a movie.

Quote:
Originally posted by kama'aina mama
I believe you are right. He once told a wealthy man to sell everything he owned and give the money to the poor. Also that a camel had more chance to pass through the eye of a needle than rich man has of getting into heaven.
Here is the full text of the scriptures you're talking about. Matthew 19:16-30

The point of this teaching is that God asks us to give up everything to follow Him. It, therefore, is difficult for a man who will not do this to enter the kingdom of Heaven. We need to understand that it is not our works or anything that man can do that saves us, only God can do that. It is not that God loves poor people more than rich. God does not love anyone more than anyone else. His love for us is all the same.

John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Note: all scripture quoted here is from the NIV translation.

Pamstillheart.gif Cliffguitar.gif Malachi 5/08 bouncy.gif   Judah 5/10 jog.gif  Eden 8/12 babygirl.gif Asher 8/12 babyboy.gif

 
 You can't get a cup of tea big enough or a book long enough to suit me. ~CS Lewis

pammysue is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 12:32 AM
 
lilyka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 17,896
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Wow! I would have never guessed in a million that the devil was a woman I htink she was chosen because she just looks really creepy. I don't think gender was a contributing factor at all.

The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it.  We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.

lilyka is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 02:23 AM
 
dado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Paxetbonum
Also earlier in the film there were several members of the Sanhedran who left the trial of Christ because they felt it was unjust.
this has been discussed at length elsewhere: what Gibson is portraying is NOT Sanhedrin. more details readily available on the Spirituality board.

re: the camel and the needle's eye, that is a variant of an ancient Jewish saying, only the original has an elephant rather than a camel. what to make of that, i have no idea, maybe Yeshua was saying you could be richer than you thought since a camel is smaller than an elephant so you could presumably load it with more "stuff".


dado is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 02:54 AM
 
mcimom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Plymouth, MI
Posts: 2,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Mel said that one of the reasons he chose the actress to play the devil was b/c he thought that there would be something "attractive" about evil. that it wouldn't be something so horrible that it would scare you off, but there'd be something intriguing about the creature. Also, it was a man's voice (I'm not sure who's : ) but the actress was a woman. I think that was for the androgynous effect.

Interesting to see so many people commenting on a movie they haven't seen and in many cases "have no intention of seeing" ... Interesting but not surprising for these parts...

I think the visualization of having the devil holding the baby in the scourging at the pillar scene was to be an attempt by the devil to show "see, how I protect and nurture mine? and who is here for you? who is protecting you? where is your god now?" kwim? It was just another test of his faith.

It was such a far cry from any anti-semitism to me that I can't even comment. I'm honestly : how anyone would get that out of it? If...and I know that this "if" is not for everyone...we are to believe the gospels, then is it not just a plain old fact that it was the high priests that had him turned over to Pilate? And that they did so b/c by their own law they couldn't put him to death? And were not the high priests Jewish? So, some jewish people were the catalyst for his crucifixion. Namely some very shady high priests - so how does that condemn all Jewish people?

There were MANY wailing Jewish women on the way of the cross. Only the high priests and the jewish people in the courtyard were calling for his death. There were many depicted as sad and wailing along the way.

The romans and centurions were the beaters and the crucifiers. They inflicted the violence.

I mean white people are who primarily kept blacks enslaved in this country. Does that condemn all white people? If you show white people in a historical movie about slavery beating black people is that racism against whites inciting anti-white-ism? How does showing what the Bible presents (and what many including myself believe) as historical fact of some people of a particular religion turning Jesus in and unjustly calling for his crucifixion condemning all Jewish people or anti-semitic?

I mean Hitler was a so-called Catholic. Just because that fact is presented doesn't mean that all Catholics (myself!) are Hitler or believers of his particular philosophy.

I really just don't get it.

I actually SAW the film. It was powerful. It was violent. Terribly so. I would not take my children. There were times when I said to myself "okay, enough is enough!" but then I immediately thought - what am I thinking? I can't even WATCH this, but he went through this? (or something very much like it) and FOR ME AND FOR MY CHILDREN AND FOR ALL OF US. That is what I believe as a "believer" and that is powerful.

Mel does an amazing job. Did anyone that actually saw the film notice how each time Jesus got up during the way of the cross it was because he saw/noticed Mary? As if she gave him strength. And the whole time (as a mother) I just kept thinking "stop watching, stop watching!" - how could she watch this? But that flashback she has to Jesus as a little boy was so powerful. Her saying "I'm here. I'm here."

How Judas was tormented by those children (and I think the visions of them as devils or demons was his own guilty conscience, just as the vision of the demon under the bridge was) was also very powerful. I mean we always say that "children can be so cruel" when they are teasing and bullying each other - you know? That he could warp the image of these "innocent" children into demons terrorizing him. I don't know...I haven't wrapped my mind around it yet.

I think both Judas and Pilate were portrayed in this very human light. The only evil presented was in the centurions and yes, the high priests - though again, you did see at the beginning, those that left and said the proceedings were a travesty. And the evil they committed was mostly in just watching which they were presented as doing with satisfaction.

And it was a powerful portrayal of the mob mentality. And yes, there was artistic license - how could there not be? none of us was there - but I read all 4 gospels just prior to viewing the movie and it was deeply rooted in them. In fact, the most license I noticed was in the removal of what might be considered anti-semitic material from the gospels...i.e. "his blood be on us and our children" - which I read even in the gospel as their response to Pilate saying 'I wash my hands of this, his blood is not on me' in an attempt to divorce himself from what he, in effect, orders - Jesus' death. I'm no biblical scholar, but to me, it's as if the high priests are saying that's okay, on us be it, you just give the order, kwim?

Anyway...I actually SAW the movie and those are some of my thoughts.

edited for spell check, so I don't look like an even bigger idiot than I'm sure many people already think I am

WOHM married to SAHD, living the dream w/our: 3 girls (14,12,10) and 3 boys (7,5,3) and tie-breaker due Jan 2014

mcimom is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 03:04 AM
 
pammysue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mountains of S. California
Posts: 1,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by mcimom
Mel said that one of the reasons he chose the actress to play the devil was b/c he thought that there would be something "attractive" about evil. that it wouldn't be something so horrible that it would scare you off, but there'd be something intriguing about the creature.

Interesting to see so many people commenting on a movie they haven't seen and in many cases "have no intention of seeing" ...

There were MANY wailing Jewish women on the way of the cross. Only the high priests and the jewish people in the courtyard were calling for his death. There were many depicted as sad and wailing along the way.

The romans and centurians were the beaters and the cruxifiers. They inflicted the violence.

There were times when I said to myself "okay, enough is enough!" but then I immediately thought - what am I thinking? I can't even WATCH this, but he went through this? (or something very much like it) and FOR ME AND FOR MY CHILDREN AND FOR ALL OF US. That is what I believe as a "believer" and that is powerful.
Oh, YES YES YES ITA

I also thought the scenes with Mary were very touching. Mel did a great job with that.

Pamstillheart.gif Cliffguitar.gif Malachi 5/08 bouncy.gif   Judah 5/10 jog.gif  Eden 8/12 babygirl.gif Asher 8/12 babyboy.gif

 
 You can't get a cup of tea big enough or a book long enough to suit me. ~CS Lewis

pammysue is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 03:38 AM
 
gossamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just saw the film today and I am totally overwhelmed. My take on Satan was the the charachter was supposed to be androgynous.
The thing I identified with the most was when Jesus died and the sky turned to black, and the earth shook, and the temple split. As a grieving mother I thought "That is what should have happened when my daughter died. People should have felt the earth shake and seen God cry when my daughter died." DOes that make sense?
Gossamer

Before you were conceived, I wanted you. Before you were born I loved you. Before you were a minute old, I would have died for you. That is the miracle of life. ~Maureen Hawkins~
gossamer is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 08:14 AM
 
Viola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nevada
Posts: 22,553
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by gossamer
As a grieving mother I thought "That is what should have happened when my daughter died. People should have felt the earth shake and seen God cry when my daughter died." DOes that make sense?
It makes perfect sense to me!
Viola is online now  
Old 02-29-2004, 12:42 PM
 
shantimama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
I actually "SAW" the movie too. I am not just spewing off an opinion based on reviews, etc. I thought Mary was the best and most spiritually helpful part of the movie too. If you re-read my post, you will see that I saw it. I went with my husband who has spent years studying theology and church history. It wasn't all bad but it certainly wasn't the best evangelical tool we've seen, as it is being touted.

We re-read the gospel accounts before going too and there were lots of extra-biblical details. Of course there is going to be artistic license taken but they had some choice in how they did that. You may disagree with my pespective on anti-Semitism but I still think that if more energy had been put into depicting the story in an accurate and educational way than into all of the special effects this could have been a good movie. We know what the gospels say about the Jewish leaders being the ones to hand Jesus over. Those of us concerned about anti-Semitism are not denying that. There are ways to portray the story without risking more blame towards the Jews but that would connect the viewers with their part in Jesus' death - if you believe he died for our sins, not as a result of the religious leaders fear of him - I think that a gifted filmmaker could have done that. This struck me as a special effects and violence bonanza, using the sacred story of Jesus' passion. If it wants to be a tool of evangelization, people need to see more than rare flashbacks to Jesus' life and words and more than a few seconds hinting at his resurrection. Merely showing suffering and violence is out of context and emotional manipulation in my opinion. Suffering in and of itself is not redemptive. Re-read what I had to say about non-violence, not just my views on the Satan figure. Read the gospels. Read Jean Vanier, Henri Nouwen and Thomas Merton. They are familar with suffering, very intimate with Jesus (they are three of the most gifted spiritual writers of the 20th century)and they have a lot to say that doesn't sell as well as "The Passion" will but is more authentic to the Christian life.
shantimama is online now  
Old 02-29-2004, 12:58 PM
 
dado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by mcimom
It was such a far cry from any anti-semitism to me that I can't even comment.
i hope you're Jewish, otherwise this non-comment comment looks quite incongrous in a post where you backhandedly chastise people who haven't seen the movie for commenting.

Quote:
And that they did so b/c by their own law they couldn't put him to death? And were not the high priests Jewish?
if you really want answers to this you need to go to Spirituality, it doesn't belong here. the short answer is that Yeshua was never convicted by a Jewish court of a Jewish crime, not even if the c'ian books are taken ultra-literally. if Sanhedrin had happened, they could have put Yeshua to death without any trouble, it is a myth that they didn't have that power.

but again, a fuller discussion has already taken place on Spirituality, if you like, it can happen again. but over there, not here.
dado is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 02:33 PM
 
Journey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: In a state of happiness
Posts: 2,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I saw the movie yesterday. The violence did not take me by surprise at all. I've read the New Testament completely. I've understood for quite some time what Jesus went through. There was only one split second of gore that caused me to cringe (when the skin was ripped off his ribs).

I don't understand this uproar about the violence of the film. Has anybody actually READ the Bible? Has anybody read the Old Testament, because that's at least 10x more violent than the New Testament.

The movie was based on scripture. The scripture is violent. If you will protest the violence of the movie, then you might as well protest the violence of the Bible.

Has nobody envisioned the crusifixtion before? Or was it just words on a page? Do you not see what you read? Do you not put into context what you believe?

And the movie WAS NOT anti-semetic. It portrayed positive Jews. Jesus was a Jew, but I see some of you question that. Whatever.

I noticed the whole Gay/Jewish thing, too. Herod and the Devil were two. But, now I see the adrogynous thing about the Devil, and Herod was gay (or bisexual) anyways, so it doesn't matter.

I liked the film. It didn't bring me to tears as the entire theater thought it would. I happened to go see the movie with an entire congregation to which a friend of mine belongs. They wanted to pray with me after the movie, and it felt like a set-up. They don't believe I'm actually a Christian because I'm not a legalist Christian, and because I love all, and don't shun people for their lifestyles. But, that's besides the point.

To sum it up: I liked the movie. It was violent, but so was the actual crusifixtion which it was based on. It wasn't anti-semetic.
Journey is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 05:24 PM
Banned
 
sleeping queen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next to the Mississippi
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Journey
sleeping queen is offline  
Old 02-29-2004, 11:58 PM
 
shantimama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Gee, Journey, thanks for the sarcastic response. Thanks for the insult, insinuating that I haven't read the bible, that if I don't like violence I might as well protest the bible. As a matter of fact, I have envisioned the crucifixion before. Does that mean I have to feel positively about seeing a film version - which may be no closer to the actual reality than my envisioning was - after all, what we saw was Mel Gibson's imagining of what it was like, not a documentary. He doesn't have to like my images and neither do you but I am not obliged to agree with his either. Great to see see that you are the authority on anti-Semitism, too. Let's dismiss Jewish and any other views to the contrary, you have given the definitive response. It is precisely bcause I have read the bible that I was disappointed in this film. I think it does an injustice to the passion of Jesus by focusing solely on that and not on his life and resurrection. I haven't for a moment suggested that we present Jesus' death in a warm, fuzzy, gentle way and only talk about the "easy" parts of Christianity. I guess when I respond out of my faith I hope for something more from something that wants to be a tool of evangelization. I am not afraid of looking suffering in the face.
shantimama is online now  
Old 03-01-2004, 12:02 AM
 
Journey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: In a state of happiness
Posts: 2,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't get your response. How are you offended by my post again?
Journey is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 01:06 AM
 
ekblad9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Just a slingin'
Posts: 8,130
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I shouldn't step in here but I will. I saw the movie today and never has anything moved me so much. This man died for our sins. He was an amazing person. Loving even His killers to His death. I have never felt so loved in all my life. And I plan to take my 12 year old son to see it. He should see it. He should see why we practice what we do. He should see how much Jesus loves him. The movie isn't violance like that which you see in a gangster movie. It follows the Bible which we read everyday. And Mel Gibson could not have made women look stronger, IMO. Mary, Jesus' mother, was amazing. During the times I found difficult to watch I just kept thinking that if she can watch so can I.

There will always be opposition to the truth. That much I know. Now flame my post and tear me down. I'm ready for it. No one is coming at me with whips and chains or nailing me to a cross. I can take some nasty words from some people I've never met.

Love and peace be with you all.

Amy - Blessed wife to Jesse (the best dad in the world), mother of 10 on earth plus 8 in heaven.   PROUD to be a Catholic! : winner.jpg familybed2.gifhomeschool.gif

ekblad9 is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 01:53 AM
 
pammysue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mountains of S. California
Posts: 1,450
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by ekblad7
There will always be opposition to the truth. That much I know. Now flame my post and tear me down. I'm ready for it. No one is coming at me with whips and chains or nailing me to a cross. I can take some nasty words from some people I've never met.
Wow, ekblad7, this is inspirational. Your words really touched me.

Pamstillheart.gif Cliffguitar.gif Malachi 5/08 bouncy.gif   Judah 5/10 jog.gif  Eden 8/12 babygirl.gif Asher 8/12 babyboy.gif

 
 You can't get a cup of tea big enough or a book long enough to suit me. ~CS Lewis

pammysue is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 03:03 AM
 
Els' 3 Ones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: An American Gulag
Posts: 3,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Why is a difference of opinion starting to be put forth, in every freaking forum here, as flaming and tearing down?



Jeez!!


Is no one to voice the dissenting opinion? Has the Bush administration mantra of "if you disagree w/us you are not patriotic" been transformed into all discourse?

I put out my opinion, like it or not, proudly. No one can make me feel bad about it unless I am on shaky ground to begin with.



El
Els' 3 Ones is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 03:22 AM
 
mcimom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Plymouth, MI
Posts: 2,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
ekblad7- as my friend, refrain from commenting - it's called ad hominem fallacy as I believe you'll recognize. Journey, you too!

Remember as they hate you, they will have hated him first.

You're right. You can take it sisters! and

difference of/dissenting opinion? if only that were what it were but the comments following that statement show your true feelings... apparently we're not allowed a difference of opinion from yours either.

a shame. to all

WOHM married to SAHD, living the dream w/our: 3 girls (14,12,10) and 3 boys (7,5,3) and tie-breaker due Jan 2014

mcimom is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 03:35 AM
 
SamuraiEarthMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,959
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
i have no intention of seeing the Jesus Chainsaw Massacre. gratuitious violence, a white man playing a middle eastern prophet, calculated manipulative marketing and money-grubbing via a nail on a thong as jewelry? no thank you.

if one of my children wanted to explore the teachings of christ, i'd have them spend the money on a bible and a good comparative religions class.

and it sounded pretty funny to me when someone said that since mel gibson is making money off this project, god is blessing him. what about when the fellow who played jesus (and another tech on the project) got struck by lightning? sounds like a much more traditional expression of god's preferances to me!

did anyone here see Jesus of Montreal? now THAT was a moving film that i thought really captured the spirit of what i perceive to be xian teachings. but perhaps i'm wrong... maybe it takes the best gore oscar to get across the message of love and forgiveness.

katje
SamuraiEarthMama is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 04:10 AM
 
pamelamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: *dwelling on spelling*
Posts: 5,719
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Some disurbing words about 'Mel':

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

Quote:
A coward, a bully, a bigmouth, and a queer-basher.
Very fascinating and sad article.
pamelamama is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 09:49 AM
 
Mona's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: indiana
Posts: 2,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by pamelamama
Some disurbing words about 'Mel':

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



Very fascinating and sad article.
this is nothing new.... he definelty has built a reputation for himself. he is also quoted as saying he doe not like feminists.
a woman who thinks for herself? how awful!
Mona is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 10:34 AM
Banned
 
sleeping queen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next to the Mississippi
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here is some interesting verses from Luke for anyone interested. Luke 12:49-51 It is true any time there is anything involving Jesus people will not agree.

I don't think criticizing Mel will discredit the movie. I think to many people already had their minds made up from listening to all the hype in the media to be objective when they seen it.
sleeping queen is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 10:53 AM
 
Mona's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: indiana
Posts: 2,371
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096323

Quote:
Apparently seeking to curry favor, Gibson announced a few weeks ago that he had cut the scene where a Jewish mob yells for the blood of Jesus to descend on the heads of its children (a scene that occurs in only one of the four contradictory Gospels). Gibson lied. The scene is still there, spoken in Aramaic. Only the English subtitle has been removed. Propagandists in other countries will be able to subtitle it any way they like. This is all of a piece with the general moral squalor of his project. Gibson's producer lied when he said that a pope Gibson despises had endorsed the film. He would not show the movie to anyone who might object in advance. He will not debate any of his critics, and he relies on star-stricken pulp interviewers to feed him soft questions. Now, as the dollars begin to flow from this front-loaded fruit-machine of cynical publicity, he 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.
more food for thought...

Mona is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 11:00 AM
 
shantimama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
As everyone knows, it can be hard to be sure of someone's tone when you are reading rather than hearing someone's words. When I read "Has anyone actually READ the bible?" and "Has nobody envisioned the crucifixion before?" it sounded like you thought that if anyone were upset with the film then you assumed that they had never done those things. That is what I took offence to. At no point did I say that you had to agree with my feelings either. Sorry if I misread your tone - I read your post several times before responding and that is what I got.

Let's not get into the "Remember, as they hate you, they will have hated him first" stuff, okay? It is that kind of divisiveness that makes people look at Christians and say"Look at how they fight, they are all a bunch of hypocrites." I don't "hate" anyone for having a different response to this film than I do. And if those of you who feel "persecuted" or "hated" by those of us who have expressed our concerns - because you feel that by disagreeing I am opposed to the truth - wow. I am not here to offer nasty words. I am here to discuss, NEVER said no-one else was entitled to their opinion. And you know, there are are many large groups of Christians who could also feel the world hates them because of a similar viewpoint to mine, Catholic, Protestant - people whose intimacy with Jesus (and Mary, for the Catholics) does not cause them to reject the gospels but embrace them and live passionately for peace and truth. If someone finds this film to be an aid to their faith, fine. I may not agree but I don't think of myself as a "better" Christian for not liking it. I would love to receive the same courtesy.

mcmom, I trust that your and are for all of us, not just your like-minded sisters. Disagreements or no, I come here in a spirit of love for everyone, not seeking a like minded camp where I can feel righteous and safe from the persecution of those who don't think like I do. I assume the same of you. If I am wrong there, then I would like to remove myself from this discussion. I always seek hospitality and reconciliation, even in conflict.

I am not unfamiliar with the bible. I have been active in the church for many years. My faith informs all that I do. I have spent most of my adult life living in an intentional Christian and interfaith community with some very wise people. Like I said earlier, Jean Vanier, Henri Nouwen and Thomas Merton - and Mother Teresa - have been huge influences on my life. Their influence on me largely informs my response. Sorry if you don't like it.
shantimama is online now  
Old 03-01-2004, 11:18 AM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,153
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
first point--Shantimama, thanks for trying to build a bridge between different sects of Christianity.

second point--from the Slate article:
Quote:
...an associate of his had once told me, in lacerating detail, that an evening with Mel was one long fiesta of boring but graphic jokes about anal sex. I've since had that confirmed by other sources. And, long before he emerged as the spear-carrier for the sort of Catholicism once preached by Gen. Franco and the persecutors of Dreyfus, Mel Gibson attained a brief notoriety for his loud and crude attacks on gays. Now he's become the proud producer of a movie that relies for its effect almost entirely on sadomasochistic male narcissism. The culture of blackshirt and brownshirt pseudomasculinity, as has often been pointed out, depended on some keen shared interests. Among them were massively repressed homoerotic fantasies, a camp interest in military uniforms, an obsession with flogging and a hatred of silky and effeminate Jews. Well, I mean to say, have you seen Mel's movie?

third point--How any devout Catholic who knows the Magisterium on how to dramatize the Passion, knows Mel has called the Pope an ass and a Koran kisser, can support this movie, is beyond me.
DaryLLL is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 11:37 AM
 
Els' 3 Ones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: An American Gulag
Posts: 3,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I asked 3 questions (T for sure)

I further stated my opinion related to those questions.


While they (the questions) don't apply to The Passion, they do apply to the ad hominem accusations contained within the posts scattered all across this board.


Answer my questions please.


El
Els' 3 Ones is offline  
Old 03-01-2004, 12:04 PM
 
shantimama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
El, are you directing that towards me? If so, please clarify. I saw two questions in your last post. I thought I addressed the first one. I am not attempting to flame anyone, merely responded when I felt insulted - then tried to clarify and bridge the gap. Why have discussion boards if we only want to discuss with those who agree with us? I am not American, so while I am aware of what is happening with the Bush administration, that stuff does not infiltrate my daily life or reflect my own country's politics. Maybe I misunderstand you and I am referring to the wrong questions. I am trying.
shantimama is online now  
Old 03-01-2004, 12:54 PM
 
Els' 3 Ones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: An American Gulag
Posts: 3,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No shantimama, I have not been addressing you.


I am addressing those who continue to call opinions different from their own flaming, tearing down, nasty, mean-spirited and various other adjectives.

All of which are an ad hominem to response to ppl who disagree or believe differently.


I see it happening in all of the forums I visit..................and, as I stated above it, imo, is not much different from the gov't trying to paint me as a no-gooder bcuz I disagree with them. Seems to be the rhetoric commonly used today.



El
Els' 3 Ones is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off