Religious free speech
 

How is violence acceptable in one situation but not another?

How is it that a religious movie can show scenes of extreme violence but, say, any other traditional Hollywood blockbuster could not?

Will religious critics still rail against future movies with violent scenes?

-Rudey

A wonderful point.

I've always noted that the Bible is definately uncensored literature. Lots of crazy violence, language, anti-social behavior, etc. Makes you wonder why so many people are so squeamish about things.

Because anything Christian is acceptable in our society.

Not just - anything religious it seems to me.

-Rudey

Well, I bet that if somebody put out a terribly violent movie about, say, Islam, there would be an uproar -- don't you think? I could be wrong, but that's my guess, although I don't know much about Islam and don't know what a terribly violent movie about it would entail.

Well some religions might bring culture into it...I don't know. You're actually probably right.

-Rudey

Because people that profess to base their lives on the Bible have most likely not read the book in its entirety. If they have, they certainly chose to ignore some sections.

Leviticus for example has some great stuff in it :D

I think there are a great number of Christians out there that do not understand where their Bible came from. Hell.. it wasn't even assembled until HUNDREDS of years after Christ was dead. Wasn't written by him, instead by men who interpreted Jesus' actions through highly biased eyes.

The Church's political ambitions are also written into the Bible. For example, the way the Church wanted to demonize women in an effort to stamp out paganistic tendencies. Did you guys know that just recently, the Catholic Church recanted its age old teaching that Mary Magdelin was a whore? The whole Eve thing being the reason for the fall of man, etc... It's not in there by accident.

The Catholic Church recanted that teaching in 1969, but not all Christian churches held that belief. The Orthodox Church has always venerated Mary Magdalene as the "Apostle to the Apostles" since she was the first to whom the Resurrection was revealed in 3 of the 4 gospels. Mary Magdalene was, along with John, one of the most faithful and beloved of the disciples. As far as I know, the Gospels don't dispute that--its the "spin" that was later put on M.M.L.J. and Paul's letters that caused her downfall.

Back on topic, though. To me, violence is violence. I hate watching it in movies whether the topic is religious or not. I won't go see "Passion of the Christ" because of it.

I also agree that religious conservatives are talking out of both sides of their mouth when they rail against secular violent movies but praise "Passion." I think, though, that they won't see the discrepancy there because, in their opinion, the ultimate message of "Passion" is supposed to be an uplifting one--i.e., the end justifies the means.

But does the end justify the means? Who knows. I think that's something that each individual has to decide for himself.

The Bible as we know it today has been so adulterated that a lot of the true meaning has been changed over the years though interpretations and language changes.

The Bible was not written by comtemporays of the time, but by lore passed down for centurarys.

But whether it be 100 % accruate, it has been proven by such as the dead sea scroll to be very close!

Well, while the Ark has not been officially discoverd, there have been sightings as it were!

The problem is that some Religions wear it like a mantle! They are not the only ones who have beleifs or were persecuted!

If one looks and comprehends, all Religions beleive in some sort of a Supreme God Like Idol, just differnt names!

No matter what, when one dies, they are dead, toast, moldy but oldies!

While the latest movie was depicted as it really happened, it was probably more true than the Hey Days of the Robe and Moses leading the People out of Egypt!

Does anyone beleive that when someone was placed on a cross that it was a nice thing! DA!

:(

A Rudey, where have you been? There is more T and A and violence on movies than ever before!:rolleyes:

Why, there are no true Big Stars like the old days! So guess what, they need to have T & A and violence!

My point was that it had to be recanted at all. Vatican II just the same as Paul's letter and its later use by the Church. It put the Church in line with the politically held views of the church in its day. Don't be surprised if you see the Catholic Church finally approving female priests in the near future -- and don't worry, I'm sure they'll find some Biblical premise to do it that was there all along.

Back to the original question -- It's pretty darn funny. You have these Christian folks railing on about how decadent Hollywood is and how they've 'finally' been recognized as a viable market for movies and that this is just the tip of the iceberg. They justify the violence and gruesome depiction of Christ's final 12 hours as necessary for portraying the truth. Yet they disapprove of a Hollywood director using the same types of effects to give life to a script?

On the other hand, you have Hollywood/media types decrying the film as antisemitic, overly violent (compared to Terminator, etc?) and so on. How many of these same folks made money off of promoting ethnic stereotypes and branding them as "entertainment"?

In my opinion, both groups are being blindly idiotic. Hollywood should apologize to Mel Gibson and as for these religious folks, if they really disapprove of the stuff Hollywood puts out, they should stick to only watching the Vegitales.