Saw I finally saw the Passion of the Christ

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
Does the world need such a scathing attack on the Pharisees? No, it's a blistering attack on how the Jews deprived the world of it's messiah.

Christians would argue that it was imperative that Christ die - in fact if he did not die, there would be no redemption.

As a sidenote, I want to reiterate that throughout history, Christians have done much in the name of Christ that is horrific, cold-hearted, and hypocritical - as well as things that are gracious, loving and merciful.

No more or no less than any group of people.

Originally posted by MosesPresley
How is this film relevant in any way to what is happening to today's Christians?

Boris hit it on the head - it is a reminder of his suffering and the cost - in effect, a contrast between mankind's depravity and God's willingness to redeem mankind.

Something that too many Christians take for granted - and forget. Even a non-believer can gleam something from this on a purely human level.

I did try to view it from an objective standpoint when I saw it - almost as if I did not believe what I do. What I saw was something that I have little desire to see again. Because it was sheer brutality with little or no relief.

But it was a vivid picture of how man can treat others - how much hatred there can be in the world and how it can be directed at one person - how hatred can flow out from a few and infect the many - and how there can be moments of grace within the carnage of hate.

Mel used a hammer, but the nature of suffering can be very blunt sometimes.

Would I see it again? I don't think I could take it again, but I have no regrets of the reminders it gave me...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by JohnT
Naw, Boris is on your side: he thinks the film was overly-violent as well. But he understands (at least intellectually) Gibson's intent and the impact it had on the intended audience.

Now that I have to quibble with. Gibson's intended audience was everyone, he was quite clear about that. He was a man on a mission, and he thought his film would be a tool for converting nonbelievers. In many interviews, he prattled on about how nonbelievers on the set converted to Christianity because it moved them so much (claims that no one else who worked on the film have ever verified, and some have said he blatantly made up).

This film's intent was largely to preach to the unconverted--he literally felt he was on a holy mission sanctioned by God. And in that sense I think it largely failed, mostly because Gibson miscalculated how turned off people would be by the violence and gore, and just how many nonbelievers would even have an interest in it.

[OzzyKP]

Good thoughts hexagonian.

Originally posted by hexagonian Would I see it again? I don't think I could take it again, but I have no regrets of the reminders it gave me...

I agree. I'm the same way. I think perhaps one day I'll see it again, in a few years, but I'm in no rush to endure that kind of brutality again.

[Vanguard]

NM, overstated

[Mrs. Tuberski]

The movie wasnt as bad movie. It does tend be be purley one sided. I have allowed my 14 yo to see it but my ex wontallow my 10 and 8 yo. After I saw it I told him that i didnt see a problem with it because in the end it did show how much jesus endured and suffered. The point I was trying to make to him was that we need to teach our children that if jesus can go through all that and not complain who are any of us to complain bout small things. I am catholic as well but after 29 years in the church i didnt find what i was looking for. So there fore I dont practice anymore. I really think that those folks that feel insulted do so because of his or her own personal feelings and acts that happened in their own lives. Keyword that needed to be said here is the act of forgiviness. Which a lot of folks cant do.

[Kuciwalker]

Was the movie better or worse than the book?

[MosesPresley]

My 11 year old nephew loved War of the Worlds. He thought it was creepy, but liked it anyway.

On topic:

This is my last word on the subject. It is not my point to convert anyone here, I only wanted to state my opinion and to clarify my position. Also I cannot argue Mel Gibson's intent as to why he made the film with any real authority. Who knows, maybe he was sincere? It's just that it all seems very suspect to me in light of the history of Passion Plays.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/061810.htm

February 04, 2004
Mel Gibson, Holocaust Denier?
In the debates over Mel Gibson's upcoming film The Passion, one thing that has always been insisted by his defenders is that Gibson is not antisemitic and not a Holocaust Denier, even though his father apparently is. But is that really true? He was recently given a chance to demonstrate that and.... well, the results weren't very encouraging.

Peggy Noonan, a Catholic journalist, asked Gibson "You're going to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?" According to The New York Post, Gibson responded:

"I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."

Why is this a problematic response? Because not once does Gibson actually acknowledge that the Holocaust occurred - not once does he state that the Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews because they were Jews. Instead, he uses some fancy footwork that is common among sophisticated Holocaust Deniers. David Bernstein explains:

Holocaust deniers, at least the sophisticated ones, don't deny that Jews were sent to concentration camps, and don't deny that Jews suffered during the war, and perhaps suffered a bit disproportionately because they were Jews. What they do deny was that the Germans singled out the Jews for genocide, that millions of Jews were murdered, and that Jews were sent to death camps, not simply to labor or concentration camps. Nothing that Gibson said was inconsistent with the views of a Holocaust denier, and, indeed, as I pointed out, his statement sounds a lot like the stated views of the editor of the Holocaust-denying Journal of Historical Review. This all may be innocent on Gibson's part, and, if someone would ask him directly, "do you believe that the Germans murdered approximately six million Jews during World War II" and he said "yes" I would leave it at that. But given that he grew up in an anti-Semitic family, with a Holocaust-denying father, and has now asserted views that are very much consistent with the views of a Holocaust-denier, I can't say that my presumptions are with him at this point.

Gibson also said something else interesting during the interview:

Of his dad, Gibson says, "My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life."

I wonder if that includes statements about the Jews and about the Holocaust?

A little more context from David Bernstein.

http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://volokh.com/2004%5F01%5F25%5Fvolokh%5Farchive.html%23107547499488174255

[David Bernstein, 1/30/2004 07:03:14 AM]
Mel Gibson: Holocaust Denier? I haven't wanted to prejudge Mel Gibson's film on Jesus, nor have I wanted to judge him based on his affiliation with a sect that rejects Vatican II, nor based on the anti-Semitism of his father. I've gotten many concerned emails from Jewish friends on all of the latter topics, and have basically ignored them, especially those that would judge him based on the nutty views of his dad.
The following, however, is at least troubling and deserves further explanation:

'YOU'RE GOING to have to go on record. The Holocaust happened, right?" Peggy Noonan asks of Mel Gibson in the Reader's Digest for March.
Gibson: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."

There are some serious problems with this statement, include the gratuitous lumping of the Holocaust with other tragedies that were not relevant in context, that suggest an aggressive hostility to Noonan's question (the question itself would seem a bit strange, but for the fact that Gibson's father is a Holocaust denier), and at best a desire to put the Holocaust into "context". But here's the really troubling part: "The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps." I'm no expert on Holocaust "revisionism" (denial), but I've read enough about it to know that this part of Gibson's statement sounds a heck of a lot like what the deniers say: instead of stating the historically obvious, that there was a systematic campaign to exterminate Jews in death camps, they say that Jews were merely among the many victims who suffered and died in concentration camps; maybe they suffered slightly more than others, but that's about it.
Indeed, Gibson is skirting pretty close to "Holocaust denial." Here is what the Nizkor.org website says about the topic:

The question [of whether the Institute for Historical Review, the leading Holocaust denial group, denies the Holocaust] appears to turn on IHR's Humpty-Dumpty word game with the word Holocaust. According to Mark Weber, associate editor of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review, "If by the `Holocaust' you mean the political persecution of Jews, some scattered killings, if you mean a cruel thing that happened, no one denies that. But if one says that the 'Holocaust' means the systematic extermination of six to eight millions Jews in concentration camps, that's what we think there's not evidence for." That is, IHR doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened; they just deny that the word "Holocaust" means what people customarily use it for.

Now compare this to what Gibson said. The Holocaust happened. He has friends and parents of friends with numbers on their arms. A guy who taught him Spanish had a tatoo, was a survivor of the camps (not clear if he was Jewish). Atrocities happened. Millions were killed. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Note what this leaves out: that Jews were murdered in death camps, and were murdered because they were Jews, beyond some scattered killings, as part of a systematic program of genocide. Maybe I'm reading too much (or not enough) into this, but I'm certainly not satisfied after reading what Gibson has to say about the Holocaust that he believes the Holocaust, as the word is commonly understood, occurred. And, while I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt on this, and assume that he just used clumsy language, it's quite hard to do so knowing the views of his father (edite: which, because of the controversy surrounding them, suggest that Gibson would be both familiar with the views of Holocaust deniers and sensitive to the subtleties attendant to the controversy).

[Mrs. Tuberski]

You know I understand the jewish uprise to this movie. BUT, They are not the only group that has suffered such camps for nothing but their race or what have you. I see the japenese in the states rounded up arent discussed here neither or the cubans that were rounded up in florida trying to escaspe castro. or for that matter the blacks rounded up way back when in slavery. Lets face it most of the folks alive today didnt live through most of this suffering. Their ancestors did.
Mel Gibson wrote a movie about what he had been taught. Nothing more nothing less. If a certain group came out bad it is because that is what has been shown in history. I for one dont feel that any jewish or roman person living today is responsible for something that happened thousands of years ago and for the most part are not treated bad by most folks. All tragedies such as the holocausts and rounding up of folks and wars are a part of histroy that should be used to teach us not have us tear at one another. But as i see it, it seems to be easier to yell and scream racism then forgive and love

[Berzerker]

Ozzy

Then there are plenty of options out there in the market now. If people want a nice, Disneyfied version they can find that. If they want what happened in a more graphic, realistic presentation, then Mel Gibson gave them that option.

And people who are offended can say so. A Polytubbie asked why they were offended and we've tried to explain their rationale.

Actually no, how Jesus died is actually important to the religion.

Was this movie just for the religion? How he died is not more important than his message. What counts to you?

How he lived gave us a groovy dude with some cool ideas about love that we should model our lives after.

How we doin?

His death gave us the more spiritual, metaphysical things to actually believe in. Why did Jesus die? Because through it he destroyed death. Why did Jesus suffer? To prove the incredible extent to which God loves us. It actually is important.

This the same God who sent the Flood? If you think how he died warrants an entire movie that leaves out much of what he stood for, would the religion even exist if this movie was our source and not the Bible?

And it does reinforce his teachings about love, forgiveness and peace. The fact that the son of God endured such brutality when at any point he could have called down God's wrath upon his tormenters shows the superhuman restraint and love he has. It is an impossible ideal for us to strive towards always. When Jesus said turn the other cheek, he really meant it. When he said love your enemy, he really meant it. His suffering and death was the ultimate test and proof of this.

This the same God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because a small group of people mis-treated a couple angels? Without the message, the death loses relevance. While its true most people claiming to be Christians ignore his teachings (the movie preaches to a very small choir), some do or did so the ideals aren't impossible, just very difficult to achieve. But many have died without resisting or calling down God's wrath...

Then don't watch it.

Well thank God you gave me that advice or I might have.

Looks to me like you think this thread asks whether or not the movie should be banned, otherwise telling me not to watch a movie I just said was unappealing has no relevance.

If it happened, it happened. It doesn't have any commentary on current day Jews, or even on all Jews at Jesus' time (he and all his supporters were obviously Jews too). It no more preaches hate against Jews than Schindler's List preaches hate against Germans.

Did it happen?

This world is ruled by "Us & Them", call it "evilution". If some of "them" murder God, "them" is cast in a negative light.

Pekka

But if you want to see POS general version of it, we can always hire Russel Crow to play Jesus, Charlton Heston could be some Roman soldier commanding the beatings and it could be all nice and clean because 'we can imagine what happens'. HEY, if you want to see last 12 hours of the life of the Lord, well, maybe it could be 1 minute long, because we can imagine the rest.

What a bunch of kaka.

You're right, 1 minute would have been enough. "Heeeeeere's Jesus, see Jesus getting flayed? Now watch him get flayed for 2 hours for only $8".

You people are something else, not even human, I smell catholics in this thread, I smell non-human Jesus haters.

[JohnT]

Was this movie just for the religion? How he died is not more important than his message. What counts to you?

I'm not wanting to get into a parsing debate, but the point of the entire Gospels is that Jesus lived up to his teachings when it mattered most. And while the film mostly focused on the suffering and the example of how not to hate your haters, there were segments in the film where Jesus taught - the Garden, the Last Supper, etc.

I think that for what POTC set out to do, it did very well.

[Berzerker]

Why is this a problematic response? Because not once does Gibson actually acknowledge that the Holocaust occurred - not once does he state that the Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews because they were Jews. Instead, he uses some fancy footwork that is common among sophisticated Holocaust Deniers. David Bernstein explains:

Holocaust deniers, at least the sophisticated ones, don't deny that Jews were sent to concentration camps, and don't deny that Jews suffered during the war, and perhaps suffered a bit disproportionately because they were Jews. What they do deny was that the Germans singled out the Jews for genocide, that millions of Jews were murdered, and that Jews were sent to death camps, not simply to labor or concentration camps.

The Nazis didn't single out Jews, there were a number of groups they targeted. That analysis presumes the truth makes one a holocaust denier. Gibson's critic didn't refute what he said, just used guilt by association. Thats why the Jews have been cast in a negative light for so long, guilt by association.

[JohnT]

This the same God who sent the Flood?

Who knows? One God (OT) is a vengeful teenager with anger issues who demanded to be in nearly every scene; the NT God is more off-hands, not taking much of a role in the action - an earthquake here, a revelation there, but nothing close to being on the scale of planetwide floods, parting the Red Sea, or the UFO's of Ezekiel.

[Berzerker]

I'm not wanting to get into a parsing debate, but the point of the entire Gospels is that Jesus lived up to his teachings when it mattered most. And while the film mostly focused on the suffering and the example of how not to hate your haters, there were segments in the film where Jesus taught - the Garden, the Last Supper, etc.

I think that for what POTC set out to do, it did very well.

And that fact makes his death important to his teachings, without the teachings it is irrelevant. I prefer movies that focus on his teachings, not his death. I dont care if Gibson wanted to focus on his death to make the point that the teachings were followed by the teacher, but 2 hours of watching the teacher get flayed? If I visit a PETA meeting because I like animals, I sure don't want to watch a 2 hour film of an animal being tortured either. Oh yeah, if you make several points in a paragraph, it ain't "parsing" to address each point.

[Jon Miller]

"How he lived gave us a groovy dude with some cool ideas about love that we should model our lives after."

same could be claimed about others...

what makes Jesus different for Christians, is His death and ressurection

Jon Miller

[JohnT]

Taking one post and quoting seven different passages is parsing exemplified.

So you didn't like the movie. Doesn't mean we have to 'jack this thread into a debate about religion, however.