Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Alexander the Gay

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    Gee, what a shocker ... another hollywood elite re-writes history

    So now we get the PC/Hollyweird version of Alexander the Great ... [b][color=red]"Alexander the Gay"[/color][/b]

    I remember seeing the Goodbye Girl many years ago and LMAO when Richard Dreyfus was asked by some deranged director to portray Richard the Lion Hearted as a homosexual

    It was hilarious in it's absurdity ... but now, in his new epic film, Oliver Stone has turned the absurd into reality

    [quote][b][b][SIZE=3][color=red]ALEXANDER THE GAY[/color][/SIZE][/b]

    Oliver Stone and the studio releasing his $150 million historical epic "Alexander" should beware of Greeks bearing writs over the film's depiction of Alexander the Great as Alexander the Fabulous.

    The controversial director and Warner Bros. were yesterday threatened with a lawsuit by a group of Greek lawyers who are incensed that the new movie "Alexander" portrays the hero as bisexual.

    The group of 25 Athens-based lawyers said they sent a letter to Warner Bros. demanding that it label "Alexander," opening Wednesday in the United States, as a work of fiction not based on official sources.

    "We have not seen the film but from the information we have already there are references to his alleged homosexuality, a fact that is in no historical document or archive on Alexander," said Yannis Varnakos, who is spearheading the campaign.

    "We are not saying that were are against gays, but we are saying that the production company should make it clear that this film is pure fiction and not a true depiction of the life of Alexander."

    Warners said it doesn't comment on threatened litigation.

    Stone, the director of "JFK" and "Natural Born Killers," told Playboy magazine that the film "may offend some people [but] Alexander lived in a more honest time."

    Colin Farrell, who plays Alexander in the 3-hour epic, sports a blond pageboy and mini toga and is seen kissing two different men on the lips.

    Though the film includes a steamy wedding-night sex scene between Alexander and his wife Roxane, played by Rosario Dawson, it makes no bones that the true love of the emperor's life was his pal Hephaistion, portrayed by Jared Leto.

    Alexander came from northern Greece, which has long been touchy about most historians' belief that like many men of the era, one of the greatest military leaders of all time swung both ways.

    Two years ago, hundreds of Greeks stormed an archeological symposium where a speaker presented a paper on Alexander's sexuality and police were called in to restore order.

    "We cannot come out and say that President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay," Varnakos said.

    Alexander, who was never defeated in battle, conquered about 90 percent of the then-known world from the Mediterranean to Afghanistan before his mysterious death at the age of 32.

    According to the film's narration, "It was said . . . that Alexander was never defeated, except by Hephaistion's thighs."[/b][/quote]

    [img]http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes6/goodbyegirl99%20.jpeg[/img][img]http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes6/goodbyegirl160%20.jpeg[/img]

    [img]http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes6/goodbyegirl126%20.jpeg[/img][img]http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes6/goodbyegirl122%20.jpeg[/img]

    [img]http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes6/goodbyegirl165%20.jpeg[/img][img]http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes6/goodbyegirl199%20.jpeg[/img]

    [img]http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes6/goodbyegirl201%20.jpeg[/img][img]http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes6/goodbyegirl207%20.jpeg[/img]

    [img]http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes6/goodbyegirl216%20.jpeg[/img][img]http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes6/goodbyegirl219%20.jpeg[/img]

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Money quote-

    "We cannot come out and say that President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay".

    Uh, how you figure that? Did they know Alexander, follow him around, video tape him, record him. Of course not.

    We have a pretty complete record of JFK's life pratically from birth. Numerous pieces of of film, pictures, documents, recordings, and many still-alive folks who knew him well(if you get bro Teddy on a sober day). May be too complete; seems like a new book comes out with new revelations every few months, amny about his sex life.

    Alexander, by contrast, died 2500 years ago. No contemparies still living, no photos, film, audio, few documents.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that, right? Why do they care? Does it diminish his accomplishments at all? Only idiots get their history from Hollywood anyway.

    Oliver Stone must be loving this-he puts out a boring paint-by-numbers sword&sandals flick to copy "Gladiator"(which was a Hollywood executive's idea of transposing "Braveheart" into ancient Rome with tigers anyway!) with a veneer of educational value. It figured to do okay(better only if Rosario Dawson and Angeline Jolie can get a topless mudwrestling scene in the paper-thin plot). And now these Greeks have given him a free commericial.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bugg[/i]@Nov 20 2004, 08:12 PM
    [b] Money quote-

    "We cannot come out and say that President John F. Kennedy was a shooting guard for the Los Angeles Lakers and so Warner cannot come out and say Alexander was gay".

    Uh, how you figure that? Did they know Alexander, follow him around, video tape him, record him. Of course not.

    We have a pretty complete record of JFK's life pratically from birth. Numerous pieces of of film, pictures, documents, recordings, and many still-alive folks who knew him well(if you get bro Teddy on a sober day). May be too complete; seems like a new book comes out with new revelations every few months, amny about his sex life.

    Alexander, by contrast, died 2500 years ago. No contemparies still living, no photos, film, audio, few documents.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that, right? Why do they care? Does it diminish his accomplishments at all? [/b][/quote]
    The point he is trying to make ... and it is a good one ... is that you do not re-write history on a wim or based on the current fasination hollywood has with homosexuality

    By your logic, why not portray George Washington as a child molester?

    I mean, can anyone prove the father of our country WAS NOT a child molester? <_<

    Heck, why not portray Thomas Jefferson as a man who had sex with animals ... we have no proof to the contrary, and it would not diminish his accomplishments

    This is absurd ... you do not portray Alexander the Great as a homosexual cause it was possible ... anything is possible ... it&#39;s also possible that he had sex with the ships rodents ... it&#39;s also possible he enjoyed ramming the ships oars up his own @&#036;&#036; ... anything is possible, but you do not base history on what is possible, you base history on what you know ... and all we know is Alexander the Great was married to a woman, so the evidence points towards his being straight ... it&#39;s not full proof evidence, but it&#39;s more than the evidence that supports his being gay, which is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL {other than some deranged directors desire to make him Gay}

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    Agreed. My only point being don&#39;t pay attention to Hollywood. Stone undoubtedly figure he could boost his receipts by getting embroiled in exactly a controversy such as this.

  5. #5
    Bitter
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,741
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Green Jets & Ham[/i]@Nov 20 2004, 07:17 PM
    [b] By your logic, why not portray George Washington as a child molester?

    I mean, can anyone prove the father of our country WAS NOT a child molester? <_<

    Heck, why not portray Thomas Jefferson as a man who had sex with animals ... we have no proof to the contrary, and it would not diminish his accomplishments

    [/b][/quote]
    These are two very solid ideas for movies. Thanks Ham&#33;&#33; Now if I only had the money and knowhow to make one of them.

  6. #6
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    37
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Heck, why not portray Thomas Jefferson as a man who had sex with animals ... we have no proof to the contrary, and it would not diminish his accomplishments[/b][/quote]

    How about we portray him as someone who forced his slaves to have sexual intercourse with him? Oh....wait a second.....that one is true......DOH&#33;

    Hollywood has been modifying History for decades to make the "Story" better (in their view, of course). Pick your "Historic" movie, and it is likely 20% fact, 80% fiction. Yes, even the ones some folks like.

    This is no different, and no more important in the grand scheme. If not for some folks obvious dislike of homosexuals, this would never have been brought up.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    Darkstar, how does portraying Alexander the Great as a homosexual ... based on pure hollywood fantasy ... make his story better?

    Please enlighten me ... how does this make the story better ... did a man who conquered 90% of the known world need a homosexual angle to make his story interesting? :huh:

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    the facts of the time speak for themselves - in ancient greece homosexuality was [b]commonplace[/b] - it was looked at as a form of birth control by the society&#39;s leaders. there simply weren&#39;t the lines that we have between gay and straight - everyone was essentially bisexual in that culture...

    remember these people were pagans in the truest sense of the word - they were polytheists and lived their life by a different set of standards.

    not that im going to see the movie, or think it makes a difference whether they play him as gay or straight...

    but at the least it is shortsighted to judge the actions of the past by the morality of the present. reality is what it is...

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    [img]http://www.alltape.ca/images/canadian%20flag.jpg[/img]

  10. #10
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    37
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Green Jets & Ham[/i]@Nov 20 2004, 09:36 PM
    [b] Darkstar, how does portraying Alaxander the Great as a homosexual ... based on pure hollywood fantasy ... make his story better?

    Please enlighten me ... how does this make the story better ... did a man who conquered 90% of the known world need a homosexual angle to make his story interesting? :huh: [/b][/quote]
    To me, it doesn&#39;t. I hadn;t planned on seeing this film.

    Of course, I am not a multimillionaire Move Maker like Oliver Stone, who has has numerous successes in creating films (even if you and I hate his films, many many folks liked them. JFK was ok, even if factually incorrect). So, being he is the director, it&#39;s his (and his movie studio, who pays the bills) call to say what he thinks is good "story" that the most people will want to pay to see. If the rest of the U.S.A. agrees with you that the gay angle is un-needed and unaceptable, then the film will not do well at the box office. That is his only judge, in his mind, I would think.

    As for the rest of the issue, Bit is right in his historical description of Ancient Greek culture, sexuallity and religion. While there may indeed be no proof Alexandria was ever engagded in homosexual behavior, it would simply not be unrealistic to theorize he had, given the nature of that society at that time in history.

    Remember Ham, there are a good number of Historians who question the historical accuracy of another film....."Passion of the Christ". I don;t recall a thread like this then, when Hollywood "Fantasy" was telling THAT particular story.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by The Darkstar Conspiracy[/i]@Nov 20 2004, 11:59 PM
    [b] Remember Ham, there are a good number of Historians who question the historical accuracy of another film....."Passion of the Christ". I don;t recall a thread like this then, when Hollywood "Fantasy" was telling THAT particular story. [/b][/quote]
    The Passion of the Christ took no liberties with the essential new testament account of the crucifixion, and nor did it portray Jesus as anything other than the new testament account, that being the SON OF GOD who was entirely innocent and without sin, in spite of the Pharisees and Romans conspiring to kill him

    But the last temptation of Christ portrayed my lord as a sexual deviant ... in this account hollywood decided to fantisize on all sorts of insulting and blasphemous possibilites

    I gather you preferred that account, good and open minded Catholic that you are?

    As for me {and untold millions of Christians}, I preferred the far more respectful and reverant account of my lord, the one the depicted him as the sinless Messiah, and the one that stayed true to the essential message of the price he paid for me a Calvary ... this is the one that set box office records, not hollywoods insulting and blasphemous account which absolutely bombed at the box office

    In fact, that was the real beef the elites had with Gibson ... how dare he make a reverant version of Jesus ... didn&#39;t he know the rules, that Jesus was only to be mocked and ridiculed, as are all who insanely believe him to be the Messiah?

    Oh sure, the slimey cowards offered other reasons, but IMO that was THE REAL REASON

  12. #12
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    37
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Green Jets & Ham+Nov 20 2004, 11:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Green Jets & Ham @ Nov 20 2004, 11:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-The Darkstar Conspiracy[/i]@Nov 20 2004, 11:59 PM
    [b] Remember Ham, there are a good number of Historians who question the historical accuracy of another film....."Passion of the Christ". I don;t recall a thread like this then, when Hollywood "Fantasy" was telling THAT particular story. [/b][/quote]
    The Passion of the Christ took no liberties with the essential new testemant account of the crucifixion, and nor did it portray Jesus as anything other than the new testament account, that being the SON OF GOD who was entirely innocent and without sin, in spite of the Pharisees and Romans conspiring to kill him

    But the last temptation of Christ portrayed my lord as a sexual deviant ... in this account hollywood decided to fantisize on all sorts of insulting and blasphemous possibilites

    I gather you preferred that account, good and open minded Catholic that you are?

    As for me {and untold millions of Christians}, I preferred the far more respectful account of my lord ... this is the one that set box office records, not hollywoods insulting and blasphmous account which absolutely bombed at the box office

    In fact, that was the real beef the elites had with Gibson ... how dare he make a reverant version of Jesus ... didn&#39;t he know the rules, that Jesus was only to be mocked and ridiculed, as are all who insanely believe him to be the Messiah?

    Oh sure, the slimey cowards offered other reasons, but IMO that was THE REAL REASON [/b][/quote]
    Struck a nerve? Enough so that you feel it is your place to question MY faith?? I&#39;d beware questioning the faith of others Ham. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.....

    Personally, I have neither seen "Passion" nor "Last Temptation". I don&#39;t look to movies for my faith, one way or the other. Now do I feel it my place to tell others how to have or represent their own faith, or lack therof. The Lord is the final judge, the only one that matters, not me, and certainly not you Ham. He will judge those folks as He sees fit. It is the Sin of Arrogance and Human Pride that makes people judge others, or try to force their religious views on others. The Pride of thinking you alone know God&#39;s will. But please Ham, feel free to judge me all you like. I know, in the end, it won;t be you I will answer to.

    More to the point, while you believe the New Testemant to be Historical Fact, Historians and the Historical record for the most part do not agree (or more accurately, have VERY little evidence, outside of the Bible itself, of any of the evnts told within). In fact, history documents many so-called "Messiah" in that time period, all making very similar claims to divinity. I am a Catholic yes, but I am also a man of logic and science. I simply do not take your literalist view of the Bible. Perhaps, in your view, that makes me not a Catholic at all. You are free to belive that if you like.

    In the end, it is your right to hate this movie all you like. No one can take that away from you. It is even your right to complain, as loudly and hatefully as you wish, about how it&#39;s all part of the great Gay agenda. Heck, you can hate Gays too if you want. However, the freedom that allows you to say all that also allows Mr. Stone to make his movie as he sees fit, and allows those same Gays to live the life they find right and appropriate for them. So complain all you like, since there are many here like you who will agree, and by all means don&#39;t see the movie. I am sure, given todays&#39;s culture and society, that you will not be missed.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    The real reason they hate Mel Gibosn is that he figured out a way to get a whole market into a movie theater that Hollywood thinks are idiots. And they didn&#39;t get a dime. Think of it-a business that openly held a good chunk of it&#39;s customers in contempt. They all passed and thought such an idea couldn&#39;t make money.

    Nah, let&#39;s remake another 1970s tv show into a movie-Starsky&Hutch this week, Charlies&#39; Angels last week, the Brady Bunch last year, the Dukes of Hazzard soon. Even sequels. Look out Gilligan. Or remake movies that don&#39;t need to be remade-The Longest Yard(with Adam Sandler as a QB&#33;), The Bad news Bears, Planet of the Apes. They will churn out utter copycat crap if they think it can make a buck.

    And they mocked Gibson and his movie and it&#39;s audience. And now sit pissed that they didn&#39;t wet their beaks when they had the chance.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by The Darkstar Conspiracy[/i]@Nov 21 2004, 01:05 AM
    [b] Struck a nerve? Enough so that you feel it is your place to question MY faith?? I&#39;d beware questioning the faith of others Ham. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.....

    Personally, I have neither seen "Passion" nor "Last Temptation". I don&#39;t look to movies for my faith, one way or the other. Now do I feel it my place to tell others how to have or represent their own faith, or lack therof. The Lord is the final judge, the only one that matters, not me, and certainly not you Ham. He will judge those folks as He sees fit. It is the Sin of Arrogance and Human Pride that makes people judge others, or try to force their religious views on others. The Pride of thinking you alone know God&#39;s will. But please Ham, feel free to judge me all you like. I know, in the end, it won;t be you I will answer to.

    More to the point, while you believe the New Testemant to be Historical Fact, Historians and the Historical record for the most part do not agree (or more accurately, have VERY little evidence, outside of the Bible itself, of any of the evnts told within). In fact, history documents many so-called "Messiah" in that time period, all making very similar claims to divinity. I am a Catholic yes, but I am also a man of logic and science. I simply do not take your literalist view of the Bible. Perhaps, in your view, that makes me not a Catholic at all. You are free to belive that if you like.

    In the end, it is your right to hate this movie all you like. No one can take that away from you. It is even your right to complain, as loudly and hatefully as you wish, about how it&#39;s all part of the great Gay agenda. Heck, you can hate Gays too if you want. However, the freedom that allows you to say all that also allows Mr. Stone to make his movie as he sees fit, and allows those same Gays to live the life they find right and appropriate for them. So complain all you like, since there are many here like you who will agree, and by all means don&#39;t see the movie. I am sure, given todays&#39;s culture and society, that you will not be missed. [/b][/quote]
    DS, you can believe or disbelieve in anything you please ... I certainly am in no position to judge your heart in relation to GOD ... heck, I&#39;m barely hanging on by a thread myself

    Lord knows I have much to answer for, much to be ashamed of, and I can only pray my GOD is a merciful GOD ... if not, yours truly is doomed

    Now I have tried very hard to be friendly with you ... I have actually pulled more punches than you can possibly imagine ... I&#39;ve seen openings to really draw blood in some of these debates, yet I have chosen to take a pass ... and mostly because I sincerely believe you are a decent man in spite of our differences

    However, what I do not understand is why a self-professed Catholic {and I take you at your word} so often seems hostile to his own faith?

    I mean, sometimes it seems as if you would have less of a problem with me if I labled Jesus Christ a faker than if I labled Carl Sagen an idiot

    But again, I&#39;m in no position to judge your relation to the Almighty ... if you say you&#39;re a Catholic, then I assume you&#39;re a believer

    And for the record, I wouldn&#39;t dislike you if we didn&#39;t share the same faith ... I only mention this cause you have pointed out that we do

    PS. From one Catholic to another, I highly recommend The Passion of the Christ ... for whatever it&#39;s worth

    Mel Gibson brilliantly depicted the crucifixion and all it entailed ... the sheer depth of the sacrifice is both stunning and moving ... this is not the sanitized version we have often seen depicted in films and in art, but the actual brutality of the crucifixion as described not only in Biblical accounts but also in historical accounts of what the crucifixion as a form of punishment entailed ... it will shake you to the core

    But I would be remiss if I didn&#39;t warn that it may not be suitable for children ... each parent should make that decision AFTER they themselves have screened the film

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Brooklyn/Austin
    Posts
    2,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by The Darkstar Conspiracy[/i]@Nov 21 2004, 12:05 AM
    [b] More to the point, while you believe the New Testemant to be Historical Fact, Historians and the Historical record for the most part do not agree (or more accurately, have VERY little evidence, outside of the Bible itself, of any of the evnts told within). In fact, history documents many so-called "Messiah" in that time period, all making very similar claims to divinity. I am a Catholic yes, but I am also a man of logic and science. I simply do not take your literalist view of the Bible. Perhaps, in your view, that makes me not a Catholic at all. You are free to belive that if you like.

    [/b][/quote]
    I dont think anyone was saying the NT is absolute fact. But that Gibson used some sort of reference for his movie, which was the NT. What is Stone basing his movie on? Not that I am a religious freak, but I will put my money on it that the NT is a more reliable historical reference than what Stone is using.

    Plus, all the lies and supposed embellishments in the Bible were probably not used in the Passion, but then again I havent seen it so I cant say. But I am pretty sure the movie was solely based on Jesus&#39; crucifixion and didnt try to make up facts to create a better story. Then again, I could be wrong.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    41,588
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by TheBrodyMan+Nov 21 2004, 04:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (TheBrodyMan &#064; Nov 21 2004, 04:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-The Darkstar Conspiracy[/i]@Nov 21 2004, 12:05 AM
    [b] More to the point, while you believe the New Testemant to be Historical Fact, Historians and the Historical record for the most part do not agree (or more accurately, have VERY little evidence, outside of the Bible itself, of any of the evnts told within). In fact, history documents many so-called "Messiah" in that time period, all making very similar claims to divinity. I am a Catholic yes, but I am also a man of logic and science. I simply do not take your literalist view of the Bible. Perhaps, in your view, that makes me not a Catholic at all. You are free to belive that if you like.

    [/b][/quote]
    I dont think anyone was saying the NT is absolute fact. But that Gibson used some sort of reference for his movie, which was the NT. What is Stone basing his movie on? Not that I am a religious freak, but I will put my money on it that the NT is a more reliable historical reference than what Stone is using.

    Plus, all the lies and supposed embellishments in the Bible were probably not used in the Passion, but then again I havent seen it so I cant say. But I am pretty sure the movie was solely based on Jesus&#39; crucifixion and didnt try to make up facts to create a better story. Then again, I could be wrong. [/b][/quote]
    Brody, what shocked so many about this film was less the crucifixion than the Roman scurging

    Everyone knows Jesus was crucified ... and although they have never seen the brutality of the crucifixion depicted on film {till the passion}, on some level they had to know it was far more brutal than it had ever been depicted before

    However, what most folks {and even many Catholics} were unaware of is that Jesus was actually scurged before he was crucified ... that part folks know, but what the Roman scruging entailed was foreign to even a great many Catholics cause that is something that is rarely discussed in the church, even from the alter

    But with this film Gibson showed folks what that entailed ... his depiction of the Roman scruging was actually least shocking to historians who knew full well what the scurging entailed and thus what to expect when they heard Gibson depicted it truthfully ... the most shocked were actually the non-historians, including most believers

    I had actually known about the Roman scruging for quite some time ... I knew the depth of it&#39;s brutality cause I had done some research on the Roman scruging many years earlier and was horrified by what I had learned ... but even I was blown away when I saw it depicted truthfully on film for the first time ever

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    There was a depth to "The Passion" that was overloloked in all the Angry hype about the gore. Gibson depicted CHrist as a moral decent fully-human person, not some feminized Groovy Guy that so many lefty self-proclaimed Christians embrace. If Christ was a hippie as they would like, He wouldn&#39;t have been a leader in His time, nor would His Life been much remembered. In fact, the most poigant scene was where He goofs around with His Mother in His shop. It&#39;s not in the Gospels, but it took much less license than most "historical " movies to make a point.


    Like how Gibosn has said he won&#39;t spend one red cent to promote it for the Oscars. Let&#39;s see what happens when "F9/11" gets a best picture nomination and "The Passion" doesn&#39;t. In the big picture, it doesn&#39;t much matter. But it will tell you what Hollywood values and likes.

  18. #18
    TomShane
    Guest
    Aristotle was bi-sexual. Ptolemy was bisexual. Caesar was bi-sexual.

    The stigma of homosexuality wasn&#39;t fixed to the actual act until the Catholic Church decided to re-write its own history of the world. You may wish to consider what, exactly, is the fiction here and which is the truth. If you want to look at the Bible as anything but a compelling series of fictional stories, the you&#39;ll have alot of explaining to do. Do not mix your faith with your epistemology.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Westchester County, NY
    Posts
    3,477
    Post Thanks / Like
    just some comments reading thru this thread

    Homosexuality in Greece was accepted and practiced. I never heard of it as any means of birth control though. (How to explain...) It was an expression of honor and love of &#39;man&#39; -- showing how high men were regarded for their intellect, warriorship (is that a word?) and form. It was common for teachers to be mentors to young men and sleep with them, it was an honor. This isn&#39;t exactly 21st century homosexuality here (like in the Goodbye Girl). I haven&#39;t see the Alexander movie so don&#39;t know how it was portrayed. For the record, haven&#39;t seen Gibson&#39;s movie either.

    I am not 100% sure what Bugg meant by referring to Christ as not being a hippie. I am assuming he is referring to the hippie persona of preaching about love, peace and happiness? If this is the case, I disagree...guess I would describe Christ in those terms as &#39;hippie-like&#39;....he was all about loving your neighbor, the whole Samaritan parable etc. etc. etc. I wouldn&#39;t say he was a &#39;leader&#39; in the times (only to his followers which was said to be small) he was seen as a nuisance and a threat, more a rebel flying in the face of the government and the Jewish high priests. And IMO it is for this reason, his teachings and the miracles attributed to him, that he is remembered...not because he was a great leader in those times.

    I would be surprised if any Catholic doesn&#39;t know about the flogging Christ endured before the crucifixion. What I don&#39;t understand is all the significance put on Gibson&#39;s movie because he depicted the suffering in detail....why did anyone need to see it? Did anyone really think that what he went thru was a piece of cake? Just because someone didn&#39;t previously come along and dwell on it, build a movie on it...doesn&#39;t mean that Christians didn&#39;t imagine it as being horrific-- for whoever was crucified at that time.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    Two of the greatest men of the 20th century were homosexuals. John Maynard Keynes and the other British guy who cracked the Nazi&#39;s enigma code.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us