Gibson's passion

[Mapraputa Is]

HS: I'm not going to allege any connection between the evil Soviet communists, the jews, Karl Marx being jewish, and the crucifixation of Jesus.
Brother Herb, my "Double counting alert" was a simple attempt to be tedious, caused by a feeling of irritation that I experience every time someone needlessly calls the Soviet people "Russians". I tried to find information of what percent of 6 millions Jews were actually murdered on the territory of the former USSR, and are therefore counted among 25 millions of Soviets. I couldn't find anything reliable; an unreliable number is 3 million, but it's probably too high. To compare Jews vs. Soviet losses would only be correct if we compared 6 milion vs. 22 million (if to accept 3 million number for not having any better statistic).
What all this has to do with the evil Soviet communists, Karl Marx, and above all with the crucifixation of Jesus, I don't know. There could be some misunderstanding going on...

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Ashok Raok:
Also, paul mckenna has not refuted the fact that the name is assumed.

When I can discuss christianity or Islam or anything then why not Paul can discuss Hinduism.
AW as you are new here so first try to understand each individual here before making any comment.
And I object on your objection on any kind of name .. BTW there are hundreds of name which are english and now they have become Hindu names now for example Daisy, Sheela etc.
Even my nick name is english name so what do you want I should not discuss Hinduism ??
Or my first name is a English word .. so what do you want ??
And no one is here to change his/her name because you feel that name is not upto the mark of discussion
AW Shakespere has said "whats in the name?"
And most welcome to MD [just be nice and if cant then pretend like me ]

[Ko Ko Naing]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
It wasn't the Jews who nailed Jesus to the cross. And it wasn't the Romans either. It was you and me and we continue to do it every day when we sin against God's commandments.

Exactly correct! I can't imagine that the world is disgusting day by day... I do disagree with the same sex marriage as well... But it seems that the Morning Glory(Satan) is controlling the earth more than before...
The Second coming is really important... Some of us may think that Year2000 had passed and there is nothing happened... People think that the second coming is exactly on Year 2000, especially in Asia. I can't even see the word Year 2000 in the Bible... but be aware of the second coming... Don't let your lamp out of oil, before He comes into your house...

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
HS: I'm not going to allege any connection between the evil Soviet communists, the jews, Karl Marx being jewish, and the crucifixation of Jesus.
Map : Brother Herb, my "Double counting alert" was a simple attempt to be tedious, caused by a feeling of irritation that I experience every time someone needlessly calls the Soviet people "Russians". I tried to find information of what percent of 6 millions Jews were actually murdered on the territory of the former USSR, and are therefore counted among 25 millions of Soviets. I couldn't find anything reliable; an unreliable number is 3 million, but it's probably too high. To compare Jews vs. Soviet losses would only be correct if we compared 6 milion vs. 22 million (if to accept 3 million number for not having any better statistic).
What all this has to do with the evil Soviet communists, Karl Marx, and above all with the crucifixation of Jesus, I don't know. There could be some misunderstanding going on...

In that post I was almost making half an attempt at a joke on myself. The joke being that in my excesive anti-communist zeal (see other threads) I would try to blame the communists, via their connection with Karl Marx, via his Jewsishness, for Jesus's crucifiction. Seemed fitting given the movie under discussion and Mel's prior movie "Conspiracy Theory" (was that the title?).

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
Herb : The whole argument, that anti-semitic Semites, were waiting for Christ, for the "opportunity" to "cease being Jewish", is so absurdly funny I can't go any further with this..
Gregg :It's not that these people were "waiting around". Because of what Jesus did while He was on earth, and because a lot of Jews decided to believe that He was the Messiah, but most importantly, because Jesus was born in the first place and died on the cross, Christianity was born. What Ernest said was these people ceased being Jewish, or ceased practicing the Jewish religion and converted to Christianity with whom Peter is often considered the founder as Jesus pretty much left him in charge after He ascended into Heaven.

Here's waht Ernest really said :
"Yes, all these people were Jews. But as any card-carrying anti-semite will tell you, the ones who had the opportunity all immediately ceased being Jews and signed up as the first Christians. The Jews that were left over -- the ones that chose to remain Jewish -- are the ones who are have been historically blamed for Jesus' death"

You have put a nicer spin on it than it deserves. He's drawing a parellal with "card carrying anti-Semites", which are the the worst kind and in the same league as Nazis, and the early Jews who converted to Christianity.

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:

This is what Hinduism says (briefly):

There is One God. Everything is His manifestation. The multitudes of gods & goddesses in Hinduism are symbols of the various powers of the One God. I believe it is the Rig Veda that says "God is one; the wise call It by many names". Each form of gods & goddesses in Hinduism is deeply symbolic.

Every thing in creation is made of God's spirit, which is God. This means everything. Every matter, animal, tree, bird, mineral, human being...

etc.

Forgot to mention a few more points. These are actually very esoteric principles that many (most??) hindus are also not aware of. But these are discussed in great detail in various scriptural texts & treatises.

A soul has 3 coverings or bodies:

[list]Physcial body made up of matter that all of us are aware of

Astral body made up of energy which is similar to the physcial body and actually enlivens & governs it

Causal body made of Light/Consciousness

The physical universe is not what it appears to be. For that matter, all matter is not what it appears to be. All matter in essence is energy. All energy, in essence is Consciousness/Light.

There is a heaven - but this should not be man's goal. Man's goal should be Moksha/Nirvana/Kaivalya/Salvation/Liberation/Immortality.

And there is a hell

At physical death the physical body is destroyed & the soul leaves it but continues to have the astral & causal bodies. With these bodies the soul goes to heaven or hell or to both places (!!) depending on the deeds/actions in the physical incarnation. But this deployment to heaven/hell is not permanent. The soul spends some time there. How much time? Well this depends on factors that I don't know about. But it is like a bank account. When the balance is 0, the soul takes up another physical body & reincarnates again on the physical plane. This cycle continues till the embodied soul decides to seek Salvation & works towards it & ultimately attains it.

[/LIST]
What I've listed are just some of the main principles. There are treatises that discuss cosmology & cosmogony which describe how the One became the many. And there are treatises that explain in great detail how to reverse this process and attain Salvation. Part of this path (of reversal of the process) includes a set of do's & don'ts (basically very similar to the Thou Shalts & Thou Shalt Nots of the Judeo-Christian theology). Then it includes prayers, breathing exercises (the idea is control of breath can lead to control of the restless mind) & meditation techniques (of which a restless mind is an enemy), service to others (essentially being a good samaritan), etc.
[ March 03, 2004: Message edited by: Sadanand Murthy ]

[Joe Pluta]

Thomas Paul: we continue to do it every day when we sin against God's commandments
By this you mean the Ten Commandments, correct? Because in my recollection there is nothing about loving thy neighbor in God's commandments. It's only Jesus' teachings that give us the kindler, gentler side of God. The Old Testament is very much an eye for an eye kind of place; it wasn't until the New Testament that we get the "love one another" stuff. And even then, Jesus isn't all about sweetness and light; he gets his back up on a few occasions.
Anyway, you say we sin against God's commandments. To be honest, I often go through entire days without breaking any commandments. Occasionally I do a little coveting, but in general I'm pretty commandment-kosher, so to speak.
So, which commandments exactly do you assert that we are breaking and thus crucifying Jesus, over and over, on a daily basis?
Joe

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

The joke being that ... I would try to blame the communists, via their connection with Karl Marx, via his Jewsishness, for Jesus's crucifiction.

This is actually the start of a whole other interesting discussion. Karl Marx was a Jewish atheist. Becoming an atheist does not, apparently, make him not a Jew. Why, then, did the early Christians becoming Christian make them non-Jews in conventional wisdom? Interesting question, I think.

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:

This is actually the start of a whole other interesting discussion. Karl Marx was a Jewish atheist. Becoming an atheist does not, apparently, make him not a Jew. Why, then, did the early Christians becoming Christian make them non-Jews in conventional wisdom? Interesting question, I think.

You can be a Jew and believe Jesus was the Messiah. I believe they are called un-orthodox Jews.

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Thomas Paul: we continue to do it every day when we sin against God's commandments
By this you mean the Ten Commandments, correct? Because in my recollection there is nothing about loving thy neighbor in God's commandments. It's only Jesus' teachings that give us the kindler, gentler side of God. The Old Testament is very much an eye for an eye kind of place; it wasn't until the New Testament that we get the "love one another" stuff. And even then, Jesus isn't all about sweetness and light; he gets his back up on a few occasions.
Anyway, you say we sin against God's commandments. To be honest, I often go through entire days without breaking any commandments. Occasionally I do a little coveting, but in general I'm pretty commandment-kosher, so to speak.
So, which commandments exactly do you assert that we are breaking and thus crucifying Jesus, over and over, on a daily basis?
Joe

Are you suggesting that the only way to sin is to break any of the Ten Commandments?

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:

You can be a Jew and believe Jesus was the Messiah. I believe they are called un-orthodox Jews.

They're a crypto-Christian sect called "Jews for Jesus." "Un-orthodox" Jews would include most American Jews.
There's a common Christian belief that Jews were actively waiting for the Messiah, and they didn't believe Jesus was the One, and went back to actively waiting. This is actually not at all true. There have occasionally been Messianic cults within Judaism, but the existence or role of a Messiah is hardly a given. It's not only not a central tenet of the religion -- it's debateably not a tenet at all.
[ March 03, 2004: Message edited by: Ernest Friedman-Hill ]

[Joe Pluta]

Are you suggesting that the only way to sin is to break any of the Ten Commandments?
Thomas' phrase was "sinning against God's commandments". I wondered what exactly that meant. The word "commandments" has a pretty specific meaning.
Joe
[ March 03, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
[vb]Are you suggesting that the only way to sin is to break any of the Ten Commandments?[/b]
Thomas' phrase was "sinning against God's commandments". I wondered what exactly that meant. The word "commandments" has a pretty specific meaning.
Joe

Gotcha. I had missed that part of Tom's quote.

[Joe Pluta]

It's not only not a central tenet of the religion -- it's debateably not a tenet at all.
This is a pretty unique take on the situation. Every Jewish person I've ever known has acknowledged the concept of the Mashiach, and the fact that they are still expecting him. Not all agree on the details, although there is pretty consistent opinion that the Messiah will be a man born of woman, not God. To think otherwise would be blasphemy of the worst kind.
In any event, I'm unaware of any Jewish sects that deny the Mashiach. But I'm hardly an expert, so please feel free to educate me!
Joe

[Marilyn de Queiroz]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
You can be a Jew and believe Jesus was the Messiah. I believe they are called un-orthodox Jews.

I believe they are called Messianic Jews.

[Thomas Paul]

So, which commandments exactly do you assert that we are breaking and thus crucifying Jesus, over and over, on a daily basis?
Matthew 22:
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Matthew 5:
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
[ March 04, 2004: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Joe Pluta]

Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Ah, yes, the "Love thine enemies" clause. What exactly does this mean? My only problem with this is the "turn the other cheek" concept. I'm not sure how this integrates with certain concepts like self-defense, or justice, or even "a just war". This single phrase has been interpreted in so many ways. Especially considering the following verses:
Matt 5: 44-45 "LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, BLESS those who curse you, DO GOOD to those you hate you, and PRAY for those who despitefully use you, and persecute you THAT YOU MAY BE THE CHILDREN OF YOUR FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN."
Given this phrase, someone who truly believes in "love thine enemies" can never believe there is a just war, not without some really skillful laundering of the message. Jesus said hurt nobody, and that's simply not possible.
Joe

[Thomas Paul]

Given this phrase, someone who truly believes in "love thine enemies" can never believe there is a just war, not without some really skillful laundering of the message.
I don't see why you can't love your enemies and still believe in a just war. It may be hard to fight a war keeping in mind that you are fighting against God's children but no one said being a Christian was supposed to be easy.

[Joe Pluta]

According to Matthew, Jesus said "DO GOOD to those who hate you". I don't know about you, but to me blowing someone away with a tank round doesn't rate as "DO GOOD". Thus, even if these people hate you and are coming to kill you, you can't shoot them, at least not without breaking the second commandment of Jesus.
Joe

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
According to Matthew, Jesus said "DO GOOD to those who hate you". I don't know about you, but to me blowing someone away with a tank round doesn't rate as "DO GOOD".
Joe

That tank round is taking out people who are about to murder a larger number of people. By killing a few lives, and saving more lives, you are demostrating love to those saved, and mankind in general by maxmizing the number of people allowed to live.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Given this phrase, someone who truly believes in "love thine enemies" can never believe there is a just war, not without some really skillful laundering of the message.
I don't see why you can't love your enemies and still believe in a just war. It may be hard to fight a war keeping in mind that you are fighting against God's children but no one said being a Christian was supposed to be easy.

You love them, but also you love and respect yourself since you are also a child of God. So, as you kill them in order to protect yourself (which you do because you should love yourself), you are justified if it is self-defense. To allow them to kill you would show that you do not love a child of God as you should.

[Joe Pluta]

you are justified if it is self-defense
I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Matthew never mentions self-defense. And in fact, "turn the other cheek" means not only take it, but let them do it again. It's this part of Jesus' message that I find most difficult to adhere to.
Joe

[Thomas Paul]

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Matthew never mentions self-defense. And in fact, "turn the other cheek" means not only take it, but let them do it again. It's this part of Jesus' message that I find most difficult to adhere to.
This gets a little tricky. Although we should turn the other cheek, we also have a responsibility to protect the weak.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
This gets a little tricky. Although we should turn the other cheek, we also have a responsibility to protect the weak.

So, if we ourselves are weak, can we then claim self-defense when killing?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
So, if we ourselves are weak, can we then claim self-defense when killing?

As a bishop friend of mine said, "Christianity is not a suicide pact." It is one thing to turn the other cheek. It is quite another to let someone kill you.

[Joe Pluta]

As a bishop friend of mine said, "Christianity is not a suicide pact." It is one thing to turn the other cheek. It is quite another to let someone kill you.
How about flogging? Is flogging okay? Should we turn the cheek when flogged, as Jesus did? At what EXACT point does "turn the other cheek" go out the door, and where is this stated in the Bible?
This is the part I hate when dealing with a strict interpretation of Jesus' message. According to Jesus (especially in Matthew), you die. It's pretty clear that there's no room for retribution or justice ("Vengeance is Mine" and all that). The phrase "Christianity is not a suicide pact," seems to me to be a less than perfect interpretation of Jesus' teachings. And thus, if you are allowed to interpret those teachings, then pretty soon it's just your judgment.
And that's what I don't buy. I don't buy someone telling me that I have to live by his opinion of what Jesus meant. Unless someone is willing to follow Jesus' teachings TO THE LETTER, then that person has no business telling me how to live my life, because short of being willing to die for others' sins, their interpretation is just that, an interpretation.
Joe

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
And that's what I don't buy. I don't buy someone telling me that I have to live by his opinion of what Jesus meant. Unless someone is willing to follow Jesus' teachings TO THE LETTER, then that person has no business telling me how to live my life, because short of being willing to die for others' sins, their interpretation is just that, an interpretation.

Scripture is meant to be taken as a whole and a single verse can not be taken out of the whole and interpreted in isolation.
But you are definitely wrong about one thing. Just because someone does not lead their life in God-like perfection does not mean that they can't tell you how you should lead your life. In fact, the best teachers are often the worst students.

[Thomas Paul]

It's pretty clear that there's no room for retribution or justice ("Vengeance is Mine" and all that).
Those are two very different things. Justice and retribution are not two sides of the same coin.

[Joe Pluta]

Just because someone does not lead their life in God-like perfection does not mean that they can't tell you how you should lead your life. In fact, the best teachers are often the worst students.
Ah bull. "Those that can't do, teach." "Do as I say, not as I do." This isn't about occasionally slipping, either, this is about specifically interpreting Scripture to meet your own needs. For example, there's nothing in Scripture that says to kill your enemies. And you never answerd my specific question:
Do you turn the other cheek when being flogged?
See, if you ain't walkin' the walk, don't EVEN try to tell me how to do it.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

Those are two very different things. Justice and retribution are not two sides of the same coin.
In a world where the second commandment exhorts you to love your enemy, then there is no room for either. All judgment is left to God, and as a human being, you are only to love your neighbor.
Or are there specific Scriptures you can quote to tell me where I'm allowed to hang a man, or put him to death?
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

Scripture is meant to be taken as a whole and a single verse can not be taken out of the whole and interpreted in isolation.
And yet, you quoted three verses from Matthew in isolation. I guess it's okay for you, but not for me, right? Or is there a specific number of verses at which point quoting is okay? What are the rules on quoting Scripture, and where are they written?
It seems this interpretation of life you're espousing is based on some AWFULLY arbitrary rules. Quote some scripture, but not others. One verse is not enough. Turn the other cheek sometimes. Kill people when you think it's right. And not one of these rules written down anywhere!
It's a pretty cool religion that basically lets you make it up as you go.
Joe

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
In a world where the second commandment exhorts you to love your enemy, then there is no room for either. All judgment is left to God, and as a human being, you are only to love your neighbor.

Justice is love. Justice is corrective. Justice points the offender to the correct path. God tells us to love our neighbor. To allow our neighbor to injure others does not show love to either our neighbor or the one they injure. It shows a disregard for God's creation.

[Thomas Paul]

And yet, you quoted three verses from Matthew in isolation. I guess it's okay for you, but not for me, right? Or is there a specific number of verses at which point quoting is okay? What are the rules on quoting Scripture, and where are they written?
I could quote every verse from scripture but since it is already available online I didn't think it was necessary. And let's not forget that you started this. You asked me what commandements I was referring to in my original comment.
Turn the other cheek sometimes. Kill people when you think it's right. And not one of these rules written down anywhere!
The rules certainly are written down. You can start with the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.
It's a pretty cool religion that basically lets you make it up as you go.
I wouldn't know. I don't live your life.

[Thomas Paul]

Do you turn the other cheek when being flogged?
I always try to turn the other cheek.

[Joe Pluta]

Okay, enough of this.
Thomas, I want to take a moment to applaud your moral stance. Living by a specific credo is admirable. The fact that you believe in a set of rules by which to live, despite the circumstances, is commendable.
I don't think your credo is entirely self-consistent, but to you it is, and I have to respect that. Personally, I think there are some vague areas in your ideology that I could not live with, and I hope you can respect that as well.
But my real point is that your ideology is not something cast in stone, but is based on your interpretation of what you believe God's will to be. You point to Scripture, but our last few remarks have made it clear that you believe in a more pragmatic reading of Scripture than a literal one, especially when it comes to the Gospels. Your philosophy splits people into those who will do you harm and those who won't, while Jesus' teachings dictate that we treat both parties the same. Thus, your ideology is an interpretation of Scripture as you see it. Jesus' teachings are much purer, in that they do not allow for the vagaries of human intentions.
My ideology is similarly an interpretation. I can acknowledge the ethical wrongness of an act, yet find it morally acceptable to perform that act in extreme circumstances, provided I am willing to accept the consequences. I don't know if you've been in a situation where you've had to choose between two unethical options; my guess is that you have. Due to the circumstances of my life I have been in that situation on many occasions, and I have had to develop an ideology that allows me to choose between the two. I don't think my morality is entirely incompatible with yours, it simply allows me to live in an imperfect world in the way I believe God would have me live.
In any event, you have steadfastly provided your answers to my questions. I respect and admire your courage and your commitment to your values. I actually share most of them, and differ only in a few pragmatic applications of those values. I hope we can continue our discourse as these subjects come up, but for now I am satisfied that we've covered this particular issue sufficiently.
Thank you again for taking the time for such a civil discourse of a difficult topic.
Joe

[sever oon]

If I might divert the conversation back to Gibson's movie...
As you read this I only ask that you keep in mind: (1) I am not religious, I'm atheist/agnostic depending on your definition of the terms, (2) I am politically independent.
There is no doubt in my mind that Gibson is being singled out by a largely left-wing, PC media for public flogging (relax--I'm not implying he rises to the level of a Christ figure--it's just an expression). Let's assume for a minute that the movie is anti-Semitic. Should someone have the right under the First Amendment to make an anti-Semitic movie? Well, let's see...does the KKK have a right to publish their views on a website? It seems so. And I like that it is so. That's my America.
Moving on...to those who are upset because they think the movie is anti-Semitic: are you upset because the movie is anti-Semitic, or are you really upset because you think the Bible is anti-Semitic? If the parts of this movie you don't like are true depictions of the Bible, then the movie and Mel Gibson are not the source of your discontent. Furthermore, it is intellectually dishonest of you to not draw the distinction between a movie about the Bible and the Bible itself. If it's the Bible you don't like, then come out and say that, don't pick on the movie and Mel. After all, I might not believe a single word of the Koran, but I might want to make a movie about it. If I faithfully depict the Koran and you interpret what you are seeing as racist/sexist/etc, then place the blame squarely where you believe it lies, on the book, not on my depiction of it.
Ah, but you say, Mel does believe in his interpretation of the Bible...that's the difference. Ok--but then, by talking about Mel and his movie and not about your problems with the Bible itself, it seems to me that you're saying, "I think the Bible is anti-Semitic and therefore I do not recognize Mel's right to believe in it or make a movie about it." Isn't this silly? It's funny to me that liberals are in a rush to condemn this movie, but if someone who believed in Hitler's philosophy made a movie based on Mein Kampf (which has probably been done), I'll bet liberals would rush to the defense of this person's rights.
You might say, wait, I'm not trying to restrict Mel's right to free speech...however, I have the same right, so I can say what I want about the movie. Well, yes...and here we arrive at my point--you have the right to make faulty arguments, but that does not change the fact that they are faulty. If your problem is with the Bible itself, then make your argument about the Bible, not about Mel, his movie, or Mel's father. This is exactly where all the liberal coverage of this issue has gone wrong. In my opinion, most of these attacks directed at Mel are actually veiled attacks on the Bible...not direct, because this would expose the underlying agenda. The attacks on Mel for being anti-Semitic are, at their core, attacks on Christianity. It's no wonder the attackers are using Mel as a smokescreen.
Particularly telling is how the press handled Mel's response to charges that his movie depicts Pilate as a sympathetic character. He basically said that it is an accurate depiction, first, and second, it is not sympathetic. He was simply showing that Pilate was questioning the execution of Jesus because he was fearful of Rome's response to yet another execution under his reign, which he'd previously been called back for twice before. Of course he was wary of his own safety. The proper interpretation of his behavior is that he was torn between two cowardly responses: don't execute Jesus because of his fear of angering Rome, or do what he really wants to do, which is to allow the execution despite his understanding that it is unjust.
How did the press report Mel's answer? They didn't. It wasn't until O'Reilly interviewed Gibson that I even learned of it.
I read the earlier linked article on Mel's beliefs about the Holocaust, and I found this attack on him also unjustified. Rabbi Hier, quoted in the article, says:

We are not engaging in competitive martyrdom, but in historical truth... I think he was lobbed an easy question. He could've used the occasion to take us on a different road. Instead, he marginalized the Holocaust, he diluted its significance, and it's a lie..."

How does recognizing everyone that died in the Holocaust dilute its significance? To me, it recognizes the full significance of this historical event to account for every life lost. The Rabbi goes on to say Gibson showed "insensitivity when he compared Jewish suffering in the Holocaust to that of millions of others who died in the war." On this point, I actually agree with the Rabbi--being exterminated in a concentration camp because of who you are does (and should) have more significance than those who died of starvation. And this does not diminish the lives of those who did die of starvation which was, in its own right, a direct consequence of the actions of evil men. To me, it is a similar distinction that separates American soldiers who have died in Iraq and those who died in the World Trade Center. Recognizing that those civilian deaths is somehow more significant than dying on the battlefield in that case does not diminish the deaths of the soldiers either; it merely expresses just how evil it is to strike the defenseless. Similarly, abusing a defenseless baby is worse than spousal abuse, where the abused spouse can exercise some measure of control over the situation. And on and on.
Where the Rabbi offends me greatly is by confining his statement to that of "Jewish" suffering, and this really bores to the heart of the Rabbi's stance. Besides 6 million Jews, there were 5 million others killed in concentration camps, exterminated because of who they were. Apparently, the Rabbi is comfortable dismissing these people, and these are the people Gibson is talking about. Gibson recognizes 11 million that were exterminated for who they were. The Rabbi prefers to focus on the 6 million Jews only, and uses spin to discredit anyone who would call attention from those 6 million.
And the Rabbi has the audacity to claim "[w]e are not engaging in competitive martyrdom." I can only draw one conclusion from this intellectual dishonesty--the Rabbi is complaining because Gibson is diluting the historical significance of the Holocaust as it relates solely to Jews by including all those who suffered extermination in the concentration camps: homosexuals, gypsies, political enemies, etc. I would think that modern day homosexuals, gypsies, and descendants of the non-Jewish victims of the concentration camps are a little tired of hearing about "the 6 million Jews".
sev
[ March 05, 2004: Message edited by: sever oon ]

[Tony Alicea]

Wasn't this film's original working title "The Gospel according to St. Mel Gibson"? (Gibson's father suggestion?).
And isn't it true that said title had to be scrapped because Mel Gibson is not (yet) a saint? Ha ha ha!

[Thomas Paul]

Actually, as any Catholic should know, Mel Gibson is a Saint. In fact, all members of the Church are Saints.