The Passion

Forum

Pages: 1 2
Who else has seen this, did you think the whipping scene went on for far too long
why did Gibson portray the devil as female
what was that ugly, hairy child/man the devil was holding
so many questions

>>By a rose by any other   (Tuesday, 2 Mar 2004 02:28)



The whipping scene was made to be so long in order to try to show you how much pain Jesus suffered mainly because there is no way they can truely show the forms of torture someone crucified goes through at least in a commercailized movie.

>>By Billy Pilgrim   (Tuesday, 2 Mar 2004 05:36)



the ugly hairy man-child held by satan was his son...the antichrist. the character satan, was intended to be gender nuetral.

>>By william5289   (Tuesday, 2 Mar 2004 19:46)



THIS MOVIE WAS AWESOME!!! It kind of made me mad at myself for a while thinking that i do that to Jesus every time I mess up!

>>By bloodbought11602   (Wednesday, 3 Mar 2004 02:58)



ok you should reread the bible cause jesus died for your sins once and now hes home free till the apocolypse when he has to show up and say "well fokes you got bout 30 seconds to live so better start confessing and quick"

>>By Billy Pilgrim   (Wednesday, 3 Mar 2004 06:40)



you dont get 30 seconds, it is in the twinkling of an eye, so you have to be ready!!
and where does it say satan had a child? satan is the antichrist.

>>By a rose by any other   (Wednesday, 3 Mar 2004 12:58)



The antichrist is the embodiment of Satan on Earth, like Christ was the embodiment of God on Earth. Be well.

>>By william5289   (Wednesday, 3 Mar 2004 16:43)



that is not true, there is no 'trinity' of satan, as there is with God, Jesus was God incarnate, Satan has never been incarnate
it was just Gibson trying to deal with his own demons, drink, drugs, his childhood etc
the film is pure hollywood, cynically set up to attract as much attention and money as possible, while Gibson exorcises himself.

>>By a rose by any other   (Thursday, 4 Mar 2004 03:29)



you got some tweek perspective there rose. This wasnt a hollywood maney maker movie if it was it wouldnt have been in arabic it would be alot nicer about how the jewish poeple are shown and alot less factual. It isnt cynicall and wasnt made for money and definetly not Gibsons inerdemons out let,

>>By Billy Pilgrim   (Thursday, 4 Mar 2004 03:52)



Rose, are you stating your beliefs according to Biblical scripture? I would like to see where the Bible supports your views on Satan and the Antichrist. Being an athiest myself, it isnt so important to me whether you are right or not...I am just interested in what makes you so cynical. My view of Christianity and all other religions is this: I would rather live in a world where most people believe in a God that will exact punishment in the hereafter for acting up in the here and now. Having doubts about the Creation and giving "God" credit for it, doesn't mean you have to be a disciple of the damned.

>>By william5289   (Thursday, 4 Mar 2004 19:31)



the film was based on traditional catholic teaching, not scripture, there was veronica with the veil etc etc, the stations of the cross were portrayed, this is catholic teaching. At that time Jews did not wear their hair long, they did not sit at high tables in that culture, a condemned man did not carry his whole cross, the two criminals were shown carrying only the crossbeam, this is accurate, much of the film is how Gibson imagines the last 12 hours of Christ would have been like. We do not know.

>>By a rose by any other   (Thursday, 4 Mar 2004 21:23)



I would like to know where all you people get the authority to go around critizing everything a Christian says. One of my teachers today made the best comment, "The United States is free until a Christian stands up and says something then we are told to shut up, but anyone else can say whatever they want and everyone listens." You can go ahead and believe whatever you want, but someday you will see what is really true and I pray that it isnt too late for you to change when i finally realize what is the truth. Don't critize Mel Gibson about this movie, he did an awesome job!

>>By bloodbought11602   (Friday, 5 Mar 2004 02:26)



bloodbought, your overly offended reaction to a sincere discussion about The Passion and the religious tenants and symbols it is based upon seem to exhibit an insecurity in yourself about your beliefs. No one maligned Christianity, some expressed their lack of faith in it, and some expressed their feeling that the movie misrepresented it. If your post was supposed to be about tolerating a variety of perspectives, it seems your perspective is the only one that lacks tolerance.

>>By granther   (Friday, 5 Mar 2004 06:12)



In the inimitable words of Rodney King...."Can't we all just get along?"

>>By william5289   (Friday, 5 Mar 2004 18:17)



I think the main reason christians are picked on so much is basically the same reason anyone can say stupid white boy. They're the majority, it can easyly argued that christainity is rooted itself in almost every aspect of america. Telling a christain to shut up isnt a personal attack against christainity in a sense but more against the masses. And of course there is the fact that the only religion that comes to your door are ones that ask you "Do you believe Jesus Christ is your personal savor?" I mean come on i have never once had some two Jewish kids come to my door or a signal Hindu church leader harrass me to save my self from the damnations of reincarnation. All in all Christains have given poeple alot of ammo to fire with and cant really fight back without sounding racist so my advice is to suck it up live with it till buddhism is the major religion of the world and then start harrassing monks.

>>By Billy Pilgrim   (Saturday, 6 Mar 2004 04:18)



Hey Billy P, very erudite for a 15 year old, dont mean to sound condescending.
The Passion is one man's take on 12 hours of a man's life, according to a few pages in a book, and hundreds of years of church tradition, hence we see Veronica and her veil, not mentioned in any of the Gospels, but Gibson puts her in cos he wants to show the "stations of the cross" not history as we know it, otherwise why have Jesus with long hair, loincloth, making tables that need high chairs to sit at them, carry the whole cross etc etc. It is to appeal to Western eyes and mindsets. and it is HIS OWN interpretation. Who knows what Mary did or didn't do, say or didn't say.
If you were making this film, would you have Mary (mother) looking so calm and disengaged or would you have her crying, or at least a little red eyed? Would John be as passive, even simple? would Pilate be as passive considering historically he was more than happy to slaughter hundreds of Jews, or did Gibson show Mr and Mrs Pilate this way cos she was due to become a catholic saint?

>>By a rose by any other   (Saturday, 6 Mar 2004 21:41)



Does it really matter at this point. HAve you ever seen a better movie about Christ. There isnt any huge flaws in this movie it doesnt completely change anything from what we now of the story so unless your going to make a better one you probably should be quite

>>By Billy Pilgrim   (Saturday, 6 Mar 2004 22:39)



Why be quiet (not quite!) this is a discussion board. I would have thought you would go along with the belief in freedom of speech, though this is disappearing in Bush's new world order.
I have an opinion of the film, that is not a true portrayal of the last 12 hours of Jesus of Nazereth as most scholars will tell you, as a vehicle for Gibsons own beliefs and superstitions it is accurate.

>>By a rose by any other   (Sunday, 7 Mar 2004 05:07)



it wasnt your opinion of the movie it was your criticism of piece of it that were so minor to the whole that would only make it better or worse than another movie of an identical plot so there is no reason to complain about them unless your trying to prove one version is better than another. And yes Bush is a dumbass

>>By Billy Pilgrim   (Monday, 8 Mar 2004 00:09)



There is something sick about this movie. Must we watch Christ die twice. Wasn't once enough. And by watching it this bloody spectacle do we not become akin to those who murdered him? Thank you not Mel.

>>By zickett   (Monday, 8 Mar 2004 08:09)



I'm in a limited position to talk about this film since I live in Belgium and we can't see it over here yet. But even if we could, I honestly doubt if I would.
I was raised a Catholic and on the whole I think there are some nice aspects about Christianity (Judgement NOT being one of them), but that's where it ends for me.

It's SO dangerous interpreting a scripture as history. Apart from the fact that a man presumably called Jesus lived, had some followers and died on the cross during Roman occupation there's nothing historical about it.
The stories was written by fans (because that's what apostles and their descendants are) to communicate what they believe in the best way possible in order to attract more followers.

Just like other books, religious or not, the Bible is at best an allegory or a symbolic story, but probably nothing more than a fiction. Its ideas and beliefs might not be, however, and some of them have a timeless value, but the story in itself is not historical. We can never find out what really happened. I think it's not important either, since we wouldn't understand what went on. Cultural meanings change continuously. What made sense only last century is now a joke. We forget people thought and talked differently then. There's no way we can know what they really meant.
It only gets tricky if we believe that the things stated in these books are somehow REAL and TRUE. And that goes for any major religion based on scripture. It's everyone's right to believe, but once you've got the idea that your particular belief is some kind of truth, in my opinion you're dangerous or at least blinded.

Mel Gibson, I heard, belongs to a very strict Christian movement. I'm afraid his views are rather biased.

>>By Aywin   (Tuesday, 9 Mar 2004 16:38)



Im living in Ireland so i haven't yet seen the movie, Ireland is a hugely catholic island and i will be curious to see the reaction over here!
Was just wondering is it true that some woman in america tried to kill herself after seeing this movie? is the film that graphic and disturbing?

>>By Too Smart for a nickname   (Wednesday, 10 Mar 2004 18:59)



thats all BS one old women did suffer a heart attack in the movie and it is graphic but not to the point of hearting someone im sure that her haert was going to snap at any movie she saw.

>>By Billy Pilgrim   (Thursday, 11 Mar 2004 00:07)



damn that movie had that much impact on people

>>By toke more than u   (Thursday, 11 Mar 2004 19:52)



did anyone cry

>>By toke more than u   (Thursday, 11 Mar 2004 19:53)



"The Mission" has more of an impact on poeple than "The Passion" does its just a hype. The movie is very graphic but still not the most moving thing out Ive seen much better.

>>By Billy Pilgrim   (Friday, 12 Mar 2004 00:07)



If you don't understand Religion don't comment. Your God is respected, who ever he may be. I saw "The Passion" and it is the most accurate account of the 'torture' of Christ I think we will ever see, and remember,
every generation has it's 'Biblical Spectacle' I've seen them 'all' on video and the movies.
Educate yourself 'Young One', ask questions.
I saw it in Los Angeles, USA, my hometown
I would see it again! "The first tear jerking scene is when Peter can not accept the calling of the Virgin Mary, his guilt is killing him, and it's very well portrayed. That scene almost made me cry ".

>>By Fantomas   (Friday, 12 Mar 2004 09:04)



The movie really touched my heart....as I was watching it, I was also reflecting at the same time...and I think this doesn't deserve any criticism...after all, it's your option whether to believe what is portrayed in the movie or just consider it as a work of art...for as long as I am concerned, the movie just "awakened me" from a deep sleep.

>>By Gero   (Friday, 19 Mar 2004 05:25)



am i the only one who's blur abt the crow pecking out the guy's eyes? did that really happen? i'm kinda disappointed the rising-from the-dead bit was so short.

>>By eatengold   (Thursday, 25 Mar 2004 08:33)



Does anyone see the conflict of interest here? Its supposed to be such a life changing, religious film, so is Gibson giving away the money he makes from this film? Its all about making money. Personally I don't feel the need to watch a MOVIE to try and understand something from the bible.

>>By tooloot   (Thursday, 25 Mar 2004 18:08)



Pages: 1 2
The discussion board is currently closed.