Is The Passion anti-semitic?

[KennyR]

I haven't seen it, but I can think of three possibilities:

1) Yes, it is anti-semitic.

2) Yes, but only because Christianity's core beliefs themselves are anti-semitic, and did not aim this way itself.

3) No, it's not anti-semitic and the uproar is caused by an intolerant minority.

And no, I haven't seen it.

Anyone seen it and can say for certain or have other possibilities to add?

[Cyberus]

Anyone seen it and can say for certain or have other possibilities to add?
That it is anti-Zionist, rather than antisemitic?

:-D

After all, I can't see a lot of Christians hating semites when Jesus and the disciples would have been semitic themselves. Doh!

Just a thought

[iamaboringperson]

3) No, it's not anti-semitic and the uproar is caused by an intolerant minority.Well, I don't know who it's caused by, however, I don't see it as anti-semitic.

Just anti violent people :)



(And I havn't seen it either, and probably wont)

[Damion]

--edit

I'd say...


3) No, it's not anti-semitic and the uproar is caused by an
intolerant minority.


...is the most likely.

IF the filmaker's intent was to accurately portray
what they feel is an actual historic event, based
on their religious predisposition, then it is not
anti-semetic - Jews are not specifically targetted.

Now, if the writers of the crucifiction stories had
such intent, the movie could be seen as "relaying"
anti-semitic viewpoints (albeit "third party").
But - how the hell are you going to proove THAT? And
furthermore, are these same individulas crying
"anti-semetic" also willing to similarly label
the Christian bible and it's followers?

Anyhow, the term "semetic" more realistically
applies to Arab populaces (which are predominantly
Muslim); so I immediately take issue with the term
being used *solely* to indicate Jewish persecution
and repression. "Anti-Jewish" would be a better term.
(I do however understand and agree with the need for
certain individuals to protect what they feel is a minority
interest.)

[T_Bone]

I'll take door number 3.

Anyway this happened 2000 years ago. Anyone who could view events that old as a reason to hate people walking around today, don't need the reason.

[mikeymike]

I haven't seen it, but I can think of three possibilities:
You missed one:

4) Who cares?

[bloodline]

KennyR wrote:
I haven't seen it, but I can think of three possibilities:

1) Yes, it is anti-semitic.

2) Yes, but only because Christianity's core beliefs themselves are anti-semitic, and did not aim this way itself.

3) No, it's not anti-semitic and the uproar is caused by an intolerant minority.

And no, I haven't seen it.

Anyone seen it and can say for certain or have other possibilities to add?


The Film is based on the view of the Bible which is inherently Antisemitic.

The New testiment hardly mentions the Romans at all... if the NT had been a story written in France (1942), it would have made no mention of the German occupation.

Paul (or Saint Paul, whatever...), was actaully pulling off a masterpeice of Political brilliance when he picked up upon the small Jewish Cult known as the Chritians (many years after it's formation). His effort was to provide a religion that Jews could follow that would be compatible with the Roamn way of life and the occupation of Jewish lands. He even included the "Old Testiment" to appease them, but the Jews were not impressed... but the Romans who found it simpler to understand than there polytheistic religion jumped on it with glee.

Remember that Christianity is Jeudeism sanitised for Europeans (Pagans etc), and Islam is Jeudeism sanitised for Arabs (and more generally the middle east).


Thus both religions sek to surplant their source.

[frankb]

Anyhow, the term "semetic" more realistically
applies to Arab populaces (which are predominantly
Muslim); so I immediately take issue with the term
being used *solely* to indicate Jewish persecution
and repression. "Anti-Jewish" would be a better term.
(I do however understand and agree with the need for
certain individuals to protect what they feel is a minority
interest.)

Rarely does anyone state this fact. The Jews, also known as Khazars, adopted the religion of the tribe of Judah, which is Judaism, in around 740 AD. They are the in no way blood related to the Sephardic, or western Jew, which came to Europe with the Moors, and who have basically vanished.

That being said, the Khazars of today, the Jews, are in no way, shape, or form semetic. A semite is a descended of Shem, and speaks a semetic language. Arabic, fharsi and hebrew are semetic languages. The Khazars of today have been teaching their offspring hebrew to lay claim at being semites. If they actually were semites, their claim to the land they occupy might hold a bit of water. Since most jews do not live in occupide Palistine (Israel) many of them only know what little hebrew they memorized for their bar/bat mitzva or what they repeat at temple. The natural language of the Khazars is yiddish, and is still spoken today, expecially those who still live in eastern Europe and Russia.

That being said, the Khazars were not responsible for the death of Christ, so why are they so mad today when the Bible, and therefore the the "Passion" movie speaks of the Pharisee led crucifiction. Maybe is that the main jewish religious beliefs are decended from Pharisaic thought.

[bloodline]

mikeymike wrote:
I haven't seen it, but I can think of three possibilities:
You missed one:

4) Who cares?


Well any one reading this forum, dedicated to these topics :-D

[mikeymike]

Maybe I should have qualified with 'with what Mel Gibson thinks of anything' :-)

[bloodline]

mikeymike wrote:
Maybe I should have qualified with 'with what Mel Gibson thinks of anything' :-)


Hahaha, ok, then I take option 4 too! :lol:

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Some scientists say that Jesus is a rip-off of Mithras, the persian god (and later became a german/celtic god).

[bloodline]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Some scientists say that Jesus is a rip-off of Mithras, the persian god (and later became a german/celtic god).


I'd like to read up on that, any links?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

bloodline wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Some scientists say that Jesus is a rip-off of Mithras, the persian god (and later became a german/celtic god).


I'd like to read up on that, any links?I've read it somewhere (not on the internet). But maybe this (http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tarsus.htm) is something interesting:

Besides having the same birthday as Christianity's Jesus, Mithras was said to have been born in a manger, among shepards. The custom of giving gifts on December 25 originated in Mithraism also, hundreds of years before the birth of Christ.

[bloodline]

Great link Eyso!

I found one line that one could apply to our own community:

"It is common among primitive belief systems to create an 'us and them' mentality, and to de-humanize the 'them.' Fundamentalism is replete with this ideology. "

[bloodline]

Another nice community related quote:

"Fundamentalists are obsessed with making the world clear cut and orderly. Subtlety or complexity upsets and confuses them. Alternate points of view, or attitudes of flexibility or openness drive them crazy. Possessed by their own fear of destabilization, they are driven to impose their will on others. They even view their inflexibility as a virtue. Their fear and mistrust feeds on itself, and grows exponentially."

:-D

[Speelgoedmannetje]

That's something I noticed when I was a very little kid. Amazed, I was. But I had to be PC, and saw the subtlety of it :lol:.

Yet I stay PC. (because THEY aren't :-D)

[cecilia]

there's no way i'd see this film. i ain't into wallowing in violence.

in grammer school we had to read "The Lives of the Saints" and THAT was a misery! the obsession on violence was morbid.
yuk!

anyway, i don't recall ever being taught that cathlics "blame" jews for the death of this chist guy.

but mel is a member of an extremeist christain group that doesn't believe in Vatican 2.
he's all into the Mass in latin and stuff lik that.(hey, it's not like i really care).

mel's dad, on the other hand is WAY anti-jewish. I heard in his own voice (they play this on the radio) how he doesn't believe that there was millions of people killed in WW2.
whatever. and how jews go into certain activities to "make money". eh, like who doesn't buddy?

wacko.
:smack:

[iamaboringperson]

and how jews go into certain activities to "make money". eh, like who doesn't buddy?:lol:

Remindes me of somebody else....

(but I'll shut up now :)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

cecilia wrote:
and how jews go into certain activities to "make money". eh, like who doesn'tWell, this has a particular history behind it. Lending money was strictly forbidden in the medieval ages according the Christian church. But not to the Jewish church. This made the Jewish in a financial generous, but political weak position. There was a true crusade against the Jews in the medieval ages in Germany (before the inquisition).

[FluffyMcDeath]

Shouldn't this thread be in politics?
Or Entertainment?

Anyway, one of the most interesting things to see about this film is how the Bush administration handles it.

If Jewish groups ask them to denounce (or worse, ban) it and they don't then they could lose Jewish support. Jews are 5% of the population but 50% of billionaires in the US.

On the other hand, denounce it and the fundies that mobilise the GOP grass roots might be sorely offended.

With about 40% of people identifying themselves as Roman Catholic it could be a big deal.

[iamaboringperson]

If Jewish groups ask them to denounce (or worse, ban) it and they don't then they could lose Jewish support. Jews are 5% of the population but 50% of billionaires in the US.Jewish people might enjoy the movie. (why not??)

[FluffyMcDeath]

iamaboringperson wrote:
If Jewish groups ask them to denounce (or worse, ban) it and they don't then they could lose Jewish support. Jews are 5% of the population but 50% of billionaires in the US.Jewish people might enjoy the movie. (why not??)
They might. However, jewish people are lumbered with some very vocal "advocacy" groups that like to make a lot of noise about jewish victimhood. There are a good many Jews who wish they would just shut the heck up instead of trying to make the world think that all Jews think the same way as they do.

However, these advocacy groups have enormous interest because they tend to know a lot of the "right" people in Washington.

[FluffyMcDeath]

Just want to add the words of Rabbi Lapin:

Finally I believe the attacks on Mel Gibson are a mistake because while they may be in the interests of Jewish organizations who raise money with the specter of anti-Semitism, and while they may be in the interests of Jewish journalists at the New York Times and elsewhere who are trying to boost their careers, they are most decidedly not in the interests of most American Jews who go about their daily lives in comfortable harmony with their Christian fellow citizens. You see, many Christians see all this as attacks not just on Mel Gibson alone or as mere critiques of a movie, but with some justification in my view, they see them as attacks against all Christians. This is not so different from the way most people react to attack. We Jews usually feel that we have all been attacked even when only a few of us suffer assault on account of our faith.

[frankb]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

Well, this has a particular history behind it. Lending money was strictly forbidden in the medieval ages according the Christian church. But not to the Jewish church. This made the Jewish in a financial generous, but political weak position. There was a true crusade against the Jews in the medieval ages in Germany (before the inquisition).
Money is power. People with vast amounts of money are the unseen hand which controls what happens in politics.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Bauer (Rothschild)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

frankb wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

Well, this has a particular history behind it. Lending money was strictly forbidden in the medieval ages according the Christian church. But not to the Jewish church. This made the Jewish in a financial generous, but political weak position. There was a true crusade against the Jews in the medieval ages in Germany (before the inquisition).
Money is power. People with vast amounts of money are the unseen hand which controls what happens in politics.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Bauer (Rothschild)Agreed, you can get armies with money, but you can get more vicious, more hardened armies with hatred and confidence in the belief that the other is against you.
Especially in medieval times, this was the case.

[KennyR]

Speel wrote:
Agreed, you can get armies with money, but you can get more vicious, more hardened armies with hatred and confidence in the belief that the other is against you.
Especially in medieval times, this was the case.

It's not a matter of buying armies. A mercenary army is unreliable and will get you nowhere in the power stakes. Money can buy you publicity, media, bribery, intimidation, and just about any other of the devices you need to gain control.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:
Speel wrote:
Agreed, you can get armies with money, but you can get more vicious, more hardened armies with hatred and confidence in the belief that the other is against you.
Especially in medieval times, this was the case.

It's not a matter of buying armies. A mercenary army is unreliable and will get you nowhere in the power stakes. Money can buy you publicity, media, bribery, intimidation, and just about any other of the devices you need to gain control.But I was talking about medieval times. Publicity and media weren't really tools of power back then. But I am not sure, I still have to read Machiavelli.

[redrumloa]

No, it's not anti-semitic. Just because someone simple does not like something doesn't make it automatically anti-semitic, racist, sexist or whateverelsist.

[aardvark]

Anyhow, the term "semetic" more realistically applies to Arab populaces (which are predominantly
Muslim); so I immediately take issue with the term
being used *solely* to indicate Jewish persecution
and repression. "Anti-Jewish" would be a better term.


I believe the term came into use when the number of muslims thaat people would come into contact with were quite limited compared to the number of jews.

But there are all sorts of terms that are used interchangably. "Anti- semetic", "anti-Jewish", "anti-Isreali", "anti-zionist" all mean something different. There are orthodox Jews who are anti-zionist for religious reasons. Someone can be strongly opposed to the policies of the Isreali government without being any of the above.

I spent 6 1/2 months in Isreal with the UN peacekeeping forces. (technically Isreali occupied Syria) I went there with an open mind and when I came back my opinion was both sides were f**ked. That the average Isreali soldier looked good (in military terms) only because the Arabs were so much worse. People over there just do _not_ want to compromise, especially after occupation, terrorism, intifadah, bulldozings, wall building, targeted killings, etc.

I doubt my prescription of a Federation of Isreal and Palestine with religious rights guarantees would be acceptable to more than 5% of the population.
:juggler: