Why Mel's bloody "Christ" misses the point

[Paragon]

Much has been made of how terribly violent Mel's R-rated Passion is - and why he felt showing it explicitly was necessary to show how much Jesus suffered.

It's too bad that isn't the point.

Word is, the movie starts with a fearful Jesus in the garden of Gethesame accepting his Father's news that he must die on the cross. THAT is Jesus' sacrifice - to willingly sacrifice his human life, not what sort of amazing stamina he had from being tortured. The imagery most churches use of Jesus nailed to the cross is disturbing enough -- if you need a bloodier Jesus on the cross in order to feel sympathy and understand Jesus' sacrifice, there's something wrong with you. (Yeah - you, Mel.)

My advice? Spend your money on renting or buying a copy of Martin Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ. When a crucified, suffering, and dying Jesus is able to reject Satan's temptation of a normal, human life and willingly give that life up - I finally understood what Jesus meant when he said "it is accomplished".

[Az]

1. The other thing the movie is unlikely to address

is the Easter Challenge. There is a standing challenge for anyone that cares to take it. Simply read all stories in the bible that make reference to the 3 days that are so pivital to Christianity. Then without leaving out any part or changing any of the timing, simply tell what happened.

The various stories about the Crucifixion do not agree with each other. Remember this is the book that some swear is without error. If you do not believe it is without error this exorcise is no problem for you. But if you believe it to be without error, this is very problematic. The stories do not agree on several counts. Mel is very unlikely to draw attention to this little issue.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. I'm not a fan of the "inerrant" notion

As you point out there are many portions of the story of the Crucifixion (and other places) that just do not agree. Like what really happened to Judas and the silver: http://www.geocities.com/lib_christian_2000/inner2.htm

[plurality]

5. for more fun read the apocryphal texts and compare

Most of these texts were accepted by early Christians (100-200AD) until the Catholic Church declared them heretical and burned the books and anyone who believed them.

Another interesting thing is that some of these books are included in the Qu'ran.

Makes me wonder what the ancient Catholic Chruch was really about.

[Sandpiper]

6. The ancient church

under the reign of Constantine, became the religious arm of the Roman Empire, and it tailored the teachings of xtianity to suit the empire and further the goal of Roman hegemony.

[NashVegas]

10. That's What Always Happens

When a subversion is nearing the point of overthrowing the heirarchy, the smart powers embrace the subversion and make it their own.

Those who don't end up like Louis 16.

[plurality]

11. this being the case

Wouldn't all portrayals of Christ that focus on the 'accepted' texts be missing the point then?

[NashVegas]

19. Pretty Much

I recall the furor over the movie Hail Mary when it was released. Saw it a few years later on video and thought it was beautiful.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

15. What about the Ionnite heresy? Anyone out there take that seriously?

[plurality]

22. Maybe you could fill me in on that one.

I don't neccessarily take anyone seriously, the point I'm making is that people who seriously want to investigate Christianity and try and learn Christ's message should try and read as much of the subject matter as there is, and not rely on the books that an entity whose primary interest at the time was burning people who didn't agree with them.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

27. No hidden intent. The Ionnite Heresy were early Christians who

believed John the Baptist to be the true Messiah, with Jesus as a contigency plan. The Petrine Catholic Church (obviously) attempted to crush them, but there are still some Ionnite churches in Turkey.

[plurality]

30. ahh I see.

interesting. it's funny how all these heretical groups to some degree still exist in all the islamic countries where they're so 'intollerant' of other religions. wasn't it in egypt that the gospel of st. john was found? that's the one that intrigues me the most. but there's plenty of others that i'm trying to find more on. one, i can't remember the name, tells the story of jesus as a child and as a teen. it was erased from the western conciousness as false and heretical. unfortunately there are too many books to read and so little time.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. The problem is people are not moved by the suffering of their enemies

In real life, while the effects of man's inhumanity to man on targets presented as sympathetic characters can be very effective in motivating people to show that they can be more brutal than the perpetrators, the bloody mess that results from THAT is more likely to be seen as a successful result, a positive outcome, or at best, some of the more squeamish may call it "tragically unavoidable."

Whether the Jesus story depicts his suffering as slight or horrific, there is little chance that people will emerge from the film demanding that the bush regime cease seizing people or bombing them.

The mob that (according to Biblical accounts) demanded that Jesus be crucified today demands that the cousins and neighbors of his descendants be blown up, starved, tortured, and their natural resources seized for the glory and pockets of the New Rome.

[starroute]

16. Americans are already far too accepting of retribution

I'm very aware of this from reading old science fiction and other pulp adventure stories. In the early 20th century, the heroes were expected to be morally superior to the villains -- upright, honest, all of that. This started changing around the edges with the hard-boiled detectives of the 1920's and 1930's, but it was World War II that brought the new hard-boiled attitudes mainstream. By the late 40's, it's an accepted fact in pulp stories that the good guys are going to use violence, brutality, and dirty tricks every bit as much as the bad guys. The only difference is that the good guys do it in the name of freedom and democracy, while the bad guys just want to kill and enslave people for the fun of it.

Sixty years later, that still holds true. Over and over, movies and tv shows depict their villains as acting gratuitously nasty -- kicking puppydogs, beating people who are already unconscious, wiping out villages -- in order to justify the heroes being just as ruthless towards them. This becomes particularly apparent if you've been watching any amount of Japanese anime, where the antagonist figures are handled with far more respect.

Playing up the brutality of the crucifixion story is just one more expression of this standard American pattern of exaggerating the suffering of the innocent and the viciousness of their attackers in order to justify any degree of retribution. I anticipate that it will encourage Americans to act even more badly and feel justified in doing so. I'm just sorry that Christianity has to be prostituted in this way to the cause of American self-righteousness.

[DarkPhenyx]

4. Rent "Dogma" instead.

Much better movie than those mentioned above. IMHO of course.

Better still, if you can find it, rent "The Word". I think it's an Albert Finny film. Great stuff.

<on edit>

Not Albert Finny. My bad.

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1800136883&cf=info&intl=us

<on edit of edit>

Besides, I don't need a "bloodier Christ" to better understand his sacrafice. I need it because it looks cool.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

7. I loved "Dogma"-Chris Rock was funny as hell

[DarkPhenyx]

9. "What I just did there gave me a splitting headache!

If you don't back off I'm going to yank your sack off like a papertowel!"

[Beer Snob-50]

41. Dogma and Bruce Almighty

both represent the Christianity I practice.(Especially love Selma Hyak as the being that gave others the inspiration to write the Bible!)

[blondeatlast]

61. Me, too. Both address the hypocrisy of many who call themselves

Christians, but don't follow Christ's teachings.

God has an unpleasant surprise for the hypocrites, "Dogma" only hinted at it...

[Walt Starr]

8. I'm ghlad you caught the facts about the Last Temptation

So many of the people who protested that film just did not see and and of course, didn't get it.

In that film, the last temptation was that Christ could come down off the cross and runn away with Mary Magdelene to Gaul to live out a normal human existance.

In the final scene, Jesus chosses to deny the temptation and die for the sins of mankind.

It was a truly moving film and one that depicted teh struggle fo teh Christ to overcome the bonds of human existance and transcend into godhood. Most people missed that.

[NashVegas]

13. Better Yet, Read the Book

What's more moving (IMO) is its portrayal of his early resistance to the idea of becoming humanity's spiritual pin-cushion.

[blondeatlast]

69. Like I say, the Jews didn't kill Jesus, WE ALL did.

At least Christians are as guilty as anyone (and I AM a Christian).

[OKNancy]

77. Weird isn't it? That Jesus

had to die, for all the Christian world to exist. If someone didn't kill him, then there wouldn't be Christianity.

( I'm not a believer, but I like to think about things like that)

[jsw_81]

81. I didn't kill anyone, and neither did you

Your Jesus story is just another a myth.

[gate of the sun]

91. Your right about that jsw

I don't get it .....how exactly did we kill him?????

[BearFlagDemocrat]

12. Or read Anne Rice's "Memnoch the Devil"

Which raises the very interesting question of how it can be a "sacrifice" if Jesus dies with the full knowledge that he is going to ascend to godhood. I mean, I'd endure 24 hours of torture in a heartbeat if I was sure that I'd become (a) God.

[blondeatlast]

70. Like "Passion," a work of fiction.

I like Anne Rice, but as a librarian, I keep such things in mind.

Not all Christians believe that Christ is God, either. I believe in the distinct Trinity, and that Jesus was a human (if he wasn't, how could he have died?).

[Rowdyboy]

14. The Last Temptation was flawless; Dogma was hilarious

Jesus Christ Superstar had great music and scenery, Godspell was a wildly innovative piece and Oh God (with George Burns) was cute.

I expect we'll appreciate Passion just as much, just on a different level and with different reactions.

[DarkPhenyx]

18. Excellent observation.

And, I can't think of the name of the movie, but it had Richard Pryor as God and *thinking* the actor with the "bug-eyes". God was a business super computer...

Someone help me out here.

[leftchick]

17. Jesus' forgiving his executioners is also NOT addressed.....

I heard someone on NPR mention this last week and that convinced me not to see the movie. Some of Jesus' last words Mel conveniently did not include....

"As they crucified him he prayed for those who executed him. "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23 v 34)"

[GreenPartyVoter]

20. That's very wrong

If it's true, then shame on you Mel. You've undermined everything Jesus stood for if you left out the forgiveness bit.

[leftchick]

35. Mel is a typical "christian" fanatic...

They fail to see that Jesus preached tolerance, forgiveness, love of and caring for your fellow man. Sure sounds like a Liberal to me... :)

[plurality]

36. he also left out the blood libel

You know, the part in the bible where Pontius Pilot washes his hands of the matter and the mob say, "his blood is on our hands and on that of our children."

So tell me, if big, bad, anti-semite Mel Gibson is trying to make Jews look bad with his movie, why did he leave that line out, since it's in the Bible?

[Sandpiper]

39. Really

I heard that he thought about removing the blood libel, then decided to put it back in.

[plurality]

40. the last article i read on it said he took it out.

yeah, here it is

http://film.guardian.co.uk/apnews/story/0,1276,-3656867,00.html

Jewish groups have been worried that Gibson's script would ignore modern teaching by the Roman Catholic Church and many other denominations that Jews were not collectively responsible for Christ's death. The notion of Jewish guilt fueled anti-Semitism for centuries.

An article about the film in The New Yorker magazine last September indicated Gibson would keep a biblical verse out that upsets Jews and has been used to justify anti-Semitism: ``His blood be on us and on our children!'' (Matthew 27:25). That verse was not included in a version of the film The Associated Press saw last month.

Note, that the author of the New Yorker article had not seen the movie and was simply speculating.

[blondeatlast]

71. Interesting--I may have to watch to see if that is portrayed.

If Gibson left that out, it's an abomination in more ways than one.

[DrWeird]

21. Sounds to me like a 21st century, "Birth of a Nation."

A big epic movie filled with "historical accuracies", and used to portray ethnic minorities as a bunch of blood thirsty raving animals.

Expect Bush to pull a Woodrow Wilson and come out and say "it was all so true."

I'd like to see the faces of Bush and all the other rightwing fundies when they realize it's not in English and they're going to have to struggle to read the subtitles.

[plurality]

25. maybe you're forgetting that aside from the Romans...

every other character in the movie is Jewish. There are good Jews in the movie and there are the bad Jews. If you want to say that entend the traits of the blood thirsty mob to the whole race be my guest. But that's not what the movie does, since only a portion of the ethnic minority in question belonged to the blood thirsty raving animals you speak of.

[DrWeird]

28. Not at all.

Nor am I forgetting that there were more black slaves in the south then there were whites.

But in the hear and now jews are in the ethnic minority in more than a few countries in the world and this movie is for the modern audience.

I myself have not seen BOTN, so I don't know if there are good african americans or not, but there are african americans who are unfairly portrayed as bloodthirsty raving animals and presence of the former would not justify the latter.

[plurality]

32. The point I'm making is simple.

Only a small amount of the Jews in the film are part of the mob. If people want to take that to mean all Jews are like that mob then it's their fault not Mel Gibson's.

That and I think comparing this movie to 'Rise of Nations' is completely over the top. Have you even seen the movie? Or are you basing this on the words of the ADL who also haven't seen the movie?

[Wapsie B]

23. Some konservative fundies

just seem so fixated on this bloody spectacle. Not the fact that Jesus died for our sins, just the savage aspect of it all. I remember seeing someone with a t-shirt depicting the crucifixion, with wording going on and on how painful and bloody it was. Not a word about forgiveness. Not one. Very telling to me.

[elfwitch]

24. a Rabbi's response

I got this in an email from my rabbi today.

Dear Friends:
Late last summer, I wrote an article to you, which was published in the local Jewish paper, on my initial feelings about Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion," which is due for release on February 25th, Ash Wednesday. To date, I have not seen a preview of the movie, but like you, I have seen the clips and read the articles that have been published. In addition, I have been part of conference calls, discussions and dialogues on the movie, its content, its facts and its errors. After all this, the same question returns to me: what effect will this movie have on us in the Jewish community?

Many are concerned about the fallout of "The Passion." Will anti-Semitism rise? Will Jews be targets for evangelicals to convert us? What will our children encounter in school? Our fears are valid given the historical memory we share; but, they should also be tempered by what we have come to know; namely, the majority of Christian believers have no interest in "saving our souls" or imposing their beliefs on us. At best, the movie should be a spiritual experience for faithful Christians; at worst, it should be a benign experience for the Jews.

Many mainline Catholics and Christians have joined the Jewish community in raising concerns about the movie's influence over audiences who know little or nothing about the Gospels, let alone decades of scholarship shared by Jews and Christians about the events that took place 2000 years ago. Mel Gibson and his father, a Holocaust denier, are separatists. They represent a separate, almost cult-like, movement of the Catholic church that does not recognize Vatican II, which exonerated the Jews from the collective blood-libel Gibson initially wrote into the film quoting the Gospel of Matthew

What should be our approach to the movie? While it would seem in our best interest to arm ourselves with knowledge, let me suggest that the knowledge we acquire should be everything we can know about Judaism, not Christianity. We should make ourselves and our families knowledgeable about what is essentially different between Judaism and Christianity; but, devote ourselves anew to the task of learning and living Judaism. A great Jewish mitzvah is to protect one's self and others against those who would destroy us.

My passion for Judaism is fierce. The wisdom of Judaism, the inclusive nature of our tradition, and its inherent passion for life and peace, set me on a path many years ago to be a teacher of Judaism. Let me thank you for taking time to educate yourselves and to teach your children. May we and all peoples of faith reach a day when we see each other as God's children who work together for a better world, one that is filled with Shalom, real and complete peace.

Rabbi David Lyon

[elfwitch]

26. my Rabbi's original response when the controversy started

"Talk about Passion"

Mel Gibson is a Hollywood celebrity, a multi-millionaire, and an ultra-conservative Catholic. He rejects Vatican II, built a church with his own money, and now he has become the producer of a film about the "real" life of Jesus. Written in Latin and Aramaic with English subtitles, Gibson's movie, "The Passion," is, for him, the most authentic telling of the life and death of Jesus. The news media has reported on his film with views that run the gamut of "peace loving" to "anti-Semitic." You and I have read the newspaper stories, the New York Times article and listened to the news on television, and we have formed our own opinions on the veracity of Gibsons claims that the movie is peace loving and not anti-Semitic. But, opinions aside, the harder question that all of us must be prepared to answer comes back to the classic American litmus test: how will it play in the heartland?

After this passionate movie is played in theaters across the country and elsewhere, I fear that the discussion that follows it will not concern Vatican II, which exonerated Jews of the blood-libel that caused Jewish persecution for 2000 years, or religious academic development over the last century, and will certainly not concern the threat to cooperative dialogue between Christians and Jews. The message that will be remembered is what the movie portrays as real between the Jews and Jesus leading up to the time of his crucifixion. Despite years of dialogue and academic study on the events that are recorded in the New Testament, it is this part of the movie, alone, that will stand out when the film ends.

The movie potentially plants fear and anger in the hearts of Christians who know little about religious history, but know a lot about what stirs their faithful hearts. Living in the belt-buckle of the Bible belt of Texas, we know that passion plays are produced every year at Easter time. The results are felt in the offices and corridors of our workplaces and schools where tensions are raised between Christians and Jews.

I respect a man who is passionate about his faith, but Gibson personifies the unrestrained hands of a Hollywood celebrity with deep pockets who believes that he can teach the world where to find faith. Such lack of restraint led him on a feverish search for the original text of Jesus' life. He sought the ur (original) text of a man he deifies and worships. Now, a person of modest means might join a church and study with co-religionists to discover religious truth; but Gibson, a rich man, built a church and decided for himself what would be the basis of his perfect faith. His rampant disregard for centuries of religious thought and development, the repudiation of Vatican II, and the dislocation of his church authority from the good works that have built trust between Christians and Jews, is, itself, a breach of faith. But, Mel Gibson doesn't and couldn't see it this way.

In effect, Gibson has named himself a prophet, albeit a minor one, whose disruption of the balance between Christians and Jews is more important to him than the privilege we have to find our own path to God. But, Im not surprised, because Gibson is a product of Hollywood. His fortune and fame, he would claim, are matters of divine providence. As a conservative Catholic, he credits Jesus for his good fortune, and his wealth and fame as a divine message to use his celebrity to bring God's message to all the earth.

At best, Gibson will be praised by his co-religionists who will be captivated by the film, and by all the small theater directors who no longer have to call up community volunteers for the annual passion play. At worst, Gibson will foment a surge in anti-Semitism. Should we have faith in our non-Jewish American neighbors that they will ask their priests, ministers and pastors for clarification? Will Gibson get away with it? We can trust that our neighbors will seek clarification of the movie's message in Sunday sermons by their spiritual leaders; but, we cannot discount the possibility that the lesson will be misunderstood by some, and the very real possibility that the movie will set back our mutual effort to build bridges between faith communities.

The last word on religious matters is hard to find, at least that is true in Judaism. Nevertheless, I trust the Jewish process that commands us to turn the teachings of our tradition over and over again to tease out of them every nuance of understanding. For the sake of peace, let us continue to be students of religious thought and history, and to remain focused on the good works that make us good neighbors while we are mindful of those who undermine us in Gods name. Gibson will produce the movie. If it doesn't get played in the biggest movie houses in America, it will surely be played in every church that can afford its distribution cost. Gibson isn't interested in his return on investment in cash; but he is passionate about his return on investment in faith. To him he has already earned his place in heaven; to the rest of us, he has yet to earn his place among us where Truth is still being worked out between people of different faiths with peaceful purposes.

Rabbi David Lyon

[GreenPartyVoter]

31. I'll watch the film

but there is no way it could turn me into a "Jew hater" as some folks worry about.

Still, I worry about the effect it might have on other folks who don't care much for thinking things through for themselves. :(

[YNGW]

33. Interesting

I can tell you this, I've never blamed all Jews for what a few Jews 2000 years ago did. That wouldn't make any sense to hold accountable Jews who didn't participate, Jews who were already dead, or Jews who weren't even alive. I personally am not aware of any Christians who do.

Of course, if a particular individual or group want to find a reason to hate another individual or group, they'll find whatever excuse is expedient to them to rationalize their action.

[blondeatlast]

62. Christians killed Christ just as much (if not more) than the Jews did.

He gave his life out of his love for us ALL.

"Christians" didn't quite exist at the time of Christ (logic alone bears that out, the KJV Bible pretty much agrees), so how can they be the only ones for which Christ gave his life???

Edit: I feel compelled to add that I am PROUDLY Christian, though Fred Phelps has damned me to Hell on more than one occasion.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

29. The Cathars preferred the Dove as a symbol of Christ's living love

rather than the Crucifix as a symbol of his torture. That appeals to me. It's a pity the Church felt the need to burn them all as heretics.

[blondeatlast]

63. I still do; far more evocative of what Christ means to me.

[brainwashed_youth]

34. once again I'm amazed

at how someone can pass judgement on a film WHEN THEY HAVEN'T FUCKING SEEN IT!!!!!!!

[Paragon]

101. It's R-rated for violence, genius

I've seen the trailer, saw the PrimeTime Live interview with Mel -- I'm not mischaracterizing the movie. At all.

Like I said in my initial post, the gruesome details of Jesus' torture and crucifixion are NOT the point of understanding his sacrifice.

[G_j]

37. just ask Amnesty International

about all the people who endure unspeakable torture and cruelty in this world.

Shouldn't we be moved by their suffering?

[GreyV]

38. I get it!

It's an action flick ...right?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

42. non-Christian DU trashes a Christian movie

we didn't see that one coming. DU is 70% non-Christian.

Don't like Christians movies? Don't watch.

[Sandpiper]

43. That's funny

Don't like Christians movies? Don't watch.

Most non christians are perfectly happy to leave christianity alone. Christianity on the other hand has always seemed to have a problem with the idea of live and let live.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. yeah, the nuns are tying you up and forcing you to watch

:eyes:

[Sandpiper]

52. Nope, Christians never try to force their world view on others

I must have just imagined Roy Moore erecting a 10 commandments shrine in a state building.

I also must have imagined the Christian movement to amend the constitution to determine who can and cannot be married.

And I really must have imagined all that history of Christians trying to persuade non Christians by fear or force that they needed to join the club.

[blondeatlast]

73. (Sigh.) SOME Christians. SOME.

I own up to the Crusades, even if I wasn't part of it personally.

I also own up to writing letters on behalf of the ACLU protecting yours and my freedom form any state sponsored religious activity.

As I mentioned, I believe in and worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; but I've still been damned by Fred Phelps. I still call myself Christian, though.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

45. It's not a Christian Movie. It's a Movie.

Or are we not allowed to criticise movies based on content? Is this movie immune from criticism because it deals with a certain faith?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

47. you've seen the movie?

If not, your criticisms are uninformed and baseless.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

49. Haven't criticised it either.

And you're being way too touchy on this. I'm sure one man's interpretation of the crucifiction can survive a little criticism. I'm sure Christianity will survive intact.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

50. heh - I'm being way to touchy?

DU becomes an outright Christian-bash-fest as a regular occasion. Trust me, my skin is thick enough. Obviously, we are all free to make movies and criticize them.

AND, the 70% of DUers that are not Christians are free to make false, uneducated, and bigoted assertions about Christianity and Christian culture. Certainly nothing I say is going to stop it.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

51. But your point was directed at me, and I don't believe I've ever

criticized Christianity here or anywhere. I find it a fascinating subject, am interested in its history, and have great respect for those who have faith. I feel the same about Islam and Judaism. Our discussion of Mel Gibson's movie should not be seen as an attack on Christianity. I do consider Gibson to be overly Fundamentalist in his approach to Catholicism, though.

[blondeatlast]

65. I'm keenly interested in the religious debates, and you have never,

to my knowledge, been less than respectful. For a while, I thought you WERE a Christian. But then, I could have mistaken you for a person of any given faith.

I've learned more about my faith from DU than my years of Sunday School! Here is where I put it into practice, question, and learn.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

78. Thank you. I'd call myself a Buddhist, but I don't know enough of the

scriptures and texts of that religion to really qualify as one. Still, I believe in the essential goodness of humanity, the profound beauty of a sunny day and the feel of the earth beneath my feet.

On edit - I'd better add that I do know and use a couple of chants. I'm not that much of a spiritual tourist!

[Forkboy]

53. "I'm being way to touchy?"

Yes,you are.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

55. according to ... you?

I don't think I'm being "touchy" at all. This is just a common occurrence - bashing anything to do with Christianity on heavily non-Christian DU, and I like to remind people that posting anti-Christian sentiments on DU is basically a circle-jerk.

Believe me, if I was touchy, I would have been gone long ago. Too bad for you! :)

[Forkboy]

56. Did you even read the original post?

Good grief :eyes:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

57. yes

did you read the responses? :eyes:

[Forkboy]

58. I did

unfortunately,your response "non-Christian DU trashes a Christian movie" was to the original post and not the replies.

:eyes: right back atcha!

[blondeatlast]

76. Which responses do you find disrespectful?

Just curious, I see very, very few that I consider to be dissing we Christians.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

59. You must admit, it would be great to use that argument in politics.

Republican: Democrats are traitors!
Democrat: Are you a Democrat?
Republican: No
Democrat: Well, shut up then! Only a Democrat can criticise Democrats!

[blondeatlast]

66. Clearly not, I'm afraid. To all intents and purposes for THIS thread,

I'm on his side, but I doubt he would see it that way.

[blondeatlast]

75. According to me, too. You haven't even addressed the idea posed in

the OP once.

[blondeatlast]

64. This Christian finds about, not percentage-wise, but in actual quantity:

About 10 DUers who are wholly unreasonable about tolerating us, a few more who can't make the distinction between me and Fred Phelps, and that the rest of non-Christian DUers either belong to another faith (OK by me) or couldn't care less.

I've mentioned on more than one occasion that this is the one place I have EVER felt "persecuted" as a Christian. I'll take this type over what others suffer any day.

OTOH, I have always respected other's beliefs (or lack of them) and I REFUSE to proselytize.

[thebigidea]

46. don't like unwanted critical opinions? Don't make movies and advertise 'em

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

48. you've seen the movie?

If not, your criticisms are uninformed and baseless.

[thebigidea]

60. so? I think ALL movie critics are uninformed and baseless. Vile, too.

Worms! Doesn't stop them from yapping and having opinions. Many times, they don't even see the movie either.

[blondeatlast]

67. Nailed it! Ya know, Mel has got to be lapping it up like milk!

[blondeatlast]

74. But what is your opinion on the "bloody" Crucifixion,

which was what the thread was SUPPOSED to be about? This Christian thinks it's an interesting idea the OP posits.

[leftchick]

82. where do you get that 70% figure? I happen to be Catholic...

and know there are lots of other DU Catholics. I won't see the movie because I think Mel is avoiding two critical factors in Jesus' life. One, as pointed out, Jesus Chose to die for our salvation. Two, he forgave his killers before he died.....

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
Luke 23:34

[Paragon]

102. yeah, it's only "non-Christian DU" that finds the film controversial

:eyes:

Sounds like you're the one with the agenda here, pal.

[Forkboy]

54. I am SO glad I'm not religious

[Democritus AChE]

68. I wish Jesus was dead.

Oh, that's right, he is, or at least he was according to that fictinal book. My point? It's a movie, I don't see the big deal. Fictional charachters are interesting and Jesus is the worlds biggest fictional charachter. So what if Mel Gibson sucked in Signs and is losing his mind! At least he is true to what he believes, right?

[arewethereyet]

93. hes not dead or fictional according to that Book

may I suggest the Cliff's Notes in case you haven't the time to read the full account ?

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arewethereyet]

99. interesting comments

The Old Testement is part of the Bible. Jews, as you suggest you are, don't hold it as fiction so I guess you're jewish from an ethnic standpoint only. And people who are Jewish by religeon are no more or less open minded about religeon than Christians.

I'll assume that your last paragraph pertains to your views only.

[eileen_d]

72. Gibson made the movie he wanted to make. What's the problem?

I have a lot more sympathy for Mel Gibson after watching the Primetime Live interview on ABC last night. Here is an article summarizing the show, plus a link to the video of you're interested:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Primetime/Entertainment/mel_gibson_passion_040216-1.html

I should mention that I'm not a Christian, I don't share his beliefs, and I have not (and will not) see this movie -- because I'm not its target audience. (I also think Mel Gibson has a huge ego, and that shines through the entire interview in a semi-disgusting way -- but is that really news? He's an actor AND a director! Every man I know who has done both is insufferable in one way or another ;) )

One theological scholar on last night's interview made an interesting point - that since the movie starts in Gesthemane, there is no context provided about who Jesus was before the crucifixion. This scholar said something like "Here's a guy who walks in a garden, pats children on the head, and then is suddenly arrested and brutally killed. But why?"

When Gibson heard this criticism, his response was something like, "Well, I think if people want to know who Jesus was, there are plenty of ways to find out. That's not what I made this movie for." (I wish I knew the exact words but there is no transcript online)

When criticism of a movie focuses on what it is NOT, I find it difficult to take seriously. Mel has his vision. He made the movie he wanted to make. See it, or don't.

As for anti-semitism, the head of the ADL had this to say in the interview, and his concerns are certainly important.

"I do not believe it's an anti-Semitic movie," Foxman said. "I believe that this movie has the potential to fuel anti-Semitism, to reinforce it."

"This is his vision, his faith; he's a true believer, and I respect that," Foxman said. "But there are times that there are unintended consequences."

[JasonDeter]

79. The Apostles were eye witness of Christ's SUFFERING

Acts 1:3
To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.

Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels , namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

1Peter 2:23
and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously.

Todays people only have an intellectual understanding of Christs suffering. The Glory of Mel Gibson's movie is it brings home just how much Christ suffered for OUR sin. This will be the greatest evangelical tool in 2000 years! My family and friends look forward to its release! And I like the fact Mel will make hundreds of millions of dollars because of the movie. He's not in love with money and made the movie for Gods Glory and God will repay him for it. Wanna bet Mel gives the money away to the poor?

[G_j]

80. but what about the millions

who have suffered cruelty and torture? Who will sing their praises? I would be happiest if people were moved to compassion for the unsung, the unknown, the forgotten. That's the message I've taken from the teachings of Jesus.
He did not physically suffer more greatly than countless others. In this he does not stand apart. It's his call to administer to the suffering of others that stands out as significant to me.

[JasonDeter]

83. You can't have an understanding of Holiness to say

"He did not physically suffer more greatly than countless others."

You pour mud into muddy water you won't see a difference in the origional muddy water. You pour mud into pure crystal clear water, thats the difference.

[G_j]

86. are you saying

he had a different nervous system than the rest of us? That is usually how physical pain is experienced.
I'm not trying to diminish the experience he endured, but don't you think he'd prefer people focusing on the suffering of others instead of his? That is what I think anyway.

There is immeasurable pain and suffering in the world as we speak.

[arewethereyet]

94. so long as you realize

that its the Passion and Resurection that establish His divinity by fullfilling scripture and you were willing to accept it without this, OK.

Christ was not just a nice guy who liked to help people. He was made man so that he could die and redeem the sin of the world.

Nice guys are great, Messiahs are one of a kind.

[G_j]

96. a "nice guy" said this:

as I'm sure you know..

From Matthew,

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
37
Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
40
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41
17 Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
44
18 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'
45
He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.
....snip...

[Piperay]

84. I think it is a shame that

he neglected all the teachings of Jesus, which are actually radical and instead had the violent end.

[G_j]

87. how many films has Gibson made about love and compassion?

he's quite good at depicting violence though. I guess he's focused on what he's familiar with.

[Hippo_Tron]

85. I don't see the problem...

As far as I'm concerned it's a dramatic movie depicting a historical event. Mel can interpret it however he chooses and if my friends tell me the movie was good then I'll go see it for entertainment.

[Malva Zebrina]

88. Look,Gibson has an inordinate amount of children to support

Seven last time I counted. He needs the money folks. Please go see this violent, religiously biased, movie because Mel needs the money to feed his seven or more children.

I honestly do not know the name of that woman who bore those seven children. Isn't that a shame?

[Hammie]

89. It is his $24M

I think he gets to decide what is the point of his movie.

[JPZenger]

90. My Young son's comment

My young son saw an ad for the Passion and asked a simple question: "Why is a movie about Christ rated R." I wanted to say: Because the director was obsessed with blood and gore and missed the real uplifting spirit of Christ."

[knight_of_the_star]

92. I love being a Wiccan

I don't really have to worry about these issues anyway. If the fundies come a callin' I'll send them back out with their pride in a bucket in hand. Simple.

[scarface2004]

95. i just saw the movie...

it sucks, mel cast jesus as the joe pesci character 'leo' from lethal weapon, a wisecracking streetwise punk with uncontrollable temper who pisses of the wrong guy and gets wacked!!

[G_j]

97. that could explain...?

:shrug:

Lightning strikes Jesus on Gibson's Christ film set. The actor who plays Jesus in Mel Gibson's film The ... has escaped injury after being
struck by lightning during filming ... is the second bolt to hit the set of the ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3209223.stm

[kskiska]

100. What I'm wondering is if candy and popcorn will be sold.

It would certainly be unseemly to munch on popcorn during such a religious experience. But, after all, running the film would hardly be worth it to the theatre owners, who make most of their money on the snacks.