Will You see Gibson's "The Passion"?

[El Blanco]

Its just that I don't go to movies for intellectual stimulation. Not that there is anything wrong with it, just that I don't. Not intentionally, anyway. If I want to be intellectually stimulated, I'll read the book.

That and I really am that fucking lazy.

[Bobo Adobo]

Originally Posted by Matt Harty

I don't really care for religious stuff, so i'm not interested in seeing it. I do enjoy watching the contoversy though. A bunch of catholics and jews whining about their mixed views on some movie about some book about events that probably never happened.

Eventhough a lot of the Bible is BS, archeologists tend to be mostly Christian because there is actuall archeological evidence that a lot of the events in the bible actually happened. But thats a whole other discussion.

[Perndog]

It's awfully hard for archaeological evidence to exist for specific events two thousand years ago on a smaller scale than fires and significant massacres. I'm willing to bet that most if not all "Biblical evidence" is wishful thinking and speculation on the part of the archaeologists and scholars. It seems more likely that they find Biblical evidence because they're Christian, not vice versa.

[Big Papa Goat]

Going back to what Max said about Pilate, in the bible, if I recall, he was depicted as being quite sympathetic towards Jesus. Whether or not that would be historically accurate or not is debatable, but it does seem to be how it is portrayed in the gospel.

btw, which book did they use for this movie?

[Perndog]

My bet is they picked and chose the most Hollywood-friendly bits from each one.

[thebiggameover]

i'm not going. i will never rent this ether. if i wanna hear about jesus, i go to fucking church...

[Bobo Adobo]

Some people just don't admire art these days...

[Ronnie Raygun]

I'm going.

Until I see it, I will have no furthur comment.

[VinceZeb]

Originally Posted by Perndog

It's awfully hard for archaeological evidence to exist for specific events two thousand years ago on a smaller scale than fires and significant massacres. I'm willing to bet that most if not all "Biblical evidence" is wishful thinking and speculation on the part of the archaeologists and scholars. It seems more likely that they find Biblical evidence because they're Christian, not vice versa.

Yes, because the Bible can't possibly be true. Plato's works are 100% fact and accurate, because we have videotaped documentries of Plato's existance.

...It was weird today. I was sitting in my office and I said to myself: "I know this is weird, but it would be funny if Perndog went through incredible pain and suffering in front of his friends and family." I then lurk 'round here and I see where Pern will try not to laugh when Jesus dies.

But I doubt you will get the time to see the movie. You will be way to busy driving your girlfriend... er, "sister" to her 5th grade band gatherings.

[Immortal Goat]

Another very wonderfully Catholic post from our resident Dogmatic, Vinth.

[Emu]

I don't remember anyone mentioning Plato.

[Brandon]

Plato never claimed to be the son of God, either. Apples and oranges.

[Big Papa Goat]

Plato wrote about Atlantis didn't he? In which case he'd be about as accurate as the bible.

[theapportioner]

The NYTimes positively slayed this movie. Basically said it was horrible.

[Perndog]

Yeah, I don't know where he pulled Plato from. But to run with that ball, the proof of Plato's existence is that we have stuff that he wrote, which shows beyond doubt that *someone* existed to write those things, whether they were true or not. This is the only thing that we can know for sure, though; I personally doubt that the stuff leading up to Socrates's death really happened like Plato wrote it.

As far as the Bible goes, the same rule applies: the only sure thing is that its writers existed. Who doesn't believe John and Paul were real people? Anyone? Yeah, that's what I thought.

And Vinthy-poo, unlike yourself, people in my family generally make it past 5th grade by the time they're 16 years old. My sister happens to be busy training for the Junior Olympics right now.

[El Blanco]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

The NYTimes positively slayed this movie. Basically said it was horrible.

The Times likes to play to what they think people want. They also have a very anti-Catholic slant.

Besides, when critics tell me how bad a movie is, it only makes me want to see it more.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

The NYTimes positively slayed this movie. Basically said it was horrible.

The Times movie reviews tend to be incredibly pretentious. Other usual suspects, like Roling Stone, Ebert, gave it rave reviews. I'm going to see it Friday I think.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

The Times ... also have a very anti-Catholic slant.

How do you figure?

[El Blanco]

Like whenever a molestation charge is made, it is front page news and they do everything they can to plaster the alleged offender all across their pages and go into all the gory details, but retractions (and there have been a good number) somehow get burried no better than page 12. You figured if you went on a crusade to destroy a man's life and find out it was a fraud, you would have the decency to make a very public apology.

This is not to defend the priests who did commit the atrocities or those who have hidden them, just to speak up for the wrongly accused.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Like whenever a molestation charge is made, it is front page news and they do everything they can to plaster the alleged offender all across their pages and go into all the gory details, but retractions (and there have been a good number) somehow get burried no better than page 12. You figured if you went on a crusade to destroy a man's life and find out it was a fraud, you would have the decency to make a very public apology.

This is not to defend the priests who did commit the atrocities or those who have hidden them, just to speak up for the wrongly accused.

Hasn't the media in general been doing that, though?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Like whenever a molestation charge is made, it is front page news and they do everything they can to plaster the alleged offender all across their pages and go into all the gory details, but retractions (and there have been a good number) somehow get burried no better than page 12.

I find this to be common amongst most major newspapers, no?

[El Blanco]

Could be, I just happen to have caught it in the pretentious bullshit daily rag we got here.

I've also wondered why, when the same charges are made against public school teachers here nad the board of ed simply tranfers them to another school, the press never got on it.

But, I digress, I won't see this movie until it hits DVD.

[Dole]

I cannot imagine anything fucking duller than sitting through this movie.

"...It was weird today. I was sitting in my office and I said to myself: "I know this is weird, but it would be funny if Perndog went through incredible pain and suffering in front of his friends and family." I then lurk 'round here and I see where Pern will try not to laugh when Jesus dies. "

-thats weird man, I was thinking the same thing about you.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

we all were

[mburbank]

I don't believe anyone has ever agrued for archelogical evidence of Plato's existance. Maybe Vinth was thinking of Play dough, which when petrified is very hrd to identify as having once been a maleable childs toy, is biodegradeable and hasn't been around very long in any case.

No one was actually arguing against the existance of Jesus, they were saying that archelogical evidence of the speciffics of his life are hrd to find. No biblical or religous scholar I'm aware of argues that the four Gospels are contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus. I think there are two extra biblical references to Jesus in contemporary hostories, both of them brief.

I'm myself don't doubt his factual exitance, I do however doubt his divinity, which people should believe on faith iof they believe it at all, and not go looking for proofs, a sign of very shallow beliefs.

However, with the earliest Gospel being written some seventy years after the death of Jesus, during a time in the early Jesus movement when conversion was a key concern and schisms between various Christian communities were widespread, it is very hard to make speciffic historical claims about speciffic events in his life. I don't see any reason why this would bother anyone with serious religious convictions, and I think Gibsons claims of historical legitmacy are where all of the problems arise.

This, like any interpretation of the life of Jesus is a gospel ACCORDING TO, in this case, according to Mel. I have no problem with him making it, I have no problem with him showing it.

I personally do not want Vinth or Pern to suffer, despite anything either of them might have said. I don't think Jesus would want either of them to suffer either. I always figured tht was part of the reason Christians thought he allowed himself to be crucified, so as to help others suffer less. Me, I'm just a Jew. I don't think he allowed anything. I think those miserable Roman Jesus Killers crucifed him against his will. I don't hold it against their Italian descendants though. I mean, that would be pretty much retarded, right?