| Just Adventure News : |
| Home - Forum Home |
| Page 2 of 4 : « ‹ › » |
| 16 MAR 2004 at 12:34am | |
starventureSorcerer Apprentice![]() ![]() Posts : 232 Joined: 24 OCT 2003 Status : Online | I thought it was powerful, but I wouldn't see it again. I heard somewhere that a teacher took her sixth grade class to see it without even telling the parents. Umm, can you say fired? or at least suspended. That is NOT a sixth grade movie. > |
| Profile Search | |
| 16 MAR 2004 at 12:37am | |
JoGuild Master![]() ![]() Posts : 3313 Joined: 3 NOV 2002 Location: AU, Qld. Status : Offline | Originally Posted By starventure (16 MAR 2004 12:33am) I would think the parents would be hopping mad! By the way I presume 6th grade is around about 10 or 11 years of age? Definitely too young by the sounds of it. |
| Profile Search | |
| 16 MAR 2004 at 3:17am | |
CarolineJA+ Overseer![]() ![]() Posts : 16540 Joined: 28 JAN 2007 Location: AU Status : Offline | My son is in 6th grade. Yes Jo, it's the same as our Aussie system. They certainly wouldn't take our kids to see a movie without a signed consent form - very meticulous about stuff like that out here. However, we do have something coming up later this year that makes all the mothers cringe...... sex education. Apparently parents and boys are expected to attend the evening class. The teachers then run through EVERYTHING, even personal hygiene for girls, (this is a boys only school). Apparently they have a table of all sorts of products and toys. Then they ask for questions. Apparently they occasionally get them from the parents..... scary! The idea of getting you all together is to ensure that everyone understands exactly what was said and that the parents can correct any misunderstandings early on and that the children will be empowered to ask their parents about it all and of course group pressure will help the shyest parents cope. |
| Profile Search | |
| 16 MAR 2004 at 4:05am | |
WimliGuild Master![]() ![]() Posts : 3259 Joined: 14 MAR 2003 Status : Offline | I'm curious which rating this movie will get when it hits Belgian theatres. Somehow, movies like this, tend to get under the radar of the board and it gets an 'All ages' rating, just like it happened with Saving Private Ryan. The rating there was defended on the grounds that it was an 'educational' movie. When I went to see it, there were families in the audience with 7-10 year old kids. I just hope they've learned their lesson this time around. From what I've heard and seen from The Passion of the Christ, it's indeed not suitable for youngsters. |
| Profile Search | |
| 16 MAR 2004 at 4:25am | |
JoGuild Master![]() ![]() Posts : 3313 Joined: 3 NOV 2002 Location: AU, Qld. Status : Offline | Caroline said Apparently parents and boys are expected to attend the evening class. The teachers then run through EVERYTHING, even personal hygiene for girlsThat'll be fun. Still, good idea really, I guess there must still be some parents who don't teach children the facts of life. |
| Profile Search | |
| 16 MAR 2004 at 12:01pm | |
| Deleted User | I heard somewhere that a teacher took her sixth grade class to see it without even telling the parents. Umm, .............. Get 'em when they're young & innocent !! :-/ :'( I Googled this description ... and its factual portrayal is very accurate : > :-X [size=13] VIOLENCE/GORE 10 - Jesus of Nazareth is chained to a tree stump and two guards begin to flog him with canes for an extended period of time (we see red slashes and welts appear on his skin). Then the guards use straps with hooks (cat-o-nine tails) on the ends and we see the man's skin tearing open: at one point the hooks are stuck in the man's side, the guard yanks and tears his skin away, blood splatters on the feet and faces of the guards, and the man is covered with blood. Also, his skin is open and bleeding everywhere, his face is slashed, and the guards roll him over and begin on his chest and stomach, the ground around him becomes puddles of blood, and the man trembles and moans with every strike. Jesus, trembling, bruised and very bloody, crawls onto a cross, his hand is lashed to one side, a spike is placed in his palm and it is nailed through his flesh: blood sprays, we hear crunching and see his fingers flopping with each blow of the mallet, and the other hand is lashed and stretched to the point of dislocating his shoulder (we hear a loud crunch and pop and he screams). Then the other hand is nailed into the wood in the same manner (we see blood dripping from the back of the cross when the stake is driven through). The man's feet are nailed onto a block of wood, the cross is turned over, the end of the stakes are pounded flat, the cross is turned back over (the man moans in agony with each move), the cross is lifted upright and it slides into a hole in the ground with a loud thud and jolt, blood pours from the man and he moans, and blood runs down the cross to the ground. Guards place a crown of thorns on Jesus' head, press it into his flesh (blood streams down his forehead), then punch him several times and hit him in the head. A guard stabs Jesus in the side to see if he is dead and water sprays from the wound. A man on a cross is pecked at by a crow, it hits near his eye, on his forehead and head (we see bloody holes and he screams). Guards break the legs of two men hanging on crosses, we hear crunching with the blows of the mallets, hear the men scream, see their bloody legs and see the men die. |
| 16 MAR 2004 at 9:19pm | |
starventureSorcerer Apprentice![]() ![]() Posts : 232 Joined: 24 OCT 2003 Status : Online | Very factual but they should have watched the movie in order. |
| Profile Search | |
| 16 MAR 2004 at 10:19pm | |
| Deleted User | C'mon ... they probably DID watch the film "in order". When they wrote it up however, they presumably inserted the last paragraph approx. (that I extracted ... not the whole incidentally) out of chronological order. Other than that, I found it a very accurate description! > :-[ :-X |
| 17 MAR 2004 at 12:54am | |
CarolineJA+ Overseer![]() ![]() Posts : 16540 Joined: 28 JAN 2007 Location: AU Status : Offline | This is gross. I found it offensive just reading it.  id Mel write the script or just direct it from his head? yuk, yuk, yuk. Besides. I don't believe they did all that to him. Where is it written, eh? Mel, where is your proof buddy.? I shalln' be watching this movie. What the hell's the point? |
| Profile Search | |
| 17 MAR 2004 at 3:04am | |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Caroline (17 MAR 2004 12:54am) Mel is a product of his time. He was probably beaten by Catholic nuns while his agnostic father rejected the whole concept. I don't even want to see this movie. I have no interest in watching anything a Catholic interprets Christ to be. I don't actually have any interest in watching any movie about Christ. The Bible is silly enough, when one actually sits down and realizes what Paul/Saul is saying, so why should I care to watch this crap on a big screen? Dip my mind in Holy Water while the Saints proclaim me free from sin. Come on! Flog me. Put me on a cross. Rip out my flesh and make money. Gibson is as guilty as Judas Iscariat, making filthy lucre from the sacrifice of Christ. Eventually he may even cast off his ill gained fortune, throwing it and crying, asking why did I betray you? Who the f*ck actually cares about this movie? I don't. |
| 17 MAR 2004 at 6:18am | |
starventureSorcerer Apprentice![]() ![]() Posts : 232 Joined: 24 OCT 2003 Status : Online | C'mon ... they probably DID watch the film "in order". I know, I was just kidding LenG. Apparently not well though. |
| Profile Search | |
| 17 MAR 2004 at 10:28am | |
| Deleted User | I know, I was just kidding LenG. Even so, when I first read it, there seemed to be a dislocation in the order of presentation ........... (apart from the dislocation of several limbs ....... black humor!! :-/) |
| 17 MAR 2004 at 11:22am | |
| Deleted User | Mel is a product of his time. He was probably beaten by Catholic nuns while his agnostic father rejected the whole concept. AGNOSTIC father ?? Below ... just a couple of extracts from some of the enormous body of Google references re father & son!! Mel Gibson is a member of an extreme Catholic sect called "Holy Family" which has distanced itself from the main body of catholicism and is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Diocese. |
| 17 MAR 2004 at 1:27pm | |
CarolineJA+ Overseer![]() ![]() Posts : 16540 Joined: 28 JAN 2007 Location: AU Status : Offline | Hutton Gibson is in his 80s. Perhaps he's ga-ga by now. No? Well just how does he account for the footage of the airplanes slamming into the WTC ? I mean remote control? Can you imagine the therapists' bills in 30 years' time when the Gibson kids grow up and try to make sense of all those dinners with Grandpa? |
| Profile Search | |
| 17 MAR 2004 at 2:05pm | |
adventuredogGuild Master![]() Posts : 3255 Joined: 14 JAN 2003 Status : Offline | Looks like father and son are both crackerdog. I feel very sorry for the grandchildren. It is sad that such sick, brutal nonsense was made into a movie. Yes, I believe Jesus suffered as many others have, but this hard-core gratuitous violence is WAY beyond the bounds of reality, let alone good taste. Where is Mel's source for such absurdity? Where were the censors? Just an R for graphic violence? Not going to see this one. Rotten Tomatoes Cream of the Crop gave it a 36% rating.  excellent movie site to get all sorts of reviews and compilations: www.rottentomatoes.com   Still adventuring after all these years! Patiently awaiting The Last Crown: Haunting of Hallowed Isle, and Bracken Tor... ... and Asylum if it's not tooooo scary... |
| Profile Search | |
| 17 MAR 2004 at 10:21pm | |
CarolineJA+ Overseer![]() ![]() Posts : 16540 Joined: 28 JAN 2007 Location: AU Status : Offline | Well, if it isn't an anti-Jewish movie then what is the message from the film? If the jewish priests hadn't had Jesus crucified, then the Christians would never have had their Messiah. I never did understand the logic behind this one. If the crucification was part of god's grand plan, and he knew about it all the time, after all wasn't Jesus the final sacrifice? Without killing him, the rest just can't happen. Seems to me the christians should be grateful to the Jews. |
| Profile Search | |
| 18 MAR 2004 at 12:26am | |
JoGuild Master![]() ![]() Posts : 3313 Joined: 3 NOV 2002 Location: AU, Qld. Status : Offline | God, after reading the description than LenG posted, I wouldn't even get it out on video, let alone pay to see it. Heard an anouncer on our local Classic FM station this morning saying that in his view the film focused far too much on the violence rather than the spiritual aspects. Also said (and I'm not at all sure if this is true) that Jesus "didn't suffer for as long as many other people who were crucified in those days and that after all it was the popular way of executing them then" - said some were alive on their crosses for a longer period of time, don't know where he got his information from or if he was just blabbing away as he often does! ) I guess the point he was trying to make was as someone mentioned here that the bible doesn't go into all the violence that the film apparently portrays, so why show it in that manner. Still that's Mel Gibson for you, you've only got to look at his inaccurate Braveheart movie to see he's more interested in the box office sales than accuracy. |
| Profile Search | |
| 18 MAR 2004 at 12:49am | |
starventureSorcerer Apprentice![]() ![]() Posts : 232 Joined: 24 OCT 2003 Status : Online | Jesus "didn't suffer for as long as many other people who were crucified in those days That's true, sort of. People who were crucified weren't usually scourged first. You died from asphixiation(sp?) since you have to lift your body to breath and eventually you no longer have the energy for it. However Jesus would have lost so much blood from the scourging that he would have died quickly on the cross. the bible doesn't go into all the violence No, but you can figure it out from other sources. In school we saw this medical type documentary that speculated on exactly what would have happened to Jesus. And we also had a presentation on the Shroud of Tourin that described the whole process of a Roman scourging. Actually I was wondering during the film if they used that as a source because it seemed to match almost exactly. Except, I don't think the guards would have gone on quite so long. We were taught that if the prisoner wasn't suppose to die and he did the whippers(?) would be put in his place. I think the message was suppose to be look at how much Jesus suffered for you. I never got an anti-semite feel probably because I was taught to look at this as this is what happens when you allow hate and evil in the world, not so much look what those Jews did. I mean everyone is responsible to some degree for hate. And total speculation, perhaps if Jesus wasn't killed we wouldn't have needed a saviour? We would have 'proven' ourselves as more advanced then our fallen ancestors. [/ total spec.] |
| Profile Search | |
| 18 MAR 2004 at 4:10am | |
CarolineJA+ Overseer![]() ![]() Posts : 16540 Joined: 28 JAN 2007 Location: AU Status : Offline | Starventure Did the nuns explain that the shroud of Turin has been carbon dated to 1500? A very clever forgery. I was told that the crucifixation of Jesus took place on a Friday and that the sabbath starts at sunset on fridays and it was the rule that all bodies be cut from the crosses for the sabbath. So Jesus wasn't actually up there very long. Given, that the Roman's weren't bothered by Jesus' preaching and didn't want to punish him, (as stated clearly in the bible) is it possible that they didn't scourge him too badly at all - out of pity? Then there is the other possibility. That he wasn't scourged at all. That they crucified him in the same manner they did everyone else. At that time the romans were crucifiying thousands of rebellious jews, it was terribly common. It's perfectly possible the whipping etc, were written in to add a bit of dramatic tension.... oops, there's my scepticism showing again.. |
| Profile Search | |
| 18 MAR 2004 at 2:09pm | |
| Deleted User | I am no expert or authority on History and certainly not on Religion(s) … I'm an old retired Physics teacher actually. So I browse the Net for info. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the material below since it may be slanted to highlight the author's attitude. The extracts I have chosen (and I suppose not chosen!) doubtlessly illustrate my personal biases! The article is long and I have cut out 2 or 3 paragraphs which deal with Roman behaviour outside the Middle East. Just the same, I have had to spread it over 2 consecutive postings. For any who are interested ............................. [size=13] THE HISTORY OF CRUCIFIXION ........ by Professor Michael Cook. Crucifixion was widely practiced in the ancient Mediterranean and Babylonian worlds by most of these civilizations, except the Greeks and the Jews. The laws regulating crucifixion had been codified by the king and lawgiver, Hammurabi 1700 years before Jesus. Men and women were crucified for a wide variety of misdemeanors, from adultery to insurrectionary activity. Since traditionally women have been punished preeminently over men for adultery, Babylonian women no doubt bore the brunt of this punishment for sexual misdemeanor. If you've enough interest to finish ... and patience ...................... continue on the next post!! : |
| 18 MAR 2004 at 2:09pm | |
| Deleted User | ........ if you've enough interest to finish ... and patience! : |
| 18 MAR 2004 at 6:03pm | |
starventureSorcerer Apprentice![]() ![]() Posts : 232 Joined: 24 OCT 2003 Status : Online | It's perfectly possible the whipping etc, were written in to add a bit of dramatic tension.... oops, there's my scepticism showing again.. If you are reffering to the movie, well the scourging is in the bible, so it wasn't just written into the movie. "Then Pilate took Jesus and had him scourged."John 19 verse 1. Although the drawn out version was def. for dramatic purposes. If you mean in the Bible itself that is possible. But, Ray said before that he thought the Jews/early christians made Pilate and the romans into such likable characters because they didn't want to offend the powerful romans. So why write in something that never happened that makes the Romans look worse? Especially for oly one line. Doesn't it seem more likely that if the Bible is 'spun' in the way Ray said before that they kept it at one line because it did happen and they didn't want to leave it out, but they didn't want it to offend anyone so kept it short. I think the bible can only be spun so many ways. So Jesus wasn't actually up there very long. That is what I said. Are you agreeing with me? Yay! I feel like I never agree with people in here. Did the nuns explain that the shroud of Turin has been carbon dated to 1500? Hmmm, somehow that never came up. Interesting stuff LenG. Jesus, who hung on the cross for six hours, was spared these agonies, and it was the thrust of a spear from a Roman soldier which killed him. First the author obviously doesn't believe scourging caused agony or he doesn't believe it ever happened. Secondly he must have some interesting sources about the death of Jesus. "But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead they did not break his legs but one soldier thrust his lance into his side" John "and when he said this he breathed his last" Luke "Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last" Mark "but Jesus cried out again in a loud voice , and gave up his spirit" Matthew Only John even mentions the spear thrust and that says he died before the soldier stabbed him. Where did he get differing accounts of Jesus' death? Maybe the gospels not in the bible? Has anyone here read them that could comment? |
| Profile Search | |
| 18 MAR 2004 at 6:41pm | |
RaySorcerer Apprentice![]() ![]() Posts : 360 Joined: 21 OCT 2002 Location: US, CA Status : Offline | starventure, no I don't think the Gospel writers would leave out the scourging part to make the Romans look better. Portraying the Romans as scourging someone was just par for the course, it's what Romans did. Plus, remember it was important to show how much Jesus suffered. And I'm not saying I definitely believe the Gospel writers spun the blame away from the Romans. It's just that many scholars believe that's a possibility. Remember, procrastinate now. Don't put it off!! |
| Profile Search | |
| 18 MAR 2004 at 6:54pm | |
| Deleted User | Interesting stuff LenG. Sorry ... I don't understand what you're talking/writing about. Nowhere does the author EVEN MENTION SCOURGING !! Also he stresses that Jesus was put out of his agony in much less than the 'normal' period of 3½ days. Why bring in all your quotes from the Gospels (or wherever) ...... for what they're worth historically, being written DECADES after the event?? |
| 19 MAR 2004 at 1:04am | |
JoGuild Master![]() ![]() Posts : 3313 Joined: 3 NOV 2002 Location: AU, Qld. Status : Offline | Starventure, there have been numerous programs over the last few years explaining that the Shroud of Turin is a fake - albeit a very clever one. Still I'm surprised your school didn't explain all that to you. LenG, Thanks so much for posting all that information regarding crucifixtion and also the cross as a symbol, I for one found it very interesting - some things I did know but there was quite a lot that I'd never read before. It is often the function of symbols to streamline historical content, but in becoming the symbol of the Roman's barbarous method of punishment, the figure of Jesus absorbed and erased the collective memory of the thousands of Jews, Druids and Pagan slaves, who died with greater agony. This is an instructive instance of the peculiar and not uncommon tendency for the symbol of an historical era to redirect or even to reverse its original meaning, which is what happened by the time the Church fathers put together the New Testament. Pontius Pilate, that most bloody of Roman procurators  by Rome's standards) emerges as saintly from the New Testament, and the Jews, themselves victims of crucifixion, emerge as the villains who committed deicide. The symbol of the cross, as it has come down to us, not only erased a part of early Jewish history, but became the instrument for further persecution of the Jews. Talk about hijacking the Jews own symbol, bit like what Hitler did with the swastika. The Swastika did NOT originate as a Nazi symbol of hatred.Actually there is a 2300 year old piece of silk which was discovered during the 1970s at Mawangdui, near Changsa, in Number Three Tomb. It also has 29 comets and other symbols painted on it, let's face it governments, churches and dictators have no problem at all changing the meaning of history, beliefs and symbols to suit themselves and if the original history is lost they've achieved their objective. |
| Profile Search | |
| Page 2 of 4 : « ‹ › » |
Back to Top | Home | News | Articles | Forum | About Us | Contact Us
Copyright ©2013, Just Adventure LLC. All rights reserved in the United States and throughout the world.
All other products and copyrights mentioned on
Just Adventure LLC are the property of their respective companies, and Just Adventure LLC makes no claim thereto.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy








