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.

I don't see any sign of Plotz' supposed revulsion toward Christianity -- sounds more to me as though he is criticizing the movie for being an insipid, trivial version of Christianity as might be taken from one of the more sanitized children's Sunday School picture book versions of Old Testament stories. And since he IS Jewish, doesn't he have some right to object to someone fucking about with his cultural heritage?

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

Maybe you read a different article. Personally, I think Dave is too tolerant of a bunch of flesh eating Pagans with their plagiarized idols and supernatural possession.

normative posture of the film. An "eco-fable" is not going to be "pro-Christian"---an essential plank of green progressive ideology is rejecting and refuting the Old Testament injunction for humans to "be fruitful and multiply" and to exercise unique and unlimited dominion over all flora and fauna, and the very Earth herself. Carell's Noah as heedless, foolish, and unaware---unlike the animals---is thus a perfect Everyman for eco-jeremiads. Morgan Freeman's role---and career, for the most part---exemplifies latter-day progressives bona fides in TV and film production, casting blacks wherever possible in otherwise-generic Positions of Authority, Wisdom, and Influence.

I agree with you that Plotz demonstrates bias against traditional Judeo-Christian religion in his utterly gratuitous use of "pandering", though. A short list of recent Christian-friendly films in the face of almost unremitting hostility over the last few decades does NOT bring us back to the days of "The Ten Commandments" and "The Bells of St. Mary's", even if there was something wrong with those days to begin with. 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.

They made him watch the movie.

"Personally, I think Dave is too tolerant of a bunch of flesh eating Pagans with their plagiarized idols and supernatural possession."

Nothing like an obnoxious, dogmatic statement to end a conversation. Deep thought there, buddy.

Griz:

"Personally, I think Dave is too tolerant of a bunch of flesh eating Pagans with their plagiarized idols and supernatural possession."

Nothing like an obnoxious, dogmatic statement to end a conversation. Deep thought there, buddy.

The conversation will end because you can't refute my statement or the thousands of years of Christian history that back it up.

Just to be charitable, pick one element of my statement you would care to discuss. This is a discussion board, after all, and although it may be uncomfortable for our Christian friends to play on a level field, it will be good practice for you and give you an idea of why people who haven't been raised in your mythos find mainstream Christianity to be childish and somewhat primitive and very much a derivitive faith based on Pagan mystery cults and ideas and having little to do with Judaism or its Egyptian antecedents.

Well, having followed and participated in this forum for some time now, I think I would put tsedek's deep thoughts up against those of pretty much anyone who posts here.

Obnoxious? Perhaps on rare occasion. Dogmatic? Rare if ever, IMHO.

Are you suggesting that Christianity is NOT based on plagiarized idols and supernatural possession? (Not that that is necessarily a BAD thing)

"And since he IS Jewish, doesn't he have some right to object to someone fucking about with his cultural heritage".

Paine: I don't know what you mean.

If you mean that Christians are fucking about with his cultural heritage, then I guess he should take that up with 2000-year-old dead guys rather than the followers who descended therefrom. That would be a horrible position however, because any secular biblical historian will tell you that Judaism and its corresponding stories derive from other religions as well. The laws are strickingly similar to Hamurrabi's (check the spelling) Code. Noah and the Ark are so similar to the older Utnapishnam (again spelling, sorry) story that it's not even worth arguing. A charge against Christianity on these grounds would apply the same to Judaism.

If you're saying that Hollywood is fucking with his heritage, then I argue he has no right. Plotz is a self-proclaimed non-observant jew (check the early bible blogs). The Noah's Ark story, which isn't jewish in origin anyway, belongs to those who actually give a shit about it. At best, this would be armchair outrage. But that wasn't the point of his article anyway. His point was that Hollywood is pandering to the people who *do* give a shit. That's just a dumb point. So, I still don't take your point.

Good point on the rest, though.

Grizzle Griz

Actually, I was referring to Hollywood fucking with the story, not with Christianity doing so in general.

Certainly you are right about Judaism having borrowed so much of it mythology and theology from others -- a point on which my friend tsedek is much more knowedgable than I.

I don't have any objection to religions borrowing from earlier or contemporary religions -- I think it would be unlikely to find any that do not do so. I would prefer that they be willing to acknowledge when they have done so, however.

Shalom

Oh boy. Here goes.

First, I don't have to go far to find your skills at reasoning suspect. You've assumed that I am a Christian, after all. Or at least that I have been raised within the mythos. I am not and I have not. Such an assumption alludes to a very narrow worldview where all people who find anti-christianity annoying, are themselves Christian or must have.been raised in the mythos. To back up that allusion, you say the reverse about those who haven't been raised therein. That is *dogmatic* because it is based on assumption rather than evidence. A bad assumption at that. Moreover, it is poorly thought out because it doesn't allow for a middle ground (I would argue that the middle ground is where most people lie). Also, I find this last post obnoxious because of your condescending tone.

Second, I didn't need to refute your statement because you didn't back it up. That's how it works. I suspect that you consider yourself practiced in the use of rhetoric, so you surely must know that broad, sweeping statement bear the burden of proof. Nice try.

Third, your original post was dogmatic for the same reason. Don't say something if you aren't going to follow through. Not with me anyway. I'm not scared of drive-by arguments and I don't shrink because you use strong language or make claims about my comfort-level on your playing field.

Finally to the meat of this subject: What element would you like me to debate? You haven't really said anything. You say that Christianity is very much a derivative faith based on Paganism and mystery cults. How so? Are you basing that on literary devices? Borrowed symbols? Tenets of faith? It is my understanding that Christians coined the term "pagan" to describe any non-Christian polytheistic religion. So I don't know how it can self-refer. A pagan is -by definition- non-Christian.

Secondly what idols are you talking about? Do you mean "icons"? Or do you have a special definition of "idol" to which only tsedek is privy? If you simply want to attack Christianity for plagiarism, then have fun. I don't think that Christians deny borrowing traditions. But why stop at Christianity? All religions have strong outside Influences. You said as much about Judaism when you mentioned its Egyptian antecedents. Although, I think you missed an opportunity to mention Judaism's much stronger antecedents. Most scholars will tell you that Egypt's influence whithers outside of Exodus compared to that of Canaan, Mesopotamia, Asyria, et alias.

Incidently, weren't the Egyptian religions pagan? If so, then based on your reasoning, it really doesn't matter whether Christianity stemmed from Judaism or elsewhere. It should be liable to the same charge either way! Or maybe you're just trying to craft the term to keep Judaism away from what you consider to be pejorative.

Thanks for the charity, but I think I can hold my own, sport.

"I would prefer that they be willing to acknowledge when they have done so, however."

That's fair enough, but I don't think any quality Christian scholars deny it. I don't think that many Christians at all deny that Christianity borrows from Judaism. In fact, they claim legitimacy thereby.

G

They rarely acknowledge their debt to Mithra or Attis or Zoroaster.

"Are you suggesting that Christianity is NOT based on plagiarized idols and supernatural possession? (Not that that is necessarily a BAD thing)"

I'm not claiming anything. I'm waiting for him to claim something. He should define the terms he uses and explain how they apply. I don't know how to plagiarize an idol. First, Christianity wholly objects to idols. Second, plagiarism, as employed here, sounds more polemic than substantive. Plagiarism is a literary method that is widely shunned. By employing it, he is projecting that shunning on to the activities of Christians. Yet, it isn't exactly apt: Again, how do you plagiarize objects? It sounds to me like he made this word choice instead of more appropriate ones like 'use' to exact our ire toward Christians. It's therefore manipulative in that its intent is to control the reader's visceral reactions rather than to make a quality point.

Griz

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