The Passion of the Christ

Oh, yeah, right.

Yes, and I should add more to the post, not to be accused of spamming, which would be far less than being accused of all this:

Wow, maybe the author should have thrown in "evil-doer" also.

[ February 29, 2004, 20:40: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I saw the movie on Friday. It made me extremely uncomfortable, and I was on the verge of walking out for pretty much the whole film. I'm not a Christian, but I had a Christian upbringing and know the story well. Despite being an atheist, I like the story (just as I like Starwars, but don't believe in The Force).

I wouldn't say I have a weak stomach for violence, but this movie was way over-the-top. It was just 2 hours of a man being graphically tortured. There were MAYBE 10 mintues of flashbacks to times that didn't involve Jesus being hit with something sharp. Regarding that razor-tipped whipping he copped... I'm pretty sure that would have killed him. I have accidentally split and/or cut my body open plenty of times during my life and, having observed the resulting loss of blood, I'm pretty sure Jesus would have bled to death inside 10 minutes with cuts like that. He certainly wouldn't have been carting a cross around (yes, I know he had help later on, but he made it a fair way on his own).

I have no idea what Gibson hoped to depict or inspire through this film. If anything, the movie depicts violence as abhorrent (through displaying it at its extremity)... but you only have to watch any other Gibson movie to see it glorified.

 

Morgoth. Jesus followed the Law or Torah. As a child he learned it and amazed the other scholars of the Law with his knowledge of it. That's what I meant. If it is claimed that Jesus was a pious Jew, most people agree on that, then he followed the Law, or Torah.

Chevalier. Perhaps we spoke about the same thing? And please don't take all this personally as an attack. I simply made some observations and comments. I am not trying to be belittling.

The Law of God is the Torah. The Law of the "Farizees" is the Torah. The Torah says it is blasphemy or "against the Law" to claim that oneself is God. In fact to take a god other than Jehovah (YHWH) incurs immediate death penalty. Jesus is not Jehovah, so to claim being Jehovah would invite a death sentence. It wouldn't be sensible to make such a claim in Aramaic or Hebrew anyway...

You may have agreed (or not) with my statements about Aramaic, but previous to you others claimed Jesus spoke Greek. I doubt that, and simply explain why. That was why I made examples about the empires etc...

Iahveh, Jehoveh or YHWH is Hebrew, thus a Jewish term and Name. How can it refer to "God the Father" when that is beyond Hebrew understandings of God? There is no God the "insert term here", just God. I don't remember Jesus ever using the word "Jehovah" in the Gospels. He said in Aramaic dying on the cross "Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani" which means, "My God, My God, why have you foresaken me?" He may have said "My father" according to the Greek texts, but there was no usage of the word "Jehovah". I can't remember it even once in the 4 gospels, but then I could be wrong...

BTW to say "Ani Jehovah" or "I am Jehovah" would be wrong when your name is "Jehoshuah" which means "Jehovah saves". One would say "Ani Jehoshuah".

RuneQuester.

I think that simply because there are no historical texts about a person, doesn't prove they do or don't exist. There was no historical document for the common Jewish citizen from Jaffa in the 2nd century BC, but does that mean there were none?

Besides as Chevalier pointed out, Judea was a trouble spot and Judaism was an unimportant religion to the Romans or Greeks. After the Romans razed the temple and massacred all the Jews of Judea I wonder how many "historical" texts about Jesus in Hebrew or other local languages could possibly have survived? There are more than 2 options in deciding the validity of a text for someone's "existance".

And BTW I'm not a Christian so don't flame me as one. In fact don't flame me.

 

Khazraj: You haven't seen me take something personal yet

Not really. Jesus upholds the Torah but not the regulations imposed by the Farizees (or however it is transcribed into English). Jesus pointed out that they removed the Law of Moses but fought to death for the law they made themselves.

The point is He is. In Christianity, Iahveh is God, not just God the Father.

Have you seen the line: "Before Abraham was, I am"? I am. Technically, it could also be rendered as "have been", which in this case would mean the same, anyway, with only a different focus.

Only "my God" is a legitimate translation here. While Himself being God, Jesus quite often addresses the Father as "my God", as He was "the son of man" - both God and man, each fully so.

I don't see where that goes. As I pointed out above, in Christianity, Jesus is Iahveh. Therefore, He is perfectly right in claiming so. Therefore, He does not violate the first commandment. And this is where we hit the point: it's God's commandments that's more important and not tradition based on them. A bit like it was with Sabbath - in the does God really care if you go 2000 metres or 2500 sense. When people see only stringent, casuistic regulations for the sake of it, they fail to see the Law of God that's behind it and is the true Law.

 

@Chandos...

You have hit on a relatively obscure reality, my friend...those who profess to be "above" faith (atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc) are just as beholden to faith as those who ascribe to a Traditional Religion.

They are more insecure in their standing. They require greater "leaps" of faith. They are dependent upon human assumption (the same human assumption that reasoned that the world was flat). They build their arguments on a house of cards and are vigorous to protect it from the slightest draft. In every argument between these self dubbed "people of reason" and "people of faith", it is clear to see who is the aggressor...who must "put down" the religious view...because if it stands for even a moment, then all that they depend on will vanish in a poof of deception and error.

I actually can understand and respect the more reserved and pragmatic views expressed by Joacqin and his contemporaries...but those who actually believe that man has all the answers for his existence and life...the confirmed atheists...they are a sad bunch indeed...and more combative than a "Bible Thumper".

[edit] Chev and Big B have done a better job than I could ever do in intelligently defending the faith...my real strength comes at insulting people!

 

Are you saying that it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in nothing than to believe that a supposed divine guardian of a desert people was and is a real life feature? I have always found the people with faith to either shy away from argumentation completely, avoid to really answer the question or to build such incredible cardhouses that they oculd win the intergalactic cardhouse championship. Those builds often seem to me not be so much for my benefit in countering arguments than to for the person with faith to convince him/herself.

As for answers, what answers do you want? The answers supposedly given to us from various deity's sure dont seem to have helped us build a decent world. As a fact, it was when people started to question those answers and even reject them that humanity atleast started to be a little bit nicer. Purely human answers arent perfect, we have communism and nazism as proof of that but those were rejected when people saw the atrocities commited in their name. Has any big religion been rejected due to the horrors done in its name? Communism is just as benevolent meaning on paper as christianity or islam but has any been rejected? Or even truly questioned, nope. Why? Because they are the word of *god*. Communism and nazism was just the word of man, it can be discredited, even by one time staunch believers.

Man isnt perfect but it is all we know that we have. We should use our own minds instead of following what some either crazy person or really smart and cynical politician devised thousands of years ago.

As for profound answers? Why do you want them? Why not be satisfied to live when one lives and do the best possible of it. There are thousands, perhaps even millions of sets of answers which all claims to be the one true set. How the hell do you choose if you feel you really have to? Also, isnt it a bit presumptous to think that the one choosen is the correct one? I mean, the odds arent all that great. Sadly people dont choose, they are indoctrinated since birth. It is funny how people who grow up in familys and societies without a strong precense of religion very rarely freely choose and devote themselves to a religion. A child given an upbringing with no real influence from anything do not often choose to a faith when it is old enough to reason and think for itself, if a person has faith it is most often thrust upon it as an impressionable child with no reason or ability to question what it is taught. Ignorance is ever faiths greatest ally. I myself went to sunday school and in normal school our teacher read us biblical stories, I was baptised as an infant and I took my confirmation. Faith was never pushed though, it was presented and as soon as I was able think and reason it was quickly dismessed.

Ah, I am going to end my rant now. As you might have noticed I feel strongly about religion. I feel it is the bane of humanity. A yoke we have carried for too long supressing our true potential. Marx's thought may have lead to much suffering but he did say a lot of good things, for instance this: "Religion is an opium for the people." Keeping us supressed, ignorant and docile.

 

@ Joacqin...

Maybe I spoke too nicely about you

But, yes, it takes as structured a set of beliefs to claim "not to believe" than it takes to believe. This discussion is not about the atrocities commited in the name of religion...by bad people...I make no defense of them.

In order for anyone to live as a comfortable little creature in this world (and not go insane), they have to have some means of answering the vital questions of "how" and "why". I have only stated that non-believers are just as subject to accepting things on faith as someone who professes a life of Faith.

If you want to say that you rely upon Human reason and science to answer the questions in your life...fine, all the more power to you...in 100 years our ancestors will scoff at you for the things you now take as fact...and trust me...the questions will come. Maybe not now, when you are young and strong...but perhaps when you are aged and facing the uncertainty of death...then you will ask "why".

Somewhere, sometime you will yearn to understand, and seek out a system to instill order to your life. Whatever system you choose will still require an act of faith, and human technology is a moving target...it does not provide the same assurances from generation to generation...the essential Dogmas of Christianity have been the same for 2000 years (except where corrupted by human influence).

Again, I am not trying to pose an argument of "Religion vs. Science", just want to level the playing field and bring to task those who ascribe to a Godless existence...the faith that they place in the "divinity of Man" is equal to the Faith I place in the Divinity of God.

 

Ah, I agree. We all choose to believe in different things, big or little, life-changing or inconsequential, fleeting or enternal. We have faith in things that we believe give meaning to our lives (even if that meaning is incomprehensible to somebody else). That is the reality of our human existence, and I for one, am happy to celebrate that diversity as something that makes life interesting for us all. More power to you all (even to those of you who believe things that I think are crazy).

 

'Believe X'
'Believe not X'
'Not believe'

The above are all very different. The first and the second are more alike to each other than they are to the third.

I disagree with pretty much everything Hacken Slash said. I think there may be some projection/generalizations going on.

Orson Scott Card reviews the flick

 

Basically:

"I believe in God" - requires faith.

"I don't believe in God" - doesn't require faith.

"I believe there's no god" - requires faith.

That is because "I believe there's no god" is a positive belief not backed by full logical proof.

"I don't believe in God" is the stance of non-belief and non-certainty as to the existence of God.

I will go through this in all faith-related topics I see if need be

 

But Laches...you have actually proven my point...by saying

you have shown that you took my statements, judged them by your own set of beliefs or faith, and found them lacking. There is no such thing as "believing in Nothing"...you had to believe in something to disagree with me, and the process you use to determine what you believe is dependent on a series of acts of faith.

Whether you ascribe to "Everyone's gotta believe in something...I believe I'll have another beer." or you opt for Augustine's stance that "Our soul is restless until it rests in God", you have made your act of faith or your Act of Faith.

I think that I have helped this thread go way off topic, and I apologize...I just had to get in the last word...because I'm just that kind of an A$$

 

No. You're confused. "Believing in Nothing" != "not having belief X". There is a tremendous difference.

Further, it is entirely possible to lack a belief, one way or the other, with regard to something.

What I disagreed with in your post is your projection of your own needs onto everyone else in the world.

 

This might be a tad of the discussion at hand, but it will make you laugh.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03/01/offbeat.passion.ap/index.html

 

^^ Bahaahaha! What kind of an ass would send a ticket back because it has 666 on it? I suppose when you get a multi-choice answer that is A: 549; B: 590; C: 666; D:674 and the correct answer is C this person will complain to the exam offical. But anyway, off-topic.

About your belief argument. I do not believe in any religion. This doesn't mean I believe there is no god. It means I am unsure. I do not know. I'm agnostic. So far I have recieved no proof that any religion is 'true' so I will not believe in any god. The moment I am convinced of or bear witness to any devine intervention I will believe.

 

But how can we have an argument over "nothing?" But...wait...

 

I think chev actually pretty much hit the nail on the head. I would like to elaborate on it a bit though.

"I dont believe in god" would be better said as: I dont believe there is any divine being who my worship or belief or way of living is of any importance whatsoever. Or in another way: I dont believe in any image put forward of a divine being. Meaning that you dont subscribe to any religion.

You dont need faith to disbelieve something. It is also funny to see the argumentation used to justify disbelief in god discredited by the same people who use that very same kind of argumentation to show the existance of god.

 

Yes, but isn't that just a roundabout way of saying, I don't know?

 

I do not use or rely on "faith"...EVER! I have never encountered these alleged non-believers who are "every bit as zealous about non-belief" either(though claims of their existence are as persistent as the claims for God's existence and both are made by the same people!).

Atheism is a lack of belief. I also lack a conviction that Lurking Grues exist. You will notice that none of us "agrueists" go around trying to zealously convince the world that "grueism" is false because if there are any grueists out there, they seem to be pretty content to keep their personal beliefs to themselves adn not knock on my door every otherday trying to get me to kiss the great Grue's butt so that he may spare me some unpleasentry in the afterlife.
If atheists ever seem to be rigorous in defense of their non-assent it is because they are called upon to do so by zealous theists.

AGAIN, as Laches and others pointed out, atheism is NOT a positive claim so we have nothing to be "zealous" about(unless you are one of those "maltheistic strong atheists"...a rare breed to be sure).

BTW, agnosticism does NOT mean "I am not sure". it means "I have no knowledged of God's existence"(weak agnosticism) or "There can be no knowledge of God's existence"(strong agnosticism).

I am a weak atheist(I lack a belief in any gods) adn strong agnostic(having knowledge of something beyond human understanding seems self-contradictory to me).


As for the historical jesus thing I don't have time right now to answer all that but suffice to say, there is still no comp[elling evidence to say Jesus actually existed adn the matter is not impotant to me anyways since I have seen men claim to be messiahs before adn the occurance is not unusual.
I lack a conviction that a historical Jesus existed but I do not believe that Jesus did not exist.

 

No NEED to get so WORKED UP. We believe you. I'm just glad that you aren't too overly zealous about this topic - really.