Posted on 03/09/2004 5:04:23 AM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
From all I'm reading, the central question surrounding Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is whether or not Gibson is portraying the Jews as responsible for the death of Jesus and whether or not this is anti-Semitism. I have a different question, if you'll pardon it coming from a non-Christian who's not seen the movie and isn't terribly familiar with the Christian Bible: So what?
I understand history. I understand that blaming Jews for the death of Jesus was a cause of anti-Semitism in the past. Heck, my grandparents and great-grandparents came to America, fleeing that mindset. I understand that there are still nutcases around -- perhaps entire nutty societies, though not in the U.S. -- who hold this to be the case and say that today's Jews are responsible for what happened almost two-thousand years ago.
But I also understand that this is the United States. This is a nation founded on the belief in the individual. An American cannot legally be punished for the actions of their family (the one exception being parents sometimes being held responsible for the acts of minor children). What a parent does is not held against their children.
By that bedrock belief, to hold the Jews of today responsible for whatever was done by the Jews of Jesus's time -- and even then, by those relatively few Jews who called for Jesus's death (Jews were already rather widely dispersed through the Roman Empire at that time, even if the Diaspora had not yet occurred) -- is un-American. More than blaming children for the actions of parents, it is blaming people of today for what their potential fifty-plus-times-great-grandparents may or may not have done and said. It goes against the American belief of individual responsibility.
Again: So what? Those worried that Gibson's move is anti-Semitic could easily say, "Maybe the Jews killed Jesus. Maybe they didn't. But no one can be held responsible for what occurred two-thousand years ago." But they don't. Why not?
Take a look at the politics of most of the critics. They're on the political left. And among the views held on the political left is support of affirmative action. Many on the left support slave reparations. Many blame American actions for the acts of 9/11.
In short, most of the left believe in collective guilt. They may not call it that, but penalizing members of certain groups and rewarding others for misdeeds in the past is collective guilt. The left holds individuals guilty for the acts of their ancestors. The time span may be compressed, but the American left has the same anti-individualist mindset that murdered Jews, claiming they were responsible for the death of Jesus.
For the left to confront the possibility that Jews -- not THE Jews, but some Jews -- may have been complicit in the death of Jesus would require them to say that there is no such thing as collective guilt. For a political mindset that has its policies grounded in this same collective guilt, this is an impossible thing to do. Thus, they must attack the movie.
So what? So that.
My thoughts exactly! EWTN has their credibility to look after as well, and they were initially the only ones to interview Mel (and Jim) on this project while it was still filming. It would make absolutely no sense to endorse someone from a "splinter group of Catholics." I tried to explain to her that there are many sources that back my position on Mel (that he is, and always will be RC), and he admits to it.
But she is basing her opinion on the Diane Sawyer interview, and his admittance when he said "I never left the Church...it left me."
I guess you can bet her reaction to the movie, no? ;)
Hold fast to what is true. You aren't confused. You've got it right. Spot on!
Thank you. "Stay the Course" as what was uttered in "The Patriot," lol.
You should tell that liberated nun that any baptized catholic who rejects even one teaching of the Church, rejects the entire faith and ceases to be Catholic. So, her friends who contracept, IVF, sterilize, abort and sodomize reject the Church. They place themselves above Christ. They are arrogant.
Yes. And every year I listen to her tell the RCIA group of what the Church's position is on birth control, and her views. She will state the Church's official position on one hand, then quote from another "noted" opinion.
She quotes from someone named "Bernard Herrod" (sp?) from Rome. He says birth control should be considered "in the totality of the marraige," and that it "occupies the low portion of the hierarchy of truths" in The Church (in relation to God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, ect...). Basically, one cannot make a human decision without considering the totality of the situation. She doesn't take a stance one way or another, but leaves it up to the individual.
Thank goodness, there are a good number of "core" group of "conservative/traditionalist Catholics (who are also RCIA facilitators) who can at least steer our candidates and cathechumens in a good direction.
What does this mean Convert? I know a Jewish/Christian couple they both beleive Jesus is the Messiah...they go to Messianic Synagogue, they celebrate Jewish holidays...the woman does not have a denomination she is just a believer in Christ so what did they convert to. If the early Christians were Jews then were they converts..People made this up..again not from G-d.
And I’m sure their Minister calls himself a Rabbi. I have a cat that thinks he’s a dog. They can call themselves whatever they want. No Jewish institution recognizes them as Jews. It’s not unreasonable to respect the right of Jews to define their faith.
Your post 95, I believe the eventual point the author makes is that Jesus wasn't Christian, Moses wasn't Jewish, fortunately the Qur'an reveals that they were both Muslims. That point is lost on me too.
Uh, no. Their descendants suffered earthly consequences for their ancestros' sins -- just like children of imprisoned criminals today -- but that is NOT the same as saying that they actually bore guilt for their sins.
After what you pasted, he continues to demonstrate that neither Moses nor Abraham used the term Jew, and Adam had no religion at all. Christianity, don't know what it was or where it came from, Judiasm, same thing, fortunately we've the Koran for guidance, ending with
"Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto Us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob and the sons of Jacob, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered (literally: "we are Muslims")." The noble Qur'an, al-Bakarah(2):136
Kind of a Muslim's for Jews and Christians thing.
He's coming to our parish on the 28th to bless some new buildings, and say Mass. It will give all of us a chance to meet with him. Perhaps he and I will have "a little chat."
From what I observed at The Rite of Election at our local cathedral a couple of weekends ago, he seems a very holy man. He's been hit up (since day one) with so much garbage that was dumped on him, courtesy of our former bishop, I'll be there to at least give him my support and let him know that I (as are many) are behind him 1000%.
I was referring to your quote from someone else's prior post:
"His blood be on our heads and on the heads of our children". This is a clear allusion to the curse that is upon the Jews. In fact, we may see the Shoa as a way in which Christ poured out his continued wrath upon the Jews for their evil. The ovens of Europe, so painful, were yet another example of the curse that is upon the Jews for killing his beloved.
I did not go back in the thread to see why or in what context it was used in nor do I know what the original poster was trying to accomplish with it.
As I noted in my post, that is not how I interpret the passage in Matthew nor how the vast majority of American Christians interpret that passage in Matthew. It seems to be, however, how anti-Semetic Passion Plays in 19th Century Eastern Europe interpretted Matthew.
As in my earlier post to Veronica, it seems to me that a passage in the Bible can appear to be obviously anti-Semitic to someone with an Eastern or Central European cultural memory while the same passage has no such meaning to an "Old American" Bible Belt Chritian who would not know a pogrom from a pierogi.
I think Mel is probably more in line with traditonal Catholicism then most care to admit.
We've certainly lost a great deal of the mysteries, and the sacredness of the Mass since Vatican 2. How many Catholics attend Confession, or pray the rosary since the inception of Vatican 2?
We've lost too much, and now there really seems to be a spiritual hunger for those things that were evident in Mass prior to Vatican 2.
I think your nun has to cut out the "nunsense", and not judge Mel. He will probably have turned more people to Christ than a 1000 post vatican 2 nuns could ever dream of doing.
If you’re asking an opinon about American Jews of Eastern European background, I think you’re overanalyzing.
Presuming we’re not discussing academics, movie studio owners, editorialists, NGO officers internet forum participants, all of whom have either strongly held opinions or axes to grind, my experience outside of FR, I don’t think most Jews care much about the movie one way or the other. They’re probably not running to see it, in my experience, which may be unique, it’s not a topic at synagogue or anywhere else, and what people hear is what’s in the media. Not a Christian friendly message, but I think Christians are listening to it more than Jews. Understandably since no one credible is bashing us.
Clearly the experience of 18th century Sephardics may differ from 20th cenutry Sephardics and 19th century Askenazis, they’re gone. But for most Jews if you bring up persecution, they think Europe and Nazis.
As to "Old American" Bible Belt Christians, it’s kind of a shared experience, European religious persecution. I don’t think most people think of the distinction.
The reason Jews don't consider "messianic Jews" isn't our "leaders" rather a multi-millenia long understanding of what Moses brought down from Mt Sinai, subject as always to disagreement. I'm not going to get into a theological discussion with you about that because I have grapes to plant (actually clover for my deer). If your friends are bothered, I'm sorry, but I don't think you should worry about that much.
So does that mean that the whole thing was scripted?
Uh, no. Their descendants suffered earthly consequences for their ancestros' sins -- just like children of imprisoned criminals today -- but that is NOT the same as saying that they actually bore guilt for their sins.
Please explain. My understanding is that was the reason Jesus came down to wipe the Adam, and Eve sins. Even though thousands of years later, the children of Adam, and Eve had nothing to do with eating from that tree?
I'm sure some would agree with that, but it's not the Biblical idea. Jesus came to wipe away *all* people's sins, including Adam & Eve, if they accept Him.
Even though thousands of years later, the children of Adam, and Eve had nothing to do with eating from that tree?
Again, we suffer certain consequences for what Adam & Eve did, but we are not held to account for their sins; they are. Each man (or woman) is accountable only for his own actions. Sin is not inherited. Ezekiel 18:19-20 "Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?' Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."
First, it appears that bible has a lot of contradictions. Second, Our contemporary morality of today is far superior to the barbaric desert tribal morality of two thousands years ago.
I don't know how to respond to this, as it does not appear to be a complete sentence. :)
First, it appears that bible has a lot of contradictions.
I would disagree, but I think that's a separate issue.
Second, Our contemporary morality of today is far superior to the barbaric desert tribal morality of two thousands years ago.
LOL... The idea of comparing the relative worth of two moral codes is unavoidably a moral judgment in itself -- how shocking that using the modern morality to evaluate the ancient one would result in finding it to be inferior!
I believe that the only moral code that has legitimacy is one that originates from God, since as Creator only He has the authority to establish such a framework. Furthermore, I would say that identifying this Divine moral code cannot be done by evaluating the morality itself because there is no objective standard to measure it against. We can examine whether it is internally consistent, the credibility of its proponents & so on, but calling it 'good' or 'bad' doesn't mean much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.