The Passion...

[Tarantulas]

Mel Gibson himself may be anti-Semitic, but I don't think Passion was meant to be. As for the violence, it was just a new way to spin an old tale. I mean, if you take out the gore, you're left with a skeleton of a movie. At least Last Temptation told a good story. You can call it blasphemous, but it was also cinema. Passion amounted to little more than a religious video game. I think people need to stop making movies out of the Bible. The stories are too well known. If you want to make a religious movie, focus on some notable Christians. There are some good stories throughout church history just waiting to be mined. (No I am not a seminary student all though my dad is a preacher)

Again, I've been to many passion plays that were equally compelling that didn't need to rely on gore to get the message across.

somehow I doubt the truth of this statement. (Just saying based on the tone of your other posts and your general disgust with Christianity)

I went to one just this Easter that my Mom was co director of.  Before that, growing up in the church, I've seen dozens.

[gbeenie]

Alright, this discussion is rediculous. This is a forum to discuss RiffTrax, not religious debates.

I couldn't agree more.

This thread was originally made to discuss The Passion of the Christ, which is a well made film IMO.

(NOTE: I've never seen Passion, and have NO opinion about it) One thing I've noticed about The Passion of the Christ is that the only people who seem particularly impressed with its quality are devout christians; from what I've seen, it's pretty consistent that non-believers don't think much of the movie. This is in contrast with other religious films that I, at least, have quite enjoyed.

I just want to point out that religion is not "a bunch of lies." Its a belief system. There's a big difference.

Those two descriptions are not mutually exclusive. For example, Holocaust denial is a belief, too; that doesn't mean it's not bullshit.

Christianity or any other religion relating to god is a tradition going back thousands of years.

So is the notion that women are property. "Tradition" does NOT equal merit.

And the fact that it has outlasted Greek, Roman, and Egyptian gods shows its true quality and that there's something special about it.

And successful violent subjugation of most of Europe also does not equate with merit. Or did you fail to notice that christianity never spread to any significant degree beyond the places where it was enforced at the point of a spear/arrow/muzzle?

But the simple fact is, no one can 100% prove or disprove the existance of god no matter how much info or arguements they have. Its just impossible. No one can really know for sure until they die or if a second coming of christ comes.

Again, I agree. The problem is that we're mixing up the discussions of whether God exists with the merits of religion.

[mrthejazz]

Again, I've been to many passion plays that were equally compelling that didn't need to rely on gore to get the message across.
[/quote]

Two points on that. First, theatrical convention. Most plays (even violent ones) try to imply blood because it's easier, cheaper, and less of a mess. You don't crack open Arthur Miller or Edward Albee and see gallons of blood written in the script. That's the way theater does things. If you look at Hollywood movies based on Shakespeare or whatever they're bloodier too. If 300 or Sin City were written as plays, I can guarantee you just because of theatrical convention (and the fact that theatre is arguably higher art) it wouldn't be as bloody.

Secondly, the gore in the passion isn't that bad. That's what annoys me. People say it was over-the-top, but how is it over the top in comparison to say Kill Bill? When Jesus gets lashed, does blood spray in five directions at 50mph? No. How about compared to Clockwork Orange? Hollywood is naturally bloodier, and when Jesus gets the same treatment everyone is surprised. I mean, film is supposed to show every disgusting, shocking detail. It's by nature a more "realistic" medium. If someone made a painting of the Crucification, it wouldn't be as gruesome as a photograph.

I dunno man, I'm just trying to see how I can buy your argument when a lashing and crucification seem pretty tame in comparison to say, a blowtorch to the face.

[gbeenie]

I say again that The Bible can be proven without doubt by archeologic evidance, testing the manuscript evidance, scientific evidance and statistical probability of the chances of the events that took place.

You're equating determining the physical age of the Bible (which I don't recall having voiced an opinion about) with verifying its historical accuracy (none of which has happened, by the way).

He can a book written over a period of 1600 years by over 40 men be just a fairy tale told by crazy men? If one looks carefully at the text, it is harmonious. Now how can a book written by several people many who have never met before be and written over hundreds of years be written in harmony?

Not a single word of the above constitutes an ounce of scientific thinking or even regard for basic standards of evidence. Not to mention... "harmonious?" To categorize a book as rife with DIRECT internal contradictions as the Bible as "harmonious" is to go by a definition of "harmonious" of which I was previously unaware.

Science can prove The Bible and God.

Waiting.  >crickets chirping<

Also to all of those people who believe in Theistic Evolution, be careful, this is very dangerous to believe in something like this. This is suggesting that God had to create the early forms of life first long before man came around through eons of evolving. So God did not have the grand intelligence and mind to create man as if he made a mistake and had to correct it through eons of evolution. I thought God was incapable of making mistakes, after all he is God, right and so he apparently has limitation? If anyone wants to believe in evolution, go ahead but please do not blame God for it.

Well, I'll give you this much: at least you're not trying to shoehorn the mountainous preponderance of evidence of evolution into your (multiple, by the way; try actually reading Genesis sometime) fantasy version. You're simply choosing to ignore the evidence; that takes conviction, and I salute you for it.

God does not need our saccharine adoration, he created us because he loves us. He most certainly does not becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery. He does after all gives us a choice on wither we choose to accept him or not. He gave us the free will to choose.

Uh huh. Funny, because every church I ever attended as a child said the exact same thing on the subject: worship God (usually, in their specific way) or burn in hell. Gee, that sounds pretty goddamned petulant and vengeful to me.

Seriously, if you knew a guy who became indignant and punitive the instant you weren't constantly heaping praise on him, would you ever continue to hang around someone like that?

p.s. And I guess the families of those thirty-two people who lost their lives at Virginia Tech should take comfort in the fact that, obviously, God loved them enough to set a homicidal maniac loose on their sons/daughters/wives/husbands. Ya know, when I want to show people I love them, usually a mix CD is more my style, but different strokes, I guess.

[gbeenie]

To everyone, I say, "Congratulations! You're both right! Now sit down, relax, enjoy your view of the universe, and don't let it irk you that others might have other views, and maybe listen to what the other side has to say.  Lots of good information on both ends.

That's probably the most reasonable thing I've read thus far. If only everyone was as smart as you guys. Case e in point - one of the recent episodes of Penn and Teller was about Exorcism. Pretty frightening, and I don't mean the concept of "being possessed by demons."

There's one simple thing they neglected to mention, that really drives home the point that demonic possession is bullshit: it's never happened to somebody who wasn't a crazy-ass catholic, or wasn't at least raised by crazy-ass catholics. Never. If you're God, and you really want to drive home the point that demons are out to get folks, wouldn't you at once in a while let a non-believer get some Beelzebub in 'em? I know I would, and I'm hardly what you'd call a marketing genius.

[gbeenie]

If this thread isn't back on topic by page 35 I'm locking it.

You're no fun anymore.

[gbeenie]

Well back on Topic here. Whether you liked The Passion of the Christ or not, found it moving or not, God Bless you all anyways whether you believe in him or not my thoughts still go out to all of you.       

Well, I don't believe in God, but I appreciate the sentiment. It's good to know that we have plenty of intelligent people on here willing to sit down to a (mostly) serious and (fairly) civilized debate

In other news, I haven't actually seen the Passion, but I like all of Mel's other films. We actually saw Apocalypto here at a theater, a few of us moderators and Mike. Good times were had by all- and it wasn't as bloody as everyone made it out to be.

Er, umm, the topic.. yes.. Does this movie make a good christmas gift or not? Discuss!

I dunno, that kind of reminds me of (and, christians, I really do apologize for this analogy) that time we fed some cooked chicken to live chickens; they ate it, but MAN did it feel wrong.

[gbeenie]

Does this movie make a good christmas gift or not? Discuss!

well i cant be any worse than the time i receive the phantom menance as a secret santa gift because someone heard i like star wars (it was star trek actually)

I once received a laserdisc of Star Trek V.

[Priest4hire]

That's just evil. On the one hand laserdiscs are inherently cool. But Star Trek V? I'm surprised it didn't induce a lethal cognitive dissonance.

By the way, demonic possession isn't even limited to Christians let alone Catholics.

Now, while I lack personal experience I have it on good authority that many a quality Shakespeare play has been done without any female cast members.

The problem with The Last Temptation of Christ wasn't a lack of violence, of all things, but rather that it was too challenging to the Weltanschauung of a large portion of the population. As a general rule more people prefer movies that support their world view than movies that challenge it. The Passion might have changed things from the scriptures but it did so in a way that fit within the framework of the typical Pauline Christian view. Many Christians use their religion as a sort of security blanket and they don't want that challenged. But that's not particular to religion. It's just as common with ideologies or other world views.

The Passion succeeded, I believe, because it was cathartic. The violence and general over the top nature of the film just made the catharsis that much stronger. So it's not just that it was violent that made it so popular. Certainly it was not Christians getting sexually aroused from seeing Christ be tortured and killed. Rather it was the huge build up of drama from the whole ordeal that is released all at once at the end of the film that makes it a powerful ride. Of course this will be stronger for Christians simply because Christ has meaning for them. But that's no different than many works of art. Art speaks to different people in different ways because of the baggage people bring with them.

PS. I am not Christian and while I have no desire to watch this film again I did think it was very solid film.

[Tarantulas]

That's just evil. On the one hand laserdiscs are inherently cool. But Star Trek V? I'm surprised it didn't induce a lethal cognitive dissonance.

By the way, demonic possession isn't even limited to Christians let alone Catholics.

Now, while I lack personal experience I have it on good authority that many a quality Shakespeare play has been done without any female cast members.

The problem with The Last Temptation of Christ wasn't a lack of violence, of all things, but rather that it was too challenging to the Weltanschauung of a large portion of the population. As a general rule more people prefer movies that support their world view than movies that challenge it. The Passion might have changed things from the scriptures but it did so in a way that fit within the framework of the typical Pauline Christian view. Many Christians use their religion as a sort of security blanket and they don't want that challenged. But that's not particular to religion. It's just as common with ideologies or other world views.

The Passion succeeded, I believe, because it was cathartic. The violence and general over the top nature of the film just made the catharsis that much stronger. So it's not just that it was violent that made it so popular. Certainly it was not Christians getting sexually aroused from seeing Christ be tortured and killed. Rather it was the huge build up of drama from the whole ordeal that is released all at once at the end of the film that makes it a powerful ride. Of course this will be stronger for Christians simply because Christ has meaning for them. But that's no different than many works of art. Art speaks to different people in different ways because of the baggage people bring with them.

PS. I am not Christian and while I have no desire to watch this film again I did think it was very solid film.

Joe Segal called it a flaying good time!

[Quicksilver]

GBEENIE-

Oh my logic, I agree with everything you said.

I'm throwing something out there, that wont mean shit to most and will be obvious to others, but here's my theory on religion, taking into account I dont believe in g-d.
Mind you I'm going to speak like I know the answer.
I do believe Adam and Eve did exist in some way. Think chicken or the egg. A human being did not exist until two people with the right mutated genes mated, this baby, was the first Human. Remember we are not apes, but we came from them. There was a species that wasnt much different than us, but it could not reproduce unless it had another of the same species. So there was and adam and eve that existed in some way. They were the first two humans that hooked up, this is not to say there werent other humans growing up at the same time.

So these first humans may have eaten from a forbidden fruit of some kind. I think it represent the dawn of humanity, religion and civilization. Humans are different because were social, self aware, have cogitative thought and have the ability to pity. Just like all of us here, that deep in side pity those that do no not believe what we ourselves believe.

The genetics of human beings leads to the above behavior.  We have evolved since, and continue to evolve, till a point where you'd say we're a different species again. This will require a huge catastrophe however. In order for spacial separation to take place leading to new species. Right now were coming together, furthering the likelihood of a continuation of the species. Being were really over our the limit for a sustainable population, the whole Armageddon thing has credibility, it is inevitable in some form.

BS- Ecology and Field Biology.
I think everyone should have to state something like this......a bit of a piece of credentials to back your statements, whether religious or scientific. I like to know who's giving opinions, helps somewhat. I do not in anyway mean this antagonistically.

[Priest4hire]

Credentials!? We ain't got no credentials. We don't need no credentials! I don't have to show you any stinking credentials!

Forgive me, I just couldn't resist. Still, to quote Professor Peter Gray: "We do not accept anything on authority. It doesn't matter who says that something is or isn't true; what matters is the evidence - the facts and logic upon which the ideas are based, which are open for evaluation by any thinking person."

By the way, that really should be 'scourging good time'. In my mind it even sounds better. isn't it interesting how that scene stands out? I think it's because it just looks so painful. A lot of really gory effects are so over the top they don't really get across the pain. But there's something about the way the scourge bites into the skin....

[mrthejazz]

Good idea with the credentials. B.S. English / Communications

I've puzzled over this particular quagmire of beliefs a long time, and like anybody I can give you an answer, but the sad fact is that I, nor anybody can claim a Monopoly on TRUTH.

I believe that "indisputable scientific fact" is very disputable and not as useful as it seems. Why? Because rhetoric overpowers it. That's because it's impossible to have a scientific experiment that's not at least somewhat bias. In the case of evolution, there are plenty of people who want evolution to be true, and some of these individuals happen to be well off enough to pay the archaeologists and the scientists to find the evidence that they want to find, and despite their insistence that it is indisputable fact, sadly enough they are seeing merely their own worldview as TRUTH.

Worse of all, even if all of the scientists were 100% accurate on their experiments and their evidence, and they didn't care more about proving their own worldview correct (like an ideal scientist, something rare nowadays) the fact remains that all of their previous work could be undone in light of a "new discovery". Today evolution is true, tomorrow that theory may well be outdated, assuming enough people want to develop a different theory. Assuming the theory of evolution is no longer "useful" to them. Why is big bang theory given so much credence anyway? Where's the "evidence" pointing to that? Or is scientist merely playing the role of philosopher?

The fact of the matter is that those in power define history and the world around them. That's why feminism got started, because men defined the world in their own view and not with the interests of "the unimportant woman" in mind. The current "experts" in power (in the scientific world) are mostly atheistic or at least rationalistic thinkers. Can we really believe that evolutionary theory isn't biased?

Finally on that old God question "Why does got let bad things happen to good people? Why the Virginia techs, why the Columbines?" As a future writer I can tell you, that without difficulty, pain, and death, there is no story, no growth, no humanity. People need these things to grow in a sense, because people need to feel passionate about something, even if it causes them pain. That's why people hurt people, have unprotected sex and take all kinds of stupid risks, because it paradoxically makes them feel alive. Our state of constant struggle and pain is a gift from God because it defines us and gives us identity. It is our struggles that in part make us not be cardboard cutouts, that instead turn us into real individual people, and I'd rather not live if rationalism, in an admittedly noble effort to "protect us" hijacks that beautiful gift, the only gift we really have.

So screw Evolution, if only because it's a symbol of everything you rationalists find "oh so certain."

Also, the Passion kind of sucked.

[Quicksilver]

All I can say is after mutating bacteria over and over to make them do whatever you want, I cannot but defend to the death evolution being true. But then I hope my view isnt at all less acceptable than a god.

[Reductio_ad_absurdum]

And the fact that it has outlasted Greek, Roman, and Egyptian gods shows its true quality and that there's something special about it.

And successful violent subjugation of most of Europe also does not equate with merit. Or did you fail to notice that christianity never spread to any significant degree beyond the places where it was enforced at the point of a spear/arrow/muzzle?
[/quote]

How ludicrous an overgeneralization...

You do understand that Christianity took Europe only because Constantine both legalized and made it into the official religion of Rome.  This was also only happened after he came to power.  There was no violent widespread takeover over the Pagan religions, and what there was in subsequent years was isolated and religion was used as simply an excuse for the control of land.  You also realize that there are Christians in almost every nation on Earth right and that most were done through evangelism and not violence?  That one of the places it didn't succeed (Japan) was because it was violently suppressed?

You really want to debate whats absurd with an Absurdist?