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.
posted
*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. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.... )
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
