What you say is right and sadly, all too true, particularly about true believers never questioning and indeed fighting off questions. But it's not quite what I'm talking about, although on reflection, they may be related (bear with me, I'll get to that.)
In my oversimplification I wasn't drawing distinctions between Catholic and Protestant, but they become crucial here. Catholicism doesn't focus more on the death than the life, but it does go into rather graphic detail on the death; I saw horrifically bloody, suffering crucified Christs in many cathedrals in Europe, particularly the Medieval ones when life was sanginary in general. And IIRC, some of the stations of the cross commemorate some of Jesus' torments, including falling while dragging the thing. So there is more of an emphasis on the death.
But for the rest of it, what made me say what I did - well, maybe this is something that has to be seen from the outside in. I'm assuming that Howard doesn't have a lot of people wandering by trying to save your heathen souls. It's different when you're a pagan or an atheist, both of which I've been in a long and wierd journey. There isn't a lot of evangelizing from the live-and-let live folks, the Christians of faith as you put it. What there is, boils down along the lines of "I shall let my life serve as an example and hope you emulate it."
But the really in-your-face evangelists, the ones who nag and insult and bully are a different matter. For one thing, you're right, they're "true believers" many of them; the very existance of alternative groups is an affront that must be dealt with. But the manner of the dealing, almost inevitably, focuses on pain and suffering, either Jesus' or yours. Not that Jesus is Good or Jesus is Love or that life will be better if you follow him. But Jesus is GOD and Jesus loved you enough to DIE for you and if you don't follow him you will BURN in HELLFIRE ETERNAL! It's amazing how many people assume that if they just pop in and tell the story of the crucifixion, nonChristians will drop to their knees with a gasp and a cry of "Why didn't anyone tell me? I believe! I believe!" (Jack Chick is notnotnot any more a true representative of Christianity than Fred Phelps is, but oy, a sad number of people think that evangelism works like his little tracts - which show up like a bad rash anywhere a blatently nonChristian group gathers. Christianity, according to Jack, means believing that Christ died for your sins. You can be a complete scumsucking villain as long as you believe, and Satan's most pernicious lie is that good people go to heaven.)
Maybe it's not an internal focus of the groups that I've mentioned, but simply the manner of evangelism - one focusing on the benefits of a Christian life and the other focusing on the... something... of Christ's death. Certainly there's been a component of the marketing of The Passion that outright says "everyone should see this movie," "this movie is a powerful marketing tool," "this movie will make you believe."
But.. believe in what? That human beings can torture one of their own to death? That much is an established fact. But watching it play out for two hours may make me lose lunch, but it won't make me find faith. I can't imagine anyone who would be convinced who didn't walk into the theater with a predisposition.
And you don't even discuss the fact that the people who are most upset about this movie are Jews -- who feel it is anti-Semetic
Because there isn't much to discuss there; that ground has been pretty much covered. However, the anti-Semetism was just the opening shot of what has become a wider set of controversies, and it's those issues that interest me. Is it an evangelism tool? If so, is it effective? Is it too graphic for children? Adults?
If you see it from the POV of someone who considers sin and the sacrifice for sins as the most important thing, then at least the dwelling on the gore makes sense.
I'm going to be very interested to see what happens over the next few days as people finally get to see the film for real and have their own opinions as opposed to the ones fed them by their ministers/rabbis/local reporter/hopes/fears.
no subject
In my oversimplification I wasn't drawing distinctions between Catholic and Protestant, but they become crucial here. Catholicism doesn't focus more on the death than the life, but it does go into rather graphic detail on the death; I saw horrifically bloody, suffering crucified Christs in many cathedrals in Europe, particularly the Medieval ones when life was sanginary in general. And IIRC, some of the stations of the cross commemorate some of Jesus' torments, including falling while dragging the thing. So there is more of an emphasis on the death.
But for the rest of it, what made me say what I did - well, maybe this is something that has to be seen from the outside in. I'm assuming that Howard doesn't have a lot of people wandering by trying to save your heathen souls. It's different when you're a pagan or an atheist, both of which I've been in a long and wierd journey. There isn't a lot of evangelizing from the live-and-let live folks, the Christians of faith as you put it. What there is, boils down along the lines of "I shall let my life serve as an example and hope you emulate it."
But the really in-your-face evangelists, the ones who nag and insult and bully are a different matter. For one thing, you're right, they're "true believers" many of them; the very existance of alternative groups is an affront that must be dealt with. But the manner of the dealing, almost inevitably, focuses on pain and suffering, either Jesus' or yours. Not that Jesus is Good or Jesus is Love or that life will be better if you follow him. But Jesus is GOD and Jesus loved you enough to DIE for you and if you don't follow him you will BURN in HELLFIRE ETERNAL! It's amazing how many people assume that if they just pop in and tell the story of the crucifixion, nonChristians will drop to their knees with a gasp and a cry of "Why didn't anyone tell me? I believe! I believe!" (Jack Chick is notnotnot any more a true representative of Christianity than Fred Phelps is, but oy, a sad number of people think that evangelism works like his little tracts - which show up like a bad rash anywhere a blatently nonChristian group gathers. Christianity, according to Jack, means believing that Christ died for your sins. You can be a complete scumsucking villain as long as you believe, and Satan's most pernicious lie is that good people go to heaven.)
Maybe it's not an internal focus of the groups that I've mentioned, but simply the manner of evangelism - one focusing on the benefits of a Christian life and the other focusing on the... something... of Christ's death. Certainly there's been a component of the marketing of The Passion that outright says "everyone should see this movie," "this movie is a powerful marketing tool," "this movie will make you believe."
But.. believe in what? That human beings can torture one of their own to death? That much is an established fact. But watching it play out for two hours may make me lose lunch, but it won't make me find faith. I can't imagine anyone who would be convinced who didn't walk into the theater with a predisposition.
And you don't even discuss the fact that the people who are most upset about this movie are Jews -- who feel it is anti-Semetic
Because there isn't much to discuss there; that ground has been pretty much covered. However, the anti-Semetism was just the opening shot of what has become a wider set of controversies, and it's those issues that interest me. Is it an evangelism tool? If so, is it effective? Is it too graphic for children? Adults?
If you see it from the POV of someone who considers sin and the sacrifice for sins as the most important thing, then at least the dwelling on the gore makes sense.
I'm going to be very interested to see what happens over the next few days as people finally get to see the film for real and have their own opinions as opposed to the ones fed them by their ministers/rabbis/local reporter/hopes/fears.