'The passion of Christ' - teaser trailer

As professor Joad might have said. It all depenRAB what you mean by Christian and Jewish.

If you mean the purely social aspects of racially Jewish and non-racially Jewish relations then I agree that discussion may well be fruitful. But that would really be off topic. If you mean discussions between the beliefs of Orthodox Jewry and the beliefs of Traditionalist Roman Catholics like Mel and me then I think discussions would be counter productive - and I'll tell you for why by giving a little example.

Suppose there's Religion A that believes cyanide is good to drink and 2 + 2 is 5 - and Religion B that believes it ain't and it don't.

The only reason that religion B would want to "discuss issues" is to save the devotees of A from harming themselves. In other worRAB, to dissuade them from their erroneous belief. They are not going to compromise at 4.5 are they? They are not going to agree that it's OK to drink cyanide on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, but not on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays are they? They are not even going to agree on 4 + 10^100 or drinking cyanide only on one's 21st birthday.

How utterly intolerant of the B's, eh! The trouble is they don't just believe they are right, they KNOW they are b'dy right. And moreover they are prepared to die for that belief if they love truth more than their own skin.



In practical matters there's no problem. Where conflicting fundamental religious beliefs are involves there is. Think of it as like the FA Cup. Ultimately there has to be a winner. That is the nature of the FA cup and that is the nature of religious belief. I'm sure football supporters wouldn't want it any other way. :)



I was only dealing with the binary assumption and pointing out the consequences.
I believe in the God and you don't. Logically, one of us must be wrong. Truth and God can never be in conflict with each other because God is Truth. To disregard Truth is to disregard God.



And if the UFOists are right we could all find ourselves rematerialised in a trans galactic space ship. And if...And if....And if... :yawn:



Perfectly fair. :)



If by that you mean the Catholic Church since Vatican II, I can assure you that I am only too well aware of how my views don't correspond to the views of the Conciliar Church. Mel Gibsons views correspond even less than mine.



Your advice is unnecessary, I assure you. :yawn:



I'm happy for you. I'm afraid the things they say don't impress me and I'm sure they don't impress Mel Gibson either. On the contrary. They depress me as anyone familiar with the situation in the Catholic Church would realise by the fact I am a Traditionalist Catholic. Being a Jew you must be familiar with the difference between the Orthodox and Liberal. I would call myself an Orthodox Catholic but people might get confused and think I belonged to the schismatic Orthodox Church.



Well, since Vatican II in 1964 if you want to be precise.
 
I may watch the movie to see what all the fuss is about.

But actually there is evidance to say that not all the Jews wanted Jesus dead and in fact Pontius Pilot was the main mouth piece for his destruction. You have to remember when this all occurred was in a Roman world and for the next 1000 years, Rome was an Empire and one couldn't have the Roman soldiers being the main instrument in the death of Jesus.
 
Hey everybody. I know this has gone way off topic. I am assuming that nobody minRAB. If I am wrong, please feel free to tell me to shut up and I will.



Ah. I see what you are getting at but I don't agree that the only reason for people of different faiths to discuss their beliefs is to see if they can convert eachother. Isn't enough just to try to understand where eachother are coming from?



Correct, at least one of us must be wrong but that doesn't mean one of us must be right. My point was that Pascal's Razor fails if you introduce any third possible situation (such as a different god) because it then becomes unclear how to go about hedging your bets. I was just unpicking it as a logical exercise. It has no bearing on the existance or nature of God.



You know the odd thing? Despite us disagreeing, be both have one big thing in common. We both care about the truth in a way which is rather out of fashion in these post-modernist days.

I think it is important to realise that the truth is strong. It can stand up to being discussed, examined and prodded a bit. It isn't going to fall apart in our hanRAB. If what we have in our hanRAB falls apart then it wasn't the truth in the first place.



Fair enough. I'll admit that I don't quite understand how that works within a single church like Roman Catholicism. It is not quite the same as the situation with the Reform and Orthodox Jews because they are quite separate organisations.

BTW: I'd prefer not to call myself a Jew. I think it would be disrespectful to my parent's religion to call myself that when I am an Atheist. Bear in mind that Judaism is primarily a religion (like Christianity or Islam) not an ethnicity.



Ah. I am with you now. I just typed "Vatican II" into Google and discovered a whole range of interesting websites including one with allegations of heresy, false Popes and massonic corruption. It seems that one group has even elected it's own Pope! I wasn't aware that feelings ran so high on this.

You see, this discussion was worthwhile as I have learned something interesting.
 
No need, this line of comunication is just what everyone should have




Having come (and seemingly left) a family where the parents were devout in their faith, I am surprised you are surprised at the amount of feeling. As for Vatican II, please check back through the reasons behind the 'Church' of England (another quango belief, touted under the umbrella of Christianity) and see just how much trouble a monopoly religion can stir up when someone with an opposing view , but backed by an army, can cause.

The trouble with one persons faith is that in the ensuing methoRAB to advise others its really the better one, is that some nutter will always take the conversion method to extremes.
 
I suggest that we have debated the subject pretty thoroughly and that if either of us wants to add any more points we should so in PMs or emails.

I don't agree that we have gone off topic. Mel Gibson's religious convictions are obviously highly relevant to his film. Being within a hair's breadth of his religious convictions myself (though not Mel's father's I hasten to add) I feel it is important for member's understanding of the film that they know what Mel's convictions are.
Against Goldwyn Meyer's advice, he is using film, not Western Union. :)



Solomon, in all his glory, couldn't have put it better. :)
Because I care so much about truth I chose to spend my whole working life in a government research lab. which I viewed as a kind of secular monastery.

Someone who earnestly searches for the truth will surely find it - if not in this life then most certainly in the next.
For eye hath not seen, nor ear heard: neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Truth.



I didn't know that. I've learnt something. :)
In fact it's the inverse of the situation with the Roman Catholic Church and the (allegedly) Orthodox Church which are also both separate organizations.



That is very honest of you. Tell you what though. I would love to have been born an ethnic Jew. What an honour! Just think of it. I would be of the same race as Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. An immeasurably higher honour than some poxy decoration from the Queen.



You don't know the half of it. But I mustn't commit a sin of detraction by going into details, must I. ;)



And I too, my dear man.
And I thank you for your restraint and forbearance in your responses to my tirades. :D
 
I've just finished watching the film and I'll give it 10/10. I was weary at first after finding out the only english in the film were the subtitles as it was filmed in Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin, but I really enjoyed it. The long punishment/crucifiction scenes were hard to view so it was bound to cause quite a stir upon release. Highly recommended if you like these sort of films (esp. Last Temptation Of Christ).


Yeti
 
I am not a religious person but I don't have a problem with someone making a religious film.

What I do have a problem with is if historical facts are disorted and any religion comes out of it looking unfairly worse, as Gibson's portrayal of the Jewish characters in this film does by many accounts.

This article provides an explanation of why this film could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. Here is one of the most significant quotes:



It seems the film has distorted the truth of who was really responsible for the crucifixion. As historical evidence points, Pilate would not have been manipulated into doing this against his will, so why does the film portray the Jewish characters as doing this? This is partly why the film is considered prejudiced, because it is not representative of the historical truth and the changes result in the Jewish figures looking worse. Maybe this was an unintentional mistake by Mel Gibson simply not doing his research properly, but even so, it is still wrong; he should have at least checked his facts first, particularly when the film risks perpetuating negative stereotypes and prejudices.

Another quote from the article:


Like I said, maybe the errors in the film were unintentional, but a responsible film maker should still be much better at checking their facts before proceeding on such risky ground. And to be honest I don't think I can entirely rule out the possibility that the writing of the script was influenced by some kind of prejudice, given the alterations of historical evidence about Pilate's character and role in the crucifixion in relation to the role of the Jewish characters.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with the idea of someone making a religious film, but if additional historical evidence exists, then it should not be ignored or altered if it risks perpetuating negative false perceptions.
 
From the point of view of someone who "not a religious person" your argument is a very reasonable one. But what you have to recognise is that for traditional christians the gospel account is not just any old historical document but the inspired work of G-d and therefore inerrant.

If there is a conflict between the gospel and any other account the christian will take the gospel account as true and any the other account as erroneous.

I would imagine that the same consideration applies to the Old Testament for Orthodox Jewry and to the Koran for the follows of Mohammed.
 
True in so far as it goes. But "nutters" aren't exclusive to religions, are they? Hitler? Stalin? Mao Tse Tung? - to name but three of the most recent examples. Unless, of course, you are prepared to beg the question [petitio principii] and include all -isms which practice extreme conversion. :rolleyes:

Like the poor, the "nutters" we have always with us. :D
 
Apologies

Religion and personalising of territory appear to be the main areas that bring out the nutters, sometimes a combined effort (Conquistadors, Crusades, ethnic cleansing in general)
 
Too change the direction of this thread a little.

All i want to know is from the people that have watched it is ............Is this movie really AAAAAAAAAAAS violent as people have hyped it up to be!

And which bit of the movie is the most violent and how long is the cruxifiction scene!

I can stand violence myself but my mother is coming with me to the cinema........So i just want to know (we are both wimps lol, but im sure we will get through it)
 
I didn't think it was that violent, I've seen worse. The main violent bit is the whipping scene which is pretty bloody and realistic. The cruxifiction scene is about the last half hour or so.

Happy viewing.
 
I watched the film on Monday on a pirate dvd, lol. Anyway, I would highly recommend seeing this film. Extremely graphic. It doesn't ram religion down your throat, and the subtitles don't invade watching the film, there isn't too much dialogue in the film.
There was one bit that made tears come to my eyes, and it is when Mary is trying to help her son get up when carrying his cross, and there is a flashback to when he fell as a child, and she goes and picks him up. That's probably the mother in me...
 
Have just watched the Channel 4 tv programme on Mel Gibson. Speaking from the point of view of a traditional catholic who goes to mass at the Society of Saint Pius X in Holloway, I thought it presented a fair view of things.

I was pleased it pointed out that it was sinful for christians to be anti-jewish (and from my point of view, extremely illogical as well).
 
Back
Top