Totally different take on what's wrong with the Passion.

[FluffyMcDeath]

To sum up the problem:

What's with all the white guys?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022704A.shtml

[iamaboringperson]

I still havn't found any sites that detail boom microphones at the top of any of the scenes in this movie. :-D

Now, to suggest that Jesus shared a genealogical heritage and physical similarity to the people sitting in dog cages down in Guantanamo is to dance along the edge of treason. Why is it?


Interesting (but damn obvious) reading until we get to the predictable Bush bashing:
George W. Bush calls himself Christian. If you believe him, he is on armchair-to-armchair relations with the Almighty, enjoying regular conversations with He Is What He Is on everything from tax policy to invasion plans. Bush serves a unique dual role as both the Commander in Chief and as high priest to the evangelical wing of American Christianity.

When Bush did his little flight-suit strut across the aircraft carrier last May, he proclaimed victory in biblical verse and sent a signal to those Christians who see him as more than a man. Bush, that day, quoted Isaiah's passage from the Servant Songs about captives coming out and slaves being free. This is the same passage, as described in Luke chapter 4, which Jesus used to announce his coming as the Son of God. "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing," said Jesus. Bush's use of this incredibly loaded passage speaks as much to his messianic fantasies as it does to his status as Christian-in-Chief.

So I ask you fluff, is this about a movie, or is the movie just another excuse for an anti-Bush article.


Looks like nothing other than an anti-Bush rant to me!

[bloodline]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:
To sum up the problem:

What's with all the white guys?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022704A.shtml

Ahahaha, another reason to call Gibson a ****...

That, and Gibson is actually a ****... did I mention that he's also a ****?

[iamaboringperson]

Ahahaha, another reason to call Gibson a ****...

That, and Gibson is actually a ****... did I mention that he's also a ****?Do you think that he's a '****' ?

Hey, imagine if Sean Connery played that part! :lol: I don't think he's a '****'


:-D

[bloodline]

iamaboringperson wrote:
Ahahaha, another reason to call Gibson a ****...

That, and Gibson is actually a ****... did I mention that he's also a ****?Do you think that he's a '****' ?

Hey, imagine if Sean Connery played that part! :lol: I don't think he's a '****'


:-D

I would hope Connery would never do anything as degrading as this...

Come on, let all go and watch "Life of Brian" :-)

[iamaboringperson]

I would hope Connery would never do anything as degrading as this...Imagine Jim Carry... :-P

Come on, let all go and watch "Life of Brian"
No. After a couple of minutes more of working on something, I'm going to play Empire Earth! :-)

[iamaboringperson]

I know that he didn't write the article, however let's see (http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-03MQC/4-4-2003.1.html) what Marc Ash (the person who registered the site domain name) has written in the past.

Honest or not? I'll let you be the judge!

[KennyR]

Uh, I didn't think of that. Romanisation of Christianity has a lot to answer for.

There are two real options, either Jesus looked like your typical Hebrew (short, curly hair and dark eyes and skin), or he looked different because his father was a Roman. Either way, conservative Christians would like it as much as a gay Pope.

The real reason for 'Caucasianising' the cast was not to do with religious accuracy, but more to cater to an American audience who would be shocked to find that Jesus would look more like an Arab than he would the blue eyed, long haired version they were brought up on. Which is idolatry and specifically banned by the Bible, I might add.

[FluffyMcDeath]

iamaboringperson wrote:
I still havn't found any sites that detail boom microphones at the top of any of the scenes in this movie. :-D

Now, to suggest that Jesus shared a genealogical heritage and physical similarity to the people sitting in dog cages down in Guantanamo is to dance along the edge of treason. Why is it?


That's a good question. It shouldn't be, but a lot of white Christians have trouble thinking of Jesus as darker than them.

Interesting (but damn obvious) reading until we get to the predictable Bush bashing:

[...]

So I ask you fluff, is this about a movie, or is the movie just another excuse for an anti-Bush article.

Looks like nothing other than an anti-Bush rant to me!

Well, it certainly has some of that in it, but it is not only that, as you already admitted. If you only disagree with the Bush rant, then you already agree with half of it.

It's a mixed bag. Take the good with the bad.

[FluffyMcDeath]

iamaboringperson wrote:
I know that he didn't write the article, however let's see (http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-03MQC/4-4-2003.1.html) what Marc Ash (the person who registered the site domain name) has written in the past.

Honest or not? I'll let you be the judge!

Hmm. Let's see if I can follow your logic here.
Given that :Marc Ash registered the domain on which the article I quoted appeared.
and also that : Marc Ash was against the Iraq war

we can conclude that : Jesus was a white guy?

Did I get that right Iamaboringperson?

[cecilia]

bloodline wrote:
Come on, let all go and watch "Life of Brian" :-)i'm with ya there!
LOVE that movie!
not only is it funny, but the nuns hate it!
:smack:

[iamaboringperson]

Either way, conservative Christians would like it as much as a gay Pope.

It shouldn't be, but a lot of white Christians have trouble thinking of Jesus as darker than them.

According to which poll is that evident???


:x

[FluffyMcDeath]

iamaboringperson wrote:

It shouldn't be, but a lot of white Christians have trouble thinking of Jesus as darker than them.

According to which poll is that evident???



According to all current iconography ("icon", fancy Catholic term for idol).

[iamaboringperson]

According to all current iconography ("icon", fancy Catholic term for idol).

About Posting All Registered users can post new topics and replies to this forumYes, I've seen all the pictures. I see them every day. (Well, except this weird religious group who hang around outside a nearby town displaying a darker skinned Jesus)

However, that doesn't mean that people actually think he looks like that. It's implied here that people actually do think he's white with long hair.

I'm still unconvinced that people in the US (or anywhere) believe that the pictures that are ment to represent him are actually what he looked like.

[that_punk_guy]

iamaboringperson wrote:
However, that doesn't mean that people actually think he looks like that. It's implied here that people actually do think he's white with long hair.

I'm still unconvinced that people in the US (or anywhere) believe that the pictures that are ment to represent him are actually what he looked like.

But then why plaster such a misrepresentation of Our Lord And Saviour everywhere? How are we supposed recognise him when he comes back to save us?

:lol:

[bloodline]

that_punk_guy wrote:
iamaboringperson wrote:
However, that doesn't mean that people actually think he looks like that. It's implied here that people actually do think he's white with long hair.

I'm still unconvinced that people in the US (or anywhere) believe that the pictures that are ment to represent him are actually what he looked like.

But then why plaster such a misrepresentation of Our Lord And Saviour everywhere? How are we supposed recognise him when he comes back to save us?

:lol:


Simple, Crucify him... see what happens :-D

[KennyR]

[KThunder]

I peronally know quite a few jewish people and you can easily see many on television etc. and they do not necessisarilly look "arab" or whatever. lets just take a few examples. Ariel Sharon, John Steward (Comidy central) Adam Sandler (saturday Night Live) and of course we could name numerous others. Dress them in Rabbinical robes and hat and give them the curly hair thingies and they would look like the Stereotypical Jew whatever you determine that to be. otherwise they are perfectly "normal" or whatever.
I have been asked on several occassions if I am jewish. My ancestry is actuall British\Irish\Blackfoot\Deleware Creek, so I am nowhere even close, but some people apparently think so. :-o

[KennyR]

@KThunder

I don't follow Jewish bloodlines much, but aren't many of these people you mean descended from European Jews? That is, the people not related to Hebrews.

[FluffyMcDeath]

KThunder wrote:
I peronally know quite a few jewish people and you can easily see many on television etc. and they do not necessisarilly look "arab" or whatever.

By far the greatest proportion of world jewery today are not descendants of Abraham. Most Jews now are Ashkenazim or descendants of the Khazas which converted to Judaism a thousand years ago. There saeems to be some debate about how Jewish they actually are racially (but saying they aren't semitic is anti-semitic somehow).

[KThunder]

many orthodox mainline jews take this stuff very seriously and know there ancestry far better than most of us. one of my aunts has my ancestry back to 1520. and my gandmother on the other side back to the early 1500's. but that is only 500 years or so some people take theirs back even further than that.

[FluffyMcDeath]

KThunder wrote:
one of my aunts has my ancestry back to 1520. and my gandmother on the other side back to the early 1500's. but that is only 500 years or so some people take theirs back even further than that.

Understandable really when so much emphasis is placed on descent. Hence all the begatting in the OT. Everything is legitimized by descent.

[aardvark]

Hence all the begatting in the OT.
Heck, begatting is the most fun you can have with your clothes off. I surprised Xoops doesn't censor the word, I can't even talk about one of my favourite authors, writer of Oliver Twist and Great Expectations Charles Dickens.

edit
Okay now it works it was coming out as ####ens. :pissed:

[MAD]

Hoya!

Well, I have just read the thread and I must admit it contains lots of valid points.
Given his geographical location, Jesus had more chances to have a tan than to look like a Scandinavian for sure...
But since being black or "dark" (does sound pejorative, doesn't it?) has never been fashionable, I guess it is quite fair to think Jesus has been "caucasianised" to *look* more acceptable.
Besides, it is also quite funny, in my opinion, to see that in almost every religion but Hinduism (and a couple others ), the Saviour of the Decadent World is ALWAYS a man.
So, no Blacks, no birds? Religion doesn't sound fair, does it? Or maybe it has just been created by narrow-minded people as a means to control the masses...

As for the anti-Bush thingy...
Well at least half of the World is against his view of things... Moreover, I do NOT think religion and power should mix.
This is not anti-Americanism but I tend to think that America is turning more and more into a theocracy; yes, just like many countries from the Axis of

EVIL !

Anyway, I haven't seen this film.

Be funky

M A D