SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Tom Clarke who wrote (74982)9/17/2003 8:57:35 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
No, I didn't read the jake leg article. I get TNY passed on to me by a relative, tend to skim and return it since I have so much other reading piled up.

Thanks for posting the full article. Seems to me there are several questions.

1. Is the historical record as portrayed in the gospels basically accurate?

2. If yes, is it wrong to portray history as it was because it will offend some people? What about the maxm that those who won't learn from history are destined to repeat it? Is it better to know and deal with truth?

3. If the Gospels are substantially inaccurate as history, can the movie still be fairly made as representing the Biblical presentation even if it isn't historically accurate? I mean, this is what the book says. Is it wrong to present inaccurate history when we know it's inaccurate?

4. If your answer to the foregoing question is yes, be aware that you're saying that all of Shakespeare's history plays have to go out the window. Plus many contemporary plays, such as Joan of Arc. Plus many contemporary movies. The list goes on and on. Or do we have one set of rules for everybody else and a second set for Gibson because we don't like the message he's portraying?

It does raise some interesting questions. Too bad that those opposed to the content of the movie apparently aren't for the most part interested in the questions, just in frying Gibson.