Hi Mel,

"mel" wrote in message om...
You asked me to clarify this assertion: snip
It is my contention that if you approach this story with the belief that
Jesus was only a man, albeit a good man, then the knowledge of the injustice
portrayed on this one singular individual almost 2000 years ago wouldn't
have the extremist effect the critics are warning us about. A hatred
against those responsible. Disapproval maybe, but surely not a hatred
against an entire group of people.

Thank you for the re-write, this is much clearer. I don't find its
logic very compelling, but more to the point, I don't understand why
you wrote it, since it does not address anything I wrote. I feel like
I'm trying to have a dialogue with someone who ignores whatever I say
then grabs onto whatever shiny argument that he happens to think of
and presents it as if it's a response to me.

*My*, and many others', concerns are NOT about this film's potential
for causing anti-semitism among non-believers (your point above), but
among believers--who, after all, have 2000 years of anti-semitic
behavior historically documented. Are you so unaware of the Chrisian
West's periodic pogroms and holocausts against Jews? Have you never
read a passion play nor become aware of what sort of emotional results
they had on Christians towards Jews?

I also intended to convey the idea that if you believe in the divinity of
Jesus you must realize that man doesn't take the life of God.
snip
In as much as you say the Romans and the Jews instead of an
individual's namesnip

See, here is where, for the second time, you misread my post then go
on to make a point that has nothing to do with what I said. Check my
last post and the original: I NEVER SAID THAT ROMANS OR JEWS KILLED
JESUS. So, can you stop saying that I did? Pretty please?

snip I was only trying to bring a
perspective from the heart. You bring yours from the mind.

Here's perhaps the core of the problem. First, you are in a public
forum of heirarchichally arranged arguments. It is based on
words--logos, or logical discourse. Once you put down words you cannot
escape that paradigm, you have entered into the realm of rhetorical
appeals. Calling your argument a "perspective from the heart" does not
eliminate its logical or illogical appeals. You have made arguments,
Mel, and those arguments are susceptible to the rules of logic,
whether you'd like them to be or not.

This is a good thing. It's what prevents a countless number of
(malicious) idiots who claim some knowledge or power that is not only
metaphycial but metalogical (such as "perspectives from the heart"),
because the rest of us won't put up with it. Jesus sure didn't. I
don't count you among the malicious, but I see your type of reasoning
lead to malice all the time.

I speak of my
beliefs. You speak of disbelief.

Is this an insult? Where did I speak of disbelief? Is it a
"perspective from the heart" that lead you to misquote me? Do I have
disbeliefs? Su I disbelieve lies, I disbelieve the self-deluded, I
disbelieve conclusions that don't follow from premises, and so on.

snip
You state a
faith perspective removes all critical acumen from your brain, and makes you
into an idiot who slavishly accepts everything.

This is getting frustrating. I stated the DIRECT OPPOSITE.

You want to hear something I do believe? I believe that not listening
to another's words, twisting them to make them fit your argument
better, is an act of disrespect, a sin. I believe that a sloppy
reading of texts (i.e., consistent or willful misreadings), especially
sacred ones, does violence to that text.

My take on this so far is that you accord about as much respect to the
Bible as you do to my arguments, which is not much. You consistently
misread my posts, ignore the points that I make if they're not
convenient, and continue to do so even after I point it out. Likewise,
if I make a point about the text and how it does not accord with Mel
Gibson's vision in his movie, and you ignore the text and the point
but make counter-assertion nevertheless. Your Bible, at least as you
portray it in this thread, is based not on a text, but on a
"perspective from the heart".

I will concede that such a Bible, or argument, is exceptionally
convenient, but like Gibson's movie I cannot recommend it.

I say it is the very act of faith that makes this story so beautiful.

Which story are you talking about? Mel Gibson's, or the Bible's? They
differ radically, a point you seem unwilling to consider.

As to your challenge concerning the text I suspect we would spend a large
amount of time simply arguing about why the Greek Septuagint version which
included the Apocryphal books that found their way into the Latin Vulgate
and is the basis for the Douay version used today by the Catholic church
differs from the version translated from the old Hebrew versions of the OT
used by the the protestants today. Which I have no desire in doing.....

Where did you get the idea *I* had any desire to do that? I have not
once in our discussion alluded to textual history or different
languages or versions, interesting though those may be. I would be
happy for you simply to chose a text--ANY TEXT--and base your
arguments on it.

Let me spell it out simply, by the numbers so you won't forget any:

1) How much does the text focus on the bloody mangling of Jesus' body
during his punishment? How much does Gibson's movie? What does the
discrepancy tell us?

2) Is there a relationship between medieval Catholic depictions of
Jesus' and the saints' suffering, and sadomasochism? What do most
scholars, psychologists, and educated theologians say about that
relationship?

3) Is there a relationship between the medieval obsession with the
sufferings of Jesus and the contemporary fascination with torture?

4) Are there significant similarities between Gibson's movie and
medieval passion plays? Is there cause for concern about anti-semitism
(or anti-Romanism)?

5) Gibson's father is a known wacko, a holocause denyer. Should the
fact that Mel has written a modern passion play and has refused to
denounce his father's holocaust denials be of any concern?

6) Is it possible to exaggerate Jesus' suffering, or to turn it into a
pornographic fascination with torture, blood, and punishment?

7) Are there textual evidences that argue against Mel's image of such
a severly beaten Jesus?

8) Is the fact that he removed the English subtitles for a certain
phrase (one likely to elicit anti-semitic sentiment) in order to
appease his critics (after Pilate transfers responsibility, the Jews
say, rougly, "let his blood be upon us"), yet allowed the Aramaic to
remain (which will not be unnoticed in those parts of the world where
it may do most harm) cause for alarm?

and finally,
9) Where in the text does Satan appear as in Gibson's movie?

Faith is a personal choice. No amount of blustering or arguing ever
convinced anyone to have faith. As you well know.....

Indeed. Faith without works, just as "perspectives from the heart"
without reasoning, is dead.

Reason is not truth, but as my favorite quote from Robert Graves goes,
"facts are not truths, they merely say to untruths, you are not in
accordance with the facts."

In the realm of logos we must learn to identify untruths in order to
avoid the facile precipitation from which feelings alone, or faith
alone, will not save us. Mel Gibson's movie is not a good
representation of the text. Maybe the text isn't true, I don't know.
But one thing I do know is that The Passion has little to do with the
Gospels.

Regards,
H.