Mel Gibson's new movie...

[The AlphaOmega]

That's too bad about the woman, I hadn't heard about it.  Think she would have had a heart attack at that same moment if she wasn't watching the movie?  It's inevitable that there will be contraversy, I mean it's a movie about Christ.  People who don't like the idea are always going to find a reason that it shouldn't be allowed.  I'm just thankful we live in a country where it can be showed whether you like it or not.

[V.J]

who knows, perhaps she truelly believed in what she was watching and was ready to give her life to god, fate don't know. The power of mental belief can by a strange yet powerful thing. Or she couldn't endure his sufferening anymore, it is said that the movie, and I've felt this myself, can give an intensified sense that you are in Christ's place and that you are being tortured and persecuted along with him.  As I said mental belief can be a strange and powerful thing. Timing is weird too, seems like fate to me. Maybe to the woman it wasn't just a movie, but a gateway, and opening, a truth, or her final end that she wanted.  To her perhaps, it was something a little more, anwsers she was seeking or just high cholesterol.

Controversy is outlandish, I've seen more blood-shed in a video game. People are picking on this film because it's involvement with religion that is all. People fear what they can't control or understand. People who are complaining are missing the deeper meaning out of arrogancy, put the pride away for day. I think it's more an attack on religion then anything, people don't want to change out of arrogance and stubborness so they try to ruin a good decent thing. People are having too much fun being bad, religion means order and rules and that what they fear. Hollywood makes more money on senseless mindless violence and sex, but they fear this movie can change it, not knowing their controversy has made it 3rd movie in history to have the biggest opening, it made 26 mil. That's saying something, you can't stop a miracle I suppose.  It was destine to be seen and brought to light. Again the timing, it just seems like it was meant to be. I've seen other religious films depicting the story of christ and not nearly have the resentment of this movie. It's a different time, and resentful emotions. Everyone is stubborn just like I was.

[Nagual]

As I understand, the controversy is not really about religion, but more about Jews being the bad guys in the movie and the violent scenes (almost sadistic for some people)...

[V.J]

Yes, anti-Semitism, but if you seen the movie then you would know people were looking for reasons to refuse it. It's simple a biblical presentation of crucifixion of Christ. A look into the past, if certain jews, (few circulating complaints) were fighting over the meaning, and the jews depiction and involvement in the story, then they are fighting the religion, the belief and the biblical reference, for that is what the religion preaches. History has never been candy-coated before, why should this religious film be any different. Also the gratuitous violence, very contradicting coming from Hollywood, the same people who made violent and graphing war films, adding KillBill and PulpFiction. The news shows more carnage then anything ever being presented on Christ, gees, look at 911. This film is being picked on, more so then others. It's not really jews that are mad, it's commercial jews who have no compassion for the film, I believe. It was supposed to be extreme to the point of overwhelming tears, it was supposed to be realistic and I think they were even holding back on that aspect. I din't turn my head for a minute because you have honor that sacrifice and bravery. If it is yoo much for one to handle, then I have to say they are too weak. This movie wasn't about senseless violense in most films, but the passion of Christ as the title implies.


It's divided by political stand-points and critical opinions, but the story is accurate the same as "Schindler's List" was, but you didn't hear Germans protesting about being the "bad guy" it's part of an ugly history that shows the ignorance, envy and arrogance of man. All parts of history has their ugly side, but history must be told in the way it happened so that it is not repeated. But yeah, those are the two main concerns of the movie. Gibson was even being criticize for changing a Jewish character was it Simpson or Samson, I forget, anyway, he changed his character to be more of a hero then what he originally was, taken away from the original story in order to appease Jewish critic and audience. Also, before the movie was to be released months ago, Gibson was already receiving highly critical spurning insults of his film, because an early draft was unofficially released, it wasn't the final cut. Yet, they took it and ran with it, starting controversy during production. They pretty much out to get the movie from the get go, other reasons may surface, but those two complaints take precedence. You are supposed to learn from the film, and not be offended by it.[^][]

[kiauma]

As far as I can tell, the only reason people are going to see this movie is because of all the stink people have raised against the movie!  Meself, I can't wait to miss it.

I think maybe I'll rent Mad Max this weekend...

[shaman]

It is just another Holywood movie that is trying to make a splash over, trying all the possible ways to be the greates hit... There is  no spirituality in the movie, nothing about the teaching of Christ. And Mel is trying hard to affect people by pouring out as much blood as he can. Mel would better keep on playing in movies such as "what women want", as a funy jerk, rather than trying to address some issues related to his pious (?) attitude. It looks as just another one of these "bloody movies", such as pulp fiction, etc...

So another person died because of religion... or because of the movie business..? How many died and were persecuted because of religion? How many ran away during the Reform and the Counter Reform? Why not make a movie of the martyr of St. Bartelmi being skinned off by the Catholic Church ? How many died because children and teenagers are trying to do the same as what they see in movies? Enough of these things!

Enough of blood being poured in the name of religion or in the name of movies? What is Mel trying to revive? It is time for violence to be abolished and time to clean up and make a fresh start.

All this, if it happened at all, happened 2,000 years ago, it is time to move on guys and gals! We are in the XXIst century, time to look into the future not into the dark and bloody past!

May the Light be you! and abolishes all violence on this planet! and on the screen!

[wisp]

Good questions. Love your insights V.J

I really like your point of view too Shaman. On the other hand, it's been 2000 years, and people still don't get it.

To me the crucifixion is about how one can do everything right, and still get the worst end for his efforts. This is the sacrifice. Now, we are able to do the right things, and NOT be crucified. Who's game for this? Not many.

I agree,the woman would have had the heart attack no matter where she happened to be,it must have been horrifying!

[Gandalf]

While I havnt seen the movie, I dont have a problem with it. As one New York Times critic said; the film seems to be pretty close to the source material'.
Therefor, if people have issues with what happens, they should really take issue with the gospals, (part. Mathew) not the movie.

As an ancient historian by trade, I dont rate the actual *historical* factual content of the NT, most of the gospal story was concocted way after the events with many of the themes taken from earlier classical mythology, but that's a topic for another post.
The point is, Gibson's film is pretty accurate to the gospal accounts, regardles of their own factual accuracy. So I agree if anyone, Jews included, have complaints, they should direct it at the gospals.

The problem here is that the powerful Jewish lobby in the US takes issue with anything which shows any of them in a bad light, no they are never going to be happy with anything from the biblical account of the life of Christ!

Its part of the bigger problem there, which has got so bad that now no-one is even allowed to criticise Israeli government policy as they will be labled 'anti-semitic', and this is in the so called 'land of the free'.

I am sure that even now, someone will read this and accuse me of being anti-semitic, actually no, Im talking about balance, of which there isnt any right now.

btw, right wing nuts should be silenced also by this film as I believe it is clearly shown that Christ himself is Jewish!

Douglas

[rhinegirl]

quote:Originally posted by Gandalf

Its part of the bigger problem there, which has got so bad that now no-one is even allowed to criticise Israeli government policy as they will be labled 'anti-semitic', and this is in the so called 'land of the free'.

I am sure that even now, someone will read this and accuse me of being anti-semitic, actually no, Im talking about balance, of which there isnt any right now.

DEATH to the Isreali police state! Free Palestine!!!

Jessica *a proud German and yet not a nazi pig*

[V.J]

quote:It is just another Holywood movie that is trying to make a splash over, trying all the possible ways to be the greates hit... There is no spirituality in the movie, nothing about the teaching of Christ. And Mel is trying hard to affect people by pouring out as much blood as he can. Mel would better keep on playing in movies such as "what women want", as a funy jerk, rather than trying to address some issues related to his pious (?) attitude. It looks as just another one of these "bloody movies", such as pulp fiction, etc...

For one after witnessing people quietly watching the movie, silence during the whole movie and applauding in the end showed quite a bit of spirituality from the people, power of belief is spirituality. And yes there were exerts of his teaching but only pertaining to his crucifixion, it's no point to show anything else but that one aspect, unless you have the money,  you can't really complain. Sorry, but it wasn't a Hollywood movie, nothing about this movie was at all Hollywood, for 1 the hero dies, and 2,  no sexual exploitation. You can speculate all you, but that fact is this is just an opinion of your's but no real depictions or  observations of others/ I've asked people how they felt and what they felt, I myself was agnostic and even I felt some spiritual rude-awakenings from the film, I chose to let the ego go and watch and listen. The movie is now a the record-holder for single day debut.

Mel Gibson has been in many serious films, to "brave heart" and yes the first "MadMax" wasn't a happy goofy Mel. It was pretty serious, along with the movie "The man without a face." He's a versatile actor who can pull off any role, but, this wasn't a role he was in, so I see no reason to bash his acting ability or throwing his past acts into the fry. He's a great director. It was his movie, his money and his choice to do Christ which he's been working on for quiet sometime, to me that shows conviction and dedication. Mel Gibson does not need the popularity nor the richest, he has often visited troubled youths and has given many donations, this is just a misconception of stars. They are not all the same, Mel, for has been married to the same woman for over twenty years, and he has several kids with her. An actually pulp fiction was worse because it was senseless violence with no point, unless you argued about the violence in those movies you cannot argue the blood-shed in this film. Now you say substitute violent movie of Christ to another violent sacrifice of a martyred saint Barthelmey, and being skinned alive sounds much more then what I saw in this movie. I won't deny that it was intense, but I truly believe it was necessary, I'm judging this on the reactions after the film. I still can't get the film out of my head, but I only remember him praying for the one's who beat him senselessly. That in itself whether you believe in the story or not has quite an impact. I agree that other stories of religion should be told, not that many have, they are all inaccurate classics.

quote:So another person died because of religion... or because of the movie business..? How many died and were persecuted because of religion? How many ran away during the Reform and the Counter Reform? Why not make a movie of the martyr of St. Barthelmey being skinned off by the Catholic Church ? How many died because children and teenagers are trying to do the same as what they see in movies? Enough of these things!

Every leader whom martyred themselves for a belief, dies, and yes their story should always be told so that they didn't die for nothing and that their cause is not lost. If you died for a cause would you not want to see the cause carried out, If you don't believe it fine, but there are many who do. But, you are arguing invalid points my friend, it obscuring to the "what if" and question with a question, and why not this way. It is as simple as he chose to do this film this way, it was his passion, he felt he was guided who am I to argue or to say he is wrong. No one has that power. And this has nothing to do with the film, these are just different avenues and routes less traveled. If you want to St. Barthelmey story to be told, no offence but you pay for it, and get ready to hear from the Catholics. It's a lot easier said then done, sure you can say all this on the net, but could actually do what Mel did, and risk your career in Hollywood? And trust me, had this film flopped it would have been a different story.
Mel is not basking in the glory of his film, he didn't want this to be a Hollywood movie. Mel is not of E with other people on the read carpet bragging about his film, I have only seen him defend the film at least a dozen times
                        

quote:Enough of blood being poured in the name of religion or in the name of movies? What is Mel trying to revive? It is time for violence to be abolished and time to clean up and make a fresh start.

Revive, violence is a brutal part of life, it has always been around, and I highly doubt it's going to end anytime soon.

quote:All this, if it happened at all, happened 2,000 years ago, it is time to move on guys and gals! We are in the XXIst century, time to look into the future not into the dark and bloody past!

May the Light be you! and abolishes all violence on this planet! and on the screen!

It is a story that was told, whether fiction or fact that is up to the viewer to behold.   A movie like this, if you put yourself in Christ place, may end the need for violence, this is just a speculations on my part, but to know anyone's pain can lead to understanding. To me this movie was more like mob-mentality, and the devotion of a kindred spirit. Sorry if I misinterpreted your words. You bring out interesting points even distractions. I respect your view, forgive if I came off too brazen, being new makes react a little driven.

Here's another interesting tidbit concerning the actor whom played Jesus, his initials are J.C. and he's 33, weird coincidence, but I read nothing into it, just interesting.

[mustard]

Anybody saw "Dogma"? If so this should sound familiar, remeber when Chriss Rock said well his character said "People got it all wrong with dividing and splitting up the human race with religion, they take it too seriously. They kill, fight, and punish for it. Religion is more like an idea and you should just have it in your mind and think of it as tool of motivation to have a view of life."
I wish it was the way he said it, why did the human race split up the way it is now, why couldn't we accept any ideas?

[V.J]

Because people are too big-headed, want to control and have an opinion, and most of all, people don't want to be generic. The same, everyone following one instrument, never sounds right alone, the want to try different instruments. It is a bigger goal in life to make it more complicated, and complex. Some people simply can't live without confliction, for some it is there drive, and for other's it's there defense. Well, that's how I see it, not an expert, just thinking merely.  

Dogma was a good movie![][][]

[wisp]

V.J
Again you make points not often spoken about. I have made the same observations as you. What people seem to be afflicted with besides impatience(and other seemingly harmless character flaws), they seem to seek a reason for their being. If this "being" has to be negative, loud, trouble making, and so on to get this attention, they do it. It's like a spoiled or bad child, even negative attention is better than none for them.
quote:
....they kill, fight, and punish for it....

I haven't seen either movie yet, hope to someday. I wonder if this is something like putting the cart before the horse. It can just as easily be said, it is those who seek the things of God, attracts those who want to kill, fight, and punish.  It always seems to be accusations by the one(s) who claim to be the victim. From personal observation, and a little personal experience, this is a sure sign of who is in the wrong in some way. The next step after this, who believes a lie in a conflict? A sure sign of one who is wrong (in some way),cannot discern a lie.

rhinegirl's quote:

quote:DEATH to the Isreali police state! Free Palestine!!!

This is a very violent statement. Rhinegirl, could you be feeding a violent or destructive mindset?

Gandalf, it is true about balance. What could the balance be?

I think it was a relative or friend interviewed. The woman with the heart attact in the theater started go out when the nails were being placed in Jesus' hands.

[rhinegirl]

quote:Originally posted by wisp
[br rhinegirl's quote:

quote:DEATH to the Isreali police state! Free Palestine!!!

This is a very violent statement. Rhinegirl, could you be feeding a violent or destructive mindset?

You're right, it is a vey violent mindset. But it is a Just one. In a perfect world a victim could say to their oppressor "stop! You're hurting me!" and the oppressor would stop and find something better to do. In this world the opposite is true I was at a club with a freind of mine and some guy started grabbing her arms because he wanted her to dance with him she said that after she said "stop you're hurting me!" the guy got a wild eyed look and became even more forceful. Thankfully a BG threw the guy out.

Hit me once I may turn the other cheek, hit me a second time I will warn you, hit me after that you put your life in my hands.

Jessica

[wisp]

Jessica,your saying violence is justified or "just" by which side YOU choose? I don't think so. Each individual experiences different things. Learn how to control your own surroundings before making judgments on other's plights and choices.

If I was in a club, and my friend was accosted by an aggressive stranger. I would have to evaluate where I am at this time. And, is this a warning this is not a good place to be? Does my friend have a history of trouble finding her (or him)?

Now, if your this close to trouble and aggression, how can you be a judge of what is what, regarding the Jewish police state and Palestine? Shouldn't you first secure your own environment? This incident effected you, your friend had a different experience.How can you prevent something like this happening to you (your closeness to an aggressive act) in the future? Wouldn't you like those around you to be safe too?

An oppressor is one who habitually restrains or controls someone else. This person who hurt your friend is an aggressor (based on his present behavior). Although he may incidently have a history of control or oppression, you wouldn't know that would you?

Is a wild eyed look something one who goes to a club would expect to see, at least on occassion? Is this something you have control?  Not likely, so instead do you have a plan for placing yourself in a susceptible setting? There are no guarantees in high risk areas.

How about, hit me once (hopefully will not happen), the incident is reported for the record. Walk away, and never go around the person again.Take precautions in the future. Learn what the red flags are of a potentially violent person (signs of a controller type).

Observe the way you think for the best. Change the way you do things toward safety and prevention (not out of fear of course). Your immediate environment will change for the better hopefully. Good luck. Be safe.  

[rhinegirl]

Thaat's the difference tween us. I love others enough to fight them, you do not. I love myself enough to give others boundaries.

Jessica

quote:Originally posted by wisp

Jessica,your saying violence is justified or "just" by which side YOU choose? I don't think so. Each individual experiences different things. Learn how to control your own surroundings before making judgments on other's plights and choices.

If I was in a club, and my friend was accosted by an aggressive stranger. I would have to evaluate where I am at this time. And, is this a warning this is not a good place to be? Does my friend have a history of trouble finding her (or him)?

Now, if your this close to trouble and aggression, how can you be a judge of what is what, regarding the Jewish police state and Palestine? Shouldn't you first secure your own environment? This incident effected you, your friend had a different experience.How can you prevent something like this happening to you (your closeness to an aggressive act) in the future? Wouldn't you like those around you to be safe too?

An oppressor is one who habitually restrains or controls someone else. This person who hurt your friend is an aggressor (based on his present behavior). Although he may incidently have a history of control or oppression, you wouldn't know that would you?

Is a wild eyed look something one who goes to a club would expect to see, at least on occassion? Is this something you have control?  Not likely, so instead do you have a plan for placing yourself in a susceptible setting? There are no guarantees in high risk areas.

How about, hit me once (hopefully will not happen), the incident is reported for the record. Walk away, and never go around the person again.Take precautions in the future. Learn what the red flags are of a potentially violent person (signs of a controller type).

Observe the way you think for the best. Change the way you do things toward safety and prevention (not out of fear of course). Your immediate environment will change for the better hopefully. Good luck. Be safe.  

[Mustardseed]

quote:
As an ancient historian by trade, I dont rate the actual *historical* factual content of the NT, most of the gospal story was concocted way after the events with many of the themes taken from earlier classical mythology, but that's a topic for another post.

Hi Douglas
I agree with your observations in general and your point is valid. One little bitty observation of my own is your choice of words in the statement above.

We agree that the Gospels were written after the death of Jesus. This could be becourse of different things, but to use the word "concocted" implies a fradulent motive on the part of the writer and you are right that this should be a topic for another post.......well wait up.....actually it was the point of several other threads. []. As far as I remember we sort of agreed to disagree, so lets keep doing that. The insinuations you make above is only an assumption, your assumption and maybe the assumption of others as well, but in all fairness you should not present it as fact, becourse it is not.

Kindly Mustardseed

[rhinegirl]

quote:Originally posted by Mustardseed
The insinuations you make above is only an assumption, your assumption and maybe the assumption of others as well, but in all fairness you should not present it as fact, becourse it is not.

Actually Mustard any Theologian or Religious Studies Professor worth their salt will agree with Doug on this. Feel free to crawl out of redneckville and take a few religion courses.

Jessica

[Gandalf]

Hi Mustardseed!

I agree that 'concocted' is not really the right word, how about 'formulated'?

As I said in another post on this topic. I don't think that the historical truth of the origin of the Christian religion lessons it in any way; although it IS an interesting topic for study and I believe that it IS needed to counter the extreme views of fundamentalists; however, I agree with you that this can be taken to far and used to try to attack Christianity as a religion (which I have been guilty of in the past as you know!) which misses the whole point of religion. If any religion was based only on its historial origins, no religion would be valid; take Wicca for example, The 'Old Religion' which was largely created by a civil servant in the 1950s!
Of course, most Wiccans don't care, as it is now a living, breathing religion/way of life and worldview.

The fact that much of the NT was *formulated* later doesnt matter from a religious point of view as it is clear that there is much symbolic and metaphorical teachings (as well as straightforward literal ones) in the stories that is spiritually enlightning and food for meditation; also, Many of the people who later formulated these teachings were great thinkers in their own right, such as 5th century Augustine for example, who proposed the concept of Original Sin, as well as the 3rd century thinkers who first proposed the theology of Trinity.

Douglas

[Mustardseed]

Hi Douglas
Thanks for the reply and the respect you show. Formulated will do. It is still on the borderline but a step upward []. It still implies that the events of the Bible is not Historically correct, but are "made up". I say Historically correct and not Historically provable. I am aware of the facts and controversy surrounding this issue, but as we both realise .....we were not there , and in honesty can only guess, what motivated the writers wether it was a sinister or neutral motive or wether it was an account of actual happenings that had so far only had a verbal form, but needed to "be put down on paper" as some sort of record. In any case it seems clear that any problem with the film, should be seen as a problem with the Bible, as it seems to portray the events quite accurately. I still have not seen it and I am thinking about wether I should.

Regards Mustardseed

PS How about Thor and Odin and the Norse gods, any information you can share about them?

[Gandalf]

Hi Mustardseed_

I will have to stick to my statement about much of the NT being formulated later. This is not just a guess on my part but is considered valid by a great many liberal *Christian* theologans who have analysed the texts in various ways.

There is no doubt that *most* of the NT text was formulated later and is *additional* to what Christ originally taught. However, for the reasons I stated above, I dont think this should be seen as an attack on the religion of Christianity. Much of this later teaching was by great thinkers in their own right, as I said. They injected much into the accounts that were of symbolic value such as the divine birth story and the 'Passion' and so on. These do not form part of the original texts but resulted from the continuing *evolution* of the religion; these concepts include the doctrine of Trinity and Original Sin, which DO NOT play a part in any of Christ's earliest recorded teachings (Original Sin is STILL NOT accepted by Orthodox Christianity); these were formulated in the 3rd century CE onwards. Christians do not deny this; they put subsequent changes/additions to doctrine down to divine inspiration.

It doesnt matter what religion we are talking about, they all go through a process of evolution and to deny this wrong imo. It shows that it is a living, breathing way of life.


Concerning the Norse Pantheon, there is some evidence that some of these deities were based originally on real people; it is possible that Odin was a magician/mystic who actually lived at some point in the past, but I need to find out more about this theory.

In relation to this topic, I subscribe to the following theory that all deities (including monotheistic deities) worshipped by humans are thought-form creations and can be said to be real; they are also sentient in their own right and may even 'compete' for followers.

If anyone is interested in the concept of thought-form entities (of any kind) I can give more info, esp concerning actual examples such as the famous 'Philip experiment'.

Regards,
Douglas

[rhinegirl]

quote:Originally posted by Mustardseed
How about Thor and Odin and the Norse gods, any information you can share about them?

Christian myth, Norse Myth, Hebrew myth, Celtic myth. All are myths. Bits get lost or chnged.

Though I use Myth in the sense of it being an old story which has a certain value in that it tells a lesson.

Jessica

[rhinegirl]

quote:Originally posted by Gandalf
If anyone is interested in the concept of thought-form entities (of any kind) I can give more info, esp concerning actual examples such as the famous 'Philip experiment'.

YES YES OH SWEET ODIN YES!!!!!!! *tries to stop panting* PLEASE!!??

By the way, the virgin birth myth is far older than xianity.

Jessica

[The AlphaOmega]

NOTE:  I ALSO STARTED A THREAD TITLED "PASSION OF THE CHRIST" IN THE ASTRAL CHAT SECTION.  THE FOLLOWING POST IS A RESPONSE I WROTE IN THAT ONE THAT I JUST COPIED AND PASTED.  I THINK IT APPLIES HERE AS WELL, I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO TYPE IT ALL A SECOND TIME...

I feel that perhaps someone should defend the other side of this movie. So far the posts that I have seen state that this is a hollywood movie that has no real value on who Jesus really was. I fully disagree. I think that the movie depicted Jesus quite respectfully and accurately. The gore factor was put in there because of it's truth. Do you think that the lashings and crucifixion of Christ was a pleasant process? Did you think that he was nailed to the cross with flowers? In that time torture and pain had developed into a science. People were being stoned to death among other things. I don't think it was a ploy as a hollywood sceme, but was used to depict how much Christ truly endured for humanity. He felt every possible atrosity, emotionally and physically, and endured more than any human ever could for the single purpose of being able to understand everything anyone could ever possibly go through. As for depicting a negative image of the Jews, I must say that I left feeling angry at the Romans. But it WAS the Jews that crusified Christ, and the only bible that doesn't believe so is the Jews version. Jews don't even believe that the living Christ has been to earth yet, so naturally they won't like the idea that they were the ones who killed Him. But I read a different bible and thought it was an accurate image, not antisemitical, about what the new testiment claims is historical. I also didn't know if they would go as far as to show Him being resurrected, but that was the WHOLE purpose of His atonement. You thought He looked like the terminator? What did you want Him to do? Jesus jumps for joy screaming "hurray, hurray I'm alive"! There was no doubt in the making of this movie that it would be a contraversial issue. Christ Himself was so contraversial that they killed Him for it. But how many Christians went to see this movie expecting before hand to be disappointed? I am sure that many Mormons are offended by the idea that a movie about Christ is also rated R. However when I left the theater I had nothing but complete respect for everything that Christ went through for me. It showed the most terribly painful hours of His life that He willingly endured for all of humanity, and seeing that is emotional because we finally have a visual depiction of the utter hate that was had for Him. I don't feel ashamed of the way He was depicted, but grateful that He loved us all enough to go through such horror.

[shaman]

The Romans killed one Jew named Yehoshua (Jesus) some 2,000 years ago and still today people are talking about him.

The German killed 6 millions Jews and many more millions of other people (Russians, Communists, Handicaps,...) only 50 years ago and some people already forgot!

Live Israel! Live Palestine! Live the Jews ! Live the Palestinians! Live all those who have to fight for freedom!

And by the way, Rhine Girl, Palestine IS free, it is on the other side of the river Jordan, in Jordany, since Palestine was the whole area including Jordany. The west of the Jordan was given to the Jews and the right of the Jordan to the Arabs. Verstanden Zie? THe word Palestine itself comes from Phillistine, who has dissapeared long ago. Palestine was the entire area, before the Kingdom of Jordany was established, under British mandate.

Stop hating people!

Rhinegirl, you see the dust grain in the eye of the Israel, but you do not see the beam in yours.

The German put my Uncle in a working camp for more than 5 years when the German army enter Belgium and the Belgian Army surrendered after 2 weeks. And even so, we have forgiven the German. But you, you are not even Palestinian, and you do not Fogive anything to Israel, worse than that you are calling for the death of Israel and claiming you have nothing to do with Neo Nazism.

People who claim loudly "Death to an entire nation" sounds to me very extreme, very dangerous, very unsane, .. to say the least.

Jesus forgave to the persons who hurt him, the Jews forgave (but did not foget) the Nazis atrocities, and you cannot forgive Israel for something that was not even done to you. Have you been in Israel when a bus explodes? Have you lived in Israel during the wars of 67, 73 when all the Arab Nations around wanted to destroy it. What do you inderstand to the problem there? And what do you have to be involved in something that has nothing to do with you, especially that you know so little about it? You just find it a very convenient way to express the hatred that is inside you!

Libera me Domine!
De Morte Eterna! [!][!]