do people honestly believe that the movie was snubbed because of the religious storyline, and not because the world at large doesn't believe it to be a "great" movie in any sense of the word? now, i haven't seen the movie, but i do not believe that it was shunned because it was the passion of Christ, people i talked to, Christians i spoke to, have just told me it wasn't anything great, as much as it was shocking...
[ January 27, 2005, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I saw it. I don't think it came anywhere near deserving to be nominated for Best Picture. The only reason it got as much attention as it did (IMO) is due to content.
[ January 27, 2005, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yes, and all these were so much better:
FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
AS IT IS IN HEAVEN THE CHORUS DOWNFALL THE SEA INSIDE YESTERDAY
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
And I should note that I was prepared to love it. I was excited when I first heard about the possibility of this movie and I waited with great anticipation. I had planned to take groups from church, and definitely the confirmation class.
Then I saw it. It was a let-down.
There was a major push to make this movie a bestseller in order to “send a message” to Hollywood. I lost track of the number of e-mails and letters I got urging me to see it over and over to drive ticket sales up.
The message here is not that explicitly Christian art won’t be recognized as great, it’s that art isn’t great just because it’s explicitly Christian. To quote Margie Brown, “Holy shoddy is still shoddy.”
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I hope, when I become a successful writer, I will care not a whit for awards. I hope that come gold, silver, or bronze that I continue to write things that are both pleasureable for me and for my audience.
I hope I never rely on nominations to tell me the value of a work.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
I nominate Scott R for this thread's principled writer award.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Interesting. I’ve never heard anyone say they weren’t moved by the Passion. Oh well. Must be talking to the wrong groups again. Personally, I cried. To read the accounts in the Bible of what Jesus went through and then to see it in real life and know that he did this for a sinner like me was very over whelming. The only reason for it is love. It was his passion. Mel Gibson got this point across very well.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
So, Scott, what will tell you the value of a work? (not that I think it is awards or anything)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm sure some people refused to consider it because of the subject matter. I'm sure some people nominated it only because of its subject matter. And I'm sure some people voted for it on (or mostly on) their judgment of it as a film.
And I'm sure this happens with every single movie considered by the Academy.
Dagonee
[ January 27, 2005, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Actually, this is one of those movies we appreciated but we will not be adding it to our DVD collection. We do not wish to watch it again.
Other than being fairly overcome by the violence, there was only one point that really moved me. There could have been a lot more points like that.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Should be required watching every Easter
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Required for whom?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Anyone who loves Jesus Might not be comfortable, but something to remember his sacrifice and what he went through.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I can't say that I love Jesus.
That would be a hollow claim.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Jay, hopefully you are spending some time during every worship service doing exactly that. I don't believe you need a graphic visual depiction of it. In fact, I think such a thing removes you somewhat from the personal aspect His sacrifice and from the actual nature of the Atonement.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Sure I think about it. It’s not the same. Seeing something like that is about as close as you can get to being there. It let’s you get a better feel of how huge of a sacrifice and burden it was. I would have died at the first beating. Jesus climbed onto the cross to finish the job. I guess all I’m saying is that watching it gives a better appreciation.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Is the story of his gruesome and horrific death the most important thing to learn from Jesus?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I thought the movie was excellent insofar as it is Mel Gibson's personal testimony, genuinely expressed in the best way he knows how. From what I got out of the whole experience, everyone involved was sincere in what they were trying to do, and for that I am glad.
Saying that, I don't think it was perfect. It had flaws. Not to say they weren't well-meaning flaws, but flaws nonetheless.
Also saying that, I don't want to see it from beginning to end ever again. And anyone who tries to tell me that I don't really love Jesus because I won't see it every easter deserves a kick in the crotch.
But not from me, as that would be unchristian. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
See, the movie didn’t lead me to remember Jesus, or his sacrifice. I saw no connection between that actor on the screen and Jesus, other than that I knew I was supposed to make the connection.
Maybe if they’d started the story earlier, let me come to know the character before starting in with the violence I would have. Maybe if the movie hadn’t been so obsessed with the blood, even to the point of having Mary lovingly mop the floor instead of following her injured son, I would have. Maybe if there’d been any indication that this man was the vibrant, prophetic preacher/teacher/healer portrayed in the gospels, who came to proclaim good new to the poor, release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, liberty to the oppressed, and the coming of the kingdom of God, I would have cared.
As it is, I think people who love Jesus should read the story for themselves, rather than watching Mel Gibson’s particular interpretation of such a tiny fraction of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I’ve never heard anyone say they weren’t moved by the Passion.
I wasn't. It was a snuff film starring Christ, for God's sake. The kind of people who find that sort of thing "moving" need healthy hobbies.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
The story was about what Jesus went though in his last 12 hours before his sacrifice. Sure, I’d love to see the prequel. No I didn’t say if you didn’t watch you didn’t love Jesus. And of course people should read the Bible first and come to a knowledge of God’s love through there. All I am saying is that the movie can give a better appreciation of what God had to do to save us. And yes, Jesus death and resurrection on the cross is the most important thing we can learn about him and ultimately the only thing we need to learn from him. Not saying in the least that there isn’t a ton of other stuff to learn too. But if you miss this lesson, you’re burning for eternity. Just ask the thief on the cross. He only had time for this one lesson.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Cut the snuff film crap, Tom.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: The kind of people who find that sort of thing "moving" need healthy hobbies.
Thanks Tom, I'll pray for you.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Jay
quote: Should be required watching every Easter
dkw
quote: Required for whom?
Jay
quote: Anyone who loves Jesus
Forgive me for misunderstanding you, Jay. But you left little to be misunderstood.
[ January 27, 2005, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Wow, Ben and I have something in common. I have also not seen The Passion. My mom has it, but we always have our kids with us when we go visit her.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Cut the snuff film crap, Tom."
No, Dag. That's exactly -- and perfectly -- what the movie is. That's all it is. Even disaster movies give us more time to get to know the characters.
It is a loving, beautiful, and excruciatingly detailed portrayal of the way one man is said to have been horribly killed. We get closeups of sweaty chests being ripped open to the bloody flesh beneath; we get agony in slo-mo. There's no discussion of the context of the death; there's no attempt to tell a broader story or make the violence any more relevant within the framework of a larger film. The violence is the film, in a very deliberately pornographic way. The entire movie is about how incredibly awful it is to be hurt.
Snuff film. Period.
[ January 27, 2005, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You’re forgiven. Glad you saw that I never said anywhere that if you didn’t watch you didn’t love. That would deserve a kick in the junk.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BS. Context is important in a situation like this. You're bright enough to realize this. "The entire film is about how incredibly awful it is to be hurt." Snuff films are about wanting to do the hurting, or enjoying the hurting.
The context for many believers watching it is not reveling in the pain and suffering, but in taking in a very important event in the life of their savior. The context doesn't have to be provided by the film, although I wish more had been.
Dagonee
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Tom
I thought snuff films were supposed to have a sexual content to them? Maybe that is why people are upset with your characterization of the movie as a snuff film. It it implying that the people who watched it and were moved by it were moved in a sexual way.
msquared
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would submit Jay as an example of someone for whom the violence was itself pornographic. Read what he wrote again.
Y'all know how disgusting I find martyr obsessions. Dude died. It probably hurt a whole heck of a lot -- more than most things, not as much as some things. Stop dwelling on it.
[ January 27, 2005, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
quote:Seeing something like that is about as close as you can get to being there.
And how was that an advantage? How many people were actually there, watched Jesus suffer, and got nothing good or spiritual out of it? Most of them. The very great majority of them. Even those who had followed Jesus all his life got only that their Rabbi was being cruelly put to death in the same way many people had experienced at the hands of the Romans.
Even His close disciples got nothing but sorrow through watching His torture and death.
What we celebrate at Easter is not that.
[ January 27, 2005, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: time to get to know the characters.
You are limited in time. This movie was meant for people who already had knowledge of Christ. To show believers what exactly Jesus went though. Which is hard to argue against it showing that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"To show believers what exactly Jesus went though."
Why do you believe that is important, Jay? Would Christ's sacrifice have meant less if they'd beheaded him mercifully?
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I hate violence in movies. I close my eyes and ears during all fight and violent scenes except, for some reason, the ones during LOTR.
My version of Passion was about 35 minutes long. It was excellent.
[ January 27, 2005, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
LOTR wasn't really very "gory". We usually close our eyes during violent scenes, too, but didn't feel the need to during most of LOTR.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: What we celebrate at Easter is not that
Right, Easter is when he rose again. But that was the end of the film. I really think a lot of people didn’t know what Jesus had to go through. You’ll be hard pressed to find an Easter play that doesn’t show the crusificition. Still. You are 100% right about everyone turning away though before his resurrection.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would submit Jay as an example of someone for whom the violence was itself pornographic. Read what he wrote again.
Y'all know how disgusting I find martyr obsessions. Dude died. It probably hurt a whole heck of a lot -- more than most things, not as much as some things. Stop dwelling on it.
Your blind spots and willful ignorance just amaze me sometimes. It's not about how you see the film - it wasn't aimed at you. Calling Jay's watching of the film pornographic is incredibly insulting to him and to the many people who do watch the film for the reasons he has espoused.
I'm not in favor of his blanket declarations of the necessity of the film to other believers, but his reasons for watching it and the reflections it produces in him are perfectly valid within the context of Christianity. A context you have shown not just an incapacity for understanding, but a desire to misunderstand.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I was honestly amazed (and somewhat disappointed) when this movie came out that so many people, especially so many Catholics, seem to regard the crucifixion as the important thing about Jesus, rather than say his ministry and ressurection.
It does explain things though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Tell me again, Dag, why it's necessary to see your Savior flayed alive in slow motion.
Explain to me how this is reinforcing your faith.
Convince me that it's bringing you closer to your all-knowing, all-powerful God of love, mercy, and beauty.
I'll warn you: it's going to be a hard sell because, yeah, I start with the default assumption that people who enjoy that sort of thing are suffering from a sort of mental illness.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Why do you believe that is important, Jay? Would Christ's sacrifice have meant less if they'd beheaded him mercifully?
I think it’s important because it demonstrates God’s love for people. There will never be anyone who can possibly do more. Jesus gave it all. If they would have beheaded him it wouldn’t have fulfilled prophecy. So many prophecies were fulfilled at the cross.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was honestly amazed (and somewhat disappointed) when this movie came out that so many people, especially so many Catholics, seem to regard the crucifixion as the important thing about Jesus, rather than say his ministry and ressurection.
It does explain things though.
Gee, people discussing a particular aspect of their faith at a time when a movie about that aspect came out. Big surprise. Discussion about the film the Passion will, shockingly, be mostly about the Passion.
I'd be surprised if you were capable of accurately assessing what Christians in general or Catholics in particular regard as important about Jesus.
Dagonee
[ January 27, 2005, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Tell me again, Dag, why it's necessary to see your Savior flayed alive in slow motion.
Explain to me how this is reinforcing your faith.
Convince me that it's bringing you closer to your all-knowing, all-powerful God of love, mercy, and beauty.
I'll warn you: it's going to be a hard sell because, yeah, I start with the default assumption that people who enjoy that sort of thing are suffering from a sort of mental illness.
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to get you to show a modicum of respect and the tiniest bit of understanding that WITHIN THE CONTEXT of Christianity, your "default" assumption is worth exactly nothing.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I think it’s important because it demonstrates God’s love for people. There will never be anyone who can possibly do more."
See, I don't buy that. Christ suffered, but the physical suffering he endured, no matter how gory you present it on film, simply wasn't the worst pain ever endured by a human being. There are more terrible ways to die.
Now, you can make the argument that he also endured a form of spiritual suffering -- that he was made to endure the emotional brunt of the sins of humankind while on the cross. And that's fine, although not particularly cinematic.
But to say that it's important for us to know the brutality of crucifixion at a visceral level because it's important that he was whipped a certain specific number of times is just, IMO, a pornographic obsession with violence. It's like counting virgins in the Islamic version of Heaven; it misses the forest for the trees, and seeks to justify the glorification of brutality by applying it to a higher purpose.
--------
"I'm trying to get you to show a modicum of respect and the tiniest bit of understanding that WITHIN THE CONTEXT of Christianity, your 'default' assumption is worth exactly nothing."
Dag, if someone came to the board who claimed that his faith made it necessary for him to eat the flesh of living children, and that within the context of his faith this was a beautiful thing, and that he and his wife had raised a number of children in the faith who were perfectly willing to offer up the occasional bite, should I shrug and say, "Oh, gee, I guess within the context of your faith, my default assumption that eating children is a bad thing is meaningless?"
[ January 27, 2005, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, good grief. Anyone who thinks the Passion is an all encompassing view of Christianity is missing the forests for the trees. Anyone who decides to watch it as an additional way of contemplating their faith is simply concentrating on a particular aspect of their faith at a particular point in time.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Is that you're stock answer when people point out things that you don't want to believe about groups that you belong to? That we don't understand? Dude, you've proven with the Galileo thing and the Crusades or the Death Penalty or the "The Catholic Church never believed that unbaptised babies were going to hell" thing that you aren't all that accurate when it comes to stuff like this.
I do actually know what I'm talking about, at least as well as you. I'm willing to bet my knowlege of Catholicism is at leat as good as yours, considering all the times you've been wrong and it's been me that's told you so.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Jay as an example of someone for whom the violence was itself pornographic
Thanks for comparing my most personal intimate historical event in history to one of the most disgusting thing this sinful twisted world has to offer. Maybe I should quit posting on this thread. Tom you are obviously biased against me from the political topics.
[ January 27, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: simply wasn't the worst pain ever endured by a human being. There are more terrible ways to die.
I pray you never have to find out. As the movie talked about, it was all the sin of all the world of all time. It is finished.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Thanks for comparing my most personal intimate historical event in history to the most disgusting thing this sinful twisted world has to offer."
Hm. So pornography is the single most disgusting thing on Earth, even compared to, say, war, rape, and mutilation? And you consider the mutilation and murder of your savior to be the most personal and intimate event in the history of the world?
Jay, while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I don't see why I shouldn't disagree with it loudly.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Frankly, Jay....
I find the torture of Jesus more disgusting and twisted than pornography.
How do you think such cruelty happened? They enjoyed it. Perhaps even sexually.
The Passion depicts that, and pretty much only that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, Is that you're stock answer when people point out things that you don't want to believe about groups that you belong to? That we don't understand?
No, just to you, because 99.9% of the time it's true.
quote:Dude, you've proven with the Galileo thing and the Crusades or the Death Penalty or the "The Catholic Church never believed that unbaptised babies were going to hell" thing that you aren't all that accurate when it comes to stuff like this.
OK, Mr. Scientific Method can tell what people really believe, where is your study that Catholics believe the crucifixion is the most important event in Christ's life? Does it have a proper sampling?
"The Catholic Church never believed that unbaptised babies were going to hell" is absolutely true. Some Catholics believe this; it was never taught as official doctrine of the Church.
quote:I do actually know what I'm talking about, at least as well as you. I'm willing to bet my knowlege of Catholicism is at leat as good as yours, considering all the times you've been wrong and it's been me that's told you so.
What color is the sky in your world? Is it a nice shade of pink with green stripes, perchance? You've told me I've been wrong about Catholic theology, but NEVER ONCE have you backed it up with anything except your assertions.
Dagonee
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Now, you can make the argument that he also endured a form of spiritual suffering -- that he was made to endure the emotional brunt of the sins of humankind while on the cross. And that's fine, although not particularly cinematic.
I liked the Last Temptation of Christ for the spiritual suffering. I think it really showed the context of Christ with all of the agony, at least it did so in a story I could understand. [i]The Passion[/i[], on the other hand, I found lightweight in comparison.
[ January 27, 2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Jay, while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I don't see why I shouldn't disagree with it loudly.
Gee, you hate it when Jay labels people who disagree with him, but you're willing to call his appreciation for this film "pornographic"? Inconsistent much?
[ January 27, 2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"where is your study that Catholics believe the crucifixion is the most important event in Christ's life?"
Of course, most American Catholics are okay with the use of birth control, too. So maybe there's a bit of a disconnect between what Catholics are supposed to believe and what they do believe.
Seriously, though, I think Jay's opinion is in the minority. That doesn't mean it's any less squicky.
-------
"you hate it when Jay labels people who disagree with you, but you're willing to call his appreciation for this film 'pornographic?'"
What about the use of the word "pornographic" in this situation would you say is inaccurate? Heck, I maintain that the film itself is pornographic.
[ January 27, 2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And Jay contends that liberals are kooks.
There you go.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy Pronunciation: -fE Function: noun Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE, CARVE 1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>
quote:One entry found for liberal.
Main Entry: 2liberal Function: noun : a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b capitalized : a member or supporter of a liberal political party c : an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights
Hmm, I don't see "kook" anywhere....
[ January 27, 2005, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Zeugma ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: the single most disgusting thing on Earth
Nope. Not the single, just one of the most. And again. You miss the point. It was the passion. The sacrifice. What no one else could have done. Are you atheist? You specifically said “your savior” and I don’t sense any appreciation for anything of faith.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:Thanks for comparing my most personal intimate historical event in history to the most disgusting thing this sinful twisted world has to offer.
[ January 27, 2005, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Zeugma ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hmm, I don't see "single" anywhere....
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Maybe I should go back and add some italics. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I submit that my use of the word "single" for emphasis does not change the meaning of Jay's use of "the most."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"The most" allows for the existence of other, equally disgusting things.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
what has this thread become?
i too was interested in seeing The Passion when i first started hearing about the film. As it approached the release date the media became flooded with arguments from both sides about the quality and/or merit of this film. Somewhere along those lines i lost all interest in seeing it, but i cannot really place my finger on why, other than i feel people were putting too much stock into celluloid.
[ January 27, 2005, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Goodness…. Get real. You know what I meant. You’re trying to argue semantics now.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Meaning pornography is exactly as horrific as rape, as Jay sees it. That it's exactly as horrific as murder.
Why are you defending him?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, Dag, it doesn't.
If you say "that is the most disgusting thing the world has to offer," you are not saying that there are thousands of equally disgusting things out there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ben, it's apparantly become a thread where Tom feels comfortable equating a movie about Christ's death with pornography, and Squick feels confident to express what people other than him actually consider important in their faith.
Dagonee
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Jay, half the time, NOBODY here knows what the heck you mean. Your arguments are poorly written and often flawed. You constantly contradict yourself. I think we all understand that you hate liberals and love Jesus, but beyond that? It's just a mess.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It was the passion. The sacrifice.
Passion is not sacrifice, it's closer to the suffering that comes from fulfilling ones destiny. It's a "damned if you do," "damned if you don't" suffering. A passion is the suffering that occasions the cutting off at every proper decision, a decision guided by being shown ones place among the totality of beings, thereby revealing ones destiny.
de- down, cision- cut, from cidere or caedere.
I don't think that the conflation of the two ideas, sacrifice and passion, is appropriate, even if it is popular. Martin Luther and Jesus both had passions, but I submit that sacrifice is an homage comes with the advent of faith and in an effort to please a God. I don't think that it's a coincidence that passion is Greek and sacrifice is Latin.
[ January 27, 2005, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom feels comfortable equating a movie about Christ's death with pornography"
Yep. Let me point out that I do not call all movies about Christ's death pornographic. I call this specific movie, which only happens to be about Christ's death, pornographic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Meaning pornography is exactly as horrific as rape, as Jay sees it. That it's exactly as horrific as murder.
Why are you defending him?
Why are you lying about what he said? Do you see the word "horrific" in his statement. If Jay said, "disgusting" is the worst thing something could be, and X is as disgusting as Y, you might have a reason to complain. But for now, his comments are confined to disgust. And frankly, rape and murder don't make me feel disgust - they make me feel rage, and sadness, and futility.
Dagonee
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
I'm a Christian. I love God and Jesus
I refuse to watch The Passion. Any comments I make about the file below are based on discussions with people who have seen it.
I don't think horrible way in which Jesus died has much to do with his purpose on Earth or the strength of his message. The important things are that he came, he gained a following, he was deserted and betrayed and then killed only to rise 3 days later and ascend.
I think the empty cross is a much more powerful symbol than the crucifix.
I tend to watch Jesus Christ Superstar every couple years at Easter. Why that and not something else, I'm not sure. But I will say that the scenes of violence, the few that there are, are done such that the provoke an emotional response without being gory.
I think The Passion is a narrow and shallow view. I think it's a film for people who want to focus on the 'sensational' part of Christianity and not delve deeper..
(and I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but it's my opinion nontheless).
-me
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, you English teachers have fun. I’ve wasted too much time here anyway today when I have a ton to do. The maturity level here has dropped from its usual low to non existence. I’m not about to argue about “the most” and “the single most.” Honestly Tom, is that all the better you can do?
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
You're calling what I said lying?!?
Dag, no jury in the world is going to believe that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think it's a film for people who want to focus on the 'sensational' part of Christianity and not delve deeper..
Your inability to extract other meanings out of it doesn't mean other people are also incapable.
When did focusing on one aspect of something in a particular, limited instance of expression come to mean that the person doing so doesn't appreciate the whole?
Dagonee
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
im with Just Me on this one. well, everything except the Easter film viewing tradition.
I appreciate the symbol of the empty cross much more than that of the crucifix.
and i do believe alot of The Passion seems to be sensational (once again, this is said blindly)
[ January 27, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
“Tom feels comfortable equating a movie about Christ's death with pornography”
And he makes a legitimate point. The movie was a deliberately graphic portrayal, designed to evoke a visceral response.
Whether it was successful pornography, uplifting pornography, valuable pornography, etc, is up for debate. But it certainly fits the Miriam-Webster definition of pornography, as posted by Zeguma.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You're calling what I said lying?!?
Dag, no jury in the world is going to believe that.
True. you could probably raise the defense that you didn't know what you said was untrue. I could easily quote a dictionary definition and bold the applicable parts if you want. You accused him of thinking porn is "more horrific" than rape and murder, and you complain about my characterization of that statement?
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Based off of Augustine's writings, church teaching for almost 1000 years was the unbaptized babies were going to hell. This was occasionally challenged but was the held teaching until around the time of the scholastics, where THomas Aquinas, among others, mounted a criticism of it. This prompted a whole huge theological/philosophical thing where they eventually cmae out with distinguishing Augustine's personal authority from his authoritative statements about the Church, because, up till that point, his theology about the destination of the unbaptised was considered authoritative. So yeah, you're wrong.
You were also, well not flat out wrong, but terribly misleading when you said that Church teaching left the Death Penalty up to the individual conscience of it's members. That's a pretty big distortion of the doctrine there.
When we did the Galileo thing, multiple people kept having to say "No Dag, that's not what they said.".
When I said that I was suprised that so many people seemed to focus on the crucifixtion, I wasn't only speaking for me, but also for my two devout Catholic parents, a friend of mine who is a priest, a host of letters in the local Philadelphia Catholic newspaper. Maybe you'r the uber-catholic, but you haven't shown me that your understanding in any way trumps mine as a once-devout ex-catholic let alone that of these people. You can disagree with my interpretation, but leave off the arrognace of telling me what I do and do not understand, or at least wait until you stop missing or distorting major parts of Catholic doctrine and can have a conversation about bad things the Church has done without twisting and misrepresenting the facts.
[ January 27, 2005, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Bold AND italicize.
Dag, you are correct that I incorrectly used the less correct "horrific" rather than the less incorrect "disgusting" when clarifying how you correctly interpreted Jay's views of pornography versus rape and murder.
So, then, according to your statement, Jay finds porn equally DISGUSTING as rape and murder. Is that correct? Okay? Good.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You were also, well not flat out wrong, but terribly misleading when you said that Church teaching left the Death Penalty up to the individual conscience of it's members. That's a pretty big distortion of the doctrine there.
Since you are utterly incapable of accurately stating what I've said, I'm done with you. I've mentioned this too many times for this to be unintentional. STOP F&^%$#@ DISTORTING WHAT I SAY!
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, then, according to your statement, Jay finds porn equally DISGUSTING as rape and murder. Is that correct? Okay? Good.
Or more so. Which, as I said, is not the same as saying it's worse than rape and murder.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Well, maybe if he returns from all his work to grace us with his presence once again, he can clarify which he finds more disgusting: pornography, or rape.
I, for one, will be on the edge of my seat until then.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sure, sieze on the less important point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dag, if you're going to argue semantics -- and let's be clear, here: you're the one who started arguing semantics, because it was very clear what Jay meant -- you can't then turn around and call 'em irrelevant.
I'm sure Jay was speaking off the cuff; I don't seriously believe for a second that he genuinely believes pornography to be the most disgusting thing on this twisted planet. But I do find it interesting that, even speaking off the cuff, he would cite pornography as something that he finds as intensely distasteful as almost anything else on Earth, and contrast that with his powerful personal intimacy with the manner of Christ's death.
Frankly, I'm getting a similar vibe from you; you appear to be having a powerful negative reaction to the word "pornography," to the extent that you're attempting to deny that the literal definition certainly applies, and seek to disassociate it from your emotional connection to the film and the graphic violence it portrays.
So, again, I want to know why. What about this movie brings you closer to God, and why is it so important to you that your emotional reaction to the film be recognized as somehow elevating rather than pornographic?
[ January 27, 2005, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, and Squick, Augustine's views were disputed even by his contemporaries, such as St. Gregory Nazianzen. There was no official decree on it until Pope Innocent III.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, if you're going to argue semantics -- and let's be clear, here: you're the one who started arguing semantics, because it was very clear what Jay meant -- you can't then turn around and call 'em irrelevant.
Since the other point I was referring to was also semantic, namely the difference beween disgust and other forms of badness, I can hardly be accused of calling semantics irrelevant.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*grin* That was my point, Dag. You can't very well criticize people for seizing on minor points when you're hinging an entire defense on the difference between "disgust" and "horror," a distinction that the original poster almost certainly was not consciously making.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:a once-devout ex-catholic
This made me grin. Go on-- guess why.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Wasn't there a thread discussing the real definition of "pornography", and how broad-brushing the term around doesn't really define anything?
The word "pornography" has a very serious connotation for most of the Western Hemisphere, I feel comfortable saying. Calling PotC pornography is going to inflame a lot of emotions. Anyone throwing that word around must understand that.
That said, I didn't walk out of the theatre thinking about the horrible violence of the movie. I was thinking about the beautiful portrayal of the relationship between Jesus and his mother. Those precious little bits in the movie made it worth watching for me, and those are some of the only parts that I want to watch over and over again.
So to me, the movie wasn't pornographic, because the "quick intense emotional reaction" didn't come from the "depiction of acts in a sensational manner", but from interaction between two characters.
edit: to not hone in on one person.
[ January 27, 2005, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Calling PotC pornography is going to inflame a lot of emotions, Tom. You have to understand that."
Oh, I do. But that doesn't make it an inaccurate use of the term. Moreover, I fully intend the connotation, as well; there are people out there to whom the suffering of their Savior is an attractive thing -- nearly sexually attractive, in fact -- and it is these people in particular whom I believe are affected in a most obviously pornographic way. I also believe, quite strongly, that the film is intended to affect these people in that way.
------
BTW, SM, if the parts of the movie you liked were the parts that aren't pornographic, you can't get away with saying that the movie's not pornographic. That's like saying "Attack of the Clones" isn't a bad movie because the parts I liked weren't bad.
[ January 27, 2005, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom, are you intentionally trying to get people riled up? Cuz there's lots of ways to say what you said without making swaths and reams of people look like DeSade masochists.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:you're hinging an entire defense on the difference between "disgust" and "horror," a distinction that the original poster almost certainly was not consciously making.
So let's talk about the distinctions the original poster - you - were not consciously making when you used the word "porn."
First, you started out with the words "snuff film" with the clear indication that it had a negative connotation. Your clear intent was to associate PotC with the film in 8MM, or one like it.
Second, you said Jay's appreciation of it was pornographic - meaning that the emotional response evoked by the sensational depiction was the only level on which he was getting anything from the film.
So you don't get to hide behind the dictionary definition.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would like people to pause for a moment and consider, as they get riled up about looking like DeSade masochists, whether in fact they look like DeSade masochists -- and if they conclude that, upon closer inspection, they do, I would like them to consider whether this is how they wish to appear.
If, like Dag, they decide that they do not look like DeSade masochists to themselves, that's all well and good. Dag has always been all about the context -- and if that sort of masochism looks okay to him in context, and it's a context he's using, that works for him. I won't pretend that I'm not squicked out by it myself, though, and really wish he'd find a way to explain it using a shared context.
-----
Dag: As I said, I meant the connotation, as well. And I think Jay's example is a perfect example of the ways in which the connotation is accurate for a certain audience.
[ January 27, 2005, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So all the posting of definitions and and defense of the literal meaning are meaningless in this discussion, because it is your intent to equate PotC with a snuff film, and to equate people who find something of value in it with people who enjoy snuff films.
Gee, why am I pissed off at you again?
[ January 27, 2005, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I acknowledged that there were occasional challenges, but see, the whole thing about distinuishing between Augustine's personal authority and his authority to speak for the Church was sparked specifically by this issue (centered around the idea that the Catholic Church can never change its doctrine) and occured almost 1000 years (well closer to 900 probably) after he wrote it. Augustine's doctrine of the unbaptisized babies going to hell was considered authoritative for most of the those 900 years. So claiming that the Church never taught this nor believed it is wrong.
And yes, you've since explained how your initial statement was incomplete and I understand what you were saying, but the thing is, that was pretty much your first statement. If someone trusted you to give them accurate Church doctrine, when you said that as opposed to abortion, the Catholic Church leaves whether the death penalty is ok up to the individual conscience, they would have gotten a completely wrong picture.
I often find your description of things that could make the Church look bad more...opportunistic than concerned with objective accuracy, so I don't actually think you've got much standing to tell me what I do and don't understand.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I would like people to pause for a moment and consider
So it's for their own good, is it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So all the posting of definitions and and defense of the literal meaning are meaningless in this discussion, because it is your intent to equate PotC with a snuff film..."
Nope. Because the reason it's possible to equate PotC with a snuff film is that, by definition and by connotation, it is pornographic. If I called it a sweatsock, whatever that means, that would be a baseless accusation designed to associate the film with a negative connotation -- in this case, smelliness. My purpose in a situation like that would be metaphor alone.
My purpose here is to point out that, in a very literal way, PotC is Jesus porn.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:when you said that as opposed to abortion, the Catholic Church leaves whether the death penalty is ok up to the individual conscience,
Not what I said, squick. Not what I said.
Since it seems to bear repeating: STOP DISTORTING WHAT I SAY!
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Just for the record, I agree with Tom on this one. Just because Jesus's death was particuarly horrific doesn't make it important to watch that death reenacted in all its bloody splendour. The sacrifice was made, and it deserves respect, but not because of the absolute volume of pain involved. Using that bloody scene as a religious catalyst for catharsis would be like watching a video of John McCain being tortured in a vietnam prison cell to bring about a patriotic catharisis. It has nothing to do with respecting the sacrifice or increasing the spiritual connection, it has to do with evoking an emotional response. How do I know this? Because Jesus's manner of death is not important to spirituality, only the fact of it! Did the priests in the temple torture the sacrificial lambs before they killed them? Were the doves plucked alive before being offered up to the LORD? The only value in pointing out that he was tortured is to create an emotional response. It did that for a lot of people, but I was unimpressed when I saw it.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I left after seeing the Passion feeling dirty. I will never see that movie again, nor have any desire to.
Holy Week is much more powerful to me. The entirety of the acts and readings and symbolism...the emptiness of the tabernacle, the vigil until the resurrection. Everything in context in telling the story.
The death on the cross is certainly important and if it had not happened, then prophecies would not have been fulfilled. But there were other prophecies, and the passion, the death, and the resurrection all are important parts of the story.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Hunh. I was moved by The Passion, more for its tender moments than the violence -- but those tender moments were moving because of the violence. I didn't feel dirty...I felt clean because of the last scene. But my feelings about the film don't derive from its quality, except the fact that it kept my attention and did not "throw me out" by poor production. I absolutely can't watch Bible stories at TV movie quality. I can't say I enjoyed the film. But I respect it for the feelings I had while watching. I also liked the choice of language and subtitling. Ultimately I cannot watch the movie with any dispassion or objectivity. So judging its quality as a movie is impossible, for me.
Whether it was Oscar material...I think it succeeded in being powerful. The depth of contention over it is proof of that, I think. Whether it is shallow or deep, pornographic or not, uplifting or depressing, it succeeded in arousing a response. What makes a movie Oscar Best Picture material? I detested American Beauty to the point that I shut it off before it was over. I hated Born on the Fourth of July as politically correct sap (though part of my issue with it was that it beat my favorite that year Henry V). I liked Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind, but while I do own a copy of one of them, I don't watch it as often as other movies on my shelf. So what makes a Best Picture?
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
a camera and a script, and lights, and actors/actresses, and a director, and funding (no matter how limited it may be), and electricity...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
1) The Passion was not "snubbed due to content", the Passion was honored with three awards, which is fairly significant considering the number of films which are entered each year. My personal favourite, I Heart Huckabees did not recieve any nominations.
2) I am not relgious or Christian.
I did not see The Passion. Hours of violence is not for me, not something that would make me feel good, or cleansed. Religion is not violence, it is miracles. Christ's story is not about his death, or how people of that age were executed by the Romans, but about the miracle of his saving the souls from hell and his rebirth.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Hunh. I was moved by The Passion, more for its tender moments than the violence -- but those tender moments were moving because of the violence. I didn't feel dirty...I felt clean because of the last scene. But my feelings about the film don't derive from its quality, except the fact that it kept my attention and did not "throw me out" by poor production. I absolutely can't watch Bible stories at TV movie quality. I can't say I enjoyed the film. But I respect it for the feelings I had while watching. I also liked the choice of language and subtitling. Ultimately I cannot watch the movie with any dispassion or objectivity. So judging its quality as a movie is impossible, for me.
That sums up my feelings as well. As for TV movies depicting Bible stories, I do think there is one that succeeded - the TNT version of Joseph.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Hmm... I've heard a number of people say that they enjoyed those moments in the movie. For me though, the amount of suffering I'd have to endure to see those moments simply isn't worth it.
I don't understand the argument that seeing these things gives you a greater appreciation of Jesus' sacrifice. Does that mean that we now have a greater appreciation than everyone who has come before? Or is it a sign of the times we live where something like this can bring one closer to God?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm not one that believes it (violent suffereing) has to be seen to be appreciated - I argued against a lot of folks who told me I needed to see Saving Private Ryan in order to appreciate what soldiers did in the War.
No I didn't. I can imagine the horror quite well without seeing visuals that haunted my sleep.
Like jeniwren said, and I echoed, it was not the violent portions of the movie that moved me the most, it was the tenderness between Jesus and Mary. The look on Peter's face when he realized he had denied him, just as Jesus said he would. John nodding his head when Jesus charged him with caring for his mother. And Mary visualizing her little boy falling down and running to comfort him.
That moved me, it gave me a glimpse of the humanity of Jesus, which was in a way more powerful than visualizing his suffering. I think the movie has worth, in that it can make you think twice about something you've read a hundred times.
However, it isn't something I plan to watch over and over. And as for academy awards, heck I don't attach to them enough importance to be offended that Passion wasn't nominated for something.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I have to cautiously agree with Tom, for the most part. I'm not certain I'd label the film porn, but a part of me asked when it came out why in the heck anyone would want to watch hours of violence - certainly not for the entertainment value, neh?
The question of the violence brings Martin Luther King to my mind. A good man, whose life ended terribly and prematurely. Now, not to compare MLK to Jesus - so don't go jumping on me - but if someone offered me a chance to watch a movie based on his death and *only* his death, and the film included up close and personal gruesome violence I'd be disgusted.
Even in my days of Christianity I never understood the fascination with Jesus's death. I understood why it was important, of course, but to me the life the man led was much more important.
space opera
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:but a part of me asked when it came out why in the heck anyone would want to watch hours of violence
There's a huge difference between asking the question, as you did, and announcing that the answer is a desire to see a snuff film.
Dagonee
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
The importance of the death and ressurection of Jesus is closely tied to what you believed that death and ressurection accomplished.
My version of POTC (accomplished by covering my eyes at the violent parts) is very close to The Lamb of God. I loved them both.
Posted by JemmyGrove (Member # 6707) on :
Thanks Lady Jane. You beat me to it.
quote: But to say that it's important for us to know the brutality of crucifixion at a visceral level because it's important that he was whipped a certain specific number of times is just, IMO, a pornographic obsession with violence.
As to the question of why someone might feel it would be important to see it, I think the answer is incomplete without talking about the purposes his suffering is believed to have served. To echo Lady Jane, what may be faith-promoting to some people is remembering what this suffering did for them (I won't try to dive into that here), what very real purpose they believe it served in terms of their salvation, and that there was no other way that purpose could be accomplished and no other being in existence who could do those very things which were absolutely necessary to accomplish it. I haven't seen PotC, but what I've read here suggests that it doesn't really address the purpose of the crucifixion and resurrection (is that at least somewhat accurate?). So those people who see the events in the movie as necessary means to a very important end may be seeing something very different from those for whom the graphic suffering is of primary importance, or who see the 'brutality of the crucifixion' as the end in and of itself.
[edited for a couple of silly spelling errors ]
[ January 27, 2005, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: JemmyGrove ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I haven't seen the Passion of the Christ. If I do, it'll be on DVD so I can skip the parts that bother me. I'm quite interested in seeing the non-violent parts, not so interested in seeing the crucifixion itself. I know it's a painful way to die. I don't need to have nightmares about it to appreciate the sacrifice. In fact, I would really prefer not to have those images in my head every time I go to church.
I think, though, that most of those who were moved by the film did not enjoy the violence. In fact, I suspect that's part of the purpose of having such graphic scenes--it's *supposed* to be unpleasant. I'll agree that the movie fits the given dictionary definition of pornography, but I'm guessing the majority of those emotionally affected by it were horrified rather than titillated.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I'm trying to understand why I haven't seen it. I think it was because several people said I was a bad person for choosing not to see it. I mean, that's just not the way to win friends and influence people. I heard it was pornographic from several people who didn't see it, who got that opinion from a friend of their teenaged children. So I'm not inclined to put a lot of stock into that evaluation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If it's any consolation, I have seen it and think it's pornographic.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Right, but you don't believe in Jesus as your personal savior. I mean, if it was just James Cavaziel undergoing all that, that would be very distasteful.
I think really I have a distaste for Cavaziel from the Count of Monte Cristo. Oh, yeah, also the fact that Mel Gibson seemed merely Agnostic when he was running the junket for "Signs". Yeah, that's what it was.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I mean, if it was just James Cavaziel undergoing all that, that would be very distasteful."
Whereas it's less distasteful when it's the Son of God being flayed to the bone. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yes, because when it's just a guy undergoing it the only purpose his suffering is fulfilling is the masochistic desires of the tortures, and when it is the Lamb of God all mankind is being sanctified through His sacrifice.
Actually I think that this is the exact reason why followers of Christ had such different reactions to ... umm ... non-followers. If you don't accept Christ as a God who died for your sins, then it's just a guy up there getting beaten for a couple of hours, if you do accept Him then to you it is (or can be) our Savior accepting your punishment for you, undoubtedly the most powerful act of Love in the history of the world. I recognize that I'm not the first person to say this, I just felt this was a good instance to re-enforce it.
Hobbes
[ January 27, 2005, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I think it was because several people said I was a bad person for choosing not to see it. I mean, that's just not the way to win friends and influence people.
Maybe it's because I was reading it in MT's imaginary voice, but this is the first time in recent memory that I actually laughed out loud at a post.
[ January 27, 2005, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I believe a couple people who do believe in Christ have voiced that they also find the film pornographic.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm not sure who (if anyone) that was directed at Mack, if it was me I was just pointing out why I find it ... unsurprising that non-Christians don't see the film as anything more than a snuff film.
Hobbes Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Tom you’re being a partisan offensive hack. The only reason you’re using the term “pornographic” is because you know it is offensive to people who find meaning in the Passion of the Christ. This truly shows your colors and maturity level. For you to try to get under the skin of people in this way instead of having a civil discussion on a topic is the single most disgusting act of desperation on your part to try and stir your own sick little fantasy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Both Tom and Jay have engaged in telling others how they should react to this film, and implied those who don't react in that way have some kind of moral or mental failing.
Dagonee
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Jay, please tone it down. This is a little bit too ironic for a discussion about Christ's great Love for all people.
Hobbes Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In a strange coincidence, a group of kids in the after school program at church today told me that they’d just seen this film. They range in age from 5-10. I’m very disappointed that parents would let children that age see it. Just because it’s a religious message doesn’t change the fact that it is an “R” rated film (and it deserved its rating).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm trying to figure out what party, exactly, has sick fantasies about engaging people in conversation about Passion plays. I don't actually recall it on either national platform.
And before you go calling me sick, Jay, keep in mind you had an "intimate personal experience" while watching your personal savior being whipped so hard that gobbets of flesh spewed from his wounds. In slow motion. For three hours. Nothing personal, kiddo, but I'd say all my hangups -- even the ones involving Jello and cheerleaders -- pale in comparison.
[ January 27, 2005, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree with that, dkw. I might let teenagers see it, but not 10 year olds, and certainly not 5.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You know Tom, I’m really starting to loath you more then I should. You’re rude. Inconsiderate. And a pompous ***. I’ll still be praying for you though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hobbes, I've pointed this out before: the death of Christ, as a sacrifice, is meaningless. Unless you don't believe in an omnipotent God, Christ's death is in the first place completely arbitrary; he doesn't have to die in order for God to forgive our sins. But even if you don't -- if you are, say, Mormon -- then the death is purely a transitory moment of pain across an eternity of Heavenly bliss and transcendence. It's not a sacrifice at all, unless by his sacrifice Jesus actually denies himself a spot in Heaven.
(Note: there are some doctrines -- fringe and otherwise -- in some faiths which specifically address these points. Many believe, for example, that the nature of Jesus' "sacrifice" was primarily spiritual, and that the physical torment was essentially unimportant. Clearly, however, Mel Gibson disagrees.)
-----
BTW, Jay, I think your last post is an excellent example of how incredibly vile "I'm praying for you" can be. It's a shame, because I'm normally glad to accept all the prayers I can get -- but, frankly, I don't want any prayers you might offer on my behalf in the spirit you're clearly offering them, and neither do I believe does your God. Prayers which intend nothing more than to change my heart and mind to more closely match your own desires are not honest prayers; they're weapons. And announcing your intention to pray for someone, at least in situations like this one, reflects badly on people of genuine faith.
[ January 27, 2005, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dag, would you say it's fair to describe Saving Private Ryan as pornographic? (As a side note, I've watched SPR but not PoTC.) If so, why isn't the much more up-close-and-personal violence in PoTC pornographic?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Tom- I think OSC was saying that the physical suffering was a reflection of the mental suffering, and that's what made it compelling for him. I think that church is somewhat unique in its teaching on the spiritual sufferings being greater than the physical sufferings.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nods to Trisha* It's not that unique; as I understand it, a number of religions address that possibility -- although it's clear, too, that it's mostly possibility, speculation about tribulations never clearly identified.
And that's fine.
But PotC is not a film about physical torture standing in as a metaphor for spiritual sacrifice and/or transcendence.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think (to attempt to drag this thread kicking and screaming back to the original topic), that the same attitude that would let young kids watch this movie in spite of the R rating is what makes some people so determined that it should get a “Best Picture” award in spite of the fact that it wasn’t particularly good storytelling.
As an extended meditation on the suffering of Christ, in the tradition of Julian of Norwich and some of the other mystics, I think it was fairly successful. But it was (heavily) marketed to churches as an outreach tool and promoted as a mass-market movie. And as either of those, I don’t think it was very impressive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, would you say it's fair to describe Saving Private Ryan as pornographic? (As a side note, I've watched SPR but not PoTC.) If so, why isn't the much more up-close-and-personal violence in PoTC pornographic?
No, I wouldn't.
[ January 27, 2005, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Would you say that the violence in Natural Born Killers is pornographic?
Because there's a movie that I think is more pornographic in its depiction of violence than PotC.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:it was (heavily) marketed to churches as an outreach tool
I never understood how it could be an outreach tool.
Dagonee
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Hobbes, I've pointed this out before: the death of Christ, as a sacrifice, is meaningless. Unless you don't believe in an omnipotent God, Christ's death is in the first place completely arbitrary; he doesn't have to die in order for God to forgive our sins.
I can't answer for people of other faiths, but to me, well, let's just say that God has all the power in the universe, and yet there are laws that He can't break, like the law of justice, which is why Christ's sacrifice is neccesary. I suppose that amount of power could be defined as omnipotent, or not, whichever you want.
quote:But even if you don't -- if you are, say, Mormon -- then the death is purely a transitory moment of pain across an eternity of Heavenly bliss and transcendence. It's not a sacrifice at all, unless by his sacrifice Jesus actually denies himself a spot in Heaven.
I don't think that's true at all. I mean if that's true then it is compeltely impossible to sacrifice at all bcause we have so much other time where we're not sacrifice. You're saying that Christ, who in the religion you mentioned, suffered every sin and trial of every person born on this Earth out of Love for us didn't actually sacrifice because after a while it will have been a long time ago? I think that's like saying it doesn't count as a sacrifice to give more than you can really afford to charity because you'll still have food on the table at the end of the week.
Hobbes Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Just shows how naive you are about prayer
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
(I have to point out that Pirates of the Carribean has the same initials (PotC) as Passion of the Christ.
Replacing PotC with Pirates of the Carribean makes for interesting observations, hee hee.)
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote:But PotC is not a film about physical torture standing in as a metaphor for spiritual sacrifice and/or transcendence.
Not unless you make it about that.
Did you feel Schindler's list was pornographic? I mean, it did have a sex scene in it to show... I'm not sure what. But mostly there was depictions of incredible degradation and suffering. I may be off base in thinking that suffering was any more meaningful to you than what people are trying to say The Passion meant to them.
Jay, I believe you mean well but there have been several threads devoted to the discussion of telling someone you are going to pray for them. It's best to just do it privately.
[ January 27, 2005, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Those of you who enjoyed (if that is the right word) the film, what is your opinion on the men in the Phillipines who, in order to "get closer to God," torture themselves each year by re-enacting the crucifixion on Good Friday?
Jay, I would pause for a moment and consider whether a prayer offered not out of love for your fellow man and hope for his well-being, but rather a mean-spirited desire to change and rebuke him, to shame him into recognizing your own "charitable" impulses, is an appropriate offering to your God. I am not a particularly spiritual man, but even I recognize that this sort of sentiment is poisonous to the soul.
I do not presume to know the mind of God. But consider whether your God would prefer that you spend your time praying to spite the people you loathe, or praying for the strength to overcome your loathing.
[ January 27, 2005, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I have to admit I often think of the passage in The Brother's Karamozov where that girl who likes to slam her finger in the door says she'd like to watch a child be crucified while she eats pineapple jam.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think (to attempt to drag this thread kicking and screaming back to the original topic), that the same attitude that would let young kids watch this movie in spite of the R rating is what makes some people so determined that it should get a “Best Picture” award in spite of the fact that it wasn’t particularly good storytelling.
To be fair, Oscar has a long, proud history of rewarding movies for content over good story-telling. I still think my analysis on the first page is the right one.
Dagonee
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
dkw, I can't see it as an outreach tool at all and that was not how our pastor said it was promoted to him. He said that when he saw the pre-screening, it was out of respect, asking for feedback.
And while I would show it to my nearly 12 year old son if he wanted to see it, I would discuss *everything* that was going to happen. Knowing that helped me a great deal and I'm *very* glad I didn't go to it without that knowledge. No way would I take a 5 year old. And I'd only take a child after I'd seen it, no matter what the R movie.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, Tom, continue on your pompous ways. What I pray and how is personal and between me and God. Read my words again carefully. I put it very plainly. For you to assume what is said is rather self-important of you and assumes you know my mind. I think if you would just take some time to consider what you say before you type your arrogance might not show so much.
Good Night!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The God that subjected Himself to the events in the Passion doesn't loathe anyone, does he?
[ January 27, 2005, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dag, I agree with your analysis on the front page. Which is why I think the people in the link in the initial post, who think the movie was "snubbed" becasue Hollywood is anti-Christian are way off base.
jeni, I have no idea how the movie was introduced to the people who were invited to the pre-screenings. But I filled my office trashcan more than once with direct-mail offers for "Passion of the Christ" door hangers, invitation postcards, and outdoor banners. Plus offers for marketing plans to "grow YOUR church with The Passion. "Heavily promoted" was an understatement.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Well, Tom, continue on your pompous ways. What I pray and how is personal and between me and God
Then why did you make a post about it?
Jay, really, please tone down you're rhetoric, you're antagonizing Tom for not appreciating the sacrifice of someone who we both worship because He died for all sinners, Loved everyone, not just us.
Hobbes Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Dag, you actually wrote "Good grief" in a discussion of The Passion? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jay, "loath" is not a verb. You cannot "loath" someone. You can, however, "loathe" them. But, ironically, the verb does not mean the same thing as the adjective.
From the same site: loathe to dislike, be hateful, from lAth : to dislike greatly and often with disgust or intolerance : DETEST synonym see HATE
Are you suggesting that your God is intolerant and hateful, per the definition of the word? Somehow, I doubt it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Schultz was quite devout. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Sounds to me like you and God loath each other.
So now you speak for God?
I don't think so.
I saw PotC with my mother, who is still a praticing Catholic, and was very moved by it. Not because of the voilence, but in spite of it.
Tom, free will is what it is all about, so his sacrifice did matter....just not to you.
Which is fine.
But lets not pretend any more...you are deliberatly trolling for responses, trying to inflame their passions about religions.
I am sad that this conversation has sunk to this level.....
Now I feel weird, like something is mising tha is usually here.
Got it.
I have lost respect....something that is in short supply in this thread.
A Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But lets not pretend any more...you are deliberatly trolling for responses, trying to inflame their passions about religions."
Nope. I couldn't care less if people respond. I will freely admit, however, that I would like people to stop and wonder whether the suffering of Christ is really as uplifting a message as many of them appear to assume by default.
By pointing out that the violence in the film is pornographic in its depiction and intent, I would hope to at least give people a moment's pause, and cause them to consider what it was about the film that they found meaningful. Was it, like with Jay, the graphic depiction of gore itself? Or was it, like with Katie and SM, the ten minutes or so of Christ with his mother, despite the gore? Or was it, like with Dag, some kind of weird thing that he can't explain because we don't share a common context?
I am often disturbed by certain elements of Christianity. PotC nicely encapsulates one of those elements, and presents an opportunity for reflection on the appeal of those elements.
--------
"Tom, free will is what it is all about, so his sacrifice did matter....just not to you."
I'm not sure how this follows. I explained the two reasons for which I felt Christ's sacrifice was meaningless; neither of those is invalidated by the acknowledgement of free will. What are you saying?
[ January 28, 2005, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I will freely admit, however, that I would like people to stop and wonder whether the suffering of Christ is really as uplifting a message as many of them appear to assume by default.
So the question for today, children, is "Did Tom accomplish his goal by accusing people who were moved by the film of needing a new hobby and suspecting them of being mentally ill?"
Bonus points for anyone who can offer an explanation as to why not.
Dagonee
[ January 28, 2005, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
The sacrifice was necessary for free will. The sacrifice made it possible for us to repent from the sins which became natural to us after the fall of Adam. It is only through free will that we can experience the joy of accomplishing something that we chose to do, but with it comes the possibility of anguish over a bad choice or disappointment at failure.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For somebody who started TYPING IN ALL CAPS and sounded like he was going to cry in frustration because he felt that someone was misrepresenting and oversimplifying his arguments, Dag, you're awfully willing to play the Pot.
-----
"The sacrifice made it possible for us to repent from the sins which became natural to us after the fall of Adam."
See, I don't buy that. If God designed the universe so that the only way to pay the price of Adam's fall was the death of His kid, then it's not a sacrifice; it's a price, and He designed the universe in a way that He'd have to pay it. If He didn't design the universe, and it's just some funky natural consequence that the son of God has to die in order to permit people to get back into the good graces of God, why is the universe designed that way?
[ January 28, 2005, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Now you're just padding your post count, Tom Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For somebody who started TYPING IN ALL CAPS and sounded like he was going to cry in frustration because he felt that someone was misrepresenting and oversimplifying his arguments, Dag, you're awfully willing to play the Pot.
My goal was to call you on your name-calling and presumption.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:See, I don't buy that. If God designed the universe so that the only way to pay the price of Adam's fall was the death of His kid, then it's not a sacrifice; it's a price, and He designed the universe in a way that He'd have to pay it. If He didn't design the universe, and it's just some funky natural consequence that the son of God has to die in order to permit people to get back into the good graces of God, why is the universe designed that way?
To achieve some other, greater good that wouldn't be possible without it.
Honoring free will places an enormous number of constraints on a Creator.
Dagonee
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: it's a price
It's sometimes called a ransom.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
I don't get why free will necessitated Jesus's death. If people have free will, they can repent, and if they're truly reformed, they'll be forgiven for their transgressions. Nobody else has to suffer it. If free will is a factor, the onus should be on the individual.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"My goal was to call you on your name-calling and presumption."
Dag, perhaps it's all in the context. All snarkiness aside, you have to understand that I am in fact speaking from a purely secular viewpoint. And I have repeatedly asked you to justify the appeal of the gory elements of Christ's death to a secular audience. You have said, quite brusquely, that you cannot.
But you know what? I'm a secular audience. I do not speak from a Catholic viewpoint. I can't, and you throw a fit whenever anyone else on the board presumes that they can.
So I'm saying that, from a secular viewpoint, people who get off on watching God get beaten to death are raving nutjobs. And I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.
There may be another context here in which the gore is a beautiful thing; I've already conceded that there are contexts in which baby-eating isn't so horrible. But I'm not speaking from one of those contexts.
If your entire experience and all your views are going to be drawn from one of those contexts, Dag, then what I'm saying may as well not apply to you because you are quite consciously refusing to share my basic principles. And that's cool. But if you're not going to meet me halfway in an attempt to establish some basic secular principles from which it's possible to discuss theological ethics, you don't get to snipe from the sidelines as if you're mortally offended.
It'd be like some alien coming down and saying, "Glaaargruh ak-nee'tpo!" and you responding, "What? I'm mortally offended by that!"
You make it aggressively clear -- assertively so, I might add -- that you are not willing to speak my language. So don't give the lie to those claims by pretending to be insulted by my language. Either you understand where I'm coming from, and you share with me certain basic principles, or you don't -- and if you don't, you don't get to act like what I'm saying has stuck you to the quick.
[ January 28, 2005, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't get why free will necessitated Jesus's death. If people have free will, they can repent, and if they're truly reformed, they'll be forgiven for their transgressions. Nobody else has to suffer it. If free will is a factor, the onus should be on the individual.
Some of the thinking behind it was that people couldn't, in practice, truly repent, even though it is theoretically possible.
Most of the theories I like use a bridge metaphor. One of those theories holds that the one thing God in his nature can't do is submit to a being greater than himself, and that the Incarnation was God's mechanism for doing this in a way that would then allow him to provide direct help to humans without overriding their free will.
The crux of almost all these theories is that 1) humans needed help, and 2) For God to provide the help without overwhelming our free will, the Incarnation was necessary.
Of course, there are many variations on this, and many other metaphors, including sacrifice and ransom. I think the actual truth is not something we can directly see, anymore than we can directly see a 4 dimensional hypercube.
Dagonee
[ January 28, 2005, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
We can't repent because we were made fundamentally unlike God due to the fall. God can't communicate with us directly. We can only receive his grace through Jesus as mediator. Jesus, had to undergo the suffering of the atonement so he could understand us enough to serve as our mediator. At least, that's the way I look at it. I mean, I am very devout but always prey to anger. As soon as I realize I'm doing the right thing I fall into pride. I don't know about other folks, but I need grace every step of the way. I take the steps, but without grace I could be going off course.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not any more than not being able to fly eliminates free will.
Edit: This was in response to Tom responding to MT's first sentence with something similar to "Doesn't that eliminate free will?"
[ January 28, 2005, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: God can't communicate with us directly.
Pardon?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So I'm saying that, from a secular viewpoint, people who get off on watching God get beaten to death are raving nutjobs. And I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.
No. You said people who find it moving are. And you have repeatedly and deliberately insisted on using a sexual metaphor (you've just done it again), despite the fact these people are telling you that's not what they're doing.
It's disrespectful because you are calling them liars. It's presumptious because you are deigning to speak for them.
quote:Either you understand where I'm coming from, and you share with me certain basic principles, or you don't -- and if you don't, you don't get to act like what I'm saying has stuck you to the quick.
You're right. I'm sorry for thinking we shared the basic principals of accepting what people say at face value.
And to comment on my aggressiveness is, quite frankly, ridiculous:
quote:I wasn't. It was a snuff film starring Christ, for God's sake. The kind of people who find that sort of thing "moving" need healthy hobbies.
Dagonee
[ January 28, 2005, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And Tom, it's a matter of respect. Would you like it if I, on a regular basis, made posts declaring that all non-Catholics are going to hell?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Edit: Ack! I edited rather than replied! *thumps forehead* Well, assume I said nothing interesting besides the line Dag cited down below. *wry laugh*
[ January 28, 2005, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: I explained the two reasons for which I felt Christ's sacrifice was meaningless
First: Tom, facing Christians with an argument like that is impossible. The death of Christ is central (vital) to the religion.
Second: Here's my humble (keyword, here), theological (heh) opinion.
1. It is not the way in which Christ died that is important, it is the fact he died. He didn't face death because he knew it was going to be long, painful and gory, he faced it because he had to die. If it had been a blow to the head with an axe, a guillotine, the electric chair or a lethal injection it would have been the same.
As a result, the fact that Christ died in a gory, drawn out painful way is merely a side-effect of the fact that he did it. Most of the Roman's executees were cruicified, no doubt some of them were flayed beforehand.
It can be argued that the pain of his death is to atone for all the sins before him. However, did not the others on the crosses die in the same way and for only their own sins? In fact, in recieving his fifth wound, he may have died in a kinder way than those around him.
2. He died because he was asked to. It was his fate and his duty. The death is only the beginning of the story.
He had to die because he had to meet Satan in hell, do battle with him and thus save/redeem all the souls he encountered there, thus erasing the sin of Adam and restarting, in his own way, a new world (a new Adam, if you will).
3. His death and ressurection, or rebirth is the central theme in Christianity. Every year at Easter, in the springtime, Christ dies and rises again, new.
This is the miracle of Christianity. Before his ressurection of the world, Christianity did not exist. His death was like those of thousands of holy people before him, his rebirth, however, was new.
4. So it was Christ's sacrifice (and inevitable rebirth) that is important, not his suffering. When a child is baptised, it is not made to suffer, yet it does die and is reborn.
However, because of Christ's method of dying (or rather, the Roman's method of execution), Christians have then attached holiness to martyrdom; the saints, penance, deprivation, the pentangle and pilgrimmage. In this way, suffering has become a part of Christianity, but it is not as central as his death/fall/ending, and then his rebirth, revival and renewal.
Please note, this is only my own humble opinion of how important the suffering of Christ is in Christianity.
EDIT:
quote: why watching one's God be repeatedly tortured and maimed is a spiritually life-affirming experience.
I can only say that because Christ died in a painful way, and that suffering became a sign of holiness, watching the suffering of Christ and thus suffering yourself is a form of penance and therefore spiritual revitalisation.
[ January 28, 2005, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm willing to take that answer at face value. It may not be possible for someone to come up with a secular answer to that question.
No, you aren't willing to take that answer at face value. If you were, you would believe people when they tell you that they were moved by the film and they are not sick bastards, but the reason why is not something you would accept.
But you're not willing to do that.
Dagonee
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
dkw, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though I am. We get so much Christian culture stuff in the mail, I can only imagine it would be pretty phenomenal the amount you get as a pastor.
No way would I show the Passion to someone as outreach. No way. As an non-believer, I'd probably watch the Passion and go, "You follow THAT?"
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: I'm willing to take that answer at face value. It may not be possible for someone to come up with a secular answer to that question.
Furthermore, it's not purely a death that is violent. It's not the same, for example, as watching someone totally random get tortured to death by other totally random people.
It's the my life for yours idea. If you and a best friend faced death, and one of you was given the chance of dying for the other in a painful way, would you watch in respect for him or would you look away, ashamed of what you were not doing?
Imagine that situation, and then assume you were watching it, only you knew that you could have never done it. Through some twist of fate, it was only him who could of done it. Now, you cannot feel ashamed; now do you watch?
[ January 28, 2005, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's because, Dag, I'm not willing to concede that other people are a better judge of what I am or am not willing to accept than I am.
I can certainly understand why the death -- and especially resurrection -- of Christ is such a compelling story to Christians; Teshi puts it very nicely in the post above. I don't necessarily agree that this process is logical -- for example, the "need" for Christ to battle Satan in Hell is something that I find very theologically confusing -- but it's got a heroic arc to it.
What I've asked you to clarify, and what you've said you cannot clarify to my satisfaction, is why the particularly pornographic depiction of this death (as seen in PotC) is, as Jay has argued, more uplifting than the less gory alternatives.
-------
"If you and a best friend faced death, and one of you was given the chance of dying for the other in a painful way, would you watch in respect for him or would you look away?"
I would not pay $8 to watch him suffer, and pay twice more to watch it twice more, and tell my friends that they don't really love him if they aren't willing to pay the $8 to watch him die.
[ January 28, 2005, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Ah, well there you've got the problem. It's not Christ (or your friend). It's a movie with an actor and he's not really dying. Some people can make that faith-leap that allows them to believe that watching the movie (and paying for it), is like watching Christ. Others cannot.
quote:for example, the "need" for Christ to battle Satan in Hell is something that I find very theologically confusing
It's a story and a theme that is older than Christianity, that's why. It's part of the human narrative history.
The dying and reviving story happens in the winter or in the spring. It is a year cycle idea. Persephone/Prosepina has the same idea- she dies and revives. The Fisher King (both the post and pre-Christian versions) are also dying/reviving stories.
As with the battle in Hell, it's the same thing. Satan is the Sea Dragon, and this sea Dragon crops up all over the place. Perseus does away with it to save Andromeda, Marduk does away with Tiamat the Sea Dragon, as does St George, as does Jesus, it just happens. Some stories just are.
Also, many good people (Joseph, David etc) were in Hell, and it wasn't so fun anymore to be eternally damned, no matter how holy you were. So Christ did his bit and saved everyone, re-starting the world.
[ January 28, 2005, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Part of the story was taken from the pagans...The story of the Horned God (or the Green Man's) death in the winter and rebirth in the Spring. *Read a lot about paganism when I stopped being SDA.*
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Yes, Syn. The Green Knight . (Although he had already been adopted by the Christians by then.)
[ January 28, 2005, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah. To win over the pagans. For some odd reason they made Cernonus the devil and a saint... Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I just thought I'd take a moment to say that I really cannot wait till we meet some alien races who do not share our religious history. Boy will it be interesting to see how the surviving religions of that day (both ours and theirs), whatever they are, deal with the contact.
That is all.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Just to put in my two cents... I did not like The Passion very much. They tried to "Christianize" and sex-up the prime Christian story. Jesus looking absolutely perfect, hair and beard trimmed and combed, perfectly clean clothes with the hyper-expensive red toga (something only a rich Roman nobleman might wear). Then the way-more-then-40-lashes with the whip. Then the ripping of not just the Temple curtain but the whole freaking Temple. Pilate's wife talking about Jesus being the son of God when she as a good Roman women would know hardly anything about the fringe cult in this distant province of the Empire. Etc, etc... Just silly and a wee bit insulting to the actual story, imo. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
From what I've heard, PotC does sound pornographic-- I'm not going to go see it.
quote: But even if you don't -- if you are, say, Mormon -- then the death is purely a transitory moment of pain across an eternity of Heavenly bliss and transcendence. It's not a sacrifice at all, unless by his sacrifice Jesus actually denies himself a spot in Heaven.
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's because, Dag, I'm not willing to concede that other people are a better judge of what I am or am not willing to accept than I am.
Tom, please answer the question I posed above. I'll pose it again: Would you like it if I, on a regular basis, made posts declaring that all non-Catholics are going to hell? Would you find that conducive to a respectful relationship with others?
But you are willing to insist that you are a better judge of how those people are actually reacting to a movie, right?
Dagonee
[ January 28, 2005, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But you are willing to insist that you are a better judge of how those people are actually reacting to a movie, right?"
Nope. I'm not telling them how they reacted to it. I'm letting them tell me that they were uplifted and/or enthused and/or moved by its beauty, and then I'm calling them sick.
I apply the same approach to anyone who'd tell me that "Pi" or "Eraserhead" were movies that really made them feel closer to the human condition.
[ January 28, 2005, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I just wanted to add that an integral part of Jesus' sacrifice is that he came to Earth at all. As Tom points out, he was returning to a glorious existence, and he came from a glorious existence. The Passion is the culmination of it, but it is just one day out of a life of 33 years of mortality that He subjected himself to which he didn't have to. He did it for us. I think the nearest thing we could relate that to would maybe being blind and deaf by choice to help someone. Just a thought.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"But you are willing to insist that you are a better judge of how those people are actually reacting to a movie, right?"
Nope. I'm not telling them how they reacted to it. I'm letting them tell me that they were uplifted and/or enthused and/or moved by its beauty, and then I'm calling them sick.
You are acting as if the reasons for their finding the movie uplifting are irrelevant, and you know they are not. They are "sick" only because you refuse to acknowledge all the other things they are bringing to this movie.
Basically, you're saying, "If everything about me were the same, except that I found this movie uplifting, I would be sick." But they're not like you. There are other things about them that make them not sick for finding this movie uplifting.
And please answer my question.
Dagonee
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: then I'm calling them sick
Which makes you pretty sick
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Really quickly, the ancient death/rebirth story alluded to above is called the monomyth (according to the theoretical framework of Joseph Campbell, heavily influenced by Frazier's Golden Bough): this is a cyclical narrative pattern found in nearly all hero myths (though often with certain stages missing). Dismemberment and horrible death are often present (imagine a film depicting Osiris's quartering by his brother Seth, and the search by Isis for his body parts, including the extremely important phallus).
I certainly respect Christians' right to immerse themselves in ritual depictions of their savior's sacrifice, as have human beings for thousands upon thousands of years, ever since the first sacred king was sacrificed at the hands of a priestess in a Neolithic matriarchal society. In fact, I am heartened by the fact that we've progressed beyond actually needing real blood anymore, and rather than feeling outraged at our clinging to this very old and often retold story, I find comfort in what it says about the universality of human nature.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: I'm letting them tell me that they were uplifted and/or enthused and/or moved by its beauty, and then I'm calling them sick.
Thanks. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm having a very hard time determining why Tom's comments aren't the equivalent in content, although certainly not scale, of Jack Chick's works. Both rely on misstating the positions of those who believe differently and labeling them, "Moon god worshippers" and "sick", and labeling their actions, "worshipping Mary" and "getting off," in misleading ways.
Dagonee
Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
*Looks up at the other posts*
So. Did anyone else enjoy the soundtrack too?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Proteus. It would be better to stop here and to talk about... Well, the soundtrack, is a good exemple. I didn't see the movie so I have idea on what it sounds like. How is the soundtrack ?
[ January 28, 2005, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Getting back to narrativum on repentance- a person can go through regret and forsaking their sin or mistake. But they can't do anything about the effects their sin will go on to have. Take the generational cycle of abuse. In later years one might repent sincerely of abusing one's kids. But the damage is done and very often the kids are not able to forgive you, whilst the go on reenacting your faults with their own families, and so it may continue through countless generations. If we reconcile ourselves to God through Jesus, the unintended effects of our sins will be covered, at least by all who also reconcile themselves to God. There is always the risk that someone very important to you doesn't ever choose to do that.
And God can't communicate with us directly. If he did so it would override our free will. He communicates with us through the spirit, which gives Him the same degree of influence over us that Satan has. Otherwise, our will wouldn't be any more free than the employee who can choose to either quit smoking or be fired (Architraz's thread).
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Religion is the one issue where Tom's native courtesy breaks down.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: then I'm calling them sick ------------------------------
Which makes you pretty sick
Why?
-----
BTW, Dag, I would say there is also a qualitative difference between saying that finding a graphic depiction of torture uplifting is a horrible thing and, say, arguing that the eucharist is a "death cookie."
My point is that there are some positions which are -- or should be -- reprehensible regardless of their religious context.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not really, considering you've classified them as sick. It's a convenient way to categorize a lot of people without having to consider their beliefs.
I wonder which disorder in the DSM-IV you think applies?
Regardless of whether you think it's wrong, you have persisted with the sexual gratification language throughout this thread, with zero evidence that that is the case for anyone who has posted, and direct evidence opposing that for many of them. And that is as bad as "death cookie."
Dagonee
[ January 28, 2005, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
i'm fighting the urge to nuke this entire thread.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Feel free, Ben, feel free.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
KABOOOOOOOOM !
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Why fight it Ben? Nuke away!
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Ok, that makes a bit more sense, although I don't agree with it. Of course, that boils down to theological differences (e.g. I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, or that he was resurrected, or the existence of Satan, or that people need a mediator to reconcile themselves with God).
I'll take the example you used, and apply my reasoning to it: if one repents, sincerely, the abuse of one's children, then God will forgive (if not forget) the transgression. If said person is able to show to the abused that he or she is truly sorry, so much the better. If not, well, that's up to the people involved to work out. The transgression, in the eyes of God, is forgiven, but can't be erased.
EDIT: this is in response to mothertree's response to me, in case that wasn't entirely obvious.
[ January 28, 2005, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: narrativium ]
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
why fight it is there is SOME healthy discussion buried deep within this thread.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:nibbles the death cookie:
Mm. . . Sausalito!
[ January 28, 2005, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
HUGE BRIGHT FLASH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Loud Thunder boom
peace
Posted by Proteus (Member # 794) on :
Hi Anna. Sometimes being English just forces me to try and steer away from the more serious discussions. But yeah, I found the soundtrack quite impressive, i thought it complemented the movie well - maybe i'm just a sucker for classical and instrumental huh?
But coming to the movie, i've heard this discussion many, many times. I'm surprised that it still continues so far after the release of the film. In honesty i should just keep away from the religious points - mainly because i'm at work and don't have the time to sit and keep up with more knowledgeable folk this side of The River.
But, as a piece of film-making i found the graphic use of images "moving" - (that's right - moving!) Stripping away the religious context and looking at the film in a more biographical sense, how can you not be moved by the huge suffering of this man? Perhaps the film could have been toned down and focused more upon the events giving us less of an eyeful of the violence - i certainly wasn't "enthused" to see a semi-naked man being flayed. But, as i always say, if it sounds like it's going to offend - don't watch it.
The directing and production was certainly up to scratch, and although not a speaker of either language i was impressed with the acting talent that conveyed the emotion of the scipt to me despite my lack of verbal comprehension.
The potent imagery - notably involving the alluded parallel between Mary and Satan - as polar opposites - worked terrifically. Not to mention the constant light/dark contrasts and the obvious religious symbolisms.
I also read further up - sorry i forget who - made mention of Pilate's wife being a 'supporter' of Jesus. Well if i'm not mistaken, i would have to check however, this is mentioned in one of the Gospels. (One of the four, out of sixty, Gospels Constantine decided to allow that is )
Oh and lastly.
Tom.
You know Eraserhead had the saving grace of introducing the world to "In Heaven (Lady in the Radiator Song)" right? Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I thought the soundtrack was great. The only thing I didn't like so much (which is on the list of problems I have with the movie) is the very last scene--the ressurection. Instead of music exhibiting the joy and triumph and glory of the ressurection (a la Handel's Messiah), it's forboding and ominous. As in, believe in me or else. I take umbrage with that view.
Other than that I thought it was excellent music that conveyed the emotions of the movie very well.
[ January 28, 2005, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It depends what you consider healthy, Ben. Do you believe a discussion of whether or not torture can be spiritually attractive to people based on their faith is one that's potentially worthwhile?
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Dag and Tom, you're both very confidant, strong-willed men who are coming at this movie from *completely* different sides. Like you didn't know that, huh?
Dag, I can see where Tom is coming from on a lot of points. In some ways - and I think especially from the secular POV - the movie is "sick" and people who enjoy watching that amount of violence perhaps should be worried over.
But, please understand that to this secular-type person, a lot of the aspects of religion are just completely crazy. I'm not meaning this disrespectfully, ok? Take communion - "hey, let's drink some wine and pretend it's blood!" Now that's dumbed down a bit, but I think you get the general idea. For me communion rates right up there with talking in tongues - both are kinda weird. While I can rationally understand that baptism, communion, etc. are symbols, those symbols don't have any emotional context for me, though I understand that they do for others.
I think that the secular/religious opinions on this are so far apart that coming to some kind of agreement will be almost impossible. The film evokes a gut response from both groups - emotion from the religious, and disgust from the secular. That's generalizing, I know.
space opera
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
"sick" is kind of the opposite of healthy, no?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"While I can rationally understand that baptism, communion, etc. are symbols, those symbols don't have any emotional context for me, though I understand that they do for others."
What're even more intriguing to me are those religions for which these aren't symbols, those which believe that literal and actual changes happen as a result of these rituals. Consider the eucharist, for example, which is said to change in no physical way but which is transformed in spiritual essence into the body of Christ -- without, again, changing in any way which it's possible to observe. It's this kind of thing that I find simultaneously fascinating and horrifying about faith.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Sick" refers to the person being described, and is not at all subjective. "Sickening," that is, something that makes another sick, is almost certainly subjective.
But Tom has made no bones about the fact that he considers this akin to sexual perversion. It's not that he finds the movie disgusting that's problematic, but that he finds anyone who can obtain positive benefits from it "sick" that is the problem.
So, yes, I stand by the Chick comparison. It seems more and more apt the more I think about it.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In fairness to Mr. Chick, Dag, I believe there is a matter of relevance and degree here which you're discounting. If you're going to argue that our positions are equivalent, you may as well argue that anyone who finds, say, child pornography abhorrent is no better than Jack Chick, who after all disapproves of stuff and is therefore bad.
Or does someone have the "right" to say that child pornography is abhorrent, and the people who engage in it "sick?" If they do, but Jack Chick does not, there is clearly some delineating factor which distinguishes the two cases. What factor do you believe that is?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, but neither you nor he are simply saying, "X is bad."
You are saying, "X is bad, and people who disagree are evil/sick/etc."
Dagonee
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
"It's this kind of thing which I find simultaneously fascinating and horrifying about faith."
*Big nod* Yes! That is the perfect way to describe it. Though I guess a religious person probably looks at the life of a secular person in much the same way.
space opera
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think that several factors turn this film away from being "sick", and that because of Tom's lack of Christianity, some of those don't apply and therefore the film appears sick (correct me if I'm wrong).
1. This film, although gory and detailed, actually depicts something that, if you are a Christian, actually happened. It wasn't invented by Mel Gibson or the writers if the Bible. It's merely "truthful" if you will.
To Tom, a non-Christian, such detail seems invented specifically to make us cringe, not just vividly and truthfully represented.
2. The fact that Mel Gibson chose to show everything that is written about in excruciating detail is a choice perhaps not to stir emotions but to merely not cut bits out, something he may view as a failure of all the movies before his.
To someone of delicate sensibilities, such depiction of violence is over the top and misplaced, and to someone who is not a Christian, it seems like strange masochism (sp?) and what verges on "sickness" where as the filmmaker and religious viewer sees it only as the most truthful view of the death of their Lord.
However, If Mel Gibson portrayed the violence in slow motion (did he?) that would be in my mind, focusing solely on the violence, in which case I think that Mel Gibson is getting the wrong end of the Christianity stick- or at least an end I'd rather not have taken.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Nope, Dag. I'm saying that people who enjoy it are sick.
In the same way that I feel confident saying that child pornography is bad, and people who enjoy it are sick. And that drugs are bad, and people who enjoy them are sick -- a position, mind you, that I know offends Danzig. And that sex with strangers is bad, and people who enjoy that are sick.
And watching someone being brutally mutilated in loving slow motion is bad, and people who enjoy that are sick.
------
Teshi, the issue of whether or not it actually happened is completely irrelevant to my disgust. Enough people genuinely were crucified in similar ways that it's not like this is the product of Gibson's sick imagination (although he did take a few cinematic liberties, but YMMV); I would be as disgusted if people were lining up around the block to see a movie about the crucifixion of Random Joe.
[ January 28, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
“ Yes! That is the perfect way to describe it. Though I guess a religious person probably looks at the life of a secular person in much the same way.”
*nods* Yes. I am simultaneously fascinated and horrified by people who play who play golf on Sunday mornings.
Well, anytime, actually.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Tom: You've never enjoyed/been moved by a scene of graphic violence in a film?
I have, although the film wasn't Passion of the Christ.
[ January 28, 2005, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Tom keeps trolling for anger. Pretty sick. He seems to find his own little glee in it. Gee. Go figure. Guess he has to find his emotional response somewhere since he doesn’t seem to understand the passion behind the response. It’s impossible to understand without that personal relationship. Trying to say that we find pleasure in someone being beaten as we cry for them. It’s rather disturbing that Tom’s comparisons try to provoke negativism.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do not want to see this movie. I don't like watching violence in movies because I feel it. I think that there are other messages Jesus had for the world besides his brutal death, such as compassion. But, for some reason, that aspect seems to be looked down upon these days.
*reminded of Braveheart* I did NOT enjoy that scene even though they didn't show anything in detail... I hate watching people get tortured or raped in movies so much.
[ January 28, 2005, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
“The fact that Mel Gibson chose to show everything that is written about in excruciating detail . . .”
He actually added a lot of detail and some entire events. This movie is NOT a play-by-play of events recorded in the Bible. And yes, there was heavy over use of slow-motion.
[ January 28, 2005, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Now, Destineer, you know perfectly good and well that Tom has never "dug" a graphically violent scene in his life! Tsk, tsk.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You all need a good batch of cookies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You've never enjoyed/been moved by a scene of graphic violence in a film?"
Sure. As I've pointed out, not all movies with graphic violence in 'em are pornographic in their depiction of that violence. Saving Private Ryan, for example, or Schindler's List, both skirted that line to some degree; in fact, there were scenes in the latter that I found rather unnecessary, and consequently I don't particularly revere the film the way many other people do. And of course several horror films are deliberately and consciously pornographic in their use of gore, to the point where their excesses become self-parody -- but, then, the audience for those movies are aware of their pornographic desires, even if they'd never describe them in that way.
There are a few films, however, that wade in wretched excess for its own sake, while simultaneously denying that it exists. IMO, "The Passion of the Christ" is one of 'em.
[ January 28, 2005, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Teshi, the issue of whether or not it actually happened is completely irrelevant to my disgust.
But that's a little of the point. I think it's kind of sick, you think it's sick but neither of us reveres Christ as our God. The people who do, I think, see it slightly differently.
However, I gather from one of your posts that it is filmed in slow motion in places. That, I believe is focusing on the wrong thing, deliberately playing it up. Mel Gibson may be a little strange for doing this.
Also, I'm not sure people 'enjoyed' it. I think they found it cathartic, to a degree.
quote: You all need a good batch of cookies.
I know I do...
[ January 28, 2005, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The people who do, I think, see it slightly differently.
Slightly. In my case, not much. But slightly.
You get half a cookie. Pecan sandie.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’ve decided that Tom is more then just sick on here. Tom is pornographic. Tom’s posts are a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction in those who find meaning in the Passion of the Christ.
So.... According to Tom's own definition he is pornographic. Very interesting.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*takes cookie*
Thank you!
What kind of cookie is that, anyway?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jay, I find it intriguing that you are so personally invested in my opinion of your taste in entertainment. Is there any particular reason why your self-image is so bound to what you believe is my opinion of you?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Not a death cookie.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom, on the other hand, for engaging a troll, gets a spoonful of stale Stovetop.
For shame.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Jay, seeking something out for catharsis is not much different from seeking it out for pleasure. Strong negative emotions can be just as alluring as strong positive ones. Nobody is saying you were happy to see Christ beaten, however, you did seek out the experience as strong emotional stimulus.
I really think the problem here is not that Tom finds the whole idea of Christianity repellant (though he very well may) but that the particular detail exclusively shown in this movie was an excruciating death with no context for it to have a wider meaning. If it hadn't been a guy cast to look like the stereotypical Jesus or the five second scene at the end, the film itself could have been any story of betrayal and torturous execution. Respect and appreciation for Christ's sacrifice does not mean dwelling on the torture he went through. If a friend gave his life for me and was tortured by the Russian Mafia, and they sent me a videotape of the procedure, I wouldn't want to watch his agony.
I really do think John McCain is a good example. Respect for his service and sacrifice does not equal a desire to see his suffering in a Vietnam prison represented in gory verisimilitude.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, I'm mainly responding to Jay because at this point I find his personal distaste for me rather fascinating. He seems oddly attracted to me, to be honest, in the way that some people like to slow down for car wrecks. And I can't quite figure out why. Maybe, as demosthenes has pointed out, he seeks catharsis.
[ January 28, 2005, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Jay, I find it intriguing that you are so personally invested in my opinion of your taste in entertainment. Is there any particular reason why your self-image is so bound to what you believe is my opinion of you?
Interesting. Since you were those one who has been offensive on people’s tastes in entertainment. I could care less what your opinion is of me. I just find it intriguing that your own pornographic reference points right back at yourself. Be sure to add your pornographic tendencies to your resume.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
"he seems oddly attracted to me"
space opera
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
This is such a geat thread! Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:It is not the way in which Christ died that is important, it is the fact he died. He didn't face death because he knew it was going to be long, painful and gory, he faced it because he had to die. If it had been a blow to the head with an axe, a guillotine, the electric chair or a lethal injection it would have been the same.
I've heard this position from fellow Mormons often, and I have to disagree.
The drawn-out horribly painful method of death is important because it gave Christ lots of time to change his mind about going through with the Atonement, and strong incentives to do so.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: He seems oddly attracted to me
Thinking rather highly of yourself. I guess arrogance does go along with pornographic tendencies.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The 33 years previous to crucifixion weren't enough?
[ January 28, 2005, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Jay, try "I know you are, but what am I?" next. It will be ever-so-much more effective.
space opera
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
We'll all pray for you, Jay.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:There are a few films, however, that wade in wretched excess for its own sake, while simultaneously denying that it exists. IMO, "The Passion of the Christ" is one of 'em.
Perhaps these are grounds on which someone could disagree with you without being "sick." I didn't think the violence in PotC was excessive, given the filmmakers' aims. (Not social aims, but what they were trying to do with the film.)
That aside...
I think you're setting a very bad tone in this thread. Reminds me of some of the vicious Ornery threads I've seen you involved in, which led me to abandon that forum pretty quickly.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I've been watching for a response to |desmosthenes|'s question back on page 3:
quote:Those of you who enjoyed (if that is the right word) the film, what is your opinion on the men in the Phillipines who, in order to "get closer to God," torture themselves each year by re-enacting the crucifixion on Good Friday?
I repeat it not as a challenge but out of genuine interest. I have my own concerns about the depiction of violence and how it affects people -- certainly, there is evidence that it does lead to desensitization and "everything's a nail" thinking. However, I'm not sure that's a digression we want to go into. (But if someone does, it could be interesting.)
I remember, though, that some years back a young man on this forum posted that he found it useful to watch violence and imagine that his family was being threatened -- he seemed to enjoy the rush and believe that this kept him prepared to defend his family, if need be. (Does anyone else remember this thread? It's long gone, I'm afraid.) As I recall, there was some agreement with him expressed by others here.
I'm much more uneasy with portrayals or re-enactments of violence than sex, so I guess Puppy and I are pretty diametrically opposed. I can accept that, but I still wonder how those that differ from me in this point feel about the Phillipenes example cited by |desmosthenes| above. Is it also a good thing? Or is it different, and if so, how?
Thanks! I promise to listen, and I promise I'm not setting anyone up for attack.
[ January 28, 2005, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: We'll all pray for you, Jay
Thank you! Please remember the interview I had a few weeks back. My church family. A good friend of mine is sick. And my half marathon next week. I greatly appreciate it. That might be a good idea for a weekly thread. Prayer requests.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I was wondering if anybody had noticed.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is not the way in which Christ died that is important, it is the fact he died. He didn't face death because he knew it was going to be long, painful and gory, he faced it because he had to die. If it had been a blow to the head with an axe, a guillotine, the electric chair or a lethal injection it would have been the same. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've heard this position from fellow Mormons often, and I have to disagree.
The drawn-out horribly painful method of death is important because it gave Christ lots of time to change his mind about going through with the Atonement, and strong incentives to do so.
The reason Mormons tend to hold this view is because the atonement happened quite a bit earlier than the scourging and crucifixion, in Gethsemene. And as horrible as his death was, it was nothing compared to taking on the sins, sorrows, and pains of the entire world in Gethsemene.
I guess because of that belief I have, I could distance myself at some level from the gory violence of the movie.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I responded to that post. But I'm not going to click on the link. It sounds rather sad.
Still, people with martyr complexes have the same end in mind. They think suffering makes them more Christlike. Suffering has meaning, but it is not to make us Christlike. Christ suffered to take away our suffering, so when we wallow in suffering we reject his offering.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm so sorry, mothertree! I didn't realize you were responding to |demosthenes|. I understand your post much better, now.
I'm reposting it below just for continuity:
quote:I have to admit I often think of the passage in The Brother's Karamozov where that girl who likes to slam her finger in the door says she'd like to watch a child be crucified while she eats pineapple jam.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: The drawn-out horribly painful method of death is important because it gave Christ lots of time to change his mind about going through with the Atonement, and strong incentives to do so.
I agree with sm. Gethsemane was the place of the real torment. Up until then, he could walk away. As soon as the Romans caught him, whatever death he faced was inevitable. He couldn't change his mind- he wouldn't have, it wasn't a test, the choice to allow himself to be caught was the test.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:The reason Mormons tend to hold this view is because the atonement happened quite a bit earlier than the scourging and crucifixion, in Gethsemene
As I understand it, our Church teaches that the Atonement began with Christ taking upon himself the sins of the world at Gethsemane (this is in contrast to some other Christian theologies) but was completed with Christ's death on the cross. Some Mormons regard the two events as completely separate, but this is not correct doctrine, and I don't know where it came from.
All emphases below are mine:
quote:And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King.
"The Purifying Power of Gethsemane" Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Ensign, May 1985
quote:The Atoning Sacrifice Jesus’s atoning sacrifice took place in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary. In Gethsemane He submitted to the will of the Father and began to take upon Himself the sins of all people. He has revealed some of what He experienced as He paid the price for our sins:
“I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
“But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
“Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
“Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men” (D&C 19:16–19; see also Luke 22:44; Mosiah 3:7).
The Savior continued to suffer for our sins when He allowed Himself to be crucified—“lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world” (1 Nephi 11:33).
On the cross, He allowed Himself to die. His body was then laid in a tomb until He was resurrected and became “the firstfruits of them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20). Through His death and Resurrection, He overcame physical death for us all. He later said:
“I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
“And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
“And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.
“And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world” (3 Nephi 27:13–16).
from True to the Faith entry on Atonement
[ January 28, 2005, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Gethsemane was the place of the real torment. Up until then, he could walk away. As soon as the Romans caught him, whatever death he faced was inevitable. He couldn't change his mind- he wouldn't have, it wasn't a test, the choice to allow himself to be caught was the test.
I disagree with this statement.
The truest suffering was on the cross not in Gethsemane.
Jesus had to bear the price for sin, he had to be the sacrifice. While he bore the burden of sin, he had to suffer it alone because God can have no part of sin. So, God turned away from him, while he suffered the sins of all. That is what was meant when the skies darkened and he cried out "My God why have you forsaken me?" on the cross.
Gethsemane was full of agony for Christ, as he looked ahead to his death, but it was nothing compared to the agony of being separated from his father - something he only experienced on the cross.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I have tried to find that quote before, Yozhik. Thanks.
I think the confusion may arise from the doctrine of physical and spiritual death. It is sometimes assumed that spiritual death is atoned in the Garden, and physical death on the Cross. But as you say, the "atonement" or assuming the guilt of our sins and infirmities occured both places. I think the basis for many saying the suffering was worse in the garden may be due to him "sweating as it were drops of blood". And in the Garden he asked the Father to remove the cup from him.
In Jesus the Christ Talmage pretty much agrees with Belle's assessment. Interestingly, there seems to have been four phases of the Atonement. Three at Gethsemane, with him returning to awaken the Apostles in between, and during the third sweating blood. Then the fourth is while he hung on the cross and cried "why has thou forsaken me".
[ January 28, 2005, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
More on LDS doctrine about the Atonement:
quote:He died on the cross to atone for the sins of all who will obey Him, and He broke the bands of death to provide a resurrection for us all.
His atonement was the most important event that ever happened. The creation of this earth, the establishment of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and the labors of the great patriarchs and prophets—all were prelude to His achievement on Calvary.
...
But He is the Creator! He is the Redeemer! He is the Savior of the world! He did accomplish His atonement on Calvary, and He did bring about the Resurrection. This we know by the revelation of God! His gospel is true and we love it, and we love Him and deem it a privilege to serve Him!
Elder Mark E. Petersen of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, “Creator and Savior,” Ensign, May 1983
quote:The Savior’s atonement in the garden and on the cross is intimate as well as infinite. Infinite in that it spans the eternities. Intimate in that the Savior felt each person’s pains, sufferings, and sicknesses. Consequently, he knows how to carry our sorrows and relieve our burdens that we might be healed from within, made whole persons, and receive everlasting joy in his kingdom.
Bishop Merrill J. Bateman Presiding Bishop “The Power to Heal from Within,” Ensign, May 1995
quote:There is no more poignant picture in all history than that of Jesus in Gethsemane and upon the cross, alone: the Redeemer of mankind, the Savior of the world, bringing to pass the Atonement.
I remember being with President Harold B. Lee (1899–1973) in the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem. We could sense, if only in a very small degree, the terrible struggle that took place there, a struggle so intense, as Jesus wrestled alone in the spirit, that blood came from every pore (see Luke 22:44; D&C 19:18). We recalled the betrayal by one who had been called to a position of trust. We recalled that evil men laid brutal hands upon the Son of God. We recalled that lonely figure on the cross, crying out in anguish, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). Yet, courageously, the Savior of the world moved forward to bring about the Atonement in our behalf.
President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Living with Our Convictions,” Ensign, Sept. 2001
----------- Thanks, mothertree (you posted while I was looking up Ensign articles)!
[ January 28, 2005, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nope, Dag. I'm saying that people who enjoy it are sick.
I'd have to look again, but I'm not sure anyone said they enjoyed it.
You still haven't acknowledged or explained your fairly constant use of words to imply or directly state a sexual motivation for the enjoyment you decry.
Dagonee
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Tom, I am going to try to respond to this on a personal level, so please keep that in mind. I don't really care much about your opinion about religion...I have had similar attitudes towards it at times in my life as well.
I respect your views, although I don't share them....please try to do the same for me.
-------------------------------------------------- I went to see it with my mom and wife...on my birthday. And I was the one who suggested it.
My mom was flabbergasted; for years I wouldn't even go to church on Christmas with them...it felt like I was lying to everyone when I did, and at that time I didn't know what I believed.
I had heard good things about the PotC, but wasn't sure I wanted to see it. I'm not sure why I decided to, but I know that when Jenni and I were married we seriously converted to the Episcopal Church, and not just for the wedding..I felt comfortable with that religion, in a way that I had not felt about religion in over a decade. So maybe it was because of the time I had spent thinking about my life, and my religious views.
We went, and I found it to be very moving. I can't say I enjoyed it...it was not an enjoyable film. I am very glad I saw it, and even more than that I am glad that I saw it with my mom....but I don't ever want to see it again.
I do see that point that if one doesn't believe that appeal of that movie could be disturbing. If I had become aroused, or if I gloried in the graphic violence, you may have had a point. I didn't, and you don't.
There are some things that make a greater impact on us when they are presented visually to us...it is just the way most of us are wired. Some of us are visual in nature, some auditory, and some kinesetics but we all are wired for visual cues. (some of thins is loosely based on NLP)
I have seen other things in movies that have affected me before, and just because something has an effect doesn't mean that effect was pleasant. I was very disturbed by what I saw, but moved as well. The fact that someone would CHOOSE to go through this for the sake of others, for me, was very powerfully brought home to me in a way that had never happened before.
I felt the same way you did about SPR, my whole family was military, and my namesake uncle died at Omaha Beach on D-Day, so I said over and over again that I of all people didn't needed to see SPAR to be reminded...I had never forgotten.
But the first time I saw it I wept, because I could see it for myself, and ever time they showed a boat being blown up I caught myself looking at the faces of the dead men, looking for Bobby. I knew it was only a movie, but I couldn't help myself.
PotC was like that for me.....not enjoyable, but very very powerful. I feel that Gibson succeeded in what he was trying to do...not tell the whole Jesus story, but to give a powerful portrayal of how it MIGHT have been the last few hours of his life, when everything came to it's conculsion, so to speak.
I understand that a word can have multiple meanings, but I don't think you chose Porn by mistake...you were looking to get a rise, and it succeeded. The most common meanings are listed first, right?
If someone got off sexually, or wanted to watch this movie over and over again because of a fixation, or watch it as a primer on masochism, then you would be right, they would have a mental problem, probably.
But to say that a religious person who came out of the same movie in tears is the same as the other people is just wrong. There are a lot of things that are painful to watch, but we watch them because there are lessons to be learned by doing so. I think that watching this movie isn't agreeing with the people who killed Jesus, it can sometimes be in honor of his choice to die for us despite the pain. If he could withstand that type of torment for us, who can we refuse to watch it because it is painful to see?
You can get something out of a painful experience, and a lot of times that is why you get so much out of it...because you are forced to challange all your views, and find out what you really believe in in order to survive it.
Not all emotion is false, and logic isn't all that makes us human. I don't think that just because it appealed to the emotions that it was pornagraphic, nor do I think that watching it made me a pervert or a sicko... I think that we knew what was happening was wrong and what happened to him was perverted, but that he chose to suffer for the redemption of man.....so we watched in honor of his pain and suffereing....despite it, really, not because of it.
I don't care what your religious views are nor do I think you are any type of authority on mental illness, so whatever you say really shouldn't mean much. The only reason it does is because you have earned some respect in other threads because of your fair treatment of others.
It is a shame you are so bigoted against religious people, even when they aren't trying to bother you with their views. That is what it boils down to, really...bigotry.
I am sure my opinion of you doesn't really matter much to you either, but I am just sad that you not only feel that anyone who disagrees with you is sick and perverted, but that you continue to air those views, deliberately insulting and berating people of faith.
I respect you a lot less today than I did before all this, even though your views don't surprise me.
Kwea
[ January 28, 2005, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
*comment that added to Kwea's point deleted because, although true, it wasn't very nice*
[ January 28, 2005, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
i just want to contribute that, as a devout christian, i don't believe tom has been out of line. i (and i'm surprised to say this in a religious thread) agree with much of what he has said. jay has been a troll, and i think dag is just inflamed with tom for some reason.
then, i also agree with much that kwea wrote. i believe tom's comments have taken the path they have because the way jay presented himself... his view of the movie appears (at least in my mind) pornographic. tom's posts to me appear very honest and sincere.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not sure the timing of the atonement is nearly as important as the general fact that it happened.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
gnix, Tom said that anyone who finds anything uplifting or moving in the film is mentally ill.
That's not out of line?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Its sort of misusing words whose meaning has changed. Take for example the word “gay.” It used to mean happy. But now it’s exclusively used when refereeing to sodimites. Tom’s use of pornographic is similar. But Tom seems very gay in his use of pornographic. Tom has gay pornographic tendencies. Gee…. I could argue pretty easily along these lines. But it is still a twisting of the meaning and not what the acceptable meaning is.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
As a devout atheist, it seems to me that Tom has been a bit out of line.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Jay, I think you'll find that people will give you more respect if you don't use archaic, offensive, and inaccurate terms like "sodomite."
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
“Tom said that anyone who finds anything uplifting or moving in the film is mentally ill.”
Dag, if Tom said that, I missed it. Could you point me to it? I specifically remember him saying that some people found the non-violent scenes uplifting or moving, and some people found the movie moving in spite of the violence. The only people I recall him calling “sick” are people who found the violence itself uplifting.
I do think that you tend to take everything Tom says about religion in the most negative light possible. I’m sure you think that’s justified. Based on the threads the two of you have been in together, maybe it is. But please consider, for a minute, that how you interpret his attitude might be affecting how you read his posts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dana, I'm leaving the quotations in the order they appeared in the thread. The second to last quotation is the one that says it directly. None of the rest of the quotes convey the entire idea, but they do reaffirm one or more aspects of that statement.
quote: It was a snuff film starring Christ, for God's sake. The kind of people who find that sort of thing "moving" need healthy hobbies.
Note the need for something "healthy" implies an illness.
quote:The violence is the film, in a very deliberately pornographic way. The entire movie is about how incredibly awful it is to be hurt.
Snuff film. Period.
Note the "Period." Pretty much denies alternative interpretations. He specifically said, and I agree with him on this, that people finding parts moving who covered their eyes for the violence were not really interacting with the film, but a derivative work of it.
quote: As I said, I meant the connotation, as well.
Referring to the sexual associations of porn and snuff films.
quote:people who get off on watching God get beaten to death are raving nutjobs
Note that this one sums up my primary objection to Tom’s whole stance – that people who are finding anything moving about the violence are enjoying the movie in some sexual way.
quote: I'm letting them tell me that they were uplifted and/or enthused and/or moved by its beauty, and then I'm calling them sick.
This is the one that directly correlates to "Tom said that anyone who finds anything uplifting or moving in the film is mentally ill." There's no credible possibility of another interpretation, especially with the "/or moved" there, although it would be possible, I suppose, to argue that "sick" doesn't refer to mental illness. I doubt Tom would try to assert that.
quote: And watching someone being brutally mutilated in loving slow motion is bad, and people who enjoy that are sick.
Note once again the shift from finding it moving to “enjoying” it.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do think that you tend to take everything Tom says about religion in the most negative light possible. I’m sure you think that’s justified. Based on the threads the two of you have been in together, maybe it is. But please consider, for a minute, that how you interpret his attitude might be affecting how you read his posts.
I do take that into account, and I'm sure it affects it. But I also feel that Tom does things in religion threads that other people, doing it to a lesser degree, get jumped on by a wide cross section of Hatrack. Unless I decide to call Tom on it, that seldom happens when he does it.
Now, the ratio of "good" posts from Tom (which does not refer to posts I happen to agree with him on) is high enough that I don't skim past his posts, whereas there are other people whose posts I will skip simply because of the rarity of their posts being at all polite, respectful, or insightful.
Dagonee
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Ah, Hatrack...I've been away for a while...I see it's still the same
Did anyone already mention that Gibson's view about the Passion of Christ derives from him following a very...extreme...Catholic sect?
OSC once said something about this movie...I usually do not agree with him, but I'll back him up on this one: as a Brazilian (the biggest catholic country in the world) I've seen a lot of bloody depictions of the Passion. Pictures, plays, sculptures, etc. Minas Gerais (a Brazilian State) is famous for its baroque statuary. Remember...for Gibson, the blood of Christ is very, very important.
No, I'm not Catholic (I'm a Spiritist). No, I didn't care much about the movie, although I saw it. I'm glad it was not nominated. I think it not deserves to be.
Now I duck and cover. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
"Note once again the shift from finding it moving to “enjoying” it."
Is it a shift, or is it a qualification?
I have trouble interpreting people from the east coast. I tend to see their posts as snarkier/ruder than other people do. It's noticeable enough that for a couple months I stopped replying to anyone not from the Midwest until at least one other person had replied first, so that I got a better idea of how other people interpreted the post. I usually found out that the poster didn't mean it the way I first saw it. And I've noticed that trend between other posters from different regions -- subtle humor and mannerisms are difficult to read into text anyway, but it's especially difficult to recognize when it's complicated by regional variations. The same applies, of course, for other cultural groupings like religions, sports fans, etc.
Oh well. I usually try to avoid stepping into the middle of other posters’ interactions. In my experience it very rarely does anything but make things worse. I’m not sure why I broke that rule in this case. Probably shouldn’t have, so I’ll stop now.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Most surgeries would qualify as pornographically violent were it not for the person doing them having a little piece of paper symbolizing her training. But if you don't think a piece of paper makes that person special, then it's pretty horrifying.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: if you don't use archaic, offensive, and inaccurate terms like "sodomite."
Ahh… interesting. So now biblical terms aren’t allowed? But of course it’s ok to use “pornographic” to describe the Passion of the Christ. This blatant double standard reeks with bias.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Tom's posts seemed bent on inflaming emotions, and I personally felt very hurt that he would presume to say such things about an experience that I (not he) had. That said, Tom hasn't posted for a while so let's just drop it. We're beating a dead horse.
[ January 29, 2005, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oh well. I usually try to avoid stepping into the middle of other posters’ interactions. In my experience it very rarely does anything but make things worse. I’m not sure why I broke that rule in this case. Probably shouldn’t have, so I’ll stop now.
Worry not - certainly it didn't offend me, and it made me go back and look.
quote:"Note once again the shift from finding it moving to “enjoying” it."
Is it a shift, or is it a qualification?
He started out at move, and he took pains to make sure it was included in his definitive statement. I don't think I'm wrong here, but I'll ask Tom to clarify: Do you consider anyone who finds the movie as a whole, including the violent parts, moving to be mentally sick?
Dagonee
[ January 29, 2005, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Do you consider anyone who finds the movie as a whole, including the violent parts, moving to be mentally sick?
Well, duh. Of course not. But I suggest that those who -- like Jay -- find the movie moving primarily because of the violent parts may be buying into a form of Christianity that I find more than a little repellent.
And of course those people who liked the film in spite of its violence, or who skipped over the violence altogether, wound up watching a different movie.
My point is that Gibson made a movie which intentionally glorified the bloody, agonizing death of Jesus Christ, rather than his sacrifice. And that people who are moved not by the sacrifice but by the imagined gory details of the death itself are focusing entirely on the wrong aspect of the story. And, of course, that people who find the gore itself appealing and/or beautiful are, as I said earlier, rather sick.
[ January 29, 2005, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:My point is that Gibson made a movie which intentionally glorified the bloody, agonizing death of Jesus Christ, rather than his sacrifice.
I'm not really sure I agree with this, His sacrifice was thought the pain He suffered, certainly it's possible that Gibson was more interested in the pain than in the meaning of the pain (the sacrifice) but I don't think that showing it in a gruesome or gory way necessitates that.
Hobbes
[ January 29, 2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You know I never said I enjoyed the violence. I said I found the story and what Christ went through for the sin of the world moving. A movie of the beating and torture of someone I didn’t have a personal relationship wouldn’t have much meaning. But when someone goes through such torture to die for my sins, then yes, it is very moving and I thank him for doing that for me. And The Passion of the Christ is probably an accurate representation of what Jesus probably went though. Seem like you’re just trolling for anger in your own gay pornographic tendency.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Is anyone else a little put off by the argument that we should have a tit for tat relationship with Jesus. Adam and Eve introduced love and sin, Cain and Abel: inequality, envy and murder, and Jesus: quid pro quo.
I don't believe that people should love ones neighbor because a guy died a horrific death. It's the same as the old argument for nationalism, that we should defend blank and blank nation out of respect for the blood of our fathers that was spilled and tortured for blank and blank nation. Arguments like that, for Christendom or nationalism, seem to make the whole business kind of small. There are some uplifting revelations in Christianity, but I don't know if this is one of them. ____
An aside:
In the paper today, one of the terrorist calls the polling places "centers of atheism and vice."
In a way, there is nothing especially Godly about democracy, especially when people are taught to be self-interested and voting is merely the aggregate of everyone's individual appetites, with favors bestowed upon the one with the most popular appetites.
No, there is something atheist about the processes, I mean, wasn't it majority rule that killed Jesus? This isn't to say that we shouldn't pledge for democracy, rather, I don't know if I'm proud of the priorities people are supposed to have when they vote..
[ January 29, 2005, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"In a way, there is nothing especially Godly about democracy..."
This is in fact an ancient observation, Irami. I believe a number of Christian philosophers argued back and forth about this for some time.
Insofar as there was any conclusion reached, it was this: democracy is not itself godly, and is in fact likely to lead to selfishness. However, liberty is godly, and democracy is the most likely of all the political systems known to man to optimize liberty.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
word
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, duh.
You know what, Tom, the "well, duh" isn't really appropriate when you've been agreeing with that very logical characterization of your view for 6 pages.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I haven't agreed, Dag. I just didn't correct -- mainly because I figured you knew me well enough that you'd know I didn't have that opinion, and so the hostile vibe I was getting from you was from something else. *shrug*
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yes, and our nation has very thick Christian roots. This article talks about the “The Devil of Democracy”
It's a good article, but I don't think we got the same thing out of it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, then, Tom, maybe you should explain how one is supposed to interpret such statements in the future:
quote:I'm letting them tell me that they were uplifted and/or enthused and/or moved by its beauty, and then I'm calling them sick.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Well, then, Tom, maybe you should explain how one is supposed to interpret such statements in the future."
Well, I know the way I interpret your comments: "Gee, that seemed harsh for Dag. Did he mean it that way? Perhaps he's putting a different mental emphasis on another part of that sentence, or leaving out a qualifier I'd consider important."
Heck, even when I tease Jay, I do that first. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Ah Ha! So you finally admit your trolling ways!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, I know the way I interpret your comments: "Gee, that seemed harsh for Dag. Did he mean it that way? Perhaps he's putting a different mental emphasis on another part of that sentence, or leaving out a qualifier I'd consider important."
Tom, you started out extreme and refused to qualify it when given numerous chances and requests to do so. Please don't try playing the victim in this one. You intended to be offensive and, surprise, people got offended.
quote:Well, I know the way I interpret your comments: "Gee, that seemed harsh for Dag. Did he mean it that way? Perhaps he's putting a different mental emphasis on another part of that sentence, or leaving out a qualifier I'd consider important."
And there is no question of saying "This seemed harsh for Tom." It didn't seem harsh for you - it was standard operating procedure for you.
Dagonee
[ January 29, 2005, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shrug* I am, of course, apparently not as qualified to say what I meant.
Perhaps, Dag, you should also consider whether your kneejerk determination to defend all things Catholic from perceived threats is really necessary. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm accepting that's what you meant. I am asking to explain how a particular statement fits in with what you meant.
Dagonee
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, in fact, that's a good point. Dag, you have repeatedly said that you will not permit me or Tom to disrespect your religion. Why do you care about the opinions of random Intarwebnet posters? A touch defensive, perhaps?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sure, KoM, join in the "I know what motivates others" bandwagon. You and Tom and Squick can hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Or some non-religious equivalent.
Maybe "Imagine"?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I was asking a question, not making an assertion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I care about the opinions of people I respect. It might not be an issue much longer.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I'm letting them tell me that they were uplifted and/or enthused and/or moved by its beauty, and then I'm calling them sick."
You know, it was pretty clear to me, in context, that Tom was talking about the depiction of the crucifixtion, not the movie as a whole.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"But you are willing to insist that you are a better judge of how those people are actually reacting to a movie, right?"
Nope. I'm not telling them how they reacted to it. I'm letting them tell me that they were uplifted and/or enthused and/or moved by its beauty, and then I'm calling them sick.
I apply the same approach to anyone who'd tell me that "Pi" or "Eraserhead" were movies that really made them feel closer to the human condition.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Irami?
quote: I don't believe that people should love ones neighbor because a guy died a horrific death.
Plenty of people have died horrific deaths. It was because he lived a sinless life. A lot of sinless people die, but it is generally due to lack of opportunity to sin.
And keep in mind that Adam didn't have any reason to sin. He had everything he could want provided for him, and choose to have the one thing in the world forbidden him. But that's free will. Free will is to do the worst imaginable thing but also the best imaginable thing. Like loving one's enemy. But I didn't get the impression from anyone that the film got into this stuff.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Tom: You keep telling us how the movie impacted you as a non believer. Can I ask why you went and saw it? What you were expecting out of it? It seems like the reviews were not coy about the level of violence that could be anticipated.
Dag: I hope you aren't feeling unsupported by me not contributing more directly. But it's kind of like one of those things where Doc Oc explains to Spiderman why evil will always win. At least in the cartoons.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I'm still a fan of both Tom and Dagonee.
But not me? Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
And, Dag, Tom's post preceeding the one you quoted...
"That's because, Dag, I'm not willing to concede that other people are a better judge of what I am or am not willing to accept than I am.
I can certainly understand why the death -- and especially resurrection -- of Christ is such a compelling story to Christians; Teshi puts it very nicely in the post above. I don't necessarily agree that this process is logical -- for example, the "need" for Christ to battle Satan in Hell is something that I find very theologically confusing -- but it's got a heroic arc to it.
What I've asked you to clarify, and what you've said you cannot clarify to my satisfaction, is why the particularly pornographic depiction of this death (as seen in PotC) is, as Jay has argued, more uplifting than the less gory alternatives.
-------
"If you and a best friend faced death, and one of you was given the chance of dying for the other in a painful way, would you watch in respect for him or would you look away?"
I would not pay $8 to watch him suffer, and pay twice more to watch it twice more, and tell my friends that they don't really love him if they aren't willing to pay the $8 to watch him die."
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: A lot of sinless people die
Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
You’re partially right. Jesus did live a sinless life. And he has been the one person able to do that in our short human history. Everyone else has. Even if it is some little thing.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Jay, depends on your theology. But whatever...
Paul, the quotes at the end of your last sentence... is that a quote from someone or a typo?
KoM, I'll be your fan if you'll be my minion. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
That whole thing is a quote from Tom, who, within his post, quotes someone else.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
I know I am arriving late to this party, but I'd like to throw my two cents in.
To get back to the original topic of this thread, I don't think the Passion was a very good movie. Of course, plenty of movies win Oscars that I don't think are very good, and the field for best foreign language film is weak--why wasn't The Motorcycle Diaries nominated? Still, that doesn't obviate the patent lack of content in this movie aside from one man's torture and death.
Tom is right; this movie is a snuff film. Its sole focus is the torture and killing of one person. The lack of sexual content means nothing; I'm sure a murderous sadist would find the content of this movie sufficient for sexual arousal. The fact that it was marketed and framed as a religious piece doesn't change the content of the film, which is simply gore. Cable porn has more plot and character development than this movie.
I should mention that simply because I found the movie to be in bad taste does not mean that I believe all who found it spiritually significant are mentally ill. I know I enjoy things many people would consider in bad taste. However, the crux of the argument as I see it is that many of the Passion's true believers can't accept that this movie was not received with universal acclaim. Too many people didn’t like this movie. Good candidates for Best Picture need very broad appeal; this is also why I don't think Fahrenheit 9/11 belonged on the list. Personally, I don’t put much stock in the Oscars as an indicator of good cinema, but I can certainly understand why The Passion of the Christ doesn’t deserve one.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Jay, you are wrong. He was not born with Original sin, but he did sin in his life and atoned for it...
For 40 days and 40 nights, in the desert.
Kwea
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That's a new one for me, Kwea. Is it a common interpretation in your church?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'd like to spend 40 days and 40 nights in the dessert.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You keep telling us how the movie impacted you as a non believer. Can I ask why you went and saw it?"
Mainly because I heard it was a good film, and respect Mel Gibson a fair bit, and am interested both in Christian storytelling and quality cinematography. Besides, how often do you get to hear Aramaic in a theater? I've also got a fairly strong stomach; there are only a few movies out there -- and Saving Private Ryan isn't one of them, actually -- that have managed to squick me out. (Oddly, I'm squicked by things which many people are able to shrug off; the restaurant scene in Meaning of Life, for example, is something that I always have to fast-forward past. I have more of a tolerance for violence than I have for grotesquerie.)
But I was very disappointed. The entire film was a sustained, thudding downer. I had expected gore; I had not expected that the gore itself would be presented to the camera in what certainly seemed to me to be a loving fashion.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Jay, you are wrong. He was not born with Original sin, but he did sin in his life and atoned for it... For 40 days and 40 nights, in the desert.
Where are you getting that Jesus sinned? You are correct to say he was not born with original sin from Adam since he was born of a virgin. But your interruption of the desert is incorrect. He was tempted by the devil there. Temptation is not sin.
In Matthew 4 1 Then was Jesus led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
And in Mark 1 12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness. 13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
And Luke 4 1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2 Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.
Plus the Bible also says he was sinless: Hebrews 4 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
It seems that nobody, really, can be objective about this movie. The subject matter guarantees that.
And, in fact, I think that perhaps the subject matter of The Passion places it into a realm beyond that of award shows. If you believe in Christ, it seems kind of sacrilegious to try to push for the movie's recognition among secular movies, or worry about whether or not it gets awards and what kind. It's like trying to decide where to rank the Bible on a list of top ten best literary works of all time: "hmmm, I'll vote for it to go somewhere between Anna Karenina and Hamlet." When really, if one is a believer, the Bible doesn't belong on the same list with secular works at all.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:It seems that nobody, really, can be objective about this movie. The subject matter guarantees that.
Not really. I just found it kind of blah.
Of course, I had just recently watched Audition, so a couple of itty-bitty whippings hardly registered for me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Temptation is not sin."
Isn't that called "sinning in the heart" by some sects?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not sure that's what they mean by sinning in the heart, although certainly I could imagine some sects defining it that way.
I think the boundary would be somewhere between the initial temptaion and dwelling on it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He reacted with violence, whipping the preists from the temple, in violation of his own teachings.
He atoned for it in the desert, something he felt he had to do.
I know they claimed he was born without original sin, but that he was human, so those actions would have been a sin.
He didn't break the commandments, but he violated his own teachings, the ones that were to replace the eye-for-an-eye mentality of the Old Testment.
I’m still unsure where you are getting this atonement in the desert when it clearly states that this was temptation from Satan.
And sin in the heart is explained by this verse from Matthew 5:28 - 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* Yes, Jay. Would you interpret that to mean that people who are tempted to do something, although they do not act, have sinned already?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Tom, temptation to me is the incitement to sin, whether internal or external, while "looking with lust" always struck me as planning, fantasizing, or something else beyond the mere initial desire to commit the sin.
Clearly, there's a lot of fuzzy area in that distinction.
Dagonee
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I would think that there is a difference between the temptation of a sin and thinking about a sin. I guess sort of like seeing an open bank vault would be tempting, while seriously thinking about robbing the bank would be sinful. Sort of like saying you have a beautiful wife is ok. But if someone were to think they would like to ……(insert own obesity here)….. would be where committing adultery in their heart comes into play.
So yes, I sin all the time. This dang thinking thing stinks. And before someone from the peanut gallery says it, no I’m not thinking about your wife, but yes she is very beautiful. I’m personally not sure where the thinking limit with sin comes into play. I’m glad I don’t have to worry about it though since I know I’m forgiven. Staff meetings are really bad since I always tend to think about different ways to shut the guy up who likes to hear himself talk. That could be a fun thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:This dang thinking thing stinks.
By their own words shall ye know them.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
John 8:7 - So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Jay, was that in response to me? If so, I don't see the relevance.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Ok, that’s cool. I apologize. I took the reference “by their own words shall ye know them” for the joke about “dang thinking thing stinks” to mean that you knew I was a sinner. Which I already admitted to. So…. Since it seemed like stones were being cast and I thought it was a proper reference. Then again, I guess you could have just been teasing me about the thinking stinking.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Jay, his whole argument was that no one should, for they were all sinners.
Notice he cast no stone himself...
Also, the temptation happened in the desert, no doubt about it, but he went into the desert to atone, IIRC.
If he had not sinned, what was he atoning for?
Kwea
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't recall any Bible verse that even hints at attonement in the desert.
As to the "cast the fist stone" keep in mind He says "nor do I...", meaning he isn't part of the group that doesn't cast the stones for sin.
Hobbes Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I would disagree. Jesus didn’t throw a stone because he was showing forgiveness. You’re not telling the whole story:
John 8 1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
I still don’t know what you are referencing when you say he went into the desert to atone. I’ve looked up atone in my Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the Bible and it’s not there. Atonement is. Mostly in the Old Testament and the 1 place in the new is:
Romans 5:11 - And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
So…… more information is required other then you just stating it please. I’m not sure if you’re confusing when Jesus went off to pray, which he did frequently. And at times was very upset while praying. Could this be what you are talking about?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am not saying I am an authority, or trying to quote the bible...I would provide more documentation for it if I could, but I think this is more an issue of interpetation than of actual quotation.
If I say "blah says that..." I would make sure I provided documentation, but I am not sure I can for this. I am not saying that it is "official", just that it was taught to me as if it was...
I rememeber being taught this as a RC, too...
As a matter of fact, I think it was during chatecism class where it came up.
Trust me, if I have time I will try to find where I learned that, but I am not misremembering...I remember it quite well, it was something that we went over more than once.
See, this is the problem with parents teaching classes...this isn't the first time I rememered something (and remembred it well) I was taught in classes that turned out to not be official RC Doctrine.
Too bad, I think it was one of the reasons I believed as long as I did.....this makes mre soese, and makes his sacrifice more poignent, I think.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
One of the significant things about the cleansing of the temple to me is that Jesus didn't explode in anger and scream and yell and turn over tables and act a fool.
From John Ch. 2:
quote:When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
He saw them, but then he left and made a whip out of cords.
That takes time - time during which he was considering exactly what he was doing. He wasn't in an out-of-control rage, he knew exactly what he was doing.
Jesus was fully God and fully man, and it was no sin for the fully God part of him to be angry. Not all forms of anger are sinful - is it a sin for me to be angry at someone who abuses small children? It would be a sin for me to act on that anger improperly, but I don't think righteous indignation in and of itself is sinful.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And how does whipping people relate to turn the other cheek? I was taught that he DID lose it, although with reason, and that while he could have dne worse he was still violating his own teachings there in the temple.
It was used as a way of showing Jesus' human side, ever and over again. That much I remember.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
"I’m glad I don’t have to worry about it though since I know I’m forgiven"
Jay, I dont really understand this statement. You dont have to worry about sinning because you are already forgiven for any sins you may commit in the future? Regardless of what they are? That must be nice.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Standard Protestant thought processes though...after all, when Jesus died we weren't born, so he MUST have died for all our future sins as well...
Of course saying that as an excuse to sin more isn't really repentance, regardless of what lip service is said.
(not a poke at you Jay, just at those who think that way...I am sure we all know some like that.... )
Kwea
[ January 30, 2005, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Ok, that’s cool. I apologize. I took the reference “by their own words shall ye know them” for the joke about “dang thinking thing stinks” to mean that you knew I was a sinner. Which I already admitted to. So…. Since it seemed like stones were being cast and I thought it was a proper reference. Then again, I guess you could have just been teasing me about the thinking stinking.
No, no, I'm not accusing you of being a sinner! What would be the use of that? I am accusing you of not thinking for yourself.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Not thinking for myself? Well, ok. Not sure why you’re thinking this. But oh well. I get accused of this every now and then.
And yes, Kwea is right about future sins. And I wasn’t meaning it as a license to sin. That would be wrong way to take it and I would be leery of someone who would try and take that liberty. Anyway, guess it is a fine line since we all do sin anyway.
I like Belle’s points about righteous anger too. Very well put.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: I get accused of this every now and then
Yes, and then you say yourself that 'this thinking thing stinks', well, to a nasty atheist mind like mine, you condemn yourself out of your own mouth.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’m not sure if you’re trying to be funny or insulting. It’s so strange to have to defend joking around statements like “this thinking thing stinks” since it is obviously sarcastic. But yes, I was meaning that being able to think sinful thoughts does stink.
I used to be atheist too, but then I started thinking for myself. Knew that things were to perfect for it all to be by chance. Examined evidence for creation and learned the truth.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:And how does whipping people relate to turn the other cheek?
Does it say anywhere that people were whipped? It talks about driving sheep and cattle, but does it specify people getting whipped?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
To say that people watch it for the same reasons that people watch snuff films is either a bigoted statement or said out of ignorance about people of faith. I can understand why watching this can be, at least for some people, a religious experience. The person who talked about Saving Private Ryan got it right I think. Besides, it is supposed to contain a lot of Catholic symbolism that extends beyond the mere pain and blood.
Yet I believe, as many LDS seem to have said about it already, I will not watch it because it doesn't touch upon my religious emphasis of the Atonement. It's gruesomness as reported is beyond my spiritual needs. I am much more interested in Jesus Christ's Life, Death, and Resurrection as a whole. The Sacrament of bread and wine is what God instituted to remember the Sacrifice and not a gory film.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
So maybe there's a bit of a disconnect between what Catholics are supposed to believe and what they do believe.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Proteus.![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Hi Anna.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)