Hesitantly...The Passion of the Christ

[Jennpurr]

Can someone tell me exactly where in the movie the violence begins? Is the movie violent all the time, toward the middle, just at the end?



I would really appreciate someone's help. I just want to be prepared.



Thanks in advance,



Jen

---

||My Fan Fiction and More!|| ||My Yahoo Group||
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"I could never hide this little light of mine, If God made a mistake then I should die before I wake, Maybe it's my fate to swim against this tide, Swallowing my pride." - Melissa Etheridge, "Meet Me In The Dark."

[sam7777]

Quote:

---

While the Jewish view may be more sensitive to anti-Semitism, someone with a perspective from outside that of the three Abrahamic religions and their conflicts will be less biased and more accurate.

---

A similar view was aired about lesbians being simply to biased (and hysterical) to be unbiased about the dead lesbian cliche. Sorry but I disagree. I have continually said that both points of view are valid: inspiring and anti-semitic. I don't deny that many people find Passion inspiring but I also don't deny that many find it anti-semitic. I belong to the latter group. After spending alot of time writing letters to convince people to talk about the dead lesbian cliche in the DoT, I certainly will talk about the anti-semitism I see in Passion. People agree and disagree which is great and is what having a discussion is all about. The arguments that I have heard to contrary have yet to convince me. Does it matter if I don't find Passion inspiring? Of course not. It made over $125million without my blessings.



There are two things I can say without qualification about Mr Gibson's "The Passion of Christ": it is VIOLENT and DIVISIVE. You can see the divisions the film has caused on this board and in all the articles about the film. Personally, I don't think either is a good thing. One good thing that I hope will come of this film is interfaith dialogue like the one they had in Princeton (see my post above). Many GLBT people are down on religion because religion has been down on them. Many GLBT people have found solace and support in religion. So if some criticize, they may actually have a good reason to do so. If some praise their faith, they also have a good reason for doing so. If I disagree with folks, so what. I'm not the arbiter of all thought.



As I said in my first post, it is impossible to talk about this film without talking religion and religion is a subject that typically makes folks very angry. That said I am amazed by the topics Kittens nknow about like aramaic. Who knew? I am certainly learning alot in this discussion. I agree qith DrG

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

[The Partisan]

Jen,



I'd say the latter two-thirds of the film are extremely violent. The violence really takes effect once the flogging by scourge starts (a whip made of leather straps with lead weights attached to the end - ouch), and doesn't really let up until Christ's death at the end of the film (Oops, I spoiled the ending).



The scourging scene, I think, is the most graphic, though individual mileage may very depending on just what sorts of sequences get under your skin. It was the only part of the film that made me cringe.



Hope that helps

[astrangerhere]

Jen-It starts about 35-40 minutes in, and is heavy for the last 60 or so minutes broken only by flashbacks.



DMW- I am on your side on this one. I may edit later to fortify that positin, but I have to run now.



a.s.h.

[Hemiola]

My gracious thanks to lamashtu for posting, and I certainly defer to his/her expertise in modern Aramaic regarding such things as the pronunciations used in the film. I hope he/she will see the film and then give us the definitive word on the pronunciation (which, to my ear, sounds poor).



I would, however, like to clarify something. In referring to Aramaic as "vulgar Hebrew", I should have been more specific and stated that Judean Aramaic (as spoken in Judea during Hellenistic/Hasmonean/Herodian/Roman times, and as distinguished from other forms of Aramaic) was vulgar Hebrew. I use the word "vulgar" in the scholarly sense, just as vulgar Latin (such as that in Jerome's Vulgate translation of the Bible) is used to distinguish it from "classical" Latin. This is, indeed, exactly the way in which educated persons of the period referred to Judean Aramaic: it was the language of the "am ha'aretz", literally "the people of the land", but usually translated as "the common people". It was close enough to classical Hebrew such that the ancient language could be easily understood even by uneducated speakers of Judean Aramaic. Remarkably, then, your average Judean was probably, to some extent, tri-lingual ( speaking Aramaic at home or amongst themselves, classical Hebrew in liturgical or ritual contexts, and Koine Greek for communicating with the outside world!). There are parallels for this kind of "tri-lingualism" in the modern world.



Now, it is certainly incorrect to state that classical Hebrew (i.e. the language as spoken and written during the pre-Exilic Monarchical Period) is a derivative of Aramaic. It is, in fact, a member of the so-called "West Semitic" group of languages which, as DaddyCatALSO correctly stated, also included the Canaanite languages (i.e. Moabite, Ammonite, etc.). It was written in Old Phoenician characters. It was only in the Exilic period and post-Exilic periods that the Judeans adopted both the Aramaic language, and the "Aramaic Square" characters that are today used for modern Hebrew. However, they never lost touch with the classical Hebrew language (in fact, if you study the Dead Sea Scrolls, several of them, while using "Aramaic Square" letters for main body of the text, actually use the Old Phoenician characters whenever the Tetragrammaton [the four-letter name of God] is notated!]). This "classical" language was clearly distinguished from Aramaic and is, in fact, the source of modern Hebrew (which, of course, had no words for things like "television" ).



On a completely different subject, I can only say this about Anti-Semitism in the Gibson film: the depiction of Jews therein who are not followers or family of Jesus is relentlessly negative. In this sense, the film echoes such depictions of "Bloodthirsty Jews" as those that were found in such things as the Oberammergau Passion Play. These depictions were/are unquestionably Anti-Semitic. Any veneer of "historicity" that Mr. Gibson claims to add to the film by the use of ancient and/or dead languages does nothing to change this fact. One can only draw the obvious conclusion.....

[jsr]

Once again, I will repeat that I have not seen the movie; hence I will not comment on the movie. My last statements were not about the movie. They were in response to a tone that I percieved as dismissive. Period. I merely stated my opinion -- because as much as I like to bite my tounge when it comes to heated debates, I thought that a discourse regarding what is percieved as anti-semitism might actually benefit from a Jewish person's perspective. Silly me. Oh the irony.

Quote:

---

That's like me saying that if you're not black, you can't possibly know what it's like or know what racism is. I strongly beg to differ.

---

Actually there are many who argue this very point. And in some ways I agree. Am I saying a non-jewish person can't recognize anti-semitism and a white person can't recognize racism? ABSOLUTELY NOT. But do I, as a white person know what it's like to be a person of color in a predominantly white society? NO. Which is not to say I have not experienced discrimination or cannot recognize discrimination based on color -- but I am not, by most obvious accounts, a person of color. Therefore, am I really in a position to be determining what people of color should or should not find offensive when it is so apparent that I have not walked a mile in their shoes? There really are no absolute truths here -- only different perspectives, which are very much influenced by individual experience and history. Kieli, this is a very deconstructionist, post-modern based idea that I can see from your posts you do not agree with. You have a right to your opinion of the movie. You presented your arguements in a very passionate way, and now I am disagreeing just as passionately. I am merely stating that one person's perception does not fit all. You may have not found the movie to be anti-semetic, but to (looslely) paraphrase Garfield, atheist or not, you were not watching the movie from the same vantage point as someone who has actually endured antisemitism. This person may percieve the same scenes very differently and his/her opinion should respected.



In other news... I agree with Sam and Garfield in that something does not have to be intentionally antisemitic, racist, homophobic, etc. to have those undertones. The "Lesbian Cliche" outlines the reasons quite prophetically (much more so than I could ever attempt to do so, so I won't).

Quote:

---

Furthermore, I'm slightly concerned at the one-sided tolerance being demonstrated. It seems that, whenever there's a question of bias with which we disagree, it's woeful to dismiss it out of hand, but how many of us, honestly, give a half-second's thought when charges of bias are levied against the films and ideas that we like? Or do we simply characterize the fears and concerns of what is right now a majority of Americans as "A scary thought"? How would you have felt if someone described the notion of actually granting gays the right to marry as "A scary thought"?

---

Partisan... Oy... you open up a real Pandora's box here. I'm going to start off by addressing the second part of your arguement first. Don't think I'll get to the first tonight -- but hopefully someday. My question is this -- and here's a real shocker -- WHY SHOULD ANYONE FIND THE IDEA OF GAY MARRAIGE "SCARY" OR "OFFENSIVE"? Why was this idea ever considered "wrong" by anyone's standards to begin with? In what way does this infringe on anyone else's rights or lifestyle? Why -- in a government that is supposed to separate church and state -- is the Christian perspective allowed to eclipse alternative ideas of love, family, and faith? It's an issue of RIGHTS. Marraige affords rights and priveleges. Gay couples get screwed out of these. Period. I pay taxes. I obey the law. I work really, really, fucking hard for the crappy paycheck I get each week. Why is my "pursuit of happiness" decreed to second class status in this country? Because someone else's bible thinks my love is "sin"? Partisan, your arguement has no ground with me, because the terrified "moral majority" is terrified out of ignorance. Affording me marraige rights in no way denies them of theirs. Conversely, if this amendment is passes, gay people will be shut out of rights that ALL heterosexuals are automatically entitled to regardless of thier "moral standing." Prisoners can get married. Ten-time divorcees can get married. Fifteen-year-olds on welfare can get married (with their parents consent). But I can't. Because I love women and not men. It blows my mind. What blows my mind even more is the fact that I am defending these concepts on a GLTB MESSAGEBOARD!! So no, I do not merely characterize the fears and concerns of the majority as "a scary thought." I think about them long and hard, and the injustice inherent, and I cry.



If this board is skewed a little left I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.



Peace,



Jill

[sam7777]

jsr: Great post. You make alot of good points. I wish I could say it half as well.



darkmagicwillow: I agree to disagree. Thanks for reading and commenting on my post.



I stand by what I said. Some agree and some disagree and that's great. That is what an discussion is all about. It's been a great debate but I feel that it's turning more to anger than discourse and my goal is to express my views not make people upset.



I wish that Mr Gibson has made an effort to talk with interfaith counsels as Andrew Loyd Webber did for "Jesus Christ Superstar" and Dreamworks did for "Prince of Egypt" to prevent controversy. The controversy sold tickets but also sowed alot of disension.



I wish the censors had given the move an NC-17 rating which would have provided an older audience able to deal with the mature issues in the film. The censors giving this movie a pass sets a bad precedent for violence in films IMHO.



I see the argument about anti-semitism in the film to be very similar to the argument about the dead lesbain cliche in the DoT. Some see it and others do not. As I have continually said, there are two views to this issue and both are valid. I feel the movie presents anti-semitic images and have read no argument to dissuade me otherwise. For those who like the film rejoice, it's a success. For those of us who don't, it's 15 minutes of fame will run out and there are some signs of interfaith discussions being generated.



There are two things I have to say about "The Passion of Christ" in closing: the movie is VIOLENT and DIVISIVE. And that's all for me folks!!!!!!!

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 3/2/04 10:29 pm

[The Partisan]

Sam,



Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that Gibson did discuss the film with interfaith councils. I'm pretty certain he did after production, but I also thought he did prior and/or during the production, though I may be wrong.



Could you (or anyone else) clarify that if you know with a little more certainty than I do?

Edited by: The Partisan at: 3/2/04 10:37 pm

[The Partisan]

JSR,



I think your lashing out at me more than proves the point I was trying to make - the same point that I think you missed in your rush to rake me over the coals for alluding to the fact (yes, fact) that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, and that we should do the unthinkable and tolerate them.



I disagree with the religious right, the moral majority, the RIAA, the Catholic Church, Bud Selig, Dubya, and Phil Spector fervently. I do my damndest to tolerate them, and their beliefs despite the fact that their beliefs and actions run contrary to my own, and that they might not tolerate me or the way I live my life. I don't always succeed, but I try.



We constantly call for tolerance of the gay lifestyle...I think it's the least we can do to reciprocate. And as such, you disagree with me strongly, and ripped strip off of me for my beliefs, and I tolerate you for your opinion, even if you don't tolerate me for mine.

[Lamashtu]

DaddyCatALSO, it's nice to meet you as well. While the term Neo-Syriac is used by modern linguists, it is also very deceptive. This page, Assyria and Syria: Synonyms, is worth reading on the difference between Assyria and Syria.



I was surprised when I read that in the movie Jesus spoke Latin. I too learned that the Romans and Jews communicated through Greek. It seems the film is full of historical inaccuracies. I just might have to see it.



Kieli, I'm not sure whether you're asking for resources from which to learn the language or the history of it. So, I'm going to include some sites on both.



History:



The Aramaic Language from Hebrew Union College



The Aramaic Language from Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia



DOREK



Language:



The Assyrian Aramaic Language Website



Learn Assyrian (Syriac-Aramaic) OnLine



Unfortunately most of the information I've gathered over the years has come from big dusty books and lectures. So, I apologize that there isn't much on the subject online. I hope these sites help some.



Hemiola, I don't know much about the history of Judean-Aramaic, however, I do know that my friends and family who speak Aramaic and I can read and understand most of the parts in both testaments that are written in Aramaic. In fact, I've helped some Jews (one being my orthodontist, oddly enough) learn and understand the Aramaic in the Old Testament. They may be of a different dialect, but they are still the same language. Perhaps, in Israel, the people called it "vulgar" Hebrew because the common people spoke it, but I can understand most of it, and my family comes from Iran (Urmia), so, in essence, they truly are the same language from a practical perspective. I can also say that I can't really understand any of the Hebrew I've tried to read except for a few blatantly religious words and phrases, but I can grasp the general meanings of sentences when a native speaker of Hebrew speaks it very slowly. Hebrew does borrow a lot from Aramaic, however, it is a very separate language such as Spanish and French are. Although they have many common roots, the languages evolved differently due to factors such as environment, time, and the infusion of other languages. The analogy isn't quite perfect, but I hope you can understand what I'm saying. And yes, both languages used the Phoenician alphabet.



I don't see how people from Iran and Iraq who speak Aramaic would be able to understand any Hebrew at all if it truly evolved on its own. Many Hebrew speaking students who've learned Aramaic have commented on how similar it is to Hebrew, as well. It makes sense that Hebrew borrowed much of its language from Aramaic because many more people spoke Aramaic in Mesopotamia than the small portion who spoke Hebrew, and because the languages are so similar, I think it really comes down to which came first.



On an interesting note, Assyrians and Babylonians are also Semitic peoples, so, the term "anti-Semitic" would apply to us also.

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

Furthermore, I'm slightly concerned at the one-sided tolerance being demonstrated. It seems that, whenever there's a question of bias with which we disagree, it's woeful to dismiss it out of hand, but how many of us, honestly, give a half-second's thought when charges of bias are levied against the films and ideas that we like? Or do we simply characterize the fears and concerns of what is right now a majority of Americans as "A scary thought"? How would you have felt if someone described the notion of actually granting gays the right to marry as "A scary thought"?

---

Partisan, you're setting up a false equivalence. It seems like you're suggesting that LGBTs can be guilty of "heterophobia" in the same way that straights are often guilty of homophobia.



It doesn't work like that. There are real structures of oppression and power inequality. In some imaginary society where homosexuality is normative (and please don't cite the Castro or the hairs-styling industry: those are subcultures, not societies), then heterophobia might be an actual problem, but not in the U.S. of A. (And I might get trashed for this, but I'm going to say it: "reverse racism" is BS. White people dominate this country, they cannot be victims of racism. It's a flat-out logical impossibility, no matter what some whining, suing white failed law school applicant claims* ).



So, in summation: a straight person saying same-sex marriage is "a scary thought" is a bigot. An LGBT person saying same-sex marriage is "a scary thought" is presenting one valid point of view---which I disagree with (and an LGBT person saying straight marriage is "a scary thought" is being ironic. ) When there are not real inequalities of power, then "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander": not before.



GG Or in other words: Oppression = Prejudice + Power Out



[*NB: in terms of the Foreign Service Exam, this actually happened to me. My Spanish-surnamed bestfriend passed the first round, and I failed it, despite the fact that she had a lower score than me (for complicated reasons, my friend couldn't actually take advantage of her passing score). I didn't whine about it or sue: I understood it for what it was, and why it was . . . and simply resolved to do better on the exam the next time around.]



I realize this is getting kind of far afield from the movie: shutting up now.

[The Partisan]

This is getting rather off track, so I'll close off with this. I wasn't referring to "heterophobia", just intolerance. Nothing more, nothing less. Something anyone, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, politics, or hair colour can fall into at one time or another; and something, I think we should all strive to rise above.

[darkmagicwillow]

GG wrote:

---

White people dominate this country, they cannot be victims of racism. It's a flat-out logical impossibility, no matter what some whining, suing white failed law school applicant claims* ).

---

What's logically impossible is not that whites can't be victims of racism, but your argument. Among other flaws, it's completely dependent on your choice of scale, ignoring the fact that many other larger, smaller, and simply different scales exist in which whites do not dominate. Attending a high school as a lone white person when the staff and vast majority of the student body was black leaves you open to discrimination, as does living in a country like Japan where there are no native Caucasians. Just as the Jewish quotas were racism, so are the other measures you discuss in your post; it requires a degree of sophistry equal to the conservative's attempts to establish religion in America's schools to deny that the power of the US federal government is sufficient power to discriminate against a group of American citizens, no matter how numerous they are.



Sam wrote:

---

darkmagicwillow: I agree to disagree. Thanks for reading and commenting on my post.

---

I don't know if we disagree or not, because I can't tell if you understand my argument any more clearly than you did in your last post which completely misunderstood what I had said.



Lamashtu, thanks for the interesting posts on Aramaic.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 3/3/04 5:41 am

[Hemiola]

Hi lamashtu!



Regarding the differences/similarities between Hebrew and Aramaic, it is always important to keep in mind the differences between "classical" (=Monarchical, Pre-Exilic) Hebrew and modern Hebrew. The best commentary on this can actually be found in the text of the Hebrew Bible itself. In II Kings Chapter 18, Sennacherib, the king of Assyria (="Ashur" in Hebrew), who is really "jonesing" to conquer Judah after successfully conquering Israel, sends his minister Rab-shakeh to Jerusalem with a large army. Rab-shakeh comes before the walls of the city, with its terrified citizens lined up along the parapets of the walls waiting to see what will happen. Rab-shakeh calls for Hezekiah (the king of Judah) to come out to him. Hezekiah instead sends his minister, Eliakim, out to meet Rab-shakeh. Rab-shakeh then proceeds to proclaim in a loud voice in Hebrew (so that the people on the wall can hear him and understand him) that their situation is hopeless. In an attempt to minimize the terror-inducing impact of Rab-shakeh's words on the frightened Jerusalemites, Eliakim says to him (I'm using the King James Version):

"Then said Eliakim...unto Rab-shakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian (Hebrew "aramit"=Aramaic) language, for we understand it; and talk not with us in the Jews' language (=Hebrew) in the ears of the people that are on the wall."

In other words, Eliakim, as an "educated" person of that time, speaks and understands Aramaic, but the "common people" only understand Hebrew. Of course, in the post-Exilic period, this situation was exactly reversed . Thus, as a result of the Babylonian Captivity, a lot of Aramaic vocabulary and grammar found its way into Hebrew, and ultimately into the present-day version spoken in modern Israel.



"the Aramaic parts of the Old Testament"--I assume by this that you mean Chapters 2 through 7 of the book of Daniel which, as far as I know, are the only parts of the Hebrew Bible that are written in Aramaic .



"Anti-Semites"--Of course, all Semitic-speaking peoples are, strictly speaking, Semites. However, I am using the term as German Jew-haters of the 19th Century (who were the first to use this term) used it, meaning "Anti-Jew" or "Anti-Jewish". They fancied themselves to be very "learned", but, like most ignorant bigots, they were not. Most European- American scholars and historians have adopted this German usage when referring to anti-Jewish sentiments or persons who harbor such sentiments.

[Kieli]

I think this will be the last I say on this subject because, after seeing how myself and others that hold a dissenting opinion on this movie (read: we liked it and did not find it anti-Semitic), we're just not getting any sort of slack. I'm missing out on this "tolerance" that Garfield seems to think is abundant in this thread.

Quote:

---

Are you saying you are being treated with disrespect? Because if so, I honestly don´t see that. In your previous post you mention the word flaying. How can questioning your arguments mean people are dismissing your opinion or flaying you. I´ve reread the way you have questioned and replied to other people´s opinion in this thread and the manner in which you did so did not really strike me as friendly, you basically did seem to dismiss Hemiola´s statements as "academic" and Sam´s argument as incomplete.

---

I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I never once dismissed Hem's information, I merely asked for more resources so that I could investigate further and thus draw my own conclusions. If you think that's dismissal, then I just find that odd. Sam's argument was incomplete in that her statements were very vague and thus led to the apparent misunderstand that subsequently came about. After seeing other behaviour directed at those who do not agree that the film was anti-Semitic, I think my "flaying" comment is justified. It's ok that you disagree with me, just don't tell me that I have no idea what I'm saying if I don't see something that you apparently think is obvious. People all have various perspectives and each should be respected. I not once said that anyone was wrong about anti-Semitism in the film or that it was not there. I did, however, caution against rampant labeling because I personally believe that intent means a lot. You disagree and that's fine. I have repeatedly said to Hemiola that I am not disrespecting the data they've put forth. So how you got that I was dismissing Hem's information, I have no idea. I do not claim to speak for all atheists posting on this subject nor have I ever done so. I do, however, speak for one particular atheist and that is myself. Of course other atheists will have their varying levels of opinions and observations; that's a given even for the non-atheists. However, I was addressing my own observations as an atheists and not anyone elses. I wasn't dismissing any Christian or non-Christian claims and you'll not find that in my posts.

Quote:

---

You can see the divisions the film has caused on this board and in all the articles about the film.

---

Actually you can't blame the divisions going on at this Board on the film. The only people that can take responsibility for that is us and how supposedly tolerant we are of other people's opinions. I've not seem much evidence of it in this discussion thus far.

Quote:

---

These depictions were/are unquestionably Anti-Semitic.Any veneer of "historicity" that Mr. Gibson claims to add to the film by the use of ancient and/or dead languages does nothing to change this fact. One can only draw the obvious conclusion.

---

Is this observation based on fact, personal opinion or another definition of anti-semitism to which you are referring? I'm asking this as a genuine question and not as an attempt to ridicule you as many think that I have, or am, presently doing. I am merely curious as this conclusions is apparently not obvious to all and it's somewhat presumptutious. Basically, this statement would be true if everyone thought in the same manner or had the same observations as you which is not necessarily the case unless you are speaking to a very specific audience, that being one made of almost entirely of people who think the same way as you and view things the same way as you do.



Thank you Lamashtu for all of the links presented. I'm bookmarking them as we speak for a little more in-depth reading (and trying to sort through the phonetics! Ack!).

Quote:

---

I am merely stating that one person's perception does not fit all. This person may percieve the same scenes very differently and his/her opinion should respected.

---

I agree with this and do think that I've been saying that the whole time. I never once said that those who view the movie as anti-Semitic are incorrect nor have I said that their view is invalid. However, I did say that some of the methods used to make such a determination might be slightly flawed. I still believe this. And do note that I said some and not all. At all times, if we are to attempt to foster or maintain an atmosphere of tolerance, everyone's opinion should be respected. That is all that The Partisan, darkmagicwillow, myself and others are saying.



jsr: I think you missed the Partisan's point entirely. What he's saying as that we should not go down the road that we've accused our government of going down (and they have on so many levels). I totally disagree that reverse discrimination is not possible. I have personally seen it in action. But that is simply my own observation and my own opinion.

Quote:

---

It seems like you're suggesting that LGBTs can be guilty of "heterophobia" in the same way that straights are often guilty of homophobia.

---

Why not? Most phobias seem to have some basis in ignorance. IMHO "heterophobia" stems from an "us against them" mentality that I've seen cropping up lately in some gay communities. It's like they feel that all heterosexuals are necessarily against them or they start developing stereotypes of heterosexuals that may or may not have some basis in fact. Reverse discrimination is so very real. Just because one group dominates a country does not necessarily mean that another group cannot have a phobia about them for any number of reasons. Numbers and physical societal structures don't seem to accurately define or determine how these phobias get started. So dismissing "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination" out of turn may not necessarily be a good thing unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don't exist. I can look to my own family to know that exists in that particular unit. So why can it not subsist in society as a whole?



I agree with the Partisan. This discussion has gotten wildly off f track and it's less about the movie and more about personal politics and religion....something that might be better left in the three threads on religion over in the Kitten. I personally am done. The discussion has lost something for me. Thank you Hemiola, Lamashtu and DaddyKat for the aramaic info. I'm going to do a little studying on my own for some answers to questions that I have.



Kieli

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[jsr]

Quote:

---

One good thing came out of this movie at least. It made Jill delurk.

---

Oh Garfield, you warm my heart. I no longer have YM at work -- Sorry to have been absent for so long, forgive me? Miss and love you much!

Edited by: Warduke at: 3/3/04 1:42 pm

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

Furthermore, I'm slightly concerned at the one-sided tolerance being demonstrated. It seems that, whenever there's a question of bias with which we disagree, it's woeful to dismiss it out of hand, but how many of us, honestly, give a half-second's thought when charges of bias are levied against the films and ideas that we like? Or do we simply characterize the fears and concerns of what is right now a majority of Americans as "A scary thought"? How would you have felt if someone described the notion of actually granting gays the right to marry as "A scary thought"?

---

Well clearly a lot of people find the idea of gay people marrying a scary thought or they would not be opposed to it. I don´t care if they feel that way, I don´t care if they would hate me and condemn me to hell or whatever for being transgendered. See, I can "tolerate" their feelings and opinions quite well, but I find the idea that one group of people would actually deny another group of people equal rights scary. How intolerant fo me. I stand corrected.



But what if the majority of Americans still felt that black people should sit in the back of the bus and should not be allowed to marry white people. Is it ´tolerable´ because the majority feels that way or is it only wrong if a minority imposes their prejudices or whatever you want to call it on others, like it used to be in South Africa. People can be racists, homophobes, anti-semites, whatever, I have no desire to deny them their equal rights to anything, but I would draw the line at "tolerating" anyone for taking away mine.

Quote:

---

We constantly call for tolerance of the gay lifestyle...I think it's the least we can do to reciprocate. And as such, you disagree with me strongly, and ripped strip off of me for my beliefs, and I tolerate you for your opinion, even if you don't tolerate me for mine.

---

We who, I think people here have been calling for equal rights, just being tolerated does not mean anything if you still don´t have the same rights. I don´t care whether my next door neighbour tolerates me or not, as long as we have the same rights.

Jsr disagrees with you strongly and so do I, but how does that add up to us being intolerant of you or your ideas. Why is it that we are intolerant for disagreeing with you and you are not for disagreeing with us.



People are free to agree and disagree here as long as we stay within the guidelines for this forum. This thread has been quite educational in many ways and I do enjoy reading everyone´s posts, even the ones that disagree with me.

One good thing came out of this movie at least. It made Jill delurk.

[urnofosiris]

Check the html box dear. and yes I forgive thee. I´m just happy to see you are still lurking around. This weekend I am going to London, but I´ll give you a call next weekend ok?

Ok sorry folks, nothing to see, move along. I would have used IM if I could have.

Edited by: DrG at: 3/3/04 7:34 am

[xita]

I don't think anyone is intolerant of the "I love this movie, it's not anti-semitic" point of view. If by intolerant you mean, disagree with you, then I guess you're seeing intolerant. Let's face it, for obvious reasons this is a left-leaning board. For that very reason if you come with a point of view that is not shared by the majority, then you better be prepared for many people disagreeing with you. I can understand why it might seem like an attack but it is just disagreement. I've found the discussions very interesting to read, I only cringe when people take things personally. This is a discussion board and everyone is welcome to have an opinion, even if it isn't backed up by degrees or extensive proof. I can only hope people show restraint and reply in a polite, impersonal manner.



Now, on to the criticisms I've been reading here about the board's intolerance. There is "intolerance" of a bigot's point of view on this board. It is systematic, it's on purpose and it will continue. I've explained my point of view on this before and if you have a question about that or happened to miss it, email me. You will never see an "I don't like homosexuals" thread on the board. So we can go ahead and drop that discussion about the board because it's not changing. It's important to note that this is not the real world, it's a willow/tara board and as such it has certain priorities.



And I must agree with what some of you have said. I don't think anyone would suggest that homesexuals or minorities in this country cannot be full of prejudice, that's not even in question. The question of racism, sexism, homophobia is one of power. Homosexuals can be as prejudiced as heterosexuals but until we have control of the senate, the presidency etc., we cannot exercise that prejudice in a way that would infringe on heterosexual rights.



Now back to the movie. I am never going to see this movie because I really don't care about religion and I don't like the topic enough to tolerate the violence. If Roger Ebert says it's the most violent movie he has ever seen, I believe him. However, if the jewish community feels that there is an anti-jewish vibe, I am going to do my best to understand why. They are after all the people who would be affected by it.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[urnofosiris]

I would never say that I can´t be prejudiced or gay people can´t be. Jews can be homophobes and gays can be anti- semites etc. As long as people have equal rights and are not beaten up or killed over who they are, we can all live our lives in relative peace and believe what we will and disagree about everything else.



I am going to try and download this somewhere so I can see it for myself, like Jsr I rather not add my money to Mr.Gibson´s total, not saying other people should not either. Besides, this way I can fast forward through the bloody bits.

[dekalog]

"Besides, this way I can fast forward through the bloody bits".



From what I have heard you will only have to sit through a 15 minute short then.

[Hemiola]

Kieli, you don't have to worry about me--I have never felt that you were disrespecting me . I have always considered you to be one of the most intelligent and thoughtful persons on this board, and I always assumed that your questions were sincere inquiries .



Regarding your question about whether or not my observations of anti-semitism in the film are "fact or personal opinion"--well, the best I can say is that they are both. The definition I am using is the one I stipulated in my post to lamashtu above. According to that definition, the film does indeed contain images and implications that can only be thought of as anti-semitic. You know the old saying: "if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, and if it swims like a duck, there's a pretty good chance that it's a duck." Now as far as these observations being "personal opinions"--well--any observation by a single individual will be, of necessity, subjective. In that sense, all of my observations are personal opinions .



Since I see by your posts that you like to research and follow-up on things, please accept my recommendation to read what is probably one of the very best books on this subject:



"Constantine's Sword": The Church and the Jews

by James Carroll



Although aimed mainly at Catholics, it is readable and informative to anyone. It is easily available from Amazon, and is very likely to be at your local library .

[Lamashtu]

Hemiola, I distinctly remember reading about that incident in Jerusalem, and I remember Eliakim pleading for the Assyrians (Ashurai) to refrain from speaking Hebrew so as not to terrify the Jews. You are right about that, and I'm sure you know more about Hebrew than I do. You're also probably correct in saying that I've only been exposed to modern Hebrew. I first posted to explain the origin of Aramaic as a language, and that's how I'll leave it. I do think, however, that the languages and cultures in the Middle East are all related in some way. It's only natural that cultures near eachother borrow from one another. Sumerians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Jews and other peoples all contributed to the rich culture of Mesopotamia.



Arbitrarily, on the issue of language in the Middle East, I can only understand the very little Farsi that I do because I speak French. My knowledge of Aramaic leaves me fairly clueless when surrounded by Persians because Farsi is actually Indo-European. Linguistics is fascinating, but I can only really handle one language at a time, and right now I'm attempting Spanish.



On the subject of anti-Semitism, I realize that the term is now meant specifically to mean the hatred of the Jewish people. It's just that as a Semitic person who is not Jewish, I can't help but think that it is interesting how the meaning of the word has been twisted.



Anyway, I'm going to see The Passion of Christ this week, and I really hope I won't be appalled by the violence and historical inaccuracies like I suspect I might be. Then I'll actually be able to comment on the movie like I should have all along. I apologize for going so far off the topic of this thread.

[Kieli]

Hemiola:Thanks very much for more reading material (and for the compliment...totally blushing here ). I am truly a history book phreak so it would be very cool to add this to my outrageously growing collection. Would you be so kind as to drop me a line? kieli at taoist-life.net



Lamashtu: Your insight (as well as Hem's) into the language has been very helpful and, I strongly believe, very germane to the discussion of the movie. Many thanks too, for the educational materials you've provided. They've been bookmarked and I hope to delve into the sites when I can get people to stop bloody calling me (reading the Kitten at work is never helpful in actually wanting to do said work ). Thanks again!

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[AmbersSecretAdmirer]

I myself will not be going to see this film for two main reasons:



1) It is based on the Bible and therefore has no interest to me. My own beliefs regarding the Bible and religon in general is not for this board but suffice as to say, I don't believe a lot of it.



2) After the sham that was "Braveheart" (watchable as a film but full of historical inaccuracies) and "The Patriot" (again painting things as far too black and white) I do not consider Mel to be a strong enough film maker to handle historical (or mythical in this case) stories without straying from the facts.



For those reasons, I will not attend this film and Mel should be warned in advance, the UK has a real hatred for biblical films (they don't do well here at all) and he may see a sharp downturn in his profits here in the UK.

TARA AND WILLOW 2GETHER 4EVER!!! BLESSED BE ETERNALLY!!!

[Hemiola]

I absolutely agree with you, ASA, about Mr. Gibson's total lack of regard for history in his films.



For cryin' out loud, in "Braveheart", he staged the famous battle of Stirling Bridge, without the bridge!!!!!!

[Jennpurr]

Well, as the title says, I finally saw this today. My head and heart are full of emotions right now, so be warned if you actually do read this.



First of all, I'm glad I didn't go by myself. I had two friends from work who went with me and I needed their support after this was over. We sat there, quiet and unmoving for about 5 minutes once the credits started rolling. All of us had to soak up everything and try to go back to the real world.



I AM glad that I saw this, but I don't know if I could see it again, anytime soon. I will buy the DVD when it comes out, but until then, I will wait to watch it again.



My friend Tammy and I, left the theater pissed off. Just knowing that this actually happened to Jesus, our savior, is devastating. Just knowing that people can be that cruel and what we as human beings are capable of is heartbreaking. I didn't cry. The movie has impacted me in a way that no other film ever has and left my heart feeling raw, but I didn't cry. Since I've gotten home however, my eyes have tried to let the tears come, but so far they haven't. That's not to say that they won't, but something is holding them back.



I'd say that Mel spared us a little bit. There certainly could have been more blood and violence, but the amount we DID get, if you took it out of the film, the impact would be less. He wanted us to feel Jesus's suffering and I know for me, I felt every strike... I felt every pound of that hammer, every fall, every betrayal as if they were happening to me. Jesus's face was said to be unrecognizable after all that was done to him. I can't imagine seeing that.



When I came home, I called my old boss who is a Pastor. It's been 7 months since I've been to his church or have even spoken to him, to be perfectly honest, but I called him up and asked him if he would baptize me. I know I am saved. I've accepted Jesus into my life, but I feel I need this last step.



I... I feel... heartbroken. Seeing this film, knowing it happened and why it happened, knowing that Jesus asked God to forgive them even after everything that they did to him... it's real. This experience makes me want to be a better Christian. It makes my trip home, whenever that may be, all the more urgent to me. I know that I'm tired of living in this world, with so much violence and hurt all around. Knowing that people do it for the fun of it... it's sickening to think about. I'm ready for Jesus to come back for us.



The woman who was playing Satan, freaked me out. She was very good in that role, but... She scared me.



The actress playing Mary was... phenomenal, I think. She played that role very well and her face is so expressive that it was easy for me to feel Mary's pain. Mel did well with casting her.



It's hard to believe that the actor playing Jesus, is the same actor who co-starred in, "Angel Eyes," with Jennifer Lopez. If I didn't already know that, I never would have recognized him. WOW... did he ever go through alot with this experience. He sprung his ankle or something like that. He was accidentally struck when they were flogging Jesus in the movie. He was accidentally left hanging on the cross when everyone broke for lunch. Poor guy. I think he was being tested though. God was testing him to see how far he would go... to see if he would finish and praise him, he did. He went all the way.



Am I glad I saw this? Yes. Has my life been forever changed? Yes. Do I feel worthy of God's love? No, I don't, but I know that God gives it freely to me and I don't question his judgment.



I feel like there is so much more I could say and want to say, but the words won't come right now. Maybe after my emotions have had time to calm down a little, I can say more.



I might be the only one around here who will say this, but I thank Mel Gibson for making this film and for having the guts and heart to complete it. He paid for every cent of it and I support him for that, that's why I'm going to buy it when it's available.



Thanks for listening.



Jen



P.S. If I upset any of you, I apologize. These are just my thoughts and as I said, my emotions are everywhere right now.



ETA:



I forgot to say that, what pains me the most is knowing that the last 12 hours of Jesus's life was spent, suffering. He didn't have to suffer, but he chose to. I love this man more than my life and I can't wait for the day when I can say to him, "Thank you."

---

||My Fan Fiction and More!|| ||My Yahoo Group||
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"I could never hide this little light of mine, If God made a mistake then I should die before I wake, Maybe it's my fate to swim against this tide, Swallowing my pride." - Melissa Etheridge, "Meet Me In The Dark."

Edited by: Jennpurr at: 3/6/04 6:43 pm

[Kieli]

Well said, Jen. If I weren't already a heathen, I'd have been thinking the same thing. Just seeing this movie and seeing Jesus suffer as a person was enough for me. I was sickened by the cruelty but it's no different than the cruelty we see in this day and age. Our society as a whole hasn't learned a damn thing from this man's sacrifice...*shakes her head sadly* If it did, I doubt the cruel dictators, the endless torture of political dissidents and just the inhumane treatment of people in general wouldn't be around today. Who knows? Maybe enough people will get out of this movie the things you did and things may very well change. We can only hope.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Jennpurr]

Kieli,



Thank you, sweetie.



The cruelty that was bestowed upon him is uncomprehensible to me. I can't imagine ever having to suffer through that. I know why he allowed himself to suffer, but it's not fair that he had to endure it.



And you're right... our society, for the most part, hasn't learned anything from Jesus and his death. If more people would take to heart, his sacrifice and what Jesus stands for, this world would be a better place.



Again, that's just my opinion though. Christ is the biggest part of my life and I don't hide it, but I don't want to offend anyone here with that knowledge.



Jen

---

||My Fan Fiction and More!|| ||My Yahoo Group||
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"I could never hide this little light of mine, If God made a mistake then I should die before I wake, Maybe it's my fate to swim against this tide, Swallowing my pride." - Melissa Etheridge, "Meet Me In The Dark."

[Lamashtu]

Alright, well I've finally seen the movie everyone's been talking about.



The violence was very hard to stomach. I agree with everyone else who said it should have been rated NC-17. There's no way I'm letting my little sister see that.



It was very weird hearing the Aramaic in the movie, but I got a real kick out of Jesus calling Peter "rock." I thought that was great, however, the accenting and the pronunciation of the words were horrible. Of course, I understand that people who are not native speakers of any language will undoubtedly have a difficult time pronouncing the words of that language, but it seems as if the actors were taught to speak an Arabicized version of Aramaic. They sounded like they were being taught to speak Aramaic with an Arabic accent. It was interesting, and compounded with the actors original American, Italian, .etc accents, it was also difficult to understand. Some of the subtitles were a little off, but that's to be expected with subtitled movies. It's funny that I've heard more accurate Aramaic in a Cheech and Chong movie.



The other historical inaccuracies are not even worth commenting on. Gibson claims he portrayed the Jews as they are portrayed in the scriptures, but it's obvious he decided to change history wherever else he saw fit. I don't understand that. Hiding behind historical accuracy one second, artistic license another.



I do have to agree with Jen about Rosalinda Celentano (Satan) and Maia Morgenstern (Mary). They were very good, Rosalinda in particular; she nailed that role.



Overall though, had it not been for my need to hear the Aramaic in the film I doubt I would have gone. Even now, I'm not sure if I'm glad I saw it at all. I might have nightmares.