Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 00:48:49 +0100 On 30 May 2004, at 10:23 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 19:01:27 +0100 On 26 May 2004, at 3:44 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 18:56:25 +0100 On 25 May 2004, at 5:27 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Devil is us, but then so is God. It is entirely possible that God and his Devil do indeed exist. At the least as some sort of natural metaphor. Or perhaps as tangible beings that we cannot yet identify. Who really knows? Or they may be kinds of cheese, possibly goat. Maybe vegetarian. Perhaps even processed... I dunno about the cheese bit...I'd say they're more likely to be different types of wild berries. Concur? Heretic! Allright, allright! They're cheese... -Travis and berries Edmunds I suppose they could be White Stilton with Cranberries. But apricot pieces seems more likely... Yeah, for sure! Swiss with apricot pieces. Deep Theological Discussion Maru* After some deep theological THOUGHT, I came to the conclusion that green peas aren't entirely out of the question...combined with Kraft thin slices. *So is 'Little Nicky' or 'Dogma' the film with the most profound theological insight made in the last thirty years? Seeing as how Kevin Smith absolutely RULES, I would be inclined to go with Dogma. However, one must not underestimate the 'profound theological insight' of Little Nicky. -Travis profoundly insightful theologian Edmunds _ STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 19:01:27 +0100 On 26 May 2004, at 3:44 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 18:56:25 +0100 On 25 May 2004, at 5:27 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Devil is us, but then so is God. It is entirely possible that God and his Devil do indeed exist. At the least as some sort of natural metaphor. Or perhaps as tangible beings that we cannot yet identify. Who really knows? Or they may be kinds of cheese, possibly goat. Maybe vegetarian. Perhaps even processed... I dunno about the cheese bit...I'd say they're more likely to be different types of wild berries. Concur? Heretic! Allright, allright! They're cheese... -Travis and berries Edmunds _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
On 30 May 2004, at 10:23 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 19:01:27 +0100 On 26 May 2004, at 3:44 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 18:56:25 +0100 On 25 May 2004, at 5:27 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Devil is us, but then so is God. It is entirely possible that God and his Devil do indeed exist. At the least as some sort of natural metaphor. Or perhaps as tangible beings that we cannot yet identify. Who really knows? Or they may be kinds of cheese, possibly goat. Maybe vegetarian. Perhaps even processed... I dunno about the cheese bit...I'd say they're more likely to be different types of wild berries. Concur? Heretic! Allright, allright! They're cheese... -Travis and berries Edmunds I suppose they could be White Stilton with Cranberries. But apricot pieces seems more likely... Deep Theological Discussion Maru* *So is 'Little Nicky' or 'Dogma' the film with the most profound theological insight made in the last thirty years? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Invest in a company any idiot can run because sooner or later any idiot is going to run it. - Warren Buffet ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 18:56:25 +0100 On 25 May 2004, at 5:27 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Devil is us, but then so is God. It is entirely possible that God and his Devil do indeed exist. At the least as some sort of natural metaphor. Or perhaps as tangible beings that we cannot yet identify. Who really knows? Or they may be kinds of cheese, possibly goat. Maybe vegetarian. Perhaps even processed... I dunno about the cheese bit...I'd say they're more likely to be different types of wild berries. Concur? _ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
On 26 May 2004, at 3:44 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 18:56:25 +0100 On 25 May 2004, at 5:27 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Devil is us, but then so is God. It is entirely possible that God and his Devil do indeed exist. At the least as some sort of natural metaphor. Or perhaps as tangible beings that we cannot yet identify. Who really knows? Or they may be kinds of cheese, possibly goat. Maybe vegetarian. Perhaps even processed... I dunno about the cheese bit...I'd say they're more likely to be different types of wild berries. Concur? Heretic! -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 18:02:58 -0500 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 4:57 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 18:40:27 -0500 I think most of us have seen evidence of altruism, or felt a love so pure that its memory is painful. (I think what is painful is that one is not feeling with such blinding intensity *now*) Nothing takes the taste out of peanut butter quite like unrequited love. --Charles M. Schulz-- (Charlie Brown/Peanuts) These are examples of things that most would consider to be *very* good. The key word there is *most*. So it's all relative right? I think that what you are grasping for is that it is not relative but that it is subjective. Everything is relative to everything else whether it is obvious or if the relation subtley disguised. You once gave me a gentle scolding for putting words in your mouth - Only you know what is in your own mind - and here is where I return the favor. I am not 'grasping' for anything. I meant *relative* in the way that you used *subjective*. Perhaps a semasiological study should be commissioned in RELATION to our posts...smile But that kind of *very* good, does not exist without its polar opposite. Life contains these kinds of symettries, and I suspect that this is not limited to human life. I don't agree. As far as I'm concerned, what you speak of above is nothing more than a product of one's mind. Of course, so are my thoughts on this...grin Imagine a universe that is nothing more than a scum pond. And imagine that there is plenty of life, but only two self aware entities, and for them the scum pond is Edenlike, with an abundance of food and energy. One of these entities writes in his journal And then the other like me committed the greatest evil imaginable, it ate the food particle *I* wanted. Good and evil are indeed the products of self-awareness. I've been saying this all along. But there there is an objective measure of good and evil in that it is a product of conciousness, it is self-evident and consensual, and it is a natural filter through which the universe is viewed. With that illustration I am inclined to agree. The Devil is us, but then so is God. It is entirely possible that God and his Devil do indeed exist. At the least as some sort of natural metaphor. Or perhaps as tangible beings that we cannot yet identify. Who really knows? -Travis _ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:06:43 -0700 (PDT) -Travis MOM!!! Deborah keeps disagreeing with me Edmunds LOL That's all right dear - it's educational! Ooh, low blow. Hmm, I actually didn't mean that as a low blow I know. I was just being 'entertaining'.innocent grin That kid's show probably doesn't air up there, though, does it? I don't really know. You see I kinda gave up on childrens programming when Mr. Dressup died. -Travis the Tickle Trunk was awesome Edmunds _ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
On 25 May 2004, at 5:27 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Devil is us, but then so is God. It is entirely possible that God and his Devil do indeed exist. At the least as some sort of natural metaphor. Or perhaps as tangible beings that we cannot yet identify. Who really knows? Or they may be kinds of cheese, possibly goat. Maybe vegetarian. Perhaps even processed... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX. - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] some snippage your viewpoint was that evil is more relative, and that there is no Evil as such; Rob's was that Evil does existI think certain acts are inherently evil, and it seems that some people actively serve Evil (as opposed to the merely greedy, stupid, or misguided who perpetrate many cruel acts). That there exists inherent evil, I simply cannot fathom. I can however understand and accept the use of the word 'evil' in situations where it is used as a *collectively agreed upon* term to describe something that people for the most part consider BAD. We humans can choose to promote the Good or the Light or whatever you want to call it, or we can choose to increase the Evil, Dark or what-have-you. Active, knowing choice is what makes the difference to me: whether an act or a person is evil (vs. wrong, bad or illegal etc.), and that the intention and outcome is pain/suffering to another. So in other words - It's all relative... I disagree. As Rob put it, there is a degree of subjective perception in our defining an act as evil or not, yet all (except the criminally insane or insanely racist) acknowledge behaviors such as painfully beheading an innocent, or gassing a roomful of people of a particular belief, as Wrong. Often you have to choose between the lesser of two morally dark positions or actions, but there is no excuse for, say, flaying a person (or animal, for that matter) alive. -Travis MOM!!! Deborah keeps disagreeing with me Edmunds LOL That's all right dear - it's educational! Ooh, low blow. Hmm, I actually didn't mean that as a low blow -- in the children's show 'Between The Lions,' one blurb has a girl saying to her mother Mo-om! There's a talking potato head detective on this show. Her reply is what I quoted, with the snippage of the end TV. (I think the character is a take-off on Sam Spade - Sam Spud, Par-boiled Potato Detective. It's funny, although I'd guess that most children would miss the hat-tip.) grin That kid's show probably doesn't air up there, though, does it? Debbi Theo And Cleo And Lionel And Leona, The Library Lions Maru(oh, my!) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 09:26:26 -0700 (PDT) your viewpoint was that evil is more relative, and that there is no Evil as such; Rob's was that Evil does exist - IIRC. It's a bit of semantics, perhaps, but in spite of my assertion that there's a lot of grey out there, I think certain acts are inherently evil, and it seems that some people actively serve Evil (as opposed to the merely greedy, stupid, or misguided who perpetrate many cruel acts). I cannot agree with you on that score, as I actively spout a big fat juicy relativism on issues such as this. That there exists inherent evil, I simply cannot fathom. I can however understand and accept the use of the word 'evil' in situations where it is used as a *collectively agreed upon* term to describe something that people for the most part consider BAD. OTOH, I don't believe in a Devil as such. We humans can choose to promote the Good or the Light or whatever you want to call it, or we can choose to increase the Evil, Dark or what-have-you. Active, knowing choice is what makes the difference to me: whether an act or a person is evil (vs. wrong, bad or illegal etc.), and that the intention and outcome is pain/suffering to another. So in other words - It's all relative... -Travis MOM!!! Deborah keeps disagreeing with me Edmunds LOL That's all right dear - it's educational! Ooh, low blow. -Travis funny though Edmunds _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 18:40:27 -0500 I think most of us have seen evidence of altruism, or felt a love so pure that its memory is painful. (I think what is painful is that one is not feeling with such blinding intensity *now*) Nothing takes the taste out of peanut butter quite like unrequited love. --Charles M. Schulz-- (Charlie Brown/Peanuts) These are examples of things that most would consider to be *very* good. The key word there is *most*. So it's all relative right? But that kind of *very* good, does not exist without its polar opposite. Life contains these kinds of symettries, and I suspect that this is not limited to human life. I don't agree. As far as I'm concerned, what you speak of above is nothing more than a product of one's mind. Of course, so are my thoughts on this...grin The Devil is us, but then so is God. It is entirely possible that God and his Devil do indeed exist. -Travis beats the HELL outta me Edmunds _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2004 4:57 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 18:40:27 -0500 I think most of us have seen evidence of altruism, or felt a love so pure that its memory is painful. (I think what is painful is that one is not feeling with such blinding intensity *now*) Nothing takes the taste out of peanut butter quite like unrequited love. --Charles M. Schulz-- (Charlie Brown/Peanuts) These are examples of things that most would consider to be *very* good. The key word there is *most*. So it's all relative right? I think that what you are grasping for is that it is not relative but that it is subjective. Everything is relative to everything else whether it is obvious or if the relation subtley disguised. But this kind of subjective truth, like the stopped clock that is correct twice a day, can often be close to objective truths. One of Robs Rules For Self-Aware Entities© states that it is always wrong (read that as evil) to kill without reason. This applies to strong relations such as murder, and it applies to subtle relations such as not wasting food so as not to waste the death of a living thing. Life should be preserved if at all possible. And of course it is reasonable to rid ones body or immediate enviroment of parasites or to kill a being that is attempting to take your life. Truth is, most of the argument leading up to the Iraq war was over how this rule should be applied to that particular situation. But that kind of *very* good, does not exist without its polar opposite. Life contains these kinds of symettries, and I suspect that this is not limited to human life. I don't agree. As far as I'm concerned, what you speak of above is nothing more than a product of one's mind. Of course, so are my thoughts on this...grin Imagine a universe that is nothing more than a scum pond. And imagine that there is plenty of life, but only two self aware entities, and for them the scum pond is Edenlike, with an abundance of food and energy. One of these entities writes in his journal And then the other like me committed the greatest evil imaginable, it ate the food particle *I* wanted. Good and evil are indeed the products of self-awareness. I've been saying this all along. But there there is an objective measure of good and evil in that it is a product of conciousness, it is self-evident and consensual, and it is a natural filter through which the universe is viewed. The Devil is us, but then so is God. It is entirely possible that God and his Devil do indeed exist. At the least as some sort of natural metaphor. xponent The Order Of The Universe Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debbi who is going through 'saved mail,' but only commenting on ~ 10% of that - and incidentally found that the concepts of Good and Evil were another point of disagreement with Travisditto Rob's replies! ;) Am I to assume that Rob's thoughts are yours, so to speak? Not exactly. :) But IIRC your viewpoint was that evil is more relative, and that there is no Evil as such; Rob's was that Evil does exist - IIRC. It's a bit of semantics, perhaps, but in spite of my assertion that there's a lot of grey out there, I think certain acts are inherently evil, and it seems that some people actively serve Evil (as opposed to the merely greedy, stupid, or misguided who perpetrate many cruel acts). Frex that Texas woman who murdered her children is, I think, sick - but needs to be punished nevertheless. I don't think she is evil; as opposed to Saddam's son Uday (or was it the other?) who tortured multiple people for his own pleasure - now he was evil, and his actions served Evil. OTOH, I don't believe in a Devil as such. We humans can choose to promote the Good or the Light or whatever you want to call it, or we can choose to increase the Evil, Dark or what-have-you. Active, knowing choice is what makes the difference to me: whether an act or a person is evil (vs. wrong, bad or illegal etc.), and that the intention and outcome is pain/suffering to another. -Travis MOM!!! Deborah keeps disagreeing with me Edmunds LOL That's all right dear - it's educational! Debbi Between The Lions Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 11:26 AM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debbi who is going through 'saved mail,' but only commenting on ~ 10% of that - and incidentally found that the concepts of Good and Evil were another point of disagreement with Travisditto Rob's replies! ;) Am I to assume that Rob's thoughts are yours, so to speak? Not exactly. :) But IIRC your viewpoint was that evil is more relative, and that there is no Evil as such; Rob's was that Evil does exist - IIRC. It's a bit of semantics, perhaps, but in spite of my assertion that there's a lot of grey out there, I think certain acts are inherently evil, and it seems that some people actively serve Evil (as opposed to the merely greedy, stupid, or misguided who perpetrate many cruel acts). I believe there is a continuum that describes the contrast between good and evil. I think most of us have seen evidence of altruism, or felt a love so pure that its memory is painful. (I think what is painful is that one is not feeling with such blinding intensity *now*) These are examples of things that most would consider to be *very* good. But that kind of *very* good, does not exist without its polar opposite. Life contains these kinds of symettries, and I suspect that this is not limited to human life. Frex that Texas woman who murdered her children is, I think, sick - but needs to be punished nevertheless. Needs and deserves treatment, I would think. I think your argument more appropriately applies to the woman who ran over her cheating husband with *his* daughter in the front seat with her. I don't think she is evil; as opposed to Saddam's son Uday (or was it the other?) who tortured multiple people for his own pleasure - now he was evil, and his actions served Evil. OTOH, I don't believe in a Devil as such. We humans can choose to promote the Good or the Light or whatever you want to call it, or we can choose to increase the Evil, Dark or what-have-you. Active, knowing choice is what makes the difference to me: whether an act or a person is evil (vs. wrong, bad or illegal etc.), and that the intention and outcome is pain/suffering to another. The Devil is us, but then so is God. xponent Internal Manifestations And Avatars Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 15:16:31 -0800 (PST) Debbi who is going through 'saved mail,' but only commenting on ~ 10% of that - and incidentally found that the concepts of Good and Evil were another point of disagreement with Travisditto Rob's replies! ;) Am I to assume that Rob's thoughts are yours, so to speak? -Travis MOM!!! Deborah keeps disagreeing with me Edmunds _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damon wrote: Based on my Freshman study of German philosophy, I'm guessing Travis is a Nietschian, and that concepts of good and evil are interpretations we place on the environment and society to define negative aspects that may be in actuality acts of self-interest. I also heard that Travis has dreadlocks and goes by the nickname Anasazi... Ah, it brings a Tyr to my eye :-) The _only_ reason for me to watch 'Andromeda' left with KHC; the writers completely changed Tyr's character for his last appearances. :P Debbi who is going through 'saved mail,' but only commenting on ~ 10% of that - and incidentally found that the concepts of Good and Evil were another point of disagreement with Travisditto Rob's replies! ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Good and evil (was Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ)
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Good and evil (was Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 08:04:58 -0800 Travis Edmunds wrote: Travis Edmunds wrote: Ah yes. You believe. I for one, believe that views like that, hold back any sort of honest discourse. I'm unclear on the antecedent of views like that. Theirs, or mine? Yours of course. After all you said you believe. Now it seems as though you object to my having beliefs, or having beliefs in general. Goodness no! What I meant, was that by someone believing something, it doesn't necessarily render that particular something true. There's plenty of room for that Nick. But when your beliefs interfere with the open discourse of this forum, you become just as bad as those you despise. I don't believe that I said I despised anybody. I said that polarizing important issues is self-evidently harmful, in my opinion. I spoke of the people behind those quotes that you evidently don't like. Furthermore, I hesitate to think that the cause of religiously fanatical hate mongering is being furthered by someone quoting so-called evil comments. Especially on this forum. For that matter, we probably shouldn't talk about anything other than good wholesome sci-fi, with no more than an action based plot which never deviates from space battles, and which certainly doesn't bring forth controversial ideas. It's safer that way right? I don't believe that I suggested that there are topics that don't belong here, which is how I read the paragraph above. My objection was to the quoting of hate-mongers as though their venom contributed anything to the discussion at hand. Forgive me. That's what I read into you comments. -Travis if only we were telepathic Edmunds _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:02:16 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 1:20 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Please understand that I am not criticising you, but the position you espouse. I understand completely. Do I think you are an egomaniac? Not really. I think you seem to be self-centered within normal parameters for an earlytwentysomething and not significantly self-absorbed at least AFAIK about these things. That is such a generalization. And what it says, is that regardless of what discussion I'm involved in, my opinion is clouded due to my age; I cannot escape the generic disposition of creatures my age. In other words, that's a convenient argument against me for present and future use. In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded on this concept of good and evil being an inherent part of our environment. No one is really making that claim. What *is* being claimed is that good and evil are part of the human social landscape. Well of course!! I'm not just claiming that God doesn't exist, and looking towards the heavens and screaming my lungs out here. I'm not transfixed with trying to prove the non-existence of God. Good heavens man! What I'm actually saying, in this particular context, is that regardless of what one says, believes, thinks etc... the concept of good and evil hearkens back to some fundamental belief in God. Does it matter where a concept originates? Does that make it any less valid? It matters when people hide behind the origin of a particular concept. That's what obscures everything. And many a time, it's religion. And what does the existence/nonexistence of God have to do with the existence/nonexistence of good and evil? You seem to filter the entire concept through a distinctly Judeo-Christian filter. Bhuddists seem to deal with the issue without relying on God as a fallback position or originating element. Do you honestly think that I cannot see past the Judeo-Christian religious view? In any case I filter this concept through that view, because that's how this discussion started. As for your above question, I think it was answered in my previous reply to your previous question. Indubitably, good evil are part of our social landscape. As is the concept of God. But no matter how one looks at it, good evil in whatever variant may be dreamed up, has at the very least some fundamental premise, planted firmly in the belief of God. Can you prove that? I'll leave that question till the end of this post. You wouldn't try to claim that Dean Corril was a really nice guy when he wasn't killing and raping little boys would you? He may have been. I don't know. How about Hitler? Bad man, sure. But being Human, do you think he didn't have the capacity for love? For compassion? Lets look at what's backstage, behind the curtain. Too often we are content to stare at the stage. I'd advise you not to commisserate with serial killers or mass murderers. You will find them a disappointment. Well, we certainly wouldn't be birds of a feather. Or that Bob Hope was a complete bastard except when he was entertaining the troops? I had no idea that Bob was born out of wedlock. That bastard... Groan! :) lol So I hope you can forgive us old folks for our impatience with your anti-authoritarianism.G Especially since we do not offer authority. We offer our experience, which I don't expect you to have any more appreciation for than we did when we were young. (It pains me to find myself preaching like an old fart)G There is nothing to forgive, friend. And quite apart from your expectations, I do appreciate your experience. More so perhaps, than you may know. I simply don't agree with you. And as for my anti-authoritarianism, I think you have it all wrong. It's just a by-product of me making the argument that I make. Of course I come at this list with all the angst that is only proper in a hooligan of my age, but I don't think it interferes with my ability to think rationally. I agree. But I disagree with your hypothesis. What? Huh? Could you explain I agree. But I disagree with your hypothesis. a little more clearly? But one thing that stands out when religion is embedded in ANY discussion, is some abstract concept of God. Regardless of the circumstances, God factors in. Now I understand where you are coming from, but due to the fact of divine presence being present in any semblance of religion, and you saying what you are saying...well it renders the very use of the word religion a complete joke. I have to reject that. It
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
No, really . . . here a couple of articles on the film that have been forwarded to me recently, so I'm passing them along . . . Jews OK Mel's film 07feb04 MEL Gibson's controversial film about the last hours of Jesus's life is unlikely to incite hostility against Jews, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry said yesterday. http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,8603505%255E2902,00.html = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = - Original Message - From: NewsMax.com To: NewsMax.com News Alert Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 1:45 PM Subject: Mel Gibson: My Sinfulness Led to 'Passion' Mel Gibson: My Sinfulness Led to 'Passion' Mel Gibson says he was inspired to make his controversial film The Passion of the Christ after finding that he needed to take a good look at himself and did not like what he saw when he did. You get to a place where, you know, you have to re-evaluate your insides and like, change, because, you know, I'm a monster. I mean I can be, he said, according to the Los Angeles Times. It's like, you know, I've been offered every kind of excess that money and fame brings and it's not good enough. Gibson made his remarks during a 40-minute live QA before 3,800 invited guests at the evangelical Azusa Pacific University on Saturday. As he has from the very beginning of the controversy, Gibson emphatically denied that the film, which depicts in exceedingly graphic scenes the suffering of Jesus during the last 12 hours of his life, is anti-Semitic. The Times reported that when Gibson was asked whether the film will foster anti-Semitism, he said I'm not anti-Semitic. My Gospels are not anti-Semitic. ... I've shown it to many Jews and they're like, it's not anti-Semitic. It's interesting that the people who say it's anti-Semitic say that before they saw the film, and they said the same thing after they saw the film. One critic of the heavy marketing of the film, Kenneth L. Waters Sr., assistant professor of the New Testament at Azusa Pacific University, said that while he thinks the marketing aspect is a little bit too heavy-handed, personally, he called the film gripping and very captivating ... and pretty much held the line as far as the biblical story was concerned. He told the Times he did not think the film was anti-Semitic. Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, has seen the film twice and repeated his widely reported charge that the movie is the work of Mel Gibson and not a story from the New Testament, a criticism denied by scores of biblical experts who have seen it and testified that it faithfully follows the Gospels. As someone who has dealt with the issue of anti-Semitism professionally since 1977, I know about what it is more than Mel Gibson, Hier said. Every Jew who appears in this film, except for the disciples of Christ, are portrayed cruelly and portrayed as a people with an almost sinister look in their eyes. ... Jews who see this film, I believe, will be overwhelmingly horrified. Gibson supporters, however, stress the fact that many of those who have seen the film are themselves Jewish, and deny they saw anything anti-Semitic about it. Speaking of the film's R-rating, Gibson said it is justified given that the scenes of the crucifixion are brutal and relentless. Part of what I was endeavoring to do was to kind of push it to the edge a little bit, he said. When it was suggested that he could have toned the film down, Gibson responded, Dude, I did tone it down. The film premiers in over 2,000 theaters on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25. Experts say it could recover the $30 million Gibson spent making it in as little as five days. Read more of the latest on The Passion of The Christ... Click Here: L.A. Times: 'Huge' Turnout Expected for Gibson Film TO SUBSCRIBE If this News Alert has been forwarded to you and you would like a subscription, please click here. Sign up for free e-mail alerts today! For a NewsMax magazine subscription, Click Here. This e-mail brought to you by: NewsMax Media, Inc. 7950 Central Industrial Drive Riviera Beach, FL 33404 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Jews OK Mel's film MEL Gibson's controversial film about the last hours of Jesus's life is unlikely to incite hostility against Jews, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry Isn't that what they call bracelets, rings, etc. in Alabama? ;-) __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Steve Sloan II wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Jews OK Mel's film MEL Gibson's controversial film about the last hours of Jesus's life is unlikely to incite hostility against Jews, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry Isn't that what they call bracelets, rings, etc. in Alabama? ;-) Groan. Reminds me of this kid in my first grade class, Freddy. For some reason he couldn't manage Julie. Called me Jewlery. I decided it was more touching than annoying. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 22:25:10 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 12:32 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ It is noble for the young to question authority and to question assumptions. And as you get older you tend to be less patient with arguments you discarded long long ago. In essence, that ship has sailed for you. I understand completely, and ask you to understand that it has left port for me as well. But I'm young you say; how can that be? Well, I don't have biological age backing me up on this one, but I feel like I've lived a hundred years. I've been to the stars and back. I've lived past lives, and lives yet to come. I write, and have written for as long as I could coherently put ideas together. And in that writing is a pure journey of self discovery. I've solved the mysteries of the Universe (you get my meaning, I'm sure) simply by transferring thoughts to words. And in those words, those conversations with myself, I have discovered certain things that I hold to be true. This has led me to adopt a certain line of thinking, which I hold true to. A line of thinking where anything and everything is disgarded if it doesn't hold some element of apparant truth. Now I empathize with the fact that people en masse certainly don't think this way. I also understand when people who supposedly have open minds refuse to accept, or more accurately adopt, certain ways of thinking. But I still find it amusing that I have to argue my point on some of these issues. Of course I also admit the fact that I may be quite delusional, but I refuse to believe it. Unless of course someone were to prove itlol. OK, what I see is that you are saying no matter what anyone says, you are right about whatever whimsy flits into your mind. What I want to know is how do you discern between truth and delusion, and how does this make you different from a garden variety egomaniac. Correct me please if I am misunderstanding you. Perhaps in many ways I am an egomaniac of the garden variety. Just to get a second opinion however, what do you think? As for me being right all the time though, I think not. And I'm suprised you would use that against me, as you know the difference. Especially since I have tried time and again to illuminate my position. In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded on this concept of good and evil being an inherent part of our environment. No one is really making that claim. What *is* being claimed is that good and evil are part of the human social landscape. Well of course!! I'm not just claiming that God doesn't exist, and looking towards the heavens and screaming my lungs out here. I'm not transfixed with trying to prove the non-existence of God. Good heavens man! What I'm actually saying, in this particular context, is that regardless of what one says, believes, thinks etc... the concept of good and evil hearkens back to some fundamental belief in God. Indubitably, good evil are part of our social landscape. As is the concept of God. But no matter how one looks at it, good evil in whatever variant may be dreamed up, has at the very least some fundamental premise, planted firmly in the belief of God. You wouldn't try to claim that Dean Corril was a really nice guy when he wasn't killing and raping little boys would you? He may have been. I don't know. How about Hitler? Bad man, sure. But being Human, do you think he didn't have the capacity for love? For compassion? Lets look at what's backstage, behind the curtain. Too often we are content to stare at the stage. Or that Bob Hope was a complete bastard except when he was entertaining the troops? I had no idea that Bob was born out of wedlock. That bastard... There is evil loose in the world. Blood is freedom stained So I hope you can forgive us old folks for our impatience with your anti-authoritarianism.G Especially since we do not offer authority. We offer our experience, which I don't expect you to have any more appreciation for than we did when we were young. (It pains me to find myself preaching like an old fart)G There is nothing to forgive, friend. And quite apart from your expectations, I do appreciate your experience. More so perhaps, than you may know. I simply don't agree with you. And as for my anti-authoritarianism, I think you have it all wrong. It's just a by-product of me making the argument that I make. Of course I come at this list with all the angst that is only proper in a hooligan of my age, but I don't think it interferes with my ability to think rationally. I agree. But I disagree with your hypothesis. What? While your first paragraph,
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 1:20 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 22:25:10 -0600 OK, what I see is that you are saying no matter what anyone says, you are right about whatever whimsy flits into your mind. What I want to know is how do you discern between truth and delusion, and how does this make you different from a garden variety egomaniac. Correct me please if I am misunderstanding you. Perhaps in many ways I am an egomaniac of the garden variety. Just to get a second opinion however, what do you think? As for me being right all the time though, I think not. And I'm suprised you would use that against me, as you know the difference. Especially since I have tried time and again to illuminate my position. Please understand that I am not criticising you, but the position you espouse. I think it is also useful to consider that I am trying to keep the discussion at its basics by exploring the basics. Then there is the fact that email is devoid of the nuance of nonverbal clues, so it can often be difficult to discern if a message is nuanced otherwise, and as social animals we look for those subliminals because they often transmit meaning more effectively than words alone and we expect them. Do I think you are an egomaniac? Not really. I think you seem to be self-centered within normal parameters for an earlytwentysomething and not significantly self-absorbed at least AFAIK about these things. But, my question was in response to your statement: But I still find it amusing that I have to argue my point on some of these issues. Of course I also admit the fact that I may be quite delusional, but I refuse to believe it. In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded on this concept of good and evil being an inherent part of our environment. No one is really making that claim. What *is* being claimed is that good and evil are part of the human social landscape. Well of course!! I'm not just claiming that God doesn't exist, and looking towards the heavens and screaming my lungs out here. I'm not transfixed with trying to prove the non-existence of God. Good heavens man! What I'm actually saying, in this particular context, is that regardless of what one says, believes, thinks etc... the concept of good and evil hearkens back to some fundamental belief in God. Does it matter where a concept originates? Does that make it any less valid? And what does the existence/nonexistence of God have to do with the existence/nonexistence of good and evil? You seem to filter the entire concept through a distinctly Judeo-Christian filter. Bhuddists seem to deal with the issue without relying on God as a fallback position or originating element. Indubitably, good evil are part of our social landscape. As is the concept of God. But no matter how one looks at it, good evil in whatever variant may be dreamed up, has at the very least some fundamental premise, planted firmly in the belief of God. Can you prove that? You wouldn't try to claim that Dean Corril was a really nice guy when he wasn't killing and raping little boys would you? He may have been. I don't know. How about Hitler? Bad man, sure. But being Human, do you think he didn't have the capacity for love? For compassion? Lets look at what's backstage, behind the curtain. Too often we are content to stare at the stage. I'd advise you not to commisserate with serial killers or mass murderers. You will find them a disappointment. Or that Bob Hope was a complete bastard except when he was entertaining the troops? I had no idea that Bob was born out of wedlock. That bastard... Groan! :) There is evil loose in the world. Blood is freedom stained So I hope you can forgive us old folks for our impatience with your anti-authoritarianism.G Especially since we do not offer authority. We offer our experience, which I don't expect you to have any more appreciation for than we did when we were young. (It pains me to find myself preaching like an old fart)G There is nothing to forgive, friend. And quite apart from your expectations, I do appreciate your experience. More so perhaps, than you may know. I simply don't agree with you. And as for my anti-authoritarianism, I think you have it all wrong. It's just a by-product of me making the argument that I make. Of course I come at this list with all the angst that is only proper in a hooligan of my age, but I don't think it interferes with my ability to think rationally. I agree. But I disagree with your hypothesis. What? Huh?
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 12:32 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 19:25:23 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:40 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Once again Robert, you have constructed a very relevant and poetic response. However relevant it may be though, it still buys into assumption sets. I used to make such arguments as you are making when I was young too. The problem with such arguments is that they can only come from a lack of experience. I've been waiting for my age to be entered in on a discussion for quite some time now. I'm suprised it took this long actually. That being said, allow me to disagree with your reasoning Robert, as I don't see experience (or my lack of) being relevant in the least. Of course you don't. The relevance becomes quite obvious with experience. It wasn't in any way obvious to me at 21 or even 25, but sure as cats have kittens it became visible to me and will to you to whatever degree finds you. (Yes, to a great degree it finds you rather than you finding it.) It is noble for the young to question authority and to question assumptions. And as you get older you tend to be less patient with arguments you discarded long long ago. In essence, that ship has sailed for you. I understand completely, and ask you to understand that it has left port for me as well. But I'm young you say; how can that be? Well, I don't have biological age backing me up on this one, but I feel like I've lived a hundred years. I've been to the stars and back. I've lived past lives, and lives yet to come. I write, and have written for as long as I could coherently put ideas together. And in that writing is a pure journey of self discovery. I've solved the mysteries of the Universe (you get my meaning, I'm sure) simply by transferring thoughts to words. And in those words, those conversations with myself, I have discovered certain things that I hold to be true. This has led me to adopt a certain line of thinking, which I hold true to. A line of thinking where anything and everything is disgarded if it doesn't hold some element of apparant truth. Now I empathize with the fact that people en masse certainly don't think this way. I also understand when people who supposedly have open minds refuse to accept, or more accurately adopt, certain ways of thinking. But I still find it amusing that I have to argue my point on some of these issues. Of course I also admit the fact that I may be quite delusional, but I refuse to believe it. Unless of course someone were to prove itlol. OK, what I see is that you are saying no matter what anyone says, you are right about whatever whimsy flits into your mind. What I want to know is how do you discern between truth and delusion, and how does this make you different from a garden variety egomaniac. Correct me please if I am misunderstanding you. In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded on this concept of good and evil being an inherent part of our environment. No one is really making that claim. What *is* being claimed is that good and evil are part of the human social landscape. You wouldn't try to claim that Dean Corril was a really nice guy when he wasn't killing and raping little boys would you? Or that Bob Hope was a complete bastard except when he was entertaining the troops? I cannot see devolving the regime of Hitler into the hijinks of Eddie Haskell. There is evil loose in the world. So I hope you can forgive us old folks for our impatience with your anti-authoritarianism.G Especially since we do not offer authority. We offer our experience, which I don't expect you to have any more appreciation for than we did when we were young. (It pains me to find myself preaching like an old fart)G There is nothing to forgive, friend. And quite apart from your expectations, I do appreciate your experience. More so perhaps, than you may know. I simply don't agree with you. And as for my anti-authoritarianism, I think you have it all wrong. It's just a by-product of me making the argument that I make. Of course I come at this list with all the angst that is only proper in a hooligan of my age, but I don't think it interferes with my ability to think rationally. I agree. But I disagree with your hypothesis. While your first paragraph, being quite anthropological, is relevant, one still needs some abstract concept of God. It's what it all hearkens back to, and I reject that. Let
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 16:22:53 -0600 Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:02:34 -0330 In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded on this concept of good and evil being an inherent part of our environment. That didn't come out right. You know what I mean!!lol No, I don't. I've seen an awful lot of misunderstandings arise here when someone said X and really meant Y, and then said But you knew what I meant! when the *exact* intent certainly wasn't clear. Could you re-state so it says what you *did* mean? Julia How's this? In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded from my point of view. (As opposed to Roberts POV of course) -Travis _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 16:22:53 -0600 Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:02:34 -0330 In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded on this concept of good and evil being an inherent part of our environment. That didn't come out right. You know what I mean!!lol No, I don't. I've seen an awful lot of misunderstandings arise here when someone said X and really meant Y, and then said But you knew what I meant! when the *exact* intent certainly wasn't clear. Could you re-state so it says what you *did* mean? Julia How's this? In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded from my point of view. (As opposed to Roberts POV of course) -Travis Better. Need to go back and look at the rest of the thread to entirely understand, but that can be done. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:40:26 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ I see where you are coming from. But it all comes down to ones own concept of evil now doesn't it? Unless, of course, truth actually exists. :-) Dan M. lol Well, what exactly is truth? -Travis in truth, I'm not truly sure, what truth truly is...it's true Edmunds _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/viruspgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 19:25:23 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:40 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Once again Robert, you have constructed a very relevant and poetic response. However relevant it may be though, it still buys into assumption sets. I used to make such arguments as you are making when I was young too. The problem with such arguments is that they can only come from a lack of experience. I've been waiting for my age to be entered in on a discussion for quite some time now. I'm suprised it took this long actually. That being said, allow me to disagree with your reasoning Robert, as I don't see experience (or my lack of) being relevant in the least. It is noble for the young to question authority and to question assumptions. And as you get older you tend to be less patient with arguments you discarded long long ago. In essence, that ship has sailed for you. I understand completely, and ask you to understand that it has left port for me as well. But I'm young you say; how can that be? Well, I don't have biological age backing me up on this one, but I feel like I've lived a hundred years. I've been to the stars and back. I've lived past lives, and lives yet to come. I write, and have written for as long as I could coherently put ideas together. And in that writing is a pure journey of self discovery. I've solved the mysteries of the Universe (you get my meaning, I'm sure) simply by transferring thoughts to words. And in those words, those conversations with myself, I have discovered certain things that I hold to be true. This has led me to adopt a certain line of thinking, which I hold true to. A line of thinking where anything and everything is disgarded if it doesn't hold some element of apparant truth. Now I empathize with the fact that people en masse certainly don't think this way. I also understand when people who supposedly have open minds refuse to accept, or more accurately adopt, certain ways of thinking. But I still find it amusing that I have to argue my point on some of these issues. Of course I also admit the fact that I may be quite delusional, but I refuse to believe it. Unless of course someone were to prove itlol. In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded on this concept of good and evil being an inherent part of our environment. So I hope you can forgive us old folks for our impatience with your anti-authoritarianism.G Especially since we do not offer authority. We offer our experience, which I don't expect you to have any more appreciation for than we did when we were young. (It pains me to find myself preaching like an old fart)G There is nothing to forgive, friend. And quite apart from your expectations, I do appreciate your experience. More so perhaps, than you may know. I simply don't agree with you. And as for my anti-authoritarianism, I think you have it all wrong. It's just a by-product of me making the argument that I make. Of course I come at this list with all the angst that is only proper in a hooligan of my age, but I don't think it interferes with my ability to think rationally. While your first paragraph, being quite anthropological, is relevant, one still needs some abstract concept of God. It's what it all hearkens back to, and I reject that. Let me spell my meaning more plainly. Morality does not prove the existence of God. But the same basic morality espoused by religion is actually a set of self-evident rules for social, sentient beings. You spout mundane truths. I think that you perhaps never understood me. But I apologize, as it is after all my fault for not explaining clearly. But one thing that stands out when religion is embedded in ANY discussion, is some abstract concept of God. Regardless of the circumstances, God factors in. Now I understand where you are coming from, but due to the fact of divine presence being present in any semblance of religion, and you saying what you are saying...well it renders the very use of the word religion a complete joke. If, there is a God, then he placed us in a universe where these truths are obtainable and created us in such a way that we require these truths as a part of our social structure. IF that IS true, (And I would love to believe that it is) it still goes against the old adage God works in mysterious ways. I see a contradiction brewing.lol If, there is no God, then we evolved in a universe where these truths are self-evident and our nature is such that we require these truths as a part of our social structure. I don't see any discrepency with either view of reality since reality *is* what it *is*. I honestly have nothing to
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:02:34 -0330 In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded on this concept of good and evil being an inherent part of our environment. That didn't come out right. You know what I mean!!lol _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/viruspgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
In a message dated 2/6/2004 8:37:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nevertheless, my question remains: Does anyone find it to be a positive development that certain interests succeeded in pulling that quote from the movie? It is a positive developement if prevents harm. As I said before, does exclusion change the story or its impact? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:02:34 -0330 In any case, I also refuse to be dissuaded on this concept of good and evil being an inherent part of our environment. That didn't come out right. You know what I mean!!lol No, I don't. I've seen an awful lot of misunderstandings arise here when someone said X and really meant Y, and then said But you knew what I meant! when the *exact* intent certainly wasn't clear. Could you re-state so it says what you *did* mean? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
In a message dated 2/6/2004 8:38:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I interpreted Tom's post as very clearly judging all Christians. Perhaps you saw Tom's post differently? I took it as an honest response by a jew that we are very leary of and sensitive to anti-semitism because of two millenia of persecution at the hands of christianity. It is easy for christians in America to have trouble understanding this because anti-semitism here is uncommon (at least in cities). The vast majority of christians are not personally anti-semitic and in our recent memory jews have been relatively secure here. Most would admit that discrimination existed and still exists to a certain extent but feel that jews are over reacting. But for jews the risk always feels real. Especially now with anti-semitism on the rise in Europe in particular amoung the general population. The lack of sympathy for Israel and some of the remarks by leaders are frightening. So if Christians want to make Jews feel more secure some sensitivity to things that have brought us grief would be in order. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
FWIW: http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/04/film.passionactress.ap/index.html 'Passion' actress: Film not anti-Semitic Maia Morgenstern plays Mary in controversial Gibson film BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) --The actress who plays Mary in Mel Gibson's passion-stirring biblical epic The Passion of the Christ says her parents were Holocaust survivors but she does not consider the film anti-Semitic. ...snip... Morgenstern, whose grandfather died in the Auschwitz death camp, spoke glowingly of Gibson, praising his professional abilities and the kindness he showed when her daughter became ill in Romania. Gibson sent her home to spend time with the child, and then allowed the 3-year-old to join her on the set. ...snip... -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:51 PM 2/4/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So it is possible to do a story where jews are seen as favoring or even instigating his death wihtout implicating all jews (show that the romans wanted to happen as well, show that there were jews who were against his death, show the jews as real people not stereotypes). Anyone care to make a wager on whether or not Mel Gibson will portray some Jews as being against Jesus' death in the movie? I can guarantee that he has done so. Which jews are you talking about? The ones who were the supposed followers of jebus in the gospel myths, the so-called 'christians' who just happened to be jews, or the other jews who were not these 'christians'. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Robert Seeberger wrote: (It pains me to find myself preaching like an old fart)G Well, you're not coming through like someone who smells like a stale one Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Good and evil (was Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ)
Travis Edmunds wrote: Travis Edmunds wrote: Ah yes. You believe. I for one, believe that views like that, hold back any sort of honest discourse. I'm unclear on the antecedent of views like that. Theirs, or mine? Yours of course. After all you said you believe. Now it seems as though you object to my having beliefs, or having beliefs in general. As a side note, I'll mention that when I was little, I called my father's briefcase his beliefcase, which was far funnier given that my dad taught philosophy for a living. There's plenty of room for that Nick. But when your beliefs interfere with the open discourse of this forum, you become just as bad as those you despise. I don't believe that I said I despised anybody. I said that polarizing important issues is self-evidently harmful, in my opinion. Furthermore, I hesitate to think that the cause of religiously fanatical hate mongering is being furthered by someone quoting so-called evil comments. Especially on this forum. For that matter, we probably shouldn't talk about anything other than good wholesome sci-fi, with no more than an action based plot which never deviates from space battles, and which certainly doesn't bring forth controversial ideas. It's safer that way right? I don't believe that I suggested that there are topics that don't belong here, which is how I read the paragraph above. My objection was to the quoting of hate-mongers as though their venom contributed anything to the discussion at hand. Look, I'm not being argumentative just to be argumentative. It's just that I vehemently disagree with what you said, and I really do think that views like yours really do hold back, thinking, on any sort of acceptable level here on this forum. It seems humorous to me that you seem to be saying that I'm being close-minded, extremist, dogmatic, etc., by saying that I consider it harmful to repeat the words of close-minded, extremist, dogmatic, er, asshats. How does one give credibility to such views in the way that you mention? It implies those words have value in the context they were offered. If the context was how to respond to hate-mongers, that might be true. But it wasn't. From here, it looked like the sort of propaganda technique used by demagogues. Proof? I think it is self-evident that treating important issues as black and white is bad. It's been my experience that nothing in this world is black white. Combine that with the fact that you treated this issue as black white, and you have an augument on your hands. Phooey, to the idea that I treated this issue as black-and-white. It seems that we agree that nothing in this world is so. It seems to me that while I was saying I think that's harmful, you heard you stop that. I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone; especially you Nick. But I honestly can't believe how closed-minded people can be at times. It's amazing. I'm not the least bit offended. I aim to take nothing personally. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 9:31 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ At 12:22 PM 2/5/2004 -0600 Reggie Bautista wrote: Gibson Cuts Passion Scene Mel Gibson, responding to focus groups as much as to protests by Jewish critics, has decided to delete a controversial scene about Jews from his film, The Passion of the Christ, a close associate told The New York Times. A scene in the film, in which the Jewish high priest Caiaphas calls down a kind of curse on the Jewish people by declaring of the Crucifixion, His blood be on us and on our children, will not be in the movie's final version, the Gibson associate, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the newspaper. Out of curiosity, does anyone here consider this to be a positive development? It depends on whether the film version gave the proper historical context for the quote. That quote has been the proof text used by folks to support evil done in the name of Christ. Given the baggage that it has, he really really needed to have it expressed in a manner that clearly didn't support this viewas the actual text does not...especially when taken in its proper context. His quotes on taking it out was that he didn't feel that he achieved this goal. If that were true, then he should have taken it out. If he actually achieved this goal, then it was unfortunate that he took it out. A parallel that I'm reminded of is the play Huckleberry Finn. When it was put on in Chicago, roughly 30 years ago, black leaders raised concerns because the book depicted Huck accepting slavery as the norm and God ordained. However, having seen the play, the saw that this view wasn't Twain's, and that the play brought out the true spirit of the book. They ended up endorsing the play. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 09:51 PM 2/5/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would argue that John Paul II has done precisely that. To a large extent, yes. Certainly more than any major Christian leader before him (well, Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI also did a lot). Still a long way to go, though. But isn't judging all Christians as a class exactly the sort of class-based thinking that Jews of all people should explicitly reject? I've said that I don't blame all Christians for Christian anti-Semitism, or at least that I try not to. Suspicion and resentment are not exactly the same as blame. But even if I do, or even if other Jews do, is it so hard to understand why? I'm trying not to play victim here, since I personally have experienced also no anti-Semitism myself. Most of the Christian friends I've had in my lifetime have been just that - friends. They accept me for who and what I am, just as I accept them for who and what they are. To the extent that I have been writing on this issue here recently, it's out of a very strong feeling for what other Jews have gone through, and an understanding that that COULD have been me - and in different times and places very well MIGHT have been me. America has been good to the Jews (and vice-versa), and I don't really think that this is likely to change much, even if Gibson's movie breaks records. But there is always nervousness among Jews, and if we judge Christians harshly, that's hardly of the same consequence as Christian anti-Semitism or Nazi extermination. Again, my point is, if Christians truly want to demonstrate that they understand why Jews are suspicious, if they truly want to prove that they pose no threat, it's easy to do so. John-Paul HAS begun to lead the way, and many other Christians have done likewise. And you don't have to let Mel Gibson speak for you, or leave it to Jews to point out the inherent dangers in basing a popular entertainment on an uncritical and ahistorical adaptation of the Gospels. So, going on the assumption that the Gospels are the best historical account we have of the events we are discussing, is it not ahistorical to simply skip over Matthew 27:20-25? How would you suggest a film-maker handle that important portion of the story without making Jews nervous? (I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm just trying to understand what would work.) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 18:54:12 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:45:06 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:59 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Now that's an interesting question. First of all, is it even possible for something to be more evil than something else? Now that is a ridiculous question! I think it is easily acceptable to state as a fact that Hitler, Pol Pot, or Saddam Hussein were all much more evil than the B#tch who dumped me 10 days before our wedding and stole 4 grand from me. Its not just a question of scale. AFAIK the B#tch never killed a single soul. The kid who tried to beat me up when I was 12 in order to in order to improve his bad ass cred just doesn't rate. There *are* greater and lesser evils. Stealing a cookie out of the cookie jar cannot compare to rape. xponent For The Record Maru rob I see where you are coming from. But it all comes down to ones own concept of evil now doesn't it? Well Travis...one can make up from whole cloth any kind of definition one wants to, but the problem is that there is already a fairly decent and contemporary definition for the word. That doesn't mean however, that a moral relativism necessarily poses a problem. Unless of course one were inclined to predisposed ideological thinking. Which of course, most people are. And I think that is a problem in and of itself. If it's not broke don't fix it right? I say WRONG. I say peer through the murky waters of archaic thinking, until one finds the source of the water itself. It's the only way to truly understand anything, is it not? In essence, you are saying that we shouldn't question anything. We should complacently accept what is, or what we think is, and henceforth drown in our own collective of stagnant water. I can't accept that. And quite frankly I never will. My problem with the specific form of moral relativism that you seem to be wielding ATM is that you take a position so extreme that all the meaning *to* and definition *of* the concept of evil is reduced to a single point on the horizon simply because you distance yourself from the entire moral principle that defines the spectrum of behavior in that regard. I distance myself from nothing on this particular issue. I simply state what I hold to be true. Extreme you say? I say no. Or at least I shall say yes, but conditionally. And it all comes full circle back to the type of thinking that I challenge. Now, moral relativism is a very useful concept, but as in all things it is only useful when used moderately. Too much of it explodes the argument one tries too make into nonsense. This is exactly the same effect when one makes adamantine black and white arguments. There are just too many counterexamples that destroy such a stance. Well, why does a moral relativism prove useful in the first place? Perhaps due to the fact that it holds fundamental truths, when one actually delves into the intricacies of mundane everyday thinking? The zennish attitude that nothing really matters is the purest crock of crap in existence. Some things *do* matter. Some things *do* make a difference. And if you are gazing at your navel, you are not exploring the inner or outer universe, you are daydreaming a false dream in exactly the same false way ancient Greeks did when they thought they could deduce the nature of reality by pure reason. xponent Plato Or Socrates? Maru rob Poppycock! Pure unadulterated poppycock! Of course some things matter. Some things do make a difference. But why? Because our own morality is in direct accord with what we are led to believe. I can illustrate this, and that's why I make this argument. However, one cannot illuminate the dark recesses in the cave of ideological thinking. Sure one can make arguments that hinge on so called facts (which in turn are based on the same line of thinking you stand behind in the first place). But that quite simply turns into a game of chasing your own tail. -Travis _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
So, going on the assumption that the Gospels are the best historical account we have of the events we are discussing, is it not ahistorical to simply skip over Matthew 27:20-25? How would you suggest a film-maker handle that important portion of the story without making Jews nervous? Not make the movie. Or not hide it from Jewish audiences once you've made it. Or show the script widely to Jewish scholars before starting filming. Not show the finished film only to extremly conservative Christian groups. Basically, Gibson is acting like he's no clue just why them damn pesky Jews are being so uppity about his little movie that poor little ol' defenseless powerless little ol' him is fighting such powerful enemies to produce and distribute. Either he doesn't understand, in which case where the hell's he been since the Holocaust and the Crusades and all the rest, or he understands perfectly and actually wants to show how evil us Jews really are. Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 12:48 AM 2/6/04, The Fool wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:51 PM 2/4/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So it is possible to do a story where jews are seen as favoring or even instigating his death wihtout implicating all jews (show that the romans wanted to happen as well, show that there were jews who were against his death, show the jews as real people not stereotypes). Anyone care to make a wager on whether or not Mel Gibson will portray some Jews as being against Jesus' death in the movie? I can guarantee that he has done so. Which jews are you talking about? The ones who were the supposed followers of jebus in the gospel myths, the so-called 'christians' who just happened to be jews, or the other jews who were not these 'christians'. The ones who don't deliberately misspell and ignore standard capitalization practices in a blatant attempt to irritate those with whose views they don't happen to agree, perhaps? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Good and evil (was Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ)
At 10:04 AM 2/6/04, Nick Arnett wrote: I'm not the least bit offended. I aim to take nothing personally. FWIW, ditto. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
In a message dated 2/5/2004 10:36:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Out of curiosity, does anyone here consider this to be a positive development? The statement or his bowing to focus groups? The statement has been harmful to jews (that is it helped to get lots of them killed). Is this critical to the story? As to bowing to focus groups. Sort of ironic; if one wants to tell the truth one would think that focus groups would not be a factor. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
In a message dated 2/5/2004 10:37:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But isn't judging all Christians as a class exactly the sort of class-based thinking that Jews of all people should explicitly reject? Who is judging all christians? We live in a world where most of the people we meet are christians. Some of my best friends are christians. I work with christians. (tongue in cheek here). I do not blame anyone. But when some nastiness pops up I get nervous. Not around friends and colleagues but nervous none the less ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 07:55 PM 2/6/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/5/2004 10:36:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Out of curiosity, does anyone here consider this to be a positive development? The statement or his bowing to focus groups? His bowing to focus groups.. Or more precisely to those interests opposed to the movie, for which the focus groups provided a convenient excuse. The statement has been harmful to jews (that is it helped to get lots of them killed). Is this critical to the story? As to bowing to focus groups. Sort of ironic; if one wants to tell the truth one would think that focus groups would not be a factor. Well, he probably does have a fiduciary responsibility to his investors - life is always full of trade-offs. Nevertheless, my question remains: Does anyone find it to be a positive development that certain interests succeeded in pulling that quote from the movie? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 07:59 PM 2/6/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/5/2004 10:37:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But isn't judging all Christians as a class exactly the sort of class-based thinking that Jews of all people should explicitly reject? Who is judging all christians? I interpreted Tom's post as very clearly judging all Christians. Perhaps you saw Tom's post differently? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
I interpreted Tom's post as very clearly judging all Christians. Perhaps you saw Tom's post differently? I hope I don't judge all Christians negatively. Most Christians are appalled by violence against anyone. Throughout history this has also probably been true (if it had been otherwise, I doubt there would be many Jews left by now. Not that there ARE all that many of us, alas.) But - that does not make much difference. The violence that was done, and not all that long ago either, was such that Jews still have very good reason to be suspicious and nervous and on our guard. It does no good to tell us to forgive and forget. We've been through too much, either directly or through knowing our history. If we see danger where there is none, that's also a product of our experience. And Gibson's actions, and his background, don't give us any reason to relax. He's been acting like he's the one at danger here, like he's battling mighty, inimical forces. Wanna make a movie about Jesus? It's a free country. Gibson is free to make his movie - and we're free to criticize him. But there really is a potential danger here, that some people may be stirred up by this movie to attack Jews they way they were in the past by viciously anti-Jewish Passion plays - does anybody here really want us to risk that? It's not Christians whose asses are maybe on the line here. Want me not to judge Christians negatively? Stand with us on this. If you're talking to someone who saw the movie and they start to say something anti-Jewish based on the movie, don't let them get away with it. I don't think this is too much to ask. Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
John wrote: Nevertheless, my question remains: Does anyone find it to be a positive development that certain interests succeeded in pulling that quote from the movie? If the New Testament were a historical document and the modifications had the effect of actually modifying history, then I would be adamantly against the changes, but while I agree with Damon that the Bible has historical value, it is _not_ a definitive historical document. In addition to that, (and correct me if I'm wrong here) the controversial part of the movie was described in only one of the several books and there is some question as to it's veracity even among Christians. So though it's difficult to make a judgment without having seen the movie both before and after the modifications, I'd have to say that if the modifications allay the (very legitimate, IMO) fears of those that believe it may incite violence against them, then yes it is a positive development. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:36:25 EST I sincerely doubt that I would have a problem with it if I were born and raised a Nazi. Do you understand where I am coming from? No. There's a moral relativism at work in your statement that I can't fathom. Indeed there is. But why you can't fathom it, is something I can't quite fathom myself. It's as if you're saying that you can't choose between anything because everything is valid to the person who holds the opinion. Basically, you don't have a right to your opinion because it might somehow conflict with someone else's. It's difficult to choose between anything really. Especially since (this is merely a reiteration) I challenge any assumption sets I am presented with. However I take that proverbial step back, and direct myself the core of any issue. I mean you and I for example, could bludgeon each other with facts about many topics, but we would get nowhere. It's just a game of tag, and we're running around in circles. So I choose to seek fundamental truths hidden in anything. That is the integrity of which I speak, and I absolutely cannot approach things any other way. And in this case I seek truth, hidden in the guise of predisposed ideology, which is namely the concept of evil. I have a problem with such black white decisions made by people on this entire concept. Even beyond the typical supernatural evil, into the realm of sane and rational man-made evil, people still revert back to this dogmatic view of things. Do not deny this Tom, for it's all there on paper so to speak. And how you can so proudly state, that I'm wrong, your right, some people are unquestionably evil, some people are filth,..(it goes on and on)...just amazes me, and proves my point. You don't have to agree with me. But I would urge you to think about things, and make up your own mind, as opposed to waving the banner of predisposed ideology for all to see. Of course it's also possible that you have done this already, and have decided that the black white approach to the concept of evil holds truth for you. If that is truly the case, then I accept that, and this discussion is over. I don't however agree with that, but if you have, at the very least recognized the possibility of evil not being what you may think it is, then all is forgiven. For that is really all I was looking for. I understand people cannot be easily swayed on certain issues. -Travis _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
I had been somewhat worried about how insensitive TPotC might be, but I was planning on keeping an open mind until I saw it for myself. Then I ran across this article: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2004-02/04/11.15.film or http://makeashorterlink.com/?J5EB23F47 Gibson Cuts Passion Scene Mel Gibson, responding to focus groups as much as to protests by Jewish critics, has decided to delete a controversial scene about Jews from his film, The Passion of the Christ, a close associate told The New York Times. A scene in the film, in which the Jewish high priest Caiaphas calls down a kind of curse on the Jewish people by declaring of the Crucifixion, His blood be on us and on our children, will not be in the movie's final version, the Gibson associate, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the newspaper. The passage had been included in some versions of the film that were shown before select groups, mostly of priests and ministers, the Times reported. It didn't work in the focus screenings, the associate said. Maybe it was thought to be too hurtful, or taken not in the way it was intended. It has been used terribly over the years. Jewish leaders had warned that the passage from Matthew 27:25 was the historic source for many of the charges of deicide and Jews' collective guilt in the death of Jesus, the newspaper reported. The Passion has been the subject of fears by Jewish groups that it might incite anti-Semitism. The Passion is slated to open Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday. Reggie Bautista ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:45:06 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:59 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Now that's an interesting question. First of all, is it even possible for something to be more evil than something else? Now that is a ridiculous question! I think it is easily acceptable to state as a fact that Hitler, Pol Pot, or Saddam Hussein were all much more evil than the B#tch who dumped me 10 days before our wedding and stole 4 grand from me. Its not just a question of scale. AFAIK the B#tch never killed a single soul. The kid who tried to beat me up when I was 12 in order to in order to improve his bad ass cred just doesn't rate. There *are* greater and lesser evils. Stealing a cookie out of the cookie jar cannot compare to rape. xponent For The Record Maru rob I see where you are coming from. But it all comes down to ones own concept of evil now doesn't it? -Travis _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:39:38 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:05 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:52:09 -0600 Geez Travis, of course Evil is a man made concept. Are we not men? xponent It Lives Maru rob I didn't think it was that clear-cut for most people Robert. What, with some of the comments tossed about. Lets clarify then. G By religious reasoning, God made a standard for men to live by. In attempting to live up to that standard men identified gradiations between a sincere fulfillment of that agreed upon standard and outright defiance of the standard. The standard doesn't really ever change, but the gradiation between the standard and defiance of the standard does move with time and changing social views. Therefore, things that were once considered evil can become innocent, but there are some acts that will always considered evil, FREX the taking of innocent life or theft. To some extent the gradial areas far from the polar extremes are ambiguous, while the extremes are solidly set in stone. In this sense the standard and its opposite are universal, and the gradiant between the two are almost solely defined by human understanding of ones and ones enviroment. (For a secular reasoning, replace God with Society.) That being said, it is important to understand that evil does not exist independent of sentience (Or is it sapience in this case?). Nor does Good. Even in the religious sense, good and evil are constructs for thinking beings to structure their behavior around. With or without the existance of God, the concept of good and evil would still arise since there needs to be some sort of rules whenever 2 or more people are present. So, good and evil are not universal in the sense that gravitation is universal, independant of beings who are self aware, but since we do have numbers of self aware beings present , it is universal in every way that counts to us. xponent Pebble Maru rob Once again Robert, you have constructed a very relevant and poetic response. However relevant it may be though, it still buys into assumption sets. While your first paragraph, being quite anthropological, is relevant, one still needs some abstract concept of God. It's what it all hearkens back to, and I reject that. And forgive me my presumptuousness, in stating the man-made evil in a way that declared me to be the sole receptacle of that knowledge. Or perhaps more accurately, that concept. You see I admit the possibility that evil is exactly what we are told it is; I just don't believe that. I'm quite the agnostic fellow you see, and I like to think, that I think about things to such an extent, that I have seen all angles as well as I can. And when people make certain comments, that don't seem based in rationality, I get to thinking that they themselves aren't seeing the big picture. Perhaps I should give people more credit.. Then again -Travis _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ I see where you are coming from. But it all comes down to ones own concept of evil now doesn't it? Unless, of course, truth actually exists. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
In a message dated 2/4/2004 9:06:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyone care to make a wager on whether or not Mel Gibson will portray some Jews as being against Jesus' death in the movie? I can guarantee that he has done so. We will see. It will depend on the overall characterization of the jews. It will not be enough to portray his followers (all jews) sympathetically it will depend on avoidance of what are historically defined anti-semitic stereotypes. My only concern is the way he has gone about defending himself even before there were any real questions. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
In a message dated 2/4/2004 11:27:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying that Jews (All Jews? Perhaps not.) conflate Christianity (the system of beliefs based on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus) with the people who profess that faith. Christians come with the same variety as Jews. Some of us are really fine people who seek to live as Jesus taught and demonstrated. Some of us are really rotten people who think that our faith is an excuse to condemn others. Please use whatever influence you may have among your Jewish friends to debunk the myth that all Christians are Jew-haters. We are not. I really hate stereotypes. I spend more time than I'd like explaining that I am a Christian, but not the vile stereotype of a condemning God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It cardboard cut-out. But here is the problem. In the past christianity was the the state as well as the religion. In most of europe throughout the past 1500 hundred years the state and the religion persecuted and murdered jews from time to time (leaving them alone at other times went it suited their needs). Read some of the great christian thinkers. people like augustine. they are frankly anti-semitic. Augustine was against killing the jews only because he wanted them alive and miserable as a lesson to christians. In the 19th century a jewish child was kidnapped by his catholic nanny and baptised; the pope refused to return him to his parents. Pope Pious stood by while European jews were slaugthered and Italian jews were marched off to concentration camps in front of the Vatican. Jews were murdered and then kicked out of Spain kicked out of England. Starving jews were offered bread if they would convert by franciscan friers etc etc etc etc. Dreyfus was convicted of trumped up charges and the french military did not admit this until 1990 or so. These were the actions of the church and of christian states. Even now the lack of symnpathy for Israel in Europe is hard to swallow especilly when sprinkled with anti-semitic statements. Face it. The Jews have been persecuted by Christians, not all but far to many and by christian institutions. We have earned the right to be nervous about things like passion plays. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
In a message dated 2/4/2004 9:08:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You anti-Germanic bigot. :-) Anti-nazi. I do not hold current germans responsible ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
In a message dated 2/4/2004 9:22:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Remember that most of the passion plays in europe used horrific steriotypes of jews (long noses big pointy hats). Actually, I don't remember those personally. Haven't seen them myself either but read about them in Johnson's History of the Jews and Constantine's Cross. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
In a message dated 2/4/2004 9:22:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Remember that most of the passion plays in europe used horrific steriotypes of jews (long noses big pointy hats). Actually, I don't remember those personally. Haven't seen them myself either but read about them in Johnson's History of the Jews and Constantine's Cross. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 4:42 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ As I've said, Judaism teaches God can't forgive sins against people - only the person sinned against can. But, what about God forgiving David? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
But, what about God forgiving David? God can forgive sins against God, not against someone else. Only the person sinned against can forgive those (in Jewish teaching, that is). Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:23 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:45:06 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:59 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Now that's an interesting question. First of all, is it even possible for something to be more evil than something else? Now that is a ridiculous question! I think it is easily acceptable to state as a fact that Hitler, Pol Pot, or Saddam Hussein were all much more evil than the B#tch who dumped me 10 days before our wedding and stole 4 grand from me. Its not just a question of scale. AFAIK the B#tch never killed a single soul. The kid who tried to beat me up when I was 12 in order to in order to improve his bad ass cred just doesn't rate. There *are* greater and lesser evils. Stealing a cookie out of the cookie jar cannot compare to rape. xponent For The Record Maru rob I see where you are coming from. But it all comes down to ones own concept of evil now doesn't it? Well Travis...one can make up from whole cloth any kind of definition one wants to, but the problem is that there is already a fairly decent and contemporary definition for the word. My problem with the specific form of moral relativism that you seem to be wielding ATM is that you take a position so extreme that all the meaning *to* and definition *of* the concept of evil is reduced to a single point on the horizon simply because you distance yourself from the entire moral principle that defines the spectrum of behavior in that regard. Now, moral relativism is a very useful concept, but as in all things it is only useful when used moderately. Too much of it explodes the argument one tries too make into nonsense. This is exactly the same effect when one makes adamantine black and white arguments. There are just too many counterexamples that destroy such a stance. The zennish attitude that nothing really matters is the purest crock of crap in existence. Some things *do* matter. Some things *do* make a difference. And if you are gazing at your navel, you are not exploring the inner or outer universe, you are daydreaming a false dream in exactly the same false way ancient Greeks did when they thought they could deduce the nature of reality by pure reason. xponent Plato Or Socrates? Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 5:59 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 4:42 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ As I've said, Judaism teaches God can't forgive sins against people - only the person sinned against can. But, what about God forgiving David? Dan M. Or, as a better example: God's forgiveness of the city of Nineveh, over the loud protests of Jonah. Since he was a representative of the people who were wronged, why did God put him in his place and then forgive Nineveh? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 6:34 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ But, what about God forgiving David? God can forgive sins against God, not against someone else. Only the person sinned against can forgive those (in Jewish teaching, that is). My point is that God forgave David for the sin of murder. He also forgave Nineveh of the sin of genocide. I have not heard that God cannot forgive a sinner if the person sinned against refuses to being part of Judaism. How new is that? Where does it come from? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Damon Agretto wrote: He probably means that the Essenes, who existed before Jesus was born, were essentially Christians in their beliefs and rituals. ... That's an interesting point, but I would reject them as christians since I AM working from a narrow definition, that to be a christian implies a belief in Jesus and his role as a messiah. If this is what the Fool intended in his post, I allege he was being uneccessarily vague and imprecise. Damon. I agree. But when someone says something that is obviously nonsense by your definitions, it is wise to consider that they may be using different ones. ---David I believe some Gnostic Christians identified Jesus more with the Holy Spirit, and did not believe him a literal messiah. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:40 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Once again Robert, you have constructed a very relevant and poetic response. However relevant it may be though, it still buys into assumption sets. I used to make such arguments as you are making when I was young too. The problem with such arguments is that they can only come from a lack of experience. It is noble for the young to question authority and to question assumptions. And as you get older you tend to be less patient with arguments you discarded long long ago. So I hope you can forgive us old folks for our impatience with your anti-authoritarianism.G Especially since we do not offer authority. We offer our experience, which I don't expect you to have any more appreciation for than we did when we were young. (It pains me to find myself preaching like an old fart)G While your first paragraph, being quite anthropological, is relevant, one still needs some abstract concept of God. It's what it all hearkens back to, and I reject that. Let me spell my meaning more plainly. Morality does not prove the existence of God. But the same basic morality espoused by religion is actually a set of self-evident rules for social, sentient beings. If, there is a God, then he placed us in a universe where these truths are obtainable and created us in such a way that we require these truths as a part of our social structure. If, there is no God, then we evolved in a universe where these truths are self-evident and our nature is such that we require these truths as a part of our social structure. I don't see any discrepency with either view of reality since reality *is* what it *is*. And forgive me my presumptuousness, in stating the man-made evil in a way that declared me to be the sole receptacle of that knowledge. There is the tendency for each of us to ride our own subjective beasts. Or perhaps more accurately, that concept. You see I admit the possibility that evil is exactly what we are told it is; I just don't believe that. I'm quite the agnostic fellow you see, and I like to think, that I think about things to such an extent, that I have seen all angles as well as I can. And when people make certain comments, that don't seem based in rationality, I get to thinking that they themselves aren't seeing the big picture. Perhaps I should give people more credit.. Then again There is a very human tendency also to believe we are the sole soul existing in a world of automatons. One of the more difficult lessons in life is to find the soul in another. Especially if the other is somehow in opposition to you. xponent Soul Warrior Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
On 6 Feb 2004, at 1:27 am, Dan Minette wrote: My point is that God forgave David for the sin of murder. He also forgave Nineveh of the sin of genocide. I have not heard that God cannot forgive a sinner if the person sinned against refuses to being part of Judaism. How new is that? Where does it come from? Since when did religion have to make sense? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly. - Randy Cohen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
I agree. But when someone says something that is obviously nonsense by your definitions, it is wise to consider that they may be using different ones. Yes, I had considered that too; but that's why I asked the Fool to present his evidence and substantiate his claim. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 04:46 PM 2/5/2004 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/4/2004 9:08:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You anti-Germanic bigot. :-) Anti-nazi. I do not hold current germans responsible But it is interesting to note how your own statements can get you in trouble in this regard The holocaust is another matter. The germans who did this (and there can be no doubt that the germans did this) Perhaps there is a lesson here? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 05:42 PM 2/5/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The thing is, I think Christians should be willing to face up to what was done in their name in the past and try to show some understanding for Jewish suspicions. I would argue that John Paul II has done precisely that. We never deserved what happened to us, and yet it happened anyway, and you can't simply wish that away or lecture us to be forgiving and forgetful. Uh-uh, sorry. Doesn't work that way. Want forgiveness? Act like you mean it. Help us fight the evil, don't pretend it's not there or bore us with nostrums about, oh, that's all in the past, can we all get along? From where I'm sitting, from where most Jews sit, we're not sure. Sorry if that pisses you off, but that's the way it is. But isn't judging all Christians as a class exactly the sort of class-based thinking that Jews of all people should explicitly reject? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 12:22 PM 2/5/2004 -0600 Reggie Bautista wrote: Gibson Cuts Passion Scene Mel Gibson, responding to focus groups as much as to protests by Jewish critics, has decided to delete a controversial scene about Jews from his film, The Passion of the Christ, a close associate told The New York Times. A scene in the film, in which the Jewish high priest Caiaphas calls down a kind of curse on the Jewish people by declaring of the Crucifixion, His blood be on us and on our children, will not be in the movie's final version, the Gibson associate, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the newspaper. Out of curiosity, does anyone here consider this to be a positive development? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
I would argue that John Paul II has done precisely that. To a large extent, yes. Certainly more than any major Christian leader before him (well, Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI also did a lot). Still a long way to go, though. But isn't judging all Christians as a class exactly the sort of class-based thinking that Jews of all people should explicitly reject? I've said that I don't blame all Christians for Christian anti-Semitism, or at least that I try not to. Suspicion and resentment are not exactly the same as blame. But even if I do, or even if other Jews do, is it so hard to understand why? I'm trying not to play victim here, since I personally have experienced also no anti-Semitism myself. Most of the Christian friends I've had in my lifetime have been just that - friends. They accept me for who and what I am, just as I accept them for who and what they are. To the extent that I have been writing on this issue here recently, it's out of a very strong feeling for what other Jews have gone through, and an understanding that that COULD have been me - and in different times and places very well MIGHT have been me. America has been good to the Jews (and vice-versa), and I don't really think that this is likely to change much, even if Gibson's movie breaks records. But there is always nervousness among Jews, and if we judge Christians harshly, that's hardly of the same consequence as Christian anti-Semitism or Nazi extermination. Again, my point is, if Christians truly want to demonstrate that they understand why Jews are suspicious, if they truly want to prove that they pose no threat, it's easy to do so. John-Paul HAS begun to lead the way, and many other Christians have done likewise. And you don't have to let Mel Gibson speak for you, or leave it to Jews to point out the inherent dangers in basing a popular entertainment on an uncritical and ahistorical adaptation of the Gospels. Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 07:25 PM 2/5/04, Robert Seeberger wrote: (It pains me to find myself preaching like an old fart) I hear that products like Bean-O or Gas-X can help you with that problem . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 12:59 AM 2/4/04, Reggie Bautista wrote: Tom Beck wrote: I understand that most people cannot read either the Hebrew Tanakh or the Greek New Testament. I'm just saying that where I _do_ know that there is a mistranslation, I don't feel unjustified in pointing it out. Have you ever read any part of the New Jerusalem translation, the one that Tolkien was involved in? I have it on CD-ROM. I've always heard it's one of the most accurate translations out there, and I'm curious to see if that's true. That I hadn't heard. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/3/2004 6:02:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If a group of Jews make a movie about WWII in the year 3950 will there be Germans complaining that it sheds them in a bad light? What this in essence says is that the jews killed christ. Because of course the leaders of germany were in fact guilty of the Holocaust. No, it ays that it realy doen't make a difference one way or another. I have no opinion, but after the way He layed into the Jewih leaders, I wouldn't dout that they would copitulate to the deire of the Romans. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 01:54 AM 2/4/04, Jan Coffey wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/3/2004 6:02:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If a group of Jews make a movie about WWII in the year 3950 will there be Germans complaining that it sheds them in a bad light? What this in essence says is that the jews killed christ. Because of course the leaders of germany were in fact guilty of the Holocaust. No, it ays that it realy doen't make a difference one way or another. I have no opinion, but after the way He layed into the Jewih leaders, I wouldn't dout that they would copitulate to the deire of the Romans. The question that is often posed, though, is why the Romans should capitulate to the desire of the Jews? It was those Jewish leaders who saw Jesus as a threat and wanted him put to death. However, they could not do so legally: only the Romans could dispense capital punishment. Blasphemy against the Jewish God, which they believed Jesus guilty of, while a capital offense in the Law of Moses, was not any sort of offense at all under Roman law. So those Jews (note that I am not saying all Jews were responsible, just as not all Arabs were responsible for 9/11) had to convince the Romans to find Jesus guilty of something which merited the death penalty under Roman law in order to have him executed. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Good and evil (was Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ)
Travis Edmunds wrote: Ah yes. You believe. I for one, believe that views like that, hold back any sort of honest discourse. I'm unclear on the antecedent of views like that. Theirs, or mine? Furthermore, to brand something evil, is to show either a narrow-minded approach to things, or a faithful belief in what you are spoon-fed. No room for it to be my point of view on what is good or evil? Prove to me however, that evil is a substantial thing and I may change my view of evil being a man-made concept. What would the nature of such a proof be? I believe that giving credibility to such views, by republishing them here, causes harm in the ways that you mention. They polarize the discussion, which pits two narrow-minded groups against each other, as they accept the spoon-fed simplifications offered by their side. Proof? I think it is self-evident that treating important issues as black and white is bad. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 2:58 AM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ At 01:54 AM 2/4/04, Jan Coffey wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/3/2004 6:02:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If a group of Jews make a movie about WWII in the year 3950 will there be Germans complaining that it sheds them in a bad light? What this in essence says is that the jews killed christ. Because of course the leaders of germany were in fact guilty of the Holocaust. No, it ays that it realy doen't make a difference one way or another. I have no opinion, but after the way He layed into the Jewih leaders, I wouldn't dout that they would copitulate to the deire of the Romans. The question that is often posed, though, is why the Romans should capitulate to the desire of the Jews? It was those Jewish leaders who saw Jesus as a threat and wanted him put to death. However, they could not do so legally: only the Romans could dispense capital punishment. Blasphemy against the Jewish God, which they believed Jesus guilty of, while a capital offense in the Law of Moses, was not any sort of offense at all under Roman law. So those Jews (note that I am not saying all Jews were responsible, just as not all Arabs were responsible for 9/11) had to convince the Romans to find Jesus guilty of something which merited the death penalty under Roman law in order to have him executed. Raymond Brown did an excellent historical analysis of this question in The Death of the Messiah. It turns out that there was a very good working relationship between Pilate and Caiaphas. There were a number of false prophets at the time, and the two of them had a variety of ways of dealing with them. Sometimes they were whipped and sent out of town, sometimes they were crucified, sometimes they were small enough to be ignored. So, the interaction between the leaders as depicted in scripture does have verisimilitude. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
William T Goodall wrote: The fundamentalists don't think about it critically. To me, that's a bit of a tautology. Failing to think critically is the definition of fundamentalism, whether the subject is Christianity, capitalism or programming. And the Reformation was about allowing literalist asshats to make their own scriptural interpretations without the intervention of elitist scholars and their 'interpretations'. Literalist asshats? I think the Reformation was a rebellion against the kleptocrats of the Vatican, who had figured out how to take advantage of their authority. Human systems seems to often follow a pattern of growing large based on a worldview, concentrating power, being corrupted by those who have the power, then falling apart as a result of a relatively small innovation that obsoletes the original worldview. The worldview before the Reformation was the great chain of being, which concentrated power in the Church of Rome, who began took advantage of their power, and whose undoing was the discovery of feedback systems. And America is populated by the descendants of cultists who left the Old World because their asshat versions of Christianity weren't welcome. Asshat? Asshat? What is asshat? Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
John D. Giorgis wrote: But Nick, you totally missed the real evil that The Fool was spouting here. The Fool was essentially tarring anyone who happens to be one of his chosen targets with the Anti-Semite brush. The Fool wasn't furthering the cause of a brood of vipers by repeating their claims. He recognizes that the vast bulk of humanity sees them for what they were. Rather, he was trying to cast his chosen enemies into that pit of vipers alongside them. That's the polarization that I reject. And I think that's their cause -- demagoguery, plain and clear. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Folks, The question that is often posed, though, is why the Romans should capitulate to the desire of the Jews? It was those Jewish leaders who saw Jesus as a threat and wanted him put to death. However, they could not do so legally: only the Romans could dispense capital punishment. Blasphemy against the Jewish God, which they believed Jesus guilty of, while a capital offense in the Law of Moses, was not any sort of offense at all under Roman law. So those Jews (note that I am not saying all Jews were responsible, just as not all Arabs were responsible for 9/11) had to convince the Romans to find Jesus guilty of something which merited the death penalty under Roman law in order to have him executed. To the Romans, Caesar was a god, so while blasphemy against the Jewish God was no crime, blasphemy against Caeser was. Rome also didn't take kindly to the appearance of new kings. By portraying Jesus to the local Roman authorities as the self-proclaimed King of the Jews and the son of God, he became a threat to Roman political and religious power and subject to their death penalty. All of which, to many Christians, is a little beside the point: neither the Romans nor the Jews are solely to blame for his death, which was part of God's plan to bridge the gap between God and man. If you're looking for what or who blame for Jesus' death, blame the gap. Of course, by putting the foregoing paragraph before this august company, I realize that I leave myself open to accusations of being a dupe. Oh well, call me a fool for Christ. If you disagree with my *beliefs,* that's your prerogative, but I don't really want to subject Brin-L to that particular debate at this time. If I have made factual errors (Caeser was /not/ a god, etc.), then I stand ready to be corrected. Have fun, Dave David M. Land[EMAIL PROTECTED] 408-551-0427 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Good and evil (was Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ)
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Good and evil (was Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 07:51:21 -0800 Travis Edmunds wrote: Ah yes. You believe. I for one, believe that views like that, hold back any sort of honest discourse. I'm unclear on the antecedent of views like that. Theirs, or mine? Yours of course. After all you said you believe. Furthermore, to brand something evil, is to show either a narrow-minded approach to things, or a faithful belief in what you are spoon-fed. No room for it to be my point of view on what is good or evil? There's plenty of room for that Nick. But when your beliefs interfere with the open discourse of this forum, you become just as bad as those you despise. Furthermore, I hesitate to think that the cause of religiously fanatical hate mongering is being furthered by someone quoting so-called evil comments. Especially on this forum. For that matter, we probably shouldn't talk about anything other than good wholesome sci-fi, with no more than an action based plot which never deviates from space battles, and which certainly doesn't bring forth controversial ideas. It's safer that way right? Look, I'm not being argumentative just to be argumentative. It's just that I vehemently disagree with what you said, and I really do think that views like yours really do hold back, thinking, on any sort of acceptable level here on this forum. Prove to me however, that evil is a substantial thing and I may change my view of evil being a man-made concept. What would the nature of such a proof be? I believe that giving credibility to such views, by republishing them here, causes harm in the ways that you mention. They polarize the discussion, which pits two narrow-minded groups against each other, as they accept the spoon-fed simplifications offered by their side. How does one give credibility to such views in the way that you mention? Other than these people doing a google search for their own quotes and finding them here, there is no basis for what you say. And when that particular issue comes face to face with what we are allowed and not allowed to talk about here, I think it gets greatly overshadowed. How in Gods name (pun intended) can we put a lid on what we discuss? For surely, that is where your original comments lead. Proof? I think it is self-evident that treating important issues as black and white is bad. Nick It's been my experience that nothing in this world is black white. Combine that with the fact that you treated this issue as black white, and you have an augument on your hands. I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone; especially you Nick. But I honestly can't believe how closed-minded people can be at times. It's amazing. -Travis _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
On 4 Feb 2004, at 4:00 pm, Nick Arnett wrote: Asshat? Asshat? What is asshat? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asshat One who has their head up their ass. Thus wearing their ass as a hat. Asshat -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. - Bjarne Stroustrup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/3/2004 6:02:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If a group of Jews make a movie about WWII in the year 3950 will there be Germans complaining that it sheds them in a bad light? What this in essence says is that the jews killed christ. Because of course the leaders of germany were in fact guilty of the Holocaust. If you are implying that I am a denier then you are so very wrong. My point was solely that just becouse a subgroup does something wrong it is not then justified to blame the whole group, and the group's decendents. However, I will say that I believe it is unhealthy for a society to remember and celebrate when somehting bad happens. If we were for instance to mark the day of 9-11 as a solum holiday, make movies about it for 70 years, and teach our children how we were wronged at that time, we might breed a nation of anti-Arab, anti-Islamics who were stuck in a cycle of their own victimization. Sometimes forgeting (and forgiving) IS the choice with wisdom. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Blasphemy against the Jewish God, which they believed Jesus guilty of, while a capital offense in the Law of Moses, was not any sort of offense at all under Roman law. So those Jews (note that I am not saying all Jews were responsible, just as not all Arabs were responsible for 9/11) had to convince the Romans to find Jesus guilty of something which merited the death penalty under Roman law in order to have him executed. Except no death penalty for this had ever been carried out. It was said that a Sanhedrin that ordered one execution in 70 years was a bloodthirsty court. What _could_ be done under Jewish law and what _was_ done were often quite different. In any case, this is irrelevant, since what is at stake in the whole issue of Gibson's movie is not what the truth was (hard to determine), but what too many people have taken the truth to be over the millennia: that ALL Jews are guilty of killing Jesus and that therefore ANY Jew can be attacked and even murdered in retribution. And, over the millennia, too many Jews to count HAVE been attacked and murdered. And Jews feel that we are STILL at risk of being attacked and murdered. This is not to say that Gibson should not have made his movie. But for him not to be aware of Jewish sensitivities in this matter, which I do not find at all an overreaction, is remarkably insensitive of him. Given his association with his father's extremely right-wing Catholic sect, I think the onus is on him to prove that he's not anti-Semitic. Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Sometimes forgeting (and forgiving) IS the choice with wisdom. A) Judaism teaches that only the wronged party may forgive. I can't forgive the Nazis for the Holocaust because I was not a victim. B) I believe very strongly that forgetting the Holocaust would be a further betrayal of its victims. I also don't think that remembering the Holocaust in any way is a negative. A remarkably high percentage of Holocaust survivors went on to lead fulfilling lives after World War II. They married, had families, built careers and lives. Did they have problems adjusting? Did they suffer some guilt, some trauma, nightmares? Of course. But they did not let the horror completely ruin their triumph at LIVING when Hitler tried to kill them. Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 19:12:20 EST Are you honestly saying that the unquestionably anti-Semitic statements issued by these unquestionably anti-Semitic organizations in response to Gibson's movie AREN'T evil? No. I'm saying that in relation to Nicks comments, the concept of evil appeared to be the typical ideological one. And I reject that. I reject it like I would water in my lungs. It isn't based upon concrete fact. It's a purely unfounded, abstract concept. I tend towards the concept of a man-made evil. A term we use to define something that goes against our own morality. Of course one must understand that individual or perhaps more accurately regional morality, differs from person to person, and from place to place. We are after all the products of our own environments; at least to a fairly large extent anyway. Are you honestly claiming that labeling these statements evil is somehow more evil than the statements themselves? Now that's an interesting question. First of all, is it even possible for something to be more evil than something else? I can't appropriately answer your question however, until I know where you stand on the concept of evil. (Your last sentance doesn't quite fit the bill) How can you have an honest discourse with Nazis? Are they not human? All you can do is label them for the filth they are and try to keep others from being infected by their evil. And yes, it's clearly evil. And of course it's man-made. People do evil things. That's precisely what evil is. Tom Beck What's that saying? An eye for an eye makes you blind. And when you're groping around in the dark, it's easy to tumble into the abyss. Something like that anyway. Look. I accept the fact that what the Nazi's done during the second World War was WRONG. The Holocaust was WRONG. But I know that the only reason I think it was wrong, is due to my own morality. Also I have this inherent belief that life is precious, and needless loss of life, as in the case of the Holocaust, is macabre to say the least. But I sincerely doubt that I would have a problem with it if I were born and raised a Nazi. Do you understand where I am coming from? I'm looking at things as objectively as I can, to find some fundamental truths in this thing we call life. Why? Because I have this.integrity if you will, to seek truth, no matter harsh that truth may be. I absolutely reject any and all assumption sets, and replace them with these truths that hold as much truth as I can find. It's how I remain sane. So I ask you to understand my viewpoint, and to not quote God or any concepts of that nature to me. Unless of course you can prove the existence of these things. -Travis _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/featurespgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Good and evil (was Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ)
At 03:49 PM 2/4/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: -Travis hindsight is always 20/20 Edmunds Only if you wear size 40 pants. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 03:51 PM 2/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blasphemy against the Jewish God, which they believed Jesus guilty of, while a capital offense in the Law of Moses, was not any sort of offense at all under Roman law. So those Jews (note that I am not saying all Jews were responsible, just as not all Arabs were responsible for 9/11) had to convince the Romans to find Jesus guilty of something which merited the death penalty under Roman law in order to have him executed. Except no death penalty for this had ever been carried out. It was said that a Sanhedrin that ordered one execution in 70 years was a bloodthirsty court. What _could_ be done under Jewish law and what _was_ done were often quite different. In any case, this is irrelevant, since what is at stake in the whole issue of Gibson's movie is not what the truth was (hard to determine), but what too many people have taken the truth to be over the millennia: that ALL Jews are guilty of killing Jesus and that therefore ANY Jew can be attacked and even murdered in retribution. And, over the millennia, too many Jews to count HAVE been attacked and murdered. And Jews feel that we are STILL at risk of being attacked and murdered. This is not to say that Gibson should not have made his movie. But for him not to be aware of Jewish sensitivities in this matter, which I do not find at all an overreaction, is remarkably insensitive of him. Given his association with his father's extremely right-wing Catholic sect, I think the onus is on him to prove that he's not anti-Semitic. Does the movie make that claim? (That ALL Jews are guilty, etc.) Or is that judgement in the mind of the viewer? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 18:52:09 -0600 Geez Travis, of course Evil is a man made concept. Are we not men? xponent It Lives Maru rob I didn't think it was that clear-cut for most people Robert. What, with some of the comments tossed about. -Travis _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 05:40 PM 2/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does the movie make that claim? (That ALL Jews are guilty, etc.) Or is that judgement in the mind of the viewer? Again, you're completely missing the point. Whether or not the movie blames all the Jews for the death of Jesus, over two millennia millions of Christians HAVE blamed all Jews and exacted horrible retribution on uncountable tens of thousands of innocent Jews. For Gibson to make a movie based on the same Gospels that have inflamed these vile and vicious murders and not to explicitly renounce the idea of blaming all the Jews is extremely irresponsible. Because I guarantee you, there will be anti-Semites who will see this movie and trumpet its content as justification for their Jew-hatred. So IYO no one can ever make a movie about the life of Jesus -- where for Christians the main point of the life of Jesus is His death and resurrection and its meaning for us today -- because some people use the fact that some Jews who lived at the time were involved in his death to justify hatred of and violence against all Jews today? If that is not what you are saying, what do you think would be an acceptable way of portraying the account given in the Gospels while staying true to that account? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 4:59 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ Now that's an interesting question. First of all, is it even possible for something to be more evil than something else? Now that is a ridiculous question! I think it is easily acceptable to state as a fact that Hitler, Pol Pot, or Saddam Hussein were all much more evil than the B#tch who dumped me 10 days before our wedding and stole 4 grand from me. Its not just a question of scale. AFAIK the B#tch never killed a single soul. The kid who tried to beat me up when I was 12 in order to in order to improve his bad ass cred just doesn't rate. There *are* greater and lesser evils. Stealing a cookie out of the cookie jar cannot compare to rape. xponent For The Record Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Are we not men? No, we're Devo. Dang! Beat me to it! Obligatory second line. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
In a message dated 2/4/2004 7:22:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So IYO no one can ever make a movie about the life of Jesus -- where for Christians the main point of the life of Jesus is His death and resurrection and its meaning for us today -- because some people use the fact that some Jews who lived at the time were involved in his death to justify hatred of and violence against all Jews today? If that is not what you are saying, what do you think would be an acceptable way of portraying the account given in the Gospels while staying true to that account? So without seeing the movie it is really impossible to tell how this will play out. It will depend how the jews are portrayed (evil or indifferent, hard or cruel). it will depend on how they are dressed. The thing that first raised concerns was the choice of the basic text Gibbson said he was using as the basis of the movie ( I believe a 17th century work that was particularly virulent in its anti-semitism). Remember that most of the passion plays in europe used horrific steriotypes of jews (long noses big pointy hats). Gibbson went on the attack as soon as there was any questioning of his intent (much of which came from within catholocism). He would not allow jews to see the movie when he first screened and has portrayed himself as the victim of persecution (it will be interesting to see what he does on 20/20 tomorrow with Diane Sawyer). I think this will be another puff job. So it is possible to do a story where jews are seen as favoring or even instigating his death wihtout implicating all jews (show that the romans wanted to happen as well, show that there were jews who were against his death, show the jews as real people not stereotypes). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 08:38 PM 2/4/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The holocaust is another matter. The germans who did this (and there can be no doubt that the germans did this) You anti-Germanic bigot. :-) JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
At 08:51 PM 2/4/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So it is possible to do a story where jews are seen as favoring or even instigating his death wihtout implicating all jews (show that the romans wanted to happen as well, show that there were jews who were against his death, show the jews as real people not stereotypes). Anyone care to make a wager on whether or not Mel Gibson will portray some Jews as being against Jesus' death in the movie? I can guarantee that he has done so. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
[FYI, your messages are still arriving here all run together . . . ] At 07:51 PM 2/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/4/2004 7:22:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So IYO no one can ever make a movie about the life of Jesus -- where for Christians the main point of the life of Jesus is His death and resurrection and its meaning for us today -- because some people use the fact that some Jews who lived at the time were involved in his death to justify hatred of and violence against all Jews today? If that is not what you are saying, what do you think would be an acceptable way of portraying the account given in the Gospels while staying true to that account? So without seeing the movie it is really impossible to tell how this will play out. I agree. It will depend how the jews are portrayed (evil or indifferent, hard or cruel). it will depend on how they are dressed. The thing that first raised concerns was the choice of the basic text Gibbson said he was using as the basis of the movie ( I believe a 17th century work that was particularly virulent in its anti-semitism). Remember that most of the passion plays in europe used horrific steriotypes of jews (long noses big pointy hats). Actually, I don't remember those personally. Gibbson went on the attack as soon as there was any questioning of his intent (much of which came from within catholocism). He would not allow jews to see the movie when he first screened and has portrayed himself as the victim of persecution (it will be interesting to see what he does on 20/20 tomorrow with Diane Sawyer). I think this will be another puff job. So it is possible to do a story where jews are seen as favoring or even instigating his death wihtout implicating all jews (show that the romans wanted to happen as well, show that there were jews who were against his death, show the jews as real people not stereotypes). Not surprisingly, I agree, since I think that is accurate. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Anyone care to make a wager on whether or not Mel Gibson will portray some Jews as being against Jesus' death in the movie? I can guarantee that he has done so. I would take that wager. How many of the Apostles were Jewish? I know of at least two... Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
So IYO no one can ever make a movie about the life of Jesus -- where for Christians the main point of the life of Jesus is His death and resurrection and its meaning for us today -- because some people use the fact that some Jews who lived at the time were involved in his death to justify hatred of and violence against all Jews today? I never said no one can; people can do anything they want. BUT, if you are going to make a movie about the death of Jesus, you need to take care NOT to give any ammunition to anti-Semites. Because Jews HAVE been murdered over the past two millennia because they were blamed for rejecting and killing Jesus. To ignore that is to take on some complicity for the hatred and violence. I think Christians need to face up to this and not try to argue it away or pretend it didn't happen or deny their responsibility for two millennia of violence. Because, whatever Christians may think of their religion as being a religion of love and peace, to Jews it's a religion of hatred and murder. And yes, I know, it's as wrong for Jews to blame all Christians for the violence as it is for Christians to blame all Jews for the death of Jesus. But when you're a tiny helpless minority being persecuted and hunted down and burned alive in synagogues and forced to convert, it's not easy to be fair. To be honest, if a Jew distrusts Christians, I'm not sure there's much of a consequence, as there simply aren't enough of us to do anything about it. When Christians preach hatred of Jews (and I realize that these days most no longer do this, but the damage has been done), the consequences are and have been horrific. Christians should feel shame and do true penitence about this; is that really so much to ask? If that is not what you are saying, what do you think would be an acceptable way of portraying the account given in the Gospels while staying true to that account? Why not make a movie about two millennia of Christians murdering Jews? If a Jew did that, wouldn't Christians be stirred up and angry? Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 7:38 PM Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ In a message dated 2/4/2004 1:10:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you are implying that I am a denier then you are so very wrong. My point was solely that just becouse a subgroup does something wrong it is not then justified to blame the whole group, and the group's decendents. I hope you are correct but if so your statement wa poorly phrase. I would point out that there is a different scale of action here as well. If in fact some Jews killed Jesus or conspired with the Romans to do it or did not try to stop it that is different. I do not want to offend anyone but to the Jews of the time Jesus was one man. If some jews did have culpability in his death they did not think they were killing god. Indeed, Raymond Brown, the Catholic priest and scripture scholar that I've been quoting stated in the Death of the Messiah that it was perfectly reasonable for a devout Jew of the time to consider some of the actions of Jesus as blasphamous. There were a few other relavant things that he recalled. First, the criticisms should be viewed as an internal conflict. Jesus and his disciples were all devout Jews. It was after the fall of the Temple that the split became permanant...the Jerusalem church still strongly identified with their Jewish roots until then. Given that, one can view the criticism as consistant with that of other prophets. Scriptures are full of strong criticism of the people of Israel by the prophets. Jerusalem, you killer of prophets is in that context. Second, the polemics in scripture are really quite mild, considering the time. Much worse has been written in internal disputes. Take for example, the visciousness of the arguement between the Essenes and the Jewish leaders; or the deadly violence between various Jewish factions before Rome took over. The real nasty stuff wasn't a part of Christianity untill the mid-second century. (That means one can reject the anti-Semitism as inconsistent with the foundation documents instead of inherent in those documents.) Third, the phrase, let his blood be on us and our children is a ritualistic declaration of a death sentence from the time. There is absolutely no precident for it to apply to the nth generationexcept perhaps for Adam and Eve, and that's on all of humanity. Fourth, (this isn't from him but from a prof. of mine) there is the double meaning of the word used for Jew in Greek; it is also the word used for Judean. It made little sense for Jesus to complain about the Jews to his followers, who were also Jews. But, it did make sense for him to contrast them with the Judeans, since they were Galaleans. Almost all Christian churches have publically proclaimed that the historical anti-Semitism was both wrong and against the spirit of the gospels. The gospel's complaints about the people of Jerusalem should be seen as part of a long tradition of God's people being called to task for their behavior. The murderous anti-Semitism of many Christians over the years should be seen as an example of Christians turning their back on God. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Tom, I think Christians need to face up to this and not try to argue it away or pretend it didn't happen or deny their responsibility for two millennia of violence. I am a Christian and I am definitely not responsible for two millennia of violence. Because, whatever Christians may think of their religion as being a religion of love and peace, to Jews it's a religion of hatred and murder. Are you saying that Jews (All Jews? Perhaps not.) conflate Christianity (the system of beliefs based on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus) with the people who profess that faith. Christians come with the same variety as Jews. Some of us are really fine people who seek to live as Jesus taught and demonstrated. Some of us are really rotten people who think that our faith is an excuse to condemn others. Please use whatever influence you may have among your Jewish friends to debunk the myth that all Christians are Jew-haters. We are not. I really hate stereotypes. I spend more time than I'd like explaining that I am a Christian, but not the vile stereotype of a condemning God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles It cardboard cut-out. And yes, I know, it's as wrong for Jews to blame all Christians for the violence as it is for Christians to blame all Jews for the death of Jesus. Agreed. Much mistrust and violence begins with the need to assign blame. But when you're a tiny helpless minority being persecuted and hunted down and burned alive in synagogues and forced to convert, it's not easy to be fair. Which makes the words of one famous Jew all the more impressive: Father forgive them, for they know not what they do. Dave David M. Land[EMAIL PROTECTED] 408-551-0427 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
