Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (184603)	3/13/2004 3:18:43 AM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577025

I didn't say that. I said it portrayed the Jewish leaders in the film in a bad light; in a much worse light than the Roman leaders. I could see how someone might think that Gibson's portrayal was anti Semitic. The biggest issue is that each of the Gospels varies somewhat in the way it depicts the Passion, and Gibson hand-picked the portions from each that show the Jews in the worst light, and "enhanced" this with some non-biblical sources. This had to have been deliberate. Z, yes, thank you. I have been somewhat shocked by the seeming denial of many Christians over this film. For Christians, JC was the son of God; for Jews and Muslims, he was a phophet. That's considerable adoration and respect for any being. To then rehash his last hours by showing his brutal torture and death......especially at this late date......IMO serves very little purpose. Its his message as the son of God and a prophet that's most important, and not the way humanity determined that he should be destroyed. Some comments from a well known and respected Rabbi in Seattle: ***************************************************** <font color=green>Guest columnist Gibson opts for ego, ignorance over authenticity By Daniel Weiner Special to The Times <snip> I have given Gibson the benefit of the doubt for some time. I insisted publicly that he was not an anti-Semite, and that the intention of the film was to celebrate Jesus' sacrificial gift, not to resurrect the charges of Jewish culpability. Christian and Jewish leaders voiced their concerns about the film's mixed message. Eminent scholars were asked to offer their insights through response to a script. They provided a confidential, detailed critique of the film's questionable historicity and biblical integrity. Gibson responded with threats of a lawsuit and the machinations of a PR machine that churned out the bile of populism, anti-intellectualism and culture war. I wanted to assume that Gibson was benignly ignorant, an arrogant auteur of the pampered Hollywood elite, or intellectually out of his depth. After all that was said and done, all the opportunities to work with the best and brightest religious minds to produce a work as faithful to the spirit of the Gospels as it would be cinematically spectacular, Gibson opted for ego over authenticity. I can no longer assume that Gibson was merely careless, negligent or stubborn in his insistence upon releasing what now belongs to history and infamy. With careful crafting and deliberate intention, he has chosen to convey a Christian faith predicated on contempt for Jews. <snip> • Gibson is embarrassingly ignorant of more than 50 years of new Christian scholarship regarding what led to Jesus' death. His selective misuse of Gospel texts and reliance upon bizarre extra-biblical sources run counter to a pillar of Catholic doctrine: Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council's rejection of Passion portrayals that lay blame upon the Jews. Gibson derided church doctrine as false and scholarly consensus as perverse. • Despite his denials of anti-Semitism, his portrayal reveals a profound insensitivity to the ways in which Passion plays have fueled generations of anti-Jewish hatred and violence in Europe. Gibson's influence and the film's crossover appeal will, in one week, reach more people than all the viewers of Passion plays combined over the past 500 years. For Gibson to move ahead with this version of the film is arrogant, irresponsible and mean-spirited. •<snip> Ironically, many of the same conservative Christian leaders who daily berate secular Hollywood's glorification of violence for profit have fawned over one of the most graphic and gory films ever made in the service of "the outreach opportunity of the millennium." The message of love, faith, and hope that Gibson wants to send is brutally obscured in a cascade of blood and a blizzard of flying flesh. archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com