Passion of the Christ

I no longer intend to see it. My interest in the film itself is fading, though my interest in the cultural phenomenon surrounding it remains strong.

I just don't feel like watching an extended depiction of graphic and sadistic violence. I suppose that Christ's suffering has great significance to many Christians who are able to put it into context and to give it meaning.

But I'm not sure that I can do that. Millions have suffered equally grotesque deaths. (Many at the hands of Christians.) We all suffer. We all die.

Perhaps that's part of the meaning of Christ's suffering, that it's a way of giving meaning to our own suffering by analogy, by projection, by participation, or something. I don't know, I'm just speculating here. (The early Christians certainly sought out and idealized martyrdom.)

But whatever the meaning of suffering in general and of Christ's suffering in particular, by all accounts, the film edited out the teaching message of Jesus' life and lovingly focused on his pain, while presenting the film's dialogue in dead and incomprehensible languages. (The subtitles were a concession.)

So I have to wonder whether the film is even interested in communicating with people outside the Christian fold. It omits too much and presupposes too much.

 

I think that all really should see this movie. I saw it yesterday and was deeply moved by it. I wouldn't let the violence keep me from seeing. Really, it's not any more violent than Saving Private Ryan or other war movies.

Cy

 

Probably not. Mel Gibson has made no secret that his intent was to make the film an accurate portrayal of the Bible. I know I wouldn't have any interest in seeing a movie based on the Koran.

 

I just saw the movie this weekend. I must agree that it was a powerful movie but I also believe that the movie added a lot of unnecessary violence to make a point. The multiple beatings, scourging, whippings, and continued whipping all the way to calvary seems so extreme that a person would be in so much shock that it would have been impossible for Jesus to even carry the cross. Especially, when the movie leads us to believe that the Romans nearly whipped him to death. To this end I was disappointed with the film.

John

 

Graphic violence or suffering focusing on one individual has a much greater impact on me than seeing flashes of violence in a war movie. I've read some detailed medical explanations about how it worked to die on the cross and it was very grissly. I think that even being burned at the stack would be a preferrable way to die.

 

Bill Dayson Wrote:

Bill, if you watch the movie you will see that Jesus preached against that kind of violence. Therefore, those that were the brutalizers were not Christians.

In Matthew 7, Jesus tells of those who will say to him at the final judgment "didn't we do miracles (etc.) in your name?" and he says, "depart from me, I never knew you."

Chris

 

This has been an ongoing argument by those who castigate Christians and the Christian faith.

The brutality during the Crusades, the Reformation, and the Counter Reformation did not reflect genuine Christianity nor the teachings of Christ.

I don't detest the Christian faith because of the vile spewed forth against great men of the faith such as Origen, Arius, and Fausto Sozzinifou.

Nor do I cast aspersions against the Catholic Church for the executions of Michael Servetus and Joan of Arc.

Linking the brutal acts of some Christians to all Christians is like linking gay bashing, the bombing of abortion clinics, and the murder of doctors who perform abortions to those Christians who oppose homosexuality and abortion.

It's also kind of saying all Republicans are racists because of the likes of Jesse Helms, J. Strom Thurmond, and David Puke, oops, Duke.

P.S. Well I called CCHS today and they declare they sent out my new course. Hopefully it'll come this week. But, being back on here has been rather stimulating, engaging, and fun.

 

Yes, but you will forgive those on the receiving end of violence in the name of Christ if in the depths of their agony they fail to draw the distinction between genuine Christians and the cross bearing thugs who burned their homes, raped their daughters and tortured thier menfolk to death solely for the crime of being Jewish.

 

Just saw the movie tonight. Very emotional, especially scenes involving his mother. Although being non-catholic, I ask where were the rest of his brothers and sisters? It is heart-wrenching BUT I do wish the resurrection scene could have listed a bit longer. I guess I have very mixed emotions. Can you tell?

 

I haven't seen the movie but I have heard a lot of comments backwards and forwards concerning the protrayal of Jewish people as being the persecutors.

I thought that every race and religion present at the crucifixation were having a go when you see the shorts. I picked that up as the message that every creed and race is capable of brutality and nobody has a mortgage on it. Just like nobody has a mortgage on kindness and mercy.

It seems logical to me that if the crucifixation of Christ was preordained by God then mere mortals had no choice in what was to happen, no matter who they were. They were merely playing a part that God required of them.

It won't be my first choice of a movie. Too much violence outside to pay to see it in the theatre.

Having said that I am going back to reading law and public policy where it is a lot safer! Hats off to Mel for being brave enough to try and navigate the waters of theology. Too much passion there for this Antipodean.

 

<<Millions have suffered equally grotesque deaths. (Many at the hands of Christians.) We all suffer. We all die.

Perhaps that's part of the meaning of Christ's suffering, that it's a way of giving meaning to our own suffering by analogy, by projection, by participation, or something.>>

Perhaps this is true to someone that is not a believer. To a believer, the only point to His suffering and death was to serve as a voluntary, sacrficial atonement for our sin.

 

Christians not violent?????

That must explain the numerous witch burnings, torture, and genocide committed in the name of Christ by the Inquisition in the medieval period and beyond - I guess it is OK if directed against "satanic forces"? By the way, the Catholic Church (unlike the German government) has NEVER apologized for its extended and bloody inhumanity to man as far as I know, much of it stemming from the very type of "passion plays" against Jewish people that Gibson hopes to revive.

 

Re: Christians not violent?????

===

I don't know Gibson, and I haven't seen the movie. But could you help me out by providing your evidence that Gibson wishes by his movie to encourage animosity toward Jews.

 

Re: Re: Christians not violent?????

I'm not sure this is "evidence" so much as implication, but William Safire (not exactly a bleeding heart liberal) wrote an essay in many of our nation's newspapers today that points to Mel's dad being one of those insanely right-wing Catholics who deny that the Holocaust even took place. One can only assume that Mel must have (consciously or subconsciously) absorbed some of this bias as a child, which he now chooses to unleash in his new film about Christ's passion. Throughout the "bad guys" are the Jewish leaders - not the Roman leadership who actually had him (and many others during that time period) killed in the most brutal manner imaginable.

One could ask the question, what "evidence" is there that the pre-20th century passion plays at Oberammeragau ever caused anti-Semitism in Germany? Well, they didn't exactly cause it, but they certainly were a reflection of a mindset that led to thinking of the Jews as "Christ killers", which is precisely the message that one takes away from Gibson's new movie, regardless of the protestations of innocence on the part of the good "Christians" who see it and praise it, and apparently made it.

As further "evidence", check out this link and read the book...
http://atheism.about.com/library/books/summary/aaprOberammergau.htm

Pretty sad that Mel is able to make a slasher movie today, disguise the age-old message in blood and guts, and still claim that he isn't anti-semitic. History is destined to be repeated by those who don't recall its earlier messages...

You know the really interesting thing in all of this is who Jesus really was. He was, in fact, a Jewish rebel, very similar to the Zealots who violently rebelled against Rome half a century later and brought down the entire nation of Israel, the diaspora, and all the rest. Therefore, Jesus was a Jewish rebel who was executed by Rome - and he also may have been the Son of God for those of the Christian persuasion. But first and foremost, he was a Jew, his early church was a Jewish church (until Paul got hold of it), and his message was a Jewish message for Jewish people. If he had not risen from the dead, he surely would have been rolling over in his grave over all the atrocities committed by his "Christian followers" (all Gentiles) against the entire Jewish race for the next 2000 years.

 

Jimmy, with all due respect, this is flawed logic. That's like saying we don't despise communists because of the actions of Stalin and Beria. I mean, come on, the communists have some good ideas! But the actions of their leadership have called into question all legitimacy of the belief and dogma, even the parts that are good (such as guaranteeing that everyone will be taken care of, unlike capitalism which offers no such guarantees). Therefore, I will contest that the actions of the "Christian leadership" during those dark times in the past (and even not so recent past, such as when the Church turned away its head from the excesses in Nazi Germany) call into question the entire belief structure built around the concept of "Christianity".

This does not mean I am a non-believer - I believe in God, but I find it hard to stomach the excuses of Christians for the actions of their own leaders in the past with the statement "that doesn't really reflect what God wanted", and "the religion is all about goodness". Quite simply stated, Christianity has been the single most violent and destructive religion known to man - far more so than Islam (which doesn't excuse Islam either, but by way of comparison).

Again, with all due respect - I beg to differ.

 

This is interesting. Could you please explain what you mean by “everyone will be taken care of?” Also, if it is not too much trouble, could you describe how, precisely, communism guarantees (not just promises, proposes, or purports) “that everyone will be taken care of?”

 

I won't be seeing the movie. I'm not particularly interested in watching a two hour ass-kicking, just as I was never interested in watching Mel's two hour gun battles. I haven't been a Christen for many years now, and this movie has given me the self-realization of how far I have moved away from the church. Where I once would have embraced the concept behind the film, I now find the enthusiastic response from Christians to be somewhat bizzare.

I can't comment directly on the film, but it does not seem to be appropriate for children.

 

Hi Carl,

Well, I don't see how it's flawed. In fact, I could almost think your statements regarding communism are inductive fallacies.

Be all this as it may, you and I agree on some things. We are in agreement regarding your statements about Jesus and Paul.

But we disagree regarding Christianity being the most violent and brutal religion, that is, if we view atheism as a religion.

Then we look at Mao and other leaders of totalitarian nations that espoused atheism as the official religion and take a serious look at the atrocities committed under their reigns of terror.

Thank you for the dialogue and the civility, it's appreciated.

I suspect you and I have more in common theologically than you think, perhaps.

 

I would have to generally agree with Jimmy although he is not totally correct about the atheism part. Atheism is not the religion the leftist-socialists follow. If you read Rousseau, Comte, Kant, Marx, et al they do not say that there should be no religion. What they actually say is that God is not the one to be glorified and deified but man himself should take his place. Here they replace God and religion for politicians and Government. So once this is realized it is easily shown that socialism has cause the greatest number of autrocities in the history of man (seeing that leftist socialism is communism and the like and rightist socialsm is facism, nazism, etc). Which brings us to the point that there is nothing about socialism that is good being that socialism has been shown to be not able to sustain itself thereby making that "guaranteed" safety net based not upon voluntary actions but upon coercion, which can never be good or moral.

btw...Szasz really has a handle on that logic stuff

 

Carl R. Writes

Like I said above, in Matthew 7, Jesus, speaking from God's economy, says that those actions don't call "Christianity" into question. It calls their deeds into question.

If you want to define Christianity by the use of its name, then you choose to define it by its behavioral boundaries, by some kind of behavioral legalism. I choose to define Christianity by its center, Jesus, who peached against that kind of violence. Jesus is the test of Christianity's boundary, not your arrogant, human centered standard. Any other "Christianity" outside of Jesus is not "Christianity" at all.

I speak from the authority of Scripture, Matthew 7, to define the church. I'm not arrogant enough to say "I" am the authority to define Christianity. What authority do you speak from?

Chris