Skip to comments.
The 'Passion' of Mel: an exclusionary tale
Seattle Times ^
| 2/29/04
| Leonard Pitts, Jr
Posted on 02/29/2004 10:02:28 AM PST by Eva
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
I posted this mainly for those non-Christians on Free Republic.
1
posted on
02/29/2004 10:02:28 AM PST
by
Eva
To: Eva
bump
2
posted on
02/29/2004 10:07:15 AM PST
by
Eva
To: Eva
No man is truly Free (republic) until he can understand Christ our Savior.
3
posted on
02/29/2004 10:12:17 AM PST
by
whereasandsoforth
(tagged for migratory purposes only)
To: Eva
BUMP
4
posted on
02/29/2004 10:13:06 AM PST
by
kitkat
To: Eva
It explains why I'm not really interested in seeing it or not seeing, except because it has caused so much outcry.
I have a strong feeling, however, that many of my fellow Jews are being hypersensitive ninnies. Another reason, I suppose, to go see it -- so I have a stronger basis for saying that.
5
posted on
02/29/2004 10:17:20 AM PST
by
Celtjew Libertarian
(Shake Hands with the Serpent: Poetry by Charles Lipsig aka Celtjew http://books.lulu.com/lipsig)
To: Eva
I'm a non-Christian, and I don't feel the least bit "excluded" by the movie or its message.
I feel "excluded" by foolish liberal writers who assume that in order to be a non-Christian one must necessarily feel "excluded" by the Christian message.
Liberals assume, by virtue of being liberal, that they understand everyone. They don't. And since they don't, I would be quite happy if they would shut the hell up about what I'm supposed to feel and think concerning just about everything.
To: Eva
A mountain called Calvary.
I thought it was Gilgotha.
To: Eva
Which was not simply "love and faith" but redemption, ransom, sacrifice, the willingness to take upon himself, upon his body, punishment for all the sins of humankind.I'll leave it to others to argue whether it makes sense to exclude so many people.
Huh?
As I wrote here: Oh, For Art's Sake! , why can't it just be seen for what it is? Why must those who don't believe the story take it so personally? (Jews who scream anti-Semitism deeply insult true believers, and their staunchest defenders.)
It's the secular rage that's a wonder to behold. Where's Frank Peretti when one needs him? Lots of movies have been made about the Buddha, for example, and the non-believers seem to remain emotionally uninvolved, uninsulted, capable of unagitated bystander status. This Jesus guy, I tell ya...
8
posted on
02/29/2004 10:29:50 AM PST
by
AnnaZ
(I hate Times New Roman... and it's all Mel Gibson's fault!)
To: Eva
Good article. But I think the exclusionary part is a bit overstated. Though this isn't Mr. Pitts fault, because many of the film critics are intentionally overstating it as well.
Think about it. Here we have a large audience of critics acting almost surprised - not just at the new elements of the movie's portrayal - but at some of the basic elements of a story that has been told for 2000 years. Pilate is portrayed as giving into the mob and ordering the execution, even though he didn't want to?!! *gasp* I see this one pop up as evidence of the film's anti-Semitism time and again, and it's right there in the Gospel. It stretches credibility that this is something most of these critics are not aware of.
So, yes, the movie was made by and for Christians. But it's certainly accessible to non-Christians who simply want to look at the Christian faith. It may not be fun to look at, as Mr. Pitts says, "all you will see is a man being hit over and over and over again." But that brutality really is central to the Christian belief in Christ's death.
To: Eva
Jews have made inroads into the nation's mainstream to a degree that would have been unimaginable 50 years ago. Yet even in the midst of that success, they live with this constant nugget of fear, this need to be on guard, lest acceptance erode and yesterday's nightmares come roaring back. Hardly! Quick -- think of Sen. Chuckie Schumer, mister in-your-face; think of Jerry Nadler, Representative from NY/McDonald's -- do THEY strike you as "on guard"? "Holding back?" I don't think so.
10
posted on
02/29/2004 10:33:34 AM PST
by
WL-law
To: whereasandsoforth
No man is truly Free (republic) until he can understand Christ our Savior. The only thing greater than your humility is your understanding of other faiths. In my opinion, you are a true Christian.
To: Eva
Only Leonard Pitts could find a way to criticize this movie on the basis of it being discriminatory - it's so ludicrous I am nearly speechless. The movie is bad because it doesn't make Moose Limbs, Hindus, and Jews feel good about themselves????? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
12
posted on
02/29/2004 11:05:01 AM PST
by
PLK
To: Celtjew Libertarian
I have a strong feeling, however, that many of my fellow Jews are being hypersensitive ninnies. That's what I thought until I read some of the responses in the Passion threads. The lack of understanding on the part of some, the easy pass they are willing to give Mel Gibson and his film, and the vitriol for those who criticize the film for any reason, have given me pause.
To: WL-law
think of Sen. Chuckie Schumer, mister in-your-face; think of Jerry Nadler, Representative from NY/McDonald's -- do THEY strike you as "on guard"? "Holding back?" I don't think so. Then what do you think motivates their behavior and why?
Don't get me wrong....Schumer is, IMHO, such a despicable character that anything he says or does is immediately suspect. But a number of Jews are concerned....they are "on guard". And they do hold back on certain issues - for example, the issue of Jonathan Pollard (I'm just using it an an example - don't start a separate thread about the issue) doesn't receive the support of these "high-profile" Jews. They are "on guard" and "holding back". With Mel's movie, they aren't....for very obvious reasons.
To: PLK
Pitts statement is moronic. And your empathy for non-Christian reaction to the movie is truly Christian.
To: h.a. cherev
"The lack of understanding on the part of some, the easy pass they are willing to give Mel Gibson and his film, and the vitriol for those who criticize the film for any reason, have given me pause."
Ours is a critical culture, and the criticism concerning this movie have generally been that the movie is anti-Semitic, that it's too violent, that Gibson is retrograde, that Gobson is an evil man because of his father.
In other words, the usual egalitarian smears from the cultural Left. A valid critique is one thing, but I've yet to hear one. Meanwhile, Gibson's "unreleasable" and immoral film has made nearly 100 million dollars in four days.
To: Reactionary
Nominated for post of the day:
"Liberals assume, by virtue of being liberal, that they understand everyone. They don't. And since they don't, I would be quite happy if they would shut the hell up about what I'm supposed to feel and think concerning just about everything."
Well said!
17
posted on
02/29/2004 11:29:24 AM PST
by
Romish_Papist
(Lurker for three years, finally registered, love this place!)
To: Snuffington
I saw it yesterday with one of my best friends and one of my daughters. It was devastatingly powerful-- not a movie so much as a religious experience. We wept and then we came home and thought and talked about it.
My daughter is a believer but wasn't raised in the church-- I only came back to faith a year ago myself-- but after we were home, she pulled out her bible for the first time and I showed her where to start reading, in each of the Gospels, the story she had just seen on film. Later, I went and re-read the Gospels myself, and time and again, I was struck when some incident or detail that I had thought wasn't in the Gospel was there in one or the other of them.
My view is that God is very, very pleased with Mr. Mel Gibson. This is a movie for the ages.
"It is as it was."
18
posted on
02/29/2004 11:40:02 AM PST
by
walden
To: vetvetdoug
looks like Calvary is Latin and Golgotha is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word for "skull"
a Google search came up with this
http://www.olivebranch.com/isreal/galgoitha.htm Easton's Dict. [golgotha] # 1522 Golgotha the common name of the spot where Jesus was crucified. It is interpreted by the evangelists as meaning "the place of a skull" #Mt 27:33 Mr 15:22 Joh 19:17 This name represents in Greek letters the Aramaic word Gulgaltha, which is the Hebrew Gulgoleth #Nu 1:2 1Ch 23:3,24 2Ki 9:35 meaning "a skull." It is identical with the word Calvary (q.v.). It was a little knoll rounded like a bare skull. (cond. left)
and this
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03191a.htm NAME
Etymology and Use
The word Calvary (Lat. Calvaria) means "a skull". Calvaria and the Gr. Kranion are equivalents for the original Golgotha. The ingenious conjecture that Golgotha may be a contraction for Gol Goatha and may accordingly have signified "mount of execution", and been related to Goatha in Jer., xxi, 39, has found scarcely any supporters. The diminutive monticulus (little mount) was coupled with the name A.D. 333 by the "Pilgrim of Bordeaux".
Towards the beginning of the fifth century Rufinus spoke of "the rock of Golgotha". Since the sixth century the usage has been to designate Calvary as a mountain. The Gospel styles it merely a "place", (Matt. xxvii, 33; Mark xv, 22; Luke, xxiii, 33; John, xix, 17).
To: whereasandsoforth
Well, you've excluded the Jewish FReepers...
So, ain't they free???
20
posted on
02/29/2004 11:46:56 AM PST
by
El Conservador
("No blood for oil!"... Then don't drive, you moron!!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-46 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson