I come back from a trip and what do I find? A lot of unintentional
humor by Fletis, who tries ever so hard to puff himself up and
insultingly bait me (or is it baitingly insult me?). Won't work
Fletis. In the interest of space I may snip some of your insults if
they are not germane to the argument. Feel free to re-insert them if
you think they are.

"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message ...
"Hylourgos"
snip my comment about anti-semitism

snip...your concerns are misguided. Israel has no better friend than
Christians.

If you are talking about modern Israel the state and comparing the
Christian West to Israel's neighbors, then I agree. But that was
clearly not the issue.

What secularists don't or can't comprehend (out of prjudice)
is that the film and passion plays in general have the opposite effect
of what they think. snip

Don't know what you mean by secularist, or why you feel the need to
inject them here, but on the effect of passion plays and anti-semitism
you are badly informed. I challenge you to find one respectable
article or book (i.e., not something from white separatists) that
claims medieval passion plays produced anything resembling
philosemitism. Here's a few titles I'm fond of:

There is a German town that to this day reenacts a passion play, and
the difficulties they have had because if its anti-semitic history
have interested writers: 1) James Shapiro, Oberammergau: The Troubling
Story of the World's Most Famous Passion Play (Pantheon, 2000). 2)
Saul S. Friedman, The Obergammau Passion Play: A Lance against
Civilization (Carbondale, 1984).

Here are some general works on anti-semitism vis-a-vis Christianity:
3) Amos Funkenstein, "Basic Types of Christian Anti-Jewish Polemics in
the Middle Ages" Viator 2 (1971): 373-382. 4) Stefan Rohrbacher, "The
Charge of Deicide: An Anti-Jewish Motif in Medieval Christian Art"
Journal of Medieval History 17 (1991): 292-322. 5) Jules Isaac, The
Teaching of Contempt: The Christian Roots of Antisemitism, tr. Helen
Weaver (New York, 1964). 6) William Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism:
A History of Hate (Northvale, N.J. and London, 1993). 7) Samuel
Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (Philadelphia, 1978).

Two other books that have a tangental interest to our topic in that
they detail a striking resemblance to the denial (here of the relation
of passion plays to Gibson's film) a 8) Deborah Lipstadt, Denying
the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (Free Press,
1993). Likewise, see 9) Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing
Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York, 1996.

I'll be happy to supply you with a fuller bibliography if you are
truly interested, but I won't hold my breath. You seem fond of
name-calling ("bigoted") rather than reasoned response.

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?

When was the last Christian "holocaust"? Your term "Christian West"
is meant to broad brush and cast guilt by generalization. Accuracy
seems to not be your goal.

What you have just written illustrates polemical sophistry common to
religious zealots. The argument goes something like this: if someone
objects to a wrong action by someone or group from religion X, the
polemecist then counters with, "Oh, but they weren't *true* Xs, so the
criticism isn't valid." By such means they are able to insulate
themselves from EVERY criticism--nevermind the ostrich approach to
unsavory elements of your own religion. If you genuinely think that
Christianity has been without blame in the West then I feel sorry for
your parochial sense of history, not to mention the Sunday-school
level of logic.

I guess you missed the Pope's 2000 apology to the Jews for a long
history of Christian anti-semitism, including the holocaust? Here's a
little time line to help remind you of the low points:
http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/timeline.htm

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

snip Define
"radically different". Adding Satan or demons where they were not specifically
mentioned hardly changes the accounts.

You're right, we might disagree on what constitutes radical
difference, or whether the "mere" addition of Satan "hardly changes
the accounts". I'm happy to let that boner stand on its own (NPI).

Readers for two thousand years have
understood the underlying implications. Using artistic elements to incorporate
them in a movie doesn't alter the accounts. You are just making noise to
criticise what you cannot understand.

I'm glad I have you here, Fletis, to read between the lines for me.

snip
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?

It tells us that you are, unfortunantly not that astute. The movie was specifically
about the passion, the texts told the whole story. snip

True, the movie was about the passion. The texts quite obviously don't
tell the whole story, but they're the only stories we have. Too bad
the movie did not follow the text. Now back to the question you didn't
answer, "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?" You haven't begun to tell us. We're waiting
(scroll down, I'll address this in an answer to Mel).

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?

I suppose if they disagree with your premise they are unscholarly,
uneducated and unprofessional.

Nope, but I guess you'll never know until you read some. (yawn) Do you
smoke a lot of weed, Fletis? You're pretty paranoid....

Here's another example of taking
a generalization ( and not even an established one at that ) and
using it to cast blame on intent.

How about re-writing that so it makes some sense? You sound like you
have a point to make here so I urge you to try.

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

How so? You haven't remotly drawn any correlation. snip

I could point out that questions ought not be expected to draw
correlations, but then again I guess it wasn't fair to ask a
rhetorical question that was so obvious. It's called sadomasochism,
Fletis: ever hear of it?

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


Not according to the millions that have seen it,

Oh, and these millions, they've read the passion plays? I doubt they
even know of the relationship between passion plays and anti-semitism.
And what, you're some kind or a prophet to foretell how these millions
wlll be affected in the coming years? Let's limit it to even one
country, say France: they banned the film for fear of the emotions it
could evoke. I know you'd like to think your American ahistorical
coreligionists are the final word, but they are not.

...including the head
of the Anti Defamation League. It seems only ignorant propagandists
have taken up this cross.

Interesting that you'd bring up the word ignorant right after writing
that about the ADL. Care to cite a reputable source? Tell you what: go
to the ADL web site (http://www.adl.org/adl.asp) and see what they
have to say about The Passion. Then, if you're a man, I'll receive
your apology. If you're a twit, you'll bitch and moan and divert the
question again.

5) Gibson's father is a known wacko, a holocaus[t] 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?

Not to any fair minded individual. In an interview I heard him reject
his father's statements so I'm not sure what you would need. Facts
don't seem to matter.

Ah...once again I must ask for a source. Let us look at that
transcript. In the most famous interview, with Diane Sawyer, Mel
entirely sidestepped the question, it was embarrassing. He doesn't
need to bash his father to disavow his ideas, but he hasn't yet....

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

If you saw porn the porn was between your ears. And why not let the
viewer decide what was exaggerated. What I saw squares with the accounts.

Cute, but you haven't answered the question Fletis. It's pretty much a
yes or no type of question. See if you're up to that.

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

No. If you had some you would have posted it by now : )

On the contrary, the evidence for my position are much stronger in the
text than the evidence for Gibson's position. I alluded to some, guess
you didn't pick up on it. See the response to Mel's post below for the
details.

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?

Ah, the evil plot thickens.

No plot, Fletis, although I have to wonder about your paranoia. I just
pointed out dishonest editing.

What's your evidence that Aramaic speakers
were offended in any way?

Did I say Aramaic speakers? And while we're on the topic of poor
reading, let's compare the tense I use ("will not be unnoticed") with
the Procrustean bed in which you try to place me: "offended". Or is it
too complex to ask you to pay attention to tense?

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

Are the Satanist offended too?

Don't know, don't care. Why don't you ask them? In the meantime, you
might consider answering my question.

snip Mel Gibson's movie is not a good
representation of the text.

You didn't show how except to claim the beatings were exaggerated
and Satan wasn't in the accounts in the same scenes but most Sunday
schoolers realize he was ever present and watchful, even hopeful.

Sunday-schoolers from Slick Hick Pass-the-Plate televangelist
pop-the-secretary parish, maybe. More intelligent ones observe: Hmmm,
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't see fit to emphasize the violence
nor portray Satan thus.

Of course, they (MML&J) could be fools too: is that what you're
saying?

Thanks for the movie review though. I'm sure Mel will be disappointed
while he's counting his quarter billion dollar and growing revenue.

Well, I'm glad to know your standards: if it makes money it must be
good and true.

I can't wait for your version. Or did the Last Temptation cover it?

Haven't seen it (yet).

You enjoy your armchair theology now, Fletis. And don't forget to put
those snakes back in the box after tomorrow's service.

H