Sorry guy, I got to disagree. There were two types of Jews portrayed in the movie, those that believed in Jesus and those that didn't. The ones that believed were moderate and compassionate, but the Jews that didn't were blood thirsty and demanding for Jesus to be killed at every moment. It's a matter of opinion .
Now this has bugged me, should Christians be happy that the Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans? If they hadn't how would he have fulfilled the "die for your sins" thing?
You are not listening one bit are you? Of course there were two types of Jews portrayed.
And of course any Christian worth his or her salt knows Jews are not the ones responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, we all are responsible.
Don't watch the silly film then pfflam. I find it interesting that you spend so much time ripping Gibson as claim you are appalled at his (ripping) of Jesus in the film. I am not so sure that you are not the one with a bigger ripping reputation.
Cheap irony.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
As for anti-Semitic that is pure Bullshit. Anyone who watches this film themselves and not making reference to (well so and so saw it and they said...) knows there is a very specific scene with Mary in it looking at the audience (as to indicate that it is all of us who are responsible) for nailing Jesus to the cross.
One specific scene does not absolve the certainly questionable depiction of the Jews throughout the rest of the movie.
One specific scene does not absolve the certainly questionable depiction of the Jews throughout the rest of the movie.
Could you expand on this Shawn? The " certainly questionable depiction of the Jews throughout the rest of the movie" part you mention here.
Have you seen the film? Or are you just drawing conclusions?
Just curious what you really know about this film.
All I know is that I read and listened to all kinds of things about this film before I watched it and then after having seen it I thought to myself... Ohh Hockey Puck... These fools that are making such the fuss over this film.
You are not listening one bit are you? Of course there were two types of Jews portrayed.
And of course any Christian worth his or her salt knows Jews are not the ones responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, we all are responsible.
I am not following you HOM?
Fellows
My point was because the Jews that liked Jesus were so out numbered it gave the impression that all the Jews wanted Jesus killed which certainly not the case. Also by portraying Pilate as a good, honest, and moderate person it casts the Jews in a worse light. Pilate was none of those things and if memory serves me, Pilate was recalled from Judea and exiled because of his rule.
However, as Bill Maher points out, Saudi Arabia won't let Jews get visas, that's real anti-semitism.
My question was why do some sects of Christianity think that the Jews killing Jesus was a bad thing? Wasn't it a good thing that Jesus was crucified? Shouldn't the people responsible be praised for allowing him to die?
My question was why do some sects of Christianity think that the Jews killing Jesus was a bad thing? Wasn't it a good thing that Jesus was crucified? Shouldn't the people responsible be praised for allowing him to die?
I don't think the "Jews" "killed" Jesus. I speak only for myself here mind you. I believe Jesus was nailed to the cross by the sins of humanity past present and future.
Did Jews kill Jesus? No... Jesus paid the price for our sins.. Each and every last one of us.
I don't plan on seeing the film, as everything that I have heard about it sounds antithetical to what I find benificial in the Christian Spirit and/or Spirit in general.
I was merely reporting what I heard from her . . . except my own astonishment and perplexity at a supposedly religious film which seems, literally, to get off on depicting nothing more spiritual as the beating and violence done to Jesus . . . and not just depicting it but exagerating it completely out of proportion in ways that sound completely gratuitous . . . what kind of spiritual sentiment is that? what kind of Passion is that?
sounds like a repressed 'Passion' for the whip, not a passion for the love and its sacrifice . . .
and the manner in which my friend talked about the anti-Simitism, it sounds to me that it is not the kind of thing that people who have not been aware of teh subtle manefestations of Anti-Semitism in movies and in general would pick up . . . kind of like how in most mainstream movies all (most) of the sleazy lawyers are played by very 'jewish looking' character players . . .
If you are not often hanging out with Jewish people who can point this stuff out to you you might not notice as it is actually ambient and ubiquitous in this culture
anway . . just reporting what she said
It sounds to me like this movie is deeply deeply blasphemous and a very desrespectful representative of the finer points of Spiritual matters . . . but whatever. . . that seems par for the course from supposedly 'religious' folks these day . . . to the point where I just want to generally skip over 'religious' sentiment . . . . which, in the case of this movie, I plan on doing . . .
BTW, she said that about the drinking game . . .
So Fship, I take it that you saw the movie and liked it . . . I'm surprised, as I tended to think that your reading of Christianity tended towards respectfulness of spirit, not this blugeoning manipulation of psuedo-spirit that I am sure this film is . .
Could you expand on this Shawn? The " certainly questionable depiction of the Jews throughout the rest of the movie" part you mention here.
Have you seen the film? Or are you just drawing conclusions?
Just curious what you really know about this film.
All I know is that I read and listened to all kinds of things about this film before I watched it and then after having seen it I thought to myself... Ohh Hockey Puck... These fools that are making such the fuss over this film.
Fellowship
No, not really. My post was pretty clear, Fellowship. One little scene "tacked-on," if you will, at the end does not make up for the way Gibson portrays the Jews throughout the rest of the film. There should be concern about just who is depicted doing what and in what manner, since that question has long been used against the Jews to hold them responsible. Does Gibson's film absolve the Jews for his death, despite depicting them in a certainly questionable manner? Perhaps, but I'm personally unable to measure how successfully the film does that. I refuse to hand over the $3-$4 going directly to Mel Gibson (about half the cost of a movie ticket).
Granted that I haven't seen it . . . but I have based my desision and my judgement about what I imagine the film would be on ALL of Gibson's previous work . . .the manner in which his films portray a skewed heroism of trumpted up suffering and dramatic martrdom
plus
I have taken into account the reviews of people whom I trust and descriptions of what would await me should I see it
plus
I grew up Catholic and know from experience that many spiritually-immature Catholics replace the image of the suffering with the love of the Spirit
(note you Catholics: that is not a barb against Catholicism, but a description of the proclivity for the particular flavor of the Catholic form of immature spirit when it is immature . . . for instance, with Baptists are spiritually immature, it would tend towards close-minded biggotry and rabid evangelism . .. I mean the flavor of each type of religion when gone sour . . .in their best forms of expression each manefestation of Christianity can be transcendant)
Take it or leave it . .. but to simply dismiss it (rather than simply leaving it) is, IMO, not addressing the points that I made . . .
In other words: what do you make of the supposed brutality? does it actually lift your spirit to higher realms?
or is it another form of wallowing in the muck?
Why are the main characters of apparent European derivation, as is the Notoriously barbaric Roman, and all of the mob is Saphardic in appearance?
How many times does Jesus get beat or fall face first to the ground? and does it being in slow motion highlight some sort of spiritual truth?
Or some sort of psychological truth on the part of the film maker?
Granted that I haven't seen it . . . but I have based my desision and my judgement about what I imagine the film would be on ALL of Gibson's previous work . . .the manner in which his films portray a skewed heroism of trumpted up suffering and dramatic martrdom
plus
I have taken into account the reviews of people whom I trust and descriptions of what would await me should I see it
plus
I grew up Catholic and know from experience that many spiritually-immature Catholics replace the image of the suffering with the love of the Spirit
(note you Catholics: that is not a barb against Catholicism, but a description of the proclivity for the particular flavor of the Catholic form of immature spirit when it is immature . . . for instance, with Baptists are spiritually immature, it would tend towards close-minded biggotry and rabid evangelism . .. I mean the flavor of each type of religion when gone sour . . .in their best forms of expression each manefestation of Christianity can be transcendant)
Take it or leave it . .. but to simply dismiss it (rather than simply leaving it) is, IMO, not addressing the points that I made . . .
In other words: what do you make of the supposed brutality? does it actually lift your spirit to higher realms?
or is it another form of wallowing in the muck?
Why are the main characters of apparent European derivation, as is the Notoriously barbaric Roman, and all of the mob is Saphardic in appearance?
How many times does Jesus get beat or fall face first to the ground? and does it being in slow motion highlight some sort of spiritual truth?
Or some sort of psychological truth on the part of the film maker?
Why did you like it?
I did not like it first off pfflam as it made me take stock of my life.
The treatment of Christ did not lift my "spirit" to "higher realms" as you say rather it made me see the human side of Jesus in an empathetic light also makeing me take stock of my sins.
Wallowing in the muck? Not at all.
I do not recall this slow motion business you make reference to in regard to scenes where Jesus is beaten or taken to the cross.
Granted that I haven't seen it ............ In other words: what do you make of the supposed brutality?
Or some sort of psychological truth on the part of the film maker?
pfflam, first of all, I've read some of your other posts---you are an intelligent, well-read person. But you have lost your composure here. It's shocking to read you lashing out very bitterly about a movie. This obviously bothers you quite a bit. If you don't like the movie, don't go see it. And if you haven't seen it, how can you legitimately tell us what you think about it except that you are dismissing it out of hand? This isn't your usual well-worded, intelligent style; it's not very flattering.
pfflam, unless you know the Lord, this film will make NO SENSE to you. This is a film by a Christian for Christians. There is a level of spirituality here that you do not enjoy (I mean "enjoy" in a Westminister Confession sense) and cannot approach. An unsaved person who is in active rebellion against God will not want to see Christ's sacrifice, and will be bitter that such a sacrifice should be necessary in the first place. The imagery Gibson has put on the screen is impressionist in some ways and only those who have the Holy Spirit on the receiving end can feel and understand what Gibson is doing.
You have reached a dead end in your experientially-based universe---a place that only Christians can go. There's no sense humiliating yourself by trying to beat a whole in that brick wall with your reputation.
Nicely worded . . . especially the flattering parts
Let me say one thing that you will, of course, disagree with: I am not 'in rebellion against God' . . . I do not like the 'idea' of God that is held by most so called 'religious' folks . .. in fact I think that a human held idea of God is pretty much always allready inadequate . . . especially when there are throngs of people who define themselves in relationship to that idea
Don't get me wrong: I love the idea of devotion and commune with God . . better said G-d though, since in my understanding it is with the idea beyond our ideas that one strives to commune with . . .
As for being 'unsaved' . . . if you say so . . but a God that would extort love through the fear of being or not being 'saved' is not worthy of receiving the love that would come from such extortion . . . note that that kind of 'Gd' is an idea of God and is not God (G-d) . . . of course you will dismiss that as so much anti-Christian thought . . . which it isn't . . . I merely understand the 'sacrifice' differently and I think that such an extorting God is a small human picture of divinity
A God worth loving doesn't need to threaten in order to get love . . . and that love should be for all of his creation, not some other realm alone, that is exclusive to those cowed, through extortion, into belittling him with selfish thanks for their little soul's being saved.
Loving God for saving you is inherently selfish.
God's love comes from the magnitude of Being, and the gift of Being, and the gift of eventually, not being that is death . . . it is a paradox and a perplexity and is infinitely deeper than our conceptions
and BTW . . my "rantings" in this thread are obviously aimed at MelfGobson . . . I cannot stand any of his films,
and,
I think that his notions of what constitute heroism, truth, beauty, and all that, are simplistic, warped and psychologically dangerous in subtle but very powerful ways . . .
. . . meaning that they will reverberate in the cultural unconsciouse in ways that tap into dark and ugly invisible forces in the group psyche
. . . he is a dangerous hateful man who dresses up his psychic scarrs as delectable and manipulative dramatics . . . and I thought that way before I ever heard of this 'Passion' movie . .
also by saying that this movie is by Christians for Christians . . . you sort of made my case as to whether it will make converts or not . . .
it is solipsism . . . talking in circles . . self-congratulation .
Sorry guy, I got to disagree. There were two types of Jews portrayed in the movie, those that believed in Jesus and those that didn't. The ones that believed were moderate and compassionate, but the Jews that didn't were blood thirsty and demanding for Jesus to be killed at every moment. It's a matter of opinion .
WOW, a Hollywood movie that focuses its story around good guys and bad guys.
How utterly surprising. That Gibson is truly unique.
Next thing you'll be telling me is that he scrolled the names of everyone involved in production at the end of the film.
... unless you know the Lord, this film will make NO SENSE to you. This is a film by a Christian for Christians.
[...]
Keep in mind, on the other hand, that this film makes NO SENSE to many Christians. Maybe the film is a depressing act of pride. Maybe it is a reflection of a highly selective, and very questionable, view of the meaning of the Passion. Maybe it is a reflection of the views of a small splinter of a sadly splintered religion.
Or maybe it is just a bad movie.
Or maybe it is a good film. I have not seen it. And I don't think that I ever will. Even people who have liked it have warned me about the unrelenting level of gore. I don't think that I could sit through this and I question why it was made in this manner.
I'll admit, however, that the fact that my money would be going to Mel and his little group turns me off as well. But I had originally decided to put all that aside and see the movie anyway. I changed my mind when I heard of the actual content of the film.
it is solipsism . . . talking in circles . . self-congratulation .
. . probably
....and a whole 'nother thread. I hear you.
On Gibson's earlier films, (although I don't know if he made a mess of We Were Soldiers I'll be the last one to tell you he has a less heavy hand at directing/producing your garden variety, mass-produced crap. What he did to William Wallace in Braveheart made the Return of the King look like a documentary. The violence, I just saw the last third of Gangs of New York---it wasn't any worse than that; the satan character is actually more distrubing than the violence.
Amen to that. I was really disappointed when I kept on hearing about the gore and the violence....
[...]
I'd love to see more "left-wing" associated movements in Christianity; maybe a PBS TV series on how Christians are changing their attitudes towards the LGBT community, or opening up dialog with other religions. It'd be nice to see something about Christianity in the mainstream that isn't like or associated with The Wedge Strategy.
Great post, by the way. I only reproduced part of it, but others can go back and read it a couple of pages ago.
the graphic and relentless cruelty pushes everything important about Christ to the margins.
Unless you have read Isaiah, and Pslams
Quote:
Nowhere does the movie encourage reflection on the life and teachings of Jesus, on his example to the world, on the meaning of his resurrection.
This is technically not true[read: a lie], there were flashbacks to his teachings.
Quote:
If "The Passion" is the flagellant's dream, it is also the anti-Semite's bountiful gift.
I'm still missing the real point on this sort of critism. I have met ONE anit-semite in my life (that I know of) and he was from Europe---lots of racists in the Southern American States, but no anti-semites.
Also, is blood guilt somehow now a Christian teaching? I'm not following this.
Quote:
Literalists like Mel Gibson, who go to ancient texts.........
Here again is the presuposition that milennia old, commonly-held exgetical and doctrine beliefs of billions of Christians are nonsense.
The anti-Christian idealoges that cook up this kind of rehtoric have come unhinged in their thinking. Out of one side of their mouth they will tell you that violence---even Gallo and Scorcesse style garbage is just dandy in a movie. Miramax couldn't be bothered with The Passion because they were too busy cranking out Tarantino's latest masterpiece, Kill Bill I & II.
So is violence on the screen good or bad?---please, somebody----ANYBODY?! Can we come to a consensus on this?
Not an accurate movie? Not if your are an orthodox Christian----but then again----Can we come to a consensus on accuracy in movies?
Which leaves the anit-semite thing. I don't understand anti-semitism. The Czech I talked to claimed a world wide banking conspiracy[!] repleat with dastardly plans for world domination. Sorry, I just don't get it---or the bloodguilt thing. Bad Karma for wishing Christ's blood on their children? Maybe. What this has do to with people who live a Christ-like life escapes me.
Now if you will excuse me I have to go rewatch the unrated version of Requiem for a Dream.
Comments
Originally posted by HOM
Sorry guy, I got to disagree. There were two types of Jews portrayed in the movie, those that believed in Jesus and those that didn't. The ones that believed were moderate and compassionate, but the Jews that didn't were blood thirsty and demanding for Jesus to be killed at every moment. It's a matter of opinion
Now this has bugged me, should Christians be happy that the Jews handed Jesus over to the Romans? If they hadn't how would he have fulfilled the "die for your sins" thing?
You are not listening one bit are you? Of course there were two types of Jews portrayed.
And of course any Christian worth his or her salt knows Jews are not the ones responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, we all are responsible.
I am not following you HOM?
Fellows
Originally posted by Fellowship
Don't watch the silly film then pfflam. I find it interesting that you spend so much time ripping Gibson as claim you are appalled at his (ripping) of Jesus in the film. I am not so sure that you are not the one with a bigger ripping reputation.
Cheap irony.
Originally posted by Fellowship
As for anti-Semitic that is pure Bullshit. Anyone who watches this film themselves and not making reference to (well so and so saw it and they said...) knows there is a very specific scene with Mary in it looking at the audience (as to indicate that it is all of us who are responsible) for nailing Jesus to the cross.
One specific scene does not absolve the certainly questionable depiction of the Jews throughout the rest of the movie.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Cheap irony.
One specific scene does not absolve the certainly questionable depiction of the Jews throughout the rest of the movie.
Could you expand on this Shawn? The " certainly questionable depiction of the Jews throughout the rest of the movie" part you mention here.
Have you seen the film? Or are you just drawing conclusions?
Just curious what you really know about this film.
All I know is that I read and listened to all kinds of things about this film before I watched it and then after having seen it I thought to myself... Ohh Hockey Puck... These fools that are making such the fuss over this film.
Fellowship
Originally posted by Fellowship
You are not listening one bit are you? Of course there were two types of Jews portrayed.
And of course any Christian worth his or her salt knows Jews are not the ones responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, we all are responsible.
I am not following you HOM?
Fellows
My point was because the Jews that liked Jesus were so out numbered it gave the impression that all the Jews wanted Jesus killed which certainly not the case. Also by portraying Pilate as a good, honest, and moderate person it casts the Jews in a worse light. Pilate was none of those things and if memory serves me, Pilate was recalled from Judea and exiled because of his rule.
However, as Bill Maher points out, Saudi Arabia won't let Jews get visas, that's real anti-semitism.
My question was why do some sects of Christianity think that the Jews killing Jesus was a bad thing? Wasn't it a good thing that Jesus was crucified? Shouldn't the people responsible be praised for allowing him to die?
Originally posted by HOM
My question was why do some sects of Christianity think that the Jews killing Jesus was a bad thing? Wasn't it a good thing that Jesus was crucified? Shouldn't the people responsible be praised for allowing him to die?
I don't think the "Jews" "killed" Jesus. I speak only for myself here mind you. I believe Jesus was nailed to the cross by the sins of humanity past present and future.
Did Jews kill Jesus? No... Jesus paid the price for our sins.. Each and every last one of us.
Fellowship
I was merely reporting what I heard from her . . . except my own astonishment and perplexity at a supposedly religious film which seems, literally, to get off on depicting nothing more spiritual as the beating and violence done to Jesus . . . and not just depicting it but exagerating it completely out of proportion in ways that sound completely gratuitous . . . what kind of spiritual sentiment is that? what kind of Passion is that?
sounds like a repressed 'Passion' for the whip, not a passion for the love and its sacrifice . . .
and the manner in which my friend talked about the anti-Simitism, it sounds to me that it is not the kind of thing that people who have not been aware of teh subtle manefestations of Anti-Semitism in movies and in general would pick up . . . kind of like how in most mainstream movies all (most) of the sleazy lawyers are played by very 'jewish looking' character players . . .
If you are not often hanging out with Jewish people who can point this stuff out to you you might not notice as it is actually ambient and ubiquitous in this culture
anway . . just reporting what she said
It sounds to me like this movie is deeply deeply blasphemous and a very desrespectful representative of the finer points of Spiritual matters . . . but whatever. . . that seems par for the course from supposedly 'religious' folks these day . . . to the point where I just want to generally skip over 'religious' sentiment . . . . which, in the case of this movie, I plan on doing . . .
BTW, she said that about the drinking game . . .
So Fship, I take it that you saw the movie and liked it . . . I'm surprised, as I tended to think that your reading of Christianity tended towards respectfulness of spirit, not this blugeoning manipulation of psuedo-spirit that I am sure this film is . .
Originally posted by pfflam
this blugeoning manipulation of psuedo-spirit that I am sure this film is . .
yep..
Originally posted by ShawnJ
certainly questionable depiction of the Jews throughout the rest of the movie.
yep..
Originally posted by Fellowship
Could you expand on this Shawn? The " certainly questionable depiction of the Jews throughout the rest of the movie" part you mention here.
Have you seen the film? Or are you just drawing conclusions?
Just curious what you really know about this film.
All I know is that I read and listened to all kinds of things about this film before I watched it and then after having seen it I thought to myself... Ohh Hockey Puck... These fools that are making such the fuss over this film.
Fellowship
No, not really. My post was pretty clear, Fellowship. One little scene "tacked-on," if you will, at the end does not make up for the way Gibson portrays the Jews throughout the rest of the film. There should be concern about just who is depicted doing what and in what manner, since that question has long been used against the Jews to hold them responsible. Does Gibson's film absolve the Jews for his death, despite depicting them in a certainly questionable manner? Perhaps, but I'm personally unable to measure how successfully the film does that. I refuse to hand over the $3-$4 going directly to Mel Gibson (about half the cost of a movie ticket).
plus
I have taken into account the reviews of people whom I trust and descriptions of what would await me should I see it
plus
I grew up Catholic and know from experience that many spiritually-immature Catholics replace the image of the suffering with the love of the Spirit
(note you Catholics: that is not a barb against Catholicism, but a description of the proclivity for the particular flavor of the Catholic form of immature spirit when it is immature . . . for instance, with Baptists are spiritually immature, it would tend towards close-minded biggotry and rabid evangelism . .. I mean the flavor of each type of religion when gone sour . . .in their best forms of expression each manefestation of Christianity can be transcendant)
Take it or leave it . .. but to simply dismiss it (rather than simply leaving it) is, IMO, not addressing the points that I made . . .
In other words: what do you make of the supposed brutality? does it actually lift your spirit to higher realms?
or is it another form of wallowing in the muck?
Why are the main characters of apparent European derivation, as is the Notoriously barbaric Roman, and all of the mob is Saphardic in appearance?
How many times does Jesus get beat or fall face first to the ground? and does it being in slow motion highlight some sort of spiritual truth?
Or some sort of psychological truth on the part of the film maker?
Why did you like it?
Originally posted by pfflam
Granted that I haven't seen it . . . but I have based my desision and my judgement about what I imagine the film would be on ALL of Gibson's previous work . . .the manner in which his films portray a skewed heroism of trumpted up suffering and dramatic martrdom
plus
I have taken into account the reviews of people whom I trust and descriptions of what would await me should I see it
plus
I grew up Catholic and know from experience that many spiritually-immature Catholics replace the image of the suffering with the love of the Spirit
(note you Catholics: that is not a barb against Catholicism, but a description of the proclivity for the particular flavor of the Catholic form of immature spirit when it is immature . . . for instance, with Baptists are spiritually immature, it would tend towards close-minded biggotry and rabid evangelism . .. I mean the flavor of each type of religion when gone sour . . .in their best forms of expression each manefestation of Christianity can be transcendant)
Take it or leave it . .. but to simply dismiss it (rather than simply leaving it) is, IMO, not addressing the points that I made . . .
In other words: what do you make of the supposed brutality? does it actually lift your spirit to higher realms?
or is it another form of wallowing in the muck?
Why are the main characters of apparent European derivation, as is the Notoriously barbaric Roman, and all of the mob is Saphardic in appearance?
How many times does Jesus get beat or fall face first to the ground? and does it being in slow motion highlight some sort of spiritual truth?
Or some sort of psychological truth on the part of the film maker?
Why did you like it?
I did not like it first off pfflam as it made me take stock of my life.
The treatment of Christ did not lift my "spirit" to "higher realms" as you say rather it made me see the human side of Jesus in an empathetic light also makeing me take stock of my sins.
Wallowing in the muck? Not at all.
I do not recall this slow motion business you make reference to in regard to scenes where Jesus is beaten or taken to the cross.
Fellowship
Originally posted by pfflam
Granted that I haven't seen it ............ In other words: what do you make of the supposed brutality?
Or some sort of psychological truth on the part of the film maker?
pfflam, first of all, I've read some of your other posts---you are an intelligent, well-read person. But you have lost your composure here. It's shocking to read you lashing out very bitterly about a movie. This obviously bothers you quite a bit. If you don't like the movie, don't go see it. And if you haven't seen it, how can you legitimately tell us what you think about it except that you are dismissing it out of hand? This isn't your usual well-worded, intelligent style; it's not very flattering.
pfflam, unless you know the Lord, this film will make NO SENSE to you. This is a film by a Christian for Christians. There is a level of spirituality here that you do not enjoy (I mean "enjoy" in a Westminister Confession sense) and cannot approach. An unsaved person who is in active rebellion against God will not want to see Christ's sacrifice, and will be bitter that such a sacrifice should be necessary in the first place. The imagery Gibson has put on the screen is impressionist in some ways and only those who have the Holy Spirit on the receiving end can feel and understand what Gibson is doing.
You have reached a dead end in your experientially-based universe---a place that only Christians can go. There's no sense humiliating yourself by trying to beat a whole in that brick wall with your reputation.
Originally posted by dmz
pfflam, .
Nicely worded . . . especially the flattering parts
Let me say one thing that you will, of course, disagree with: I am not 'in rebellion against God' . . . I do not like the 'idea' of God that is held by most so called 'religious' folks . .. in fact I think that a human held idea of God is pretty much always allready inadequate . . . especially when there are throngs of people who define themselves in relationship to that idea
Don't get me wrong: I love the idea of devotion and commune with God . . better said G-d though, since in my understanding it is with the idea beyond our ideas that one strives to commune with . . .
As for being 'unsaved' . . . if you say so . . but a God that would extort love through the fear of being or not being 'saved' is not worthy of receiving the love that would come from such extortion . . . note that that kind of 'Gd' is an idea of God and is not God (G-d) . . . of course you will dismiss that as so much anti-Christian thought . . . which it isn't . . . I merely understand the 'sacrifice' differently and I think that such an extorting God is a small human picture of divinity
A God worth loving doesn't need to threaten in order to get love . . . and that love should be for all of his creation, not some other realm alone, that is exclusive to those cowed, through extortion, into belittling him with selfish thanks for their little soul's being saved.
Loving God for saving you is inherently selfish.
God's love comes from the magnitude of Being, and the gift of Being, and the gift of eventually, not being that is death . . . it is a paradox and a perplexity and is infinitely deeper than our conceptions
and BTW . . my "rantings" in this thread are obviously aimed at MelfGobson . . . I cannot stand any of his films,
and,
I think that his notions of what constitute heroism, truth, beauty, and all that, are simplistic, warped and psychologically dangerous in subtle but very powerful ways . . .
. . . meaning that they will reverberate in the cultural unconsciouse in ways that tap into dark and ugly invisible forces in the group psyche
. . . he is a dangerous hateful man who dresses up his psychic scarrs as delectable and manipulative dramatics . . . and I thought that way before I ever heard of this 'Passion' movie . .
also by saying that this movie is by Christians for Christians . . . you sort of made my case as to whether it will make converts or not . . .
it is solipsism . . . talking in circles . . self-congratulation .
. . probably
Originally posted by HOM
Sorry guy, I got to disagree. There were two types of Jews portrayed in the movie, those that believed in Jesus and those that didn't. The ones that believed were moderate and compassionate, but the Jews that didn't were blood thirsty and demanding for Jesus to be killed at every moment. It's a matter of opinion
WOW, a Hollywood movie that focuses its story around good guys and bad guys.
How utterly surprising. That Gibson is truly unique.
Next thing you'll be telling me is that he scrolled the names of everyone involved in production at the end of the film.
Originally posted by dmz
[...]
... unless you know the Lord, this film will make NO SENSE to you. This is a film by a Christian for Christians.
[...]
Keep in mind, on the other hand, that this film makes NO SENSE to many Christians. Maybe the film is a depressing act of pride. Maybe it is a reflection of a highly selective, and very questionable, view of the meaning of the Passion. Maybe it is a reflection of the views of a small splinter of a sadly splintered religion.
Or maybe it is just a bad movie.
Or maybe it is a good film. I have not seen it. And I don't think that I ever will. Even people who have liked it have warned me about the unrelenting level of gore. I don't think that I could sit through this and I question why it was made in this manner.
I'll admit, however, that the fact that my money would be going to Mel and his little group turns me off as well. But I had originally decided to put all that aside and see the movie anyway. I changed my mind when I heard of the actual content of the film.
Originally posted by pfflam
it is solipsism . . . talking in circles . . self-congratulation .
. . probably
....and a whole 'nother thread. I hear you.
On Gibson's earlier films, (although I don't know if he made a mess of We Were Soldiers I'll be the last one to tell you he has a less heavy hand at directing/producing your garden variety, mass-produced crap. What he did to William Wallace in Braveheart made the Return of the King look like a documentary. The violence, I just saw the last third of Gangs of New York---it wasn't any worse than that; the satan character is actually more distrubing than the violence.
Anyway. Circles...........
Originally posted by rampancy
Amen to that. I was really disappointed when I kept on hearing about the gore and the violence....
[...]
I'd love to see more "left-wing" associated movements in Christianity; maybe a PBS TV series on how Christians are changing their attitudes towards the LGBT community, or opening up dialog with other religions. It'd be nice to see something about Christianity in the mainstream that isn't like or associated with The Wedge Strategy.
Great post, by the way. I only reproduced part of it, but others can go back and read it a couple of pages ago.
EDIT: Even better! I just read Katha Politt's latest column, probably one of the best I've read.
from commondreams.org
the graphic and relentless cruelty pushes everything important about Christ to the margins.
Unless you have read Isaiah, and Pslams
Nowhere does the movie encourage reflection on the life and teachings of Jesus, on his example to the world, on the meaning of his resurrection.
This is technically not true[read: a lie], there were flashbacks to his teachings.
If "The Passion" is the flagellant's dream, it is also the anti-Semite's bountiful gift.
I'm still missing the real point on this sort of critism. I have met ONE anit-semite in my life (that I know of) and he was from Europe---lots of racists in the Southern American States, but no anti-semites.
Also, is blood guilt somehow now a Christian teaching? I'm not following this.
Literalists like Mel Gibson, who go to ancient texts.........
Here again is the presuposition that milennia old, commonly-held exgetical and doctrine beliefs of billions of Christians are nonsense.
The anti-Christian idealoges that cook up this kind of rehtoric have come unhinged in their thinking. Out of one side of their mouth they will tell you that violence---even Gallo and Scorcesse style garbage is just dandy in a movie. Miramax couldn't be bothered with The Passion because they were too busy cranking out Tarantino's latest masterpiece, Kill Bill I & II.
So is violence on the screen good or bad?---please, somebody----ANYBODY?! Can we come to a consensus on this?
Not an accurate movie? Not if your are an orthodox Christian----but then again----Can we come to a consensus on accuracy in movies?
Which leaves the anit-semite thing. I don't understand anti-semitism. The Czech I talked to claimed a world wide banking conspiracy[!]
Now if you will excuse me I have to go rewatch the unrated version of Requiem for a Dream.