I thought this was a good review. I liked his letter to Mel Gibson at the end and I could follow his reasoning for thinking the movie was "perfect."
Furthermore, I really admire Mel Gibson for putting his career and cash on the line to make this movie because he believed in it. It makes me think more of him as an actor, a director, and a person.
But I've heard from people I trust that this movie is bloody and a truly violent depiction of the crucifixion of Christ. I think that any realistic depiction of this event would probably have to be so in order to give the audience an idea of how awful it was.
So, I decided not to see it. I'm a Christian, LDS, and very firm and sure in my beliefs. I am interested in the reviews of this movie and the reaction that it's getting internationally. But, I've decided that I don't want to see it because I personally don't need to have that kind of violence placed in front of me to understand that what Christ went through was awful. I also try to follow the counsel of the leaders of the church when they encourage us not to watch R-rated movies because of violence and sexual themes. We become desensitized, etc. I've decided that this counsel is good for me in my life, especially in this case when I would probably be upset by this film. So I kind of resented this comment in OSC's article:
quote: (And for those who piously refuse to see R-rated films, I can only say: There are movies that children should not see, and this is one of them. But for a Christian adult to refuse to see it as a matter of moral principle, as if this movie will somehow dirty you, moves you over into the category of those who let the letter of the law keep them from its spirit.)
I don't appreciate the insinuation that my decision is one of lemming-esque obedience. *frowns* Maybe I am being pious in my decision not to see it. Who knows? I only know that my decision is personal, doesn't hurt anyone else and it felt like I was being belittled by that sweeping judgmental comment.
posted
I know I wouldn't be able to stomach the violence in it, so I'm not going to see it. I had to walk out of Cold Mountain because of the human suffering, there's no way I could handle this.
But curiosity might just get me to read Matthew Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think OSC was chastizing people who chose not to see it. It seemed to me he was simply saying, "Don't make your decision based on the rating; take the context of the movie into account."
It sounds like you did that. I doubt he meant that label to apply to you.
posted
Narnia, I think what OSC was getting at in his special way is that to refuse to see a movie based solely on the fact that it is rated R is to imply that "Rated R" is always bad. It's not. There are many reasons movies are rated R, and all are perfectly reasonable. But there's a difference between a gory horror flick and a vivid and graphic depiction of a historical event. The truth isn't always pretty.
Now, I respect the fact that you don't wish to be exposed to graphic violence and sex. I just think that there isn't anything to take personally in what OSC said.
Posts: 1090 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Narnia, I have big doubts about whether I'll make it through. I'm going, my husband bought the tickets for it, and we're discussing it in Sunday School so I am going.
That's not to say I'll make it all the way through.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I wonder why Jesus's suffering is considered so important. Many have suffered more than he did, even if you believe in the Christian account of his death. So he got beaten a little, and cruicifed. Then he came back to life. Wow.
Did he spend his days in a cell, forced to stay awake for days on end? Did he have a hood forced on over his head, then specially placed on a rotating pedestal, so that all his senses were screwed up? Did he have his feet slowly crushed?
Did he have himself tied up, then have to watch his baby die as soliders tortured it? Was he rapped? Was he abused by his parents? Did he have hot needles stuck under his nails? Did he have his nails ripped off?
(And, oddly enough, most of these actions were done on "behalf" of Jesus.)
Yeah. I would like to know what exactly was so painful about his death that it attones for everyone's sins.
posted
I'm not seeing it. But I read the article knowing something it in caused you to raise an eyebrown. I was surprised it turned out to be that.
I believe ignoring the spirit of the law makes it as though you didn't live the letter. But following the spirit of the law doesn't excuse one from living the letter. I hope my way is right.
But I get some benefit from his description that the suffering is an expression of mental anguish, so that when I read about it now I can consider that.
Phanto, we (in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints)believe he suffered infinite mental anguish and it caused him to bleed from every pore. We also believe he suffered the pain of every illness, injury, and insult ever suffered by anyone, whether they accept him or not. That's what I believe, anyway. And this happened both in the Garden of Gethsemane and again on the Cross just prior to his death. But in addition to the actual suffering is that he was sinless and half-God and didn't have to do it. So it was this exercise of free will that broke the spiritual law allowing us to have free will and still return to God if we choose.
posted
For the record, most of the things you [Phanto] described were done TO Christians also.
If you're interested, and not just trying to insult Christians, I can find a lot of literature explaining the significance of Jesus' death to Christians. In fact if you're actually interested it should be pretty easy for you to find a lot of literature explaining the significance of Jesus' death to Christians.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
pooka, I liked your explanation of spirit/letter of the law. That makes good sense.
I guess I'm too sensitive. Yet that remark hit a snag in my calm perusal of that article...it could be that I read it wrong. I felt like he was saying that Christian adults SHOULD go see this movie because of all the wonderful things about it (which I do not doubt exist) and if we didn't want to because of violence or the R rating, then we were pious, archaic...
Well, anyway. Maybe I just took it wrong. But, if I wasn't sure whether or not I should go see a movie, an R rating would help to nudge me over to the "I won't go see it" side because of the counsel that we've received as members of the LDS church. That doesn't mean I'm ignoring the "Spirit" of the law.
And I guess that all I'm trying to say is that pooka's definition fits the best. Thanks for your words those of you that care.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just went to see the movie. It was a very traumatic experience for me.
First of all, i do not mind violence in movies, so long as it is not gratuitous. I have seen many R-rated movies. This does not bother me.
Second of all, I was raised in a christian household. My Dad was a pastor. My mom was a church musician.
I have therefore seen countless of movies about Jesus, most of them many times over. I was spoon-fed the bible stories till i puked. I always found it boring and annoying, and preachy. At best I was indifferent.
That being said, this is the very first time that the magnitude of the suffering that Jesus went through was really brought home to me. Which is maybe why it was so traumatic to me. I was horrified. None of the violence was gratuitous.
If you decide not to see the movie because you dislike violence and don't need it as a reminder of what it was really like, fine. I agree with you. I needed to see it, I think. For once, I was able to identify with Jesus as a real person, and not some sunday-school picture-book character. It was horrible.
Maybe this goes to show how jaded we are. Or maybe that's just me.
quote: Yeah. I would like to know what exactly was so painful about his death that it attones for everyone's sins.
To that, i can only say that you really need to watch the movie, Phanto.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think OSC means to judge anyone for doing what they think is right. I think he was judging anyone who judges him and others who see it. But I'm not a "judge not" fiend.
Most of us here at Hatrack know about the whole LDS R-rating thing. So I think it would be nuts for me to get into that. I see OSC's comments as two-fold. First, he was trying to justify him going to see the movie. He knew people would look down their noses at him for seeing the movie. So, he did the smartest thing he could, he threw out his counter-arguement before the arguement started. Sort of putting out the fire before it starts. The second part is a little between the lines. I think he was also trying to tell us what it was that he told his wife to convince her to not make him sleep on the couch for the next little while. Giving us a chance to use his arguement.
Your own faith and decisions based on that faith are your own business, of course. But since you brought it up, I will respond to it, and I mean no offense.
quote:But, I've decided that I don't want to see it because I personally don't need to have that kind of violence placed in front of me to understand that what Christ went through was awful. I also try to follow the counsel of the leaders of the church when they encourage us not to watch R-rated movies because of violence and sexual themes. We become desensitized, etc. I've decided that this counsel is good for me in my life, especially in this case when I would probably be upset by this film.
But is it enough to know that what Christ went through was awful? I mean, I know that many things are awful. For instance, there's the phrase, "War is hell." (Was it Sherman who said that? Or Bull Halsey? I forget, some `Racker must know). But a person, hearing that statement and reading and thinking about war might come to the understanding that, yes, war is hell. But maybe they don't know how bad it is. Until they actually fight in one, then they understand precisely how bad it is or can be. Then, later, when making up their mind on such things, they're wiser. This can apply to many situations and ideas.
Does the leadership of the Church proscribe this violence? After all, Mel Gibson's script was the Scripture. You have read the story already, but if you think actually seeing it would be much, much more disturbing, I wonder if you really do understand how awful it was? I think you would have to agree that you don't. (Bearing in mind that to Mormons the physical pain of crucifixtion was not the worst thing Christ had to endure)
I also don't think this would desensitize anyone who watches it. I haven't seen it yet, but I will be this weekend. Surely seeing the torturous violence inflicted on Christ would sensitize someone to violence?
----- Phanto,
Others are more courteous towards you than you merit. Most of those actions have been done for all sorts of reasons, not just on behalf of Christ. Your insinuations in that area are stupid and insulting. What do you believe in? Buddhism? Communism? Atheism? People who have believed those things have done the tortures you mentioned, but you would I expect consider it insulting if I pointed out, "Well commies have tortured people before, isn't that hypocritical?" (Whether or not you are a communist or whatever the group was).
Also, your remarks illustrate your ignorance as to the people you're insulting. Christians don't believe it was the physical pain of Christ's death and the hours before it that atones for the sins of humanity.
Edit: Incidentally, what other account of Christ's death do you find more historically accurate than the one believed by Christians? I'd be very interested in hearing some other sources that portray it differently. I expect you have them to hand or can at least name the accounts you're thinking of when you said this:
quote:Many have suffered more than he did, even if you believe in the Christian account of his death.
quote: I think he was also trying to tell us what it was that he told his wife to convince her to not make him sleep on the couch for the next little while.
*snorts* Come on. I think OSC and KaCard have a little bit more of an agreement in their philosophies and understandings of things than you give them credit for.
Also, there's a review linked elswhere by the LDS filmmaker who made The Testaments, who spoke a little bit on the 'LDS R-Rated' thing. Read it:
quote:Let me address this R-rated issue first. I think it would be sad if you relinquished your agency to the MPAA and miss the film only on the basis of the collision between “rated-R” and Mormon doctrine.
Obedience is better than sacrifice. I encourage no one to do anything inconsistent with their faith. I believe in following the prophet. In 1986 President Benson told the Aaronic Priesthood, "We counsel you, young men . . . don't see R-rate movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive or pornographic." Every prophet since has reiterated that inspired advice.
The doctrine of R-rated evolved in the 2001 Strength of Youth Pamphlet.
"...choose only entertainment and media that uplift you. Good entertainment will help you to have good thoughts and make righteous choices. It will allow you to enjoy yourself without losing the Spirit of the Lord. Do not attend, view, or participate in entertainment that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in entertainment that in any way presents immorality or violent behavior as acceptable."
This doctrinal document does not include any reference to R-rated movies or the MPAA rating code. The responsibility is no longer carried on the shoulders of the anonymous men and women who rate the movies in Encino California. It is squarely upon us.
We can no longer say, “R it is bad”. “PG-13 is OK.” We must apply a different standard. It is easy to define the criteria. It is difficult to measure ourselves against them.
If you are tempted to attend The Passion of The Christ out of some sense of morbid curiosity or to be “entertained,” don’t go!
Consider seeing the film only if you are sincere in your quest to gain greater insight into the death of Christ. I say “death of Christ” because that is what the film is about.
Consider seeing the film only if you seek a deeper and historically detailed appreciation of the last 12 hours of a life that changed the world.
Consider seeing the film only if you can glean from the brutality of the images a better understanding of the ultimate purpose of His life.
Consider the film only if you are confident it will engender good thoughts, inspire righteous choices and allow you to retain the Spirit of the Lord. The graphic nature of the images notwithstanding, nothing I saw deprived me of the spirit of the Lord. To the contrary, seeing the Savior through the eyes of his mother touched the deepest part of my soul.
posted
And speaking of Studios now clamoring to get in on Passion's success:
quote:On the heels of the massive debut, 20th Century Fox announced it would distrib "Passion" on homevid in the U.S. Fox, which is releasing "Passion" in Latin America and Taiwan, has a first-look pact with Icon.
So NOW Fox, who wouldn't GO NEAR the US theatrical release of the film before, is really keen on getting the video rights. Beh.
Sherman is most commonly considered the originator (it was his commentary on burning Atlanta). It's been said a lot and chances are excellent that Halsey said it somewhere along the line.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The second part is a little between the lines. I think he was also trying to tell us what it was that he told his wife to convince her to not make him sleep on the couch for the next little while. Giving us a chance to use his arguement.
Easy as that.
-scottneb-
My, that brings back memories of grandma and grandpa . . .
quote:doctrine of R-rated evolved in the 2001 Strength of Youth Pamphlet.
I feel highly uncomfortable with referring to anything as "doctrine" based on the Strength of Youth Pamphlet. In 3rd, Christ clearly defines his doctrine, emphasizing that anything more or less than this is not of him. He most certainly does not say anything about R-rated movies.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
THe only thig I see reong in the review is that OSC says Jesus sufferd only what others of the time did. That is not true(and i'm not trying to be rude it's just that my mom has read alot about The Passion and has shared it with me.) judging from the barial cloth that was left behind it has been deturmend that he sufferd over a hundred blow during the scurguing, the average a man was given and still able to live was around 30 or 40.
Other then that I lsay good job to revierwer and crew alike.
Posts: 397 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
[side note]Rabbit, I've been taught to take the words and counsel of the prophet and apostles as doctrine. Right? The "For the Strength of Youth" pamphlet was written, read, and released by them in the same way that the priesthood handbooks of leadership are. ?? I would call it Doctrine. [/side note]
Rakeesh, thanks for your post. My decision is personal and what everyone has said about it stands. I know that I don't understand the suffering that Christ went through at the crucifixion. I'm SURE that I don't and I'm sure that no one else does either. I'm glad that this movie has helped to make people think about and appreciate His sacrifice on a deeper level. But...in short, from what I've heard about the level of violence in this movie, I just don't think it would be good for me to see.
Taal, that was a great article. Thanks for posting it. That's kind of how I've felt and I've always tried to follow the 'spirit' of the law where all things are concerned. I was just taken aback at the possibility of someone insinuating that I wasn't able to do that...and after this thread and a couple days, I don't think that's what OSC was doing. *eats crow and mutters* Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
this movie is Mel Gibson’s attempt to immortalize his name, read any of the 4 biblical accounts of the story and you'll find that saintin is never mentioned, the Jewish priest takes responsibility for Christ’s death (he does this in the movie, but Mel didn't put it in the sub tittles for fear of being accused of being like his father) over all Mel Gibson took a sacred story and made a billion or so people feel that they needed to see it in order to call themselves Christians. Further more, all of the controversy over it was started by his own production company in order to promote the film and to help people remember that Mel Gibson is not only a great actor, but a good director too, too bad he is a terrible human being who has no problem twisting a religious story to sell tickets.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: read any of the 4 biblical accounts of the story and you'll find that saintin is never mentioned
That may be. But Satan is mentioned numerable times
Honestly, though. Give 'em a read. You may learn something.
Also, did you see the film? Or read the article this thread was in reference to?
And do you have evidence to back up his studio intentionally causing controversy? What they tried to do was get the film made in the first place. Nobody wanted to pick it up. Mel had to pay for the entire thing out of his own wallet - a risky venture that could very easily have backfired.
Please don't just regurgitate something you heard someone say and state it as fact. Look into what you're talking about, state sources for accusations, and we'll respect your posts a lot more.
As a brief aside, I think that what he did by producing and distributing this film the way he did was brutal, cynical and possibly "genius".
I don't think that OSC's puppy-love letter to Mel does the film/phenom the justice it deserves.
Aside from the pornographic violence, I was mainly disturbed by the lack of context and good storytelling. To the failthful, a reaffirmation and zoom-in focus on the horrors that free them. To the uninitiated, a bloodbath without explanation (go check out the bible?)
posted
Funny. I seemed to find a theme of constant Love in the face of Adversity throughout the film, and thought it'd be understood universally.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have not seen the movie, but what I hear makes me think I would have some pretty big complaints about it. For one thing, it sounds kind of like propaganda - a movie based on our emotional reaction to violance, rather than the merits of Christ and his teaching.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The film isn't about Christ's teachings. The film is about how much crucifixion hurts, and how glad we should be someone cared enough to do it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have not seen the movie, but what I hear makes me think I would have some pretty big complaints about it.
See the movie and then you can complain if you wish. Hyopthetical complaints are kind of..empty now that the film's out for people to actually see for themselves.
posted
I asked my husband if he wanted to see the movie a few weeks ago, and he said he didn't because when Mel Gibson was giving interviews for "Signs" he indicated that he wasn't sure if there was a god.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Last weekend I tripped over an argument between my brother and sister-in-law.
She is what I call a Poper Christian Parrot in that she cares more about parrotting what her minister says that week than in any deep Christian thought.
My brother is an Agnostic with Heart.
She was trying to convince him that he needed to see "The Passion" in order to "Truly understand the pain that Christ went through, to truly understand what Christianity is about."
My brother responded, "Then why don't you go see it."
She said, "You know I don't like violent movies."
He laughed, "Neither do I."
She looked confused, "But that doesn't matter."
I took my lunch plate and tip toed away at that point.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: "I don't know if I believe in little green men coming out of the woodwork to eat you or befriend you or make the universe a [better] place. I do believe in a realm outside our own that's pretty difficult. I think everybody's had an experience that's hard to explain exactly what it is, but it's otherworldly somehow."
I mean, sure he doesn't say "I'm an agnostic". I dunno. I was disinterested in the film for my own reasons, but discussing it here has given me some insights into what I think happened that day (of the atonement).
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll wait for the film to come out on DVD. I'm pretty squeamish, and I don't want to get sick in public.
I’m glad that my church isn’t pre-occupied with images of Christ’s suffering. With all those bloody images, I guess Catholics don’t get to sleep much in church.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was raised Roman Catholic, but lost my faith when I was a late-teen. Actually, I didn't lose it, I deliberatly set it aside. I was recently married in an Episcopal church, so I now, after many years, consider myself to be a Christian again. I guess I was for most of the time, but I just don't like the Roman Catholic Church. I never set aside it's teachings on loving others, or how to live a good life. I just don't think that any human religion (and they are ALL human-organized religions) has all the answers.
That said, I went to go see The Passion with my mother and my wife on March 1st, my birthday. My mom, who is still Catholic, sais right before we went in that she couldn't believe she was going to see a religious film with me, and I replied " And it was my idea to come, my treat, on my birthday too!". I thought she was going to cry....so it was worth it just for that...
I never want to see this film again, but it was brilliantly done. The cinimatogrephy was amazing, and it was well acted. I didn't even notice the subtitles after the first moments. I was deeply moved, and I didn't go to see it without doubts, both of Mel Gibson and his highly orthadox Christian views, and of the film itself, but I found it to be highly moving.
posted
Quote:Please don't just regurgitate something you heard someone say and state it as fact. Look into what you're talking about, state sources for accusations, and we'll respect your posts a lot more. Is what i say so well thought that you assume i didn't think of it my self, and as far reading the bible, i have, in fact, i read all four biblical versions of the story before posting that, just to make sure i knew what i was talking about. I don't mean to be making a bad impression on people, but if you wish to doubt me, then go to google and do your research, i did, and i'll be more carful about stating my sources.
J T Stryker
P.S.thanks for the welcome Taalcon, your the only one who noticed i was a newbee. i hope we agree on some other topic.
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The film is about how much crucifixion hurts, and how glad we should be someone cared enough to do it.
Tom,
I think it is interpretations like that which make it difficult for you in your search for faith. Many of us have repeatedly said that the Atonement is far more than the Crucifixion, we've explained it, yet I saw no reply from you.
The movie really can only show the crucifixion because the of the nature of the Atonement. For those of us who believe in the Atonement, the crucifixion is, as Card describes, metaphor for the real suffering Jesus experienced.
posted
Their answers do an excellent job of making people who already believe feel okay about their belief, but are relatively meaningless to someone who not only doesn't accept the necessity of the sacrifice but the permanence of the sacrifice itself. When you're left with nothing but SPECULATION as to why the atonement was so awful, and are forced to deal with physical torture as an unnecessary metaphor for the emotional sacrifice, you're dipping into the realm of apology.
I didn't reply to those posts because the people involved made a genuine effort to explain their rationalizations, and they were obviously heavily emotionally invested in them. Sadly, they didn't move me -- but I felt it would have been rude to point that out, since they're certainly welcome to their own speculation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read OSC's review and letter to Gibson, and I found it to be excellent. I don't agree with all of his points, particularly his rather heavy-handed view of the courts (America's state religion, as he calls them), but he is right about a lot. In my opinion, of course....I really like his idea of withdrawing the movie from any and all award races, as long as he explains why. That should put an end to most of the arguements about his turning a profit. After all, Oscar-winning films make even more money after they win, right? If Gibson was clear that he doesn't want or need Hollywoods recongition, then obviously he isn't just greedy.
The funny part of that is that if any of the studios had known how profitable this movie would be then they would have backed it in a second, and nobody would accuse them of profit-mongering; it's only when a man makes it without any other backers that Hollywood decides to raise questions about profits.....
Tom: I wish more people were as polite as you. I try not to preach, as I don't have the answers any more than than anyone else does, but it is a pleasure to be able to discuss this with someone who won't bite my head off just because they don't agree with my views. I use to bite others heads off when discussing religion, because I felt disapointed and disgusted with the state of the church, as I saw it. Then I realized that I was not only doing them a diservice by refusing to listen to their views, but that I was doing myself one as well. Now I try to listen with respect, unless they are being disrespectful of others.
People often get all worked up on all sides of these type of issues because the reasoning is so intangable that the sides can be seen as mutually exclusive. I have found that listening with repect only hurts me when the other side isn't doing the same for me. Then I just tune out and walk away.
I am always interested in your opinion as it is always respectful of mine......at least it always has been so far ; so please feel free to disagree with me whenever you feel you have to.....not that you need my permission....lol
posted
Couple folks raised an interesting point - Signs.
The "passion" does look quite a lot like braveheart from a shooting perspective. This isn't surprising since it's the same eye behind the camera.
I was kind of curious during my viewing of the passion about how nicely the story (if there is one?) of Signs dovetailed into this production.
Posts: 3061 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, thank you for your consideration. I appreciate it.
Tom, it is that the film used that metaphor, not that it actually was a metaphor. Though for some humans, unable to grasp the emotional/spiritual nature of the Atonement, they take into their hearts what they can understand: the human suffering of Christ.
The emotional sacrifice is not apologetic. Even though the physical suffering did happen, LDS theology pays little attention to it. That was merely the means to death. The spiritual/emotional sacrifice is the central to the Gospel. This is why you will never see a cross on an LDS building or pulpit. You won't see anyone LDS wearing a cross. To us, this is a meaningless symbol. There are many pictures displayed in our buildings, but none of them are of the crucifixion.
The pictures you see in an LDS building of the Atonement are of Christ kneeling in the Garden of Gesthemane. To us, this was not a dedicatory prayer, it was The Atonement. It went on for longer, he probably suffered through it during his trial, torture, and crucifixion. But in that garden, as he bled from every pore was where he suffered for our sins.
You say you also have a difficult time believing in the infinite nature of the Atonement. You are thinking too linearly. If God created the universe, do you not think he has access to all time, to every instant, no matter where in time he appears to us?
You may wonder why God chose to do that. Can't God just forgive the people himself and get on with it? Isn't that what he asks of us?
He would if He could.
This is where we get to the point where God is governed by certain causal laws. God is perfect, pure. If we are not perfect and pure, we suffer in God's presence. He cannot change that. To do so would eliminate our own free will. Who we really are would cease to exists.
None of us who have lived long enough to put our will into action is perfect or pure. Thus, we do need an Atonement.
But there is more to it than simply that Jesus understands us enough to cause us to be cleansed. It is a payment, an erasing of the sin. All existance ceases to recognize the sin, and so it is truly gone. Not only because we've been able to get over the sorrow and shame, not only because we have changed ourselves and now do not commit the sin atoned for (essential to repentance), not only because we feel the intimate understanding of Christ and therefore the forgiveness and love of God, but because it is no longer part of the cause and effect. It is erased from the universal mind, to put it crudely. Karma was balanced. Someone suffered for the sin, but because they themselves were clean and without sin, they had no guilt. They could still abide the perfect love of God.
The Resurrection was not a reward. It was absolutely necessary for the completion of the Atonement, but that is yet more theology.
I'm not trying to convince you or anything. I just sense a deep misunderstanding of a theology that is absolutely central and necessary to my religion and I want you to understand.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I went to see the Passion twice. To me, this was a really important film. And usually, I have no problem with making money from derived products. Movies are made to make money, right? But in this case, I feel that it cheapens it... I'm beginning to doubt Gibson's motivations with this film...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Who knows? I only know that my decision is personal, doesn't hurt anyone else and it felt like I was being belittled by that sweeping judgmental comment.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
