babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » The Passion = Fascist homoerotica

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Passion = Fascist homoerotica
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 February 2004 04:30 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I couldn't agree more witrh what Hitchens has to say about The Passion etc...

BTW: What do you say we organize a group of people to go to the movie and cheer during all the torture scenes of Christ, just to totally offend those silly Christian ninnies who actually get moved by such a sad spectacle. I enjoy the thought of committing blasphemy!

quote:
"Long before he emerged as the spear-carrier for the sort of Catholicism once preached by Gen. Franco and the persecutors of Dreyfus, Mel Gibson attained a brief notoriety for his loud and crude attacks on gays. Now he's become the proud producer of a movie that relies for its effect almost entirely on sadomasochistic male narcissism. The culture of blackshirt and brownshirt pseudomasculinity, as has often been pointed out, depended on some keen shared interests. Among them were massively repressed homoerotic fantasies, a camp interest in military uniforms, an obsession with flogging and a hatred of silky and effeminate Jews. Well, I mean to say, have you seen Mel's movie?"

From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 28 February 2004 05:29 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So King Christopher has switched sides yet again. Does this juvenile twit of an alcoholic really believe he can of it is lecture us about fachists after what he has done!?
Mel Gibson is an idiot, but I don't want to hear about his idiocy(sp?) from a man who is a Bush poodle. Turncoat bastard.

[ 28 February 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 28 February 2004 05:47 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mel Gibson is an idiot, but I don't want to hear about his idiocy(sp?) from a man who is a Bush poodle. Turncoat bastard.

Oh don't be silly. what does one thing have to do with another?? Just because I disagree totally with someone's views on the war in Iraq doesn't mean that the person cannot have anything valid to say about a completely unrelated topic. Similarly, if Paul Wolfowitz wrote an article for a cooking magazine and had an excellent recipe for strawberry shortcake - it might try cooking it even if I disapprove of his views on US foreign policy.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 28 February 2004 06:00 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Similarly, if Paul Wolfowitz wrote an article for a cooking magazine and had an excellent recipe for strawberry shortcake - [I] might try cooking it even if I disapprove of his views on US foreign policy.

Really? I wouldn't. I don't think the cake could be baked with love, the way I like to bake things. Karma, etc.


From: Qubec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 28 February 2004 06:26 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oh don't be silly. what does one thing have to do with another?? Just because I disagree totally with someone's views on the war in Iraq doesn't mean that the person cannot have anything valid to say about a completely unrelated topic.

But Stock, Fascism and the war in Iraq are related topics, there are plenty of people working for Dubya who would jump at the chance to turn the US into a dictatorship. Hitch supported these people during the war and now he is trying to tell us that he doesn't like their ideology? Sorry man, you've made your political bed and now you have to lie in it. That being said, I would probably try Paul Wolfowitz's strawberry shortcake too.

[ 28 February 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 28 February 2004 06:42 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The full article: Schlock, Yes; Awe, No; Fascism, Probably.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 28 February 2004 06:43 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't. There'd probably be some ingredients that combined to make a subtle poison, or tranquillizer or something.

Similarly, anything Hitchens has to say about fascism is going to be superficial bullcrap; if he understood fascism or was willing to tell the truth about it, he wouldn't have backed Bush. Frankly, the one paragraph I saw sounds like superficial bullcrap, with anti-gay undertones. Fascism for him apparently is all about trappings--just like everything else.
I doubt the movie is anything to write home about. I doubt the reasons have anything to do with anything Hitchens has to say.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 28 February 2004 06:55 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
...with anti-gay undertones.

How do you figure that?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 28 February 2004 07:28 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
... yeah, I'd suggest you DO read Hitchens' piece before making such an assertion.

[ 29 February 2004: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 February 2004 05:23 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But Stock, Fascism and the war in Iraq are related topics, there are plenty of people working for Dubya who would jump at the chance to turn the US into a dictatorship.

I disagree. I am 100% against the war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that everyone who is in favour of the war is ipso-facto a fascist. That is as outrageous as clkaiming that everyone who opposed the war was a sympathizer to Baathist fascism as represented by Saddam. In fact - as wrong as we may think they are - they are people who consider themselves leftwing such as people in the British Labour Party and French socialists like Bernard Kouchner, who regard the war against Saddam as an ANTI-Fascist war aimed at ridding the world of a fascist dictatorship.

You can agree of disagree with a point of view but when you start to imply that anyone who supported the war is some willing accessory to a fascist plot to conquer the world is skating on very thin. It turned into a leftwing version of red-baiting (shall we call it Blue baiting?)


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 29 February 2004 07:32 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I couldn't agree more witrh what Hitchens has to say about The Passion etc...

BTW: What do you say we organize a group of people to go to the movie and cheer during all the torture scenes of Christ, just to totally offend those silly Christian ninnies who actually get moved by such a sad spectacle. I enjoy the thought of committing blasphemy!


And whatever is wrong with liking military uniforms and flogging?

For myself, I will stick with Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter as my preferred Jesus movie.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 29 February 2004 09:42 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, I think Hitchen's piece is quite important. It doesn't matter, in this context, that he chose to support Bush's war, and is still unrepentant. What matters is that he is able, and willing to identify emerging fascist tendencies in American cinema.

Whether those tendencies will meld with Bush's general religiosity and desire to stand before audiences of soldiers shouting "Huh! Huh!", remains to be seen.

For me, the war in Iraq was not fascist, but imperialist. Maybe I'm wrong; now people can argue to me that even prowar people agree that fascism is beginning to appear in the official culture.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 29 February 2004 12:33 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Hitchen's is being dirty when he draws the link between Gibson and Franco. I have no patience for the nonesence of Jacques Derrida, but I wouldn't label him a fascist because he based some of his...philosophy... on the work of another philosopher identified with Hitler's Nazi regime-- as some of his detractors have.

It's ill reasoned.

Hitchen's is also incorrect when he labels the movie anti-semetic.

It's the new testiment that is anti-semetic.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 February 2004 12:44 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think Hitchen's is being dirty when he draws the link between Gibson and Franco.

What's dirty about it? Franco was more than anything else a product of an Opus Dei inspired ultra conservative view of Catholicism. He got massive backing from the church in Ireland and from the Vatican. This is the same nauseating faction of Catholicism that Gibson and his demented father represent. These are people who think the Pope is too LIBERAL and want to roll back the reforms of the Vatican council. If you read the article, it is apparent that Gibson is in all and intents and purposes a Holocaust-denying anti-semite. I might also add that a few years in an interview with a Spanish magazine, the subject of homosexuality came up and Gibson's response was to get up in the middle of the interview, turn around and point at his ass and then say "see this, this is for shitting, not fucking". Quite a charmer that Mel.

I return to my initial idea. What do you see we start a movement to sabotage screenings of The Passion. You know, cheer on the Romans and the Jews as the good guys and laugh during the depictions of the cruciFICTION fairy tale.

I would be tempted, but then I would have to buy a ticket to the film and add to its box office revenues


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 29 February 2004 03:13 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hichens hasn't "changed sides." He's on the same side as always: his own.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 29 February 2004 03:36 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No swallow, Hitchens used to be on the left, even the far left, and has gone over as a cheerleader for imperialism. That said, I agree with Stockholm and Jeff House, I think it was a fairly astute characterisation of the current such films represent, and their odd "anti-gay homoerotica".

Technically, the current Gibson is part of is no longer a part of the Catholic Church; it is schismatic. And explicitly against brotherhood with other religions, or even other Christians outside Catholicism - it explicitly rejects Vatican II and any rapprochement with Orthodox, Anglicans or Protestants. Not to mention the hateful things that current says about Jews and Muslims - its partisans are strong supporters of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France.

It pretty much goes without saying that it, and Mel, are viciously anti-gay. Which has never prevented homoerotica, eh? Fascism, which murdered gays in Spain (Lorca, murdered as an opponent but singled out for torture as a gay man) as well as in Nazi Germany, was full of homoerotic references.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 29 February 2004 04:41 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All right, Hitch makes some good points in his article, Gibson is an evangelical nut case. My problem isn't with the piece, it's with Hitch himself. He was once a great man, a champion of American liberalism. I remember he spoke at length to Michael Enright about his relationship with God. I enjoyed the interview because it put a positive spin on atheism, secular humanism and science. It was very uplifting. Now Chris seems to have regressed. Every time I think about the vile insults he threw at the Dixie chicks, I cringe. He now associates with the kind of people he used to criticize. I can't get past that betrayal.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 February 2004 08:16 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess I'm just saying that as far as Hitchens is concerned, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, his views on Iraq and on Clinton were objectionable, BUT I happen to think that his article on The Passion According to Mel Gibson was excellent.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
windymustang
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4509

posted 29 February 2004 10:21 PM      Profile for windymustang     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by Stockholm:
quote:
cruciFICTION fairy tale.

I can understand you crisizing the article and author, but your above mentioned term is equivalent to calling the hallocast(sp) a jewish fraud. Completely offensive.

From: from the locker of Mad Mary Flint | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 29 February 2004 10:37 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by windymustang:
I can understand you crisizing the article and author, but your above mentioned term is equivalent to calling the hallocast(sp) a jewish fraud. Completely offensive.

Actually, no it's not, it's not even slightly the same. The Holocaust happened half a century ago and is probably the most documented event in history. The Christian legend of the crucifixion, while sad and moving for those who believe in the religion, is documented BUT the biblical account, and Mel's overwrought depiction of the story, is anything but proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. People are quite free to believe that the story of Christ's crucifixion is fiction. Because there certainly isn't anything like the kind of proof that there is of the Holocaust.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 29 February 2004 11:39 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Exactly Michelle. The Holocaust is a historical fact, we have eyewitness accounts, film footage, primary sources. It is as factual as the fact that the sun rose this morning. The only evidence that the crucifixion even took place was a quaint collection of fables known as the Bible (if you think any of these fables actually happened, maybe you also believe in Aesop's Fables) that was written hundreds of years after the event was supposed to have happened and is a book that also claims that all sorts of absurd super-natural events occurred such as part the Red Sea, walking on water, turning water into wine, immaculate conception etc... etc... We know, thanks to science that none of these things are physically possible. There may well have been an individual by the name of Jesus. He may (along with thousands of other people) have been crucified 2000 years ago. The fact is, crucifixion was a very common method of execution in those days. But who knows.

I think Lenny Bruce said it best "imagine if Christ had been put to death in the 20th century -everyone would be wearing little toy electric chairs around their necks"


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 29 February 2004 11:44 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
People are quite free to believe that the story of Christ's crucifixion is fiction.

I am told that, according to the Koran, Christ was never crucified, but rather was taken up into heaven at the moment of God's choosing.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 29 February 2004 11:59 PM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I didn't realize my non-Christian beliefs were so offensive ...
From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 March 2004 12:07 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here is another choice tidbit from that class act Mel Gibson. What a perfectly nauseating human being.

quote:
Mel Gibson was asked what he felt about potential backlash against his movie, "The Passion of the Christ." He responded, with classic Christian grace: "I don't know where it's going to fall. And quite frankly... you want to hear something? I don't give a flying fuck." The man who allegedly only put as much violence in his movie as occurred in the Gospels was also asked how he would greet Frank Rich, one of his more prominent critics. Gibson replied, "I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick ... I want to kill his dog." This is the man now hailed as the savior of America's evangelical Christians. I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 01 March 2004 12:07 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Evidently SPARTACUS actually died in battle, but some 6,000 slaves were crucified after the revolt as a warning to others. http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/people_n2/ppersons2_n2/spartacus.html
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Krago
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3064

posted 01 March 2004 12:26 AM      Profile for Krago     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dumb question: Since "The Passion of the Christ" was filmed entirely in Aramaic and Latin with English subtitles, will it be eligible for the 'Best Foreign Language Film' category at next year's Oscars?
From: The Royal City | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Platosdad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3559

posted 01 March 2004 01:04 AM      Profile for Platosdad     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by googlymoogly:
I didn't realize my non-Christian beliefs were so offensive ...

Beliefs offensive? No. The way some beliefs have been expressed on this thread offensive? No question.

It's offensive when a person's beliefs are held up to ridicule the way they have been by some in this thread, such as the poster who suggested that people who believe in the biblical accounts of Jesus must also believe that a hare and a tortoise had a race.

It's a lack of respect founded in ignorance, incidentally. I'd suggest a few posters in this thread take some comparative religion studies before making any comments about any religion.

Speaking of ignorance: since when can science prove something can't be done? I wasn't aware it was possible to prove a negative. But then I'm just an ignorant Christian.


From: On the drive to insane.... | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 01 March 2004 01:22 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well If you're a christian perhaps you could just forgive them and ge on with it.
From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hawkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3306

posted 01 March 2004 02:14 AM      Profile for Hawkins     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Platosdad:


such as the poster who suggested that people who believe in the biblical accounts of Jesus must also believe that a hare and a tortoise had a race.


Now this reasoning I like!

sorry it just came off as pure logic and such a great argument. Thanks Next time a fundamentalist comes to my door this one is coming out!

Seriously though- Does it make the lessons of Aesop any less valid because the story is a bit unrealistic? I don't think so. I think one would have actually a hard time teaching people those lessons without making up a little fiction to go along.

So next time you take offense at the suggestion of "fiction" maybe take a second thought and say thats the way god intended it to be, because thats the only way we would understand the important stuff the moral teachings.... but that would be anti christian. I am sorry.


From: Burlington Ont | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 01 March 2004 08:48 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So next time you take offense at the suggestion of "fiction" maybe take a second thought and say thats the way god intended it to be, because thats the only way we would understand the important stuff the moral teachings

Actually, that is the position which was held by Spinoza in the late 17th century. He thought the Bible, and especially the miracles in the Bible, was written to allow unlettered people to understand great moral lessons.

But water was never turned into wine.

Of course, Spinoza got denounced for this, but I doubt that it should be particularly offensive three centuries later. Spinoza was accused of being an atheist, but he denied it, saying he was a "deist".


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 March 2004 09:38 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And of course needless to say about 100% of the time, the Christians who think that everything in the Bible really happened and that it is all to be taken literally are the very rightwing intolerant types (you know the pro-Franco Catholics and the rightwing Republican Evangelicals etc...). Christains who see the Bible as allegory and don't make any pretence to thinking that it is a true historic document are the more liberal, tolerant ones who believe in the social gospel etc...
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 March 2004 12:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, but is the film actually good homoerotic s&m?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 01 March 2004 12:23 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
And of course needless to say ...

So why say it? Certainly the most vocal Christian conservatives and liberals have the Bible views you outline. However, I think you'd find intolerant members of liberal churches, and more tolerant members of conservative ones. They simply don't speak up as much.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 01 March 2004 04:55 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure that this is even possible. If you honestly believe that everything in the Bible is the literal truth then you ipso-facto believe that men are superior to woman and that adulterers should be stoned to death and that the world was created in six days etc... and that anyone who isn't Christian is going to burn in hell. Fundamentalist belief in the Bible is totally incompatible with modernity, the Enlightenment and any form of pluralism.

Find me an example of a fundamentalist Christian who believes that the Bible is literally true and that the world is 5000 years old and that humans co-existed with dinosaurs who also has totally liberal and tolerant views on social issues.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 01 March 2004 05:08 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As I've never met a Christian fundamentalist who believes that adulterers should be stoned today, I'd have to say that you've created a strawman yet again, Stock.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 01 March 2004 05:17 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can think of one who'd love to see all homosexuals stoned to death. I don't know for certain that the Bible even commands it, but I suspect he'd do it pro bono if it weren't for all those queer-coddling murder laws!
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 01 March 2004 05:20 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Does he follow dietary laws too?
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 01 March 2004 05:23 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm thinking of Fred Phelps. I don't really know or care what he eats. For all I know he could spend the night hooked up to some big hate battery, recharging himself like a golf cart.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 01 March 2004 05:26 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fred Phelps wears clothing of mixed fibres, and does not obey dietary laws. Therefore, he can not be Stock's hypothetical, 100% literalist.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 01 March 2004 06:00 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a 100% fundamentalist Xtian. Seems to me they all leave out any of God's directives that are inconvenient to them and their choices, and instead focus on all of God's directives to others.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 01 March 2004 06:03 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here are some Aramaic phrases to use when you see the film.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 March 2004 07:06 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh man. I'm still laughing.

My favorite:

quote:
Een, Yuudaayaa naa, ellaa b-haw yawmaa laa hweeth ba-mdeetaa.
Yes, I'm Jewish, but I wasn't there that day.

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mycroft_
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2230

posted 01 March 2004 07:27 PM      Profile for Mycroft_     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ma'hed lee qalleel d-Khayey d-Breeyaan, ellaa dlaa gukhkaa.
It sort of reminds me of Life of Brian, but it's nowhere near as funny.

From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 01 March 2004 08:35 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a 100% fundamentalist Xtian. Seems to me they all leave out any of God's directives that are inconvenient to them and their choices, and instead focus on all of God's directives to others.

In no way would I move to defend the fundies. You have, however, made my point about Stockie's straw man.

Maybe the "crazies'" reading of the Old Testament is rather selective. Or, maybe it actually is a consideration of a cultural context in deciding application -- a concept that does rather irritate some when brought to their attention. Of course when you go on to talk about more current cultural issues, they do seem to clam up rather quickly on the matter of context.

I've notice judgement of others from fundies, liberals, fiscal conservatives, NDPers and activists of all types. I'm rather partial to it myself at times.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 01 March 2004 08:52 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's a well known fact that Fundies don't follow all directives in the Bible: It's impossible...there are too many contradictions. That's what makes arguing with Fundies so much fun.

Example: Some Fundie makes a bigotted statement about gay people, or Muslims. Do you attack the Fundie with equally venomous bile about Christians? No. You say "That's an interesting view, what part of the bible says that gay people should be put to death?". Then you go to work. Ask them if the shirt they are wearing is a poly-cotton blend. Quiz them about their diet. Inquire as to their Sabbath activities. It really makes for an endless source of fun.


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 01 March 2004 09:14 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Exactly -- that plus a knowledge of things like unclear translations and social custom on issues like homosexuality can make for interesting times.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 01 March 2004 10:34 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I find it somewhat ironic that the people who would go to see this movie on religious grounds, to see their savior flayed, tortured and the beaten are the same people who would condemn Buffy the Vampire Slayer as un Christian.

I have an idea. Why doesn't Stock go to a local screening of the passion of the Christ and setup a game of dungeons and Dragons at the front of the theater! That'll really piss off the fundies!


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 March 2004 04:49 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have another idea! How about we get a truckload of pig shit, drive it down to Los Angeles and dump it on Mel Gibson's front lawn? Or better yet, we could snip the brake cables in his SUV...

[ 03 March 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 03 March 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 03 March 2004 04:52 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What if Stock did what he proposed at the top of the thread and took a camera crew with him?
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 03 March 2004 11:09 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
America's greatest Christian reviews The Passion of the Christ

quote:
I don't normally bother to see a film when I've read the Book. Unlike Justin Timberlake, I prefer to eschew implausible deniability when it comes to the fragility of surprise. But since The Passion of the Christ (not, mind you, just any Christ you might happen to cross crosses with, but the Christ), grew from the prodigiously fertilized soil of Roman Catholicism, a church that has never been fettered by its source materials when it comes to wildly dramatic theological flourishes, I went anyway.


Mel Gibson shrewdly marketed this film in a manner made popular by many wealthy, privileged neocon Christians in America -- by claiming to be the victim of a persecution so insidious that it leaves no visible traces. Aside from Mr. Gibson's attempts at becoming the Tawana Brawley of the Director's Guild, all of the pre-release press has arisen from Jews taking prickly umbrage in being saddled with the responsibility for Jesus' death. Well, no one enjoys having his face rubbed in homicidal peccadilloes. Just ask Patsy Ramsey. Or Laura Bush, for that matter. But complaining that the New Testament is anti-Semitic is tantamount to complaining that The Sound of Music is disconcertingly Austrian. Rather than bemoan the unflattering demeanor of extras, rabbis should celebrate that the film doesn't open with the Apostle Paul inciting an angry crowd with a spirited musical rendition of lyrics based on his colorful epistle to the Thessalonians:

"The Jews who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15

From the very first reel, there is no question about which character has the starring role. Taking a cue from the local Los Angeles television news programs, if it bleeds it leads. And I haven't seen so much bleeding since my nefarious maid washed my St. John's summer silks in a rigorous hot water cycle in a pique after my casual, yet keen observation to another St. John (Ashcroft) about her only son's inscrutable deportment led to his deportation to Guantanamo Bay. In the end, Passion is really just another action movie awash in gratuitous blood. Like Braveheart -- only the men's skirts are longer.



From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 03 March 2004 11:44 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But complaining that the New Testament is anti-Semitic is tantamount to complaining that The Sound of Music is disconcertingly Austrian.

This has been my attitude the whole time as well.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca