Likes Likes:  0
Page 4 of 41 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 605

Thread: Mel Gibson's Jesus, Mel Gibson's Jews

  1. #46
    knotwell Guest

    Default Not exactly sure how this turned into a thread on the holocaust

    Anyhow, I'm not a religious guy, but I'm sorta looking forward to the movie. From it's use of a dead language to its cultural relevance for most people in the US (irreligious or not, would anyone argue that Western laws don't reflect judeo-christian morality?), I think it's a worthy artistic endeavor.

    As an aside, maybe I'm too optimistic by nature, but it seems irrational to worry about the movie inflaming anti-semitism. It's neither the "Protocols of Zion" nor is it an Israeli tank in Gaza. It's a movie about a defining (mythical?) cultural moment. Hell, if an Egyptian filmmaker wanted to remake the battle of Badr for an Iraqi audience (or, more apropos, a Turkish filmmaker enacting the sack of Constantinople for a Turkish one), I wouldn't bat an eyelash.

    FWIW, I'm more interested in the release of "Troy." If it's well-done, it's such a terrific story that it'll be impossible to be anything but outstanding.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Savoir faire is everywhere!!
    Posts
    2,938
    Likes (received)
    20

    Default Re: Not exactly sure how this turned into a thread on the holocaust

    Originally posted by knotwell
    Anyhow, I'm not a religious guy, but I'm sorta looking forward to the movie. From it's use of a dead language to its cultural relevance for most people in the US (irreligious or not, would anyone argue that Western laws don't reflect judeo-christian morality?),
    Well, yeah, inasmuch as "morality" itself covers a lot of ground, I would. Some forms of "morality" are universal, and to say that Western laws reflect a certain morality is a conceit-it's like saying that murder isn't against the law in "Islamic" morality, or that stealing isn't illegal or immoral in "Buddhist" morality.

    Furthermore, as far as the U.S. goes, one finds that the Founding Fathers were principally deists, products of the Enlightenment, and that our governmental foundation reflects this, far more than "judeo-christian" values. You would be hard pressed to find a religious statement by any of them that truly reflects "judeo-christian" thought in context. John Adams, one of the most publiclydevout of them,also publicly denied the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, as just one example. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and Ben Franklin, while not exactly atheists, all made numerous statements and writings, both public and private, that reflected a distinct lack of, if not disdain for "judeo-christian" anything.
    Last edited by elder999; 10th February 2004 at 22:12.
    Aaron J. Cuffee


    As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    - H.L. Mencken

  3. #48
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Boston, MA USA
    Posts
    704
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Off the off-topic

    As Earl said, an updated passion play exactly. It's funny that passion plays didn't even become popular until 900 years or so had elapsed since 'actual events' as portrayed in the 'Gospels'.

    Also interesting to note that originally, the evil external force to R. Yeshua was satan. After a couple of hundred years, plays like "Oberammergau"(sp?) rose to prominence by making the Jewish presence stand in for the 'other/external' forces playing against people of the faith...

    Be well,
    Jigme
    Jigme Chobang Daniels
    aoikoyamakan at gmail dot com

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Palo Alto, Ca, USA
    Posts
    1,324
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default Re: Not exactly sure how this turned into a thread on the holocaust

    Originally posted by knotwell
    It's neither the "Protocols of Zion" nor is it an Israeli tank in Gaza.
    Huh?

    Jews "obsess" about the Shoah because it happened to us. That's all there is to it. I have no objection whatsoever to other peoples worrying more about what happened to them than what happens to us. That doesn't necessarily make them anti-Semites.

    What Stalin did to other citizens of the Soviet Union in the name of Communism was, indeed, horrendous. No one is denying that. The question here is whether or not the motives for murder have any bearing on the meaning and nature of the crime.

    Hitler and the Nazis believed that the Jews were uniquely evil and that their continued existence was inimical to the spiritual and physical well-being of the human race. He believed that Judaism was antithetical to everything that he believed was good and that it had to be eradicated so that the "Aryan soul" could be purged of its influence. He also believed that Jewish genes were inferior genes, that they had "polluted" the Aryan gene pool and that the continued presence of Jews in Germany (or anywhere, for that matter) posed a clear and present danger to the racal purity of the Aryan "Ubermensch", since Jews had the potential for rendering everyone with whom they came into contact "untermenschen" as they were. Thus, the Jewish "contagion" was carried not only by Judaism but by Jews, in a genetic sense. Therefore, even if Jews had long since abandoned Judaism, even if they, as Germans, wholeheartedly supported the policies of the German state (as most of them did in WWI, for example), they posed a racial danger to the well-being of the Volk, and, thus, had to be physically exterminated, down to the last person who had any discernible trace of Jewish blood. As such, Nazi hatred of Jews was total and could not be ameliorated in any way. (For example, Edith Stein, a Jew who had converted to Catholicism and had become a nun, was still murdered.)

    I should also point out that Hitler's plan for the other main group of "untermenshcen", the Slavs, was, while horrific, different in nature. Hitler planned to kill as many as he needed to achieve the "lebensraum" he wanted, but his ultimate plan for the Slavs was slavery, not extermination. He had a use for all other "untermenshcen" but the Jews (and, perhaps, the Gypsies, who also suffered horribly). This is bad enough, but it is not the same as total extermination.

    Therefore, I submit that regardless of Stalin's body count (or Pol Pot's or whomever's), he had no intention whatsoever of physically eliminating entire groups of people because of their perceived racial or genetic inferiority or their essential "contaminatedness", if you will. He wanted to destroy the Ukrainian kulaks not because they were Ukranian, and therefore deserving of extermination, but because they owned land that he wanted. That is, they were class enemies. Thus, once all of the land had been appropriated for the Soviet state, he did not then go in and systematically murder every single Ukranian, as he would have done had he been motivated by an ideology such as Hitler's.

    This makes what Hitler did different in its fundamental nature from any other genocide that had occurred up to that point, except perhaps the Turkish genocide of the Armenians (which Hitler actually saw as the prototype for what he intended to do).

    In any case, I don't particularly blame you for not being interested in the Shoah. Hell, I'm Jewish and I don't like to talk about it either. However, as Jews, it behooves us to recoginize what really happened and to defend ourselves against it, even if people like you are tired of hearing about it. However, while the fact that you really don't care is no skin off my nose, I will not allow you to falsify it by intimating, essentially, that it wasn't so bad since he only killed a couple of million of us.

    Also, I absolutely and unconditionally reject your contention that Israel is engaged in war crimes or genocide or anything like that against the Palestinians. It is true that Israel is strong, thank G-d, and that the Palestinians are perceived as weak. However, the destruction of Israel and the murder or extirpation of the Jews who live there has always been the ultimate goal of the Arabs from the very beginning, and this has not changed. Against Nazis like the PLO, Hamas, and Hizb'allah, Israel has no choice but to defend itself.
    Last edited by Earl Hartman; 10th February 2004 at 23:01.
    Earl Hartman

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    3,784
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Israel was founded on war crimes - hasn't changed any in the meantime.

    Harvey Moul

    Fish and visitors stink after three days - Ben Franklin

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Palo Alto, Ca, USA
    Posts
    1,324
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Sorry, immigrating to the land, buying it from people at outrageously inflated prices, and then defending yourself when people try to kill you does not constitute war crimes.

    If you're interested in the truth, go here:

    http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html
    Earl Hartman

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,714
    Likes (received)
    153

    Default

    Originally posted by n2shotokai
    I stand corrected, I should have said "Jesus was correcting what he felt IN HIS OPINION was being incorrectly taught by others"
    That's how I view his beliefs and teaching.
    Cady Goldfield

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Seattle, WA USA
    Posts
    3,784
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Right back at ya.

    Having a more than passing understanding of recent history, I have a pretty good comprehension of the events that led up to Israel becoming a nation. Including the deliberate sinking an American ship, bombing hospitals, and ending up with a head of state who was wanted as a terrorist in the UK (Menachim Begin).

    Terrorism - and they showed the Palestinians how to do it.

    Harvey Moul

    Fish and visitors stink after three days - Ben Franklin

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Palo Alto, Ca, USA
    Posts
    1,324
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    No, I think it is quite obvious that you really don't know much of anything about it at all, so I think we can consider this conversation closed.
    Earl Hartman

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,714
    Likes (received)
    153

    Default

    Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
    Israel was founded on war crimes - hasn't changed any in the meantime.
    Harvey, you are entitled to your opinions, but they are not informed by balanced information, nor an understanding of either Hebrew or Arab peoples.

    Ai caramba. What happened to the discussion of Mel Gibson and "Passion of Christ"?! Harvey, you have your opinions, but let's not start another one of "those" discussions here.

    BTW, I notice in the stills from Mel's movie that the "Jews" are mighty Euro looking, especially Jesus, who sports the sandy red-brown hair and beard, blue eyes and fair skin of the Jesus portrayed by northern Italian (land of blonds) Renaissance artists. One would think Mel would be informed enough to use actors who are at least somewhat Semitic- or Mediteranean-looking.


    Jared, thank you for your thoughtful response to my questions. They give me food for thought.

    And no, Earl, I'm not touching your Yiddish grammer (your Yiddishe bubbe, did you say?)
    Cady Goldfield

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Palo Alto, Ca, USA
    Posts
    1,324
    Likes (received)
    1

    Post



    You leave my grandmother out of this, Cady!

    Earl Hartman

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,714
    Likes (received)
    153

    Default

    Originally posted by Earl Hartman
    Sorry, immigrating to the land, buying it from people at outrageously inflated prices, and then defending yourself when people try to kill you does not constitute war crimes.

    If you're interested in the truth, go here:

    http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html
    Not only that, but those who immigrated had ancestors who came FROM the land. And, there was an unbroken line of Jews living there even after the Diaspora. Although they were outnumbered by Arabs population-wise, Jews/Hebrews' presence in the former Samaria and Judea had been continuous. It's not like they were the Brits or French conquering a part of the world to which they had no ancestral relationship.

    Petty sheiks sold Jewish immigrants malarial swampland, and laughed because they knew the land was worthless. But when the Jews drained the swamps, created fertile fields and succeeded, those sheiks wanted the land back.

    Pondering -- I wonder whether, in a few hundred or a thousand years, Native Americans, flush with wealth from casinos, will buy back enough of North America to essentially have their own country? Will the world congratulate them for regaining the land lost to conquerers, centuries ago? Or would they decry them as bully's and conquerers themselves? The pendulum swings eternal. The conquered themselves become perceived as conquerers.
    Cady Goldfield

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    376
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I suppose it depends on those Native Americans getting nukes and having an unfeasably powerful military supported by a 3rd party.

    As has been said already, this thread is about Gibson's film....anyone who wishes to discuss other things should start another thread

    (Ironic really...some people are starting to fit the stereotype advanced by Hutton Gibson)
    M Johnston

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Palo Alto, Ca, USA
    Posts
    1,324
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Oh?

    What would that stereotype be and who would be the ones supposedly fitting that stereotype?

    I would have been perfectly happy to discuss Gibson's film, or, better yet, to have ignored this thread entirely, since I really have no interest in it.

    Howwever, Holocaust revisionism does not sit well with me, and if people want to prevent thread drift, they should not introduce subjects that amount to double-dog daring people to respond.

    Sorry to be so damn pushy.
    Last edited by Earl Hartman; 11th February 2004 at 00:25.
    Earl Hartman

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Savoir faire is everywhere!!
    Posts
    2,938
    Likes (received)
    20

    Default

    Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
    Pondering -- I wonder whether, in a few hundred or a thousand years, Native Americans, flush with wealth from casinos, will buy back enough of North America to essentially have their own country? Will the world congratulate them for regaining the land lost to conquerers, centuries ago? Or would they decry them as bully's and conquerers themselves? The pendulum swings eternal. The conquered themselves become perceived as conquerers.
    Not likely. In the first place, many of them are supposed to be sovereign nations, i.e. the Cherokee, Navajo and the Mohawk. My Mohawk friends, whose lands were chartered to them by King George III(?)have passports for the "Mohawk nation" that are recognized by around 20 other countries-though not by the U.S. or Canada, whose borders their lands fall within.

    Also, you'd be suprised at the economics of "casino wealth." While I know of a few tribes making a tidy profit from their casinos, it has resulted in huge debt for more..

    While not avoiding further thread drift, I should point out that statements like this:

    originally posted by Cady, who is emotionally biased
    Harvey, you are entitled to your opinions, but they are not informed by balanced information, nor an understanding of either Hebrew or Arab peoples.
    .....remind me terribly of my black brothers and sisters saying that "the white man can't understand our problems-to understand our problems, you have to be black," during the civil rights struggle, and even today.Very silly.

    Harvey, having been down this road with Mr. Hartmann and Cady, I can pretty much predict that you are at best, ignorant in their eyes for even intimating that Israel was founded by terrorism (News Flash: the U.S.was founded by "terrorism, and one man's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter.") and, at worst, an anti-Semite. Same for touching the Holocaust, Israel's military and domestic policies, treatment of the Palestinians, or various documented underhanded actions against the U.S. and the world community. Best to just leave it alone.

    Getting back on-topic:

    originally posted by Cady
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by n2shotokai
    I stand corrected, I should have said "Jesus was correcting what he felt IN HIS OPINION was being incorrectly taught by others"
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That's how I view his beliefs and teaching.
    Most of what "Jesus" corrects in the gospels dealt with political and social teachings, not religious ones. Most of what he taught was in agreement with what was the current teaching of Judaism at the time. To miss this is to truly miss a big chunk of the essence of what "Christian" should mean-apropos of Mr. Gibson's virulent Catholocism, which, by the way, will probably mean, as I originally posted, a faithful following of his source document, probably Matthew from the sound of it, though it could be all four gospels., In any event, he can hardly be blamed for being faithful to the gospels, or accused of inciting anti-Semitic thought or feeling.

    Or, is everyone who thinks that saying that the gospels are anti-Semitic-rather than decidedly pro-Roman?

    Are they saying that Christianity is basically anti-Semitic?
    Aaron J. Cuffee


    As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
    - H.L. Mencken

Page 4 of 41 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •