Reply #60: This movie was made for one reason [View All]

[Astarho]

above all others: Mel Gibson wanted it made. He has his reasons and of course others have seen that it is useful to their agenda. Without seeing it I can't say much more about it, but to me it seems as if Mel got distracted by the violence and lost Jesus' underlying message of loving one's neighbor as oneself.

Mel is claming it is authentic, with the use of Latin and Aramaic and from what I understand is an accurate portrayal of Judea in the 1st century AD, but Mel ultimately follows the Gospels of the New Testament, where Pilate is reluctant to execute Jesus as opposed to the worst example of Roman occupation thuggery of the time, and Mary Magdelene is not portrayed as one of the most important disciples (as she may have been).

As for the further reaching social conventions, I don't think this movie is placing any anger and hostility that is not there already, but it may provide a focus for them, and bring these feelings to the surface.

As for "Absolute Dogmatic Authority and Relativistic Humanist Morality" these two extremes have always existed and most people fall somewhere in between, but the ones on the Absolute Dogmatic end are more vocal, simply being absolutly sure makes more more likely to try and convince others.

I see it differently, the reactionary Christians on the see "Multi-culti pluralism" as a form of cultural invasion. As a responce to this invasion they embrace their own culture that much more and move further along that Absolute Dogmatic end of the spectrum (A similar thing was seen in Hitler's Germany against the internationalism of communism, or today with Muslim fundamentalists who see western culture invading them). Eventually, they will find someone who shares their views (at least in part) like Mel Gibson.