The Passion Of The Christ

[studiodekadent]

Due to Easter, TV put this awful film on. I watched it.

Its disgusting. A monumentally gory and brutal film, blood by the bucketloads, caning and whipping and flogging scenes that coat the set in a deluge of blood. Yeshua's skin sliced to the point of being ribbons. Finally, the nailing, blood spurting all over the screen.....

I am a horror movie fan. But this film is beyond 'too much.' Its a snuff film. Its sadistic pornography. I cannot see this being inspiring to anyone that is not pathologically demented.

The sense of life of this film is abominable. Its basic message is "death, pain, torture, sufferring, hatred, rejection, persecution are constant, normal, to be accepted, submitted to." Yeshua, as a role-model for humankind, embodies a sacrificial lamb, masochist, lemming and victim all rolled into one. This film is soul-crushing.

I dont find it particularly antisemitic. Saying that Jesus was persecuted by the Jews of Jerusalem and the religious heirarchy is not saying all Jews are guilty. Certainly the Romans (apart from Pilate and his wife) get no better treatment. They are portrayed as mindless, sadistic thugs.

This film reminds me how genuinely monstrous religion is.

[Ed Hudgins]

Here's my review of The Passion of the Christ from a few years ago, rejecting its view of sin, sacrifice and suffering. I was aiming it at a religious audience which is why I didn't describe it more accurately as a disgusting 2 1/2 hour snuf film. -- Ed Hudgins

----

The Problems with ''The Passion's'' Moral Message

by Edward Hudgins

March 3, 2004 -- The controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" reflects a deep divide concerning the moral foundations of our society. The film's supporters maintain that freedom is threatened when a society loses the moral compass traditionally supplied by religion and drifts into moral relativism. The film's critics worry that intolerance is encouraged when a society is based on religious dogma, and many have claimed that the movie itself promotes anti-Semitism. (It doesn't; after all, Jesus, his mother, and disciples, and not just the religious elites and their supporters who condemned him, were all Jews.)

But neither moral relativism nor religious faith will sustain a free, flourishing society.

Gibson and many Christians believe that human beings are born with original sin and worthy of nothing but death and damnation. But because of his love for us, God sent Christ to take upon himself our sins. "The Passion" graphically depicts Jesus's cruel torture and crucifixion - penalties that we all deserve. To avoid hell, we must accept Christ's sacrifice.

In our secular society, many individuals who reject this theology still accept the moral message of Christianity. But the problems with this message - as well as a way to a better moral vision — can be found by examining three themes that are central in Gibson's film: sin, sacrifice and suffering.

Original sin means that we are all evil not just in any given thought or deed but by our very nature; that we can't help ourselves; that we must act immorally. One of the messages in Gibson's film is that since we are all sinners, we all killed Christ. But this doctrine of inherent and collective guilt means that morally upstanding individuals are culpable for evils that they did not create. Further, this doctrine allows moral slackers to excuse their failing with, "I'm only human."

But in any hour or issue we each are responsible for our own actions - and only those actions. We each have a choice to stop the impulse of the moment; to think or not to think; to ask whether our actions are moral or not; and to act either for good or evil. Yes, it takes strength and fortitude to do the right thing. But that is exactly why those who make the most of their lives should feel proud and never accept unearned guilt.

In "The Passion" we see Jesus passively submitting to his own brutal torture and death, even forgiving his tormenters. Many see Jesus's sacrifice as a moral model: He forfeited his life to save us sinners; we are all responsible for the problems of the world; thus we each should sacrifice ourselves for the good of others. But this is exactly the wrong moral lesson. A morality of life requires the pursuit of happiness and pride in oneself, not self-abnegation and acquiescing in the role of a sacrificial victim. It requires that we judge both others and ourselves, both their actions and our own, by standards of justice, and not offer moral absolution for the most heinous crimes and criminals.

This is the key to the right moral code: We each have a right to our own lives and should act out of self-interest, not self-sacrifice. True self-interest means seeking rational values that preserve and enrich our lives. It means we should each seek the best within us. It means neither sacrificing ourselves to others nor asking others to sacrifice themselves for us. It means engaging in relations with others because we value them and they value us. For example, when we give up time and money to help a sick spouse — someone with whom we share our values, interests, and deepest thought and feeling; someone to whom we bare our souls; someone who we love — we are not sacrificing but, rather, affirming our highest values and self-interest.

"The Passion" shows Jesus suffering and facing death with fortitude. Any decent human being would feel pity for an innocent man who is tortured and killed. And each of us will face suffering in our lives. But suffering is the exception and the world is not a vale of tears. We should plan and expect to achieve our values and goals. We should know that we have the power to understand the world around us and to use our knowledge, strength and fortitude to create the things that allow us to live and flourish: houses and skyscrapers; airplanes and rockets; medicine; works of art and the like. The essential fact about human life - the fact on which a morality of life should be based - is not the inevitability of suffering but the possibility of achievement.

Gibson's film shows the depths of depravity to which humans can sink, and prompts deep reflection. But only a moral code of personal responsibility, not original sin; self-interest, not self-sacrifice; and achievement, not suffering; can avoid the dangers of moral relativism and intolerance, and ensure both personal happiness and a free society.

[Ed Hudgins]

Here is an actual crucifixion in the Philippines, where they often celebrate Easter with the sort of sado-masochistic obscenity that we see in Gibson's Passion.

[Victor Pross]

"Whenever we see the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon, than the word of God."

The Age of Reason -- Thomas Paine

Edited April 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Ed Hudgins]

On the sacrilege side, see below. (If there's a hell, I'm going there for this post!)

[Victor Pross]

Raising hell!

When I was a kid, I fell into a little band of local misfits: The McConnell brothers—respectfully Blake, Blaire, and Barry. They were an extended family of all brothers that also included Bill, Brian, Bruce, and Brent. The grand total in the McConnell family was seven boys. I was astonished to behold such a large family. Amused, I took note of the fact that each brother’s name began with the letter B. “The next letter in the alphabet is C,” I quipped to Barry’s parents. They looked at me as if he had a third eye.

Mr. and Mrs. McConnell didn’t know what to make of me. I responded with a further joke: “Have you heard of birth control?” Of course my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek, but Mr. and Mrs. McConnell were deeply offended as they were stringent Catholics. Barry thought the whole thing was utterly hilarious.

Of all the McConnell brothers, I was stirred by Barry’s insanely inspired comedy. It was Barry who left me awestruck. One time, I had a seltzer bottle at hand and was stricken with a wicked whim and squirted Barry in the face. As if on cue, Barry immediately dropped to the floor clapping his hands together yelping like a seal! It was uproarious. I was astonished at Barry’s spontaneous zaniness and his impressive take of a seal to boot. Barry McConnell was hilarious and I took to him immediately.

We attended the same church. I was enormously inspired by the solemn atmosphere of the services, insofar as it served as a foil for his devilishness. But it wasn’t just that: I was also truly perplexed by the referential attitude that this primitive superstition elicited. It was this fascination with an irrational phenomenon that kept me enthralled during the actual services. The McConnell brothers, especially Barry, simply hated the whole process. A religion that supposedly exalted love and joy was, in practice, a set of dreary duties and a source of agonized idiocy. A religion that was supposed to be a mighty hymn to salvation was actually a dirge.

Seeking relief from boredom, Barry and I would laugh ourselves silly during the actual services. What he found hilarious was the rigid solemnity of the rituals and the vacant expressions from people who looked as if they had just been chloroformed. Other congregation members looked as if they wished they were somewhere else and were called upon only by duty.

Finally, Barry’s restless nature came to full force. Born with an uncanny ability for mimicry, Barry gave way to imitating the minister’s speaking manner with an eerie accuracy that was both amazing and hilarious. He could make me laugh with a simple comical remark, a subtle infliction in the voice or facial expression. My laugher would inspire Barry to indulge further in his antics. Shortly, I would try to match Barry’s comic skills with my own brand of humor: funny pictorials of the congregation and the minister. In one of my drawings, the congregation resembled a flock of sheep and the minister was decked out in cherry colored lingerie. This, in turn, would get both of us laughing. Of course, the rest of the gang collapsed in repressed hysterics causing the blackest of gazes from the congregation.

Barry was not to be bested by me in the contest of being a holy disruption. On one occasion, when the preacher was delivering a particularly impassioned brim-stone-and-fire sermon, Barry suddenly rose from his seat and addressed the pew, his facial expression a deadly sober plate: “Please, everybody—don’t drink the Kool-aid!”

We were never allowed admittance to that church again. :turned:

Edited April 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Russell]

For a good Easter movie, I suggest Jesus Of Montreal; this charming and moving film exposes the absurdity of religious fundamentalism.

[Robert Jones]

Due to Easter, TV put this awful film on. I watched it.

Its disgusting. A monumentally gory and brutal film, blood by the bucketloads, caning and whipping and flogging scenes that coat the set in a deluge of blood. Yeshua's skin sliced to the point of being ribbons. Finally, the nailing, blood spurting all over the screen.....

I am a horror movie fan. But this film is beyond 'too much.' Its a snuff film. Its sadistic pornography. I cannot see this being inspiring to anyone that is not pathologically demented.

The sense of life of this film is abominable. Its basic message is "death, pain, torture, sufferring, hatred, rejection, persecution are constant, normal, to be accepted, submitted to." Yeshua, as a role-model for humankind, embodies a sacrificial lamb, masochist, lemming and victim all rolled into one. This film is soul-crushing.

I dont find it particularly antisemitic. Saying that Jesus was persecuted by the Jews of Jerusalem and the religious heirarchy is not saying all Jews are guilty. Certainly the Romans (apart from Pilate and his wife) get no better treatment. They are portrayed as mindless, sadistic thugs.

This film reminds me how genuinely monstrous religion is.

How monstrous RELIGION is? Talk about painting with a big bloody brush!

[Robert Jones]

On the sacrilege side, see below. (If there's a hell, I'm going there for this post!)

Ha ha! I remember those! Here's one I got last Christmas

[studiodekadent]

By the way: back in those times, the nails went through the wrists rather than the palms. Archaeological fact.

And yes, I know Im attacking all religions, but name one religion that does not involve some shocking acts of torture in its theology. Buddhism has heaps of (literal) self-immolation for instance.

[studiodekadent]

Here is an actual crucifixion in the Philippines, where they often celebrate Easter with the sort of sado-masochistic obscenity that we see in Gibson's Passion.

Just like Hindu Gurus stick needles through their skin, etc.... It seems all religions boil down to sadomasochism of sorts.

[Robert Jones]

By the way: back in those times, the nails went through the wrists rather than the palms. Archaeological fact.

And yes, I know Im attacking all religions, but name one religion that does not involve some shocking acts of torture in its theology. Buddhism has heaps of (literal) self-immolation for instance.

Reform Jews only self-flagellate with their mothers' constant hectoring. "Why don't you eat more? Are you still seeing that horrible shiksa? Will you two give us grandchildren before we're in our graves?"

But, these tortuous rituals are atavisms. Mostly, religion is good nowadays for reminding us we are not animals, as Dennis Prager would say. Until I find an atheist (Rand included) who is as rational, reasoned, learned and cool-headed as Dennis Prager, I'm going to stay religious (even though Prager is Jewish, and I'm Catholic).

Mostly, I'm a Deist, but what Nietzsche said about the ordinary man needing religion as his source for moral guidance is true. Morons need something to keep them from running amok, because they are too thickheaded to do it themselves, and because their quite fallible human authorities have such obvious foibles, it's much better to scare them with the guy in the sky on the big white throne.

Now, of course, Moslems could do with a LOT LESS religion, that's for sure!

The problem with the Moslems is that their religion is a plagiarism of a sequel of a plagiarism.

In the beginning, there was Judaism

Then follower of Jesus Christ became their own sect

Then the Roman Empire co-opted the Christians and founded the Holy Roman Catholic Church

Then the illiterate Mohammed discovered Judaism and Christianity and came out with a new book his ghost writer penned called "The Koran"

In Sci-Fi terms:

On the first day, Gene Roddenberry created Star Trek

Then, renegade George Lucas came out with a thinly-veiled ripoff called Star Wars

Roddenberry oversaw a schism in the franchise, announcing to the world a Next Generation

Some desparate afficianados (Whose names I can't recall) out of jealousy grafted The Trek and the Wars together, and called their own creed Babylon 5

BTW, while I will defend most religious people in general, who are quite rational, I find it highly interesting that no-one here has asked me what my signature means.

It means "What Would Mencken Do?"

That should give you some context to the level of my religiosity. I do, however, believe that God is an Englishman. Winston Churchill, to be precise.

Edited April 7, 2007 by Robert Jones

[Robert Jones]

God:

Edited April 7, 2007 by Robert Jones

[Victor Pross]

BTW, while I will defend most religious people in general, who are quite rational, I find it highly interesting that no-one here has asked me what my signature means.

What does it mean, Robert?

And...

why deism?

-Victor

[Robert Jones]

BTW, while I will defend most religious people in general, who are quite rational, I find it highly interesting that no-one here has asked me what my signature means.

What does it mean, Robert?

And...

why deism?

-Victor

WWMD: "What Would Mencken Do?"

It's a play on the wristband WWJD ("What Would Jesus Do?")

[studiodekadent]

Mostly, I'm a Deist, but what Nietzsche said about the ordinary man needing religion as his source for moral guidance is true.

Guess Im not an ordinary man then.

And thanks for translating into sci-fi terminology, but the only sci-fi I like is Cyberpunk. So Rodenberry et al is not my taste.

And one thing... I dont exactly understand how a Catholic can also be a deist.... is not the concept of a personal God (rather than a deistic 'force of nature' type God) integral to Catholicism?

[Robert Jones]

Mostly, I'm a Deist, but what Nietzsche said about the ordinary man needing religion as his source for moral guidance is true.

Guess Im not an ordinary man then.

And thanks for translating into sci-fi terminology, but the only sci-fi I like is Cyberpunk. So Rodenberry et al is not my taste.

And one thing... I dont exactly understand how a Catholic can also be a deist.... is not the concept of a personal God (rather than a deistic 'force of nature' type God) integral to Catholicism?

1. Good. Look what happened when all those ordinary Russians and Chinese became atheistic communists. Frightful!

2. I am a Thomist, which is the branch of Catholicism named for St. Thomas Aquinas, who attempts to square the Bible's theology with Aristotle's philosophy. Also, I am a "Cafeteria Catholic." That is, I became a Catholic because while I believe in God, I believe that God must have taste, and that pretty much put American Protestantism out of the picture.

Catholics: Leonardo da Vinci, El Greco, Lorenzo Bernini

Protestants: Thomas Kincade, Norman Rockwell, Chick Comics

Catholics: Cesar Franck, J.S. Bach, Carl Orff

Protestants: Jessica Simpson, Stryper, Resurrection Band

Catholics: Thomas a Becket, Pope John Paul II, St. Thomas Aquinas

Protestants: Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee

That just about says it all!

Edited April 8, 2007 by Robert Jones

[studiodekadent]

1. Good. Look what happened when all those ordinary Russians and Chinese became atheistic communists. Frightful!

Well, Im sure you would know that communism is in no way essential to atheism, nor does atheism imply communism.

2. I am a Thomist, which is the branch of Catholicism founded by St. Thomas Aquinas, which attempts to square the Bible's theology with Aristotle's philosophy.

Thats a good choice. Aquinas is the only saint I have respect for. Certainly, I do believe that he took on an impossible task, but his valiant attempt injected a very nice idea into the intellectual current: that faith should at least in some respects be consistent with reason. The result was theological debate that eventually fractured the Church. I do approve of Aquinas.

Also, I am a "Cafeteria Catholic." That is, I became a Catholic because while I believe in God, I believe that God must have taste, and that pretty much put American Protestantism out of the picture.

Well, I do concede that aesthetic embellishment and funny hats can often be much more appealing than austere minimalism and hellfire preaching so I understand that angle.

[John Dailey]

~ I think there's a thread somewhere called "100 worst movies" that this would belong in, but for the added caption "...you should see before you die."

~ What I'm wondering is if Mel, given his 'traditional' orientation, would be willing to portray traditional Catholicism during the Inquisition era, showing the tortures heretics had to endure, most of which were worse than what the Romans supposedly did to Mohammed's predecessor. --- I shan't hold my breath.

LLAP

J:D

PS: I haven't seen this movie, and, having grown up being indoctrinated with the 'story', see no need for a vicarious presentation of Catholic-praised S&M.

[Dragonfly]

Catholics: Cesar Franck, J.S. Bach, Carl Orff

Bach a Catholic???!!!!

[Greybird]

[...] I find it highly interesting that no-one here has asked me what my signature means.

It means "What Would Mencken Do?"

You da MAN!

It almost makes up for that picture of Churchill *sigh*

[Robert Jones]

Catholics: Cesar Franck, J.S. Bach, Carl Orff

Bach a Catholic???!!!!

He converted out of convenience. Regardless , I was mainly being facetious. Humor, and the like. It must be admitted, though, that Catholics in particular revere his works.

[Robert Jones]

Let us take some time off from religion bashing, for on television right now is the greatest Easter/Passover classic,

Cecil B. DeMille's "The Ten Commandments":

In the interest of equal time for atheists, here's Chuck Heston again, this time starring as Charles Darwin:

Edited April 8, 2007 by Robert Jones

[Robert Jones]

[...] I find it highly interesting that no-one here has asked me what my signature means.

It means "What Would Mencken Do?"

You da MAN!

It almost makes up for that picture of Churchill *sigh*

No, Steve, I'm not "Da Man." It's been ages since I've worked for the CIA, selling crack in Compton and South-Central L.A. ;)

BTW, what's the matter with Churchill? I'd read that .pdf, but it won't pop up in my Acrobat reader for some reason.

[Chris Grieb]

I watched a little of Ten Commandments. I love some of the scenes with Anne Baxter. I was thinking that the only person alive in the cast is Heston.