The Passion

[Xander Harris]

My first paragraph was in response to something you said, but now that I read it again, I guess it was more of an explanation than an arguement. Oh, well. I guess the disclaimer at the end of my last post wasn't really needed after all.

[Brasil]

How about we look at everything from a literary standpoint? It seems that the majority of argument for The Passion has been based on the film being true to the Bible. But we can't very well examine the Bible when we all have religion in our heads, right? Why not look at this entire subject from the literary standpoint? With that in mind, let's begin.

Okay, the reason I quoted Dogma in the subject line is because that's a very astute observation. Some were offended by Dogma because they were unable to separate themselves from their devotion to the Lord. They view Christ as a holy symbol, as one who transcends all else, as one who is and always will be.

That sounds fine, but it doesn't allow for an in-depth look at anything. That's the problem, I think, when people talk about The Passion.

Christ didn't come here to freak us out. He didn't come here to make us uneasy. If I were to say so myself, I'd say he was a pretty laid-back guy. If we could go back to talk to him, I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't try to scare us with horror after horror after horror. That's not what he did in the Bible. He was there to get his groove on, metaphysically speaking.

He was really like the Ancient Hebrew's equivalent of Bill and Ted. When he would have seen those Roman soldiers coming to take him away, he surely would have said something similar to "Bogus..."

The point of the Biblical narrative of Christ's life was not to scare people. Christ's purpose was to, as Kevin Smith so eloquently points out, help us out.

If someone wants to get scared reading the Bible, just check out Exodus or Revelations. [i]That[/i] is the stuff designed to scare the living hell out of you.

And that's why Gibson's The Passion falters; because it doesn't concentrate on the groovy message at all. It's almost like Gibson remade Revelations, starring Christ. Christ was our buddy, hence...Buddy Christ.

Just one final small, tiny, minute point I'd like to make. Christ was Arab. He was born and raised in the Middle East. He would have looked more like those fighting in Palestine right now than somebody you'd meet in NYC.

[Guest mirokulover9]

[font=Comic Sans MS][size=4][color=darkorchid]i think it was a really great movie the graphics were great the people who played the characters were good 2 but the thing that gets me is that a lot of people think Mel Gibson made the movie just 2 get the money:flaming: . (i give the movie 2 thumbs up!!) i liked the devil 2:devil: [/color][/size][/font]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Petey']Just one final small, tiny, minute point I'd like to make. Christ was Arab. He was born and raised in the Middle East. He would have looked more like those fighting in Palestine right now than somebody you'd meet in NYC.[/quote]

Um, nononononono. Christ was not Arab, he was a Jew. Ethnically. There were no Arabs in Judea back then, and in fact Arabs as a people did not exist at all, if you know your history. Nomadic tribes came from Saudi Arabia to inhabit other land in the 6th century AD. These are the people that became known as Arabs. Jesus would have looked like Jews look today. In other words, he was white. Please don't give out misinformation like this without checking first.

Since this thread is about The Passion, I'll say that I haven't seen this film, and I don't plan to. Inspiring faith through violence isn't something I hold in high regard. And if you think the film doesn't inspire anti-Semitism, then you are simply naive. There are churches that have put up "Jews killed Jesus" outside on their message boards (or whatever those things are called). From what I have heard and read, the film puts a great deal of responsibility for Jesus's death on the Jews in the film, so much in fact that the Romans appear nearly absolved. Also I'd like to point out that in every instance in history, when Jews have been concerned with anti-Semitism, they were right to be. They have been oppressed as a people for over 2000 years, and to say this film "doesn't help" is an understatement. There's a reason that it's unbelievably popular among Muslim Arabs, and it's not because it has good special effects.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]
Since this thread is about The Passion, I'll say that I haven't seen this film, and I don't plan to. [/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Fair enough, but here's what I'm curious about:[/color][/size][/font]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade'] And if you think the film doesn't inspire anti-Semitism, then you are simply naive. [/quote]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]So, you haven't seen it, but you've already decided that it's anti-Semetic? I'm afraid there's a flaw in the logic.

I haven't seen it either, a niether do I plan to, for reasons explained. And, because of that, I make absolutely no call whether or not it's anti-Semetic. All I know about it is what people tell me, and that varies widely, to say the least.

As you can imagine, who saw what in the film depended on the person seeing the film. Saying that racists and extremists see the film is anti-Semetic really doesn't say much, because they will see anti-Semitism everywhere. I've heard, from various people, that it's anti-Semetic, nuetral-Semetic, completely free of anti-Semetism, has anti-Semetism if you go in looking for anti-Semetism, etcetera.

I hardly think it fair to judge the movie before seeing it, which is why I don't plan to judge the movie at all.[/color][/size][/font]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='DeathBug']So, you haven't seen it, but you've already decided that it's anti-Semetic? I'm afraid there's a flaw in the logic.[/quote]
That's because you try to connect the two logically but backwards. I don't plan on seeing a film that is anti-Semitic. There's the logic. How did I decide it's anti-Semitic? Because the people that told me it is are people I trust, and the people that said it isn't were total morons. As for the reviews, well everyone knows that most of them are biased because they're written by Christians. Believe me, it's not just racists or extremists that saw anti-Semitism in the film. Anyway, the point is this: there was no controversy over anti-Semitism regarding X2. Likewise with The Last Samurai. The Passion, on the other hand, has inspired loads of hate-mail sent to Jewish organizations, and raised a great amount of concern from the Anti-Defamation League, which is not extremist at all if you read what they write. Now, to the older, wiser Christian, the fact that in the film the blame for Christ's suffering is placed squarely on the Jews might not mean much (I don't need to see the film to know this, by the way). But impressionable kids might get the wrong (or right??) idea. Not to mention how this film could only further fan the flames of hatred in other countries where anti-Semitism is far more prevalent. Again, to say that this film is not anti-Semitic in the least is simply naive. I don't have to watch it to see the problems it's already caused, and how it has polarized people.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']That's because you try to connect the two logically but backwards. I don't plan on seeing a film that is anti-Semitic. There's the logic. How did I decide it's anti-Semitic? Because the people that told me it is are people I trust, and the people that said it isn't were total morons.[/quote]

[color=indigo]Well, I know that I am not a moron and I also know that I didn't find [i]The Passion[/i] the least bit anti-Semitic. Did the movie portray a group of Jewish people condemning Jesus? Yes. Does the bible a group of Jewish people condemning Jesus? Yes. So I guess if you consider the New Testament to be an anti-Semitic piece of literature than you could consider [i]The Passion[/i] anti-Semitic.

In the New Testament Pilate is given a choice on whether or not to kill Jesus, and is so afraid of the possibility of a revolt that he allows the masses at his doorstep to decide Jesus' fate. Now since, according to the Bible, it was a group of Jewish people that captured Jesus and turned him over to the Romans, wouldn't one guess that those same Jewish people were among those masses? I think that connection is one that Mel Gibson made logically. But, while in [i]The Passion[/i] a group of Jews are portrayed influencing Pilate, it is the Romans that torture and degrade him. [i]The Passion[/i] also includes a poignant scene where the man(a Jewish man) that aides Jesus in bearing his cross is obviously sympathetic to Jesus' plight but is powerless to stop the Romans.

I truly believe that people that find this movie derogatory toward Jewish people really didn't grasp the movie's purpose. Using their faulty logic I could easily derive that [i]Malcolm X[/i] slandered caucasions, [i]Gandhi[/i] was made to depict British people as imperialistic, and a grave insult was slung at Egyptians in [i]The Ten Commandments[/i]. People tend to be too sensitive about religious and racial depictions these days. This movie didn't inspire hate, it just gave twisted, hateful people a vehicle.

Now, onto the movie's purpose. What was it? I guess it was just to show Jesus getting the crap beaten out of him for an hour and a half. Anyone that hasn't seen [i]The Passion[/i] shouldn't. The only thing worthwhile about the movie is the cinematography. It's message was lost beneath eight and a half gallons of blood and gore...[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]I haven't seen this movie yet and I really don't plan to. My reasoning behind this is simply, I have a very squeamish stomach. I don't wish to bother the movie theater staff with my bodily functions.

Lincoln wanted to see The Passion while we were down in Texas before he went to Iraq merely to veiw it as a documentary. What can I really say about my husband except that he's a very... special individual :laugh: However, when we went to the only movie theater in Killeen and for that matter in a forty mile radius-it was sold out until monday so we saw Mooseport.

In conclusion, if given a choice between seeing The Passion or hearing about the Passion, you'd find me at my parent's church Good Friday. :laugh: [/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Um, nononononono. Christ was not Arab, he was a Jew. Ethnically. There were no Arabs in Judea back then, and in fact Arabs as a people did not exist at all, if you know your history. Nomadic tribes came from Saudi Arabia to inhabit other land in the 6th century AD. These are the people that became known as Arabs. Jesus would have looked like Jews look today. In other words, he was white. Please don't give out misinformation like this without checking first.[/quote]
What Jews are you looking at today? If you're looking at the Jewish population of say...New York City, Philadelphia, or San Francisco, then yes, Jews are white. But America is not the only country in which Jews live. Predominantly white countries are not the only countries in which Jews live. Think about it, Sciros. Jews weren't white to begin with. You agree that Jesus (provided he was a real person) did live in the Middle East, in Judea, right? You do agree with that.

Now, if Christ lived in the Middle East back then, and if we look at what Middle Eastern men look like today and realize that the look has...for lack of a better term, been Americanized. Actually, yes. We can say that. Their fashions, their economy, all have an American influence.

Keeping that in mind, the idea that over time, people will change the impression and image of a peoples, what makes you so sure that Christ was white? What makes you so sure that you would sit there and proclaim your Lord and Savior as a white man?

Christ lived in the Middle East before America even existed. The image that you look to, that hippie-looking guy with the beard, long hair, and fair skin, that's the image created by a group of white people. Something to think about. I understand your devotion to the guy you see on the cross in church, and in religious paintings, but you're worshipping an image that is very far removed from what Christ actually looked like.

Those fighting in Palestine right now, those who have that darkened skin and hair, they are closer to what Christ actually looked like.

I'm not even pulling this out of thin air, either. Just examine the history and location. It's just common sense, really.

[Manic Webb]

I haven't seen the movie. I don't plan to. And here comes my reasoning that will no doubt get debated...

From what I've heard and read, the movie focuses on the death of Jesus... not so much his actual deeds. I really see no point in focusing on his death... Okay, so there's the whole "died for the sins of man" thing. Still, I don't want uneasing death scenes and brutal torture to have to reinforce my Christianity. I can't go see this movie as a Christian (despite me being one), because watching an actor reinact Jesus' death isn't going to make my faith any stronger. If I ever do decide to see this movie, it's going to be out of pure curiosity. But since I dislike being disgusted by gorey acts in film, I don't see myself seeing The Passion. Maybe when it comes out on video...

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Petey]Those fighting in Palestine right now, those who have that darkened skin and hair, they are closer to what Christ actually looked like.

I'm not even pulling this out of thin air, either. Just examine the history and location. It's just common sense, really.[/QUOTE]

...Man oh man, nobody actually reads anything nowadays they just quote it. There's a difference between skin color and ethnicity. To say that Jesus was dark skinned and dark haired and therefore Arab is completely and positively wrong. He was not Arab. I repeat, there were no Arabs in Judea at that time. Jesus was an ethnic Jew. Yes, their skin color and hair color differs across the globe just like the skin color and hair color of Christians differs, and the Jews that lived in Judea at the time had dark hair and darker skin, but they were not Arabs they were Jews. When I said that Jesus was therefore white I meant as a race. I suppose Arabs fall into that category too, so it wasn't a very meaningful statement and I can see how you may have misinterpreted it. But he certainly did not look like Arabs, just as Jews who live in Israel don't look like Arabs. And don't think that my "devotion to a hippie Christ" is what prompted me to reply to your post. I'm devoted to Batman.

In response to Heaven's Cloud's post, where he says that if I think that the New Testament is anti-Semitic then The Passion is anti-Semitic, I'd like to say that there are two flaws with the statement (mind you, I'm not nitpicking here). First of all, the New Testament does indeed have a good deal of anti-Semitism in it (there are several very good books on the subject if you're curious), and much of it was written when Christians lost some hope in converting Jews and went on to convert Romans, and therefore made Jews look worse and Romans better in their writings (in addition to not understanding the Jewish scriptures worth a damn). Second, The Passion is not based exclusively on New Testament scripture. In fact, much of it is based on, in addition to the gospels, the writings of two nuns, Mary of Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, who have anti-Semitism in their writings including blood libel. So The Passion does indeed have anti-Semitic sources.

Anyway, when Heaven's Cloud said that people who find the film anti-Semitic don't grasp its true purpose, he is probably very right. However, that is not the issue. The more I consider this issue, the more the "true purpose" of the film becomes irrelevant as opposed to the effect it's having on the public. Mind you, some of the examples I've given before are indeed extreme (albeit true). And in general of course it doesn't inspire anti-Semitism. But I can only say that about the U.S. (and maybe UK, Australia, ... I guess that's it). As far as the rest of Europe goes (which is pretty darn anti-Semitic and even if you disagree it's only because you don't know any better) and OMG the Middle East LOL. As far as those areas as concerned, when H.C. mentioned that the film is a vehicle for hate, he hit the nail right on the head. But besides all that, the film really has sparked a good deal of protest from a large amount of Jewish (and even Catholic) communities. And it has created to some degree a sort of rift between those people and other Christians. Yes, in some cases the rift is because some Jewish groups are blowing the anti-Semitism of the film, if there is any, way out of proportion (and so bringing more grief upon themselves than necessary). But if there was no Passion, it wouldn't happen, and that's the point. And again, let me point out that the film is very popular among Muslim Arabs, and it's not because they want to experience Jesus's true pain.

So you see purpose and effect are two different things. To create and release such a film as The Passion, of course it takes some serious Jesus lovin'. But it also takes some willful ignoring of Jewish protesters, who were protesting not in aggression towards Gibson's beliefs, but (this is an important point) in their own defense. And that, I think, is anti-Semitic. Jews are hypersensitive to these issues, yes, but that stems from a history of real and near-constant tragedy. To sit back and say "you're making too big a deal over this" sets a very dangerous precedent as far as attitude towards future (possibly very well-founded) complaints/pleas from the Jewish community goes. I find it highly disrespectful, insensitive, and yes, on some level anti-Semitic. That is why I find the film anti-Semitic. And even if I go watch it tomorrow (I'd rather watch Ladykillers it looks really good) what I've said here won't change. It is independent of the film's content. If freaking Blade III comes out and has the same effect on people that The Passion has, I'd say Blade III is anti-Semitic, too.

I think I made my point. You may have a different take on things, but it would take a lot to sway me.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']...Man oh man, nobody actually reads anything nowadays they just quote it.[/quote]
Funny, I could say the same thing about you. You [i]totally[/i] missed my point and refuse to admit that you've got nothing to base your argument on. But since you're so intent on dragging this out, let's continue.

[quote]There's a difference between skin color and ethnicity.[/quote]
Well that's quite obvious.

[QUOTE]To say that Jesus was dark skinned and dark haired and therefore Arab is completely and positively wrong. He was not Arab. I repeat, there were no Arabs in Judea at that time.[/QUOTE]
And if you had actually bothered to read my post that you quoted, you would see that I'm no longer referring to him as an Arab. Some comprehension would suit you very well.

[QUOTE]Jesus was an ethnic Jew. Yes, their skin color and hair color differs across the globe just like the skin color and hair color of Christians differs, and the Jews that lived in Judea at the time had dark hair and darker skin, but they were not Arabs they were Jews.[/QUOTE]
You didn't say anything here to support your statements.

[QUOTE]When I said that Jesus was therefore white I meant as a race.[/QUOTE]
Let's examine your post, then, since I seem to have so gravely misinterpeted it.

[QUOTE]Um, nononononono. Christ was not Arab, he was a Jew. Ethnically. There were no Arabs in Judea back then, and in fact Arabs as a people did not exist at all, if you know your history. Nomadic tribes came from Saudi Arabia to inhabit other land in the 6th century AD. These are the people that became known as Arabs. [b]Jesus would have looked like Jews look today. In other words, he was white.[/b] Please don't give out misinformation like this without checking first.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][b]I suppose Arabs fall into that category too, so it wasn't a very meaningful statement[/b] and I can see how you may have misinterpreted it. But he certainly did not look like Arabs, just as Jews who live in Israel don't look like Arabs. And don't think that my "devotion to a hippie Christ" is what prompted me to reply to your post.[/QUOTE]
I've bolded a key point here. You're looking at this purely from a modern-day perspective. That's not a good idea, to put it simply. You're taking some 2000 years of societal evolution and applying it to ancient history. You shouldn't do that, because you'll never be able to talk about a topic with any reasonable support. Put yourself in the times of Christ. Understand what the societal condition was back then.

"White as a race" means nothing, because Christ wasn't white at all, no matter how you want to twist the meaning of the term to try to suit your statements.

He wasn't white ethnically, and he wasn't white racially.

Sciros, do you read with any comprehension? I'm beginning to think you just quote my posts and go off on some self-righteous and scattered tangent.

[QUOTE]I'm devoted to Batman.[/QUOTE]
This has absolutely no bearing on the topic at hand, and doesn't serve any beneficial result. Its comedic effect is null and void.

[quote]I think I made my point. You may have a different take on things, but it would take a lot to sway me.[/QUOTE]
Point? Where? All I see is a bunch of rambling mixed in with some religious indoctrination.

[Manic Webb]

I really don't like to talk about the subject of Jesus' appearance, but it looks like a heated discussion has started that I must inject myself into for the sake of injecting myself into it. :rolleyes:

Let's remember that there's a distinct difference between race, ethnicity, and color. Ethnicity refers to the way one was raised, while color is one's... skin color. It's already been established that Jesus was not Arab, as that ethnic group hadn't even made its way to that area yet. He was Jewish, plain and simple; descended from Hebrews. The only real description the J-man is given, is that he wasn't extraordinary-looking. He looked like Average Jeeze. So he probably wasn't exceptionally darker or lighter than the average person. Thing is, even if Jesus had been full-out Roman, he still would've had at least an olive-like skin tone. He could've been pretty light, but not white to the degree of, say, Ireland or Holland. So I doubt he was white, but I'm not going to the extreme to say he was ebony black. Considering the times and location, I think it's pretty fair to assume he was a more (for lack of a better term) "sun-baked" tone of brown.

[coconuts1977]

I'm not going to bother seeing it. The ending has already been spoiled for me. :grumble:

[xmystic_silverx]

[size=1][color=red]I don't know what message they were trying to pose by making Satan look female/male. Perhaps they were trying to say that Satan can take any form that he wants. Satan freaked me out. I think I had a nightmare the night I saw it.

Anyway, I thought the movie was great. I can't really explain what I felt, Im sure myself and other viewers had a mix of emotions running through them. Some parts I thought that I couldn't take it anymore, other times I wanted to scream at the men that were beating him. Honestly, I wanted to cry, most of the time.

If you are a person who goes crazy at the sight of blood, or someone who hates to read subtitles, then this movie just isn't for you. The whole thing is in Hebrew and it has the most blood I have ever seen in a movie. You will never forget this movie once you see it. Its like a part of your body and it can never leave. <-- okay that sounded corny but oh well... ~.~;[/size][/color]

[James P. Galvatron]

I hate that most Christians in the United States are believing more strongly in Christianity because of the Passion of Christ a movie that mostly focuses on the death of Jesus Christ like forget all the Miracles he did, The people who he feed, the wisdom he spread, and the lives he touched. Lets all just be good Christians because he died for all our sins.

Also I hate it that whenever something bad happens to the U.S. someone always says its the end of the world I read it in the bible like wow! I did not know that if something bad happened to the U.S. that it meant the whole world was effected by Revelations and the Apocolypse would soon be upon us.

[xmystic_silverx]

[QUOTE=Inuyasha7271]I hate that most Christians in the United States are believing more strongly in Christianity because of the Passion of Christ a movie that mostly focuses on the death of Jesus Christ like forget all the Miracles he did, The people who he feed, the wisdom he spread, and the lives he touched. Lets all just be good Christians because he died for all our sins.

Also I hate it that whenever something bad happens to the U.S. someone always says its the end of the world I read it in the bible like wow! I did not know that if something bad happened to the U.S. that it meant the whole world was effected by Revelations and the Apocolypse would soon be upon us.[/QUOTE]
[size=1][color=red]I don't think it just focuses on his death, it shows his miracles too, his wisdom he spread, the people he fed, and the lives he has touched.

As for the end of the world, well I guess I hate it too. We ((the USA)) has been through so many wars and problems, and we've lived through it so its foolish to say the end of the world because we will probably make it through it like we always have.[/size][/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=IceWolfEyes]*Holds head in pain* Not all Jewish people are white. I have met quite a number of black Jews. They were actually quite polite, and fun to chat with. And why can't an Arab be a Jew? Seems like discrimination, doesn't it.
[/QUOTE]

OMFG. Jews are also an ethnic group. Yes there's Judaism, but when I say Jews I mean an ethnic group. My mother is Jewish, so I am Jewish. (Though I am an atheist.) It's independent of religion, in that sense. In fact, you can be an ethnic Jew and be Catholic, I suppose. Things like anti-Semitism, for instance, have always been directed at the ethnicity, not the religion. Jews in the USSR weren't "practicing Jews."

Anyway, IceWolfEyes don't nitpick my posts like that usually it's not even worth the time.

Petey did it and it's just annoying, because it seems he's of the impression that I'm trying to "force Jesus to be white," although technically Jews and Arabs are all grouped under White/Caucasian when it comes to racial distinctions I don't know why he makes such a big deal about it. Yeah, that's right Jesus was white racially too bad if that upsets you Petey. I wasn't even trying to make a point of that I just meant that he was an ethnic Jew and that was that.

And Petey when you said that I didn't make any points I just had religious rambling I think you forgot to read the rest of the post, because that's where the point was.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']OMFG. Jews are also an ethnic group. Yes there's Judaism, but when I say Jews I mean an ethnic group.[/quote]Chill out, dude. You've contradicted yourself so much in this thread that you can't say anything to redeem whatever you have said before. You've tried to rationalize uneducated claims by claiming that's not what you meant originally. Don't pull that with us.

[quote]My mother is Jewish, so I am Jewish. (Though I am an atheist.)[/quote]I'd suggest you check [url="http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/facts%20about%20israel/people/SOCIETY-%20Jewish%20Society"]this page[/url] out.

You say you're an Atheist? Why then do you argue with Orthodox Jewish sensibilities?

I quote the portion of that page I'd like to call attention to;

[QUOTE]The Orthodox sector advocates determining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother, in strict accordance with Jewish law, while secular Jews generally support a definition based on the civil criterion of an individual's identification with Judaism.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]It's independent of religion, in that sense.[/QUOTE]There is no separation between Atheism and Judaism in the way you want to say it here. You've just twisted the situation around to suit your case. The Jewish heritage/ethnicity [i]is not[/i] separate from the Jewish faith. I don't know what you're basing that statement on, but I have a feeling you're ignoring Reform Judaism. It is a sect of Judaism that does not have the emphasis on being kosher, but still celebrates the heritage, ethnicity [i]and[/i] faith of Judaism.

If you want to say that Ethnicity and Religion are two separate values, then go ahead. But realize what you're saying is very ill-advised.

[QUOTE]In fact, you can be an ethnic Jew and be Catholic, I suppose.[/QUOTE][i]What?[/i] Sciros, just walk away now, dude.

[QUOTE]Things like anti-Semitism, for instance, have always been directed at the ethnicity, not the religion.[/QUOTE][i]What?[/i] Do 3,000 years of [i]religious[/i] persecution and suppression mean anything to you?

[QUOTE]Jews in the USSR weren't "practicing Jews."[/QUOTE]You're really backed-up into a corner, aren't you? Surely you know of Fiddler On The Roof, correct? I'm certain you'd have seen it sometime or another, with you being Jewish and all. Fiddler wasn't fictional. It was based on true stories and accounts of Sholom Aleichem. The Jews in the USSR [i]were[/i] practicing Jews. They celebrated the Sabbath, they wore the yamulkas. Remember when they entered a house and kissed the edge and top of the door frame? That's a characteristic of a practicing Jew. My ex girlfriend, a very devout Reform Jew, has that in her house.

[QUOTE]Anyway, IceWolfEyes don't nitpick my posts like that usually it's not even worth the time.[/QUOTE]That is inconsequential.

[QUOTE]Petey did it and it's just annoying,[/QUOTE]Life sucks; get a helmet.

[QUOTE]because it seems he's of the impression that I'm trying to "force Jesus to be white,"[/QUOTE]Do you want me to go back into your posts? I'm more than happy to. Stop trying to redefine what you were saying, dude. You're not rationalizing your way out of this one.

[QUOTE]although technically Jews and Arabs are all grouped under White/Caucasian when it comes to racial distinctions[/QUOTE]And this information comes from where? "White/Caucasian" is a term developed sometime in the 20th Century, I believe. Very far removed from any relevance to any period around 100 BC. Seriously, man, just walk away.

[QUOTE]I don't know why he makes such a big deal about it.[/QUOTE]You haven't really demonstrated comprehensive knowledge of much so far, actually.

[QUOTE]Yeah, that's right Jesus was white racially too bad if that upsets you Petey.[/QUOTE]Who's the one getting flustered? Who's the one getting frustrated here? Who's the one who replies in long, rambly, ranty paragraphs? Who is the one throwing a childish tantrum because they're not getting their way?

[QUOTE]I wasn't even trying to make a point of that I just meant that he was an ethnic Jew and that was that.[/QUOTE]You have no point with this statement, so I can't even comment on it.

[QUOTE]And Petey when you said that I didn't make any points I just had religious rambling I think you forgot to read the rest of the post, because that's where the point was.[/QUOTE]I think it's been established that you haven't said anything worthwhile. Sciros, you're 21 years old. You're a comp sci student studying computer programming. You should be more logical than this.

EDIT:

A final thought.

[QUOTE] OMFG. Jews are also an ethnic group.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]My mother is Jewish, so I am Jewish. (Though I am an atheist.)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]In fact, you can be an ethnic Jew and be Catholic, I suppose.[/QUOTE]
Why are you ashamed of your Jewishness? Why try to separate yourself from it, to distance yourself from it as far as possible? You know what, I doubt that you're even an Atheist. An Atheist wouldn't have thrown that line in there like that. That line is a cover, a deflection, if you will.

I realize that Orthodox Judaism is the most stressful sect of Judaism, but you don't have to behave like this.

You don't have to buy into the stereotypes, either. I have a Jewish heritage and faith in my dad's side of the family. I'm not an Atheist, either. To quote Ferris Bueller, who quotes John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me." I could very easily convert to the Jewish faith and completely avoid the negative stereotype, even though I can do a damn near perfect Woody Allen imitation.

Sciros, it's okay.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Petey] I quote the portion of that page I'd like to call attention to;
The Orthodox sector advocates determining a Jew as one born of a Jewish mother, in strict accordance with Jewish law, while secular Jews generally support a definition based on the civil criterion of an individual's identification with Judaism. [/QUOTE]
Seeing as my mother considers herself ethnically Jewish and so I am half-Jewish (and yes, as far as Orthodox Jews and also the USSR (was) is concerned I am simply Jewish) I fail to see how your quote would really apply to me. Am I wrong to be non-religious and still ethnically consider myself partly Jewish? If you think so, fine. But that's not how anyone else I know feels about it.

[QUOTE]There is no separation between Atheism and Judaism in the way you want to say it here. You've just twisted the situation around to suit your case. The Jewish heritage/ethnicity [i]is not[/i] separate from the Jewish faith. I don't know what you're basing that statement on, but I have a feeling you're ignoring Reform Judaism. It is a sect of Judaism that does not have the emphasis on being kosher, but still celebrates the heritage, ethnicity [i]and[/i] faith of Judaism.[/QUOTE]

Maybe I haven't been too clear, so I'll say it this way: ethnically speaking, I am half-Jewish. My father is Russian. I can think of myself as Russian, Jewish, American, whatever. I'm perfectly fine either way. Orthodox Jews would say I'm Jewish. To those who hate Jews, I am Jewish. ... Does my religion matter? Well regardless of whether it was Judaism, Russian Orthodox, or nothing at all, I'm still half-Jewish, my Soviet passport (if I'd had one) would have said Jewish, Orthodox Jews still consider me Jewish, etc.

If you say that Jewish ethnicity is not separate from the Jewish faith, then answer this: my family is of no religious faith at all, yet we left the USSR because of anti-Semitism. How so?

[QUOTE][i]What?[/i] Do 3,000 years of [i]religious[/i] persecution and suppression mean anything to you?[/QUOTE]

Ok you got me there. But the persecution and suppression was hardly religious in this century. It was not Judaism that the nazis were trying to exterminate; it was Jews. That's why in the end persecution is far more consistent when considering Jews as an ethnic group and not just a religious one.

[QUOTE]You're really backed-up into a corner, aren't you? Surely you know of Fiddler On The Roof, correct? I'm certain you'd have seen it sometime or another, with you being Jewish and all. Fiddler wasn't fictional. It was based on true stories and accounts of Sholom Aleichem. The Jews in the USSR [i]were[/i] practicing Jews. They celebrated the Sabbath, they wore the yamulkas. Remember when they entered a house and kissed the edge and top of the door frame? That's a characteristic of a practicing Jew. My ex girlfriend, a very devout Reform Jew, has that in her house.[/QUOTE]

Oh please, you're going to explain to me how the Jews in the USSR were practicing Jews based on Fiddler on the Roof? And you're giving [i]me[/i] crap? My family and by far the vast majority of the Jewish families we knew in Russia were NOT practicing Jews. And even if some of them celebrated Passover (mind you not too seriously) none went to temple or anything. Please believe me when I say that very few of the Jews in the USSR were truly religious.

I'm not going to address the other random stuff you threw in there because I think it was just to annoy me again. (Are you going to tell me to get a helmet this time too?)

[QUOTE]Why are you ashamed of your Jewishness? Why try to separate yourself from it, to distance yourself from it as far as possible? You know what, I doubt that you're even an Atheist. An Atheist wouldn't have thrown that line in there like that. That line is a cover, a deflection, if you will.[/QUOTE]

That's actually funny. Hey look, I was just trying to explain the same thing I wrote above (in this post). That's why I added that I was atheist. To show that I can consider myself Jewish and atheist at the same time, which would mean that as far as I'm concerned ethnicity and religion are two different things. That's all. If you're going to critique HOW I said it, just save yourself the trouble and don't.

[QUOTE]Sciros, it's okay.[/QUOTE]
I know... .:sniffle:... I know ...:teary eyes:... thank you so much for believing in me Petey you're a great guy.

Hey look I think I'm making the wrong impression here because you keep misinterpreting what I'm trying to say (blame whoever you want, but I blame you of course.) Anyway I think I'll IM you sometime so we can put an end to this back-and-forth thing because you're getting way too aggressive here.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Seeing as my mother considers herself ethnically Jewish and so I am half-Jewish (and yes, as far as Orthodox Jews and also the USSR (was) is concerned I am simply Jewish) I fail to see how your quote would really apply to me. [b]Am I wrong to be non-religious and still ethnically consider myself partly Jewish?[/b'] If you think so, fine. But that's not how anyone else I know feels about it.[/quote]
"Still ethnically consider myself partly Jewish"

Keep this phrase in mind. I'll touch upon it later on.

[QUOTE][b]Maybe I haven't been too clear, so I'll say it this way[/b]: ethnically speaking, I am half-Jewish. My father is Russian. [b]I can think of myself as Russian, Jewish, American, whatever.[/b] I'm perfectly fine either way. Orthodox Jews would say I'm Jewish. To those who hate Jews, I am Jewish. ... Does my religion matter? [b]Well regardless of whether it was Judaism, Russian Orthodox, or nothing at all,[/b] I'm still half-Jewish, my Soviet passport (if I'd had one) would have said Jewish, Orthodox Jews still consider me Jewish, etc.[/QUOTE]
Would they? Orthodox Jews would consider you Jewish even though you don't practice? They consider you Jewish even when you say you're an Atheist? How do the Jew-haters (for lack of a better term) know you're Jewish? If you don't present yourself as Jewish at all, more or less just keeping it in the back of your head, how are you able to say that others know you are Jewish?

You more or less hide the fact that you have Jewish roots. Unless you tell people, broadcast it, or something to that effect, others will have no idea.

Unless, however...well, read my next point.

[QUOTE]If you say that Jewish ethnicity is not separate from the Jewish faith, then answer this: my family is of no religious faith at all, yet we left the USSR because of anti-Semitism. How so?[/QUOTE]
You've just answered your own question. You may not realize it, however.

What kind of company did you keep in the USSR? Who did you associate with? You mentioned how you knew many Jewish families, correct? Meaning, surely you associated with them? They were practicing Jews, correct? Perhaps not extremely active practice, but they practiced to an extent.

Your family did leave because of fear of Anti-Semitism. What you may not realize is, that Anti-Semitism would have been directed at your family out of guilty by association. Think about it. Your family was not broadcasting Judaism, but surely you still associated with those who did display traits of the religion.

The root of Anti-Semitism is based on religion. No matter how you look at it, no matter what facet you concentrate on, it's based on religious intolerance.

[QUOTE]Ok you got me there. But the persecution and suppression was hardly religious in this century. It was not Judaism that the nazis were trying to exterminate; it was Jews. That's why in the end persecution is far more consistent when considering Jews as an ethnic group and not just a religious one.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about Nazis. I'm also not talking about the past 20 years, either. I'm talking about turn-of-the-century and back. Turn-of-the-century and earlier, it was religious persecution. It's merely evolved into a different animal, as it were.

[QUOTE]Oh please, you're going to explain to me how the Jews in the USSR were practicing Jews based on Fiddler on the Roof? And you're giving [i]me[/i] crap? My family and by far the vast majority of the Jewish families we knew in Russia were NOT practicing Jews. And even if some of them celebrated Passover (mind you not too seriously) none went to temple or anything. [b]Please believe me when I say[/b] that very few of the Jews in the USSR were truly religious.[/QUOTE]
See above points.

[QUOTE]I'm not going to address the other random stuff you threw in there [b]because I think it was just to annoy me again.[/b] (Are you going to tell me to get a helmet this time too?)[/QUOTE]
If I'm so wrong, I'd actually encourage you to debunk everything that I'm saying. In order to have a healthy debate, you need to be thorough. I've been trying to impress that upon you, and actually, it has had effect already. Your reply here is almost precisely what I wanted. You still have some more work to do, however.

And yes, get a helmet. :D

[QUOTE]That's actually funny. [b]Hey look, I was just trying to explain the same thing I wrote above (in this post[/b]). That's why I added that I was atheist. To show that I can consider myself Jewish and atheist at the same time, which would mean that as far as I'm concerned ethnicity and religion are two different things. That's all. If you're going to critique HOW I said it, just save yourself the trouble and don't.[/QUOTE]
"If you're going to critique HOW I said it, just save yourself the trouble and don't."

Welcome to debating with an English Major. I break writing down. It's what I do.

You could have said it much better. This is an example of not being able to clearly type what you're thinking. It's something you need to work on.

[QUOTE]I know... .:sniffle:... I know ...:teary eyes:... thank you so much for believing in me Petey you're a great guy.[/QUOTE]
My pleasure. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt wherever possible.

[quote][b]Hey look I think I'm making the wrong impression here because you keep misinterpreting what I'm trying to say[/b] (blame whoever you want, but I blame you of course.) Anyway I think I'll IM you sometime so we can put an end to this back-and-forth thing because you're getting way too aggressive here.[/QUOTE]
Feel free to IM me.

Now, we've gone off-topic for a while now, so Teacher Alex is going to come in and bring all of this back on-topic. Let's look at what I've bolded, shall we?

[b]Am I wrong to be non-religious and still ethnically consider myself partly Jewish?[/b]

[b]Maybe I haven't been too clear, so I'll say it this way[/b]

[b]I can think of myself as Russian, Jewish, American, whatever.[/b]

[b]Well regardless of whether it was Judaism, Russian Orthodox, or nothing at all[/b]

[b]Please believe me when I say[/b]

[b]Hey look, I was just trying to explain the same thing I wrote above (in this post[/b])

Let's examine what these phrases mean. Let's look at the underlying meanings in them.

All of these abstracts have one key thing in common. They're all unsure of themselves. The language used, the tone, all points to insecurity about what is being said. While you feel very strongly about this, this discussion has been very unsettling for you. I can tell. Don't worry about it. We all get uneasy about certain things.

Sciros, you are part of the audience most at risk from The Passion. That's not because of real or imagined Anti-Semitism in the piece, either.

You are unsure of yourself when met with criticism and doubt. You get extremely defensive when someone doubts what you're saying, when someone contradicts your beliefs. I contradicted you right here and you became rather upset.

You were influenced by what I was saying. I'm not implying that I changed your views. I'm saying that I was able to elicit a reaction from you--quite a negative reaction, I might add. This is important in understanding just what The Passion is going to do to people.

Because the majority of the population is unsure of their own selves, or at least not secure, or even easily unsettled, The Passion is going to shake the very foundation on which those people are based. This is positive and negative.

I am one of the loudest advocates of challenging people to think, and I cannot express my joy in words when I see someone's eyes light-up as they understand what an instructor is saying. That is the positive value of The Passion, that some [i]may[/i] be inspired by it and their lives may be changed for the better.

However, with the positive, there is a negative. The downside to this being, so much of the world is a cattle culture, which is easily swayed. South Park's most recent episode, while wholly offensive, hits this right on the head. People are liable to take things to an extreme when met with a "life-changing" event. Damn, I hate that term...people are liable to take things to an extreme after experiencing "the swift spiritual kick to the head that alters their perception of reality forever." Much better. This liability stems from those misunderstanding what something really means. So much of our moviegoing populace opinion is based on this misunderstanding, and that is why we need to be critical of The Passion, not because of some Anti-Semitic overtones that may or may not be there.

We must educate people of what The Passion concentrated on, which was Aestheticism, the desire to elicit an emotional reaction based upon images and not moral messages. As much as I respect the Aesthetes, they didn't have a solid theory about how to reach out and touch people, as it were.

You can reply if you want.


~Alex

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Petey]You've just answered your own question. You may not realize it, however.

What kind of company did you keep in the USSR? Who did you associate with? You mentioned how you knew many Jewish families, correct? Meaning, surely you associated with them? They were practicing Jews, correct? Perhaps not extremely active practice, but they practiced to an extent.

Your family did leave because of fear of Anti-Semitism. What you may not realize is, that Anti-Semitism would have been directed at your family out of guilty by association. Think about it. Your family was not broadcasting Judaism, but surely you still associated with those who did display traits of the religion.

The root of Anti-Semitism is based on religion. No matter how you look at it, no matter what facet you concentrate on, it's based on religious intolerance.[/QUOTE]

Well, what you say does sound convincing, and it would be to someone who didn't know otherwise. But you are wrong. People of Jewish heritage had "Jewish" written in their passport under nationality. It really did have nothing to do with religion. I'm a direct source here, so trust me on this. I am positive that I am right here. There was no such thing as guilt by association. Russian people who fraternized with Jewish people were not "guilty by association." In the USSR (and in many other nations, in fact), anti-Semitism was not borne out of religious intolerance, much as you'd like to believe it was. In fact, the USSR was an atheist country (de facto and de jure), and saying anti-Semitism was religious intolerance there would suggest that there was intolerance towards other religions, at least to a degree. But there was none. People knew my mother is Jewish based on her last name, Zaytsev, not whether she was religious or not. Nobody really assumed anybody was religious in Russia at the time, because pretty much nobody was.

Don't try to challenge me on the above, I don't want to waste my time quoting people just to convince you. Just trust me on it.

[QUOTE]Welcome to debating with an English Major. I break writing down. It's what I do.[/QUOTE]

Hahaha ok that explains why I wasn't getting through to you ;-). English majors...

Anyway you try to break stuff down too much. In fact you might even quote the above sentence and then put a "this is irrelevant" underneath (as you have done before), inadvertently making the same mistake you thought I did. Try to avoid it in the future; it makes you seem really stupid.

Ok back on track, you assume that much of what I said betrayed insecurity on my part, but really I was just trying to avoid your worthless nitpicking. Instead I got a bizarro lecture. At the same time, because you were for some reason focused on my "insecurity" (were you really serious about that because really, come on...) you completely failed to acknowledge or challenge a lot of what I said. You have some very unfounded misconceptions of the USSR and what it meant to be Jewish there. But don't challenge my statements based on those assumptions, because you end up thinking you're that much smarter than me when from my "corner" quite the opposite becomes apparent. Oh yeah, just in case, don't think that I'm being defensive here or anything. I am just trying to get you to stop thinking of me as some poor "Jew in denial" and actually realize what I'm talking about.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Well, what you say does sound convincing, and it would be to someone who didn't know otherwise. But you are wrong. People of Jewish heritage had "Jewish" written in their passport under nationality. It really did have nothing to do with religion. I'm a direct source here, so trust me on this. I am positive that I am right here. There was no such thing as guilt by association. Russian people who fraternized with Jewish people were not "guilty by association." In the USSR (and in many other nations, in fact), anti-Semitism was not borne out of religious intolerance, much as you'd like to believe it was. In fact, the USSR was an atheist country (de facto and de jure), and saying anti-Semitism was religious intolerance there would suggest that there was intolerance towards other religions, at least to a degree. But there was none. People knew my mother is Jewish based on her last name, Zaytsev, not whether she was religious or not. Nobody really assumed anybody was religious in Russia at the time, because pretty much nobody was.

Don't try to challenge me on the above, I don't want to waste my time quoting people just to convince you. Just trust me on it.[/quote]
First things first, learn to paragraph. Secondly, I'd be inclined to respect you for debunking my points. I applaud those that prove me wrong. Really, I do. But your tone is less than satisfactory.

But before I mention the negatives, I should discuss the positives.

Your ideas are solid. You have effectively proved me wrong here.

Previously, you were merely dealing in abstractions and not with concrete examples. Here, however, you mention the passports, which is a physical example and can be substantiated--researched, as well. Nice point.

Your point about the definition of Anti-Semitism is shaky, though, because it is still based largely on abstraction. Perhaps if you provided the precise definition of Anti-Semitism, your point would be more well-received.

The portion of the religious nature of the USSR is concrete, because I can search for it in my college's library. It is a point that can be substantiated.

Also, you mention your mother's last name, which also can be researched. This is another example of concrete support, and it strengthens your argument. I stand corrected.

Now, while your support is solid, the tone and language need work. Sciros, I understand you're a comp-sci major, but I think you should look into taking a few high-level English courses. It's nothing too major, but your form needs work. If you refine it, you will have a very sharp wit [i]and[/i] a very precise method of presentation.

[QUOTE]Hahaha ok that explains why I wasn't getting through to you ;-). English majors...[/QUOTE]On the contrary. English Majors are some of the most open Majors around. Considering that the field we are working in is essentially undefined, we keep an open mind more or less. We disregard what someone is trying to say when they are unable to express it adequately. You can't expect my classmates to take a Freshman paper seriously when the language is childish, even though the core ideas are solid. I've reviewed my Freshman college papers and even though my thesis is tight, the language and tone is laughable, turning the paper into a comedy, rather than a serious piece.

[QUOTE]Anyway you try to break stuff down too much. In fact you might even quote the above sentence and then put a "this is irrelevant" underneath (as you have done before), inadvertently making the same mistake you thought I did. Try to avoid it in the future; it makes you seem really stupid.[/QUOTE]Shall we take a look at what I said was irrelevant? Let's do so.

[QUOTE]I'm devoted to Batman.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Anyway, IceWolfEyes don't nitpick my posts like that usually it's not even worth the time.[/QUOTE]The "Batman" line was irrelevant. It did not support your thesis at all. You should have cut it. I'm not about to ignore that. It's not what I do.

The line regarding IceWolfEyes was a sloppy transition, and unneeded. It did not even require its own paragraph, and as a standalone line, was inconsequential to the topic at hand. In fact, even adding it to the next paragraph wouldn't have strengthened it. It was a weak incidental note.

[QUOTE]Ok back on track,[/QUOTE]Technically, you're drifting further off-topic.

[quote]you assume that much of what I said betrayed insecurity on my part, but really I was just trying to avoid your worthless nitpicking. Instead I got a bizarro lecture. At the same time, because you were for some reason focused on my "insecurity" (were you really serious about that because really, come on...) you completely failed to acknowledge or challenge a lot of what I said. You have some very unfounded misconceptions of the USSR and what it meant to be Jewish there. But don't challenge my statements based on those assumptions, because you end up thinking you're that much smarter than me when from my "corner" quite the opposite becomes apparent. Oh yeah, just in case, don't think that I'm being defensive here or anything. I am just trying to get you to stop thinking of me as some poor "Jew in denial" and actually realize what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]Where is anything about The Passion here? I brought us back to the focus of this thread, that being The Passion. Sciros, your reply here is ignoring the majority of what I said in my post. In fact, you're hyperfocusing on one point. How can you expect to be taken seriously? Try building a research paper around one point of support. You won't get past two pages in a best-case scenario.

You know what, I'd fail you if I were your teacher. Your attitude is self-indulgent, self-absorbed, and you're unwilling to engage in any reasonable and intelligent discussion after I've brought us back from a tanget, and even worked the tanget back into the topic at hand.

Also, using relativity as a point of support is not advised. That won't get you a passing grade.

Now, I'll copy and paste what I said about The Passion, in the hopes that you'll be able to focus yourself and contribute something worthwhile in your next post here.

Sciros, you are part of the audience most at risk from The Passion. That's not because of real or imagined Anti-Semitism in the piece, either.

You are unsure of yourself when met with criticism and doubt. You get extremely defensive when someone doubts what you're saying, when someone contradicts your beliefs. I contradicted you right here and you became rather upset.

You were influenced by what I was saying. I'm not implying that I changed your views. I'm saying that I was able to elicit a reaction from you--quite a negative reaction, I might add. This is important in understanding just what The Passion is going to do to people.

Because the majority of the population is unsure of their own selves, or at least not secure, or even easily unsettled, The Passion is going to shake the very foundation on which those people are based. This is positive and negative.

I am one of the loudest advocates of challenging people to think, and I cannot express my joy in words when I see someone's eyes light-up as they understand what an instructor is saying. That is the positive value of The Passion, that some [i]may[/i] be inspired by it and their lives may be changed for the better.

However, with the positive, there is a negative. The downside to this being, so much of the world is a cattle culture, which is easily swayed. South Park's most recent episode, while wholly offensive, hits this right on the head. People are liable to take things to an extreme when met with a "life-changing" event. Damn, I hate that term...people are liable to take things to an extreme after experiencing "the swift spiritual kick to the head that alters their perception of reality forever." Much better. This liability stems from those misunderstanding what something really means. So much of our moviegoing populace opinion is based on this misunderstanding, and that is why we need to be critical of The Passion, not because of some Anti-Semitic overtones that may or may not be there.

We must educate people of what The Passion concentrated on, which was Aestheticism, the desire to elicit an emotional reaction based upon images and not moral messages. As much as I respect the Aesthetes, they didn't have a solid theory about how to reach out and touch people, as it were.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Petey]First things first, learn to paragraph. ... But your tone is less than satisfactory....Now, while your support is solid, the tone and language need work. Sciros, I understand you're a comp-sci major, but I think you should look into taking a few high-level English courses. It's nothing too major, but your form needs work. If you refine it, you will have a very sharp wit [i]and[/i'] a very precise method of presentation... [/quote]

Hey I'm glad you finally see where I'm coming from.

One thing though: this is a message board, and I don't proofread anything I write nor do I care to. If you feel like grading my posts as if they're an assignment, then I'd like to borrow some of your hash cause it's a damn good batch. Your post quality is not in any way better than mine, whether or not you might think it is, and in any case I don't give a damn because it's not like anyone's trying to write a persuasive essay here. None of my posts was meant as a thesis, and I could've added a story about Iron Man in the middle of one and then would've said what I had to say just the same. You criticize me for form and tone, but you will, in the midst of actually giving a legitimate argument, go off and say how Batman is irrelevant. I'm hoping you understand that if you quote something that wasn't really even part of the "thesis" and then say it is irrelevant, you are making the same mistake you are criticizing me for -- adding completely irrelevant content. Now, I don't really care, but you do and that's what's funny about your critiquing my writing.

As far as giving substantial support to back my claims, it's not like I took the cue from you and you should realize that as well. So please, don't tell me to improve my writing when you have to do the same yourself. If I want to write a good paper on something I do so, but I do it for class and not on otakuboards.

Anyway, I'm done with that whole thing. It gave me a headache. Back on track....

You say that The Passion affects most those people who are insecure or easily swayed, correct? Well, let me start by saying that I don't belong to either of those groups even though you have the opposite impression. I did not get upset because you contradicted me, because you never managed to do it with a legitimate argument; I was simply annoyed at your ignorance and your condescending tone in the face of that ignorance. But moving on...

If you read the post that I mostly addressed to IceWofEyes (I think), you'll see what I think the problem with The Passion was. In not-so-many words, I think the rift it created between those sympathetic (or part of) the Jews criticizing the film and those who praised it is not something to ignore. But Gibson did ignore it to the point of releasing the film (for his own reasons, but nevertheless). And like I said before, it sets a dangerous precedent to ignore Jews condemning anti-Semitism in the film and say "you don't understand it" or "you're making too much of it" because the vast majority of the time (honestly The Passion might be the only exception to the "rule" and even that is still arguable) Jewish claims of anti-Semitism were not unfounded in the least. And so, I feel it can turn into a "the boy who cried wolf" sort of thing, but with the wolf possibly being there the whole time. Do you see what I am saying?

As far as The Passion easily shaking the foundations upon which people's beliefs stand, well I can't say that this will have a very far-reaching effect, and especially not a beneficial one. The film might inspire faith in some people, but then in my eyes those people are soooo stupid that it's hard for me to see that as a "benefit." I don't think it will inspire hatred in those who do not already hate (referring to anti-Semitism here), because that is hardly a focus in the film (if at all). What I do think is it might serve as a vehicle for those who already hate, and that of course has nothing to do with shaky beliefs or insecurity.

[xmystic_silverx]

[QUOTE=IceWolfEyes]Okay, I've been gone a mere 4 days, but it looks like this thread has taken a nasty turn.



Okay, I'll admit that I am twisted. But I have never considered myself as hateful. I tolerate those different then myself, both in character and religion. I feel I should get the same treatment. Being Jewish seems to make people hate my family. There is no explanation for this behavior, perhaps one of you enlightened folks can tell me.



*Holds head in pain* Not all Jewish people are white. I have met quite a number of black Jews. They were actually quite polite, and fun to chat with. And why can't an Arab be a Jew? Seems like discrimination, doesn't it.



No it wasn't. The prayers were, but that was it. As someone who can speak and understand bits of Hebrew, I take the authority to ask you to read up the description of the movie. I'm sure it has the languages listed.

Icewolfeyes[/QUOTE]

[color=red][size=1]What language was it in then? From this chick on TV, I was told it was in Hebrew, and since I don't [I]know[/I] the language, when they spoke it, I thought it was.[/size][/color]