Yeah I went and saw the Jesus movie

[Abdul Alhazred]

OK it's not particularly 'anti-Semitic', as far as I can see. No condemnation of Jews as a race, not that Jews are a race, but that never stopped their enemies. Indeed it's less anti-Jewish than the origninal source material.

But it is thoroughly disgusting. I won't say don't see it, but don't take your children to see it if you have any.

If you're really into flogging, this is the movie for you.

Were it not for the hoopla, I wouldn't have seen it. In general I don't watch movies at all. I should have kept to that.

Reading about it is one thing. Actually seeing it is a disgusting other.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


If you're really into flogging, this is the movie for you.


with a rightup like that how can I resist?;)

[max]

FOOL
Do you mean write up?

[shemp]

That's how it should have been billed, as an S&M flick. Has anyone seen weirdos in raincoats in the audience?

I don't have any children. Is it OK if I take other people's children to see it?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by shemp

I don't have any children. Is it OK if I take other people's children to see it?

My sig is full-up at the moment, but the next change will incorporate that beauty. :D


Thank Ed I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that.

[Bikewer]

A comic on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" referred to the

Jesus Chainsaw Massacre.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by shemp

I don't have any children. Is it OK if I take other people's children to see it?

Seriously, taking children to this movie is child abuse. This is not your typical Christian 'inspirational' movie like The Robe, it is all blood and torture.

It's not typical of me to make a point about children. But of all 'R' rated movies I've seen, this is the only one with children as a significant portion of the audience. Enough children that I'd notice them.

Christianity is poison.

[rachaella]

What I think is remarkable is that families who take their kids to see this are probably some of the same people that were outraged at 2 seconds of Janet Jackson's boob being exposed. So 2 hours of a man being violently and graphically tortured is family entertainment, but 2 seconds of a boob is an outrage :eek:

[hammegk]

What I find amazing is that people seem to Janet's tit has real meaning to the obscenity/indecency proble; it is a minor, recent, symptom thereof. The same bunch who think "sanctity of marriage" has actual bearing on the question, "is homosex equally moral as heterosex, and would you want schools to teach that to your 10 yr olds?'.

[evildave]

It's the international titty peek-a-boo conspiracy! You heard it here first!

Sanctity of marriage?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sanctity
sanc·ti·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sngkt-t)
n. pl. sanc·ti·ties

1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3. Something considered sacred.

Tell me, where does that holiness come from? From gods? From churches? From clergy?

Or is it from the love between two people for each other? Their vow to forever be together, to take care of each other?

I would say the latter.

So, if you were to prevent two people who loved each other and wanted to make that vow from marrying, wouldn't that be pretty much the opposite of 'sanctity'?

Especially for basely sanctimonious political reasons.

Naturally, if you think marriage is all about gods and clergy and churches, and not about people who love each other, that's your own opinion.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by max
FOOL
Do you mean write up?
yes...poor attempt at smutty humor...sorry.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by evildave
It's the international titty peek-a-boo conspiracy! You heard it here first!
....much useless crap removed ....


If you think that was a response to my 2 sentences, one on tits and one on sanctity of marriage, you sure have have trouble comprehending meanings.

Better luck next time. Smaller words, maybe? SPEAK LOUDER, would that help?

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Seriously, taking children to this movie is child abuse. This is not your typical Christian 'inspirational' movie like The Robe, it is all blood and torture.

It's not typical of me to make a point about children. But of all 'R' rated movies I've seen, this is the only one with children as a significant portion of the audience. Enough children that I'd notice them.

Christianity is poison.

Christianity isn't poison, christians are the great hinderance to christianity. I would like to see "The Robe" again, and I still refuse to see Mel's movie and I'm no kid.

[the_ignored]

Originally posted by rachaella
What I think is remarkable is that families who take their kids to see this are probably some of the same people that were outraged at 2 seconds of Janet Jackson's boob being exposed. So 2 hours of a man being violently and graphically tortured is family entertainment, but 2 seconds of a boob is an outrage :eek:
What I like? The picture of fundies taking their kids to the movie, and the children asking: "Why are they beating him so badly?" and the fundy parent saying: "Well, he's taking the punishment YOU deserve!" (or some paraphrasing that amounts to the same thing), so (implied of course): 'you should be grateful that he did that, since he did it for YOU, that you should "serve and obey" him, etc.


See the RR threads about this movie if you want any examples...

[curious]

Daily Show commentary of the Passion of the Christ.
http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/8102.html

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by rachaella
What I think is remarkable is that families who take their kids to see this are probably some of the same people that were outraged at 2 seconds of Janet Jackson's boob being exposed. So 2 hours of a man being violently and graphically tortured is family entertainment, but 2 seconds of a boob is an outrage :eek:

I had the same thoughts in this thread...
The Passion of Chris, a review (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870337790#post1870337790)
It just struck me as ironic, that large numbers of people who will pay big bucks and enjoy this two hour gore-fest, are probably a lot of the same people who came unglued about a one second glimpse of Janet Jackson's boob...

[Foofer]

Do you know why Jesus died on the cross? He forgot his safe word.

[evildave]

Originally posted by hammegk
What I find amazing is that people seem to Janet's tit has real meaning to the obscenity/indecency proble; it is a minor, recent, symptom thereof. The same bunch who think "sanctity of marriage" has actual bearing on the question, "is homosex equally moral as heterosex, and would you want schools to teach that to your 10 yr olds?'.


As far as I can tell from re-reading it, I'm dead-on in the interpretation that you feel Janet's pierced titty is a 'symptom' of a global conspirasy that is trying to preach homosexuality to primary school children, encouraging evil, bad and sinful gay marriage.

Would anyone else like to take a crack at interpreting hammegk's passage, above?


Originally posted by hammegk

If you think that was a response to my 2 sentences, one on tits and one on sanctity of marriage, you sure have have trouble comprehending meanings.

Better luck next time. Smaller words, maybe? SPEAK LOUDER, would that help?

Perhaps you should look into improving your communication skills. If I were you, I would start with roofreading. Not that I am without sin in this department. The first thing you'll learn about communication is the buggery in it is all about meanings/definitions and emotional attachments on words, and since you are one to scrupulously avoid any possible DEFINITION of key words in your posts, I can only conclude that you don't want to be understood.

Anyway, you shouldn't get so darned upset when you post an utterly incoherent rant, and it has to be interpreted based on your other writings for context. It's not like those two lines are the ONLY things you've ever said on these subjects in this forum. It's not like I go track down every discussion you ever participate in, either.

Smaller words would not help. They all have to make sense together. Shouting will not work, either. You'll only sound like an American tourist trying to make a 'foreigner' understand 'English'. Embarassing for everyone but the shouting, slow-talking clod. Do you see how it works?

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Foofer
Do you know why Jesus died on the cross? He forgot his safe word. That's horrible! :D

Not that that stops it from being funny, of course. Just don't say that somewhere like RR. I don't think they'd get the joke. :rr:

[Cecil]

Originally posted by evildave
---------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hammegk
What I find amazing is that people seem to Janet's tit has real meaning to the obscenity/indecency proble; it is a minor, recent, symptom thereof. The same bunch who think "sanctity of marriage" has actual bearing on the question, "is homosex equally moral as heterosex, and would you want schools to teach that to your 10 yr olds?'.
----------------------------------------------------------

Would anyone else like to take a crack at interpreting hammegk's passage, above? Sure. It doesn't make any sense. Hammegk, here are some questions that might help make it clearer:

What obscenity/indecency problem are you talking about, and why does Janet Jackson's breast not have meaning "to" it?
As for the "the same bunch", do you mean that the the group of people who have the former opinion is the same as those who espouse the latter?
I understand that "preserving the sanctity of marriage" has little to no impact on whether homosexuality is "moral" and whether this should be taught in schools. What I don't understand, however, is how this has any relation to obscenity, indecency, and Janet's breast. Can you clarify this?

As for implying that anyone who does not comprehend your thoughts is stupid or dimwitted, remember one of Jesus's thoughts: Why do you draw attention to the sliver in another's eye, yet ignore the plank in your own?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Cecil
Sure. It doesn't make any sense. Hammegk, here are some questions that might help make it clearer:

What obscenity/indecency problem are you talking about, and why does Janet Jackson's breast not have meaning "to" it?
My perception -- hmm, maybe only me? -- is that the amount of "obscenity/indecency" we in the US are exposed to on a daily basis has increased dramatically in last 50 years. The tit by itself had and has zero meaning.


As for the "the same bunch", do you mean that the the group of people who have the former opinion is the same as those who espouse the latter?
Yes.


I understand that "preserving the sanctity of marriage" has little to no impact on whether homosexuality is "moral" and whether this should be taught in schools. What I don't understand, however, is how this has any relation to obscenity, indecency, and Janet's breast. Can you clarify this?
Sure. Reductionists -- as mandated by the scientific method in some cases, or an attempt to make nice and use codewords for a discussion in others-- want to reduce ice-berg size problems for drop by drop analysis in one case or "make nice" in others. Point to the clamor over a tit rather than discuss the iceberg, or pretend that "marriage sanctity" is being discussed rather than the perceived-by-many immorality of homosex which is the real topic.


As for implying that anyone who does not comprehend your thoughts is stupid or dimwitted, remember one of Jesus's thoughts: Why do you draw attention to the sliver in another's eye, yet ignore the plank in your own?
Or some people ask for clarification. I sometimes try to explain the basis for comments, if asked.

If I said jkkl.j is a jjsrfaj, would you lurch into a diatribe about jkkl.j and jjsfaj?

Scroll down is a technique that works fine for me.

[Cecil]

Thanks for clearing up your position.

I agree that the amount of nudity and sex in the media has dramatically increased since the 50s, though I don't see it as obscene, or in fact as a problem at all. IMHO, nudity is natural and nothing to be ashamed of. I do realize however that not everyone shares my opinion and I therefore advocate some restrictions on what can be shown, or at least the use of an effective rating/warning system.

As for why everyone is focusing on Janet, given that it's just the tip of the iceberg so to speak, is that it provides an easy reference point for discussion. It's a clear example to point to. Continuing with the iceberg metaphor, the tip is easy to see and talk about, whereas while the rest of it might be there, it's hidden from view.

I think many of those that are worried about preserving the sanctity of marriage have an underlying assumption that homosexuality is immoral in the first place. Otherwise, why would allowing gays to marry have any impact on the institution? Although this immorality may be the "real topic", the sanctity of marriage is another issue. Discussion about the latter seems to stem from using the former as a premise. This can be challenged, of course, but that doesn't mean that the sanctity question is not a valid issue.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Cecil


I agree that the amount of nudity and sex in the media has dramatically increased since the 50s, though I don't see it as obscene, or in fact as a problem at all. IMHO, nudity is natural and nothing to be ashamed of.
I agree.

Obscenity imo is a situational problem; in sexually overtoned areas the words pandering and gratuitous come to mind. I have more of a problem with gratuitous violence, and a mix of pandering sex and gratuitous violence I find even less appropriate. I'd rather take a child to The Passion (which is explainable at some level) than have him immersed in many of the computer games available, and too often be exposed to the crap seen in any media.

I find the anti-semitism charges being made just more "reductionism" -- let's see if we can find anything to complain about rather than address the topic.

[Darat]

Originally posted by the_ignored

What I like? The picture of fundies taking their kids to the movie, and the children asking: "Why are they beating him so badly?" and the fundy parent saying: "Well, he's taking the punishment YOU deserve!" (or some paraphrasing that amounts to the same thing), so (implied of course): 'you should be grateful that he did that, since he did it for YOU, that you should "serve and obey" him, etc.


See the RR threads about this movie if you want any examples...

The chuckle I have is wondering if any of the people over on that board who seem to think the explicitness of the violence is understandable and the liberties taken with the "source material" are OK have the same attitude to another "religious" film that also used Latin as its main language and dealt with a Christian martyrdom?.

After all “Sebastiane” (see http://www.kino.com/video/item.php?film_id=556) was just Derek Jarmen's interpretation of a so-called historical event, just like Mel’s “Passion”.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by rachaella
What I think is remarkable is that families who take their kids to see this are probably some of the same people that were outraged at 2 seconds of Janet Jackson's boob being exposed.


By using the word "some", the above could apply to any population, not just Christians.


So 2 hours of a man being violently and graphically tortured is family entertainment, but 2 seconds of a boob is an outrage :eek:

I guess there is some large message in the story of Jesus, but not really so much in the case of Janet and Justin.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


By using the word "some", the above could apply to any population, not just Christians.



I guess there is some large message in the story of Jesus, but not really so much in the case of Janet and Justin.


I suspect that the use of the word ' guess ' is your typical ' don't try to nail me on this 'ploy, but just in case you actually have an opinion; what would you say is the message in a 30 minute flogging?

P.S. We are talking about a particular movie, not ' The Story of Jesus '... ( you didn't seem to get that.. I guess.... )

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I guess there is some large message in the story of Jesus [/B]Love hurts?

[T'ai Chi]

Well the concept of saviors and faith, in general.

Janet and Justin don't have quite the same pull.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Foofer
Do you know why Jesus died on the cross?

It's written on the little board above his head: INRI

"I'm Nailed Right In"

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Cecil
That's horrible! :D

Not that that stops it from being funny, of course. Just don't say that somewhere like RR. I don't think they'd get the joke. :rr:

Well, that's why it'd be safe, they wouldn't get it :D


Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a large number of them would...

[evildave]

It's also why Jesus can't eat M&Ms.

[Temporal Renegade]

No! Wait! Stop talking about the movie!

I haven't seen it yet, and I want the ending to be a surprise!:D

[triadboy]

It has a comedic ending:

Jesus is on the cross - then all of the sudden - BEAVERS!

[Temporal Renegade]

Originally posted by triadboy
It has a comedic ending:

Jesus is on the cross - then all of the sudden - BEAVERS!

Could He see His house from there?:)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy
Jesus is on the cross - then all of the sudden - BEAVERS! I've been waiting for Monica Belluci's career to take a detour in that direction.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by rachaella
What I think is remarkable is that families who take their kids to see this are probably some of the same people that were outraged at 2 seconds of Janet Jackson's boob being exposed. So 2 hours of a man being violently and graphically tortured is family entertainment, but 2 seconds of a boob is an outrage :eek:

I think it has to do more with expectation/results. The outrage at the Super Bowl was because the parents didn't think a boob should be shown in that forum, whereas with the movie, the R rating indicates in is unsuitable for children.

In other words, if we knew ahead of time that a boob would be shown during halftimes, the parents would have less of a case (if they even have a case, which I'm indifferent about) because they could have turned the TV off during halftime.

If suffering means nothing, if suffering is inherently meaningless and empty, then yes, no one should ever see a man being tortured (or God being tortured, if that's what you believe).

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Diogenes



I suspect that the use of the word ' guess ' is your typical ' don't try to nail me on this 'ploy, but just in case you actually have an opinion; what would you say is the message in a 30 minute flogging?

P.S. We are talking about a particular movie, not ' The Story of Jesus '... ( you didn't seem to get that.. I guess.... )

I've thought a lot about this the past week. The primary question is whether a 30 minute flogging happened in reality. Forget Jesus for a second...have 30 minute flogging ever happened? If so, the message of putting it in a movie is to get a response obviously, and to know that at one time that stuff was practiced in other governmental jurisdictions.

Bringing Jesus back into it, at some level it is consoling that Jesus went through a 30 minute flogging. Dostoevsky wrote that the greatest proof against the existence of God was the suffering of children. Suffering is a legitimate gripe that can't be shrugged away. Knowing that God understands suffering is more meaningful if he actually suffered.

The cross has been sterilized by Christians. People miniaturize them, wear them, make it into jewelry. Look, a person should not expect, when seeing a movie, anything more than a perspective. This movie is a perspective that shows that the crucifixion, and the events before it, are real things. Like seeing pictures from Matthew Arnold, or Holocaust archival footage. Humans respond to visual imagery. If you don't think you need the stimulus, or desire the stimulus, don't worry, they won't be putting clips of it into next years halftime show. Or, pray that never happens, if George Bush is re-elected I guess anything is possible. Be afraid, or don't be afraid.

-Elliot

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Like seeing pictures from Matthew Arnold, or Holocaust archival footage.Matthew Arnold did pictures?

[Kopji]

The Holocaust is a demonstrably better documented actual event.

Although almost every Christian would affirm that Jesus was a real person and the crucifixion took place as a historic event, it is an affirmation of faith and not established fact.

The Holocaust is not an affirmation of faith, it did take place.

When we set an event that actually took place on an equal footing with one with one that only might have, the comparison raises the crucifixion toward 'fact' for Christians while moving the Holocaust toward 'myth' for Jews.

[shecky]

I've heard from several christians how spiritually uplifting it was to watch a depiction of a man being tortured to death.

I suggested watching a snuff film for a even greater spiritual high.

Things went downhill from there.

[the_ignored]

The husband of one of the RR people (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?postid=1561789#post1561789) fell asleep during the film!


I have also been struggling with my husbands lack of commitment to Him also. He is a good person and tries to do the right thing but he is unwilling to totally be sold out for Him. When asked he says that he is saved but, his fruits say otherwise LOUDLY. i mentioned in another post that he actually FELL ASLEEP during the movie .

[Temporal Renegade]

A friend of mine sent out a mass e-mail to everyone in his address book, saying how his faith was reaffirmed from watching the film.

I haven't the heart to tell him my abject thoughts on the Jesus thing as a whole--I just told him I was glad for him.

Yeah, I wussed out. So?:p

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade
A friend of mine sent out a mass e-mail to everyone in his address book, saying how his faith was reaffirmed from watching the film.

I haven't the heart to tell him my abject thoughts on the Jesus thing as a whole--I just told him I was glad for him.

Yeah, I wussed out. So?:p My sister wrote me that she saw it, cried through the whole thing, had dreams and that I should really see it.

I took your route. I told her though that I'd never see it in a theater. When it comes out on video or DVD I'll probably see it.

It costs nothing to do what you did. Why pick a fight or deflate someone who is riding high and otherwise harmless. I'm with you, let them have their moment. A time may come when he will be open to a countervailing opinion - that will be the time to engage him.

[Temporal Renegade]

Originally posted by Atlas
My sister wrote me that she saw it, cried through the whole thing, had dreams and that I should really see it.

I took your route. I told her though that I'd never see it in a theater. When it comes out on video or DVD I'll probably see it.

It costs nothing to do what you did. Why pick a fight or deflate someone who is riding high and otherwise harmless. I'm with you, let them have their moment. A time may come when he will be open to a countervailing opinion - that will be the time to engage him.

The nice thing is, I've known him for over twenty years, so we know where we stand with each other on a lot of things. But, you're right--no sense starting something that's going to be full of regrets later.

[the_ignored]

Hmmm, not as profound an effect as it had on these people (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?threadid=135033) ;)


Yeah, the xian attitude is the exact opposite; get them all emotional and then make a decision...

[whim]

So gratuitous *Christian* violence is OK, right? Just want to make sure I've got the rules down...

[Atlas]

Originally posted by the_ignored
Yeah, the xian attitude is the exact opposite; get them all emotional and then make a decision... More and more I'm convinced that God is nothing but a feeling. As long as God is an intellectual experience it's fairly abstract and reason can work on the concept.

But once we have the feeling, the touch of God, well - after that it's undeniable. What can you argue? That, no you didn't feel that?

Because it is in the realm of feeling and not an intellectual experience at all - believers are at the mercy of those in authority who say the know more about God - even to the point of convincing a believer to strap on a bomb belt and blow themselves sky high. Hey, there's a big reward and besides, God wants you to do it.

[Temporal Renegade]

Someone may have mentioned this already, so forgive me for repeating:

Why are the Fundies saying that it's OK to take your kids to this R-rated flick, but they always seem to get up in arms when these same kids want to see a Friday The 13th flick? Just because it's Jesus? Sorry, but I don't see the difference!

R-rated is R-rated, regardless of the subject matter!

[Temporal Renegade]

:D

[Globert]

I really expected more gore, the antagonist was a departure, and some times I get tired of having to explain to my Xian wife the finer points of her delusion.

I wanted to hack into the subtitles and have JC say/think

" Me it's going to be a long day!"

or

"that's gonna leave a mark, luke and john!":D



Globe

Edit to add There was only 1 fish sticker in the parking lot, I circled twice to make sure.(3:00pm Show wed.):o

[the_ignored]

There's no context whatsoever for the pictures on this page (http://www.rapturereadythreadkillers.net/torturepics.htm), so your guess is as good as mine...

I can only think it has something to do with the theme of "threadkillers"... :confused

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade
Someone may have mentioned this already, so forgive me for repeating:

Why are the Fundies saying that it's OK to take your kids to this R-rated flick, but they always seem to get up in arms when these same kids want to see a Friday The 13th flick? Just because it's Jesus? Sorry, but I don't see the difference!

R-rated is R-rated, regardless of the subject matter!

R-rated means accompanied by an adult is legal. The many children, and that includes small children down to infants, in the theater seriously bothers me.

Reading about it in the New Testament is not the sane thing as actually seeing it
.

[rachaella]

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade
Someone may have mentioned this already, so forgive me for repeating:

Why are the Fundies saying that it's OK to take your kids to this R-rated flick, but they always seem to get up in arms when these same kids want to see a Friday The 13th flick? Just because it's Jesus? Sorry, but I don't see the difference!

R-rated is R-rated, regardless of the subject matter!

I would agree that its hypocritical but disagree that R-Rated is R-Rated regardless of subject matter and say that incredible amounts of violence are incredible amounts of violence, and the subject matter is of little importance.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred



Reading about it in the New Testament is not the sane thing ....
Tell us what you really think .....

remainder of quote:

as actually seeing it .

:D

[Silicon]

Originally posted by rachaella


I would agree that its hypocritical but disagree that R-Rated is R-Rated regardless of subject matter and say that incredible amounts of violence are incredible amounts of violence, and the subject matter is of little importance.

There's R-rated and there's R-rated. I've seen R-rated films that were less violent than PG-13 movies.

It has to do with the way the violence is shown, as well as the reaction to violence.

I find rape/torture to be the most unwatchable type of violence for me (I have been known to walk out of Tarantino movies), but I have no problem at all watching a slasher movie that treats the blood and gore as humorous of shown as part of a monster movie type of scare. Long, realistic suffering, protrayed convincingly by good actors sends me running for the door, blood or no blood.

I could watch Freddy Kruger movies for hours, but I refuse to sit through Saving Private Ryan ever, ever again.

[UserGoogol]

That's it. I'm making a Song of Solomon movie. It'll make millions!