RotK and Passion

[Wormwood]

I'm a Christian, but I'm not really sure I want to see this. Not that I don't think anybody should see this, just not me. Watching it would just feel like being witness to an execution.

I've seen so many Stations of the Cross that they had become a rote pantomime. The film shook me out of my Sunday-morning complacency.

For that alone I am grateful.

He said if nothing else, this movie proves the MPAA will never give a movie an NC-17 rating just based on violence.

All due respect to Roger Ebert, but he's simplifying the issue.

If this film had focused on the graphic torture and crucifixion of Some Random Guy Named Ted, the MPAA would have slapped an NC-17 so fast it would make your head spin.

But Jesus Christ? The Gospels? NC-17? Never.

Jack Valenti knows better than to face the firestorm of negative publicity that such a move would have ignited.

 

[Henry]

If this film had focused on the graphic torture and crucifixion of Some Random Guy Named Ted, the MPAA would have slapped an NC-17 so fast it would make your head spin.

But Jesus Christ? The Gospels? NC-17? Never.

WIth respect to this point, I agree with Wormwood. An extended torture sequence would likely have garnered something more stringent. However, I am waiting to see if this depiction is as violent as, say, Kill Bill 1. If it is not, then I may be forced to conceed the point to Good Old Roger.

 

[Ranger REG]

I read an online article about this, can't quote it, don't care much for Mel's opinion these days.

Then don't bring it up. Since you have, you have to back your words by citing a source.

 

[Mythtify]

Out of context, dude. He wasn't saying anybody who is religious has baggage, he said anyone who has baggage with religious folks has baggage.

That being the case, I apologize. It is easy to take things out of context. No hard feelings I hope.

 

[Trainz]

You guys are trying very hard (and somewhat successfully) to keep this thread ENworld-friendly, but I'm afraid it won't last long. Call it a hunch. I just think the subject is way too sensitive.

Reading all the posts, I had to bite my tongue quite a few times. There is too much under-the-table innuendo going on.

Anyways, good luck. I see Henry is keeping a close watch. Keep that in mind before clicking that "Submit Reply" button.

Don't read the following if you have strong feelings about this issue:

Spoiler

You had to look, didn't you ! ;-)

 

[Green Knight]

I feel that it (re: bible) is the literature just like LotR, not to taken as more than anything else, just a book.

Suffice to say that the early Hebrews, as well as the early Christians, would disagree with you on that one.

Anyway, for the guy who said that The Passion would be the highest grossing film of all time, want to put $20 on that? I don't think it'll outgross Titanic (Damn those 14-year-old girls. Damn them TO HELL!!!), but I do think it'll get up there.

BTW: Yeah, Kesh is right. Mel did say that. However, I don't see what the big deal is. Last I checked, EVERY religion said they were the one true path. If you don't believe that, then why do you even believe in that religion in the first place, if you believe that all religions are equal or whatever? Is that kind of certainty REALLY any different then an atheist's certainty that there's no afterlife? Mel says if you ain't Catholic then you're going to Hell. Atheists say that no matter how good you are you're still gonna vanish into the same oblivion that everyone else, good or bad, vanishes into. That applies to any kind of moral position a person takes, ranging from religion to politics to ethics and philosophy and so on. Either you stand for something, or you're a wishy-washy person who doesn't stand for anything. Whatever the case, much ado about nothing.

 

[kingpaul]

Then don't bring it up. Since you have, you have to back your words by citing a source.

I did a quick search, because I was curious, and here's what I found:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452

 

[Henry]

You had to look, didn't you !

Well, I did, darn you!

 

[Desdichado]

I don't believe the Bible is a historical work. It has its place in history, certainly, but a lot of material has been compiled from other sources that, while probably having their own agendas as much as the Bible, are not steeped in religious intent. Furthermore, not one of the canonized gospels was written prior to a generation after the death/disappearance of Jesus, and each was written in order to make a religious statement, not a historical one.

With the exception of a few of the Greek and Roman writers, and of course modern historians, that's pretty much always been the case. That doesn't mean that we don't consider heiroglyphics on the walls of Egyptian tombs historical, or the "national archives" of Hattusas historical, or any number of other works that were, in many cases, composed under even more dubious historical circumstances than the Bible.

As I said earlier, regardless of one's opinion of it, the Bible is, and likely always will be, the best and most detailed historical document of the area and the time period.

As barsoomcore said, that doesn't mean it necessarily jives completely with other sources we do have, but nobody's denying that the various sections of the Bible were written with an agenda. Also, as you point out, the Bible isn't so much a "book" as it is a latter compendium of other writings, many of which the time of writing and the author are not well known. In addition to that, the influence of later editors is difficult to determine.

None of that changes the fact that the Bible is, and likely always will be, the best and most detailed historical document of the area and the time period. You just have to go into things with your eyes wide open about the limitations inherent in it as a historical work. But, as I said, they aren't really unique or even overpowering limitations compared to many other historical works that are also widely accepted.

 

[CrusaderX]

I did a quick search, because I was curious, and here's what I found:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452

From that msnbc piece:

“There is no salvation for those outside the Church,” Gibson replied. “I believe it.”

Yes, Catholicism teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Church. Catholicism also teaches that non-Catholics can go to heaven. These two statements seem to be contradictory, but according to Catholic belief, they're not.

Basically, Catholicism teaches that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church instituted by Christ at the time of the Apostles. According to the Catholic Church, Christ didn't create Protestant Churches or Churches of other faiths. Catholics believe that He created only One Church as His earthly instrument of salvation. So if and when non-Catholics are "saved", they owe their salvation to Christ's instrument of salvation, the Catholic Church founded by Christ, whether they realize this or not.

Please note that I'm not posting this to preach to anyone or to damn anyone or to start flames. I'm simply posting a part of Catholic theology as I understand it (and as elaborated on at the website below) to clear up the confusion as to what Mel Gibson said regarding his wife, in light of official Church teachings. This is a widely misunderstood topic, and the confusion pretty much deals with a question of semantics. And it's even possible that Mel himself might not fully understand official Church teachings. But it's also interesting to note that Mel never directly said the words "my wife could be going to hell", yet msn's headline was still "MEL GIBSON SAYS HIS WIFE COULD BE GOING TO HELL" in big bold red letters.

And, as I mentioned above, Mel directly told Diane Sawyer during their ABC televised interview a few weeks ago that non-Catholics can go to heaven. I heard him say this with my own ears, and saw the words come from his lips with my own eyes. So it may all come down to msn not reporting all the facts, or not putting Mel's words in their proper context.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ315.HTM