Mel Gibson....Crazy Christian Crusader!

And how about THAT for a mind-bending story development? Why didn't Diane wait until the last five minutes of the show to ask about him? (Did you notice Mel's dead-eyed warning...."Ya gotta leave it alone, Diane!"....as if to suggest he'd whip out his vorpal Scottish broadsword and liberate her head from her neck if she continued her query?)

hitchens's rant piece about this in the new vanity fair is actually pretty good

(it is the hollywood issue you know, you might wanna pick it up, it's like a phone book! coupla decent articles)

They did the same thing with Left Behind and The Omega Code and I expect there will be some sort of turnout on the weekend, sure. And unless the film has some sort of further appeal it will tank.

but what if it actually is a GOOD movie?

Tad, if BRAVEHEART was shit (and it was) I can't see him taking genius pills before this one.

actually it does have some amazingly bad lines coming from Gene Hackman & Morgan Freeman (who have no excuse for being in such a shitty film because they were the EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS!). My favorite is when police chief Morgan Freeman tells his hot-headed partner to "go home! put on a funny hat! do whatever it is morons do!"

The last frontier for "open minded liberals" (translation: "fanatical zealous secular humanists")

yawn

I'm gonna see the movie no matter what. It's going to be interesting to watch, whether or not it's a good movie.

It's just that it's quite rare for a famous star to do a movie that is so religious. The question is: how good is the movie (in terms of turthfulness and on terms of artistic quality)? or will it be a Battlefield-Earth?

Yeah, it sounded like it might have been kind of interesting (good actors anyway) until I started reading the reviews (and learned EVEN more about Gibson and co.) and now I'm absolutely convinced that this is a horribly misguided, ugly sort of film (and I think a lot of Christians are gonna agree.) Really there are good points about Christianity (although I tend to focus more on the awful points--sorry folks, it's a function of living in America) but this movie really seems to paint Catholics/Christians in the worst (blood/sacrifice/torture/sin obsessed) possible light (not to even mention the anti-semiticism.)

I'll see it. But I saw Battlefield Earth, too!

Ive never gone away, just lurked, impassioned, I cant even feign boredom at your blind ignorance/arrognace

"Yeah, it sounded like it might have been kind of interesting (good actors anyway) until I started reading the reviews"

!!!!!!!!!

"(and learned EVEN more about Gibson and co."

!!!!!!!

"and now I'm absolutely convinced that this is a horribly misguided, ugly sort of film (and I think a lot of Christians are gonna agree.)"

What can I say, youre a genius.

"Really there are good points about Christianity"

!!!!!! Jeez Im sure your generous, earth shattering, confession to the world above will be of use to someone. "Who" though is the question ????? Your postion as a "commentator" on either the historical accuracy of the film or the wider history of Christianity is to put it midly less than worthless. Your idelogical bigotism and historical ignorance is boring Alex, but I know youll leap at the chance to make more of a bafoon of yourself. Dollar to a donut.

"(although I tend to focus more on the awful points--sorry folks, it's a function of living in America) but this movie really seems to paint Catholics/Christians in the worst (blood/sacrifice/torture/sin obsessed) possible light (not to even mention the anti-semiticism."

Its called history my dear humble Alex, and your worthless egoism knows no bounds.

I think now would be a good time to distinguish between Catholics (evil) and Christians (not nearly as evil).

(xp)

(x-post slocki completely OTM.)

Really, though, the Church of the Sub-Genius is the most laidback.

Internal Catholic politics must be absolutely insane (and incredible).

Im prepared to take anything on the evidence presented but frankly most gospel critiques Ive read from a secular historian bias are nothing but sensationalist drivel, anything but scholarly/rigorous and often cashing in on that last bastion of biotry- where it sells or to bash Christians.

Im not denying the critique of the gospels by secular historians clealry underscores some defincies, of course, I just take a lot of it with a huge grain of salt. History is an aquired taste, its dense and alusive and I dont jump on the latest revionist fad bandwagon so blithley.But if you have read seriously on such a thing I wont argue that the colour blue looks different to us all nor the contexts we bring. To me the basic story as told in the new testament, the body of truth remains unchallenged. Its not an unscholarly nor is it not rigourous to hold such a view.

Its very easy to be a poular Christian by embracing new age warm fuzzies in the best Vedder tradtion, ALL you need is love etc but in reality its a differnce without distinction to humanism. Christianty that God intended in all its diversity and pluarlism should never embrace such a singular notion as all encompassing. To embrace
true Christianty , that of love and faith is a far bigger step, and one few in todays wrold are prepared to make whereby faith involves THE TRUTH and objective guides to our morality.

Ciao

Gibson was interviewed by the Herald Sun in Australia, and the reporter asked the star if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. “There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it.”

He elaborated: “Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”

... i guess the money of the damned is just as good as the money of the saved, though. o modern-day pharisees, you with your crazy eyes and crazy capitalism!

(i'm not planning on seeing this movie for a lot of reasons, but one of the big ones is that the scene where jesus is beaten, tortured and crucified is FORTY-FIVE MINUTES LONG. i am way too squeamish for that -- shit, i can't even watch all of pulp fiction without covering my eyes.)

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/chap21.html

And why is Gibson's particular brand of theology "another issue altogether" IN A THREAD ABOUT HIS MOVIE?

Didn't the gent who plays Jesus in this film recently get struck by lightning? I love that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3209223.stm

To be fair, here's the NewsMax rebuttal:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/13/134001.shtml

mr teeny is excited about this movie because he knows all those ancient languages (well his aramaic is not so good). I am probably also too squeamish to sit through it, but I am curious to hear his opinion. He was raised Catholic although he's pretty nonobservant, and he has a lot of education in that time period in theology, languages, history, he's read the New Testament in the original greek, etc.

Actually that's the ONLY reason I could see for watching this movie, to test out the old Latin chops.

(x-post, Teeny OTM)

Thus in the first century after Christ Greek had become a world language. The ancient languages of the various countries did indeed continue to exist, and many districts were bilingual--the original local languages existing side by side with the Greek. But at least in the great cities throughout the Empire--certainly in the East--the Greek language was everywhere understood. Even in Rome itself there was a large Greek-speaking population. It is not surprising that Paul's letter to the Roman Church is written not in Latin but in Greek.

( http://www.bible-researcher.com/machan.html )

sadly not the case (sorry s1ocki) - i read it's the person playing the other Mary (Jim's mum) who is.

I actually saw Battlefield Earth twice when it came out. The laugh riot of the summer!

Good friend Stripey deeply appreciates Stargate, but specifically for one J. Spader. (Her favorite film is Wings of Desire, which admittedly does not star James Spader.)

up til then, it was neat.

Kurt Russell still has his hairstyle from "Tombstone" in the beginning of the flick, before he reverts back to a buzzcut.

I must watch this movie again!!!!!

Who Gets Saved? Whosoever believes in Him, and whatnot.

Mels personal beliefs revelant to the his film making ability, I guess so as long as that standard is apppled to all film makers when considering the merits/accuracy of films. I prefer to ignore what someone might or might not have said and judge the film itself on its own merits but I take your point.

"I know! Jesus smokes down with an armless, legless midget! PERFECT!"

Can you begrudge Christians for geting excited about having their worldview/history on show for a change? Even if you dont buy into the miracles etc I think every generation deserves to hear the historical story.

I can't begrudge Christians for getting excited about the movie (although I am baffled that you don't think Christian worldview/history is constantly on show--I think one would have to live outside of the US to be unexposed to that worldview/history, but again whatever) I just wish the movie sounded better, frankly. I also don't think it sounds very historically accurate and I (and a lot of other people, many of them Christians) am (are) troubled by a great deal of what I've read about Gibson (and his attempts to tell their/your/our "history") and the movie. Can you begrudge us our concerns?

heh. UHF to thread.

"Don't move, slimeball!"

Are you suggesting that the Christian worldview is normally under wraps or underrepresented????

"According to a transcript released by the network, Hutton Gibson said, ``It's all -- maybe not all fiction -- but most of it is,'' when asked about his views on the Holocaust.

He added: ``They claimed that there were 6.2 million (Jews) in Poland before the war and after the war there were 200,000, therefore he (Hitler) must have killed 6 million of them. They simply got up and left. They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney and Los Angeles.'"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195154800/002-0854617-3324821?v=glance&vi=reviews

Emma Mel Gibson's film is not a documentary and he does take artistic licence but within this framework his film is entirely faithful to the New Testament. Neither Hitchens nor Vanity Fair should be the source of your biblical exegesis, I find it staggering that an otherwise intelligent person would do so. Discrepancies in testimony don’t equate to falsehood and every alleged “contradiction” you have from Vanity Fair will have a logical explanation if your willing to dig deeper. Not that such a well documented voice would every get published in such a magazine, its just not cool. Eye witness discrepancies should never render a event insignificant or imaginary, the Gospel accounts, on the face of them, are at least as reliable as any historical accounts of any historical events, even if you are ignorant of the additional fact of divine inspiration.

It is true that many scriptural writings are symbolic and not to be taken literally. The first step in valid scriptural interpretation is recognising which passages are literal, and which are not The Bible needs to be interpreted how Gods word intended.This is why Catholics do not try to interpret the Bible for themselves, but look to the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, for accurate exegesis and correct teaching.

Dan yes the fruits of the reformation and sola scripture is indeed a great tragedy whereby we see 30,000 Protestant “traditions” present all sorts of conflicting and contradictory teaching, yet apparently all of them are faithful to the Word of God in everything they teach! Amazing! However I don’t think we can say that because these sects do not contain the complete fullness of truth, that we as Christians generally do not share a wroldview.

back to stargate then

"If the Religious Right gains dominion over society, we will all have to deal with Satan because he plays such a dominant role in their belief system."

The Texas GOP platform is also a gas!

Milo, have you been pillaging my brain?

Um, you do understand that Gibson would disagree with this, right? From what I've read, he believes in a completely literal interpretation of the Bible. Everything in it is true to them. There are Christians who believe in the complete, literal truth of everything in the Bible.

lead story in today's Detriot News, with Bloody Jesus pic.

Mel Gibson's father Hutton has launched a blistering attack on the Jewish religion - just days before his son's controversial film The Passion Of The Christ is released in America. Catholic extremist Hutton, 85, claims the Holocaust never happened and accuses Jews of conspiring to take over the world. According to British tabloid The Daily Express, Hutton ranted to an American radio station, "They are after one world religion and one world government." Mad Max star Mel has faced uproar from the Jewish community amidst claims his film - about the last few hours of Jesus Christ's life - is anti-Semitic. Christian Mel has always denied the film is racist towards Jewish people and says he hold great respect towards the religion.

make your own joke about People magazine sourcing the Daily Express.

― Kingfish Beatbox (Kingfish), Friday, 20 February 2004 14:02 (twenty-two years ago)

html formatting is fun.

― Kingfish Beatbox (Kingfish), Friday, 20 February 2004 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

i don't think 'antisemitism' has really been proved to be a part of this film; has anyone who has seen it actually pronounced it antisemitic? besides the adl i mean, who think everything is antisemitic.

"Mel Gibson directed this historical drama about a charismatic Galilean carpenter and social activist."

there is a lot of space between "everything is literal" and "everything is just metaphor" and indeed people who proclaim either of those things are likely to actually be a bit more ambivalent in practice

"Jesus has Returned...and He's PISSED! See Jesus clean up the streets in Jesus II: Redeemer Bustin' Heads, opening this August in a theater near you"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684869136/qid=1077289561//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-4992253-1961434?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Basically -- surprise! -- there's absolutely no archaeological evidence that any of the miracles of the Old Testament took place. In fact, there's lots of evidence that the stories were politcally motivated by the Judean leader around 400-500 BC.

Best fact about the Bible is that Jehovah translates roughly into "He Who Explodes." Most likely the name and concept came from a sect of people in southern Judea (now Israel) who worshipped a volcano. So there's your God right there. A volcano.

dammit. we need Tep here.

1) the excuse of using the bible and only the bible is bullshit, one gets what one wants from it (albert shwitzer wrote a book called the historical jesus where he desected various users opinons about christ, and how they used the gospel--they tended to ignore what would be inconveient (i do this too--noticing the sexual other too much, for example, or assuming an anti captialist bias)
2) Catholicism is a big tent, and a huge number of people are in it, from radical marxists to crypto fascists, & there is always tension b/w the folk church and rome.
3) its not authentic if it doesnt have greek.
4) it seems v. odd that he is forgrounding the flaying, and backgroding the crucifixion.
5) Caphias (sp) role should be watched v. carefully, the blood curse that he may have said has been cut and reentered several times.
6) how much satan is in this movie scares me (he is nowhere in the gospels)
7) the use of certain catholic mystics is worrisome.
8) THE DUDE MADE FUCKING BRAVEHEART !!
9) i am going to see it ( a friends local pentecostal church rented out a theater for sat. morning.
10)vanity project or tool for evangicalism, people underestimate the sheer cultural power of religous fundementalism (cf the book American Jesus, the current president, and left behind et al being the only cultural resistance that has not been excorparated.
11) astroturfing is bad mmmkay
12) gibson is not my kind of radical, but how many catholics allow me fully into the church...xian love is a two way street. (collary (sp) christ talked about speaking against false teachings as it being better to have a millstone arround a childs neck...& i think gibsons teachings are false/dangerous...im catholic b/c of v2 and i like this pope)

The Greek vs Latin thing -- I second what Mr Teeny said. There's been a lot of discussion in antiquity/biblical literature circles lately, trying to figure out why, exactly, Gibson doesn't use Greek in the movie (which apparently he doesn't at all). Latin would have been around, but not as the default non-Aramaic choice; unless we have a whole lot of Roman soldiers from Rome talking to each other, we really should have a good deal more Greek than Latin.

(There is, for instance, occasional debate and inquiry into whether or not Jesus might have preached in Greek from time to time -- but no one ever considers that he may have preached in Latin.)

The Latin is probably going to be ecclesiastical, since that's the dialect Gibson's translators have been trained in, but who knows; ultimately, any kind of informed effort to figure out how Latin would have been pronounced in antiquity in Palestine becomes a fascinating intellectual exercise with no real proofs and no way to satisfy everyone, so your two most popular options are modern dialects which don't reflect how people talked at the time, either.

Linguistically, it's still a step up from Bowie as Pontius Pilate. And I liked Bowie as Pontius Pilate.

There are a number of separate traditionalist popes, for instance, whose followers consider JP2 an antipope.

Generally the common link among traditionalists is that they feel, citing various reasons ranging from "John XXIII didn't have the power to call this particular council" to "John XXIII was a Satanist," that the Second Vatican Council was invalid, and that rulings and rulers of the Roman Church has been equally invalid ever since.

But yeah, there's a good article on literalism in the latest issue of The Fourth R, the laymen's magazine the Jesus Seminar puts out. One of the things I have not yet seen a really good, thorough study of is the recent twist in literalism trends: literalism has always been around, but it's never been dominant. The "weight" ascribed to Jewish and Christian scriptures has varied, sure, fluctuated back and forth, favoring one cluster of texts for awhile and then floating back to another; but there has never been a time when the majority of mainstream authorities in either Christianity or Judaism (even before it was Judaism) favored a literalist approach to scriptural interpretation.

What's new is the assumption that what I just said is false; the attitude, not simply among conservative Christians but among mainstream moderates and liberals, that we have only recently -- in the last hundred years, or since the Enlightenment or Renaissance -- moved away from a time when literalism was the default, a misconception that results in equating "literalism" with "tradition" and with "conservatism." You can have very conservative takes on scripture without invoking literalism; you sorta have to if you want to hang on to the prophecies.

Christological typology, a defining characteristic of the Christian approach to the Old Testament and the key justification for preserving the OT as part of Christian scripture, depends on a non-literal, figurative reading of the entirety of the OT. (It doesn't require rejecting all the literal readings, and there are very elaborate schemes of prophetic literalism which paint the world itself as a text, written by God, to foreshadow the end of said text. That's quaint but dim.)

I'm not at all sure if I've contributed what I was supposed to...

Pineapple zombie blowjob zipadoo zoot.

I'm not going to that thread, though, cause there are too many people on it I don't like. (I don't live here anymore, I don't have to mince words.)

Anyone really curious about this stuff, though, there was a thread where I'd posted a recommended reading list, and if you grep me on Amazon I've got listmania lists there, too (because I wanted to trim my wish list down to "things people would actually buy me," so I use the listmania lists to keep track of "books I've been meaning to buy or borrow.") Gibson's movie will probably be entertaining, as a novelty if nothing else, but there are hundreds of little points about the historical Jesus and his environment that just can't be addressed in any movie, for lack of time and proper narrative.

(I promise to come back for the thread on Verhoeven's Jesus movie when it comes out, assuming he finishes it in our lifetimes.)

Yes, it's nice to see some posts from Tep.

I wouldn't hold my breath, Tep; at this point, V is living off of the suspense....perhaps hoping that the masses will praise its mastery, regardless of how good/bad the flick actually is.

(BTW, welcome back, Tep! A dose of ice cold honesty is good to sweep out the cobwebs)

To go on....

Much of the thread has been about the poss reasons why Mel is releasing this movie. Simple. If he's a zealot, he's a mega-rich one who can showcase his own views. He well knows that even his name in the credits will still put bums in seats, at least for the first 2 weeks. Even though I'm a heathen, even I'm tempted to see it....though I'll prolly wait for the DVD release, just for the special features.

I still think a movie about a modern battlin' Jesus would be worth it.

Remember Terminator (and the mind numbing sequels)? Put a crown of thorns on Ahnold, and you wouldn't know tis a different movie.

Thank you :) I linked to a recipe in the lemon poppyseed thread because I didn't want to come back and just be all ... pedanty.

Jack Miles -- author of the terrific God: A Biography and the not bad Christ: A Conflict in the Life of God, which are very accessible overviews of the Old and New Testaments respectively, largely from a source criticism perspective -- has an article called "What Jews Need To Know About Jesus." It's a nice overview in of itself, and I doubt many Christians are aware of everything in it, either.

(I think he oversimplifies in a few areas, but I guess I have to think that, and he doesn't do so deceptively.)

In terms of moviemaking, best quote to explain Anti-Semitism, ever. The article is basic, but it should be used as a jump-off point for kids' Sunday school lessons. Certainly would have made those Scriptures easier for a younger me to understand.

amateur!st OTM. gibson's take seems to be rather intense, and maybe not boring. he seems intent on emphasizing the violence at the heart of christianity--and i may find this fascinating for different reasons than he does, but it will still be fascinating.

We aim to please.

FWIW, M'DA (online critic) confirmed that only ADL parrots will likely come away from the film harping on anti-semitism... but on the other hand, viewers who appreciate anything resembling subtlety will come away from the film (and its endless montages of slo-mo violence and suffering) severely wanting.

From what I gather, I guess the thing to object here, if anything, is the casting of Christianity in a bad "Rambo 2/3rds of the way through the movie when he's beaten down." It's the instincutal expectation that kick-ass-ness will occur as a result of such extreme brutality and injustice and that Gibson sort of puts that "final third" of the film in the audience's hands. (Like a PSA that ends "now, what are you going to do?")

I'm personally more frightened of the audience that has advance tickets more so than Gibson or his father. I think they've politicized the movie as much as the ADL dudes have, easily.

Apparently I can email a link to my "about me" page to someone, so I've emailed it to myself, so let's see if that's useful:

Try this, and then you oughta be able to click over to my listmania lists from there. There's probably a simpler way to do this, but my invisibility to the search engine perplexes me.

< dork >
Just like the X-men!

< / dork >

I have never heard of Thomas as Q, can you give me more background on that ?

Both of them see Q as a sayings gospel, with maybe an acts source (call it A, I guess, or X) accounting for other material common to the synoptics. But if you treat Q as a sayings gospel, focusing just on that, it's easy to say, "Well, we've got Thomas here, with a lot of that material ..."

I'm not convinced of it, partly because it requires dating Thomas very early (which I'm okay with, but I don't know that there's any compelling evidence to do so) and partly because it seems safer to say that Thomas used Q as a source, and keep Q at the hypothetical level. But more and more people seem to want to argue that Thomas is "closer to the source" than the canonical Gospels, as if that makes it more pure or true.

I'm pretty forgiving of that, though, because I like Thomas :) A lot of it is challenging, but I think that's sometimes the point.

But yeah: I don't know where I'd date Thomas. (That particular list was written much earlier than the others, and I might phrase the comments on it differently now.) It depends in part on how original we think the extant text is -- whether the version we have has been revised at all from what was originally written down -- and in large part on whether we think Thomas was influenced by early gnostics or proto-gnostics, or whether he was coopted by them. I lean strongly towards the latter, but that still leaves a big window of where I could place him.

Definitely, and I think one of the reasons that message is too often lost is because it's harder to "market," for lack of a better word, than simpler precepts are.

Some of my difficulty comes in because while that kind of mysticism, that level of it, what have you, is all to the good as far as I'm concerned, I get very wary of ecstatic mysticism. There are a lot of reasons for this, and right now they're more about me than about what I think is good for other people; a lot of it is simply that I've been around too much of the speaking in tongues, spontaneous laughter as the spirit moves you, dancing in the aisles, etc.

Miracles, I think, are artifacts of overdrama, attention-getters, waved flags; they're the theme song, not the show.

that doesnt mean that the distance & ecstacy are not useful, or even elgihtening (dancing in a pentecostal service a while back, i thot--i know that it is the heat, and the other people, and the constant movement, but it felt good, better then god, like god was blessing me personally & my problems--its a drug one could get hooked on)

but thinking back to paul--every miracle requires an interperter, who do we trust to read these texts

I do think ecstasy is useful, Anthony -- but sometimes I worry that among the people (today, not historically) for whom it's a focus of their religious experience, the experiences of, say, a Catholic are not much different from those of a Buddhist or a Sufi. There's nothing automatically wrong with that, as such, but I think the uniqueness of each faith is important, and something we shouldn't lose. (Which ties in to what Kerry said on another thread, that "being Catholic" is as much cultural as anything else.) The generic potential of ecstasy is particularly threatening to that uniqueness if current ideas about there being a "mystical center" in the brain that produces ecstatic states prove to be accurate; if our grandkids can have a mystical experience by taking a pill, they're going to divorce the mystic from the religious.

For some approaches, divorcing the mystic from the religious wouldn't leave anything behind except politics and potlucks (which tells you something about my background); I don't think Catholicism is in any danger of that, though, for the record.

And I'm not sure who to trust to interpret -- I'm not always sure what to do with Paul, to be perfectly honest, and sitting down with the Epistles and coming to some kind of decision about them is something I've been putting off for a few years now.

i guess what i'm trying to say is that whatever the distance between gibson's attempts at versimilitude and the reality as understood by scholars, a more pressing question is whether it will be taken as a kind of representation of reality by its audience, and that question rests on its success as a work of art, not a work of history.

it's the striving for and failing at verisimilitude that produces kitsch; so actually much art of the middle ages doesn't fall into that category because it is too obviously symbolic and hieratic; it's the later stuff, where there's an obvious if tentative reach for a greater reality-effect as we understand it today, that seems to be to have an element of kitsch...

but still

i often wonder how much the language of historical accuracy (ie in newsweek: 'To take the film's account of the Passion literally will give most audiences a misleading picture of what probably happened in those epochal hours so long ago.') interfaces with christianity; i mean, in the modern world, it does so inevitably, and even in strange ways you have people using the rhetoric of science and etc to 'prove' various fantastical accounts from the scriptures. but i mean i'm sort of skeptical re how much of jesus's life is really knowable and whether it really matters...

my lapsed-catholic friends have much more instinctive distaste for this project than i do, maybe if there were some kind of evil zionist historical fable put on screen i would feel similarly

The thing that sets him apart the most for me is the chronological focus, on just the death; it's not how I'd do it, but it does neatly dispatch with tons of the most problematic material, and most of the supernaturalism.

(And Amateurist, re: knowability, you realize I could literally talk for the rest of the day in answering that, without stopping?)

Whether it matters is a whole nother question, with too many answers.

since i may actually see this movie with fundamentalists it will be interesting to see their reactions--i think they are going in with the notion that "this is how it really was" simply because that's the bedrock of their religious ideology. the point that s1ocki makes about gibson's "unconscious" aesthetic choices is interesting because i feel that in the movie every attempt was made to avoid that.

bravo

i mean from a critical aesthetic perspective i suppose it would just be debased, but otherwise it'd be curious to see how the fundamentalists reconciled contemporary (universal) demands for verisimilitude with the desire to represent biblical events in a more or less literary way...

*bows* One tries.

have there been materialist interpretations of the life of jesus put on screen?

i know there have been more or less materialist versions of some of the side stories, like the magi ("keep walking") but given the historical record that tep brings up, i wonder if it couldn't be attempted for the big kahuna himself

is that what verhoeven would be doing?

i haven't read the script yet but supposedly dreyer was working on such a film, trying to focus on the connections between jesus and certain tendencies in the jewish religion and the jewish community

and oh fuck yeah, this is gonna be kitsch, i mean the whole presence of massive amounts of satan almost gaurentees that. (has there been a movie that featured SATAN in the human flesh that has not been kitschy ? (The Devils is about demons, and Rosemary's Baby implies things)

"Yeah! Do you think it'll work?"

"It's GOT to work; it's our only chance."

One: I am not interested in seeing two hours of a man being brutally tortured to death in a crowded theater, because no matter who he is or the story surrounding the action the whole concept reeks of medievalism and exploitation.

Two: Some of the very same people who caused such an uproar over the baring of Janet Jackson's breast for mere seconds at the Super Bowl will undoubtedly take small children with them to watch this movie, which is about a man being brutally tortured to death. Also note that small children are generally not inclined towards subtitles and there is not even a lick of english spoken in the film. Whatever these people are thinking by doing this, it is completely beyond my grasp.

Three: I don't care how "good" this movie is or how many billions it's going to rake in, if I owned a theater or a chain of theaters, I would not show this film. Because the same people who would be outside my door picketing and complaining and writing letters about the First Amendment would be the people who have tried and in small measures succeeded in restricting every form of valuable expression in this country since the inception of the Bill of Rights and it's about time they got a taste of their own damn medicine. I would also prosecute every one of them to the fullest extent of the law for harassment and trespassing given the merest opportunity, because I am vindictive, I was raised in the Bible Belt, and I'm sick and tired of conservative Christianity's warped, vile politics.

But yeah, Tom, agreed on One and Two, neutral on Three. I'm weirded out that I've seen so little public mention of the violence, even as bus trips are organized to bring people to theaters to see it; maybe it's because the movie isn't out yet and people don't quite grok just what they're in for.

hmm. good point.

(Have I ever mentioned how much I hate the History Channel on any but its best days?)

bah. i'm not the biggest fan on onscreen graphic depictions of pain & gore.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040222/i/r458545553.jpg

christ.

The BBC implies that Indiana is part of the Bible Belt

And the Hollywood Reporter doesn't even like it

Can't find the Ebert & Roeper review.

That's just amazing. I can't even laugh at it!

Also, echoes of Braveheart, and all that crap.

the acessories, the ad campaigns, the bloodied hollywood hottie on the front page of the newspapers, this makes me more and more sick.

why am i going to see this ?

I'm less and less sure I'm going to see The Passion in the theater, because of all the news stories about parents planning to bring their kids to it. I'll put this bluntly, since I'm not even sure why it needs to be said:

1) If you consider yourself a Christian and think children should see this movie, much less "need" to see it, you're a terrible Christian who's resoundingly missed the point. Forget doctrinal differences, forget sectarianism, forget "the Christ of faith versus the Jesus of history," forget the big happy circle where you can be Baptist and you can be Methodist and you can be Pentecostal: you fucked it up. You're flat-out straight-up wrong. The little Q-Bert of your soul just got snakebit and you've gotta go back to the other end of the pyramid of Not Being Dumb and try again.

2) If you think your children should see it, you're an even worse parent.

I'm not positive I could avoid saying that to people in the theater.

The shorter answer is "I'll definitely see it, but I don't know if I'll see it in the theater or wait for DVD." I sort of can't not see it: everyone I know, all my relatives, all my girlfriend's relatives, all my classmates, all my friends, are going to ask me what I thought about it. And aggravatingly enough, I've thought for years that Jim Cavaziel would make a great Jesus. So I have to see it. But I don't know if I'm willing to see the audience.

heh. just imagine the cut-footage from the "SPECIAL UNRATED DIRECTOR'S CUT 2-DISC DVD CHRISTAVAGANZA!" set that will be released lated.

"Celebrate His Birth With the Story of His Death!"

It's "friends-only" just so I don't have to keep track of what I say and whatnot, but I add everyone who wants in.

Is Caviezel (I'm spelling his name two different ways in this thread, I think, because I can never remember how it's spelled) hosting SNL any time this season? Because wow. That would just -- I mean -- it almost makes you wish the Church Lady was still around, you know?

Damn it where are the collectable glasses at fast food places?

"Celebrate YOUR last supper with us!"

i hate people.

why do i know this shit

I take this as only within the context of worship and If someone considers going to see the movie as an act of worship, then I'd agree with my pastor.

which leads to the question, can you have worshipful time (bad phrasing) at a movie ?

There's going to have to be something like this a la Dark Side of the Moon syncing up to The Wizard of Oz. I think once The Passion is out on DVD, it should be Ned's job to find the album that fits perfectly.

I'm hoping it will be something totally unrelated though. Like a Weird Al record.

He also gets to hang out with whores! And how else will the children learn about Jews?

Mary does look like she's drawn by Chester Brown, which is kind of cool.

it was ok, i guess. im kind of still digesting it. it's all very serious and slo-mo and heavy. you feel the weight of everything.

a couple of nice shots (one very nicely conceived one regarding the soon to be shroud of turin)

flashbacks possibily ill-advised (and unnecessary? everyone knows who is who and what is what)

satan most problematic. often very silly. not around too much.

i was moved strongly at points (i am an atheist, but always very moved by and interested in cultural myths).

the woman who plays mary (the mother, not belluci) is beautiful and is really in some ways the emotional center of the movie. jesus is somewhat of a non-presence.

i hope you're happy.

"Gay Bee Patrol, UNITE!"

And isn't that a statement guaranteed to reassure.

this is awesome. the tone is straight outta the Onion.

y'know, there really aren't enough biblical zombie movies out there...

there's the interview Gibson gave in Playboy, July 1995 (Vol. 42 ; No. 7 ; Pg. 51). Some excerpts:

PLAYBOY: What does he [Hutton Gibson] have to do with the Alliance for Catholic Tradition, which one magazine called "an extreme conservative Catholic splinter group"?

GIBSON: He started it. Some people say it's extreme, but it emphasizes what the institution was and where it's going. Everything he was taught to believe was taken from him in the Sixties with this renewal Vatican Council. The whole institution became unrecognizable to him, so he writes about it.

.........

PLAYBOY: Do you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution or that God created man in his image?

GIBSON: The latter.

PLAYBOY: So you can't accept that we descended from monkeys and apes?

GIBSON: No, I think it's bullshit. If it isn't, why are they still around? How come apes aren't people yet? It's a nice theory, but I can't swallow it. There's a big credibility gap. The carbon dating thing that tells you how long something's been around, how accurate is that, really? I've got one of Darwin's books at home and some of that stuff is pretty damn funny. Some of his stuff is true, like that the giraffe has a long neck so it can reach the leaves. But I just don't think you can swallow the whole piece.

PLAYBOY: We take it that you're not particularly broad-minded when it comes to issues such as celibacy, abortion, birth control --

GIBSON: People always focus on stuff like that. Those aren't issues. Those are unquestionable. You don't even argue those points.

PLAYBOY: You don't?

GIBSON: No.

PLAYBOY: What about allowing women to be priests?

GIBSON: No.

PLAYBOY: Why not?

GIBSON: I'll get kicked around for saying it, but men and women are just different. They're not equal. The same way that you and I are not equal.

PLAYBOY: That's true. You have more money.

GIBSON: You might be more intelligent, or you might have a bigger dick. Whatever it is, nobody's equal. And men and women are not equal. I have tremendous respect for women. I love them. I don't know why they want to step down. Women in my family are the center of things. An good things emanate from them. The guys usually mess up.

PLAYBOY: That's quite a generalization.

GIBSON: Women are just different. Their sensibilities are different.

PLAYBOY: Any examples?

GIBSON: I had a female business partner once. Didn't work.

PLAYBOY: Why not?

GIBSON: She was a cunt.

PLAYBOY: And the feminists dare to put you down!

GIBSON: Feminists don't like me, and I don't like them. I don't get their point. I don't know why feminists have it out for me, but that's their problem, not mine.

Has he had this freaky agenda all the while he's been making films? I guess it might explain a few things. But all those Lethal Weapon monstrosities? Wha'?

I suspect that Mel's kookdom may at some point become unsustainable, armies of movie-going Christians or no.

He's making up for the fact that he *wasn't* the martyr in Gallipoli, see.

he's a liberal activist

so both he and mel gibson have more or less denounced that series as being amoral, albeit from slightly different positions

Directed by

Mel Gibson
 

 
Writing credits (in alphabetical order)

Benedict Fitzgerald: screenplay

Mel Gibson: screenplay

God: novel

Yes. Beautifully written and very clever, but I couldn't shake off the mental image of Saramago rubbing his hands with glee going "oooooh, I'm really gonna piss the religious nuts off with THIS ONE!" whilst reading it.

"Mel Gibson has, without a doubt,
created the finest motion picture on the
life of Christ of all time," he said. "I am
very happy to be linked by Andy Rooney to a talented genius of the order of Mel
Gibson."

Can I have what Robertson's on? I mean, I'm sure it's Geritol and the smell of Depends these days, but still.

"y'know, there really aren't enough biblical zombie movies out there... "

See my above comment about how Pete Jackson should direct a biblical movie(s).

Jesus, he added, would have been tied or nailed to the cross through the wrists, not the hands as shown in the film.

"You cannot crucify a person through the hands because there is nothing there but skin and muscle. It will tear."

This is the one I can't get over. I mean, I knew this years ago. I remember it being a bone of contention I had with a lot of statues depicting Christ with wounds on the palms of his hands. I thought this was pretty well-known, at least among anyone who's done any reading on the subject.

I also remember reading the bit about the to-be-crucified only carrying the crossbar and not the whole cross.

I don't understand why I discovered these things as a decently-but-not-incredibly-well-read teenager and somehow Gibson didn't discover them with a host of "experts" helping him out. He either doesn't care, is a complete fucktard, or both.

In response to my bitching, though, a couple friends have pointed out that in the stills, Jesus does seem to be tied to the cross in addition to having the nails through his palms. In fairness, that might solve the problem; I keep thinking it would interfere with the up-and-down movements crucifixion victims go through that keep them alive until they run out of strength, but I don't know if that's so.

I wasn't aware that he was also tied to the cross in the film. I admit I suspected he wasn't since he so often is not in other depictions of the crucifixion.

Tep, what are these "up-and-down" movements of which you speak? I am now interested.

That's the thing though. He's gone to great lengths to describe his film as "realistic," so he's essentially set himself up for all the criticism. In some ways that's kind of laudible in the you-have-to-take-risks-to-make-something-really-brilliant kind of way, but I do think it's mighty lame how he skirts inconsistencies and accusations of inaccuracy by saying that the scholars "cancel themselves out." I mean what the hell does that mean anyway? One scholar said Christ was 33 when he died and another said he was -33?

Then you let go, and droop back down again, because it hurts like a son of a bitch. And then you start to suffocate again, and you wait as long as you can, because you're more and more sure you can't bring yourself to do it -- and you pull yourself up again, and take a breath.

It's a slow, slow death, because you eventually die of system shock from the continued trauma of it, or because you just can't quite manage to pull yourself up that one last time. One of the remarkable things about the way Jesus's death is portrayed is that it's so fast, compared to other crucifixions; in Gibson's movie, I think the vicious pre-crucifixion beatings are supposed to explain this (which doesn't make much sense, exactly, since the slowness and torture are the point; but overzealous soldiers wouldn't necessarily think that way, so fine).

Get it? CROSS ... POST ...

Crucifixion turns out to be kinda cool in a "Wow! Who actually came up with that one?" kinda way. I must say that was both interesting and informative.

(IANABiologist)

I'm not sure how they came up with crucifixion, though, but I'd bet it was refined from some more general practice of "stringing people up until they die" -- they probably expected starvation to be the cause of death, and played around with different methods until noticing the suffocation ... I don't know. I don't know what the norms of execution were before crucifixion began, and for all I know they took it from someone else.

when the temple curtain tears at the moment of Christ's passing, Gibson keeps shaking the earth until the temple practically falls.

Despite all the interviews with Gibson, etc., I really, really thought he was going to leave that part out.

http://www.unterzuber.com/hallie.jpg

JESUS DIES IN THE END!

Ha and again ha.

"It has moments that make you want to cry," he added. "But, having the spiritual background I came from, the very last shot of the movie empowered me. And that's all I can tease you with."

Ha and again ha.'

You clearly haven't seen the movie......or read the book....

Is that the end then? You don't get any resurrection? I was hoping that the last scene in the film would be very similar to the end of Carrie.

It's a joke, Bible-boy. Lighten thyself up, my son.

I know dude but at least use the correct punchline...jeez

"...His fiancée, Tonya Wilder, said: "Violence? It was the truth. I was worried about the violence. I didn't think I could make it through."

But she did, and so did their 3-month-old son, Jaylen. In fact, she said, Jaylen slept straight through."

Anyhow heres a few reviews from another perspective

http://www.catholic.net/beauty_and_truth/template_channel.phtml?channel_id=4

Tep I havent heard of Jack Miles before but have had a quick look at some of his essays and read a few reviews of his work. Interesting approach and a beautiful writer, but not, I would suggest, someone to be taken too seriously as a a scholar. Huge theological deficincies in his work from a catholic perspective- style over substance for sure. I believe he dropped out of the Catholic Church to join the Episcopal "Church" ... charity demands that I let others draw their own conclusions as to the theological consistency and validity of his own paticular faith.

:0

"the interpretation of the New Testament offered in this book is literary rather than historical or theological. It is literary, however, without indifference to history or prejudice against theology."

To hold to his position is either extrmely naive or plain intellectual dishonesty.As one reviewer put it "In fact, each part of his definition invites challenge." DO you have an e-mail address as Im on a coin operated computer?

A lot of the above discussion, and linked discussions, about the Passion essentially revolve around this issue: to what extent is the movie theologically driven, and how truthful is Gibson being about that drive? He conflates the theological motivation -- repeatedly, we're told he was guided by God to make the movie -- with historical methodology and accuracy, claiming to have consulted experts (was God busy killing kittens, or didn't Gibson trust Him?) before getting his hands dirty and filling in the blanks himself, adding more tortures for his protagonist wherever an ellipsis provided the opportunity -- at the expense, in screen time, of any broader context.

Sorry about the coin-op, but it's really not something we need to get hugely in-depth about, and I think it's germane to the thread.

Sematic quibbles over language and his father aside the truth of Christs extreme suffering, torture and execution for mankind should not be whitewashed for yours or anyone elses comfort (regardless of your ignorance of divine inspiration).

Peace!

BLOOD MUST SPLATTER ON THE LENS, PEOPLE!

SPLATTER!

Um what makes you so sure his suffering was extreme?

http://www.kuci.org/~brianm/ile/footballjesus.jpg

Yeah, you'd think.

Sure. Yes. But Ebert, o distant Ebert, how does cropping the rest of the story out lead to full comprehension? Was all that messy context and story just getting in the way before? Are jokes funnier when they're nothing but punchline?

something like,

"tragedy is when you get nailed to a cross for two hours, comedy is when you fall down an open manhole and die."

MEL GIBSON: Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenceless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do, absolutely. It was an atrocity of monumental proportion.

DIANE SAWYER: And you believe there were millions, six million, millions?

MEL GIBSON: Sure.

DIANE SAWYER: I think people wondered if your father's views were your views on this.

MEL GIBSON: Their whole agenda here, my detractors, is to drive a wedge between me and my father and it's not going to happen. I love him. He's my father.

DIANE SAWYER: And you will not speak publicly about him beyond that.

MEL GIBSON: I am tight with him. He's my father. Got to leave it alone, Diane. Got to leave it alone.

January 30, 2004 -- 'YOU'RE GOING to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?" Peggy Noonan asks of Mel Gibson in the Reader's Digest for March.

Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."

wot a fuckhead.

"yeah, sure, OK, I'll agree that SOME jews were killed. like 100 or something. seriously, what's the big deal?"

Hey jdsalmon, i sometimes listen to Wrens as well... is a new cd coming out soon?

The Passion of The Christ is in theaters soon - this week on Wednesday.. what do you think about this movie? I'm going to see it for sure - the trailers were enough to convince me. I read somewhere that it's the widest opening ever for a subtitled movie; I have a feeling subtitles won't detract from the full effect of this movie though. After looking at the trailers which have no subtitles or english at all, it was reinforced for me that lack of spoken english in this film won't hurt one bit. To sum up my impression of The Passion: it's a work of art.

Good Website

Another fascinating aspect to this movie is all the controversy that has been generated about it.
Some people, not really representative of Jewish people, but rather self appointed Jewish spokespeople, such as Abraham Foxman from the Anti-Defamation League, seem to have been attempting to denounce this film for months as being anti-Semitic. The news reported that they even stole the script last year! But here's what some Jews say (Jews who don't make it their job to tear apart other people): Protesting Gibson's Passion Lacks Moral Legitimacy by Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

Nice to see some people speaking rationally.

So what do you think of all this?

*** Kyle

thank Yahweh that he pointed me to an article by Jews who don't make it their job to tear apart other people...

$10 says somebody just coded a script to jump from friends list to friends list and post anon where it could.

Well, not specifically, I guess. That would be both creepy and prescient.

(xpost. or IS it?!)

(I don't think the movie is particularly anti-Semitic, from the sounds of it.)

I mean it's not as if admitting the obvious, documented fact of the Holocaust is an absolution of being anti-semetic so I don't understand what point is being made by this. His father says XYZ crazy ass shit, Gibson (understandibly IMO) avoids saying anything about it, when pushed says (in a very polite fashion, at least partially out of paternal respect I'd imagine) he disagrees with the Holocaust statement. It's not like Gibson hasn't gone on record saying BATSHIT INSANE things about women, gays, etc and it's not like he hasn't MADE A MOVIE calling Jews Jesus-Murderers so it's just kind of like "USE OTHER FACTS PLEASE" at this point.

A) Gallipoli
B) Having a modicum of intelligence, however misguided and BATSHIT INSANE his personal beliefs tend to be

I have mixed feelings about how Mel chooses to deal in public with his father's opinions, partly for personal reasons and partly because I think it's clear Gibson the Elder has used his son's fame to give himself a platform.

There is absolutely nothing factually inaccurate in the comments Mel has made so I don't see the problem with this specific topic, it neither proves nor disproves an agenda.

No one has mentioned that casting Jim Caviezal as anything is completely bizarre.

(I've gone this whole thread without mentioning that I wrote a book about Jesus. Till now.)

It's probably a really difficult subject to him (I can't imagine he doesn't realize his father uses him to a certain extent in the press) and why he gets snappy when it is brought up.

I think this is exactly what's going on, and I can easily see myself in that position, so I try for the most part to look at his father just in terms of what Mel's religious upbringing would've been like, to give some kind of reference to some of the comments he makes. Even then, he's rarely explicit -- but thats actually common among far-right Christians who think their take on the Bible and God is obvious and a priori. (If I had a nickel for every fundamentalist who said "just read the Bible," in explanation of their beliefs -- you know, like that's a tactic that no one had thought of over the last 1600 years...)

Not many people know it, but Payback was supposed to be in Aramaic too.

Caviezel is a blight upon humanity and I will not take such crazy talk like "I want him to be my jesus" because that's just wrong. You should cast James Spader instead.

I say they screwed themselves, and put a couple hundred million dollars in Mel's pocket. Bravo religeous loudmouths, bravo.

All in favor, say "Aye".

of course, he later clairified his point with Sawyer, so i probably did post too quickly.

Like Christopher Walken would be okay with an angel impregnating his wife?

Caviezel would make a good Jesus! Maybe not in Mel Gibson's movie -- and it's probably unlikely he'd play Jesus in two movies -- but he could do it. I have faith in him. You're nuts.

"Prime directive #1, kill homo wearing thorns."

END.

Shut up, it would rock.

Jeremy Sisto could play a cop or something. Ted Neeley as Commissioner Gordon!

A whole cast of nothing but Jesuses.

http://www.lakinreps.com/photographers/unit/endreny/images/02_endreny.jpg

WHO TOTALLY SHOULD PLAY JESUS.

That answers some questions from upthread and elsewhere.

bumaduma bumadum! bumaduma bumadum! bumaduma bumadum! bumaduma bumadum! bumaduma bumadum! bumaduma bumadum! bumaduma bumadum! bumaduma bumadum! bumaduma bumadum! bumaduma bumadum! BUMADUMA-BUMADUMA-BUMADUMA-BUMADUMA-BUMADUMA-DUMADUMADUMADUMA

http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/191862.1020.A.jpg

figure that one out.

(That'll be in his follow-up, around the time he loses it completely and wears boxes for shoes: Mel Gibson's Gnostics, Gnostics, Gnostics.)

Mel claims one death

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/Jesus_series/page3/pain.jpg

http://abyss.hubbe.net/jeremiah/gallery/gfx/covers/jtv/lg/char/s1/107-michael04-lg.jpg

http://abyss.hubbe.net/jeremiah/gallery/gfx/covers/jtv/lg/ep/s1/107-gun-lg.jpg

also, be sure to check the pic of the guy doing the review.
Stephen Root will be playing him in the biopic.

*the first part in the garden of Gethaeme up until they bring jesus to the Pharasies looks JUST LIKE Army of Darkness. the cam angles are totally Raimi. even the demon Judas sees is Raimi-esque!!!! that made me think the movie had potential but it was all downhill from there. the flashbacks were cheesy and innapropriate. the only other cool parts were King Herod cuz he was a funny party guy and when JC FINALLY died and the ground shook because at least SOMEthing was happening. satan was LAME-O! this film did not move me or make me feel ANYTHING at all plus Pontious Pilate just isnt as funky as he is in JC Superstar. chaki gives it a 3 1/2 out of 12 apostles!

****** ending spoiler*******

Jesus is in his tomb just waiting to walk out with his holes in his hands and this LOTR type war drum music is happening and he has this look in his eye like "watch out motherfuckers" i couldnt help but laugh.

In the end you're left all gorey with no story. It's hard to make a connection with the Jesus character because he's covered in blood from the beginning.

I didn't like LOTR either. Didn't really like the monster effects either. If you don't know the story, you won't be able to tell what's happening. But then, that may be the point.

I didn't think the Jews (or Jewish heierarchy, I should say) looked any worse than the Romans or the deciples. That controversy was unfounded.

It was a lot of "I'll bet this guy vaguely remembers hearing something about this on the History Channel" crap strung together, essentially, in an attempt to answer the criticisms of the movie -- criticisms I don't think the reviewer understood, but he probably felt the need to address them since the editor told him the movie was controversial, and they gave him a whole half-page.

"JEWS KILLED THE LORD JESUS."

This is not some church out in the boonies, or in some distant suburb, it's on the busiest street in Denver in one of the most congested sections. I boil.

Denver Church 'Passion' Sign Provokes Protest
11 minutes ago

DENVER (Reuters) - A Denver Pentecostal church named "Lovingway" put up a sign that read "Jews killed the Lord Jesus," prompting about 100 people to march outside the church to protest the message before it was taken down.

The sign in front of the Lovingway United Pentecostal Church was put up on Wednesday, the same day the controversial movie "The Passion of the Christ" opened in cinemas across the United States.

Jewish groups have said the film, produced and directed by actor Mel Gibson (news), blames the crucifixion of Jesus on Jews. They fear the movie will spark anti-Semitism.

The 73-year-old pastor of the Denver church, Maurice Gordon, defended the sign and said it was aimed at encouraging people to read the Bible.

"It would be hateful if it pointed at anybody alive today. But this has been part of the record of 2,000 years," he told the Rocky Mountain News.

The sign was taken down by church members on Wednesday night.

Hm. Sorta hope Maurice isn't long for this world.

One thing that is not mentioned in that news item. A woman driving by saw the sign, then went back to confirm that it said what she had thought it said. After knocking on the door of the church to no avail, she drove to Home Depot, bought a ladder, returned to the church, climbed up, and took down the word "Jew."

i mean the putting up of the sign in the first place

frankly i don't care if i killed jesus, but anyway

"S KILLED THE LORD JESUS"

By the time the family was ready to leave, the kid had completely demolished the food, shreading it and leaving it all over the floor. As the family was getting up from the table, I was moving in with one of those carpet sweepers to clean up the mess, and another of my tables made some comment about how messy the child had been. I said he must have been Christ, since I'd only given him two pieces of fish and two pieces of bread and there were now hundreds of pieces on the floor.

The father of the Baptist family overheard me, and he turned around and removed one dollar from the already-less-than-10% tip on the table. He also gave me the eye. Asshole.

On more than one occasion I got pamphlets in lieu of money for tips. Some of the folks even had faux bills printed up with a picture of Jesus where George Washington should be. On the back they said something like "Here's a tip: Place your trust in the Lord" or some such nonsense. Fucking unbelievable.

Heheh.

At least it was funny though.