Passionate POVs

[neadods]

Although I don't want to see the movie (I'm not big on the gore and guts for any reason, and as an atheist I'm not really willing to pay to be proselytized) I have been following the reviews and commentary on The Passion of the Christ with interest.

And after a while, particularly in seeing the various responses from the public in breathless/horrified anticipation, I finally realized something.

There are, to oversimplify, two kinds of Christians.

One kind, the kind I grew up with/as, focuses almost entirely on Christ's life. Yes, he died horribly, but that's glossed over with the simple chant of the creed weekly - "He was crucified, died, and was buried." But that's not the important part; that's what comes next in the creed. "On the third day he rose again, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father..." What is stressed is how he lived, what he taught, and that he lives still, and you can too if you live according to What Would Jesus Do?

The other kind, and these are the ones that Passion is aimed completely at, focuses more on the death than the life. The point here is less on what would Jesus do than what he did - offer himself up as an Old-Testament-style blood sacrifice, the literal scapegoat for humanity. The prayer on the back of Chick tracts says "I believe you died for my sins" and never mentions "I will live according to your teachings." The hymn sings "washed clean in the blood of the Lamb." Was it Mel or was it one of the ministers singing the praises of his film that said "Jesus didn't give one drop of blood for us, he gave every drop of blood for us!"

Looked at that way, of course the movie is going to be as graphically sanguinary as possible. The suffering is the whole point.


Mind you, this still leaves me wondering about another either/or that came up recently:

Last summer, a religiously-based group of people drove a major kink convention out of Ocean City. Although the activities would have been completely shrouded in a hotel, the objections were "what about the children, what if they're exposed to it?" and "people shouldn't be allowed to hurt other people, even if they think they want it!"

This spring, several religious groups are founding a major drive to take children to see what is, in essence, a torture snuff film.

Can anyone explain that to me?

Comments

[stratfordbabe.livejournal.com]

I can see that, and have known a few people who do ascribe to the "Jews are bad because they kill Christ" nonsense, but all of them have been true believers who have never stopped to examine the basis of their faith and what faith means -- no matter who practices it or what faith they practice. Those same people will find reasons to damn Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion, too -- their excuse to damning the Jewish faith just comes more readily to hand.

And, perhaps, we're talking about much the same thing. Perhaps those who fgwriter sees focusing on the way Christ lived are those who are comfortable with their faith and open to outside ideas -- and therefore living as Christ did. Those who focus on how Christ died could well be those who are closed against other religions and apparently angry. I just don't know how she's making that judgment since I've known her for over a decade and she's never once asked me my beliefs about the focus of my faith. I really thing the observable nature is due more to the comfort level of their own faith and therefore their willingness to accept the beliefs of others.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I just don't know how she's making that judgment since I've known her for over a decade and she's never once asked me my beliefs about the focus of my faith.

Er, because I'm not ragging on you specifically? I was raised Christian by a family that still practices a deep abiding faith; I'm basing my opinions on faith -- people of faith in your words -- on my own family, which spans several different sects.

As I say in another post, what I'm talking about isn't necessarily seen from within Christianity, but step outside and it suddenly becomes an issue. The way (some) Christians talk to other Christians, even in sects they disagree with and the way they talk to nonChristians is really night and day.

[stratfordbabe.livejournal.com]

Yes, but how can you claim to understand where a Christian bases his or her faith if you haven't asked? I mean, if you haven't asked someone you've known for all these years, I find it hard to believe you've asked those who you merely encounter in passing. This is what I was trying to get at and what's bothered me about your initial assertion.

You're basically trying to ascribe the basis of people's faith here, saying that some believe more in the importance of the life and others in the importance of the death. The honest truth is that most are Christians because they believe in the miracle of the resurrection. Without that, Jesus becomes a good man -- one worthy of respect and emulation, but he may not become the cornerstone of a major world religion.

Then there are the Old Testament Christians who believe that you need to be saved because God's a vengeful God and that if you don't convert, you will be doomed to an eternity of torture. Yes, they're Christians because they believe in the resurrection, but they basically rest their beliefs on the God of the Old Testament, not the New. And that may be more of what you're actually talking about. They evangelize for two basic reasons: 1) they honestly believe it is for the non-believers good -- they *know* that without conversion a person will spend eternity in torment and they have to try and prevent that if they can, or 2) they believe in that torment for themselves and believe that they will never be good enough for redemption unless the convert the masses. There could well be more reasons, too, but that's what I've been told by those who practice that faith.

I don't believe in Old Testament Christianity, so I have a hard time speaking much beyond that, but in speaking with the OTC's here, that's what they've spoken of.