Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

by **yathrib** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:46 am

Yeah, it's rather like white people who used to think it was good luck to rub black peoples' hair!

by **Sarutama** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:00 pm

but I find it hard to talk about the historical accuracy of "The Passion of the Christ", a film that still portrays Jesus as a white man.

by **sunny** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:01 pm

Or maybe just their bald heads- <img src="http://www.bartcop.com/head-rub-w.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **sunny** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:05 pm

This one is probably more accurate- <img src="http://www.lehrmangroup.com/jesus/images/404-jesus.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **yathrib** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:42 pm

...wny does he make me think of Fred Flintstone?

by **Sarutama** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:50 pm

Jesus also had a pet dinosaur named Dino. Actually wait, there were no dinosaurs in the bible. I'm going to go listen to Bill Hicks.

by **sunny** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:50 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>wny does he make me think of Fred Flintstone?<hr></blockquote> I don't know, because Fred looked like an overweight insurance salesman.

by **yathrib** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 1:09 pm

Sunny, you write: "I don't know, because Fred looked like an overweight insurance salesman." Well yes, this guy is thinner, but think about it. Really we have no clue what Jesus looked like, but this one is good mainly for shock value... Yes, he was of Mediterranean descent, but does he have to be the squat, hairy troglodyte in this pic?

by **johnny nemo** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 2:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Actually wait, there were no dinosaurs in the bible.<hr></blockquote> Technically, that's not true. "Leviathan" is mentioned 4 times in the "Old Testament"; Job 41:1, Psalms 74:14, Psalms 104:26 and Isaiah 27:1 (where it is described as the "dragon that lives in the sea") Job 40:15-24 describes a creature called "Behemoth" that sounds like a brontosaurus, as it eats grass, moves it's tail "like a cedar" and can "drink up a river". The book of Job actually has some interesting parts in it, such as the 38th chapter, which mentions the zodiac. Job 38:31 ¶ Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Job 38:32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth (Houses Of The Stars) in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?  I'm always amused that fundamentalist Christians condemn the zodiac as part of "astrology", but fail to see the religious significance behind many of the signs, such as Virgo (virgin birth), Leo (Lion of Judah) Libra (Great Judgement). Perhaps someone should remind them that, according to the history told in the Bible, the prophet Daniel was made head of the Chaldean astrologers. Incidentally, these same images can be found in Tarot cards, but those also are condemned as being part of "divination and witchcraft." Fundamentalists drop the ball all the time. For instance, Lucifer or the "Morning Star" was originally a title for Christ, and there is even a saint called Lucifer. Revelation 22:16: “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.” Milton screwed that up in his book "Paradise Lost". Christians condemn the pentagram as "Satanic", but it was used as the seal of the City of Jerusalem. The pic below shows a fragment of a 4th Century BC jar handle with a seal impression of a pentagram with the hebrew letters YRSLM (Jerusalem). <img src="http://www.thornr.demon.co.uk/kchrist/pentjar.gif"/> In the early Christian church, the five points of the pentagram represented the five wounds of Christ (2 wrist, 2 ankle and 1 side). The Roman Emperor Constantine used the pentagram in his seal and amulet. It has also been referred to as the Star of Bethlehem and it was used to symbolize the star which allegedly led three Zoroastrian astrologers to the baby Jesus; it was called the Three Kings' star. <img src="http://www.thornr.demon.co.uk/kchrist/pentgrav.gif"/> This is the pentagram as it was used on Christian gravestones in the Convent of Christ at Tomar, Portugal. So, Lucifer and the Pentagram, once Christian symbols, are now Satanic, thanks to the ignorance of fun-dumb-mentalists. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=johnnynemo>johnny nemo</A> at: 7/31/06 12:15 pm

by **LilyPatToo** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 3:31 pm

Mel was raised by a true frothing-at-the-mouth nutjob, then became a HUGE star in delusional Hollywood and anyone still expects him to be a nice, normal, balanced-in-his-views guy?! Give me a break! He has far fewer problems that many other movie stars, especially given his cult upbringing. I'd be surprised if he WASN'T an alcoholic, to be honest. LilyPat

by **rothbardian** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:48 pm

DreamsEnd-- A lot of this depends on your starting point in approaching the Bible. If the objective from the 'get go' is to chop the Bible's credibility into pieces and to engage in a very aggressive rejection of it's contents, then by all means...have at it. But I can see where there are immediately some problems with that approach, particularly here with the issue of the genealogies. As I said-- Is the Bible an attempt at a sneaky scam?-- If so, why then this gigantic glaring 'inconsistency'? It's problematic. To me, it all begins to make more sense if you approach these gospel accounts, asking the question-- "Are these people trying to actually convey a factual story?" To approach it that way, of course, requires some openmindedness. My answer to that question is that they apparently ARE trying to have their accounts accepted as factual, and to have Jesus viewed as 'legit'. Hence they go to lengths in laying out these genealogies. Why then the different genealogies, if they're trying to have their accounts accepted as factual? Isn't it simply that they are laying out two different lines of ancestry?-- that of Jesus' mother and of his adoptive father (assuming a 'virgin birth')? It seems like a simple deduction to me...and the alternative explanations from some of the aggressive Bible critics I've read...are (as I said) strongly contradictory. In the context of Luke, Mary is mentioned 12-14 times leading up to the genealogy passage. The overall emphasis in the Gospel of Luke is on the humanity of Jesus. One can begin to surmise therefore, that this is the ancestry of Mary. The theme in the Gospel of Matthew is to emphasize Jesus in his kingly role. The purpose of the Joseph genealogy is to show Jesus' legal right to the throne (through his adoptive father, Joseph). The purpose of the Mary genealogy is to show Jesus' tie into humanity. The two gospels have two different agendas. It is not unprecedented to skip generations in laying out the genealogies. One writer chose to hit only the highlights of Jesus' ancestry. It's no more complicated than that. Again, early Christians (for one thing) had no problem with this. There was no controversy about these genealogies. The skeptic would need to ask why that is. I say it's because these contemporaries understood their own culture and understood the two genealogies for what they were. Hope this sheds some light. ---- As far as Gibson is concerned, I don't know much about the guy. I didn't like his Jesus movie. I quit watching it at the 'beating' part. It was too grim and unentertaining. What IS interesting to me is the massive overkill on this DUI story. Oh the joy, oh the glee, oh the rapture. Got a few liberals out there with some 'issues'.

by **professorpan** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>As far as Gibson is concerned, I don't know much about the guy. I didn't like his Jesus movie. I quit watching it at the 'beating' part. It was too grim and unentertaining. What IS interesting to me is the massive overkill on this DUI story. Oh the joy, oh the glee, oh the rapture. Got a few liberals out there with some 'issues'.<hr></blockquote> I don't consider it massive overkill. There was a lot of discussion about antisemitic content in the film when it came out, which Gibson denied. His rabid, drunken rant sheds a lot of light on his real beliefs, and suggests that he was lying. That's big news.

by **nomo** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>His rabid, drunken rant sheds a lot of light on his real beliefs, and suggests that he was lying.<hr></blockquote> After all, drunkards and small children do tell the truth. On edit: Breaking News on CNN: Actor Mel Gibson enters rehab following his arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, his spokesman confirms. No article yet. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=nomo@rigorousintuition>nomo</A> at: 7/31/06 4:10 pm

by **Dreams End** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Why then the different genealogies, if they're trying to have their accounts accepted as factual? <hr></blockquote> Good question. then why not make them accurate rather than "skipping a few generations" and making people like you fill in the gaps...which, if the gospels are "literally" true, should not be necessary. Why not say "This is the genealogy from his mother's side and this one from Joseph's? Instead, you INTERPRET it that way... Those two gospels were written by two different people. They didn't consult each other and they weren't historians...so the accounts differ. This doesn't bother me as I have no vested interest in assuming, a priori, that they are literally and factually true...whether the intent of the writers was to create a factual document or not. Here's Luke: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Luke 3 23 And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Jesus, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Symeon, the son of Judas, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shon of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. <hr></blockquote> Look at the first lines. Joseph, son of Heli...etc. So where is Mary in that?If it's Mary's lineage, why say who Joseph's father was and then his father. How about Mary's father...or better yet...mother. Should be matrilineal anyway, shouldn't it? Now Matthew...in reverse order: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren; 3 and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram; 4 and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon; 5 and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 6 and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Uriah; 7 and Solon of her that had been the wife of Uriah; 7 and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa; 8 and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah; 9 and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah; 10 and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah; 11 and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon. 12 And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel; 13 and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 14 and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 15 and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 17 So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations. (ASV)<hr></blockquote> In Luke....40 generations betwixt Joseph and David. Now, Matthew says Joseph was son of Jacob and Luke says Heli...so which is it? Is it a misprint. Is the fact that Luke has forty generations between Joseph and David and Matthew has only 14 just a matter of leaving out a few generations? Now, this is a bit off topic, but ole Mel is a believer in literal scripture as well, I guess. So when someone...the original gospel writer, a later copyist or translator...who knows....added the bit about the blood of Jesus being on us an all our generation, he took it literally. I would suggest one needs to be able to "interpret" a bit, as you do, to allow that times and motivations for the original gospel writers (who were Jewish anyway, so I can't figure they would have been the ones to add the blood on our future generations bit) may have allowed some very human foibles to creep into the telling of the story. If we can "interpret" that Luke meant Mary when he said Joseph, then I think we are safe to interpret that God did not curse the Jews for all time. It wasn't, according to the story, until after the Ressurection that any of even Jesus's closest followers got who he was, so why would Jews just in the crowd be expected to know what even his own followers didn't grasp. Why would that statement have been made? My "interpretation" is that it was inserted into the tradition later, at a time of tension with Jews, which ebbed and flowed within the Church like a tide. Generations might pass in which relations were fine then bam, inquisitions, banishings and lynchings...often with a very economic or political agenda.

by **NavnDansk** » Mon Jul 31, 2006 6:42 pm

going on - I blame the Israeli Government Not the Jews or the Israeli people who have as much control over their government as we do to stop the bush regime atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. I don't agree with what he said and drunk driving esp. at twice the speed limit puts more lives in danger but if we all got angry enough, we might take some action against the criminal nazi bush regime and save so many lives including our own and our children.

Mel Gibson's DUI and drunken rant

Mascot

Maybe its just me...

Re: Mascot

Re: Maybe its just me...

accurate jesus pic

Because

Re: accurate jesus pic

Stone age Jesus

Re: Stone age Jesus

Re: Mel's drunken rant

Hope I'm not 'hijacking'.

Re: Hope I'm not 'hijacking'.

Re: Hope I'm not 'hijacking'.

Re: Hope I'm not 'hijacking'.

Re: I can understand getting that angry at the slaughter

Who is online