| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Armageddon Watch" |
| Date: |
11 Apr 2004 06:54:10 PM |
| Object: |
Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
Maybe Mel Gibson is not an Australian, but an extraterrestrial
reptilian (more at http://www.davidicke.com)
The Passion of Christ: A Passion Against Man
by Onkar Ghate
March 14, 2004
As The Passion of the Christ plays to near-record crowds, numerous
critics and moviegoers report the film to be a transforming experience.
Although many find themselves forced to turn away from the violence on
screen, they say the blood-soaked depiction of Jesus' crucifixion has
an important purpose. We must be reminded of the enormous sacrifice
that Christ has made for all of us.
In responding this way to the film, the audience is getting the message
those responsible for the film intended. Jim Caviezel, the actor who
plays Jesus, explains: "We're all culpable in the death of Christ. My
sins put him up there. Yours did. That's what this story is about."
When Diane Sawyer asked the film's director and cowriter, Mel Gibson,
who killed Jesus, he replied, "The big answer is, we all did. I'll be
the first in the culpability stakes here." And as if to leave no doubt
that this is his considered view, Gibson's only on-screen appearance in
the film is in the form of the hands that drive the nails into Jesus'
body.
It is frightening that so evil a message could receive so welcome a
reception.
When charges of anti-Semitism, denied by the producers, surrounded the
film before its opening, there was outrage from many circles. But when
the principals behind the film tell us openly that its message is that
not only Jews but all men are implicated in the death of Jesus, the
voices of moral outrage fall silent. (In what follows I leave aside the
question of how successfully the film conveys its intended message.)
So, let us ask some questions no one is asking. Why is it immoral to
ascribe guilt to all Jews, but not immoral to ascribe guilt to all
mankind? How can anyone know, without first considering our specific
choices and actions, that you or I are guilty? How can you or I be
responsible for the death of a man killed some two thousand years ago?
To make any sense of the accusation, one must recognize that one is
here dealing with, albeit in a more sophisticated form, the same
collectivist mentality as the racist's. For the anti-Semite, to be
Jewish is to be evil. For the devout Christian, to be human is to be
evil.
The denunciation of man as a creature befouled by, in the words of St.
Augustine, a "radical canker in the mind and will," infuses the
Christian tradition. Every essential attribute and virtue of man is
attacked.
To possess an inquisitive mind, a mind eager to explore the world and
gain knowledge, is to commit the first sin. Remember the story of Eve?
To painstakingly study nature and unlock her laws, thereby paving the
way for man's mastery of his world, is to court imprisonment and
torture. Ask Galileo or a scientist studying human cloning. To concern
oneself with producing the wealth and material goods life requires, is
to invite condemnations of "greed" and "materialism." Read
Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount." To cherish the pleasures that the earth
and one's own body afford, including one's sexual capacity, is to be
denounced as "selfish" and even depraved. Consult the Puritans or the
1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae. To take pride in one's curiosity,
in one's growing knowledge of the world, in one's successful actions in
it, in the resulting joy and pleasure these bring--this is branded by
all as the height of sin.
On this anti-man approach, to remain alive is to sin. To fully purge
oneself, one must die. Only such an account of man can begin to explain
the charge of collective guilt for the death of Christ, whose
undeserved suffering at man's vicious hands is, somehow, supposed to
help alleviate our innately "sinful" nature.
If the anti-Semitic view of the Jewish race as inherently corrupt is
irrational and evil, how much more irrational and evil is this view of
the human race?
Will The Passion itself play a major role in spreading this conception
of man's nature? Of course not. But the audiences and acclaim the film
is enjoying speak to just how prevalent this conception has already
become. If there is an idea behind the film worth opposing, it is this,
its intended message. Teach man to regard himself as a loathsome,
despicable being, and he becomes ripe for any mystical dictator, who
will wield the whip that is supposed to make man atone for
his "transgressions." Deprive man of self-esteem, teach him to spit in
his face, and one paves the way for another Dark Ages.
But to oppose this conception of human nature, one must first come to
understand that man--man at his best, man the rational, productive,
selfish achiever--is a noble being.
--
Sent by squirrel from phantom piece of org
This is a spam protected message. Please answer with reference header.
Posted via http://www.usenet-replayer.com
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
14 Apr 2004 07:51:40 PM |
|
|
Zorrro_2k wrote:
anarcissie@yahoo.com (Anarcissie) wrote in message news:<e69b5a13.0404131244.5055a22e@posting.google.com>...
Chief_Billy@hotmail.com (Zorrro_2k) wrote in message news:<45184c6f.0404130428.79115dd5@posting.google.com>...
u416961669@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch) wrote in message news:<l.1081727650.1869049072@[207.75.249.9]>...
Maybe Mel Gibson is not an Australian, but an extraterrestrial
reptilian (more at http://www.davidicke.com)
The Passion of Christ: A Passion Against Man
by Onkar Ghate
March 14, 2004
As The Passion of the Christ plays to near-record crowds, numerous
critics and moviegoers report the film to be a transforming experience.
Although many find themselves forced to turn away from the violence on
screen, they say the blood-soaked depiction of Jesus' crucifixion has
an important purpose. We must be reminded of the enormous sacrifice
that Christ has made for all of us.
The 'important purpose' of the blood soaked flogging and crucifixion
of Jesus is to put everyone on a guilt-trip: " How can you NOT believe
in, love, and follow Jesus after seeing what YOUR SINS did to HIM. ?
There's more to it than that. In order to believe that Jesus
died for _your_ sins, you have to believe in Original Sin, which
is part of the true, and extreme, weirdness of Christian theology.
Original Sin, in its literal form, requires belief in Adam and Eve
and the Garden of Eden, and in the unwilled inheritance of guilt
so profound that it is the source of all the evil we observe in the
world. The crime that brings about this guilt is "eating the fruit
of the Tree of Knowledge", and so learning to discern good from
evil.
...or rather, becoming aware of the human, carnal self. Isn't it
really all
about human sexuality ? Wasn't the first indication that something had
changed
Adam and Eve's awareness that they were naked ?
That's not what it says. If you want to interpret it your
way that's fine, but you have to start a different church first.
Notice that you're equating "naked" with "evil" here. If
that's so, why were Adam and Eve created naked?
Another critical item of this belief system is that Jesus
was himself God, although not the same _person_ as God the Father,
still the same _being_.
He was the personification of God, and the Spirit of God (the holy
Spirit) was within Him. 3-in-1. The same, and yet metaphysically
different. The Word, the Spirit of the Word, and the Word made flesh
which dwelt amongst us. God the Father (or Mother, if you prefer), God
the Son (the Word made Flesh), and the Holy Spirit of God. The
Trinity.
Metaphysical ***** is the purest kind.
Thus God the Father gives his son, who is
also God, to the world to be tortured to death as a sacrifice for
and to _himself_.
It was a sacrifice FOR humanity, not for God. There is no love greater
than to lay down one's life for a friend...I believe Jesus made a
statement such as this.
It was an act of atonement for Original Sin. That's what
it says. If you want to interpret differently, see above.
Although omniscient and omnipotent, he can think
of no better way to defeat evil, which is apparently willing
anything different from what he wills -- he cannot tolerate any
form of dissent. Yet he created humans, other animals, and
angels with, supposedly, the free will which enables them to
fall into this most abominable error. (Remember, if a three-
year-old dies painfully of lukemia, her and her parents'
suffering are _deserved_. That's how tough the crime is.)
I think you are stretching it a little here. Deserves it ?
Have you ever actually _read_ a Bible?
I think acceptance of events, and not turning away from God in the
face of negative events in our lives, is the test we are put to.
I have never turned _to_ any deity for any reason,
especially not a fanatically jealous, bloodthirsty one who
condones racism, mass murder, slavery, child prostitution...
do I need to go on?
I'm just scratching the surface here, by the way.
Once you do believe in this material, apparently you can do all
sorts of things I would normally take to be evil and think very
well of yourself. I doubt if I need to give examples; several
people have probably been killed or maimed in the last hour or
two as a direct outcome of policies and activities promoted by a
well-known political leader who professes strong belief in this
theory. His words and acts seem to be diametrically opposed to
the principles taught by the founder of his religion, yet there
are many Christians who evidently agree with him.
If you believe in Armagedon, do you think that no one will be injured
?
You mean the final battle between your deity and the
first revolutionary, Hel El? If such a thing actually
happens, I know whose side _I'm_ on.
Do you believe evil can be effectively resisted without the lose of
life
on both sides. wlould you have voluteered to go into the WTC, as a
replacement for any one of the victims, had you known what was going
to happen that morning ?
No. I'd have been all over the FBI, the CIA, the local
ATC, and like that. In other words, actually _doing
something about it_ rather than acceding to "god's will".
Extraterrestrial reptilians? Christianity is a lot stranger
than any of them. But perhaps some Christians can describe and
explain it better than I have.
I should hope so. You didn't do a very good job of it, at all.
Neither have you.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anarcissie" |
|
| Title: Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
18 Apr 2004 07:44:31 PM |
|
|
Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message news:<I0lfc.3538$432.2807@fed1read01>...
Zorrro_2k wrote:
anarcissie@yahoo.com (Anarcissie) wrote in message news:<e69b5a13.0404131244.5055a22e@posting.google.com>...
Chief_Billy@hotmail.com (Zorrro_2k) wrote in message news:<45184c6f.0404130428.79115dd5@posting.google.com>...
u416961669@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch) wrote in message news:<l.1081727650.1869049072@[207.75.249.9]>...
Maybe Mel Gibson is not an Australian, but an extraterrestrial
reptilian (more at http://www.davidicke.com)
The Passion of Christ: A Passion Against Man
by Onkar Ghate
March 14, 2004
As The Passion of the Christ plays to near-record crowds, numerous
critics and moviegoers report the film to be a transforming experience.
Although many find themselves forced to turn away from the violence on
screen, they say the blood-soaked depiction of Jesus' crucifixion has
an important purpose. We must be reminded of the enormous sacrifice
that Christ has made for all of us.
The 'important purpose' of the blood soaked flogging and crucifixion
of Jesus is to put everyone on a guilt-trip: " How can you NOT believe
in, love, and follow Jesus after seeing what YOUR SINS did to HIM. ?
There's more to it than that. In order to believe that Jesus
died for _your_ sins, you have to believe in Original Sin, which
is part of the true, and extreme, weirdness of Christian theology.
Original Sin, in its literal form, requires belief in Adam and Eve
and the Garden of Eden, and in the unwilled inheritance of guilt
so profound that it is the source of all the evil we observe in the
world. The crime that brings about this guilt is "eating the fruit
of the Tree of Knowledge", and so learning to discern good from
evil.
...or rather, becoming aware of the human, carnal self. Isn't it
really all
about human sexuality ? Wasn't the first indication that something had
changed
Adam and Eve's awareness that they were naked ?
That's not what it says. If you want to interpret it your
way that's fine, but you have to start a different church first.
Notice that you're equating "naked" with "evil" here. If
that's so, why were Adam and Eve created naked?
Another critical item of this belief system is that Jesus
was himself God, although not the same _person_ as God the Father,
still the same _being_.
He was the personification of God, and the Spirit of God (the holy
Spirit) was within Him. 3-in-1. The same, and yet metaphysically
different. The Word, the Spirit of the Word, and the Word made flesh
which dwelt amongst us. God the Father (or Mother, if you prefer), God
the Son (the Word made Flesh), and the Holy Spirit of God. The
Trinity.
Metaphysical ***** is the purest kind.
Thus God the Father gives his son, who is
also God, to the world to be tortured to death as a sacrifice for
and to _himself_.
It was a sacrifice FOR humanity, not for God. There is no love greater
than to lay down one's life for a friend...I believe Jesus made a
statement such as this.
It was an act of atonement for Original Sin. That's what
it says. If you want to interpret differently, see above.
Although omniscient and omnipotent, he can think
of no better way to defeat evil, which is apparently willing
anything different from what he wills -- he cannot tolerate any
form of dissent. Yet he created humans, other animals, and
angels with, supposedly, the free will which enables them to
fall into this most abominable error. (Remember, if a three-
year-old dies painfully of lukemia, her and her parents'
suffering are _deserved_. That's how tough the crime is.)
I think you are stretching it a little here. Deserves it ?
Have you ever actually _read_ a Bible?
I think acceptance of events, and not turning away from God in the
face of negative events in our lives, is the test we are put to.
I have never turned _to_ any deity for any reason,
especially not a fanatically jealous, bloodthirsty one who
condones racism, mass murder, slavery, child prostitution...
do I need to go on?
I'm just scratching the surface here, by the way.
Once you do believe in this material, apparently you can do all
sorts of things I would normally take to be evil and think very
well of yourself. I doubt if I need to give examples; several
people have probably been killed or maimed in the last hour or
two as a direct outcome of policies and activities promoted by a
well-known political leader who professes strong belief in this
theory. His words and acts seem to be diametrically opposed to
the principles taught by the founder of his religion, yet there
are many Christians who evidently agree with him.
If you believe in Armagedon, do you think that no one will be injured
?
You mean the final battle between your deity and the
first revolutionary, Hel El? If such a thing actually
happens, I know whose side _I'm_ on.
Do you believe evil can be effectively resisted without the lose of
life
on both sides. wlould you have voluteered to go into the WTC, as a
replacement for any one of the victims, had you known what was going
to happen that morning ?
No. I'd have been all over the FBI, the CIA, the local
ATC, and like that. In other words, actually _doing
something about it_ rather than acceding to "god's will".
Extraterrestrial reptilians? Christianity is a lot stranger
than any of them. But perhaps some Christians can describe and
explain it better than I have.
I should hope so. You didn't do a very good job of it, at all.
Neither have you.
Mark L. Fergerson
I'm perfectly willing to be corrected, but I believe my version
follows mainstream, orthodox Christian theology pretty faithfully.
I notice that no detailed correction has been so far forthcoming.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
19 Apr 2004 05:16:56 AM |
|
|
Anarcissie wrote:
<snip>
I'm perfectly willing to be corrected, but I believe my version
follows mainstream, orthodox Christian theology pretty faithfully.
I think you're not sufficiently cynical, but that's just
my opinion.
I notice that no detailed correction has been so far forthcoming.
Don't hold your breath; Xtians have a lock on cognitive
dissonance, if not the original patent.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
13 Apr 2004 05:00:02 PM |
|
|
Anarcissie wrote:
Chief_Billy@hotmail.com (Zorrro_2k) wrote in message news:<45184c6f.0404130428.79115dd5@posting.google.com>...
u416961669@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch) wrote in message news:<l.1081727650.1869049072@[207.75.249.9]>...
Maybe Mel Gibson is not an Australian, but an extraterrestrial
reptilian (more at http://www.davidicke.com)
The Passion of Christ: A Passion Against Man
by Onkar Ghate
March 14, 2004
As The Passion of the Christ plays to near-record crowds, numerous
critics and moviegoers report the film to be a transforming experience.
Although many find themselves forced to turn away from the violence on
screen, they say the blood-soaked depiction of Jesus' crucifixion has
an important purpose. We must be reminded of the enormous sacrifice
that Christ has made for all of us.
The 'important purpose' of the blood soaked flogging and crucifixion
of Jesus is to put everyone on a guilt-trip: " How can you NOT believe
in, love, and follow Jesus after seeing what YOUR SINS did to HIM. ?
There's more to it than that. In order to believe that Jesus
died for _your_ sins, you have to believe in Original Sin, which
is part of the true, and extreme, weirdness of Christian theology.
Original Sin, in its literal form, requires belief in Adam and Eve
and the Garden of Eden, and in the unwilled inheritance of guilt
so profound that it is the source of all the evil we observe in the
world. The crime that brings about this guilt is "eating the fruit
of the Tree of Knowledge", and so learning to discern good from
evil.
Actually, it was disobeying the proscription against
doing so.
One would think that's the reason Adam and Eve were
thrown out of Eden (and that is in fact the reason usually
cited by religious "authorities"), but that's not the case.
If you don't believe me, read Genesis 3:22-23 for the _real_
reason.
<snip>
Extraterrestrial reptilians? Christianity is a lot stranger
than any of them. But perhaps some Christians can describe and
explain it better than I have.
Yeah, right. Once one knows something is ***** one
doesn't bother trying to explain it.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Karl Johanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
14 Apr 2004 05:25:46 PM |
|
|
"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:PpZec.2011$432.1015@fed1read01...
There's more to it than that. In order to believe that Jesus
died for _your_ sins, you have to believe in Original Sin, which
is part of the true, and extreme, weirdness of Christian theology.
Original Sin, in its literal form, requires belief in Adam and Eve
and the Garden of Eden, and in the unwilled inheritance of guilt
so profound that it is the source of all the evil we observe in the
world. The crime that brings about this guilt is "eating the fruit
of the Tree of Knowledge", and so learning to discern good from
evil.
Actually, it was disobeying the proscription against
doing so.
But according to the story they didn't know that disobeying was wrong yet.
It's like when Moses greased 3,000 or so folks for violating a commandment
he hadn't told them about yet.
One would think that's the reason Adam and Eve were
thrown out of Eden (and that is in fact the reason usually
cited by religious "authorities"), but that's not the case.
If you don't believe me, read Genesis 3:22-23 for the _real_
reason.
Real? It's just a story.
Karl Johanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
14 Apr 2004 05:46:50 PM |
|
|
Karl Johanson wrote:
"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:PpZec.2011$432.1015@fed1read01...
There's more to it than that. In order to believe that Jesus
died for _your_ sins, you have to believe in Original Sin, which
is part of the true, and extreme, weirdness of Christian theology.
Original Sin, in its literal form, requires belief in Adam and Eve
and the Garden of Eden, and in the unwilled inheritance of guilt
so profound that it is the source of all the evil we observe in the
world. The crime that brings about this guilt is "eating the fruit
of the Tree of Knowledge", and so learning to discern good from
evil.
Actually, it was disobeying the proscription against
doing so.
But according to the story they didn't know that disobeying was wrong yet.
Exactly. So, whose fault was it?
It's like when Moses greased 3,000 or so folks for violating a commandment
he hadn't told them about yet.
Exactly. So whose fault was it?
One would think that's the reason Adam and Eve were
thrown out of Eden (and that is in fact the reason usually
cited by religious "authorities"), but that's not the case.
If you don't believe me, read Genesis 3:22-23 for the _real_
reason.
Real? It's just a story.
Yes, thank you, I know. But pointing out Biblical
inconsistencies to Xtians is so much fun.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Newton Joseph" |
|
| Title: Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
15 Apr 2004 09:19:19 PM |
|
|
SANE
By New 10.
Would any SANE man want to sacrifice his life for the crimes of another?
Would any SANE man sacrifice his life for a group of total strangers? Would
any SANE man take it upon himself the responsibilities of others, seeing
these others did not ask him to? Has there ever been in recorded history
that a SANE man would feel obligated to feel guilty and a sense of
indebtedness for the death of another, one who they did not know that
supposedly lived two thousand year's ago? Would any sane man sacrifice the
life of his only son and think it was an act of love? Would any SANE person
think that a man can be his own father and son simultaneously? Would a
person think they were dealing with a SANE man if he requested to offer his
life for crimes of another? Would any SANE person think that one should be
punished for the crimes of another? Has it ever been recorded in history
that a SANE man should punish the family for generations because of the
crimes of another?
Has it ever been recorded that a SANE person can except fable, myth, and
folklore of primitive people of three and four thousand years ago and think
that it is real history?. How many SANE people would take the words of
others written thousands of years ago by those he did not know? Would any
SANE person just blindly except what others have said not knowing the
reliability of those who said it? Would a SANE person take an eye witness
account of those they did not know who supposedly live thousands years ago?
Is it possible that a SANE person would put faith above reason and evidence?
Just name me one SANE person who thinks life would be meaningless without an
incorporeal man. Is it possible that a SANE person that can communicate with
an invisible man? Who it is claimed died 2000 years ago.
Could there be a SANE, intelligent and educated person in this twenty first
century and still think that gods are real?
begin 666 clip_image001.gif
M1TE&.#EA( `@`'<`,2'^&E-O9G1W87)E.B!-:6-R;W-O9G0@3V9F:6-E`"'Y
<! $`````+ `````!``$`@ ````$"`P("1 $`.P``
`
end
begin 666 clip_image002.gif
M1TE&.#EA`0`!`.,`````````````````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"'_"TU33T9&24-%.2XP#P````-S0DE4!P<'QYH)
M@P`A_PM-4T]&1DE#13DN,!@````,;7-/4$U33T9&24-%.2XP$ (@Q=X`(?\+
M35-/1D9)0T4Y+C 8````#&-M4%!*0VUP,#<Q,@````=/;;>E`"'Y! $`````
0+ `````!``$```0"$$0`.P``
`
end
begin 666 clip_image003.gif
M1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'_"TU33T9&24-%.2XP#P````-S0DE4`0$!
M?"YW@@`A_PM-4T]&1DE#13DN,!@````,;7-/4$U33T9&24-%.2XP`O&9M)8`
M(?\+35-/1D9)0T4Y+C 8````#&-M4%!*0VUP,#<Q,@````=/;;>E`"'Y! $`
3````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "---= Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí =---" |
|
| Title: Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
12 Apr 2004 06:02:56 PM |
|
|
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, u416961669@spawnkill.ip-
mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch) wrote:
Maybe Mel Gibson is not an Australian, but an extraterrestrial
reptilian (more at http://www.davidicke.com)
Is this the same David Icke who has on occassion harassed me on Usenet?
Hhehe, and he called me a loony because he doesn't believe in Jedi, but
believes in reptilian anti-semitic aliens. How does he know I'm not just a
Jedi, but also a reptilian anti-semitic one?
Mel Gibson is no extraterrestrial, he's just another coward who gave into the
lies of his father (of the status quo, the Empire) like George WMD Bu$h did,
rather than confront them.
Mel, renounce the Dark Side, tell your idiot redneck father to *****!
Then again, I bet you're both pretty thrilled with the $400 million you
milked out of the gullible public? Yes, I support your right to be creative,
but in a way, you really are supporting the terror.
Same for Bu$h, it's still not too late to do the right thing. Dumbya, throw
your daddy into the Pentagone reactor core! :^p
--
--==( Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí )====-- ----- --- - --- ----
R.ebel A.lliance G.alactic U.senet N.ews S.ervice
---- --- ---====================-------- - --------
http://www.president-bush.com/gulfwars.jpg
http://tlf.cx/bilder/bush_nkpm.jpg
http://www.aracnet.com/~allied/images/bush_vader.jpg
http://members.chello.nl/r.kremers/darth.jpg
http://www.mncollegedems.org/DarthBush.jpg
http://www.mingthemerciless.com/atat.html
http://www.dailyprobe.com/arcs/fbi_suspects/bin_18kenobi.shtml
http://www.bloodforoil.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny Buffalo" |
|
| Title: Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
19 Apr 2004 03:45:24 PM |
|
|
I think Mel Gibson is an accomplished director with $400,000,000. And
I think YOU are a non believing socialist swine.
u416961669@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch) wrote in message news:<l.1081727650.1869049072@[207.75.249.9]>...
Maybe Mel Gibson is not an Australian, but an extraterrestrial
reptilian (more at http://www.davidicke.com)
The Passion of Christ: A Passion Against Man
by Onkar Ghate
March 14, 2004
As The Passion of the Christ plays to near-record crowds, numerous
critics and moviegoers report the film to be a transforming experience.
Although many find themselves forced to turn away from the violence on
screen, they say the blood-soaked depiction of Jesus' crucifixion has
an important purpose. We must be reminded of the enormous sacrifice
that Christ has made for all of us.
In responding this way to the film, the audience is getting the message
those responsible for the film intended. Jim Caviezel, the actor who
plays Jesus, explains: "We're all culpable in the death of Christ. My
sins put him up there. Yours did. That's what this story is about."
When Diane Sawyer asked the film's director and cowriter, Mel Gibson,
who killed Jesus, he replied, "The big answer is, we all did. I'll be
the first in the culpability stakes here." And as if to leave no doubt
that this is his considered view, Gibson's only on-screen appearance in
the film is in the form of the hands that drive the nails into Jesus'
body.
It is frightening that so evil a message could receive so welcome a
reception.
When charges of anti-Semitism, denied by the producers, surrounded the
film before its opening, there was outrage from many circles. But when
the principals behind the film tell us openly that its message is that
not only Jews but all men are implicated in the death of Jesus, the
voices of moral outrage fall silent. (In what follows I leave aside the
question of how successfully the film conveys its intended message.)
So, let us ask some questions no one is asking. Why is it immoral to
ascribe guilt to all Jews, but not immoral to ascribe guilt to all
mankind? How can anyone know, without first considering our specific
choices and actions, that you or I are guilty? How can you or I be
responsible for the death of a man killed some two thousand years ago?
To make any sense of the accusation, one must recognize that one is
here dealing with, albeit in a more sophisticated form, the same
collectivist mentality as the racist's. For the anti-Semite, to be
Jewish is to be evil. For the devout Christian, to be human is to be
evil.
The denunciation of man as a creature befouled by, in the words of St.
Augustine, a "radical canker in the mind and will," infuses the
Christian tradition. Every essential attribute and virtue of man is
attacked.
To possess an inquisitive mind, a mind eager to explore the world and
gain knowledge, is to commit the first sin. Remember the story of Eve?
To painstakingly study nature and unlock her laws, thereby paving the
way for man's mastery of his world, is to court imprisonment and
torture. Ask Galileo or a scientist studying human cloning. To concern
oneself with producing the wealth and material goods life requires, is
to invite condemnations of "greed" and "materialism." Read
Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount." To cherish the pleasures that the earth
and one's own body afford, including one's sexual capacity, is to be
denounced as "selfish" and even depraved. Consult the Puritans or the
1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae. To take pride in one's curiosity,
in one's growing knowledge of the world, in one's successful actions in
it, in the resulting joy and pleasure these bring--this is branded by
all as the height of sin.
On this anti-man approach, to remain alive is to sin. To fully purge
oneself, one must die. Only such an account of man can begin to explain
the charge of collective guilt for the death of Christ, whose
undeserved suffering at man's vicious hands is, somehow, supposed to
help alleviate our innately "sinful" nature.
If the anti-Semitic view of the Jewish race as inherently corrupt is
irrational and evil, how much more irrational and evil is this view of
the human race?
Will The Passion itself play a major role in spreading this conception
of man's nature? Of course not. But the audiences and acclaim the film
is enjoying speak to just how prevalent this conception has already
become. If there is an idea behind the film worth opposing, it is this,
its intended message. Teach man to regard himself as a loathsome,
despicable being, and he becomes ripe for any mystical dictator, who
will wield the whip that is supposed to make man atone for
his "transgressions." Deprive man of self-esteem, teach him to spit in
his face, and one paves the way for another Dark Ages.
But to oppose this conception of human nature, one must first come to
understand that man--man at his best, man the rational, productive,
selfish achiever--is a noble being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Karl Johanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
20 Apr 2004 04:33:06 PM |
|
|
"Johnny Buffalo" <Kipower@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:94a6979e.0404191245.4ba204c5@posting.google.com...
I think Mel Gibson is an accomplished director with $400,000,000. And
I think YOU are a non believing socialist swine.
Mark
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou
lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and
thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow
me.
22 And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great
possessions.
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly
shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth
again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in
riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a
rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
While I don't see any evidence that Jesus was aught but a human, the story
describes his as rather socialist.
If you take the Bible seriously, you might also want to read up on some
interesting bits about not judging others.
Karl Johanson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lisa" |
|
| Title: The Eternal Punishment is Real - Biblical Evidence is Overwhelming Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
19 Apr 2004 09:17:34 PM |
|
|
(Johnny Buffalo) wrote in message news:<94a6979e.0404191245.4ba204c5@posting.google.com>...
I think Mel Gibson is an accomplished director with $400,000,000. And
I think YOU are a non believing socialist swine.
u416961669@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net (Armageddon Watch) wrote in message news:<l.1081727650.1869049072@[207.75.249.9]>...
Maybe Mel Gibson is not an Australian, but an extraterrestrial
reptilian (more at http://www.davidicke.com)
The Passion of Christ: A Passion Against Man
by Onkar Ghate
March 14, 2004
As The Passion of the Christ plays to near-record crowds, numerous
critics and moviegoers report the film to be a transforming experience.
Although many find themselves forced to turn away from the violence on
screen, they say the blood-soaked depiction of Jesus' crucifixion has
an important purpose. We must be reminded of the enormous sacrifice
that Christ has made for all of us.
In responding this way to the film, the audience is getting the message
those responsible for the film intended. Jim Caviezel, the actor who
plays Jesus, explains: "We're all culpable in the death of Christ. My
sins put him up there. Yours did. That's what this story is about."
When Diane Sawyer asked the film's director and cowriter, Mel Gibson,
who killed Jesus, he replied, "The big answer is, we all did. I'll be
the first in the culpability stakes here." And as if to leave no doubt
that this is his considered view, Gibson's only on-screen appearance in
the film is in the form of the hands that drive the nails into Jesus'
body.
It is frightening that so evil a message could receive so welcome a
reception.
When charges of anti-Semitism, denied by the producers, surrounded the
film before its opening, there was outrage from many circles. But when
the principals behind the film tell us openly that its message is that
not only Jews but all men are implicated in the death of Jesus, the
voices of moral outrage fall silent. (In what follows I leave aside the
question of how successfully the film conveys its intended message.)
So, let us ask some questions no one is asking. Why is it immoral to
ascribe guilt to all Jews, but not immoral to ascribe guilt to all
mankind? How can anyone know, without first considering our specific
choices and actions, that you or I are guilty? How can you or I be
responsible for the death of a man killed some two thousand years ago?
To make any sense of the accusation, one must recognize that one is
here dealing with, albeit in a more sophisticated form, the same
collectivist mentality as the racist's. For the anti-Semite, to be
Jewish is to be evil. For the devout Christian, to be human is to be
evil.
The denunciation of man as a creature befouled by, in the words of St.
Augustine, a "radical canker in the mind and will," infuses the
Christian tradition. Every essential attribute and virtue of man is
attacked.
The sinful nature of man and the eternal punishment for sin are not
inventions of St.Augustine, but straighforward biblical doctrines,
believed by the Christians from the beginning.
http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_BOC.html
Blow Out the Candle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Critical Look at Annihilationism
James Patrick Holding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Is Hell Forever?] [An Important Social Note] [Verses Favoring Eternal
Punishment] [Arguments Against Eternal Punishment] [Verses Cited For
Annihilationism] [Conclusion]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Does the Bible teach that Hell is punishment forever?" Here we aren't
arguing dates and names, and we are often taking as a given that what
the Bible says is true, and all that remains are matters of
interpretation. This isn't an article for skeptics or for someone who
takes marker in hand and believes those parts of the Bible that they
prefer to think are true are the only parts that need following. Nor
is it an article for the squeamish at heart, for I may as well
acknowledge here and now that I am unable to find any support for the
position which we will be examining closely, generally known as
annihilationism, sometimes called "conditional immortality", although
the two terms are not exactly synonymous. If I am to believe the
press, this idea has gained some popularity or at least sympathy among
evangelicals lately (famous names include John Stott, Gordon Wenham,
and F. F. Bruce), and so I hope that this analysis will be relevant,
even if it is not particularly well-liked.
To begin, a few words on the limits of this study. We will concentrate
almost exclusively on the NT. It is sufficient to merely say of the OT
that it teaches nothing any differently in light of progressive
revelation, but should anyone disagree, I am open to discussion.
Second, we are concerned here only with this specific doctrine of
annihilationism. I will not concern myself with the question of
whether the torments of Hell involve literal flames and darkness or
those references are merely metaphors: If they are metaphors (and I am
persuaded that they are), then they are surely metaphors for something
worse than actual flames and darkness -- I think, separation from God.
I very much doubt that anyone will want to trade the metaphorical hell
for the literal one. Finally, as a good starting point for anyone
interested in this subject, I will recommend a volume called Four
Views on Hell. In this work four authors of varying views discuss the
topic of hell, and annihilationism is one of the focal points. The
position is supported in the book by Clark Pinnock, and it is he whom
we will be drawing upon for major pro-annihilationism arguments, along
with David Powys' 'Hell': A Hard Look at a Hard Question.
[...]
Conclusion
The doctrine of eternal punishment, though seldom mentioned in
Scripture, seems quite clearly Scriptural, even if it does happen to
be unpopular. Admittedly one can play with the data and claim that
some unsaid condition or twist on the language applies to the text;
but given the social background data and the agreement of the early
church on this subject, one must conclude that it is extremely
unlikely that the NT can be read any differently. When it comes down
to reading things into the text, I have found that both sides of this
issue have done some "fudging" -- but it is the annihilationists who
have the bigger plate of brownies by far.
To close, a personal word. When critics like Pinnock and Shaw fudge
the data and then accuse proponents of holding their position so that
they can carry the "ultimate big stick" [Cro.4VH, 39; Pinn.DFI, 246;
Shaw.LAD, 78] to threaten people with, or say that the early church
only adopted the view to stem heresy and get some comfort out of
persecution, or inject emotion into the issue and claim to be quite
proud of having done so, they are not only engaging in cheap
psychoanalysis, they are also being extremely unhelpful. In 18+ years
as a Christian I have not once wielded this "stick" in anyone's face;
many people in my own family reject Christianity in part because of
someone else in my family who did wield the bat of eternal punishment.
How then does Pinnock suppose that I have come to believe this
doctrine? One must face the fact that eternal punishment is taught in
the Bible, and deal with it. Whether you choose to do so with
acceptance, or by means of paste and scissors, is up to you. Exegeting
it out of existence is not a viable option.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: The Eternal Punishment is Real - Biblical Evidence is Overwhelming Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
20 Apr 2004 04:59:09 AM |
|
|
In article <46a21ff9.0404191817.e8a51bc@posting.google.com>,
(Lisa) wrote:
The sinful nature of man and the eternal punishment for sin are not
inventions of St.Augustine, but straighforward biblical doctrines,
believed by the Christians from the beginning.
Sure, but you do realize, don't you, that Christians picked up their
belief in Hell from the Persians. In fact, there's no belief in the
Christian religion that I'm aware of that didn't exist in other
religions at the time.
You'd know this if you bothered to open some books other than the Bible
and read a little.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Carnegie" |
|
| Title: The Eternal Punishment is Real - Biblical Evidence is Overwhelming Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
22 Apr 2004 02:20:28 AM |
|
|
In article <46a21ff9.0404191817.e8a51bc@posting.google.com>,
Lisa <lisa_h413@hotmail.com> writes
"Does the Bible teach that Hell is punishment forever?"
Snipping some of the newsgroups - my reading of the handbook,
if that is what one takes as canon (literally, I suppose, and a
separate issue), says that the fire downstairs isn't ever going to
go out - but that doesn't have to imply that it doesn't destroy the
sinners thrown into it, although Luke 16:23 implies, if taken
literally, not only that persons in Hades have enough time to look
about themselves and compose and deliver careful arguments*,
but that either one can see Heaven from regions of Hades or else
the Blessed make sightseeing tours of the places of eternal
torment. Incidentally, if one supposes that Jesus was a truthful
person, must one conclude that the story of Lazarus and Dives
(the rich guy's name, traditionally) is a factual account, and
perhaps that Dives is burning in Hell (or the cinder formerly known
as Dives is) this very moment?
*My copy has the rich guy begging, "Send Lazarus to dip the tip of
his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony",
although upon reflection I think he is more likely to have said
something like, "Thend Latharuth to dip the tip of hith finger in
wather and cool my tongue, becauthe I am in agony."
Robert Carnegie at home, at large
--
"Are you sure you want to post?" - my software, every time
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DJensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Eternal Punishment is Real - Biblical Evidence is Overwhelming |
19 Apr 2004 10:16:22 PM |
|
|
This thread is off-topic in rec.arts.sf.science (removed), please
stop crossposting.
--
DJensen
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
19 Apr 2004 11:04:51 PM |
|
|
Johnny Buffalo <Kipower@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think Mel Gibson is an accomplished director with $400,000,000.
Just like the Romans did 2000 years ago, Gibson ordered up a
spectacular where the prime attraction is the torture and killing
of a Jew.
And
I think YOU are a non believing socialist swine.
Jesus was a socialist. Sell your belongings and give to the poor.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Walter Bushell" |
|
| Title: Re: Mel Gibson is Enemy of Human Race |
24 Apr 2004 05:02:11 PM |
|
|
In article <c627h3$a2j$1@bolt.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Johnny Buffalo <Kipower@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think Mel Gibson is an accomplished director with $400,000,000.
Just like the Romans did 2000 years ago, Gibson ordered up a
spectacular where the prime attraction is the torture and killing
of a Jew.
And
I think YOU are a non believing socialist swine.
Jesus was a socialist. Sell your belongings and give to the poor.
And for sure he had _no_ respect for private property. He favoured
demons rather than the poor pig farmer, who was probably ruined. And the
owner of the fig tree was probably not please. And he whipped the
merchants trying to make a profit around the temple. (Those temple taxes
were murder.)
<note followups>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
