Thursday, April 14, 2005
Hey? What the?!?!
I didn't notice Amy's subtle nastiness until I looked at this part of her comment again today:
I think maybe it could serve to strengthen ones faith but it is not going to turn an athiest (or a Jew, same thing) into a believer.
Wouldn't it be insulting atheists more to put them into the same category as a religion? How does our atheism make sense giving your previous comment that we killed your Lord? Our bloodlust had a theological foundation. It doesn't make sense. And are you even a devout Christian? Can we have even killed YOUR Lord then? Maybe we just killed a nice guy. Hardly a crime given the moral standards by many governments today.
Next time you want to say something about Jews, don't hide behind easily overlooked paratheses... freaking coward.
So there. No I don't have schoolwork I'm avoiding.
I think maybe it could serve to strengthen ones faith but it is not going to turn an athiest (or a Jew, same thing) into a believer.
Wouldn't it be insulting atheists more to put them into the same category as a religion? How does our atheism make sense giving your previous comment that we killed your Lord? Our bloodlust had a theological foundation. It doesn't make sense. And are you even a devout Christian? Can we have even killed YOUR Lord then? Maybe we just killed a nice guy. Hardly a crime given the moral standards by many governments today.
Next time you want to say something about Jews, don't hide behind easily overlooked paratheses... freaking coward.
So there. No I don't have schoolwork I'm avoiding.
Comments:
<< Home
Hey Jonah,
I think you might have taken Amy's comment a little too seriously. She was being facetious. Or were you being facetious? I'm not good at spotting these things, so I'll clarify, just in case.
Amy wasn't saying that Jews are atheists. She was making a sarcastic comment about the religious right, who, according to the premise, believe that you're not believing in God if you don't believe in Jesus As Our Savior. One of the people on the daily show did the same sort of thing when interviewing someone about why muslims hate us. "Wouldn't it be easier if they just accepted Jesus as our Lord?", he said.
Believe me, she's not a devout Christian, and doesn't believe in this hardline herself, she was just being playful. Or maybe you were just being playful. Like I said, I never can tell anymore.
Anyway, sorry I've dropped the ball on our discussion, lately. I've had to rout all of my tiny reserve of intellectual energy into work and tennis, so I've been pretty drained. I'll try and comment soon.
Watch out for dropping sarcasm,
Lyon
I think you might have taken Amy's comment a little too seriously. She was being facetious. Or were you being facetious? I'm not good at spotting these things, so I'll clarify, just in case.
Amy wasn't saying that Jews are atheists. She was making a sarcastic comment about the religious right, who, according to the premise, believe that you're not believing in God if you don't believe in Jesus As Our Savior. One of the people on the daily show did the same sort of thing when interviewing someone about why muslims hate us. "Wouldn't it be easier if they just accepted Jesus as our Lord?", he said.
Believe me, she's not a devout Christian, and doesn't believe in this hardline herself, she was just being playful. Or maybe you were just being playful. Like I said, I never can tell anymore.
Anyway, sorry I've dropped the ball on our discussion, lately. I've had to rout all of my tiny reserve of intellectual energy into work and tennis, so I've been pretty drained. I'll try and comment soon.
Watch out for dropping sarcasm,
Lyon
When you just type words, it can appear the wrong way, especially if you are not used to my tone of conversations. It was all a joke, I wasn't taking anything seriously, I just wanted something to post.
hey jonah :) i just checked out your blog for the first time in a while (after recovering from massive work overload) and found religious discussion. Sarcastic religious discussion. Fun :) I just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents: I saw Passion of the Christ, and I can see why Christians like it. I think it gives a very human view of the suffering of Jesus, and many Christians (especially Catholics) really relate to this. Actual perspective on Jesus' suffering gives people a better understanding of their god. It's kind of like, "if he suffered all of that for me, I should be able to endure the suffering of life." Speaking as an ex-catholic, I see the draw. I'd also like to say that, despite movie reviews that indicate the opposite, I did not think that Jesus' death got penned on the Jews. I think that the portrayal was relatively accurate. The Romans were all about killing Jesus, and the Jews, after having been whipped into a frenzy by some leaders who were afraid of losing power, followed suit and sent Jesus to his crucifiction. I think it's all pretty understandable. No one likes change, especially big religious change. The Jewish leaders were scared, the Romans were scared, they decided to kill the guy who was stirring up unrest. It seems that religion really has a very "earthly" background. :)
# posted by 
: 12:41 PM
: 12:41 PM
Jonah,
Good. Glad it was my misunderstanding, and not a larger one. You just never can tell on blogs, these days, what is serious, and what isn't.
Good. Glad it was my misunderstanding, and not a larger one. You just never can tell on blogs, these days, what is serious, and what isn't.
I absolutely agree with Laura’s take on The Passion of the Christ. I might add that not all reviewers tried to paint the movie as anti-semitic. In fact, the most famous duo in the world of movie criticism took exactly the same read on it as Laura did, and raved the film. Ebert gave it four stars, his highest rating, and Roeper thought it was exceptional, as well. Ebert’s written review can be found at http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040224/REVIEWS/402240301/1023
And the Ebert and Roeper audio can be found here: http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/040223.html
There are several controversies/concerns, which are used alternatively, in an attempt to attack the legitimacy of Mel Gibson’s film. For the purpose of clarity, here are the ones I’ve noticed, segregated and itemized:
1. The Passion has been incorrectly billed as an appropriate Christian family film.
2. The Passion is anti-semitic.
3. Gibson is a radical nut for making a movie like this.
4. The Passion fixates on the wrong thing. We should remember Jesus for other reasons, not for the gory details of his death.
With respect to no. 1, I personally can’t remember anyone describing it as a movie young children should watch. But maybe you guys have better sources than me. At any rate, the first two issues can be addressed by going to the above-mentioned reviews.
It’s the last two that stick in my craw. I think both assertions are entirely incorrect, and attempt more fundamentally to illegitimize Gibson's film, than the first two. Thus, they are more insidious.
Gibson is not crazy for making a movie about The Passion. It has been artistic and cultural fodder for centuries. Passions have existed in the musical realm from Bach’s 1729 St. Matthew Passion, to Penderecki’s 1966 Passion according to St. Luke, and before and after. Images of the crucifixion of Jesus range from the 15th century painter Grunewald’s, found here: http://www.traditionaliconography.com/webgalleryart.html
, to the 20th century painter Salvador Dali’s incarnation here: http://severalthings.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_severalthings_archive.html
In the paintings, you get a pictorial depiction, frozen in time. In music, you get a temporal depiction, where images can only be implied through the music and text. What makes Gibson’s movie unique is that presenting his subject matter in the medium of film, he marries both pictoral and temporal aspects of The Passion, resulting in violent detail. But the film simultaneously breaks new ground, and is rooted in Christian traditions of the past. I can’t imagine this much being deniable.
Thus, the intellectual Larry and Curly team of “Southpark” found it so easy to portray Gibson as a crazy, hotheaded reactionary. I doubt that they would have much luck with Bach or Grunewald. Sure they could do it, but without controversiality, no one laughs. As time marches on, Gibson’s film will seem much less controversial, and much more like a facet in a continuum that has existed for generations upon generations. Pretty soon, no one will laugh, and the need for Parker and Stone to get a Moe, to bonk them over the heads when they step out of line in their usual, mundane, nyuk-nyuk manner, will become ever more manifest.
On to number 4.
I think this is Amy’s primary objection, noted here, on your blog: “I just feel the gore of the crucifixion is definitely the wrong part of Jesus's life to focus on.”
Michael Moore said much the same thing, set down in the 12/27/04-1/3/05 issue of Time magazine: ‘…ask Moore, who says that his film, too, resonates with Christ’s message. The Passion of the Christ emphasized Christ’s final hours, and, for the most part, left out scenes of his ministry. “But my film [Fahrenheit 9/11] dovetails with the rest of Jesus’ life,” Moore told Time last week. “It connects to his message about questioning those in authority, of being a man of peace, of loving your neighbor”.
This may be the most appropriate aspect of Jesus’ life to focus on, if you’re a Unitarian. In which case, have at it. But don’t attempt to illegitimize Gibson’s movie because your faith (or political axe-grinding, hypocritically, in the case of Moore, who doesn’t give the first crap about Jesus), differs from Gibson’s, and millions of Christians around the world.
In fact, I think Christ’s death is perhaps the best thing from Jesus’ life to depict, no wonder, then, that it’s been done for so many years. As Ebert said to Roeper (I paraphrase, I think), He came to the Earth for the purpose of dying. But Ebert’s words are inelegant; That may have been the reason, but not the purpose.
The purpose of Jesus in the Christian faith was and is to directly humanize God, as Laura mentioned. And this is very important—compare this addition to its absence, in Judaism (I am not making a statement of religious preference, Jonah, the following is just what I feel are objective differences between the two faiths, not a qualitative assessment…).
Take the plight of Woody Allen’s character, Mickey Sachs, in Hannah and Her Sisters. After a medical scare involving a possible tumor, he realizes how close we all are, to death: “…faced with eternity. Not later, but now.” The resolution of the scare doesn’t help. He wants answers. Why all the suffering in the world? What is the meaning of life? Is it worth it at all? Many Jews seem to have more questions than answers…
This spirit is also found in Leonard Bernstein’s Kaddish Symphony no. 3: http://www.juilliard.edu/update/journal/j_articles92.html
My composition forum in college studied this work in class. In it, a narrator indicts God, often with language that reflects stages of grief: denial, anger, fear, and especially, bargaining:
“Are you listening, Father? You know who I am:
Your image; that stubborn reflection of You
That Man has shattered, extinguished, banished.
And now he runs free—free to play
With his new-found fire, avid for death,
Voluptuous, complete and final death.
Lord God of Hosts, I call You to account!
You let this happen, Lord of Hosts! …
Tin God! Your bargain is tin!
It crumples in my hand!
And where is faith now—Yours or mine?”
I was mystified by this exchange, and told the professor so, who adored Bernstein. I mentioned Kurt Vonnegut’s novel God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, where Elliot Rosewater and his senator father were presented as parallels between Jesus and God, respectively—one merciful, the other wrathful. I said such questions were superfluous, to me at least. If I wanted answers, I could always accept Christ as my Saviour. Finis. If I wanted to ask questions, I could become a Unitarian, or a Jew. Finis. The conflict didn’t ring true to me.
…while many Christians seem to have more answers than questions. This is the flipside, and the upshot of the existence of a divine Jesus Christ. When someone informs me that Jesus loves me, I wonder why God, in His omnipotent infinity, would be concerned with such a finite, human issue. But then, I wasn’t told that God loves me, I was told Jesus loves me. Therein lies the purpose of Jesus. He spans the divide between the infinite and the finite, the mortal and the immortal. He was a direct interaction between God and His creation, unlike the flailing Kaddish Symphony’s attempts.
God provides questions, Jesus provides answers. Whichever you prefer will determine your religious bent and identity. The latter, unfortunately, seems like the easy way out, an invitation to hypocrisy. Because when someone says “Jesus loves you” or “Jesus died for your sins” the temptation is to anylyze these phrases as fundamentalist platitudes—because they are. But the Christian views these statements as fundamental truths—which they are—at least to the Christian.
You don’t have to dwell on Christ’s teachings to appreciate Christ. In fact the converse is true; most of Christ’s teachings aren’t too surprising for the Son of God. The interesting facet that Jesus’ as Divine Saviour provides, is the interaction between the finite and the infinite, and the resolution of contradictions, through simple answers. The “Jesus loves you” platitudes aren’t the first we’ve heard. Look to the Catholic Mass, which has little specific to say about Jesus’ teachings. It does however have this:
Kyrie eleison,
Christe eleison,
Kyrie eleison.
And the Ebert and Roeper audio can be found here: http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/040223.html
There are several controversies/concerns, which are used alternatively, in an attempt to attack the legitimacy of Mel Gibson’s film. For the purpose of clarity, here are the ones I’ve noticed, segregated and itemized:
1. The Passion has been incorrectly billed as an appropriate Christian family film.
2. The Passion is anti-semitic.
3. Gibson is a radical nut for making a movie like this.
4. The Passion fixates on the wrong thing. We should remember Jesus for other reasons, not for the gory details of his death.
With respect to no. 1, I personally can’t remember anyone describing it as a movie young children should watch. But maybe you guys have better sources than me. At any rate, the first two issues can be addressed by going to the above-mentioned reviews.
It’s the last two that stick in my craw. I think both assertions are entirely incorrect, and attempt more fundamentally to illegitimize Gibson's film, than the first two. Thus, they are more insidious.
Gibson is not crazy for making a movie about The Passion. It has been artistic and cultural fodder for centuries. Passions have existed in the musical realm from Bach’s 1729 St. Matthew Passion, to Penderecki’s 1966 Passion according to St. Luke, and before and after. Images of the crucifixion of Jesus range from the 15th century painter Grunewald’s, found here: http://www.traditionaliconography.com/webgalleryart.html
, to the 20th century painter Salvador Dali’s incarnation here: http://severalthings.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_severalthings_archive.html
In the paintings, you get a pictorial depiction, frozen in time. In music, you get a temporal depiction, where images can only be implied through the music and text. What makes Gibson’s movie unique is that presenting his subject matter in the medium of film, he marries both pictoral and temporal aspects of The Passion, resulting in violent detail. But the film simultaneously breaks new ground, and is rooted in Christian traditions of the past. I can’t imagine this much being deniable.
Thus, the intellectual Larry and Curly team of “Southpark” found it so easy to portray Gibson as a crazy, hotheaded reactionary. I doubt that they would have much luck with Bach or Grunewald. Sure they could do it, but without controversiality, no one laughs. As time marches on, Gibson’s film will seem much less controversial, and much more like a facet in a continuum that has existed for generations upon generations. Pretty soon, no one will laugh, and the need for Parker and Stone to get a Moe, to bonk them over the heads when they step out of line in their usual, mundane, nyuk-nyuk manner, will become ever more manifest.
On to number 4.
I think this is Amy’s primary objection, noted here, on your blog: “I just feel the gore of the crucifixion is definitely the wrong part of Jesus's life to focus on.”
Michael Moore said much the same thing, set down in the 12/27/04-1/3/05 issue of Time magazine: ‘…ask Moore, who says that his film, too, resonates with Christ’s message. The Passion of the Christ emphasized Christ’s final hours, and, for the most part, left out scenes of his ministry. “But my film [Fahrenheit 9/11] dovetails with the rest of Jesus’ life,” Moore told Time last week. “It connects to his message about questioning those in authority, of being a man of peace, of loving your neighbor”.
This may be the most appropriate aspect of Jesus’ life to focus on, if you’re a Unitarian. In which case, have at it. But don’t attempt to illegitimize Gibson’s movie because your faith (or political axe-grinding, hypocritically, in the case of Moore, who doesn’t give the first crap about Jesus), differs from Gibson’s, and millions of Christians around the world.
In fact, I think Christ’s death is perhaps the best thing from Jesus’ life to depict, no wonder, then, that it’s been done for so many years. As Ebert said to Roeper (I paraphrase, I think), He came to the Earth for the purpose of dying. But Ebert’s words are inelegant; That may have been the reason, but not the purpose.
The purpose of Jesus in the Christian faith was and is to directly humanize God, as Laura mentioned. And this is very important—compare this addition to its absence, in Judaism (I am not making a statement of religious preference, Jonah, the following is just what I feel are objective differences between the two faiths, not a qualitative assessment…).
Take the plight of Woody Allen’s character, Mickey Sachs, in Hannah and Her Sisters. After a medical scare involving a possible tumor, he realizes how close we all are, to death: “…faced with eternity. Not later, but now.” The resolution of the scare doesn’t help. He wants answers. Why all the suffering in the world? What is the meaning of life? Is it worth it at all? Many Jews seem to have more questions than answers…
This spirit is also found in Leonard Bernstein’s Kaddish Symphony no. 3: http://www.juilliard.edu/update/journal/j_articles92.html
My composition forum in college studied this work in class. In it, a narrator indicts God, often with language that reflects stages of grief: denial, anger, fear, and especially, bargaining:
“Are you listening, Father? You know who I am:
Your image; that stubborn reflection of You
That Man has shattered, extinguished, banished.
And now he runs free—free to play
With his new-found fire, avid for death,
Voluptuous, complete and final death.
Lord God of Hosts, I call You to account!
You let this happen, Lord of Hosts! …
Tin God! Your bargain is tin!
It crumples in my hand!
And where is faith now—Yours or mine?”
I was mystified by this exchange, and told the professor so, who adored Bernstein. I mentioned Kurt Vonnegut’s novel God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, where Elliot Rosewater and his senator father were presented as parallels between Jesus and God, respectively—one merciful, the other wrathful. I said such questions were superfluous, to me at least. If I wanted answers, I could always accept Christ as my Saviour. Finis. If I wanted to ask questions, I could become a Unitarian, or a Jew. Finis. The conflict didn’t ring true to me.
…while many Christians seem to have more answers than questions. This is the flipside, and the upshot of the existence of a divine Jesus Christ. When someone informs me that Jesus loves me, I wonder why God, in His omnipotent infinity, would be concerned with such a finite, human issue. But then, I wasn’t told that God loves me, I was told Jesus loves me. Therein lies the purpose of Jesus. He spans the divide between the infinite and the finite, the mortal and the immortal. He was a direct interaction between God and His creation, unlike the flailing Kaddish Symphony’s attempts.
God provides questions, Jesus provides answers. Whichever you prefer will determine your religious bent and identity. The latter, unfortunately, seems like the easy way out, an invitation to hypocrisy. Because when someone says “Jesus loves you” or “Jesus died for your sins” the temptation is to anylyze these phrases as fundamentalist platitudes—because they are. But the Christian views these statements as fundamental truths—which they are—at least to the Christian.
You don’t have to dwell on Christ’s teachings to appreciate Christ. In fact the converse is true; most of Christ’s teachings aren’t too surprising for the Son of God. The interesting facet that Jesus’ as Divine Saviour provides, is the interaction between the finite and the infinite, and the resolution of contradictions, through simple answers. The “Jesus loves you” platitudes aren’t the first we’ve heard. Look to the Catholic Mass, which has little specific to say about Jesus’ teachings. It does however have this:
Kyrie eleison,
Christe eleison,
Kyrie eleison.
cont'd:
Which translates to:
Lord have mercy,
Christ have mercy,
Lord have mercy.
This is not profound intellectually. It is however, profound in its simplicity and its emotional content, heard best in requiem masses.
Is it any wonder that Gibson’s film offers brutal simplicity, rather than a complex dish of philosophical preoccupations? That is not the purpose of Jesus. Jesus is the humanization of God, the meeting of the finite with the infinite, and the crux of this meeting is at death. It comes as no surprise to me, then, that the cross is such a theologically heavy symbol with Christians.
Since Jesus was human, Jesus was mortal. He had blood and guts. He existed on the same visceral plane as we do, one that God does not. So why shouldn’t Gibson make a visceral movie? Why would God be humanized if we weren’t going to be powerfully reminded of that? It all comes together on the cross.
Sure, this isn’t an intellectually engrossing movie, but that’s not the point, nor does this fact illegitimize the movie. It is true to the religious nature of Jesus, to depict this, most important moment, in his life. I am not commenting on how well Gibson achieves this end, I have not seen the film. I am merely defending the legitimacy of making such a film, which has been unfairly attacked, or at least minimized, compared to other endeavors. If we want to debate Gibson’s film on this level, then I’ll have to watch the movie. But nobody seems interested in such an engagement, and the critics think Gibson has achieved his effects marvelously. I certainly don’t think the film will appeal to me, nor Jews, nor atheists (same thing, right Jonah?). But it is a legitimate film to make, and anyone who would deny the power of a movie that is preoccupied with the viscera of The Passion, denies the visceral power of this:
Kyrie eleison,
Christe eleison,
Kyrie eleison
As someone who has sung these words in a chorus, I think this is an untenable position.
Lyon
Post a Comment
Which translates to:
Lord have mercy,
Christ have mercy,
Lord have mercy.
This is not profound intellectually. It is however, profound in its simplicity and its emotional content, heard best in requiem masses.
Is it any wonder that Gibson’s film offers brutal simplicity, rather than a complex dish of philosophical preoccupations? That is not the purpose of Jesus. Jesus is the humanization of God, the meeting of the finite with the infinite, and the crux of this meeting is at death. It comes as no surprise to me, then, that the cross is such a theologically heavy symbol with Christians.
Since Jesus was human, Jesus was mortal. He had blood and guts. He existed on the same visceral plane as we do, one that God does not. So why shouldn’t Gibson make a visceral movie? Why would God be humanized if we weren’t going to be powerfully reminded of that? It all comes together on the cross.
Sure, this isn’t an intellectually engrossing movie, but that’s not the point, nor does this fact illegitimize the movie. It is true to the religious nature of Jesus, to depict this, most important moment, in his life. I am not commenting on how well Gibson achieves this end, I have not seen the film. I am merely defending the legitimacy of making such a film, which has been unfairly attacked, or at least minimized, compared to other endeavors. If we want to debate Gibson’s film on this level, then I’ll have to watch the movie. But nobody seems interested in such an engagement, and the critics think Gibson has achieved his effects marvelously. I certainly don’t think the film will appeal to me, nor Jews, nor atheists (same thing, right Jonah?). But it is a legitimate film to make, and anyone who would deny the power of a movie that is preoccupied with the viscera of The Passion, denies the visceral power of this:
Kyrie eleison,
Christe eleison,
Kyrie eleison
As someone who has sung these words in a chorus, I think this is an untenable position.
Lyon
<< Home
