# Mel Gibson's "The Passion"



## Chris Blount

I plan on seeing this movie.

http://www.passion-movie.com/english/

---------------------------------------------------------------

Review of "The Passion"
By: Keith Fournier, Third Millennium, LLC

I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin.

I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to that influence. I have a life-long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions. I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington D.C. and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words.

The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross, the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.

In addition to being a masterpiece of filmmaking and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers" in Washington, D.C. were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.

One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road out side of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said, "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.

At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "The Passion," it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded. "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued, "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus." I agree.

There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically-beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations.

This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply-human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands that we remain faithful to the story, and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its' message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth.

We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." As many people should see it as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "the Passion." You will be as well. Don't miss it!

_________________________________________________

Keith A Fournier is a constitutional lawyer and a graduate of the John Paul II Institute of the Lateran University, Franciscan University and the University of Pittsburgh. He holds degrees in philosophy, theology and law. He has been a champion of religious liberty and appeared as co-counsel in major cases at the United States Supreme Court. He is the author of seven books and, along with his law practice, serves as the president of both the "Your Catholic Voice Foundation" and "Common Good".


----------



## jrjcd

keep in mind that the passion ONLY depicts the final twelve hours of His life, not His ministry, and I am unclear if it includes the ressurection(so many people are complaining about depictions of a bloodthirsty Jewish mob that I haven't read anything about this key element in Christian belief being in the film)...

keep in mind that WITHOUT the virgin birth and the resurection, any story about Jesus Christ becomes pointless...


----------



## Nick

I hope the film isn't as long as Keith Fournier's review.


----------



## James_F

I'd rather watch him blow things up than this. :shrug:


----------



## jrjcd

"lethal Weapon V: 666"


----------



## James_F

There you go...


----------



## Martyva

Thanks Chris, that was an excellent review.


----------



## cnsf

I think I would rather hear a review from the perspective of an educated Jew. Not just one who claims to "know" Jews and has graduated from Catholic institutions.


----------



## Martyva

That comment, in itself, is a bit strange


----------



## cnsf

Martyva said:


> That comment, in itself, is a bit strange


Why is that? Someone growing up Jewish would most likely have a very different perspective than someone growing up with a Catholic (or other background).

It is very rare to find people who can truly take on the perspective of someone with a completely different background.

Hopefully, the review is on target, but hearing it from someone who would be a member of the concerned group would have a more "true" opinon.

As an example, someone caucasian reviewing "Song of the South" now from an African-American perspective. Not that the review would be completely biased, but a reader would most likely want to hear it from an African-American, not a caucasian who grew up with African-Americans in his town.

I'm not knocking his review, just saying I would like to hear it from a Jewish perspective.


----------



## Danny R

_keep in mind that WITHOUT the virgin birth and the resurection, any story about Jesus Christ becomes pointless..._

I think I can 100% disagree with that statement.

Yes the ressurrection is the centerpiece of most christian faiths, and the virgin birth is important to some as well (not mine however)... but Jesus' message of peace was pretty important as well even without the whole "Son of God" thing.


----------



## moiette

Dear Chris, thank you for this review, as a believer in Jesus Christ and a woman whose life has been completely changed by Him , I know that He is alive and the son of God - I just wanted to let you know that I apreciated your review in the fact that you told me what i really wanted to know - does this movie speak to peoples hearts? will this movie perhaps move people to stopping for a moment and considering that yes there is a God, Yes there is a way that He made for them to know Him, and that Yes, He loves them - Christ didnt come to make everything 'nice' down here, He came to totally eradicate sin and the evil that comes from sin, one soul at a time, and each one of us, needs Him to gently open our eyes and our hearts to our true condition, lost and enslaved to a sinful, meaningless life without Him - He is Love - He is our creator, and He yearns for us to come to Him, to call on Him, - This movie, is just going to re tell the truth again to a fallen and dying world - again, call each one of us, to make that decision that will last for all eternity - will you or wont you accept the price that He paid to save you? to set you free? to make you new and clean and give you a relationship, a friendship with Himself -
This is what has happened to me - I know what I know and have what I have because HE IS MY SAVIOUR.


----------



## Bogy

A week ago I viewed a DVD that had been sent me in the mail. It promised a "preview" of the movie scheduled to be released on Feb. 25. I was hoping to gain some insights to pass along to members of my congregation, and to you here. First, let me explain, somewhat as a disclaimer, that the DVD was part of an advertising brochure. A number of promotional packages are being offered to churches to use as an evangelistic tool. Some of the packages range into the thousands of dollars. My church won't be purchasing one of these packages, but that doesn't mean we will ignore the movie. Some of your churches or a church in your area will probably be promoting one of these packages.

Another disclaimer made frequently on the DVD is that this movie will very likely be receiving an "R" rating, for violence and gore, as did _Schindler's List_ and _Saving Private Ryan_.

I was somewhat disappointed in the DVD, because while I didn't expect a full copy of the movie I was hoping for some clips that would give me a feel for the tone of the movie. Instead, the DVD contained a standard trailer, and interviews with Mel Gibson and the actor who portrays Jesus Christ.

What I got from the interviews that might answer some questions asked here earlier is this:
The Resurrection is portrayed, although perhaps not as you might expect.
While the movie focuses on the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, it has a number of flashbacks, such as the one mentioned in the review.
Gibson expects the movie to be given an R rating due to violence, but he himself found that he needed to pull back from portraying the violence as explicitly as told in the Bible because it was to much for most people to take in.

One of the hopeful signs for me that this will not be a Jew-bashing movie is that the Pope has seen it, and while he didn't give it his official endorsement, he also did not condemn it. This is a Pope who has done much to heal the rift between Catholics and Jews, so I feel he would have spoken up if he saw it as damaging.

I am looking forward to seeing this movie. While I usually wait for the initial rush to decline before I go see a movie, I will probably make the effort to be one of the first to see this one.


----------



## Danny R

Isn't the internet amazing. My mother sent me the following email she got. Notice any simularities?



> Subject: Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson...
> 
> Paul Harvey Comments on "The Passion" by Mel Gibson...
> 
> Paul Harvey's words:
> 
> I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been
> invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I
> had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish
> town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a
> life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly
> encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions. I
> arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion," held in Washington, DC
> and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically
> Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look
> beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words.
> 
> The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room
> darkened. From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane,
> to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus,
> through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, the way of the cross,
> the encounter with the thieves, the surrender on the Cross, until the
> final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an
> encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.
> 
> In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic
> triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional
> reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the
> birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same.
> 
> When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and
> shakers" in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from
> sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that
> had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one
> could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a
> kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch
> earth.
> 
> One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A
> brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the
> cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Della Rosa. As she ran
> to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the
> dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from
> the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face. Jesus
> looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and
> at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things
> new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the
> Book of Revelations. Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and
> the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His
> face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful.
> They had been borne voluntarily for love.
> 
> At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a
> question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film,
> from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were
> effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow
> this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this
> film considered by some to be 'anti-Semitic?" Frankly, having now
> experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question
> that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front
> of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do
> not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents
> that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me
> realize that my sins killed Jesus". I agree. There is not a scintilla of
> anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were,
> I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel
> story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging
> way. Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or
> have another agenda behind their protestations.
> 
> This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to
> those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a
> deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women.
> It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian
> and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no
> longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble. History demands
> that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell
> it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and
> that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the
> right to hear the truth.
> 
> We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to
> which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who
> followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the
> history of the world. The problem is not the message but those who have
> distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not
> to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love
> that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." It should be
> seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to
> make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion."
> 
> Please copy this and send it on to all your friends to let them know
> about this film so that all go see it when it comes out.
> 
> P.S. From Julie: My daughter, Kristin, tells me they learned at her
> church Youth Group that Mel Gilbson stated he did not appear in his own
> movie, by his choice, with one exception: It is Gibson's hands seen
> nailing Jesus to the cross. Gibson said he wanted to do that because it
> was indeed his own hands that nailed Jesus to the cross (along with all
> of ours.)


http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/passion-reviews.htm


----------



## Adam Richey

I read somewhere that The Passion won't even be in English. It is supposed to be in the original dialect of the time with English subtitles.


----------



## HappyGoLucky

Danny R said:


> _keep in mind that WITHOUT the virgin birth and the resurection, any story about Jesus Christ becomes pointless..._
> 
> I think I can 100% disagree with that statement.
> 
> Yes the ressurrection is the centerpiece of most christian faiths, and the virgin birth is important to some as well (not mine however)... but Jesus' message of peace was pretty important as well even without the whole "Son of God" thing.


I wish someone would make a movie about Zoroaster in complete detail. I wonder if people would claim it "blasphemy" that it shows someone other than Jesus being born to a virgin, gathering "deciples", having a following of believers, turning water into wine, feeding a crowd with a few loaves of bread, raising people from the dead, being executed by a ruling tribe, and being resurected. But then, since Zoroaster supposedly did all these things at least 1000 years BEFORE the time of Jesus, who is doing the blaspheming?


----------



## Nick

I have heard that the violence of certain scenes of the crucifixion are so vivid and realistic (extreme close-up of spikes being pounded into Jesus' body) as to make many viewers turn away in horror. Apparently, the use of such powerful effects were intended to make viewers 'feel' Christ's pain and agony as He was hung on the cross and left to die.

A kind of first person "Be the Saviour" - with apologies to JC and NGC

I haven't seen the film, and I'm not sure I will -- issues.

/Nick


----------



## freakmonkey

My son asked me why they have to make movies like this one. I didnt know what to say so I shrugged my head and said to make lots of money son. 

I tried to buy some tickets to the 2/25/04 premier and every showing is sold out.


----------



## Danny R

I doubt Mel's whole purpose was to make money. When he originally invested his own funds into the project, it was widely thought he'd lose his shirt. Religious films often do quite poorly at the box office... usually because they suck. Omega Code, etc being prime examples.

Rather he's a movie person, and understands that a LOT of folks would rather watch a film than read the book. Thus he's doing his own evangelizing in the medium he knows best. The movie seems to be one of quality because he cares about the project and isn't just in it to make a buck.


----------



## Bogy

This movie is his "penance" for his addictions.


----------



## RichW

Well I saw it at a preview last night. Well not quite all because I walked out when the blood and gore got unbearable, so I don't know if the end of the film has any redeeming value. But for me, this was just another slash and gore film like "elm street", only worse. It will probably appeal to the S&M crowd as an ersatz "snuff film".

The camera work was excellent, however.


----------



## Chris Blount

RichW said:


> Well I saw it at a preview last night. Well not quite all because I walked out when the blood and gore got unbearable, so I don't know if the end of the film has any redeeming value. But for me, this was just another slash and gore film like "elm street", only worse. It will probably appeal to the S&M crowd as an ersatz "snuff film".
> 
> The camera work was excellent, however.


That is one of the reasons why I will be waiting to watch this on DVD. Rushing to the theater to see a death, grief and sadness is not something I enjoy doing no matter what emotional impact it may have. I get enough of that in real life.

As a catholic myself, I know what Jesus went through. I don't need Mel Gibson to show me in graphic detail.


----------



## RichW

Chris Blount said:


> As a catholic myself, I know what Jesus went through. I don't need Mel Gibson to show me in graphic detail.


If it were not for the fact that Mel is a dedicated Christian, I would even go so far as to say that this is an "exploitation" film. I suspect he loves the controversy.

However, I do think the controversies Gibson raises are good to get out in the open.

My understanding of that time in history is that the Romans WERE brutal to their enemies and to criminals. So while Jesus did suffer and die by crucifixion, so did thousands of others under Roman rule (not by Jews).

Many of us church-going Christians relive the stations of the cross each year during Good Friday services. Long after Mel's movie is forgotten, these services will continue. In fact I think the popularity of the movie will be short-lived and may not make it past Lent.


----------



## Anthony

Incredibly well done. Very personal. Certain images stick in your head (probably forever). What most critics didn't see was painfully obvious to most people in the theatre. See it and you'll understand what I mean. If you're wondering if you can handle the violence - believe me when I say it hits you in the heart, not the stomach. It appears Mel Gibson wanted his movie to get through to all of us who have been desensitized from violence and hate. Believe me, it does. If you are debating whether your child should be allowed to view this movie, ask yourself how much violent television and movies they have been subjected to. Then you should be able to answer your own question.


----------



## RichW

This movie is far far more violent than anything on broadcast TV. 

Well the answer for me is a resounding NO!... I wouldn't subject pre-teens to this movie. The trauma and possible emotional harm to a child is not worth it. Plus, some younger kids may actually be scripted by it to act out the violenxce themselves.
In my opinion, taking a young child to this movie is a form of child abuse.

I understand the emotional impact of the film. It had impact on me as I walked out. But it did nothing to strengthen my faith. The extreme violence had no purpose.


----------



## HappyGoLucky

As I pointed out in another posting, if a movie were made which was literally true to the entire Bible, we'd witness massacres, genocide, incest, cannibalism, infanticide, rape, torture, famine, pestilence, brutality... and thats just the parts God approved or ordered!


----------



## jrjcd

Danny R said:


> _keep in mind that WITHOUT the virgin birth and the resurection, any story about Jesus Christ becomes pointless..._
> 
> I think I can 100% disagree with that statement.
> 
> Yes the ressurrection is the centerpiece of most christian faiths, and the virgin birth is important to some as well (not mine however)... but Jesus' message of peace was pretty important as well even without the whole "Son of God" thing.


except that, if jesus ISN'T the Son of God, something that would be impossible in the Christian religion without the virgin birth(Jesus born sinless) and the Ressurection(the triumphant victory over death), then Jesus becomes either a liar or a lunatic, because the linchpin of his message is based on Him being the Son of God & the only way to God-


----------



## jrjcd

so far, the film has grossed around 117 mil on it's first weekend...

I saw it twice...

on it's own merits, it is an outstanding achievement...if nothing else, no one can fault gibson's abilities as a filmmaker...

caveats: not a lot of context-i hope with all the money it is making, gibson will make "part one"-the film starts in what seems like after the intermission of a long film-IF you are familiar with the story of Jesus, this won't be a problem, but even in this day and age, there are many people who don't know the gospel story for whatever reason and may not be able to follow the why of the film...

the ressurection is short changed in this film and tho i won't reveal any spoilers here, i can imagine the women greeting the risen messiah with their eyes covered-it was more of the savior i cared to see, even out of focus...

and can anyone tell me the significance of satan and the hairy old baby during the scourging????i still haven't figured that out!!!!


----------



## Bogy

jrjcd said:


> and can anyone tell me the significance of satan and the hairy old baby during the scourging????i still haven't figured that out!!!!


Check out the "The Rest of the Story" thread in Potpourri. These were part of the vision of a German Nun in the early 1800's.


----------



## jrjcd

ok-i read the story and it doesn't address the hairy baby question-i understand the significance of the serpent in the garden even if it wasn't based on the vision of a nun and many of the other choices gibson made as a filmmaker(the stretching of the arm at the crucifixon, etc), but i STILL don't understand the significance of satan and the hairy old baby at the scourging...is it because i'm not catholic or what???


----------



## Charles Oliva

I saw "Passion" last night. My perspective on this movie comes from being an agnostic as well as judging it solely as a movie. 
With that said, personally I do think that the movie should have presented more of the "Who? When? Why?" aspect (this is one of those movies that you should read the book first  ). As noted, the film starts abruptly as if a series and in many ways is the film is "preaching to the choir", if you go to this movie expecting answers you will be lost watching the film. The much talked about aspects of the level of violence and "anti-semitism" in this movie to myself rings somewhat hollow. Yes, the violence is graphic but no more than a Quentin Tarantino- type movie. The portrayal of the Jews in the movie is that of the commoners being horrified and helpful to Jesus, not as conspires or "cheering" his death.
Again, viewing "Passion" solely as a movie, I came away with the feeling that the characters should of been developed more. Spending one hour watching someone being caned, whipped, beaten and crucified, yet giving little one minute "glimpses" into the man in his last moments of life seem to obscure the message.


----------



## Bogy

I saw the movie tonite. Still processing. About 45 people from my church saw it with me, and about 25 came back to the church to discuss it. Overall, my impression was positive. From all the hype I was expecting the violence and gore to be worse than it was. As far as the flashbacks, I thought they did a reasonable job of presenting at least an element of Jesus' teachings.

My own feeling is that the movie will probably have its biggest impact on those who already have a background in Christianity. It will have an impact on those faithful members who will be have a new reference for what Jesus experienced. It believe it will also have quite a reaction on those who consider themselves Christians, but don't really take it "seriously". They may take it much more seriously after viewing the movie. As far as people who have had little to no previous contact with the story, I don't think they will "get it". It may make some ask questions, but I don't see the movie by itself convincing anybody.

I didn't see it as very anti-Semitic. There are good Romans and despicable Romans. There are good and bad Jews. Even among the Council/Sanhedrin, there were those who protested the charges against Jesus and the "trial" itself.

As far as the "old baby" I had no idea what that represented. I found the explanation online.


> Q. I saw the movie, and during the scourging scene, there is an image of the "satan" character and it looks like it is holding a baby. Is that symbolic of something?
> 
> (A) Artists through the centuries have often portrayed Jesus as a child in the arms of Mary. In "The Passion", there is a shot during the scourging scene, where the "satan" character is seen holding what looks like a grotesque-looking child. This depiction represents an "anti" Madonna and Child - it is Satan mocking not only Jesus and Mary, but it is also Satan mocking the coming of Christ into the world as a man suggesting it was futile.


http://www.passion-movie.com/english/antichrist.html


----------



## jrjcd

where's ingmar bergman when you really need him???


----------



## Bogy

I wrote last night that the movie wasn't as violent/gory as I had thought it might be. But that comes with a caveat. I would still recommend that you take the R seriously in regards to teens. My 16 year old handled it well, and thinks it is one of the most wonderful and horrible films he has seen. But he has had a long association with a pastor that has never pulled punches when it comes to the blood and cruelty of the passion story. His 15 year old girlfriend was upset by the movie. Not to the extent that she is scarred, but was deeply impacted. A couple who agreed with me that it wasn't as bad as they had feared, still were glad that they had not brought their 12/13 year old son to see it.

My guess is that the more deeply a young person feels about Jesus, the greater the impact they are going to feel. Its different than the slutty cheerleader getting her head chopped off, or thousands of orcs getting squashed to jelly. This is very personal, intense violence.


----------



## HappyGoLucky

Bogy said:


> I wrote last night that the movie wasn't as violent/gory as I had thought it might be. But that comes with a caveat. I would still recommend that you take the R seriously in regards to teens. My 16 year old handled it well, and thinks it is one of the most wonderful and horrible films he has seen. But he has had a long association with a pastor that has never pulled punches when it comes to the blood and cruelty of the passion story. His 15 year old girlfriend was upset by the movie. Not to the extent that she is scarred, but was deeply impacted. A couple who agreed with me that it wasn't as bad as they had feared, still were glad that they had not brought their 12/13 year old son to see it.
> 
> My guess is that the more deeply a young person feels about Jesus, the greater the impact they are going to feel. Its different than the slutty cheerleader getting her head chopped off, or thousands of orcs getting squashed to jelly. This is very personal, intense violence.


My partner and I were at the local mall last weekend, and the lines for this movie were incredible. Knowing what I do about the film (though I have not seen it myself), I found it rather unnerving that so many people had brought young children, what appeared to be 4yo to 12-13yo, to see it. There were a LOT of children in the lines. I just could never allow a young child like that to see such a thing, and I'm a godless heathen!


----------



## Nick

The "Passion" DVD goes on sale Tuesday, Aug 31.


----------



## Danny R

Yup, I should have it in my mailbox by the time I get home. Netflix shipped it out to me yesterday.


----------



## badkclark

Here's a review on "The Passion" by a Jew. Michael Medved is a Jewish individual and film critic.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0202/p09s01-cogn.html

And you can find out who he is at http://www.michaelmedved.com



cnsf said:


> Why is that? Someone growing up Jewish would most likely have a very different perspective than someone growing up with a Catholic (or other background).
> 
> It is very rare to find people who can truly take on the perspective of someone with a completely different background.
> 
> Hopefully, the review is on target, but hearing it from someone who would be a member of the concerned group would have a more "true" opinon.
> 
> As an example, someone caucasian reviewing "Song of the South" now from an African-American perspective. Not that the review would be completely biased, but a reader would most likely want to hear it from an African-American, not a caucasian who grew up with African-Americans in his town.
> 
> I'm not knocking his review, just saying I would like to hear it from a Jewish perspective.


----------



## badkclark

Please, if you would, point out in the Bible where God ordered or condoned RAPE. Even cannibalism, or torture.
There have been plenty of people, throughout history, that have done evil "in the name of God." This does not mean that God condones it.

Besides, your looking at the perspective of one Catholic, and not the Bible in it's entirety.



HappyGoLucky said:


> As I pointed out in another posting, if a movie were made which was literally true to the entire Bible, we'd witness massacres, genocide, incest, cannibalism, infanticide, rape, torture, famine, pestilence, brutality... and thats just the parts God approved or ordered!


----------



## Danny R

Judges 21:10-24 "So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance."

Numbers 31:7-18 Moses gives virgins to soldiers "Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 - "But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - Rape victims must marry attacker

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - More harsh punishment for rape victim

2 Samuel 12:11-14 "Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight."

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "And suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her and want to marry her. If this happens, you may take her to your home"

Judges 5:30 "there must be a damsel or two for each man"

Exodus 21:7-11 - "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again."

Zechariah 14:1-2 "And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished"


----------



## Bogy

Ok, any doubts now that men had a lot to do with writing the Bible with their own agenda in mind?


----------



## badkclark

Danny R said:


> Judges 21:10-24 "So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance."


No mention of rape there. I suggest you read it again.



> Numbers 31:7-18 Moses gives virgins to soldiers "Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."


I'd read this again, too. Moses was pretty pissed that they soldiers didn't slay everyone to begin with, as was the Lord's command.



> Deuteronomy 20:10-14 - "But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."


Again, no mention of RAPING the women. But you can assume what you want.



> Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - Rape victims must marry attacker


Read 22:25 - 25 ¶ But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die

Does that sound like condoning rape?



> Deuteronomy 22:23-24 - More harsh punishment for rape victim


Actually, this is punishment for a betrothed virgin who has an affair. Both shall die. Sorry....not for a rape victim...gimme a break.



> 2 Samuel 12:11-14 "Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight."


This was Samuel the prophets rebuke and curse on David for his causing the slaying of Uriah the Hittite and taking his wife as his own. David had sinned against God, and this was to be HIS punishment, not all of mankinds.



> Deuteronomy 21:10-14 "And suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her and want to marry her. If this happens, you may take her to your home"


You'll notice that the woman will take off her robe of captivity, which means she is not a slave, but a woman of the houshold.



> Judges 5:30 "there must be a damsel or two for each man"


This is hilarious. You get that from a the Song of Deborah and Barak??? Hilarious. And where is the "MUST". Its a poem, for heaven's sake!



> Exodus 21:7-11 - "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again."


This has nothing to do with sex, but to servitude. I suggest you read the scripture again. "Pleasing" a master does not mean sex.



> Zechariah 14:1-2 "And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished"


This refers, if you would just READ it, to OTHER nations ravaging the women of Jerusalem. The Lord is warning them.

I find it extremely funny when people will just put things out there, without bothering to research for context. And with the speed you responded, I can only imagine you Googled this and threw them up there. If you are going to bother arguing a matter, I suggest you do more research, and not just disingenuously throwing things on the board in an attempt to sound intelligent on a matter.


----------



## Bogy

badkclark, you have a very naive mind when it comes to men and women captured in war. I suppose all those virgins were just kept around to fetch water and dust?


----------



## Danny R

As Bogy stated, do you really think women were thought of as spoils of war just so the men could kick back and have someone bring them a beer?

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 _Actually, this is punishment for a betrothed virgin who has an affair_

Actually it determines the willingness of the woman solely on if she screams or not.

_Read 22:25 - 25 ¶ But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die 
_

If you look, the key difference is the word "betrothed". Women back then were considered property, and the man was put to death for spoiling the other man's goods. If the woman was NOT betrothed, its a different story, and the poor girl was forced to marry the guy. Nowhere is a man put to death for raping a "single" woman, only for raping someone else's woman.

_David had sinned against God, and this was to be HIS punishment, not all of mankinds._

Can't you see that the women here are inconsequential? It doesn't matter who's punishment it was... the fact of the matter is that the women are being raped here. Just as in the previous case, the women here are considered property. As you admit, raping them is considered a punishment for David.

_The Lord is warning them._

EXACTLY. The Lord says "*I* will gather all the nations against Jerusalem"

Rape is a fitting punishment.


----------



## Paladin

Bogy said:


> badkclark, you have a very naive mind when it comes to men and women captured in war. I suppose all those virgins were just kept around to fetch water and dust?


He just debunked everything that was said. It's unbelievable, you of all people should know these things. Just unbelievable! :shrug:


----------



## Bogy

Paladin said:


> He just debunked everything that was said. It's unbelievable, you of all people should know these things. Just unbelievable! :shrug:


He debunked nothing. All he did was try to gloss over what should be some very troubling passages for any Christian today. I can take the position I do because I am not a fundamentalist who believes that every word in the Bible was directly written by the hand of God. I believe that men were all too involved in writing the Bible from their point of view. Which is the point of view of those who codified the canon in the first place.


----------



## badkclark

No. Some were made servants, and some were actually married off to the men. And don't try to compare a 20th Century man like myself to men of ancient times. Do you honestly believe that it's the same thing? And by your statement, I could assume that you feel that EVERY woman taken captive could only be used for sexual use, as that seems to be the basis of your case.
The relationship between God and man during the time of the old testiment was that of little patience. Men were base and foolish. The laws enacted by God at that time was what needed to be done to teach obedience to the laws of God. If men could not keep even the most base and temporal laws, how can God expect them to keep the higher laws, as those provided by Christ? You will notice that none of the practices of the old testiment time were things condoned by even the Christ at his time. If you can find any of these references similar in the old testiment to the new, you've got me, but you won't.



Bogy said:


> badkclark, you have a very naive mind when it comes to men and women captured in war. I suppose all those virgins were just kept around to fetch water and dust?


----------



## badkclark

Danny R said:


> As Bogy stated, do you really think women were thought of as spoils of war just so the men could kick back and have someone bring them a beer?


Are we living in the old testiment times? That's what I thought.



> Deuteronomy 22:23-24 _Actually, this is punishment for a betrothed virgin who has an affair_
> 
> Actually it determines the willingness of the woman solely on if she screams or not.


Where do you read "screams or not"



> _Read 22:25 - 25 ¶ But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die
> _
> 
> If you look, the key difference is the word "betrothed". Women back then were considered property, and the man was put to death for spoiling the other man's goods. If the woman was NOT betrothed, its a different story, and the poor girl was forced to marry the guy. Nowhere is a man put to death for raping a "single" woman, only for raping someone else's woman.


Do you know nothing of ancient Jewish custom? When a woman was betrothed to a man, it was as if they were married. It was, legally, the same thing, though not to the point of marriage and consumation of the marriage. Thus, when a woman had an affair, even after betrothal, it was considered adultery, and at that time, a crime punishable by death. Right or wrong, it was a matter of law.
Also, you are again disingenuous by stating that the "poor girl was forced to marry the guy." The scriptures do not at this point say that the girl was FORCED to lay with him. It simply says if he "lay" with her. Do you think this means non-consensual? Do you know the mind of the scriptorian? I doubt it. It simply means that if a man has sex with a virgin, he must pay the "dowry" (again if you understood ancient Jewish custom, you'd get this) and the woman becomes his wife. The purpose of this law was to encourage abstainment and discourage fornication. Again, we are talking about the most temporal of laws for the simplest of men.



> _David had sinned against God, and this was to be HIS punishment, not all of mankinds._
> 
> Can't you see that the women here are inconsequential? It doesn't matter who's punishment it was... the fact of the matter is that the women are being raped here. Just as in the previous case, the women here are considered property. As you admit, raping them is considered a punishment for David.
> 
> _The Lord is warning them._
> 
> EXACTLY. The Lord says "*I* will gather all the nations against Jerusalem"
> 
> Rape is a fitting punishment.


If women were so inconsequential, how do you explain Ruth, or the widow who fed the prophet Elijah, and many other wonderful women in the scriptures. No....indeed women were not inconsequential. You would suggest that the mere scripture stating that women should humble themselves before their husbands is a full frontal against women's lib. Uhhh, remember, we're talking about OLD TESTIMENT. This was PRE-CHRISTIANITY. To assume that modern day Christendom, or anyone such as I, would condone the "selling" or raping as just punishment, of women, is just rediculous.
God allows evil men to do evil things. It's called FREE AGENCY. We can choose good or evil. Sometimes in order for us to remember God, from which all blessings flow, we must be chastened. It's unfortunate when evil is allowed to grow unchecked, but you must expect this when men's hearts are turned from God. Or you can sit back and equivocate and suggest that there is no such thing as good or evil and all things are morally equivilent. Yeah...Bush is just like Sadam, right? Poppycock.
Not to mention that you want to beat around a couple "questionable" scriptures. You have not said anything about the others, because you have not done your studying. Nor have you with regard to these. You need to quit looking beyond the mark, understand the times with which you are reading about, and then approach the argument.
And because I have an understanding of the times in which I read, do not assume that I apply this a practice in these times.
The Bible is a group of records. Made by men yes, with all their imperfections. Translated numerous times, yes; probably to the point of losing many of the truths contained in it. Were there inspired men of God in the Old Testiment and the New? Yes.

To put this on Christians is just plain stupid. Find for me in the New Testiment where Christ condoned the raping of women, the cannibalism, the torture, etc etc. You will find quite the opposite was true.


----------



## Bogy

badkclark said:


> No. Some were made servants, and some were actually married off to the men. And don't try to compare a 20th Century man like myself to men of ancient times. Do you honestly believe that it's the same thing? And by your statement, I could assume that you feel that EVERY woman taken captive could only be used for sexual use, as that seems to be the basis of your case.
> The relationship between God and man during the time of the old testiment was that of little patience. Men were base and foolish. The laws enacted by God at that time was what needed to be done to teach obedience to the laws of God. If men could not keep even the most base and temporal laws, how can God expect them to keep the higher laws, as those provided by Christ? You will notice that none of the practices of the old testiment time were things condoned by even the Christ at his time. If you can find any of these references similar in the old testiment to the new, you've got me, but you won't.


Did I somewhere state that the 'laws' of the Old Testament are what Jeus proclaimed? Within the Old Testament ARE contained the teaching of Jesus, but what he came to present as the Word of God, incarnate in himself, had nothing to do with taking captive women as spoils of war. Rather, Jesus promoted the equality of women with men in marriage. He proclaimed love, justice and kindness to be the basis of true religion. This can be found in the Old Testament as well, when men weren't promoting their own twisted agenda and proclaiming it the 'will of God.' People still promote their own agendas today, and claim it is the 'will of God.' That is why the test of whether that agenda promotes love of God and others, justice and kindness helps us determine its 'trueness.'


----------



## badkclark

We agree on this, Bogy. But, I would ask who in the Old Testament were promoting their own twisted agenda? And can you look at it from an Old Testament point of view? Was not God dealing with people that turned away from him again and again? As evidenced by the flood, the captivity in Egypt, the snakes in the wilderness? This is why the laws of the time had to be kept simple. The chosen people of God were not ready for the fulness of his Gospel. That which came in the meridian of time.


----------



## Bogy

badkclark said:


> Where do you read "screams or not"


The law gave the benefit of the doubt to a woman raped in a field, since the assumption would be that she could scream and not be heard. However, if a woman was raped inside the city walls, the assumption was that if she were raped she would scream, and if she ramained silent it was consensual sex. The same standards are still in force today. The best defense a woman has against the charge of having consented to have sex is to end up dead. Next best is that skin and hair be found under her fingernails, with trauma to the vagina, accompanied with various other bruises and cuts. Heaven forbid she emerge from the experience in good shape, because then she must have just laid back and enjoyed it.



> Do you know nothing of ancient Jewish custom? When a woman was betrothed to a man, it was as if they were married. It was, legally, the same thing, though not to the point of marriage and consumation of the marriage. Thus, when a woman had an affair, even after betrothal, it was considered adultery, and at that time, a crime punishable by death. Right or wrong, it was a matter of law.Also, you are again disingenuous by stating that the "poor girl was forced to marry the guy." The scriptures do not at this point say that the girl was FORCED to lay with him. It simply says if he "lay" with her. Do you think this means non-consensual? Do you know the mind of the scriptorian? I doubt it. It simply means that if a man has sex with a virgin, he must pay the "dowry" (again if you understood ancient Jewish custom, you'd get this) and the woman becomes his wife. The purpose of this law was to encourage abstainment and discourage fornication. Again, we are talking about the most temporal of laws for the simplest of men.


Do you know nothing of ancient Jewish custom? The whole matter involves the fact that the woman was property. Either of the father or the betrothed husband. Whoever was the wronged party deserved to be paid.



> If women were so inconsequential, how do you explain Ruth, or the widow who fed the prophet Elijah, and many other wonderful women in the scriptures. No....indeed women were not inconsequential.


No, but if you look carefully at the scriptures you will find that the women portrayed in the scriptures were some who you would be least likely to expect. Just to take your example of Ruth, this was a Canaanite woman, who seduced Boaz on the threshing floor (she lay at his feet, a common Hebrew euphemism for a part of the body only about halfway to the commonly recognized 'feet.' She was David's Grandmother, and was one of three women mentioned in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. Of the three, one was Ruth, another was a non-Jewish prostitute, and the other was a woman who was sexually wronged by her father in law, who then had sex with her for money. Although he never actually paid her, but left behind some personal property as collateral that placed him in a compromising position. Interesting women in Jesus' ancestry.


----------



## Bogy

badkclark said:


> We agree on this, Bogy. But, I would ask who in the Old Testament were promoting their own twisted agenda? And can you look at it from an Old Testament point of view? Was not God dealing with people that turned away from him again and again? As evidenced by the flood, the captivity in Egypt, the snakes in the wilderness? This is why the laws of the time had to be kept simple. The chosen people of God were not ready for the fulness of his Gospel. That which came in the meridian of time.


The laws were kept simple? All 683 of them? The law is simple, when men don't keep trying to 'simplify' it. "Love me, walk and talk with me, and don't eat from that tree." "Walk humbly with God, do justice, and love kindness." Pretty simple. Much simpler than all the stuff about what to eat, and what not to eat, and who to have sex with, and who not to have sex with, and what herbs to tithe when, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## badkclark

Thanks for the discussion, Bogy. It's been interesting.


----------



## HappyGoLucky

Paladin said:


> He just debunked everything that was said. It's unbelievable, you of all people should know these things. Just unbelievable! :shrug:


The only thing he did was show how he is either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid. You've just done likewise.


----------



## HappyGoLucky

badkclark said:


> To put this on Christians is just plain stupid. Find for me in the New Testiment where Christ condoned the raping of women, the cannibalism, the torture, etc etc. You will find quite the opposite was true.


Read the old testament. You are the one spinning biblical accounts into something fanciful and untrue, not me. You attempt to excuse accounts with incredible explanations that defy logic and reason and are so convoluted as to be laughable. If you are truly that naive, I suggest you educate yourself better before attempting to argue biblical passages. You're out of your league here.


----------



## Paladin

HappyGoLucky said:


> You're out of your league here.


You're in the league? A atheist gay man, you really shouldn't have any say in the matter at all.


----------



## Danny R

_Where do you read "screams or not" _



> DEUT 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; *the damsel, because she cried not*, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.


----------



## HappyGoLucky

BTW, I watched "The Passion..." the other night. I was sorely disappointed. For all the hype, I was expecting a performance that would really move me. I'm a big softie when it comes to movies, I can get choked up and moved to tears pretty easily. But this movie just didn't do it. The potential was there, but it didn't follow through. It seemed more focused on "Nightmare on Elm Street" blood and gore rather than actual pain and emotions. If more had been spent on character and less on special effects, perhaps a better movie would have resulted.


----------



## HappyGoLucky

Paladin said:


> You're in the league? A atheist gay man, you really shouldn't have any say in the matter at all.


I wager I know more about the Bible than you. I've read it many times, have had numerous discussions with well-respected theologians, and studied the history behind it. Your assumptions reveal your ignorance.


----------



## Paladin

HappyGoLucky said:


> I wager I know more about the Bible than you. I've read it many times, have had numerous discussions with well-respected theologians, and studied the history behind it. Your assumptions reveal your ignorance.


Knowing and understanding are two different things. Clearly you show no understanding of which you speak. Your ignorance is revealed anytime you bad-mouth the word of God. Oh, btw, I too have read the Bible several times. My mother has been a minister for 22 years and I have personally had several lengthy conversations with Billy Graham.


----------



## BuckeyeChris

HappyGoLucky said:


> BTW, I watched "The Passion..." the other night. I was sorely disappointed. For all the hype, I was expecting a performance that would really move me. I'm a big softie when it comes to movies, I can get choked up and moved to tears pretty easily. But this movie just didn't do it. The potential was there, but it didn't follow through. It seemed more focused on "Nightmare on Elm Street" blood and gore rather than actual pain and emotions. If more had been spent on character and less on special effects, perhaps a better movie would have resulted.


Well, since you are an self-professed atheist, are you really so surprised at your disappointment. Exactly what kind of portrayal of the passion play would you like to have seen?

When I saw it last spring in the movie theater, I, like most in the theater, was moved to tears by the agony and suffering of Jesus. Of course, to me, this movie has extreme significance and goes to the core of my Christian faith.

Mel Gibson didn't make this movie to try to get inside the head of Jesus and explore his emotions and conflicts. He made a movie to graphically show the horrendous torture and death that he and many others believe Jesus suffered. I think he accomplished that mission very well and like no other cinematic treatment of the subject before him.


----------



## HappyGoLucky

Paladin said:


> Knowing and understanding are two different things. Clearly you show no understanding of which you speak. Your ignorance is revealed anytime you bad-mouth the word of God. Oh, btw, I too have read the Bible several times. My mother has been a minister for 22 years and I have personally had several lengthy conversations with Billy Graham.


I understand it far better than you because my reading is not clouded and biased by religious dogma. When you read you only see and understand what you've been led to believe.

Were I a Christian, I would be rather offended by your attempt at piousness considering the way you conduct yourself in discussions.


----------



## Paladin

HappyGoLucky said:


> I understand it far better than you because my reading is not clouded and biased by religious dogma. When you read you only see and understand what you've been led to believe.
> 
> Were I a Christian, I would be rather offended by your attempt at piousness considering the way you conduct yourself in discussions.


And your not biased by militant athiestic dogma?

Were I a Athiest, I would be rather offended by your attempt at piousness considering the way you conduct yourself in discussions.


----------



## HappyGoLucky

BuckeyeChris said:


> Well, since you are an self-professed atheist, are you really so surprised at your disappointment. Exactly what kind of portrayal of the passion play would you like to have seen?


I didn't have to be black nor a woman to be moved by "The Color Purple". I didn't have to be a jew to be moved by "Sophie's Choice" or "Schindler's List". I can be moved by the READING of the events depicted in the movie from the Bible. This movie, however, did not move me. I think the opinion you, and the rest of the "faithful", have of the movie is more indicative of what you WANTED to see rather than in the actual filmmaking. Perhaps as a tool to demonstrate the blood and gore of the event, it is effective. But it is not great filmmaking.


----------



## HappyGoLucky

Paladin said:


> And your not biased by militant athiestic dogma?
> 
> Were I a Athiest, I would be rather offended by your attempt at piousness considering the way you conduct yourself in discussions.


Grow up. Since you can't seem to remain above an elementary school level, I see no reason to discuss the issue with you further. When you can converse on an adult level, perhaps I will reconsider.


----------



## Paladin

HappyGoLucky said:


> Grow up. Since you can't seem to remain above an elementary school level, I see no reason to discuss the issue with you further. When you can converse on an adult level, perhaps I will reconsider.


Perhaps I should of just called you a hypocrite instead of pointing out your double standard. Clearly it was over your head.


----------



## Mark Lamutt

Devolved thread closed...


----------

