Reviews for "The Passion..." [Archive]

View Full Version : Reviews for "The Passion..."

dissention

02-25-2004, 02:22 PM

From yesterdays and todays IMDB Studio briefings:

Although film critics had been expected to crucify Mel Gibson when his The Passion of the Christ was released, the reviewers have turned out to be about equally divided over its merits. Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times, for example, anoints it with four stars, although commenting, "This is the most violent film I have ever seen." (Earlier in the week, Richard Roeper, Ebert's colleague on his syndicated TV show, commented "This is the most powerful, important and by far the most graphic interpretation of Christ's final hours ever put on film.") Ebert adds: "The film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it." Clearly, some critics have not been able to endure it. Writes Gene Seymour in Newsday: "This movie is little else besides a depiction of punishment so ruthless and unyielding that watching it unfold feels like punishment. (And what, one wonders, did we do to deserve such punishment?)" Indeed, some critics who find much to praise about the movie, wind up concluding that the unrelenting violence in it makes it virtually unwatchable. In the words of Lou Lumenick in the New York Post: "Passion is the closest we've come to a must-see movie this year, but the real question is: How many audience members will have the stomach to actually satisfy their curiosity?" There is also the criticism voiced by early viewers of the movie. Jami Bernard in the New York Daily News writes in a review published on the newspaper's front page: "Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II. It is sickening, much more brutal than any Lethal Weapon." Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times is not among the film's boosters either, and he remarks that the polarized reaction to it has left him in "the grip of a profound despair." He writes: "What is profoundly disheartening is that people of goodwill will see this film in completely different ways. Where I see almost sadistic violence, they will see transcendence; where I see blame, they will see truth." Still others point out that the film represents Gibson's vision. Richard Corliss, in Time magazine, while critical of much of that vision, nevertheless writes: "In dramatizing the torment of Jesus' last 12 hours, [Gibson] has made a serious, handsome, excruciating film that radiates total commitment. Few mainstream directors have poured so much of themselves into so uncompromising a production. Whatever the ultimate verdict on Gibson's Passion, it's hard not to admire Gibson's passion."

...and todays new reviews:

A few film critics have actually waited until today, the official opening date of The Passion of the Christ, to weigh in on the movie. Among them, A.O. Scott in the New York Times, who writes: "The Passion of the Christ is so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours that this film seems to arise less from love than from wrath, and to succeed more in assaulting the spirit than in uplifting it. Mr. Gibson has constructed an unnerving and painful spectacle that is also, in the end, a depressing one. It is disheartening to see a film made with evident and abundant religious conviction that is at the same time so utterly lacking in grace." Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal: "I found myself stunned, then horrified, then defensively benumbed, by a level of violence that, in another context, would be branded as pornographic. No one who watches Mr. Gibson's dramatization of Christ's final hours will come away unaffected by its intensity. Yet this work of manifest devotion, financed by the filmmaker himself, is ultimately overwhelmed by his obsession with physical suffering to the exclusion of political and metaphysical context." Carrey Rickey in the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Even for the faithful, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is too much Good Friday and not enough Easter Sunday. Emphasizing Jesus' agony over His ecstasy, Gibson has delivered a blood-drenched epic more stunning for its brutal violence than for its depiction of the Calvary. This work of obvious devotion may well be the first spiritual splatter film." Chris Vognar in the Dallas Morning News: "Controversy aside, it is dramatically intense, skillfully constructed and often harrowing, in ways that should have an impact on people of any or no particular faith. Just be ready for oceans and oceans of blood." Claudia Puig in USA Today: "Despite controversies swirling around the movie, one cannot deny that Gibson has made a stunning film, beautifully photographed in contrasting dark and golden hues by Caleb Deschanel. However, the one thing The Passion is not is enjoyable. The nearly half-hour march to Golgotha, the site of Jesus' crucifixion, is excruciating."

Pisces Queen

02-25-2004, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by dissention
However, the one thing The Passion is not is enjoyable. The nearly half-hour march to Golgotha, the site of Jesus' crucifixion, is excruciating."

I want to see this but I know that I won't be able to handle that and will cry so hard that I know I can't sit in a theater and watch it. I know my limits, I could barely get through Forest Gump. :confused:

wondergirl9847

02-25-2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by dissention
No one who watches Mr. Gibson's dramatization of Christ's final hours will come away unaffected by its intensity.

That is the point of the film.

Jesus endured WAY WAY WAY (infinity) more than what is shown in this film....guaranteed.

strandinthewind

02-25-2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
That is the point of the film.

Jesus endured WAY WAY WAY (infinity) more than what is shown in this film....guaranteed.

Actually, I have seen a portion of it and from what I saw there is no way that physically Jesus, as a human being, could have suffered as much or at least not much more. he would have gone into a coma or died.

But, I agree, it is called the "agony" for a reason.

dissention

02-25-2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
That is the point of the film.

Jesus endured WAY WAY WAY (infinity) more than what is shown in this film....guaranteed.

For some reason, I highly doubt that, just for the sheer fact that no human can sustain even what Gibson put on film. If Jesus did exist, I believe that something like the crucifixtion happened, but that the Bible's account is greatly exaggerated. I mean, in the film, he gets whipped so hard that his spleen start to come out of his body. Yet he still carries his own cross to the crucifixtion site? :confused:

wondergirl9847

02-25-2004, 05:10 PM

A Physician Testifies About the Crucifixion
by Dr. C. Truman Davis

About a decade ago, reading Jim Bishop's The Day Christ Died, I realized that I had for years taken the Crucifixion more or less for granted -- that I had grown callous to its horror by a too easy familiarity with the grim details and a too distant friendship with our Lord. It finally occurred to me that, though a physician, I didn't even know the actual immediate cause of death. The Gospel writers don't help us much on this point, because crucifixion and scourging were so common during their lifetime that they apparently considered a detailed description unnecessary. So we have only the concise words of the Evangelists: "Pilate, having scourged Jesus, delivered Him to them to be crucified -- and they crucified Him."

I have no competence to discuss the infinite psychic and spiritual suffering of the Incarnate God atoning for the sins of fallen man. But it seemed to me that as a physician I might pursue the physiological and anatomical aspects of our Lord's passonate some detail. What did the body of Jesus of Nazareth actually endure during those hours of torture?

This led me first to a study of the practice of crucifixion itself; that is, torture and execution by fixation to a cross. I am indebted to many who have studied this subject in the past, and especially to a contemporary colleague, Dr. Pierre Barbet, a French surgeon who has done exhaustive historical and experimental research and has written extensively on the subject.

Apparently, the first known practice of crucifixion was by the Persians. Alexander and his generals brought it back to the Mediterranean world -- to Egypt and to Carthage. The Romans apparently learned the practice from the Carthaginians and (as with almost everything the Romans did) rapidly developed a very high degree of efficiency and skill at it. A number of Roman authors (Livy, Cicer, Tacitus) comment on crucifixion, and several innovations, modifications, and variations are described in the ancient literature.

For instance, the upright portion of the cross (or stipes) could have the cross-arm (or patibulum) attached two or three feet below its top in what we commonly think of as the Latin cross. The most common form used in our Lord's day, however, was the Tau cross, shaped like our T. In this cross the patibulum was placed in a notch at the top of the stipes. There is archeological evidence that it was on this type of cross that Jesus was crucified.

Without any historical or biblical proof, Medieval and Renaissance painters have given us our picture of Christ carrying the entire cross. But the upright post, or stipes, was generally fixed permanently in the ground at the site of execution and the condemned man was forced to carry the patibulum, weighing about 110 pounds, from the prison to the place of execution.

Many of the painters and most of the sculptors of crucifixion, also show the nails through the palms. Historical Roman accounts and experimental work have established that the nails were driven between the small bones of the wrists (radial and ulna) and not through the palms. Nails driven through the palms will strip out between the fingers when made to support the weight of the human body. The misconception may have come about through a misunderstanding of Jesus' words to Thomas, "Observe my hands." Anatomists, both modern and ancient, have always considered the wrist as part of the hand.

A titulus, or small sign, stating the victim's crime was usually placed on a staff, carried at the front of the procession from the prison, and later nailed to the cross so that it extended above the head. This sign with its staff nailed to the top of the cross would have given it somewhat the characteristic form of the Latin cross.

But, of course, the physical passion of the Christ began in Gethsemane. Of the many aspects of this initial suffering, the one of greatest physiological interest is the bloody sweat. It is interesting that St. Luke, the physician, is the only one to mention this. He says, "And being in Agony, He prayed the longer. And His sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground."

Every ruse (trick) imaginable has been used by modern scholars to explain away this description, apparently under the mistaken impression that this just doesn't happen. A great deal of effort could have been saved had the doubters consulted the medical literature. Though very rare, the phenomenon of Hematidrosis, or bloody sweat, is well documented. Under great emotional stress of the kind our Lord suffered, tiny capillaries in the sweat glands can break, thus mixing blood with sweat. This process might well have produced marked weakness and possible shock.

After the arrest in the middle of the night, Jesus was next brought before the Sanhedrin and Caiphus, the High Priest; it is here that the first physical trauma was inflicted. A soldier struck Jesus across the face for remaining silent when questioned by Caiphus. The palace guards then blind-folded Him and mockingly taunted Him to identify them as they each passed by, spat upon Him, and struck Him in the face.

In the early morning, battered and bruised, dehydrated, and exhausted from a sleepless night, Jesus is taken across the Praetorium of the Fortress Antonia, the seat of government of the Procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate. You are, of course, familiar with Pilate's action in attempting to pass responsibility to Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of Judea. Jesus apparently suffered no physical mistreatment at the hands of Herod and was returned to Pilate. It was in response to the cries of the mob, that Pilate ordered Bar-Abbas released and condemned Jesus to scourging and crucifixion.

There is much disagreement among authorities about the unusual scourging as a prelude to crucifixion. Most Roman writers from this period do not associate the two. Many scholars believe that Pilate originally ordered Jesus scourged as his full punishment and that the death sentence by crucifixion came only in response to the taunt by the mob that the Procurator was not properly defending Caesar against this pretender who allegedly claimed to be the King of the Jews.

Preparations for the scourging were carried out when the Prisoner was stripped of His clothing and His hands tied to a post above His head. It is doubtful the Romans would have made any attempt to follow the Jewish law in this matter, but the Jews had an ancient law prohibiting more than forty lashes.

The Roman legionnaire steps forward with the flagrum (or flagellum) in his hand. This is a short whip consisting of several heavy, leather thongs with two small balls of lead attached near the ends of each. The heavy whip is brought down with full force again and again across Jesus' shoulders, back, and legs. At first the thongs cut through the skin only. Then, as the blows continue, they cut deeper into the subcutaneous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of the skin, and finally spurting arterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying muscles.

The small balls of lead first produce large, deep bruises which are broken open by subsequent blows. Finally the skin of the back is hanging in long ribbons and the entire area is an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue. When it is determined by the centurion in charge that the prisoner is near death, the beating is finally stopped.

The half-fainting Jesus is then untied and allowed to slump to the stone pavement, wet with His own blood. The Roman soldiers see a great joke in this provincial Jew claiming to be king. They throw a robe across His shoulders and place a stick in His hand for a scepter. They still need a crown to make their travesty complete. Flexible branches covered with long thorns (commonly used in bundles for firewood) are plaited into the shape of a crown and this is pressed into His scalp. Again there is copious bleeding, the scalp being one of the most vascular areas of the body.

After mocking Him and striking Him across the face, the soldiers take the stick from His hand and strike Him across the head, driving the thorns deeper into His scalp. Finally, they tire of their sadistic sport and the robe is torn from His back. Already having adhered to the clots of blood and serum in the wounds, its removal causes excruciating pain just as in the careless removal of a surgical bandage, and almost as though He were again being whipped the wounds once more begin to bleed.

In deference to Jewish custom, the Romans return His garments. The heavy patibulum of the cross is tied across His shoulders, and the procession of the condemned Christ, two thieves, and the execution detail of Roman soldiers headed by a centurion begins its slow journey along the Via Dolorosa. In spite of His efforts to walk erect, the weight of the heavy wooden beam, together with the shock produced by copious blood loss, is too much. He stumbles and falls. The rough wood of the beam gouges into the lacerated skin and muscles of the shoulders. He tries to rise, but human muscles have been pushed beyond their endurance.

The centurion, anxious to get on with the crucifixion, selects a stalwart North African onlooker, Simon of Cyrene, to carry the cross. Jesus follows, still bleeding and sweating the cold, clammy sweat of shock, until the 650 yard journey from the fortress Antonia to Golgotha is finally completed.

Jesus is offered wine mixed with myrrh, a mild analgesic mixture. He refuses to drink. Simon is ordered to place the patibulum on the ground and Jesus quickly thrown backward with His shoulders against the wood. The legionnaire feels for the depression at the front of the wrist. He drives a heavy, square, wrought-iron nail through the wrist and deep into the wood. Quickly, he moves to the other side and repeats the action being careful not to pull the arms to tightly, but to allow some flexion and movement. The patibulum is then lifted in place at the top of the stipes and the titulus reading "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" is nailed in place.

The left foot is now pressed backward against the right foot, and with both feet extended, toes down, a nail is driven through the arch of each, leaving the knees moderately flexed. The Victim is now crucified. As He slowly sags down with more weight on the nails in the wrists excruciating pain shoots along the fingers and up the arms to explode in the brain -- the nails in the writs are putting pressure on the median nerves. As He pushes Himself upward to avoid this stretching torment, He places His full weight on the nail through His feet. Again there is the searing agony of the nail tearing through the nerves between the metatarsal bones of the feet.

At this point, as the arms fatigue, great waves of cramps sweep over the muscles, knotting them in deep, relentless, throbbing pain. With these cramps comes the inability to push Himself upward. Hanging by his arms, the pectoral muscles are paralyzed and the intercostal muscles are unable to act. Air can be drawn into the lungs, but cannot be exhaled. Jesus fights to raise Himself in order to get even one short breath. Finally, carbon dioxide builds up in the lungs and in the blood stream and the cramps partially subside. Spasmodically, he is able to push Himself upward to exhale and bring in the life-giving oxygen. It was undoubtedly during these periods that He uttered the seven short sentences recorded:

The first, looking down at the Roman soldiers throwing dice for His seamless garment, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

The second, to the penitent thief, "Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise."

The third, looking down at the terrified, grief-stricken adolescent John -- the beloved Apostle -- he said, "Behold thy mother." Then, looking to His mother Mary, "Woman behold thy son."

The fourth cry is from the beginning of the 22nd Psalm, "My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?"

Hours of limitless pain, cycles of twisting, joint-rending cramps, intermittent partial asphyxiation, searing pain where tissue is torn from His lacerated back as He moves up and down against the rough timber. Then another agony begins...A terrible crushing pain deep in the chest as the pericardium slowly fills with serum and begins to compress the heart.

One remembers again the 22nd Psalm, the 14th verse: "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels."

It is now almost over. The loss of tissue fluids has reached a critical level; the compressed heart is struggling to pump heavy, thick, sluggish blood into the tissue; the tortured lungs are making a frantic effort to gasp in small gulps of air. The markedly dehydrated tissues send their flood of stimuli to the brain.

Jesus gasps His fifth cry, "I thirst."

One remembers another verse from the prophetic 22nd Psalm: "My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou has brought me into the dust of death."

A sponge soaked in posca, the cheap, sour wine which is the staple drink of the Roman legionaries, is lifted to His lips. He apparently doesn't take any of the liquid. The body of Jesus is now in extremes, and He can feel the chill of death creeping through His tissues. This realization brings out His sixth words, possibly little more than a tortured whisper, "It is finished."

His mission of atonement has completed. Finally He can allow his body to die.

With one last surge of strength, he once again presses His torn feet against the nail, straightens His legs, takes a deeper breath, and utters His seventh and last cry, "Father! Into thy hands I commit my spirit."

The rest you know. In order that the Sabbath not be profaned, the Jews asked that the condemned men be dispatched and removed from the crosses. The common method of ending a crucifixion was by crurifracture, the breaking of the bones of the legs. This prevented the victim from pushing himself upward; thus the tension could not be relieved from the muscles of the chest and rapid suffocation occurred. The legs of the two thieves were broken, but when the soldiers came to Jesus they saw that this was unnecessary.

Apparently to make doubly sure of death, the legionnaire drove his lance through the fifth interspace between the ribs, upward through the pericardium and into the heart. The 34th verse of the 19th chapter of the Gospel according to St. John reports: "And immediately there came out blood and water." That is, there was an escape of water fluid from the sac surrounding the heart, giving postmortem evidence that Our Lord died not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure (a broken heart) due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium.

Thus we have had our glimpse -- including the medical evidence -- of that epitome of evil which man has exhibited toward Man and toward God. It has been a terrible sight, and more than enough to leave us despondent and depressed. How grateful we can be that we have the great sequel in the infinite mercy of God toward man -- at once the miracle of the atonement (at one ment) and the expectation of the triumphant Easter morning.

dissention

02-25-2004, 05:23 PM

But, of course, that is a version of events that one religion believes and isn't necessarily fact.

That was quite hard to read and, I must admit, I skipped a few paragraphs because it was too much, but there were some points where I just thought to myself that they must think we're pretty gullable to buy that version of events.

After the whipping that caused such destruction to his body, he was only "half-fainting"?

After all of the torture he went through, he could still manage to even pick up the beam and walk with it?

I respect your beliefs, but I just think it's exaggerated.

Thanks for the article, Christy! :wavey:

wondergirl9847

02-25-2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I respect your beliefs, but I just think it's exaggerated.

Thanks for the article, Christy! :wavey:

Welcome!!

Speaking of exaggerated, I find it hard to believe in evolution. ;) I just cannot see how something comes from nothing. :shrug:

dissention

02-25-2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
Welcome!!

Speaking of exaggerated, I find it hard to believe in evolution. ;) I just cannot see how something comes from nothing. :shrug:

:laugh:

I can't see it either, but I think it's more plausible than what the Bible says. I wholeheartedly believe that the human race evolved from apes over time, that no one just created a man and then yanked out his rib to make a woman. :laugh:

But...to each his own. :laugh:

wondergirl9847

02-25-2004, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I wholeheartedly believe that the human race evolved from apes over time

:shocked:

LOL

Lala

02-25-2004, 05:56 PM

Christy, thanks for posting that. It was hard to read...but something I need to remind myself of.

estranged4life

02-25-2004, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I wholeheartedly believe that the human race evolved from apes over time

I thought the classic movie "Planet Of The Apes" kinda proved that :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Brian "Get yer hands off my 10 Commandments tablet & NRA membership card ya filthy apes" j.

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
Welcome!!

Speaking of exaggerated, I find it hard to believe in evolution. ;) I just cannot see how something comes from nothing. :shrug:

With all due respect (and ya know I love ya darlin' :cool: ) it most certainly is not something from nothing. That is too simple an explanation. Evolution is proven in just about all other species. It is not a theory then. The "problem" with the evolution of man is that the missing link or links cannot be found (I mean we are talking about millions of years here). That, however, does not disprove evolution. To the contrary, it just means it is still a theory that, when considered along with other species' proven evolution, is true. Also, look to your own body. Why do we have a useless "organ" called an appendix? Why do we have a tailbone when we have no tail? Clearly, these are remnants of our evoultion, which proves the theory of evolution.

Here is a great site from PBS on evolution. It truly is enlightening.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

Also, what I think is pretty much all religions have creation stories; some far older by documentation usually via artificact than The Bible's Hebrew creation story (Genesis 1-3). So, I think the actual wording of Genesis 1-3 is symbolic. As I mentioned earlier, if it is literal, then who are the other people in different lands that Cain meets and marries (one of them) when God banishes him?

I also think the theory of evolution does not obviate or disprove the theory of intelligent design in Genesis. I think they co-exist and Genesis 1-3 is a summary of evolution. That works for me :laugh: Otherwise, there is no way Genesis can be true, the earth is just too old for the events of Genesis to have taking place when The Bible says they did.

:cool:

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by dissention
I respect your beliefs, but I just think it's exaggerated.

Thanks for the article, Christy! :wavey:

I agree and think from what I have seen of it, the new Mel Gibson movie is exaggerated as well. Hey - its Hollywood!!! :laugh:

dissention

02-26-2004, 09:37 AM

I watched various talk shows last night where "The Passion" was the topic of the hour, and I must say, I'm very sickened by this movie.

The next big thing is the Christians screaming about how they're the most maligned and persecuted religion in America. :rolleyes: You should have seen the people making these claims last night.

The clips that they've been showing on TV of the movie are just gross and it's supposed to be even worse. I mean, when Ebert says it's the "most violent film ever made", you know somehting isn't right.

The thing I don't understand is why did Gibson make a movie that is solely about his torture and crucifixion and not at least include some of Jesus' supposed teachings? From what I hear, they don't even explain why this happens to him in the movie.

And, my final question, who is actually going to see this movie on the board?

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by dissention
I watched various talk shows last night where "The Passion" was the topic of the hour, and I must say, I'm very sickened by this movie.

The next big thing is the Christians screaming about how they're the most maligned and persecuted religion in America. :rolleyes: You should have seen the people making these claims last night.

The clips that they've been showing on TV of the movie are just gross and it's supposed to be even worse. I mean, when Ebert says it's the "most violent film ever made", you know somehting isn't right.

The thing I don't understand is why did Gibson make a movie that is solely about his torture and crucifixion and not at least include some of Jesus' supposed teachings? From what I hear, they don't even explain why this happens to him in the movie.

And, my final question, who is actually going to see this movie on the board?

I do not blame Gibson for making the movie because I think in general no topic should be censored from a film. I mean look at "Natural Born Killers" and that ilk. What I do think is I have the right not to go see it and to speak out against it as I did for "Natural Born Killers," etc. As for "The Passion," I think it is what it is. I think the bad part for me comes in when, as now, the religious far right is, for the most part, praising it and encouraging people to see it because they know it, like their hate speech and their blaming people not like them for the problems of the world, will bring people "a runnin'" back to them for guidance. I mean after all Pat Robertson claims to have God visit him in dreams and for $500 he tell you what God said - I will bet you $1000 what he says God told him is to give Pat more money so he can continue the crusade against the infidels - what an a$$hole :mad: Also, I find it highly hippocritical that the religious far right and a significant number of other types of people are so against violence in rap music, on t.v., etc., yet this film is one of the most violent things ever made. But, because that violence supports their agenda (which is mostly monetary IMO), the violence is okay :mad:

In sum, I think the movie for what it is and for what I have seen of it is brilliant in its general message that Christ dies for the sins of the world. I also do not find it anti-Jewish or at least not in the extremes that people are screaming about. But, the use of it to further hate through religion, esp. as it appears it will in Europe, repulses me. Perhaps I am wrong and this repulsive use of it was Gibson's intention all along :shrug:

dissention

02-26-2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I do not blame Gibson for making the movie because I think in general no topic should be censored from a film. I mean look at "Natural Born Killers" and that ilk. What I do think is I have the right not to go see it and to speak out against it as I did for "Natural Born Killers," etc.

Violence or no violence, Natural Born Killers was just a bad movie. It was preachy and annoying; the message glared at you, but Stone still decided to shove it down your throat. I did enjoy parts of it, though. :laugh:

Sadly, you're correct and this movie will only fuel the flames of the religious agenda. :(

wondergirl9847

02-26-2004, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by dissention
And, my final question, who is actually going to see this movie on the board?

Me. My dad and I are going to see it this weekend hopefully. :)

I'm not some right wing fanatical religious person. I'm not saying ya'll are saying I am. I grew up going to various churches with my family and I went to a Christian (Baptist...although I am not Baptist) school for 9 years. I don't attend church anymore, although from 1997 through 2000, I was a member at a church.

I realize there are people out there who are "hypocrites", but I don't have the energy to get angry with them. God will deal with them when the time comes. I believe in the "judge not, lest ye be judged" thing. We are ALL sinners, yes, even the Pope and Mother Teresa. :eek: LOL

I know I'm gonna have a HARD time watching this film, but that's the point.

I am not anti-Semitic, I don't hate ANYONE. I may not agree with things that people do or believe in, but I don't hate them for it. It's not my place to judge people.

Rob67

02-26-2004, 12:52 PM

GypsySorcerer

02-26-2004, 01:06 PM

dissention

02-26-2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
The Crucifixtion is the single most important event in Christianity. That is why. Most people who will see the film already know the story and teachings...if that is what you are looking for from the film then I wouldn't recommend seeing it.

Rob:cool:

By the same token, the people who are going to attend it already know the story of the crucifixion and it really makes no sense to see it. I'm not particularly looking for anything because I have no desire to see it. Like I said, I don't believe what the Bible says or in Christianity. However, I can't help but wonder why there isn't more to the movie than the torture and crucifixion. Everything I've read about the movie says that in the beginning of the film, Jesus is simply taken and tortured, then crucified. Why not at least show the audience his teachings? What is the point in producing, marketing, and watching a two-hour snuff film? That's all.

dissention

02-26-2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Hi Dessention. Well, Jesus' teaching are in the film. Jesus' message was "love one another." He encouraged forvigeness, even at the time of his crucifixtion, he said, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do." Jesus was about love, and the fact that he sacrificed his life for others conveys that message of love in the film. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, forcing one's beliefs down others throats, or anything like that. He traveled among the poor, sick, and outcast people of society. His message was one of love and acceptance -- a message that I think non-Christians and Christians alike should embrace.

Do they actually go into the depth of Jesus' beliefs and teachings in detail, or do they simply make passing reference of it?

estranged4life

02-26-2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by dissention
What is the point in producing, marketing, and watching a two-hour snuff film? That's all.

it is definitely being marketed in a way that I see as embarrassing.

You can buy "merchandise" for this movie at local religious stores, Merchandise? That is a SICK joke IMO...What next, Crucifixion action figures???

Brian j.

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by dissention
By the same token, the people who are going to attend it already know the story of the crucifixion and it really makes no sense to see it. I'm not particularly looking for anything because I have no desire to see it. Like I said, I don't believe what the Bible says or in Christianity. However, I can't help but wonder why there isn't more to the movie than the torture and crucifixion. Everything I've read about the movie says that in the beginning of the film, Jesus is simply taken and tortured, then crucified. Why not at least show the audience his teachings? What is the point in producing, marketing, and watching a two-hour snuff film? That's all.

The movie is not about Jesus' entire life. It soley is about "The Passion," which is the only event the movie portrays. So, it is not meant to show what Jesus did in His life, etc. From that point of view, it makes sense to me that they did not go into why Jesus was there.

dissention

02-26-2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
The movie is not about Jesus' entire life. It soley is about "The Passion," which is the only event the movie portrays. So, it is not meant to show what Jesus did in His life, etc. From that point of view, it makes sense to me that they did not go into why Jesus was there.

You missed what I was trying to say:

What is the point in producing, marketing, and watching a two-hour snuff film?

I would honestly like to know why people made a movie that is simply about the torture and crucifixion of the supposed son of God. The people who are going to pay money to see it already know that Jesus supposedly died for their sins. This movie serves absolutely no purpose except for Gibson to make money. Anyone who tries to say that isn't the case is delusional. Just look at they pre-movie hype that he built up. He started doing it back in 2000 before he even had it financed.

I'll tell you one thing, though. I wish the late and great Pauline Kael was alive to review this film; she'd tell it like it is. :nod:

CarneVaca

02-26-2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
Welcome!!

Speaking of exaggerated, I find it hard to believe in evolution. ;) I just cannot see how something comes from nothing. :shrug:

Chrissy, not nothing. The first human form was actually bacteria.

dissention

02-26-2004, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life
it is definitely being marketed in a way that I see as embarrassing.

You can buy "merchandise" for this movie at local religious stores, Merchandise? That is a SICK joke IMO...What next, Crucifixion action figures???

Brian j.

:nod: :nod: :nod:

They're selling t-shirts for it at my local mall.

wondergirl9847

02-26-2004, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
The first human from was actually bacteria.

Where did the bacteria come from? It just appeared one day? :confused:

dissention

02-26-2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
Where did the bacteria come from? It just appeared one day? :confused:

Where did God himself come from? Seriously.

estranged4life

02-26-2004, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Where did God himself come from? Seriously.

I think he came from New Jersey personally :laugh:

CarneVaca

02-26-2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847

I don't hate ANYONE.

Hmmm... didn't you say the other day that you hate Clay now? ;)

dissention

02-26-2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life
I think he came from New Jersey personally :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

He was a kosher butcher from Hoboken.

CarneVaca

02-26-2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
Where did the bacteria come from? It just appeared one day? :confused:

From what I understand, it was scrapped off of God's left ear.

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by dissention
You missed what I was trying to say:

What is the point in producing, marketing, and watching a two-hour snuff film?

I would honestly like to know why people made a movie that is simply about the torture and crucifixion of the supposed son of God. The people who are going to pay money to see it already know that Jesus supposedly died for their sins. This movie serves absolutely no purpose except for Gibson to make money. Anyone who tries to say that isn't the case is delusional. Just look at they pre-movie hype that he built up. He started doing it back in 2000 before he even had it financed.

I'll tell you one thing, though. I wish the late and great Pauline Kael was alive to review this film; she'd tell it like it is. :nod:

I agree Gibson, like every other producer in the world, did this hoping to make money. But, I see that separately than the issue of why make this move at all. I do not think it is a bad thing to make a film about the agony and/or passion of Christ just as I do not think it is inappropriate to make a flim about any "controversial" subject. I mean on slightly similar lines, is it inappropraite for Jewish people to make a film about Moses and their persecution by the Egyptians? Is it inappropriate to show the white masters beating their slaves to death even though not all masters did that? So, I conclude it is how people are using this film is that I object to. :cool:

Finally, the snuff reference is cute, but inappropriate as I do not think anyone is beating off to this film, although you never know as there are some sickos in this world :cool:

wondergirl9847

02-26-2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Hmmm... didn't you say the other day that you hate Clay now? ;)

No sir. I said I did not LIKE Clay anymore. I never said I hated him. I know you are teasing.

God has always been. He's the Alpha and Omega...Beginning and End. That's what I believe.

I am never going to believe we came from monkeys, I think that's absurd. Why are they still not evolving? They just decided to stop one day? LOL :confused:

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
Where did the bacteria come from? It just appeared one day? :confused:

Thus, the marriage (am I allowed to use that word in this context :laugh: ) of intelligent design and evolution!!!!!!! :cool:

wondergirl9847

02-26-2004, 01:45 PM

Are you saying that God created monkeys which evolved into people....or God made Adam and Eve and other stuff evolved? I'm confused.

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
I am never going to believe we came from monkeys, I think that's absurd. Why are they still not evolving? They just decided to stop one day? LOL :confused:

Did you not go to that website I posted :laugh: The point is monkeys are still evolving. Humans are still evolving through the shrinking of the tailbone and appendix that serve no more useful purpose. I think you are missing the point. It will probably take 20,000 years for humans to no long have a tail bone and appendix. We will see in our short (perhaps 80 year lifetimes) little to no evidence of the physical evolution of man. if we lived 8,000 years - we would still see only a little more. Evolution is based on environment and useage. Seriously, go to that website and look around. The evidence is astounding. And - you do not have to throw away your beliefs in Creationism. They can go hand in hand. :cool:

Merf

02-26-2004, 01:49 PM

To answer Dissention's question, no, I will not be going to see this film.

I am a Christian who believes Jesus Christ was the Son of God and came down to earth to be crucified for the sins of the world. But I am Episcopalian, raised in a church that, by nature, is more liberal [politically] and reserved with our expressions of faith. I consider my faith to be more of a private thing.

However, I will not be seeing this film because of the IMMENSE violence of it. My personal decision is that I will NOT be able to take it.

But my main problem is with Mel Gibson. If God really told him that he needed to make this movie, he would take ALL the profits-- I mean EVERY SINGLE PENNY and donate it to religious charities around the world. And the fact that people are making MONEY off the MERCHANDISING of this film (and the fact that there's merchandising at ALL) completely sickens me.

And I still have my doubts about his claims that he is not an anti-semite. The fact is that he is a Conservative Catholic who has stated in interviews that he does not subscribe to the beliefs of Vatican II [one of which is the Pope's dictate that the Jews were not responsible for the death of Jesus]. And his father's comments are DISTURBING. [See previous thread I posted] I understand that Mel is not his father, but the fact is that those
comments have effected him.

To be an anti-semite is to be anti-Christian. Christianity, of course, sprung from Judaism. Jesus was a Jew. I just don't get how someone who claims to be Christian can be an anti-semite.

This movie is dangerous. This, combined with Dubya pushing the right wing Christian Coalition agenda that is pushing us closer towards the spectrum of theocracy [whatever happened to the separation of church and state] is pushing me closer and closer to packing my bags and moving to Toronto.

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
Are you saying that God created monkeys which evolved into people....or God made Adam and Eve and other stuff evolved? I'm confused.

I am saying that Adam and Eve are not literal human beings. They represent evolution of nature. Many faiths believe this. Put it this way, if we all literally came from the same parents, then why are were we not dead after about three generations from in breeding? Why are we still evolving?

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 01:54 PM

Also, it is entirely possible that monkeys were once human beings that evolved to fit their environment, although the evidence available today suggests it was the other way around.

CarneVaca

02-26-2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
No sir. I said I did not LIKE Clay anymore. I never said I hated him. I know you are teasing.

God has always been. He's the Alpha and Omega...Beginning and End. That's what I believe.

I am never going to believe we came from monkeys, I think that's absurd. Why are they still not evolving? They just decided to stop one day? LOL :confused:

Chrissy, you know I like to tease you, so I'm glad you don't take offense. Besides, how could I ever be mad at the second biggest Lindsey fan out there?

But on a more serious note: Anthropologists have discovered skeletons of humans who were living in different places at the same time in history. Some were more ape-like and others were more human like us. Notice that people in different parts of the world look different. The fact that apes are still around doesn't negate that we were all descendent from apes. Also, before the apes, came an aquatic life form.

And when I made the bacteria joke, that is actually a theory. I don't remember enough about it, but it's out there.

CarneVaca

02-26-2004, 02:04 PM

By the way, Chrissy, I'm not trying to get you to believe in the monkey theory. I'm just making the point that the current existence of monkeys does not negate the theory of evolution.

CarneVaca

02-26-2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Evolution is based on environment and useage. :cool:

You know what that means folks, right? You'd better have yeselves lots a sex or you're gonna lose it.

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
And when I made the bacteria joke, that is actually a theory. I don't remember enough about it, but it's out there.

Actually, that and more information are on that site I posted earlier.

I tell ya - I do ALL of the due diligence around here and am grossly underappreciated - SHEEBUS

:cool: :wavey:

darklinensuit

02-26-2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by dissention
:nod: :nod: :nod:

They're selling t-shirts for it at my local mall.

Meaning Brittney and Christina or Madonna will be wearing the tee knotted up like the Clampett daughter's as they writhe around on stage. :rolleyes: How holy of them.

- Jake

wondergirl9847

02-26-2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Chrissy, you know I like to tease you, so I'm glad you don't take offense. Besides, how could I ever be mad at the second biggest Lindsey fan out there?

Nah, I don't take offense....wait a second....SECOND biggest fan?!!!? Now, THAT offends me!! :mad:

:lol:

dissention

02-26-2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree Gibson, like every other producer in the world, did this hoping to make money. But, I see that separately than the issue of why make this move at all. I do not think it is a bad thing to make a film about the agony and/or passion of Christ just as I do not think it is inappropriate to make a flim about any "controversial" subject. I mean on slightly similar lines, is it inappropraite for Jewish people to make a film about Moses and their persecution by the Egyptians? Is it inappropriate to show the white masters beating their slaves to death even though not all masters did that? So, I conclude it is how people are using this film is that I object to. :cool:

Finally, the snuff reference is cute, but inappropriate as I do not think anyone is beating off to this film, although you never know as there are some sickos in this world :cool:

I never said that I believed the film to be inappropriate. The way it's bring marketed, yes, But the movie itself? No. What I said was that I saw no point in the films existence. It has no purpose.

As for the assertion that no one is...beating off...I suspect that some sick indivduals would, but that wasn't why I used the term.

dissention

02-26-2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
I am never going to believe we came from monkeys, I think that's absurd. Why are they still not evolving? They just decided to stop one day? LOL :confused:

:laugh:

I would like someone to explain to me how God was created? Because, if he just appeared out of thin air, then the rest of us could've, too. I don't understand how the theory of evolution can be shot down, but people believe that a man from above created us and others from thin air and ribs. :laugh:

CarneVaca

02-26-2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I tell ya - I do ALL of the due diligence around here and am grossly underappreciated - SHEEBUS

:cool: :wavey:

I'll buy you a beer, buddy.

dissention

02-26-2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I'll buy you a beer, buddy.

The last thing Jason needs is a drink, pal. :laugh:

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I never said that I believed the film to be inappropriate. The way it's bring marketed, yes, But the movie itself? No. What I said was that I saw no point in the films existence. It has no purpose.

As for the assertion that no one is...beating off...I suspect that some sick indivduals would, but that wasn't why I used the term.

Oops - I took ya to mean that it should not have been made :sorry:

I thought that is what snuff films were for. I did not know they had other applications :shrug: I do know, however, Nicholas Cage and J. Phoenix made a disturbing movie (8MM) about them and they were associated with porn. Then there was that Law and Order episode . . . :laugh:

CarneVaca

02-26-2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by dissention
The last thing Jason needs is a drink, pal. :laugh:

Hmm... you have a point. Sedative then?

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by dissention
The last thing Jason needs is a drink, pal. :laugh:

emphasis being on the singular article "a" :cool:

And - now that Lent is here and even though I am an Episcopalean, I will not drink for at least four weeks!!!! :laugh:

Rob67

02-26-2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by dissention
By the same token, the people who are going to attend it already know the story of the crucifixion and it really makes no sense to see it.

If you use that argument then you could also apply it to any movie ever made based on actual events. That isn’t the point.

I'm not particularly looking for anything because I have no desire to see it. Like I said, I don't believe what the Bible says or in Christianity. However, I can't help but wonder why there isn't more to the movie than the torture and crucifixion. Everything I've read about the movie says that in the beginning of the film, Jesus is simply taken and tortured, then crucified. Why not at least show the audience his teachings? What is the point in producing, marketing, and watching a two-hour snuff film? That's all.

I am not a practicing Catholic anymore but I have an interest to see it as a modern interpretation. Calling it a “snuff film” doesn’t take into consideration the meaning behind the event. You (“you” as in “everyone”) have to study the religion more, I think, to form a valid interpretation on the film. I was amazed by how many people criticized the film without even seeing it and\or knowing anything about Christian theology. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me. I think it would be hard to make those assertions without first actually seeing the film.

And besides…..it is just a movie, so who cares? People who want to see it, will see it. Those that don’t, won’t. And all this will be forgotten about before it makes it to home video.

Rob:cool:

PS. Are not all artists making money off the sale of their art?

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
PS. Are not all artists making money off the sale of their art?

Not Madonna and that loat movie and subsequent record. PHEW!!! :laugh: (sorry - could not resist)

dissention

02-26-2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Hmm... you have a point. Sedative then?

Nope, a sedative might interfere with his other various medications. ;)

dissention

02-26-2004, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Oops - I took ya to mean that it should not have been made :sorry:

I thought that is what snuff films were for. I did not know they had other applications :shrug: I do know, however, Nicholas Cage and J. Phoenix made a disturbing movie (8MM) about them and they were associated with porn. Then there was that Law and Order episode . . . :laugh:

That Cage movie sickened me. I had to take a shower after I watched it. :laugh:

I saw some show on CourtTV that said while most snuff flicks are pornographic, some aren't. They simply involve pedestrian conversations that go awry. :laugh:

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Nope, a sedative might interfere with his other various medications. ;)

Well, there is that nervous tick I have, not to mention the gratuitous drooling :cool: :laugh:

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by dissention
That Cage movie sickened me. I had to take a shower after I watched it. :laugh:

I saw some show on CourtTV that said while most snuff flicks are pornographic, some aren't. They simply involve pedestrian conversations that go awry. :laugh:

I have to admit 8MM fascinated me and I found myself watching it even though I did not want to. I need mental therapy!!!! :laugh:

dissention

02-26-2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, there is that nervous tick I have, not to mention the gratuitous drooling :cool: :laugh:

Plus that off-balance walk you have, coupled with your talking to your pants...

Yup, you're a walking CVS. :laugh:

ryan8472

02-26-2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by estranged4life
What next, Crucifixion action figures???

Brian j.

Actually, I do have a Jesus action figure....He has gliding action!

dissention

02-26-2004, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I have to admit 8MM fascinated me and I found myself watching it even though I did not want to. I need mental therapy!!!! :laugh:

Same here. :laugh: I watched it all the way through, too. And felt so dirty afterwards. :D

dissention

02-26-2004, 02:43 PM

Some new tidbits from the IMDB:

"Moviegoers Pack 'Passion' Theaters"

Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ may have earned as much as $20 million in its first day of release, a record for a religious-themed movie, according to early estimates. In an interview with the Associated Press, Rob Schwartz, head of distribution for Newmarket Films, the independent distributor that Gibson hired to release the movie, forecast that the film would "at least" gross $100 million. "Then again, we have to see how the rest of the weekend plays out," Schwartz told AP. "Hopefully, if we continue the torrid pace we're starting to set now, that's an achievable number." Newmarket said that it had succeeded in planting the movie in 3,006 theaters, which are showing it on 4,643 screens, more than half again as many as originally forecast.

____________________________________________________

"Two Studio Chairmen Wash Their Hands of Gibson"

The chairmen of two major motion picture studios have told the New York Times that they will avoid working with Mel Gibson because of the contents of The Passion of the Christ and Gibson's remarks in promoting it -- particularly his refusal to distance himself from his father, who has denied the existence of the Holocaust. The Times said that neither studio head would speak for attribution, although, as one remarked: "It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally that's all I can do." The Times also quoted an executive close to DreamWorks principals Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen as saying that the two men have privately expressed anger over the film. However, John Lesher, an Endeavor talent agent, told the newspaper that he doubted any backlash would be lasting. "People here will work with the anti-Christ if he'll put butts in seats," Lesher said. Meanwhile, the film continues to generate a mountain of news reports. The Google Internet search engine today listed 1,759 recent articles related to the movie.

ryan8472

02-26-2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by dissention

"Two Studio Chairmen Wash Their Hands of Gibson"

The chairmen of two major motion picture studios have told the New York Times that they will avoid working with Mel Gibson because of the contents of The Passion of the Christ and Gibson's remarks in promoting it -- particularly his refusal to distance himself from his father, who has denied the existence of the Holocaust. The Times said that neither studio head would speak for attribution, although, as one remarked: "It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally that's all I can do." The Times also quoted an executive close to DreamWorks principals Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen as saying that the two men have privately expressed anger over the film. However, John Lesher, an Endeavor talent agent, told the newspaper that he doubted any backlash would be lasting. "People here will work with the anti-Christ if he'll put butts in seats," Lesher said. Meanwhile, the film continues to generate a mountain of news reports. The Google Internet search engine today listed 1,759 recent articles related to the movie.

I really don't like it when people say dumb things. I mean, the man has a right to his opinion, but personally, I think he's a fool for calling Mel Gibson the anit-christ. I mean, really people, it's just a movie, no matter how much you may be affected by it!

On the other hand, I really don't know if I want to see this film or not. I don't listen to any critics, and try to form my own opinions, but I'm not sure I'd be into all the gore. I'm not one of those people who are easily upset by anything (except The Day After...that was horrible in every sense :distress: ), but by the way everyone talks about how brutal it is, I don't know if I could stomach it. My mom does want to go see it though, so maybe I'll check it out after all...

ShamHy89

02-26-2004, 05:18 PM

I'm going to see it on Saturday. I am aware of all the gore and violence, and have been reading all of the opinions posted here, news articles, and reviews dilligently. I think, however, that I can only make a judgement when I actually see the movie myself. That's why I'm going to see it.

Shamus:)

Merf

02-26-2004, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by ryan8472
I really don't like it when people say dumb things. I mean, the man has a right to his opinion, but personally, I think he's a fool for calling Mel Gibson the anit-christ. I mean, really people, it's just a movie, no matter how much you may be affected by it!

I think you misconstrued what the quote said. The talent agent simply meant that a movie executive was quite hypocritical to say that he would never work with Mel Gibson again, because a movie exec would work with "the anti-Christ" if it meant more profits for his company.

I don't think that he said Mel Gibson was the Anti-Christ.

A healthy 57-year-old woman dropped dead while watching the crucifixion scene in this movie. That makes me physically ill. It will take a while for the autopsy results but physicians believe that the intensity of viewing that amount of graphic violence could have triggered the heart failure.

It doesn't happen often but it does happen-- people do die of shock.

strandinthewind

02-26-2004, 07:47 PM

Interestingly, it is widely assumed by the medical community that Christ died of shock in that he heart just could not take what was happeniung to him anymore. I wonder if that woman's family will sue. I mean Gibson has said he made it very very shocking to convey the message. Then again, if this woman knew that prior to seeing it and if she knew she had a weak heart :shrug:

Merf

02-26-2004, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, it is widely assumed by the medical community that Christ died of shock in that he heart just could not take what was happeniung to him anymore. I wonder if that woman's family will sue. I mean Gibson has said he made it very very shocking to convey the message. Then again, if this woman knew that prior to seeing it and if she knew she had a weak heart :shrug:

The woman may have had an undiagnosed heart defect, which lead to her death. However, it's still very sad and shocking to me that she died during this film. Hollywood churns out hundreds of violent movies a year and you never hear of people having heart attacks during, for example, the Terminator or the Matrix.

sparky

02-27-2004, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by dissention
And, my final question, who is actually going to see this movie on the board?

I'll see it if I get invited to a sceening. No chance I'll ever put money in Mel Gibson's pocket (proven nut case and gay baiting
dirtbag that he is.)
To think I used to like that guy. Truth be told, I just thought he was hot in The Year Of Living Dangerously and Mad Max. Sure he'd be thrilled about that. Probably would try and douse me with holy water or toss me out of a window.
If I see it I will comment on it, without a doubt. Trouble is, I am not a fan of graphic violence, so I may not put myself through it. I have to look away when I watch the Sopranos and someone gets killed.

sparky

02-27-2004, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by estranged4life
You can buy "merchandise" for this movie at local religious stores, Merchandise? That is a SICK joke IMO...What next, Crucifixion action figures???

Brian j.

This reminds me of the t-shirts you can buy when the Pope goes on tour ! LMAO ! It's all entertainment. Bread and circuses...bring 'em on !

sparky

02-27-2004, 04:00 AM

ryan8472

02-27-2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Merf
I think you misconstrued what the quote said. The talent agent simply meant that a movie executive was quite hypocritical to say that he would never work with Mel Gibson again, because a movie exec would work with "the anti-Christ" if it meant more profits for his company.

I don't think that he said Mel Gibson was the Anti-Christ.

You're right, I misread the article :) . I still think that guy was being a bit extream though.

Just one more thing about this movie....In my opinion, you can't sugar-coat something like a crucifiction; It's just not a pleasent thing to see. I don't know why people whine about it being too gory or violent, that's what it was like!

dissention

02-27-2004, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by sparky
Probably would try and douse me with holy water or toss me out of a window.

...or crucify you. :laugh:

I couldn't resist. ;)

The fact is, I used to like Mel Gibson, he used to make some great movies (the Mad Max series, Forever Young, Man Without A Face, Bird On A Wire, etc.), but he hasn't made a good flick in years. Couple that with his whacked out religious ideologies and his current frame of mind, I wouldn't touch him with a ****-stained, 18-foot pole. As a person, he's lost my respect. As an actor, he's lost my wallet. :nod:

strandinthewind

02-27-2004, 07:04 PM

I tend not to let my personal views of someone's personal life keep me from seeing them in a movie. I would not want someone to fire me for my personal non work-related beliefs. A good example is Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, the Dixie Chicks, etc. Everyone has said people unfailrly judge their work, refuse to see their work, etc. because of their political postures. Yet, some of these same people refuse to see a Charlton Heston movie, a Mel Gibson movie, a Toby Keith song or whatever because of their views. I think that is a double standard I chose not to have. I tend to judge it on whether the content interests me. Also, when you get right down to it, everyone has done something in their lives that I probably do not like. That being said :laugh: , Gibson's new movie is his personal belief. So, I think no double standard is applied if I say I choose not to go based on that.

But, to each their own!!!! :cool:

dissention

02-27-2004, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by trackaghost
I'm keeping out of the religious arguments here and I haven't seen The Passion... yet, but simply as a huge movie buff, of course I want to see it (and most of my friends do too, and none of them are particularly religious).
But I just have to say most of those films you mentioned of Gibson's are mediorce at best! Apart from the Mad Max series of course.
Whatever your opinion of the man, he has made some great films whether it be popcorn fare like Lethal Weapon or critically acclaimed movies like Braveheart. Of his recent films IMO, Signs was fantastic, Payback was surprisingly dark and menacing, Ransom was a real edge of your seat, silly but fun thriller, and even What Women Want was an effective rom-com. Oh and he was also good in The Singing Detective, even if that film didn't live up to expectations. Plus, on the business side of things, Gibson has never been more bankable! His movies are making more than ever (What Women Want and Signs were the biggest hits of his career and The Passion... has had the largest Wednesday opening ever, pratically making back it's entire budget in one day).
I don't know about the man, (hey John Wayne was a great movie star but had questionable beliefs too) but to say Gibson's recent movies aren't up to the quality of Bird On The Wire (ahem) seems a little far-fetched to me. :rolleyes:

EDIT: I just re-read this post and if it sounds aggressive, I apologise :D I'm not terribly angry about you dissing Gibson, just a little too passionate about movies, I guess. :laugh:

Well, with the exception of the brilliant "Payback", the rest of the movies you mentioned suck teabags. :laugh: I should clarify and say that "Bird On A Wire" isn't a particularly great movie, it just has a lot of sentimental value to me for personal reasons. :)

The thing is, I don't think he chooses the right movies. he did early on and was brilliant (ever seen "The River"? 'Nuff said.) But these days he sucks. "Waht Women Want" was a mess and "Signs" took itself way too seriously, when I thought it was *really* silly. But that's more Shyamalan's fault than Gibson's.

And don't worry about the tone, you didn't sound agressive at all. :D

dissention

02-27-2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I tend not to let my personal views of someone's personal life keep me from seeing them in a movie. I would not want someone to fire me for my personal non work-related beliefs. A good example is Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, the Dixie Chicks, etc. Everyone has said people unfailrly judge their work, refuse to see their work, etc. because of their political postures. Yet, some of these same people refuse to see a Charlton Heston movie, a Mel Gibson movie, a Toby Keith song or whatever because of their views. I think that is a double standard I chose not to have. I tend to judge it on whether the content interests me. Also, when you get right down to it, everyone has done something in their lives that I probably do not like. That being said :laugh: , Gibson's new movie is his personal belief. So, I think no double standard is applied if I say I choose not to go based on that.

But, to each their own!!!! :cool:

I didn't say I wouldn't see his movies because of his beliefs (but that would certainly change if he goes the route of his father and says the Holocaust was an exaggeration, pal), I said I wouldn't see him because his movies suck these days. ;)

For the record, I don't give two flying turkeys what his religious beliefs are. But when they spill into sheer offensiveness and insensitivity towards other people and religions, I'm gonna cry foul. But those beliefs won't stop me from seeing a movie of his; what will stop me is the fact that he's lost "it" in his movies. They stink, plain and simple.

strandinthewind

02-27-2004, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I didn't say I wouldn't see his movies because of his beliefs (but that would certainly change if he goes the route of his father and says the Holocaust was an exaggeration, pal), I said I wouldn't see him because his movies suck these days. ;)

For the record, I don't give two flying turkeys what his religious beliefs are. But when they spill into sheer offensiveness and insensitivity towards other people and religions, I'm gonna cry foul. But those beliefs won't stop me from seeing a movie of his; what will stop me is the fact that he's lost "it" in his movies. They stink, plain and simple.

I am batting 1,000 tonight :laugh:

I was responding in general and at no one :cool:

dissention

02-27-2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am batting 1,000 tonight :laugh:

I was responding in general and at no one :cool:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I'm a real f*cker tonight, eh? :laugh: :wavey:

strandinthewind

02-27-2004, 10:12 PM

Lent is here and I am not having cocktails damnit!!!!!

My poor 13 year old Scottie (Maggie Mahalia Jackson the Moo Cow) had her spleen out two days ago and I have to give her pain medication. I think Daddy may have to steal some of it!!! :laugh:

darklinensuit

02-28-2004, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by ryan8472

Just one more thing about this movie....In my opinion, you can't sugar-coat something like a crucifiction; It's just not a pleasent thing to see.

Gee, they seemed pretty happy in he Life of Brian, singing their songs and whatnot.:rolleyes:

- Jake

ryan8472

02-28-2004, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Gee, they seemed pretty happy in he Life of Brian, singing their songs and whatnot.:rolleyes:

- Jake

LOL, yes. If only they could have chosen who they could be crucified next to :laugh: But if I remember correctly, they were only tied to their crosses, not nailed to them.

darklinensuit

02-29-2004, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by ryan8472
LOL, yes. If only they could have chosen who they could be crucified next to :laugh: But if I remember correctly, they were only tied to their crosses, not nailed to them.

Yes, but this was Monty Python's personal vision of the Gospels. They used money from their own accounts, so it must be a religious mission. Let's not even get into who tied the guys up. Oh, the cruel controversy;)

- Jake

Rob67

03-01-2004, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by sparky
I'll see it if I get invited to a sceening. No chance I'll ever put money in Mel Gibson's pocket (proven nut case and gay baiting
dirtbag that he is.)

Just curious...how is he "gay baiting?"

Rob :cool:

dissention

03-01-2004, 10:34 AM

This is sickening.

From the IMDB:

Gibson's 'Passion' Sparks Christian Fashion Craze

Mel Gibson's new movie The Passion Of The Christ has inspired a new craze across America for Christian-themed jewelry. The hit film, which follows the final 12 hours of Jesus Christ's life, is at the center of continued controversy with accusations of potentially inciting anti-Semitism. But as well as fierce debate, the movie has also led hordes of people to buy such souvenirs as crucifixes, lapel pins and cards tied to the film's promotion. A particularly popular item is a pendant fashioned from a single nail made of pewter and attached to a leather strap, say officials of Bob Siemon Designs, licensed by Gibson's Icon Productions to produce jewelry linked to the film. The pendants represent the nails used in the film to fasten Christ to the cross. The company has shipped around 75,000 cross pendants to Christian bookstores across America and approximately the same amount of nail pendants.

:rolleyes:

People will buy any ole **** they see.

strandinthewind

03-01-2004, 11:52 AM

I have no problem with people wearing or buying religious symbols. We do, after all, still have freemdom of expression in America, at least for now :laugh:

Now here is a silly article:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03/01/offbeat.passion.ap/index.html

Passion tickets bear 'mark of the beast'
Monday, March 1, 2004 Posted: 9:12 AM EST (1412 GMT)

ROME, Georgia (AP) -- Tickets at one movie theater screening Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" are being deemed decidedly unholy.

My fav. quote "Several patrons have made comments about the numbers, and one person who was uncomfortable having 666 on her ticket asked for a pass to be substituted for a ticket."

:rolleyes:

dissention

03-01-2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I have no problem with people wearing or buying religious symbols. We do, after all, still have freemdom of expression in America, at least for now :laugh:

Freedom of expression is a thing of the past, but that wasn't what my point was. I meant the merchandising of this movie is sickening. I don't understand why people don't realize how inappropriate it is.

DrummerDeanna

03-01-2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Freedom of expression is a thing of the past, but that wasn't what my point was. I meant the merchandising of this movie is sickening. I don't understand why people don't realize how inappropriate it is.

I agree....BUT Chriastinity has been merchandised for the past well...for a long time!! Even before this film one could go into any Christian bookstore and can choose from any variety of crucifixion merchandise...still...I see your point and I agree...but I've never been a fan of the crucifix as a decorative item or anything...so...

Anyway...I was holding out saying anything until I actually say the film, which I did last night. I, found it powerful and quite intense...and just from my personal opinion, if someone is incited to do anti-semitic things..then they've missed the entire point of the film and are themselves not acting in anywhere near a Christian manner...anyway...I am only going to start rambling so I will stop here :D

Rob67

03-01-2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Freedom of expression is a thing of the past, but that wasn't what my point was. I meant the merchandising of this movie is sickening. I don't understand why people don't realize how inappropriate it is.

I thought you weren't religious? How can you then have an opinion on how appropriate it is???;) :D

Rob:cool:

strandinthewind

03-01-2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Freedom of expression is a thing of the past, but that wasn't what my point was. I meant the merchandising of this movie is sickening. I don't understand why people don't realize how inappropriate it is.

I do not see it an inappropriate at all. I mean I think the people are buying it not out of derision, but because they believe in it. Plus, all movies market this way if they can.

What exactly is inappropriate about it?

I am not being a smart ass; I just don't see where you are coming from :D

CarneVaca

03-01-2004, 04:03 PM

I wouldn't be too worried about the merchandising. If you're bothered by that, swing by the Vatican some time. Or take a trip to Lourdes or Fatima. Plenty of merchandising.

As for whether Mel Gibson is anti-semitic, or blames the Jews for the death of Christ, the answer is in his adherence to beliefs pre-Vatican II. It's kinda like Trent Lott saying Strom Thurmond should have been president.

strandinthewind

03-01-2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I wouldn't be too worried about the merchandising. If you're bothered by that, swing by the Vatican some time. Or take a trip to Lourdes or Fatima. Plenty of merchandising.

Oh I glad you brought it because now I get to haul out my Vatican story :laugh:

I was on the "first" roof of St. Peter's on my way to see the inside of the dome and then to climb to the cupula (sp.?) on the very top (BTW WELL worth the climb if you can make it and deal with being in tight spaces, etc.). Well, in true Vatican fashion, there is a gift shop there :laugh: I bought some post cards and was going to write something on the outside of my three bags because they were all going to different people I was meeting later, etc. The head 5 foot tall nun fromt he Philippines told me I could use a pen to do this. Well, the 4.5 foot nun apparently was not having any on that when they have pen o plenty to sell. She stood up on a box and ripped the pen from my hands and started shaking it at my 6'4" self. Needless to say, I then bought a like $10 bic pen with the words Vatican on it. Perhaps Mel and this nun know each other :laugh:

dissention

03-01-2004, 04:31 PM

dissention

03-01-2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I do not see it an inappropriate at all. I mean I think the people are buying it not out of derision, but because they believe in it. Plus, all movies market this way if they can.

What exactly is inappropriate about it?

I am not being a smart ass; I just don't see where you are coming from :D

Merchandising for a torture movie? Faux crucifixion nails for jewelry? Not only is it inappropriate, but it's tacky and lacks taste.

strandinthewind

03-01-2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Merchandising for a torture movie? Faux crucifixion nails for jewelry? Not only is it inappropriate, but it's tacky and lacks taste.

But - the difference for me is that they are selling religious symbols, etc., from a movie that is about that religious belief. Would it be any different if a Christian Goods store sold them and made no reference to the movie. Believe me they do and have for a long time :laugh: I have no problems with it. But, I guess I grew up with it, albeit to a lesser degree. So, I am not that surprised :shrug: I think this perhaps is one of those things being religious makes it easier to understand :cool:

DrummerDeanna

03-01-2004, 05:11 PM

dissention

03-01-2004, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But - the difference for me is that they are selling religious symbols, etc., from a movie that is about that religious belief. Would it be any different if a Christian Goods store sold them and made no reference to the movie. Believe me they do and have for a long time :laugh: I have no problems with it. But, I guess I grew up with it, albeit to a lesser degree. So, I am not that surprised :shrug: I think this perhaps is one of those things being religious makes it easier to understand :cool:

Gimme a break, man. They aren't selling religious symbols, they're selling plastic junk to cash in on the latest Jesus fad. This whole movie is about money and they know that the people who will see it will probably buy the junk that goes with it.

Before this movie came along, I never heard of "Jesus nails" as jewelry. Crosses? Yup. Nails? No. Don't tell me that they are religious symbols, pal. They're pieces of junk that people buy because watching that filthy flick made them feel more Christian and they feel that if they buy a nail to hang around their neck, they'll be closer to Jesus. Mel Gibson preyed on those exact feelings and I find it abhorrable.

But that's just me.

Why don't we make a movie about slavery and then sell mini whips that latch on to belt buckles? I'd love to see the reaction to that one.

strandinthewind

03-01-2004, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Gimme a break, man. They aren't selling religious symbols, they're selling plastic junk to cash in on the latest Jesus fad. This whole movie is about money and they know that the people who will see it will probably buy the junk that goes with it.

Before this movie came along, I never heard of "Jesus nails" as jewelry. Crosses? Yup. Nails? No. Don't tell me that they are religious symbols, pal. They're pieces of junk that people buy because watching that filthy flick made them feel more Christian and they feel that if they buy a nail to hang around their neck, they'll be closer to Jesus. Mel Gibson preyed on those exact feelings and I find it abhorrable.

But that's just me.

Why don't we make a movie about slavery and then sell mini whips that latch on to belt buckles? I'd love to see the reaction to that one.

Apples and Oranges in that slavery is not the impassioned belief of millions of people and the selling of whips, etc., would be the furthering of that abolished institution, etc. Nor has slavery, lasted the test of time and helped countless millions like Religion has. I know I know religion has hurt as well - but the overwhelming effect of it has been good in that dedicated people care for the poor, sick, etc. and have done so for thousands of years all in the name of God.

AND - I can assure you that they have been selling this stuff for many hundreds if not thousands of years prior to this movie. If you don't believe me, go to your local Christian religious store or look at all the icons in art (which at the time was sold or commissioned) since the fall of the roman empire and, for that matter, the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman sculpture of gods, etc., of their religions. Also, what is plastic junk to some apparently is a religious symbol to others. No one ever said the cross around a Christian's neck had to be golden and many cannot afford such luxuries :shrug: Moreover, the people buying this stuff are buying it for its symbolic value and have been doing so for centuries.

If you are objecting to the intent of the sellers - so be it. But the people buying it are buying it to affirm their faith.

DrummerDeanna

03-01-2004, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by dissention

Before this movie came along, I never heard of "Jesus nails" as jewelry. Crosses? Yup. Nails? No.

Um...I just stated in my last post that I, more than eight years ago did indeed receive a nail necklace...they are profound religious symbols in my religion and they've been selling them/giving them by themselves or in cross form.

It may very well be about people making money....but as someone stated before there will always be people who will buy that stuff...it's been going on for a helluva long time...

sparky

03-01-2004, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by Rob67
Just curious...how is he "gay baiting?"

Rob :cool:

On a couple of different occasions he has made ridiculously childish and nasty remarks in the press about gay guys. Silly crap. But it still pissed me off. He has stopped doing those things in interviews - he got a lot of guff for those remarks. So what next ? He has a homo tossed out a window in a movie, and it is directed in such a way that it becomes a "cheering point" from the audience perspective. Way to get a group to cheer and applaud the death of a homo, Mel ! What a tough guy !

Since the man has bred like a rat, odds are one of those kids is going to be on my team. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

wondergirl9847

03-01-2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by dissention
Before this movie came along, I never heard of "Jesus nails" as jewelry. Crosses? Yup. Nails? No.

I have a cross necklace made out of nails. There has ALWAYS been Christian themed jewelry, it's just that now that the movie is out, they are pushing the jewelry more...but it's always been out there. Christian bookstores sell rings, necklaces, etc.

darklinensuit

03-02-2004, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Oh I glad you brought it because now I get to haul out my Vatican story :laugh:

I was on the "first" roof of St. Peter's on my way to see the inside of the dome and then to climb to the cupula (sp.?) on the very top (BTW WELL worth the climb if you can make it and deal with being in tight spaces, etc.). Well, in true Vatican fashion, there is a gift shop there :laugh: I bought some post cards and was going to write something on the outside of my three bags because they were all going to different people I was meeting later, etc. The head 5 foot tall nun fromt he Philippines told me I could use a pen to do this. Well, the 4.5 foot nun apparently was not having any on that when they have pen o plenty to sell. She stood up on a box and ripped the pen from my hands and started shaking it at my 6'4" self. Needless to say, I then bought a like $10 bic pen with the words Vatican on it. Perhaps Mel and this nun know each other :laugh:

:distress: Charming the ladies, as always.:laugh:

- Jake

Alison

03-02-2004, 10:07 AM

Sparky said:
Since the man has bred like a rat, odds are one of those kids is going to be on my team. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

I have seen a lot of hate directed to ward Mel Gibson on this site.
Somethings may perhaps be true, others unfounded.
I feel a lot Of hate and anger coming from you Sparky. I don't know your story. But, I feel some gay people are bashing Gibson and Christians on this ledge. Like i said, maybe some of it is founded. But some of you are doing the same thing to us Christians as what you accuse some of us doing to you. Your hate and anger shows.
And what is up with , " the man breeds like a rat".
Yes Mel has five kids, what is wrong with that? I happen to have five kids also, and they are a blessing. End up on your team. VS whos team. I didn't think we were on teams here. You want to be accepted for who you are, then accept us for who we are. I do not know all the things Gibson has said, but you have the same intolerance.
Also many of you have judged the movie with out even seeing it.
If this movie was about someone else besides, Jesus. Would you guys even care.

Alison

dissention

03-02-2004, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Alison
Sparky said:
Since the man has bred like a rat, odds are one of those kids is going to be on my team. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

I have seen a lot of hate directed to ward Mel Gibson on this site.
Somethings may perhaps be true, others unfounded.
I feel a lot Of hate and anger coming from you Sparky. I don't know your story. But, I feel some gay people are bashing Gibson and Christians on this ledge. Like i said, maybe some of it is founded. But some of you are doing the same thing to us Christians as what you accuse some of us doing to you. Your hate and anger shows.
And what is up with , " the man breeds like a rat".
Yes Mel has five kids, what is wrong with that? I happen to have five kids also, and they are a blessing. End up on your team. VS whos team. I didn't think we were on teams here. You want to be accepted for who you are, then accept us for who we are. I do not know all the things Gibson has said, but you have the same intolerance.
Also many of you have judged the movie with out even seeing it.
If this movie was about someone else besides, Jesus. Would you guys even care.

Alison

I think you're reading too much into what sparky posted, doll.

Have you never heard the expressions "breeds like a rat" and "playing on the other team"? They're just common sayings and I see no intolerance. We're having a debate about our feelings on religion and this terrible movie, please don't turn it into a ridiculous thing. Not everyone is going to agree, as evidenced with the opinions I share, which are obviously minority opinions. No one is posting out of spite, they're posting out of the passion they have for this topic.

Maybe you view Gibson as a wonderful person, others don't. Many of his comments have been obvioulsy ill thought-out, rude, and offensive. People are going to call on him for what they view as insensitivity and rudeness.

Food for thought. :wavey:

strandinthewind

03-02-2004, 01:32 PM

I say if Gibsom wants to make this movie more power to him. I have nothing against it except perhaps that he has said he was faithful to the four recognized Gospels when in fact he was not. For example, Pilate's wife had no dialogue to speak of in the Gospels. Yet, she is portrayed as a June Cleaver type character in the movie in an apparent effort to soften the portrayal of Pilate in contrast to the Jews. Also, Satan as a woman following Christ. Where is that in the Gospels? So, my problem with Gibson's movie is it is not the 100% accurate portrayal he and many fundamentalist Christians taut it as.

Let it be said by me so there is no confusion at all from me, I think religion is a great thing. I think without it, many people would die of neglect, etc. So, I love religion and am all for it when it is used that way. Moreover, the overall message of "The Passion" is great.

What I cannot and will not ever abide in any way is people using the U.S. Federal Govt., or any form of govt. for that matter, to force their religion on the rest of society. It is possible to be a great American and not believe in the Christian God, just ask any of the Jewish-Americans, Muslim-Americans, etc. It is possible for an American Citizen not to want to enter the Christian Kingdom of God or have any religion at all and still be a kind, loving person - I know many. Yet, these very people are routinely denied the same rights freely accorded to Christians without question. Why? I think it is because these fundamentalist Christians, to use their word, "tolerate" others, but think this country is exclusively their country.

Conversely, it seemingly is not possible from what I see and have seen over the years of my life for the vast majority of fundamentalist Christians to get this point. They will never concede that the U.S. is not a fundamentalist Christian state, when it clearly was not founded as one. They will never stop their efforts of assimilation until everyone is focrced to be like them, whatever that means. Then, they act shocked when Americans who do not believe what they believe act put upon and dare to raise their hand to the fundamentalist Christian majority in this country. A good example of this is slavery, which the fundamentalists used The Bible to support, and interracial marriage, which the findamentalist used The Bible to block and condemned all such unions to Hell based of the word of God. Now the fundamentalists (and others) are stirring up the same tired hatred pot against gay people and anyone else who is in a relationship and wants the money saving and venerated rights afforded only to the straight marriages there are now. They once again cannot see past their blind hatred of gay people (who have done nothing to them personlly to warrant such hate) to recognize that the U.S. Const. protects everyone including people who do not believe in any type of god. And do not even get me started on the money raising aspects of the "homosexuals are responsible for the ills of the world and for all of the bad things in your life - give me money and I will pray to God (I have His ear) to stop them" hate speech they spew.

Another good example of this is the "under God" phrase in the Pledge. That phrase was not always there. It got there because the fundamentalist Christians (who really wanted "under Jesus") used Communism and its intolerance of religion as a vehicle to wedge that phrase in the Pledge. In other words, the phrase "under God" while seemingly innocuous is in the Pledge to stop communism from coming to America. That is the silliest thing I have ever heard in my life. Moreover, now that communism is no longer a credible threat, they act like it will be an offense to God to take it out even though everytime they say it it is a lie - America is most decidedly not one nation under the Christian or any other god.

Their condescending and patriarchal behavior makes me sick to my stomach because clearly all Christians are not like that.

Thus, my complete spite for Pat Robertson and his and his ilks' intolerance of anyone not like them.

I hope that helped :cool:

Janet

03-02-2004, 02:05 PM

First of all sparky, I hate the word homo, I mean, you implied you are gay right and you use that word? Whatever.

Second of all, this is one person's take on the crucifiction. I don't know if I agree with it. What good does it do for people to see this? Half will be offended and the other half will be too sick to even watch.

You read the Bible and it tells you what Jesus went through, why do we have to see it? God knows we know what...let's say Ted Bundy did to women, do we have to SEE it. In my mind the gross factor can be compared.

I believe Jesus did go through all that but I don't know why we have to see it.

I know many people aren't religious on this board, but please respect those that are...this topic is more fragile than the election topic.

We can choose not to like Mel Gibson, we can question his motives and we can certainly question the marketing ( spreading the word vs. poor taste) but let's just kind of stay clear from saying Jesus DIDN'T suffer as much, we don't know do we. We can't make such claims!!!

We have to be tolerant. Mel Gibson wanted to push buttons no doubt...and he wanted to maybe stir up some talk of religion, and what we believe. But his death are what's seperates the Catholics the Protestants and the Jews. Thats why this movie is just so touchy...as well as the violence.

I think it's unecesarry...I wouldn't want to think someone got "saved" because they saw what Jesus went through and felt sorry for Him..you know?

but I also think we should keep an open mind with each other and not tear each other down for what we believe and who we are.

:)

dissention

03-02-2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Janet
I know many people aren't religious on this board, but please respect those that are...this topic is more fragile than the election topic.

We can choose not to like Mel Gibson, we can question his motives and we can certainly question the marketing ( spreading the word vs. poor taste) but let's just kind of stay clear from saying Jesus DIDN'T suffer as much, we don't know do we. We can't make such claims!!!

I have to jump in. :laugh:

Respect isn't a one way street. People should have respect for people with religious beliefs, and those who have religious beliefs should have respect for those who don't. Having said that, people who have no religious beliefs (myself included) have every right to say that (a) Jesus never existed, (b) Jesus was not the son of God, or (c) Jesus did or didn't suffer as much.

We have to let every person have their say in what their belief is, and if they believe that Jesus didn't suffer as much or that he didn't exist, they have every right to say so.

Just my thoughts. :)

strandinthewind

03-02-2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by dissention
I have to jump in. :laugh:

Sounds like "I cry foul" to me :cool:

dissention

03-02-2004, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Sounds like "I cry foul" to me :cool:

:laugh:

sparky

03-02-2004, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Alison

I feel a lot Of hate and anger coming from you Sparky. I don't know your story. But, I feel some gay people are bashing Gibson and Christians on this ledge. And what is up with , " the man breeds like a rat".
Yes Mel has five kids, what is wrong with that? I happen to have five kids also, and they are a blessing. End up on your team. VS whos team. I didn't think we were on teams here. You want to be accepted for who you are, then accept us for who we are. I do not know all the things Gibson has said, but you have the same intolerance.
Also many of you have judged the movie with out even seeing it.
If this movie was about someone else besides, Jesus. Would you guys even care.

Alison, let me clarify a few things.

I don't hate Mel Gibson. Some of his comments have made me very angry - since many impressionable people, young and old alike, seem to take the words and opinions of celebrities as another kind of gospel. Sure, I am defensive. Any filmmaker who highlights a story point in a movie where a gay man is tossed out a window- and constructs the scene and character in such a way as the audience is basically instructed to laugh and cheer - that person is inches away from condoning violence against gay people. If gay people weren't so frequently killed on the streets of this country, I might not be so quick to rile. If a similar scene was done with a Christian as the tossee - you'd be fairly angry and defensive too !

Since I think Mr. Gibson is a bit of a crackpot - I am eager to take potshots at him. Of course he and everyone else has a right to have as many kids as they want. Last time I looked at the freeways (full), the forests (dwindling or gone), the streets(littered), the schools (packed full), and many third world countries(overpopulated to the point of starvation and people reduced to living in filth and squalor), I found that my longstanding feeling about family size makes sense. I think we have too many people.
Large families seem a little short sighted and irresponsible to me.
But, I am not trying to amend the constitution over it and am not planning to toss anyone out a window !

Ultimately, we are hopefully all on the same tram, in theory.
My comments regarding teams in my post are about my sincere hope that anyone who is frankly intolerant and nasty about any group deserves to be educated up close and personal. If Mr. Gibson had a kid who turned out to be on my team(i.e. gay), I think it would be poetic justice.

Like I said before, I haven't seen the movie yet. But I might. When I do, you can be sure I will have something to say.

Not every religious person has attitudes like Fred Phelps, but the ones who do will not pass me without comment. Considering their words can and have been used as twisted justifications for violence - I feel quite certain I am on solid grounds to speak my mind.

BTW, as they say, many of my best friends are Christians. I love them all dearly. Each of us deserves to be accepted for the people we are.

Whew. Hope I clarified.

:wavey:

sparky

03-02-2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Janet
First of all sparky, I hate the word homo, I mean, you implied you are gay right and you use that word? Whatever.

I don't mind the word, Janet. It works for me. The word gay has always seemed silly, and queer sounds goofy. I don't like most of the words. They all sound strange to me.

"Homo" offends me the least, and has a nice ring to it. Sorry if it offends you. At least it's accurate and derived from a legit scientific/medical term ! :wavey:

Alison

03-02-2004, 08:15 PM

Sparky... I admire you for standing on what you believe.
I may not agree with all of your point of views, but at least you let people know how you stand.
I did not know all this about Mel Gibson, I have seen few of his movies. I just know about his upbringing and some of the things he had to go through. Who is Fred phelps?
I have not seen the Passion yet either, but I plan to at some point. Anyway, when you see the movie, please view it with an open mind and heart.
Alison

sparky

03-02-2004, 10:54 PM

Fred Phelps is wacked out reverend from Kansas who has his fun by picketing funerals of people who died from AIDS and whose latest project is erected a monument announcing that Mathew Shepard entered hell upon the day of his death. Real barrel of monkeys.

wondergirl9847

03-02-2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by sparky
Fred Phelps is wacked out reverend from Kansas who has his fun by picketing funerals of people who died from AIDS and whose latest project is erected a monument announcing that Mathew Shepard entered hell upon the day of his death. Real barrel of monkeys.

:shocked:

What a dip. That's NOT the kind of Christianity *I* practice. :distress:

darklinensuit

03-02-2004, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
:shocked:

What a dip. That's NOT the kind of Christianity *I* practice. :distress:

Christy, I think I speak for people from across the spectrum when I say that's not Christianity, period.

- Jake

wondergirl9847

03-03-2004, 12:21 AM

Very true. :thumbsup:

Janet

03-03-2004, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by dissention
I have to jump in. :laugh:

Respect isn't a one way street. People should have respect for people with religious beliefs, and those who have religious beliefs should have respect for those who don't. Having said that, people who have no religious beliefs (myself included) have every right to say that (a) Jesus never existed, (b) Jesus was not the son of God, or (c) Jesus did or didn't suffer as much.

We have to let every person have their say in what their belief is, and if they believe that Jesus didn't suffer as much or that he didn't exist, they have every right to say so.

Just my thoughts. :)

I just feel thats so terribly wrong to judge how bad someone was hurt. If anyone gets hurt in someway, I just find it that its downright offensive to try to tell that person how bad they feel or how terribly they are suffering. I think thats someone only the person suffering can judge. I just feel that way...

strandinthewind

03-03-2004, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by wondergirl9847
:shocked:

What a dip. That's NOT the kind of Christianity *I* practice. :distress:

Amen!!!!

strandinthewind

03-03-2004, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Christy, I think I speak for people from across the spectrum when I say that's not Christianity, period.

- Jake

Double Amen. It reminds me of that saying that if Jesus came back and saw what these people were doing to his message of kindness, he would be appalled.

strandinthewind

03-03-2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Janet
I just feel thats so terribly wrong to judge how bad someone was hurt. If anyone gets hurt in someway, I just find it that its downright offensive to try to tell that person how bad they feel or how terribly they are suffering. I think thats someone only the person suffering can judge. I just feel that way...

Being the dizzy one that I am, I am unsure of what you are saying :laugh:

Are you saying Mel Gibson inappropriately commented on or judged how much Christ was hurt? Gibson's movie acknowledges that Christ was hurt. But, if I get what you are saying, Gibson then inappropriately portrays this hurt by subjectively taking it to the most extreme way that it could have happened. Or, were you responding only to Dissention's comments?