both guys walked away unhurt....not sure how pissed someone upstairs was. not sure what to make of all of that, if anything.
They didn't mention it in this article, but I have read that Mel Gibson had not been on speaking terms with his father for some time and they have some sharp theological disagreements (regarding the role of Jews in salvation) despite belonging to the same denomination. They did mention this though: Saying you won't speak against someone is a pretty clear implication that what you had to say (if you were to say it) isn't complimentary. So, this article is somewhat consistent with what I've heard previously. For the poster who wanted him to publically repudiate his father's assertions, I think Mel Gibson is trying his best to adhere to Biblical directives to honor his parents. Disagreeing with one's parents may be common, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is honorable. I think it is unfortunate that enemies of the movie would use a familial connection to make an accusation of racism (especially since such an attack is logically fallacious). It is doubly unfortunate that Mel Gibson's father would choose this moment to reiterate his beliefs publically -- almost as if he's trying to submarine his son's most cherished work. Maybe he hoped only to take advantage of the platform it afforded him, but it is still pretty bush to do that knowing that it would be used as ammunition against your son. Thanks Dad.
Someone is just using his dad to further their journalistic career and make contoversey. I don't really think he's in full control of his capabilities. Yes, please go interview an 85 year old man and he'll tell you about how people used to wear onion on their belts because that was the style at the time and how he lived in the head of the statue of liberty until it filled with trash.
Originally posted by twhy77 Random thoughts and questions: Wow. Very, er, unique post. How is saying that the holocaust might have been exagerated anti-semitic? I didn't say that, but I agree with it. There is too much concrete evidence to support it (damn, where must those relatives hiding? Hey, Mel's dad found them in Jersey! Cool!). If you play it down, it's for ulterior motives. How can a movie in two dead languages be thought to be anti-semitic, ... What does the language have to do with anti-Semiticism? How can we escape being Jewish, in that we are all the chosen people of God? Huh? Sounds like a new topic to me. Do Jewish people hate those who are not Jewish? (In reference to previous question, how can we hate ourselves?...maybe thats one of the questions this movie will encourage a hapless answer towards, because there is no reason we should hate ourselves) Huh? What are Mel's issues again? I think Max and Moe have made it clear that he took the Jewish side into his vision for the movie. Huh? They did? No offense, but Max and Moe have seen the movie and are theologians? religious leaders? Read some of the articles on the movie from those who have seen it. Newsweek, Vanity Fair, whetever. Then get back to me. What's wrong with being fundamentalist about the telling of a fundamental Bible story? What's wrong with having fundamentals? Should we praise Stevie Franchise every time he does something incredibly stupid because he is being tolerant of new ways to dribble and play basketball? Or should we say, stick with the fundamentals? Uh. Is that really a good analogy? And how does being fundamentalist correlate to being narrow minded? ... Because the same institution that essentially blessed this version of the New Testament don't believe in interpreting the bible strictly. Neither do theologians or historians. Do you? Is that what you advocate? Do you understand where you're going with that line of reasoning? (Be prepared) And where exactly does it say that Mel's religion (Catholicism) is anti-semitic? Cathlocism has come a long way. And the argument could be made that many years ago, it was anti-Semitic. Even after changing it's precepts, it continued to act out in some anti-Semitic ways (which the Pope has acknowledged and apologized for). But if you've read through either of these threads, you would have leanred that Mel's interpretation of the Gospels divirges from the 'official' Catholic view.
just because someone is raised by someone does not measn they automatically share their beliefs. This is what I dont understand....He is being condemned for something his father said? and yall are pissed because he wont come out and condemn his father for having these beliefs? Im not going to condemn anyone in my family for what they believe....that isnt my place. They believe what they believe....I believe what I believe... I will not publicly condemn any of them for their beliefs. It appears to me that Mr Gibson's father isnt the only close minded person around. btw...I think his beliefs are loony and wacko...but I can say that about him since he isnt my father. I just dont understand how some of you can condemn Gibson for something his father believes.....and for a movie that you havent even seen. Geez people...I expect better than that out of some of you.
Cohen -- you say "theologians disagree with this movie." ok...rockets fans think steve francis should be traded. you're making a blanket assertion that all theologians disagree with gibson's film...or that gibson is on some lunatic fringe who who would attempt to make a movie out of the literal passages of the Bible. both of those arguments do not resonate at all. again, i'll point you to the scripture, itself, because that's what gibson is claiming he tiried to follow in crafting this movie. if you find that anti-semitic, then fine. your problem then is with the bible, itself. but let's don't pretend that the Bible says anything else than what it says. and, again...that's what's inspired Gibson to make this movie. not that the Gospel is anti-semitic, as I've shown you over and over and over again. it's just not. i won't argue that it's been twisted through different periods of history...it certainly has.
Originally posted by MadMax Cohen -- It's difficult for me to separate my faith from the story told in this movie. Try to be careful. They're some overlap, but they're 2 distinct issues. The only importance of the Jews in this story is that he is ultimately rejected even by the temple leaders. "The cornerstone the builders have rejected." What do you mean, 'the only importance'? I am convinced from the crtiques so far, that in Mel's story the Jews are the English in Braveheart. Makes for a more entertaining movie to have clear protagonists and antagonists, but I would bet that's not what you would want the story of Jesus to be about, no? The Bible says what it says. Unfortunately, it's been twisted at points to justify ridiculous interpretations. But you're asking people who see this book as divinely inspired to say, "come on...you have to denounce that or else you're being anti-semitic." That's faulty logic on a lot of levels, ... No. I'm not asking for any such thing. I'm only crticizing Mel's interpretation and portrayal of Jews in the movie as 'sinister'. On one hand, he says that all people are responsible for Jesus' death since he died for everyone's sins. Then he says that the people involved in Jesus' death were agents of satan, and I understand fully that he believes that these were all Jews. I'll wait for you to see the movie. Tell me whether the folks involved in Jesus' death are mentioned as Jews more than all of his followers and Jesus himself. Tell me how 'nice' they made the Pilate, an evil man even by Rome's standards (he once had so many Jews slaugthered that he had to answer for it back in Rome). Fundamentalist....I guess you can count me as one. I believe the Gospels accurately portray who Jesus was. I guess fundamentalist is a bad word. Sort of like evangelical. I just think that's misinterpeted and misunderstood, too. I don't recall, are you Cathloic? So you don't accept any of the Church's teaching on how to interpret the events in the Bible? Do you interpret all of the Bible word-for-word? Are you saying that everyone who is well versed in the Gospels and the New Testament have serious disagreement with Mel's movie....because I'm betting it's a distinct minority. ... Doesn't sound to me like the Cathloic church's writings agree with Mel's strict interpretations. That doesn't sound like a distinct minority.
I heard that Mel's father likes the JAZZ! I'm never gonna see a Mel Gibson movie again! *%&$ing Mel....'s father.
More Quotes "You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?" Peggy Noonan asks of Mel Gibson in the Reader's Digest for March. Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union." Gibson sat down with conservative Catholic writer Noonan to speak of his controversial film, "The Passion of the Christ," to explain his faith - which he says became a strong force in his life after years of being "a monster," having become "spiritually bankrupt" in the thrall of success. And Gibson admits his spiritual life is "nowhere complete yet. I'm still so full of flaws." Noonan pushed him about the Holocaust because of accusations that the actor's father questions the attempted extermination of all Jews by Hitler. Of his dad, Gibson says, "My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life." *** So if Hutton never lied to him then does that mean that Mel believes everything his dad has taught him? the first quote "atrocities happenned" and "some of them were Jews" seem to indicate he doesn't agree with the numbers either. And then I don't understand why he brings up the Ukraine and Soviet Union. it's like he was saying it wasn't that bad compared to these other tragedies.
Cohen -- frankly, i'm kinda frustrated...because we've gone round and round over this. seriously...read through the Gospels..read the passion story from them. Read what it says, directly. THAT is what Gibson is trying to reproduce. If you believe that makes him an anti-semite, then the Gospels are anti-semitic. It's truly that simple. the criticism for a movie you've never seen seems silly to me. either see it...or don't see it. but you're questioning a movie you've never seen based on stories you clearly have never read, or at least don't remember the details of if you did read them. we're tearing apart a man because of the beliefs of his father. i've pointed time and time again how these Gospels leave no one unblemished in Christ's death...whether Jew or Gentile. And that's the Gospel that was preached by the early church...and evidenced in Paul's letter to Jews and Gentiles alike. you wish to see what you've been told....i see a jewish man being the only one who helps Jesus in his last hours....his mother, mary magdalene, and one of his disciples being the only people weeping at the foot of the cross (they're all jews)...i see a bloody roman authority who believes a man innocent but condemns him to death, anyway. and i see my lord and savior, a jew, who points me to the true Hebrew God of the Old Testament. Who suffers death on a cross for me, a gentile, because I can't bridge the gap to God, otherwise....I see praise for this Jewish Messiah.. My God, the entire New Testament related to Gentiles is about grafting us into the blessings and the promises of his chosen people. Anti-semitism? hardly.
outlaw -- your answer is right there...you're being more technical than a trial lawyer. he acknowledged the holocaust...called it an atrocity...diane sawyer asked him if he believed that 6 million jews were killed and he said, "absolutely." what more do you need? you need to hear him curse his father for being mixed up? man...you guys ask for a forgiveness that you're not willing to grant at all.
my direct quote was, "i'll tell you what i think of the movie after i see it." i have seen previews..that's all i've seen....i've heard interviews with the director. i've heard him explain that the basis of the film is the Gospels themselves..i can't testify on behalf of the film, but i can testify on behalf of the Gospels...and my understanding of the dialogue that is causing unrest are lines pulled directly from scripture. some would twist that and call it anti-semitic.
Let me see if I can boil this down. For the sake of argument, let's say Mel is full of anti-semitism and/or that he thinks only 5,000 jews died in concentration camps. Make his views as bad as you like. I would still just judge the film on the film's merits. I've had this same argument with people who hate Woody Allen's personal life. I say "who cares?" Judge his movies by themselves: some great, some bad. Whatever. John Travolta believes in some sort of gibberish about holy aliens, right? Who cares. Do you like the work of Jackson Pollack? But why? He was a psychologically abusive alcoholic b*stard, you know. Let's just collect his paintings and burn them! Don't even get me started on a set of famous composers. And the flip side is even worse. If you're going to care about artist's political and religious beliefs, then you're going to end up supporting art that STINKS just to be sweet to people with nice, comfy beliefs! (That's what led people to actually listen to They Might be Giants, for instance). So that's my take. Perhaps it is too simple. I'm not going to see the film because I don't like watching torture (call me crazy -- this also keeps me out of most Tarantino flicks). I don't care if Mel believes in aliens or conspiracies or is a member of the klan. And I damn sure don't care what his dad thinks, or what their relationship is all about!
A suicidal man who thinks his wife is going to hell because her religious beliefs are slightly different his - maybe he is a lunatic... Mel Gibson says his wife could be going to hell Mel Gibson has come under fire for being hard on Jews in his film “The Passion of the Christ” — but apparently, he feels that Protestants are also doomed to damnation. In fact, it looks like Gibson, a conservative Catholic, believes that his Episcopalian wife could be going to hell. Gibson was interviewed by the Herald Sun in Australia, and the reporter asked the star if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. “There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it.” He elaborated: “Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.” Gibson also said in the interview that he was nearly suicidal before he made his controversial film. “I got to a very desperate place. Very desperate. Kind of jump-out-of-a-window kind of desperate,” he said in the interview. “And I didn’t want to hang around here, but I didn’t want to check out. The other side was kind of scary. And I don’t like heights, anyway. But when you get to that point where you don’t want to live, and you don’t want to die, it’s a desperate, horrible place to be. And I just hit my knees. And I had to use ‘The Passion of the Christ’ to heal my wounds.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452/
given his comments the other night on PrimeTime, that seems highly contradictory...where he acknowledged a possibility for salvation for even those who don't ascribe faith in Christ.
Outlaw, good find. I'd agree with you on some points and not others. He does acknowledge the Holocaust happened. Mentioning the deaths of WWII and all the USSR deaths from collectivization seems like an attempt to somewhat downplay the significance of the Holocaust, perhaps to tip his hat to his father's point of view. (I can't say the argument is without merit; in my own view, Stalin had Hitler beat in evil and in atrocities, but that's another thread.) He seems to take some exception to the Holocaust being so special, though he does admit it happened. I don't think that position would be seen as anti-semitic if it wasn't for the other things in the background like his father's espoused views. I think there are actually a lot of ways to interpret the quote about his father, especially since there is no reason to believe he'd be completely genuine with an interviewer. I think if you read it with a wary eye, you'll see a way to view it negatively. If you are more apt to be forgiving, you can easily see the quote as rather benign. Overall, the impression I get of what he thinks from that snippet and what I vaguely know about Mel Gibson more generally is this: He believes millions of Jews were killed in the Holocaust in an attempted genocide. It was an evil thing to do. But, it isn't the most atrocious thing the world has ever seen and he's perhaps a bit annoyed that everyone makes quite a big to-do about it, especially considering the low-key atrocities committed against Gypsies, Ukrainians and many others (you could probably throw in all the attempted African genocides, the one in Turkey, etc.). That view, if I interpreted him correctly, isn't exactly warm and fuzzy toward Jews, but it is well short of anti-semitism.
Cohen a few things: Language and Anti-Semitism... If the people viewing the movie were unable to hear things directly as being anti-semitic, how then does the movie, if it is portraying the passion of Christ, show this anti-semitism? Do the Jews wear stars? My point is this though, on Palm Sunday before Lent, as part of the liturgical calender, the Gospel reading is always the Passion in its entirety. The priest reads the part of Jesus, deacons do Pilate, and everyone does the crowd. We all chant, crucify him, just as it is from scripture. To avoid a long and lengthy explanation, I'll get to the point. We all killed Jesus, we are all the chosen people of God, and we are all in need of his salvific message for the world. Because the same institution that essentially blessed this version of the New Testament don't believe in interpreting the bible strictly. Neither do theologians or historians. Do you? Is that what you advocate? Do you understand where you're going with that line of reasoning? (Be prepared) What do you mean neither do theologians or historians? The Bible is, after all, a collection of several kinds of writing...history, theology, poetry, apocalyptic material, etc. If we try to read these books in the same wooden way in which we approach a modern newspaper, we're going to be awfully confused. However, it is clear that the Gospels are depicting something very real, not just telling an allegory. Just because the Catholic faith disagrees with some tenents of Judaism does not mean that it is being anti-semitic. The argument could also be made that the church is not anti-semitic, but that some of its followers have been. You'd be hard pressed to find a dogma that said we hate Jews, ever.
If he does have that belief, its from before Vatican II when the fullness of the "outside of the Church doctrine" was not finished. Vatican II reiterated how hard it is to escape Christ and his salvific message outside of willingly turning against it.
I cannot take credit for the argument: 'This is not to say that scripture was not divinely inspired or revealed to the authors, but it is to say that to read the Bible as if every word were literally true is to misread the Bible—a view held by many, many Christian denominations and theologians and believers. ' http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4207773/
