NationStates Jolt Archive

I really want to go see the Passion of the Christ, unfortunately it's not out here yet but I want to know why some Christians are so strongly against it. How can something that really brings home just how Christ suffered be a bad thing?

Any thoughts?

I agree if they get annoyed by the truth how can they call themselves Christians. I'm sure that what they believe is that Christ "suffered, died and was buried"

suffered, died, was buried and rose again ..but yeah I get your point

I went and saw it on a whim.

It was very reminiscent of my indoctrination at christian school. (I'm very glad to have mostly recovered from that but still.)

In anycase, one of the few movies that are better than the book.

I really want to go see the Passion of the Christ, unfortunately it's not out here yet but I want to know why some Christians are so strongly against it. How can something that really brings home just how Christ suffered be a bad thing?

Any thoughts?

My review of the Passion

***/*****

It is not a brilliant film. It has a wooden, forced quality to it. And although it is true to the Bible (and Catholic tradition) throughout, there are some glaring historical and medical inaccuracies, which I don't think would have harmed the film to ratify. But, I could not see any overt evidence of anti-semitism, and the quality of the film did not merit the hype it recieved from the mdeia.

"How can something that really brings home just how Christ suffered be a bad thing?"

It is the fact that (at worst) St. Mel lied or (at best) didn't do his homework. The punishments inflicted apon Jesus in the film were unrealistic. Gibson made it gratuitous to the extreme that it looked unrealistic and laughable. He also crosses the line when it comes to Jesus suffering. I am not denying that Jesus suffered greatly, but the film can be interpreted as showing that Jesus and Jesus alone suffered that greatly (but, in a way this is Christian Tradition)

Incendiary and sensationalist film-making. It says very little about Christ's message and everything about trying to rile people up. Which is not a good thing.

I think the issue is that it's pretty distorting in lots of ways. Moreover, Gibson is a schismatic Catholic, whose group rejects the authority of the Pope on Vatican II; one of the major changes Vatican II made was retracting the claim that the Jews were to blame for the death of Christ (a fairly silly claim, let's be honest, considering that Christ was a Jew and everything).

In short, there's a lot more to the film than just demonstrating the suffering of Christ; that aim is fine, but the film has plenty of others. The overt inclusion of Satan in the film is fairly crude artistic license; the film also does its best to smooth over the 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' utterance of Christ - which is right there in the Bible, but obviously a bit too troubling for its target audience. Basically, the whole thing smells of Sunday-School oversimplification.

(And my personal take on the Christian principle of Christ's suffering is that making it solely physical belittles it - okay, crucifixion is pretty horrific, but thousands of people suffered the same fate, often over longer times. It makes a lot more sense if Christ's suffering originates from his sorrow at the rejection of his love by billions of people over the course of history, and that the crucifixion is pretty much just emblematic - but then, I'm no Christian, so this is just theorising).

Enh, at least it didn't make Christ as Caucasian-looking as most interpretations.

It wasn't trying to rile anything up it was telling it how it happened.

It wasn't trying to rile anything up it was telling it how it happened.

Watch the film with a doctor (medical), and after ask him/her how it is unrealistic.

It wasn't trying to rile anything up it was telling it how it happened.

Watch the film with a doctor (medical), and after ask him/her how it is unrealistic.

but is it necessary for everything to be 100% scientifically accurate? is the message of the film more important.

to me the Bible is the one true word, ok so I'm fascinated by this film but nothing it could portray could make me doubt the word of God

on a different point here's what a mate's just said about it:

"apparently mel gibson's hands are the ones that hammer the nails into jesus's hands in the movie - he did it to show that he didn't think that it was the soldiers doing it, or the jews, but everyone. in all the crap we do we are putting the nails in jesus"

but is it necessary for everything to be 100% scientifically accurate? is the message of the film more important.
Well to be a stickler, if it is meant to show things as they were then yes.

to me the Bible is the one true word, ok so I'm fascinated by this film but nothing it could portray could make me doubt the word of God To be brutally honest "The greatest story ever told" is probably a better biblical film

on a different point here's what a mate's just said about it:

"apparently mel gibson's hands are the ones that hammer the nails into jesus's hands in the movie - he did it to show that he didn't think that it was the soldiers doing it, or the jews, but everyone. in all the crap we do we are putting the nails in jesus"

I'd be interested where he got that information from.

I don't doubt it, but it is kinda unorthodox for a schismatic Catholic.

It wasn't trying to rile anything up it was telling it how it happened.

But a lot more happened than that. Why did he pick that particular part of the story to portray? Because it is the most emotive, and will encourage particular feelings in the viewers. Now i'm not saying he has a sinister agenda or anything, but it is a cynical and exploitative piece of film making for sure.

It wasn't trying to rile anything up it was telling it how it happened.

But a lot more happened than that. Why did he pick that particular part of the story to portray? Because it is the most emotive, and will encourage particular feelings in the viewers. Now i'm not saying he has a sinister agenda or anything, but it is a cynical and exploitative piece of film making for sure.

yeah there was a lot more to Jesus that what is portrayed in the movie, he was a great guy, he did some amazing things during his time on Earth, but the most significant thing he ever did was to die to save the entire human race. He suffered emotional, physical, pscychological torture just to save us from the punishment we deserve..no wonder Gibson chose that part of the story

yeah there was a lot more to Jesus that what is portrayed in the movie, he was a great guy, he did some amazing things during his time on Earth, but the most significant thing he ever did was to die to save the entire human race. He suffered emotional, physical, pscychological torture just to save us from the punishment we deserve..no wonder Gibson chose that part of the story

Bless you for not being cynical like me. I'm sure Mel's wallet appreciates you greatly too. :)

It wasn't trying to rile anything up it was telling it how it happened.

But a lot more happened than that. Why did he pick that particular part of the story to portray? Because it is the most emotive, and will encourage particular feelings in the viewers. Now i'm not saying he has a sinister agenda or anything, but it is a cynical and exploitative piece of film making for sure.

Even though I don't really like Gibson's particular brand of Catholicism, I don't think that is the case.

As far as I know, he wanted to do as a labour of love and didn't expect large cinemas to show it. But he thought it would be shown in church halls etc.

Also Passion plays are a traditional Catholic phenomena. It is no more exploitative than my old church putting on Passion plays every year.

oh trust me, I'm a huge cynic, I'm not denying the he will have made a packet out of this, and perhaps that was his only intention, but hey, I'm interested, I wanna see this movie....if that does line his wallet then ok, it's not like he isn't minted already

yeah there was a lot more to Jesus that what is portrayed in the movie, he was a great guy, he did some amazing things during his time on Earth, but the most significant thing he ever did was to die to save the entire human race. He suffered emotional, physical, pscychological torture just to save us from the punishment we deserve..no wonder Gibson chose that part of the story

This is a matter of opinion. It is also quite a medieval outlook on life. ie, that we mere mortals are incapable of saving ourselves and need something super-terrestrial to save us. For me, the most important part of Jesus' ministry is not the Passion, but the teachings like the Sermon on the Mount.

It is also dishonest to suggest that Jesus is the only one who has suffered like that. His punishment is not unique. And if he is said to be, then he would know he would be going to heaven. Surely a mortal would suffer more they received the same punishment, but due to their mortality, did not know what awaited them.

Also Passion plays are a traditional Catholic phenomena. It is no more exploitative than my old church putting on Passion plays every year.

No more exploitative than the church in general, in fact.

oh trust me, I'm a huge cynic, I'm not denying the he will have made a packet out of this, and perhaps that was his only intention, but hey, I'm interested, I wanna see this movie....if that does line his wallet then ok, it's not like he isn't minted already

By all means see it. It is an average movie. Just don't expect to be blown away by the proundity of it or anything. It is a tried and tested model. Nothing could have gone wrong

oh trust me, I'm a huge cynic, I'm not denying the he will have made a packet out of this, and perhaps that was his only intention, but hey, I'm interested, I wanna see this movie....if that does line his wallet then ok, it's not like he isn't minted already

Very fair point indeed.

Also Passion plays are a traditional Catholic phenomena. It is no more exploitative than my old church putting on Passion plays every year.

No more exploitative than the church in general, in fact.

Please, save this for another thread.

But bare in mind , the Priest there is one of the most liberal minded people you are ever to meet.

I really want to go see the Passion of the Christ, unfortunately it's not out here yet but I want to know why some Christians are so strongly against it. How can something that really brings home just how Christ suffered be a bad thing?

Any thoughts?

My review of the Passion

***/*****

It is not a brilliant film. It has a wooden, forced quality to it. And although it is true to the Bible (and Catholic tradition) throughout, there are some glaring historical and medical inaccuracies, which I don't think would have harmed the film to ratify. But, I could not see any overt evidence of anti-semitism, and the quality of the film did not merit the hype it recieved from the mdeia.

"How can something that really brings home just how Christ suffered be a bad thing?"

It is the fact that (at worst) St. Mel lied or (at best) didn't do his homework. The punishments inflicted apon Jesus in the film were unrealistic. Gibson made it gratuitous to the extreme that it looked unrealistic and laughable. He also crosses the line when it comes to Jesus suffering. I am not denying that Jesus suffered greatly, but the film can be interpreted as showing that Jesus and Jesus alone suffered that greatly (but, in a way this is Christian Tradition)hmmmm, i kind of agree with you, but then again, how can anyone know how much Jesus the Christ suffered for us? The scourging was deadly cruel but, come on, think back to the romans, they were romans, and romans were cruel back then. So the whole story could be true, or it could have been worse, or not as bad. The point is that you don't know. That's the beauty of it. Oh, and yes, you should belive that we needed something Super-terrestrial to save us. Think about it, do you actually believe that if Jesus only taught the Scriptures to them all, do you honestly believe with out a doubt that high priests like Caiphas and others who were money hungry like Judas would have stopped what they were doing right then and there or ever, and stop their evilish satan ways and beg that their sins be taken away?? I think not.

[hmmmm, i kind of agree with you, but then again, how can anyone know how much Jesus the Christ suffered for us? The scourging was deadly cruel but, come on, think back to the romans, they were romans, and romans were cruel back then.

Yes, but they were cruel anouth to know that beating a many with sticks will break bones. And that a lashing that hard on top of it would mean that a man couldn't be crucified. If the Film is correct (in that Jesus was beaten like that), the Jesus would had fractured ribs (which probably would have caused his lungs to fill with blood), suffered severe kidney and liver failure, got several internal ruptures and his brain would have heamorraged, add all these to blood loss and it is unlikely he could even stand let alone carry a cross for any amount of time.

I know it is a film, but it was Gibson playing for the blood market, more than him trying to make it look realistic.


So the whole story could be true, or it could have been worse, or not as bad. The point is that you don't know. That's the beauty of it. Oh, and yes, you should belive that we needed something Super-terrestrial to save us. Think about it, do you actually believe that if Jesus only taught the Scriptures to them all, do you honestly believe with out a doubt that high priests like Caiphas and others who were money hungry like Judas would have stopped what they were doing right then and there or ever, and stop their evilish satan ways and beg that their sins be taken away?? I think not.

OK this part is belief. But Jesus dying and coming back to life hardly put an end to greed or 'evilish satan ways.' Your point would be valid if the money hungery stopped the bad things they were doing and begged for their sins to be taken away. But it
didn't happen.

[hmmmm, i kind of agree with you, but then again, how can anyone know how much Jesus the Christ suffered for us? The scourging was deadly cruel but, come on, think back to the romans, they were romans, and romans were cruel back then.

Yes, but they were cruel anouth to know that beating a many with sticks will break bones. And that a lashing that hard on top of it would mean that a man couldn't be crucified. If the Film is correct (in that Jesus was beaten like that), the Jesus would had fractured ribs (which probably would have caused his lungs to fill with blood), suffered severe kidney and liver failure, got several internal ruptures and his brain would have heamorraged, add all these to blood loss and it is unlikely he could even stand let alone carry a cross for any amount of time.

I know it is a film, but it was Gibson playing for the blood market, more than him trying to make it look realistic.


So the whole story could be true, or it could have been worse, or not as bad. The point is that you don't know. That's the beauty of it. Oh, and yes, you should belive that we needed something Super-terrestrial to save us. Think about it, do you actually believe that if Jesus only taught the Scriptures to them all, do you honestly believe with out a doubt that high priests like Caiphas and others who were money hungry like Judas would have stopped what they were doing right then and there or ever, and stop their evilish satan ways and beg that their sins be taken away?? I think not.

OK this part is belief. But Jesus dying and coming back to life hardly put an end to greed or 'evilish satan ways.' Your point would be valid if the money hungery stopped the bad things they were doing and begged for their sins to be taken away. But it
didn't happen.Well, couldn't blame a 14 year old for trying, eh? Not a bad post or try for such a young( how i HATE THAT WORD! :evil: ) person?

Well, couldn't blame a 14 year old for trying, eh? Not a bad post or try for such a young( how i HATE THAT WORD! :evil: ) person?

hey don't go putting yourself down - fantastic post for someone so young, I'm almost 19 so older than you but I've only been a Christian for four months and it's great to see someone so firm in their faith, so don't let other people's opinons knock you back - I started this thread hoping for some interesting debate, that's what it's all about so stick to your guns :)

Well, couldn't blame a 14 year old for trying, eh? Not a bad post or try for such a young( how i HATE THAT WORD! :evil: ) person?

Only 14? It is a good post.

Were you talking about the word "youngster?" The only good thing about growing up people stop describing you with that word

Well, couldn't blame a 14 year old for trying, eh? Not a bad post or try for such a young( how i HATE THAT WORD! :evil: ) person?

Only 14? It is a good post.

Were you talking about the word "youngster?" The only good thing about growing up people stop describing you with that wordThe reason i hate being called young is because i feel inferior when someone calls me that. I mean, i put up with a lot of shit going on now. I mean, around the block i got 2 girls making asses of themselves and acting like wiggers( white people who act black) and they are ruining everything, they have this little bike gang always on the look out for me, even though i could easily whoop all their asses. ANd also, i can't seem to find a job ANYWHERE! That, is why i hate being called young.( especially the first part that i said.) But thank you for your compliments on my posting skills. Thank you very much.

OK people I gotta run, but keep posting, I'll be back later and I'm interested to hear what you've all got to say

Take care and God Bless You all

Palan