Hesitantly...The Passion of the Christ

[Gatito Grande]

The Chaldean Christians of Iraq (and in their diaspora) also claim Aramaic (but probably more as a liturgical language---ala Jews and Hebrew, Gibsonesque Catholics and Latin---than a daily-use one).



GG Good point about the "audience assumption/exclusion" factor: Gibson's on fairly safe ground w/ American audiences (w/ its Christianized civic culture), but very inappropriate in much of the world. "The Passion of the What?" Out

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

As far as I know (perhaps you can inform me otherwise), the only current native speakers of Aramaic live in a few villages in Southern Syria.

---

According to the article I attached to my post, apparently there are quite a few current speakers of Aramaic in this country. I wasn't addressing the subject of speakers of Aramaic in their entirety, just the ones who happen to view the movie. It would be interesting to note whether or not this film gets shown in Syria. I'd be interested to know their reactions far more than a group of academics.

Quote:

---

The modern spoken language certainly resembles Hebrew (although it has been heavily "infected" by arabic).

---

I can agree with that as I think most languages that have evolved have had some other external influences over time. From what I understood from the article, however, this group of Aramaic-speaking people has tried to keep the ancient language intact. That may or may not be true, but that was simply my observation from the article.

Quote:

---

There can be no question about the Italianate Latin ("faciam" should, for example, be "fak-iam", not "fatch-iam" ) or the lack of any Greek at all!

---

The problem with some of these examples is that one is speaking to an audience with little or no knowledge of ancient languages (my Latin in my Catholic school days was pitiful at best) so we're basically assuming that people who say these things know what they're talking about. I personally would love to look into some of the details myself. Know of any good weblinks I could go to for a little light reading? Thank you for your response, Hem. It was enlightening.

Quote:

---

Mel Gibson himself has said that PhD's do not know more than he does about his faith and that's certainly true. However, he does not know more than them about the history and issues of the 1st century. You can't ignore decades of research and then call you film historical IMHO. Scholarly works are vetted by their peers and religious works are debated among representatives of the different faiths and biases are thus revealed.

---

That is true to a point. I'm sure there are many inaccuracies that are being pointed out in scholarly works that were accepted at the time of publication and have subsequently either been disproved or had additional information included. The issues and history of ANY century is always debatable. We're still learning, there's lots more that we don't know. But you have to realize, there are many "historical" films that Hollywood has touted. Should we really be all that surprised? I doubt it. The realism of the violence per se is what I found very interesting. It's easier to ignore that aspect of Christ's suffering might very well be true than to see it in front of you. It's unsettling to be sure but I think it gets the point across. As much as one thinks they know how Christ suffered, they have to agree he suffered far more than he should have. That pushes people outside of their comfort zone and I find that rather interesting. Am I surprised at the reaction to this film? Nope. I expected much worse actually.

Quote:

---

On the issue of anti-semitism, whether you see it or not seems heavily skewed by your religion.

---

I have no religion and I didn't see any anti-Semitism, so I think that part of your arguement doesn't hold up.

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.

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

I have no religion and I didn't see any anti-Semitism, so I think that part of your arguement doesn't hold up.

---

But why not? You´re not Jewish right, I think Sam´s point was whether you see the anti-semitism or not might (partly) depend on your point of view, and that point of view is also influenced by whether you´re a Christian, an atheist, a Jew, a Jewish atheist etc. etc. It seems logical that Jews would look at that particular aspect of this movie with a very critical eye when non Jews would not. I think it can be compared to straight people (not all of course) not seeing lesbian cliches when they are very clear to the people here. So if Jews see anti-semitism in it, maybe it is there and maybe it is good to listen to their arguments closely.



As for the language, I´m totally clueless when it comes to Aramaic, but I´ll take Hemiola´s word for it, I´ve no reason to doubt her and at least someone else agrees with her about the use of Latin in this movie:

Quote:

---

www.nytimes.com/2004/02/2...r=USERLAND



(Mr. Gibson's use of Latin, by the way, is deemed a blunder by experts. He'd have done better with Greek, which was widely spoken in Jesus' day. "No one in the Mideast spoke Latin," Rabbi Geller said. In other words, don't expect every scholar to walk away from "Passion" saying, "Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere" - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." )

---

It seems like he used two ancient languages to add an air of historical realism to the movie. In itself a good idea, I rather dislike WW II movies where the Germans are recongnizable by their fake German accent but otherwise flawless English, but if they had tried to seem genuine by having them speak Dutch that would have even been worse. If you do it, do it right. I´ve had to sit through 4 years of Latin and I have tried and succeeded to forget most of it, but my scruffy dusty teacher did manage to drill the fact that a C is pronounced as a K into me quite well.

Edited by: DrG at: 3/1/04 3:31 pm

[jsr]

Delurking after months to say...



I have not seen this movie yet, nor will I until I can find a means to do so that does not put money in Mel Gibson's overflowing pockets. Hence I cannot comment on the movie itself, despite my desire to do so based on the countless reviews I have read.

Quote:

---

I have no religion and I didn't see any anti-Semitism, so I think that part of your arguement doesn't hold up.

---

Despite not seeing the movie, I vehemently disagree with this response to Sam's observation. A non-Jewish person will not be NEARLY as sensitive to stereotypical Jewish references (i.e. offensive) in any type of artistic medium as would a Jewish person. The character of Shylock in Shakespeare's the Merchant of Venice was an unflattering stereotype (little hairy man, miserly, greedy, vengeful) and in many ways anti-semitic. Majority claims that Shylock was just "one Jewish character in one play who was not meant to represent all Jewish people" does not nullify the heavy-handed, sensationalistic characterization. Especially since Jews were completely underepresented in artistic works at that time.



As a Jewish person I have been exposed in countless ways to Christianity -- Christianity is simply the dominant religious paradigm and there are references to it scattered throughout every day life. I have even attended many Catholic masses with my EX (who comes from a very strong Catholic backgroung) as well as other Christian-denominational services with other friends. Conversely, I believe there are many Christian people in this world who are not only clueless as to Jewish life and history, but have never even met a Jewish person in their lifetimes. Even in NY, which is one of the most multi-cultural areas of the world, I was shocked to learn how little my ex was taught of the Holocaust in her Catholic education. She got a crash education when we attended the Holocaust Museum in DC. She kept saying, "I never knew any of this. We were never taught any of this."



As we witnessed from Tara's death in Buffy, an artistic representation doesn't have to be overtly hateful to have negative implications. Images carry meaning. Messages can be subversive. And one who has not been oppressed by such stereotypes is often not in the best position to call them out (or say they don't exist).

Edited by: Warduke at: 3/1/04 8:21 pm

[sam7777]

Quote:

---

The issues and history of ANY century is always debatable.

---

True which is why we are debating it. Scholarship is not the absolute truth but neither is Mr Gibson's movie. However, scholars have spent more time studying and examining the issues than Mr Gibson who returned to his faith in the 1980's. Consequently, I'm willing to put more weight to what they say. Other's mileage may vary. In any case, hisotircal accuracy is a factor worth considering when this film is discussed as is the anti-semitism issue. Some people see it and some people don't but I do see it heavily skewed by your religion (or lack there of). It's possible that Christians and non-Jews can be less sensitive to anti-semitic images such as straight people can be less sensitive to homophobic images. My statments are qualified on purpose to show that it is possible rather than absolute fact. I wish that the movie "The Passion of Christ" had been more qualified in it's statements. Passion represents Mr Gibson's view of the gospels. His view is shared by many but not everyone to include the Catholic Church (since Vatican 2), theologians and many non-Christians.



ETA: Thanks DrG and jsr! You both put it better than I could. Religion (lack of religion is also a religious choice btw) does play a role in perception of any film or media having to do with religion.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 3/1/04 4:03 pm

[sam7777]

Violence sells in American culture and lots of violence sells really well.



There was another movie about Christ called The Gospel of John that has received little attention. Of course, it did not have the marketting power of Icon Porductions behind it. Microsoft doesn't have the best software only the best marketted software. I'm not certain Gibson has the best passion movie but certainly he has the best marketted and most violent one. I wonder how a non violent one would have done. "The Gospel of John" has had a more modest box office: (from imdb)



Opening Weekend

$98,363 (USA) (28 September 2003) (14 Screens)

Gross

$3,717,324 (USA) (16 February 2004)



I guess peace and love really doesn't sell so we should just forget about it (btw being ironic here). Too bad.



Not Peace, but a Sword (requires registration)

Quote:

---

By WILLIAM SAFIRE



SHINGTON — The word "passion" is rooted in the Latin for "suffer." Mel Gibson's movie about the torture and agony of the final hours of Jesus is the bloodiest, most brutal example of sustained sadism ever presented on the screen.



Because the director's wallowing in gore finds an excuse in a religious purpose — to show how horribly Jesus suffered for humanity's sins — the bar against film violence has been radically lowered. Movie mayhem, long resisted by parents, has found its loophole; others in Hollywood will now find ways to top Gibson's blockbuster, to cater to voyeurs of violence and thereby to make bloodshed banal.



What are the dramatic purposes of this depiction of cruelty and pain? First, shock; the audience I sat in gasped at the first tearing of flesh. Next, pity at the sight of prolonged suffering. And finally, outrage: who was responsible for this cruel humiliation? What villain deserves to be punished?



Not Pontius Pilate, the Roman in charge; he and his kindly wife are sympathetic characters. Nor is King Herod shown to be at fault.



The villains at whom the audience's outrage is directed are the actors playing bloodthirsty rabbis and their rabid Jewish followers. This is the essence of the medieval "passion play," preserved in pre-Hitler Germany at Oberammergau, a source of the hatred of all Jews as "Christ killers."



Much of the hatred is based on a line in the Gospel of St. Matthew, after the Roman governor washes his hands of responsibility for ordering the death of Jesus, when the crowd cries, "His blood be on us, and on our children."



Though unreported in the Gospels of Mark, Luke or John, that line in Matthew — embraced with furious glee by anti-Semites through the ages — is right there in the New Testament. Gibson and his screenwriter didn't make it up, nor did they misrepresent the apostle's account of the Roman governor's queasiness at the injustice.



But biblical times are not these times. This inflammatory line in Matthew — and the millenniums of persecution, scapegoating and ultimately mass murder that flowed partly from its malign repetition — was finally addressed by the Catholic Church in the decades after the defeat of Naziism.



In 1965's historic Second Vatican Council, during the papacy of Paul VI, the church decided that while some Jewish leaders and their followers had pressed for the death of Jesus, "still, what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."



That was a sea change in the doctrinal interpretation of the Gospels, and the beginning of major interfaith progress.



However, a group of Catholics rejects that and other holdings of Vatican II. Mr. Gibson is reportedly aligned with that reactionary clique. (So is his father, an outspoken Holocaust-denier, but the son warns interviewers not to go there. I agree; the latest generation should not be held responsible for the sins of the fathers.)



In the skillful publicity run-up to the release of the movie, Gibson's agents said he agreed to remove that ancient self-curse from the screenplay. It's not in the subtitles I saw the other night, though it may still be in the Aramaic audio, in which case it will surely be translated in the versions overseas.



And there's the rub. At a moment when a wave of anti-Semitic violence is sweeping Europe and the Middle East, is religion well served by updating the Jew-baiting passion plays of Oberammergau on DVD? Is art served by presenting the ancient divisiveness in blood-streaming media to the widest audiences in the history of drama?



Matthew in 10:34 quotes Jesus uncharacteristically telling his apostles: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." You don't see that on Christmas cards and it's not in this film, but those words can be reinterpreted — read today to mean that inner peace comes only after moral struggle.



The richness of Scripture is in its openness to interpretation answering humanity's current spiritual needs. That's where Gibson's medieval version of the suffering of Jesus, reveling in savagery to provoke outrage and cast blame, fails Christian and Jew today.

---

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 3/1/04 4:43 pm

[sam7777]

Jen: It's a good one. The makers of this film did talk to interfaith counsels to avoid controversy. They may not be raking in the bucks but they have more of my respect for what it's worth.



The village Voice has a prescient piece on the marketing of the film. Richard Goldstein predicted the over $100 million box office on the Feb 25th release date: (posted by GG in the scary religion thread)



The Backlash Passion

Quote:

---

By Richard Goldstein



Blood, guts, and a happy ending. No wonder The Passion of the Christ is a showbiz sensation.



Mel Gibson's messianic meller, which opens today after more free media than Janet Jackson got, and a marketing campaign that could make Harvey Weinstein weep, may rake in $100 million—not to mention the skim from souvenir mugs, coffee-table books, prayer-reminder cards, and pewter spike pendants. How did a film described as an "anti-date movie" generate such buzz? The answer has everything to do with Gibson's canny use of Hollywood hype techniques.



First, stir the shit. Gibson did this by fanning the fires kindled by Jews (whose fears were well founded, judging from leaked copies of the script). He made outrageous comments on the order of, "Secular Judaism wants to blame the Holocaust on the Catholic Church." He allowed that he'd cut a scene in which the head Jewish priest cries, "His blood be on us and on our children," because, "Man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house, they'd come kill me." Guess who they are?



Next, build a base. This Gibson did by flogging the film to a network of fundamentalist churches. Gibson's company, Icon, worked this sale like the pros they are, sending their man out on the road, facilitating block purchases of tickets, and soliciting testimonials from A-list televangelists, even as they kept the film from the eyes of potential critics. But the mass media were wary until The Passion's distributor got involved. In Bob Berney, president of Newmarket, Gibson had chosen a partner with a track record in pitching edgy films about subjects like pedophilia (Happiness) and lesbian serial killers (Monster).



For this project, Newmarket tapped into the current passion for backstory revelations. Soon we were hearing about the miracle (involving a lightning strike) that had occurred on the set. It was taken as an auspicious sign that the actor playing Jesus, Jim Caviezel, had the same initials as the Savior. These tantalizing tidbits were gravied up with a human-interest angle that centered on Gibson's struggle against the classic demons of drink and drugs. By the time he appeared on Primetime last week, the narrative of the sinner redeemed was at the heart of Gibson's conversation with Diane Sawyer. Her questions were as soft and fleecy as the Lamb of God.



Is Gibson an anti-Semite, she asked. "It's a sin," he replied. "There's encyclicals on it." Never mind that Gibson's breakaway Catholic sect rejects the most recent of these pronouncements, along with every other Vatican declaration since the 1960s. Never mind that Gibson's father thinks the Holocaust is mostly fiction and that the millions of Jews who lived in Poland before Hitler's rise merely migrated to places like Brooklyn. Under Sawyer's sympathetic gaze, Mel presented himself as a loving son who wouldn't allow his enemies to "drive a wedge" between his dad and himself. Karl Rove couldn't have programmed him better.





What accounts for Sawyer's gentle touch? The gut says: positioning. A network that appeals to the demographic taking shape around The Passion can make quite a killing, and to that end ABC will soon broadcast a film about Judas. Ads for this event appeared during the Gibson interview, which was watched by 17 million people, a larger share than even Michael Jackson's sit-down on 60 Minutes. Soon nearly every network was running a low-budget version of the Gospel, all golden light and cathedral chords. Here's a prophecy: You'll see all sorts of faith-based pageants as the media compete for this audience and shrink from its wrath. Their eye is on the sparrow of the bottom line.



The real story here is the rise of a newly mobilized market and the crossing over of its values. In that respect, Gibson has done what Pat Robertson could only dream about, by enlisting the very techniques his co-religionists object to in Hollywood films. Among these aesthetic values, none is more commercial—and less faithful to the Gospel—than ultra-violence. You won't find epistles dwelling on the finer points of human brutality in the New Testament, but you will find such lessons in the cinema of Brian De Palma. When you see Jesus soaked in gore, think of the blood-bucket scene in Carrie.



Never mind those Caravaggio paintings that inspired Gibson. The real model for this film is Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs, with its relentless depiction of torture, along with every slasher movie that cloaks its intentions in a higher message. Violence has become the measure of verisimilitude. If it's bloody, it looks real. This illusion allows us to enjoy what violence does provide: pleasure. If it weren't so exhilarating, it wouldn't be so popular.



Many people who would never attend a Bible movie will flock to this one because they get to see a man tormented by men as others look lustfully on. The faithful will sublimate this sadomasochistic sensation into religious ecstasy and find it profoundly moving. Either way, Gibson wins. He's made a spectacle of joy in pain—the essence of boffo.



Every generation gets the Passion it deserves. Back in the '50s, anyone could take comfort in Gospel spectacles, with their Roman finery and celestial finales. It didn't matter whether you referred to Jesus as he or He. These old films enrage Gibson ostensibly because they were bland but actually because they crudely reflect the ethic of Christian humanism, tempered by firsthand knowledge of the Holocaust. That was then and this is now. Gibson lives in a world, and works in an industry, where Jews are not afraid to be powerful and profane. It is hard for him not to see these Jews as the linchpin of a culture that tempts him, rewards him, and alienates him from his father's convictions. So it has been for millions of Christians in the centuries since the rise of secular society—and millions of Jews have died as a result.



No wonder Gibson rails against scholars who try to place the Gospel in a historical context. That's the sort of thing his father would call a plot by Freemasons and Jews. When you do embed the New Testament in its time, you discover that the earliest books, composed about a generation after the Crucifixion, portray Jesus as beloved by the Jewish masses but reviled by their priests. It's only in the later Gospels, written by men who knew what the Romans had done to the Second Temple, and could do to them, that Pilate takes on an almost benign air and the Jews are affiliated with Satan. These late books are the primary source of Gibson's rendition, which reflects the traditional—and now repudiated—teaching of the Catholic Church.

---

Check the link for the rest of it. I want his crystal ball tuned into lottery numbers.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 3/1/04 6:56 pm

[Jennpurr]

WOW... Passion grossed over $120,000,000 just this weekend alone, here where I live.



Jen

---

||My Fan Fiction and More!|| ||My Yahoo Group||
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Got to sing. Got to dance. Got to suck face with Alyson Hannigan." - Amber Benson (Toronto Trek)


Dory: Look, here's something! *points to a door that has the word, 'escape,' on it* Es-cop-ay! I wonder what that means... it's funny. It's spelled just like the word escape. ~ "Finding Nemo"

[Jennpurr]

I bought the Gospel of John for my mom for Christmas, but I have yet to have watched it. I plan to soon though.



Jen

---

||My Fan Fiction and More!|| ||My Yahoo Group||
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Got to sing. Got to dance. Got to suck face with Alyson Hannigan." - Amber Benson (Toronto Trek)


Dory: Look, here's something! *points to a door that has the word, 'escape,' on it* Es-cop-ay! I wonder what that means... it's funny. It's spelled just like the word escape. ~ "Finding Nemo"

[sam7777]

Jenn: Absoluteey. Most people are not going to the movie for the violence I'm sure but if you cannot see Gibson's version of faith, the violence may be all you can see. Alot of Christians and even atheists have been strongly affected by the film and it has served to strengthen their faith. On the other hand alot of Jewish people and non-Jewish people like me have been very unsettled by the violence and what can be seen as anti-semitic imagery and fear what it will do for interfaith relations. Both view points are valid but also diametrically opposed. There isn't really a middle ground to this film.



There are two sides two "The Passion of Christ". From articles and what I've read, the two things about this movie that all can agree on are that it is extremely violent and divisive. This is not a movie that will unite people in their love of Christ since it scares away many with their depiction of the Jews and the extreme violence. Not everyone will "get" this film and come away with it's message of redemption. In fact, many have not. OTOH most people can agree that movies like "Quo Vadis", "Ben Hur", "The greatest Story Ever Told" and "King if Kings" are inspiring even if they are not Christians or even religious. Those movies do not push people away with extreme violence and take the time to explain who and what Jesus was (in the first 2 by his impact off screen to the folks on screen) and why he was important. This sort of context helps people to understand why the crucifiction of such man was a tragedy. As Leonard Pitt's said in the Miami Herald:

Quote:

---

I will say only that within its narrow confines, The Passion is a work of shattering immediacy and devastating power.

---

Whether its a power for good or ill is what is being debated and it's an argument worth having IMHO. Time will tell what the impact of this film is. I hope it will be for good but fear that it may only make things worse.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 3/1/04 6:18 pm

[sam7777]

Gatito Grande: Whoops sorry. I knew I had seen that article somewhere. I've creditted you in the post.



I'm prolly evil but I can't help but see some calculation in the publicity campaign for the film. I remember how both Dreamworks and Andrew LLoyd Weber bent over backwards to deal with interfaith committees to avoid controversy in their religous works: "Prince of Egypt" and "Jesus Christ Superstar". The result IMHO were two artistic works about religion that inspired rather than divided and that everyone could enjoy no matter their religion or lack there of. I found Gibson's unwillingness to work with interfaith committees to be as disturbing as any other aspect of the film. Mr Gibson said his goal was to inspire not offend. He has done both.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 3/1/04 7:57 pm

[Gatito Grande]

Glad you liked the Goldstein review too, sam.



Not that I'm a lottery-player, but I too was thoroughly unsurprised by the (box-office) success of this film. Look at the $$$$ made by Left Behind book series: this movie has the same audience, plus lots of Catholics who wouldn't read Left Behind, plus Gibson cinephiles (of which there are apparently quite a few), plus the "just curious." Wrap it all up for Americans on Ash Wednesday, and bingo!



GG I'll be curious to see how it plays in Western Europe: lacking the first group of viewers in any serious numbers (conservative Evangelical Protestants), I suspect not nearly as well. Out



I love NPR critic David Edelstein's nickname for the movie: The "Jesus Chainsaw Massacre"!

[Jennpurr]

Quote:

---

OTOH most people can agree that movies like "Quo Vadis", "Ben Hur", "The greatest Story Ever Told" and "King of Kings" are inspiring even if they are not Christians or religious.

---

The only movie out of that list, sadly, that I have seen is King of Kings. That movie in itself is very inspiring and moving to me. It was handled with grace and by far one of the best portrayals of Jesus that I have seen.



Another was the 1997 version of Jesus, starring Jeremy Sisto. Although there are flaws in the movie, it was very moving/emotional for me. I applauded the writers/directors for the way they handled that movie as well.





I have a question for someone who has seen this: Can you tell me where in the movie the most violence/uneasiness is, so I'm prepared?



Thanks in advance,



Jen

---

||My Fan Fiction and More!|| ||My Yahoo Group||
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Got to sing. Got to dance. Got to suck face with Alyson Hannigan." - Amber Benson (Toronto Trek)


Dory: Look, here's something! *points to a door that has the word, 'escape,' on it* Es-cop-ay! I wonder what that means... it's funny. It's spelled just like the word escape. ~ "Finding Nemo"

[Jennpurr]

willowrulz4ever,



WOW... that's the only word I have. Thank you for saying what many can not.



Um, can I use this quote from you? :

Quote:

---

How can you love God who you cannot see when you hate your brother who you do see.

---

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."

Edited by: Jennpurr at: 3/1/04 7:47 pm

[willowrulz4ever]

as a devote Christian debating whether or not to leave the fundamentalist movement i tried to view this film with an open mind.



The violence was brutal,to me it was horrifying,to see my savior beaten like that.I wept.It also made me love him more.That he went through that for a nasty,rotten sinner like me.That he who knew not sin shed his blood to purchase redemption for someone as unworthy as me.It made appreciate his love fr me all the more.



should it have gotten an NC-17.Yes.I do not find the violence obscene but those under 17 probably would be better off not seeing it.



My problem with the MPAA is full frontal male nudity gets a NC-17 but female full frontal nudity does not.I don't mind them giving a NC-17 to full frontal nudity as long as they are even handed about it.



In Gods and Monsters they obscured the young men at James Whales pool parties penises to get an R but in Bachelor party they showed Tom Hank's character's ex fully nude and it got an R.



Is there some Homophobia going on here.Full female frontal nudity is titilating to Joe average male movie goer but I know a lot of guys who are uncomfortable seeing other guys penises cause they think if it doesn't bother them they might be gay.



As far as the anti semitics the gospels are clear that it was the religious rulers who hated Christ.He said they had empty religion and had no idea whatsoever who God was and that they used God's word in self serving ways.



Some Jews rejoiced at Christ's death.Some wept.



I do not see this movie as antisemitic,however it can be used by antisemites.They already twisted the Scriptures,they will probably twist this.My Jewish friend Laura said she did not see it as antisemitic and it helped her understand the love Christans had for Christ; but it was obvious the bigots could readily use it in to advance their case.



The worries about antisemitism are not unfounded



I say this.How can you be a servant of the Christ and hate Jews.The Christ was a Jew.He died for the Jews.Not just those who wept at his death but those who yelled Crucify him.



How can you love God who you cannot see when you hate your brother who you do see.



After i saw this movie i prayed that God forgives Osama Bin Laden and Saddam."i said Father I plea what your Son did.Forgive them,they know not what they do.



I prayed he forgive those are perverting his message to preach hate.



That is my 2and 3/8 cents.

[willowrulz4ever]

Um, can I use this quote from you? :



It is not mine.It s from the Bible.The epistle of James.



The Word of God is for everyone fee free to use it.





By the By



The person who played Satan was superb,so was the actor who played Christ andthe Actress who played Mary.



Tabby

[Kieli]

I think those of you who are flaying me at the moment are missing my point. Sam's statement about one's religiousity determining how one views this movie sounded like one needed to necessarily have a religion or even a religious POV in order to have an opinion about what is going on in the movie and what is being portrayed. In that case, no their argument does not hold up because they are making the assumption that one necessarily has to have or believe in a religion to have a valid POV. I was merely stating that is not true as I have no religion (atheism is not a religion but a philosophy like Confucianism and Taoism). Had Sam clarified a bit more, maybe my response would have been different.



It is becoming increasingly apparent that, in my personal preference of this movie, I am in the minority (which I find rather interesting but hey, them's the breaks).

Quote:

---

As for the language, I´m totally clueless when it comes to Aramaic, but I´ll take Hemiola´s word for it, I´ve no reason to doubt her and at least someone else agrees with her about the use of Latin in this movie

---

I'm not trying to disrespect Hemiola in any manner. I simply don't take anyone's word as gospel until I've done a little research on my own as well.

Quote:

---

I think Sam´s point was whether you see the anti-semitism or not might (partly) depend on your point of view, and that point of view is also influenced by whether you´re a Christian, an atheist, a Jew, a Jewish atheist etc. etc. It seems logical that Jews would look at that particular aspect of this movie with a very critical eye when non Jews would not.

---

That would indeed make sense if that is what Sam's statement sounded like. It did not, so I addressed what I got from that statement.

Quote:

---

Despite not seeing the movie, I vehemently disagree with this response to Sam's observation. A non-Jewish person will not be NEARLY as sensitive to stereotypical Jewish references (i.e. offensive) in any type of artistic medium as would a Jewish person.

---

This is a given if Sam's statement were nearly that cut and dried. It was not so I merely gave my observation.

Quote:

---

Images carry meaning. Messages can be subversive. And one who has not been oppressed by such stereotypes is often not in the best position to call them out (or say they don't exist).

---

So are you saying that, since I am not a Jew, I therefore cannot see Anti-Semitism? I find that to be very short-sighted. 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.

Quote:

---

Scholarship is not the absolute truth but neither is Mr Gibson's movie.

---

I never said this movie was the gospel truth. I did, however, think Gibson's depiction had more reality than most Christ-focused movies that I have seen in the past.

Quote:

---

I do not see this movie as antisemitic,however it can be used by antisemites.

---

With this I very much agree. Anything can be twisted to anyone's POV given enough creativity. Look at how many raving Radical Rightists twist the words of the Bible to make out gays and lesbians to be the ultimate sinners that are doomed to eternal hellfire. People will take what messages they want from any media form.

Quote:

---

How can you love God who you cannot see when you hate your brother who you do see.

---

I've often asked that question myself, W. It's a very good question to ask and I wonder how some will answer.

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]

willowrulz4ever,



You know, I feel really embarrassed now. I knew I recognized the quote and now I know why. Can you give me the scripture #?



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."

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

Those who say, "I love God," and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.

---

1 John 4:20 (NRSV)



IMO, non-Jews can often perceive anti-Semitism, but they ought to defer to Jews on this topic. Ditto to blacks on anti-black racism, to women on sexism, to lesbians and gays on homophobia, and so on. The discriminated-against group defines what discrimination against them is, not non-members of the group.



GG Victim of anti-Gatitoism. Out

[Kieli]

Hmmm...then I must be the worst black woman in the world as many times I don't see racial discrimination when other blacks do or homophobia. So is my anti-meter out of whack?

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.

[astrangerhere]

Kiele

Quote:

---

So is my anti-meter out of whack?

---

LOL. Thanks for that today.



a.s.h.

[xita]

I think it's very serious to dismiss charges of bias because "you don't see it." If a significant number of people see it, it's a problem. Instead of dismissing it, it would perhaps be better to acknowledge that it does bother some people and start there. There should not be antagonism between religions in this country. The worst way of trying to solve that problem is to just dismiss it. IMHO.

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

[sam7777]

Interfaith program held in Princeton on controversial movie

Quote:

---

By: Jeff Milgram , Staff Writer, 03/02/2004



Mel Gibson's controversial movie "The Passion of the Christ" should not be allowed to damage the 40 years of good relations between Christians and Jews, participants at an interfaith program hosted by Trinity Church said Sunday.



"People of good conscience should stand together against anti-Semitism," said the Rev. Robert Moore of Princeton, executive director of the Coalition for Peace Action and the pastor of United Church of Christ congregations in New Brunswick and East Brunswick.



The film, which portrays the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, has been criticized for its violence and for its portrayal of the role of first century Jews in Jesus' betrayal, scourging and crucifixion. Jewish groups fear the film will inspire anti-Semitism by reviving the charge of deicide.



The Rev. Moore said significant progress in interfaith relations has been made since Vatican II, the Roman Catholic conference that, in part, said Jews, both in the first century and today, bear no responsibility in Jesus' death.



Since then, Jews and Christians have made great strides in interfaith understanding, he said.



"Jews and Christians have become good friends, neighbors and colleagues," said Allyson Gall, director of the New Jersey Chapter of the American Jewish Committee, which sponsored the program along with the Princeton Clergy Association. "Then along comes a movie like this one and we Jews and Christians want to make sure we don't turn back the clock."



Ms. Gall saw the film with a friend, a Roman Catholic monsignor. "The first thing he said was, 'It's pure Hollywood,'" Mrs. Gall said.



She said passion plays have historically sparked intense anti-Jewish violence. Ms. Gall said passion plays' use of visual images such as blond, blue-eyed actors playing Jesus, Mary and 11 of the apostles, with a dark, hooked-nose actor playing Judas, perpetuates anti-Semitic stereotypes. "No words are needed to get across a message. Visuals are enough," she said.



The movie opened Wednesday — Ash Wednesday — and comes at a time when Jews are feeling especially vulnerable because of an upsurge in anti-Semitic rhetoric and violence in Europe and the Middle East, Ms. Gall noted. And, she said, some Christians don't always understand this uneasiness.



"They say, 'If you only kept quiet it all would have gone away. It's a film in Aramaic and Latin — no one would have seen it,'" Ms. Gall said.



Largely, the unease is a matter of numbers. Jews make up only 2 percent of the American population and out of a world population of 6.3 billion, Jews number only 13 million.



But also there is an upsurge in anti-Semitism.



"When Jewish students in Paris are advised by their leaders not to wear Jewish stars and kipot (skullcaps), we know there is a problem," Ms. Gall said. "We are extremely uneasy about the virulent teachings about Jews that are coming out in the Arab world. Who would have thought that 'Mein Kampf' and the forgery 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' would be bestsellers in the Arab world?"



She said Mr. Gibson, a traditional Catholic who rejects the teaching of Vatican II, rejected an offer of advice from Catholic theologians and the movie is "full of historical inaccuracies," making the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate sympathetic and making Jewish leaders culpable for the death of Jesus. "Because of his choices this film ... is deeply flawed," she said. "It is not the gospel truth."



The American Jewish Congress rejected the idea of boycotting the movie. "Of course Christians have every right to produce a play or film about the passion," Ms. Gall said.



The Rev. Frank Strasburger, associate rector of Trinity Church, said first-century Jews would never agitate for crucifixion, which was a Roman punishment. "It's not believable," the Rev. Strasburger said.



"Mel Gibson didn't make it up. He gets it out of the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Matthew. The onus is on us. Christians are the most poorly educated people about their religion," he said.



"The Passion of John is a deeply anti-Jewish story," the Rev. Strasburger said. "The big issue is not the movie, the big issue is not Mel Gibson. ... Anti-Semitism is deeply imbedded in Christianity right from the beginning. We can get rid of the movie, we can't get rid of the gospel."



The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written between 20 and 70 years after Jesus' death and their versions of his final hours are not entirely consistent.



"It's the gospel according to Mel Gibson," the Rev. Moore said of the movie. "It doesn't have integrity."



Rabbi Dov Elkins of the Jewish Center of Princeton, president of the Princeton Clergy Association, said the question of Mr. Gibson's intentions in making the movie can be easily settled. Mr. Gibson should contribute some of the profits from the movie to groups that foster interfaith cooperation, Rabbi Elkins said.



Natalie Vaughn, a member of Trinity Church, said, "The concern that I have is that with the dialogue we have with our Muslim brothers and sisters: Is this film going to improve matters or make them worse? I think it's going to hurt; this film is adding fuel to the fire."



Princeton resident Herbert Horowitz urged Christians and Jews to remember the improvement in relations.



"We have to stand united," he said.

---

Gatito Grande: Agreed. Sorry again for the belated credit on the Village Voice article.



Thanks DrG and jsr! You both got what I was trying to say even if it was unclear and stated my position better than I could.



Here's an article on that unknown passion film, "The Gospel of John". This movie is rated PG-13, for violence involving the crucifixion.



THE GOSPEL OF JOHN - John’s Gospel delivered by the Book

Quote:

---

The religious epic The Gospel of John lies somewhere between Cecil B. DeMille’s 1961 King of Kings and Pier Paolo Pasolini’s 1964 The Gospel According to St. Matthew.



All three are intelligent, sensitively realized stories of the last years of Christ’s life.



DeMille used too many marquee actors, which always tends to be distracting, whereas Pasolini and Philip Saville, who directs The Gospel of John, chose actors who could lose themselves entirely in the characters.



DeMille also heightened music instead of letting the story and dialogue work upon the emotions of the viewer.



Saville’s Gospel feels a little too much like a documentary, not that this a bad thing; it just lacks the emotional wallop one expects from the story.



The Gospel of John boasts that it’s based word-for-word on the Good News Bible translation of disciple John’s account.



This might have been its downfall had Saville not employed Christopher Plummer to deliver the narration. It is a passionate reading that is not impassioned. Plummer gives the words resonance without bleeding them for melodrama.



It’s a cast of 75 principals and thousands of extras, yet there isn’t a single cloying portrayal. The miracles are treated with a kind of clinical approach where so often they’re accompanied by mock angelic choirs.



Henry Ian Cusick has the traditional look and compassion attributed to Christ, but he also gives the man fire and anger. It’s an excellent, thoughtful performance.



The cinematography, art designs, costumes and makeup give the film a rich look — a remarkable feat considering it was filmed for just $3 million. Also to its credit, The Gospel of John makes it clear it was the Jewish religious hierarchy — not the Jewish people themselves — who persecuted Christ.



This film is a faithful retelling of The Bible story, which is true to its source without sounding or feeling like a sermon.



Sun rating (3.5 out of 5 stars)

---

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 3/2/04 11:22 am

[urnofosiris]

Sam your point was clear as it was to me, you just used the example of Christians and Jews, but you can easily replace the word Christian by any other group of people and the argument would stay the same.

Quote:

---

Not everyone has to see or agree on what is present. However, I always assumed that this Board respected all POVs without saying that "Well if you don't see this my way, you're dismissing me." I have NEVER said that AT ALL and don't condone that AT ALL. However, I do feel that my POV, because it is contrary to the popular opinion on this movie, is being dismissed a) because I am an atheist and as such have no allegience to any religion or religious group and b) because I do not see something that apparently the majority of members of this Board apparently see in this movie.

---

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 am an atheist too, there are quite a few atheists posting in this thread. I don´t think your being an atheist has any bearing on how people view your opinion and the fact that you like this movie or whatever does not mean you are being dismissed. But when talking about anti-semitism it does matter whether you are a Jew or not. That does not mean that whatever you or I have to say will automatically be dismissed. It´s obviously more complicated than that.

I don´t mind when people offer a different opinion because that keeps a discussion going. It´s not an attack on you if I or anyone else disagrees with something and if you or I or anyone feels we are being misunderstood we can explain ourselves in a next post.



Anyway, before we continue this discussion, maybe it is a good idea to count to ten or a hundred depending on how fast you count and read each other´s post carefully before replying, it really works for me. I have a slight temper problem at times and in a thread like this that is not always a good thing. A misunderstanding is easily born but much more difficult to lay to rest.

Quote:

---

You are assuming that they don't care about the issue because they do not agree with you and I think that is a fallacious line of reasoning. It's all right to acknowledge that someone has a differing viewpoint. In order for there to really be proof that an anti- is there, one would need to know the intent of whomever the author, movie producer, etc. If they intend for there to be racism, anti-semitism, homophobia because they have their own issues, then it's a fact that these things are present and there are reasons for it. If, however, one views something as anti-Semitic, homophobic, what have you and that is not the intent of the creator and they have inadvertantly offended a particular person or group, that could not have been forseen. They could either choose to apologise or explain themselves.

---

I don´t understand what you are saying here exactly. I take this to mean that you believe that in order for there to be an anti anything that has to be intended by the creator of a movie, book etc.

If so, I disagree. I think a movie can be anti-semitic, homophobic, racist etc. even if the creators had no such intentions. Ignorance on their part does not excuse them in my eyes. Probably most of the lesbian characters that fall victim to the lesbian cliche did not end up that way because the writers were homophobic, some maybe, but certainly not all. That does not make it ok.

Quote:

---

It is a FACT that there were SOME Jews that called for Jesus death. It is FALSE that ALL Jews call for Jesus death. It is up to society to explain the difference between the two and not just label something as an anti- without first investigating into the matter a bit more deeply.

---

If Jews label this movie as anti-semitic, what is it that they have to investigate more deeply. It seems that throughout the centuries certain societies did decide that all Jews were to blame for the death of Christ. Though Hitler did not need that as an excuse to kill 6 million Jews, it probably helped his rhetoric that anti-semitism has been kept alive and fostered by at least partly that ancient blame.

Quote:

---

It may not show certain Jews in a good light, but that distinction MUST be made or we could have a upwelling of misplaced hatred like the aftermath of the events on 9-11 caused. But that is not for a movie to do....that is for US to do. If we were an enlightened society (or at least one where people actually stopped to think sometimes), that distinction would not have to be made. However, since we are not, someone has to take the initiative to dispel the myths and stereotypes. I would not censor someone's work because it offends me personally.

---

Mel Gibson does not have to censor himself, I don´t know how he has responded to the accusations of anti-semitism in this movie, as long as he doesn´t act all wide eyed and innocent if he does respond. Anti-semitism is still very much alive today and WW II is not that long ago. He must be completely aware of the sensitive nature of this subject. Not everyone will be able or willing to make the distinction that it were not all the Jews that wanted to kill Christ.



The power of the media or in this case a very high profile film can´t be denied can it. It does influence people´s ideas. If people are already prejudiced a movie that makes no effort to take away that prejudice deserves to be taken apart in my view, let alone a movie that reinforces those prejudices.



Right now there is a real possibility of the US constitution being changed to maybe forever deny gays the possibility to marry. That´s a scary thought. It really does not help that there is blatant lack of gay characters in the media or that when they are there they meet doom and gloom. If you want to dispel myths and stereotypes listening to the people affected by them may be a place to start. Listen and hear them and next time try and change those stereotypes. That is not the same as censoring. Mel Gibson has taken several liberties with history in this movie. It would not have been censorship (and I really don´t think it would have costituted a liberty) if he had made it a clear point that Jews are not all to be blamed, that there is no justification for anti-semitism, a clear point, so even those that are biased can´t miss it.



Amber said it very well in one of her interviews, something like: you´re not just an actress anymore, you are making a social commentary now... Someone can probably dig up the exact quote. Mel Gibson can´t be forced to address anti-semitism, but maybe the criticism he gets now will prompt the next guy or girl to make a movie about Christ to make sure there isn´t even a whiff of anti-semitism around. Maybe our criticism about the lesbian cliche will make some people think about it and care enough to change things for the better, not saying it should all be hugs and puppies, just more something more balanced will be a start.

Edited by: DrG at: 3/2/04 12:27 pm

[The Partisan]

Mel Gibson has addressed the issue of anti-semitism directly. I believe it was on Bill O'Reilly's show, but I may be wrong.



He's said, and I'm paraphrasing slightly, that the Jews are no more to blame for it than anyone else (Jesus having died for all our sins, after all), and that anti-semitism was an un-Christian thing to do.



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"?



It's easy to tolerate a film, or an idea, with which you agree, or to criticize one with which you disagree. It's a lot harder to do the inverse, and I think that people, including myself, who pride themselves in their tolerance should take a moment, and examine just how it's being applied. And I'll be the first to admit that there are times when my own tolerance has been beautifully hypocritical.



Some of you disagree with Kieli, and that's fair ball. Some will see anti-semitism, some won't. Kieli didn't, many of you did. I encourage you to exercise tolerance of eachother's differences.

Edited by: The Partisan at: 3/2/04 1:12 pm

[Lamashtu]

I don't usually post, but I really had to post on this topic.



Hemiola, as an Assyrian and a speaker of Aramaic, who has researched her culture extensively, I can tell you that Aramaic is not "vulgar" Hebrew.



I'm not sure where you got your information, but the Aramaic language is very similar in pronunciation to Akkadian, which was in existence millennia before Hebrew was. Both Hebrew and Aramaic adopted the Phoenician alphabet when cuneiform went out of style. Because the Assyrian and Babylonian civilizations where in existence before the Jews settled in Israel, it is safe to say that Hebrew borrowed much of the Aramaic language. Assyria and Babylonia replaced Akkadian with Aramaic, and I don't think that a culture would change its official language to a vulgar form of another people's language.



Jews took much of the Aramaic and created their own dialect which evolved to became Hebrew. After the Jews returned from slavery in Babylon, they brought Aramaic back to the Hebrew speaking peoples in Israel, and that is why most people in Israel and the rest of the Middle East spoke Aramaic. It was the language of scholars and government.



I've not seen the movie, so I cannot comment on pronunciation. But I thought I'd clear that up.



Also, Gatito Grande, I live in America, and I can tell you that I usually speak only Aramaic with my family and many of my friends. I hardly use English at all in my house. All of the Aramaic speaking Assyrians, Babylonians, and Chaldeans I know, both in America and in other countries use it all the time for daily-use and liturgical purposes. It's the same as someone who comes from a Spanish background speaking Spanish at home and using English at work or school because English is the national language of America.



I hope this helps clear up the confusion.

[Kieli]

[deleted because I like the Partisan's response better because it sounds more clearheaded and concise than mine.]



Thank you Daddy Kat and Lamashtu for posting. Lamashtu, would you perhaps know of any Aramaic resource and such that I might find online for a little research?

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.

Edited by: Kieli  at: 3/2/04 1:42 pm

[DaddyCatALSO]

Lamashtu; As a student of religious history it's a bit of a thrill to encounter (however tenuously thur cyber-space) an Assyrian for the first time. And to find out that Aramaic (or as I believe the linguists like to call it Neo-Syriac) is still in use in the home and is not just a liturgic al language like, say Old Church Slavonic.

Hemiola To amplify Aramaic in the narrowest sense was the name for the language and family of languages in use in what is now the Syrian inland areas, like Akkadian was the overall name for Assyrian Babylonian Nuzian etc in the east and I forget the technical terms for the Western families like Hebrew and Cananaite. But even before the Exile Aramaic was well on its way to becoming (thru trade and dipomacy) a general langauge for all the areas between Egypt and PErsia (since say a Chaldean or a Phoenician could use it to talk to each other without "giving up anything").



I ahve to wonder at Gibson's choice of langauges; the common peopel would ahve spoken aramaic amongst themsleves and the priests would ahve used it to talk to them, the Sanhedrin might have used Hebreww among themsleves as a living language, not a "classic" and Pilate's own langauge was Latin but between Roamans and Jews usually the only alnguage they'd have in common would have been Greek.



But then why wonder; the fatc is, Pliate (as I've said before) is a historical figure whose "shortcomings" are well-docuemnted by Jewish and Roman historians. Gibson chose to follow medieval traditons and make him the voice of reason instead of doing the proper historical research. And I'll always have problems with that.



Back in college I wanted to to a life-of-Jesus-novel, maybe I still should.

[darkmagicwillow]

jsr wrote:

---

Despite not seeing the movie, I vehemently disagree with this response to Sam's observation. A non-Jewish person will not be NEARLY as sensitive to stereotypical Jewish references (i.e. offensive) in any type of artistic medium as would a Jewish person.

---

While that's true, it's important to recall that accuracy and sensitivity are two different characteristics of a measurement. The fact that one measurement is more sensitive does not imply that it's also more accurate. I can set up an optical table so that I can measure nanometer wavelengths, but if the table's not perfectly flat, those measurements may be very sensitive and precise, but completely inaccurate. 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.



I haven't seen the movie, so I'm making no claims on whether it's anti-Semitic or not, but reducing the issue to one of sensitivity and ignoring accuracy is an oversimplification I could not overlook. I'm not arguing for either side. Both arguments could be flawed, with one side's perception too imprecise to see the problem and the other's too inaccurate and thus perceiving problems where none exist.



I will defer to Lamashtu on the issue of Aramaic, though I will note that Hemiola is of course correct on the issue of the eastern half of the Roman Empire using Greek instead of Latin. Any text on Roman history will discuss this fact and how the difference between Greek and Latin culture was one of several qualities which led to the split between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires in the 4th and 5th centuries. The Western Empire fell in 476, while the Eastern Empire (later called the Byzantine Empire) lasted until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. John Julius Norwich's one volume History of Byzantium is a fun read, discussing the history of the Eastern Empire from the 4th century onwards, including the differences between Greek and Latin culture.

--

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

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 3/2/04 3:02 pm

[Jennpurr]

Thank you a.s.h. and Partisan for your replies. I apprecite it.



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."

Edited by: Jennpurr at: 3/2/04 5:15 pm