Based on the reaction to some of the Christmas postings I'm sure this
question will wind up being a discussion on Christianity and religion. Here
it goes......

What did you think of the table they showed Christ having built in the movie
"The Passion of the Christ"? Any idea who built it and was it constructed
using techniques available of the time? Did you get the symbolism of the
table?

Before you respond to this please note, I'm on topic since I'm discussing a
table built using neander techniques built by an early carpenter or at the
very least, a depiction of one.

mel wrote:

Based on the reaction to some of the Christmas postings I'm sure this
question will wind up being a discussion on Christianity and religion.
Here it goes......

What did you think of the table they showed Christ having built in the
movie "The Passion of the Christ"? Any idea who built it and was it
constructed using techniques available of the time? Did you get the
symbolism of the table?

Before you respond to this please note, I'm on topic since I'm discussing
a
table built using neander techniques built by an early carpenter or at
the very least, a depiction of one.

A nice table of rustic style

No idea of who built it.

If you have not been the Third World you have no idea what they can do with
"primitive" tools.

Yes - and nicely understated too.

Deb

"mel" wrote in message
m...

Did you get the symbolism of the
table?


I'm not sure that I did. I would like yo hear.

Glen

One part of the movie that I really enjoyed was the flashback Jesus had when
they were preparing the cross. It showed him in the backyard working on a
table. He was after all a carpenter. Mary came out of the house and saw
the table and did what mothers do best. She complimented him on the table
even though it wasn't the sort of table she was accustomed to. I gathered
from the dialog that tables back then were low to the ground yet this table
was a tall table. Jesus tells her it's a table built for a rich man. He
hasn't built the chairs yet. He takes his position at the table as if he
was sitting in a tall chair with no problem and Mary attempts to mimic him.
She pantomimes reaching for a glass and loses her balance, straightens up
and tells Jesus it will never catch on. Jesus laughs and they start to walk
into the house. Right before entering Mary tells Jesus to remove his dirty
apron before coming into the house. She holds a bowl of water for Jesus to
wash his hands which he does. Then he splashes the water on Mary with much
delight.

Mel Gibson told the entire story in this one little piece of artistic
license.

the table = a place prepared for us
the rich man = the saved in Christ
the chairs not yet made = the crucifixion not yet completed at this point of
the movie
the new style table = Christianity
the dirty apron and the washing of Jesus' hands = Jesus' baptism
Jesus splashing Mary with water with delight = Jesus' willingness to provide
for our salvation with delight

With delight..... We read where Jesus struggled in the garden with fear
and with what he was about to face he was justified in feeling so. The
total absence of God while being in the hands of Satan. We do not know what
transpired between Jesus and The Father when they were reunited but I
believe quite possibly with all the reverence I can muster........ they
giggled.

"mel" wrote in message .com...
One part of the movie that I really enjoyed was the flashback Jesus had when
they were preparing the cross. It showed him in the backyard working on a
table. He was after all a carpenter.

Joseph was a carpenter. One supposes that a son would follow
in his father's profession, but is there any Biblical reference
to Jesus being a carpenter?

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Joseph was a carpenter. One supposes that a son would follow
in his father's profession, but is there any Biblical reference
to Jesus being a carpenter?

Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? "

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)

Hi Mel,

I just saw the movie yesterday and remain ambivalent about it. Here's
my take on the table scene:

the table = the movie, an incomplete product: ambitious, but
ultimately lacking
the rich man = Mel Gibson now
the chairs not yet made = representing the strain it takes (sitting
w/o a chair) to swallow this movie's reversion to a medieval Catholic
Jesus
the new style table = tall table, as in tall tale
the dirty apron and the washing of Jesus' hands = parallel to Pilate
washing his hands, Jesus is trying to tell us he didn't care for the
movie either
Jesus splashing Mary with water with delight = ah, sometimes a cigar
is just a cigar (I hope).

There were some virtues to this movie. It is ambitious, a little too.
How to portray divinity on celluloid? At least he selected a brief and
perhaps managable selection of the text (the passion). But that
selection, at the expense of the others, is what medieval catholics
focused on: the bloody mangled body of Jesus.

Should we ignore that section? No, of course not. But is it possible
to exaggerate it, or even turn to a pornographic fascination with its
torture, blood, and suffering? Of course. That's exactly what medieval
Catholicism did, and I'm not too keen on its return.

At issue for me is that the text does not detail the extent of Jesus'
physical punishment at the hands of Romans or Jews. While not
impossible (since the text just doesn't say), I do not get the
impression from reading the text that Jesus was beaten as badly as the
movie depicts. So, why would someone depict it that way? For the same
reason medieval Catholics liked to gaze on the bloody images of Jesus
and the saints. What makes us culpable now is that we've had Freud, a
Jew, Paglia, a Catholic, and many many others who've made crystal
clear the sadomasochistic appeal of such images. I'm not eager to
encourage that kind of sexuality for my childrens' society.

I would not care to guess whether Mel harbors anti-semitic thoughts as
his father does (and whom Mel has defended), but after seeing the
movie I am convinced that it hardly conveys the complex political
atmosphere of Palestine then, and that uncritical viewers will
blithely turn to Jews or, worse, to the Romans as scapegoats. I do
note that while he removed the English subtitles for a certain phrase
likely to elicit anti-semitic sentiment to appease his critics (after
Pilate transfers responsibility, the Jews say, rougly, "let his blood
be upon us"), the Aramaic remains--which will not be unnoticed in
those parts of the world where it may do most harm.

I was shocked to see many children in the audience. This movie should
not be seen by anyone under 18, nor by adults who do not understand
the nature of sadomasochism and are not affected by it.

The superstitious or medieval brand of modern Catholics will rejoice
in this movie, as will ignorant protestants (no small number) and S&M
affectionadoes everywhere. But I can't recommend it.

With apologies for a mini-review in response to a post about a table,
and various mea culpas for those who are offended by my views,
H.


"mel" wrote in message .com...
One part of the movie that I really enjoyed was the flashback Jesus had when
they were preparing the cross. It showed him in the backyard working on a
table. He was after all a carpenter. Mary came out of the house and saw
the table and did what mothers do best. She complimented him on the table
even though it wasn't the sort of table she was accustomed to. I gathered
from the dialog that tables back then were low to the ground yet this table
was a tall table. Jesus tells her it's a table built for a rich man. He
hasn't built the chairs yet. He takes his position at the table as if he
was sitting in a tall chair with no problem and Mary attempts to mimic him.
She pantomimes reaching for a glass and loses her balance, straightens up
and tells Jesus it will never catch on. Jesus laughs and they start to walk
into the house. Right before entering Mary tells Jesus to remove his dirty
apron before coming into the house. She holds a bowl of water for Jesus to
wash his hands which he does. Then he splashes the water on Mary with much
delight.

Mel Gibson told the entire story in this one little piece of artistic
license.

the table = a place prepared for us
the rich man = the saved in Christ
the chairs not yet made = the crucifixion not yet completed at this point of
the movie
the new style table = Christianity
the dirty apron and the washing of Jesus' hands = Jesus' baptism
Jesus splashing Mary with water with delight = Jesus' willingness to provide
for our salvation with delight

With delight..... We read where Jesus struggled in the garden with fear
and with what he was about to face he was justified in feeling so. The
total absence of God while being in the hands of Satan. We do not know what
transpired between Jesus and The Father when they were reunited but I
believe quite possibly with all the reverence I can muster........ they
giggled.

Hylourgos wrote:


With apologies for a mini-review in response to a post about a table,
and various mea culpas for those who are offended by my views,
H.


I usually stay a mile away from these types of posts and tomorrow I bet I'll
wish I still did, but I just have to say - what a santamonious load of
cra... ummmm... woodshavings. Valids opinion, since you hold it, but IMHO,
probably better reserved for your day job as a social and movie critic.
--

-Mike-

you wrote "At issue for me is that the text does not detail the extent of
Jesus'
physical punishment at the hands of Romans or Jews."

Ask yourself why you feel the need to be so critical. In this one sentence
you've reduced the suffering of Jesus to something that was probably not
that bad.... as if the flogging was merely a spanking and there may have
been a gentle placement of a person on a cross to hang in the elements and
die from exposure. The text was written at a time when the average person
knew exactly what the results of a flogging looked like. Had stood and
looked at a person being crucified. Then you make it a point to state it
was the Jews and Romans who did this.....

You want to know who killed Jesus? Nobody. No one took his life. It was
given. If you believe Jesus was merely a man then Whodunit would be a valid
question. I suspect however, if that is the belief you subscribe to, then
finding an answer to the whodunit question would have no ability to spark
any sort of hatred....anti-Semitic or otherwise.

But if you believe he was more..... Who isn't nearly as important as Why.
That one question totally changes one's perspective. This new perspective
allows you to watch this movie and see the effort by Satan to break Jesus'
will to try to keep him from continuing with the salvation of man

Santamonious (adj): label given to those who try to explain that Santa
has little to do with Christ.

Hey, we're *all* "social and movie critics", like it or not. You
either have good reasons and can articulate them, or you don't.

H,

....who shares your regrets after having gagged on too many monkish
table allegories.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message link.net...
Hylourgos wrote:


With apologies for a mini-review in response to a post about a table,
and various mea culpas for those who are offended by my views,
H.


I usually stay a mile away from these types of posts and tomorrow I bet I'll
wish I still did, but I just have to say - what a santamonious load of
cra... ummmm... woodshavings. Valids opinion, since you hold it, but IMHO,
probably better reserved for your day job as a social and movie critic.

"mel" wrote in message om...
you wrote "At issue for me is that the text does not detail the extent of
Jesus'
physical punishment at the hands of Romans or Jews."

Ask yourself why you feel the need to be so critical.

Hmm...I doubt anyone here is that interested in my emotional needs.
But since you ask, I would say I'm no different from most people who
have brains in this regard. Perhaps we differ in our critical
conclusions: I will not, on that basis however, ask you to review in
public your "need" to be critical or uncritical (isn't that far
worse?), allegorical, medieval, or whatever. I don't want to know
about your "need" at all when it comes to that, and I find your
question oddly inappropriate.

Note also that I was critical in my original post of two things: Mel
Gibson's movie, and your allegories of the table scene. If you find my
being critical--in the healthy, reasoned existence sense--about those
two things then you should get a thicker skin, or keep your opinions
to yourself.

In this one sentence
you've reduced the suffering of Jesus to something that was probably not
that bad.... as if the flogging was merely a spanking and there may have
been a gentle placement of a person on a cross to hang in the elements and
die from exposure.

I fail to see how I accomplished what you parody. Did I mention a
spanking? And PLEASE tell me that was unintentional irony, otherwise
your seriocomedic post appeals to the same sadomasochistic tendencies
I accuse the film of.

The text was written at a time when the average person
knew exactly what the results of a flogging looked like. Had stood and
looked at a person being crucified.

Was this an issue?

Then you make it a point to state it
was the Jews and Romans who did this.....
You want to know who killed Jesus? Nobody. No one took his life. It was
given.

Thank you, but I can't claim it as my point, really. Nor was it an
issue in my post. In fact, I can't even claim to have said what you
claim I said. *I* never "made it a point to state" anything about who
killed Jesus. I did say uncritical viewers could easily be led to
making incorrect conclusions based on the movie.

You apparently feel that turning this into a "I can witness better
than you can" will somehow alleviate my criticisms of Gibson's movie
and your allegories--which you pretty much ignore.

Are you trying to argue with me that Christians historically have not
blamed Jews or Romans for Jesus' death? Even without getting into a
simple Aristotelian distinction of causation, what stuns me most is
that you continue to misread my post and make straw-man fallacies.
This is the second one (spanking the first). I seems no wonder, given
how poorly you read my post, that I find your reading of the Gospels
likewise flawed.

So again, I ask you to consider *my* position: while Gibson's
portrayal of Jesus' punishment is not impossible (since the text just
doesn't say), I do not get the impression from reading the text that
Jesus was beaten as badly as the movie depicts. Why, then, would
someone depict it that way? I conclude it's for the same reasons
medieval Catholics liked to gaze on the bloody images of Jesus and the
saints. It's a sadomasochistic reversion and I can't recommend it.

You have yet to point out any flaw in this reasoning. Instead, you
resort to parody. Fine. Let us assume a spectrum of possible readings
of the Gospels, one in which the Romans deliver a mild spanking, the
other in which Jesus is beaten to a bloody pulp to the sexual leering
of his Roman tormentors--to the point that it would be unlikely for
the stigmata and spear scar to hold any distinction from his flogging
scars. OK, now think: if the text allows for that whole spectrum, why
would anyone choose to dwell on the latter reading? It is perverse.
Whether it happened or not is not something you can resolve based upon
the text. So your choice to depict, dwell, and lovingly gaze on it is
the choice that needs defending. I have not been able to come to any
other conclusion than that it is perverse.

If you believe Jesus was merely a man then Whodunit would be a valid
question. I suspect however, if that is the belief you subscribe to, then
finding an answer to the whodunit question would have no ability to spark
any sort of hatred....anti-Semitic or otherwise.

You've lost me here. Can you clarify? I don't see how Jesus' divinity
affects the validity of any question about the agent of his death. The
one is not related to the other, regardless the position you take.
Then you say that finding a causal agent "would have no ability to
spark any sort of hatred...anti-Semitic or otherwise." Something must
be missing. You can't have asserted what you did and mean it. Have you
read any history of the past 2000 years? No, there must be some typo,
or I'm misreading you in some way (sic, in hoc noster capietur,
profabor). Please clarify.

But if you believe he was more..... Who isn't nearly as important as Why.

This may be your question, and it's not a bad one per se, but it has
nothing to do with my post and my observations. I think I'll stick to
them before veering away.

That one question totally changes one's perspective. This new perspective
allows you to watch this movie and see the effort by Satan to break Jesus'
will to try to keep him from continuing with the salvation of man

I disagree. The perspective you speak of does not, I trust, remove all
critical acumen from your brain, nor make you into an idiot who
slavishly accepts everything a Hollywood star of violent action movies
throws at you. It does not, most of all, require you to imagine this
movie's depiction of Satan as anything close to reality, let alone
close the the text. Satan in this movie is about as non-biblical as
you can get--although the argument could be made that she (!) is
fairly medieval-Catholic.

Mel, if you're a paleo-Catholic, I don't mean to offend you, but we
disagree on fundamental assumptions of how to read a text.

I'm game if you want to engage the text, but otherwise I fear this
will just be another "sed ego credo..." spiel.

Regards,
H.

You asked me to clarify this assertion: If you believe Jesus was merely a
man then Whodunit would be a valid question. I suspect however, if that is
the belief you subscribe to, then finding an answer to the whodunit question
would have no ability to spark any sort of hatred....anti-Semitic or
otherwise.

I will do my best.....

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.

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. If this is
true, if Jesus is in fact the son of God, the third member of the
trinity.....if it is your belief that he wasn't held on the cross by nails
but rather his willingness to see God's will be done....then yes..."why" is
far more important than "who". Not only that, the question of who is
totally negated by the fact of Jesus' allowance of the events. The answer of
who is Man. In as much as you say the Romans and the Jews instead of an
individual's name, I suspect a deity would say "Man".... not "those men over
there".

Now..... to clarify some other misconceptions you alluded to, no I'm not a
paleo-catholic. If you must use labels, then protestant would be more
appropriate. I myself simply prefer Christian.

It wasn't my intention to challenge your ability to witness or promote my
own. If it appeared so then I apologize. I was only trying to bring a
perspective from the heart. You bring yours from the mind. I speak of my
beliefs. You speak of disbelief. You throw allot of words out there, that
to be honest with you I'd have to look up in order to figure out just
exactly how I've been insulted but I do get the gist of it. You state a
faith perspective removes all critical acumen from your brain, and makes you
into an idiot who slavishly accepts everything.

I say it is the very act of faith that makes this story so beautiful.
Remove faith and your left with exactly what you describe.

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.....

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

This thread, that darn movie, and all the hoopla stirred up in general
about the subject matter at hand make me glad I'm an atheist. The irony is
that no matter what I think or feel about religion (or lack thereof), I
still am subject to these "discussions" that drove me away from organized
religion in the first place.
For those of you without a life beyond the computer, I'm not only speaking
of this particular thread or any other. I know where the "next message" and
"delete" tabs are and know how to use them. I actually, unlike some of you,
know how to just avoid these topics by not clicking on them at all.
Therefore, you can drop the "You don't have to read it." comments. Those
statements are as childish and unsubstantial as most religious discussions
end up being.
My comments are based on real life situations with family, friends,
workmates, etc. It seems you can not have a civil conversation about any
sort of faith or belief system without it ending up in a "My imaginary
leader is better than yours!" screaming match. Emotion always overrules fact
or civility, no matter what the subject is. And boy does the room get heated
when someone discovers my belief. The thing is...no one ever thinks atheism
is interesting or asks me, "Why?" Mostly, they just want to see how quickly
they can tell me I'm uninformed and going to burn in hell. My only response
is, "He/she is your god.......YOU burn in hell."

C Ya,
Mikey

--
All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream
of youth that doth not grow stale with age.
---J.W. Muller---


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003

If you are sincere and wish to discuss your belief in Atheism and can do so
in the civil manner your yourself feel you aren't afforded,please do. I'd
be very interested in hearing your perspective.

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.

Hylourgos wrote:



*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?




In the last year or so I saw an interview with Fallwell on 60 Minutes.

Seems he is very active in sending monies to Israel. Why? Because when 2/3 of
the Jews are killed there will be the Second Coming (Or some such great
Christian thing he happens to believe in). Ok, so I'm not a biblical scholar.

The point remains: Christians killing Jews. Now their doing it through proxy by
using money.


--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

If you are sincere and wish to discuss your belief in Atheism and can do so
in the civil manner your yourself feel you aren't afforded,please do. I'd
be very interested in hearing your perspective.

I ran across these thoughts of Sigmund Freud the other day...

"When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a
normal and wholesome life."

"The more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the more
widespread is the decline of religious belief.

"Bill Reynolds"

If you are sincere and wish to discuss your belief in Atheism and can do so
in the civil manner your yourself feel you aren't afforded,please do. I'd
be very interested in hearing your perspective.

I ran across these thoughts of Sigmund Freud the other day...

"When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a
normal and wholesome life."


Like snorting coke? I don't think I would agree with him on
what normal or wholesome was.


"The more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the more
widespread is the decline of religious belief.


That's an incredibly ignorant statement. I had no idea he was that
dense or uninformed.

"Hylourgos"


*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.

Pardon me but I have to respond to this nonsense.
Then your concerns are misguided. Israel has no better friend than
Christians. 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. Statements like yours are bigoted and said for the
exact same purpose they criticise.



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.


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


That's a bold statement. Again accuracy is left wanting. Define
"radically different". Adding Satan or demons where they were not specifically
mentioned hardly changes the accounts. 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.



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?


It tells us that you are, unfortunantly not that astute. The movie was specifically
about the passion, the texts told the whole story. A movie about his
birth or woodworking experience (hey, we're on topic!) would be
equally "unbalanced".


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



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. It apparently
exists in your mind though. Don't educated, scholarly professionals
call that "projecting"?


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



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?


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.


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.


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 : )


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



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


Are the Satanist offended too?



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.


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.
Thanks for the movie review though. I'm sure Mel will be disappointed
while he's counting his quarter billion dollar and growing revenue. I
can't wait for your version. Or did the Last Temptation cover it?

"I don't understand why
you wrote it, since it does not address anything I wrote."

Yes it does and rather specifically. You made the following statement in
your original post.

snipI would not care to guess whether Mel harbors anti-Semitic thoughts as
his father does (and whom Mel has defended)....

Exactly why was this written? And no, before you claim I'm asking you to
tell the group your emotional rational which I agree with your previous
statement.. we don't care. This isn't a question directed to you but one
asked by myself, a reader of your words. Why did you make such a
disclaimed, "I would not care to guess...", implicating declarative
statement, "whether Mel harbors anti-Semitic thoughts as his father does
(and whom Mel has defended)...." if in fact you weren't attempting to coerce
the reader into that very sentiment?

snip"..., but after seeing the movie I am convinced that it hardly conveys
the complex political atmosphere of Palestine then,..."

It wasn't intended to any more than Peal Harbor or Schindler's List was
intended to totally convey the complexity of Japan/Germany/USA. This point
is a tangent so I'll resume my point...

snip"..and that uncritical viewers will blithely turn to Jews or, worse,
to the Romans as scapegoats."

Now let me get this straight. You say you don't see how my argument
concerning whether this story has the ability to do what in your own words
you not only imply but are convinced it does have the ability to do. I
can't even phrase that sentence in a satisfactory manner it's so
paradoxical.

snip I do note that while he removed the English subtitles for a certain
phrase likely to elicit anti-Semitic sentiment to appease his critics (after
Pilate transfers responsibility, the Jews say, roughly, "let his blood be
upon us"), the Aramaic remains--which will not be unnoticed in those parts
of the world where it may do most harm."

Here again you state it may do harm. My argument is if you don't care about
the man and believe he was the Messiah then surely you aren't going to be
motivated to act harmfully on his account. On the other hand, if you do
believe he was the Messiah then surely you know his death was a gift freely
given by him and the reaction to receiving a gift isn't usually hatred.
It's real funny how in this part of your remarks you now criticize the
accuracy of the movie's inclusion of the dialog we find in the text as if
there were some malicious intent.

It's become very apparent that any interpretation of this story would not
have met with your approval. You would have the reader believe that the
salvation of man could only be understood by an educated scholar. You would
have us believe that anyone calling themselves a Christian must in fact
represent all true Christians. snip "Are you trying to argue with me that
Christians historically have not blamed Jews or Romans for Jesus' death?"
That is exactly what I'm saying. Any hatred against the Jews or the Romans
behind the artificial guise of Christianity was motivated by another agenda.
You see..... this is what I regret dearly. You miss the point. You
underestimate the mindset of the true Christian. You also underestimate the
mindset of those who hate. You asked me if I've read any history of the
last 2000 years. Yes I have..... Have you read anything prior to this?
These people were persecuted long before Christ walked the earth. Read up
on Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). Read about the Maccabean revolt and
The Period of Independence (167-63 B.C.) also know as the Maccabean, or
Asmonean, or Hasmonaean period. This is the source of the sentiments that
permeate a hostile culture against the Jews in the East. Not the
crucifixion of Jesus. Even if the guise of Christianity was used to further
a hostile agenda that originated before Christ you can hardly blame this on
Christianity.

I'm sorry I didn't address your numbered list. It was too much of a
struggle to fathom your first paragraph. I'll make a rapid attempt before I
close.

1) How much does the text focus on the bloody mangling of Jesus' body
during his punishment? Including the Messianic Strain of the Old Testament
which start in Genesis and end in Malachi, considering even his dying words
fortold in the Psalms, all four gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John, the revealing of his injuries to his disciples before the assencion,
the epistles of Paul to the early Churches..... even the revelation of John
all mention the suffering of Christ. The bible doesn't say the blood was
red but we know it was. He was flogged and he was flogged in such a manner
to subvert the crowd from demanding more. Then he carried a cross up a
mountain and had nails driven into his hands and feet. I'm sorry if this
horrifies you but the sin of man horrified God and unlike any other religion
orchestrated by man Christianity is the religion of a God who demanded
justice for sin and justified sin by assuming the punishment himself. That
thought process could only have come from a totally unselfish loving
nature....man lacks that ability.

How much does Gibson's movie? Remove the flashbacks, the garden and the
trial I would have to venture half the movie? would you say this was fair?
Let's say 75% of the movie which is approximately 2 hours long so roughly 90
minutes. A 90 minute depiction of the torture my savior faced on my behalf
for the forgiveness of all man's sins of a historical 12 hour period.

What does the discrepancy tell us? That you can't handle seeing 1/8 of what
Jesus willingly endured to secure your salvation.

2)Is there a relationship between medieval Catholic depictions of Jesus' and
the saints' suffering, and sadomasochism? No.

What do most scholars, psychologists, and educated theologians say about
that relationship? I don't care.

3) Is there a relationship between the medieval obsession with the
sufferings of Jesus and the contemporary fascination with torture?
Could be. Sick people do sick things.

4) Are there significant similarities between Gibson's movie and medieval
passion plays? The significance would have to be found in the motives of the
viewers. I'm sure there are some who see a source for entertainment. As I
previously answered, sick people do sick things. There was after all a
crowd gathered at the crucifixion sight. Do you suggest Mary attended for
the same reasons one of the Roman soldiers?

Is there cause for concern about anti-semitism (or anti-Romanism)? I've
already covered this ..next!

5) Gibson's father is a known wacko, a holocause denyer.
Surely an educated man such as yourself realizes that this arguement is
conjecture. I want your sources and verifications on this subject and don't
insult me with I heard so-in-so media personality report on this matter.

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? What concerns
me is your proposal that Mel Gibson owes you a personal denunciation of his
father. You who so easily criticize the Catholic church are sure quick to
cry that Mel bears the sin of his father.

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

7) Are there textual evidences that argue against Mel's image of such
a severly beaten Jesus? Whoa!!! You mean all this time I assumed you knew
the text and yet you don't? You have the audacity to sit here and spew
forth incriminating and damaging statements that might be read by someone
searching for answers? There are scriptures about people like you.

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?

Not if accuracy is the intent. You know this very quote, "let his blood
be upon us", is a poignant irony for it was the very blood of Christ that
meant to save these people.... and here we see you once again up to you old
tricks.

and finally,
9) Where in the text does Satan appear as in Gibson's movie? In the Garden
of Eden and at the temptation of Christ. Other than that this was an
artistic license on the part of Mel Gibson but please....as you put it...
pretty please ...don't tell me that Satan's influence, in whatever form
wasn't present. In fact, according to the text in all four gospels, was not
only present but had been granted the ability by God to scatter the
disciples "like wheat".

I have now explained myself to you to the best of my ability. I've answered
your queries and I've questioned your intent. I wish you peace. I've found
mine.

M

In article , "mel" wrote:
[big snip]

I have now explained myself to you to the best of my ability. I've answered
your queries and I've questioned your intent. I wish you peace. I've found
mine.

Nicely done, Mel. Thanks.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter,
send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

Actually he was very accurate. . .decadence breeds decadence!

--
SwampBug
- - - - - - - - - - - -


"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in message
...

"Bill Reynolds"

If you are sincere and wish to discuss your belief in Atheism and can
do so
in the civil manner your yourself feel you aren't afforded,please do.
I'd
be very interested in hearing your perspective.

I ran across these thoughts of Sigmund Freud the other day...

"When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a
normal and wholesome life."


Like snorting coke? I don't think I would agree with him on
what normal or wholesome was.


"The more the fruits of knowledge become accessible to men, the more
widespread is the decline of religious belief.


That's an incredibly ignorant statement. I had no idea he was that
dense or uninformed.

"Men are strong only so long as they represent a strong idea.
They become powerless when they oppose it."

I prefer this one which came from his latter years and subsequently a direct
contradiction to these earlier quotes. Could it be Freud realized an error?
He was after all an analyst.

In article ,
says...


Hylourgos wrote:



*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?




In the last year or so I saw an interview with Fallwell on 60 Minutes.

Seems he is very active in sending monies to Israel. Why? Because when 2/3 of
the Jews are killed there will be the Second Coming (Or some such great
Christian thing he happens to believe in). Ok, so I'm not a biblical scholar.


Obviously not.


The point remains: Christians killing Jews. Now their doing it through proxy by
using money.


Huh? That statement has no logical content whatsoever. Sending money
to Israel is killing Jews by proxy? How in the world can you come up
with *that* conclusion? Wouldn't it be more logical, given your
assertion that Christians want Jews dead, for Christians to be sending
money to the other side?


--

Mark

N.E. Ohio


Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens, A.K.A.
Mark Twain)

When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the suspense.
(Gaz, r.moto)

Nova wrote:

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:


Joseph was a carpenter. One supposes that a son would follow
in his father's profession, but is there any Biblical reference
to Jesus being a carpenter?


Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? "

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)


A co-worker took a tour arranged by his church to the Holy Land. One of
the local guides told them to look around for trees. Very few. The
guide said Jesus was more likely a mason but centuries later was
"converted" to carpentry in Europe where masons were an elite class, not
at all fitting the humble image of the Christ the Church wanted.

And "the" before Christ while redundant, is more accurate. Christ, from
the Greek Christos, is not a surname, but a title meaning "the anointed
one".

"One of the local guides told them to look around for trees. Very few."

While a statement such as this by a tour guide might seem compelling at
first you have to remember that at this time Greece had united the
civilizations of Asia, Africa and Europe. Rome had made one empire of the
whole world and Roman roads made it accessible.

Surely there was commerce and importation.....

mel wrote:
"One of the local guides told them to look around for trees. Very
few."

While a statement such as this by a tour guide might seem compelling
at first you have to remember that at this time Greece had united the
civilizations of Asia, Africa and Europe. Rome had made one empire of
the whole world and Roman roads made it accessible.

Surely there was commerce and importation.....

as well as plenty of wood products. Look around the ancient Holy Land - how
many 10" cinder block dining room sets and stereo stands can you see? Proof
that Jesus probably was not a mason...

--

-Mike-

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

Hi Mel, seems you've got an amen corner now. Be careful the company
you keep, however....

You've gotten a little worked up, especially near the end, and you
continue to misread and misparaphrase my posts, but I think you're
probably a decent guy by intentions, so I'll try to keep this post on
a level with reasonable debate, the occasional jab notwithstanding.

"mel" wrote in message m...
"I don't understand why
you wrote it, since it does not address anything I wrote."

It's common on NGs to either indicate by snip when you remove prior
contexts, or to paraphrase. You leave out what I respond to, leaving
the "it" impenetrable. The "it" in question was your belief that if
others did not believe in divinity, then it's implausible that they'd
get worked up over it 2000 years later (let me know if that's not a
fair paraphrase). But that had nothing to do with my comments (in my
original post "I would not care to guess...do most harm."), which
addresses anti-Semitic concerns of both the transition from text to
film, and Hutton Gibson open anti-Semitism. You quote some of that
next so I'll respond to your comments.

Yes it does and rather specifically. You made the following statement in
your original post.

snipI would not care to guess whether Mel harbors anti-Semitic thoughts as
his father does (and whom Mel has defended)....

Exactly why was this written? snip irrelevant Why did you make such a
disclaimed, "I would not care to guess...",

That's a pretty common prefatory phrase that means I'm not trying to
second guess Gibson's intent. I don't pretend to have ESP.

implicating declarative statement,

In the words of the Grinch, "Holidaywhobewhattie?" I suggest you not
try to using linguistic terms you're not familiar with or you'll
produce more howlers like this.

"whether Mel harbors anti-Semitic thoughts as his father does
(and whom Mel has defended)...." if in fact you weren't attempting to coerce

You mean persuade, right Mel? (With hat tipped to Kurt Russell in a
Gibson film.)

the reader into that very sentiment?

Whatever sinister thing you imagine me to have said, I'll try to
rephrase simply and straightforwardly. The original gospels are
anti-Semitic; medieval passion plays exaggerated the gospels'
anti-Semitism, and Gibson's film, while not as much a caricature as
most passion plays, draws more from them than from the gospels. That,
combined with his father's uncorrected views, makes it exceptionally
easy for an observer to wonder if the film is going to be one more
wedge between Christians and Jews.

The original gospels were written well after the destruction of
Jerusalem and the consequent, definite split of the new Christian cult
from its Jewish mother. Early Christians of Jesus' time were Jews
themselves, no doubt, but after Titus and the diaspora, the Christians
no longer thought of themselves as Jewish. There is a clear
progression of this thought from Mark to John—the latter is distinctly
interested in blaming Jews for Jesus' death, as anyone who has studied
a synoptic parallel can tell you. John is not considered one of the
synoptics in part because of that agenda. Check out Elaine Pagel's
thoughts on the matter:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/conten...a_talk_remnick

Passion plays were vile caricatures whose anti-Semitism can only be
denied by the likes of David Duke and Fletis. I have given some
bibliography above (in Fletis' thread) if you're interested, since you
do not sound as if you're familiar with passion plays.

Gibson's differences from the text of the passion section of the
gospels are interesting in this regard. They do not encourage anyone
to believe he has moved away from the anti-Semitic trend. Check out
this list: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14097_1.html Is
Mel Gibson a philosemite? Dale Keiger summarizes the experience of two
notable men, Christopher Hitchens and Frank Rich, who respectfully
disagree and have the argument and political experience to back it up:
http://dalekeiger.com/archives/cat_politics.html

Those are the issues. I hope I've presented them more clearly here,
because I don't want you to misunderstand my perspective as you have
done to this point.

snip"..., but after seeing the movie I am convinced that it hardly conveys
the complex political atmosphere of Palestine then,..."

It wasn't intended to any more than Peal Harbor or Schindler's List was
intended to totally convey the complexity of Japan/Germany/USA. This point
is a tangent so I'll resume my point...

You're right, I did a poor job of conveying what was a dissatisfaction
with some of the character portrayals, and my impressions followed
political divisions. It seemed odd, for instance, that the Roman
leader was sympathetic and reasonable (a defensible reading of the
text, though contradicted by contemporary sources), yet his demeanor
filtered down to none of his subordinates, who were almost Monty
Python caricatures of sadism. Similar stereotypes arose with his
portrayal of the Sanhedrin. The source of both problems is that there
is little textual evidence for those characters, so they are left to
speculation. It's an interesting problem Gibson faced, and I'm
unsatisfied with his choices. They don't harmonize with what the text
does offer--they don't seem the most reasonable options--they are
divisive, and worst of all to me is that their influence is clearly
medieval.

snip"..and that uncritical viewers will blithely turn to Jews or, worse,
to the Romans as scapegoats."

Now let me get this straight. You say you don't see how my argument
concerning whether this story has the ability to do what in your own words
you not only imply but are convinced it does have the ability to do.

[unintelligible frag.]

I can't even phrase that sentence in a satisfactory manner it's so
paradoxical.

Yes...well, the unintentional irony of that last sentence following an
incomplete clause pretty much sums it up.

snip I do note that while he removed the English subtitles for a certain
phrase likely to elicit anti-Semitic sentiment to appease his critics (after
Pilate transfers responsibility, the Jews say, roughly, "let his blood be
upon us"), the Aramaic remains--which will not be unnoticed in those parts
of the world where it may do most harm."

Here again you state it may do harm. My argument is if you don't care about
the man and believe he was the Messiah then surely you aren't going to be
motivated to act harmfully on his account. On the other hand, if you do
believe he was the Messiah then surely you know his death was a gift freely
given by him and the reaction to receiving a gift isn't usually hatred.

I don't accept your reasoning on several grounds. First, even if one
were to accept his divinity, it doesn't follow that he will not act
harmfully on his account. Isn't that the point of Peter cutting off
the servant's ear? Peter was a believer, no? He still made fatal
mistakes (npi). On the other hand, examples abound of cultures
fighting and killing over people long dead whom they never believed
were Messianic figures. Mohammed, Gautama, and the pope come to mind.
You present a false dilemma.

It's real funny how in this part of your remarks you now criticize the
accuracy of the movie's inclusion of the dialog we find in the text as if
there were some malicious intent.

No, you misread again. I merely point out the hypocrisy of caving into
critics in the English subtitles while ignoring those edits in the
oral language. My point had nothing to do with "the accuracy of the
movie's inclusion of the dialog." [sic] How many times has this
happened in our conversation? How about reading more carefully? You
end up making straw man after straw man.

It's become very apparent that any interpretation of this story would not
have met with your approval.

Ah, the prophet in you comes out again. Good luck with that.

You would have the reader believe that the
salvation of man could only be understood by an educated scholar.

Since I've never said that or remotely implied anything like it, I
guess you've changed mantles from prophet to Procrustes. You are just
too focused on me rather than on my argument, which you consistently
misread then make up something that sounds like what you want to argue
against. Not a very good listener....

You would
have us believe that anyone calling themselves a Christian must in fact
represent all true Christians.

This is the same silly argument Fletis made, and my response is the
same: You bring up a point here that illustrates a common bit of
polemical sophistry committed by religious zealots. The argument goes
something like this: if someone objects to a wrong action by someone
or group from religion X, the polemicist 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. 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. My impression is that true
Christians are brave enough to admit to the faults of their fellows.

snip "Are you trying to argue with me that
Christians historically have not blamed Jews or Romans for Jesus' death?"
That is exactly what I'm saying. Any hatred against the Jews or the Romans
behind the artificial guise of Christianity was motivated by another agenda.
You see..... this is what I regret dearly. You miss the point. You
underestimate the mindset of the true Christian. You also underestimate the
mindset of those who hate.

No, I don't miss the point—and the point is not reverting to a silly
definition of whatever you happen to mean by *true* Christian in order
to avoid facing the faults of your fellow Christians (who,
conveniently, become not "true" Christians only post-facto and only
when someone points to their flaws). You can have neither a clear
understanding of anti-Semitism, the "mindset of a true
Christian"—whatever that means—nor an understanding of hatred without
studying it carefully. I see no evidence in what you write that you
have.

You asked me if I've read any history of the
last 2000 years. Yes I have..... Have you read anything prior to this?

A bit. Do you want to compare degrees or something?

These people were persecuted long before Christ walked the earth. Read up
on Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.). Read about the Maccabean revolt and
The Period of Independence (167-63 B.C.) also know as the Maccabean, or
Asmonean, or Hasmonaean period. This is the source of the sentiments that
permeate a hostile culture against the Jews in the East. Not the
crucifixion of Jesus.

If you have in fact read anything other than a quick dictionary entry
of the above, you did not understand it. The revolutions you speak of
were revolutions against Alexandrian successors. That's Greece
Mel--you know, the cradle of the WEST. In case your Old Testament
knowledge is as bad as your geography, I'll remind you that the causes
of EASTERN conflict between Israel and her neighbors involves one of
two cultures: Mesopotamian or Egyptian, whoever ruled Palestine at the
time. I guess you forgot about the Egyptian or Babylonian captivities.
Western anti-Semitism is all about killing Jesus, usury, cultural
isolationism and conversion, and has little to do with Eastern
anti-Semitism, which is about land.

For the West's involvement, you might try James Carroll, Constantine's
Sword: The Church and The Jews. It's not particularly scholarly (and
he is no historian), but it's an easy read whose main observations
hold water.

Even if the guise of Christianity was used to further
a hostile agenda that originated before Christ you can hardly blame this on
Christianity.

Recourse again to the "well they can't be true Christians then, can
they" argument? Not buying it. The Christian household is full of
blame for this. Your local library is best, but here's some
bibliography you might peruse:
http://www.library.ubc.ca/ereserve/relg309/

I'm sorry I didn't address your numbered list. It was too much of a
struggle to fathom your first paragraph.

???

snip
1) How much does the text focus on the bloody mangling of Jesus' body
during his punishment? Including the Messianic Strain of the Old Testament
which start in Genesis and end in Malachi, considering even his dying words
foretold in the Psalms,

Mel, we had already established that "the text" we were considering
relative to Gibson's movie was the passion narrative of the gospels.
It is telling that you feel the need to go outside them for evidence
though.

all four gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John, the revealing of his injuries to his disciples before the assencion,

....as long as you specify that by injuries you mean only two: the
hands and the side. More on this later.

the epistles of Paul to the early Churches..... even the revelation of John
all mention the suffering of Christ.

"Mentioning the suffering of Christ": hmm, do you think that qualifies
as "focusing on the bloody mangling of Jesus' body during his
punishment?", or does it qualify your inclusion of it as yet one more
in a long line of answers to questions I did not ask? You show
absolutely no respect for the argument of someone who feels other than
you: how can you possibly hope not merely to convince others of your
argument, but to recognize when you yourself are wrong?

I'd be interested in what you have for Paul. I haven't read him lately
and don't remember anything of relevance. I read another poster talk
of Paul saying "we preach Christ crucified", as if the participle were
a noun—incorrectly, as in, "we preach of the crucifixion of Christ"
instead of "we preach of a Messiah who was crucified". The former
reading is what many Christians do, but I find no textual basis for
it. Same thing with notions of the cross: it was a representation of
Jesus' defeat of death; only later was the body added and then made an
object of worship.

Now, I could be wrong on this, I'm working from memory on the Pauline
stuff, so if you remember something else relevant then by all means
toss it in.

The bible doesn't say the blood was
red but we know it was. He was flogged and he was flogged in such a manner
to subvert the crowd from demanding more.

Ah, back to the prophet mode. And how else would you know whether the
crowd was subverted from demanding more? Oh, right, you saw the
movie....

Then he carried a cross up a
mountain and had nails driven into his hands and feet.

Huh. And all this time I thought it was Simon the Cyrenian who carried
the cross. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention to the movie.

I'm sorry if this
horrifies you but snip nonsense trying to explain god's feelings

The only thing that horrifies me is that you have no respect for
writing, mine or the scriptures.

How much does Gibson's movie? Remove the flashbacks, the garden and the
trial I would have to venture half the movie? would you say this was fair?
Let's say 75% of the movie which is approximately 2 hours long so roughly 90
minutes. A 90 minute depiction of the torture my savior faced on my behalf
for the forgiveness of all man's sins of a historical 12 hour period.

What does the discrepancy tell us? That you can't handle seeing 1/8 of what
Jesus willingly endured to secure your salvation.

All right Mel! Finally, some evidence offered, and further evidence
that you actually read one of my criticisms. And your generous nature
has allotted me 75%. It's too much, really, I can't accept that. How
about 25%, is that fair? I'm not going to count the actual crucifixion
because it was quick and to the point in the film so I have no
objection to it. About one quarter of the film? And a damn graphic
quarter too, I might add, since the quality is as important as the
quantity.

Here's what I did. I took my copy of a parallel gospels (Kurt Aland,
ed., Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek-English Edition of the
Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 3rd ed. (UBS, 1979)) and isolated the
section known as The Passion (Mt. 14-15, Mk. 26-27, Lk. 22-23, Jn.
13-19). The violence done to Jesus' body AS THE GOSPELS PORTRAY IT is
as follows (where no substantial difference exists between the
evangelists I have given the fullest narrative and footnoted the
others):

1) Then did [Caiaphas' soldiers] spit in his face, and buffeted him;
and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Saying, Prophesy
unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?
2) And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by
struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the
high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear
witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
3) ...and when [Pilate] had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be
crucified. ...And when [Roman soldiers] had platted a crown of thorns,
they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they
bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the
Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the
head.
4) But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they
brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his
side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

1) = Mat. 26.67-8 (cf. Mk. 14.65; Lk. 22.63-64). 2) = John 18.22-3. 3)
= Matt. 27.26, 29-30 (cf. Mk. 15.15, 17, 19; Jn. 19.1-3). 4) = Matt.
27.26, 29-30 (cf. Mk. 15.15, 17, 19; Jn. 19.1-3)

That's it, that's all there is. You're welcome to find more, but it's
not there. That's not much more than Luke's Annunciation: should we
embellish that in a film too, or is it only sex that can be
pornographic? Of course that's a rhetorical question: violence can be
just as pornographic.

My point is not merely that film is more graphic than print and
therefore more prone to a base titillation with violence and blood,
although that is an important consideration. It is more a surprise
that the choice of MML&J is not given much respect. THEY chose to
downplay that violence. Is Gibson so much smarter than them for
embellishing it?

For what it's worth, here's the statistics: all the violence passages
(even the parallel accounts) above amount to 323 words. Total number
of words in the Passion section: 13,558. That makes MML&J's focus on
violence to Jesus' body just a tad above 2% of the text.

Easy conclusion: Gibson's 25% is keenly obsessed with the wounds;
MML&J's 2% is not.

2)Is there a relationship between medieval Catholic depictions of Jesus' and
the saints' suffering, and sadomasochism? No.

You are in the minority among educated Christians (oh, sorry, I
forgot: they can't be true Christians if they hold this view....).
Anyone who's read the early church fathers knows the rather perverse
doctrines of martyrdom some of them shared. But let's get to the meat
(sorry again for the unintended puns): how about flagellants? Ever
read Boccaccio or Chaucer? Even kids who don't read know about Monty
Python caricatures of the flagellants. They existed Mel, they were
real. You don't want to face it, that's up to you.

What do most scholars, psychologists, and educated theologians say about
that relationship? I don't care.

Not only is this anti-intellectual (which I would argue is not the
hallmark of a true Christian) but it is paranoid. Persecution
complexes are common among Christians, but do you really think all
scholars are out to get you?

3) Is there a relationship between the medieval obsession with the
sufferings of Jesus and the contemporary fascination with torture?
Could be. Sick people do sick things.

Indeed they do, Mel. They still do.

4) Are there significant similarities between Gibson's movie and medieval
passion plays? The significance would have to be found in the motives of the
viewers. I'm sure there are some who see a source for entertainment. As I
previously answered, sick people do sick things. There was after all a
crowd gathered at the crucifixion sight. Do you suggest Mary attended for
the same reasons one of the Roman soldiers?

Completely missed the boat on this one too. The content of Gibson's
movie and medieval passion plays have nothing to do with their
audiences, and their similarities may be judged independent of the
audience. Not that the latter is not an interesting question, it just
wasn't mine.

snip

5) Gibson's father is a known wacko, a holocaus[t] denyer.
Surely an educated man such as yourself realizes that this arguement is
conjecture. I want your sources and verifications on this subject and don't
insult me with I heard so-in-so media personality report on this matter.

Your caveat is well taken, I don't know the man personally. Everything
I've read has been in newspapers and on the web, admittedly not
scholarly venues. Nevertheless, it looks trustworthy, and Gibson has
never said his father did not believe those things even when
interviewers (such as Diane Sawyer—is she good enough for you?) asked
him that point blank.

Would you accept the National Council of Churches' word on this?
http://www.wfn.org/2004/02/msg00160.html

Here's a general background on Hutton:
http://www.4reference.net/encycloped...on_Gibson.html

DAGS yourself, there's a ton of stuff out there. Even some of Hutton's
writings, if I remember. If it's even half true, it's no wonder Jews
were nervous about the prospect of the film.

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? What concerns
me is your proposal that Mel Gibson owes you a personal denunciation of his
father.

(This is getting boring...) Reread what I wrote. Negative on 2 counts.
I never proposed a "personal" denunciation, nor one of his father. You
seem incapable of separating argument from author (I quote from my
question, "to denounce his father's holocaust *denials*". The direct
object of the verb denounce was not *father*, it was *denials*. And I
thought a public, not personal denunciation of those denials was in
order. Gibson didn't have to slam his father—I'm all for filial
piety—he could easily have disavowed those wacky teachings and
preserved his father's dignity at the same time. He didn't. Why? Maybe
Gibson shares them?

You who so easily criticize the Catholic snip

Well, I don't mean to, and I don't mean to offend any Catholics out
there. But there are a few things about the medieval church that do
bother me. Me and a few million other Protestants....

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

If you are ignorant of how this happens, then your fear of me will be
the least of your fears.

7) Are there textual evidences that argue against Mel's image of such
a severely beaten Jesus? Whoa!!! You mean all this time I assumed you knew
the text and yet you don't? You have the audacity to sit here and spew
forth incriminating and damaging statements that might be read by someone
searching for answers? There are scriptures about people like you.

I was trying to be fair and allow you to cite evidence pro or con
without the prior influence of my readings. You don't, so I will.

1) The paucity of NT texts that portray a bloody mangled Jesus, as
discussed above. MML&J disagree with Gibson as to the appropriateness
of obsessing on the image of the beaten Christ, in both degree,
quantity and quality.

2) According to Lk. 23.28-31 Jesus was composed well enough in mind
and body to pause mid-march (to Golgotha) and deliver a spirited
hortatory speech to the women who were following. No doubt left out of
the film because if would not fit the image as portrayed by Gibson.

3) When the soldiers draw lots for Jesus' clothing (John has the
fullest account at 19.23-24), it is obvious that the soldiers covet
it. Would you really want a soaking bloody rag-garment, as portrayed
in Gibson? Improbable that the Romans would've.

4) When the resurrected Jesus shows himself to the disciples (Lk.
24.38-40, Jn. 20.20; and later to Thomas, Jn. 20.24-27), he
specifically asks them to note the nail marks and the spear mark in
his side. If you saw the movie, then you know how improbable it would
be for anyone to distinguish a spear mark from the mass of bloody
gashes all along his body. Miracles are convenient at this point if
you'd like to argue them, but note that the text doesn't.

5) The film simply overdoes it. I've seen people beaten to within
inches of their lives, and some who died. Sure you could argue that
since Jesus is superhuman, he could do something superhuman like that.
But note that MML&J do not make recourse to such banalities.

I realize you can take issue with any one of those, but they are my
belief based in the text, which is more than you can say for the
opposite argument, relying on "artistic license" and such.

Parenthetically, regarding #2 (where I noted a passage left out of the
film because it was inconvenient). In a similar vein, note Jesus'
remark according to Luke: 22.35-38, also left out: And he said unto
them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye
any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he
that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he
that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say
unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me,
And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning
me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And
he said unto them, It is enough.

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,
roughly, "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?

Not if accuracy is the intent. You know this very quote, "let his blood
be upon us", is a poignant irony for it was the very blood of Christ that
meant to save these people.... and here we see you once again up to you old
tricks.

No, accuracy was not the issue, hypocrisy was, and we've dealt with
this above. This is a "tricky" point only if you don't understand how
it's hypocritical to edit something in the subtitles because of
critical pressure but leave the oral language in. *That's* tricky.

and finally,
9) Where in the text does Satan appear as in Gibson's movie? In the Garden
of Eden and at the temptation of Christ. Other than that this was an
artistic license on the part of Mel Gibson

Ah, so that's what you call it when convenient, "artistic license".
Good to know. However, Gibson et al. have stated that the film follows
the scriptures. I find it does not.

but please....as you put it...
pretty please ...don't tell me that Satan's influence, in whatever form
wasn't present. snip

I wouldn't presume to know. The gospels do talk of it, but not as
Gibson presents it. Moreover, the point of #9, which you entirely
miss, is to question whether Gibson's vision of Satan is a reasonable
inference of the text (passion texts, if I need to spell it out). I
have already noted the troublesome fact that he portrays Satan as a
woman (cinematically I loved this, it was a beautiful theme
throughout; textually I find no fides). The episode of Judas' suicide
was laughable. When I saw those kids morphing I hadn't laughed so hard
since I first saw the Ewoks.

I have now explained myself to you to the best of my ability. I've answered
your queries and I've questioned your intent. I wish you peace. I've found
mine.

M

Et tu Mel, pax tecum. But not without my turn under the prophetic
mantle. "The Passion", like "Birth of a Nation", is a popular film
with passionate ethnic opinions. And like the Birth of a Nation, The
Passion will one day be viewed for its value as camp humor.

Vale,
H.

Thank you for your viewpoint H. I've enjoyed the speculations and have
actually considered their validity. I hope you've enjoyed mine. I regret
that we never got around to discussing the craftmanship of the table per my
OP. As far as my second post, I regret we were never able to discuss the
artistic ability of a well known actor/now director and the subtleties
within the story he told....accurate or not. I regret that criticism is not
only viewed as a valid stance in any discussion, but in fact considered
necessary.

What I regret most is after this point of the thread, how in the eyes of
bystanders, we proceeded to behave in a manner that did little to teach the
good news of salvation.

Hi Mel,

You sure have a lot of regrets.

"mel" wrote in message m...
Thank you for your viewpoint H. I've enjoyed the speculations and have
actually considered their validity. I hope you've enjoyed mine.

Indeed I have. Your posts have compelled me to reread the passion
texts, and that alone was worth it. And except my feeling that you
have not accorded what I write the respect of a fair reading, I have
the sense that you are a decent guy, so I'm not unhappy with our
exchange.

I regret
that we never got around to discussing the craftmanship of the table per my
OP.

Well, that was not all you had in the OP, and I was not too interested
in it. Is that a problem?

As far as my second post, I regret we were never able to discuss the
artistic ability of a well known actor/now director and the subtleties
within the story he told....accurate or not.

Since your second post was a response to my concerns about the movie's
non-adherence to the text and anti-semitism, it is not odd , surely,
that we didn't discuss the merits of the film. There's nothing
stopping you from starting a new thread on some NG about this, if
that's what you're after (I did, BTW, grant cudos to the sublimity of
Satan in Gibson's film. She was stunning, for the most part.)

I regret that criticism is not
only viewed as a valid stance in any discussion, but in fact considered
necessary.

Your abundant critical opinions, even your judgement written just now
on the ubiquity of criticism, belies your statement--are you trying to
be paradoxical? I get the impression you think criticism is a bad
thing. It is not--it is inescapable, in fact. The only thing that
matters is if your criticism and critical approaches are sound or not.
That includes your approach to religion. It all has to go through your
brain, even faith, so you might as well put what god gave you to work
to good ends.

What I regret most is after this point of the thread, how in the eyes of
bystanders, we proceeded to behave in a manner that did little to teach the
good news of salvation.

Wow, it's no wonder you're full of regrets. "To every thing there is a
season, and a time to every purpose". Evangelizing on rec.woodworking
is not one of them, nor is playing the penitent.

It makes me happy to engage in debate and learn new things, even if
from mistakes. I hope the cultivation of your faith eventually makes
you happier, or that you'll find a faith that does.

Xairein,
H.

You whine about me misreading your posts blah, blah blah....

Snip I regret that we never got around to discussing the craftmanship of
the table per my OP.

SnipWell, that was not all you had in the OP, and I was not too interested
in it. Is that a problem?

This is my first post. The OP of this thread started by myself.

Snip"Based on the reaction to some of the Christmas postings I'm sure this
question will wind up being a discussion on Christianity and religion. Here
it goes......

What did you think of the table they showed Christ having built in the movie
"The Passion of the Christ"? Any idea who built it and was it constructed
using techniques available of the time? Did you get the symbolism of the
table?

Before you respond to this please note, I'm on topic since I'm discussing a
table built using neander techniques built by an early carpenter or at the
very least, a depiction of one."

I was replied to by Glen.

Snip"mel" wrote in message
m...

Did you get the symbolism of the
table?


I'm not sure that I did. I would like yo hear.

Glen

I responded to Glen's question with my second post where I drew the
analogies of the table. Here is how your convenient memory works.

SnipSince your second post was a response to my concerns about the movie's
non-adherence to the text and anti-semitism, it is not odd , surely,
that we didn't discuss the merits of the film. There's nothing
stopping you from starting a new thread on some NG about this, if
that's what you're after (I did, BTW, grant cudos to the sublimity of
Satan in Gibson's film. She was stunning, for the most part.)

No it wasn't. My second post was a direct reply to Glen consisting of my
interpretation of the analogies of the table in the movie. It was after
this post you contributed your first. Your analysis of the movie using my
analogies as parodies. Creative but not exactly what one might call
respectful. A theme you've touted in every one of your posts. "I get no
respect."

I don't even know your name. H is all you provide. Well, "having to do
with wood", let me ask you a simple yes or no question.

snipI get the impression you think criticism is a bad thing. It is not--it
is inescapable, in fact. The only thing that matters is if your criticism
and critical approaches are sound or not. That includes your approach to
religion. It all has to go through your brain, even faith, so you might as
well put what god gave you to work to good ends.

Do you really subscribe to this train of thought? I would like to challenge
you to simply answer yes or no.

Mel

Dear Mel,

You're absolutely right, I did not remember the order of posts
correctly. I jumped in after your second post. That's not exactly the
same kind of misreading you do which I've been talking about: yours is
not merely mistaking a sequential order, you consistently misread
semantic content on the same point in consecutive responses.

Hey, if it makes you feel good to make a big thing of this, knock
yourself out. Looks like an inconsequential detail to me, and I'm
happy to correct it and stand corrected.

"mel" wrote in message om...

snip unnecessary reposting of text: consult the thread's first three
entries

I responded to Glen's question with my second post where I drew the
analogies of the table. Here is how your convenient memory works.

It was just a mistake, Mel, had nothing to do with convenience (that's
paranoid). My point, BTW, which is not affected by the order of
responses to your OP, stands and, more significantly, remains
unanswered. We call this a "red herring" argument.

SnipSince your second post was a response to my concerns about the movie's
non-adherence to the text and anti-semitism, it is not odd , surely,
that we didn't discuss the merits of the film. There's nothing
stopping you from starting a new thread on some NG about this, if
that's what you're after (I did, BTW, grant cudos to the sublimity of
Satan in Gibson's film. She was stunning, for the most part.)

No it wasn't. My second post was a direct reply to Glen consisting of my
interpretation of the analogies of the table in the movie. It was after
this post you contributed your first. Your analysis of the movie using my
analogies as parodies. Creative but not exactly what one might call
respectful. A theme you've touted in every one of your posts. "I get no
respect."

Mel, you don't get to decide how others will respond to your OPs. If
you don't want to participate in a sub-thread, then don't. But don't
whine because someone else has interests that take them other than
where you want the OP to go. Playing Thread Nazi will get you nowhere.

I jumped in after your second post, which was OT, and in response to
Glen. I parodied your list, but I meant everything I wrote, and parody
is a time-honored fashion of criticism. Just ask Elijah. You just have
a problem with people thinking differently than you, I gather.

And Mel, once again you twist what I say to make it fit what you want
to argue. I don't remember saying, "I get no respect". I do remember
accusing you of having the same lack of respect for the text of the
Bible and my arguments alike, because you consistently, repeatedly,
make the same incorrect inferences; then, when those misreadings are
pointed out, you respond with silence, no correction, no retraction.

This whole post of yours here is akin to an author being miffed at a
critic, then pointing to an error on the critic's title page, the
copyright date say, then making that out to be a significant thing on
par with the critics criticism. You are grasping at straws and looking
pretty desperate--which should not be surprising considering the
number of straw men you constructed in prior posts.

And the passive/aggressive approach as got to go. One post acting the
penitent Christian all sorry that readers might be mislead and trying
to avoid all conflict, the next post grasping at straws and
name-calling. I repeat my earlier wish for you: "I hope the
cultivation of your faith eventually makes you happier, or that you'll
find a faith that does." Your posts make a portrait of a very unhappy
guy.

I don't even know your name. H is all you provide.

H is short for Hylourgos, which you can see on the thread hierarchy,
it's really not that mysterious. And why should it matter? Would it
change the nature of the argument if you knew my real name, or I
yours?

Well, "having to do
with wood", let me ask you a simple yes or no question.

snipI get the impression you think criticism is a bad thing. It is not--it
is inescapable, in fact. The only thing that matters is if your criticism
and critical approaches are sound or not. That includes your approach to
religion. It all has to go through your brain, even faith, so you might as
well put what god gave you to work to good ends.

Do you really subscribe to this train of thought? I would like to challenge
you to simply answer yes or no.

Yes, of course. When have I not meant what I said?

H.

And I am glad you did respond for the additional info about the symbolism of
the table. I found the interpretation to be very interesting.

Glen


"mel" wrote

What did you think of the table they showed Christ having built in the
movie
"The Passion of the Christ"? Any idea who built it and was it constructed
using techniques available of the time? Did you get the symbolism of the
table?

Before you respond to this please note, I'm on topic since I'm discussing
a
table built using neander techniques built by an early carpenter or at
the
very least, a depiction of one."

I was replied to by Glen.

Snip"mel" wrote in message
m...

Did you get the symbolism of the
table?


I'm not sure that I did. I would like yo hear.

Glen

I responded to Glen's question with my second post where I drew the
analogies of the table. Here is how your convenient memory works.

I'm glad you've answered in the affirmative concerning the value you place
on criticism. One reason I feel you are so frustrated with me is the
misunderstanding that I'm responding to the substance of your words instead
of the intent of them. Go back and look at the very first response by
myself to you. I haven't been attempting to have a discourse with you
concerning the merits of what you've written but instead I've been
questioning the motivations behind them. A deeper since of critique, if you
will, than a mere recreational attempt to debate various points of views.
I've called upon you time and time again to take that same energy you use to
criticize the external projections of others and turn it internally towards
yourself. Introspect is probably the purest and highest form of
criticism one can subject oneself to. You ought to try it sometime.

Since you hold criticism in such high regard and since you point out not
only the necessity of it but that it's inescapable then please read on......

Have you noticed that what some can highly esteem, others can greatly
disdain? It's true in most arenas of life. It's true in politics and art.
It's true in the area of food, of clothes and most certainly in the area of
music. Every generation has the argument with the previous generation what
qualifies as good taste in music. So we recognize, that in some things
people
can have such strong emotions but they can be completely divergent.
That is especially true about this movie. Few who have seen this movie have
remained neutral about it.

Critics such as yourself have claimed it is anti-Semitic. It's too violent.
It's too narrow and rigid of an interpretation of Jesus' death. A death some
would argue isn't rooted in historical fact. However, many of us believing
Christians think there is a deeper reason behind these attacks. Please note,
that last statement wasn't concerning the validity of the arguments of the
critics but instead the motivations behind them. Arguing and attempting
to substantiate the validity of the critic's arguments isn't how one would
respectfully pay attention to what I have written here. It would, in
essence, be ignoring it as you have accused me of time and time again.

Mel Gibson was posed the following question. What do you think is the real
reason the critics have been so condemning of his movie?

I feel his reply was right on the mark.

"Things really haven't changed much in 2000 years. Those that were afraid
of Jesus then are still afraid of him today."

Now you might say afraid of what? What about Jesus that could produce fear
in men? I don't think it was his teachings or his value system. I don't
think it was his politics. I'm going to suggest that what divides men about
Jesus is the cross.

In Galatians 5, Paul said,"the cross is offensive to men."

And he said it again in 1 Cor 1:18- 25 "For the message of the cross is
foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is
the power of God. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the
wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the
wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has
not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of
God the world through it's wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through
the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand
miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified:
a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who God
has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of
God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom and the weakness
of God is stronger than man's strength."

Here is where I feel the real source of your frustration originates. Paul
said the cross is a stumbling block to the intelligent of our age. The
word he used in the Greek text for stumbling block and for offensive in
Galatians is the Greek word "skandalon" and it's where we get the word
scandal . Paul said I will not remove the scandal of the cross.

Why do critics hate this story? Make a note of this... the cross has ALWAYS
been scandalous. In fact I would contend that whether the cross was being
taught accurately and correctly is whether or not natural unregenerate man
is offended by it. Alot of people today want to remove the scandal from the
gospel. Now there's two chief ways people are doing this.

One is what I call rank liberal theology. In this liberal approach, men are
suggesting that the cross wasn't really necessary....that the death of Jesus
was no more significant than the death of any other man. There was an
article about this in our local paper where they interviewed some students
of a seminary who had viewed the film and asked what they thought.

In true liberal fashion one of them replied," It doesn't make sense to me
that God would need to be satisfied by sending his son to be killed. That
is a vengeful god and not a god I want to worship."

Another stated,"my death is no more significant than my birth or every other
day in between. Why should it be any different for Jesus?" That's one way
to remove the scandal of the cross. Let's just say that his death wasn't
anymore significant than any other man's. Most evangelical Christians don't
go the liberal route.

Our temptation isn't to try to get rid of the cross. Our temptation is to
clean it up. To domesticate it and make it pretty. So if you listen to
alot of preaching today you don't hear much of sin and death and blood and
wrath.....and self denial. You hear alot about health and wealth and
blessing....and self esteem. To alot of us the cross has become a nice
devotional topic. The cross makes good earrings. It looks pretty hanging
on the wall......

That is probably because we, myself included, have never
seen a man dying on a cross. The early Christians did. They understood
that you can't make a cross pretty.

Something a few years ago happened on the campus of Duke University. They
were filming a movie called "The Handmaid's Tale."
In this movie there is a scene where a woman gets hung so they erected a
gallows on the campus. It happened to be in front of the chapel and this
upset some people. They said the gallows shouldn't be in front of the
church....it was too gruesome. The irony of this is right behind the
gallows is a big giant cross in front of that building. The cross today has
become a pretty decoration. There's no way in the first century you could
make a
cross pretty....

You've got to understand that when the early Christians went out as
missionaries and preached a savior crucified that was scandalous.
To a Jew who knew in the OT that anyone who hangs on a tree is cursed person
you're trying to get the Jew to believe in a cursed god. That is an
ultimate oxymoron. To the Roman who believed in power and might you are
presenting a dead god and that is the ultimate oxymoron. A Jew thinks a
cursed god is absurd and a Roman thinks a dead god is absurd and everyone
thinks a weak servant god is absurd. So you see, the early Christians had
tremendous pressure to get the scandal out of the gospels and make it more
marketable....but they wouldn't do it. Paul put it this way in 1 Cor 2:2 " I
decided I would speak only of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross"

The gospel would not be compromised for the sake of the scandalized. Don't
you dare preach a Jesus without the wounds. Don't get rid of the scandal of
the cross. The critics will hate it.... they have always hated it. Let me
tell you why. There's at least three reasons the critics are offended by
the cross.

The first one is the cross supposes the holiness of God. It offends
because it says man's sin problem is bigger than man wants to admit. Sin
doesn't upset us that much anymore. We've gotten used to it. You can't turn
on the TV or radio and not see or hear sin. We've become inoculated against
sin. It doesn't bother us much anymore so we assume it doesn't bother God
much either. But the cross points to a God who's holiness is deserving. The
cross says God cannot ignore sin. He must move against sin and the holy
reaction
God has when he moves against sin the bible calls "the wrath of God."
You want to talk about a subject that is scandalous, start talking about the
wrath of God and see what modern man says. But the early Christians
wouldn't ignore the scandalous subject of the wrath of God just because
people didn't like to hear about it. The New Testament is full of
scriptures warning of the wrath of God against sin. If God didn't give full
vent of his wrath against evil he wouldn't be the one who even now millions
of angels are singing to and the song they sing is called
"Holy...Holy...Holy..." You have to understand the problem of sin is the
biggest problem God faced. Much bigger than creation. All God had to do for
creation was speak the word but he couldn't just speak a word and get rid of
sin. The problem of sin couldn't be spoken...it had to be suffered. So God
poured out his wrath on his innocent son who had been offered as a
substitute for us. That's not God being vengeful... that's God being loving
without compromising his holiness. The cross makes us face a God that is so
much more holy than we want to think he is and it makes us face the fact we
are not nearly as holy as we want to think we are.

The second reason the cross is scandalous is it exposes the filthiness of
man. Let me ask a rhetorical question...if I'm ok and you're ok, why did
Jesus have to die? The cross offends because it challenges the most popular
religious perception of our day and that is the perception that God grades
on the curve. Good-Enoughism.

"Do you think when you die you are going to go to heaven?"

"I think I should. I think I've been good enough."

And the cross comes along and says that's not how God judges man. God
doesn't grade on the curve. The cross says ALL men are spiritually bankrupt
before God. In fact, if you want to talk about an offensive verse in the
bible there is a verse in the OT that says when you do your best and you are
as righteous as you know how to be your righteousness is filthy rags to God
because he's that holy. The bible says in Romans 3:22-23" ..there's no
difference for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"

I'm going to contend the four most offensive words in the bible are the
four words," there is no difference.."

"What do you mean there's no difference? I'm not a mass murderer or a drug
pusher or a child molester. What do you mean there's no difference between
me and people like that? I think I've been good enough!!"

What you've got to understand is when we talk like that it's because we
judge each other by comparing ourselves to each other instead of comparing
ourselves to God. If we were in the same room and asked someone else in
that room if there were differences between us then they could easily point
them out but if that same person was in a plane flying 10,000 feet above us
and was asked to discern the differences between the two tiny specks they
would say,"I see no differences." And the bible says that we fall so short
of
the glory of God that in God's eyes there is no difference between us.The
fact is I'm only ok and you're only ok if the standard is something other
than the holiness of God.

D.F.Stearns was preaching one day and a man came up to him who would have
hated Mel Gibson's movie and asked him," why do you have to focus on the
death so much? There's so much more to Jesus. Talk about his life and his
teachings. Talk Jesus the great example. That's the kind of Jesus that men
will follow...."

And Stearns said," so you'll follow Jesus if I talk about that?" And the man
said yes he would.

"Well then," Stearns said, " the first thing you must know about Jesus is he
never sinned. Can you do that?"

"Well no, I can't do that. Of course I sin."

"Then sir, you don't need an example... you need a savior."

The bible says in Ephesians 2 that "all of us..all of us, also lived among
them at one time gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature. Like
the rest, we were .." (look closely at these next few words) " by nature
OBJECTS OF WRATH. But.." (that little three letter word is the best three
letter word in the bible) ".. but because of his great love for us, God, who
is rich in mercy, made us alive in Christ when we were dead in our
transgressions-it is by grace that you have been saved."

What can a dead man do to save himself? That is the problem with
Good-Enoughism. In the eyes of God you are dead in your transgressions.
What can a dead man do to save himself? The typical answer in the world
is," well he needs to find himself a religion he's comfortable with. You see
that brings up the final reason the cross is scandalous.

It discloses the emptiness of religion. The cross defies the claim of the
sincerity cult. This is the belief that you need to just believe in
something and that all roads lead to heaven and you need to just find one
you're comfortable with and try your best and do good enough. Now let me
help you understand the chief difference between Christianity and all other
religions of the world. It's not that we teach men to be saved. Every
religion in the world teaches men to be saved. The difference is, the
Christian religion, because of the cross of Jesus, says self salvation is
impossible. The bible says three things about you you may not want to
hear....

1. IT SAYS YOU'RE A SINNER.

well ok... I can live with that.We are all sinners..

2. IT SAYS YOU'RE SENTENCED.

well ok... I can believe that...

3. IT SAYS YOUR STUCK

well I don't like that. I'm not stuck. I have found a religion and I'm
working it...

No...let me say it again. The bible says we are all sinners. We are
sentenced and we are stuck. The bible says we can't earn or contribute one
little
bit to our salvation. Men hate that. We hate it because we're proud and the
cross will have nothing to do with man's pride. It obliterates all religion
of human achievement.

The bible says in Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved,
through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is a gift of God---not by
works, so that no one can boast."

This is where I question your motivations the most. Your statement of
"faith without works is dead" not only scares me but it reveals your intent
to mislead men. It reveals your fear and it reveals your inability to find
a rational explanation for the saving grace of God.

When Jesus died on the cross he uttered," it is finished". The Greek word
for this was one used by the merchants of the time. When you had completed
a transaction the merchant would utter a word literally meaning "paid in
full". Now religion contends salvation is on the installment plan. If I
just do good long enough eventually the balance against my sin will be paid
in full.

And the cross says, salvation was completely paid for. You can't earn it
you can only receive it as a gift when you put faith in Jesus. Now I can
tell you, the Christian religion would be less scandalous and more
marketable if we took the cross out. If we stood up and said you are all a
bunch of nice people and if you will just try hard to do more nice things,
everything would be ok. That would sell. That would be more popular....
It'd also be heresy.

You can not take the scandal out of the gospel. Harry Ironside use to use
this illustration. Years ago there was a terrible train wreck that killed
many people. What had happened was a train had broke down on the track and
on that same track another train was headed their way. They told the people
to just sit tight and not worry they had sent a man to stop the train. The
train didn't stop. It slowed down but didn't stop and the ensuing collision
killed many people. They asked the conductor of that train why he didn't
stop, that they had sent a man to wave the red flag which was the signal for
the train to stop. He replied he didn't see a red flag, only a yellow one.
They found that flag and discovered it had once been red but had faded in
the
sun and appeared yellow. Henry Ironside said that is what is happening to
the gospels. He said they are taking the red out. They are not preaching of
the cross and the death and the blood of Jesus. Instead they are preaching
just be nicer. And what he use to say is you take the red out and preach a
yellow gospel people are
going to die that otherwise could have been saved.

We do not take the scandal out of the gospels no matter how much the critics
hate it.

The bible says in Romans 3 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory
of God," and it says next, " they are justified freely by his grace through
the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." That word "freely". Let me teach
you something about that word I think is kind of neat. Jesus used that word
once in John 15. He was trying to explain to his disciples why men hated
him and he said in verse 25 " they hate me without reason". It's the same
word translated in Romans 3 as "freely".

In other words, Jesus said men don't have a good reason to hate me... and
Paul says God doesn't have a good reason to save us. Men hate Jesus for no
good reason...and God loves you.... not because you've given him a good
reason to love you.... just because he does. You see, there's something
more scandalous than the cross. The cross has always been scandalous but
God's grace has always been scandalous too. It's not just HOW God saves
that's amazing.... it's WHO God saves that's amazing. Think about who was
the first trophy of the cross. It was a crucified criminal. He's up there
hanging on the cross next to Jesus. He's got nothing to offer. No works by
his hands. He's got nothing to offer with his life. No Goodness.No merit....
He wasn't a nice guy. He could never be good enough. All he could do was
turn in faith and ask the man on the cross to save him.....and the man on
the cross did. That's just.. that's just scandalous!!

What you have to understand is.... that thief on the cross.... that's me.
And it's you, too. And the day you understand that is the day you'll thank
God for the scandal of the cross. Don't talk to me about lack of respect
for the gospel. Look within yourself...first.

There's an interesting story about a man who goes to my church. He's got a
powerful testimony. We have a program called CASA which stands for
Christians Against Substance Abuse. He's tried several programs before and
he will tell you that Jesus Christ and faith in him is responsible for
delivering him from his addiction....

But here's the twist.... he was raised Jewish. Raised to believe that Jesus
was an imposter and a fraud and his family is in turmoil. On one hand they
want their son to be free from drugs but on the other hand all the glory is
going to Jesus Christ and the most powerful part of his testimony is when he
says," my father is afraid.... afraid he will have to meet me at the cross."

Mel Gibson was right. They feared him 2000 years ago and they fear him still
today because if this story is true you are going to have to meet him at the
cross. And that's why the critics hate this story....... and that's why I
love it.

One final note, your frustration was prophesied by Isaiah in 29:14.... the
verse which Paul quotes in 1 Cor 1: 18-25

"Mikey Darden" wrote in message . com...
This thread, that darn movie, and all the hoopla stirred up in general
about the subject matter at hand make me glad I'm an atheist. The irony is
that no matter what I think or feel about religion (or lack thereof), I
still am subject to these "discussions" that drove me away from organized
religion in the first place.

As a fellow Atheist, I have to ask you how exactly you're "subjected"
to this discussion? You're free not to read the thread. I for one
find religion discussion that are rational (well, as rational as
religion can be) pretty interesting.

Even if you don't believe the mystical aspects of it, Jesus is
nonetheless a historical figure at the very least, and obviously has
influenced a heck of a lot of people for thousands of years. That
alone should be indication that it might be a worthwhile to understand
where these people are coming from.

As with any religion (and with any atheist), you have the extremists
on both sides which take even a discussion about their faith, or lack
thereof, as a direct attack upon it.

Larry Bud wipes his nose, snickered and said, "Ooooooh! it's my turn to say
something!" and wrote:
As a fellow Atheist, I have to ask you how exactly you're "subjected"
to this discussion? You're free not to read the thread.

Well, in your anxious stupor to get a "Me, too" post in, maybe you forgot to
read what I wrote right after that sentence. I just knew someone was going
to spout what you did. I can't believe it took this long for that response.
Your decision to only snip and include what you did does not complete the
context of that thought. The text I'm speaking of is:

"For those of you without a life beyond the computer, I'm not only speaking
of this particular thread or any other. I know where the "next message" and
"delete" tabs are and know how to use them. I actually, unlike some of you,
know how to just avoid these topics by not clicking on them at all.
Therefore, you can drop the "You don't have to read it." comments. Those
statements are as childish and unsubstantial as most religious discussions
end up being."

Apparently, you think that what is typed here is only meant for your little
computerized world. I was speaking of more than internet land when I made
that statement. Go back and read the rest of the post to see what I mean.

My post was just a point of information; not a lecture, or a view changing
argument for one side or the other. Just a statement to say that no matter
where you are talking or typing with others, it seems that the subjects of
beliefs and religions creep in and reinforces why I ended up believing (or
not believing, however you want to look at it) what I do. Sometimes, I
choose to get involved, but sometimes it's just a drive-by and you get
sucked into the vortex.

I, like yourself, can find the rare, rational discussion of religion
informative and interesting. However, it seems that religious discussion and
rationality end up being oxymoronic. It also seems that there are always
vastly diametric opinions and beliefs, even among people of similar
religions and beliefs. It's just too hard to stay involved in those
conversations for long. The majority of people are just too emotional to
maintain a rational, level headed banter. One thing I have noticed that
folks of all beliefs can agree on....Convert the Atheist! He needs to think
like we do.

Politics and abortion complete the trifecta of things that are hard to talk
about and hard not to talk about. I just try to avoid those topics as much
as possible. I think we all could sit in my workshop and share a beer or
iced tea and all enjoy each other's company for and unlimited amount of
time. Bring up one of the topics above and somebody will be fighting in
under three minutes.

Mikey


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003

So tell me - why did you post a note that you knew would get a lot of
people "fired up"?


--- Gregg

My woodworking projects:


Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm


"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

That is an excellent question and it's one I probably should answer very
carefully. It's funny you should ask this very question now. I was having a
conversation with my wife just this morning concerning a man she works with
who states he's an atheist. I read a post on here this morning by another
man who also states he's an atheist. There appears to me, and I want to make
note that I state "appears to me", to be a commonality between what an
atheist will speak about and it goes something like this....

"I'm am glad I'm an atheist since those I see who have beliefs can't seem to
agree on those beliefs so I've chosen to avoid those situations"

Is this a fair assessment? I was impressed by the post I read this morning
by a proclaimed atheist and I don't want to single him out other than to say
thank you for the respectful manner you contributed to this thread.

I do not single out atheists in my attempt here to answer this question. I
merely bring them up because of the timeliness of a conversation I had with
my wife concerning a man she works with who states he is one. We were
discussing his tendency to avoid conversations that require discussing a
belief system. Something all men do....atheist or not.

To answer your question honestly, and hopefully very carefully, I would have
to say the reason I started this thread knowing full well it might "fire"
some people up is because when you love the story of the salvation of man as
much as I do you hope you can share it with someone who will fall in love
with it too.

mel wrote:


Irrelevant atheism discussion snipped.

: To answer your question honestly, and hopefully very carefully, I would have
: to say the reason I started this thread knowing full well it might "fire"
: some people up is because when you love the story of the salvation of man as
: much as I do you hope you can share it with someone who will fall in love
: with it too.

Ah. Prosyletizing. Which you did even though you admittedly knew it
might stir up trouble.

thanks for the answer.


--- Gregg

My woodworking projects:


Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm


"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558