Hokeyboy

Listen to 10 minutes of evangelical Christian talk radio.

They make pronounced distinctions between "True Christians" (themselves), "Catholics", and refer to Mormonism as a "cult."

dave-o

Hmmm...I guess we could say that Judiasm and Christianity are the same too, since Christianity was an offshoot of Judiasm that 'skewered off into its own religion'. But then again we can say this about most religions since they were all derivatives of previous culture's mythologies (i.e. Babylonia, Gilgamesh, etc.).

Matt, you make a good point about listening to the radio for 10 minutes, I couldn't agree more. It has always been my impression that although linked in many ways, the different denominations do have some significant differences.

Peep

Interesting attitude. I'd be interested in hearing from a Irish Catholic and an Irish Protestant and see if they'd both agree.

DGibFen

If, by definition, a Christian is one who believes that the death and resurrection of Jesus (who called himself "The Christ" or "The Messiah") acts as an atonement for sins (or "wrongdoings") so that the person who believes will avoid a place of eternal damnation/seperation from God for eternity (or "hell") and go to a place of eternal reward where they will directly communicate and live in the presence of God (or "heaven"), then that's an OK statement to make.*

There are VERY distinct differences between the sects of Christianity, but the underlying core of the religion is what is defined above. (Catholics and Protestants are two seperate entities in Christianity, but that's because the beliefs in church authority/theological matters are different.)




*I'm trying to formulate a universal definition. I am a Christian, so I might be a bit biased.

Scot1458

Good post. Espeically on the "authority" of the church, that is the big hang up between Catholics and non-Catholics.

dave-o

I also agree that is a good post with an accurate description of the umbrella term 'Christianity'.

That being said, for the purposes of this thread, (and in response to the earlier staement about not being able to speak up if you are in the majority), I still think that Mel's religious views are in the minority and this is at least part of where the controversy comes from.

pro-bassoonist

...first of all without having seen the film you have no point of reference that Mel's religious views have affected anyone (as of yet). Just because someone disapproves of someone else's religious views does not create a controversy per se.

...second, you are implying somewhat unintentionally(I hope) that a minority religious group could create a controversy. Anyone is capable of doing so. Because it happens to be Mell it appears that too much energy is being spent for nothing.

For the record I have not heard a single critic confirm that Mel's religious views HAVE indeed affected "another minority" group backed by facts. It is all in the realm of fictious expectations instigated by past historic tension. I personally dont see much credibility in those that have criticized Mel's chosen direction!!!

Regardless of what his critics indicate Mel has every right to express his opinion, EVEN if it happens that the Jewish community (or any other religious community for that matter) is upset by it. As I stated before it is all about pluralism!!

Beaver

Not all Christians believe in Hell or that non-believers go to Hell.

Peep

There was a very interesting article in Wednesday's LA Times about how "...an influential group of evangelical Christians has launched an Internet-based campaign they hope will prompt the filmmaker to append a repudiation of anti-Semitism to the..." end of the movie.

It goes into great detail about how this group of concerned Christians hope to get Mel to attach some sort of disclaimor to his movie so that it doesn't fuel the flames of anti-semitism. I hope that somebody will be able to post it in its entirety so that the people here that are ranting about how the Jews are all over-reacting can see the concern felt by some of their fellow Christians.

beefjerky

It's off topic, but I thought this was interesting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452/

Scot1458

you know, i really feel sorry for Mel. He's getting hit by all sides...the Jews, the athiests, Christians who don't agree with his brand of Christianity...I really pray for his health and his sanity.

As for his comment above, yes I do believe you can have a person who sins left and right next to a model citizen. If the sinner accepts Christ as his savior, and the model citizen does not, I do believe salavation will not come to both.

Groucho

Me too. It must be hard to be rich, handsome, and successful. I guess on the flip side he can hook up with Joan of Arc in Heaven since his wife won't be around to see what he's doing in the afterlife.

DGibFen

I thought the statement "seperation from God for eternity" might be more descriptive of that viewpoint. The ("or hell") part just provides a term for describing a seperation from God.

This is from Adam Clark's commentary:

Hopefully that clears up any confusion.

I know that some Christians believe in something that allows everyone to get a second chance after death, but that's been proven to be a modern heresy. I'll try to post more on it later, but I've got to get to a class.

DGibFen

For my help, does anyone have any article that accuratly defines what Mel believes? I've gotten at least three different viewpoints, and they all seem to contradict each other.

movielib

This is from my point of view only: I think this is about the most depressing type of belief conceivable. If you're wrong you've invested much of the intellectual and emotional capital of your life in a falsehood; if you're right (you're not of course ) your god is an evil being who punishes people forever for their sincere and honest beliefs.

dave-o

I disagree with this. Although I haven't seen the film, Mel has made his religious views and affiliations public on many occassions, so I do have a point of reference. You are correct about Mel's personal views not having affected anyone yet, but the type of Catholicism that Mel ascribes to has, in the past, affected many a people. To be more specific, it is not necessarily just the views alone that are harmful, but the combination of the person (and his or her intentions and prejudices) holding these type of views. In fact, a quick study of the 1965 split in the Catholic church will illuminate some of the 'minority' views of which I speak.

I did not intend to convey that having a minority view is all that is needed to create a controversy, this is too simplistic. It would depend on the content of this view and many other factors (i.e. there are many minority views that are considered controversial and extremist, but their are also many that are not defined along these lines). However, I did state that the fact that Mel holds a minority view is one of the many factors that has lead to worry among other groups of people. If this fact is added in with the many other elements that I have discussed previously, it is understandable that there is worry/concern about this film. (I purposely say 'worry/concern' because I feel this better decribes what everyone labels as 'the controversy' ).



Take a closer look at history and you won't need to rely on the critics to tell you the facts. Mel's religious views are not new and he is not the only one to hold them. There are many historical and factual instances where the Passion was portrayed in such a way that lead to an increase in hate and violent crimes against the Jewish people and not just 'tension'. Very real instances have ocurred that are not too far in he past. While you are correct that Mel's movie has yet to have an impact one way or the other, it is once again understandable why there may be concern and worry about his potrayal. (and these are just a few of the factors that have causd people to voice concern).

I completely agree with you, Mel has the right to do whatever he wants, just as any group has a right to speak out about their concerns about this movie. But one thing needs to be clarified, as I understand it, the Jewish community is not just 'upset' because they have different religious views or disagree with his views, they are concerned about the consequences that a movie like this, if not done woth caution and care, could have on the anti-semites of the world.

Bobby Shalom

I think some of these controversies definitely get blown out of proportion, and produce knee jerk responses.

Whether or not the Rabbi in the NYT article was being ridiculous - I have to say it is all intensely personal. I would like to offer up an anology. Let's say Mel wasn't asked about the Holocaust, but asked about 911. Say, he was asked if he thought it was tragic that the planes went into the WTC. And his answer was, "yeah, lot's of people die each year at the hands of terrorists." Now, being an American, how would you feel about that response?

Sorry, if I'm way off topic, but that's sort of been buzzing in my head.

Also, this term, "biblically correct" seems very problematic.

dave-o

I know this is long but I found it to be a well written explanation of the 'controversy' from the ADL's view and thought that some of you might find it interesting....

Speech by Abraham H. Foxman
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League
ADL National Executive Committee Meeting
February 6, 2004
Palm Beach, Florida



"A reporter this morning asked me why is so much attention being focused on a movie. Many good people do not understand why the Jewish community is so concerned with a film they haven't seen. Why are we taking so much time? Why are we so anxious about a movie?

The answer is both very complex and very simple. We, the Jewish people, take history very, very seriously. We have a long history, but also a painful history and a tragic history, and if others have no desire to learn from their history, we have taught our children and teach our children from generation to generation that we must remember and learn from it.

For almost 2,000 years in Western civilization, four words legitimized, rationalized, and fueled anti-Semitism: "The Jews killed Christ." Some of you know I stand here today thanks to Christian faith, Christian belief, Christian mercy, Christian love. For as a Jewish child born in Europe during the Holocaust, it was only through the intervention of good Christians that some Jews were saved. And I was one of them. The lady that saved me loved me, loved me with a passion, and was faithful and religious with a passion. She baptized me and gave me a saint's name to protect me, and yet, when as a child I misbehaved, she would call me "Judas." And she loved me.

Then I was taught that the Jews killed God. When I finally began to be free to play with children in the streets of Vilna and someone called me a Jew, I came running to "my mother," to my nanny, begging her to say it isn't true, for I didn't want to be part of a people who killed our Lord.

For hundreds of years those four words - acted out, spoken out, sermonized out - inspired and legitimized pogroms, inquisitions and expulsions.

Hitler, in 1934, visited the Oberammergau Passion Play, and when he left, he proclaimed that "The whole world needs to see this Passion Play, for then they will understand why I despise the Jewish people."

Many during the Holocaust who killed Jews from Monday to Friday went to church on Sunday and there was no disconnect for them, because, after all, all they were doing was killing "Christ killers."

So for us, the possible impact of a Passion Play on the global scene with a global producer, with an icon, is not a fantasy, it's a serious anxiety. For us, it is a flashback into history.

And when is it about to happen? At a time in our history where we are experiencing an explosion of anti-Semitism on a global scale which we have not experienced in forty, fifty years. So now we face a retelling of this story.

The Vatican, the Catholic Church, over forty years ago realized how serious this issue is, and with the courage and the leadership of Pope John XXIII, now joined by this Pope, they understood the tragic consequences of those four words and called a historic conference to re-educate, to resensitize, the Christian world. That is what is at stake here; tolerance, respect and sensitivity that the Jews and Christians have worked so hard to establish.

Now to Mel Gibson. Almost a year ago he announced to the world that he and Icon Productions will make a movie unlike any other movie in history. He will do a movie about the crucifixion of Jesus and he will tell the truth, the whole truth, the gospel truth, the only truth, which he said has not been told. He proclaimed, as is his right to do, that he is inspired to do this as a holy mission, inspired by higher authorities to do so.

So why is this movie so much more different to us as a community than other movies? Other movies have been done on the life of Jesus, on that period, on that epoch; some very powerful movies. Why this special anxiety? Because Mr. Gibson came to this issue not on a tabula rasa, not just any producer, any actor. He came with an agenda. Let me read to you in his own words what agenda brought them to this moment in time.

In December 1990 on the "Larry King Show," Gibson said: "I probably sound like an egotist, you know, saying that the Roman Church is wrong, but I believe it, it is at the moment since Vatican II."

In February 1992 in the newspaper El Pais, Gibson was quoted as saying, "For one thousand nine hundred and fifty years the church does one thing and then in the '60s all of a sudden they turn everything inside out and begin to do strange things that go against the rules. Everything that has been heresy is no longer heresy according to the new rules. We Catholics are being cheated; the church has stopped being critical, it has relaxed. I don't believe them and I have no intention of following their trends. It's the church that has abandoned me, not me who has abandoned the church."

In Time Magazine, January 2003: "Vatican II corrupted the institutions of the church. Look at the main fruits, dwindling numbers, and pedophilia."

In The New Yorker, December 2003: "The gospels don't contradict one another, they mesh. There's a couple of places where yeah, that's not quite the same scene, but they just complete parts of the story that the other guy didn't complete, that's all, they don't contradict one another. If you read all four of those, they mesh, because if they didn't you wouldn't have so many people hooked into this. Scholars? Scholars always dick around with the Gospel, you know. Judas is always some kind of a friend and some freedom fighter named Barnabas. You know what I mean, it's horseshit. It's revisionist bullshit and that's what these academics are into. They gave me notes on the solo script," et cetera.

So we took it seriously. We took it seriously because we knew that Mel Gibson was planning to make a movie with an agenda. He's entitled. He's entitled to do a film or write a book or do whatever he wants based on his vision, based on his interpretation, based on his view. But that's not what he was selling.

He was not making a film on the crucifixion of Jesus based on his interpretations and those of his father. He was selling it and promoting it as the Gospel truth, the historical truth, the Biblical truth. That's what got our attention.

There are people who say to us, "You gave him publicity. You made this an issue. If only you had kept quiet." Well, first and foremost, we do not control the media last I heard. He put the issue on the table. He declared it to the world. He's an icon, he's a media personality. Look at the frenzy around him. Look at a reference to an interview which will appear next month in Reader's Digest making news throughout the world. So he put the issue out there and we responded.

Then, I guess philosophically, if you wanted to ask the question, maybe we should have kept quiet, maybe it would go away, maybe it would make less noise, maybe it would be less noticed. I say to you, that is a luxury that we, the Jewish community, no longer have; a luxury of being quiet about possibility of anti-Semitism because maybe it will go away. That is a luxury we lost 60 years ago when the world told us, "Don't worry. Don't make noise. It's not serious. It won't happen."

Now, God forbid, I do not compare this to what was then. While I worry more about the movie's impact in Buenos Aires and Dusseldorf and Riyadh, I don't think we are immune to anti-Semitism here in America. ADL just took a poll on attitudes in this country, and before the movie was released one out of four Americans believe today that the Jews are responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.

If we ever had a doubt what was out there, how fragile it was, how serious it was, all you need to do is to read our mail. Read the e-mails, read the Web sites encouraging people to see the film. How fragile it is out there. What a reservoir of hatred!

I guess what makes it so sad, so painful, is that this hate comes from people who profess love, love and God, love and faith, love and brotherhood. And yet they don't have too much love for those of us who raise the question about what this may trigger.

For those who say, well, you should have tried to do it quietly - we have tried. We tried to reach out for the last 10 months to Mel Gibson, to his company, to his agent, to see if we can dialogue, to see if he will understand that this is not about Mel Gibson, this is not about Christianity, it's about history; for him to understand the anxieties that we have about this subject. For I believe to this day that if we had this opportunity, maybe he would get it.

Only last week we had the first exchange of correspondence. Not great, but at least the beginning of a dialogue. As to changes that are being made, understand me, I'm very serious about it, I'm not cynical, but I'm not impressed by a change which was announced six months ago in The New Yorker, when Gibson said to the world that he had taken out this scene because his brother said to him "It's a terrible scene and if you keep it in, the Jews will find you and kill you." So he said to the world "I took it out."

For eight months the film has been traveling to select audiences and everybody reported that the Matthew quote was out. Then for those of us who saw it two weeks ago in Chicago or Orlando or Dallas, guess what? That scene was back in. Now we're being told that - I'm not sure how authoritative it is - that now he's decided to take it out.

First, I'm not impressed. I'm waiting to see it on February 25, because his word is not his word. That one scene will not change the film. The film, from our perspective, unambiguously from beginning to end blames it on the blood-thirsty vengeful Jews and absolves the peace, loving, kind, warm, sensitive Pontius Pilate and the Romans.

We are being told that, theologically, the whole world is guilty in the suffering of Jesus, for he died for all of us. I'm not asking for very much, and people say to me "So, what do you want?" I don't think he'll change the film; I don't think the film is changeable. He's entitled to his film.

I'm asking for a postscript, because Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor and I saw the film two weeks ago at a mega-church, and at the end of the film, five thousand people sat in stunned, pained silence, only punctuated by some sobbing and wailing for the pain and the anguish of the suffering, and ending up in prayer.

When we walked out, a little pamphlet was given out and it said, "God killed his son." Not to the Jewish eyes that saw that film. That film did not say God killed Jesus. That film for two hours said the Jews, the Jews, the Jews.

And if you walk out of that film in pain and in anguish, where is that anger going to go? To God, or to those portrayed so crudely on the screen in this film for two hours - the Jewish people.

I believe in epiphany. If I did not believe that we can change the minds and hearts of people, I wouldn't go to work, and the Anti-Defamation League wouldn't have been around for 90 years.

Is Mel Gibson an anti-Semite? No. He's a true believer. Is his anti-Semitism intentional? I don't believe so. But I worry about unintended consequences, especially when they mesh in history. Is the film anti-Semitic? No. But its consequences, its impact, its message may fuel anti-Semitism.

Would a message by him, a simple statement which used his own words in a postscript shown at the end of the film make a difference? I believe so, because those of us who sat and saw the impact on the audience, I believe that 30 seconds where he would come on and say, "My name is Mel Gibson. This is a film of love. This is a passion of love. I've been inspired by the Holy Spirit to do this and I believe that Jesus suffered for all mankind and all mankind has a responsibility and a guilt for his suffering," and then take a breath and say, "But there are those out there who would blame the Jews as they have in history. Don't do that, for that would convert this passion of love to a passion of hate." I believe that would make a difference.

Finally in the last exchange of letters, the first exchange of letters, where we exchange niceties, compliments, respect, and Mel Gibson reached out in his letter and said to me "Let us love each other. Despite our differences, let us love each other."

I'm reminded of a parable from the Hasidic masters who have taught us so much with little stories. It reminds me of the dialogue between a rabbi and his pupil. When his pupil says to the rebbe, "Rebbe, I love you," the rebbe says to him, "Do you know what hurts me?" The student says "No, Rebbe, I do not." The rebbe then says, "How can you love me when you don't know what hurts me?" I still believe that Mel Gibson will learn to understand what it is that hurts us. And when he does, I think he will be a voice for sensitivity and understanding.

There are voices slowly being heard. I received a letter from Rev. Franklin Graham indicating that he understands our pain, he understands our anxiety, and he will raise his voice. I had a call from Rev. Gary Bauer who said to me "Abe, I understand your concern, I understand your anxiety, and I will raise my voice." The answer is for good people, for caring people, for good Christians, to have the courage to stand up and say "please, please be careful." For an excess of love can, unintentionally, God forbid, bring pain. "

syphon00

I not a racist or anything,

yeah but maybe you're anti-semetic!

Bobby Shalom

Well thank goodness we get more fair and balanced input.

Yeah, and it was probably these same Jewish pricks that stirred up controversy surrounding:

Godard's Hail Mary
Last Temptation of Christ
Monty Python's Life of Brian
Dogma
Priest

Jaymole

It scares me to think what your post would have been like if you were a racist.

Giles

and Jesus of Montreal

movielib

My gosh, this is just the sort of "not anti-Semitic" stuff that is the scariest. But I guess Gibson's film will not have any effect on you. It appears you're already there.

And to Foxman's speech (and I'm not saying I agree with him). I guess he is not the raving lunatic so many seem to want to make him out to be. Thanks for posting it, dave-o.

wildcatlh

Surprised you didn't use the "I have Jewish friends" defence to try and prove you're not an anti-semite. Well done.

pro-bassoonist

syphon00's post is idiotic!! Simple as that!!!

I read the article that was posted very carefully and I think that it does not support the claims that Mel is fueling anti-Semitism!!!

What bothers me however is that all of the "facts" by which Mel's film is being criticized with are by those that have not even seen it yet…excluding the opinion by Foxman to which he, just as Mel is, is entitled. ).

Your comment about Mel's "effect" on viewers is as derogatory and insulting as Syphon's comment. It is false and seeks to imply “fault”. Could you care to elaborate what exactly "there" denotes? The context in which you place “there” has a very unique connotation by implying that Mel has committed an erroneous act. And how are you any different than those that you are criticizing by placing judgment on a film that is anything but "anti-Semitic"???
(Please inderstand that I am not trying to disregard your opinion but rather understand where are you coming from )

I would like to read an article that attests that either Mel or a member of his crew aspired to create an “anti-Semitic” film. I have not seen one so far!!

Disagreement with an artist and his message (as I have already posted it twice) DOES NOT equate anti-Semitism. Though it is quite convenient for many to justify unsubstantiated "criticism" by quoting anti-Semitism.

None of the article that is posted uses actual facts to relate the massage of the film with the repeated notion of anti-Semitism. Prove me wrong!! It is all based on past preconceptions about the possible role of the Jews in the death of Christ reflected though the prism of improvable personal experience (nothing wrong with that). However such preliminary judgment results in nothing but cheap sensationalism that fuels negative emotions between those with strong religious beliefs.

Even if (I repeat IF) the film creates some tension between the more sensitive of us Mel has every right to create and present a film about his vision of the story about Christ. Just as Foxman has delivered his point of view on an event no one is certain to know the details for.

It's all about being tolerant of others and their vision just as you expect that others should be tolerant of your history (even if so happens that you have to compromise with your past experience).