Subject: The Passion
From: Aaron Pound [aaron.pound@gsa.gov]

A couple notes about your review of "The Passion of the Christ".

1. You wonder about "hereditary guilt" in Christian doctrine and wonder what the source is. In the account of the event, there is an instance in which Pilate washes his hands of the affair and says "let his blood be on your heads" (paraphrased) and the crowd responds "yes, let it be on our heads and the heads of our descendants (once again, paraphrased). This is the source of some people asserting that Jews have "blood guilt". This position was officially repudiated by the Roman Catholic Church a while back, and was never part of the doctrine (expressly or implicitly) of most protestant sects. But that's where the idea comes from.

2. You noted that when Pilate asked for forgiveness, Jesus said "the greatest sin is of he who delivered me to you", and interpreted that as meaning "the Jews". That is incorrect. The individual who delivered Jesus to Pilate was, ultimately, Judas, and that passage has almost universally been intererpreted as indicating that Judas bore the greatest sin as Jesus' betrayer. I note that Judas, like all the other disciples, was a Christian.

3. Finally, you wonder about the gore. But the point is to show the sacrifice. Suppose you were a Christian. The doctrine is that Jesus made a tremendous sacrifice for the benefit of humankind. But the sacrifice was not just that Jesus died, but that he died a terrible, painful death voluntarily (remember, Jesus, according to doctrine, is God, and as God, he didn't have to undergo the sacrifice unless he chose to). The biblical account gives a detailed account of the various tortures inflicted during the "Passion" (a term referring to the period just befor Jesus' death, hence the name of the film), and we have good accounts concerning Roman penal techniques, so the presentation given in the film is probably a pretty good translation of what did happen (assuming that it did happen). The sheer magnitude of the sacrifice is the point of the film, showing a sanitized version of the events would not have conveyed this. Is it right for children to see? Certainly not, but for adults it is up to their own sensibilities as to what to see.

4. You make note of the doctrine of original sin as a Christian doctrine. I only note that this is primarily a Catholic doctrine. Most protestant sects don't adhere to the doctrine of original sin, or the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, or a whole host of other Catholic doctrines.

I respond:

1. It doesn't matter where the idea of hereditary guilt comes from -- it's still a nutty idea.

2. Have you seen the film? Maybe the book gets it different, but in the film, Jesus tosses out that idea of sin being on the deliverers while standing in front of the screaming mob of bloodthirsty Jews -- J.C. might as well be rolling his eyes at Pilate while nodding toward the Jews. It seems clear that Gibson is indicting the Jews.

3. My point about the gore is that the concept of terrible torture is an appalling basis for a religion. If we all supposedly killed Jesus with our sins -- which I'll never understand the rationale of -- and God is somehow appeased via the brutal murder of his own child -- which I'll never understand the rationale of -- how does this make Christianity any different from, say, some savage South American cult throwing live virgins into volcanos to appease their gods? It's barbaric, and it's uncivilized, and just the fact that it was only one live virgin being sacrificed to God doesn't make it any nicer a concept.

Sure the film has to be gory. Perhaps some half-hearted Christian who'd never really considered the brutality of the central tenet of his faith will be appalled and turn to reason. If just one life can be saved from Christianity, Gibson will have my thanks.

4. I don't pretend to understand how Christians pick and choose which aspects of the Bible to believe and which to discard. But the concept of original sin comes from the Bible, and denial of it doesn't change its presence at the center of the faith. And Gibson's a fundamentalist Catholic -- he surely believes in it.

The reader responds:

1. Sure hereditary guilt is a nutty idea, that's why no major Christian faith adheres to the blood guilt doctrine, either expressly, or implictly any more (the Catholic church expressly repudiated the doctrine of the blood guilt of the Jews a while back, even though it never expressly adhered to it, although they adhere to the doctrine of original sin). Some theologians have argued it, but it has never had acceptance.

2. Jesus delivers the line while in front of Pilate in response to the question. There aren't a whole lot of other opportunities for him to express the idea. In the New Testament the line is delivered under the same circumstances, but is interpreted as referring to Judas, the individual who delivered Jesus to his tormentors. The line in the movie is identical, and Gibson made it a point to state he was trying to remain faithful to the text of scripture. Under those circumstances it would be odd to attribute a different interpretation than given by virtually all theologians in history.

3. The idea isn't that God is "appeased" by the sacrifice, it is that God chooses to atone for humankind in man's place. Remember, according to Christian theology, Jesus isn't just God's child, he IS God personified. Jesus and God are the same, which means that God hasn't given his son, he has given himself. It is a doctrine of self-sacrifice, I'm not sure if there is a South American cult that venerates a deity that engaged in self-sacrifice for the benefit of humans. Mostly it seems that humans must sacrifice for the benefit of a deity, which seems to me to make a philosophical difference. Whether you believe in either faith, you have to note that this is a different approach.

4. Original sin as a doctrine isn't in the Bible. The act of Eve's original sin (which was disobedience of God's instructions technically) is, but the doctrine of Original Sin as an act that has tainted all humankind prior to birth as a result of their existence is not. That's a specific interpretation most notably found in Catholic doctrine (which gives rise to their doctrine of Immaculate Conception), but not the doctrine of most other sects. The doctrine of original sin is not actually mandated by the text of Genesis, but is rather the result of various compromises that gave rise to the Catholic church in the early part of the tenth century. Because most other Christian sects don't adhere to the doctrine of original sin, they don't need the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Most other Christian sects adhere to the doctrine that humans are inherently fallible rather than being inherently stained. Gibson probably believes in original sin, but in your review you attributed it as a doctrine common to all Christians, which is far from true.

I respond:

1. The concept of original sin is identical to that of hereditary guilt, and I think it's safe to call Catholicism a major Christian faith. And even if hereditary guilt has no official standing in any Christian denomination, there still seem to be plenty of people around who believe in it.

2. I can only go by what I see in the film. In the film, it certainly looks to me like Jesus is laying guilt at the feet of the Jews, regardless of what Gibson and every theologian says. Must one read every theologian before forming an opinion about this scene?

3. Appease, atone. I see your point about self-sacrifice versus unwilling sacrifice, but is that all it's about? If even one 12-year-old virgin Mayan girl willingly threw herself into a volcano because she honestly believed it would help her village, is there any difference then? None of it continues to make any sense.

4. Eve brought evil knowledge into the world with her apple eating, and we'll still suffering from her act today, or so the Bible would like us to believe. Whatever you want to call it, it's still bizarre.

The reader responds:

1. The concept of hereditary guilt may be silimalr to original sin, buit it is not identical, no matter how much you want them to be. Hereditary guilt is a pernicious idea that condems a certain segment of people for acts committed by their ancestors. Effectively, hereditary guilt is used to justify temporal persecution of some individuals based upon crimes their ancestors may have had a hand in. The doctrine of original sin, practiced only by Catholics at this point for the most part, asserts that all humans are sinners, and asserts a spiritual debt that must be repaid, this is markedly different in purpose and tone.

2. The scene should best be interpreted in context of its historical and textual roots. It is what you would do if you were evaluating a film based upon known historical events that asserted it was trying to remain faithful to the known facts for example. But even aside from that, it seems odd to interpret a statement to the effect of "the greatest sinner is HE who put me here" as indentifying a group, rather than an individual, expecially when Judas' betrayal is such a prominent feature of the passion.

3. The Mayan girl willingly throws herself into a volcano because she believes that angry gods must be appeased or dire consequences for her kin will result, meaning that she gains from the transaction in that her relatives benefit. Jesus' sacrifice, on the other hand, contains no actual benefits for God (and since he IS God, at least as presented in scripture), no actual benefits for him. Described in the text, Jesus' sacrifice is an entirely altruistic act, setting it apart from most sacrifices.

4. Eating the apple was not the sin. Eating the apple in disbedience to God's mandate was. The sin was not knowledge, the sin was disobedience. Sin existed prior to the consumption of the apple: otherwise the serpent would not have existed to tempt Eve. Eve's disobedience merely served as an outward act of sin that manifested itself for the first time in the Old Testament.

I respond:

1. You win. I don't see much difference between the two concepts, but then I'm not looking to rationalize an irrational belief.

2. Again I ask, Have you seen the film? I base my interpretation on the film. And "he" could quite easily refer to the head rabbi, who not only made the decision to turn Jesus over to Pilate but also riles up the mob of Jews in demanding Jesus' crucifixtion.

3. Maybe Jesus' sacrifice appeases God's guilt for creating the whole scam in the first place.

4. See 1.

The reader responds:

1. There really isn't "winning" or "losing" on something like this. But from my perspective there is a wide gulf between "not much difference" and "no difference". (Oh, and technically it isn't an irrational belief in the strictest sense of the word, it is one that can be logically arrived at, provided you start with a particular set of axioms).

2. It could, but that would then be an intepretation that argues in favor of the head rabbi being the sinner, not Jews in general. Now, my position is still (from the course of the film and the various background interpretations which I am sure color my perspective) that the "He" referred to is Judas. But even if I accept that Jesus was referring to Caiphas (the head rabbi present, if I remember my characters correctly), then he was referring to a specific individual, not a group. Is it really anti-semitic to condemn one person for his actions if that one person happens to also be Jewish?

3. The link you appear to be missing is that Jesus is God, they are one and the same (at least in Chrsitian theology). The most you could say is that God appeases God's guilt with God's own self-sacrifice. That seems to be a significant factor to me.

4. See 1.

I respond:

1. If you start with a set of axioms that includes "Everything is possible," then sure, you can logically arrive at the conclusion that the moon is indeed made of green cheese.

2. I didn't condemn anything as anti-Semetic. My whole argument was about how stupid the idea is in the first place.

3. I certainly am missing the "Jesus is God" thing. That's the whole point of atheism.

The reader responds:

1. The problem is that "everything is possible" is a disprovable axiom, and hence not really an axiom that a logcial argument can be based on. You can start with a set of assumptions that are not disprovable and logically come to the conclusions that most Christian philosophers have come to.

2. The idea of blood guilt is silly. Which is why no Christian faith of any significance adheres to it. I don't think that the instances in the Passion you have cited do anything to support the idea that Gibson believes in blood guilt either, or that anyone who is paying attention to the movie would reasonably conclude that Jews (or anyone else) bears that burden.

3. I think you miss my point. My point is not that you, personally, should see that Jesus is God. But rather that Christian theology is different from the theology of the "South American volcano worshippers" because it holds at its core that Jesus is God, and hence, the sacrifice made was not humans propitiating an angry and demanding deity, but rather a deity acting as voluntary intercessor for humankind. You don't have to believe in something to understand the differences.

I respond:

1. What logical, disprovable basis is there for the existence of any gods?

2. I will continue to maintain that the concept of all of humankind being cast out of a paradise because of the actions of one person constitute a belief in blood guilt.

3. I understand the differences. I simply don't see the logic in either instance of sacrifice.

The reader responds:

1. The axiom "God exists" is not disprovable. It isn't provable either, but that is the nature of most value judgments.

2. And that is a doctrine that basically only the Catholic faith adheres to, and not even they really adhere to it in more than a symbolic manner. Remember that Genesis postulates that humans existed other than Adam and Eve prior to the fall (if they did not, where did Abel, or even Seth find a wife)? Further, sin existed prior to the bite of the apple: otherwise the serpent would not have had the ability to tempt mankind, thus the story deals with the nature of human fallibility, not the event that caused human fallibility. Effectively, the sin predates the "apple story". (And to be pedantically technical, even if you accept the story as literally truthful, mankind was cast out of paradise by the actions of three individuals: the serpent for tempting, Eve, for disobedience, and Adam, for compounding the disobedience).

3. However, the fact that there is a significant difference in motivation results in there being a significant different in the nature of the theological bent of the faiths. It is simply not possible to equate the sacrifice at the cneter of Christian doctrine with the sacrifice at the center of volcano worshipping cultists doctrine because of the fundamental difference in motivation and the identity of the sacrifice. One can find the sacrifice at the center of Christian doctrine to be puzzling, but to equate it with cults that feature sacrifice of humans, cattle, or other unwilling mortal victims to propitiate an angry deity is to equate two things that have radical differences.

I respond:

1. The axiom "the transdimensional invisible purple unicorn exists" is not disprovable, either. You can't prove a negative. If you're suggesting that that is a valid basis for a set of beliefs, then a belief in the TIPU is as reasonable as a belief in a deity.

2. Okay, fine. I give up.

3. See 2.

The reader responds:

1. It could be a basis for a rational set of beliefs. If you could come up with a set of ethical (or is it moral, I can never remember) codes based upon that axiom, then it would end up being a logical system. Inherently, all moral or ethical codes start with base assumptions that really aren't provable or disprovable, and proceed from there (essentially, all axioms used to start moral or ethical frameworks are positive statements that cannot be disproven). Every philosopher starts from somewhere, and the starting point is, of necessity, an arbitrary decision based on what the philosopher thinks is a "good idea". You can disagree that their startiung point is what you would prefer, but it doesn't make their system of beliefs irrational.

I respond:

1. You're not making any sense. Any belief system built upon an irrational base will never be rational, regardless of whether *some* of that system's beliefs are rational. For instance, Christianity preaches the so-called golden rule (be nice to people), which certainly *can* be proven to be beneficial to a group, but that belief does not depend on the irrational basis of the system (ie, God exists), and certainly exists outside the parameters of that system. *Of course* there are provable base assumptions to some sets of beliefs: like "Being nice to people is beneficial to everyone," which is one of the base assumptions of secular humanism. And *of course* I can disagree with a starting point and call it irrational: Saying that God doesn't exist does NOT negate many of the good points of Christian belief systems, only the illogical and superstitious underpinnings of those beliefs.

The reader responds:

You and I may be using irrational in a different sense. An axiom cannot, by its nature be rational or irrational. Only things that can be proven or disproven can be rational or irrational. Further, "being nice to everyone is beneficial to everyone" is actually not provable or disprovable with logical argument. You can make an empirical case that it is preferable, but you cannot make a positive logical argument to prove it. If you doubt this, try building a logical argument that being nice to everyone is beneficial to everyone. It cannot be done. Most people don't like this, they want to rest assured that their ethical system is built upon something "real", but really they are all built based on nothing more than preferences and effectively unprovable axioms.

I respond:

Fine. You win.

Subject: You don't know the half of it!
From: Steve Stevens [ibelieveimsteve@msn.com]

You're wrong about The Passion of the Christ. It's not violent at all. In fact it's actually TAME compared to the original cut. I saw it, and man let me tell you, it was not for the squeemish. Here are just a few of the scenes Mel had to cut to make the movie tolerable.

- The Romans accidentally nail Jesus to the cross upside down and have to start over from scratch.

- While Jesus is dragging the cross, the Roman commander forces him to take a long detour to the nearby town of Bethany so he can swing by his house to grab some condoms for the apre crucifixion party.

- A well meaning but ill-conceived rescue plan by the apostles leaves Jesus trapped under a giant safe.

- During Jesus' scourging the Jewish high priest yells out randoms numbers so at to confuse the men whipping Jesus. It works. They must stop and start over from one several times.

- When Jesus is arrested the Romans accidentally throw him in the same cell with the imperial gorilla.

- The Jews tell Suge Knight that Jesus called him "soft."

- In another well-meaning but ill-concieved rescue attempt, the apostles try using the Ark of the Covenant to kill Jesus' captors, but they point it in the wrong direction and accidentally melt Jesus' face.

So you see, it could've been way worse. Count your blessings!

I respond:

Har har. :->

From: Nancy Smith [nancy.smith@DRAKE.EDU]

I don't expect an answer to this e-mail nor do I want to ramble or philosophize. Just want to say that I absolutely loved your review of "The Passion of the Christ". I probably shouldn't comment at all as I don't plan to see this film, have no interest in seeing this film and am appalled at the frenzy over this movie. However, I thought your review was unbelievably excellent and to the point. Of course, it helps that I agreed with everything you said. Great job!!!

Subject: Thank you!
From: Smartpolly@aol.com

Many thanks for the first rational review I've read of "The Passion of the Christ."

Subject: Thank you
From: Jennifer Hord [jenniferhord@comcast.net]

I just wanted to thank you for writing the first really excellent review of "The Passion of the Christ" I have read -- and I've been reading a lot of them, just hoping to find someone who has the same issues with the movie I do. You are the first reviewer who actually strikes a chord of sanity. Thank you for helping me not feel so alone.

Love the site.

04.08.04

to batch #1 | to batch #3