|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 12, 2007 18:44:28 GMT -8
8/2/06:
I've been saddened and frustrated by the recent news about Mel Gibson (drunk driving/ racial slurs episode).
At the risk of sounding enabling to my Jewish friends, I truly believe that Mel Gibson doesn't desire to be racist. I believe there is a war within him- a war against alcohol addiction (which he has fought for many long years) and a war against the voice of his father (whom we know to be an avowed anti-Semite). I think anyone who knows racism knows how powerfully it is inculcated into a child, and how difficult it can be to totally escape that.
In short, I truly believe Mel is remorseful for his foolish comments. I certainly don't see his numerous postive motions toward the Jewish community as some calculated deception. I think he knows that his faith demands that he not be a racist.
I think Mel clearly sinned in numerous ways. However, doing further research, I discovered some details about his long-standing fight against alcoholism. One thing stuck out to me particularly: during the filming of Braveheart, Mel reportedly would spontaneously stop the filming and conduct emergency 'AA' meetings- getting out the Bible and going through the whole, "my name is Mel, I'm an alcoholic" liturgy. To me, that's a mark of courage. Now he needs to step up and say "my name is Mel, I'm a racist".
I'm sorrowed at his recent fall and fear the backlash. Racism, of course, (not to mention drunk driving) is unconscionable, and I fear the damage it will do to those in the Jewish community who hope for better relationships with Christians.
But I would also like to think I could have some grace for someone in the same situation if the tables were turned (someone spouting hateful remarks at Christians). We must cling to grace, of course, because we ourselves will someday be in need of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 12, 2007 18:45:11 GMT -8
8/24/06:
I was just talking with my good friend (who is Jewish) today, and this subject of Mel Gibson came up. Although he never saw the Passion, he's always been very convinced it's anti-Semitic, and this has just confirmed that fact in his mind.
Despite Gibson's foolish words, I still don't think the movie really is anti-semitic. I've seen it several times, I've read a lot of the reasons people have claimed it is anti-semitic, but I really haven't seen one argument that holds water (in my mind). I'd love to be able to dialogue about it in a reasonable manner with my Jewish friends, but I also understand that the emotions swirling around the issue just might make that impossible.
Still, it seems to me that we must be able to talk these things through at some point if there is ever to be reconciliation.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 24, 2009 23:11:57 GMT -8
Mell Gibson is as stupid as the Politician Gary Hart. Everyone suspected him to be having an extramarital affair. He denied it. He then continued having it, even with the added scrutiny and he was caught and his political career suffered a major setback. WHAT A MORON. On the same Token, a Director, whose father is a practiced, famous and disgusting anti-semite, who just released a movie, that regardless of the facts appears to many to have anti semite issues. A man in his position should then start ranting and raving against the jews. Its just stupid. Everyone already suspects your a closet anti semite and then you have to come out and talk about how you believe that jews cause all of the problems in the world. BRILLIANT JOB MEL. Furthermore, your net worth is estimated to be greater than 100 MILLION US Dollars. So why can't you pay someone to drive home from your drinking binges. I have responsible friends who make less than 30K a year who will still pay for a cab when they have had to many rather than be a danger to themselves or others. Mel Gibson, your batting 1000 at the loser tournament.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 25, 2009 14:57:49 GMT -8
Ironically I do not think it has anything to do with the Jewish faith as to why the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead. It was their intolerance and their belief that he is a threat to their relative positions of power! Gibson's intolerance of Jews probably stems from similar fears.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 2, 2009 19:48:18 GMT -8
Just stumbled across this old email I wrote back in 2004 to a Jewish friend who was making disparaging remarks about The Passion, though he hadn't seen it.
Though of course there is some irony here considering what was later to happen in Gibson's life, I still stand by these thoughts and thought they'd fit on this thread:
First off you must understand why I react the way I do when I hear you say you think the Passion or Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic. It is because the movie portrays the essence of the Christian message, which I believe. And so it feels as if you’re saying I am anti-Semitic- my beliefs are anti-Semitic. And I am firmly convinced that I am not, and neither is the movie. I hate to make so much of a movie, but in reality 80% of the movie is a visual depiction of events taken straight from the pages of the New Testament, with the remaining 20% being artistic license in order to fill in the gaps (as any movie does). So, saying the movie is anti-Semitic is tantamount (at least to me) to saying the New Testament is anti-Semitic.
Is the movie that important? No, but the ideas behind it are crucial. And if there is to be reconciliation between Jews and Christians, these things much be discussed in a reasonable, understanding manner.
I realize that because Christians at times in history have distorted the New Testament for their own racist goals, it is easy for anything Christians do or say to enflame age old wounds. But just because people have distorted Christianity into their racist agendas, doesn’t mean Christianity and its basic claims are racist. And it bugs me that I or Mel Gibson are made to feel that they shouldn’t communicate their beliefs in the public square, when the claims being made against them are fallacious.
Were some Jews in the 1st Century interested in Jesus’ death? Yes, primarily those in power who felt threatened by Jesus’ message. And they colluded with Rome to get Jesus put to death. And other Jews felt Jesus had let them down; they were expecting a military revolutionary and got a message of “turn the other cheek”. It would have been easy for the Jewish masses in Jerusalem to rise up one minute in support of Jesus and the next minute to cry for his death. Were there many Jews who supported Jesus? Of course, he was a Jew and so were all his followers. Were there Jews who were just bystanders? Of course. This is all portrayed in the movie. Some of the biggest heroes in the movie are ordinary Jews who tried to stop the madness, to offer kindness instead of rage. The devil appears among all those who are taunting Jesus, not among the Jews as a whole. Mary, (the main Jewish heroine), herself faces down satan in a telling scene which, admittedly is just poetic license, but is nonetheless thoroughly not anti-Semitic.
The Bible ultimately cannot be anti-Semitic (meaning against the Jewish race) because it was written (with the exception of 2 books) by Jews. Jesus was a Jew. The only blame it assigns is to the corrupt high priests and religious leaders as well as the rage induced crowds who asked for Christ’s death. The Bible and the movie make it clear that many Jews, even some of the religious leaders, spoke up in Jesus’ defense. The Bible also says it was really the sin of all of us, all humans, that was ultimately to blame for his death; or, more specifically, was the cause of his death.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 2, 2009 20:05:40 GMT -8
yeah but the Cat is out of the bag now. We know how Mel Really feels. I have found an outstanding video parody of Mr. Gibson. It has a bit of PG13 Vulgarity so I will PM it to you. Tell me if you disagree with the video in principal.
|
|
grokit
Intermediate Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by grokit on Sept 15, 2009 6:08:10 GMT -8
I personally, as a Christian, didn't like the movie at all. I don't think Jesus would either. The Bible teaches us to "seek peace" (1 Peter 3:10-12) and I did not feel peaceful after seeing that movie. I don't need to see Jesus suffer to know I'm forgiven, though maybe it does help others.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Sept 15, 2009 11:19:35 GMT -8
the passion has a lot of anti semetic undetones, although i thought the passion was pretty good.
shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 15, 2009 14:59:13 GMT -8
I personally, as a Christian, didn't like the movie at all. I don't think Jesus would either. The Bible teaches us to "seek peace" (1 Peter 3:10-12) and I did not feel peaceful after seeing that movie. I don't need to see Jesus suffer to know I'm forgiven, though maybe it does help others. So, Alex, I have a question about this. If Peter meant that we shouldn't dwell on Jesus' sufferings, then why do the gospels themselves spend as much time as they do on those events? Plus, in the rest of the New Testament there does seem to be a lot of focus on how Jesus' sufferings are relevant to us. That said, I presume you're responding to the specific amount of violence depicted in the movie, which I agree could be argued to be too gratuitous. Plus, Jesus' sufferings can't just be boiled down to the physical pain of crucifixion. Also, yeshuafreak, which specific parts of the Passion did you think contained anti-semetic undertones? |
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Sept 15, 2009 16:06:50 GMT -8
I think that the fact that the director is a raging alchoholic antisemite means that claims of antisemetism should be taken very seriously, more so than if the director was a member of the antidefamation league.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 15, 2009 18:24:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Sept 18, 2009 11:04:47 GMT -8
well, he seems to blame the death of jesus almost SOLELY on the jews... which is a common misconception- it is often unconcious antisemetism, but since he is a proffessed antisemite and his father was a "hard core" antisemite than i suspect that it is intentional.
i will need to see the movie again to give more specific example.s
but again, it still helped a lot of people and for that, he was used of God.
shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 18, 2009 15:45:12 GMT -8
well, he seems to blame the death of jesus almost SOLELY on the jews... which is a common misconception- it is often unconcious antisemetism, The movie doesn't blame the death of Jesus on the Jews, it blames the High Priest and Sanhedrin for the decision to have Jesus killed, where it belongs. There are Jewish heroes and Jewish villians in the movie. Where's the antisemitism? Plus, Mel is a professed repentant anti-semite, is he not? There's a world of difference. |
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Nov 18, 2009 5:39:59 GMT -8
Josh! Are you Mel Gibson?? Huh sugar pecks? You know the Gibson family is responsible for all wars!
|
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Nov 18, 2009 11:16:49 GMT -8
I think it's interesting that the blame for Jesus' death doesn't matter... since Jesus himself forgave "them" even while hanging on the cross.
The Jews and the Romans both share the historical blame, but they also represent the blame we carry -- after all, didn't Jesus die for all of us? Meaning, we are to blame.
If Jesus suddenly showed up today, I guarantee the Christian Church, in one way or another, would be the first to yell, "Crucify!"
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Nov 18, 2009 13:38:40 GMT -8
Jesus did in fact forgive both Jew and Romans, but I don't believe that his statement on the cross was universal. The reason I believe this is because Jesus qualifies his plea for forgiveness, by limiting it to those who "Know not what they do".
Those mentioned above by Josh in fact did know what they were doing.
John 11:45-53
45 Then many of the Jews who had come to Mary, and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in Him. 46 But some of them went away to the Pharisees and told them the things Jesus did. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council and said, “What shall we do? For this Man works many signs. 48 If we let Him alone like this, everyone will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.”
49 And one of them, Caiaphas, being high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad. 53 Then, from that day on, they plotted to put Him to death.[/b]
|
|
|
|
Post by rbbailey on Nov 18, 2009 13:59:09 GMT -8
Yes, but I don't think that excludes them from the ability to be forgiven.
Like the blame for his death, his statement was made in historical context, but it is universal in reality -- as is everything about Christ.
If his death, the blame for his death, and his forgiveness are all to be examined in a historical context only, then what is it we believe in? In other words, it's not history that we have faith in, it is the universality of what he did in that moment for all of the future of mankind -- this is what we have faith in. If this is true, we must also accept that the moment in time, the actions taken, the words spoken are universal in meaning as well -- even the blame is universal.
Also, I don't think it would be accurate to say that even those who plotted against him really, actually knew what it is they were doing.
|
|
