The Passion Of The Christ

Started by MacGuffin, January 28, 2003, 01:49:48 AM

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ... 44
User actions

Jeremy Blackman

#435
March 02, 2004, 04:22:20 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen"Actually reflects Jesus' words"... how do you mean, exactly?
Okay, how do I say this delicately? He didn't write the book. And it's been translated and edited by politicians.

SoNowThen

#436
March 02, 2004, 04:30:14 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Quote from: SoNowThen"Actually reflects Jesus' words"... how do you mean, exactly?
Okay, how do I say this delicately? He didn't write the book. And it's been translated and edited by politicians.

Hahaha, don't worry about delicacy.

So then you dispute that the quotes of Jesus are real, and in fact are just controlled and edited words by The Powers That Be to control us the masses?

If so, then your personal bias towards the idea of the film is such that you really can't give any decent criticisms of it, seeing as how the whole Passion idea is predicated on the suffering of THE MESSIAH. And if you know (notice I'll use "know" rather than "think") that Jesus was the Messiah, then any debate as to the validity of the suffering et al is simply null and void.

Or, I guess to cut through the bs, I doubt very much that believers and non-believers are gonna be able to even have decent discussions on this film. If you aren't already on board with Jesus as Son of God and Savior Of Mankind then the movie probably ain't for you. And it's not Mel's job to take you into account. He made a specific movie.


EDIT: I hope reading that I don't come across as yelling or screaming... just simply passionate about the topic :wink:
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Jeremy Blackman

#437
March 02, 2004, 04:38:01 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenSo then you dispute that the quotes of Jesus are real, and in fact are just controlled and edited words by The Powers That Be to control us the masses?
I'm just saying that I wouldn't unequivocally trust my personal spirituality with such a flawed document.

Quote from: SoNowThenIf so, then your personal bias towards the idea of the film is such that you really can't give any decent criticisms of it
So if I believe something different, my opinion means nothing? Where's the debate anyway if we can't question that? What if I believe some things but not others? Is my opinion invalid unless I accept the whole belief system?

SoNowThen

#438
March 02, 2004, 04:40:46 PM
No, I don't think your opinion means nothing. But to a Christian, some of the huge problems you have with the film don't even come into play.

It just leads me to believe that no matter how good the movie might have been, there was no chance for you to get on board with it, given the chasm in personal beliefs.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Jeremy Blackman

#439
March 02, 2004, 04:53:00 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenNo, I don't think your opinion means nothing. But to a Christian, some of the huge problems you have with the film don't even come into play.
You're assuming that I'm not "a Christian"... and also that no Christian could have a problem with Gibson's interpretation.

Quote from: SoNowThenIt just leads me to believe that no matter how good the movie might have been, there was no chance for you to get on board with it, given the chasm in personal beliefs.
Which is why I said it's a personal movie. And that also depends on whether you're judging interpretation/representation in how "good" a movie is.

new guy

#440
March 02, 2004, 06:06:29 PM
Jesus this, Moses that, Abraham hit me with a wiffle ball bat.

but seriously, how did that scene where Jesus is hanging on the cross when the clouds begin to part and God appears shouting "GIMME BACK MY SON!" stay in the movie?

damn that Gibson.

ono

#441
March 02, 2004, 06:26:13 PM
Quote from: new guyJesus this, Moses that, Abraham hit me with a wiffle ball bat.
I like this new guy already.  Sacrilicious.

modage

#442
March 02, 2004, 06:29:37 PM
i saw this today and enjoyed it (as much as one is supposed to enjoy it i guess).  i am not particularly religious and pretty skeptical of any organized religions however i thought the movie was well done.  (well shot, well acted, good score, etc.)  i didnt think the violence was any more extreme than anything i've seen before.  it was RELENTLESS, but no certain shot sticks out as being too much! being someone of minimal knowledge about this stuff it would've been nice to have a little more backstory, but as the film stands i think it is good.  it was powerful, but as powerful as any story would be about that amount of suffering.  whether or not jesus was the son of god doesnt affect your sympathies toward that level of human suffering.  i think regardless of personal beliefs, it was a good story that most people are aware of the same way people know the story of frankenstein or superman or romeo and juliet, just because its been told so many times since birth.  i wasnt enlightened, but i was interested.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Gold Trumpet

#443
March 02, 2004, 07:39:13 PM
Quote from: mom me
Quote from: metroshane
Quotethat was totally uncalled for

You're right and for that I apologize.  I think it's the cumulative ignorance that has gotten to me over the last couple of weeks...and when he called it a fictional movie...well I just went off.  So again, I'm sorry.

Apologies are fine and forgiveness is better but keep in mind he comared the story of Jesus to Alice in Wonderland and I am of the opinion that he owes us an apology or at least deserves a sitting down and talking to.  Jesus was a historical figure and his suffering is well documented.  Alice is a fictional character dreamed up by a funny man.

Mom me

This is what I'm talking about. Sure, Christ has more historical importance and all, but its just a movie. The problem with the movie isn't that people are taking the experience serious, but I get the feeling people are looking to the film as sacrament and part of the Christian religion. The pope never approved of the film and no religion is. Its one man's own belief and is completely separate of any insitution. There just needs to be a serious separation of ideology with this debate and I am seeing some people try to do it but its only going so far.

Pubrick

#444
March 02, 2004, 09:38:14 PM
SoNowThen can u at least watch the damn movie before u say anything else?
under the paving stones.

Chest Rockwell

#445
March 03, 2004, 05:43:36 AM
Quote from: themodernage02i saw this today and enjoyed it (as much as one is supposed to enjoy it i guess).  i am not particularly religious and pretty skeptical of any organized religions however i thought the movie was well done.  (well shot, well acted, good score, etc.)  i didnt think the violence was any more extreme than anything i've seen before.  it was RELENTLESS, but no certain shot sticks out as being too much! being someone of minimal knowledge about this stuff it would've been nice to have a little more backstory, but as the film stands i think it is good.  it was powerful, but as powerful as any story would be about that amount of suffering.  whether or not jesus was the son of god doesnt affect your sympathies toward that level of human suffering.  i think regardless of personal beliefs, it was a good story that most people are aware of the same way people know the story of frankenstein or superman or romeo and juliet, just because its been told so many times since birth.  i wasnt enlightened, but i was interested.

I take his standpoint. Except that I do know a few parts when I felt like turning away:
1) When the roman's are flaying (whatever) Jesus and one of the Romans lashes the whatever across his back so that it hooked into his side, and then he pulled it dragging a load of skin with it.
2) The nail(s) going into his palm(s)
3) Though they didn't actually show it, the nailing of Jesus' feet.

I do agree that it was shot and all that rather nicely. But I thought the story was lacking something--I feel I didn't really know the characters, except maybe Mary.

SoNowThen

#446
March 03, 2004, 08:52:49 AM
Quote from: PSoNowThen can u at least watch the damn movie before u say anything else?

I'm not arguing really the movie per se, but this attack on the idea of the movie.

I'll go see it, but I've never been all that interested in seeing it in the first place. And once I do see it, I'll only be able to talk about it in terms of technical movie type stuff. If I like the way it's shot, I'll defend it as a good movie, if I don't like the way it's shot I'll probably not discuss it at all.


Have I said anything connecting to the film that is totally wrong based on me not seeing it? If I have, just point it out and correct me, I don't mind.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Pubrick

#447
March 03, 2004, 09:48:12 AM
Quote from: SoNowThenHave I said anything connecting to the film that is totally wrong based on me not seeing it? If I have, just point it out and correct me, I don't mind.
well, it's these type of comments..
Quote from: SoNowThenIt just leads me to believe that no matter how good the movie might have been, there was no chance for you to get on board with it, given the chasm in personal beliefs.
like, just see the movie and then u can hypothesize however u want. before then, ur just assuming everything and that's wack in any situation.
under the paving stones.

SoNowThen

#448
March 03, 2004, 09:51:09 AM
Fair enough.

'kay, this weekend or the next, probably...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

TENOCH

#449
March 03, 2004, 10:13:59 AM
Before I write what I thought about the movie, let me say that I attended Catholic school for twelve years. I no longer consider myself a catholic. But I am a religious person. That beign said I thought The Passion was a bold move by Mel Gibson.  A great piece of film that will be debated and analyzed for many years to come. I salute him for taking creative risks. But, as a person who has had Catholic doctrine shoved down my throat for most of my life, I have to say that I was turned off by what I saw on screen. When I think of religion and Jesus in particular, blood and violence don't come to mind. I think if Jesus were alive today he would not like the movie. His teachings are whats is important. The religious messege was lost with the two hours of torture. I f you are not a Christian or don't know anything about  Christianity you will probably not like this movie. Personally if I was not a Christian and saw this movie It would be difficult to convert me. The movie is angry and its main purpose is to shock and make you feel guilty. I know that Jesus sacrifice is important but there is a reason why the Bible doesn't go into detail on the violent execution of Jesus. Because the detail is not necessary.  I also thought Mel's interpretation of Jesus was misjudged. In the flashbacks scenes he is much to strong and kind of pompous and looks down on everybody. For me Jesus should be humble and look like everybody else.
And most people who love this movie and are self proclaimed Jesus lovers dont even follow his teachings are a buch of hypocrites. They cry about the execution of Jesus, but more than likely they are for Capital Punishment and are all for putting someone in the electric chair when there is a possibility that they might be innocent. Most so called Christians, there are a few people on this world who deserve to be trully called a Christian, if they were trully Christians they would care about the innocent bystanders of War but apparently they dont. Who cares how many innocent people die under American military power just as long its not us. I say to those people to look deep inside themselves and ask WHAT WOULD JESUS DO.  I repeat most Christians are hypocrites.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ... 44
User actions