(OT) That Mel Gibson Movie

dragonlady wrote:
If I were Christian, and my children were older than about 10, I might
consider seeing the movie, and having them see it, for just that reason.
As I am not, I can see no particular reason to subject myself to
accurate images of a person being tortured and killed. Millions of
people have been tortured and killed throughout human history -- and I'm
not interested in seeing any of them.

Good point. And the Romans killed lots of people in Palestine, many
of the victims suffering much the same sort of torture along the way.

Eric wrote:
Steve wrote:
(Eric) wrote:
After seeing the movie, I now find the claims that this is
perhaps the most violent movie you will ever see to be largely
exaggerated.

Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars, and says in his review: "This is the
most violent film I have ever seen."

Yep, he did and I find those claims to be largely exaggerated.

Robocop, for example, was far more violent then The Passion of the
Christ.

From what I heard, Kill Bill Vol 1 was far more violent then Pulp
Fiction which I would also claim is more violent then The Passion
of the Christ.

None of those movies focus on the torture and execution of a single person
for two solid hours, however. I've *seen* pulp fiction and, while there was
certainly quite a bit of violence in it, there was *no* violence in a *lot*
of its two hours.

Now, as a non-Christian who hasn't seen the movie, I'm really sticking my
nose in where it doesn't belong BUUUUT I certainly hope that Christians
aren't holding out hope of winning loads of converts to the faith by taking
their non-believing friends to this film. I can't think of *anything* less
likely to make me want to convert to Christianity than a graphic, bloody
depiction of a human being's torture and slow death. Although I can
understanding (at least intellectually) how it might be moving to Christians
who truly believe that the suffering and the atonement for their sins are
synonymous, to me it would seem like a macabre exercise in fetishist sadism.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [23 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
Financing for "5" years -- car dealership sign

Aurora reciting alphabet: S...T...U...V...DW...X....Y...Z

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

"Circe" wrote in message news:8xN%b.5023$id3.3529@fed1read01...
Although I can
understanding (at least intellectually) how it might be moving to Christians
who truly believe that the suffering and the atonement for their sins are
synonymous, to me it would seem like a macabre exercise in fetishist sadism.

More like masochism, which is an accurate summation of
the whole Judeo-Christian/monarchal theology. E.g. read
Genesis, man was simply a plaything (and eventual punching
bag) for the gods.

Rick

Rick wrote:
"Circe" wrote in message
news:8xN%b.5023$id3.3529@fed1read01...
Although I can
understanding (at least intellectually) how it might be moving to
Christians
who truly believe that the suffering and the atonement for their
sins are synonymous, to me it would seem like a macabre exercise
in fetishist sadism.

More like masochism,

Well, it is masochism if you enjoy getting hurt yourself; it is sadism if
you get pleasure out of watching *another* person getting hurt. So if I
actually found it within myself to *enjoy* such a spectacle, I would be
sadist. But I suppose if I was appalled and horrified by it and stayed there
anyway because *that* brought me pleasure, I'd be a masochist. Either way, I
don't imagine myself sitting through such a movie and coming away feeling
good about Christianity.

I'll add that I have some issues with the movie's histority, as well. I hear
Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a relatively decent sort of fellow. In
reality, he was a brutal dictator who tortured and executed many, many Jews
besides Jesus.

I *do* rather wish the movie had a more balanced approach that I thought I
could stomach, though. As a former Classicist, I'd really love to hear a
movie with dialog in ancient koine Greek, Aramaic, and Latin. *That* would
be worth the price of admission if not for the blood and gore.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [23 mos.] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
Financing for "5" years -- car dealership sign

Aurora reciting alphabet: S...T...U...V...DW...X....Y...Z

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

In article 8xN%b.5023$id3.3529@fed1read01, Circe says...


Now, as a non-Christian who hasn't seen the movie, I'm really sticking my
nose in where it doesn't belong BUUUUT I certainly hope that Christians
aren't holding out hope of winning loads of converts to the faith by taking
their non-believing friends to this film. I can't think of *anything* less
likely to make me want to convert to Christianity than a graphic, bloody
depiction of a human being's torture and slow death. Although I can
understanding (at least intellectually) how it might be moving to Christians
who truly believe that the suffering and the atonement for their sins are
synonymous, to me it would seem like a macabre exercise in fetishist sadism.
--
Be well, Barbara

Hear hear.

When I see sentiments expressed by Christians on the order of "bring
non-Christian friends so that they can be moved by what Christ went through for
them", I'm amazed by the total lack of understanding of just how unique certain
notions are to Christians. First of all, if I don't buy into the notion that
I'm condemned because I'm full of sin (heck, if I don't buy into the notion that
I'm full of sin), then there's no saving to be done for me. Furthermore, even
if I *did* buy into the notion that I must be saved, I would also have to buy
into the notion that a proxy sacrifice (at that, a proxy *human* sacrifice) is
what's necessary to do the saving.

Without these, what we have is a spectacle of torture played out to a degree and
to a length that would only impress sadists. Everyone else would be repulsed.
Unless they subscribe to those religious notions (in which case, I guess,
they're to be both repulsed and grateful).

I like that quote about the movie, depending on the moviegoer's beliefs, being
either profoundly excessive or excessively profound.

Not being a sadist, I dont' plan to see it.

Banty

On 27 Feb 2004 12:44:21 -0800, Banty wrote:


When I see sentiments expressed by Christians on the order of "bring
non-Christian friends so that they can be moved by what Christ went through for
them", I'm amazed by the total lack of understanding of just how unique certain
notions are to Christians.

'Passion' may not be the right movie to move non-Christians, however
the sequel (Return of the King) will be the one to see. I don't
understand how anyone could not be moved when Jesus leads the 12
apostles into Mordor to face off against the Nazgul (who for some
reason, are given large noses in the screenplay).

In article ,
(Duff Paddy) wrote:

On 27 Feb 2004 12:44:21 -0800, Banty wrote:


When I see sentiments expressed by Christians on the order of "bring
non-Christian friends so that they can be moved by what Christ went through
for
them", I'm amazed by the total lack of understanding of just how unique
certain
notions are to Christians.

'Passion' may not be the right movie to move non-Christians, however
the sequel (Return of the King) will be the one to see. I don't
understand how anyone could not be moved when Jesus leads the 12
apostles into Mordor to face off against the Nazgul (who for some
reason, are given large noses in the screenplay).


I am moved by Jesus' story. That doesn't mean I have to accept a
Christian interpretation of it.

I am also moved by, for example, Ghandi's life, and enjoy Hindu
mythology -- but haven't converted to Hinduism, either.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

Here's an essay that's well worth the time, for those who want to
delve more deeply into the movie's structure -

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-...cunningham.htm



And here's a chart of the differences and similarities among the four
gospel passion narratives. Any dramatization of the death of Jesus
must select from these options to construct a coherent narrative.

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-...Narratives.htm

In article ,
Connie Johnston wrote:

I have two sons (11 + 13). Is this movie appropriate for them?

I heard/read about five reviews. All of them said that Gibson's movie is
among the most violent and bloody movies these critics have ever seen.
You're the kids' parent so it is certainly up to you, but I suggest you
see the movie first and decide for yourself if you feel it is
appropriate for your kids to see.

In article ,
Antipodean Bucket Farmer wrote:

In article ,
says...
Connie Johnston writes:
| I have two sons (11 + 13). Is this movie appropriate for them?

To me personally, there's no question that this movie is not
appropriate for pre-teens or younger teenagers. It's rated R for
violence alone, which means it's quite violent, and at its heart the
plot is about someone being tortured to death.


It is? Really?

Does that mean that book on which it is based also has
a plot which revolves around someone being tortured to
death?

On Jay Leno last night (Thursday), Mel Gibson said the Bible is one of
the most sordid and sexually oriented books he's ever read. To me,
it is all a fantasy anyway. I do not plan to see Gibson's movie
because I do not want to see such graphic violence and I have no
desire to enrich the bank account of a religious fanatatic.