26 Feb 04
Originally posted by bbarrWell played.😉
My first post was serious, Ivanhoe. Given the current public debate about the historical accuracy of the film, and the outcry from Jewish communities concerning the portrayal of Jews in the film, I thought it apropos to mention that some Chritians are reacting to the film in a very mean-spirited way. Many Jews around here were concerned that their portrayal w ...[text shortened]... ally know you, why don't we both just leave out the personal speculations and jack-psychology.
26 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr: "My first post was serious, Ivanhoe."
My first post was serious, Ivanhoe. Given the current public debate about the historical accuracy of the film, and the outcry from Jewish communities concerning the portrayal of Jews in the film, I thought it apropos to mention that some Chri ...[text shortened]... oth just leave out the personal speculations and jack-psychology.
You never know what some crazy people will do or say when they hear something about this film. However, the same way you are reasoning that you are not responsible for what people do with your theories about allowing killing, for instance abort a disabled child or maybe in the future abort homosexual human beings, you can (or can't) reason that Mel Gibson is not responsible for what people do with his views and theories expressed in this film. I hold the view that philosophers and filmmakers are responsible for their theories and views and should seriously consider what might be the consequenses of their theories and other "makings".
The question is of course is the film itself anti-semitic ? From what I've HEARD: No. Are the intentions of Mel Gibson anti-semitic ? From what I've HEARD: No. If people want to see a really anti-semitic film I'd suggest they watch "Der ewige Jude", a Nazi propaganda film, that's absolutely different stuff.
If you want to discuss anything related to the Jewish people a lot of things can be looked upon as anti-semetic, even a reasonable criticism of the policies of the state of Israel towards the Palestinian people.
The sad thing is that there are people who want to (mis)use this film and the discussion about it to express their anti-semitic feelings, the same way other people are (mis)using this film and the discussion around it to express their anti-christian feelings. I will make objections to either side making attempts of misusing this film to try and realise their political agenda.
Now I hope you can understand why I reacted to your posts the way I did.
.
26 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholePawnokeyhole: " It strikes me that posts like this reveal more about their author than the person upon whom their author intends to comment."
It strikes me that posts like this reveal more about their author than the person upon whom their author intends to comment.
Bbarr has distinguished himself in these forums by the consistent rigor and objectivity of his argumentati ...[text shortened]... bothers to grace us with such a volume of contributions!
Aiden
Are you a Freethinker, Pawnokeyhole ? I've checked. The answer is yes !
26 Feb 04
Originally posted by mmanuelOK, maybe you didn't hand a nail to one of the Roman Legions to be placed thru Jesus' hands, but as a member of the human race you ARE the reason Jesus died (according to scripture). If you don't believe, that is your perogative. 🙄
I'm pretty sure I had nothing to do with it!!!!
26 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou never know what some crazy people will do or say when they hear something about this film. However, the same way you are reasoning that you are not responsible for what people do with your theories about allowing killing, for instance abort a disabled child or maybe in the future abort homosexual human beings, you can (or can't) reason that Mel Gibson is not responsible for what people do with his views and theories expressed in this film. I hold the view that philosophers and filmmakers are responsible for their theories and views and should seriously consider what might be the consequenses of their theories and other "makings".
Bbarr: "My first post was serious, Ivanhoe."
You never know what some crazy people will do or say when they hear something about this film. However, the same way you are reasoning that you are not responsible for what people do with y ...[text shortened]... e you can understand why I reacted to your posts the way I did.
.
Nobody could use my moral views about abortion or euthanasia to justify killing a disabled or homosexual person. If a disabled child has the capacity to suffer, and even rudimentary self-awareness and rationality, then on my view that child is a person entitled to all the rights of persons. If a homosexual person has these psychological capacities, then my view couldn't be used to justify the killing of that person. If either a disabled child or a homosexual human organism lacked these psychological capacities, then they would lack a mind and hence be unable to be harmed. Anyone who tried to justify killing either a disabled person or a homosexual person on the basis of my views would have to seriously misunderstand my views.
Suppose someone tries to justify the murder of a homosexual person on the grounds that the Roman Catholic Church conceives of homosexual acts as sinful. Should the Church be held responsible for the murder? Of course not, because the murderer would have misunderstood the teachings of the Church. Just as the Church is not resposible for atrocities carried out in the name of God, so I am not responsible for atrocities arising from a misunderstanding of my view. If you think that I am responsible for the actions of those who misunderstand my views, then you must also be responsible for the actions of those who misunderstand your views, including those who commit hate crimes. Pyrrho and I have brought up this point repeatedly, and it is surprising that you fail to recognize your inconsistency on this point.
Note that I never claimed that Mel Gibson, Hollywood, Christians in general, etc. are responsible for whatever anti-semitic sentiments that have been or will be elicited by the film. Anybody who comes out of this movie thinking "those dirty Jews killed my Lord Jesus" are, in my opinion, fundamentalist loonies who ought to be shunned.
The question is of course is the film itself anti-semitic ? From what I've HEARD: No. Are the intentions of Mel Gibson anti-semitic ? From what I've HEARD: No. If people want to see a really anti-semitic film I'd suggest they watch "Der ewige Jude", a Nazi propaganda film, that's absolutely different stuff.
I never claimed that the film itself is anti-semitic. I haven't seen the film, so I really can't comment on whether it is anti-semitic. All I was pointing out is that the film seems to have either 1) given rise to anti-semitic sentiments on the part of some fundamentalist loonies, or 2) provided a convenient opportunity for the expression of pre-existing anti-semitic sentiments held by some fundamentalist loonies. I will see the film this week, and then I'll post whether anything in it struck me as particularly anti-semitic.
If you want to discuss anything related to the Jewish people a lot of things can be looked upon as anti-semetic, even a reasonable criticism of the policies of the state of Israel towards the Palestinian people.
Nodody could reasonably hold that criticism of Isreali policies concerning the Palestinians is anti-semitic. This is just to confuse being opposed to Zionism or tyranny with being opposed to Jews as such.
The sad thing is that there are people who want to (mis)use this film and the discussion about it to express their anti-semitic feelings, the same way other people are (mis)using this film and the discussion around it to express their anti-christian feelings. I will make objections to either side making attempts of misusing this film to try and realise their political agenda.
Agreed. My first post was merely an attempt to point out that the concerns of some Jews that the film would elicit anti-semitic sentiment were apparently well-founded.
26 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeIs this just a figure of speech, or do you mean this literally? If you mean this literally, please explain, as clearly as you can, how it is that someone born roughly 2000 years after the death of Jesus could be responsible for his death. Honestly, I've never heard a Christian make this claim before, so you've got me a bit puzzled.
The Gospels, including the passion of the Christ, constitute the only thriller in which the reader has committed the crime.
If you understand this and are willing to accept that truth you are on the way of understanding the Truth.
26 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoei am astonished and disappointed that you resort to personal attacks like these, joe.
Then why is it your age does not reflect your remarks in this thread ? You sound more like a 16 year old who seeks revenge without wanting to admit to it. Each time you find an opportunity to do so, you just can't let it pass. Having problems with your past, Bbarr ?
.
bbarr has repeatedly answered you in thread after thread, post after post in a rational and courteous fashion. he has taken the time and effort to explain in detail his perspectives. it is one thing to 'not get it' or even 'not accept it', but statements like yours are unnecessary, unwarrantted and simply unkind.
in friendship,
prad
26 Feb 04
OK, I'm going to take a risk here. I was thinking about this whole anti-semetic argument. It dawned on my that I think differently about Jews. I was thinking about several experiences in my past where I had unpleasant experiences with Jews. I try to like all people , but I would be less than honest if I said that I look at all people the same. It might also be said of me that I am a bigot. I grew up in a racist environment, so that is part of my past. While I try to accept all people, my shadow tells me there is still work to do. I can be sexist too as I recall being passed up for jobs by women. Does anyone else wrestle with prejudice? Not that you want to be, but that is who you are.
26 Feb 04
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrWow! One of my professors today said, "It's hard not to make the jews look bad." That billboard takes the cake though!
In honor of this movie, a church in one Seattle suburb proclaimed on its reader board that "Jews Killed Jesus Our Lord!"
Andy Rooney apparently said, "I'm not going to spend $9 just for a few laughs" when he was asked whether or not he would see the movie.
I don't really care to see the movie (not because I hold any opinion toward it -- I just don't care), but the rhetoric it's generating is certainly entertaining.
26 Feb 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeAny particular ''revenge-seeking'' 16-year-old?
Then why is it your age does not reflect your remarks in this thread ? You sound more like a 16 year old who seeks revenge without wanting to admit to it. Each time you find an opportunity to do so, you just can't let it pass. Having problems with your past, Bbarr ?
.
26 Feb 04
Originally posted by kirksey957I wrestle with prejudice against stupid people. It really isn't their fault, as they can't control their genetics, who their parents are or that kind of thing. It seems to be a constant struggle.
[ Does anyone else wrestle with prejudice? Not that you want to be, but that is who you are.[/b]
26 Feb 04
Originally posted by pradtfPlease read my <26 Feb '04 21:18> post in this thread. Hopefully you will understand my reaction towards Bbarrs posts.
i am astonished and disappointed that you resort to personal attacks like these, joe.
bbarr has repeatedly answered you in thread after thread, post after post in a rational and courteous fashion. he has taken the time and effort to explain in detail his perspectives. it is one thing to 'not get it' or even 'not accept it', but statements like yours are unnecessary, unwarrantted and simply unkind.
in friendship,
prad