The Passion of the Christ - Page 2

Who said I was dismissing it?


Mmmmmmperhaps.

I just don't understand the fixation in some sections of Christianity on "Jesus *suffered* for your sin", when the suffering was a minor part of the entire picture of humanity. Others have suffered more, for much less (if we believe that he suffered for the sins of all humanity, it seems like a pittance to pay, doesn't it?), and yet they're forgotten.

Why the fascination with pain and suffering in a religion supposedly based on love and peace?

Then again, the folks I see who seem most entranced with the crucifixion are generally the fire and brimstone folks who tend to ignore most of what I think makes Christianity a worthy religion anyway, so...

For the record, I was raised Jehovah's Witness until I was 9, so I know my fundies.

actually i think they have complained that gibson gave satan a phyical form and he has satan standing with the jews on a couple of occasions...sort of equating jews and satan...

that and the curse heard of "a curse on your children's children" or something to that effect...sort of saying jews are damned forever

g

What i would like to know is what makes a religious person believe in God.

i mean, how can you believe in 'this' God and not the "other" ?
What makes you believe that your God is real and other's is not, or do you believe that there are many Gods?

Anyone?

Personally i believe in "something", I believe that there's a force in this universe which is beyond our level of comprehension, but it's one and the same force that started it all for everyone.
I think that one day science may prove that there is "something more" which we just have to accept.

Moogs I am most impressed with your posting as of late. You are a master of understanding and reason.

Fellows

Jesus death was cruel but not unusual compared to other peoples death. A lot of people at that time died just as or even more horrorable deaths. Jesus isn´t mentioned in text from that time outside religious ones so it cant have been that special. The point for me is how on earth can the death of jesus repair the sins made by a man, who raped, tortured and slowly let tens of small children diefrom bleeding to death if he starts believing in him? Was Jesus pain so much greater than that suffered by those little kids?

I am not trying to put other heores up by the side of Jesus, I believe that confronted with certain choices a certaint percentage will do whats right (firefighters 911 and workers and chernobyl) but why put Jesus up there on a piedistale?

I know I am trying to rationalise religion so a satisfying answer for me would be "I just believe so" but I wonder if there is a rationale answer to this.

all i know is that some friggin miracles happened on set-the guy who plays Jesus was struck by lightning 2 times for one thing
anyhoo, i'm gonna go to see it

see . . . even God was angry!

i'm not thinking it was God, i'm thinking it was Satan trying to make it so the movie would'nt be produced

I'm just starting to read about this historical Jesus stuff, but I've also read that the Gospels were at least partially targeted at Romans, and so blaming it on them wouldn't go over so well. So the role of the Romans in the crucifixion was downplayed, and the role of the Jews was played up: Herod and the Jews were the real bad guys, and Pilate was just a nice guy who did what the Jews wanted. Of course, that's probably utter nonsense and really doesn't make sense in historical context.

I'm not 'outraged' by this movie at all . . . in my earlier Christian days I would have loved to see it . . . back then I was all about "The Passion" . . . you know, loving that martyr suffering thing . . .

I do, and have for a long time, object to basically everything MelG-ish .
I watched Braveheart and saw in it that parodic, absurd, anthemic heroism that characterizes a pretentious suffering-martyr-syndrome:
You know, the rotating hellicopter shot of the lonely hero struggling with his delemma on the tip of a mountain top . . . . bring in the swelling music and ta-da an oscar winner. . .

I hate that kind of cheap emotionalistic manipulation of the audience's lowest and basest feelings . .

also, he is ultra-conservative and hates gays and I don't like him . .

just a note: RE:in order to be a Catholic . . . . I was always under the impression that it was up to the church to say if you are a Catholic or not
i don't think that just anybody can go around and say "I'm Catholic . . . but I hate all that Catholic stuff . . . like the Vatican and Pope and all that"
That seems to be just a tad on the schismatic side to me . . . virtually Protestant-like . . .no?!

. . oh yeah . . .of course... it was satan


that means Gibson is a prophet right?

Conspiracy Theory was teh l337

P.S. - Maybe the lightning was caused by particle collisions in storm clouds. Hey, stop looking at me like that. What are you doing with that gasoline? Hey, that's wet...

how do you get that out of what i said?
think about it...if it is a movie praising God, then why would God be angry? that makes no sense at all to me.

1337 = ibbt?

teh 1337 = the leet

Unless it was a travesty of God's message
and a form of taking God's name in vien!

In ancient Church history there was a major faction (the Eastern Roman Empire) that even dissallowed any paintings or images of God=
to Make Graven Images!
no?!?!
IT is tantamount to making IDOLS for worship . . . just because you make the label read "Jesus" doesn't mean that teh picture you make really stands for god . . . in fact it would be impossible from the perspective of the Iconoclasts
... to them any man-made image is a form of blasphemy . . . . maybe 'God' thinks so too?

what a kind of hubris to have some measly actor take God's place . . . to make an image out of God!
Wouldn't that make God angry?

It's got to be better then Scorcese's "The Last Temptation of Christ", the first twenty minutes of which was pretty much just Willem Dafoe running around in the middle of nowhere constantly yelling: "I hear voices in my head!"

Gotcha . . . misread teh dictionary . . . I'm no leet!

but its nice to see some respect go out to my favorite misspelling: 'teh'

But in a respectable New York accent

and the best part of that movie was how all of the apostles had that New York Jewish accent thing going . . . it was funny.

The assistant director was struck twice. Jim Caviezel only got one warning shot from Zeus.

I think it was shot in Italy, so it must have been Jupiter.

Good point. I stand corrected.

The deal with Jesus's death and christians is two-fold. First, Jesus was God. Second, he never sinned (which is not to say he never made a mistake, just that none of them were moral mistakes). Of course, both of those statements are according the christian bible. If there was strong independent evidence, I suspect my religion would be much larger.

I thought that the Jesus=god equation was something started by Constantine in order to make it all more comprehendable to the Roman-religion people within the Empire. , , whereas before that it was more that Jesus was the Son of God

Are they gnostic?

here is Hutton on the Holocaust:
from here:Gobson Pere

Seems that he not only denies it (most of it) but that he thinks they "just got up and walked on over to the Bronx!\

hahaha . . . it's funny but that is the level of thinking that inhabits most Shoa-Deniers . . . its about that idiotic . .. and yet somehow,they are given at least a quasi-diabolic intelligence in the mass media . . .

Yes, 6 million Jews were killed, but so were 6 million roma (gypsies) and no one cares. Almost 80% of them -killed. And they are still being killed, and still no one cares. That is the travesty of WW II.

You get it but you don't. The answer is in your question.

I never said I didn't care . . . I think it is part and parcel of teh same travesty . . . and yes you are right it still goes on today. persecution of the Roma is still happenng
You can even see it in a lot of the rhetoric surrouding teh EU . . . such as in a comic book that was published to make the EU more palatable to kids . . . in it, youhave a "bad guy" who is anti-EU, who happens to also be vaguely dark haired and skinned and is characterized as being 'nomadic' rather than settled and stable . . . . in other words: gypsies and jews.

I was "AFK" for a while... let me see if I can cover several points in one fell swoop.


Kickaha: I only meant we shouldn't dismiss the crucifixion in the sense of "no big deal", not that you are literally dismissing that it happened...

...anyway I see now what you are trying to say more clearly than I did before. Basically, I think the answer to why everyone focuses on Jesus' suffering vs. that of "the others" is pretty simple: none of the others claimed to be the son of God. In other words, people -- in their minds -- are not weighting the situation with the same criteria you are. Most people think something analagous to: "because he was God's son, his life was worth than a 'standard human life'. He gave up more than what any other person has given up since."

Not an entirely satisfying explanation of course, but the plain fact is, people get something (be it peace of mind, the promise of salvation or something else) from contemplating Jesus' plight, because if they believe the story, it implies a direct connection with God. Everything else kind of flows from that belief.

However, I agree one can make the argument that while Jesus was here, he was also "only human" and therefore the experience he endured and the potential years on earth that he gave up, were no different (technically) than what any other person who sacrificed themselves has given up. Although, who knows... if he truly did heal the sick with the touch of a hand or fed a crowd with a few loaves... maybe his life on earth could have been more fulfilling (for many people) than any of us know. It's all predicated on faith in the end, so there's really no arguing it to a logical conclusion....


the gelding: So you are saying there is a character in the movie who is obviously portraying Satan "incarnate", and that the Jews ally themselves somehow with this character? That's a new one to me; I'll have to see for myself I guess but I hadn't heard there was a "satan character".

If that's true, and there is an obvious connection made with the Jews in the story then I guess some would have reason to be upset. But I still think it would be wiser for them to just dismiss something like that with a few stinging words, than to make a big to-do about it in the national media. Seems it would only serves Gibson's purposes if any of it ends up being true.


pfflam: So your gripe is basically about the quality of the storyline and the cliche way such a serious subject (as say the independance of Scotland or the US or Jesus) is portrayed... and the subsequent "critical praise" from media dolts who are about as qualified to comment on such things as most history professors are qualified to teach open-heart surgery?

I'm down with that. I guess we'll have to wait and see how "sensationalist" (for lack of a better word) the movie really is.


Fellows: Thank you for the kind words. I don't know how true they are, but I hope you're at least pretty close to the mark (for my own sake). I have my good and bad moments I guess. I think you must know too -- based on comments from many members -- that you're a pretty well-reasoned lad yourself. So hopefully it takes one to know one.

8)

My bible says he's God.

I have already seen the film, and in no way, shape or form does it appear to me to be anti-Semitic.

Yes, some of the "enemies" of Jesus are Jews. But this is a story where almost EVERYBODY'S a Jew.

The Temple Leaders despise him, but the hero of the film's a Jew, the disciples are all Jews, Mary's a Jew. Simon, who helps Jesus carry the cross after he stumbles is a Jew.

Aside from Roman soldiers, this is a story of an in-house Jewish debate.

People who'd try to use this as a vehicle for anti-Semitism have missed the point entirely.

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father, which hath sent me. (John 5: 30)

my Father is greater than I (John 14: 28 )

'But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.' ( I Corinthians 11:3 )

What? you got the Cliff Notes?
(see post above)

so, i'm watching t.v. the other day, and, as usual, i happen to pass over the abc family channel. sometimes, when i'm lucky, i catch reruns of who's line, but they are always followed by the 700 club. so, i say "what the hell?", and i watch it anyway. "maybe i'll figure out where these lunatics are coming from", i think to myself. churchy mcchurchalot blabs about this or that, and how it relates to the awesomeness of jesus or bog or what have you. eventually he moves on to 'the passion...'. he says mel, in his exec producer hat, didn't use typical advertisement channels. he actively sought out ministers, convinced them of the movie, and had them preach to their congregations. i kept thinking, "isn't that blasphemy, or idolatry or something? theres gotta be a commandment or sin that goes against this." isn't it immoral for a modern church to actively participate in advertisement? well, apparently not. the churchies really took to it, and acording to the host, they bought a record amount of pre-tickets. i had a feeling that this movie was going to be religiousy. i mean it has "christ" in the title. but i figured it would be more playful, or funny, like braveheart or loaded gun (or whatever that cop movie was with mel and the other dood). mcchurchison host guy says you can't help but feel evangelized by this movie (i thought it was really funny as he said it like getting evangelized was a good thing). i might go see this flick, if only to witness the first hand controversy. of course, and not surprisingly, the 700 club didn't mention or comment on the [possible?] antisemitism in it.

I'm going to change my name to Churchy McChurchalot.

i'm looking forward to the soundtrack

Yeah, Biblical epics tend to be kind of "religiousy" movies.

Did it open today?

Anyway, is it historically accurate to say it was really an in-house Jewish debate? More likely, he was killed by the Romans, period, and only afterward did people want to break off Christianity from Judaism, and so they made it look like the Jews did it.

it opens Ash wednesday i believe