quote:He died on the cross to atone for the sins of all who will obey Him, and He broke the bands of death to provide a resurrection for us all.
His atonement was the most important event that ever happened. The creation of this earth, the establishment of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and the labors of the great patriarchs and prophets—all were prelude to His achievement on Calvary.
...
But He is the Creator! He is the Redeemer! He is the Savior of the world! He did accomplish His atonement on Calvary, and He did bring about the Resurrection. This we know by the revelation of God! His gospel is true and we love it, and we love Him and deem it a privilege to serve Him!
Elder Mark E. Petersen of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, “Creator and Savior,” Ensign, May 1983
quote:The Savior’s atonement in the garden and on the cross is intimate as well as infinite. Infinite in that it spans the eternities. Intimate in that the Savior felt each person’s pains, sufferings, and sicknesses. Consequently, he knows how to carry our sorrows and relieve our burdens that we might be healed from within, made whole persons, and receive everlasting joy in his kingdom.
Bishop Merrill J. Bateman Presiding Bishop “The Power to Heal from Within,” Ensign, May 1995
quote:There is no more poignant picture in all history than that of Jesus in Gethsemane and upon the cross, alone: the Redeemer of mankind, the Savior of the world, bringing to pass the Atonement.
I remember being with President Harold B. Lee (1899–1973) in the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem. We could sense, if only in a very small degree, the terrible struggle that took place there, a struggle so intense, as Jesus wrestled alone in the spirit, that blood came from every pore (see Luke 22:44; D&C 19:18). We recalled the betrayal by one who had been called to a position of trust. We recalled that evil men laid brutal hands upon the Son of God. We recalled that lonely figure on the cross, crying out in anguish, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). Yet, courageously, the Savior of the world moved forward to bring about the Atonement in our behalf.
President Gordon B. Hinckley, “Living with Our Convictions,” Ensign, Sept. 2001
----------- Thanks, mothertree (you posted while I was looking up Ensign articles)!
[ January 28, 2005, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope, Dag. I'm saying that people who enjoy it are sick.
I'd have to look again, but I'm not sure anyone said they enjoyed it.
You still haven't acknowledged or explained your fairly constant use of words to imply or directly state a sexual motivation for the enjoyment you decry.
posted
Tom, I am going to try to respond to this on a personal level, so please keep that in mind. I don't really care much about your opinion about religion...I have had similar attitudes towards it at times in my life as well.
I respect your views, although I don't share them....please try to do the same for me.
-------------------------------------------------- I went to see it with my mom and wife...on my birthday. And I was the one who suggested it.
My mom was flabbergasted; for years I wouldn't even go to church on Christmas with them...it felt like I was lying to everyone when I did, and at that time I didn't know what I believed.
I had heard good things about the PotC, but wasn't sure I wanted to see it. I'm not sure why I decided to, but I know that when Jenni and I were married we seriously converted to the Episcopal Church, and not just for the wedding..I felt comfortable with that religion, in a way that I had not felt about religion in over a decade. So maybe it was because of the time I had spent thinking about my life, and my religious views.
We went, and I found it to be very moving. I can't say I enjoyed it...it was not an enjoyable film. I am very glad I saw it, and even more than that I am glad that I saw it with my mom....but I don't ever want to see it again.
I do see that point that if one doesn't believe that appeal of that movie could be disturbing. If I had become aroused, or if I gloried in the graphic violence, you may have had a point. I didn't, and you don't.
There are some things that make a greater impact on us when they are presented visually to us...it is just the way most of us are wired. Some of us are visual in nature, some auditory, and some kinesetics but we all are wired for visual cues. (some of thins is loosely based on NLP)
I have seen other things in movies that have affected me before, and just because something has an effect doesn't mean that effect was pleasant. I was very disturbed by what I saw, but moved as well. The fact that someone would CHOOSE to go through this for the sake of others, for me, was very powerfully brought home to me in a way that had never happened before.
I felt the same way you did about SPR, my whole family was military, and my namesake uncle died at Omaha Beach on D-Day, so I said over and over again that I of all people didn't needed to see SPAR to be reminded...I had never forgotten.
But the first time I saw it I wept, because I could see it for myself, and ever time they showed a boat being blown up I caught myself looking at the faces of the dead men, looking for Bobby. I knew it was only a movie, but I couldn't help myself.
PotC was like that for me.....not enjoyable, but very very powerful. I feel that Gibson succeeded in what he was trying to do...not tell the whole Jesus story, but to give a powerful portrayal of how it MIGHT have been the last few hours of his life, when everything came to it's conculsion, so to speak.
I understand that a word can have multiple meanings, but I don't think you chose Porn by mistake...you were looking to get a rise, and it succeeded. The most common meanings are listed first, right?
If someone got off sexually, or wanted to watch this movie over and over again because of a fixation, or watch it as a primer on masochism, then you would be right, they would have a mental problem, probably.
But to say that a religious person who came out of the same movie in tears is the same as the other people is just wrong. There are a lot of things that are painful to watch, but we watch them because there are lessons to be learned by doing so. I think that watching this movie isn't agreeing with the people who killed Jesus, it can sometimes be in honor of his choice to die for us despite the pain. If he could withstand that type of torment for us, who can we refuse to watch it because it is painful to see?
You can get something out of a painful experience, and a lot of times that is why you get so much out of it...because you are forced to challange all your views, and find out what you really believe in in order to survive it.
Not all emotion is false, and logic isn't all that makes us human. I don't think that just because it appealed to the emotions that it was pornagraphic, nor do I think that watching it made me a pervert or a sicko... I think that we knew what was happening was wrong and what happened to him was perverted, but that he chose to suffer for the redemption of man.....so we watched in honor of his pain and suffereing....despite it, really, not because of it.
I don't care what your religious views are nor do I think you are any type of authority on mental illness, so whatever you say really shouldn't mean much. The only reason it does is because you have earned some respect in other threads because of your fair treatment of others.
It is a shame you are so bigoted against religious people, even when they aren't trying to bother you with their views. That is what it boils down to, really...bigotry.
I am sure my opinion of you doesn't really matter much to you either, but I am just sad that you not only feel that anyone who disagrees with you is sick and perverted, but that you continue to air those views, deliberately insulting and berating people of faith.
I respect you a lot less today than I did before all this, even though your views don't surprise me.
posted
i just want to contribute that, as a devout christian, i don't believe tom has been out of line. i (and i'm surprised to say this in a religious thread) agree with much of what he has said. jay has been a troll, and i think dag is just inflamed with tom for some reason.
then, i also agree with much that kwea wrote. i believe tom's comments have taken the path they have because the way jay presented himself... his view of the movie appears (at least in my mind) pornographic. tom's posts to me appear very honest and sincere.
Posts: 494 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure the timing of the atonement is nearly as important as the general fact that it happened.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its sort of misusing words whose meaning has changed. Take for example the word “gay.” It used to mean happy. But now it’s exclusively used when refereeing to sodimites. Tom’s use of pornographic is similar. But Tom seems very gay in his use of pornographic. Tom has gay pornographic tendencies. Gee…. I could argue pretty easily along these lines. But it is still a twisting of the meaning and not what the acceptable meaning is.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, I think you'll find that people will give you more respect if you don't use archaic, offensive, and inaccurate terms like "sodomite."
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
“Tom said that anyone who finds anything uplifting or moving in the film is mentally ill.”
Dag, if Tom said that, I missed it. Could you point me to it? I specifically remember him saying that some people found the non-violent scenes uplifting or moving, and some people found the movie moving in spite of the violence. The only people I recall him calling “sick” are people who found the violence itself uplifting.
I do think that you tend to take everything Tom says about religion in the most negative light possible. I’m sure you think that’s justified. Based on the threads the two of you have been in together, maybe it is. But please consider, for a minute, that how you interpret his attitude might be affecting how you read his posts.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dana, I'm leaving the quotations in the order they appeared in the thread. The second to last quotation is the one that says it directly. None of the rest of the quotes convey the entire idea, but they do reaffirm one or more aspects of that statement.
quote: 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.
Note the need for something "healthy" implies an illness.
quote:The violence is the film, in a very deliberately pornographic way. The entire movie is about how incredibly awful it is to be hurt.
Snuff film. Period.
Note the "Period." Pretty much denies alternative interpretations. He specifically said, and I agree with him on this, that people finding parts moving who covered their eyes for the violence were not really interacting with the film, but a derivative work of it.
quote: As I said, I meant the connotation, as well.
Referring to the sexual associations of porn and snuff films.
quote:people who get off on watching God get beaten to death are raving nutjobs
Note that this one sums up my primary objection to Tom’s whole stance – that people who are finding anything moving about the violence are enjoying the movie in some sexual way.
quote: 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.
This is the one that directly correlates to "Tom said that anyone who finds anything uplifting or moving in the film is mentally ill." There's no credible possibility of another interpretation, especially with the "/or moved" there, although it would be possible, I suppose, to argue that "sick" doesn't refer to mental illness. I doubt Tom would try to assert that.
quote: And watching someone being brutally mutilated in loving slow motion is bad, and people who enjoy that are sick.
Note once again the shift from finding it moving to “enjoying” it.
quote:I do think that you tend to take everything Tom says about religion in the most negative light possible. I’m sure you think that’s justified. Based on the threads the two of you have been in together, maybe it is. But please consider, for a minute, that how you interpret his attitude might be affecting how you read his posts.
I do take that into account, and I'm sure it affects it. But I also feel that Tom does things in religion threads that other people, doing it to a lesser degree, get jumped on by a wide cross section of Hatrack. Unless I decide to call Tom on it, that seldom happens when he does it.
Now, the ratio of "good" posts from Tom (which does not refer to posts I happen to agree with him on) is high enough that I don't skim past his posts, whereas there are other people whose posts I will skip simply because of the rarity of their posts being at all polite, respectful, or insightful.
posted
Ah, Hatrack...I've been away for a while...I see it's still the same
Did anyone already mention that Gibson's view about the Passion of Christ derives from him following a very...extreme...Catholic sect?
OSC once said something about this movie...I usually do not agree with him, but I'll back him up on this one: as a Brazilian (the biggest catholic country in the world) I've seen a lot of bloody depictions of the Passion. Pictures, plays, sculptures, etc. Minas Gerais (a Brazilian State) is famous for its baroque statuary. Remember...for Gibson, the blood of Christ is very, very important.
No, I'm not Catholic (I'm a Spiritist). No, I didn't care much about the movie, although I saw it. I'm glad it was not nominated. I think it not deserves to be.
Now I duck and cover. Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Note once again the shift from finding it moving to “enjoying” it."
Is it a shift, or is it a qualification?
I have trouble interpreting people from the east coast. I tend to see their posts as snarkier/ruder than other people do. It's noticeable enough that for a couple months I stopped replying to anyone not from the Midwest until at least one other person had replied first, so that I got a better idea of how other people interpreted the post. I usually found out that the poster didn't mean it the way I first saw it. And I've noticed that trend between other posters from different regions -- subtle humor and mannerisms are difficult to read into text anyway, but it's especially difficult to recognize when it's complicated by regional variations. The same applies, of course, for other cultural groupings like religions, sports fans, etc.
Oh well. I usually try to avoid stepping into the middle of other posters’ interactions. In my experience it very rarely does anything but make things worse. I’m not sure why I broke that rule in this case. Probably shouldn’t have, so I’ll stop now.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most surgeries would qualify as pornographically violent were it not for the person doing them having a little piece of paper symbolizing her training. But if you don't think a piece of paper makes that person special, then it's pretty horrifying.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: if you don't use archaic, offensive, and inaccurate terms like "sodomite."
Ahh… interesting. So now biblical terms aren’t allowed? But of course it’s ok to use “pornographic” to describe the Passion of the Christ. This blatant double standard reeks with bias.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom's posts seemed bent on inflaming emotions, and I personally felt very hurt that he would presume to say such things about an experience that I (not he) had. That said, Tom hasn't posted for a while so let's just drop it. We're beating a dead horse.
quote:Oh well. I usually try to avoid stepping into the middle of other posters’ interactions. In my experience it very rarely does anything but make things worse. I’m not sure why I broke that rule in this case. Probably shouldn’t have, so I’ll stop now.
Worry not - certainly it didn't offend me, and it made me go back and look.
quote:"Note once again the shift from finding it moving to “enjoying” it."
Is it a shift, or is it a qualification?
He started out at move, and he took pains to make sure it was included in his definitive statement. I don't think I'm wrong here, but I'll ask Tom to clarify: Do you consider anyone who finds the movie as a whole, including the violent parts, moving to be mentally sick?
quote: Do you consider anyone who finds the movie as a whole, including the violent parts, moving to be mentally sick?
Well, duh. Of course not. But I suggest that those who -- like Jay -- find the movie moving primarily because of the violent parts may be buying into a form of Christianity that I find more than a little repellent.
And of course those people who liked the film in spite of its violence, or who skipped over the violence altogether, wound up watching a different movie.
My point is that Gibson made a movie which intentionally glorified the bloody, agonizing death of Jesus Christ, rather than his sacrifice. And that people who are moved not by the sacrifice but by the imagined gory details of the death itself are focusing entirely on the wrong aspect of the story. And, of course, that people who find the gore itself appealing and/or beautiful are, as I said earlier, rather sick.
quote:My point is that Gibson made a movie which intentionally glorified the bloody, agonizing death of Jesus Christ, rather than his sacrifice.
I'm not really sure I agree with this, His sacrifice was thought the pain He suffered, certainly it's possible that Gibson was more interested in the pain than in the meaning of the pain (the sacrifice) but I don't think that showing it in a gruesome or gory way necessitates that.
posted
You know I never said I enjoyed the violence. I said I found the story and what Christ went through for the sin of the world moving. A movie of the beating and torture of someone I didn’t have a personal relationship wouldn’t have much meaning. But when someone goes through such torture to die for my sins, then yes, it is very moving and I thank him for doing that for me. And The Passion of the Christ is probably an accurate representation of what Jesus probably went though. Seem like you’re just trolling for anger in your own gay pornographic tendency.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is anyone else a little put off by the argument that we should have a tit for tat relationship with Jesus. Adam and Eve introduced love and sin, Cain and Abel: inequality, envy and murder, and Jesus: quid pro quo.
I don't believe that people should love ones neighbor because a guy died a horrific death. It's the same as the old argument for nationalism, that we should defend blank and blank nation out of respect for the blood of our fathers that was spilled and tortured for blank and blank nation. Arguments like that, for Christendom or nationalism, seem to make the whole business kind of small. There are some uplifting revelations in Christianity, but I don't know if this is one of them. ____
An aside:
In the paper today, one of the terrorist calls the polling places "centers of atheism and vice."
In a way, there is nothing especially Godly about democracy, especially when people are taught to be self-interested and voting is merely the aggregate of everyone's individual appetites, with favors bestowed upon the one with the most popular appetites.
No, there is something atheist about the processes, I mean, wasn't it majority rule that killed Jesus? This isn't to say that we shouldn't pledge for democracy, rather, I don't know if I'm proud of the priorities people are supposed to have when they vote..
posted
"In a way, there is nothing especially Godly about democracy..."
This is in fact an ancient observation, Irami. I believe a number of Christian philosophers argued back and forth about this for some time.
Insofar as there was any conclusion reached, it was this: democracy is not itself godly, and is in fact likely to lead to selfishness. However, liberty is godly, and democracy is the most likely of all the political systems known to man to optimize liberty.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
You know what, Tom, the "well, duh" isn't really appropriate when you've been agreeing with that very logical characterization of your view for 6 pages.
posted
I haven't agreed, Dag. I just didn't correct -- mainly because I figured you knew me well enough that you'd know I didn't have that opinion, and so the hostile vibe I was getting from you was from something else. *shrug*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Well, then, Tom, maybe you should explain how one is supposed to interpret such statements in the future."
Well, I know the way I interpret your comments: "Gee, that seemed harsh for Dag. Did he mean it that way? Perhaps he's putting a different mental emphasis on another part of that sentence, or leaving out a qualifier I'd consider important."
Heck, even when I tease Jay, I do that first. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I know the way I interpret your comments: "Gee, that seemed harsh for Dag. Did he mean it that way? Perhaps he's putting a different mental emphasis on another part of that sentence, or leaving out a qualifier I'd consider important."
Tom, you started out extreme and refused to qualify it when given numerous chances and requests to do so. Please don't try playing the victim in this one. You intended to be offensive and, surprise, people got offended.
quote:Well, I know the way I interpret your comments: "Gee, that seemed harsh for Dag. Did he mean it that way? Perhaps he's putting a different mental emphasis on another part of that sentence, or leaving out a qualifier I'd consider important."
And there is no question of saying "This seemed harsh for Tom." It didn't seem harsh for you - it was standard operating procedure for you.
posted
*shrug* I am, of course, apparently not as qualified to say what I meant.
Perhaps, Dag, you should also consider whether your kneejerk determination to defend all things Catholic from perceived threats is really necessary. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in fact, that's a good point. Dag, you have repeatedly said that you will not permit me or Tom to disrespect your religion. Why do you care about the opinions of random Intarwebnet posters? A touch defensive, perhaps?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, KoM, join in the "I know what motivates others" bandwagon. You and Tom and Squick can hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Or some non-religious equivalent.
posted
"I'm letting them tell me that they were uplifted and/or enthused and/or moved by its beauty, and then I'm calling them sick."
You know, it was pretty clear to me, in context, that Tom was talking about the depiction of the crucifixtion, not the movie as a whole.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"But you are willing to insist that you are a better judge of how those people are actually reacting to a movie, right?"
Nope. I'm not telling them how they reacted to it. I'm letting them tell me that they were uplifted and/or enthused and/or moved by its beauty, and then I'm calling them sick.
I apply the same approach to anyone who'd tell me that "Pi" or "Eraserhead" were movies that really made them feel closer to the human condition.
quote: I don't believe that people should love ones neighbor because a guy died a horrific death.
Plenty of people have died horrific deaths. It was because he lived a sinless life. A lot of sinless people die, but it is generally due to lack of opportunity to sin.
And keep in mind that Adam didn't have any reason to sin. He had everything he could want provided for him, and choose to have the one thing in the world forbidden him. But that's free will. Free will is to do the worst imaginable thing but also the best imaginable thing. Like loving one's enemy. But I didn't get the impression from anyone that the film got into this stuff.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: You keep telling us how the movie impacted you as a non believer. Can I ask why you went and saw it? What you were expecting out of it? It seems like the reviews were not coy about the level of violence that could be anticipated.
Dag: I hope you aren't feeling unsupported by me not contributing more directly. But it's kind of like one of those things where Doc Oc explains to Spiderman why evil will always win. At least in the cartoons.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, Dag, Tom's post preceeding the one you quoted...
"That's because, Dag, I'm not willing to concede that other people are a better judge of what I am or am not willing to accept than I am.
I can certainly understand why the death -- and especially resurrection -- of Christ is such a compelling story to Christians; Teshi puts it very nicely in the post above. I don't necessarily agree that this process is logical -- for example, the "need" for Christ to battle Satan in Hell is something that I find very theologically confusing -- but it's got a heroic arc to it.
What I've asked you to clarify, and what you've said you cannot clarify to my satisfaction, is why the particularly pornographic depiction of this death (as seen in PotC) is, as Jay has argued, more uplifting than the less gory alternatives.
-------
"If you and a best friend faced death, and one of you was given the chance of dying for the other in a painful way, would you watch in respect for him or would you look away?"
I would not pay $8 to watch him suffer, and pay twice more to watch it twice more, and tell my friends that they don't really love him if they aren't willing to pay the $8 to watch him die."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
You’re partially right. Jesus did live a sinless life. And he has been the one person able to do that in our short human history. Everyone else has. Even if it is some little thing.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I am arriving late to this party, but I'd like to throw my two cents in.
To get back to the original topic of this thread, I don't think the Passion was a very good movie. Of course, plenty of movies win Oscars that I don't think are very good, and the field for best foreign language film is weak--why wasn't The Motorcycle Diaries nominated? Still, that doesn't obviate the patent lack of content in this movie aside from one man's torture and death.
Tom is right; this movie is a snuff film. Its sole focus is the torture and killing of one person. The lack of sexual content means nothing; I'm sure a murderous sadist would find the content of this movie sufficient for sexual arousal. The fact that it was marketed and framed as a religious piece doesn't change the content of the film, which is simply gore. Cable porn has more plot and character development than this movie.
I should mention that simply because I found the movie to be in bad taste does not mean that I believe all who found it spiritually significant are mentally ill. I know I enjoy things many people would consider in bad taste. However, the crux of the argument as I see it is that many of the Passion's true believers can't accept that this movie was not received with universal acclaim. Too many people didn’t like this movie. Good candidates for Best Picture need very broad appeal; this is also why I don't think Fahrenheit 9/11 belonged on the list. Personally, I don’t put much stock in the Oscars as an indicator of good cinema, but I can certainly understand why The Passion of the Christ doesn’t deserve one.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
