or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Passion of the Christ
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Passion of the Christ - Page 8

post #281 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by rampancy
Not one Fundamentalist Christian, in my experience, ever expressed any sympathy, or any desire to *truly* understand what the real problem was, and why Harris and Kleibold did what they did. They didn't mention anything about opening a meaningful dialogue or establishing some sense of mutual understanding. And you know what? I don't think they even bothered to care.

Would you?

Since I'm not entirely clear on what "Fundamentalist Christians" believe, I can't say if I'm one of them. I can tell you that initially I'd have been way too pissed off to care why they did it, but after I'd gotten over the shock and whatnot, yeah, I'd care why.
post #282 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
Considering that I have studied this issue for years, and at one point was a Roman Catholic in a pre-vocational program, I doubt there's anything you could throw my way that could fluster me.

Kirk

(this applys to the other Bible scholars who have been posting here as well)

Where do you people find the time for all these postings?


Let me be more plain. These "issues"---of which most have the same intellectual depth of "Cain where is your brother"---have been handled. If you knew your way around the exegetical landscape you would know what I am talking about. In a nutshell, you are putting the writers in boxes they didn't necessarily put themselves into. The NT is airtight, but then there is James....hmmmmm

But then that isn't what we are really talking about---is it?

Look, from a rhetorical standpoint, you guys are doing a great job of casting dispersions on the Gosples---you want God on your terms---it's completely understandable. But please don't pretend that these "issuses" have not been handled satisfactorily. And no I'm not going to get dragged into some pissing contest on this.

I'll leave you with a couple of quotes:

"It's hard for you to kick against the pricks"

"All things betrayest thee which betrayest Me"

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #283 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
But please don't pretend that these "issuses" have not been handled satisfactorily.

Certainly not by you.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #284 of 513
I love how "Christianity" gets lumped into one absolute of how the belief system operates as per a purely semantic, legalistic approach to English translations of book representing time periods in millenia past. Imagine the same tactic used for Islam or Judaism...

Might as well lock the thread if it's no longer about the movie...

Back to the topic:
This film was a run-of-the-mill attempt at showing a "true" representation of those hours of the life of Christ. I really didn't understand the reason for the dialog in the language of the times, as all that did was focus you more on the visuals. If that was the intent, to truly show the violence, then it did that. Would such a graphic display of violence move me more towards my belief or make me more faithful? No. Money spent on this film would have been better spent on charity, but I didn't have to pay...
post #285 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
I love how "Christianity" gets lumped into one absolute of how the belief system operates as per a purely semantic, legalistic approach to English translations of book representing time periods in millenia past. Imagine the same tactic used for Islam or Judaism...

well, we don't have to imagine do we - happens all the time.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #286 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
well, we don't have to imagine do we - happens all the time.....

I tend to agree. Ignorance can be a universal truth.

Like the way opinions were formed about this movie over a year before it hit the theaters.
post #287 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Where do you people find the time for all these postings?

I do a lot of waiting at my job.

Quote:
The "issues"---of which most have the same intellectual depth of "Cain where is your brother"---have been handled.

Not to my satisfaction. I have yet to see anyone produce a credible harmonization of the Easter morning stories, to say nothing of the other blatant contradictions in the Gospels (how many cock crows, how many visits to Jerusalem, the names of the Twelve, etc). No credible modern Biblical scholar pretends that these issues don't exist, as you seem to be attempting.

Interesting sidenote, I read the Gospel of Mark last night. I wonder, if you'd care to enlighten us, what is the last verse of that Gospel? Because it actually has three recognized endings, two of which are mutually exclusive.

Quote:
If you knew your way around the exegetical landscape you would know what I am talking about.

Again with the jibes of "if you knew anything, you'd agree with me." I can turn that around on you. Let's pick a major piece of the "exegetical landscape," as you call it: the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Do they support your notion of a factually inerrant Bible? They do, after all, speak for half the world's Christians.

Quote:
In a nutshell, you are putting the writers in boxes they didn't necessarily put themselves into.

No, that's what the inerrantists do, by insisting that somehow the authors were infallible when writing these works, and incapable of error. That's an absurd supposition. There are historical errors, and factual contraditions in the New Testament, just as there are in the entire Bible.

But those errors don't matter, because the Bible is not a history text, not a genealogy text. It is a theological text, and as a work of theology it is coherent and respectable.

But those who would make the Bible what it is not, who ascribe to it forms of inerrancy that the sacred authors themselves would no doubt rebuke, do violence to the text and cheapen its importance and value. Biblical fundamentalists are the most virulent of anti-Christians.

Quote:
The NT is airtight, but then there is James....hmmmmm

That statement in and of itself is contradictory. And in any case, there is nothing in James that cannot be harmonized with Christ, and through Christ with Paul. Theologically, the New Testament is sound. However, as a record of historical events it is not what we would consider a factual document.

But then that isn't what we are really talking about---is it?

Look, from a rhetorical standpoint, you guys are doing a great job of casting dispersions on the Gosples---you want God on your terms---it's completely understandable. But please don't pretend that these "issuses" have not been handled satisfactorily.

Quote:
And no I'm not going to get dragged into some pissing contest on this.

Too cowardly to defend your position? I wouldn't blame you. I wouldn't want to have to go up against the position of every learned Biblical scholar of the modern age, from the Jesus Seminar to the Pontifical Biblical Institute, either.

Kirk
post #288 of 513
Pick your favorite name for the movie:!

Jesus Chainsaw Massacre
Jesusploitation
.....
post #289 of 513
Faces of Death IV
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #290 of 513
Thread Starter 
Kirkland. My nigga.

Ahem.

Fascinating article on Gibson's film in The Guardian today by Geza Vermes, emeritus professor of Jewish Studies at Oxford. Vermes has been researching the Gospels and Jesus for some years. He's what you call 'an authority'.

Writing his piece he addresses many of the contradictions between the story of the Passion as we have it and Jewish law of Roman-occupied Palestine. He also talks about the language in the film, its inaccuracies, and the film's alleged anti-semitism.

Check it out: Gibson said that the line about '"His blood be upon us and our children" was cut from the film. Turns out this isn't true: Vermes speaks Aramaic and notes that all Gibson's done is to cut the subtitle. Probably a good gamble that your average film critic doesn't speak Aramaic.

The line is still in the film.

I'm going to find the link and post extracts.
post #291 of 513
Thread Starter 
Here's a bit of pertinent stuff from Vermes.

Quote:
The four Gospels do not agree. The traditional picture of the Passion, which underlies the film, has resulted from a selective reading of them. In the first three Gospels, all the events happen on the feast of Passover, a most unlikely situation; in John (with greater probability) on the previous day. In John there is no trial at all, only an interrogation of Jesus by a former high priest, Annas, with no sentence pronounced. By contrast, Mark and Matthew speak of a night session of the Sanhedrin at which Jesus is found guilty of blasphemy by Caiaphas and condemned to death. But a court hearing in a capital case on a feast day is contrary to all known Jewish law. Mark and Matthew refer to a second meeting in the morning, which is the only one alluded to in Luke. In the morning Caiaphas and his court abruptly drop the religious charge and deliver Jesus to Pilate on a political indictment of rebellion. The Roman penalty for sedition was crucifixion, and Jesus, like thousands of Jews before and after him, died on the cross.

The Gospels postdate the events by 40-80 years. They were all compiled after the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. By then the large majority of the readers envisaged by the evangelists were non-Jews. After their revolt against Rome (AD 66-73/4), antipathy towards the Jews grew in the Roman empire, and this affected the depiction of Jesus for new non-Jewish Christians. To admit to them that Rome was fully to blame for the death of the crucified Jewish Christ would have made the fresh converts politically suspect. Christians were an unpopular sect. Hence outside Palestine the Gentile-Christian spin doctors moved in and played down the Jewishness of Jesus and his original disciples. He and his apostles were no longer considered as Jews.

We find also an obvious effort to exonerate Pilate. The New Testament portrait of a vacillating governor of Judea is totally at odds with the historical truth. The real Pilate could not be bullied by the Jewish high priest. He was his boss and could sack him at will. All the reliable first-century sources depict Pilate as a tyrant who was guilty of numerous executions without trial and unlawful massacres. He was justly dismissed from office and banished by the emperor Tiberius.

As for the condemnation of Jesus for blasphemy, no Jewish law would qualify someone a blasphemer simply for calling himself the Messiah or the like. So the death sentence pronounced on Jesus by Caiaphas was an error in law. There are strong arguments in favour of the claim (against John's assertion of the contrary) that first-century Jewish courts could carry out capital sentences for religious crimes without Roman consent. Even Roman citizens risked instant execution if caught by Jews in the Temple.

The abandonment of the case for blasphemy and its replacement by a charge of rebellion is left unexplained in the Synoptic Gospels. But the reasoning that underlies the political accusation is easy to understand. It was the duty of the Jewish leadership, Caiaphas and his council, to maintain order in Judea. Caiaphas imagined that Jesus was a potential threat to peace. Jerusalem, filled with pilgrims at Passover, was a powderkeg. A few days earlier, Jesus had created a commotion in the merchants' quarter in the Temple, when he overturned the stalls of the moneychangers. He could do it again. Jesus had to be dealt with in the interest of the whole nation in order to forestall massive Roman retaliation. Caiaphas and his council had the power to punish him, but passed the buck. They therefore bear the blame for surrendering Jesus to the Romans, a fact attested by all four Gospels and confirmed by the first-century Jewish historian Josephus. The Roman writer Tacitus also asserts that Jesus was crucified by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Hence the responsibility for the crucifixion was Pilate's, and ultimately that of the Roman empire he represented.

I am a link.
post #292 of 513
I just saw the movie, I'm not very religious, but I enjoyed it, well...as much as you can enjoy watching such horrible things happen to a good person \

the movie was very well produced, I can't really nitpick or criticize it too much, as I don't really know the story that well.

The movie was *very* gory, and brutal to watch, it was one of the most powerful movies I've seen in a long time.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #293 of 513
I walked out of the theatre perhaps 30 minutes ago, so my mind is still swimming a bit, trying to sift through all the imagery and the story Gibson has told. I may ramble a bit (or come back later with more) but bear with me....


A) Regarding the notion that this film is generally "anti-semitic" in its tone and/or the message it conveys, I disagree. Completely. This movie does not attempt to villify jews (as a group). Unless my definition of the word "anti-semitic" and the ADL's definition are wildly different, I don't even think you can logically make the argument. It just isn't there, and believe me, I looked everywhere for it. In the words, in the facial expressions, in the scenery.

The only scene where most every Jew was portrayed in a poor light was in Herod's home / palace. But I don't think anyone contests that Herod and his servants were "pure as the driven snow"... so even there the argument is kind of weak. How else should he be portrayed? And frankly, I asked myself that question a number of times in the movie and didn't come up with any conclusively better / more fair means than Gibson found for most characters.

At least not relative to how they are portrayed in the Bible, which is all Gibson has to go on essentially.

Even the high-priests were not shown as bloodthirsty, so much as overly proud and protective of their power and influence. They were not made out as people who enjoy Jesus' suffering, for the sake of seeing someone suffer. They had clear political motive in mind and as such weren't portrayed any different that lots of other corrupt politicians in movies. They put their own power ahead of "the little guy's" life. This is not a new theme, and certainly not new to this story.

It is the Roman soldiers who are made out (time and again) to be savages. And by most accounts I suspect they were just that. Pilate was shown as a conflicted but not very "humane" man when it comes down to making the decisions that count. He was not portrayed in a positive light IMO. Again, as it should be. The only Roman who WAS portrayed in a positive light, was Pilate's wife. That was clear to me at least.

As far as how the mob which followed Jesus was depicted, they were like any other angry mob in a movie: cruel, and more importantly, manipulated (here by the elder priests). Gibson very clearly shows the Jewish priests goading the crowd at different points into rallying against Jesus. [Even still, some of the Jews in the crowd were shown to be "unsure" or "conflicted" about what was happening. Gibson showed the human thought process when some people stray from the "group-think" mentality and wonder "is this a good idea?"]

[In short, I don't see how a] logical person will not draw the conclusion that "Oh the whole town full of Jews was out to get Jesus and see him killed." Again, just isn't there in this movie.

For the ADL or anyone else to imply that even a majority of the Jews in the movie are made out to be savage or bloodthirsty, is politics. Plain and simple. I have to stand by my original theory here: they simply don't like the story (any version of it), and they like it even less when told in a very graphic way.

They need to own up to what bothers them... namely that they do not believe this story has any historical basis in terms of "who was really to blame". And it very well MAY be inaccurate in certain respects, but we won't know until we all (ADL included) enter into a real discussion about it. Just calling something "anti-semitic" because there are Jews in the movie who are not portrayed in a positive light (but in exactly THE SAME LIGHT as you can hear in any Sunday service around Easter IMO), does nobody any good.

B) Rergarding the gore, I don't believe that the depictions of the thrashings and beatings that Jesus took were inaccurate, but I think Gibson went to the well too often. So the problem is not accuracy but frequency IMO. And it's not even that the Romans couldn't have lashed him that many times, so much as, for the cinema he crossed the line into "overdone" territory. Just visually too much. Again though it must be said it is the Roman's who dish out 98% of the cruelty in this movie, and often the soldiers are portrayed as "doing it when the General isn't looking".

[DO NOT TAKE KIDS TO SEE THIS MOVIE. There were a couple of 7 or 8 year olds in there and despite me being a Christian at a movie all about Christ, I wanted to slap their parents silly. Inappropriate for anyone under the age of 11 or 12 IMO.]

C) Regarding the character development and timeline... I think the ending where Jesus is resurrected is necessarily short. No one (not even the Bible) really has an account for this so if Gibson were to have drawn it out, he would've been making it up as he went... I suspect he knew this and so opted to keep it simple.

I do wish certain characters' names and roles had been a little more clear. [The acting on the whole was very good and the movie was frankly well-directed in this regard. Gibson deserves some credit. He poured himself into this movie and it shows. Anyone who gives it less than three stars (just on cinematography and acting alone) is being a media puppet. 3 or 4 out of 5 is fair. It's not a great movie, but as a movie, it is very good in many respects.]

[Finally, this work] could have easily been 3 hours, but I think Gibson decided not to wuss out on the [gore] and so figured most people couldn't stomach more than two. Good decision IMO, but I you can argue it either way.

D) Regarding the Satan character. HE IS CLEARLY THERE. I thought this might be someone's misinterpretation or active imagination coming to the fore, but there is a Satan character that pops up in roughly four or five instances throughout the film. The only place I thought it appropriate and not a case of Gibson taking too much creative leeway, was the very first instance, when Jesus was essentially alone in the "wild" with his thoughts before being captured.

The other instances... particularly the one where he has that midget thing attached to him reminded me more of "The Cell" than a story about Christ. It was basically the only "Hollywood" part of the film and I wished Gibson had left it out. I got the feeling he was trying to gross me out rather than explain something. Seeing a few of these scenes made me question Gibson's mental stability a bit, but only because they kind of hint at a twisted imagination.

E) The Merovingian's Wife (Matrix) plays Mary Magdalene (I believe), for those of you looking for a purely superficial reason to see the movie. She is so beautiful... and in this movie does a good job of acting IMO.

That's all for now. Back to trivial matters like letting the neighbor's dog out.




[first round of comments added as clarification / additional thoughts]
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #294 of 513
Great summary/review Moogs, you basically said what I was too tired to say at the time(I took a nap shortly after I posted)
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #295 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
A) Regarding the notion that this film is generally "anti-semitic" in its tone and/or the message it conveys, I disagree. Completely. This movie does not attempt to villify jews (as a group). Unless my definition of the word "anti-semitic" and the ADL's definition are wildly different, I don't even think you can logically make the argument. It just isn't there, and believe me, I looked everywhere for it. In the words, in the facial expressions, in the scenery.

I disagree. The hordes of leering, spitting Jews, the utter vileness of the priests, the demand of the crowd to kill Christ, it all blames the Jews for Christ's death _which is in and of itself anti-Semitic.

Quote:
B) Rergarding the gore, I don't believe that the depictions of the thrashings and beatings that Jesus took were inaccurate, but I think Gibson went to the well too often.

The violence of the scourging, the ripping away of so much of his flesh, it was absurd. No one would have survived that, would have been able to make it to the afternooon. He was dripping blood like sweat the entire way. It was sick, and unnecessary. Other films have as effectively depicted the pain and suffering of Christ without this pornographic glorification of violence.

And pointless, theologically, for in terms of salvation, Christ's whipping and other abuses prior to the crucifixion have nothing to do with the salvific nature of his act.

Gibson seems to get turned on at the thought of prolonged torture scenes, and the entirety of the Passion was one long masturbatory fantasy for him.

Quote:
C) Regarding the character development and timeline... I think the ending where Jesus is resurrected is necessarily short. No one (not even the Bible) really has an account for this so if Gibson were to have drawn it out, he would've been making it up as he went... I suspect he knew this and so opted to keep it simple.

As opposed to so much of the other dialogue and action and motivations for Mary, Jesus, the Romans, Pilate, etc, that he made up on a whim?

Quote:
Anyone who gives it less than three stars (just on cinematography and acting alone) is being a media puppet. 3 or 4 out of 5 is fair. It's not a great movie, but as a movie, it is very good in many respects.

It's a B-, but it started out as an A, which is sad.

Kirk
post #296 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland

Gibson seems to get turned on at the thought of prolonged torture scenes, and the entirety of the Passion was one long masturbatory fantasy for him.


er

or you do for bringing that up...

\

I agree that the torture scene was too much, perhaps if that second whip wasn't barbed it'd have been more...believable...but it really tore him up! but honestly, this is by far the most potent depiction of jesus' suffering that I've ever seen, even if it wasn't 'accurate' I'd argue that there is room for fidgeting stuff like this a little, given the symbolism of his torture.

As for the jews, there were some jews that were shown as being rather cruel and purposefully mean, but right next to them were jews that didn't want to see jesus chastised, and right next to them were jews that outwardly didn't know *what* to think. If you only focus on the first case, then you will see anti-semitism, but if you look at the jews as a whole in the movie, I don't think it's very anti-semitic. Especially when you factor in the changes of the priests' mentality throughout the movie.

ON TOP OF THAT, it was never gibson or anyone who made the movie's intention to portray jews as evil and cruel, so why go 'put words in their mouth' in a sense?

It's only as anti-semitic as the source material is.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #297 of 513
Kirkland,

You can't (or shouldn't) say that the depiction of cruel priests or of certain members of a mob spitting on Jesus is "anti-semitic", because that's what mobs do. Jewish mobs, African mobs, Anglo-Saxon mobs... they're all the same. The fall prey to those who manipulate their anger and they take it out on the scapegoat in disgusting ways. That is not anti-semitic, that is human nature (the worst of it to be sure, but it exists and it has always existed, among all peoples, especially those subject to outside rule).

So, either you truly think Christianity is anti-semitic (almost by definition), or you need to re-evaluate... because Christianity itself is based upon the exact notions made visual in that movie. Gibson took *some* liberties I admit, but none so gross or outlandish as to completely distort the story that Christians have been taught since they were in pre-school. This was a generally faithful interpretation of what is in Christian Bibles.

Every year at Easter, walk into any: Methodist, Episcopalian, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist or non-denominational parish and you will hear stories very similar to the one Gibson told. He just told it visually and with a compressed timeline. Of course every detail won't be faithful to the original happening or to some alternate historical interpretation. Just like the LotR movies are not faithful to the books, strictly speaking.

Regardless, you seem to think the Jews of that time, are somehow above criticism and that anything that implicates them in the crucifixion (or that they behaved badly) is anti-semitic. They are not above criticism, and criticism or telling of a story doesn't translate to hatred, OK? I just don't get why people say things like that. It's false... patently false. All criticisms are not alike in either motivation or purpose.

People have become so ultra-PC and sensitive about being criticized that anything which is harsh or unpleasant sounding (or unpleasant looking in this case), is immediately labeled as "hate speech". That's just wrong and it desensitizes people to the real hate speech out there. Don't cry wolf: all it's going to do is turn people off to the idea when it really does happen IMO.

As for the gore, I won't argue with anyone who was repulsed because some people deal with that sort of thing better than others. It's a very personal decision on these matters and I don't begrudge anyone who says Gibson went way overboard. Personally I just think it was more a matter of how often than to what specific acts were shown.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #298 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
People have become so ultra-PC and sensitive about being criticized that anything which is harsh or unpleasant sounding (or unpleasant looking in this case), is immediately labeled as "hate speech". That's just wrong and it desensitizes people to the real hate speech out there. Don't cry wolf: all it's going to do is turn people off to the idea when it really does happen IMO.

Well that's a grand overstatement.
post #299 of 513
Quote:
And pointless, theologically, for in terms of salvation, Christ's whipping and other abuses prior to the crucifixion have nothing to do with the salvific nature of his act.

This is a magnificent point. But I do not think the point of the movie was to point to inspire joy about salvation, it is obviously an extended piece of self-flagellation. It is superb in that respect.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #300 of 513
Well, it looks like the consensus here on AO is that this one's a bit of a letdown.

Instead of spending my money on seeing The Passion, I've been thinking of buying the Criterion DVD version of The Last Temptation of Christ...anyone here seen it and liked it? Is it better than The Passion?
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
post #301 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs
Kirkland,

You can't (or shouldn't) say that the depiction of cruel priests or of certain members of a mob spitting on Jesus is "anti-semitic", because that's what mobs do. Jewish mobs, African mobs, Anglo-Saxon mobs... they're all the same. The fall prey to those who manipulate their anger and they take it out on the scapegoat in disgusting ways. That is not anti-semitic, that is human nature (the worst of it to be sure, but it exists and it has always existed, among all peoples, especially those subject to outside rule).

Moogs, your points here about the mob (and in the excellent review post) open up a whole new theological can of worms and clearly illustrate why the 'anti-semitic' blame angle (or any blame angle actually) is complete nonsense. Briefly:

In the story (for that is what it is) God sent his son to die as part of a plan to save humanity. He planned it. Planned it exactly in the way it turned out.

If anyone is to blame for Jesus's death it is God - Christians should really be protesting against God if they really want to side with Jesus and have any theological integrity.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #302 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius


In the story (for that is what it is) God sent his son to die as part of a plan to save humanity. He planned it. Planned it exactly in the way it turned out.

If anyone is to blame for Jesus's death it is God - Christians should really be protesting against God if they really want to side with Jesus and have any theological integrity.

Well that's an extremely childish and bizarre leap in logic. In the 'story', Jesus also willing submitted to the plan, and as God himself, he then submitted himself to his own plan.

Your continued attempts at Christian bashing are beginning to become more and more thin in their veil. And before you try and dismiss this and claim that you aren't again christian bashing, pleae note that you did question their 'theological integrity' for not protesting against their own God. or perhaps you were just christian baiting...whichever.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #303 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
Well that's an extremely childish and bizarre leap in logic. In the 'story', Jesus also willing submitted to the plan, and as God himself, he then submitted himself to his own plan.

You are right - this is an incredibly inane and illogical position to take. It is also the basis of what passes for most of Christian 'thought' - I didn't want to mention it as I was addressing the issue of why it is ridiculous to bash the Jews for Christ's death but seeing as you mention it, yes, it is extremely illogical and really just bad theology,

Quote:
Your continued attempts at Christian bashing are beginning to become more and more thin in their veil. And before you try and dismiss this and claim that you aren't again christian bashing, pleae note that you did question their 'theological integrity' for not protesting against their own God. or perhaps you were just christian baiting...whichever.

Foolish. Actually I haven't been bashing, although I am partial to it on occassion, When I do succumb I tend to bash particular schisms and sects so really, you should amend to 'Christian splinter group x bashing' if you want to stay accurate, if not then just carry on.....it matters not.......

Btw, I notice that regardless of plans and who submitted to them, you didn't address the issue of the culpability of the Jews or otherwise for merely acting in a way that God ordained they did.

Any thoughts on that ?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #304 of 513
Saw it on thursday.

I was prepared for the gorefest, which made it a lot more bareble.

That said, I am happy to have seen it and enjoy the reflections it generates.
As some of you know, I am an atheist (ex-catholic), but this didn't prevent me from enjoying the idea that a god that loved his creation so much would come down and mingle with us and experience what it is to be human first-hand. This god loved his creation so much, that he was prepared to live his human life to the extent that we saw. To show us that he was serious in his love for us. He could have stopped the agony at any time but didn't. This, to me, is quite beautiful.

Now, I don't believe there is a god or that anything like the theology of religions is real but, nonetheless, I enjoy this story.

I really don't like the whole "forgiving of the original sin and future ones" thing though... Never had any appeal for me.

To get back to the film, I didn't like Jesus' whitebread looks but all others were ok. I didn't feel the Satan character was adding anything to the movie. He made it look cartoonish, especially in the end.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Otherwise, only the historic stuff bothered me (stake through palms and the whole cross being carried) a little.
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Reply
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Reply
post #305 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
You are right - this is an incredibly inane and illogical position to take. It is also the basis of what passes for most of Christian 'thought' - I didn't want to mention it as I was addressing the issue of why it is ridiculous to bash the Jews for Christ's death but seeing as you mention it, yes, it is extremely illogical and really just bad theology,

I don't know a single christian who holds the jews responsible for the death of Jesus. Yup, some jews were involved. As were some romans, probably some arabs too. I do know many Christians who believe that their savior was given to them through the people of the Jews.


Quote:
Originally posted by segovius

Foolish. Actually I haven't been bashing, although I am partial to it on occassion, When I do succumb I tend to bash particular schisms and sects so really, you should amend to 'Christian splinter group x bashing' if you want to stay accurate, if not then just carry on.....it matters not.......

bashing, baiting, smearing, whatever. You like to use the excuse of disliking particular sects of Christianity for your bashing, and I know that you can spew your bigoted hatred towards single groups very well, however you obvious distain for Christians and Christianity shines though. In you quote that I was referring to, you did say that "Chistians should be protesting against their God" otherwise they are practising bad theology. Then you take an obvious lie, that being that Christians blame the Jews for Jesus death, and ridicule "most Christian thought" because it is the basis of their thought. First, it isn't. Second, i don't see you specify a specific sect here again, but again using your broad brush of hatred.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius

Btw, I notice that regardless of plans and who submitted to them, you didn't address the issue of the culpability of the Jews or otherwise for merely acting in a way that God ordained they did.

Any thoughts on that ?

Sure. Culpability? You are culpable, I am culpable. I blame us. Jews? Sure, they were present, some even called for his death. Does that mean I blame Jews at all? No. There is a difference between recoqizing a historical fact and casting blame on a group. The Romans did the actual killing, regardess of who requested it. Being the ones that commited the act would make them at least as culpable, no? But you don't claim they blaming Italians is a basis of Christian thought. It is not. Jesus was Jewish. Mary was Jewish. The disciples were Jewish. The first followers of Christ were Jewish. Christian beleive that the Jews were choosen to deliver Jesus into the world..that is a basic thought if christianity. Not the bullshit you are trying to stick to them.

Some people hate Jews. Many from a part of the world with which you are intimately knowledgable about. They will use any reason to spew their hatred. Some have used passages in the Bible to rationalize their hatred. They would use anything. The fact that you would attribute these skewed beliefs as a basis of Christianity and then a reason to bash christians again is sort of sad. You obviously have personal reasons and excuses enough to hate christians, why start making shit up?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #306 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
....bashing, baiting, smearing, whatever. You like to use the excuse of disliking particular sects of Christianity for your bashing, and I know that you can spew your bigoted hatred towards single groups very well....

.....however you obvious distain for Christians and Christianity shines though.

.......Then you take an obvious lie, that being that Christians blame the Jews for Jesus death,

......Second, i don't see you specify a specific sect here again, but again using your broad brush of hatred.

.......The first followers of Christ were Jewish. Christian beleive that the Jews were choosen to deliver Jesus into the world..that is a basic thought if christianity. Not the bullshit you are trying to stick to them.

......Some people hate Jews. Many from a part of the world with which you are intimately knowledgable about. They will use any reason to spew their hatred.

......You obviously have personal reasons and excuses enough to hate christians, why start making shit up?

Don't try to make it personal Tulkas - this thread is doing allright, one of the best for ages.

If you want to discuss the theology behind my statement then have at it, refute what I said with a structured argument and don't bring your own stuff into it, there's a good chap.

What religion are you btw ?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #307 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Don't try to make it personal Tulkas - this thread is doing allright, one of the best for ages.

If you are going to make inflammatory statements, don't expect not to get called on it.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius

If you want to discuss the theology behind my statement then have at it, refute what I said with a structured argument and don't bring your own stuff into it, there's a good chap.

Nothing to refute actually. If someone on this board made inflammatory statements, or just outright lies about the fountational beliefs about, say Islam and Muslims, would you bother trying to prove him wrong, or just call him on it and expect that he would try and back up his statements?

I guess, I am just waiting for you to back up your claims about what you say is a fountational belief of most christians. I'd like to hear how you came about your position before I argue against it, but I am willing to contratict your statement, while it is just a statement.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius

What religion are you btw ?

How very irrelavant. What religion are you?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #308 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
If you are going to make inflammatory statements, don't expect not to get called on it.

Nothing to refute actually. If someone on this board made inflammatory statements, or just outright lies about the fountational beliefs about, say Islam and Muslims, would you bother trying to prove him wrong, or just call him on it and expect that he would try and back up his statements?

I guess, I am just waiting for you to back up your claims about what you say is a fountational belief of most christians. I'd like to hear how you came about your position before I argue against it, but I am willing to contratict your statement, while it is just a statement.

How very irrelavant. What religion are you?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #309 of 513
1) No one killed Christ, he gave up his own life. He says as much.

2) God is responsible for everything that ever happens ever because God created everything. Everything. Namby-pamby modern Christians do not read their OT enough, Isaiah 54:16.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #310 of 513
Quote:
From Tulkas
Jews? Sure, they were present, some even called for his death. Does that mean I blame Jews at all? No. There is a difference between recognizing a historical fact and casting blame on a group...

...Some people hate Jews. They will use any reason to spew their hatred. Some have used passages in the Bible to rationalize their hatred. They would use anything....


Well said and this is really the over-arching reason why it is illogical to A) label this movie as anti-semitic, and B) to suggest people shouldn't see it, because then they might find some dislike of modern-day Jews, that they never had before. It's a ridiculous notion for all but the blatantly ignorant (and you're never going to be able to curb their appetite for hatred, because their hatred has psychological and not commercial roots).

Anyway, let's not get OT here... this thread really isn't about the logical merits of Christianity (why an all-loving God would allow his son to be treated this way, or why he has to "put us to the test", even though he created us, etc. etc.). This is about whether or not the movie is sufficiently different (specifically towards Jews) from what most Christian sects are taught about the crucifixion, to be labeled as "anti-semitic" or otherwise "the work of a lunatic (Gibson)".

I see no evidence whatever of the former and only a little evidence for the latter. Gibson clearly must be haunted by some of this stuff, but just because he needs a bit of counselling doesn't mean he created a movie intended to stir up hatred of Jews.

The ADL and others have often cast light on how ridiculous the conspiracy theories about "Zionist Occupational Government" and all the rest are... and that's good, because these notions are pathetic tools of fear-mongering idiots. But also foolish, is the notion that this movie is intended as a means of subverting modern-day Jews, as if it were some all-powerful weapon to be wielded by fundamentalist pastors waiting for "the rapture" .

It's a movie. Some of it is likely accurate, some of it likely isn't. Take it FWIW and move on... no one has appointed Mel Gibson the final authority on all matters Christian, so I really don't think he will exert the kind of influence in this case that people think he will.


On a tangent note: Matvei made some interesting comments about how this movie really does have some powerful (in a positive way) elements in terms of recognizing what this act meant in human terms.

Aside from "who was guilty" or who wasn't, Gibson really did a good job of showing some emotional connection between those who were close to Jesus, and the pain they must've felt watching his execution. Other than his mother perhaps, they very likely were not at all sure why it was necessary to see this person they loved tormented and eventually killed.

And it gave me pause to think: what if (hypothetically, because I was not there and can only guess as to what exactly happened during his life) Jesus had not been a miracle worker but simply a man who preached love and respect for all those you meet in life (not just your best friends and family), and who taught pacifism through his own actions... and he endured all this because he believed in his own redemption afterward and that actions speak louder than words (especially to a captive society)? Would he be any less worthy of a deep admiration and respect? Any less worthy of modeling our own lives after?

This was a human being, a man with feelings and fears and nerve endings just like the rest of us. Whether he endured 50 lashes or 150, was spat on or not spat on... can you *imagine* what it must've been like to watch your brother or best friend or someone else you cared about endure this? Much less endure it yourself? Not just Jesus... anyone who went through this? There were definitely some poignant human moments in this movie, despite the gore.

People often say off-handedly "Oh yes and Jesus died for us and so we must be thankful", but few ever give *a moment's thought* to what that actually means. To the physical and mental sacrifice involved in enduring a crucifixion... to what it must've felt like just to see it, let alone have it happening to you. This movie will make you think about that fact (all by itself, aside from any blame or politics), and for that alone Gibson should be credited. Because most "Christian's" today are such in name only. They don't think about what that word means or how they themselves should act towards their fellow man... it's just a label for many people now.

If he can make even a few thousand people (let alone millions) take stock of their own lives and what kind of treatment they have doled out to the people around them, and what kind of sacrifices they have made for others (in light of an extreme sacrifice like Jesus')... then that can only be a good thing IMO. Even if their good will towards men or willingness to help others lasts only a few months, what is that worth in human terms to the people that "got helped"?

Just some things to think about, since everyone seems fixated on only whether or not this movie can have negative behavioral consequences, and not positive ones as well.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #311 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
1) No one killed Christ, he gave up his own life. He says as much.

2) God is responsible for everything that ever happens ever because God created everything. Everything. Namby-pamby modern Christians do not read their OT enough, Isaiah 54:16.

Exactly, that is the point I am being rebuked (nice Biblical word) for by Tulkas.

Quote:
Originally posted by tulkas
If you are going to make inflammatory statements, don't expect not to get called on it.

I won't - when I make an inflammatory statement.

As I said in the post you first took issue with, the Jews were not responsible - and yes, some people are claiming that this is what the film suggests.

Basically no-one is to blame: there is no blame - according to the Christian faith promulgated by the church, it was God's plan (or Jesus's if you prefer) for him to die in that manner, in that time and at that place.

That's all there is to it. If you find it inflammatory then fair enough, you have that right - just realise I don't write the doctrine, if I did then it would be a far less pretty picture once my brush of hate gets sweeping the canvas

This is my last vitriolic hate-filled tirade on this issue - I have a strange and unfamiliar desire to get back on topic flooding my veins and pervading my very being with the desire to discuss rationally......
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #312 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Moogs


If he can make even a few thousand people (let alone millions) take stock of their own lives and what kind of treatment they have doled out to the people around them, and what kind of sacrifices they have made for others (in light of an extreme sacrifice like Jesus')... then that can only be a good thing IMO. Even if their good will towards men or willingness to help others lasts only a few months, what is that worth in human terms to the people that "got helped"?

Just some things to think about, since everyone seems fixated on only whether or not this movie can have negative behavioral consequences, and not positive ones as well.

There is no way I could read through this thread and not take notice of Moogs words.

I only quoted your post in partial above but the entire post was received with great admiration.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #313 of 513
Forget the controversies over the details of the film. All accounts are subject to interpretation. The really interesting story is about the masses of people that are flocking to the theaters.

Mel Gibson's true passion is $$$$$$$$$. This is best marketing of a movie I have ever seen. He may be crazy, but he knows how to suck the hard earned money out of fanatics everywhere.

Mel Gibson's True Passion

However, if I were a christian I would be so offended by this unbelievable exploitation of religion.
post #314 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by buckeye
Forget the controversies over the details of the film. All accounts are subject to interpretation. The really interesting story is about the masses of people that are flocking to the theaters.

Mel Gibson's true passion is $$$$$$$$$. This is best marketing of a movie I have ever seen. He may be crazy, but he knows how to suck the hard earned money out of fanatics everywhere.

Mel Gibson's True Passion

However, if I were a christian I would be so offended by this unbelievable exploitation of religion.

Ya know...considering that pretty much the entire movie was funded out of gibson's own pockets...it's hard to believe that money is his real incentive, there are a lot better ways to make money.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #315 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Ya know...considering that pretty much the entire movie was funded out of gibson's own pockets...it's hard to believe that money is his real incentive, there are a lot better ways to make money.

Um... A 25million dollar investment is not that big of a deal to a guy with his wealth, especially when you consider that he made more than his money back in the first weekend. This is going to be the highest grossing independent film ever and he planned on that.
post #316 of 513
Pandagon has a critique of the Passion up...

http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/001297.html#more

I'm not planning on seeing it... not because of the critique... I know what the story is... and I don't need to see the realistic slow motion matrix gory version of it.

When I was being brought up catholic I learned what the "point" of the story was... God loved us so much that he sacrificed his son for our sins. Jesus wanted it to happen... he provoked the establishment so that he would be crucified.

In the end... it's about love. You don't need to know the pain to understand the concept of the love needed to make a sacrifice like that.

Love. Love others how you would want to be loved.

Even if you don't believe in god... it's a good idea.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #317 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by rampancy
Well, it looks like the consensus here on AO is that this one's a bit of a letdown.

Wrong. Most people who have viewed the movie (like myself) thought it was well done.

Quote:

Instead of spending my money on seeing The Passion, I've been thinking of buying the Criterion DVD version of The Last Temptation of Christ...anyone here seen it and liked it? Is it better than The Passion?

If you are a Christian, you will probably enjoy the movie. I saw Last Temptation last year on video with a good friend. Neither of us thought it was very good. It took great pains to make Jesus look schizophrenic. The film is a nearly constant battle of wills between 'two voices' in his head, one of Satan and his own. The Last Temptation occurs on the cross where he gives in. It is no better than 1 1/2 stars out of 4. I gave the Passion a 3 of 4.
'But God really exists' said the old man, and my faith was restored for I knew that Santa Claus would never lie.
Reply
'But God really exists' said the old man, and my faith was restored for I knew that Santa Claus would never lie.
Reply
post #318 of 513
Quote:
Originally posted by rogue master
If you are a Christian, you will probably enjoy the movie. I saw Last Temptation last year on video with a good friend. Neither of us thought it was very good. It took great pains to make Jesus look schizophrenic. The film is a nearly constant battle of wills between 'two voices' in his head, one of Satan and his own. The Last Temptation occurs on the cross where he gives in. It is no better than 1 1/2 stars out of 4. I gave the Passion a 3 of 4.

If you're open minded, you would realize that Last Temptation and Passion are two entirely different movies with different goals. Passion is an attempt by Mel Gibson to bring his vision of Jesus' life to the screen. Apparently, that vision is of punishment and violence rather than compassion and love. The Last Temptation is attempt to show the duality of Jesus' life. It shows the struggle of how a person would come to terms with being the son of god and having to die to save humanity. Those aren't fun subjects to deal with and I doubt that you or I, if present with the same situation, would act much differently than how Jesus was portrayed in Last Temptation.

Oh, and Mel Gibson isn't in the same league as Martin Scorsese.
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
Reply
CARTHAGO DELENDA EST
Reply
post #319 of 513
and isn't The Last Temptation supposed to be a hypothetical idea, in no way trying to retell or alter scripture?

It would be a mistake to think of The Passion as a documentary also. Obviously some will for whatever reasons they have, but the rest of us can look at it as another screenplay adaptation from a bestselling book.
post #320 of 513
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka

Love. Love others how you would want to be loved.

Even if you don't believe in god... it's a good idea.

DA DAAA.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Passion of the Christ