Did Anybody Here See "the Passion?"

[winters in buffalo]

"People who want to tell you about their religion don't want to hear about yours."

I don't know who said it, but it's true.

[NJTank]

I do wnat to see this movie too, although Ill likely wait til it come son PPV or HBO.

As for the extremist you are going to belive what you want to believe, this is the Catholic version of Crusifiction so its gonna be differnt, in some ways.

Mel Gibson wanted it to be violent and shocking to show excatly what Jesus went through, thats what the mesage of the movie is.

What is annoying me is the people who are attacking this movie, namly the Left Wing.

1. If you dont like it dont see, nobody is gonna drag you in to see it.

2. These people claim it is to violent are the same people who praised Natural Born Killers, gotta make you wonder there if ther is an agenda or not.

3. These people are saying its a bad movie and are against it being released are the same people who wanted a painting of the Virgin Mary smeeared in Elephent Dung and a Crusifix in a cup of Urine. They claimed it was art yet this movie is Anti-Semitism, and shocking and can cause problems.

It just shows the hyprocracy, their is anti religion movement going on in this country and if not stopped every thing we value will fall apart.

The Constitutions says The State shall not create an official religion.

Yet it seems that Athisim is becoming that offical religion as Universities are no longer allowed to give theology students scholorships. If a student earns a scholorship they oughta to be able to choose whatever major they want.

The way Mel Gibson has been villified shows how we are at a dangerous crossroads in this country where if we are not careful its not going to be the same country we grew up in, and once freedoms are gone they will never be back.

Nobody should be offended by someones Religous expression, unless of course its putting down another religion which this movie is not.

However, when crusty old liberlas like Andy Rooney calls Mel Gibson a Wcko it has to make you worry, that is offensive, and yet nobody is offended.

Gibson put the movie out there for his religous message, he does not deserve to be labled a wacko by someone who is supposed to be a serious journalist especially a journalist who says he didnt see the movie and dont want to see it.

The attack on religon has to stop if you are a none beliver that is fine that is your choice, but to lable religous people wacko its plain wrong.

There are many valuable lessons in religon no matter what you believe, and if we start tearing away this bedrock that has been the foundation of most of are laws and mores we are in serious trouble.

[Guest -*Sterling84*-]

I feel you tank.

No offense intended and I happen to think Mel can do no wrong.

But Dude's rhetoric has been way past frightening the last few months too.

"Creeping, culty, dont look me in the eyes" determined. He was asked in an interview if since his wife isn't the same religion as him, might she go to hell. ANd he answered without missing a beat...."yes". Even though she's a better person than me.

Whoa!

Both sides are freakin me out. I can imagine nothing stupider. Every single religion on earth basically has the same principles. Dont hurt people. dont take their stuff.

But people are using it, as always, as a reason to divide instead of unite. Its like saying, we all like logos, but maybe we should fight to the death over the Thrashers alternate. It makes no sense.

[Shizznick]

I intend to see it this weekend. I don't agree with the far left and I don't agree with the far right so I'm kind of torn about joining the far up, far down or just sticking with the far out.

[Ez Street]

BTW, Jews didn't kill Christ. Christ died for Man's sins. That's how i look at it and always will. Though if you wanted to point fingers, ultimatly Pilot was the one who offed him.

I'm no religious expert. I don't go to any Church. But that does not mean i don't have beliefs. Too many people use organized religion as a crutch. Yes, i said it. They think if they just GO to church that they are SAVED. Now i'm not saying everyone, just a few people who have it backwards. These are the same people that Kill an abortion doctor because he killed an unborn fetus. Hey, i don't totally agree with abortion, but guess what, thats just MY opinion. Anyways i'm getting off topic.

If someone says they are Christian and they dislike Jews, they are not a Christian. You cannot tell me otherwise. Christ was a Jew, if you like Christ, wouldn't you probably have to like Jews?

For my buddy Jesus

[MrTitan]

I'm not any type of religion I just believe what I believe, wrong or right, I believe what I believe...

That being said; this, like all movies, is entertainment so not everything in there is fact and not everything in there is fiction, for all we know the Bible could have been written with a ton of bias...look at the MLB Yankees are clearly "GOD" (you're welcome JQK) so what team wouldn't try to write themselves as better in a book ( may not be a good comparison but it gets the point across).

But no I haven't seen it and probably wont until DVD.

[NJTank]

BTW, Jews didn't kill Christ. Christ died for Man's sins. That's how i look at it and always will. Though if you wanted to point fingers, ultimatly Pilot was the one who offed him.

I'm no religious expert. I don't go to any Church. But that does not mean i don't have beliefs. Too many people use organized religion as a crutch. Yes, i said it. They think if they just GO to church that they are SAVED. Now i'm not saying everyone, just a few people who have it backwards. These are the same people that Kill an abortion doctor because he killed an unborn fetus. Hey, i don't totally agree with abortion, but guess what, thats just MY opinion. Anyways i'm getting off topic.

If someone says they are Christian and they dislike Jews, they are not a Christian. You cannot tell me otherwise. Christ was a Jew, if you like Christ, wouldn't you probably have to like Jews?

For my buddy Jesus

It was preordaned it was meant to be Jesus who life was to die for our sins, so it does not matter who did the deed its the way it was supposed to go.

[JQK]

Every single religion on earth basically has the same principles. Dont hurt people. dont take their stuff.

If only Moses had told God to sum it up, we could have had the Two Commandments.... maybe three...

Thou shalt not Hurt no one.

Thou shalt not Take other people's stuff.

Thou shalt not commit adultery... but thy neighbors wife is one hot piece of ass..... MOSES! Do not writeth that down....

[Guest -*Sterling84*-]

If only Moses had told God to sum it up, we could have had the Two Commandments.... maybe three...

Thou shalt not Hurt no one.

Thou shalt not Take other people's stuff.

Thou shalt not commit adultery... but thy neighbors wife is one hot piece of ass..... MOSES! Do not writeth that down....

Yes! LOL!

I was kind of paraphrasing George Carlin on that post. He has a whole bit where he whittles down the Ten Commandments to one.

ANd although its funny. It actually makes sense. But logic has no place in religion. Hence the One Commandment hasn't been adopted officially.

[slapshot]

That sounds exactly like the "mantra" of many Wicca followers I know. "Do what you will, but harm no others". I think that covers almost all 10 Commandments, right?

[Braden]

I'm sorry, but I couldn't care about this.

I'm sick of the hype and the controversey regarding the film. As a Jew I've seen many orthodox rabbis go through the media crying anti-semitism. It's the same group of Rabbis who are the first to cry anti-semitism all the time, but there's people like that in every race/religion (ex. Sharpton, Fallwell, etc.).

The problem is, that even if it is in the new testament and all, the detailed truth to it all is sketchy, and in order to make a movie opinions and interpretations must be put to the story. Look, even if Jews had a part in Jesus' death, it was over 2000 years ago, and going back to what SyPhi said, it shouldn't matter.

There are Jewish actors in the movie who have said they would have never done the movie if there was any sign of anti-semitism in the script or any part of the movie.

I'm sick of seeing the churches doing campaigns and ads to beef up membership in competition with other churches just cause of a movie. The film presents a strong overwhelming message that could strenthen someone's faith and beliefs. Don't shove that down people's throats! It seems hard enough to go through the movie itself.

I'm sick of the media soaking up the supposed controversey and shoving it down EVERYONE'S throats. It's the kind of thing where it puts everyone, especially people who do not believe in Christ, uncomfortable cause it's forcing everyone to have an opinion about this.

I'm sick of people complaing about the gore. For goodness sake, the guy was nailed to a cross! Everyone knows that. But it's completely obvious that nailing him to the cross wasn't the only torture he went through. It's strong, it's gory, but it's necessary to depict that in order for it to be as authentic as possible IMO.

I'm not going to see the movie, cause I'm a Jew, I don't care and I'm sick of the hype.

[Roger Clemente]

This page describes every act of violence in the movie: http://www.screenit.com/movies/2004/the_pa...the_christ.html

(Contains spoilers)

Just reading it makes me cringe.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[habsfannova]

This page describes every act of violence in the movie: http://www.screenit.com/movies/2004/the_pa...the_christ.html

(Contains spoilers)

Just reading it makes me cringe.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

How can you have spoilers in this film?

I consider religion like music: Listen to it on your portable, enjoy it, keep the volume down...

[Brian in Boston]

I'm going to take a shot at trying to explain where modern Jewish leaders are coming from with regard to their concerns over Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ".

The Jewish high priest Caiaphas, as well as the vast majority of the Sanhedrin, are portrayed as cunning, calculating figures who are the driving force behind the efforts to arrest, try and execute Jesus. Therefore, to some extent, Gibson's film is true to the Gospel accounts of the Passion: Caiaphas and the majority of the Sanhedrin DID plot to arrest and try Jesus as a blasphemer.

However, where Gibson "stumbles" is to portray Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin as leering, bloodthirsty opportunists, while the Roman governor Pilate is interpreted far more kindly. In fact, in Gibson's film, Pontius Pilate and his wife are portrayed far more sympathetically than either the Gospels or historical records would lead us to believe was the case. Yes, the Gospels indicate that Pilate "washed his hands" of Jesus' death. However, that is a result of the fact that the various Gospels were written anywhere from 40 to 60 years after the death of Christ, during a period when the early followers of Jesus hadn't yet begun routinely identifying themselves as Christians... yet, somehow still saw themselves as separate from the "older" Jewish faith. This split within the Jewish faith was not without rancor. It was also a time when pragmatism on the part of the new faith's leaders dictated that they not antagonize the Roman Empire. Therefore, the Gospels were far more likely to paint Jewish leaders as avaricious and petty (after all, the Christians were breaking away from the Jews), while treating the key Roman figure in the narratives in a far less confrontational way (the Christians weren't looking to draw any more of the Romans' ire than they had to). It was a case of the Gospel writers engaging it what we would, today, call "spin". They went easy on the Romans and came down hard on "the Jews" (i.e. not themselves, but the other Jews with whom they were fighting to define their faith).

However, even the most rudimentary study of the history surrounding the times represented in the Gospels would reveal that Pontius Pilate was a bloodthirsty tyrant who routinely imprisoned, tortured and executed (via crucifixion, etc.) thousands of Jews during his time as Governor of Judea. Historians will tell you that his track record gives no indication that he would have "washed his hands" of Jesus' sentencing, unless it was meant to cause a rift within the Jewish community that he hated. Further, there is nothing to suggest that Pilate would have been as emotionally conflicted over the sentencing as Gibson's film portrays him to be. Rather, there is every reason to believe that Pilate would have reveled in his duty. Were the high priests complicit in Jesus' death? Yes. Was the "final call" Pilate's? Absolutely. The argument can be made that the latter point is not made overtly apparent in Gibson's film. Rather, Pilate is treated as an almost compassionate figure... at the very least, he is depicted as inept, weak-willed and easily manipulated by the plotting Temple priests. What's more, there is no historical precedence which indicates that Pilate's wife would have actively and overtly comforted Mary and Mary Magdalene as depicted in the film. Why, if he is not going to hew specifically to the Gospels, does Gibson make the choice of ignoring historical fact about Pilate's brutality, in favor of portraying him as conflicted, compassionate and/or inept?

Often overlooked in reviews of the film, is the fact that those responsible for the initial arrest and beating of Jesus are the Temple priests' OWN police. This force acts under orders of Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, NOT Pilate. The very first time that Jesus is presented to Pilate by the priests, Christ has already been beaten so badly by the Temple's police that Pilate asks, "Do you always punish your prisoners before they're judged?" Subsequently, Gibson's Pilate protests at least five times that Jesus is innocent.

Contrast this with "artistic and narrative" choices regarding the JEWS that Gibson has made. In Gibson's film it is Caiaphas, a Jewish high priest, who leads the crowd in demanding that Pilate release Barabbas, a crazed criminal, in place of Jesus. Caiaphas leading the crowd is not supported by Gospel accounts. It is Caiaphas, a Jewish high priest, who is the first to shout, "Crucify him!" Caiaphas shouting first is not supported by Gospel accounts. The film portrays a Jewish priest as taunting Jesus on the cross by saying, "If you are the Messiah, come down from the cross." The Bible does not identify Jesus' tormentor as a priest. When Jesus, on the cross, asks God to forgive, a prisoner being crucified beside Jesus says to a Jewish priest, "Listen... he prays for you." As if to imply that it is specifically the Jewish priests who should be FORGIVEN.

The most questionable of Gibson's artistic decisions is to show the Jewish high priests as being frequently accompanied by Gibson's portrayal of the devil. Gibson portrays him as pallid-faced, hooded and lurking. In the Garden of Gethsemane he can be seen as the Jewish temple police move in on Jesus. In Pilate's court, as Jews demand Jesus' crucifixion, the very same evil figure moves effortlessly through the mob and becomes the backdrop to the Jewish high priests. This is an incredibly "loaded" symbolic choice for Gibson to make... and make no mistake, it is GIBSON's choice. It certainly isn't the Gospel's take on the presence of evil as the Passion unfolds. There is no explicit mention of the devil in the Passion Narratives. Why, if he is not going to hew specifically to the Gospels, does Gibson make the choice of almost exclusively portraying Caiaphas and the High Jewish priests as malevolent figures... right down to depicting them as accompanied by the devil?

In fairness, Gibson apparently does attempt to make a few cases for the fact that not all Jews were out to crucify Jesus. During a meeting of the high priests led by Caiaphas, at least one priest protests, "This entire proceeding is an outrage." As Jesus bears the cross to Golgotha, a Jewish woman cries out, "Help him! He's a holy man!" Simon, who is ordered to help Jesus carry the cross, screams at Roman guards who whip Jesus and at those in the crowd who spit on him, "Stop this! Leave him alone!" But are these truly attempts to soften Jewish complicity in the death of Jesus? If so, are they too subtle compared to the portrayal of Caiaphas, the high priests, they're visual connection with Gibson's portrayal of the devil, etc.?

Bottom line: Does Mel Gibson have a RIGHT to make artistic "choices" in his motion picture production "The Passion of The Christ"? Absolutely. Does that right come with commensurate RESPONSIBILITY? Yes. One of those responsibilities should be a willingness to allay the fears of modern Jewish leaders by explaining just why he chose to make artistic "choices" that so strayed from Gospel narrative in their portrayal of the Jews. Particularly when Gibson has defended his work by repeatedly stating that he thought "it was absolutely necessary to adhere as faithfully as possible to the four Gospels".

So, why is Pilate treated so much more benignly than the Jewish high priests? Why is Caiaphas shown engaging in negative behavior that the Gospels don't attribute to him, while Pilate and his wife are shown behaving in a manner far more benevolent than the Gospels credit them with? Why are the Jewish priests and their police shown frequently accompanied by the devil? What exactly is Gibson trying to communicate through these choices? More importantly, what does adhering to the Gospels "as faithfully as possible" entail? Where and when is it okay to deviate from the Gospel accounts? For what purpose?

These are the concerns that modern Jews have with Gibson's film. Obviously, they're concerns that are informed by the two-thousand years of history that have transpired since the time of Christ. Frankly, they're legitimate concerns.

Brian in Boston

[Phil]

If only Moses had told God to sum it up, we could have had the Two Commandments.... maybe three...

Thou shalt not Hurt no one.

Thou shalt not Take other people's stuff.

Thou shalt not commit adultery... but thy neighbors wife is one hot piece of ass..... MOSES! Do not writeth that down....

Yes! LOL!

I was kind of paraphrasing George Carlin on that post. He has a whole bit where he whittles down the Ten Commandments to one.

ANd although its funny. It actually makes sense. But logic has no place in religion. Hence the One Commandment hasn't been adopted officially.

Christ breaks down the "top two" in Mark 12:28-31.

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

...but back ont topic, BiB brings up some valid points.

However, although I agree that they should stick as closely to the story as it is written in every instance, many of those instances BiB brings up are not exactly far-fetched extrapolations on the story... most could probably be explained in historical context. But it certainly is something to consider.

[yh]

Call me crazy; call me glib, but I just don't feel I have to worry about this movie causing a rise in anti-semitism because I have trust (perhaps naively so) that the overwhelming majority of people who see this film or merely hear about it are going to understand that it's just a movie and that it cannot possibly shed any more factual light on the story of Jesus's death than those texts (Biblical and otherwise) that have already been circulating for 2000+ years. If a measurable amount of public opinion is swayed by a movie's interpretive portrayal of events that none of us were around to witness, my larger concern is going to be about the sad decline in the collective intellect of our society. It's been my experience as a Jewish person who grew up in a town with very, very few Jewish people, that you stand a better chance of turning people who have never had a meaningful relationship with a Jewish person away from anti-semitic thinking or suspicion than you do of making a neutral or decidedly non-anti-semitic person into an anti-semite.

One of the positives to come out of this movie and its attendant hubbub is that the media has been paying more attention to the many members of the various denominations of Christianity and Catholicism who are attempting to reinforce that, regardless of what you want to believe, the Jewish people of today are not liable for the death of one of the great Jews of all time - Jesus.

[jeh-see]

"Extreme" enough to cause a woman in the Midwest to actually drop dead of a heart attack during the crucifixion scene.

Brian in Boston

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!!! THIS HAPPENED!!!!!!! I am definitely seein' it now!!!!

~UJ

[Guest -*Sterling84*-]

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!!! THIS HAPPENED!!!!!!! I am definitely seein' it now!!!!

Again, strangely enough , this same thing happened during the opening of Zoolander.

B in B, thanks for the thoughtful analysis and insight.

And for those who are interested, this is the transcript of the George Carlin commandment bit. I was wrong, he whittled it down to two, although he ends with a joke. He pretty much eliminated Though shall not Kill and then he goes back to it. I was close. I will do my best to edit out his profanity. If some gets past my glove hand, hopefully the filter will catch the rest.

Imagine the irony that a man who has spent a good portion of his career speaking out against censorship is being censored right here. ANd in Milwaukee no less, where he was once arrested for using his "7 words".

enjoy.

GEORGE CARLIN ON THE 10 COMMANDMENTS

from "Complaints and Grievances" (HBO special)

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:

About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.

Well let me ask you this- when they were making this plop up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullplop list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.

Let's start with the first three:

I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH

Right off the bat the first three are pure bullplop. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.

Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.

And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.

But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS

This one is just plain freakin' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.

&

Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.

Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his freakin' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:

Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.

[yh]

I don't mean to veer this serious topic too far off base, but that last post just reinforces in my mind that George Carlin is just as funny today as he was when he first started out nearly 40 years ago.

[CJR]

ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!!! THIS HAPPENED!!!!!!! I am definitely seein' it now!!!!

Again, strangely enough , this same thing happened during the opening of Zoolander.

There was a crucifixion scene in Zoolander?