 |
Forum ~ Other ~ An obscene portrayal of Christ's Passion |
 |
 |
|  An obscene portrayal of Christ's Passion [OTHER] | |
|
 |
g
  Member
Topics: 10
Replies: 2037
Registered: 03.Jan.03 |
I don't think I'll see the movie, the story feels a bit weak. Why would a god let his son die? I understand it's meant to be some salvation thingie, but it wasn't that effective, was it? Nothing changed. Why not go for a flood like the first time, at least that got some results.
 |
|
obScene
Member
Topics: 137
Replies: 3482
Registered: 08.Aug.03 |
acecream wrote on 12 Apr. (11:00) :
I created this topic so that people can continue their dissccusion here.
All the replies were moved to this topic.
|
 I knew I didnt remember starting a new topic.
Cooth is Bored
|
|
PPH
Member
Topics: 48
Replies: 843
Registered: 13.Jul.03 |
 |
G4NJ4 wrote on 12 Apr. (11:29) :
I don't think I'll see the movie, the story feels a bit weak. Why would a god let his son die? I understand it's meant to be some salvation thingie, but it wasn't that effective, was it? Nothing changed. Why not go for a flood like the first time, at least that got some results.
|
Well, at least we agree on something, my friend. Anyway, I won't start bitching about Christianity and other religions, because I can get really nasty 
Anyway, I liked this article from the Ayn Rand Institute:
A PASSION AGAINST MAN
By Onkar Ghate
As *The Passion of the Christ* plays to near-record crowds, numerous
critics and moviegoers report the film to be a transforming
experience. Although many find themselves forced to turn away from the
violence on screen, they say the blood-soaked depiction of Jesus'
crucifixion has an important purpose. We must be reminded of the
enormous sacrifice that Christ has made for all of us.
In responding this way to the film, the audience is getting the
message those responsible for the film intended. Jim Caviezel, the
actor who plays Jesus, explains: "We're all culpable in the death of
Christ. My sins put him up there. Yours did. That's what this story is
about." When Diane Sawyer asked the film's director and cowriter, Mel
Gibson, who killed Jesus, he replied, "The big answer is, we all did.
I'll be the first in the culpability stakes here." And as if to leave
no doubt that this is his considered view, Gibson's only on-screen
appearance in the film is in the form of the hands that drive the
nails into Jesus' body.
It is frightening that so evil a message could receive so welcome a
reception.
When charges of anti-Semitism, denied by the producers, surrounded the
film before its opening, there was outrage from many circles. But when
the principals behind the film tell us openly that its message is that
not only Jews but all men are implicated in the death of Jesus, the
voices of moral outrage fall silent. (In what follows I leave aside
the question of how successfully the film conveys its intended
message.)
So, let us ask some questions no one is asking. Why is it immoral to
ascribe guilt to all Jews, but not immoral to ascribe guilt to all
mankind? How can anyone know, without first considering our specific
choices and actions, that you or I are guilty? How can you or I be
responsible for the death of a man killed some two thousand years ago?
To make any sense of the accusation, one must recognize that one is
here dealing with, albeit in a more sophisticated form, the same
collectivist mentality as the racist's. For the anti-Semite, to be
Jewish is to be evil. For the devout Christian, to be human is to be
evil.
The denunciation of man as a creature befouled by, in the words of St.
Augustine, a "radical canker in the mind and will," infuses the
Christian tradition. Every essential attribute and virtue of man is
attacked.
To possess an inquisitive mind, a mind eager to explore the world and
gain knowledge, is to commit the first sin. Remember the story of Eve?
To painstakingly study nature and unlock her laws, thereby paving the
way for man's mastery of his world, is to court imprisonment and
torture. Ask Galileo or a scientist studying human cloning. To concern
oneself with producing the wealth and material goods life requires, is
to invite condemnations of "greed" and "materialism." Read Jesus'
"Sermon on the Mount." To cherish the pleasures that the earth and
one's own body afford, including one's sexual capacity, is to be
denounced as "selfish" and even depraved. Consult the Puritans or the
1968 papal encyclical *Humanae Vitae*. To take pride in one's curiosity,
in one's growing knowledge of the world, in one's successful actions
in it, in the resulting joy and pleasure these bring--this is branded
by all as the height of sin.
On this anti-man approach, to remain alive is to sin. To fully purge
oneself, one must die. Only such an account of man can begin to
explain the charge of collective guilt for the death of Christ, whose
undeserved suffering at man's vicious hands is, somehow, supposed to
help alleviate our innately "sinful" nature.
If the anti-Semitic view of the Jewish race as inherently corrupt is
irrational and evil, how much more irrational and evil is this view of
the human race?
Will *The Passion* itself play a major role in spreading this conception
of man's nature? Of course not. But the audiences and acclaim the film
is enjoying speak to just how prevalent this conception has already
become. If there is an idea behind the film worth opposing, it is
this, its intended message. Teach man to regard himself as a
loathsome, despicable being, and he becomes ripe for any mystical
dictator, who will wield the whip that is supposed to make man atone
for his "transgressions." Deprive man of self-esteem, teach him to
spit in his face, and one paves the way for another Dark Ages.
But to oppose this conception of human nature, one must first come to
understand that man--man at his best, man the rational, productive,
selfish achiever--is a noble being.
______________________________________________________________________
Onkar Ghate, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a resident fellow
NOTE FROM PPH: This guy uses the word "selfish". He doesn't mean "selfish" in the sense of not caring about others. He means selfish in the sense of pursuing one's own happinness. Those guys are against sacrifices. A sacrifice is something you do which you didn't want to. If you don't eat so that your child can eat, that's not considered a sacrifice. I'm just saying that because those guys are often misunderstood.
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine"
-John Galt, "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand |
|
a98
 Artist
Topics: 32
Replies: 2725
Registered: 26.Oct.03 |
not gonna watch the movie, i'm as interested on that as i'm sticking my head to randor's cow's ass..
 |
|
Quinone
Artist
Topics: 14
Replies: 41
Registered: 01.Jan.03 |
|
PPH wrote on 12 Apr. (13:24) :
To possess an inquisitive mind, a mind eager to explore the world and
gain knowledge, is to commit the first sin. Remember the story of Eve?
To painstakingly study nature and unlock her laws, thereby paving the
way for man's mastery of his world, is to court imprisonment and
torture. Ask Galileo or a scientist studying human cloning. To concern
oneself with producing the wealth and material goods life requires, is
to invite condemnations of "greed" and "materialism." Read Jesus'
"Sermon on the Mount." To cherish the pleasures that the earth and
one's own body afford, including one's sexual capacity, is to be
denounced as "selfish" and even depraved. Consult the Puritans or the
1968 papal encyclical *Humanae Vitae*. To take pride in one's curiosity,
in one's growing knowledge of the world, in one's successful actions
in it, in the resulting joy and pleasure these bring--this is branded
by all as the height of sin. |
Oh where to begin. This always becomes a difficult discussion, since the starting points of different opinion differ so much that comparison is hardly possible.
The bible clearly states that men is meant to use the talents he or she is given. Whether it be science, charity, love, art or whatever talent one can possess, God urges you to do something with it (atleast, that's what I understood of the metaphor of the three men who get these talents (and no, my biblical knowledge is way too small to tell the actual chapter in the bible)). The thing that you are not encouraged to do, is to do so in pursuit of own, individual, selfish growth. Since every individual person is made by God, including a certain goal and destiny, we are asked to show Him what we are willing to do with the talents given.
The thing is that this opinion is easily to be discarded. If I would read the bible from another point of view, I would certainly agree on this PhD who wrote the text itself. Funnily enough, it all comes down to what one believes, and the principal concept of believing is that it cannot be proven right or wrong. Thus, a discussion becomes, well, a bit impossible 
The philosophical/cultural implication of his story is quite refreshing though, and certainly would deliver a nearby endless amount of new posts here. Why can the Jews say that they are discriminated, whereas mankind as a whole cannot? I see no reason in discrimination the jews for having crucified Jesus, since it had to be done in order for our sins to be forgiven. Furthermore, drawing the line further would imply that the Germans are still to be held responsible for WW2, every western European country for colonisation, and so on.
On the other hand, the Jews probably don't feel that they are being discriminated for having crucified Jesus, but they are afraid that non-Jews will transpose the image of Jews in this movie to modern Jews. Mankind, in its endless passion to find scapegoats, will certainly do so, and thus some of the fear by the Jews is quite logical.
Oh well. I could rant for days here. Looking forward to reactions |
|
Whirloop
Member
Topics: 14
Replies: 556
Registered: 29.Mar.03 |
"An obscene portrayal"
i don't get it... 
.jpg) |
|
obScene
Member
Topics: 137
Replies: 3482
Registered: 08.Aug.03 |
Whirloop wrote on 12 Apr. (14:40) :
"An obscene portrayal"
i don't get it...
|
This is what happened... the first post of this topic was actually a reply to Ace's new search function. I searched for my name... turning up this article called "an obscene portrayal of Christ's Passion" ( check first page for link ) .... which started an offtopic discussion.... so Ace started a new topic and moved the replies here instead.
So really this topic has nothing to do with me 
Cooth is Bored
|
|
obScene
Member
Topics: 137
Replies: 3482
Registered: 08.Aug.03 |
|
PPH wrote on 12 Apr. (13:24) :
posted article
|
Actually this article is closer to my beliefs as well. I dont want to get into a big discussion and spill my heart out, as I believe a man's soul is between him and God only, but....
The problem I have with the gospel, the plan of salvation, is exactly what this article describles. From the book of Genesis through Revelation man is put down again and again. God makes man, man messes up... and so God banishes man forever, God comes to earth and man destroys him, and in the end God will return and destroy man forever. Its so hopeful.
So many christians are infected with this way of thinking, that they are unworthy, that they have no power within themselves... it pains me greatfully to hear prayer requests in church, people wanting God to watch over them as they travel, wanting God to help them find a job, wanting God to help their sick family. They think they're entire lives are dependant on whether or not God decides to take them today. If someone dies, they think "God has a reason", "it's part of God's plan".
I look at history and I see God has no plan, else it would have to be on f@#@ed up plan. Wars, genocides, massacres, disasters again and again. People dying, asking God for mercy and never recieving it. I hear all the time said " If 2 or more people raise their hands to God in prayer he must answer them". How many people do you think were asking God to save them on the Titanic? In Vietnam? In Africa? At Peal Harbor? Did he really answer these people's prayers?
I like the old movie "The Psuidieon Adventure" ( dont know how to spell it )... becauses it simply teaches that man is free, is independant, is responsible for his /her own life... asking God to save you is ridiculous when you can save yourself.
The people who can't save theirselves... well they should be asking other people, not God. See who has the better track record.
Cooth is Bored
|
|
PPH
Member
Topics: 48
Replies: 843
Registered: 13.Jul.03 |
|
Wow, obScene, I never imagined you thought like that. From previous posts of yours ("God's in our side" in the war and stuff like that), I thought you were the typical American believer, a little like Bush Jr. I'm glad I was wrong 
To Quinone: what you said is precisely one of the elements of Christianity that those guys from the Ayn Rand Institute criticize. Why can't men use their talents for their own benefit, their own profit? A man is an end by itself, they argue, not a means for the ends of others. Men are not sacrificial animals. A man has to pursuit his own happiness. That is, according to Ayn Rand, the morality of Life. The other one she calls the "morality of Death", because a person who does nothing for herself is not fighting for her own survival. It has a lot to do with the quotation I use in my signature
However, there is the possibility that the scriptures have been misunderstood. Jesus didn't say "Love others more than yourselves". He said "Love others as much as you love yourself". Therefore, he doesn't ask people to renounce to their own lifes, like the guys of ARI say. I think that, to some degree, those guys don't fully understand Christianity, the same well Christians don't understand them. Still, I agree with most of the critics those guys make toward Christianity and religion in general.
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine"
-John Galt, "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand |
|
Quinone
Artist
Topics: 14
Replies: 41
Registered: 01.Jan.03 |
|
obScene wrote on 12 Apr. (15:25) :
his post
|
And that's where believe jumps in I believe God will help me, that He does listen, and that He will look after me (and everyone else on this earth). That is what I believe, undespite the illogical pathways He may follow. I trust Him to be doing the right things, eventhough we can never comprehend these actions, and thus sometimes condemn it.
But I definately understand your point, and sometimes drift towards it. University has always thought me to make my own opinions and judgements, to trust my own capabilities, and to explore my own talents. I am - as we speak (or write, for that matter) - writing my application form for the master I want to attend to, in which I have to describe my key qualities and talents. I am - literally - saving myself by believing in myself at this moment. I guess I have to thank you for pointing that out to me, in order to make me realize again that I myself can do little or nothing 
Inge |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Topics
![[81.225.2.236]](pics/ip.gif){kind=small}
