(no subject)
A public entry!
On the matter of Mel Gibson's The Passion.
I think first off that this film is a disgusting parody of a otherwise inspiring story. It's a movie that takes violence and melodrama to a level of disguting overuse.
Now, let me say that I think it's frightening and dangerous for Mel Gibson to produce a film as such. Churches and "good Christians" acorss the country flocked to this film to see "the Word" on screen. This is frightening because most people who are viewing the film are taking it as a verbatim account of the passion. The Passion is not a verbatim account of the passion. It is Mel Gibson's interpretation of it. Too frequently are people around the country using their own interpretation of religion as THE TRUTH and too often are people completely unaffiliated with any church moving about and telling people that their interpretation is THE TRUTH.
From a fundamentalist, objective standpoint the flaw in this should be apparent. When people start giving their own interpretations of the bible as a kind of pure interpretation, you're falling prey to overwhelming subjectivity. The only real way for one to obtain objectivity in religion is to have a central authority who gives an authoritative interpretation. Otherwise, individual congregations, preachers, and individuals are all subject to the natural subjectivity of reading something such as a bible. When one reads, he is relating the words to his own emotions and experiences and truths-- this is subjectivity in its essence. While most funamentalists want to strictly avoid being told from a central authority such as the pope what to believe, they also criticize vehemently those that live by a relativistic interpretation of the Good Book.
The other main complaint I have against The Passion, and this is from, again, a Christian perspective, is that The Passion depicts treachery and betrayal and violence and all the things that sell on a movie screen, but completely eschews that which Christianity fundamentally stands for-- the Resurrection. The whole idea of the passion is entirely moot when it's not followed by the Resurrection. So with The Passion, perhaps you'll be attracting a few thousand people to the Church by portraying a particularly nasty few hours of Jesus' life, but these people's belief as to what Christianity essentially represents is flawed-- more than the Resurrection and Redemption of God's followers, people will believe Christianity is more about the pain and suffering of Christ. Jesus' suffering is pointless without the descention and ascention into Hell and Heaven. That's the true message of Christianity-- to rejoice for the salvation of life, rather than a lament for the loss of it.
Also, might I remind all the dear fundies out there that this interpretation of the passion is created by a particularly conservative Catholic who still believes in the infallibility of the Pope, practicing the faith in Latin, and the mysticism of transubstantiation; almost all practices that dear Martin Luther and the protestant reformation stood in opposition to. I was told once the easiest way to piss off a baptist was to tell them I was converting to Catholicism-- so why is it that all the baptists in the world are so quick to jump into Mel Gibson's Catholic interpretation of The Passion bandwagon and proclaim it as an accurate representation of The Word?
I also really think it's terrible of Hollywood to take events such as religion and make it into a money-making tool is immoral and unscrupulous. And if you defend that sort of film as being more than just a money-maker, then you're completely overlooking what it is that drives this economy, the studios, and the producers in Hollywood. They are capitalists, like any factory owner or CEO.
God dammit, sometimes I really can't stand Christianity.
On the matter of Mel Gibson's The Passion.
I think first off that this film is a disgusting parody of a otherwise inspiring story. It's a movie that takes violence and melodrama to a level of disguting overuse.
Now, let me say that I think it's frightening and dangerous for Mel Gibson to produce a film as such. Churches and "good Christians" acorss the country flocked to this film to see "the Word" on screen. This is frightening because most people who are viewing the film are taking it as a verbatim account of the passion. The Passion is not a verbatim account of the passion. It is Mel Gibson's interpretation of it. Too frequently are people around the country using their own interpretation of religion as THE TRUTH and too often are people completely unaffiliated with any church moving about and telling people that their interpretation is THE TRUTH.
From a fundamentalist, objective standpoint the flaw in this should be apparent. When people start giving their own interpretations of the bible as a kind of pure interpretation, you're falling prey to overwhelming subjectivity. The only real way for one to obtain objectivity in religion is to have a central authority who gives an authoritative interpretation. Otherwise, individual congregations, preachers, and individuals are all subject to the natural subjectivity of reading something such as a bible. When one reads, he is relating the words to his own emotions and experiences and truths-- this is subjectivity in its essence. While most funamentalists want to strictly avoid being told from a central authority such as the pope what to believe, they also criticize vehemently those that live by a relativistic interpretation of the Good Book.
The other main complaint I have against The Passion, and this is from, again, a Christian perspective, is that The Passion depicts treachery and betrayal and violence and all the things that sell on a movie screen, but completely eschews that which Christianity fundamentally stands for-- the Resurrection. The whole idea of the passion is entirely moot when it's not followed by the Resurrection. So with The Passion, perhaps you'll be attracting a few thousand people to the Church by portraying a particularly nasty few hours of Jesus' life, but these people's belief as to what Christianity essentially represents is flawed-- more than the Resurrection and Redemption of God's followers, people will believe Christianity is more about the pain and suffering of Christ. Jesus' suffering is pointless without the descention and ascention into Hell and Heaven. That's the true message of Christianity-- to rejoice for the salvation of life, rather than a lament for the loss of it.
Also, might I remind all the dear fundies out there that this interpretation of the passion is created by a particularly conservative Catholic who still believes in the infallibility of the Pope, practicing the faith in Latin, and the mysticism of transubstantiation; almost all practices that dear Martin Luther and the protestant reformation stood in opposition to. I was told once the easiest way to piss off a baptist was to tell them I was converting to Catholicism-- so why is it that all the baptists in the world are so quick to jump into Mel Gibson's Catholic interpretation of The Passion bandwagon and proclaim it as an accurate representation of The Word?
I also really think it's terrible of Hollywood to take events such as religion and make it into a money-making tool is immoral and unscrupulous. And if you defend that sort of film as being more than just a money-maker, then you're completely overlooking what it is that drives this economy, the studios, and the producers in Hollywood. They are capitalists, like any factory owner or CEO.
God dammit, sometimes I really can't stand Christianity.