"The Passion of the Christ" Thread

Such breathtaking arrogance and ignorance all combined into one post.

Do educate us how this movie fails to follow the Gospels?

I've been a practicing Christian my whole life. I'm no saint, but do know the Gospels. I will trust my own knowledge, and allow the holy spirit to guide me.

But beyond that, I also trust those like the Reverned Billy Graham, the Pope, my minister, and thousand's of others who faith is stronger than yours, who all agree that this work is consistent with the Word of God.

It's humorous watching Satan do is best to discredit this movie. That is, in my mind, the best testament to its truth!

Gents...the truth lies before you. Many of you need to get your life right with God and consider that one day, you too will stand before Him and have to defend those things you state here.

Will He say to you, "depart from me, for I never knew you?"

 

My brother is a converted Catholic and had a good take on the movie, which he saw earlier this evening.

I'm not a Christian so I'll probably get this wrong. But here's basically what he told me.

Contemplating the passion, Jesus's suffering, is a big deal to Catholics, and that's all the movie is about. But the sensory barrage isn't really contemplative. What it is, says my brother, is like going to a church in Latin America, Peru, maybe, or Mexico (thought the anti-clerical strain in Mexico has destroyed some of this kind of Catholicism).

Depictions of the suffering Christ in the Catholic iconography of much of Latin America involves extreme depictions of suffering-- Jesus on the cross is gory and emaciated. Why? Because priests in that part of the world, at the time the art was created, understood that the people were very familiar with pain, poverty, and suffering.

To convey the extreme suffering of Christ to impoverished, oppressed people in Latin America, the depictions of Christ by necessity showed pain and torment that dwarfed even their misery. To North Americans, it looks grotesque, even kitschy. Because to people who aren't starving, and who don't know physical torment, Jesus' suffering can be shown more moderately.

My brother observes (somehat sneeringly) that churchgoing Americans, especially Protestants, are so fat and happy that metaphorical suffering suffices to demonstrate the essence of the passion.

And here's where Gibson's movie comes in: cinematic gore has inured us to human suffering on the big screen. So the movie has to go over the top in showing the torment that Christ went through for humanity. My brother's point is that it's a passion movie for fans of slasher films and for smug, contented Americans.

But he says that (1) a passion film only really theologically makes sense for Catholics, not for the evangelical Protestants who seemed to be the bulk of the crowd at the North Carolina theater he went to, and he thinks this is just chip-on-the-should culture war for those folks, and (2) this method of filmmaking probably trivializes theology and leaves no nuance or any of the moral subtlety that makes being a Christian (my brother' choice of words here) "fun." No parables, no thinking... just pain, which is doctrinally enough for a serious Catholic like my brother, but he can see what some critics see as spitefulness.

My brother, ancestrally half Jewish (wrong half, technically), was glad to hear the blood libel was left out of the Mel Gibson movie. Historically, it has rationalized incredible anti-semitism.

Anyhow, point 2: contemporary art. Metrofever, you have conflated at least two artists. Serrano's "Piss Christ" is crude and mean, and deserves the abuse it has received. But Chris Ofili's painting of the Virgin Mary is a beautiful piece of work, and to me (but like I said, I'm no Christian) palpably pious. The black Virgin is really lovely. You should see it. The feces in question is a hank of elephant poop in a corner. Ofili (reflecting the influence of traditional, indigenous, non-academic art) uses elephant dung as something sacred and also on earth. It's hard to believe and sounds like mumbo-jumbo, but the painting is beautiful, and the attacks on it were the stupidest sort of philistine cynicism.

 

What about the Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists? Will they all burn in hell?

 

Thank GOD for separation of church and state.

 

How so?

 

Jesus said that He is the way, the truth, and the Light, and that no one comes to the Father, except through the Son.

Jesus said that God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who beleive in him are not condemned; but those who do not beleive are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Jesus died for you, me, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, everyone....for all of us are sinful and worthy of hell. All of us crucified Christ through our sinfulness. God so loved each of us, that he gave his Son to be a sacrafice for us all. Salvation can only be acheived by accepting that you are a sinner, that you have fallen short of God's glory, ask God to forgive you of your sins, and accepting Jesus in your heart as your personnel savior.

Each of us have a physical birth and a physical death. But only believers in Christ have a spiritual birth.

 

In the immortal words of Sam Jackson, "English, motherfucker, do you speak it?"

It was a pretty simple question. Do you believe all Jews and Hindus are going to hell? Let me help you out - there's no multiple choice involved.

 

Wow. And you say Dave is ingnorant of the Gospels?????

Someobody missed the point in Sunday school. By about a country mile. Make that a country mile and a half.

 

As someone who lived and went to church in Latin America, I want to point out that the art of Jesus' suffering in that region is iconographic and symbolic- not realistic and voyeristic like Gibson's film. You have to bring your own vision and faith to "experience" a shrine of San Simon. In Gibson's film, all you need is a jar of vaseline.

 

(a) I doubt God is anywhere near the condescending as*shole you make him out to be, and you come off as.

(b) Why did God give me free will if in the end the only way I can achieve salvation is by choosing Jesus? Doesn't sound like free will to me.

 

But voyeurism and catharsis are two very different experiences. Precisely which one a person experiences while watching this movie would have to depend on that person's attitude and intent. Sure, I suppose there will be people who enjoy the sordid experience of watching Jesus suffer (the voyeurs). But I think that most viewers are hoping for some kind of purgation or spiritual renewal, in other words catharsis.

I noticed many people criticized this movie for the fact that it didn't completely follow the gospels, or for the fact that it doesn't meet their aesthetic criteria for a "good film", or even because Gibson is only in it for his own ego or person gain. That's fine. Those may all be valid criticisms for all I know (haven't seen it yet so I can't pass judgement on how close it adheres to the gospel account) but why should these criticisms invalidate or belittle the spiritual experience that many people claim to have had (or want to have) while watching the movie?

As for anyone who's interested in a more intellectual look at the Passion narratives I would suggest John Dominic Crossan's book "Who Killed Jesus?" He tries to answer the question of whether the passion was history remembered or prophesy historicized. Fundamentalists aren't happy with his conclusions, but oh well.

 

Your phrasing here makes me think they haven't seen it yet. If so, that's my point. I think a set of interviews from a Saturday night showing, which is when most people go to movies, would provide a better, more representative sample.

 

OK, but that's the whole point of contention. Did he? People who have reported on this are saying that Gibson relied heavily on the visions of this 19th c. nun. Now, if those reporters have an agenda (and I will concede that bigmedia have a secular bias, so my "if" isn't rhetorical) and they're diminishing the importance of any historical research by Gibson that affects the movie, then I take back my criticism.

 

Interesting. I, myself, am Proddy, but not evangelical. I don't know if it's still true, but when I was growing up in the 70s, NC had the lowest percentage of Jews AND Catholics of any state...talk about a Protestant stronghold!! Anyway, your insight into the appeal this movie has for evangelicals has been helpful. Because to Protestants, Christianity is more about the individual (it's Protestants who created such concepts of priesthood of the believer, and a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ," etc.). I guess for Catholics, it's more about Jesus, and that's why Mary is a big deal to them, and really unimportant to Protestants. So while I can see why a graphic, gruesome depicition of Christ's last day on earth resonates for Catholics, I couldn't see how it does for Protestants. But these are the same people who feel under siege from the UN and gays and miscegenationists and Janet Jackson's breast, so I guess they see Christ's suffering as an allegory for their own "oppression."

NOTE: Any half-assed thoughts in this post are due to it being early in the morning and me just whipping it off, instead of taking the time to contemplate and whatnot that posts on such sensitive topics should require.

 

I guess I need to capitalize my moniker to Superdave, then. I mean, it just won't do for Satan to be superdave.

And resign from the church council, too. Oh wait...no, that's the perfect way for me to destroy the church, from the inside!!! Altho, if I resign, I'd have that much more time to watch soccer, which I really enjoy...decisions, decisions.

Wait a minute, I'm Satan, dammit!!! This should be easy!!!

 

As an agnostic, I just saw the film it was really powerful depiction of Christ. I think the lesson learned is that regardless of your beliefs think we should be more tolerant of other peoples cultures and opinions.

so can we please stop the Christian bashing.

 

What's the difference?

Everybody needs to watch Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc" and see what a real cinematic spiritual catharsis is all about. And then they'll realize what an egotist piece of pornography Gibson'sf ilm is.

 

There are countless trillions of star systems and you have no problem with God interacting with a stupid primate species, but have a problem with Him doing so as a person???

 

Dear JMMUSA :

Please stop this, you're embarassing us

Love,

The rest of Christianity.


Demosthenes - Homophobia? I mean, you have seen the apocolyptic chaps worn in the Mad Max pics?

JPHurst - You can use Pat Robertson if you like. We won't say a word. But the matzoh might be a little hard and sour.

superdave - Pope JPII did not give it two thumbs up - that was more of Gibson's spin machine. And bub, you just named four of my favorites. . Now if the NY Post's reviewer came out with a scathingly negative review...

I generally like to go see movies with a historica/religious bent to it, but OTOH the idea of giving $10.00 to Mr. Gibson and his loony wackos gives me pause. I have no idea if I'm going to see it yet, so I won't speak to the "historical accuracy" of the movie.

Protestants in general look towards the resurrection as being more important while Catholics tend towards Christ's suffering for our sins. (which is why oftentimes you will see a cross in a Protestant church, and a crucifix (which has the suffering Christ on a cross) in Catholic Church.

Mike - thanks. I couldn't for the life of me place that avatar. It was annoying me greatly

Gringo - Chill man. Also why do you make such dumb avatar bets?

 

Your half assed thoughts in this post are the first thoughts, aside from USA's, that have had any ass at all.

I wondered if anyone was going to pick up on the line of thought. I would guess you were raised a Southern Methodist, true? I see many southern protestants totally misunderstanding the movie. One chief complaint I hear is that it only deals with the crucifixion of Christ, that is makes little mention of what Jesus said and doesn’t show any of the miracles he preformed. In other words, it only shows the act of sacrifice. That's is Gibson's story, i.e. the ACT of ATONEMENT for OUR sins. It is not about a belief, what Jesus said or done for a single person. It is a movie about the act itself. It is a movie about the Catholic view of faith, i.e. acts of faith have more importance than faith itself.

Second, about "why is Mary is a big deal" remember that Mary is the only person in the new testament who changes Jesus's mind. That is, when the wedding couple ran out of wine, Jesus did not want to help them. He said it wasn't time. Like every good Jewish mother she ignored him and put him in the position of having no choice but to do the right thing. She pushed the Son of God around. That is why Catholics include Mary in their prayers, so that she will intercede on their behalf just like she did for the wedding couple.

Last let me say that I am not Catholic but have a close personal relationship with a few.

 

Fina...I think you have me confused with someone else.

Thanks...I think.

No. Here's a hint. Several people at my church sound like they coulda been in "Fargo."

Very interesting. Do other Catholics, or people who know alot about Catholicism, agree? Of course, this begs the question, still, of why the film is so popular with evangelical Proddys.

 

I think you're getting him confused with Martin Riggs.

I saw that Andrew Sullivan called it pornography as well.

 

He had some time on his hands after he helped the Mexicans get into the Olympics.

 

I am not sure I agree with this (artwork), and as a lapsed Catholic, I feel that my waffling position should be given some due.

I think there are more depictions of Christ and Mary in Catholic churches because that has always been the style. Protestants have never been into the idolatry (for want of a better term). That is why their churches tend to the plain and ugly.

I don't know what I would have done with myself during all the Catholic masses I went to in my youth without staring dumbly up at Mary and the almost naked Jesus (but that their clothing would have been reversed), trying to make my siblings cry out when I pinched them, or thinking about adolescent things.

In general, my Protestant bros do put a whole lot into the resurrection but I don't feel any more than Catholics. What Catholics do put more emphasis in is the good works that can give you brownie points. I don't think that means that they downplay the resurrection -- only that suffuring and doing good deeds is good insurance.

The Protestants I know but everything into "faith" and seem to not bother with deliniating between the sins. Which is pretty boring. And part of the reason I have some major problem with Protestant logic. About every three months in my sunday school class I have the same argument with my non-fish eating friends.

Murder is not the same as swiping a piece of gum from Stop N. Go. Period.

 

Evangelical protestants latched on to it for a few reasons. One was because it's a film about Jesus that they perceived to be orthodox (as much as a film can be), and as such favorable to their own perception of Christianity. That, coupled with the fact that Mel Gibson's name is attached to it, made the film immediately credible with the cultural maintream.

That was important because of evangelicals' affinity for "outreach" or proselytizing. They've called the film "the biggest evangelistic opportunity in 2000 years." The feeling seems to be that since the scope of the film's publicity is as big as it is, people who normally don't give two thoughts to Jesus or Christianity would be open to conversations about both and have questions about both, questions that would open the door for evangelicals to share their faith.

Theologically, it does play on the perception of Christanity as a personal and individual religion, as Jesus' individual act of sacrifice for salvation is central to the film. The message being emphasized in the evangelical circles is that each person's individual sin put Jesus on the cross, that each individual is responsible him/herself for Jesus' being there, and that he submitted to death on the cross in order that each might have a personal relationship with him.

ricv56