Psycho-Babble Faith Thread 317652

Shown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

The Passion of The Christ

Posted by Dena on February 25, 2004, at 17:47:55

I'm amazed that no one on this board, after all it is the faith board, has even mentioned this movie. The rest of the world seems to be consumed with talking about it. And everyone, especially those who haven't even seen it yet, seems to have an opinion about it.

Anyone here seen it yet?

I'll be seeing it with my older children this Saturday. I'm both excited & terrified.

I'd love to hear any and all impressions of those who've already seen it. What did you think?

Shalom, Dena

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Posted by rayww on February 25, 2004, at 19:21:45

In reply to The Passion of The Christ, posted by Dena on February 25, 2004, at 17:47:55

Welcome back Dena, we've missed you here. Be sure and give us your take on the movie after you see it.

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ Dena

Posted by Simus on February 27, 2004, at 1:25:09

In reply to The Passion of The Christ, posted by Dena on February 25, 2004, at 17:47:55

Welcome back!

 

Thanks for the welcome back - I've missed you all! (nm)

Posted by Dena on February 27, 2004, at 9:17:48

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ Dena, posted by Simus on February 27, 2004, at 1:25:09

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Posted by Toph on March 8, 2004, at 10:36:30

In reply to The Passion of The Christ, posted by Dena on February 25, 2004, at 17:47:55

I liked the book better.

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph

Posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 10:58:30

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ, posted by Toph on March 8, 2004, at 10:36:30

Dear Toph -

Great answer!!!

I agree, I like the book better too. In fact, I think the whole point of this movie (according to it's director) is to get the viewers appetites whetted so that they'll read the Book for themselves.

Shalom, Dena

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Posted by Toph on March 8, 2004, at 11:17:25

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph, posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 10:58:30

By beating us over the head with the suffering and sacrifice aspect of the crucifixion Gibson's attempt to make the event real defeated his purpose. The Romans were not as threatened by Jesus as the Rabbis were yet they purge him as if he were a captured soldier who had killed fellow soldiers. Jesus, the man, could never make the climb to Calvary with the wounds inflicted in the movie. Otherwise, the film has many redeeming qualities such as being in authentic Aramic/Latin and with accurate clothing, sets and scenery. Too bad Mel couldn't resist the urge to cast a handsome Savior, after all, he made the beast attractive.

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph

Posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 11:45:19

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ, posted by Toph on March 8, 2004, at 11:17:25

> By beating us over the head with the suffering and sacrifice aspect of the crucifixion Gibson's attempt to make the event real defeated his purpose. The Romans were not as threatened by Jesus as the Rabbis were yet they purge him as if he were a captured soldier who had killed fellow soldiers. Jesus, the man, could never make the climb to Calvary with the wounds inflicted in the movie. Otherwise, the film has many redeeming qualities such as being in authentic Aramic/Latin and with accurate clothing, sets and scenery. Too bad Mel couldn't resist the urge to cast a handsome Savior, after all, he made the beast attractive.


Hmmm... Well, to start with, Jesus suffered far more than was depicted. Not only did He carry that cross up that hill, but He carried the weight of every sin ever committed by every human who ever lived or would live. That's an incomprehensible burden.

He had to suffer a bloody death, in accordance with the prophecies about Him. It's by His blood that we receive atonement. According to the prophecies, He endured so much suffering that we wouldn't even be able to recognize Him.

For centuries, many in His Church have sanitized the cross, stripping it of every reminder of His suffering. Taken to it's logical conclusion, this leads to a cheap understanding of grace. In a mystical sense, every sin we commit re-nails Him back on that cross; He's not bound by time as we are.

Jesus, the man, was strengthened by God the Father to do this unbelievably difficult task. Just as God the Father can equip mere mortals to do the unthinkable when necessary. Love, the most powerful force in the universe, gave Jesus the strength to do what needed to be done out of love for us.

The Roman soldiers were depicted as cruel because, historically, they were. They were trained to be that cruel; the human heart, apart from God can be an evil thing. And we can't rule out the influence of satan (I don't give him the honor of capitalizing his name, intentionally). satan believed he would win if he could get Jesus killed. He can easily influence others (like the Roman soldiers) to act cruelly. For me, the cruelty of the soldiers drives home the reality of how I can treat Jesus spiritually, when I sin against Him.

As far as a handsome Savior, I believe that Jim Caviezel portrayed a Jesus in keeping with the ancient paintings of Jesus, as well as the image on the shroud of Turin (which many believe is the actual image of Christ). I liked the fact that the actor was dark, with dark eyes, which is much more realistic than the blonde, blue-eyed actors of movies past. Besides, Jim Caviezel believes (as does Mel Gibson) that he was "called" to play this role. If that's the case, his looks are secondary to the calling.

I'm clueless as to what you meant by: "after all, he made the beast attractive." Are you referring to his use of a woman playing the role of satan? If so, I believe that he used a woman (albeit with a husky male voice) to show satan's seductiveness, & how sin is alluring to us, rather than frightening at first glance. After all, satan doesn't show up to us with horns & a pitchfork, announcing, "I'm satan!" He shows up seductively, attractively, so as to catch us off guard.

But if you meant something else, please clarify.

Shalom, Dena

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Posted by Toph on March 8, 2004, at 12:54:14

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph, posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 11:45:19

Christ never used his divine powers to save himself or in rage against his enemies (other than Satan) because God's power is manifest in a new way with the birth of His son. Again, for me, Jesus' suffering was only part physical, a great deal of his pain was psychic - feeling the betrayal of all who knew him, and bearing the sins of all the world. Gibson's ripping flesh and spurting blood, while part of the story, is like clanging symbols that drown the experience of God's blessed music. If Mel Gibson were a prophet, I believe I would hear the same melody as he does. I do not. I do not doubt his faith. But God gave us a sketch not a photograph because he intended to have us discover the Truth ourselves not have it fed to us.

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph

Posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 13:22:33

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ, posted by Toph on March 8, 2004, at 12:54:14

Dear Toph -

I'm sorry that the movie was so disturbing to you. Everyone I know personally, including myself, has been positively impacted by having seen it.

I know of a few people who weren't His followers prior to seeing it, but who now want to know more about Him.

I know others who already knew Him, but have now developed a deeper appreciation for what He suffered on their behalf.

And that can't be all bad...

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Posted by Toph on March 8, 2004, at 16:46:38

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph, posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 13:22:33

The movie was not disturbing to me, I witness far worse real pain and suffering every day in my work with abused children, rather the movie disappointed me. I had hoped it would let me be an eye-witness like those fortunate souls who saw the darkness and the light 2000 years ago. While better than all the sanitized depictions before, it still seemed to be simply one man's fantasy of part of the greatest story ever told. If it brought some to the flock - great; it obviously moved you and affirmed your faith - that's wonderful. For me, someday, with God's help, I'll see the real thing.

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph

Posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 16:55:10

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ, posted by Toph on March 8, 2004, at 16:46:38

Dear Toph -

How wonderful that you work with abused children. My heart gets broken over the suffering that so many little ones go through during the years when they're so vulnerable & in need of protection.

While I loved the movie, it didn't penetrate to my heart, as I had hoped it would. I don't think it was the movie's fault, or it's director's fault. Rather, there's something within me that seems to barricade in my heart, protecting it not only from abuse, but from sensing God's love in a deep way as well. I "know" His love, but I yearn for a more intimate experience of that love in my heart.

You wrote: For me, someday, with God's help, I'll see the real thing.

That's my heart cry! Do you mean you'll see the "real thing" while sill here on earth, or are you referring to once you're in heaven with Him? I'd love to receive whatever healing/deliverance/revelation is necessary to enable me to receive all that He has to give, here and now.

Shalom, Dena

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Posted by Toph on March 8, 2004, at 17:50:27

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph, posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 16:55:10

This may seem weird, but when I see a child love its abusive parent; when an 80-year old woman crippled by arthritis or stroke thinks of me and asks me how my kids are; when my Lord, my wife and my children repeatedly forgive me despite my patheticly human failings; and when 20 years ago I spent my last day in the psych ward because of the God-given gift of lithium, I feel the grace of God. Most of the time, Dena, I yearn for that love you seek to fill my heart so I, too, can have peace.

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph

Posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 19:05:15

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ, posted by Toph on March 8, 2004, at 17:50:27

Dear Toph -

I hear you, loud and clear.

I sense the grace of God, & His love, when I think of how He transformed my father from an abuser into a disciple who asked my forgiveness; when I think of how my own self-abuse should have killed me; when I see a husband who's stood by me through 15 years of being married to an addict; when I see seven healthy children who still love me despite the years of neglect & focus on myself; when I think of the miraculous healing He gave me from bulimia; when I remember how He carried me through the miscarriage of my baby...

I get glimpses, touches, fragments of His peace. But I know there's more, much more. More peace, more love, more joy, more freedom, more power, more repentence, more gratitude, more healing.

Do you ever wonder what's in the way of receiving?

Shalom, Dena

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Posted by Toph on March 8, 2004, at 20:22:02

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph, posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 19:05:15

Do you ever wonder what's in the way of receiving?

The simple answer is... not asking.

I truely believe that the abused, the addicted, the bulimic, the depressed, the manic, the psychotic, the poor, the weak, the disabled, not merely the meek shall inherit the earth, as promised. I guess that puts us near the front of the line.

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph

Posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 20:28:54

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ, posted by Toph on March 8, 2004, at 20:22:02

Toph -

But, what if you've asked, not just once, but repeatedly. What if there seems to be a hinderance? I have my thoughts on this. What are yours?

Shalom, Dena (the meek)

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Posted by Toph on March 9, 2004, at 21:38:36

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph, posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 20:28:54

Dena, I've written several reponses to your post, and I think they all seem sort of cerebral and insincere. I'm sorry.

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph

Posted by Simus on March 10, 2004, at 22:41:48

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ, posted by Toph on March 9, 2004, at 21:38:36

> Dena, I've written several reponses to your post, and I think they all seem sort of cerebral and insincere. I'm sorry.

Toph,
In case you don't know, Dena has been blocked for 16 weeks. I am sure she didn't have any problem with your posts. If you need to, you can contact her at Brehmites@aol.com (She has posted it here before, and she probably won't mind my reposting it.)

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Posted by Toph on March 11, 2004, at 10:06:05

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph, posted by Simus on March 10, 2004, at 22:41:48

Thanks Simus, I guess I was kind of wondering if I had offended Dena. What started off as differing views on a movie became more personal. I appreciate her candor in sharing some of the obstacles she has faced in life. I got stuck when the topic became how to deepen faith, a dilemma of which I am certainly no expert.

 

Re: The Passion of The Christ

Posted by green hornet on March 18, 2004, at 13:41:01

In reply to Re: The Passion of The Christ Toph, posted by Dena on March 8, 2004, at 11:45:19

> > By beating us over the head with the suffering and sacrifice aspect of the crucifixion Gibson's attempt to make the event real defeated his purpose. The Romans were not as threatened by Jesus as the Rabbis were yet they purge him as if he were a captured soldier who had killed fellow soldiers. Jesus, the man, could never make the climb to Calvary with the wounds inflicted in the movie. Otherwise, the film has many redeeming qualities such as being in authentic Aramic/Latin and with accurate clothing, sets and scenery. Too bad Mel couldn't resist the urge to cast a handsome Savior, after all, he made the beast attractive.
>
>
> Hmmm... Well, to start with, Jesus suffered far more than was depicted. Not only did He carry that cross up that hill, but He carried the weight of every sin ever committed by every human who ever lived or would live. That's an incomprehensible burden.
>
> He had to suffer a bloody death, in accordance with the prophecies about Him. It's by His blood that we receive atonement. According to the prophecies, He endured so much suffering that we wouldn't even be able to recognize Him.
>
> For centuries, many in His Church have sanitized the cross, stripping it of every reminder of His suffering. Taken to it's logical conclusion, this leads to a cheap understanding of grace. In a mystical sense, every sin we commit re-nails Him back on that cross; He's not bound by time as we are.
>
> Jesus, the man, was strengthened by God the Father to do this unbelievably difficult task. Just as God the Father can equip mere mortals to do the unthinkable when necessary. Love, the most powerful force in the universe, gave Jesus the strength to do what needed to be done out of love for us.
>
> The Roman soldiers were depicted as cruel because, historically, they were. They were trained to be that cruel; the human heart, apart from God can be an evil thing. And we can't rule out the influence of satan (I don't give him the honor of capitalizing his name, intentionally). satan believed he would win if he could get Jesus killed. He can easily influence others (like the Roman soldiers) to act cruelly. For me, the cruelty of the soldiers drives home the reality of how I can treat Jesus spiritually, when I sin against Him.
>
> As far as a handsome Savior, I believe that Jim Caviezel portrayed a Jesus in keeping with the ancient paintings of Jesus, as well as the image on the shroud of Turin (which many believe is the actual image of Christ). I liked the fact that the actor was dark, with dark eyes, which is much more realistic than the blonde, blue-eyed actors of movies past. Besides, Jim Caviezel believes (as does Mel Gibson) that he was "called" to play this role. If that's the case, his looks are secondary to the calling.
>
> I'm clueless as to what you meant by: "after all, he made the beast attractive." Are you referring to his use of a woman playing the role of satan? If so, I believe that he used a woman (albeit with a husky male voice) to show satan's seductiveness, & how sin is alluring to us, rather than frightening at first glance. After all, satan doesn't show up to us with horns & a pitchfork, announcing, "I'm satan!" He shows up seductively, attractively, so as to catch us off guard.
>
> But if you meant something else, please clarify.
>
> Shalom, Dena
>
> Dena,
Your above reply is wonderful. My particular Christian tradition views the Crucifixion more as part of "the big picture" ie the Ressurection and does not focus on Good Friday so much.(Although we do believe in the doctrine of the Atonement) However I thought the movie was very good, very thought-provoking and well done.
Green Hornet


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, dr-bob@uchicago.edu

Script revised: October 4, 2007
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-08 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.