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 Gibsons 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 It is not an historical document.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
) 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?