The Passion of the Christ.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by kyzer
Sorry Lex
could you point me in the right direction on the forum
Thanks
Kyzer

No need I have merged the two threads Kyzer.;)
 
Thanks. for taking the time to do that Garrett.

Your some man

Kyzer
 
I think its a bit politically correct to call this film 'anti-semetic'. The basic fact is that a certain number of Jews indeed WERE responsible for Jesus death, if you believe the Bible. You cannot help but look anti something these days. Schindlers List without Germans anyone? Maybe Saving Private Ryan should have Tom Hanks fighting Martians? No Japanese in Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence.......? The list could go on, but to shy away from the truth as history has recorded it to save the blushes of a sector of society is irresponsible. I am not religeous, but I commend Mel for having the guts to tell a story as it was written. Christians the world over hold the Bible as 'the word of God', their whole ethos is based on the suffering and sacrifice of this one man, they should welcome this film as a chance to show the rest of us the magnitude of that suffering.
 
The list could go on, but to shy away from the truth as history has recorded it to save the blushes of a sector of society is irresponsible.

Oh, so The Bible is now a history book? I think someone should alert the media - earthshaking news you've got there mate.

I am not religeous, but I commend Mel for having the guts to tell a story as it was written.

Written by whom?

Which of the four (often contradictory) Gospel accounts did he use? Do you know? And where did he get that inflamatory little scene from that he was forced to remove, the one that showed the Jewish temple priests building the cross in the temple and delivering it to the Romans? Don't recall that in The Bible, do you?

It was however a "vision" recorded in the writings of a notoriously loopy, anti-semitic Catholic "Saint", who was also given to publishing pamphlets detailing how Jews feasted on the flesh of Christian children.

Perhaps you count her ramblings as "history" or "truth"?

I've read some ill considered crap on these forums but comments like this take the biscuit. Not only are they ignorant but dangerous too. Amazing how the net is filled with comments along the lines of " I commend Mel for having the guts to tell a story as it was written..." accompanied by such ill-informed witterings.

The most basic perusal of the history of the era and of Jewish tradition and ritual would show why even the Catholic Church rejects the Biblical account of the Jews as killers of Jesus. They have even formally apologised to Judaism for centuries of persecution based on a lie. Which, if you study the witterings of the Gibson father and son, you will find they have great problems with, hence Melvin's delightful little propaganda piece.

Try getting and education beyond a Mel Gibson movie before making such declarations. Remember - it's the World Wide Web. When you insert foot in mouth it is for all the world to see.
 
Same Catholic church that refused to denounce Hitler and the Nazis? My point is that Christians take the Bible as Truth, and so cannot complain when said truth is shown in all its Technicolour gore. I take no sides here, I am not a believer. If you require absolute proof of a religions beliefs then you won't get very far with any of them. As I understand it, Gibson has tried to make a faithful representation of a work, wether that work is fiction or not is a matter for the individual. And do not dare to presume that my posts are uneducated OR dangerous...or perhaps you would prefer that all t.v, film, or fiction was censured by yourself, just to be sure it fits your own 'correct' take on the way of things. These forums are just that, 'forums', places where ideas and thoughts are shared. If I am the only one inserting 'foot in mouth' then why has the Papacy commented that the film 'is as it was'?
 
Further, you and I may not consider the Bible as history, but countless millions do. Your problem seems to lie not with me or Gibson, but on the very notion that the 'story' ever even occurred. Perhaps a valid argument...but the 'source' material does exist and I think film makers should be alllowed to use it. I do concede to your point about the making of the cross, but the scene has been removed, are we now to condemn film makers for stuff they havn't even shown to the audience?
 
You haven't even had the courtesy to attempt to address many of the questions I have raised, but despite that I'll extend you the courtesy you deny me and attempt to address the points you made.

Same Catholic church that refused to denounce Hitler and the Nazis?

Yes. Your point being?

If you require absolute proof of a religions beliefs then you won't get very far with any of them.

Not sure that sentence when scrutinized makes a lot of sense, but as it has nothing to do with the points I raised, we'll ignore that one.

As I understand it, Gibson has tried to make a faithful representation of a work,

Then you clearly don't "...understand it...". Which brings us back to my original question to you - "Written by whom?". Let me assure you Gibson’s agenda is to push his version of the story. The man and his father run a breakaway, far-right, lunatic Catholic sect that believes (among other exotica) that The Vatican is run by a Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy. And you think he's going to give us an accurate representation based on orthodox scripture? Duh!

And do not dare to presume that my posts are uneducated OR dangerous...

I do not presume you "posts" are uneducated - just the particular post that provoked my response. For example.

The basic fact is that a certain number of Jews indeed WERE responsible for Jesus death, if you believe the Bible.

You can't have it both ways in a single sentence I'm afraid. Something cannot be a "basic fact" if it is purely a matter of belief.

...the truth as history has recorded it...

It is nothing of the sort. The Bible is a collection of stories belonging to a religion. It is not an historical document.

If I am the only one inserting 'foot in mouth' then why has the Papacy commented that the film 'is as it was'?

The Vatican has issued a formal press release stating categorically that this quote was never made. You really need to check your facts and stop quoting Hollywood hype as fact.

I commend Mel for having the guts to tell a story as it was written.

He doesn't. And - to repeat myself - which version of the story? Written by whom? And where did all of those non-scriptural ideas and scenes come from?

Definitely; uneducated and spoken in ignorance. And yes, dangerous. Ignorance of this subject is always dangerous. Jews have been paying the price for ignorance of this subject for roughly two-thousand years.

My point is that Christians take the Bible as Truth, and so cannot complain when said truth is shown in all its Technicolour gore.

Uneducated even in the debate that surrounds the movie... They aren't complaining! The American fundamentalists are subjecting their youngest children to the unrelenting brutality depicted in this movie as an exemplar of their Saviour's love for them. Suggest you study this subject a little more fully before you make yourself look even more foolish. On the whole Christians tend to love the movie. They aren't really the demographic that is complaining. Do try to keep up!

...or perhaps you would prefer that all t.v, film, or fiction was censured by yourself, just to be sure it fits your own 'correct' take on the way of things.

Firstly the word you're looking for is "censored" not "censured". Secondly there is nothing in my reply to you that states, condones or hints at anything so patently ridiculous. This is a groundless opinion. Try not to de-rail the argument with such wild, unsupported assumptions. It's called a "straw-man argument" (hello regular readers :hiya: ) and is the oldest trick in the book in forensic argument. A sure-fire sign that the proponent of said argument is on shaky ground.

Further, you and I may not consider the Bible as history, but countless millions do.

Oh, so you're taking back all that stuff like "The basic fact is that a certain number of Jews indeed WERE responsible for Jesus death...", "... the truth as history has recorded...".

Your problem seems to lie not with me or Gibson, but on the very notion that the 'story' ever even occurred.

Sorry, wrong. I suggest you re-read my previous post. My issues are with statements you made - and with the boy Melvin. I don't think I could have stated it more clearly - can't see how you missed it.

...but the 'source' material does exist and I think film makers should be allowed to use it.

You say "...the 'source' material..." (emphasis on "the") as if The Bible is the only account of this story. Again evidence of ignorance and lack of education in this subject. But sticking to what you meant, yes it does and it has been used countless times over the last century by film-makers, and infinitely more accurately than Gibson has used it. Trouble is Melvin is making great bones about his spin on events being an historically accurate depiction. Oh dear - BIG PROBLEM...

Film makers should generally be allowed free expression and dissemination of their ideas, but society also has the right then to question those ideas and take them to task on them.

I do concede to your point about the making of the cross, but the scene has been removed, are we now to condemn film makers for stuff they havn't even shown to the audience?

Yes most certainly I would condemn that. Firstly what the hell was something so inflammatory and unfounded doing in the movie in the first place? Remember, Melvin was claiming historical accuracy. Secondly, he was forced to remove it as no distributor was going to touch the movie with a barge-pole while something so incendiary was in there. Learn a little something about Jewish religous custom and tradition and you'll understand why it is such an inflammatory scene. If he could have got away with it the scene would be in the movie. Oh yes, definitely condemned.

These forums are just that, 'forums', places where ideas and thoughts are shared.

Exactly what I'm doing - so what's the problem? :D
 
When I was a teenager, Forum was a top shelf magazine. Those were the days :smashin:
 
Hey The Pauley u claim Mel Gibson is in league with his father and runs a lunatic catholic sect, hmm show us all the proof and don't make libellous statements you can't back up with proof.

Also one little question for u Pauley, have you seen the entire film and if so then i imagine thats one helluva climbdown for you since only a few weeks back you said you would not line Mel's pockets by going to see this film, if you haven't seen it then how can you judge it or it's content ?

Indeed the film hasn't even opened here which makes me think your hatred for everything Mel is getting in the way of your better judgment here, i have noted many posts in the past from you where you attack Mr Gibson, i'm not sure why you choose to do so, perhaps you can enlighten us all ?
 
I did indeed mean 'censure', it means to judge and then to condemn. Try to remember this is a film, maybe your energy would be better directed at chaps who strap themselves with semtex in order to convince people of thier beliefs. You obviously have little time for Gibson- or me for that matter- so don't bother seeing the film, this is your God given right. You have the right to disagree, Gibson has the right to make the film, thats what happens when you live in a democracy.
 
Hi i saw an advanced screening lastnight.Let start by saying that i have never been baptised by any religious priest or minister.So i am not religious in any shape or form.I'm finding it very hard trying to explain how i feel about the film.It made me think what if....I felt raw .numb.Its very intense.I will never watch it again.I,m glad i saw it.Am i making any sense here?

Kyzer
 
I went and saw this yesterday and as a film ( without the religous stand point ) was good. It was very violant and graphic which did not seem out of place.
 
Thats a very good summary.But didnt you feel anything.Dont you think that this is what these type of films do?The what if''s could be's.I would find it hard to find anybody not to feel any type of emotion after watching this movie.

Kyzer
 
Hi, I saw the film last night and left the theatre in a state of shock and trauma - no kidding! It's very graphic, extremely violent and whether or not it's a 'good' movie is irrelevant for me - it's factual and therefore beyond dispute. Whether they should have spoken Greek or had long or short hair - who cares - you see a human being - like you and me - being broken on screen and it's there in all it's gory glory for you to see - not easy to watch. What you take away from that is entirely personally. I'm glad that I've saw the film on screen as it was meant to be seen and heard. I certainly won't be buying the DVD - that's not to say that it's not a good movie worth going to see, I simply have seen it and can't imagine a situation where I would want to go through that amount of emotion again just by watching a movie. Nor would I recommend it to anyone, simply because of the very personal things that you find yourself feeling just by watching it - it's too extreme in certain ways, but if it happened .... Christ, makes you question quite a lot about yourself ... Anyhoo, go and be prepared to be shocked and probably surprised by your reaction and feeling to it.
 
Originally posted by kyzer
Thats a very good summary.But didnt you feel anything.Dont you think that this is what these type of films do?The what if''s could be's.I would find it hard to find anybody not to feel any type of emotion after watching this movie.

Kyzer

The what if's and could be's I didn't think about that much. As for emotion in my opinion Mel Gibson maded the viewers feel the pain when he was being tortured and when he was carrying the cross you did feel sorry for him as no one was helping him.
 
Presumably you know how to use a search engine Foxy, or lift a newspaper? Just in case that’s beyond you, here is one of hundreds if not thousands of articles to be found on the net re. the delightful Gibson family. This from the Fox News Network giving specifics of Gibson Jr’s involvement with the church.

“Last year, Christopher Noxon wrote in The New York Times that Gibson had donated $2.3 million to make Holy Family Catholic Church in Agoura Hills, California a reality. Holy Family rejects the universally accepted teachings of the Second Vatican Conference and chooses to stick with antiquated Catholic ideology.
But it turns out that Gibson has donated a little more than twice that amount to Holy Family since 1999, according to federal tax filings. And that's not counting 2003, since the most recent report has not yet been filed.
Gibson and his wife Robyn are listed in federal tax records as directors of the Holy Family Catholic Church. The church is run out of Gibson's Icon Production company offices, with an Icon employee responsible for keeping the church's books.
The Gibsons' tax-free donations to Holy Family are made possible by a charity they established called the AP Reilly Foundation, which is named for Mel's late mother. The foundation was created on October 29, 1999 for the sole purpose of creating the church.
The church, by the way, has an unlisted phone number, keeps its address a secret and has asked those who have the information not to release it.
In the same interview, Gibson talked about the fact that his brand of Traditionalist Catholicism did not subscribe to the Second Vatican Council's 1965 rulings on various subjects including who was responsible for the death of Jesus Christ.”


Will that do for starters? Or perhaps you’d like me to subpoena the actual tax filings and have then Fed-Ex’d to you? Further searches will reveal some of the rather “questionable” doctrines and political agenda put forward by this church and the even more “delightful” opinions of Gibson senior on The Holocaust, Jews, 9/11, etc.

As I say hundreds, if not thousands of articles. Make the effort Foxy, I’m not going to do it for you. This is easily verifiable information. I do not make libellous statements. You however have accused me of doing so in front of forum members. Would you care to retract that statement / apologise?

Also one little question for u Pauley, have you seen the entire film and if so then i imagine thats one helluva climbdown for you since only a few weeks back you said you would not line Mel's pockets by going to see this film…

While you’re (wrongly) chastising me for the accuracy of my statements, try practising what you preach. What I actually said in a former post was:

"This will be the only movie I will ever watch on a pirate disc.

I am massively curious to see it, but given the dubious activiies / agendas of Gibson Jr and Sr, in all conscience I refuse to put money into Melvin's pocket by forking out to see it.


Penny dropped, has it?

…your hatred is getting in the way of your better judgment here, i have noted many posts in the past from you where you attack Mr Gibson, i'm not sure why you choose to do so, perhaps you can enlighten us all ?

If you’re not sure why I have issues with Mr. Gibson I sugest you learn to read. My reasons are clearly stated. Can’t put it any clearer really.

As to my alleged “…hatred for everything Mel… ”. Not “everything”, just certain things.

His father is an anti-semite, a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier (and before you ask Foxy it’s widely documented and easily verifiable). Gibson Jr. funds his father’s sect, his publishing ventures, and sundry delightful hate mongering / revisionist activities and has repeatedly refused to condemn his father’s vile outpourings when given the opportunity to do so in a public arena.

Nazi lovers and those who fund and give them shelter? Scum of the earth. Hope I never stop hating the bastards.

I will never knowingly put a penny in the Gibson family coffers.

“Schindler’s List” is out on DVD, Foxy. Watch it and try getting a little bit angry. If you do, then try sending a “slapped wrist” letter to Hutton Gibson instead of wasting your efforts on having a go at someone who has no time for him, his ilk or their supporters. Time better spent, wouldn’t you agree?
 
Oh, and "Braveheart" was a pile of **** too. :D
 
What's the difference between The Passion of The Christ and The Passion of St Tibulus from Father Ted. Careful Now! Down with this sort of thing!
 
With regard to the question of whether someone is entitled to comment on a film (The Passion of Christ) without having seen it, I am reminded of a quotation from President Lyndon B. Johnson:

"I don't need to be an expert on chickens to know the difference between chickensh*t and chicken salad."

May I add that although I am not a Christian in the churchgoing sense, I hold Christian values very dear.
 
Gee Whizz, be back in a week, i gotta learn to read.

Brian, i seem to recall a little film in the eighties called The Last Temptation of Christ, lots of people who had not seen the film attacked it, you are very very wrong to state you can have an opinion on something without seeing it.

Lyndon B Johnson, wasnt he "allegedly" involved in killing Kennedy and altering a decision Kennedy made to pull out of Vietnam, a decision which would have saved millions of lives and brought peace on earth a little step closer sooner than it did, Johnson was one of the worlds biggest asses and i have no time for anyone who would quote such a pathetic man.

Lastly, listen up Pauley you have just admitted you have NOT seen the film yet you attack it based on your perception that Gibson funds extreme right nazi groups, (( no proof its just your perception)) anyone can write an article on the net, have you researched the articles you have come across to verify their truth, or have you taken the article to be the gospel because you have this insane hatred for everything Gibson ?

Go watch the film and then i will listen to what you have to say without feeling the need to make comment on these forum pages, and Pauley i hope you take note that i am attacking your stance on this subject and not attacking you, please do not get personal, some of your statements are pretty close to being personal attacks (( your bit about learning to read or indeed your bit about using a web browser )) stick to the facts and lets debate them, don't get personal please.

I have seen Schindlers List, its a good film, well acted and mostly non sugary coated for once, (( makes a change for Spielberg ))
 
Originally posted by FoxyMulder
Lyndon B Johnson, wasnt he involved in killing Kennedy
No he wasn't, unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't.

and altering a decision Kennedy made to pull out of Vietnam, a decision which would have saved millions of lives and brought peace on earth a little step closer sooner than it did,

Not really- Kennedy merely decided to send no more troops until the system stabilised. Johnson was no more keen on Vietnam than Kennedy but as a much superior power player, realised that an immeadiate withdrawel would have been seriously damaging to the US credibility in the area. Troops were scheduled to be leaving by mid '68- the South Vietnamese army would have taken over. The Tet offensive in early '68 put a halt to this.

Lastly, listen up Pauley you have just admitted you have NOT seen the film yet you attack it

He's said he hasn't paid to see it.

based on your perception that Gibson funds extreme right nazi groups, (( no proof its just your perception))

www.idleworm.com Top article- not just his opinon, or mine for that matter
 
What I find a little strange in all this is the way people single out Jesus as if he is/was the only innocent person who has ever suffered torture and death. Millions and millions of people have been tortured/killed every bit as bad, and it is happening still all over the world... I don't mean to diminish his story, but how can people feel so passionately about the injustice Jesus suffered, but feel such indifference about all the injustices currently happening in the world...
 
Ok i changed my post to "allegedly"

You happy now :)

Lex i totally agree, people turn a blind eye everyday to the horrors happening throughout the world, indeed our very own prime minister is meeting a known terrorist because he "denounced" terrorism and now belives in peace, this "former" terrorist is still funding the activities of Robert Mugabe, yet our prime minister is meeting him, that speaks volumes in itself.

DISCLAIMER: i didn't vote in the last election, i do not think any of the political parties are worth my vote and i feel our voting system is outdated, we have too many civil servants and penpushers, and by not voting i hope they get the message.
 
Also, I must be one of the few people who has no interest in seeing this film (anyone else?), it just doesn't appeal - actually I think nailing myself to a cross sounds like more fun!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom