Mel, You Ain't Helping Here

Gibson might be better keeping his mouth shut.

"Gibson, interviewed by the Herald Sun in Australia, was asked if Protestants are denied eternal salvation. “There is no salvation for those outside the (Catholic) church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it."

C’mon Mel, I’m losing respect for you every day.

Via Andrew Sullivan.

Posted by on 03/01 at 04:52 AM

  1. The quote you cite here and those Sullivan put up yesterday are not new. He is campaigning, digging for dirt. What Gibson says is straight from the Nicene Creed ("one baptism"), which Sullivan recites every time he goes to Mass. Sullivan actually worked on a Sunday, which he never does, to slime Gibson. In other words, it’s a classic net.smear campaign, nothing else.

    Greg Swann

    Posted by Greg Swann  on  03/01  at  06:51 AM

  2. Greg -

    I agree that we have a “classic net.smear campaign” going on, but if Gibson, Sullivan, et al think “one baptism” means baptism into the Roman Catholic church, they better go back and read the creed again.  The “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” the creed refers to is not the Roman Catholic church.

    Posted by  on  03/01  at  08:19 AM

  3. > The “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” the creed refers to is not the Roman Catholic church.

    That’s right, but it does refer only to those churches that ordain clergy by Apostolic Succession. I clarify this in my own blog entry, here.

    Take note that I don’t believe any of this. But Sullivan does, or says he does, and, at a minimum, is aware that it has been strict Catholic doctrine for nearly 1,700 years.

    --GSS

    Posted by Greg Swann  on  03/01  at  08:28 AM

  4. I think Mr. Gibson has been making a small effort to mess with people’s heads.

    But at this point I think he’s entitled to that. It is rather amusing to be honest.

    Are you a Christian Mr. Swann—a Catholic?

    Posted by The Serpent  on  03/01  at  09:04 AM

  5. > I think Mr. Gibson has been making a small effort to mess with people’s heads.

    Possibly, but I expect he’d say the same things even if incredulous journalists weren’t writing them all down. Another bright light of the Latin Rite, one who gets no publicity for his virtual heresy, is Lew Rockwell.

    > Are you a Christian Mr. Swann—a Catholic?

    I’m an atheist by belief, but a Roman Catholic by personal preference.

    Greg Swann

    Posted by Greg Swann  on  03/01  at  09:17 AM

  6. Greg Swann: I’m an atheist by belief, but a Roman Catholic by personal preference.

    I want to make sure I am comprehending what you are saying in the way you mean it (and I did read the posting your linked too).

    You are telling me that you do not believe in a “God”, but that you prefer to associate with (be counted amongst) Christians (Theists) than with Atheists?

    Posted by The Serpent  on  03/01  at  09:28 AM

  7. > You are telling me that you do not believe in a “God”, but that you prefer to associate with (be counted amongst) Christians (Theists) than with Atheists?

    Yes, I would say so. My experience of Catholics (and of Christians generally) is that, whatever our doctrinal differences, they are genuinely decent people who can suffer other people to live as they will. My general experience, with notable particular exceptions, of atheists, anarchists, libertarians, etc., is that, while they might be sturdy in philosophy, they can be very weak in character. Given a choice between bad thought with good behavior and good thought with bad behavior, I’ll take the good behavior every time. I can think for myself after all. I wrote about this, too.

    Best,

    Greg Swann

    Posted by Greg Swann  on  03/01  at  10:00 AM

  8. I think there is a lot of wisdom in your words Mr. Swann.

    Just so you know, I am not a Christian or an Atheist myself, but given the choice (and in general) I would also prefer the company of Christians to the company of Atheists.

    Tell me, in your opinion is there any chance that the general differences between Theist and Atheist personalities you have described is the result of their beliefs (their worldview), or do you think it is merely a coincidence?

    Also, if I may inquire, what single piece of evidence would you say was most responsible for you coming to the conclusion that no “God” exists in reality?

    Posted by The Serpent  on  03/01  at  10:50 AM

  9. John, I’m hazy on whether Gibson is in fact a Roman Catholic. If his church rejuect Vatican II and is still celebrating the mass in latin it soulds like a schism to me.

    I’m wondering who ordains the priests of Gibsons church. Are they under the authority of the RC hierarchy or not?

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  03/01  at  04:17 PM

  10. JTK - I’d have to look into Gibson’s attachments myself, along with the other unknowns in that regards.

    Posted by  on  03/01  at  04:35 PM

  11. > Are they under the authority of the RC hierarchy or not?

    Are you so in love with freedom that you police other peoples’ religion? This is why I lack “faith” in libertarians.

    Yikes!

    Posted by Greg Swann  on  03/01  at  09:25 PM

  12. > Tell me, in your opinion is there any chance that the general differences between Theist and Atheist personalities you have described is the result of their beliefs (their worldview), or do you think it is merely a coincidence?

    An idea that has occurred to me is that people who go to church devote regular thought--weekly, daily, or with every meal--to good personal conduct.

    > Also, if I may inquire, what single piece of evidence would you say was most responsible for you coming to the conclusion that no “God” exists in reality?

    The absence of affirmative evidence--and, yes, I know the rejoinder. It would be most correct to say that I am agnostic--for now, at least, I cannot prove there is no engineer--but the agnostics seem squishy and gutless to me, so I prefer to call myself an atheist. Certainly atheism is the position best supported by the objective evidence available to me at present.

    Posted by Greg Swann  on  03/01  at  09:33 PM

  13. I was simply curious Greg. I see Gibson referred to as a Catholic but not as a Roman Catholic. His church sounds vaguely like Archbishop Lefebvre’s schism.

    Sheesh. 

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  03/01  at  09:42 PM

  14. > I was simply curious Greg.

    Go see the Latin Rite. Lew Rockwell keeps a database of locations. The pronunciation is usually terrible (as is The Passion‘s, by the way). But it’s a beautiful Mass. Mysterious and majestical, which is what the RC Mass is supposed to be.

    Posted by Greg Swann  on  03/01  at  11:13 PM

  15. I remember the Latin Mass from my youth Greg, and I was a Roman Catholic into my thirties.

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  03/01  at  11:22 PM

  16. Greg Swann: An idea that has occurred to me is that people who go to church devote regular thought--weekly, daily, or with every meal--to good personal conduct.

    I agree, but I think it is even more than that. It’s their entire state of mind 24/7.

    A True Theist believes that there are always ultimate consequences for his of her actions, and they tend to behave exactly as if that is what they believe.

    An Atheist on the other hand does not believe that there are ultimate consequences for his or her actions, and so they tend to behave as if that is what they believe.

    I’ve also observed that Theists are much more honest and open about telling you precisely what is in their mind – what they think, and why they think it.

    Greg Swann: [Why don’t you believe “God” exists?]The absence of affirmative evidence--and, yes, I know the rejoinder.

    Well if you know the rejoinder, then why misrepresent your position?

    Or is honest representation not a priority according to your worldview?

    Greg Swann: It would be most correct to say that I am agnostic--for now, at least, I cannot prove there is no engineer--but the agnostics seem squishy and gutless to me, so I prefer to call myself an atheist.

    Yeah, I really have nothing against homosexuals, but I notice that I can get cheap laughs by making fun of homosexuals, and using them as the punch lines in my jokes, so even though I give all appearances of a raging fag-hating homophobic, I am really an open-minded and tolerant individual who has nothing against homosexuals.

    Greg Swann: Certainly atheism is the position best supported by the objective evidence available to me at present.

    I thought you just said the evidence was inclusive either way and you were most accurately described as an Agnostic?

    It sounds more like you are simply mislabelling yourself, and if that is the case it is misleading, and I think it is wrong.

    I guess it is just “cooler” to be an Atheist?

    Posted by  on  03/02  at  07:13 AM

  17. > I thought you just said the evidence was inclusive either way

    No, I said that there is zero affirmative evidence for an engineer, and that, therefore, “atheism is the position best supported by the objective evidence available to me at present.”

    > An Atheist on the other hand does not believe that there are ultimate consequences for his or her actions

    And this is incorrect. Every purposive action is taken, first, by the self upon the self, and the accretive consequences of these actions are enduring. It is not necessary to posit the supernatural to understand what people call sin.

    Having seen you here and elsewhere, I think you like to bait people. This is bad behavior, surely not without enduring negative consequences, but it’s your busines.

    You can have the last word.

    --GSS

    Posted by Greg Swann  on  03/02  at  07:36 AM

  18. Greg Swann: No, I said that there is zero affirmative evidence for an engineer, and that, therefore, “atheism is the position best supported by the objective evidence available to me at present.

    No affirmative evidence for an Engineer? I’m not sure what you mean by that? Are you saying that the universe doesn’t exist, or are you asserting that you are simply imagining it (and if you’re imagining it, then isn’t it likely that YOU are the “engineer”)?

    What about The Laws of Physics (TLOP)? Doesn’t TLOP consitute an “architect/engineer”?

    Why not?

    Serpent: An Atheist on the other hand does not believe that there are ultimate consequences for his or her actions.

    Greg Swann: And this is incorrect.

    Really?

    Do you believe that there are “ultimate” consequences for your actions Mr. Swann(ultimate consequences to you personally?)?

    Greg Swann: Every purposive action is taken, first, by the self upon the self, and the accretive consequences of these actions are enduring.

    You lost me there. Could you elaborate?

    From the Atheists point of view I would suspect that things would be as simple as:

    1) The behavior of Atoms (“matter”) is completely controlled by the Laws of Physics (TLOP).
    2) YOU are made of atoms and nothing else.
    3) Ergo, YOU – all your thoughts, actions, behaviors, emotions, feelings, judgements, choices, are controlled by (determined by) TLOP.

    Greg Swann: It is not necessary to posit the supernatural to understand what people call sin.

    Deists never posit the supernatural, to us it is a logically inconsistent concept.

    We leave the Supernatural to the A-Theists with their notions of universes magically appearing out of no where with no cause.

    Greg Swann: Having seen you here and elsewhere, I think you like to bait people.

    Some individuals seem convinced they have a superior grip on reality, I just like to see if they really do.

    Greg Swann: This is bad behavior, surely not without enduring negative consequences, but it’s your business.

    I’m not sure how taking people at their word and asking them to explain what they assert is “bad behavior” with “enduring negative consequences”, but I get the distinct impression that you are not about to explain it to me.

    Perhaps it depends on ones perspective? 

    Posted by The Serpent  on  03/02  at  08:23 AM

  19. "C’mon Mel, I’m losing respect for you every day. “

    Gibson seems flaky to me when I see him interviewed. I think he is flaky. He’s also definitely clever enough to know that controversy is drawing people into the the theaters for this film. It got me in there against long odds. And finally Gibson is someone to be reckoned with. I remember when he announced he was going to do Hamlet I thought he was in way over his head. I was wrong, he turned in a performance that stands up just fine against those of Olivier and Branagh.

    When I read Sullivan’s review of The Passion I figured that Gibson might have jumped the rails. Sullivan gave a good definition of pornography - the reduction of Eros to nothing more than flesh - so I guessed he probably knew what he was talking about with respect to The Passion. He didn’t, there is no such reduction in the film.

    Is Gibson fascinated with blood in the passion? Yes Mr. Sullivan, it is clearly Gibson’s purpose to remind you that the crucial act at the foundation of your religion is a brutal blood sacrifice.

    What’s revealing to me is that any Catholic can be surprised to be reminded of this.

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  03/04  at  09:06 AM

  20. "What’s revealing to me is that any Catholic can be surprised to be reminded of this."

    John, a truer statement could not be spoken.  Every time an individual takes communion in the church the statement is made, “The blood of Christ washes away your sins,” or something quite similar to that.  If individuals participate in Mass daily, they would be reminded every day.

    Posted by  on  03/04  at  10:10 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Thank You, Might I Have Another?

Previous entry: "More Gay Stuff"

<< Back to main