Replies

When he realized he had been horribly mis-lead he admitted guilt but then went out and killed himself.

...misled...

As to this movie being appropriate for children?

Is being present at a crucifixion or even at the open heart surgery of a parent (granted the successful outcome and consequences of either) appropriate for children?

There's something interesting, though disturbing, going on here. Whereas Thomas, who saw the crucifixion, said he wouldn't believe in the resurrected Christ until he touched the nail marks (too bad Mel went for artistic rather than historical accuracy here) and put his hand into the wounded side of Jesus, we now have Christians, who believe in the resurrection, saying that their faith has become much deeper because of having seen a reenactment of the crucifixion. If their faith was strengthened that much, it must not have been much to begin with or of the kind Jesus spoke to Thomas about: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." And if they equate with a deepening of faith the reacting emotionally to a depiction of pain, then they have deviated from the Path in the same way as did the sect of flagellantes.

This idea of seeing as believing (instead of the other way round) approaches being the same idolatry as practiced by the What Would Jesus Do* movement. It erects in the imagination a simulacrum of Jesus and reacts to it, imagining that the reaction is essentially the same thing as, or as good as, having actually encountered Jesus.

*WWJD is the modern version of pin sticking, a form of divination practiced in earlier centuries in which people would open a Bible and stick a pin to the page at random and read the pin-pointed verse. The assumption was that God would be guiding their hands to show them something he wanted to communicate to them. At least this had the virtue of limiting outcome to something actually in the Bible--well, to a product of something in the Bible and the imagination of the reader as he tried to shape the import of an isolated verse into a means of communicating something to him about a particular problem or decision he should make. WWJD skips the Bible and just goes directly to the imagination part, informed more or less by people's more or less (usually less) accurate images of Jesus derived from the Bible, Sunday School stories, movies, and other popular sources. The aim of both methods of divination is to shift responsibility for some action to an agent outside of oneself. In the letters of Paul and other apostles, Jesus as an example is referred to, but in very specific ways, not as a plectrum of the imagination to divine the future or to decide what to do.

...saying that their faith has become much deeper because of having seen a reenactment of the crucifixion.

Is that bad?

I consider the movie a vehicle for reminding me of the sacrifice Jesus made, much as the morality plays of medeival times.

Unfortunately (and I include myself in this group), many Christians don't have the imagination nor the historical knowledge to understand the depth of Jesus sacrifice. We grow up hearing "Jesus died for our sins" but we don't really internalize this message. Intellectually, I know this, but I feel a need for a visceral knowledge which will make me more active in my faith.

If you don't wish to see the movie, that is fine. Your faith is farther along on the path than mine. Please don't disparage believers who want to see this. Most are trying, like I am, to come to a deeper belief.

So I guess you wont be seeing the movie then.

Got a degree in the Liberal Arts, huh?
WWJD was a simple reminder to Christians to ask themselves: What would Jesus do?
It is possible that overanalysis of simple concepts leads to insanity.
Or excessive tinfoil consumption.
Think about it.LOL!

"If their faith was strengthened that much, it must not have been much to begin with or of the kind Jesus spoke to Thomas about: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

The fact that even Thomas needed more than to be told (even first hand) that Jesus had indeed risen as He had promised makes me feel better about my own lack of faith.

Thomas had so much more to go on than we. Here he was, a beloved, chosen disciple of Christ, who had heard his sermons directly, slept and ate with Him, and witnessed all those miracles, and yet he was only mildly rebuked (not to mention not sent to everlasting torture in Hell) for doubting.

We, however, have a multitude of conflicting interpretations of a Bible written centuries ago, translated and edited centuries later.

I must choose which man's interpretation is correct, and have faith in them, trusting myself to be truly unbiased, led only by The Spirit in discerning between false and true...

And be confident that all those who are just as convicted that they hear the true spirit telling them my convictions are wrong, are themselves misguided, and however well-meant, they are victims of other influences from which I hold myself to be immune.

Well, I must say that was rather pompous of you. My faith was as strong before this film as it was after. That said, I readily admit to the peculiar malady of being human. Being human, my feeble imagination was not enough to conjure up the imagery that I desired to have when I remember what He did for me at the partaking of the Lord's Supper memorial (communion). I wanted to see an approximation of what He went through to aid me in remembering what He did for me. I'm glad that your's is an active imagination not needing such aids. I wish you well. As to the children, if they are old enough to need a Savior, they are probably old enough to see an approximation of what He did for them.

It erects in the imagination a simulacrum of Jesus and reacts to it, imagining that the reaction is essentially the same thing as, or as good as, having actually encountered Jesus.

Please accept this comment in the spirit it is given.

I would disagree with your contention that the WWJD crowd is imagining their nefarious reaction is essentially as good as having actually encountered Jesus. Some delusional souls perhaps; at best a very small minority. Most would base their conclusions to the question WWJD on their own personal understanding of things taught in scripture. Posing the question to others (by displaying the logo) is for most just another form of witnessing.

When faced with a situation, "what would Jesus do" is a valid question, the answer to which may well be "I don't know". This would be the personal affirmation that more study is in order. To categorize this as a plectrum of the imagination to divine the future or to decide what to do, is quite harsh and applies an assumed conclusion with an illegitimate basis.