|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: These would be the same Catholic scholars... posted by DWPC on August 06, 2003 at 15:31:28:
>> Do you not see any inconsistency in their being quoted by those wanting to censor this film?<<What on earth are you talking about? The group of rabbis and Biblical scholars who read the script pointed out 14 pages of errors in it and worry that it's going to harm relations between Christians and Jews. They're not asking for the film to be censored (and please explain exactly how that would happen in the United States in 2003); they're asking for it to be revised to remove the incorrect and inflammatory elements. What does that have to do with divorce, abortion, or homosexuality?
Follow Ups:
I'm simply curious why Catholic scholars, who would likely find many pages of errors in treatises favorable to other controversial subjects like divorce, abortion, and homosexuality, are found to be so very, very correct and reliable here. RC scholars also condemned the inaccuracies of "The Last Temptation", but in that case the film and cultural elite had no use for their complaints. It sure looks like "cherry picking" to me;, i.e., using only what you agree with and ignoring everything else.From what I've read, virtually none of those who are so strongly attacking this film have seen it or read its actual script. Do you doubt similar pressures aren't being applied in the distribution business? Isn't pressure to change artistic content censorship...or is that only when it comes from the Right?
If it is anti-semetic, I believe the broad public will reject it and it will be clearly identified as such. But please...shouldn't we see it before condemning it?
> > none of those who are so strongly attacking this film have seen it or read its actual script < <Did a light bulb go on over your head when you had that insight? That's what the whole controversy is about! Gibson says his movie isn't anti - semitic but refuses to show it to anyone but hand - picked audiences pre -disposed to be on his side. The only Jew who's seen it is GOP shill Matt Drudge, for example. He says the script that was analyzed by the commitee of scholars isn't the final version but refuses to show the shooting script. What's he afraid of, or hiding? If the movie doesn't blame the Jews for killing Jesus why won't Gibson put the controversy to rest with one screening for the ADL?
> > I'm simply curious why Catholic scholars, who would likely find many pages of errors in treatises favorable to other controversial subjects like divorce, abortion, and homosexuality, are found to be so very, very correct and reliable here. < <
How inconvenient for you that half of the committee were Jews including Orthodox rabbis.
Why do you keep trying to drag homosexuality, abortion, and divorce into a discussion about a movie? What's your problem?
I'm not "trying to drag homosexuality, abortion, and divorce into a discussion about a movie". One more time...I'm simply pointing out that those noisily protesting this unseen film are touting the opinion of "authorities" whose Scripture interpretations on most any other subject they'd most certainly reject out of hand. And these are clearly interpretations.It seems to me that the arguments about this film are hypocritical. Views on censorship, free speech, religion, effects of movies on viewers, and more seem to be quickly thrown out the window at the first faint hint of a non-PC interpretation. Or don't you think people can be trusted to make up their own minds?
Again...none of those who are so upset by Gibson's film have seen even a trailer on it, yet their minds are made up.
> > those noisily protesting this unseen film are touting the opinion of "authorities" whose Scripture interpretations on most any other subject they'd most certainly reject out of hand < <So your argument is that the Anti - Defamation League would reject the "Scripture interpretations" of Orthodox rabbis? And that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops would reject the "Scripture interpretations" of eminent theologians on the faculties of Catholic universities? What a bizarre notion!
> > a non-PC interpretation < <
That's definitely an idiosyncratic way of characterizing The Passion's completely fabricated scene showing the cross being built inside the Temple by Romans obeying the orders of Jewish religious officials, to cite one example. So you're saying that accurately portraying the relationship between the subjugated Jews and their Roman overlords is mere political correctness? I presume you'd also say that a Civil war movie that showed black plantation masters owning white slaves was just a "non-PC interpretation" rather than complete bullsh!t that grossly distorted the historical record?
> > I'm not "trying to drag homosexuality, abortion, and divorce into a discussion about a movie" < <
I'm a little late but I'd like to join in. If you would read Matthew Chapter 26 starting at verse 47 and read until you end with verse 26 of chapter 27 it will be very clear who killed Jesus.
However that is really not important. Shocking isn't it. Jesus and all those involved were only doing God's will and fulfilling prophesy. Jesus even stated that.
No one knows what REALLY happened back then, who the mythical Jesus actually was or the circumstances surrounding any crucifixtion, much less the "documented" resurrection. We're too far removed from the events and subsequent interpretations. Perhaps the immortal Keith Richards knows, but it's doubtful that the late Steve Marriott will provide any clues. ;^)As far as Mel Gibson's The Passion goes, we should be at least cogniscent of modern-day audience reactions and perhaps a little more sympathetic to those concerned about a potential increase in prejudice against Jews.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: