Posted by Kevin at 184.108.40.206 on August 22, 2003 at 18:22:29:
In Reply to: This continues to be interesting. posted by Mrs. Isis Fabulous on August 22, 2003 at 17:15:20:
: : Isis, from most of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you're smarter than this.
: Backhanded compliment! SMACK!
: Anyway, let me preface my response by saying I'm not trying to prove Jesus DIDN'T exist,
or that the stories in the Bible couldn't be true; simply that I'm open to all the possibilities,
whereas it's pretty clear Mel isn't. And the Christian story done in a fundamentalist, "THIS is
the way it was" type of way alienates a lot of people, plain and simple.
They're okay to say "This is the way it was," because they're basing it on the widely
recognized text of "The way it was."
: Certainly, even in Jesus's time, there was much about his life that wasn't known. There are
very few stories about his life before his final years even in the Bible; how are we to know
the whole truth?
But the movie we're talking about is concerned primarily with the death of Jesus, aka the
Passion. So info about his youth, in this case especially, doesn't apply anyway.
And, again - the guy's been saying he wants to make Biblically accurate film about Christ's
death. So long as he follows the Bible, he's being accurate.
: Likewise, how much can be known about his death when millions of people still believe, on
pure faith, that he never died?
Not true at all. And see, this is why I'm kicking myself for having this back-and-forth with
you, because clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
And, everyone - for the record, this is NOT a religious debate. This is me trying to
communicate a very simple idea to Isis - something that apparently takes three posts to
Isis, dear - EVERY Christian believes Christ died. It's the foundation of the Christian faith:
Jesus died for our sins. In addition, Christians believe that three days later, he ROSE from
the dead. Big difference between what you said "millions of people still believe" and what
they actually believe.
: See above; my point isn't to disprove. I personally believe that Jesus DID exist
But you said in that earlier post...
Oh, forget it.
: : Hell, I'll even join you in aspects of your debate about the historic Jesus; however, only a
willful ignoramus rails against the fact that the Bible (like it or not) is an historically
accepted account of the life of Christ.
: Um...okay. That's kind of mean.
But true. Please tell me you're disagreeing just to disagree. Either that, or you're not nearly
as bright as I thought you were.
: : You realize this is like an argument over what color blue is, right? Maybe you don't agree
with the rest of the world on the subject, but blue has been roundly agreed to as being blue.
: I don't think it's quite like that. The people who believe Jesus was the Messiah certainly
agree that Jesus was the Messiah. Sure. To the rest of us, blue doesn't necessarily mean
We weren't talking about Jesus being the Messiah, Isis - we were talking about whether or
not the Bible is considered an historical document, and then, we were debating whether or
not Jesus even existed. Don't confuse the points here. So, yes - the blue analogy DOES
apply here. It's QUITE like that.
: Well, see, doesn't that sort of fuck up the whole thing? After all, he was resurrected, and
bodily returned to heaven, if all is according to the Bible. The notion of his bones being
found is very against traditional Christian teachings, no?
Sure. But that's not what we were talking about. Again - you argued that the Bible is not an
historical document, and further expressed doubt that Jesus even lived, being that he wasn't
counted in the Roman Census. I'm not trying to convince you that Christ was the Son of
God; I'm trying to convince you to understand reason and logic: the Bible IS an historically
recognized document, and Jesus (the historic Jesus, the man named Jesus) DID exist.
:Spiritual truth isn't dependent upon historical fact or evidence,
Who said it did?
: and if I were a Christian, I imagine I'd be offended by anyone's claim that they were putting
the accurate truth of the savior's life in a movie.
If you were a Christian, I can't imagine I'd ever get any work done, so busy would I be
defending myself to your obtuse arguments and inability to process simple facts without
muddying the issue with points that aren't even cogent.
: I'm a little put off by anyone claiming to know "the facts" about Jesus.
But in this case, the man is correct. Because the Bible is widely recognized as containing
"the facts" about Jesus. You can say "I don't agree that the Bible contains the facts about
Jesus" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that almost everything we know about the
historical and theological Jesus came from the Bible. So if a filmmaker says he wants to
make as accurate a portrayal of the death of Christ as possible, and says he's using the Bible
to do so, then said filmmaker is neither crazy nor heretical. He's right - because what other
historical documents about Jesus that DIDN'T come from the four Gospels or the rest of the
New Testament is there to go by?
: I mean, who goes around looking for Jesus's bones? Doesn't that go against the very idea
But who said it was a member of the faithful who went looking for Christ's bones? Perhaps
it was an archaeologist.
See? It's shit like that which makes communicating with you (at least in this forum) so
frustrating. "I mean, who goes around looking for Jesus' bones? Doesn't that go against the
very idea of faith?" Why? It didn't have to be a Christian who went looking for the bones. It
wasn't even IMPLIED that it was a Christian. Yet you open this completely new line of
discourse that's irrelevant, because you heard what you wanted to hear, and didn't really
listen (or in this case, read) very clearly to the original thought.
: : For the record, Mel's particular sect of Catholicism is a branch I've never heard of until
: : whole "Passion" thing kicked into high gear. I mean, they won't recognize any Popes prior
: : to Vatican II.
: Come, come. This is a very famous person putting up a big wadge of his own cash to front
a movie filmed in dead languages with no subtitles. By Hollywood standards, it's insane;
someone was bound to ask what his motivation was in doing it.
Sure. And he could've said "Because I'm a big fan of God," and stopped there. Nobody
would've been the wiser about his old man's wacky ideas about the Holocaust.
: Would you make "Dogma" and not expect to hear the question "Are you Catholic"? It's kind
of obvious, right?
Right. But I wouldn't make "Dogma" and expect people to be like "What's are your father's
beliefs? We're gonna go ask him." That's NOT kinda obvious, right?
: : But he's never really put it out there. Sure, he's said he's a Catholic. But I've never seen
him out there talking about how he doesn't acknowledge any Pope after Vatican II.
: Because it's bad for his career! Are you kidding?
Well, duh. Yeah. And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that he would've liked to keep those
views quiet, because they'd come off as weird to a lot of folks. However, just because he
made this movie, it didn't necessarily mean his unorthodox beliefs on the Papacy would get
out, did it? Plenty of people promote movies, themselves, political careers without letting
slip with some of their more outlandish points of view. Some shit you try to keep private;
because even though you believe it yourself, you know the world would be like "Dude -
you're fucking nuts."
: I mean, Tom Cruise doesn't go around talking about the particulars of Scientology, either.
People know what side their bread is buttered on.
Finally! A valid point. Yes, let's take Tom Cruise. Most folks have heard that Cruise is a
Scientologist. But he's not out there talking about it regularly, because Scientology is still
considered sketchy by the majority. But that doesn't stop Tom Cruise from going out there
and making movies, for fear that his beliefs will be questioned when he's doing the junket.
So too, I imagine, Mel Gibson felt he could make a movie about Jesus (since he was already
well-known as a Catholic), without people digging into the specific particulars of his belief
structure. It was only when people started seeing his flick and throwing around the term
"anti-Semitic" that the press started digging deeper into what EXACTLY this man believed.
: Still, that's not "embarrassing private stuff". It was an interview with a major national
Are you fucking high? You wouldn't classify that as "embarrassing private stuff"? I know if
my old man, God rest his soul, was a Holocaust denier, I'd have tried like mad to keep that
shit quiet, if I couldn't change his views. You seriously think Mel Gibson's happy that his
father's being a Holocaust denier was outed in a national newspaper?
Isis, stop being obtuse.
: Well damn, folks would have never known Hitler was an anti-Semite if MEIN KAMPF hadn't
hit the best-seller lists, either!
Lord Jesus, give me the strength to deal with this woman for a few sentences further...
: I just don't get why you're defending these guys; I mean, they are poor persecuted upper-
class white male Christians and all, but at least they can afford to make a rocking movie
I'm not defending anybody, except myself to you.
I give up talking to you. You're impenetrable.
Post a Followup