If you're going to be intellectually honest

Chris

If your going to be intelectually honest when posting what critics said lets see the whole review not just thos portions which fit your personal agenda. Here is what Roger Ebert actaully said when he and his partner gave the movie Two Thumbs Up.

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST / **** (R)

February 24, 2004

Jesus, the Christ: James Caviezel
Mary: Maia Morgenstern
Mary Magdalene: Monica Bellucci
Pontius Pilate: Hristo Shopov
Caiaphas: Mattia Sbragia
Judas: Luca Lionello
Claudia: Claudia Gerini
Gesmas: Francesco Cabras
Satan Rosalinda Celentano

Newmarket Films presents a film directed by Mel Gibson. Written by Gibson and Benedict Fitzgerald. Running time: 126 minutes. Rated R (for sequences of graphic violence). Opening Wednesday at local theaters, but selected locations will start screening the movie at midnight Tuesday.

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC

If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Although the word passion has become mixed up with romance, its Latin origins refer to suffering and pain; later Christian theology broadened that to include Christ's love for mankind, which made him willing to suffer and die for us.

The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.

I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another:

At the Cross, her station keeping ...

Stood the mournful Mother weeping ...

Close to Jesus to the last.

For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.

David Ansen, a critic I respect, finds in Newsweek that Gibson has gone too far. "The relentless gore is self-defeating," he writes. "Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins."

This is a completely valid response to the film, and I quote Ansen because I suspect he speaks for many audience members, who will enter the theater in a devout or spiritual mood and emerge deeply disturbed. You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body. Some will leave before the end.

This is not a Passion like any other ever filmed. Perhaps that is the best reason for it. I grew up on those pious Hollywood biblical epics of the 1950s, which looked like holy cards brought to life. I remember my grin when Time magazine noted that Jeffrey Hunter, starring as Christ in "King of Kings" (1961), had shaved his armpits. (Not Hunter's fault; the film's Crucifixion scene had to be re-shot because preview audiences objected to Jesus' hairy chest.)

If it does nothing else, Gibson's film will break the tradition of turning Jesus and his disciples into neat, clean, well-barbered middle-class businessmen. They were poor men in a poor land. I debated Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" with commentator Michael Medved before an audience from a Christian college, and was told by an audience member that the characters were filthy and needed haircuts.

The Middle East in biblical times was a Jewish community occupied against its will by the Roman Empire, and the message of Jesus was equally threatening to both sides: to the Romans, because he was a revolutionary, and to the establishment of Jewish priests, because he preached a new covenant and threatened the status quo.

In the movie's scenes showing Jesus being condemned to death, the two main players are Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest. Both men want to keep the lid on, and while neither is especially eager to see Jesus crucified, they live in a harsh time when such a man is dangerous.

Pilate is seen going through his well-known doubts before finally washing his hands of the matter and turning Jesus over to the priests, but Caiaphas, who also had doubts, is not seen as sympathetically. The critic Steven D. Greydanus, in a useful analysis of the film, writes: "The film omits the canonical line from John's gospel in which Caiaphas argues that it is better for one man to die for the people [so] that the nation be saved.

"Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse the issue of anti-Semitism."

This scene and others might justifiably be cited by anyone concerned that the movie contains anti-Semitism. My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority. The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face, Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture.

A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish establishment while at the same time finding his support, his disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs.

This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But "The Passion of the Christ," more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call "commercial," and if it grosses millions, that will not be because anyone was entertained. It is a personal message movie of the most radical kind, attempting to re-create events of personal urgency to Gibson. The filmmaker has put his artistry and fortune at the service of his conviction and belief, and that doesn't happen often.

Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it).

It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.

Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.

Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
_________________
What you tolerate, will happen.

CTC · Site Admin Joined: 06 Apr 2002 Posts: 118

Chris,

It is obvious that you misunderstand Brother Shubert's intent. He is challenging the world and a world-loving church with statements he believes are accurate and true. He has every right to highlight and emphasize the truth and to filter out error. It is you who are intellectually dishonest if you believe that Eugene doesn't have this right. It is obvious that the short snippets from Roger Ebert couldn't possibly represent the entirety of that professional film critic's review. Shame on you for suggesting dishonesty. If you believe that Eugene's quotations of Roger Ebert are improper, or that Eugene is morally required to quote the entire review, then I suggest that you return to your church to pray, reflect and carefully judge the spirit within yourself. You are not right.

Chris · Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:27 pm Post subject:

Oh I understand his intent very well and I respectfully disagree. What I don't know is if Eugene actually saw the movie or if he is just relying on what other people tell him.

Sorry but twisting what an individual has said to fit your personal agenda is not intelectually honest regardless of your good or bad motives. If your going to say or imply so and so did not like the movie by selecting just those portions of the statment that you agree with, when the reviewer actually did like the movie and recommended it to others is dishonest. There is no other way to word it.

We all have the freedom of speech and I would never imply that one does not have that right after spending more than 30 years of my life defending his and your right to say what you want. However with that freedom comes a responsiblity to be honest in your communcations. The editing and omission of the context of Eberts comments is not honest. Ergo it is false and it is dishonest intellectually. It's not what he was saying about the movie. In another context would that not qualify as bearing false witness?

While he is free to decide for himself what is error and what is true and stating this is what I believe is true or this is error is his right. He can state that for himself, but, I don't remember anyone making Eugene the one who filters error for the rest of us, deciding what is accurate and true. Did I miss a meeting or an election?

Your right taking snippets from an article cannot represent what the entire review said. But is it right or fair to imply through those well selected "snippets" something that the author did not intend it to say? No it is not.

Do you understand that things like this will happen to God's people when the time of trouble comes. People will take snippets of Our words and our actions will be taken out of context and used against us. But I guess that will be OK with you because they believe they are accurate and true. Right?

You asked if eugene is morally required to quote the entire review. Probably. If it were me I would but then thats just the way I am. I would point out those "snippets" I agree with and those I don't but I would not imply that this is all the reviewer said or this is the essence of what he said. Why, because it is not what the author was saying. If you don't believe that this is intellectually dishonest that's your problem not mine.

I suggest you join me in church and pray and reflect carefully on your own spirit.

I am correct.
_________________
What you tolerate, will happen.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:07 pm Post subject:

Well said, Chris. God help us all to be true, and humbly admit when we miss the mark.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

Chris · Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:13 pm Post subject:

Well Derrick, I guess I'm impolite or something as well. I posted two messages this morning and POOF they're gone not moved but gone completely. I guess eugene doesn't like it when someone posts anything contraray to his personal agenda. I believe he's gone from intellectual dishonesty to intellectual arrogance.

I wouldn't mind the moving of posts to other areas or the removal of posts completely IF he had the decency to answer my questions and respond to my posts, but he just moves or removes them.

chris
_________________
What you tolerate, will happen.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 1:54 am Post subject: ppp=666

Chris,

You may wish to familiarize yourself with the forum rules. Check the user agreement. The Midheaven and High Mountain forums are for teaching truth, not the sentiments of the popular press, papists and apostate Protestants. Your view is not my view. You defend the united sentiments of the Dragon, Beast and False Prophet. That's not permitted in the Midheaven and High Mountain forums.

Must I hold your hand and tell you where to post? Since the Dragon, Beast and False Prophet all support Mel Gibson's move, how about The Dragon, Beast and False Prophet Convention Center? I have no sympathies for professing Christians who cry hypocritically about the consequences of their own lawlessness, since they are without the Spirit, discernment or inclination to distinguish the clearly recognizable difference between good and evil.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 4:20 am Post subject: Re: ppp=666

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:01 pm Post subject:

I say to you unequivocally that the user agreement is Biblical and that true Christianity is not childish whining about how unloving it is for rules prohibiting the united sentiments of the Dragon, Beast and False Prophet from being taught in the Midheaven and High Mountain forums.

Who is really being "hypocritical" here? You are! Those who judge others have judged themselves. You are the vindictive, foul-tempered verbal-basher because those are your words against me. If you want to praise Mil Gibson's movie, you have every right to do so in the Dragon, Beast and False Prophet forum. If you want to refute the claims made by this ministry in regard to that movie, go ahead. Again, go to the Dragon, Beast and False Prophet forum.

Chris · Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:47 pm Post subject: Re: ppp=666

Dzien Dobry · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 26 May 2002 Posts: 71

Chris, You sure are posting a whole lot of angry condemnation without any just cause. Your imaginings are false. You have clearly failed in proving your original complaint. Quoting whole paragraphs is not "twisting what an individual has said."

Roger Ebert didn't refute his own review and you didn't even attempt to refute Eugene's excerpts.

Eugene Shubert

Since I’ve been made an offender for a word, I thought I should define the offense.

Men often commit wrong through ignorance or want of judgment. In many instances there is no premeditated wrong; it is caused through a lack of thoughtfulness. The one who treats this as sin is himself a sinner. There is with many a keen imagination that makes them offender for a word or action. But often the one judged is innocent in the sight of God. The accuser, who has permitted the tempter to ruffle his feelings, needs to humble his soul before God, to be purified and refined by the Holy Spirit, to love as brethren, be kind, be courteous. The promise to all is, “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and He will draw nigh to you.” (James 4:7). If one errs, remember that this is no more than you yourself have done. Put away evil surmisings. Christ says, “All ye are brethren” (Matt. 23:8). 11MR 371.

We must bear with one another, remembering our failings. With some have compassion, making a difference; others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire. All cannot bear the same rigid discipline. All cannot be brought up to just another’s ideas of duty. Allowance must be made for different temperaments and different minds. God knows how to deal with us. But my heart has been sick as I have seen brother deal with brother and the disposition to catch another in his words and to make a man an offender for a word. . . . 2MCP 632.5.

The soil of the hearts of the Pharisees is a hopeless and profitless soil, where the seeds of heavenly truth cannot take root. Oh, how self-deluding is this feeling of superiority that all Pharisees cherish! They suppose that others are at fault, and speak words of reproof and condemnation, and their words are strong and hard as nether millstones, and crush all hope and courage out of the soul. The goodness of heart manifested in the works of true Christians, puts into the heart of Pharisees roots of bitterness whereby many are defiled. They are full of evil thoughts, and suspect the purest. They make a man an offender for a word. Exalted self claims all their faith, honor, and love. {ST, December 17, 1894 par. 2}

Making a man an offender for a word is a grievous sin in the sight of God. 20MR 360.

Many of you are self-willed, proud, hardhearted, and condemnatory, when on the contrary the whole heart should be aroused to devise ways and means for saving souls. You draw apart from your brethren because they do not speak and act to please you, when in the sight of God you are more guilty than they. You do not seek that unity that Christ prayed might exist among brethren. What impression do these variances, this emulation and strife, make upon your families and your neighbors, upon those who do not believe the truth? “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another.” How many of you are unsanctified in heart, and while sensitive yourselves to any reproof, you make another an offender for a word? How many of you speak words that cannot produce union, but only heartache and discouragement? How many give cause for anger, and are themselves angry without cause? Manuscript Releases Volume Fifteen, page 192-193.

A hard, unjust, critical spirit has been indulged among those who have held positions of trust in the work of God. Unless those who have indulged this spirit are converted, they will be relieved of the responsibility of acting a part in committees of counsel, even in the transaction of business. Unless they are converted, their voices must not be heard in the council, for the aggregate result is more injurious than beneficial. Wrong prevails, man is made an offender for a word, and suspicion, distrust, jealousy, evil-surmising, evilspeaking, and injustice reproduce themselves even in connection with the cause of God. A false zeal passes for jealousy for the cause of God; but the miserable, filthy garment of self must be destroyed, and in its place men must accept the righteousness of Christ. The persecution that is carried on among church members is a most terrible thing. It is true that some have committed errors and made mistakes, but it is equally true that these errors and mistakes are not nearly as grievous in the sight of God as is the harsh and unforgiving spirit of those who are criticizers and censors. Many of those who are free to pass judgment on others are committing errors which, although not made manifest, are tainted with deadly evil that is corrupting their spiritual life. TM 185-186.

Another grievous sin existing in our midst, is self-sufficiency,—Pharisaism,—feeling that we are righteous, and all our acts are meritorious, when we are far from cherishing the right spirit toward God or toward our brethren. It is a spirit of wanting to be first. Self-esteem has been cherished, and you have had a spirit of criticism toward others because you were not first. Envy, jealousy, suspicion, fault-finding, and false witnessing have existed. There are unconsecrated hearts among you, who turn everything said or done, even under the special direction of God, in a wrong way. The power of Satan's temptations is strong upon these, and they view things in a perverted light. They please the enemy by their criticisms, and by making a man an offender for a word. In many of these cases that are criticised there is no actual sin; the suspicion is the result of the condition of the mind that entertains it. If one crosses their path, they have no unity or fellowship with him. They feel disgusted with all he may say or do. Those who have confidence in them share their feelings and sentiments. A spirit of retaliation is secretly at work; yet those who are thus creating disaffection and disunion, and planting the seeds of jealousy, all the while claim to be firm believers in the truth. Such do not practice the spirit of the truth. The leaven of their evil surmisings permeates the company where it exists, and God is dishonored, the principles of truth are degraded, and the Christian experience is marred and dwarfed. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, December 18, 1888.

Chris · Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:31 pm Post subject:

Chris · Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:41 pm Post subject:

Hey Eugene why don't you just try using your own words to answer questions? We can all go and find quotes from the Bible, Mrs White's writings, the internet and whatever. So I'm truly not impressed.

I asked you if you have seen the movie? I have yet to receive an answer?

I posted two links to reviews and information regarding the movie and it disappeared. Your explanation left a lot to be desired.

Do people have the right to see alternatives to your views? If so why delete them?

I would hope you would answer these in YOUR words not those of Mrs White or anyone else, just yours.

Oh, I read your rules as noted in my previous post, you haven't answered my questions there either.

chris
_________________
What you tolerate, will happen.

Nic Samojluk · follows A. G. Maxwell Joined: 23 Nov 2002 Posts: 30

Chris, you are not alone. I slightly disagreed with Eugene on the same subject, and he posted my comments on his The Dragon, Beast and the False Prophet. I wasted half an hour trying to locate my comments, and finally gave up.

Nevertheless, he was prompt in responding when I asked for his help. He has good qualities, but he probably honestly believes that he has a direct line to heaven. I am not convicned that he does more than you probably do. If his illusion makes him happy, that is fine with me. I understand that many individuals in the past have deceived themselves into thinking that they were Napoleon, which made them extremely happy.

There is no need for him to deceive and offend readers who respond to his invitation to post their comments. There is no need for him to hide their comments either where only he can find them. It would be very easy for him to place a link to those comments he happens to dislike. This would represent fair treatment, and he would be respected.

It would also be very easy for him to place a disclaimer on each of his High Mountains articles stating something like this: If you disagree, your comments may end on the Dragon, Beast or False Prophet page. Honesty requires this. I have made such a suggestion many times to him to no avail. I think that he is sincere, but self deluded.

I still hope that one day he may get tired of so many frustrated readers who resent this unfair treatment, and decide to implement what I am suggesting for his benefit. If he is a man of God, he should listen, the way Moses listened to his father-in-law. Moses had a direct line to heaven, but he was humble enought to follow the advice of his father-in-law. I hope Eugene does the same and stops labelling those who sincerely disagree with him as False Prophets.

In spite of my frustration with his stubborness, I still admire the well organized and sophisticated forum he has on the Internet. If God used Balaam of old, he may also use Eugene for his glory.