Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Gibson has "softened" Passion

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Gibson has "softened" Passion

Old 08-14-03, 06:24 PM
  #26  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
pro-bassoonist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Jepthah
You haven't even SEEN the film yet, nor will you see the 'unaltered' version.

Your comparison to the historically recent documented Jewish Holocaust is also ignorant at best and offensive at worst.

Every filmmaker has a "bias," even documentary filmmakers--films are not the truth, they are a viewpoint about the truth. Especially a film based on mythologized and conflicting writings that are thousands of years old.
The fact that I have not seen the film does not negate the fact that censorship has been done with a VERY SPECIFIC purpose. Therefore the initial vision of the director has been altered.

How is my comparison ignorant? Is it not also "ignorance" to alter how the Bible is seen through the eyes of the director (for what we know I am not even sure what the Bible depicts really happened....therefore it is the director's vision that we are granted with...why change it because someone else did not like it). Do you go to the store and say "O, my Gosh this dvd is by a German director...his grand parents fought for the Germans during the WW2...they committed so many crimes....we should change its content".

Changing anything, especially an art product, for a political or religious purpose is flat out offensive and to me indicates sort of a directed censorship!!!

Furthermore, why is it offensive?...I have never seen the atrocities that Muslims/Christians committed to each other yet plenty of dierectors have given us visions that depicted human degradation at its worst (Savior, Harrison's Flowers, Before the Rain)...yet no one claimed that they present one of the parties so negatively that the director's intention should have been changed (for the record many of the "facts" presented by CNN during the war in Bosnia were very, VERY conflicting, presenting only one side of the issue. Why is it that no one criticized the source...how come western media chose to show us what was only convenient for the current administation?)

Political/ religious intrusion is degrading to any artist!! Period!!
As far as I am concerned Medieval times are over. Or so I thought!!

Last edited by pro-bassoonist; 08-14-03 at 06:29 PM.
Old 08-14-03, 06:31 PM
  #27  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It's odd to me that so many stories about the original version of the movie (pre-"softening") make such a big deal anout this movie's almost word-for-word protrayal of the bible when Gibson has said many times that he owes much of it to "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (the diaries of St. Anne Catherine Emmerich) which is hardly the same as scripture.
Old 08-14-03, 06:33 PM
  #28  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
pro-bassoonist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by DRG
"OMG, they killed Jesus!"
"You bastards!"

Seriously, these groups really get on my nerve. It pissed me off when the Catholics bitched about Dogma, it pissed me off when Muslim leaders called for Salman Rushdie's death, and this pisses me off as well. It's one thing to openly complain about the idea, but to try to exert force and power to alter and prevent something...

"We respect his creative rights, but..."

Stop right there. The word 'but' negates everything before it. Yet another group that's all for freedom of expression, as long as it's saying what they want to hear.
Could not have said it BETTER!!!!!!!!!
Old 08-14-03, 06:59 PM
  #29  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,337
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by DRG
[BYet another group that's all for freedom of expression, as long as it's saying what they want to hear. [/B]
Well, I believe it's one thing to make a movie like "Last Temptation..." which clearly states that it is fictional and conjecture and another to make a movie like Mel's which is trying to pass itself off as historical truth.

I was disgusted by the uproar about "Last Temptation..." and "Dogma", but I believe that it's acceptable to hold a movie that's passing itself off as a retelling of historical fact to a higher standard. I feel that "freedom of expression" in documentaries and historical recreations is abhorrant and should be disputed. I don't think it's censorship to say "that never happened".

I couldn't find an on-line version of the article that I read, but I did find an article written by Christopher Noxon in the NY Times. In it, it says:

"A friend of the Gibson family has his own ideas about how traditionalist thought is informing "The Passion." Gary Giuffre, a founder of the traditionalist St. Jude Chapel in Texas, says Gibson told him about his plans for "The Passion" on a recent visit. "It will graphically portray the intense suffering of Christ, perhaps as no film has done before." Most important, he says, the film will lay the blame for the death of Christ where it belongs -- which some traditionalists believe means the Jewish authorities who presided over his trial and delivered him to the Romans to be crucified."
Old 08-14-03, 07:55 PM
  #30  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 8,085
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Well its unfortunate but i think this movie is still going to be very good. I dont think there is gonna be massive changes worthy of our "CENSORSHIP!" cries.
Old 08-14-03, 09:42 PM
  #31  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 50,673
Received 182 Likes on 120 Posts
Martin Scorsese: Mel if you change your movie to please others you are a punk ass biatch.

Last edited by inri222; 08-15-03 at 12:03 AM.
Old 08-14-03, 10:12 PM
  #32  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Rogue588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by majorjoe23
Not to get into debates on fact and religion, but even if the story is taken word for word from the bible, there's no real way to know if it's historically accurate.
Hasn't stopped organized religion thus far...
Originally posted by Peep
I couldn't find an on-line version of the article that I read, but I did find an article written by Christopher Noxon in the NY Times. In it, it says:

"A friend of the Gibson family has his own ideas about how traditionalist thought is informing "The Passion." Gary Giuffre, a founder of the traditionalist St. Jude Chapel in Texas, says Gibson told him about his plans for "The Passion" on a recent visit. "It will graphically portray the intense suffering of Christ, perhaps as no film has done before." Most important, he says, the film will lay the blame for the death of Christ where it belongs -- which some traditionalists believe means the Jewish authorities who presided over his trial and delivered him to the Romans to be crucified."
If Mel's a "traditionalist" and that's what they believe/what their version of the bible says, who's to say it's wrong..? Anyways, get back to us with a direct quote, not this "friend of a friend" stuff. Most times it's not reliable..
Old 08-15-03, 12:07 AM
  #33  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by pro-bassoonist
How is my comparison ignorant?...Furthermore, why is it offensive?
You suggest that cinematic depictions of the Holocaust are biased or historically inaccurate and you wonder why that statement could be seen as ignorant or offensive? The details of the Holocaust are undeniable. It is a well-documented event, with testimony compiled through living eyewitnesses as well as documentary evidence through photographs, film and the written word.

By contrast, the word of the Bible is open to interpretation and is seen by most as an often nonrepresentational or allegorical view of events. Mel Gibson is an interpreter of the scripture, and as such his claims of "historical accuracy" in portraying the Jews as the killers of Christ is laughable. He's not taking a historian's approach. He's taking a traditionalist Catholic's approach. There's an important distinction for those who want to argue for the "accuracy" of his film.
Old 08-15-03, 12:22 AM
  #34  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Rogue588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by SpinnerX
The details of the Holocaust are undeniable. It is a well-documented event...
One could say the same about the bible. [or, at least, their religion could impress on them to regard their bible [pardon the pun] as gospel.
By contrast, the word of the Bible is open to interpretation and is seen by most as an often nonrepresentational or allegorical view of events. Mel Gibson is an interpreter of the scripture, and as such his claims of "historical accuracy" in portraying the Jews as the killers of Christ is laughable. He's not taking a historian's approach. He's taking a traditionalist Catholic's approach. There's an important distinction for those who want to argue for the "accuracy" of his film.
Agree 110% about ANYTHING being open to interpretation...including this film. Is it the "historical accuracy" line that people have a problem with? Again...i'm still not understanding what the problem is if he's a traditionalist and this is what they believe/read, why is he wrong? [Not that i'm saying he's right..]
Old 08-15-03, 07:45 AM
  #35  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,150
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
A couple of points after reading the thread:

1) The reason the Jewish community is in such an uproar over this film is because since its creation, up until recent times, the Catholic Church has blamed the Jews for the death of Christ. That means that roughly a third of the people in the world believed on one level or another that the reason there is not paradise on earth today is because of the Jews. I have actually had comments directed towards me to the manner of "You don't seem like a Jew." When I asked what the person meant, they explained that they saw Jews as the killers of Christ, and were GENUINELY SURPRISED that I was a normal human being, and not a horned monster. (Just to clarify: I was born into a Jewish family but now firmly reject not just Jewish teachings but the teachings, or perhaps I should say preachings, of all world religions). Considering that there are people still alive who remember when the Nazis almost killed every Jew in Europe, I think it's safe to say that when one of the world's biggest movie stars makes a film he is claiming to be historically accurate and this film lays the blame for Christ's death at the feet of the Jews, it would be understandable that the Jewish community would feel apprehensive about it.

2) That being said, I'm sure Gibson hasn't thought one whit about this. I'm sure he believes, as he has said, that it WAS the Jews who killed Christ. However, he's put his own money into this thing and if he wants any kind of return on it, he's got to have good word of mouth. If the whole thing is obscured by controversy, it could cost him financially. The Last Temptation of Christ suffered that fate, and I'm sure Gibson is loathe to have that repeated with his movie. I think what we're seeing here isn't bowing to political pressure, but rather to financial pressure.

3) As it said in the article, Gibson is still cutting the movie. He's polling reactions. While this may be his grand vision, he still wants people to like it. The fact that he's made what seem to be minor changes to the film to appease certain groups doesn't seem to be much of an issue to me, especially since he COULD just ignore the groups.

4) I think the thing people should REALLY be griping about is that he's claiming that this is somehow an accurate portrayal of what happened. Give me a break. No one knows what happened. Any introductory bible course in a non-religious college can show you how many contradictory, ambiguous, or otherwise baffling passages can be found in the canonized bible, and that's not even going into the Apocrypha. The only thing this film could be an accurate portrayal of is Gibson's interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of texts that don't even exist anymore.

5) To put things in a more historical perspective, Judea (as it was called at the time) was a mess of political parties, ranging from religious zealots to false messiahs and everything in between. The Romans ruled the country, and the Jews, and there were many disputes as to how the Jews should react to Roman rule. Some believed the reason the Romans were here in the first place was because the Jews had fallen from the teachings in the bible. Others felt the Romans had to be driven out. Jesus comes into this mix claiming that he is the son of god. He disturbs the Temple, one of the few strong symbols of Jewish culture at the time. He brings down the wrath of the Romans on the head of the Jews. It is probably likely that the Jews did indeed turn Jesus in to the Romans. They would do it to curry favor or perhaps just to preserve what little they had left. And, again, considering that messiahs were a dime a dozen at the time, could you blame them? Even if all the Christian teachings are right and Jesus IS the true messiah (which doesn't make any sense considering that the Christian concept of the messiah is taken from the Jewish concept of the messiah, which says that the messiah will be a descendant of King David, NOT the son of god), how could they tell? Nobody knew the right thing to do at the time. And I'm sure there were some Jews who didn't want the Romans to crucify Jesus, so you can't justifiably say that it's inaccurate for Gibson to show that not every Jew was a cutthroat killer. I wonder if anyone told Gibson that hindsight is 20/20.

Last edited by Supermallet; 08-15-03 at 07:53 AM.
Old 08-15-03, 09:39 AM
  #36  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL,
Posts: 6,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It's obvious we all have different opinions...but I am dissaopinted if it's true. Mel might have something up his sleeve, but nobody knows for sure except Mel.

If it offends groups X, Y, or Z, who gives a ****? Every movie today offends someone, so what's the big deal?

While I hope he remains completley historically accurate (to the Gospels which I do believe are as much historical documents as any other historian of the time) I do undertstand some issues just are not know (The crucificxition, the pignment color of the Jews at the time).
Old 08-15-03, 09:48 AM
  #37  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL,
Posts: 6,935
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Supermallet

To simply things, the leaders of the Jewish people at the time, the Phrasiees and the Saducees were the ones who had Christ killed...wether you like it or not. Was every Jew "responsible"? No, but the leaders were. The Romans were just the hammer to say.

In addition, Christ had to die to be the last covenant between God and all of his people to take place. It was unable to be avoided. The politics of the region not withstanding have no bearing on the final outcome. It's funny you state that nobody knows what happened, yet you list all these historical antidotes as if they are facts....

And throwing out the Apocrypha is a red herring if I have ever seen one. None of the Apocrypha has ever been considered cannon.

And your point on "contradictory, ambiguous, or otherwise baffling passages" is a bit misleading. Do they exist, sure they do, but there aren't "many", most of them are translation errors most notably numbers from the OT.
Old 08-15-03, 11:08 AM
  #38  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by Scot1458
...
And throwing out the Apocrypha is a red herring if I have ever seen one. None of the Apocrypha has ever been considered cannon...
Not true.

http://users.binary.net/polycarp/apocry.html

I would recommend reading this whole page. The most relevant paragraphs:
In the 4th century, some Church fathers, especially those who debated with the Jews, like Jerome, favored the shorter Hebrew Canon. Some Church fathers like Ambrose and Augustine favored the larger canon of the Septuagint. Others like Gregory Nazianzen also excluded Esther from the Bible [JBC, p. 522]. Jerome while favoring the shorter canon, several times in his writings cited Books from the larger canon as Scripture. [S&W, p. OT 434] The Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late-4th century were the first real attempts by the Church to end the confusion over the OT canon. The OT canon which they proclaimed is still found in Catholic Bibles today. The controversy continued but in 1441 the Council of Florence upheld this larger canon. In response to the Protestants, the Council of Trent definitively upheld the larger OT canon. [S&W, pp. OT 434-435; JBC, p. 517]

Now the Catholic Church is not alone in accepting the Books which Protestants label as "Apocrypha." The Coptic, Greek and Russian Orthodox churches also recognize these Books as inspired by God. In 1950 an edition of the OT containing all these Books was officially approved by the Holy Synod of the Greek church. Also the Russian Orthodox church in 1956 published a Russian Bible in Moscow which contained these Books. [JBC, p. 524] More details from a scholarly Protestant viewpoint can be found in The New Oxford Annotated Bible (Oxford, 1977). (Emphasis added)
I will concede I don't find this relevant to the discussion. Just using an opportunity to point out you're wrong.
Old 08-15-03, 11:22 AM
  #39  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
pro-bassoonist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Suprmallet
A couple of points after reading the thread:

1) The reason the Jewish community is in such an uproar over this film is because since its creation, up until recent times, the Catholic Church has blamed the Jews for the death of Christ. That means that roughly a third of the people in the world believed on one level or another that the reason there is not paradise on earth today is because of the Jews. I have actually had comments directed towards me to the manner of "You don't seem like a Jew." When I asked what the person meant, they explained that they saw Jews as the killers of Christ, and were GENUINELY SURPRISED that I was a normal human being, and not a horned monster. (Just to clarify: I was born into a Jewish family but now firmly reject not just Jewish teachings but the teachings, or perhaps I should say preachings, of all world religions). Considering that there are people still alive who remember when the Nazis almost killed every Jew in Europe, I think it's safe to say that when one of the world's biggest movie stars makes a film he is claiming to be historically accurate and this film lays the blame for Christ's death at the feet of the Jews, it would be understandable that the Jewish community would feel apprehensive about it.

2) That being said, I'm sure Gibson hasn't thought one whit about this. I'm sure he believes, as he has said, that it WAS the Jews who killed Christ. However, he's put his own money into this thing and if he wants any kind of return on it, he's got to have good word of mouth. If the whole thing is obscured by controversy, it could cost him financially. The Last Temptation of Christ suffered that fate, and I'm sure Gibson is loathe to have that repeated with his movie. I think what we're seeing here isn't bowing to political pressure, but rather to financial pressure.

3) As it said in the article, Gibson is still cutting the movie. He's polling reactions. While this may be his grand vision, he still wants people to like it. The fact that he's made what seem to be minor changes to the film to appease certain groups doesn't seem to be much of an issue to me, especially since he COULD just ignore the groups.

4) I think the thing people should REALLY be griping about is that he's claiming that this is somehow an accurate portrayal of what happened. Give me a break. No one knows what happened. Any introductory bible course in a non-religious college can show you how many contradictory, ambiguous, or otherwise baffling passages can be found in the canonized bible, and that's not even going into the Apocrypha. The only thing this film could be an accurate portrayal of is Gibson's interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of texts that don't even exist anymore.

5) To put things in a more historical perspective, Judea (as it was called at the time) was a mess of political parties, ranging from religious zealots to false messiahs and everything in between. The Romans ruled the country, and the Jews, and there were many disputes as to how the Jews should react to Roman rule. Some believed the reason the Romans were here in the first place was because the Jews had fallen from the teachings in the bible. Others felt the Romans had to be driven out. Jesus comes into this mix claiming that he is the son of god. He disturbs the Temple, one of the few strong symbols of Jewish culture at the time. He brings down the wrath of the Romans on the head of the Jews. It is probably likely that the Jews did indeed turn Jesus in to the Romans. They would do it to curry favor or perhaps just to preserve what little they had left. And, again, considering that messiahs were a dime a dozen at the time, could you blame them? Even if all the Christian teachings are right and Jesus IS the true messiah (which doesn't make any sense considering that the Christian concept of the messiah is taken from the Jewish concept of the messiah, which says that the messiah will be a descendant of King David, NOT the son of god), how could they tell? Nobody knew the right thing to do at the time. And I'm sure there were some Jews who didn't want the Romans to crucify Jesus, so you can't justifiably say that it's inaccurate for Gibson to show that not every Jew was a cutthroat killer. I wonder if anyone told Gibson that hindsight is 20/20.
Up until recently the Jews claimed that every Arab/Palestinian is a terrorist. Most every terrorist was an Arab...their community was in uproar....nothing changed. MORE than one third in the world believe that any man from the Middle East (muslim mind you is a potential terrorist). Now I ask:
Why is this case any different?
Old 08-15-03, 12:01 PM
  #40  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,282
Received 369 Likes on 263 Posts
So one broad generalization justifies another?
Old 08-15-03, 12:08 PM
  #41  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not sure what all the cries of "Censorship" here are about. The article does not say that Gibson "softened" the movie after people criticized it. It says he softened it from the gospel. The gospel includes a verse cited from Matthew that Gibson didn't put in the film. Never does it say that he filmed the scene and cut it out. Gibson didn't cave.

Also, remember, the film is still in the editing process. It says Gibson lingers w/ the audiences to listen to advice. Most films go through this. The filmmakers want to know what works & what doesn't & edit the film accordingly so that it appeals to the broadest audience. No big deal to me.

I say we all relax and wait for the picture.
Old 08-15-03, 12:17 PM
  #42  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
pro-bassoonist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by majorjoe23
So one broad generalization justifies another?
Never tried to generalize but put into context why is it wrong to "force" someone to change his/her artistic vision. I simply responded to the example given above!

If an artists tries to appeal to all the political/religious or God knows what other groups then he/she better quit ASAP.

Seems to me that a lot of people want to justify Gibson's actions through the prism of their personal beliefs and their understanding of what constitues right or wrong! Too much bias floating around here.....

Last edited by pro-bassoonist; 08-15-03 at 12:26 PM.
Old 08-15-03, 12:36 PM
  #43  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To be a true devil's advocate......

Since "no one knows what happened" Suprmallet, and therefore one can't defend the Jews cause they weren't there to see it, why stop the film from making its intended presentation? Just for political correctness? That's garbage. Unless there's some solid arguements in here as to why the Jews couldn't possibly have had Jesus killed, then it's all moot.

And frankly Peep, who cares about the Pope? All Christians aren't Catholic. I beg to differ on the statement that Gibson's "part of an ultra-conservative anti-Pope splinter group of Catholics." What makes you think other Christians, who are not Catholic, aren't as conservative?

And no one has stated the reasons for the Vatican change in 1960. Was it merely to appease the Jews after the Holocaust? That can't be it, but I don't know any futher information than that. So, if someone knows, post it. It may help the counter arguement.

In either case, I don't care. I'm not religious at all, but know this "Passion" belief exists in many parts of the world among non-Catholics. Still, to me, especially if it's his own money, he should do whatever the hell he intended to. That's my belief.


And by the way, Scot has a great point regarding Supermallet that I'll repeat here: "It's funny you state that nobody knows what happened, yet you list all these historical antidotes as if they are facts...." I couldn't have said it better myself.

And finally, Majorjoe, I think what he's saying is that the Jews, in light of the points made in this discussion, can't have their cake and eat it, too. If they want Gibson to say not every Jew craved Jesus's death, then why can't the same hold true for the thought of all Palestinians being terrorists? Not that they aren't. j/k
Old 08-15-03, 12:41 PM
  #44  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Elias, you going to have to elaborate. I have no clue what you're referring to exactly, and I wish I did. Please do.....
Old 08-15-03, 12:47 PM
  #45  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Shannon Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18,354
Received 323 Likes on 241 Posts
Originally posted by Peep
Actually (and I wish I had saved the article), I read an interview way back when Gibson was just starting this project and he quite clearly said that he was making a movie to convince people who didn't think that the Jews were directly responsible for the killing of Christ that they were wrong.

It is a clear tenant of his religious beliefs and he was adamant about it being the reason why he was making the movie. Since the controversy broke, he has very much back-pedaled on these initial statements.

I have a real problem with propaganda being passed off as historical accuracy.
I'd like to know what magazine this is in...I HIGHLY DOUBT Gibson would have made a statement like that. If so, it's really being taken out of context...
Old 08-15-03, 01:02 PM
  #46  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: To be a true devil's advocate......

Originally posted by scroll2b

...
And no one has stated the reasons for the Vatican change in 1960. Was it merely to appease the Jews after the Holocaust? That can't be it, but I don't know any futher information than that. So, if someone knows, post it. It may help the counter arguement.
I suspect that was the reason. But I can't prove it and, if true, it would never be admitted.
And by the way, Scot has a great point regarding Supermallet that I'll repeat here: "It's funny you state that nobody knows what happened, yet you list all these historical antidotes as if they are facts...." I couldn't have said it better myself.
Well, you could have said "anecdotes" instead of "antidotes."
Old 08-15-03, 01:03 PM
  #47  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
historically accurate
Do you believe the Bible to be historically accurate? The Bible is a great book, no doubt, but it is not historically accurate. It was written by men wishing to spread and record their religion.
Old 08-15-03, 01:04 PM
  #48  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 9,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Up until recently the Jews claimed that every Arab/Palestinian is a terrorist
Please. Talk about an over-generatlization.
Old 08-15-03, 01:47 PM
  #49  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,282
Received 369 Likes on 263 Posts
Re: To be a true devil's advocate......

Originally posted by scroll2b
I beg to differ on the statement that Gibson's "part of an ultra-conservative anti-Pope splinter group of Catholics." What makes you think other Christians, who are not Catholic, aren't as conservative?
Gibson and his father are members of "The Holy Family," a splinter group of Catholicism, and while "Conservative" is not a term I would use to describe some of their beliefs, they (or at least the one's expressed by his father) are a little out there.

From Snopes (http://66.165.133.65/politics/religion/gibson.asp):

Gibson, whose father, Hutton Gibson is a notorious Holocaust denier and who claims the the World Trade Center was destroyed by remote control and not by al Queda; that the Second Vatican Council was a Masonic plot backed by the Jews and that all popes going back to John XXIII have been illegitimate "anti-popes".

I'm not saying Christians aren't conservatives, The Holy Family just seems a little more "Conservative-Than-Thou."
Old 08-15-03, 01:52 PM
  #50  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally posted by chanster
Do you believe the Bible to be historically accurate? The Bible is a great book, no doubt, but it is not historically accurate. It was written by men wishing to spread and record their religion.

Yes, if you believe in the bible, you take it as a document of the times. You don't have to agree, and it was indeed written by men(who else would write it?) but it's considered the word of God. That's what I and millions others believe, but you can choose not to.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.