ROTTEN TOMATOES: Shorter, Less Violent "Passion" Comments

Shorter, Less Violent "Passion"

by RT Staff | February 10, 2005

Summary

A shorter, less violent cut of "The Passion of the Christ" will be released on March 11th in most major markets, according to Variety. Titled "The Passion Recut," the new version will have 5 to 6 mins of its most violent scenes removed. Mel Gibson hopes to capture the audience segment who skipped the original movie due to its depiction of violence with this new cut. Back to Article

(21-40 of 58 posts) | Reply

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:20 PM

I'll look up the interview; thanks for the source.

There's a long explanation about meat on Fridays, but I'll give the short one:
it's not about the meat, it's about doing penance; chosen suffering of some sort, willingly taken upon yourself for the good of others. Catholics believe that evil in the world is the result of sin, but our free will choices help us atone for that sin. One of many ways to do that is voluntary suffering, offered to God, who then applies that good to others who are too downtrodden, ignorant, or evil to pray for or help themselves. It's not a superiority thing; Catholics are just as likely, or more so, to be weak, sinful, or evil. Therefore, deprivation of things we enjoy during lent is also a way to improve oneself and recognize one's own weakness.

Yes, of course God could just reach in and solve all our problems, but we'd keep making problems. Our free will exists so we can choose God and good; that choice is nullified if God solves all problems, thereby removing all moral choices.

What God the Father did do, though, is send Jesus to suffer along with us. In fact, to ensure Jesus' suffering was sufficient to apply to all, it was supernaturally expounded, and He still had to freely choose it (thus redeeming freely chosen evil with freely chosen good).

So Lent is the time we remember Christ's sacrifice, and attempt to add to it with our own. The meat deal is there mainly for symbolic and traditional reasons. It used to be a full on fast. As the Church gave in to pressure to make it easier, it turned into just a meat abstinence, and then a meat abstinence only on Fridays. The reason Catholics do the meat thing as a serious matter is because of obedience to church canon law (not doctrine; there's a difference). As I said above, that canon law has changed in the past and likely will again. So the sin, again, isn't eating meat, it's willful disobedience and lack of proper regard for penitential acts of love for your fellow man.

Feel free to make fun of us now. And yes, that was the short definition.

As for science, the church is the only religion I'm aware of that has an actual doctrinal position on how the truths of science and faith cannot contradict (as science, which studies God's creation, derives from the same source as faith, and has the same ultimate goal -- knowledge of God's goodness). Catholics aren't bound to believe in creationism, nor has the church taken any official position in the evolution debate. In fact, the Vatican seems to be officially leaning toward some form of evolution.

But let's not go patting Darwinistic evolution on the back -- it's about as proven in all it's tenets as creationism. Today's evolution has moved far from Darwin, and will probably continue to do so. As science's teachings are constantly in flux, you really can't say it's proven.

So I suppose you could say evolution is science's version of meat on Fridays -- you're supposed to sign up for now, but don't be surprised if it changes tomorrow.

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:21 PM

In reply to this comment (#819680)
Why do people continue to "debate" religion? It's not a debate. You either choose to beleive in things that are not acutally provable or testable, or you don't.

You change the minds of people who "believe". Religion is based in believing things that are not provable. It's called "faith". If someone believes that the mighty Thor guides their actions, whatever.

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:24 PM

In reply to this comment (#819681)
Have you actually read any books on evolution? It's one of the most well tested and proven theories in science. Comparing it to creationism is like comparing the belief in the Easter bunny to believing the sky is blue.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:26 PM

People debate religion either because they think a particular religion (or all religions) are useless, stupid, or harmful and don't want people to believe them anymore, or because they believe their religion is right and beneficial, and want all humanity to benefit as well.

The methods different religious or anti-religious people use to go about achieving their various goals, and what those specific goals are, can be as unique as each individual person. Some annoy people on message boards like me and Elessar, others blow people up. Obviously not all methods of religious debate are good. But you got to admit, there sure as hell is a lot to debate about.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:29 PM

The sky's not blue. That's an optical illusion. The easter bunny is a bastardized concept based on Nordic Freyan cult myths. Not what you'd call a major religion.

Yes, I've read several books on evolution. I think the difference between us is that I've read books from several sides of the debate, and tried to approach each with an open mind.

And I never said I didn't believe in evolution, or that I did believe in creationism.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:30 PM

Actually, I guess whether the sky is blue depends on exactly how you define the concept of "sky". Which I'm totally not getting into.

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:36 PM

In reply to this comment (#819685)
I'm curious as to what debate you refer to? There is not debate on wether or not evolution happens, there is only debate as to how it happens. The problem is people mix up how life started, with how life evolves. Evolution does not deal with where life came from, it onl deals with how it changes.

Creationsm and evolution are interchangable, to a point. You can beleive God sparked life in a young earth all you wan, science has no way of testing this. It's the version of creationism that says the earth is 10,00 years old that is the problem.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 12 2005 01:58 PM

Well, my understanding of creationism, which may be wrong, is that it refers particularly to a "six days of creation" system. Anything else would, as you say, be some form of evolution/creationism composite. I don't ascribe to creationsim; I think there's too much to speak against a literal six days (and plenty of biblical exegesis to support the believe that genesis was never to be taken at that point as historically literal).

Some people, believe it or not, DO debate that evolution happens. Those people are not me. I think I have to apologize for a lack of clarity, actually. By evolution, I mean Darwinistic evolution taught as a proven system from hypothesis to test to fact, which it clearly isn't or they wouldn't call it the "theory" of evolution. Theories are by definition unproven.

My only criticism of the evolution "establishment" is when it's taught as opposed to religion, as if there are no religions that can believe in evolution. That shows ignorance of religion on the part of science. Lots of science-only intellectuals get all pissy when religions don't recognize the impact of science, but they turn around and crap on the contributions of religion to humanity. I mean, science never would've gotten started in the West if the Catholic Church hadn't promoted it in the middle ages. Obviously scientific study has given immeasurable benefit but, like religion, it's contributed its fair share of terrors.

I think the scientific community, and the religious community, could stand to be a little more respectful.

(Reply to this)

craygyrulez writes:
on Feb 12 2005 03:04 PM

i aint seen it so i dnt no y im ritin in ere

(Reply to this)

the_shadow writes:
on Feb 12 2005 03:57 PM

In reply to this comment (#819679)
thanks. thats quite a contradiction to what he wrote for the 2nd edition, but i suppose ppl have a habit of being fickle.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 12 2005 05:49 PM

In reply to this comment (#819690)
You're right about that, and I suppose it makes sense. He did say in that letter that it was "unconciously" religious at first. What he apparently meant by that was that his faith was so deeply ingrained in him it came out in his work, and only after much consideration did he realize how much it resembled Catholic teachings. He then promoted that understanding when asked.

I also think I shouldn't have used the word "allegory," which as a specific meaning. Sorry about that (a little imprecision causes a lot of problems . . .) He didn't necessarily mean LOTR was a direct symbolic representation of Christianity, or was meant to express Church doctrine. Honestly, his linguistic and Nordic studies were, you could argue, equally important elements along with his religion in the formation of the story.

I think my only point (if you could call it that) was that all the Christian bashers that liked LOTR were unwittingly being hypocritical, as Tolkien spent a good part of his efforts defending and promoting Catholicism, even incorporating it into his masterwork. I mean, come on -- lembas is communion, the ring is symbolic of carrying one's cross (and Sam does his "Christian" duty, bearing the "cross" despite his fears that he won't be able to do so), Galadriel is the Virgin Mary (even the terms used to describe her during the mirror episode are very close praises of Marian devotional prayers) . . . there's too much to deny, especially considering he lived as a faithful, loyal, and devoted Catholic his whole life.

After his death, his eldest son and a few others (Peter Beagle, for example, who wrote forwards for LOTR) set out on what amounts to a campaign to separate the work from the faith. And here we are.

(Reply to this)

scottybarkbark writes:
on Feb 12 2005 06:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#819680)
[b]elassar[/b]
are you sure your sunday school teacher got frustrated asking you "logical, science based" questions or got frustrated having to deal with a close minded lil twerp like yourself. as for creationism i believe in that whole heartedly, i support the belief that a loving intelligent creator created us rather than the theory of evolution which you evolutionists would rather us believe.

(Reply to this)

ChickenWing89 writes:
on Feb 12 2005 06:37 PM

"I'm curious as to what debate you refer to? There is not debate on wether or not evolution happens, there is only debate as to how it happens."

Is not the *big bang* part of the theory of evolution?

(Reply to this)

Ophiuchus writes:
on Feb 13 2005 03:17 AM

Hey, all you believers... if you're so confident that your beliefs are correct, you don't need to be so vicious toward unbelievers all the time. In fact that goes for unbelievers as well. If you want to convince them your ways are right, I suggest demonstating how kind, understanding and tolerant you are. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and hurting each other. Please just consider it, because I feel sad when I see people laying into each other like this. I used to do it to believers myself, and now I regret it very much.

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Feb 13 2005 03:37 AM

In reply to this comment (#819692)
How is choosing not to believe in fairy tales closed minded? The bible is simply one of the worlds oldest fantasy book, a very important and powerful book, but a fairy tale nonetheless.

(Reply to this)

cabezone writes:
on Feb 13 2005 03:38 AM

In reply to this comment (#819693)
No the big bang is a separate theory. Evolution simply deals with how lifeforms change and adapt over time.

(Reply to this)

Jerry Bruckheimer writes:
on Feb 13 2005 04:09 AM

[b]I've seen the new edit[/b]
Friends, I have seen this edited version, and in it, Jesus is only given a good spanking. And the opening scene where he looks like he's masturbating has been cut out because it cause too much confusion. The msot glaring change is that Jesus does not die in this version. Doc Brown flies to the rescue on his Delorean and takes Jesus to the future and "To Be Continued" is supered on the screen.

(Reply to this)

Hanniballistic writes:
on Feb 13 2005 08:11 AM

In reply to this comment (#819694)
Two thumbs up.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 13 2005 08:20 AM

In reply to this comment (#819695)
Cabezone, closed-mindedness can also refer to your approach to Christians (or all religious people), not just Christianity.

A fairy tale is a story told for purely symbolic purposes, or in a more modern sense, mostly for entertainment. The Bible is neither. The writers had specific points in mind when they wrote, and the Church Fathers who compiled the books and letters of the New Testament did so based on, in part, what would provide the most accurate picture of Christ, His teachings, and the teachings of His closest followers.

We can debate all day about what parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, historically, typologically, or whatever, but it's inaccurate even from a non-believer's standpoint to define it as a "fairy tale." The writers had no intention to entertain; they didn't believe in most cases that their writings were "symbolic" in the way we mean that. Biblical scholars can learn these things the same way they do about other ancient histories: studying the culture, linguistics, society, and if possible, the writers themselves.

Besides which, occurences in the Bible are independently verified by outside sources, including other historians that had nothing to do with Christians, or outright hated them. I mean, there's more purely historical proofs for the Bible's accuracy in conveying history than we have for other works that no one questions.

This is a very vague defense, on purpose. Like with the other issues we've discussed, I don't think this particular thread has the patience for a full on Biblical debate. But let me ask you this: have you even read through the entire New Testament? You should, if for no other reason than to be educated about what it actually says and how it's actually written.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Feb 13 2005 08:22 AM

Jesus in a Delorean . . . sounds like a ZZ Top video.

(Reply to this)