I will amend that by adding the Unitarians and Universalists often do. Even though, they not considered properly Christian, it is the tradition from whence they sprang. Congretionalists sometimes do; but, they tend not ot talk about it in keeoing with ther let it be policy.

You can check out the names at godchecker.com among lots of other places, including the search facility here at Slate. Not certain how much will show up until the bring over The Attic, though.

Your coming after dessert and insisting we start the the whole meal over for you. Some will; some won't.

Griz:

Translation of this article: "My revulsion for all things Christian should be represented on screen rather than the majority's appreciation of the same".

When did Plotz turn so whiney? I gave him more credit when he was doing the bible blog. Three things:

1) Why is it "appalling" to pander to Christian audiences? Why is it even "pandering" for that matter? That's like saying Star Wars was pandering to science fiction fans, whatever that means.

2) What the fuck gives him the right to use the term "magical negro"? I don't care if it's defined in wikipedia any more than "Nappy-headed hoes". Second, Freeman doesn't fit the archetype. Read the wikipedia entry again.

3) Thanks for quitting the bible blog before you got to the New Testament. I was very dissappointed about that, at first. But now I realize that it would have been an insufferable bitch-session.

Keep your chins up, folks. Plotz will be back. He's just a little out-of-sorts after blogging forever. It's hard to come up with decent subjects to write about after a year of straight commentary.

After a reread, I feel I was a little harsh. I'm man enough to admit it. Plotz is one of my favorite writers, but I get irritated when favorite writers don't give their subjects a fair shake, Hitchens-style. I'm not saying that he's done that in this article. Perhaps I read that in after a long following of his writing. That combined with the increasing crotchety-ness of Slate headline writers sometimes gets the best of me.

G

Thomas Paine:

Yep, that is the part I was referring to -- no real dispute about the Jewish origins.

Sorry Paine. I'm learning that it's a little harder in the new fray to indicate to whom you are replying. I may have posted one message to tsedek, but it looked like it was to you. Hopefully you caught that even if I didn't

Again, he was out of sorts because they made him watch the movie. LOL The circle is unbroken.

Griz:

Sorry Paine. I'm learning that it's a little harder in the new fray to indicate to whom you are replying.

Use the quote button judiciously and conversations become easiert to track. But, don't go all Nano on us.

After you hit the quote button, hit the html button to pop up the html box. In there, cut away everything that's not germane to your response, Take care to leave the tags intact. it may take a little practice; but it saves a whale of a lot of typing and makes the thread easier to follow. Particularly true in fast moving threads where the response get interleaved and in the Amazonian threads whose tributaries become swirling wordpools of their own.

I understand - especially since the threaded view seems especially cumbersome to use.

I am generally trying to follow the suggestion of including a brief quote of what I am replying to as well, but don't always remember to do so.

Anyway, a worthwhile discussion.

bubbuh:

I will amend that by adding the Unitarians and Universalists often do. Even though, they not considered properly Christian, it is the tradition from whence they sprang. Congretionalists sometimes do; but, they tend not ot talk about it in keeoing with ther let it be policy.

Your coming after dessert and insisting we start the the whole meal over for you. Some will; some won't.

I didn't get the desert reference. Has there already been a discussion about this? I tend not to check in with the fray much any more because I like it too much.

I don't know whether it's appropriate to measure Christians' acknowledgement of other religions by what individuals in the congregations say. But my view of that is largely based on a larger theory that doctrine trumps layman assertions. This is particularly my view of Catholicism where, for various reasons, the assertions of the lay congregation often diverge from doctrine.

I don't think it's fair because Christianity is something people sign onto rarely with full faith and credit in mind. Most Christians don't wholly subject themselves to the system of beliefs in the Church.

It works the other way too. Most of the regular practices of Christians aren't based on genuine principles of the faith.

G

Inkberrow:

Plotz obviously objects to the very existence of Gibson's "Passion", ostensibly on aesthetic grounds, but my guess is that if Mel had brought the same lurid rigor to bear on a "Last Temptation of Christ"-style treatment of the story, Plotz would have fallen all over himself to praise the raw beauty and courage of Gibson's vision.

Yep, my guess too. That was a large part of my point, but you said it better.

I understood his reference to the "Magical Negro", but I hardly think it is worthy of the racism to which it alludes. It strikes me as a progressive step for an industry that needs to make money by putting pretty-faced whites on the covers while introducing blacks into every position that doesn't hurt their pockets. Perhaps there will come a time when "Along Came a Spider" can be as big of a hit as "Seven", but it doesn't appear to be now. It's worth mentioning that Hollywood wedges caucasion-looking HALFrican-Americans into lead roles when they think they can still pull big money (Hallie Barry).

This subject has been discussed (with varying levels of civility) on a number of occassions -- and most of us regulars have a pretty good understanding of the POV of other regulars, and thus tend not to restate a lot of this in our short responses.

Obviously, this is a bit of a challenge to those not having that familiarity with the posters, and it is easy for misunderstandings to arise.

Along those same lines, we need to be more attuned to that lack of context when we respond to newer names. I think I speak for most when I say that I always welcome new posters who are able to articulate their views -- especially when they can bring a somewhat different POV. Might not always seem that way at first, however.

Griz:

I didn't get the desert reference. Has there already been a discussion about this? I tend not to check in with the fray much any more because I like it too much.

Yeah, it's one of those cyclic conversations. We did it last week or the week before when someone was asserting the "it all came directly from Gods lips" POV so everyone's still kind of fast forwardng.

Good points regarding race and Hollywood. It seems to me that things are a bit better for Black male actors than for females at this moment -- that is, there are a number of Black females in prominant roles in TV and movies, but many of of somewhat undefined ethnicity -- not all as white-looking as Halle Barry.

There certainly are now several Black male stars who can carry a movie, in roles that do not necessarily require a black actor -- Denzel Washington, Samuel L Jackson, Will Smith come to mind.

I like Morgan Freeman a lot, but I don't think I like him enough to pay to watch him in this role.

"The Noah's Ark story, which isn't jewish in origin anyway, belongs to those who actually give a shit about it."

Whether or not it's exclusively Hebrew (a red herring), I think the complaint rests with how antithetical the Christian spin on that story is. In other words, it's NOT a tale of a loving god.

Oh, yeah, and there's the part about God's vow never to do it again.

Insipid, hole-riddled plots disallow suspension of disbelief - the first step toward a crappy movie.

re: "plagiarized"

Perhaps he meant, "borrowed," given Mithra, Dionysus, Isis/Osiris, etc.

This story reminds me of the time I saw a Veggie Tales episode my wife got for my kids - it was the walls of Jericho coming down, thanks to the wonderful god they served. I went to the bible and read the following passage telling god's kind instructions to Joshua & his actions based on those instructions-

"And they utterly destroyed all that [was] in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."

Sweet - go in and murder not only the men, but all the women, children and animals as well - sounds like people we would describe as terrorists & murderers today!

Sorry - there is no easter bunny, there is no santa claus, and there was no global flood.

This movie was made for the same reason that virtually every movie is made these days - for lots of profit!

Anybody that looks to this lame piece of hollywood pap for renewal and inspiration will believe anything - Oh! thats right - they already do!

Organized religion will lead to the destruction of the world as we know it!

I was speaking of copying Ptolemaic era artworks into Catholic idols. Isis and Horus translate well into Mater Deloroso and her son the God/King.