Morgoth Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 But the question one must ask himself (or herself) is whether it is actually the intention of the movie to outline the whole fundament of Christian belief. I daresay it isn't, and therefore I (personally) do not deem it necessary to have more about his life and deeds in there. The film is called "The Passion", and that's what it shows (actually, it goes even a small bit beyond that by the short flashbacks and the short glimpse of the resurrection in the last scene).In my opinion the discussion about the violence and detail shown in the movie is a bit pointless - this is really purely subjective, and also depends on the personal (dis)likings and perhaps even endurance of the person who watches the movie. I did not find the movie to be too cruel or even sadistics - just because it did not draw a veil over the torture and pain Jesus had to endure during the last hours of his life.In the end, the movie left me deeply impressed. It is not a film you would call "cool", "neat" or whatever - but at least for a Christian (who can endure quite explicit display of violence) it is definitely worth seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 It's not because of me that I say, Gibson has overdone it. I personally have no problem with violence. But I know a lot of people who do have a problem with this (e.g. my mother who decided not to watch the film because of this) and for their sake they should not watch this film. This is my recommandation to sensitive people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted April 10, 2004 Author Share Posted April 10, 2004 Ooh, im gonna get burned in hell...Ill actually watch it on sunday, just to keep in spirit. He died today, ya know? Saw a guy out on the road, dressed in a white shroud, pointing to a cross. That was scarey, but I thought just to keep in spirit of holliday we should crucify that roadside man. "im a christian, I think it would best be with my beliefs, dont persecute me government!" EDIT: but, like I said, Im not gonna pay to see it. Im gonna sneak in. Im not commiting the judas thing and buying with the tainted silver! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgoth Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Ooh, im gonna get burned in hell...Ill actually watch it on sunday, just to keep in spirit. He died today, ya know? Saw a guy out on the road, dressed in a white shroud, pointing to a cross. That was scarey, but I thought just to keep in spirit of holliday we should crucify that roadside man. "im a christian, I think it would best be with my beliefs, dont persecute me government!" EDIT: but, like I said, Im not gonna pay to see it. Im gonna sneak in. Im not commiting the judas thing and buying with the tainted silver! I actually have no idea what you want to say with the part before "EDIT". As far as the second part is concerned - just to set the record straight - Judas Iscariot did not buy anything, he was bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted April 10, 2004 Author Share Posted April 10, 2004 Not the point, thank you very much...Maybe its worded wrong...I meant buying his death in a screening, im instead gonna watch without paying. I actually have no idea what you want to say with the part before "EDIT". I meant that because it was friday that was the day he was crucified. And, besides that, I was going on random tangents like I allways do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctogher Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 I meant that because it was friday that was the day he was crucified. ^_^ A point of reference here. The Gregorian calendar, (ie. that which all countries now use), was only officially adopted from 15th October 1582 and even then not simultaneously by all countries. The date just prior to implementation was on average recognised as 4 October 1582. Note also that the Julian calendar, (widely recognised as being the earliest variation preceding the Gregorian), had a number of arcane rules attached to it, not least of which was the treatment of leap years. The point here is that the days now commonly recognised as holy or religous should only be treated as points of reference and nothing more. They were selected for various reasons, (convenience, socialogical, political, etc), and have no basis in fact or proof. My personal view is that if any day is holy, they are all holy. :blush: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.