Perhaps, & I hear ya, but even on DPC I have to be super careful of my wording. I can't just say it's the truth can I? Did you get a chance to look at the article?
Perhaps, & I hear ya, but even on DPC I have to be super careful of my wording. I can't just say it's the truth can I? Did you get a chance to look at the article?
I did. Pretty lame. More opinion, and yes spin, than "truth".
It is difficult to talk about this movie without getting involved in politics, religion etc.
I will try to talk about it because I really like movies and, of course, this movie captured my curiosity.
Also, that article made some of my same observations, even if he did use it for quite different purposes.
The first, and maybe only, question which came to my mind is: why did Mel create this film? To exploit his own ideas of the story?
If so, he, like most of us, is a very blind man.
In fact, how can you choose Monica Bellucci for Maria Maddalena in a movie that speaks Aramaic?????????
How can you use a top model which I love but who, I have to say, had lots of cosmetic surgery to play the role of a woman of 2000 years ago????????
It's like if Pilato arrived to the trial in Ferrari....
The smart choices of implementing an iper-realistic vision of that age are completely spoiled by some fully blind choices.
And that's what it is in movie terms, regardless politics and religion.
Therefore Mel is really the mad man who he likes us to believe he is, or he is just another super smart-ass who went for the money.
I couldn't agree more with the article's author, William Rivers Pitt.
Many wars and killing in the name of god has taken place throughout the centuries...maybe we need to start looking for the GODDESS spirit.
I couldn't agree more with the article's author, William Rivers Pitt.
Many wars and killing in the name of god has taken place throughout the centuries...maybe we need to start looking for the GODDESS spirit.
Hear, Hear!
Glimpses,
I read that Mel made the movie bc some random woman came up to hi on the street & said to him, "Jesus Loves you!"
I couldn't agree more with the article's author, William Rivers Pitt.
Many wars and killing in the name of god has taken place throughout the centuries...maybe we need to start looking for the GODDESS spirit.
Lets see, the most bloody conflicts and atrocities of the 20th century have been carried out by Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and many more who were avowed anti-christian, anti-religous zealots.
Power/conquest seems to be the overwhelming theme (and still is). Prior to the 18th century, religion probably was the great motivator (or more likely an excuse), but you can't win the numbers game without guns and such.
Sadly, the distinguishing factor between our 20th century warmongers and anyone prior is technology. The Crusades, for example, might have been something to behold if they had really good missile weapons.
p.s. ScottK took the easy way out by restricting himself to the 20th century, whereas Olyuzi's sweeping generalization was more open. Also, I inferred that Olyuzi was talking about the number of wars/conflicts, whereas ScottK's examples are all about death tolls. Slavery is certainly one of the "big" atrocities, probably more significant in many ways than the great wars.
I'd wager there's more than one person that's died for our sins; oh, no that's because of our sins. If it weren't for semantics, I'd never know the difference!
I read an article by a Muslim who said everyone knows that
Christ was a prophet and lived a good life, he couldnt understand
why the movie would not focus on that rather than the crucifiction...
duh
I read an article by a Muslim who said everyone knows that
Christ was a prophet and lived a good life, he couldnt understand
why the movie would not focus on that rather than the crucifiction...
duh
Because Mel Gibson is a Christian and the crucifiction is at the center of christianity. Without it, there is no Christianity
The article is so slanted. Who cares what color the actors are, it's the story....Or who plays a part, its the story... I thought the artical was about the "Passion" how did Bush bashing get in the article. Just another Liberal newpaper columist, who hates folks he doesn't agree with, especially one that will break all records. Van
Actually, Jesus' death and resurrection is what defines Christianity, not the device used to kill him. Just to clarify.
Actually, the device of his death is VERY important. Many of the details of the crucifixion were outlined in the prophesies of Isaiah, and other prophets, and if Jesus had not been killed in the manner he was, those prophesies would not have been fulfilled. And if they weren't fulfilled, then ALL of the Old Testament prophets and prophesies would be questionable.
I should have been more clear. I meant only that it's what Christ did for us that makes us Christians. The prophesies are proven true because God knew the common application of the death penalty for those days. If the common practice wasn't crucifiction, then the prophesies would have reflected another way. But the fact that he died and was resurrected is whats important.
My question for those who have seen this movie is: Did viewing a depiction of the final 12 hours of Christ's life, move you to re-read the four gospels? Did it invoke a different commitment level to your "neighbor" than before you saw it? IOW, are you "changed" because of this experience?
My question for those who have not seen this movie but plan to is: What are you expecting to see? Have you personally read the 4 gospels?
For those that have not seen this movie and plan not to: Why?
My reasons for the questions are simply that the Bible (scripture) is in my opinion 3 teaching texts. 1 is history. 2 is philosophy. 3 is spiritual. Any person choosing to read this text can read it on any of the 3 levels or all 3. So my questions have more to do with with which text/movie did you see or are going to see or don't want to see. The historical, the philosophical, or the spiritual?
