Rambling Thoughts

I may not be a theology student or a Bible-quoting expert, but I found Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ to be a powerful film—one that has the potential to bring lost sheep back to the flock.

Authenticity vs. Artistic License

Mel Gibson (not God, just to be clear) set out to make this film both authentic and engaging, and for the most part, he succeeded. However, a few historical and scriptural inaccuracies stood out:

• While Aramaic was widely spoken at the time, the Gospels were originally written in Greek, and there is evidence that Jesus also spoke Greek (as discussed in scholarly debates, including one on the American Scientific Affiliation forum). Additionally, Latin and Hebrew were also used in that era.
• Another questionable portrayal is the implication that Mary Magdalene and the adulteress being stoned were the same person—a common misconception not supported by the Gospels.

Other than these, the movie stays relatively faithful to the Gospel narratives—except for that one flashback where Jesus casually invents the dinette table. But hey, a little artistic license never hurt anyone.

Is It Anti-Semitic?

In my opinion, the film itself is not anti-Semitic. Nothing was added by the filmmakers that wasn’t already present in the Gospels. And even then, the Gospels, when read in context, are not anti-Semitic.

Yes, the New Testament mentions Jewish leaders plotting against Jesus, but Jesus and His followers were also Jewish. Saying that the Gospels are anti-Semitic would be like saying Chiang Kai-shek was anti-Chinese because he wanted to eliminate Mao Zedong—it just doesn’t make sense.

What likely irks some Jewish groups is that the Bible records that, 2,000 years ago, some Jews (specifically the Pharisees) conspired against a man who claimed to be the Messiah. However, this is historical context, not an indictment of all Jews for all time.

Unfortunately, some people take things out of context—like the pastor in Denver’s Lovingway United Pentecostal Church, who decided to put up a sign reading:

“Jews killed the Lord Jesus.”

This was a blatant misinterpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 and only serves to highlight how ignorant some so-called Christians can be. The message of Christ is about love and understanding, not blame.

What Really Matters

At the end of the day, the real question isn’t who killed Christ—it’s why He died.

That, more than anything else, is the true heart of the story.

In a year devoid of any real controversy, Malaysians will be heading to the polls on March 21, 2004. So, the question is—who to vote for?

The Incumbents: A Sure Win?

First off, the ruling party is looking stronger than ever. The opposition will have to ditch their “black book” of old grievances because, well, the Old Man has retired, and the new guy is doing a decent job so far.

And in Malaysian politics, where forgiveness is practically a national pastime, any attempt to rehash past government failures will likely fall flat with voters:

“Haiyaa, now PM also change already what, why bring up somemore?”

With a solid (if flawed) performance record, it’s hard to deny that this election will serve as a renewed endorsement for the incumbents. That said, without cronyism and corruption, we could have achieved so much more in a shorter time.

One thing I’d love to see? Some old guards losing their seats to make way for fresh blood.

The Rocket Party: A Silent Countdown to Self-Destruction?

I’ll be rooting for my favorite social democratic (or democratic socialist) party, even though their silence and absence over the past five years makes one wonder…

Did they suffer a “rocket malfunction” due to NASA budget cuts?

Or worse—are they on a collision course with electoral disintegration, set to explode into a spectacular fireworks display this election season?

Tough questions, but in an election devoid of major social issues, there’s not much to exploit.

Anwar: The Office Pakcik’s Pick for PM?

Of course, if you ask my office Pakcik, the only thing that matters is voting fairly and freeing Anwar.

To be fair, Anwar is a formidable politician—he has charisma, respect, and the ability to stir up the crowd like a pro. He’s also pro-business, which is just a polite way of saying he has his own personal business interests (but then again, who doesn’t?).

So what if he’s a poof? (His words, not mine.)

Personally, I have no issues with his alleged sexuality, but let’s be real—getting caught naked in bed and “getting jiggy” with self-righteous mullahs is just bad optics.

My suggestion? Drop the Taliban ties and focus on real issues instead of trying to be Malaysia’s Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Islamic Hardliners: The Fun Police is Coming

Ah yes, our very own made-in-Malaysia brand of religious extremists—whose declared mission is to rewrite the Constitution, transforming our moderately Islamic (but still secular-ish) state into a full-fledged theocracy.

Their big idea? Strip the country of all “vices” and impose a moral code on everyone.

Now, that might ensure them a spot in heaven, but what about the unbelievers? And where’s the fun in life if some of us can’t chomp on our favorite pork knuckles while downing a pint or two?

Let the Campaign Season Begin!

I can’t wait to attend the ceramahs—because if nothing else, Malaysian elections are always a spectacle worth watching.

As an avid movie fan, I found this year’s Academy Awards particularly interesting.

For the first time ever, a fantasy film– The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King—shattered the long-standing glass ceiling that confined such films to technical categories like Sound Editing and Special Effects. Instead, it went all the way, clinching both Best Director and Best Picture.

Kudos to the happy Hobbits, elegant Elves, gruff-looking Dwarves, wise Wizards, and humble Humans who brought Middle-earth (or, as we call it in this dimension, New Zealand) to life. And, of course, massive credit to Peter Jackson, who– once a George Lucas-ian nobody– spent nearly a decade turning Tolkien’s highly revered (but let’s be honest, stupendously dense and slow-paced) tome into cinematic magic.

That said, I can’t help but feel a tiny bit disappointed that Bill Murray didn’t take home Best Actor for Lost in Translation. His performance was brilliant—subtle, melancholic, and deeply human. But at least the film didn’t go home empty-handed, with Sofia Coppola winning Best Original Screenplay.

As for her speech, let’s just say her on-stage aloofness was either due to a terminal case of bashfulness or she was still mentally recovering from her ill-fated role in The Godfather Part III.

Either way, not a bad night for film history.

After months of chest-thumping declarations that weapons would be found, the two giants—the U.S. and the U.K.—have finally admitted that faulty intelligence was to blame. Yet, despite this admission, they continue to insist that invading Iraq was still the right thing to do.

The hunt for Iraq’s WMDs has produced nothing but hot air.

Just yesterday, CIA Director George Tenet stated that the agency never claimed Iraq was an “imminent threat.” This, of course, contradicts the relentless rhetoric leading up to the invasion, where the phrase “grave and gathering danger”was used like a drumbeat to justify war.

For those who still stand by Bush’s and Blair’s after-the-fact justifications, even though no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, I’ve heard a few common arguments—each more flawed than the last:

1. “We can’t really blame them. It was faulty intelligence.”

Wrong!

Hans Blix’s reports provided clear evidence that contradicted the intelligence used to justify war. Even more damning, we now know that neither the CIA nor MI6 had operatives on the ground in Iraq.

So why, then, were Blix’s findings ignored? Why did the march to war continue despite credible doubts?

2. “It’s okay because this was an international effort, and most of the world agreed with it.”

Not quite.

Mr. Bush, please remember that the world is bigger than just the Coalition of the Willing. Every time you claim “global support”, keep in mind that your coalition represented only 10% of the world’s population.

And even if the entire world had agreed, does that somehow make a modern-day lynching acceptable? Civilization should have evolved beyond that.

3. “Saddam had to go. He was evil. If we allowed him to stay in power, he would have become another Hitler.”

If that were truly the case, don’t you think Europeans—who actually suffered under Hitler– would have been the first to sound the alarm?

Yes, Saddam was a dictator, but he was also a has-been. He lacked a powerful army, he had no mass ideological following, and he was isolated even within the Arab and Muslim world. Unlike Hitler, he didn’t have the means to wage a global war, let alone defend himself when attacked.

4. “I don’t like Saddam’s face, and no matter what, I’m glad he’s gone—even if the war was based on false and unjustifiable reasons.”

Well, my friend, if that’s your argument, there’s probably no way to convince you of the magnitude of this wrongdoing.

But remember this: One day, Bush and Blair—or leaders like them—may use the same pretext to invade another country of their choosing.

Pray very hard that it’s not ours.