Your husband's comments illustrates perfectly my point, that the quarrel is not with Gibson, per se, but with the Gospels. Presenting them literally is unacceptable to those who find them objectionable.
Representing them as "the truth about Jesus," as Gibson asserts he has done, is the problem. He has not presented a Lady of the Lake, as you earlier proposed. Or he has, but is advertising it in his comments about it as history, as truth -- and it will be taken that way by many, many millions, and has the potential to incite passions that have in the past led to extreme consequences.
In a bookstore in Africa, when I lived there, there was a big window display of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, with advertising captions. N, who knew the bookstore owner, went and asked him what he knew about the book. The man thought it was an authentic historic document, until N gave him some background. He was aghast, and grateful, and took down the display with its false descriptions.
Do you believe Jews are the spawn of Satan, as the folks who wrote the Gospels would, for their own reasons, have you believe, Cobe?
Do you think it's a great thing, to tell millions of people that that stuff is the "truth"?
The Gospels were not written by Jesus or by God, just so you have that straight. |
