posted
I have not seen The Passion of the Christ. I have a great adversion to violence, and from what I've read, this sounds like sort of movie that I would not be able to stand even the first few minutes. A small, small part of me thinks it would be nice to have a real opinion on this movie (i.e. actually seen it) but the largest part of me says nothing in me wants to watch slow and sadistic destruction.
Many reviewers say that this should be rated NC-17, not R (am I right in thinking children can see this movie as long as they are with an adult?). What are people's thoughts on this? Would you take children to see this movie?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe Jesus gave up His essential divinity. He still has, as He has always had, original life in Himself, unborrowed and underived--otherwise He could not have arisen from the tomb. Any creature separated from God the Father must cease to exist, for God is the Source of all life. "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17:28)
However, of all the divine attributes and powers that God the Son voluntarily laid aside when He came to earth to dwell among us as one of us, there does seem to be one power that He has permanently given up--the power of omnipresence. He must depend upon the Holy Spirit to represent Him everywhere at once. He can only be in one place at one time now, for He has taken humanity upon Himself permanently.
[ February 28, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I had never actually heard that one before, Ron. Interesting. A lot of questions that raises.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi, we saw it last night. The two most prominent words I would use for it are: beautiful and terrible. I'm VERY glad I saw it, and would like to see it again.
It is easily the most personal movie I've ever seen.
While it is violent, possibly because I already knew in significant detail how those last hours went for Jesus, the violence for me was not nearly as bad as I was fearing. I was, actually, surprised by how gentle Gibson was in portraying some of the scenes. But again, I say that having known in advance what the sequence of events were, and how horrible they must have been. My imagination is far more vivid and isn't softened by the leavening flashbacks Gibson inserted. There was no part of it where I felt I *had* to avert my eyes. Whereas there are lots of violent scenes in other movies I felt I couldn't watch.
Ultimately, the violence was not, for me, where the power of the movie dwelt. It was the softer parts, like the scene where Mary cannot endure it any longer and runs to her son as he struggles to drag the cross through the streets. His words to her tore my heart.
It's not a movie I can recommend, which is weird to say about something so incredible.
I won't be taking my almost-11 year old son to see it, though I am *very* much looking forward to watching it with him someday. I will want to prepare him by talking about the mechanics of what was done to Jesus. Right now, I don't think he's ready, though there is a part of me that thinks I might be underestimating him. I'm siding for caution....but hope that when he's older, we'll be able to watch it together.
Last thought on the movie: it was by far the most polite movie audience I've ever seen. The theatre was silent from the opening scene, and did not stir at all for the entire movie, even as the first credits were rolling. It was a sold out show, so we had trouble finding seats, but when we did, the people next to them smiled and said, "Yep, we were saving them for you."
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just came back from watching the movie. I am still in something of a state of shock. It was amazing. It was powerful. And like jeniwren aptly said, it was both beautiful and terrible. I would not recommend bring children to see this movie. It was, as many others have said, very violent. It was terrifying. I have heard and read detailed descriptions of what crucifiction (and the beating administered by the Romans) is like and what it does to the human body, but I had never pictured it. Seeing it before my eyes was, at times, more than I could bear. I did love the interspersed flashbacks that helped to flesh out the characters as human beings. The flashbacks also helped to break up the horror of the violence. I liked the symbolism used in several places. I loved getting more insight into the characters and better understanding them as human beings. I feel I can now better understand Mary, Judas, Peter, John, Caiphus, Pilate, etc. Even though I have read the gospels many times, it can be hard for me to picture these names as real people. Maia Morgenstern's performance was wonderful. I think that Mel Gibson did a wonderful job on this movie and I am glad that I went to see it.
The violence didn't get to me all that much. Master and Commander made me far more queasy.
This violence, however, is very personal. When Christ suffers, you suffer. In other movies, you can step back from it, but not in this one. That seems to be the only real difference between this movie and, say, a film like 28 Days Later, where the violence somehow got a pass.
I would NOT recommend this movie for kids, because apart from the violence, it's scary and too emotionally wrenching for a child to understand.
I haven't felt the same since seeing this movie. To imagine that a God who doesn't need us, who could've easily done away with the entire human race at no loss to Himself would put himself through that is astounding.
It defies logic.
quote:Ultimately, the violence was not, for me, where the power of the movie dwelt. It was the softer parts, like the scene where Mary cannot endure it any longer and runs to her son as he struggles to drag the cross through the streets. His words to her tore my heart.
It took all my effort to stop myself from sobbing audibly during that scene. Those, indeed, were the scenes that stuck with me.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Graphic as was the depiction of brutal torture in the movie, I think it probably still fell short of the actual reality.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't part of the shame and humiliation involved in crucifixion to be stripped naked? Gibson left a loincloth on Jesus, for which I was thankful, but I suspect it was not accurate.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I too was somewhat surprised at the lower level of violence than I had been expecting. Like jeniwren and Ron, I am reasonably familiar with what was involved with crucifixion, so perhaps that was part of it.
This leads me to a criticism I had of the film - the whipping scene was too long. It was the only scene that I actually cringed once, but... it went on forever. Keep in the part that made me cringe, but cut out some other portions of it. Also, the crucifixion itself was not as long as I feel it should have been. Here, I think it should have been uncomfortably long, because the crucifixion lasted several hours, while I doubt the whipping actually lasted more than one or two at the most, and I suspect much less. I have heard that forty lashes was enough to kill some people, and how long could that take? The length of the events was out of proportion.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I saw this movie, my reaction was a very personal one of "this is my fault, I deserve that, and he did it for me." This is, I suppose, a typical reaction of a life long Christian and why I found the movie so powerful. I was wondering if there are any non belivers who care to comment on the film. I would like to know if they found it as powerful as so many others seem to. I feel that if you don't take it personally and literally, it might just be two hours of a guy getting the @#$% beat out of him.
I would also like to comment that my one regret about the movie was the ending. I would have loved to see Jesus reunited with the disciples. Esp. Peter. I had to go home and go straight to my Bible to read the "feed my Sheep" part in John 21 to reassure myself that Peter was forgiven.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sore in just about every muscle in my body.
Wes says I clenched his hand in the opening scene in the garden, and my arm felt like iron the whole movie, I never relaxed. I screamed out loud at some of the shots in the scourging scene.
.....Spoilers.....
The scene where Mary remembers his falling as a child, and goes to him and says "I'm here" I don't think I've ever felt anything so deeply. I left the theater in shock, trembling and crying. I wasn't able to speak for about 20 minutes, WEs kept asking "You sure you're okay?" And I could only nod.
Seeing it and sitting through it was one of the hardest things I've done, but also one of the most rewarding.
I know others have already said it Tom, but the hours of physical pain he suffered were nothing to the pain of separation from his father. As someone who remembers what it was like to walk though life without the Holy Spirit, I can tell you now that were I to lose that, were God to abandon me to allow me to suffer all my sins (not to mention the sins of the world) without him, it's the worst thing I could imagine. Yet Jesus walked even closer to God that I can while I'm on this Earth, for Jesus was sinless. He would have felt that separation even more deeply than I could. It had to be unimaginable.
We don't have the capacity in our minds to even comprehend the suffering he endured.
In one of the stage dramas I'm writing, an athiest says that the death of a man on the cross is no major thing, thousands of people die horrible deaths all the time. It's only after she understands that he could have walked away, that the hosts of angels stood around him, watching and waiting for the signal to come to take him down, that she sees what the sacrifice truly was. It's one thing for a criminal to die a horrifically painful death, it's quite another if that supposed criminal was God and didn't have to do it.
How interesting you brought up the holy angels who stood and watched Ron, because my play involves one of those very angels, standing and waiting, and never getting the word to act. I probably should get back to work on it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just returned from seeing The Passion of The Christ. It is by far the most powerful, moving, and bone-chilling film I have ever seen. My church bought out an entire theater and we were supposed to give tickets out to our friends. I took only one friend, whom you may know better as Rhaegar the Fool. Previous to the movie there were people walking up and down the aisles handing out boxes of tissues. I thought this to be a bit over the top, even though I am a fairly devout Christian. I took some, nonetheless not thinking that I'd use them. Boy, was I wrong. For nearly a third of the movie I was bawling, thinking, even if this man was not the son of God, how could he have gone through this pain and suffering without reason? He cared for us this much? I have times where it seems I loathe everybody on the face of the planet! But this man, born of a virgin, raised by a carpenter...he shed his blood, and for what? So we can see his pain and suffering with no emotion? How can Mel Gibson pack into two hours, such immense tenderness and emotion? All I have to say is WOW. It amazes me that people can look at this movie and think "Oh, that puts down the Jews!" In no way did I feel that that was the case. I just sat in a theater and saw with my eyes the pain and suffering one man went through supposedly for us, and it's believable to me. See it. It's worth it. If it can make Rhaegar cry, it's worth it (sorry if I embarrassed you, Rhaegar).
quote:I believe the RC church has declared it authentic, but not dogmatically: i.e. -- "we think it's real, but everyone's free to disagree with us on that and if we're wrong about it it's not doctrinally significant."
This brings to mind a question about the RC church. Is it doctrine of the RC or folk belief that artifacts from saints (body parts, slivers of the cross, the shroud, etc.) hold power to perform miracles?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As someone who remembers what it was like to walk though life without the Holy Spirit, I can tell you now that were I to lose that, were God to abandon me to allow me to suffer all my sins (not to mention the sins of the world) without him, it's the worst thing I could imagine."
It's not easy, let me tell you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very good movie. Surprisingly, it didn't seem all of two hours.
But why couldn't they get the same guy from the Book of Mormon movie to play Jesus in the sequel?
Seriously, though, I really enjoyed the acting and the adaptation. It was very close to what I saw in my head from the book. And the fact that I knew the story didn't keep my eyes and ears from remaining locked at attention any more than did my unbelief.
I didn't find it Hollywood-ized at all. Exaggerated to drive home a point, maybe, but never betraying the source.
Your question has some subtle shades to it, so I'll do my best to answer as precisely as possible... if you want to take the word of a less-than-perfectly obedient layman.
The Church does not have a general teaching regarding relics, as far as I know. It will comment on the authenticity of individual relics and on miracles attributed to those relics and, it does, indeed, teach that miracles have happened from contact with or meditation on Relics of Saints. That teaching is, like the opinion on the Shroud, is not binding... you can be a Roman Catholic and disbelieve that a particular item is miraculous or genuine.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taalcoon - thanks for the post to Uncle Orsons review.
All we've really heard over here in the UK is that Mel Gibsons had made this film - and how graphic it was.
From all the discussions about the brutality and horror in the film I must admit I was getting put off. However, now I'll wait until it comes out here in the UK and then think and pray about whether I should go and see it or not.
We can't. God is very personal, he relates to each of us differently, I could give you countless examples from my own life that prove to me that God is real and has never abandoned me, but that will mean nothing to you.
All I can say is if you ever want someone to pray with you, let me know.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, of all the divine attributes and powers that God the Son voluntarily laid aside when He came to earth to dwell among us as one of us, there does seem to be one power that He has permanently given up--the power of omnipresence. He must depend upon the Holy Spirit to represent Him everywhere at once. He can only be in one place at one time now, for He has taken humanity upon Himself permanently.
I find that very interesting, Ron. Is there any evidence for this, biblical or otherwise, or is this a personal theory? I always thought he went back to being his same old self, but with first-hand knowledge of humanity and suffering... not that i'm a bible expert or anything. Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I spent a good portion of my life seeking Him on His. The only other thing the Bible seems to suggest might work is persecuting a bunch of Christians before staring into the sun, but it's hard to get that kind of work in America nowadays. I recognize that you have to believe that God shows up for every honest seeker -- but, frankly, you don't actually have to be right.
posted
How do you get answers to prayers, and knowledge of the mysteries of God?
quote:If any of you lack wisdom, let him as of God, that gveth to tall men liberally, and upgbraideth not; and it shall be gen him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. James 1:5-6
quote:Whatsoever thing ye shall ask in faith, beliving that ye shall recieve in the name of Christ, ye shall recieve it. Enos 1:15
Wait, I have to have faith in Christ first? I'm not even sure of God!
quote:And now I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the worlds that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith. Ether 12:6
It doesn't work that you have the proof before you believe. Experience and the scriptures teaches that faith as the result of miracles instead of as the result of the spirit and a leap doesn't last. It's an extrinsic reason, not something in your soul.
quote:40 And it came to pass that the Lamanites said unto him: What shall we do, that this cloud of darkness may be removed from overshadowing us?
41 And Aminadab said unto them: You must repent, and cry unto the voice, even until ye shall have faith in Christ, who was taught unto you by Alma, and Amulek, and Zeezrom; and when ye shall do this, the cloud of darkness shall be removed from overshadowing you.
42 And it came to pass that they all did begin to cry unto the voice of him who had shaken the earth; yea, they did cry even until the cloud of darkness was dispersed. Helaman 5:40-42
When you do recieve answers, it will almost certainly not be in the way you plan or think is appropriate. Hearing from God usually means changing your life.
quote:I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say, but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise. Doctrine and Covenants 82:10
Tom, bind the Lord. Not on your terms, but on his terms. You can't hold him to your demands, but you can hold him to the promises he's made. It means not putting conditions on him.
quote:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will bhearken unto you.
13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
14 And I will be found of you, saith the LORD... Jeremiah 29:11-14
He thinks thoughts of peace toward us, will listen when we pray, and when we seek with all our thoughts, will be found.
But rarely all at once. And almost never as we think he should.
posted
I know from experience that answers are rarely what you deep down go in wanting. But in my case, at times when I kept doubting the Still Small Voice that DID give me an answer, and it wasn't really what I wanted to hear, and i kept asking. Eventually some metaphorical rocks were thrown at me, and even then I doubted. It wasn't until a leap of faith - an action on my part - that the slew of confirmation really started to jump out at me.
I've had those moments of crying out, inwardly and outwardly, wanting to know the truth. Wanting it to be personally confirmed to Me. I spent a few years doing it myself. And I did keep getting what seemed like answers, but they were subtle, and still not what I really wanted to hear, and I kept writing them off as coincidences and wishful thinking.
I know what it's like.
Don't expect the bright light and the personage to show up. Don't expect a stranger to walk up to you and say something that is exactly what you needed to hear, and have it totally wierd you out that it happened the day after you asked in prayer for an sign. Don't ask for specifics.
But that's what a lot of people can't stand about Faith - that for the most part it requires Action before Confirmation. And to act on it, it often requires a "broken heart and a contrite spirit" in willing to be able to accept an answer when it comes.
Which believe you me - isn't fun to go through. And I think you know that, and have been there.
I've been at times that where parts of me really wanted to believe, but inwardly I was scared of what it would mean for my life if it WAS all true, and that part of me kept on acting on it.
It wasn't until I was completely broken that I could start acting on it, having Faith, Hoping it was true. Faith and Hope are two very important things that do play side by side - they are not the same thing, but do reinforce each other.
At least, that's how it worked for me. Results may, and do, vary.
I have complete faith in my ability to brainwash myself into anything I'm determined to believe. Moreover, I don't see the POINT in brainwashing myself if I'm not going to get any kind of response from a hypothetical God that will be recognizable as God, or even comprehensible.
I can get unrecognizable, incomprehensible messages from my subconscious NOW, and I don't have to deliberately turn off all logical thought to do it.
I've made plenty of good faith (*heh*) attempts to hear from God, but the one thing I will NOT do when searching for Him is convince myself that He's already out there. Because, well, obviously THAT would work.
"You'll hear from God once you start hallucinating and not second-guessing the hallucinations, which by the way don't need to make any sense" is not in fact the way any God worth worshipping is going to communicate.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, if you are going to ignore him when he knocks, even with the special knock you secretly think he might use, on the principle that a getting a feeling that you want automatically implies that BECAUSE you want it, that's WHY you're feeling it, you've trapped yourself in a tautology.
This can't be God because I figured God would feel like this, and I want to hear from him. So, that's not it. Now, where is God? He said he'd come.
It's called a leap of faith for precisely that reason. Let go of a bit of control and take the leap. You'll do it when you want it enough.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, no, see, you don't understand. I've already done the "have faith and listen" bit. But people keep insisting that I didn't have ENOUGH faith, or didn't go far enough towards believing to properly have a chance of hearing.
But I know for a fact that if I went any farther towards believing as a precondition of listening again, I would have already convinced myself of the truth of the thing I was looking to confirm, thus making a mockery of the whole exercise.
Because, see, I don't want to believe in God because it's COMFORTING. I want to believe in God because He EXISTS. And while I'm sure I can brainwash myself into some comfortable fictions, I'd rather wind up believing what's actually True. And to do that, I'm afraid I need to remain more discerning of truth than some people claim the process requires.
Hopefully, God will have some respect for that.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you CAN'T say that you've NEVER gotten ANYTHING. I know you have - you've said you have. But it does dissapear if you talk yourself out of it.
posted
Kat, what I've gotten has never been anything more than the hint of a feeling. But, y'know, I can give myself the hint of a feeling -- the exact same feeling, speaking from empirical experience -- by listening to music with a lot of tremolo and drinking Vernors and thinking about the future. Frankly, I expect more from God.
-----
Edit: Let me reiterate my fears. Basically, I know I want to believe. I know that it's very easy to make oneself believe something, and know that the vast majority of people out there who think they've talked to God must have convinced themselves of this, as they clearly haven't all talked to the SAME God. Ergo, the traditional approach of "you have to convince yourself before you receive any proof" can effectively be reworded "once you've convinced yourself, your subconscious will manufacture all the fake proof you need."
It's for this reason that I'm not going to budge any farther down the road to potential self-delusion. If God cares, He can meet me halfway.
posted
But it's receive no witness until AFTER the trial of your faith. Why should you be the exception to the scriptures? You're placing more faith in your own processes than in God.
Tom, you really think God hasn't met you halfway yet?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, by the time I had convinced myself, I would no longer NEED the evidence, would I? And if I didn't actually receive any evidence -- as I suspect happens more often than not -- I would be more than glad to manufacture my own, because I would have already reached the point where I had become emotionally invested in my own belief.
It's unsurprising to me that so many of the scriptures in religions that believe in invisible gods teach that the gods work in inscrutable ways, or manifest only to believers. Because, well, duh.
------
And, yeah, I'm CERTAIN God hasn't met me halfway. Because I've gone halfway -- MORE than halfway, in fact -- and haven't seen Him waiting there. And if He's just waiting around the corner, snickering into his sleeve and waiting for me to yell "ollieoxenfree," that's just petty.
As for the last, I'm going to call you on it. You're gainfully and satisfactorily employed, in a great city, happily married, and blessed beyond most of Hatrack, not to mention the world.
All the Lord wants is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. Halfway HIS terms, not your terms. Standing at your front door shouting, "Come out, dagnabbit! Show yourself! Don't make me come find you!" is not halfway.
posted
"As for the last, I'm going to call you on it. You're gainfully and satisfactorily employed, in a great city, happily married, and blessed beyond most of Hatrack, not to mention the world."
And I worked my butt off to get there. When I had a broken heart and contrite spirit, and looked to God for support and assistance, none was forthcoming.
When I got off my posterior and stopped being so contrite all the time, my life turned around practically overnight. And I mean this. I was once a much nicer, much kinder, much humbler, and much more sympathetic person -- and a miserable, unambitious failure.
If I'm going to say that my success is evidence of God's hand, doesn't that also mean that a) my earlier failures were ALSO evidence of God's hand and b) my own desperate labor to improve my lot was ultimately meaningless?
I never got a "lucky" break. Never. Every opportunity I ever found -- from my first job to relocating to Madison -- I had to turn over a dozen rocks and kill a hundred scorpions to find. If God killed, say, one out of those hundred scorpions FOR me, He didn't do it in a way I noticed.
quote:If I'm going to say that my success is evidence of God's hand, doesn't that also mean that a) my earlier failures were ALSO evidence of God's hand and b) my own desperate labor to improve my lot was ultimately meaningless?
Your success is evidence of God meeting you more than halfway.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's very amusing to see the creation taunting the Creator.
"Buddy, if you want me to cooperate with you, you gotta give me a reason to besides the fact that you created me and gave me life. That's just not enough!"
One of the side effects of freewill, which is also given.
quote:Kat, what I've gotten has never been anything more than the hint of a feeling.
Most people don't get the flash of light. I'm convinced that's because for most people, the flash of light would do nothing.
Like...Alma the Younger.
Alma the younger was going about seeking to destroy the church. Quite dreadful. He and his buddies met with an angel, and it stopped him in his tracks. They repented, and changed their lives.
But later, when Alma was teaching about having a change of heart, he didn't share that experience. He shared the following one:
quote:45 And this is not all. Do ye not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold, I testify unto you that I do know that these things whereof I have spoken are true. And how do ye suppose that I know of their surety?
46 Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit; and this is the spirit of revelation which is in me.
It IS enough. This is coming from somone who had the angel, the messenger, the light, and the struck down experience, and when he spoke of why he knew, he didn't refer to the miracle. He referred to that feeling that you've felt a hint of. You don't even need a complete leap of faith to build on something felt. Just... a little bit, and a desire to know more.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, have you ever read anything by Friedrich Schleiermacher? He was a philosopher/theologian writing in the early 1800s, and he’s got some interesting stuff about the difference between the experience of the divine and the words/theories/stories we use to explain it. I think it’s possible that different people who have had experiences of God would interpret them in different, even contradictory ways, without any of them deluding themselves about the actual experience.
Heck, I’ve seen people post on this forum about books that I’ve read in ways that I almost can’t believe we read the same book. Is it so weird that it might be hard to tell from what people say about it that we’ve encountered the same God?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come to think of it, I saw the movie that this thread is about yesterday, and re-reading some of the posts (and OSC’s review) I’m not at all sure we saw the same movie.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, dkw, please tell. I wasn't terribly interested in seeing it until I read OSC's review. Maybe you'll push me back over the edge.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Taalcon - using this as a grovel of apology - not worshipping ya - you're welcome
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
