suzyrice.com Rotating Header Image

KIRK DOUGLAS WAS NEVER SPARTACUS, HE WAS JUST CAST THAT WAY

350wde_Not-Mel-Gibson_HotlinkersAreLosers.jpg

Not Mel Gibson — to help explain the context of this image, please refer to DEFAMER, “MEL-I-AM…

The Mel-Gibson-as-Focus-For-Hollywood/Atheist-Angst just won’t stop. Last weekend, I’d hoped that the boombah had had it’s day (and night, all seven of both of them) since Mel Gibson’s DUI arrest in Malibu, CA in the wee hours of Friday, July 28, 2006, but every time I reapproach sites remotely affiliated with either/both Hollywood or Israel, there’s this Angst-Thing again.

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif It’s time to start talking about those who have the Angst-Thing and why they do and stop using Mel Gibson as jab-target. A lot of people in Hollywood are Jewish, a lot of them are atheist (not Orthodox) and almost all of those are social and political liberals, in that order. And, from what I’ve read, on the polarizing side by those who will not be healed (in fact, they’re determined not to be, given that there’s no admittance, also from what I read, that they understand their own afflictions), there can be found those who won’t let the Mel Gibson thing go, and on the other side, those who have.

About the first group — who have purpose to their denigration of Gibson — there is this latest: “Kirk Douglas: ‘Mel’s in an awful Mess

Among the first group — those who won’t let it go — can be found a concerted, one-note nastiness such as I find shameful. They all — all, as in by shared, similar statements issued — consider Mel Gibson’s film, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, to be “anti-Semitic” (it was not but that’s the head of the problem, right there, their misguided perception), and because of that, they “now” “reconsider” Mel Gibson after his drunken rant during his DUI stop and arrest and speculate that his drunken slurs represent “truth”.

And, they are repeating the generality as if it was truth from the Bible (it isn’t), that “in wine lies truth.” That means, as per what Douglas and others like him allege (as if referring to absolute, profound truth when, in fact, they rely upon a colloquialism — research the contents of the TALMUD to which Douglas refers in his attempt to chastise Gibson, because the TALMUD states that, among other things, Jesus Christ is condemned to hell as a “sorcerer” where He is to be “boiled in excrement” among many other offensive and problematic concepts and statements — from a Christian perspective — about Jesus Christ, as also the Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God), anyway, to continue, the statement that Douglas uses in reference to the TALMUD (he says he’s quoting from it, refers to it), a drunken person who is not tolerant of alcohol is going to be “lucid” even if they’re under the influence (because, the saying goes, “in wine is truth” or, that regardless of conditions, anyone under the influence of “wine” is going to be truthful, lucid — Gibson’s influence wasn’t “wine” but the notion, the concept from the TALMUD that is being used here and has been applied here and that is, to one under the influence of alcohol, they’re going to be truthful, regardless).

And specifically regarding Mel Gibson — a man who is not tolerant of alcohol compared to someone who may be tolerant of alcohol — who has also made a film about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, well, that cinches it: he’s got to be “anti-Semitic” to these who rely on their emotionalism as does this vengeful, misguided group who refuse understanding.

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif I am sure disappointed to read that actor Kirk Douglas is among these misguided people because what I’ve just read as to his statements reveals a person who is absent any profound understanding. He reveals that he has no compassion for suffering and certainly poor perceptions — even quite defamatory opinions — about Christianity.

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif Douglas “reasons” that since he concludes that THE PASSION OF CHRIST was “anti-Semitic” (such a desperately vain thing for Douglas and others like him to conclude), and since Gibson was drunk (following years of alcoholic behavior and substance abuse) and said “f*****g Jews…Jews cause all the wars…” while in the process of being stopped, examined and questioned for driving under the influence and then arrested for same, that the two “acts” (film, drunken statements) define a person who is “anti-Semitic.” And that sobering apologies (that followed as to the drunken slurs) are to be rejected. Douglas encourages building and remaining firm as to resentment, resentment that damages and demeans those who are resentful, such as Douglas himself.

So, what we have here is a misguided, dim opinion from among some from Hollywood who are revealing their prejudice and resentment about THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, first, and second, Gibson’s fall from sobriety (whenever that occurred) due to his hysterical bombast during the arrest experience in Malibu, to lend excuse to their despicable denigration of Gibson. Instead, what this reveals is a substantial inability to comprehend both the New Testament and along with that, Gibson’s film. The drunken rant as awful as it was (and it was) is not the problem nor issue here, just the switch that’s been used to enable denigration of a more offensive sort, something that goes way beyond personal affront or drunken, irrational emotions by the side of a road in Malibu.

Because, it would not matter what Gibson said or did not say, as long as he’d spit out in anger the word, “Jews” at any time while drunk, this same group of people would still arrive at their wrong conclusions, and that is that they dismiss Gibson with their own form of epithet that they assume is final and caustically damning: he is an “anti-Semite” because his film was “anti-Semitic” so their failed understanding goes.

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif In this context, however, I’d say that this is revealing more about those condemning Gibson’s film (because they aren’t commenting about the alcoholism nor indicating concern for his health, so I conclude it’s not really a case of what he said by the roadside but goes way beyond that). It reveals that they — this group of people using Mel Gibson’s heartwrenching problem to proliferate their condemnation in a larger context — it reveals that they are “anti-Christ.”

Because they’re revealing their ongoing resentments about a film that is literally formatted and structured around the contents in the New Testament, and, continuing to reject Christ and Christians with their ongoing failed retort, that “(Christians) (and Gibson’s film) say Jews killed Christ.”

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif Gibson, who made that film (although he did not write the New Testament) based upon his understandings of and from the New Testament, is a sinner just like all of us humans — certainly Jews are no exception to that state of sin, although I’m wondering if this atheist, liberal bunch mostly from Hollywood would ever stoop accept so humbly that they live like other human beings in a fallen world and are because of that, sinners. But there’s Mel Gibson, beside the road, sinning and that has become their useful tool: they may reject Christ, but they can’t see the truth for the presence of their egoism because the incident is made to assume disproportionate importance as to ethnicity, a sense of ownership among some in Hollywood as to what and who can make what and why not.

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif The Jews did murder Jesus Christ and that is recorded history by how the deed of Christ’s human death came to be, it’s not as if “all the Jews” “killed Christ,” but that a group of them at the time of Christ’s human life on this Earth were demonstratively responsible for bringing that event about. But it seems like today’s punitive people use their context as Jews (whether atheist or not, and in my experience, most are atheist in Hollywood, involved in various forms of paganism and humanism), use their context of Jewish ancestry to hammer home a penalizing message about Christ and Christianity, accordingly. It’s not being done by Christians, is my point, that entire, limited contectural reference as to Christ’s human experience but by some who allege to be Jewish.

But to focus on who it was who brought his human life to an end is to miss the essence of what his work was about: his resurrection and divinity. To focus merely or only on his human end is to miss who Christ is entirely.

Christians — most of us — have long since accepted the writings of the New Testament as truth and testimony and among those truths is the call to forgiveness and, more importantly, the understanding that Christ came into our world to save sinners. As Christ explained and even chastised among his Disciples (and because of that, the lesson instructed found it’s way into the New Testament), His human death was necessary inorder to complete His work — and that work was to be born a human being, live and die in the human experience and to resurrect as the divine and only Son of God inorder to transpire evil.

Christ reprimanded a Disciple who suggested that Christ be hidden and sequestered to avoid His arrest priior to the crucifixion and Christ retorted to the source of that suggestion and that was (the) “devil.” Christ knew what His work was, He knew what He was there for, He knew what lay ahead of Him in the fullness of that experience.

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif So, by His crucifixion, Christ completed His mission as to His human incarnation. To prevent that crucifixion was to be the voice opposed to that completed mission and that was and continues to be evil, the voice of, to put it bluntly, satan. In that context, by “the Jews” crucifying Christ, they enabled and performed God’s work, however irreverantly at that time.

But rejecting the message is to reject the truth that is Christ and that’s what’s affecting people who continue to attempt to defame Christ and the Gibson film about Christ’s crucifixion with their ongoing denigration of “Christians claim the Jews killed Christ.” That is the key issue here. To avoid accepting this important, soul-saving message and gift from Christ (salvation) is to avoid the point of the crucifixion, is to demean or disparage the work that Christ has done. using Gibson as putty-boy (his film, you know) because he’s humanly fallible is the act of desperation by people refusing the Savior.

Instead, to continue to force an egotistical, prideful, ethnically and humanly-focused definition upon the crucifixion of Christ (“Jews killed Christ,” or, “you think the Jews killed Christ,” or, “you’re an anti-Semite if you think the Jews killed Christ” or similar) is to continue to force-avoid the truth of Christ. And that is that His crucifixion was necessary for His resurrection and most importantly, that Christ is divine and the Son of God.

If that message is “anti-Semitic,” then in that context, the message of Christ and those who believe in Christ are “anti-Semitic,” at least to reason this thing through, to follow along with this failed perspective of denigrating Christ, Christianity and films, literature, messages about and from Christ as being “anti-Semetic” due to the Jews as responsible ethnic group present during Christ’s human life and demonstratively requiring his death when he was crucified.

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif If not the Jews at the time that Christ walked among us humans on this Earth, then who? Who called out for the death of Christ and demanded jurist action by the governing Romans at the time of Christ’s human life? Who, when offered an option to be merciful and pardon a convicted man, refused mercy to Christ (and by that — to state the obvious — ensured a penalty of death upon Christ)? Who were those people who demanded that Christ be put to death, humanly, because of accusations against Him and what he instructed, philosophized?

Who were those people? They were Jewish. So, yes, then, the Jews did “kill Christ.” In his human lifetime, he was put to death at the request and because of the determination of the Jewish people and that’s a point in fact, recorded not only in history but also in the Jewish TALMUD itself, as it is also recorded in the New Testament but in entirely different context as from a Christian perspective. They “killed” Christ but did not destroy Christ and to argue that point as if it’s fantasy or nastiness is academically inaccurate. The point for Christians is that Christ is immortal, divine, the only Son of God. He cannot be “killed” from existence. His death while a human man concluded that human existence, was brought about by human action and decision. But, He is risen, Christ is alive.

These are the facts taught to us by the New Testament. And, relying upon the Old Testament for the knowledge of God the Father, along with abundant elaboration upon that by Christ the Son, we have the human history involved with events.

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif Gibson’s film, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, is literally scene-for-scene and character-by-character a performance of some events of the New Testament. The film, written, produced, directed and enacted by mortal human beings, sinners all of them just as all human beings are — fallible, vulnerable, guilty of offending God at one time or another and all of us will continue to without redirection, our own admission of our sins and forgiveness that is there to be had if we seek it — is still a human work but it remains faithful to the literary points and characters that are aspects of the New Testament.

And, since Christians accept the New Testament on faith, believe the messages because we believe in Christ’s and God’s authority — foundation and practice of Christianity — most Christians found Gibson’s film, THE PASSION OF CHRIST, to be truthful literarily and theatrically as to what the New Testament contains about the crucifixion of Christ.

Unfortunately, Mel Gibson the filmmaker is suffering the effects of human torment. That means — no surprise here — he’s a vulnerable human being just as every other Christian is, and, to be clear here, just as Jews are, as are all human beings. None of us is beyond culpability as to failure, problem, digression, temptation…sin. It is just a question as to what degree of those that a person is subject and whether or not they chose to resolve sin and how.

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif And also unfortunately, people who reject Christ did about the same to Christ as they do today to and about Christians who commit sin: they call for damnation, embittered punishment, disproportionate penalty…might as well yell for stoning or…crucifixion. While the sin of pride, adultery, all sorts of sin, you name it, it’s present especially in and among Hollywood, these are commendable to Hollywood to the point of rejoicing in them. Thus, you get both bad box-office and adulation (and promotion) of sin by people who will not reject sin if it threatens pride, box office, residential address, income or “popularity” among others who are similarly accepting of the same failures. Gibson’s film was upsetting to people who are reliant upon the acceptance of sin because it’s popular to do so, comforting and secure to maintain it.

Crucifixion was the method of putting to death in Christ’s human lifetime persons who were condemned to die. Had the Romans had electricity, they may have resorted to the use of an electric chair. But the point is that crucifixion was the ultimate death penalty during Christ’s human lifetime, used by the Romans before His time on earth and after as their method of exacting a death penalty upon a person judged to be put to death.

But the Roman form of government during Christ’s human lifetime was representational. Judah was ruled by the Romans as governmental process but the Romans provided the Jewish people who they ruled to determine the fate of their own “kind.” The fate of Jesus Christ, a Jew, was, then, left up to the Jewish people by the local representative of Roman government, Pontius Pilot. And it was the decision of the Jews when asked to decide Christ’s fate, that Christ be put to death. Thus, Christ was crucified. And the Jews made that determination. To attempt to or to continue to try to disclaim or deny that represents patent falsehood.

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif However, to attempt to disclaim and deny that, those involved in Christ’s crucifixion, is to also miss (or suppress) the most important, larger picture and that is that Christ came into the world to save sinners and His human life and crucifixion were part of the plan predetermined and intended by God the Father. Christ knew this, Christ taught this throughout His human lifetime and often spoke of what the future held for Him and how and when it would come to pass. Problem then was that the Disciples did not understand much of what Christ was telling them about his near-future, while afterward and with the passing of events, what Christ taught became clear (to the Disciples and to the rest of us).

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif In Gibson’s case, there are two big issues as to understanding and/or misunderstanding, failure to understand contexts, that are apparent to me. The first is the inability by some humans — who are not plagued by a problematic response to alcohol — to empathize and understand Gibson’s human condition (and because of that, lack the ability to understand that some people are so negatively affected and what that invovles); and, the second is the inability by some to accept Christ and because of that, to remain perpetually offended and resentful about Christ, references to Christ, His message, His work, His purpose, and to and about anyone who affiliates with Christ, Christianity and the New Testament in a sincere, faithful manner (I mean by that, anyone who believes and attempts to live in belief of the New Testament and acceptance of Christ as Savior — failures and lapses in faith and behaviors do not indicate an absence of belief nor a loss of faith, and again, Mel Gibson illustrates this just as every single Christian alive is familiar with the challenges involved to one degree or another).

Combine the two and you get people who display prejudice and who use prejudicial acts and statements to attempt to cast judgement upon, to condemn others (they did that to Christ, too, in just about the very same ways), which is only possible to do if you first reject Christ. It’s a human rejection based in human egoism. Throw in Hollywood fame, money, glamor, media focus, all of that, and you get some people with a committed attitude toward what the rest of us would call sin: they use intellectualism — pride — or issues of vanity — pride agian — self prestige — pride — a generally inflamed sense of self-importance, and you get a group of people who call out for the condemnation of a suffering man because he offends their concept of cool.

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif The significant message that they are not getting is that Man killed Christ. And that those humans responsible directly were Jewish, yes, but the message is that it was Man who killed Christ. But that Christ lives. The torture, human suffering and condemnation is and was the extent that embittered, resentful humans could come up with to “punish” Christ for HIs statements that they rejected, but from what I read from some in Hollywood, they’re still trying to rely on these same types of tools to attempt to inflict just about the same type of suffering upon others for just about the same reasons.

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif No, Kirk Douglas is no Spartacus. Nor never was. He was just cast that way. It’s a shame he could not nor can — from what he has to say recently — live up to the role, but that’s what it means to be human. Douglas needs to learn what forgiveness means and what it means to be real. I think the message of Spartacus was that he learned that. And was crucified for it.

In Douglas’ perspective, however, are we to now refer to him and those who opine as he does, as “anti-Christian”? What does that say about Hollywood as an industry when it tolerates — even glorifies and lauds — Douglas’ type of religious denigration (as also from others from his same general community in Hollywood, mostly, and media otherwise)?

It can be dressed-up in posing and personality-pompousness by way of a hungry, eager media in order to proliferate these ghastly opinions, but it remains representational of the fallen opinion of people who chose the fallen and try to present that as righteous. It isn’t. It earns big bucks but it isn’t righteous. It may be visually beautiful. emotionally laden and afford to remain that way over time and changing conditions but it is not righteousness, nor indicative of the righteous.

Dot-Grey-Outline.gif Christians and Christianity are not vengeful — I wish I could write that about some in Hollywood and the likes of misguided, misleading Kirk Douglas, but I can’t.

440wde_CupidGladiators.jpg

Detail from a 4th century mosaic frieze depicting two winged cupids playing the parts of gladiators. From Site Bignor

O N E C O M M E N T

  1. BIRD says:

    WHAT ARE ROB REINER’S VIEWS ABOUT JESUS CHRIST?

    Tolerance is universal in it’s appeal and requirements. What does Rob Reiner think about the crucifixion of and human life lived by Jesus Christ? Reiner’s complaints (REINER: GIBSON COME CLEAN ON ‘PASSION’) are not about Mel Gibson at this point nor ab…