Why I feel like the discussion is an attack on Christians.
Because without any evidence that anything has or will happen as a result of this movie, we have people saying things like Rivka that she expects people to beat up kids on the street and attack Jewish businesses and for people to go attack their neighbors.
Now, why would anybody do that? Because they feel so passionately about the movie and their emotion turns to anger at the Jews that are portrayed as the "villains" in the story, have I got that right?
Can you honestly tell me it isn't insulting to a large group of people, namely Christians? Because only Christians would feel that way, an athiest who doesn't believe Christ was God is not going to be upset at anyone.
Before the movie has been released we've had people decrying it as anti-semitic, calling for scenes to be deleted (and Gibson did delete one, though I admire him saying it wasn't because it was anti-Semitic but rather that time didn't permit explaining the quote in context), and calling for disclaimers. Calling for Christian leaders to urge their people not to do things that no one yet has done
People are not just expressing "concern" they are calling for changes to be made and for people to take action, and attacking Gibson not only for his beliefs, but the beliefs of his father and he's never acknowledged that he believed the same things his father does!
As for a disclaimer - Gibson answered that question. Putting a disclaimer would indicate there is something wrong with his movie, and he doesn't believe there is.
Could you not see that putting a disclaimer in front of the movie could encourage people to then view the movie through eyes that are now looking for reasons to hate the Jewish people? I think it would do more harm than good, by calling attention to something that I just don't think is going to be a big issue with folks.
And I'm wondering, is anti-semitism just not prevalent in the south? Because I live in the bible belt, I am around die-hard southern baptists, presbyterians, and other denominations every day. I have never seen one incidence of violent or hateful behavior toward a jew.
In fact, I know several dyed in the wool southern baptist conservative evangelicals who take aerobics at the Jewish Community Center right alongside their Jewish neighbors, and eat lunch with them and shop with them and let their kids play together. Hardly the environment such seething hatred of all people jewish is going to crop up in, dontcha think?
I am angry about it, because everyone here keeps referring to some invisible stereotypical Christian who does nothing but sit around waiting for any excuse to come along so he can bomb an abortion clinic before noon and beat up some black people and jews before supper. Now, if that person exists, I haven't ever met them.
Yes people have blown up abortion clinics, yes people have attacked Jews with hatred in their hearts but they are hardly common. I think one is more likely to be mugged for money in America than attacked by someone solely because they're Jewish, and as Olivet tried to point out - anyone who would do such a thing after seeing this movie would have done it before seeing it too.
So yeah, I'm taking it personally. I think it's an insult aimed at the millions of people who share my beliefs who would never, never consider doing such things to constantly demand we reassure everyone we aren't going to do them.
It's the equivalent of me saying to a muslim American "Before I do business with you, I want you to reassure me that you don't intend to murder me because you think I'm an infidel." And then if he takes offense and doesn't answer I can label him a bigot who hates Christian Americans.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: “In spring of 2002, just one year ago, we witnessed a striking upsurge of anti-Semitism in many European countries. These incidents included attacks on synagogues, the desecration of cemeteries, and physical assaults on people who appeared to be Jewish,” Smith said.
“Unfortunately U.S. statistics on anti-Semitism present an equally disturbing picture. The number of incidents in the U.S. increased by 8 percent in 2002 to 1,559 according to the ADL. Sadly, my own home state of New Jersey counted 171 incidents,” he added.
Do you know what would make me really, really happy? If, after the movie comes out, there is a significant drop in anti-semitic violence -- or even no change, and a drop in violence overall. I think that would be WONDERFUL! I don't want to be RIGHT on this! Please, please, please prove me wrong! Prove my fears irrational and unfounded!
I promise to say thank you. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
You take offense when people show their worries that the lunatic fringe who claim to be Christian will use this movie as a rallying point to push their hate filled messages.
Should they ignore these fears?
Should they just assume that nothing bad can or will happen? Should they assume that all the bad things that happened in the past won't happen again?
They know and admit that the movie will not create mass violence. It may, unfortunately, direct the violence some are capable of, to a specific target.
What will happen to the Christian community if something should happen?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Dan, I'd turn that around. If the movie isn't anti-semetic, then what should Gibson do with regards to this issue before the movie is released?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there another example in history of a Christ-centered movie coming out, followed by a barrage of attacks on Jews across America? I mean, it's not like the story has changed over the years. Is there anything that someone can point to?
I'm much more afraid of the paranoid and prejudice-filled attitudes that pervade all segments of our population, who leap instantly to their own defense, even when they are not attacked, as though all the world was an enemy. I'm not talking about Jews in particular, here, since of all people, they have good historical reasons to be skeptical. But it seems to be an increasing problem in this country, and this situation isn't exactly helping.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a Study Guide for the movie put out by the National Council of Churches’ Interfaith Relations Committee. I think I will be using it as part of post-movie discussion groups.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I think you missed a large part of my point. Revenge motivation is unequivocly un-christian. You can claim that revenge is justifed, but it can never be christian. It can however be a big part of being CHRISTIAN. I'd even say it's even one of the main parts of it.
I don't think that anyone is really worried about christians becoming more violent in deed or at least thought towards jews, but we're damn sure worried about this from CHRISTIANS. And, at last count, the CHRISTIANS far outnumbered the christians.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: And, at last count, the CHRISTIANS far outnumbered the christians.
Back that up please. Just because the obnoxious people get all the press coverage does not mean there aren’t more people quietly going about their daily lives trying to live out their faith and make the world a more loving place.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ironic thing is that objections to the movie by Jews is causing anger toward Jews far more than the movie seems to be. In some ways I believe that the Jews are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You have to understand that attacking this movie is really attacking the core beliefs of Christians of most stripes. So far of what I know of the movie, Jews are not just attacking a portrayal of Jesus; but the very Scriptures themselves as that is what the Movie is based upon. It is as if the Jews are asking for Christians to sanitize or condemn a part of their heritage and faith. THAT is what is really getting so many people riled up by the Jews insistance that something is wrong with this film -- including Mormons who typically feel they are spiritually connected to the Jewish people.
You might have a few "secularized" Christians who are on the Jews side on this, but they do not represent the mainstream view of the story of Jesus and his death or resurrection. In the end, like it or not, if you have a problem with Mel Gibson's movie than you have a problem with Christianity. You cannot split the two.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the end, like it or not, if you have a problem with Mel Gibson's movie than you have a problem with Christianity. You cannot split the two.
I am not willing to stipulate to that. A movie is always an adaptation. Even if all the dialogue is directly out of the scripture, there are still many directorial and interpretive choices to be made. The movie is one man’s interpretation of a part of Christian scripture. That in no way makes it synonymous with Christianity as a whole.
And I don’t think anyone who knows me would call me a “secularized” Christian, but I am on Rivka and Ela’s side in this discussion, insofar as I sympathize with their concerns and share some of their fears.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steve and I discussed this over dinner last night. He basically took the "Well it was made with private money so if you don't like it don't watch it" stance. I pointed out that Mel G. was looking for sanction from religious leaders other than his own. And was wanting to have his cake and eat it too as it were. He didn't think Mel should really have been looking for that approval, or shouldn't have been upset when he didn't get it from everyone.
The clincher for him changing his opinion was when I brought up the number of people going, "Well it can't happen here", when referring to pogroms and the like. He nearly choked on his soup at that point and said, "Yeah and that was what they were saying in Germany in the 1930s too. Of COURSE it can happen here!"
posted
I've read some of the reviews from those who have seen the movie.
I feel very assured that the controversey will dissapear once people can actually see this movie. It's supposed to be amazing, and the stunned response from those who have seen it is not a riotous call to arms, but a note of respect.
I think it's going to be fine. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think the heart of the Christian complaints about how the movie is treated can be seen in this quote:
quote:I keep getting the feeling that Gibson, in his real life role as an early Christian, wants to be whipped and hung on a cross so he, too, can be a martyr like Jesus. Well Mel, first you would have to study the laws of Torah and become wholly Jewish like Jesus. Then you have to adopt the role of a charismatic Jew, preaching to his people to follow the laws of Torah as given to the Jewish people by G-d through Moses. Only then could you volunteer to be one of the Jewish crucifixion victims.
Mel, I am sure that once you became an authentic Jew, the Church of Rome would be glad to hang you on a tree trunk or - at least - go to Home Depot for a neatly trimmed Post and Post Hole Digger.
This is a rabble-rousing film by Gibson, sure to exacerbate violent anti-Semitism. When (not if) synagogues are torched and Jews assaulted due to Gibson's incitement, dust off the law books and sue Gibson, the film distributors, theaters and all connected with this Hollywood travesty.(emphasis added)
posted
Dagonee, what I would like to see, if there is no Anti-semitism in this movie, is for Mel Gibson to be open and understanding.
The problems and the noise about this film arose when Mr. Gibson reacted defensively and refused to show anyone his film accept evangelical Christian, nor has he responded to the ADL or spoken to any of their representatives.
It would be nice if he would meet with them, listen to their concerns, and explain his position.
Then proponents of the movie could say, "See. We listened, but they wanted too much." Instead, their case is weakened because they can not argue that ADL wanted too much. They wouldn't even listen to what ADL wanted. The ADL was not important enough to talk to civilly.
Occasional, becareful of placing this movie on too high a pedestal, especially before you've seen it. "If you have a problem with Mel Gibson's movie, you have a problem with Christianity" places this movie alongside the bible as sacred. It aint. If I think the acting is bad or the lighting is off, that doesn't mean I think that Christianity has problems.
On the bigger picture, the scene that is causing the concern is where a pronoucement is made that the Jews attending Christ's trial accept the responsibility for his death. The responsibility falls on them and their children.
To some Christians this means that those present were legally responsible for Christ's death.
To others, this means that all Jews are now, and will forever be held responsible for Christ's death.
While every Christian church I've heard of now denounces that second opinion, it is still out there in the public, and may be picked up on by those who have little understanding about Christianity.
A call to clarify this bit of Christian doctrine and belief is not a call to destroy Christianity.
I am just sad that Christians feel so threatened today.
Oh, and while there have been few Passion movies, and few Pogroms in the US after those movies (the early films of the 30's had some of each, but the records of such anti-semetic behavior were rarely kept) there is a long history of such violence occuring after Passion plays.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, what I would like to see, if there is no Anti-semitism in this movie, is for Mel Gibson to be open and understanding.
I agree, but we probably disagree as to what would constitute open and understanding.
quote:The problems and the noise about this film arose when Mr. Gibson reacted defensively and refused to show anyone his film accept evangelical Christian, nor has he responded to the ADL or spoken to any of their representatives.
The ADL opened the issue by asking to see the film and possibly suggest changes based on their fears of anti-Semitism. They have problems with the way the events are presented – in other words they want Gibson to make changes to his portrayal of the central story of his faith. The following quotes are from the ADL and Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" FAQ:
“We have repeatedly tried to reach out to discuss this with Mr. Gibson. ADL continues to hope that Icon Productions will respond positively to our numerous requests to work constructively with Mr. Gibson to ensure a responsible and accurate film.”
“We were saddened and pained to find that ‘The Passion of the Christ’ continues its unambiguous portrayal of Jews as being responsible for the death of Jesus.”
“The core issues are whether the movie inaccurately and unjustly portrays Jews as evil, responsible for the crucifixion, and whether such a depiction will re-stimulate old anti-Semitic stereotypes and hatred. The division is between those who want to prevent possible anti-Semitism and prejudice from occurring and those who seem callous to the dangers that the movie may cause.”
These quotes suggest that the ADL is asking for editorial input into the film. I have a hard time faulting a director for saying, “No, I’m not going to allow an outside organization to have that kind of input in my film.” I also resent the implication that not wanting people who hold the central tenets of Christianity to be false to have input into the film are “callous to the dangers” of anti-Semitism. They may just want to make a film about their own religion without input from people not of their religion.
quote:It would be nice if he would meet with them, listen to their concerns, and explain his position.
Then proponents of the movie could say, "See. We listened, but they wanted too much." Instead, their case is weakened because they can not argue that ADL wanted too much. They wouldn't even listen to what ADL wanted. The ADL was not important enough to talk to civilly.
It would have been nice. But given the attitude expressed here (that the contents of the film itself is in some way objectionable), I’d be hesitant to give them more ammunition in advance.
quote:A call to clarify this bit of Christian doctrine and belief is not a call to destroy Christianity.
I don’t think most people think this, which is why I hesitated to get involved in this discussion.
quote:I am just sad that Christians feel so threatened today.
I’m sad about it, too. It’s also a shame that some of the feeling of being threatened (not physically) is justified. On this forum alone, where tolerance is generally much greater than elsewhere, non-Christians have called for changes to some core Christian doctrine in the name of abolishing bigotry. I hear anti-Catholic diatribes weekly (some from Protestants, most from non-Christians). I don’t fear for my physical safety in most cases, so I’m better off than many. But there is a growing sense that religion is “inappropriate” somehow.
The things that “threaten” Christians in this country are those things that tend to suggest a Christian should compromise their faith somehow to be acceptable. As I’ve argued before, this sense is the heart of much Christian objection to homosexual civil unions (more accurately, objections to the arguments articulated to support homosexual civil unions). Same thing applies here, because the sense is that non-Christians want a say in how the Christian faith is presented.
Dagonee P.S., I agree with you that raising this film up to any kind of coeval status with scripture is not a good idea.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I know that Belle and OSC-Fan and others have been trying to get the same point across, but I think I finally get it.
This is a Christian movie.
It tells THE Christian story.
The fact that others, non-Christians mostly, are asking to change it is a threat to your freedom to believe as you see fit, for it is a direct attack on Mel Gibson to demonstrate his religion as he sees it.
Nobody is saying that he, or anyone, could demonstrate thier beliefs in a way that will cause violence.
However, true Christians will not leap to violence because of this movie. It is argued that nobody will, or that those people who may leap to violence will have been violent anyway, and may wrongly use this movie as a justification, possibly.
Still, the question I am left with:
Is it a bigger threat to Mel Gibson's religious practices to have non-believers having him edit down his vision, or to Jewish believers who may try to hide their beliefs for fear of violence when and where this movie is played.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if Mel is telling the truth? That there is no blame cast, and the movie portrays the experience with power and love?
Will you hold him responsible for what idiots think? Ender's Game casts Ender as a hero, and he manages to beat two boys to death before the age of 14. Is OSC responsible for kids who think it's cool to END the teasing?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering whether Hatrack went through the same kind of debate clear back at "Y2K" time --
"what MIGHT happen, and what might NOT happen"
I wonder if there are any threads from back that far?
But I'm not a "Miss Cleo" -- I can't see the future. I don't know whether this will cause action against the Jews or not -- I certainly hope not, and as a Christian, I would be horrified at any action people take against each other.
But there are also sick people out there that do things I can't comprehend. Just looking for an excuse to do them. Would changing the movie really change those people?
So that is why there is no one that can yet say what the reaction will be -- good or bad.
I'm personally not to concerned about what Mel Gibson's personal beliefs are. I don't like the beliefs of Kirstie Alley and some others, but I watch their shows.....
quote:Is it a bigger threat to Mel Gibson's religious practices to have non-believers having him edit down his vision, or to Jewish believers who may try to hide their beliefs for fear of violence when and where this movie is played.
Short answer is anyone who feels the need to hide their faith due the threat of physical violence is suffering a greater threat than someone being pressured to change his faith in other ways. Hands down, no question on that one.
I'm confused on the first part of the question. If you mean having non-believers request that he edit it down, I don't see the mere request as a "threat" because Gibson is resisting the notion. My worry would be that Christians start altering their message in response to such pressure. In this sense, the threat is an internal response to external pressure, not an external threat. But the sense of feeling “threatened” and needing to stand fast is just as real.
Watered down religion seems very, very dangerous to me – in some ways more dangerous than non-violent fundamentalism. By this I mean altering or merely deemphasizing “difficult” doctrines in order to make the religion more palatable to non-believers. This can happen as a response to such pressures as I discussed earlier, which I see as resulting from lack of resolve, or from a desire to make proselytizing easier, which I see as resulting from a lack of conviction.
By this I don’t mean listening to other people’s difficulties with the religion and taking these difficulties into account when sharing your faith. For example, suppose a Protestant expressed discomfort at Mary’s role in the Catholic faith. I wouldn’t then leave that aspect of my faith out of any future discussion. Instead I would explain the difference between worship, veneration, and reverence and how these concepts interact with respect to Mary. I probably wouldn’t convince him, but I also wouldn’t be denying an aspect of my faith.
In the case of this film, I think it is imperative that Gibson, his supporters, and any priests, pastors, etc. who speak of this film provide both the correct interpretation about respective Jewish and Roman authorities’ roles in the crucifixion and the proper Christian response to such roles.
Nor do I think the ADL was out of line in its requests. I just don’t think Gibson is blameworthy for not responding to requests to change the film or even to requests to discuss changing the film. I do think Gibson should meet with the ADL to discuss effective means of communicating the ideas in the previous paragraph and to condemn anyone who commits violence in Christ’s name.
posted
dkw, I'll get the real reason out of the way first, so that people can go into get ignoring it over with right way. Surveys of religious people, many of them carried out by religious people themselves, in America have consistently shown significantly higher levels of prejudice and in-group/out-group thinking than in non-religious people. Now, I looked back over the stuff I've read on this and the latest date I have is from 1978. It's possible that things have changed dramatically since then, but I have no reason to believe that this is true. That's the main reason, that people (including those who were invested in finding the opposite) have used methods I trust and consistently come up results that show this.
My other reasons are inferential. First, America as a whole has a big problem with factionalism. Since a large majority of Americans are Christian, I'd expect that their values would be reflected in the American national character.
Second, the doctrine of many Christian denominations is geared towards an in-group/out-group conception of the world. I'd argue that this is compounded by the focus of many of the Protestant denominations on faith only and a neglect of works.
Third, experiences from my childhood completely surrounded by Catholics taught me how prejudiced they are and how invested many of the leaders of the religion are in propgating this prejudice. A friend of mine who is now a Cathloic priest has frequently complained of this to me in his ministry and dealings with his superiors.
Forth, as far as I can tell, there have been no recent major inter-Christian movements that haven't centered on specific issues, such as anti-homosexuality. I could be wrong about that. How have your experiences with inter-faith stuff gone?
Look, I'm tired of having this discussion. I have this other nice thread that I'm honestly much more interested in. I've really tried to talk about positive things that I'm interested in, but they don't seem to get anywhere near the attention that me challenging things does.
I'll state it plain. I have major problems with mainstream Christianity. I also have major problems with mainstream American culture. As far as I can tell - and I try to be thorough about this - I have at least partially legitimate reasons for these problems. When I talk about them, I'm not some raving Christian-hater. I an genuinely concerned about these things, not just because of their effect on society, but because of the individuals who are caught up in them. I think that Christians all over would do themselves a great service if they took a long, hard look at their frankly awful history and at their troubled present, instead of immediately falling into apologist/defensive mode*. I could be wrong about this. Also, I honestly believe that a sort of Christian renewal is one of the best hopes for increasing the health in American culture, which is one of the main reasons that it's a big issue for me. I could be wrong about that too.
I also could be wrong that my opinions deserve at least a little bit of respect. Maybe people ignore and dismiss me because I'm lacking either intelligence or intellectual integrity, instead of because I'm saying bad things about CHRISTIANS. Maybe people whose ancestors were persecuted for 1000 or so years by Christians are off base for being concerned about this happening again. Maybe, despite the fact that the vast majority of people talking about this are expressing that concern and not calling for a boycott or censorship of the movie, that's the opinion that people are constantly fighting against isn't a cause for concern because of it's defensive nature. I just really don't see this.
* I've had people who have done this (yourself included dkw) and I think that our conversations have been interesting and meaningful.
quote: Just as Jews are responding to centuries of Christian anti-Semitism (virtually all of it in Europe), many Christians are responding to decades of Christian-bashing -- films and art mocking Christian symbols, a war on virtually any public Christian expression (from the death of the Christmas party to the moral identification of fundamentalist Christians with fundamentalist Muslims). Moreover, many Jewish groups and media people now attacking "The Passion" have a history of irresponsibly labeling conservative Christians anti-Semitic.
Edit: I think this is what's happenning in this thread, too. Much like the Child-free restaurants and theaters thread, where people were responding more to outrageous experiences of their own (as people having nice outings ruined by rowdy kids or as parents having been sneered at for having the gall to reproduce) than to the actual question at hand.
posted
Dennis is indeed a great guy. (Thanks for the link, Magson, the paper which I saw his review (reprinted?) in isn't online.) And while I don't agree with him on all issues, I respect him greatly. Important points he makes include:
quote: The increasing tension over this film has reinforced impressions I offered Mel Gibson that day. When watching "The Passion," Jews and Christians are watching two entirely different films.
quote: It is essential that Christians understand this. Every Jew, secular, religious, assimilated, left-wing, right-wing, fears being killed because he is Jewish. This is the best-kept secret about Jews, who are widely perceived as inordinately secure and powerful. But it is the only universally held sentiment among Jews. After the Holocaust and with Islamic terrorists seeking to murder Jews today, this, too, is not paranoid.
I think that WWII could happen all over again. If you go back and look at what led up to WWII, there are striking similarities. While there are different ethnic groups being targeted, the frightening thing is that we didn't seem to remember much of the lesson from WWII.
And I'm a bit tired of people dismissing others fears. Till you've been the target, you'll never understand what they are talking about anyway, so practice that Christianity and empathize. Don't be so critical. Try to understand their concern. "Walk a mile in his shoes" and all.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There have been several good posts in this thread attempting to explain both (or actually, four or five) different sides of this issue, including the different fears of the different people involved.
Are you saying you don't need to try to understand others' fears?
posted
I'm on a mailing list for a privately owned and state of the art theater in Abingdon, Virginia. It's a complex that has many screens, a restaurant, laser tag, bumper cars, etc. It's really cool and If I still lived close enough, I'd go see all big action flicks there. Lots of times a member of the family that owns the theater even addresses the audience before big openings, to tell them of the theater's latest improvements and plans for upgrades, etc.
If there was anything else interesting for 50 miles, I'd have had WenchCon there.
In any case, I just got this rather puzzling email that was sent to the list. I found it disturbing. I mean, this is the most interesting entertainment complex for probably a few hundred miles. They have free children's movies on Saturday mornings and show art films that the typical rural moviegoer wouldn't care to see (albeit on special "Arts Array" showings) which is more than the local chain theaters do.
But the community IS very religious, so maybe it makes sense. Anyway, here it is:
quote: SPECIAL BULLETIN:
DUE TO THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF 'THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST', ABINGDON CINEMALL HAS BEEN AWARDED MULTIPLE COPIES OF THE MOVIE. PLEASE CHECK OUR MULTIPLE SHOWTIMES LISTED ON OUR WEBSITE. NO ONE WILL BE TURNED AWAY.
IN ADDITION, THE OWNERS OF THE CINEMALL HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRODUCTION COMPANY OF 'THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST' AND HAVE REQUESTED THAT A MEMBER OF THE CAST OR OF THE PRODUCTION TEAM MAKE A PERSONAL APPEARANCE AT THE CINEMALL. MORE TO FOLLOW ON THIS SOON...
quote: Woman Collapses During Showing of "The Passion Of The Christ" Wichita KAKE News
A woman collapsed in an East Wichita theatre this morning, during a showing of "The Passion Of The Christ". Peggy Law apparently suffered a heart attack. She was pronounced dead a short time later at a Wichita medical center.
Peggy Law, also known to some by her married name Peggy Scott is a respected figure in the local broadcasting community. The tragedy has hit some here at KAKE especially hard. She was a former employee.
People viewing the movie at the Warren Theatre East say Law collapsed during the portion of the movie where the crucifixion of Christ was shown.
A few off-duty doctors and nurses who were in the audience tried to revive her. But when she was taken away in the ambulance, authorities say Law still had no pulse.
The movie has been criticized for it's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death. Religious leaders around the country and here in Wichita say people need to be prepared for the graphic brutality.
Whether Law's death and the timing in the film are related, we will never know, but religious and medical officials stress this film is not for the faint-hearted.
posted
Is it true that the film depicted the cross being made in the temple, or was that just buzz? I still don't plan to see the movie because it doesn't sound like it addresses the spiritual atonement in Gethsemane and doesn't emphasize the resurrection enough. I mean, if they really emphasized the resurrection a lot of Jews would just treat this as science fiction. Which it is, if you don't believe in the resurrection. (but I do)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you single out Jews in that statement, pooka? Not that I agree with it in general terms either . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that I remember, pooka. I just seem to remember the cross somewhere in the outdoor vicinity the Roman Consul.
And the way I reconcile the small part of Gethsemene is thinking to myself "this stuff that happened right before the crucifixion was gross, bloody, and painful, but NOTHING compared to what He went through in Gethsemene." Mel Gibson wouldn't agree, but there you go.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Gethsemane as depicted in the film was pretty intense. The way they handled the "beads of sweat" was...well done beyond my expectations. He was obviously suffering A LOT there. And you'll notice it's the only time in the film where the Satan persona makes physical contact... and that's when Jesus makes his major physical act against Satan as well. The Gethsemane opening was amazing, in my opinion. As was the rest of the film. Due to the aspectre's of the world, I actually went into the film with some reservations, wondering exactly how brutal and graphic it would be. and while it was, it was in a way more 'tame' than I had been led to believe. Oh, yes, it's brutal. Heart-breakingly brutal. But people like aspectre who would call it 'snuff porn'? It's an accusation nearly as ridiculously unfounded as the accusations of Anti-Semitism. This is not a film about hate, it's a film about deep deep love. And I was moved to tears at several instances.
posted
I think I have mentioned that one of the women in my Torah study class is Catholic. She has an article on Christian reactions to Jewish reactions to the movie in the current Christianity Today.
quote: Like commentators before me, I also believe that the highly publicized nature of the charge of anti-Semitism relative to this film was brought about in error. My experience in both Protestant and Catholic circles in Texas and California has been one of witnessing the power of Christ's Passion to inspire sincere individuals toward repentance and love–certainly not hatred toward Jews. So I too have winced when I've read what sounds like over-the-top predictions of violence against Jews come Ash Wednesday.
On the other hand, through my learning and teaching within the Jewish community and being a guest at many a Shabbat table, I've heard worries honestly expressed and am therefore moved to plead with my Christian brothers and sisters to respond with compassion when Jews raise questions about the net effect The Passion will have on their welfare.
Those who defend The Passion seldom take these fears to heart. Worse yet, I've witnessed in these months leading up to the film's release a persistent tendency by writers who profess to be Christians to write off "Foxman and company" with such words as "kibitzers," "leftists," and "opportunistic fundraisers."
quote: It's not enough to say, "I saw the movie, and it's not anti-Semitic. And besides Jesus was a Jew and so were his disciples. Get over it!" Rather let us speak with assurance that anti-Semitism has no place in our churches and will not be tolerated should this sin rear its head. It is in this manner that we can guard against evil people using the film or the controversy surrounding it as reasons to target the Jewish community.
posted
Sorry if I singled out Jews, rivka. Muslims and professed atheists as well don't believe in the resurrection. The idea of the cross being made in the temple seemed the most far fetched anti-semitic aspect, but it seems to have been a rumour.
I don't mean to say belief in the resurrection is a default state that only Jews don't share. A lot of Christans struggle with it. Some think of Christ more as a great teacher than of the atonement.
I guess the dilemma of seeing this movie if I merely wished the resurrection were real would be much greater.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
