"The Passion of the Christ"
-
run for fun
- Freshman
- Posts: 15
- Joined: February 28th, 2004, 11:16 pm
- Contact:
-
FMVolleyball5
- Freshman
- Posts: 31
- Joined: January 22nd, 2004, 10:08 pm
- Location: Fannett Metal
This movie was amazing. If you do not feel anything after seeing it then you basically have no heart. It changed me totally and I feel so much closer to God. I went to see it on a Friday night and during that week I had many downs, it was horrible week, but as soon as that movie was over...I felt alive. I, like many others, cried numerous times during the movie...but for me, when he got nailed to the cross, I was bawling my eyes out. You will NEVER truly realize what was given up for you until you see this movie. I always thought I knew what Jesus went through so my sins could be forgiven, but this movie opened my eyes. I still think about it every single day and it's been a week since I have seen it. Throughout the movie I found myself thinking, I'm not worthy of this. I don't deserve it. I took for granted so many times what Jesus went through just so I could be forgiven. So many people take for granted that our sins will be forgiven. It should like be required to see this movie, it was amazing and it made me want to be a better Christian.
As for little kids going to see this movie...I'm not sure. I am 16 and I jumped numerous times in the movie. The devil freaked me out. It is very graphic. Yes, kids need to see what Jesus went through...but I don't think I would have really appreciated it as much if I would have seen this say when I was like 7. So I don't really know what I'd do as a parent.
As for little kids going to see this movie...I'm not sure. I am 16 and I jumped numerous times in the movie. The devil freaked me out. It is very graphic. Yes, kids need to see what Jesus went through...but I don't think I would have really appreciated it as much if I would have seen this say when I was like 7. So I don't really know what I'd do as a parent.
Senior 2006.
Volleyball #5
Katie Dovey's #1 Fan!!
One of the "Katie Maniac's"
Hawaii Bound 8)
Volleyball #5
Katie Dovey's #1 Fan!!
One of the "Katie Maniac's"
Hawaii Bound 8)
This was a movie unlike any other I have ever seen. It was so life like. It was like you were there watching everything that he went through for everyone. What seemed very ironic to me was that when the movie was over not one person in the theatre stood up. Everyone just sat there and took in everything that they had just seen and began to pray.
"Ability is what you're capable of doing. Motivation determines what you do. Attitude determines how well you do it."--Lou Holtz
-
CuteSoftbllChick
- Junior
- Posts: 125
- Joined: August 28th, 2003, 11:59 pm
- Location: Cove
-
fleaflicker
- Official BleacherCoach
- Posts: 1947
- Joined: March 13th, 2004, 12:32 am
What would this idiot be saying if somebody made a blatently anti-Christian movie that openly insults Christianity, Jesus, and God? Answer: Probably nothing near as bad as he's saying about Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ.
"Which is what makes Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" such a singular act of interreligious aggression. He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews.
His Leni Riefenstahl defense -- I had other intentions -- does not wash. Of course he had other intentions: evangelical, devotional, commercial. When you retell a story in which the role of the Jews is central, and take care to give it the most invidious, pre-Vatican II treatment possible, you can hardly claim, "I didn't mean it."
His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts. Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation. There have been dozens of cinematic renditions of this story, from Griffith to Pasolini to Zeffirelli. Gibson contradicts his own literalist defense when he speaks of his right to present his artistic vision. Artistic vision means personal interpretation.
And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.
In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.
The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson's movie, Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson's camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs -- merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. After all, a perfect match: Satan's own people.
Perhaps this should not be surprising, coming from a filmmaker whose public pronouncements on the Holocaust are as chillingly ambiguous and carefully calibrated as that of any sophisticated Holocaust denier. Not surprising from a man who says: "I don't want to lynch any Jews. I mean, it's like it's not what I'm about. I love them. I pray for them."
Spare us such love."
-Charles Krauthammer (March 5, 2004. The Washington Post)
"Which is what makes Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" such a singular act of interreligious aggression. He openly rejects the Vatican II teaching and, using every possible technique of cinematic exaggeration, gives us the pre-Vatican II story of the villainous Jews.
His Leni Riefenstahl defense -- I had other intentions -- does not wash. Of course he had other intentions: evangelical, devotional, commercial. When you retell a story in which the role of the Jews is central, and take care to give it the most invidious, pre-Vatican II treatment possible, you can hardly claim, "I didn't mean it."
His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts. Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation. There have been dozens of cinematic renditions of this story, from Griffith to Pasolini to Zeffirelli. Gibson contradicts his own literalist defense when he speaks of his right to present his artistic vision. Artistic vision means personal interpretation.
And Gibson's personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus's scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson's movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.
In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson's movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels -- glorying in his artistic vision -- time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction -- to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.
The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson's movie, Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson's camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs -- merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. After all, a perfect match: Satan's own people.
Perhaps this should not be surprising, coming from a filmmaker whose public pronouncements on the Holocaust are as chillingly ambiguous and carefully calibrated as that of any sophisticated Holocaust denier. Not surprising from a man who says: "I don't want to lynch any Jews. I mean, it's like it's not what I'm about. I love them. I pray for them."
Spare us such love."
-Charles Krauthammer (March 5, 2004. The Washington Post)
"To give anything less than the best is to sacrifice the gift." -Steve Prefontaine