MEL GIBSON ARRESTED FOR DUI

[Nessa 23]

No matter what he does, God he's a hot hot hot man!!! oops did I?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's their journalistic responsability to tell the reader who the guy is, why he's important, and why he's relevant right now. However, this time was a little over the top.

Something I just thought of and I've seen this happen with Disney/ABC. The news program will feature a story about an upcoming movie from Miramax (subsidiary of Disney). It's called 'cross marketing' and with these mega media conglomerates I wouldn't be surprised if this was the same situation with Mel Gibson.

Did anyone ever see the Truman Show - it was hilarious at showing product promotion disguised as reality.

[dani_christine 0]

Here's a great read on Mel Gibson and his film, Passion of Christ:

http://www.primal-page.com/gibson.htm

This is not a film about the Prince of Peace. This is not a film about forgiveness, tolerance, mercy; about God so loving the world that God does not leave us to suffer in it alone. The film's . . . apologists have insisted that this is the film's message. But the children know better." (p.144. Emphasis mine) She is correct of course, but most of those who were subjected to violence themselves, might continue to rationalize along the lines of - "Well yes, but it was not so bad, look how well I turned out." I think Mel Gibson may identify with Jesus as an abused child.

This also suggests an Old Testament vision of God - an angry, all-powerful, absolutist father who demands absolute obedience from his children. But in the New Testament doesn't Christ offer a picture of a more loving father waiting to receive those who repent and believe? Is the sacrifice God demands from his son a regression to the sacrifice of Abraham? But when God saw that Abraham was fully ready to sacrifice Isaac he let it go. But here God demands not only his son's death (suicide), but in the most sadistic way imaginable. He does not let it go. Even if we could make a case for it being necessary, why does the sacrifice have to be so brutal and extreme? Is man really so horrifically sinful? Even if he were, why would human sacrifice be the only possible atonement? The film offers us only silence on such questions.

i read that entire article you linked. sadly, i think this is a matter of coming from completely divergent world views. it seems as if the author is trying as hard as he can to discredit and disprove the very basis of Christian theology...that being, Christ, God Incarnate, died as an atoning sacrifice for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day.

there is so much i have to say, but i will restrict myself to answering only related to the part of the article that you have quoted.

I think Mel Gibson may identify with Jesus as an abused child.

this is, of course, a broad assumption on the part of the author. even he admits, this is only a hypothesis:

Gibson states that this film is his thanks to God for lifting him out of hopelessness. While this may be so, it does not seem a stretch to hypothesize, even though I cannot be certain, that Mel Gibson was an abused child still hoping to be protected from pain.

however, i am not here to defend Mr. Gibson.

This also suggests an Old Testament vision of God - an angry, all-powerful, absolutist father who demands absolute obedience from his children. But in the New Testament doesn't Christ offer a picture of a more loving father waiting to receive those who repent and believe?

the issue remains that this author does not understand the basic tennets of the Old Testament sacrificial system that was in place, and that Jesus' death eliminated the need for that system. At the moment of Jesus' death, the veil that separated the people from the Holy of Holies--the very presence of God--was torn in two. Jesus' sacrifice made a way for man to approach God. This is the most merciful, most loving act ever performed throughout all of history. The scenes in the Garden of Gethsemene depict that God did not demand absolute obedience, but instead, God allows free choice. The human side of Jesus struggled greatly with the path that had been laid out before Him. However, He was not merely human, but God...and He knew the plan He had for us.

Is the sacrifice God demands from his son a regression to the sacrifice of Abraham? But when God saw that Abraham was fully ready to sacrifice Isaac he let it go. But here God demands not only his son's death (suicide), but in the most sadistic way imaginable. He does not let it go. Even if we could make a case for it being necessary, why does the sacrifice have to be so brutal and extreme? Is man really so horrifically sinful? Even if he were, why would human sacrifice be the only possible atonement?

again, a matter of perspective. i would suggest that instead of a 'regression to the sacrifice of Abraham'...the sacrifice of Abraham was a picture of the coming Sacrifice that would be for all of our sins. God showed Abraham the enormity of the decision to sacrifice his son, but God provided an alternative...he provided a ram for the sacrifice, but He also provided the Lamb of God as the ultimate Sacrifice on that cross, not only for my sins and yours, but also for the sins of all mankind including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Is man really so horrifically sinful? well, one only has to read the latest headlines, or take a long honest look into his or her own heart to see the answer to that one. God did not require a 'human sacrifice'. Jesus--God on earth--laid down his own life willingly as a demonstration of His love for us, so that the only sacrifice we would ever have to make would be the sacrifice of faith. We are asked nothing more than to simply believe and receive that free gift of atonement.

[Itsmeitsmeitsree! 0]

Is man really so horrifically sinful? well, one only has to read the latest headlines, or take a long honest look into his or her own heart to see the answer to that one. God did not require a 'human sacrifice'. Jesus--God on earth--laid down his own life willingly as a demonstration of His love for us, so that the only sacrifice we would ever have to make would be the sacrifice of faith. We are asked nothing more than to simply believe and receive that free gift of atonement.

Thank you dani_christine!

[Fandango 1,439]

Here's a great read on Mel Gibson and his film, Passion of Christ:

http://www.primal-page.com/gibson.htm

This is not a film about the Prince of Peace. This is not a film about forgiveness, tolerance, mercy; about God so loving the world that God does not leave us to suffer in it alone. The film's . . . apologists have insisted that this is the film's message. But the children know better." (p.144. Emphasis mine) She is correct of course, but most of those who were subjected to violence themselves, might continue to rationalize along the lines of - "Well yes, but it was not so bad, look how well I turned out." I think Mel Gibson may identify with Jesus as an abused child.

This also suggests an Old Testament vision of God - an angry, all-powerful, absolutist father who demands absolute obedience from his children. But in the New Testament doesn't Christ offer a picture of a more loving father waiting to receive those who repent and believe? Is the sacrifice God demands from his son a regression to the sacrifice of Abraham? But when God saw that Abraham was fully ready to sacrifice Isaac he let it go. But here God demands not only his son's death (suicide), but in the most sadistic way imaginable. He does not let it go. Even if we could make a case for it being necessary, why does the sacrifice have to be so brutal and extreme? Is man really so horrifically sinful? Even if he were, why would human sacrifice be the only possible atonement? The film offers us only silence on such questions.

Do you have an original thought here, or are you just hiding behind someone else's opinion?

ITA Dani_Christine

[almaty 19]

he was lucky..drunk and driving fast........God was his co-pilot ...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's a great read on Mel Gibson and his film, Passion of Christ:

http://www.primal-page.com/gibson.htm

This is not a film about the Prince of Peace. This is not a film about forgiveness, tolerance, mercy; about God so loving the world that God does not leave us to suffer in it alone. The film's . . . apologists have insisted that this is the film's message. But the children know better." (p.144. Emphasis mine) She is correct of course, but most of those who were subjected to violence themselves, might continue to rationalize along the lines of - "Well yes, but it was not so bad, look how well I turned out." I think Mel Gibson may identify with Jesus as an abused child.

This also suggests an Old Testament vision of God - an angry, all-powerful, absolutist father who demands absolute obedience from his children. But in the New Testament doesn't Christ offer a picture of a more loving father waiting to receive those who repent and believe? Is the sacrifice God demands from his son a regression to the sacrifice of Abraham? But when God saw that Abraham was fully ready to sacrifice Isaac he let it go. But here God demands not only his son's death (suicide), but in the most sadistic way imaginable. He does not let it go. Even if we could make a case for it being necessary, why does the sacrifice have to be so brutal and extreme? Is man really so horrifically sinful? Even if he were, why would human sacrifice be the only possible atonement? The film offers us only silence on such questions.

i read that entire article you linked. sadly, i think this is a matter of coming from completely divergent world views. it seems as if the author is trying as hard as he can to discredit and disprove the very basis of Christian theology...that being, Christ, God Incarnate, died as an atoning sacrifice for our sins, and was resurrected on the third day.

there is so much i have to say, but i will restrict myself to answering only related to the part of the article that you have quoted.

I think Mel Gibson may identify with Jesus as an abused child.

this is, of course, a broad assumption on the part of the author. even he admits, this is only a hypothesis:

Gibson states that this film is his thanks to God for lifting him out of hopelessness. While this may be so, it does not seem a stretch to hypothesize, even though I cannot be certain, that Mel Gibson was an abused child still hoping to be protected from pain.

however, i am not here to defend Mr. Gibson.

This also suggests an Old Testament vision of God - an angry, all-powerful, absolutist father who demands absolute obedience from his children. But in the New Testament doesn't Christ offer a picture of a more loving father waiting to receive those who repent and believe?

the issue remains that this author does not understand the basic tennets of the Old Testament sacrificial system that was in place, and that Jesus' death eliminated the need for that system. At the moment of Jesus' death, the veil that separated the people from the Holy of Holies--the very presence of God--was torn in two. Jesus' sacrifice made a way for man to approach God. This is the most merciful, most loving act ever performed throughout all of history. The scenes in the Garden of Gethsemene depict that God did not demand absolute obedience, but instead, God allows free choice. The human side of Jesus struggled greatly with the path that had been laid out before Him. However, He was not merely human, but God...and He knew the plan He had for us.

Is the sacrifice God demands from his son a regression to the sacrifice of Abraham? But when God saw that Abraham was fully ready to sacrifice Isaac he let it go. But here God demands not only his son's death (suicide), but in the most sadistic way imaginable. He does not let it go. Even if we could make a case for it being necessary, why does the sacrifice have to be so brutal and extreme? Is man really so horrifically sinful? Even if he were, why would human sacrifice be the only possible atonement?

again, a matter of perspective. i would suggest that instead of a 'regression to the sacrifice of Abraham'...the sacrifice of Abraham was a picture of the coming Sacrifice that would be for all of our sins. God showed Abraham the enormity of the decision to sacrifice his son, but God provided an alternative...he provided a ram for the sacrifice, but He also provided the Lamb of God as the ultimate Sacrifice on that cross, not only for my sins and yours, but also for the sins of all mankind including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Is man really so horrifically sinful? well, one only has to read the latest headlines, or take a long honest look into his or her own heart to see the answer to that one. God did not require a 'human sacrifice'. Jesus--God on earth--laid down his own life willingly as a demonstration of His love for us, so that the only sacrifice we would ever have to make would be the sacrifice of faith. We are asked nothing more than to simply believe and receive that free gift of atonement.

Dani, I didn't get the same impression as you about what the author was saying and I do agree with your understanding of Christ as the ultimate sacrifice. What I thought was interesting was the author's hypothesis

about Mel Gibson's choice to narrow the movie's focus on Jesus' physical suffering in what I also agree was a very sadist view. I always believed that Jesus' suffering wasn't just the physical torment, but one of spiritual because he knew who he was and he humbled himself to allow being mocked at and rejected.

There was a movement within the early Christian Church where some monks would flog themselves because they took the idea that through suffering we find redemption to an extreme. That's what Mel Gibson's message in his move seemed to me.

[dani_christine 0]

I always believed that Jesus' suffering wasn't just the physical torment, but one of spiritual because he knew who he was and he humbled himself to allow being mocked at and rejected.

on this, we totally agree.

[Marc and Olga 0]

I was surprised that this was already added, considering it happened yesterday and today:

On July 28, 2006, Gibson was charged with driving under the influence while speeding (87 miles per hour in a 45 miles per hour zone) on the narrow, winding Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, California.[6] His bail was set at $5,000 and he was released.[7]

The arresting officer was instructed by superiors to redact a colorful barrage of Gibson's threats and anti-semitic comments from his report, but on July 29, 2006, the report was leaked to TMZ.com. In it, Gibson is described as declaring his own career over, that by virtue of his position he would also end the officer's career, and that Jews were responsible for his arrest and all wars.[8]

The police report alleges Gibson refused to be transported to the police station, and had to be restrained. Gibson's bizarre tirade allegedly continued at the police station, where he was videotaped calling a female officer "sugar tits" and attempting to urinate on the floor.[8] While the legal blood alcohol level limit in the state is 0.08, Gibson's was measured at .12.[8]

Gibson and his publicist released a statement on July 29, 2006, saying "I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested. I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry. I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse."

Mel Gibson on Wiki

Edited July 29, 2006 by Marc and Olga

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I was surprised that this was already added, considering it happened yesterday and today:

On July 28, 2006, Gibson was charged with driving under the influence while speeding (87 miles per hour in a 45 miles per hour zone) on the narrow, winding Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, California.[6] His bail was set at $5,000 and he was released.[7]

The arresting officer was instructed by superiors to redact a colorful barrage of Gibson's threats and anti-semitic comments from his report, but on July 29, 2006, the report was leaked to TMZ.com. In it, Gibson is described as declaring his own career over, that by virtue of his position he would also end the officer's career, and that Jews were responsible for his arrest and all wars.[8]

The police report alleges Gibson refused to be transported to the police station, and had to be restrained. Gibson's bizarre tirade allegedly continued at the police station, where he was videotaped calling a female officer "sugar tits" and attempting to urinate on the floor.[8] While the legal blood alcohol level limit in the state is 0.08, Gibson's was measured at .12.[8]

Gibson and his publicist released a statement on July 29, 2006, saying "I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested. I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry. I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse."

Mel Gibson on Wiki

Wow. It's good that he apologized but his anti-semitic remarks weren't born out of the alchoholism. Getting drunk just brought out his bigotry.

Edited July 30, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[samir_shannon 0]

damn hipocrite

[VivaMexico 0]

What I thought was interesting was the author's hypothesis about Mel Gibson's choice to narrow the movie's focus on Jesus' physical suffering in what I also agree was a very sadist view.

Why is it sadist to accurately depict the crucifixion? From articles I have read, Gibson did pain-staking research to accurately depict the events, from the flogging to the crucifixion itself, and his portrayal has been considered very accurate by experts.

Seems like some people want to sugar-coat Christ's death and not think about what he suffered physically. I think it is good for the world, especially Christians, to see a realistic portrayal of His suffering.

[almaty 19]

I was surprised that this was already added, considering it happened yesterday and today:

On July 28, 2006, Gibson was charged with driving under the influence while speeding (87 miles per hour in a 45 miles per hour zone) on the narrow, winding Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, California.[6] His bail was set at $5,000 and he was released.[7]

The arresting officer was instructed by superiors to redact a colorful barrage of Gibson's threats and anti-semitic comments from his report, but on July 29, 2006, the report was leaked to TMZ.com. In it, Gibson is described as declaring his own career over, that by virtue of his position he would also end the officer's career, and that Jews were responsible for his arrest and all wars.[8]

The police report alleges Gibson refused to be transported to the police station, and had to be restrained. Gibson's bizarre tirade allegedly continued at the police station, where he was videotaped calling a female officer "sugar tits" and attempting to urinate on the floor.[8] While the legal blood alcohol level limit in the state is 0.08, Gibson's was measured at .12.[8]

Gibson and his publicist released a statement on July 29, 2006, saying "I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested. I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry. I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life and profoundly regret my horrific relapse."

Mel Gibson on Wiki

Wow. It's good that he apologized but his anti-semitic remarks weren't born out of the alchoholism. Getting drunk just brought out his bigotry.

totally agree...the alcohol lowers your inhibtions and he let out the true nature of his anti-semite verbiage on a police officer doing his job.

[incanada1234 0]

What a weirdo to make those Jew remarks. If you're a Jew-hating Christian, well, you better study up on your Bible a little better.

[almaty 19]

What a weirdo to make those Jew remarks. If you're a Jew-hating Christian, well, you better study up on your Bible a little better.

excellent point sister..i think he was heavily influenced by hisa nut case father...