response 141 of 306:

Feb 26 20:42 UTC 2004

(It's the last chapter of the last (5th) book of the Five Books of 
Moses (Torah).  Mr. tod only made it sound as if it would be difficult 
to locate in English.)

response 145 of 306:

Feb 27 02:14 UTC 2004

Yes, I did like the LOTR movies. But it's very clearly fantasy. I can deal
with a certain amount of violence if it's clearly not real (orcs don't exist,
same with the skeletons in Pirates of the Caribbean). 

response 147 of 306:

Feb 27 02:32 UTC 2004

"Passion" is also mostly fantasy, although of such long standing that it
has become institutionalized. The real difference is that the fans of LOTR
fantasy can more or less take it or leave it, knowing it is fantasy, but
the fans of "Passion" are unable to comprehend that it is fantasy, and
hence get very much put out when its unreality is pointed out. 

response 149 of 306:

Feb 27 03:30 UTC 2004

Rane, give it a rest, would you?  It's obvious this is important to people.
We all know how you feel about it.  You don't need to tell us at every
opportunity.

response 151 of 306:

Feb 27 03:53 UTC 2004

Yes, why not? The "other side" isn't shy about shoving their stuff in
everyone's face - consider the movie itself! Why should I be less forward
(though no match for Gibson)?

response 153 of 306:

Feb 27 04:50 UTC 2004

Ahem. WHO is promoting the Federal Marriage Amendment, bruce?

response 155 of 306:

Feb 27 14:02 UTC 2004

Rane, there is a difference to me about whether the violence is clearly not
real (as in vs. orcs, or aliens, although the Alien/Terminator movies were
on the too much edge for me) and violence very clearly perpetrated upon a
person, whether or not that person is "real" or not. I was expecting to be
ill and repulsed and have nightmares. I didn't have that reaction to this
movie, possibly because I do believe that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour, so
it had a very different feel to it than normal movie violence. I may or may
not explain that further when I have time.

response 157 of 306:

Feb 27 16:17 UTC 2004

The historical record does establish that *something* happened, but not
what. There are no contemporary substantiated records of the events
recounted in the bible: only some identifiable historical names and places.
There are no written accounts until ca 50 years after the purported events,
and then these are contradictory. The implication is that a legend was being
created for the purposes of groups including the writers.

It is a historical fact that crucifixtion was a favorite reprisal against
enemies. Thousands of people were crucified in single events, with roads
lined with the victims. It was a bloody era for hundreds of years. Perhaps
someone will make a movie of that. 

response 159 of 306:

Feb 27 16:36 UTC 2004

I've heard this was a belief held by his father, and that he has repudiated
it.

I hope so. I've always found him to be amiable whenever I've seen him
interviewed. But it's amazing how effective appearing to be amiable is at
hiding suspect behaviours and beliefs.

response 161 of 306:

Feb 27 16:43 UTC 2004

Gibson said in an interview in the March 2004 Reader's Digest, when asked
about the Holocaust: "Friends and friend's parents have numbers on their arms.
My Spanish teacher was at <a camp>." I got the impression that he admitted
that there were camps and people died, Jews among them, but that he felt that
WWII was a tragedy on more levels than that. That other people were also
killed (Russians, gypsies, etc.). Since this is historically accurate in that
other people WERE killed, and that other groups were targetted for
extermination (gypsies and gays among them), I am not sure if he was weaseling
out (as some might say) or expanding his definition to include more than just
Jews being killed.