NationStates Jolt Archive

Mel Gibson has reneged on his promise to meet with Jewish leaders, and from what I heard on the radio this morning, he's not going into rehab for his alcohol problem either. He is, however, sending a gift basket to Michael "Kramer" Richards and a card thanking him for taking the heat off of Mel's antisemitic and sexist drunken ramblings.

http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/3594026

Give the man a drink - he's obviously posting on NS General as Beleriand.

Holy crap.

So he really is an unrepentant anti-Semite.

Like we didn't already know it...I thought he'd at least go through the motions.

What a total moron.

What a total moron.

You were expecting different behavior?

You were expecting different behavior?

For PR purposes, yeah.

You were expecting different behavior?

I'd at least expect him to go through the motions of not being a douche, but I guess I expected wrong.

I'd at least expect him to go through the motions of not being a douche, but I guess I expected wrong.

Rich, powerful celebrities live in a world where no one is going to tell them "No". Where they have more than enough money to cover any problem or solve any dilemma.

Hence, Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, etc.

Mel is no different. He is more than rich enough to be a complete douche all the time, and get away with it.

If in trouble, he can always point to one of the other douches in the news.

I might have forgiven him in his hot Lethal Weapon days, but now he's old and getting ugly, so I'll avoid his movies because of his anti-Semitism. That's right.

And I should care about this because...? He's not in a position of power, he's just another rich Hollywood type. It's not like he runs the free world or something.

And if you think I'm taking his side on that last movie, I didn't even like Passion of the Jesus. It only had 1 zombie in it. Why make a zombie movie if you're only going to put 1 zombie in it and then not have it go around biting people?

But really, I just thought it filled up a lot of time with gore because there wasn't that much to go on from the bible. The whole movie could have been cut down to half the length. It was so boring.

I'm going to hell aren't I?

Mel Gibson has reneged on his promise to meet with Jewish leaders, and from what I heard on the radio this morning, he's not going into rehab for his alcohol problem either. He is, however, sending a gift basket to Michael "Kramer" Richards and a card thanking him for taking the heat off of Mel's antisemitic and sexist drunken ramblings.


Good to know he's still an Aussie at heart.

Give the man a drink - he's obviously posting on NS General as Beleriand.

Nah, Beleriand isn't Mel. He's really Borat.

I might have forgiven him in his hot Lethal Weapon days, but now he's old and getting ugly, so I'll avoid his movies because of his anti-Semitism. That's right.

Don't avoid his movies. Download Apocalypto from Limewire and then burn a thousand copies to distribute to people in line to see his movie.

Did he not meet with any leaders or just that guy? He is from the Zionist Organization of America. I wouldn't meet with him. Did he meet with the ADL?

Why exactly should he have to apologize?
You want a repeat of the MArlon Brando incident I suppose.

He's a private citizen holding a private view that was unscrupulously made public. So what, he's anti-supremacist...

I might have forgiven him in his hot Lethal Weapon days, but now he's old and getting ugly, so I'll avoid his movies because of his anti-Semitism. That's right.Although, I must admit, it should be interesting to see how any antisemitism got worked into Apocalypto.

Why exactly should he have to apologize?

Well, he said he would.

A man's word is his honour, and all that. (Not that I expect a racist such as yourself to know anything about either manhood or honour.)

Well, he said he would.

A man's word is his honour, and all that. (Not that I expect a racist such as yourself to know anything about either manhood or honour.)

In today's society, the concept of honour is absent.

He's been a known antisemite for quite a while, with the last nail in the coffin being "The Passion of the Christ." His latest outburst was just more of the same.

When people drink, they speak their minds.

What is on Mel Gibson's mind while he's speeding around california? The Jews. Thats how much he hates them.

In today's society, the concept of honour is absent.

No, in cowards and trash the concept of honor is absent.

No, in cowards and trash the concept of honor is absent.

IMHO, 99 percent of people today are cowards and trash.

you guys really need to check yourselves and your knee-jerk reactions. He refused to meet with one guy from the Zionist Organization of America. That guy is the only person who's saying he's reneged on his promise to meet with Jewish leaders. Here's a press release from the guy he refused to meet with's website.

New York - The ZOA and others have opposed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declaring a ceasefire with Hamas and the other the Palestinian Arab terror groups, offering renewed talks with the Palestinian Authority (PA)/Hamas to lead to giving land and other major Israeli concessions, including the creation of a Palestinian/Hamas state and the forcible removal of tens of thousands of Jewish men, women and children from their homes in Judea and Samaria. Olmert also promised the release of an unspecified large number of Palestinian terrorists held in Israeli jails in exchange for the release of the kidnapped Israeli corporal, Gilad Shalit. Olmert made this offer despite the fact that, between 1993 and 1999, Israel released 6,912 terrorists, of whom 854 committed further terrorist acts which claimed the lives of 123 Israelis. (Report by the Almagor Terror Victims Association, Israel National News, September 8).http://www.zoa.org/2006/11/zoa_others_oppo.htm

They're pretty hard-line. Check out their website.

http://www.zoa.com

He's been a known antisemite for quite a while, with the last nail in the coffin being "The Passion of the Christ." His latest outburst was just more of the same.

When people drink, they speak their minds.

What is on Mel Gibson's mind while he's speeding around california? The Jews. Thats how much he hates them.

I agree with the sentiment that he's an anti-semite, just as Micheal Richards hates black people. But that movie wasn't anti-semetic.

I agree with the sentiment that he's an anti-semite, just as Micheal Richards hates black people. But that movie wasn't anti-semetic.

I have a very keen eye for anti-semitism, because I like making off-color jokes with my friends, and we detected a great deal of it in the Passion.

In terms of bad jokes on old-fashion Jewish stereotypes, the movie was a laugh-riot.

If you don't think the film was antisemitic, you don't know what to look for.

Mel Gibson has reneged on his promise to meet with Jewish leaders, and from what I heard on the radio this morning, he's not going into rehab for his alcohol problem either. He is, however, sending a gift basket to Michael "Kramer" Richards and a card thanking him for taking the heat off of Mel's antisemitic and sexist drunken ramblings.

http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/3594026

Stop the presses! Another celebrity does something that I don't care about.

I have a very keen eye for anti-semitism, because I like making off-color jokes with my friends, and we detected a great deal of it in the Passion.

In terms of bad jokes on old-fashion Jewish stereotypes, the movie was a laugh-riot.

If you don't think the film was antisemitic, you don't know what to look for.

Well, I'm an athiest but I've read teh bible twice and it looked like a pretty accurate portrayal of ahet the bible describes as happening. Care to point out what's anti-semitic? I didn't see it. I saw a lot of people crying about it being anti semitic before it even came out, though.

Although, I must admit, it should be interesting to see how any antisemitism got worked into Apocalypto.

The conquistadors that invaded the Mayan empire? All Jewish. They must've been, they were after gold!

<3

Well, I'm an athiest but I've read teh bible twice and it looked like a pretty accurate portrayal of ahet the bible describes as happening. Care to point out what's anti-semitic? I didn't see it. I saw a lot of people crying about it being anti semitic before it even came out, though.

People see it as blaming the Jews for what happened to Christ, when it was the Romans who actually persecuted and killed the guy.

The conquistadors that invaded the Mayan empire? All Jewish. They must've been, they were after gold!

<3Didn't the Maya die out before the conquistadors?

you guys really need to check yourselves and your knee-jerk reactions. He refused to meet with one guy from the Zionist Organization of America. That guy is the only person who's saying he's reneged on his promise to meet with Jewish leaders. Here's a press release from the guy he refused to meet with's website.

http://www.zoa.org/2006/11/zoa_others_oppo.htm

They're pretty hard-line. Check out their website.

http://www.zoa.com

To be honest, I couldnt give a fuck if he was a Hare feckin Krishna, I wouldn't meet the prick either.

Anyhoo....that OP story has a smell offof it... "doesnt want to meet Jews". While the big G might come out with that while pissed, I've a hard time imagining some PR/secretary saying it - even if it was the intent behind it.

To be honest, I couldnt give a fuck if he was a Hare feckin Krishna, I wouldn't meet the prick either.

Anyhoo....that OP story has a smell offof it... "doesnt want to meet Jews". While the big G might come out with that while pissed, I've a hard time imagining some PR/secretary saying it - even if it was the intent behind it.

Apparently, if you offend some group in the US, and you're a celebrity, you have to meet with that group's most offensive public persona.

So, if you insult the Jews, you have to beg forgiveness from this guy.

If you insult blacks, you have to kiss Al Sharpton's ass.

People see it as blaming the Jews for what happened to Christ, when it was the Romans who actually persecuted and killed the guy.

If you read the Gospels you'll see that he was handed over to the Romans by the Jews, according to the story at least.

Didn't the Maya die out before the conquistadors?

Shaddup, you're ruining my Jewk (Jew-joke). If this one goes under all I'll have left is the one about pizza ovens. ^^

But I was pretty sure those Conq's killed some indiginous peoples. Maybe the Incans. I don't know what Apocolypto is about. =)

No, in cowards and trash the concept of honor is absent.

Do you hold politicians to this standard because if you do you are an anarchist.

Shaddup, you're ruining my Jewk (Jew-joke). If this one goes under all I'll have left is the one about pizza ovens. ^^

But I was pretty sure those Conq's killed some indiginous peoples. Maybe the Incans. I don't know what Apocolypto is about. =)

Aztecs

If you read the Gospels you'll see that he was handed over to the Romans by the Jews, according to the story at least.

He was handed over by Judas, one of his disciples. There's even some speculation that Jesus had told Judas to do it specifically so he would be crucified. After all, no death = no forgiveness, no abolishion of original sin or anything like that.

Course, I don't believe he was actually the son of god. I don't believe in original sin, it sounds too ridiculous to me - as does the idea that god would have to create a son to have him killed so we could be saved, as if he couldn't just forgive us without killing anyone, like there's some sort of holy economy that would be thrown off if these counterfeit mulligans were passed out to everyone.

Do you hold politicians to this standard because if you do you are an anarchist.

Wow, you're pretty silly. =)

I hold people in general to standards. That's what standards are for. If you make exceptions to standards, they're no longer standards, and you're biased and your morals and expectations are compromised. Doesn't make you an anarchist, just a decent person.

Aztecs

Damnit, I knew it was one of them.

So what's the movie about? All I got out of the trailer was some guy bookin' it through the woods all energetic-like.

Wow, you're pretty silly. =)

I hold people in general to standards. That's what standards are for. If you make exceptions to standards, they're no longer standards, and you're biased and your morals and expectations are compromised. Doesn't make you an anarchist, just a decent person.

Well I am an anarchist because I do hold all people to general standards.

Damnit, I knew it was one of them.

So what's the movie about? All I got out of the trailer was some guy bookin' it through the woods all energetic-like.

His government decides to have a crazy-ass war, and he decides to hoof it instead of participating.

He was handed over by Judas, one of his disciples. There's even some speculation that Jesus had told Judas to do it specifically so he would be crucified. After all, no death = no forgiveness, no abolishion of original sin or anything like that.

Course, I don't believe he was actually the son of god. I don't believe in original sin, it sounds too ridiculous to me - as does the idea that god would have to create a son to have him killed so we could be saved, as if he couldn't just forgive us without killing anyone, like there's some sort of holy economy that would be thrown off if these counterfeit mulligans were passed out to everyone.
Well, he based it on John, which of the four is the one that puts the most blame on the Jews hence why it was used to justify anti-jewish sentiement back in the day, and still is by "Catholic" right wingers like Mel, or Fourth Reich, who reject Vatican II. So he was following the source even if he could have chosen to do one of the other ones that had less anti-semetic overtones.

He was handed over by Judas, one of his disciples. There's even some speculation that Jesus had told Judas to do it specifically so he would be crucified. After all, no death = no forgiveness, no abolishion of original sin or anything like that.

Course, I don't believe he was actually the son of god. I don't believe in original sin, it sounds too ridiculous to me - as does the idea that god would have to create a son to have him killed so we could be saved, as if he couldn't just forgive us without killing anyone, like there's some sort of holy economy that would be thrown off if these counterfeit mulligans were passed out to everyone.

Yes, but they were only looking for him because the Jews wanted him dead. The Gospels are full of Jewish persecution of Jesus. Hell, his main disciple, the one often credited with the spread of Christianity after Jesus's death, Paul, was Saul of Tarsus who was sent by the Jews to kill Jesus. Not that I believe any of that shit either, but I used to so I know it pretty well. The Passion was a reasonable accurate portrayal of what the Bible says happened. I understand why Jews think it's anti-semitic, but they can't expect Christians to change the most important story of their religion to make it okay for modern Jewish consumption. They often forget, or ignore, that Jesus himself and all of his disciples were Jewish.

Damnit, I knew it was one of them.

So what's the movie about? All I got out of the trailer was some guy bookin' it through the woods all energetic-like.

It's about the "collapse," in quotes because aparently some groups claiming lineage with the Mayan dispute that it was a complete collapse, of the Mayan cizilization. This was a few centuries before Europeans showed up if memory serves and is something of a mystery as to what caused it.

Well, he based it on John, which of the four is the one that puts the most blame on the Jews hence why it was used to justify anti-jewish sentiement back in the day, and still is by "Catholic" right wingers like Mel, or Fourth Reich, who reject Vatican II. So he was following the source even if he could have chosen to do one of the other ones that had less anti-semetic overtones.

Great. The entire Jewish religion is founded on their being God's chosen people to teh exclusion of all others. Liberal Jews who have recently begun to allow people to convert notwithstanding, according to the Jews no one gets into Heaven but them by birthright.

Well, he based it on John, which of the four is the one that puts the most blame on the Jews hence why it was used to justify anti-jewish sentiement back in the day, and still is by "Catholic" right wingers like Mel, or Fourth Reich, who reject Vatican II. So he was following the source even if he could have chosen to do one of the other ones that had less anti-semetic overtones.

What I've always wondered is -which- Jews does the bible blame it on? Certainly there wasn't a huge convening of the entire Jewish populace of the planet with the vast majority deciding to "take this Jesus fucker down". Why not blame it on the two or three who could have been responsible and make their names known? Kind of embarassing for them, being singled out and called dicks by what many at the time were considering the word of god - though granted, by the time the bible was actually created, everyone involved was -dead- (it being 200+ years after the incident) but it's the thought that counts. People pissing on their graves, and all. Fun for the whole family.

Yes, but they were only looking for him because the Jews wanted him dead. The Gospels are full of Jewish persecution of Jesus. Hell, his main disciple, the one often credited with the spread of Christianity after Jesus's death, Paul, was Saul of Tarsus who was sent by the Jews to kill Jesus. Not that I believe any of that shit either, but I used to so I know it pretty well. The Passion was a reasonable accurate portrayal of what the Bible says happened. I understand why Jews think it's anti-semitic, but they can't expect Christians to change the most important story of their religion to make it okay for modern Jewish consumption. They often forget, or ignore, that Jesus himself and all of his disciples were Jewish.
He wasn't supose to kill Jesus, he allegedly led some sort of persecution against Christians as being Jewish heretics or something along those lines.

Great. The entire Jewish religion is founded on their being God's chosen people to teh exclusion of all others. Liberal Jews who have recently begun to allow people to convert notwithstanding, according to the Jews no one gets into Heaven but them by birthright.

Kay. Point being? It's their belief. It's got neither heads nor hookers to do with the blame of the death of Jesus.

And thinking about it, it's all god's fault. It was in his plan, it was what he sent him down on earth to do, so it was all god's fault. Glad we could clear that up.

He was supose to kill Jesus, he allegedly led some sort of persecution against Christians as being Jewish heretics or something along those lines.

NO, Paul came along way after Jesus died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

What I've always wondered is -which- Jews does the bible blame it on? Certainly there wasn't a huge convening of the entire Jewish populace of the planet with the vast majority deciding to "take this Jesus fucker down". Why not blame it on the two or three who could have been responsible and make their names known? Kind of embarassing for them, being singled out and called dicks by what many at the time were considering the word of god - though granted, by the time the bible was actually created, everyone involved was -dead- (it being 200+ years after the incident) but it's the thought that counts. People pissing on their graves, and all. Fun for the whole family.
Well, the blame is supposedly spred to all Jews and their decendents, in John at least this quote isn't in the other gospels, because when the Jewish leaders and the mob demand the romans kill him they something about the blame being upon them and their children.

What I've always wondered is -which- Jews does the bible blame it on? Certainly there wasn't a huge convening of the entire Jewish populace of the planet with the vast majority deciding to "take this Jesus fucker down". Why not blame it on the two or three who could have been responsible and make their names known? Kind of embarassing for them, being singled out and called dicks by what many at the time were considering the word of god - though granted, by the time the bible was actually created, everyone involved was -dead- (it being 200+ years after the incident) but it's the thought that counts. People pissing on their graves, and all. Fun for the whole family.

There weren't Jews all over the planet then. They were a small tribe in Rome at the time. There were probably others scattered throughout the Roman empire, but that's about it.

NO, Paul came along way after Jesus died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

Whoops typo thats what I was meaning to say, that he wasn't supose to kill Jesus.

NO, Paul came along way after Jesus died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

Oh, yeah. You're right. I forgot the whole story about the pigs and other forbidden animlas falling from heaven and Jesus telling him from the sky to "kill and eat."

Great. The entire Jewish religion is founded on their being God's chosen people to teh exclusion of all others. Liberal Jews who have recently begun to allow people to convert notwithstanding, according to the Jews no one gets into Heaven but them by birthright.

:confused: whats that have to do with what I said?

Kay. Point being? It's their belief. It's got neither heads nor hookers to do with the blame of the death of Jesus.

And thinking about it, it's all god's fault. It was in his plan, it was what he sent him down on earth to do, so it was all god's fault. Glad we could clear that up.

And the belief of the Christians is that the Jews wanted Jesus dead and conspired with the Romans to make it happen. It's their belief. It's got neither heads nor hookers to do with who the chosen people are.

Yes, but they were only looking for him because the Jews wanted him dead. The Gospels are full of Jewish persecution of Jesus. Hell, his main disciple, the one often credited with the spread of Christianity after Jesus's death, Paul, was Saul of Tarsus who was sent by the Jews to kill Jesus. Not that I believe any of that shit either, but I used to so I know it pretty well. The Passion was a reasonable accurate portrayal of what the Bible says happened. I understand why Jews think it's anti-semitic, but they can't expect Christians to change the most important story of their religion to make it okay for modern Jewish consumption. They often forget, or ignore, that Jesus himself and all of his disciples were Jewish.

Eh.

You do realize that an assload of people were getting crucified along with Jesus on a daily basis, right? And that the entire area was littered with "messiahs" that apparently share the same exact story and message that Jesus had, and many of them died at the hands of the Romans as well. I don't suppose you believe the Jews had such immense power within the Roman government (which was headed by an emperor, by the way, so it's not like they could just vote on it or send a letter to their senator) that they could get all these guys insisting that they were the prophet and messiah from god himself tortured and killed.

It just seems more likely that, since the Romans were already feeding Christians to the lions, they'd have a prejudice against someone claiming to be king of the Jews as well, because if you're from god then you pretty much override any and all power the emperor has, which the emperor (I'm assuming) doesn't take very kindly to.

Oh, yeah. You're right. I forgot the whole story about the pigs and other forbidden animlas falling from heaven and Jesus telling him from the sky to "kill and eat."

I call that the "forget what I said the first time around - you can send your clothes to the dry cleaners - it's kosher" revelation

Oh, yeah. You're right. I forgot the whole story about the pigs and other forbidden animlas falling from heaven and Jesus telling him from the sky to "kill and eat."

I thought that was Peter who had the vision that repealed the food laws saying that everything God made was clean? Paul had the vision where he fell off his donkey and was struck blind untill healed by some christian he was told to visit.

Eh.

You do realize that an assload of people were getting crucified along with Jesus on a daily basis, right? And that the entire area was littered with "messiahs" that apparently share the same exact story and message that Jesus had, and many of them died at the hands of the Romans as well. I don't suppose you believe the Jews had such immense power within the Roman government (which was headed by an emperor, by the way, so it's not like they could just vote on it or send a letter to their senator) that they could get all these guys insisting that they were the prophet and messiah from god himself tortured and killed.

It just seems more likely that, since the Romans were already feeding Christians to the lions, they'd have a prejudice against someone claiming to be king of the Jews as well, because if you're from god then you pretty much override any and all power the emperor has, which the emperor (I'm assuming) doesn't take very kindly to.There weren't Chrisitians around yet for them to feed to lions.

There weren't Chrisitians around yet for them to feed to lions.

Indeed. How many of you failed your history classes?

:confused: whats that have to do with what I said?

It's just hipocritical. I'm not saying you're hipocritical I'm just saying that a people who believe that no one else on Earth save them are worthy of God's love shouldn't go around throwing stones. I do realize that most Jews don't really take their teachings literally any more than most people who identify with Chritianity do anymore, but there are racist, exclusionary beliefs in most religions. Ultimatley what I'm saying is people who were screaming about this movie being anti-semitic need to take a chill pill. The guy made a movie about the most important event in the last two thousand years to an entire religion and he did it as accurately as possible as it is described in the Bible. They shouldn't have a problem with that and they have no right to ask him to censor the story because it offends them. Taken literally there are plenty of things to get offended about in Judaism for everybody in the world who isn't Jewish and you don't see people demanding that they change the Torah to be more inclusive and include Chruistians and Muslims and Bhuddists into the House of God.

It's just hipocritical. I'm not saying you're hipocritical I'm just saying that a people who believe that no one else on Earth save them are worthy of God's love shouldn't go around throwing stones. I do realize that most Jews don't really take their teachings literally any more than most people who identify with Chritianity do anymore, but there are racist, exclusionary beliefs in most religions. Ultimatley what I'm saying is people who were screaming about this movie being anti-semitic need to take a chill pill. The guy made a movie about the most important event in the last two thousand years to an entire religion and he did it as accurately as possible as it is described in the Bible. They shouldn't have a problem with that and they have no right to ask him to censor the story because it offends them. Taken literally there are plenty of things to get offended about in Judaism for everybody in the world who isn't Jewish and you don't see people demanding that they change the Torah to be more inclusive and include Chruistians and Muslims and Bhuddists into the House of God.

You all must stay after class today for remedial instruction. The topics this afternoon will be history, spelling, and grammar.

Eh.

You do realize that an assload of people were getting crucified along with Jesus on a daily basis, right? And that the entire area was littered with "messiahs" that apparently share the same exact story and message that Jesus had, and many of them died at the hands of the Romans as well. I don't suppose you believe the Jews had such immense power within the Roman government (which was headed by an emperor, by the way, so it's not like they could just vote on it or send a letter to their senator) that they could get all these guys insisting that they were the prophet and messiah from god himself tortured and killed.

It just seems more likely that, since the Romans were already feeding Christians to the lions, they'd have a prejudice against someone claiming to be king of the Jews as well, because if you're from god then you pretty much override any and all power the emperor has, which the emperor (I'm assuming) doesn't take very kindly to.

You're absolutely right. The main difference was that most of the other Messiahs were militant. As far as power in teh Roman government goes, no. they were subjegated and that's exactly how it is protrayed in the movie. The Romans were in charge, but they would make consessions to the leaders of the Jews in order to keep things quite - much like what happens today in a lot of places.

There weren't Jews all over the planet then. They were a small tribe in Rome at the time. There were probably others scattered throughout the Roman empire, but that's about it.

Exactly. Why the hell would the Romans take orders from a small group of people that don't even subscribe to the same religion?

You're absolutely right. The main difference was that most of the other Messiahs were militant. As far as power in teh Roman government goes, no. they were subjegated and that's exactly how it is protrayed in the movie. The Romans were in charge, but they would make consessions to the leaders of the Jews in order to keep things quite - much like what happens today in a lot of places.

I dunno. Jesus took quite the asswhippin' for someone who was being handled by government officials who were simply trying to keep the peace with the Jews. You'd think they could've just asked him to leave, or maybe killed him quicker...

It just seems to give the Jews a hell of a lot more power over the government than it makes sense for them to have had. They weren't even part of the government.

I call that the "forget what I said the first time around - you can send your clothes to the dry cleaners - it's kosher" revelation

Maybe I'm missing the point here? :confused: Even if I did make a mistake about Paul, the central point still stands. Paul was jewish, Jesus was Jewish and all of his disciples were Jewish.

I dunno. Jesus took quite the asswhippin' for someone who was being handled by government officials who were simply trying to keep the peace with the Jews. You'd think they could've just asked him to leave, or maybe killed him quicker...

It just seems to give the Jews a hell of a lot more power over the government than it makes sense for them to have had. They weren't even part of the government.

Exactly. Why the hell would the Romans take orders from a small group of people that don't even subscribe to the same religion?

As I recall it wasn't the emporer that ordered his execution. It was teh Roman governor in the area of Isreal - I don't knwo what he state or province was called by Rome. This isn't uncommon. In areas today where there are ethnic minorities local leaders are given latitude in how to deal with them and usually that means keeping them quite and, as you pointed out, they had no problem crucifying people at the time. If the Jews wanted him dead and it would keep them from launching some sort of insurection requiring sending Roman troops from hundreds of miles away to put it down, why not?

As I recall it wasn't the emporer that ordered his execution. It was teh Roman governor in the area of Isreal - I don't knwo what he state or province was called by Rome. This isn't uncommon. In areas today where there are ethnic minorities local leaders are given latitude in how to deal with them and usually that means keeping them quite and, as you pointed out, they had no problem crucifying people at the time. If the Jews wanted him dead and it would keep them from launching some sort of insurection requiring sending Roman troops from hundreds of miles away to put it down, why not?

Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea.

You all must stay after class today for remedial instruction. The topics this afternoon will be history, spelling, and grammar.

All ignore the stupid spelling and grammer Nazi shit. As far as history, what does the Bible have to do with history? You do realize it's just a myth, right?

Pontius Pilate, Governor of Judea.

Right again. Does that mean my whole point is moot this time as well?

There weren't Chrisitians around yet for them to feed to lions.

Indeed. How many of you failed your history classes?

There were followers of Jesus, the "converted Jews". Much of the punishment probably didn't happen until a while after Jesus came and went, granted, but simply put, they were people who stood up and said "Not only is the emperor not chosen by god, but he's a heretic. In fact, god is here on earth and he says he doesn't like the way things are, and you should change!" - it generally created an upset in the natural order of society when someone flips the entire government and social society underneath on its ear and spanks it.

Like I said, it's just much more believable that the Romans were just taking it personally.

Right again. Does that mean my whole point is moot this time as well?

No. Just don't misspell any more words, please.

There were followers of Jesus, the "converted Jews". Much of the punishment probably didn't happen until a while after Jesus came and went, granted, but simply put, they were people who stood up and said "Not only is the emperor not chosen by god, but he's a heretic. In fact, god is here on earth and he says he doesn't like the way things are, and you should change!" - it generally created an upset in the natural order of society when someone flips the entire government and social society underneath on its ear and spanks it.

Like I said, it's just much more believable that the Romans were just taking it personally.

Sure, but according to the Bible, and that's what this is really about as opposed to what really happened, Jesus told his followers not to break the law and to respect Roman authority. With all the other Messiahs running around telling Jews to take up arms and fight the Romans you'd figure he's the guy they'd want around. Also, the Jewish leadership at the time, much like happens today in the same kinds of circumstances, were recognized by the Romans. This put them in positions of power and privilage. While Jesus did tell his disciples to respect Roman authority, he did not say the same thing for the Jewish authorities - what with the whole kicking the money changers out of the temple and all. Looked at that way it seems the Jews had more to gain from his death than the Romans. I'm sure what really happened is in no way reflected by the story as told in the Bible, but how it's protrayed in the Bible is what's important because that's wht Christians believe and that's what was being depicted in the film.

No. Just don't misspell any more words, please.

I type too fast and don't care enough to comply, sorry.

Sure, but according to the Bible, and that's what this is really about as opposed to what really happened, Jesus told his followers not to break the law and to respect Roman authority. With all the other Messiahs running around telling Jews to take up arms and fight the Romans you'd figure he's the guy they'd want around. Also, the Jewish leadership at the time, much like happens today in the same kinds of circumstances, were recognized by the Romans. This put them in positions of power and privilage. While Jesus did tell his disciples to respect Roman authority, he did not say the same thing for the Jewish authorities - what with the whole kicking the money changers out of the temple and all. Looked at that way it seems the Jews had more to gain from his death than the Romans. I'm sure what really happened is in no way reflected by the story as told in the Bible, but how it's protrayed in the Bible is what's important because that's wht Christians believe and that's what was being depicted in the film.

Indeed, you're correct. The movie should've come with a disclaimer stating "There's a damn good chance this is mostly bullshit, but bear with us." ^^

Indeed, you're correct. The movie should've come with a disclaimer stating "There's a damn good chance this is mostly bullshit, but bear with us." ^^

If I had my way I'd put that on the cover of every Torah, Koran and Bible sold. ;)

If I had my way I'd put that on the cover of every Torah, Koran and Bible sold. ;)

Don't forget Dianetics...

Don't forget Dianetics...

The only reason I wouldn't put it on that book is because if you're that much of a moron...


I mean, Xenu? WTF? Theatons? :confused:

The only reason I wouldn't put it on that book is because if you're that much of a moron...


I mean, Xenu? WTF? Theatons? :confused:

Hey, Travolta and Cruise are morons. I believe the warning might have helped them.

He said he was sorry. Now he has to be part of some formal "I'm Sorry Ceremony"?
All of a sudden,sorry has to be played out on the "victim's" terms?

He's a fucking ACTOR-who cares what he thinks or says?

He is here to amuse or entertain us. Not to forge a path and give us guidance.

http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/3565872


Here-now the Jewish community owes Mel Gibson an appology.


All these fucking nitwits saying they are sorry- Stop saying it and start acting it.
Be sorry in your actions- dont say or do stupid things.

He new movie is going to do great.

And season 7 of Seinfeld? People are buying more now than they would have before Kramer was sorry. He couldnt have bought more advertisements for it if he tried.

He said he was sorry. Now he has to be part of some formal "I'm Sorry Ceremony"?
All of a sudden,sorry has to be played out on the "victim's" terms?

He's a fucking ACTOR-who cares what he thinks or says?

He is here to amuse or entertain us. Not to forge a path and give us guidance.

http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/3565872


Here-now the Jewish community owes Mel Gibson an appology.


All these fucking nitwits saying they are sorry- Stop saying it and start acting it.
Be sorry in your actions- dont say or do stupid things.

He new movie is going to do great.

And season 7 of Seinfeld? People are buying more now than they would have before Kramer was sorry. He couldnt have bought more advertisements for it if he tried.

The point is that he said he wanted to meet with these guys, and now he's suddenly not doing it for some reason. He lied, so people are calling him on it.

The point is that he said he wanted to meet with these guys, and now he's suddenly not doing it for some reason. He lied, so people are calling him on it.

But if you read the article in the OP it just says he refused to meet with that one guy and it's only that one guy who says he's reneged on his promise. That one guy, however, is a Zionist, racist nutcase. I wouldn't meet with him either.

But if you read the article in the OP it just says he refused to meet with that one guy and it's only that one guy who says he's reneged on his promise. That one guy, however, is a Zionist, racist nutcase. I wouldn't meet with him either.

What's the big deal about meeting with him? You go to his house, apologize for what you said, have some tea, go home.

Give the man a drink - he's obviously posting on NS General as Beleriand.

Why do you have me sig'd?

What's the big deal about meeting with him? You go to his house, apologize for what you said, have some tea, go home.

Yeah, maybe except you might need to take a shower afterwards. In anycase, my point is do we know he isn't meeting with more respected organizations like the ADL? I mean, Micheal Richards has apologized to Jessie, Al and a few others but I haven't seen him apologizing to Farakahn. I'm not defending Mel in the sense that I'm sure he's an anti-semite, as was pointed out earlier when you're drunk you say things that you feel - I might add when you're angry at being heckled you do, too. I'm just saying we don't know that he broke his promise just because he won't meet with some right wing whack job.

The point is that he said he wanted to meet with these guys, and now he's suddenly not doing it for some reason. He lied, so people are calling him on it.

Maybe he located his missing balls,finally.

Maybe he realized how shallow and full of shit those he was to meet with are.

Maybe he located his missing balls,finally.

Maybe he realized how shallow and full of shit those he was to meet with are.

If he located his balls he'd probably say how shallow and full of shit they are instead of just standing them up.

Regardless, he gave his word. He promised. At the very least he should meet with the guy and tell him he shouldn't have to apologize to his face.

that south park episode was very prophetic. gibby is a loon.

If he located his balls he'd probably say how shallow and full of shit they are instead of just standing them up.

Regardless, he gave his word. He promised. At the very least he should meet with the guy and tell him he shouldn't have to apologize to his face.

I wouldnt bother wasting my time at this point. He could say he was drinking again.

I think he knows the guys got no edge anymore.

Mel Gibson is little bigger than most people realize. He's got a ton of cash and his own influence.
He got a lot of flack over "The Passion"- groups tried awfully hard to punch holes in that-But he made a fortune.

His new film looks like its going to be a blockbuster too. Regardless of wether he breaks his word or says he's sorry.

IN VINO VERITAS!!! The man spoke his mind after a few jars...

I wouldnt bother wasting my time at this point. He could say he was drinking again.

I think he knows the guys got no edge anymore.

Mel Gibson is little bigger than most people realize. He's got a ton of cash and his own influence.
He got a lot of flack over "The Passion"- groups tried awfully hard to punch holes in that-But he made a fortune.

His new film looks like its going to be a blockbuster too. Regardless of wether he breaks his word or says he's sorry.

Sure, he's successful, nobody's denying that, but being rich does not equal being honorable or trustworthy - I think he's shown that pretty well.

So what? He has no reason to meet with them. He was drunk, its not like meant it, and even if he did, who cares? I think its time to move and stop the Gibson bashing. I think a lot of this comes from the fact he is devout in his faith and a lot in hollywood don't like this.

Sure, he's successful, nobody's denying that, but being rich does not equal being honorable or trustworthy - I think he's shown that pretty well.

agreed. he is just an actor. I just want some entertainment.

No high expectations on his behavior in personal life.

Although- he probably gives generously to worthy charities,so really-the whole appology, reneg, etc...

Who really cares? Its a non issue. He can say whatever he wants, drunk,sober-whatever. As long as he doesnt drive drunk,I dont care.

Who really cares? Its a non issue. He can say whatever he wants, drunk,sober-whatever. As long as he doesnt drive drunk,I dont care.

Actually, when he says that Jewish people are responsible for all Wars, I care, especially when he is a man that many people respect, admire and potentially imitate. I know he's intitled to his free speech, but the Jewish Peoples are intitled to an apology. Imagine if Mel had made those remarks about Christians and badmouthed the Jee-man, or MEANTIONED Mohammed. There would be a massive outcry, but when its Jews,

Its a non issue. He can say whatever he wants

Bad form...