Posted on 03/04/2004 10:24:16 PM PST by churchillbuff
Edited on 03/05/2004 10:48:45 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Gibson's Blood Libel
By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 5, 2004; Page A23
Every people has its story. Every people has the right to its story. And every people has a responsibility for its story. ...[snip]
Christians have their story too: the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Why is this story different from other stories? Because it is not a family affair of coreligionists. If it were, few people outside the circle of believers would be concerned about it. This particular story involves other people. With the notable exception of a few Romans, these people are Jews. And in the story, they come off rather badly.
Because of that peculiarity, the crucifixion is not just a story; it is a story with its own story -- a history of centuries of relentless, and at times savage, persecution of Jews in Christian lands. This history is what moved Vatican II, in a noble act of theological reflection, to decree in 1965 that the Passion of Christ should henceforth be understood with great care so as to unteach the lesson that had been taught for almost two millennia: that the Jews were Christ killers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You, too, see the true underlying premise behind this "man's" post, right?
Personally, I am more concerned about Mel's lack of total repudiation of his father's remarks and the obvious Christian sentiment that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you are doomed to eternal damnation and need our prayers. Respect my beliefs as I respect yours and keep your private pity to yourself.
Before you dig a deeper hole for yourself.
The Romans required the christians to abandon monotheism --under pain of death.
He said he was in total disagreement with his father on that subject.
Would you publicly attack your aged father for his remarks, or would you?
So, I guess that means that Nero, Valerian and Diocletian have all been misrepresented?
Pliny the Younger told Emperor Trajan that he was executing those who refused to recant - and Trajan's reply?
You have taken the method which you ought in examining the causes of those that had been accused as Christians, for indeed no certain and general form of judging can be ordained in this case. These people are not to be sought for; but if they be accused and convicted, they are to be punished; but with this caution, that he who denies himself to be a Christian, and makes it plain that he is not so by supplicating to our gods, although he had been so formerly, may be allowed pardon, upon his repentance. As for libels sent without an author, they ought to have no place in any accusation whatsoever, for that would be a thing of very ill example, and not agreeable to my reign.
You didn't understand me Sabertooth. I don't want you to post any more comments to me. Please comply.
|
In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging.
Charge two is that the satan wraiths merge with the Jewish "mob" (which wraiths are also apparently not in the gospels). Whether the overall gestalt of the message is that the Jewish mob were temporarily taken over by Satan, or that they were the functional equivalent of Satan, I don't know. I have not seen the film.
So the issue is, is what is Mel's defense to artistic license not in the gospels, that make the Jewish mob, and Jewish authorities, look worse than the gospels suggest?
I agree that Kraut's overall thrust is over the top. The gospels are what they are. For those of us who are non-believers, it is all understandable. The Romans and the Jewish authorities offed folks that they perceived threatened their authority all the time. The place did not have the American Supreme Court to issue writs of habeas corpus. But to the extent Mel departs from the gospels, to make the Jews look worse to believers than the gospels "teach," he is fair game for criticism.
What say you?
Where Christianity, Judaism and Islam are different from past religions is that they are monotheistic. As a result, adherents are not able to worship any additional gods beyond the one God that they recognize. Contrast this with pagans who can easily add new gods to their respective pantheons, and the effect of this importance difference becomes apparent. If you were a pagan living during the Roman Empire you could continue to worship your gods as long as you recognized that Caesar was a god as well. However, if for some reason your pagan religion was like Christianity and didn't allow you to worship Caesar as a god, then you would have been treated exactly like the Christians were treated - which meant you either had to convert to the belief that Caesar was a god or else you had to die.
The point is, the fault that you raise with respect to the great monotheistic religions is not inherent to those religions. Rather the fault is inherent to men who would seek to increase their worldly power by claiming a divine right to rule over others.
No one will ever convince me what is antisemitic and what is not. I am more then qualified to judge that for myself.
I do understand how important this movie is to Christians. I can appreciate that. However, I cannot and will not overlook Gibson's failure to recognize the murder and attempted extermination of all Jews and how that is different then other "atrocities" afflicted on non Jews. The Holocaust was a singular horrific event that targeted Jews and cannot be lumped together as an equal with other tragedies. Those that do so are antisemitic in this Jew's opinion.
That's not true. I found it very uplifting.
The extrapolations made were logical and or cinematic, as in the case of the visual of evil.
Evil is everywhere! Not just within the walls of that Jewish town so many years ago.
How it might be seen is imagined by Gibson. As part of a crowd, as a snake, as a tree.
As to making the Jews appear worse than the gospel, Gibson really softened that aspect. some biblical quotations were omitted and great care was taken to convey that not all were complicit, but only a few and even the High priests were not unified.
You are correct, no one is forcing me to see the movie. What I resent is the local radio station encouraging Christians to bring along nonbelievers. I can only assume that includes Jews that they want to convert. Picture yourself as a Christian minority in a Muslim country where an equivalent Muslim religious movie was creating a big stir. How would you feel if your local radio station was encouraging Muslims to take a Christian friend along with the obvious implication of conversion apparent? Be honest.
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.