Hutton Gibson ?and/?or Mel

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by uncle janko, Feb 19, 2004.

Loading...
  1. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

  2. BLD

    BLD New Member

    On Mel Gibson's interview with Diane Sawyer on TV the other night he stated that he believed in the Holocaust and that he and his father were not on agreement on all issues.

    To associate him with his father's views is really skewing the whole argument. That's like blaming Chelsea Clinton for Monica Lewinsky.

    BLD
     
  3. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Mel associated himself with his father's views, making no exceptions, until this movie became controversial. Given the hatred of normal Catholicism taught in "Traditionalist" circles, let alone the hatred taught toward Lutherans and Protestants, it is just plain tough for me to believe young Gibson's denials of bigotry.

    When Mel forsakes his schismatic anti-Vatican II "Catholicism", joins a normal Roman Catholic parish, thus signaling his acceptance of "Nostra Aetate," I'll believe his sudden protestations of disagreement with Hutton.

    You and I have indicated our differing viewpoints on the other thread. We will have to differ on this as well. Since you are a person of intelligence, you will recall that in my earliest posts on this controversy I did not flatly assert that either Mel or his movie were anti-Semitic. What I do assert is that there is such a preponderance of evidence over so many years, associating Mel Gibson with his father's views on such matters, that I cannot in good conscience give his sudden denials the benefit of the doubt.

    It's much like a former mill operator's protests of repentance while dissembling about his track record: lack of dissimulation would make the protestations far more credible. They may--may--be true nonetheless. Prudence and common sense call for extreme caution and skeptical reserve. So it is with Mel Gibson.

    Best wishes, Janko
     
  4. BLD

    BLD New Member

    Uncle Janko,
    If Adolph Hitler himself had made this movie, and it was an accurate portrayal of the Gospel accounts, I would still promote it. I don't know much about Mel Gibson and/or his personal beliefs (short of what I saw on the TV interview), but even if he is a raging anti-semite it does not mean that the movie portrays those views. While you have every right to like or dislike the film, I think it would be better if you (and I) waited until we saw the film to make these kind of judgment calls.

    BLD
     
  5. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

  6. GENO

    GENO New Member

    As Jonathon Higgins would say to Thomas Magnum:

    Oh My Gawd, Its only a movie.
     
  7. roysavia

    roysavia New Member

    The problem here is that Mel is mixing the gospel with Hollywood. Movies should be seen as entertainment. They shouldn't include religion. The only movie that I recall that was neutral was the Ten Commandments with Charleton Heston. This movie takes a pre-Vatican II account of the gospel, adds a bit of Mel's conservative religious ethics, and spills is onto the screen in a sensationalized manner. My only fear is that this movie may be interpreted the wrong way.
     
  8. BLD

    BLD New Member

    Why not?

    BLD
     
  9. GENO

    GENO New Member

    Come summer it will be dust in the wind.
     
  10. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

     
  11. chris

    chris New Member

    From a financial point of view

    Mel spent $25 million of his own dollars on this movie and it has reaped millions of dollars worth of free advertising even before it is released. He is going to make a ton of money on this movie. Might not be what he intended to do but it will probably be the case.
     
  12. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Hooray for poetic and editorial license!
     
  13. roysavia

    roysavia New Member

     
  14. Guest

    Guest Guest

    :D :D :D :D :D :D
     
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Hey everyone, don't watch any more Tarzan movies lest you be called a racist! :rolleyes: :eek:
     
  16. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===

    Thankyou

    Roy in suggesting that the movie might express preVatican II and/or Gibson's belief, exactly what belief is your referent? If I know this, I'll watch for it when I view the movie.

    I'm sorry to further question you ; you know my interest in such.



    Course, I like the NRA reasoning on some issues, and I own a few guns myself.
     
  17. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===


    You know Jimmy, you probably will not believe this: Edgar Rice Burrough's was influential in pulling me out of "underachievement."

    I was a highschool drop out. But I began to read the Burrough's novels. These contain many complex sentence structures and uncommon (for me then) words. I read the series over and over. I think doing that made me a much better reader. I went from Burroughs to Barth , from Tarzan to Theology, in one , not so easy, step.

    My attempts to swing from trees, though, never were fully successful!

    :D
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 20, 2004
  18. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    You're kidding, right?
     
  19. Jeff Hampton

    Jeff Hampton New Member

    I understand who "Mel" is and who "Hutton" is. And I think that is all I understand in this sentence.

    I know very little Catholicisim, and I am not a Christian. However, I would rather see a movie about Jesus than a movie about some freaked-out psychotic serial killer.

    For those who care about such things, the Pope reportedly said of this movie, "It is as it was." Perhaps I don't understand Catholicism correctly, but it was my understanding that the Pope is God's mesenger on Earth and is infallible in matters of scripture.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 20, 2004
  20. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ===


    He is? Boy, do I need his advice on chapter 6 and whether harpagmos is anaphoric!

    Actually Jeff, I believe that "infallibility" of the Pope's, like my own, is not a constant, but only occurs during rare moments of ex cathedra. I'm not sure an email from the pope's secretary to Mel, if it happened at all, =an inerrant judgement. The nice thing about having infallibility only sometimes is that I can always say, if shown wrong, that what I said was not said during an inspired moment. But if I have that inerrancy sometimes, even only at exceptional moments, everyone's sure to hang on my every word to be there when the apokalupsie emou gushes out . :cool:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 20, 2004

Share This Page