Mel Gibson's new movie...

[rhinegirl]

quote:Originally posted by shaman
[brRhinegirl, you see the dust grain in the eye of the Israel, but you do not see the beam in yours.

But you, you are not even Palestinian, and you do not Fogive anything to Israel, worse than that you are calling for the death of Israel and claiming you have nothing to do with Neo Nazism.

People who claim loudly "Death to an entire nation" sounds to me very extreme, very dangerous, very unsane, .. to say the least.

You're right. I do have a beam in my eye and yet, I see I see.
I'd like an end to all oppressive govts, but that will never happen because there will always be someone who is oppressed by a govt.
Oh, and I do know quite a bit about teh problem. I had a freind who had family living one of teh tiny enclosed areas that Isreal allows to the Palestinians.

Jessica

[Mustardseed]

AlphaOmega

I agree totally with your post.

Douglas
I understand your point that the texts were written later. As you remember we all went over that in great detail in a memorable thread now long forgotten[], however my point is this.

Since we do not know in person the ones who put in on paper and since we "were not there", we can only guess if the things "added" later were added based on other written records, or "concocted" for whatever political or other motive. All we know is that certain records were found that dated about 75A.D. (I think that was the earliest correct me if I am wrong), if other records existed that formed the basis for these, it is indeed possible that they were destroyed or maybe hidden. If you will be fair consider the following, these other records may even exist somewhere, I am not saying they do, nor do I base anything on that, but even in a courtroom you are innocent till proven guilty. I know it is a long shot but Nag Hammadi as well as the Dead Sea scrolls are evidence that it is a possibility.
Since we who believe the Bible see in it a God that wants us to believe "by faith" this seems plausible.

I realise that you are not a believer in the historical accuracy of the Gospel but please be fair and admit that you base this nonbelief on circumstancial evidence, not hard fact. It is a conclusion you draw from the information you do have. Would you agree on that?

Regards Mustardseed

[shaman]

Yes sure, Rhine Fraulein!

And I once had an israeli friend.... .. (ma ata omer ?!).

Salam Alekh, saidati!
Au revoir La Fille du Rhim!
En esperant que ce que tu ecris sera un peu moins farouche et plus sympa...

[Gandalf]

YES YES OH SWEET ODIN YES!!!!!!! *tries to stop panting* PLEASE!!??

Rhinegirl_


Hmm, that wouldnt be sarcasm would it?  


Douglas

[Berserk]

"The Passion of the Christ" is by far the most important movie ever made on a religious theme.  One really doesn't ENJOY or WATCH it; one EXPERIENCES it.   That said, the violence did get to me and I was more depressed than inspired.  As a Professor of Religion, what disturbed me were the TV talking heads who claimed that the depiction of a waffling Pilate was historically inaccurate.  Even the ancient Jewish hostorian Josephus offers an example of a waffling Pilate being so intimidated by Jewish protests that he revoked his order to bring Roman standards into the Temple area.  Others were bothered by the fact that, Simon of Cyrene, the Jew who is forced to help Jesus carry his cross, is ultimately supportive of Jesus.  Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome and in Pauls Letter to the Romans he raves about the contributions of Rufus, Simon of Cyrene's son who later becomes a Christian.  So Simon's transformation, though not recorded in the Gospels, is good historical conjecture and reflects judicious artistic licence.  A Roman soldier finally cusses Simon out as a "Jew" and sends him away.  He is a Jewish nondisciple who helps expose the lie that this film is antisemitic.

[rhinegirl]

Not at all Doug. I love to read anything I can in regards to thoughtforms and their creation.

Jessica

quote:Originally posted by Gandalf

YES YES OH SWEET ODIN YES!!!!!!! *tries to stop panting* PLEASE!!??

Rhinegirl_


Hmm, that wouldnt be sarcasm would it?  


Douglas

[Nagual]

Symphony for the devil
New Market Films / Icon Production
John Debney, who composed the music for "The Passion of the Christ," says he did battle with Satan while scoring the flick.

Debney had written music for a number of movies such as "Liar, Liar," "Spy Kids," and "I Know What You Did Last Summer" — but he says he was visited by the devil while writing the score for the film about the last hours of Jesus Christ.

"I had never before subscribed to the idea that maybe Satan is a real person, but I can attest that he was in my room a lot and I know that he hit everyone on this production," Debney said, according to a lengthy interview that ran on Assist News Service, a Christian news agency.

Debney claims that Satan's image kept appearing on his computer screen while he was trying to compose music. "The first time it happened, it scared me," he said. "Once I got over the initial shock of that, I learned to work around it and learned to reboot the computers and so I would start talking to him. . . . The computers froze for about the tenth time [one] day and it was about nine o'clock at night and so I got really mad and I told Satan to manifest himself and I said, 'Let's go out into the parking lot and let's go.' It was a seed change in me. I knew that this was war. I am not a physical person, but I was really angry on this occasion."

Debney's spokesman confirms to The Scoop that the composer did, indeed, say those things.

[Gandalf]

er.....ok!

Sounds like 'publicity drive' to me.

Douglas


PS regarding the film,putting aside any anti-semitic themes; as a Roman historian myself, I hope there is no *anti-Roman themes* in the movie. I am sick and tired of all those hollywood productions from the 50's and 60's (although movies like Sparticus and Ben Hur were great in their own right) who paint the Romans as a bunch of wicked, immoral filth who were the enemies of the true god, the bad guys of the bible etc etc.

In fact as every christian *should* realise, they should thank the Roman empire, because it was the Empire who eventially adopted Christianity as the state religion and turned it from a minority faith within the Empire to THE ONLY faith and transformed it into a world religion; Christianity as we know it today, whatever denomination, owes itself to the Empire.
So to say that the Romans were the enemy of the 'true' religion is cr*p; its just that I have heard people say this in the past and its irritating. Christians should thank the Romans for their religion, as without the Empire they would never have heard of it; It was the Emperor Constantine who eventially decided what religion was good for you!

It is now almost certain that Christianity would never have become the dominant religion without direct imperial patronage. After 313, the Roman state poured huge amount of money into the church and funded a massive expansion of church buildings, training and organisation, including building churches in Jeruselem.

At the same time, paganism died hard and despite frequent bans of pagan cults, cash subsidies to pagan temples were only withdrawn completely towards the end of the 4th century, making it very difficult to survive; also by the end of the 4th century persecution of pagans began in earnest; there were even cases of gangs of monks terrorising estates!!!

If we look at the Sassanid Persian empire next door to the Roman empire in the east, there was a similar number of Christians there as in the Roman empire (ony 1/5th of population of the Empire were christians in 313CE); however, in the Persian empire, the state never adopted the religion so it always remained a minority faith there (staying at about 1/5th), right up until the 7th century when the Arab Muslim conquest swept them and their Zoarastianism religion all away.

It was all an amazing stroke of luck; After the troubles of the 3rd century, Constantine was looking for things which would help bind the empire together, faith being one of them. It just so happened that his mother Helena was an adherrent of that strange eastern religion called 'Christianity'; a light bulb went on above his head and he asked his mother 'tell me more about this 'Christianity''!!!

What a brilliant idea! Not only was it a novel way of binidng the empire together through religion, by its monotheistic nature it also seemed to perfectly comliament the ideology of absolute monarchic authority, thereby reinforcing the position of emperor; God could rule heaven, while the emperor could be sanctioned by divine authority to rule the earth (strictly on behalf of God of course!).

The pattern was then set: the foundation of the Roman successor states of Europe was laid, which would come to fruition once the Empire collapsed in the West from 410CE onwards (The Eastern half of the empire on the other hand continued until 1453, latr known as the Byzantine empire).

Christianity's role as authorising divine right to rule remains the cornerstone of monarchic rule right up to present day; actually not just monarchic rule, but the legitimacy of any state.
In UK some people still say 'God bless the Queen', while in the US the President will say 'God bless the USA'. The idea is the same.

[Mustardseed]

Dear Douglas

I would like to know where you fould the plans, what materials you used and how long it took to finetune the prototype. Then I would like to take a few trips myself, I would like to visit my birth, take a look at the first guy who invented the wheel and peek a bit in Miss Monroes dressing room. A time mashine must be a wonderful thing to own.

Oh by the way if you do not have such a machine, how do you know these things......have you taken up Channeling as well[]

Gandalph said:

It was all an amazing stroke of luck; After the troubles of the 3rd century, Constantine was looking for things which would help bind the empire together, faith being one of them. It just so happened that his mother Helena was an adherrent of that strange eastern religion called 'Christianity'; a light bulb went on above his head and he asked his mother 'tell me more about this 'Christianity''!!!

What a brilliant idea! Not only was it a novel way of binidng the empire together through religion, by its monotheistic nature it also seemed to perfectly comliament the ideology of absolute monarchic authority, thereby reinforcing the position of emperor; God could rule heaven, while the emperor could be sanctioned by divine authority to rule the earth (strictly on behalf of God of course!)

(end quote)

Gimme a ride gimme a ride pleeeeeease[]

Regards Mustardseed

[Gandalf]

Hey Mustardseed!
I am relating these things for those who are interested in the historical origins of Christianity, it is not an attack on christinaity in any way!

All of the important events are well documented by 4th century CHRISTIAN writers like Eusebius and Lactantius; Eusebius later went on to be tutor to Constantine's son, so he knew him very well indeed.

Exploring the historical events which led to Christianity becoming a world religion is an interesting topic. It *doesnt* lesson the value of Christianity as a religion in any way, so I wonder why you take it that way. Christian historians agree with everything I said above; the facts in no way lesson the faith.

For example, I say 'the adoption of Christianity came about through amazing good luck' ie the troubles of the 3rd century, Helena's adoption of Christianity, Constantine's quest for new ways to bind the empire and so on;  all these things came together 'in a lucky fluke' if you are viewing this from a non-religious point of view.

However, if you are a Christian you will find all this as clear evidence of God moving in the world: it was not chance which made these events come together, it was God's will.

The events I have described above are often used by Christian writers to argue FOR God moving in the world, do you see?

Anyway, the original point was that I was attempting to defend the Empire by pointing out that the Empire was a very good friend of Christianity from 313 onwards, it was its 'staff' in a very real way, and allowed it to reach its position of complete authority which would have been impossible before; most Christians would'nt disagree with me, as they see the Roman empire as a tool of God for bringing this about. This is certainly how Augustine saw it in his 'City of God' (5th century).

Douglas

PS I would like a time machine of course, as I would'nt mind finding out if the rumour was true about Constantine killing his wife by throwing her in a vat of boiling water!

If I could go back in time, I could even prevent this, kill Constantine, then Fausta (his wife) would be so grateful that she would marry me, thereby allowing me to be crowned as Augusti, thus allowing me to take over the Empire. I would then reverse Constantine's Christian policy and instead issue an edict promoting the offical religion of Star Trek.

[shaman]

I found this critics from an Italian journalist... I think it summarizes it well (though of course I prefer the movie "The life of Brian"!).

The Passion of the Christ. Directed by Mel Gibson. Starring James Caviezel, Monica Bellucci, Claudia Gerini and Maia Morgenstern.

I guess like most people who just saw Passion of the Christ, the first thing I thought as I left the theater was, "Wow, those Roman dudes really beat the snot out of that hippie! They must have hated that freaking hippie!"

Also, I guess I wondered why the hell the were beating up the hippie, and what the hippie's deal was. See, there's no context to Passion: just straight-up flesh-ripping violence porn. If you want to see a naked guy get whipped, flogged and nailed, and you live in a community with limited access to gay leather magazines, then this is really the movie for you.

It starts with Yoshua (in the subtitles they call him "Jesus," but he's supposed to be Jewish, not Puerto Rican, so the dialogue has him as "Yoshua") having a bad trip in the garden of his rich friend Gethsemane. Then-- and this is what makes the movie fun--Satan shows up.

Satan has gotta be everyone's favorite literary character. He rocks ... just ask everyone he's worked with, like Jimmy Page or Rob Halford or the RNC. So Satan shows up in the garden, and a snake crawls out of his pants. Seriously. And then Yoshua steps on the snake's head, setting up the generally queer thematics of the film.

Though, to be fair, Satan is played by a chick. But she's all made up to look like a dude, so I think she's supposed to be a dude. Anyway, she, or he, or maybe He, keeps showing up on the outskirts of the action, doing creepy things like cradling a midget in his/her/His arms. Because midgets are scary.

Or at least writer/director Mel Gibson must think so, because in another scene, Judas gets attacked by evil midgets. Why? I don't know. I guess it was cheaper than hiring actual demons.

Other than the cheap-butt "midgets as symbols of evil" bit, though, the special effects in this film are superb. When the Romans start whipping Yoshua with flesh-gouging, metal-tipped whips, you really see the flesh fly and the gouges appear. It couldn't look more real. It's incredibly disgusting, and if you have trouble sitting through, say, a Quentin Tarantino film or a KGB interrogation, then I wouldn't recommend you see Passion. But if you go for that sort of thing, well, this is your one chance to see it while pretending that you're engaging in piety.

On the other hand, it's gonna have to be pretend piety, because this is the most a-religious Christ movie ever. There's one line snipped from the Sermon on the Mount, two sentences from the last supper, and that's about it for the preaching of Jesus. There's no character development, no background and almost nothing from JC's words. Just lots and lots of beatings. Unless you already know who Jesus is, and have already decided to root for him, there's not gonna be much drama in this film, because the movie itself provides little reason to sympathize with the main character, other than the fact that he's getting his butt kicked for about an hour.

Of course, it's by Mel Gibson, who's basically known for making low-brow violence fests, so I guess it's no surprise, but this was advertised as a piece of Christian cinema, which it ain't.

It also isn't the anti-Semitic screed people had warned about. It's really no more anti-Semitic than the Gospels, and, in fact, it's considerably less anti-Semitic than the Gospel of John.

Actually, it's the Roman soldiers who come off as the most evil. The Jewish residents of Jerusalem are not univocal in their attitudes toward Jesus, and it's not like there's some homogenous group called "the Jews" who pick on him. The Italians, on the other hand, all seem like total bastards who really love torturing naked guys. So why aren't Italians all up in arms about how anti-Italic this movie is? As an Italian, I'd like to think that it's because Italians are the one ethnic group who thinks that being a hyper-sensitive whiner is lame. Then again, it's probably because most Italians are Christians, so they just plainly support this pro-Jesus stuff. Oh well.

So I don't quite get the controversy. We know Jesus gets offed, and considering the population of Jerusalem in 30 A.D., the choices for who offed him are (a) Jews or (b) Romans. In this film, the guilt goes both ways, though the Romans seem much nastier and less human about it.

Plus, pretty much every previous Jesus movie told the same story, wherein the Pharisees call for the death of Jesus. It's even this way in total hippie love-fest Jesus Christ Superstar. Why Mel's movie took a hit for this is an open question.

Of course, it's entirely likely that Mel's father's hardcore, vocal anti-Semitism has something to do with it. Mel himself has not been entirely clear on what his own attitude about this is, but he has refused to denounce his father's position, and when asked if he believed the Holocaust happened, he waffled quite a bit, not denying it, but holding back on how much of the standard story he believed.

So maybe Gibson's an anti-Semite. Who knows. But the film, not so much. On the other hand, it is sort of a pointless gore fest, and by the end, Jesus looks like Drippy McBloodspurt. Not a pretty sight, and I wouldn't take the kids.

In terms of aesthetics, the directing is cheesy, but competent. There's too much manipulative music during dramatic moments, and too much recourse to sudden slow-mo to emphasize a point, but I guess it's not supposed to be an art film. In fact, it comes off as an action film, and on that count, it's about as entertaining as any other film in the genre, and about as deep.

By JAMES DIGIOVANNA

[mustard]

Just asking,what do you people think of this whole controversy and media hype?
While watching a crucifixion scene, woman in her 50's had a heart attack and died during the screening of "Passion of Christ".
What do you think, what could make a person...  when watching a movie?