The Passion of the Christ

[arisbe]

The American Enterprise online has published an interesting review by Tara Ross.

This is what everyone is curious about:

"One of the most notable features of the movie is that any differentiation between Jews and Gentiles is only secondary, despite heavily-publicized claims to the contrary. Instead, this movie distinguishes between supporters of Christ and opponents of Christ. Those opposed to Jesus included Gentile (Roman) soliders, Jewish Pharisees, and a leering crowd. Jesus' support was also diverse. A Jewish man helped Jesus as he lugged his cross out of the city. Pontius Pilate's Gentile wife comforted Jesus' Jewish mother. The Jewish family and friends of Jesus wept as they watched the Gentiles whip him with steel spikes. I suspect that those who did not grow up hearing the biblical story would not even know, in many scenes, which characters are Jewish and which are Gentile. They would know only that some people were for Jesus and some were against him."

And this is what I might find myself objecting to:

"The torture scenes seem to continue forever, as does his walk through Jerusalem, lugging the cross on his back. Before these scenes were even halfway over, I was squirming in my seat. Internally, I was thinking, "Please. Just stop torturing him already. Isn't this enough?" My internal emotions were reflected in the eyes of Jesus' on-screen mother. She agonizes as her son is whipped with steel spikes again and again and again...and again."

But click here to get the whole thing.

Comments

[kiaroskuro.livejournal.com]

I do really want to see this film. I am quite interested in modern pop-culture interpretations of Christ's life, particularly the final days of his life. Of course, it is embarrassing to say WHY i am interested in this subject in the first place... i owe it all to the rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar. I think my interest also stems from the fact that although i believe Jesus was merely a man, I believe he was an incredibly charismatic and visionary one. And for so many people around the world to be so fascinated with and devoted to one man up until this day still amazes me... I was not raised Christian, so I've always looked at the religion as an outsider.

[neven.livejournal.com]

And this is what I might find myself objecting to:

Why?

Re:

[arisbe.livejournal.com]

Because it panders to our appetite for physical violence and degradation. Because it distorts the emphasis of the four Gospels.

Re:

[neven.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I would be less inclined to consider it pandering as i would to suggest Gibson wishes to emphasize the atrocity of the crucifixion, the immense human suffering our Lord suffered on our account. Since the movie details the Passion and the Passion only, i would hardly consider it a conclusive representation of the Gospels, but more of a mini-sermon, in a manner of speaking.

[weret-hekau.livejournal.com]

I am quite sure this film will make me sick. I intend to see it anyway...if he could suffer through it in real life, I can manage to squirm for a couple of hours. (although knowing me I'll have to look away, I'm sure it's going to upset me greatly)

Re:

[rengal.livejournal.com]

Ditto.

[amade.livejournal.com]

There are so many things about this movie (and about the cult of suffering, a.k.a. Christianity as practiced by some) that bother me.

I find the reverence of the cross, an instrument of torture, not only disgusting, but reflective of our culture of violence. I wrote an article on this for last Easter, which I posted in my journal and is on my website here (http://www.felicity.tv/scripts/news/index.php?p=8&c=1).

I will not be seeing this movie as I do not want to support this endeavor, and also, I do not watch violent films. Though I did watch violent films in the past, I was appalled at how desensitized I found myself becoming to others' pain, and that bothered me.

I sometimes get the feeling that Gibson is trying to spark another crusade of sorts, and that scares me.

[arisbe.livejournal.com]

I don't know how I missed this last year. Perhaps you weren't on my friends list yet. I would urge everyone interested in this issue to read it.

I cannot accept any god who demands that kind of torture.

A god who would undergo that kind of suffering in order to be one with us, is almost beyone belief.

But that is the Christian faith.

I don't know which god is Gobson's god. And that's what disturbs me most about all this.

[amade.livejournal.com]

That's partially what I don't understand. Why must life and salvation and all good things be based on pain, torture and death?

The world thrives on creation and beauty. Why, then, if there is a God who created all this, why would he make his own son go through something so horrid and so painful? Why would death replace life, and destruction, creation?

And what kind of fair, loving God would place a blame for one person's actions (re: Adam and Eve) on thousands of successive generations?

It sickens me. If there is a God, and S/he is like this, what is there that should compel me to worship him/her? Why WOULD I?

[arisbe.livejournal.com]

Amen to that.

Ihave studied Buddhism for years. They are right: human life is suffering. I can accept a god who endures our suffering, but not one who inflicts it.

The whole other story is wrong, wrong, wrong. Blame old Baldy (what Calvin means in Latin). And one Anselm of Canterbury (Cur Deus Homo) before him. And maybe Augustine to a certain extent. Though there is another, mystical dimension to Augustine, and even to Anselm.

Eastern Christianity never had that whole complex. Which is why I left the Roman Catholic Church. (Granted, I didn't story out or get kicked out. I petitioned for and received a formal transfer.)

[amade.livejournal.com]

Well, western Christianity is founded, based and live on the precepts of guilt and punishment.

"If you do that, you'll make Jesus sad and his suffering was for naught."

"If you do that, you'll go to hell and suffer forever."

I have a friend who describes Christianity in general as a slave religion, i.e., that it was created for people in slave-like conditions. Basically, you won't get any reward on earth, so let's pretend that if you suffer and do all these things here, you'll get to heaven. And if you don't obey those in charge and do as we say, you'll never get "paid."

I don't necessarily agree with everything he says on that subject, but I certainly understand his point of view. It's like pie in the sky, basically. Let's pretend that there's great things awaiting us after death, so that we don't have to think about or address the misery and suffering on earth.

I mean, if that's the case, why bother with life at all? Let's just all die now, go straight to heaven and be done with it. I just find it inconceivable that we're not supposed to enjoy life on earth and try to make it pleasant. Apparently, if we're having fun, we're doing something wrong. Sinning, or something.

My parents are fundamentalists of the strictest sort. Pretty much anything that's pleasant or pleasurable is off limits. Their whole lives revolve around the church. It's their mother, father, brother, companion, friend, and life. Anything that takes away from your devotion or time at church is considered suspect.

That can't be healthy, you know?

I often wonder if Calvin wasn't a masochist.