The Sacrelige of the Christ

[Hogosha Ookami]

well i can say this, if you didn't like the book you probably hated the movie.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

The book [the bible] was beter. and thats coming from an atheist/agnostic, who believes in all things but does not worship or practice any.

[Ancalagon]

I remeber one of the reasons for the cross being holy, other than the fact that Jesus died upon it, was that it was made from the wood of the Tree of Life. I heard this in my Brittish Literature class, and my Prof. said that the tree of life was chopped down later and used as timber for a barn or somewhat, then later the beams were used to construct the cross which was Jesus'. This was, I guess (I know next to nothing about the Bible, though I read it once...) in the Bible possibly?

 

Perhaps that is also the signifigance[sp] of the cross as well.

 

Just a thought.

[Darnoc]

@Ancalagon: Nothing about this is written in the bible. The only mentionings of the Tree of Life is a. in the garden of eden and b. in the new world which will be created after the destruction of ours.

 

And I also think that the book is better than the film. The bible is still one of the most genious books ever written. I think it is also one of the few books in which also the heroes make mistakes (e.g. David commiting adultery and murder), some of them really bad mistakes. You can read it a hundred times and still discover something new in it. Well, this is probably also because it is such a huge book.

 

Concerning the people getting heart attacks: If they know that they can't stand brutality and are sensitive people, they shouldn't go watching such a film. My mother, for example, decided not to watch the film, because she knows that she can't stand such brutality. So if someone gets a heart attack because of this film, it is his/her problem.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

Im not using their hrt attacks as justification of banning the movie, its just a little ominous that its happening to a whole bunch of people. You dont expect that.

[Ancalagon]

Well, the Heart Attacks are not that surprising, given the brutal and violent nature of the film. 'Saving Private Ryan' had similar problems, of course from veterans of World War II who went to see the movie. Some had flashbacks from watching and I believe a couple of others had heart attacks or panic attacks from watching the movie. Others broke down and started sobbing in the theater. My own Grandfather will not see that movie, nor will his brother. His brother was a part of the seventh wave on Omaha Beach in Normandy on D-Day. Figure it out from there...

 

IMMHO, there is nothing ominous about people working themselves up into such a state that they give themselves heart attacks, if the film itself is very violent and brutal. Now, what would surprise me would be if the age of the supposed victims (if this is just a rumor and a hoax, or else could you provide a link to where you obtained your information...) were varied. That is, the majority of the victims were not elderly nor had prior history of suffering heart attacks, nor had heart problems prior to seeing the movie. That would indeed be a strange find.

 

But as far as banning the movie, I think it should not be banned. When you get down to it, Movies are a way of artistic expression and promoting views/ideas/beliefs and so on. To ban a movie simply because a certain sector of the populace or various sectors of the populace dislike the premise and message of the movie is nothing less than restricting Freedom of Speech and Expression. However, that is in the U.S, and I don't know how it would fare in other countries...

[ctogher]

:blink: We have movies about the sodomisation of children, rape, drug abuse, terrorism..... the list is endless, based on irrefutable evidence and happening RIGHT NOW, all of which exmanines in minutest detail, and holding no punches, the absolute rot and evil of humankind's depravity.

 

Now, it may just be me, but doesn't it strike you as a little strange that a film about an event based on a book constructed from the oral ramblings of octogenerians and, at best, highly opined documentary evidence, which took place in times beyond remembrance, can still illicit such emotional and reactionary memes?

 

Is our world so dark that we must fight to maintain our rosy outlook on the past. Would you have us depict Dachau as some sort of tropical retreat where the inmates, (horror!), had to do their own laundry to prevent upsetting Germans?

 

This is a story, (note a STORY - at no point is declaration made of fact), about people. Nothing more. Man is capable at one and the same time of the most unthinkable of evil and the most heartstopping good.

 

If this makes anyone uncomfortable, my advice is to submit application for divorce from the human race..

 

Everyone else can look on this as one point of view from a highly imaginative/creative director. Nothing more.

 

Finally, isn't it wierd that those segments of society who were EXPECTING to be horrified by the film did two things which most would consider ill-advised:

1] Went to see it in the first place - a little voyuerism doesn't kill..surely?

2] Were "surprised" when they were horrified by the film....

 

I put it to you that to base your religious life around Hollywood is quite literally building a castle in the sand.....

[Breton Thief Oriana]

Of course. Hollywood should not be making a mockerry of all that anyone holds holy by turning it into a movie. That takes the holiness out of it, even if it is something as strange as christianity (700 club be damned! sorry, mods...)

 

but, I actually didnt pay to see this movie, nor want to view it at all. It downplays the other aspects of the life of Jesus Christ, sans his crucifixcion, and there are still religious fanatics taking it as a sign and a blessing and not as what it really is, a mockerry, although albeit unintentional. Guess ill have to either rent or mooch off of someone who did, im not seeing this on the bigscreen.

[ctogher]

but, I actually didnt pay to see this movie, nor want to view it at all.

:o Sorry, I thought your comments were based on actual experience.

 

Not to digress, but a debate based on conjecture is dangerous.

 

From this I can accurately assume that your perspective has no basis other than the bias in the media... not the most trustworthy source of information in the world.

 

By openly admitting non-commitance to ever checking the facts, ( seeing the film), how would you propose to support your position. Simply regurgitating hearsay does not support any argument you could ever put forward.

 

:blush: Sorry if this seems a little harsh, but commenting further would be pointless.....

[Darnoc]

You're right there, ctogher. I know what happens when someone says that something is so and so, even when he/she has not experienced it. Mostly they are just wrong, but they have a stubborn oppinion and won't change it, even when I tell them good arguments to do so.

 

Back to topic.

 

I have seen the film, so I can tell from experience. The first part of the film I thought was good. But in the second part, Gibson has really overdone it. The death of Jesus is important, yes, but why do you have to show every little detail? And what is with the rest of his life? Isn't this also important? What Jesus has said during his lifetime, everything about love and kindness and how he helpt the outcasts of society, this I think is also very important.

 

I think that I have to listen sometime again to the passion by Johann Sebastian Bach. Very beautifl piece of music.