The Passion of the Christ

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vuk's son:
To a lesser extent (only because it is more comprehensive) I'd say the same aobut the bible - we learnt how to read it in a modern and "whole" way, to identify the various authors, to identify external influences etc. - so if there's someone still who thinks I shouldn't drive 10 kilometers on a saturday and walk in the sun instead -because it says "thou shall do no work on Saturday" - he is the crazy one that should be treated, how come he is a minister in my government ?

---

You see, you get that type in every religion. It holds spiritual development and society back. At worst it leads to unthinking acceptance and bigotry, supression and mass hatred of others who hold different views, driving the development backwards.

Ok burn me. I'm a heretic

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

Tom,

quote:

---

Firstly as a Christian, the Crucifiction is probably the most significant event in the life of Christ. It is the culmanation of God's plan for His Son. I don't expect you to believe that but it is important in our Theology.

---

This concentration in the plastic event shows of a very low degree of belief. If Jesus had been stoned instead of crucified - how much would that change the christian belief ? I don't think it should matter. This orthodox adherence to arbitrary details is stupid in all beliefs.

quote:

---

Ok burn me. I'm a heretic

---

That's more like it

Omer.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ross Blackman:
[QUOTE] How can these two ideas be reconciled?
QUOTE]

Ross-

First, I'll spare you an overview on Aquinas
as I have too much respect for your intellect and too much handle on the limits of mine!

I'll dance around the original sin question
a bit by tossing out these thoughts - I don't
believe God is bound by time so Jesus's death
on the Cross covering sins past, present, future
works for me. As for the practical applications
to one's life, yes, I could spend the rest of
my days (after a coming to terms with the subject at hand) breaking every "rule in the book". I don't believe that changes in any way
what Christ did. It will change me. What I've found in my forty or so odd
years is there's a lot to where the rubber meets
the road - the more I strive to live according to Christ's teachings, the more I find my life
to be satisfying personally, and a positive impact on those around me. I continue to sin and fall short, but I like having something better to aspire to.


kind regards,
Scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vuk's son:
This orthodox adherence to arbitrary details is stupid in all beliefs.

---

It shouldn't matter, but to many it does. Try telling your Far Right Orthodox Jews, or the Born Again Charismatic Christians or Islamic Fundamentalists your last sentance. If you come back alive let us know how you get on. Meanwhile I'll get on with my life . Nice and toasty here. I do like a bit of steak.

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

Scott,

What you write strikes as a one real religion one should strive to.

But maybe, do you think you could reach these aspired values without the help of god, but only with some other searching, reading, moral, and finding these within ? because if that's the end of religion, being good and making good, can't we cut the middleman and save some problems ?

I'm asking because once "god" is involved there're problems - who the real god is, who worships him the best etc., with Abel first but not last victim of these fights ?

Regards, Omer.

quote:

---

so if there's someone still who thinks I shouldn't drive 10 kilometers on a saturday and walk in the sun instead -because it says "thou shall do no work on Saturday" - he is the crazy one that should be treated, how come he is a minister in my government ?

---

Omer, I couldn't agree more. This is obviously a problem in any country where those with fundamentalist beliefs are allowed to influence government policy. Whenever GWB talks about god it frightens me more than any number of Iranian incitements to holy war.

quote:

---

Secondly, there has been nearly 2000 years of precedence of creating artistic works portraying the Passion, not least the Bach St matthew passion which is one of the greatest pieces of music ever composed (IMO natch).

---

This is of course true. The St Matthew Passion is one of the cornerstones of Western Music and a source of great pleasure even to those of us who don't share the beliefs it represents. The same is true of so much Christian painting and architecture. I can't describe the awe with which I toured the Vatican. If Christianity had achieved nothing else, it would be admired for all those wonderful paintings of the annunciation and the crucifixion. I guess the question, however, is whether Mel Gibson's film falls within that tradition and, if so, if it is a worthy successor to Bach and Piero dell Francesca.
Not having seen it, I can't yet comment, and there is certainly a fine line between art and ideological propoganda.

quote:

---

If Jesus had been stoned instead of crucified - how much would that change the christian belief ?

---

Surely it would just mean that Christians would wear little rocks on chains instead of crosses, and would make the sign of the rock?

quote:

---

I don't
believe God is bound by time so Jesus's death
on the Cross covering sins past, present, future
works for me.

---

Okay, that makes sense. But if Jesus' death redeemed the sins of all past, present and future men, doesn't this effectively wipe out all our sins and we should be returned to our pre-Original Sin state of grace. And wouldn't that mean, amongst other things, that I don't need to go into the office today?

Ross

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vuk's son:

But maybe, do you think you could reach these aspired values without the help of god, but only with some other searching, reading, moral, and finding these within

---

Omer-

Yes, I certainly do - but you speak of a greater man than I. When I look within there's a lot of "me, me, ME", pessimism, and intolerance. Still a long way to go, even with
the goal ahead.

best,
Scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ross Blackman:
[QUOTE] if it is a worthy successor to Bach and Piero dell Francesca.
Ross

---

Ross-

Thought-provoking stuff. I'm going into
watching Gibson's film with the idea that this
is his offering, through the gifts he's been given, of worship and I'll look on it with the same way I do the a bit off-key, nervous high-school girl who sang "Amazing Grace" in church
awhile back. The beauty of her intent overpowered her musical shortcomings. We'll see what does the overpowering in the movie, yes?

Sorry about the work thing, btw.

best,
Scott

So has anyone seen it yet. Is it a work of high art?

I haven't seen it but I can tell you it's not art as that was never the intention.

Omer and Ross,
In a democratic state, when a person who believes because of religious reasons that people must not drive on Saturday becomes a minister, it must be ok with you, Omer. The danger starts when someone decides that another person is a crazy person because of his opinion - and it doesn't matter if the opinion based on religious manner or something else. This is the democratic way, and every citizen in a democratic country has the ways to try to convince other people in the way he thinks is the right one. Omer, the people like Herzel who wanted a country for the Jews in the years 1860 - 1880 knew then that the Jews in Europe are in danger (and it is wonder for me how great they were in predicting the future) so I'm not sure these days if it is not good for us to have few religious people in our government to remind us few things (and see what happens in the USA and Europe because of Gibson’s movie).
I'm not religious at all, but Israel is a country of the Jews and for the Jews.

The shame is that this movie is not aloud here.

Arye

quote:

---

In a democratic state, when a person who believes because of religious reasons that people must not drive on Saturday becomes a minister, it must be ok with you, Omer. The danger starts when someone decides that another person is a crazy person because of his opinion - and it doesn't matter if the opinion based on religious manner or something else

---

Arye, give me a break. The danger is when people do not understand the limits of governments. Limiting people's freedom for no reason is "immoral" as is killing civilians, taking their possesions etc.

To continue your reasoning, tomorrow the elected government decides anyone who lights fire on a Saturday is killed (it says so in the bible). Would you still argue "this is democracy" and would I then be allowed to call him crazy ?

The partial solution is to have a constitution, but the state/religion love affair prevents this.

Omer.

Omer,
I think that you are out of the line...

A government rules by the laws!! The law is above all including governments.

So I can't accept your example - Some of the religious people in Israel are trying to force their ideas upon the others, but the balance of the political wings here puts borders to their influence.

The settlements for example, are to my opinion far more dangerous to us than the religious people, so why don't we say that everyone who supports the settlements is a crazy person? (The problem is that the political balance here may put me, according to your point of view about the democratic way, as a crazy person....).

Arye

Arye,

You are being picky. I did not elaborate enough so a second try:

Next elections the religious parties win 40% of votes and succeed in passing a law that anyone who lights fire on Saturdays is sentenced for life in prison. The law is passed despite objections of the high court. The basic law "freedom of the individual" is changed accordingly to allow this new law.

What now, is that still real democracy ? And again, can I now call them crazy please ?

Regards,
Omer.

quote:

---

So has anyone seen it yet. Is it a work of high art?

---

Erm ... yup .. saw it a week or so ago. Wanted to go to Starsky & Hutch but that was vetoed.

It goes down in my book as a film that you should watch at some stage, but one you'll probably never come back to. The most interesting bit for me was to hear Latin spoken. Sounds very much different to my recollections of boyhood incatations in the classroom.

As for the film itself, anti-Semitic? I don't think so. As far as I can see he hacked off the Pharisees by some (to them) blashpemous statements. The high priests (for it is they) rabble roused and the Romans found themselves with little option but to please the crowd by topping this chap in order to keep the peace. Two thousand years ago, and earlier, being a high prist/leader of some cult/religion was more a sinecure than a religious duty and people tended to protect their kushty way of life in whatever way possible. So it boils down to a story of some high powered, high positioned, relatively wealthy types trying to keep their gravy train rolling by whatever means necessary. Hardly anti-Semitic.

As for the violence I found it all a bit turgid after a while. It is OTT, and once you've seen a bloke having the sh*t kicked out of him for a few minutes the rest becomes boring. And the odd flashes of some other-world creature gave the film Stephen King high-farce at some stages. I think if the violence hadn't been so protracted and gratuitous the film would have slipped by on the radar un-noticed. As usual, YMMV.

Duncan

I think I'd have to echo Duncan's sentiments here, but there are one or two other things worth noting.

The look of the film is amazing. The director of photography and production designers deserve all the plaudits they're going to get. They really have got the 'Carravaggio' thing going really well.

The other-world creature is the devil.

Latin: we were taught Classical Latin pronunciation (Remember "Kaekilius entrat atrium et kirkumspektat"?), which dates to around 300-500 years before the events portrayed in the film. How far their Latin had progressed to Vulgar Latin by the First Century BC/AD is conjecture. However, it did sound very Ecclesiastical to me. "Eche Homo" instead of "Ekke Homo", "Seditzio" instead of "Seditio", etc. But it was really interesting to hear it spoken at all. And I thought the actor who portrayed Pilate was brilliant. But, oooh, weren't those Roman soldiers really nasty?

Anti-Semitism: Now this is where it gets interesting. Apparently the line attributed to Caiaphas (Head Pharisee Honcho) "His blood be upon us and upon all our generations" (or something) is spoken in Hebrew, but isn't translated in the subtitles. That this line is often quoted as the root cause of anti-semitism, and that it has absolutely no historical corroboration (like most of the content of the gospels), its inclusion has to be viewed as a little suspect. But then Gibson believes in the absolute literal truth of these stories.

The mechanics of crucifixion were based on Catholic iconography (nails through palms and feet, supporting weight of whole body), which doesn't ring true. People were tied to crosses. There's not much evidence that I can find that nails were ever used (apart from in christain texts, where it's good propaganda). They certainly aren't necessary for the process that causes death by crucifixion (asphyxiation).

The final scene is toe-curlingly, wince-inducingly bad. Go out there and score that winning touchdown, JC!

Oh, and Jesus invented the dining table, apparently.

Cheers,

Tim
_____________________________

Os nid Campagnolo yw hi, dyw hi ddim yn werth ei marcho...

Omer,
I'm sorry but I think that people with your opinion are a danger for democracy. If the religious parties will occupy 40% of the Knesset they will have the all rights to bring laws according to their power. You can't decide when a law that came by the Knesset is irrelevant for you because of your opinions.

Arye

Arye, please explicitly answer this:

If, by some ancient biblic law, the government passes a law that all arab citizens should be killed (AMALEK etc.), and then by another biblic law (OVDEI ELILIM), the Knesset passes a law to kill all secular jews, is this still democracy ?

Please just answer.

I tried not to state the obvious, but you seem to be totally oblivious to moral. The will of the majority has its limits.

Omer.

And to answer your post, I think it's a compliment to be described as danger to immoral democracies.

Regards, Omer.

Omer,

I will not be able to live in a country with such laws, but don't run so quickly to biblical laws (which are only hypothetical theory you describe) see how we act to the Arabs in Israel and nothing of it is due to biblical laws.

Arye

Arye,

At last we agree that not all laws in democracy are ok.

So we have somehow to decide which rules are ok and which not. In the US there's the constitution that defines the rights of citizens - right of possesion, of freedom, of movement, etc, based around human rights as you and me percept.

But in Israel there're people who think that the guidelines for laws of the state should be the biblic law that prevent a proper human-right constitution to appear.

You can turn this anyhow you like, but these members of the parliament want a biblic-run state with SANHEDRIN instead of high court, with civil law swapped for biblic law. If this is accomplished it'll lead to immoral laws in the vein that I demonstrated.

Arye, these people try to damage the state and democracy, we have a struggle here and I'll call them anyway I like.

regards,
Omer.

Omer,

There are not religious people in Israel that want to weakness the Supreme Court and it has nothing to do with biblical reasons...

If the Knesset will pass laws that you are not agree with, you can obey the laws or you can leave the country, I can't see other way.

Again, in Israel, not like in the USA or the UK, or France, I think that it is a must to have a touch of religious people in the government and in the Knesset. If it is not ok with you, do what ever you can do to influence the election in a way that will reduce their power. I can't see a different way in a democracy.

Arye