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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 $$$$$$$$$. This is best marketing of a movie I have ever seen. He may be crazy, but he knows how to suck the hard earned money out of fanatics everywhere.
Forget the controversies over the details of the film. All accounts are subject to interpretation. The really interesting story is about the masses of people that are flocking to the theaters.
Mel Gibson's true passion is $$$$$$$$$. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
?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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by segovius
What religion are you btw ?
How very irrelavant. What religion are you?
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.
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
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.
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
Mel Gibson's true passion is $$$$$$$$$. This is best marketing of a movie I have ever seen. He may be crazy, but he knows how to suck the hard earned money out of fanatics everywhere.
Mel Gibson's True Passion
However, if I were a christian I would be so offended by this unbelievable exploitation of religion.
Originally posted by buckeye
Forget the controversies over the details of the film. All accounts are subject to interpretation. The really interesting story is about the masses of people that are flocking to the theaters.
Mel Gibson's true passion is $$$$$$$$$. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.