posted
"But lets not pretend any more...you are deliberatly trolling for responses, trying to inflame their passions about religions."
Nope. I couldn't care less if people respond. I will freely admit, however, that I would like people to stop and wonder whether the suffering of Christ is really as uplifting a message as many of them appear to assume by default.
By pointing out that the violence in the film is pornographic in its depiction and intent, I would hope to at least give people a moment's pause, and cause them to consider what it was about the film that they found meaningful. Was it, like with Jay, the graphic depiction of gore itself? Or was it, like with Katie and SM, the ten minutes or so of Christ with his mother, despite the gore? Or was it, like with Dag, some kind of weird thing that he can't explain because we don't share a common context?
I am often disturbed by certain elements of Christianity. PotC nicely encapsulates one of those elements, and presents an opportunity for reflection on the appeal of those elements.
--------
"Tom, free will is what it is all about, so his sacrifice did matter....just not to you."
I'm not sure how this follows. I explained the two reasons for which I felt Christ's sacrifice was meaningless; neither of those is invalidated by the acknowledgement of free will. What are you saying?
quote:I will freely admit, however, that I would like people to stop and wonder whether the suffering of Christ is really as uplifting a message as many of them appear to assume by default.
So the question for today, children, is "Did Tom accomplish his goal by accusing people who were moved by the film of needing a new hobby and suspecting them of being mentally ill?"
Bonus points for anyone who can offer an explanation as to why not.
posted
The sacrifice was necessary for free will. The sacrifice made it possible for us to repent from the sins which became natural to us after the fall of Adam. It is only through free will that we can experience the joy of accomplishing something that we chose to do, but with it comes the possibility of anguish over a bad choice or disappointment at failure.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For somebody who started TYPING IN ALL CAPS and sounded like he was going to cry in frustration because he felt that someone was misrepresenting and oversimplifying his arguments, Dag, you're awfully willing to play the Pot.
-----
"The sacrifice made it possible for us to repent from the sins which became natural to us after the fall of Adam."
See, I don't buy that. If God designed the universe so that the only way to pay the price of Adam's fall was the death of His kid, then it's not a sacrifice; it's a price, and He designed the universe in a way that He'd have to pay it. If He didn't design the universe, and it's just some funky natural consequence that the son of God has to die in order to permit people to get back into the good graces of God, why is the universe designed that way?
quote:For somebody who started TYPING IN ALL CAPS and sounded like he was going to cry in frustration because he felt that someone was misrepresenting and oversimplifying his arguments, Dag, you're awfully willing to play the Pot.
My goal was to call you on your name-calling and presumption.
quote:See, I don't buy that. If God designed the universe so that the only way to pay the price of Adam's fall was the death of His kid, then it's not a sacrifice; it's a price, and He designed the universe in a way that He'd have to pay it. If He didn't design the universe, and it's just some funky natural consequence that the son of God has to die in order to permit people to get back into the good graces of God, why is the universe designed that way?
To achieve some other, greater good that wouldn't be possible without it.
Honoring free will places an enormous number of constraints on a Creator.
posted
I don't get why free will necessitated Jesus's death. If people have free will, they can repent, and if they're truly reformed, they'll be forgiven for their transgressions. Nobody else has to suffer it. If free will is a factor, the onus should be on the individual.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My goal was to call you on your name-calling and presumption."
Dag, perhaps it's all in the context. All snarkiness aside, you have to understand that I am in fact speaking from a purely secular viewpoint. And I have repeatedly asked you to justify the appeal of the gory elements of Christ's death to a secular audience. You have said, quite brusquely, that you cannot.
But you know what? I'm a secular audience. I do not speak from a Catholic viewpoint. I can't, and you throw a fit whenever anyone else on the board presumes that they can.
So I'm saying that, from a secular viewpoint, people who get off on watching God get beaten to death are raving nutjobs. And I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.
There may be another context here in which the gore is a beautiful thing; I've already conceded that there are contexts in which baby-eating isn't so horrible. But I'm not speaking from one of those contexts.
If your entire experience and all your views are going to be drawn from one of those contexts, Dag, then what I'm saying may as well not apply to you because you are quite consciously refusing to share my basic principles. And that's cool. But if you're not going to meet me halfway in an attempt to establish some basic secular principles from which it's possible to discuss theological ethics, you don't get to snipe from the sidelines as if you're mortally offended.
It'd be like some alien coming down and saying, "Glaaargruh ak-nee'tpo!" and you responding, "What? I'm mortally offended by that!"
You make it aggressively clear -- assertively so, I might add -- that you are not willing to speak my language. So don't give the lie to those claims by pretending to be insulted by my language. Either you understand where I'm coming from, and you share with me certain basic principles, or you don't -- and if you don't, you don't get to act like what I'm saying has stuck you to the quick.
quote:I don't get why free will necessitated Jesus's death. If people have free will, they can repent, and if they're truly reformed, they'll be forgiven for their transgressions. Nobody else has to suffer it. If free will is a factor, the onus should be on the individual.
Some of the thinking behind it was that people couldn't, in practice, truly repent, even though it is theoretically possible.
Most of the theories I like use a bridge metaphor. One of those theories holds that the one thing God in his nature can't do is submit to a being greater than himself, and that the Incarnation was God's mechanism for doing this in a way that would then allow him to provide direct help to humans without overriding their free will.
The crux of almost all these theories is that 1) humans needed help, and 2) For God to provide the help without overwhelming our free will, the Incarnation was necessary.
Of course, there are many variations on this, and many other metaphors, including sacrifice and ransom. I think the actual truth is not something we can directly see, anymore than we can directly see a 4 dimensional hypercube.
posted
We can't repent because we were made fundamentally unlike God due to the fall. God can't communicate with us directly. We can only receive his grace through Jesus as mediator. Jesus, had to undergo the suffering of the atonement so he could understand us enough to serve as our mediator. At least, that's the way I look at it. I mean, I am very devout but always prey to anger. As soon as I realize I'm doing the right thing I fall into pride. I don't know about other folks, but I need grace every step of the way. I take the steps, but without grace I could be going off course.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I'm saying that, from a secular viewpoint, people who get off on watching God get beaten to death are raving nutjobs. And I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.
No. You said people who find it moving are. And you have repeatedly and deliberately insisted on using a sexual metaphor (you've just done it again), despite the fact these people are telling you that's not what they're doing.
It's disrespectful because you are calling them liars. It's presumptious because you are deigning to speak for them.
quote:Either you understand where I'm coming from, and you share with me certain basic principles, or you don't -- and if you don't, you don't get to act like what I'm saying has stuck you to the quick.
You're right. I'm sorry for thinking we shared the basic principals of accepting what people say at face value.
And to comment on my aggressiveness is, quite frankly, ridiculous:
quote:I wasn't. It was a snuff film starring Christ, for God's sake. The kind of people who find that sort of thing "moving" need healthy hobbies.
posted
And Tom, it's a matter of respect. Would you like it if I, on a regular basis, made posts declaring that all non-Catholics are going to hell?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Edit: Ack! I edited rather than replied! *thumps forehead* Well, assume I said nothing interesting besides the line Dag cited down below. *wry laugh*
quote: I explained the two reasons for which I felt Christ's sacrifice was meaningless
First: Tom, facing Christians with an argument like that is impossible. The death of Christ is central (vital) to the religion.
Second: Here's my humble (keyword, here), theological (heh) opinion.
1. It is not the way in which Christ died that is important, it is the fact he died. He didn't face death because he knew it was going to be long, painful and gory, he faced it because he had to die. If it had been a blow to the head with an axe, a guillotine, the electric chair or a lethal injection it would have been the same.
As a result, the fact that Christ died in a gory, drawn out painful way is merely a side-effect of the fact that he did it. Most of the Roman's executees were cruicified, no doubt some of them were flayed beforehand.
It can be argued that the pain of his death is to atone for all the sins before him. However, did not the others on the crosses die in the same way and for only their own sins? In fact, in recieving his fifth wound, he may have died in a kinder way than those around him.
2. He died because he was asked to. It was his fate and his duty. The death is only the beginning of the story.
He had to die because he had to meet Satan in hell, do battle with him and thus save/redeem all the souls he encountered there, thus erasing the sin of Adam and restarting, in his own way, a new world (a new Adam, if you will).
3. His death and ressurection, or rebirth is the central theme in Christianity. Every year at Easter, in the springtime, Christ dies and rises again, new.
This is the miracle of Christianity. Before his ressurection of the world, Christianity did not exist. His death was like those of thousands of holy people before him, his rebirth, however, was new.
4. So it was Christ's sacrifice (and inevitable rebirth) that is important, not his suffering. When a child is baptised, it is not made to suffer, yet it does die and is reborn.
However, because of Christ's method of dying (or rather, the Roman's method of execution), Christians have then attached holiness to martyrdom; the saints, penance, deprivation, the pentangle and pilgrimmage. In this way, suffering has become a part of Christianity, but it is not as central as his death/fall/ending, and then his rebirth, revival and renewal.
Please note, this is only my own humble opinion of how important the suffering of Christ is in Christianity.
EDIT:
quote: why watching one's God be repeatedly tortured and maimed is a spiritually life-affirming experience.
I can only say that because Christ died in a painful way, and that suffering became a sign of holiness, watching the suffering of Christ and thus suffering yourself is a form of penance and therefore spiritual revitalisation.
quote:I'm willing to take that answer at face value. It may not be possible for someone to come up with a secular answer to that question.
No, you aren't willing to take that answer at face value. If you were, you would believe people when they tell you that they were moved by the film and they are not sick bastards, but the reason why is not something you would accept.
posted
dkw, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, though I am. We get so much Christian culture stuff in the mail, I can only imagine it would be pretty phenomenal the amount you get as a pastor.
No way would I show the Passion to someone as outreach. No way. As an non-believer, I'd probably watch the Passion and go, "You follow THAT?"
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm willing to take that answer at face value. It may not be possible for someone to come up with a secular answer to that question.
Furthermore, it's not purely a death that is violent. It's not the same, for example, as watching someone totally random get tortured to death by other totally random people.
It's the my life for yours idea. If you and a best friend faced death, and one of you was given the chance of dying for the other in a painful way, would you watch in respect for him or would you look away, ashamed of what you were not doing?
Imagine that situation, and then assume you were watching it, only you knew that you could have never done it. Through some twist of fate, it was only him who could of done it. Now, you cannot feel ashamed; now do you watch?
posted
That's because, Dag, I'm not willing to concede that other people are a better judge of what I am or am not willing to accept than I am.
I can certainly understand why the death -- and especially resurrection -- of Christ is such a compelling story to Christians; Teshi puts it very nicely in the post above. I don't necessarily agree that this process is logical -- for example, the "need" for Christ to battle Satan in Hell is something that I find very theologically confusing -- but it's got a heroic arc to it.
What I've asked you to clarify, and what you've said you cannot clarify to my satisfaction, is why the particularly pornographic depiction of this death (as seen in PotC) is, as Jay has argued, more uplifting than the less gory alternatives.
-------
"If you and a best friend faced death, and one of you was given the chance of dying for the other in a painful way, would you watch in respect for him or would you look away?"
I would not pay $8 to watch him suffer, and pay twice more to watch it twice more, and tell my friends that they don't really love him if they aren't willing to pay the $8 to watch him die.
posted
Ah, well there you've got the problem. It's not Christ (or your friend). It's a movie with an actor and he's not really dying. Some people can make that faith-leap that allows them to believe that watching the movie (and paying for it), is like watching Christ. Others cannot.
quote:for example, the "need" for Christ to battle Satan in Hell is something that I find very theologically confusing
It's a story and a theme that is older than Christianity, that's why. It's part of the human narrative history.
The dying and reviving story happens in the winter or in the spring. It is a year cycle idea. Persephone/Prosepina has the same idea- she dies and revives. The Fisher King (both the post and pre-Christian versions) are also dying/reviving stories.
As with the battle in Hell, it's the same thing. Satan is the Sea Dragon, and this sea Dragon crops up all over the place. Perseus does away with it to save Andromeda, Marduk does away with Tiamat the Sea Dragon, as does St George, as does Jesus, it just happens. Some stories just are.
Also, many good people (Joseph, David etc) were in Hell, and it wasn't so fun anymore to be eternally damned, no matter how holy you were. So Christ did his bit and saved everyone, re-starting the world.
posted
Part of the story was taken from the pagans...The story of the Horned God (or the Green Man's) death in the winter and rebirth in the Spring. *Read a lot about paganism when I stopped being SDA.*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just thought I'd take a moment to say that I really cannot wait till we meet some alien races who do not share our religious history. Boy will it be interesting to see how the surviving religions of that day (both ours and theirs), whatever they are, deal with the contact.
posted
Just to put in my two cents... I did not like The Passion very much. They tried to "Christianize" and sex-up the prime Christian story. Jesus looking absolutely perfect, hair and beard trimmed and combed, perfectly clean clothes with the hyper-expensive red toga (something only a rich Roman nobleman might wear). Then the way-more-then-40-lashes with the whip. Then the ripping of not just the Temple curtain but the whole freaking Temple. Pilate's wife talking about Jesus being the son of God when she as a good Roman women would know hardly anything about the fringe cult in this distant province of the Empire. Etc, etc... Just silly and a wee bit insulting to the actual story, imo. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've heard, PotC does sound pornographic-- I'm not going to go see it.
quote: But even if you don't -- if you are, say, Mormon -- then the death is purely a transitory moment of pain across an eternity of Heavenly bliss and transcendence. It's not a sacrifice at all, unless by his sacrifice Jesus actually denies himself a spot in Heaven.
Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's because, Dag, I'm not willing to concede that other people are a better judge of what I am or am not willing to accept than I am.
Tom, please answer the question I posed above. I'll pose it again: Would you like it if I, on a regular basis, made posts declaring that all non-Catholics are going to hell? Would you find that conducive to a respectful relationship with others?
But you are willing to insist that you are a better judge of how those people are actually reacting to a movie, right?
posted
"But you are willing to insist that you are a better judge of how those people are actually reacting to a movie, right?"
Nope. I'm not telling them how they reacted to it. I'm letting them tell me that they were uplifted and/or enthused and/or moved by its beauty, and then I'm calling them sick.
I apply the same approach to anyone who'd tell me that "Pi" or "Eraserhead" were movies that really made them feel closer to the human condition.
posted
I just wanted to add that an integral part of Jesus' sacrifice is that he came to Earth at all. As Tom points out, he was returning to a glorious existence, and he came from a glorious existence. The Passion is the culmination of it, but it is just one day out of a life of 33 years of mortality that He subjected himself to which he didn't have to. He did it for us. I think the nearest thing we could relate that to would maybe being blind and deaf by choice to help someone. Just a thought.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"But you are willing to insist that you are a better judge of how those people are actually reacting to a movie, right?"
Nope. I'm not telling them how they reacted to it. I'm letting them tell me that they were uplifted and/or enthused and/or moved by its beauty, and then I'm calling them sick.
You are acting as if the reasons for their finding the movie uplifting are irrelevant, and you know they are not. They are "sick" only because you refuse to acknowledge all the other things they are bringing to this movie.
Basically, you're saying, "If everything about me were the same, except that I found this movie uplifting, I would be sick." But they're not like you. There are other things about them that make them not sick for finding this movie uplifting.
posted
Really quickly, the ancient death/rebirth story alluded to above is called the monomyth (according to the theoretical framework of Joseph Campbell, heavily influenced by Frazier's Golden Bough): this is a cyclical narrative pattern found in nearly all hero myths (though often with certain stages missing). Dismemberment and horrible death are often present (imagine a film depicting Osiris's quartering by his brother Seth, and the search by Isis for his body parts, including the extremely important phallus).
I certainly respect Christians' right to immerse themselves in ritual depictions of their savior's sacrifice, as have human beings for thousands upon thousands of years, ever since the first sacred king was sacrificed at the hands of a priestess in a Neolithic matriarchal society. In fact, I am heartened by the fact that we've progressed beyond actually needing real blood anymore, and rather than feeling outraged at our clinging to this very old and often retold story, I find comfort in what it says about the universality of human nature.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm having a very hard time determining why Tom's comments aren't the equivalent in content, although certainly not scale, of Jack Chick's works. Both rely on misstating the positions of those who believe differently and labeling them, "Moon god worshippers" and "sick", and labeling their actions, "worshipping Mary" and "getting off," in misleading ways.
posted
Proteus. It would be better to stop here and to talk about... Well, the soundtrack, is a good exemple. I didn't see the movie so I have idea on what it sounds like. How is the soundtrack ?
[ January 28, 2005, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to narrativum on repentance- a person can go through regret and forsaking their sin or mistake. But they can't do anything about the effects their sin will go on to have. Take the generational cycle of abuse. In later years one might repent sincerely of abusing one's kids. But the damage is done and very often the kids are not able to forgive you, whilst the go on reenacting your faults with their own families, and so it may continue through countless generations. If we reconcile ourselves to God through Jesus, the unintended effects of our sins will be covered, at least by all who also reconcile themselves to God. There is always the risk that someone very important to you doesn't ever choose to do that.
And God can't communicate with us directly. If he did so it would override our free will. He communicates with us through the spirit, which gives Him the same degree of influence over us that Satan has. Otherwise, our will wouldn't be any more free than the employee who can choose to either quit smoking or be fired (Architraz's thread).
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: then I'm calling them sick ------------------------------
Which makes you pretty sick
Why?
-----
BTW, Dag, I would say there is also a qualitative difference between saying that finding a graphic depiction of torture uplifting is a horrible thing and, say, arguing that the eucharist is a "death cookie."
My point is that there are some positions which are -- or should be -- reprehensible regardless of their religious context.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really, considering you've classified them as sick. It's a convenient way to categorize a lot of people without having to consider their beliefs.
I wonder which disorder in the DSM-IV you think applies?
Regardless of whether you think it's wrong, you have persisted with the sexual gratification language throughout this thread, with zero evidence that that is the case for anyone who has posted, and direct evidence opposing that for many of them. And that is as bad as "death cookie."
posted
Ok, that makes a bit more sense, although I don't agree with it. Of course, that boils down to theological differences (e.g. I don't believe that Jesus was the son of God, or that he was resurrected, or the existence of Satan, or that people need a mediator to reconcile themselves with God).
I'll take the example you used, and apply my reasoning to it: if one repents, sincerely, the abuse of one's children, then God will forgive (if not forget) the transgression. If said person is able to show to the abused that he or she is truly sorry, so much the better. If not, well, that's up to the people involved to work out. The transgression, in the eyes of God, is forgiven, but can't be erased.
EDIT: this is in response to mothertree's response to me, in case that wasn't entirely obvious.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Proteus.
