Passion- Religiously Righteous or Downright Heresy?

[Baradakas]

The Passion of the Christ. I refuse to watch it, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss it. Mel Gibson admits the young man who plays Christ was struck by lightning THREE TIMES while filming. A sign of the Lord's Wrath or freakish natural occorrunce?


I feel that anyone who makes a profit off the Lord is sinning, but what do you think?

[duchess of malfi]

It's one movie I cannot bring myself to watch. On one hand, I would like to watch it, but on the other, I do not do well with violent films, and I've heard this one is a quite disturbing in that way... (a friend of mine took her teenaged daughter to see it, and said her daughter had to get up and rush to the bathroom three times during the movie. To me that is a good sign that I would quite likely do the same...)

[danlo]

I don't know why, but I have absolutely no desire to see it...

[Furls Fire]

I also can not watch it. I know what my Saviour went thru for me. I don't need to see a movie depiction of it.

Mel Gibson, tho I think he is a brilliant actor, went too far with this. The money made from it was just off it's shock value. He used Jesus to make him rich. And in my humble opinion, that is against the teachings of Jesus.

[Worm of Despite]

Sorry, but I can't feel any righteous indignation at Mel for making money off his movie. It's his right. If you finance a venture with 25 million dollars of your own money, you deserve a return if your high-risk investment is successful.

Michelangelo didn't paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for free. Then again, Spielberg accepted no salary for Schindler's List.

Problem is, I see money made all the time in the name of Jesus; it’s pretty much a cultural norm to me. Somebody has status or is rich because of religion? Okay, what's new? Welcome to human history!

As for the movie itself: I rented it about a week ago, wondering if it lived up to any of its hype. IMO, it rides entirely on shock value, obscuring whatever message it's trying to convey. I'll be surprised if it's remembered 10 years from now. Who cares about Mel's Passion, anyway? Listen to Bach's!

One last thing: I must say, this is a confounding thread. How do you properly discuss a movie you haven't seen? I am of the belief that drawing conclusions comes after, not before. Maybe this movie is what you say, maybe it isn't. There's only one way to find out for yourself.

And also: you may think you know how you'll react to it, but to absolutely know requires actually seeing it; otherwise, you're running on the fumes of speculation.

[Brinn]

Excellent film...a cinematic masterpiece. Reaffirmed my faith and I am a catholic.

[dlbpharmd]

I haven't seen this yet but I will. I did not go to see it in the theater because I knew that emotionally I would not be up to the challenge.

[duchess of malfi]

Foul, I realize that I probably shouldn't sit in judgement on a film I haven't seen -- but from everything I have heard, I honestly don't know if I can handle its content. That's my weakness, not the film's. (I will probably never see Clockwork Orange for the same reason, though I have heard its a great piece of film making).

And I agree about the money issue. Gibson would have taken a huge financial hit if the film had tanked at the box office. He pumped millions of his own dollars into it. He took a huge financial risk, and is now reaping a huge financial benefit.

And perhaps because it was such a financial success, additional serious films with religious themes may eventually follow.

[Dromond]

I don't care to see it.

Judith Hayes says it perfectly for me.
www.thehappyheretic.com/05-04.htm

[Worm of Despite]

That's my weakness, not the film's. (I will probably never see Clockwork Orange for the same reason

Definitely your weakness. As far as violence, I don't think it's anywhere near as bad as, say, Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus or John Webster's stuff.

[hierachy]

Not seen it, sounds a bit boring to me.

[Bucky OHare]

What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!!!
This is a Local Shop for Local People!!!!!!!!!!!

[hierachy]

What's all this shouting, we'll have no trouble here!!!
This is a Local Shop for Local People!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that you, Edward?

[[Syl]]

Keep it on topic, guys.

I want to see it... well, listen to it, for only one reason. Aramaic. I'm not in a rush to pick it up, though.

As far as profit, I gotta go with Foul. Nothing new. I'd like to hear he spent some of it on charitable, christian causes, but even if he didn't, I can't say it would bother me. I don't think God or the church (any church) is hurt by it (the opposite, in light of Brinn's comment).

[duchess of malfi]

Foul, this might sound odd, but to me there is a difference between reading something and seeing it...I once read Titus Andronicus, and while I was able to finish it (and I think it is one of Shakespeare's weakest plays, by the way), I would never want to see it on stage or on film.

Ditto with other things. The Red Wedding in Martin's Storm of Swords is something that I hope to never see...

Reading about the crucifixion in the Bible is disturbing enough to me. I do not wish to see it, especially in a rendition as gory as Passion is reputed to be.

Maybe my imagination is just not as graphic as what Hollywood films? But for me there is a definate difference between what is on the page and what is on the stage/screen...

[Bucky OHare]

I don't care to see it.

Judith Hayes says it perfectly for me.
www.thehappyheretic.com/05-04.htm

Reading what she says, that the use of the crucifixion is sick and that it has grown worse over the centuries is misleading.

The early christians did use the symbol of the cross as a shock tactic - imagine a religious group nowadays worshipping the image of an electric-chair; for us, it wouldn't have to have a person in the chair for us to realise exactly what the chair was for. It was the same for the Romans - they knew exactly what the cross was used for and so didn't need the figure of Jesus dying on it for it to be shocking. But as we've gotten used to the image of a cross and because we no longer use it as a method of execution, the figure of Jesus was added to it to remind us exactly what the cross was used for. This was all very deliberate - the early christians knew their marketing skills and used shock tactics to their advantage.

Also - what could have persuaded the prisoners to carry their own cross? well its alot less painful than being dragged behind a horse.

Another thing, she says the Romans never used crucifixition on citizens- only on slaves and criminals. However, Jesus was not a citizen. He was a provincial. Originally, only people born in Rome were citizens, the italians didn't get full Roman citizenship until the Social War of the 90s BC. The provincials didn't get citizenship until (I think) the 4th cent AD.

[CovenantJr]

Good post, Evil One.

[Dromond]

Dr. Evil:

I honestly don't know if Judith Hayes is correct in everything she says in her article, but the gist of it I certainly agree with.

I do notice that she cites her source regarding the history of the cross.
Will you do the same? Perhaps I could compare the two.

And I think that you miss her point about refusing to carry a cross being used to crucify oneself.

Being whipped while carrying a massive weight of wood or being dragged by a horse, does it really matter if one is more painful than the other?
And who knows if one is more painful?

Both are enough to kill a man, I'd wager.

[Bucky OHare]

hmm... well yeah I agree with her that the film is shocking and sadistic. I've no seen it, but from what everybody has said, I don't think you could disagree. Her argument that it is sadistic pornography is certainly interesting, but her other arguments are a bit poo.
Firstly though, I've gotta say I am not a christian and have no agenda of proving/disproving the historicity of the gospels. I personally disagree with all religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam or whatever.

A tragic irony in the whole crucifix issue is unknown to most if not all Christians. For the first five centuries of the Christian religion, the cross was bare. (Constantine did not wear the cross on his banners - only the first two letters of Jesus’ Greek name, fused together.) It was considered blasphemous to show Jesus suffering the humiliating death of a slave. By the way, the Romans used crucifixion only on slaves and criminals - never on their own citizens. Christians have that one wrong too. By the sixth century the body of Jesus was depicted on crosses, but even at that he was shown wearing a long tunic, with no pain or humiliation. It wasn’t until the tenth century that he was portrayed in agony, and his garments shrank to show his suffering more clearly. Then it stopped at a loin-cloth. That never disappeared. And the history of the world might have altered dramatically if only someone had removed that cloth and shown honestly how people were crucified.

I don't disagree that the cross was bare, just the reasons. This type of thing is always out for interpretation.
She does say that they used the cross as a symbol; but why would they do that? she doesn't say. The main reason i can think of is for the shock value - why would you hang a miniature Hangman's Noose or Electric Chair around your neck?

I see no difference between watching the Passion and watching the games at the Circus Maximus in ancient Rome, where wild animals ripped limbs off gladiators, and gladiators massacred restrained animals. Blood, blood, blood. The crowds loved it.

Exactly; the Romans weren't exactly squemish when it came to blood and guts, they just had no need to show it on a crucifix, because, like i said on above post, they knew exactly what it was for. And they did use many symbols, the cross and the XP symbol like she says.
Also, she says that if only someone had shown honestly how people were crucified then the world would be a different place. So she's arguing for more blood and guts now?
And Jesus was never a Roman citizen. He was from Galilee, which wasn't a Roman province until 6AD, upon the death of King Antipas. The Romans did grant citizenship to people for various reasons, eg service as a Legionary, being freed from slavery by your Roman master, and the Emperors did grant it as a gift, usually to the rich local aristocracy of somewhere they'd just invaded. Full citizenship wasn't granted until 212AD under Emperor Caracalla. These bits are in any history book about the Roman Empire. So, if he did exist, he could very easily have been crucified. I did have a quick google to look online, but when you try to search for this type of thing it usually just finds stuff thats out to convert you.

What makes the Passion and all it represents even more insane, is that according to Christian doctrine, it was all for nothing anyway! Every person in every one of those theaters stands a good chance of going to hell anyway if they don’t walk the straight and narrow. All the talk about "washing away sins" is baloney. And so is the misleading phrase "sacrificial death." What death? When you "wake up" three days later, you ain’t never been dead! Death has an actual meaning, understood by all, and this stunt supposedly performed by a man named Jesus bore no relationship to the word death. Death means the termination of life. If three days after an event you are hanging out with your friends, walking and talking, that event was not death.

this paragraph is total balls. 'Every person in every one of those theatres is going to hell unless they walk the straight and narrow' - well der. of course - Pray to God or you're going to Hell. thats the whole point. And that stuff about death, geesh. All human beings die, yes, but when he resurrected, he was a God. And also its a supreme miracle which shows his power.

Yes, there is lip service paid to the fact that Jesus was a Jew, but that loin-cloth turned him in effect into an honorary Gentile. So much of the artwork you see today, and the statuary, feature a more and more Aryan Jesus. Many paintings and drawings give him blue eyes, a thin, straight nose and very light brown hair. There is a discernable distancing of Christianity from Jesus’ Jewishness. And we can only speculate as to what might have happened if honesty in art had prevailed. But just think: it took one thousand years, half the life of Christianity itself, to finally put Jesus up on the cross, suffering.

I think you'll find images of Jesus are different in different countries, reflecting what the people in those countries look like. e.g. an image of Jesus in Greece will look very different to an image of Jesus in Norway.

The reason Christians maintained the pagan name of Easter, which was originally Eastre, the name of a Goddess of spring, was to try to incorporate as many familiar rituals and names as possible to attract converts. Example: December 25 was the birthday of the Persian God Mithra. But another funny friend of mine suggested it should be called "Yeaster" because, after all, he had "risen" hadn’t he?

yep, they did want to convert as many people as possible. But December 25th is only a celebration of Christmas in the UK and US, in other european countries xmas falls on wildly different dates from november to january, none of whom ever worshipped Mithra. just check a calendar. In fact, the countries which did worship Mithra, eg modern Iraq, are now muslim. And thats a really rubbish joke about Yeaster.

And that bit about refusing to carry the cross - its remarkable what people do to survive. Somebody has a big sword pointed at you, you do what they say, even if you know you're probably gonna die, like people who are forced at gunpoint to dig their own graves - it did happen during WWII.

I'm sorry I can't give you any bibliography, I'm not in the same city as my books. But as her source she quotes only 1 book, from 1988. Any historian will tell you that you cannot rely on any one book to give you a full picture.

[Dromond]

Dr. Evil:
You've responded to my posts quite well.
So well, in fact, that I've decided to say no more on the subject.

Admittedly, Judith Hayes attacks christianity in her article, (as one would expect) and, regardless of my thoughts on the matter, I don't wish to.

I have great respect for some members of this board who are proud of their religion.

I cannot defend her article without attacking the core belief of some fine people who are reading this.

And that's all I can say. (Except that her yeaster joke is unfunny, and will not defend it.)

Thanks.