I posted this to my weblog last night, which details some of my problems, as a Christian, with Gibson's film:
Passionate Box Office
Early reports are placing The Passion of the Christ's box office in the north-of-$100-million range for the five day weekend. This is probably the biggest non-summer opening ever, and by far the best ever posted by an "independent" film. As a cinematic businessman, Gibson has clearly proved his worth.
Of course, the big box office take is bullied by mass buys by church groups across the country ? which is not to make light of the economic accomplishment here. Church groups, even fundamentalist groups who must certainly think that Gibson is going to Hell for his rote Catholicism, have mobilized a very unique and abnormal constituency for this film, and Gibson owes them a great debt.
But has he provided them with a great film? It's certainly moving, but the more people who see this, the more its theological shallowness troubles me. While I doubt that the film will set off waves of anti-Semitic violence, I do fear that it will do great violence to the subtlety and texture of the Gospel message. By focusing solely on the carnal, Gibson presents a Jesus who is utterly devoid of the spiritual (aside from the "best of" quotes), and that's not an image of Christ that, I think, serves Christendom well.
All the beatings, all the lacerations, all the spitting and abuse at the hands of centurions and priests and mobs ?_all of it is meaningless to salvation. Jesus didn't take mankind's sins upon his shoulders at his flogging, or at his trial. It is the cross that is the central device and message of Christianity, and it is complete in and of itself.
Jesus could have been carried lightly on down pillows and then crucified, and the world would be just as saved. He could have been flogged within an inch of his life then released and the world would now be damned. It was the cross that was the sacrifice, that made a Galilean carpenter the Lamb of God promised to Abraham, Moses and David. It was the death on the cross that ended death. All the rest was just window dressing ? or perhaps an attempt by the "ruler of this world" to break Jesus' human will before the final sacrifice.
But in the Gospel According to Mel, by the time we get to the death, both Jesus and the audience are so exhausted by the extremes of everything that came before that it is not a climax ? or at least, not the climax it should have been. By accentuating the flogging and scourging, Gibson draws a shadow over the crux of his film.
Agony wasn't enough, if it had been, then Jesus' torment in Gesthemane would have been salvific. Sacrifice was required, and that sacrifice was on the cross, not in Pilate's torture chambers. We don't venerate whips or scourges, we don't adorn churches with Christ at the whipping post. But Gibson worships these moments, worth less than a paragraph in the Gospels, with his film, to the detriment of the theological impact he should have been seeking to achieve.
Of course, the big box office take is bullied by mass buys by church groups across the country ? which is not to make light of the economic accomplishment here. Church groups, even fundamentalist groups who must certainly think that Gibson is going to Hell for his rote Catholicism, have mobilized a very unique and abnormal constituency for this film, and Gibson owes them a great debt.
I find that quite humourous, if not ironically hypocritical. I can certainly imagine the many people who've put me down for my Catholicism lining up in droves to see this movie.
Am I the only person who's really, really annoyed that this movie's fallen victim to crass commercialism? (i.e. the nails and mugs shown on page 1 of this thread)
Am I the only person who's really, really annoyed that this movie's fallen victim to crass commercialism? (i.e. the nails and mugs shown on page 1 of this thread)
Isn't a movie like this crass commercialism by definition?
I saw the film today, and agree with Fellowship...I don't even know what to say. I cried through almost the whole thing. The idea that one man was willing to go through all that is just amazing. It made me feel closer to God than I ever have before. Awesome movie, amazing Man.
I find that quite humourous, if not ironically hypocritical. I can certainly imagine the many people who've put me down for my Catholicism lining up in droves to see this movie.
I wonder if they recognize the Catholicism that seeps from the film ? the way so much of the questionable material emanates from the writings of a controversial saint, or the structure that is modeled after the Stations of the Cross.
One aspect of Jesus (actually the very center of christianity) I never understood was this: Jesus died for our sins. Through our belief in he being the son of god we are suppose to be forgiven. And the reason I hear is that his death was so horrible.
But a lot of other have died, knowingly, a much MUCH more horrible death because they tried to save other people. Think about those people on the roof of Chernobyl shoveling material on the open core. How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered? Jesus death was in anyway you see it a very normal death.
Someone please expain this to me.
Let's break it down:
In ancient times the Jews atoned for their sins by performing sacrifices of live animals at temples by high priests. This was a mandatory thing in many respects. Kinda like a tax. If you believe Genesis, the human race acquired sin and death through adam and eve's first sin. This practice pretty much continued all the way up to and past Jesus' ministry.
Throughout the bible you see the justice of "an eye for an eye". So the original sin had to have a sacrifice that was equal, namely, A perfect life without sin. This is where Jesus comes in. A new way of atoning for sins was to be put into place with the sacrifice of Jesus, a sinless perfect human. This would allow for each person to approach God through prayer for themselves by merit of Jesus' sacrifice. They would no longer need priests to do that for them.
Now here is why the sacrifice is so important to christians. If you believe (a) Christ is God or (b) Christ is God's son, the fact that He took on the body of a lower life form and gave up tremendous power in order to experience a humiliating painful death by the hands of those that he could easily crush like fleas, and the bible describes as specs of dust, in order for them and anyone since to be able to pray to God, is a huge sacrifice for (a) God or (b) God's son. If you believe in God, you believe he could have just wiped the slate clean and start over.
So the quick answer I guess would be, that is a lot of love for specs of dust like us to sacrifice either (a) Himself or (b) His son.
Jesus could have been carried lightly on down pillows and then crucified, and the world would be just as saved. He could have been flogged within an inch of his life then released and the world would now be damned. It was the cross that was the sacrifice, that made a Galilean carpenter the Lamb of God promised to Abraham, Moses and David. It was the death on the cross that ended death. All the rest was just window dressing ? or perhaps an attempt by the "ruler of this world" to break Jesus' human will before the final sacrifice.
Listen to what you are saying... the means of execution is the reason for the salvation? So you're saying, had all the books been different and Jesus died on the way to the cross, that his death would have meant nothing? That God said to him "you must not only die, but die on a cross, otherwise everything is void?"
You're taking this whole scenario WAY too literally. All we really know is that Jesus' sacrifice was to *give his life* to his captors (pacificism, love for one's enemies, etc.) in order to save us. The coroner's report would have been meaningless in this context, had there been such a thing back then. The point is that he gave himself up to his enemies and he did not resist their decision to end his life. That's it. In a nutshell.
Whether they had beaten him over the head with a boulder or hung him or crucified him would not have mattered, all that matters is that he gave his life to them, knowing they would end it. And so the way in which they got there (I don't think it's unfair to assume he endured some harsh abuse, if not as much as Gibson envisions) is just as relevant as the ultimate "cause of death".
Again, I agree the movie went overboard with the gore, but it's silly to imply that the act of crucifixion is what the story is all about. Crucifixion was just a means to an end, and many other means would have sufficed, had history played out differently. At least to my way of seeing things. You seem to imply that had he died (at the hands of his captors) in any other way or any earlier on, that his death would have not resulted in anyone's salvation. That's illogical even in the face of ideas predicated completely on faith (like religion).
Fellows: don't feel the need to post everything the same day. It's kind of an overwhelming thing (whether you liked it or didn't like it)... I'm sure given a night to sleep on it you'll have something to say.
Listen to what you are saying... the means of execution is the reason for the salvation?
No, the execution was necessary. Everything else ? every wad of spit, every stroke of the whip, every thorn and barb ? was utterly meaningless. Jesus could have been executed in a multitude of ways, and that execution would still have been salvific, But he was not, he was crucified, so the question here is about the crucifixion.
Quote:
So you're saying, had all the books been different and Jesus died on the way to the cross, that his death would have meant nothing?
Not at all what I'm saying.
Quote:
And so the way in which they got there (I don't think it's unfair to assume he endured some harsh abuse, if not as much as Gibson envisions) is just as relevant as the ultimate "cause of death".
No, it is not. The only thing that matters is the death. Everything that came before is soteriologically meaningless.
Quote:
Again, I agree the movie went overboard with the gore, but it's silly to imply that the act of crucifixion is what the story is all about.
The crucifixion is what Jesus' life was all about, all leading up to. All his teachings are just the bon mots of a wise rabbi without his death, which is upon a cross. Sure, he could have died otherwise, and been sacrificed to God in a different manner, but he was not. So speculative considerations don't change the fact that the Passion is about the Cross, which is the only part of the Passion that counts for anything. All the whipping in the world wouldn't have made Jesus a Messiah, lest he died at that post.
I haven't read this whole thread, actually I haven't read any of it. If Mel is guilty of anything, it's understanding marketting. The frenzy, for and against, has been expertly conducted during the pre-release campaign. The groups responded predictably, and still don't realize that they aren't so much being attacked or defended as they are being used.
As for violence, my historical references suggest that Gibson is probably closer to the truth of it than the Christians have wanted to admitt in their art.
I'm interested to see how the Jews come off. Worse than the Romans? We got plenty of violent portrayals of pagans and christians, good and bad, duplicitous, lecherous, traitorous, of every manner of villany. Should the Jews be excused, should they be excused in this case of Jesus? And if so, why?
Are we harbouring a little racism if we do not give Jews the same shoddy historical treatment?
The only thing I know for sure is that you've all benn played, and very well too. I don't think I'm watching this one untill it comes out on video.
Death comes regardless, Jesus chooses suffering and death.
Gibson may be extremely problematic, but what you are arguing now is no less problematic. If nailing oneself to a cross and dying there were pleasant, we might all do it.
This is the tactic of people who tell you to drink the koolaid because everything will be better when the centauris come.
I'd like to take this moment to express the views of those of us who don't really care to see this film. It is well understood among all thinking people that the levels of brutality experienced in other times have often been greater than what we experience today. To show such brutality without context is in itself a travesty.
Second, I would like to take this time to bear witness to the thousands if not millions who have died at the hands of Christians who for some reason thought they had the right to persecute whomever didn't follow their ideology. They died maybe not for the sins of Christians but because of them. Included in those would be those poor early followers of Christ who refused to pronounce Mary the Mother of God, because it didn't meet their intellectual standards as a doctrine. I would also like to mourn the loss of millions of native and indigenous people around the world who lost their lives (and coincidently of coourse tehir land) to diseases introduced by Christian evangelists. Also included would be those killed as witches, who weren't and those killed as witches that were. For some reason Christians choose to focus on this man, even though none remember him and no one is sure even what he said. Jesus as he is presented is a great person. So was Ghandi, so was Martin Luther King. There have been many great persons, not all of them were Christians. Get used to it.
I saw the leader to a story a while ago which examined the known historical reasons for Jesus demise. They concluded the reason the Jewish hierarchy so detested Jesus was he partied with tax collectors and prostitutes. Now you can go on and on about your Son of God but we are all sons and daughters of God, we all have a conscience that is informed by God, and believe it or not, Christians have no monopoly on God and good works. Get used to it. Most of the world doesn't care. If you want to show how one man was tortured, fine, if you want to jump from there to some kind of overly intellectual doctrine about why it should be important to me, forget it. No reasonable person would accept such and argument. And no moral person would tolerate it. It s quite simply abhorrent to the senses. Or to put it more emphaticly, no supreme good has ever come from such an evil act. Jesus's power comes from what remains of the story of his life. That is his legacy. The rest, they made it all up, and you bought it, some of you apparently, hook line and sinker.
Comments
Passionate Box Office
Early reports are placing The Passion of the Christ's box office in the north-of-$100-million range for the five day weekend. This is probably the biggest non-summer opening ever, and by far the best ever posted by an "independent" film. As a cinematic businessman, Gibson has clearly proved his worth.
Of course, the big box office take is bullied by mass buys by church groups across the country ? which is not to make light of the economic accomplishment here. Church groups, even fundamentalist groups who must certainly think that Gibson is going to Hell for his rote Catholicism, have mobilized a very unique and abnormal constituency for this film, and Gibson owes them a great debt.
But has he provided them with a great film? It's certainly moving, but the more people who see this, the more its theological shallowness troubles me. While I doubt that the film will set off waves of anti-Semitic violence, I do fear that it will do great violence to the subtlety and texture of the Gospel message. By focusing solely on the carnal, Gibson presents a Jesus who is utterly devoid of the spiritual (aside from the "best of" quotes), and that's not an image of Christ that, I think, serves Christendom well.
All the beatings, all the lacerations, all the spitting and abuse at the hands of centurions and priests and mobs ?_all of it is meaningless to salvation. Jesus didn't take mankind's sins upon his shoulders at his flogging, or at his trial. It is the cross that is the central device and message of Christianity, and it is complete in and of itself.
Jesus could have been carried lightly on down pillows and then crucified, and the world would be just as saved. He could have been flogged within an inch of his life then released and the world would now be damned. It was the cross that was the sacrifice, that made a Galilean carpenter the Lamb of God promised to Abraham, Moses and David. It was the death on the cross that ended death. All the rest was just window dressing ? or perhaps an attempt by the "ruler of this world" to break Jesus' human will before the final sacrifice.
But in the Gospel According to Mel, by the time we get to the death, both Jesus and the audience are so exhausted by the extremes of everything that came before that it is not a climax ? or at least, not the climax it should have been. By accentuating the flogging and scourging, Gibson draws a shadow over the crux of his film.
Agony wasn't enough, if it had been, then Jesus' torment in Gesthemane would have been salvific. Sacrifice was required, and that sacrifice was on the cross, not in Pilate's torture chambers. We don't venerate whips or scourges, we don't adorn churches with Christ at the whipping post. But Gibson worships these moments, worth less than a paragraph in the Gospels, with his film, to the detriment of the theological impact he should have been seeking to achieve.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Of course, the big box office take is bullied by mass buys by church groups across the country ? which is not to make light of the economic accomplishment here. Church groups, even fundamentalist groups who must certainly think that Gibson is going to Hell for his rote Catholicism, have mobilized a very unique and abnormal constituency for this film, and Gibson owes them a great debt.
I find that quite humourous, if not ironically hypocritical. I can certainly imagine the many people who've put me down for my Catholicism lining up in droves to see this movie.
Am I the only person who's really, really annoyed that this movie's fallen victim to crass commercialism? (i.e. the nails and mugs shown on page 1 of this thread)
I don't really have any comments about the film.
Fellowship
Originally posted by rampancy
Am I the only person who's really, really annoyed that this movie's fallen victim to crass commercialism? (i.e. the nails and mugs shown on page 1 of this thread)
Isn't a movie like this crass commercialism by definition?
Originally posted by BRussell
Isn't a movie like this crass commercialism by definition?
mmm, a movie like any other artistic medium can be an artistic expression. But I have yet to see the movie.
Originally posted by BRussell
Isn't a movie like this crass commercialism by definition?
Some other things succumb to crass commercialism as well:
Here
Originally posted by Kirkland
Probably. I have "Last Temptation" watching parties with various friends every Holy Saturday.
Kirk
Originally posted by pfflam
Some other things succumb to crass commercialism as well:
Here
That is funny!
a POPENER.
But maybe that says it all.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
ummm... Fellowship... ya gotta say more.
But maybe that says it all.
I saw the film today, and agree with Fellowship...I don't even know what to say. I cried through almost the whole thing. The idea that one man was willing to go through all that is just amazing. It made me feel closer to God than I ever have before. Awesome movie, amazing Man.
Originally posted by rampancy
I find that quite humourous, if not ironically hypocritical. I can certainly imagine the many people who've put me down for my Catholicism lining up in droves to see this movie.
I wonder if they recognize the Catholicism that seeps from the film ? the way so much of the questionable material emanates from the writings of a controversial saint, or the structure that is modeled after the Stations of the Cross.
Kirk
Originally posted by rogue master
Not really joking about it. Last Temptation is the most spiritual and powerful Christological film ever. It is a truly inspiring piece of film.
Kirk
Originally posted by Anders
One aspect of Jesus (actually the very center of christianity) I never understood was this: Jesus died for our sins. Through our belief in he being the son of god we are suppose to be forgiven. And the reason I hear is that his death was so horrible.
But a lot of other have died, knowingly, a much MUCH more horrible death because they tried to save other people. Think about those people on the roof of Chernobyl shoveling material on the open core. How on earth is the pain Jesus suffered so great that it can save billions while theirs are hardly remembered? Jesus death was in anyway you see it a very normal death.
Someone please expain this to me.
Let's break it down:
In ancient times the Jews atoned for their sins by performing sacrifices of live animals at temples by high priests. This was a mandatory thing in many respects. Kinda like a tax. If you believe Genesis, the human race acquired sin and death through adam and eve's first sin. This practice pretty much continued all the way up to and past Jesus' ministry.
Throughout the bible you see the justice of "an eye for an eye". So the original sin had to have a sacrifice that was equal, namely, A perfect life without sin. This is where Jesus comes in. A new way of atoning for sins was to be put into place with the sacrifice of Jesus, a sinless perfect human. This would allow for each person to approach God through prayer for themselves by merit of Jesus' sacrifice. They would no longer need priests to do that for them.
Now here is why the sacrifice is so important to christians. If you believe (a) Christ is God or (b) Christ is God's son, the fact that He took on the body of a lower life form and gave up tremendous power in order to experience a humiliating painful death by the hands of those that he could easily crush like fleas, and the bible describes as specs of dust, in order for them and anyone since to be able to pray to God, is a huge sacrifice for (a) God or (b) God's son. If you believe in God, you believe he could have just wiped the slate clean and start over.
So the quick answer I guess would be, that is a lot of love for specs of dust like us to sacrifice either (a) Himself or (b) His son.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Not really joking about it. Last Temptation is the most spiritual and powerful Christological film ever. It is a truly inspiring piece of film.
Kirk
My apologies. Your response appeared to be satirical when I first read it. In re-reading it I see I was incorrect.
From Kirkland:
Jesus could have been carried lightly on down pillows and then crucified, and the world would be just as saved. He could have been flogged within an inch of his life then released and the world would now be damned. It was the cross that was the sacrifice, that made a Galilean carpenter the Lamb of God promised to Abraham, Moses and David. It was the death on the cross that ended death. All the rest was just window dressing ? or perhaps an attempt by the "ruler of this world" to break Jesus' human will before the final sacrifice.
Listen to what you are saying... the means of execution is the reason for the salvation? So you're saying, had all the books been different and Jesus died on the way to the cross, that his death would have meant nothing? That God said to him "you must not only die, but die on a cross, otherwise everything is void?"
You're taking this whole scenario WAY too literally. All we really know is that Jesus' sacrifice was to *give his life* to his captors (pacificism, love for one's enemies, etc.) in order to save us. The coroner's report would have been meaningless in this context, had there been such a thing back then. The point is that he gave himself up to his enemies and he did not resist their decision to end his life. That's it. In a nutshell.
Whether they had beaten him over the head with a boulder or hung him or crucified him would not have mattered, all that matters is that he gave his life to them, knowing they would end it. And so the way in which they got there (I don't think it's unfair to assume he endured some harsh abuse, if not as much as Gibson envisions) is just as relevant as the ultimate "cause of death".
Again, I agree the movie went overboard with the gore, but it's silly to imply that the act of crucifixion is what the story is all about. Crucifixion was just a means to an end, and many other means would have sufficed, had history played out differently. At least to my way of seeing things. You seem to imply that had he died (at the hands of his captors) in any other way or any earlier on, that his death would have not resulted in anyone's salvation. That's illogical even in the face of ideas predicated completely on faith (like religion).
Fellows: don't feel the need to post everything the same day. It's kind of an overwhelming thing (whether you liked it or didn't like it)... I'm sure given a night to sleep on it you'll have something to say.
Originally posted by Moogs
Listen to what you are saying... the means of execution is the reason for the salvation?
No, the execution was necessary. Everything else ? every wad of spit, every stroke of the whip, every thorn and barb ? was utterly meaningless. Jesus could have been executed in a multitude of ways, and that execution would still have been salvific, But he was not, he was crucified, so the question here is about the crucifixion.
So you're saying, had all the books been different and Jesus died on the way to the cross, that his death would have meant nothing?
Not at all what I'm saying.
And so the way in which they got there (I don't think it's unfair to assume he endured some harsh abuse, if not as much as Gibson envisions) is just as relevant as the ultimate "cause of death".
No, it is not. The only thing that matters is the death. Everything that came before is soteriologically meaningless.
Again, I agree the movie went overboard with the gore, but it's silly to imply that the act of crucifixion is what the story is all about.
The crucifixion is what Jesus' life was all about, all leading up to. All his teachings are just the bon mots of a wise rabbi without his death, which is upon a cross. Sure, he could have died otherwise, and been sacrificed to God in a different manner, but he was not. So speculative considerations don't change the fact that the Passion is about the Cross, which is the only part of the Passion that counts for anything. All the whipping in the world wouldn't have made Jesus a Messiah, lest he died at that post.
Kirk
As for violence, my historical references suggest that Gibson is probably closer to the truth of it than the Christians have wanted to admitt in their art.
I'm interested to see how the Jews come off. Worse than the Romans? We got plenty of violent portrayals of pagans and christians, good and bad, duplicitous, lecherous, traitorous, of every manner of villany. Should the Jews be excused, should they be excused in this case of Jesus? And if so, why?
Are we harbouring a little racism if we do not give Jews the same shoddy historical treatment?
The only thing I know for sure is that you've all benn played, and very well too. I don't think I'm watching this one untill it comes out on video.
Jesus is a goat.
Death comes regardless, Jesus chooses suffering and death.
Gibson may be extremely problematic, but what you are arguing now is no less problematic. If nailing oneself to a cross and dying there were pleasant, we might all do it.
This is the tactic of people who tell you to drink the koolaid because everything will be better when the centauris come.
Blood and gore are a part of religion too.
Second, I would like to take this time to bear witness to the thousands if not millions who have died at the hands of Christians who for some reason thought they had the right to persecute whomever didn't follow their ideology. They died maybe not for the sins of Christians but because of them. Included in those would be those poor early followers of Christ who refused to pronounce Mary the Mother of God, because it didn't meet their intellectual standards as a doctrine. I would also like to mourn the loss of millions of native and indigenous people around the world who lost their lives (and coincidently of coourse tehir land) to diseases introduced by Christian evangelists. Also included would be those killed as witches, who weren't and those killed as witches that were. For some reason Christians choose to focus on this man, even though none remember him and no one is sure even what he said. Jesus as he is presented is a great person. So was Ghandi, so was Martin Luther King. There have been many great persons, not all of them were Christians. Get used to it.
I saw the leader to a story a while ago which examined the known historical reasons for Jesus demise. They concluded the reason the Jewish hierarchy so detested Jesus was he partied with tax collectors and prostitutes. Now you can go on and on about your Son of God but we are all sons and daughters of God, we all have a conscience that is informed by God, and believe it or not, Christians have no monopoly on God and good works. Get used to it. Most of the world doesn't care. If you want to show how one man was tortured, fine, if you want to jump from there to some kind of overly intellectual doctrine about why it should be important to me, forget it. No reasonable person would accept such and argument. And no moral person would tolerate it. It s quite simply abhorrent to the senses. Or to put it more emphaticly, no supreme good has ever come from such an evil act. Jesus's power comes from what remains of the story of his life. That is his legacy. The rest, they made it all up, and you bought it, some of you apparently, hook line and sinker.