Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 56

Thread: The Moose Hole - Review of The Passion of the Christ

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    330
    Originally posted by JustaFied
    Anduril, a guy who's studying for his Ph.D. in theology.
    Thanks for the generous comments JustaFied. I appreciate it.

    Just a correction, however... I'm working towards my Ph.D. in Ancient History with concentrations in Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the ancient Near East. My Ph.D. will not have a theology component. My Ph.D. program starts September, 2004. Right now, I'm writing the thesis in my M.A. prgram in Religious Studies where I also focus on Hebrew Bible (though I've taken other courses in History & Classics). My undergraduate degree is the only degree that I've taken or will take that has a theology component. Still, I am interested in theology and have studied it on my own quite extensively.
    http://anduril.ca/movies/

    There's a spirituality in films, even if it's not one which can supplant faith
    Martin Scorsese

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    363
    Sorry, my mistake. I guess if you were getting an advanced degree in theology it would be a Th.D., not a Ph.D. For some reason I thought you were studying to join the clergy, maybe because of your knowledge and obvious passion in this field. If you don't mind my asking, what are you planning to do with the Ph.D., perhaps teach at the university level?

    My grandfather got a Th.D., then he went and got a Ph.D. in philosophy of religion. He taught for a few years at a "secular" university but then returned to the seminary where he taught for many years. He was an academic, but he was also a committed Christian, and he felt he accomplished more by returning to teach at the religious institution. I'm sure he would have found plenty to discuss in "The Passions of the Christ".

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    330
    I will teach in ancient Near Eastern history, Classical Studies, or Hebrew Bible. Exactly where is difficult to say...

    I plan to return to Edmonton, Alberta after my education in the States so my choices are somewhat limited. I'll either teach at the University of Alberta, which is essentially the same as the numerous state universities in the US, or I'll teach at what in Canada is called a "University College". These are private institutions, which quite often, though not always, have a religious affiliation of some sort. In Edmonton, it would be Taylor University College (where I did my undergraduate degree), Concordia University College, or The Kings University College. All three of these have religious affliations (Baptist, Lutheran, Reformed, in that order). It may also be possible that Grant MacEwan University College will have openings in my field by that time. It has no religious affiliation. There are a couple of seminaries and Bible colleges in my area too and they are options. I doubt, however, that I'll find myself there, at least at the outset of my career. I want to pursue research and these sorts of institutions tend to emphasize teaching over scholarship.

    Did your grandfather publish? If so, would you mind telling me his name?

    BTW, you are more or less correct that the Th.D. is the advanced degree for theology, although it's possible to have a theology component in a Ph.D. program depending on the institution and conversely it's possible to get a Th.D. and work in biblical studies and history rather than theology. The degrees sometimes overlap a bit in what they cover. The problem with Th.D.s is that they are less marketable at "secular" universities because of the perception of religious bias.
    Last edited by anduril; 02-27-2004 at 10:16 PM.
    http://anduril.ca/movies/

    There's a spirituality in films, even if it's not one which can supplant faith
    Martin Scorsese

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    363
    My grandfather did publish several books, all in the field of religion / Christianity. His name was John Newport. He went back for his Ph.D. after working as a minister (Southern Baptist) for 10-15 years. The Ph.D. certainly helped him land the teaching position at the "secular" university (Rice University). I remember hearing him say that; in fact, he probably would have had little chance at the position with only the Th.D. But, most of those who pursue the Th.D. in the first place are probably intending to joint the clergy anyway.

    The life of the mind: I admire those who pursue it.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    330
    Originally posted by JustaFied
    But, most of those who pursue the Th.D. in the first place are probably intending to joint the clergy anyway.
    Actually, not really. Most clergy don't even go that far, usually stopping with a Master of Divinity.

    (Aside). I love the arrogance of that degree title: Master of Divinity. There's almost something sinful in awarding a degree like that. :-)

    Some clergy, especially in High Church traditions like Anglicanism/Episcopalian or Catholicism, may pursue a Th.D. because they are often encouraged to pursue scholarship in their parish unlike ministers in the lower Church traditions.

    The Th.D. is perfect, though, for people who want to teach or be administrators in seminaries, divinity schools, and bible colleges.
    http://anduril.ca/movies/

    There's a spirituality in films, even if it's not one which can supplant faith
    Martin Scorsese

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    363
    Originally posted by anduril

    Actually, not really. Most clergy don't even go that far, usually stopping with a Master of Divinity.
    Another correction...geez, I need to get a fact checker.

    Funny about the Master of Divinity name. It's enough to give someone a God complex.

    I wish I had a better knowledge of the Bible and the events within it, if only to have a better frame of reference in which to judge religious films like "The Passion of the Christ". My biblical knowledge pales in comparision to yours or to my Grandfathers. It's important to understand the context of the film instead of just taking on faith everything that Mel Gibson dishes out. The anti-semitism issue (which you've so ably described) is one example of that. A strange parallel example that keeps coming to mind is a person whose primary opinion on the Kennedy assassination comes from watching Oliver Stone's "JFK", which is a misleading and irresponsible film.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    330
    Originally posted by JustaFied
    I wish I had a better knowledge of the Bible and the events within it, if only to have a better frame of reference in which to judge religious films like "The Passion of the Christ". My biblical knowledge pales in comparision to yours or to my Grandfathers.
    Hey, there's no time like the present to learn... the Bible is, contrary to some opinions, a thoroughly engrossing read when you get used to its literary styles. Also, I'd welcome any questions you might have about "the Bible and the events within it." Although no person is free of bias, I think you'd find that I'm able to present these things from various different perspectives. Feel free to email or message me. Or, we could start a thread on the Bible in the Lounge. I'd certainly contribute. I can't resist talking Bible; I find it to be one of the most intriguing and exciting works of literature ever compiled. I also happen to think it has enormous practical relevance and insight for understanding life and its purpose.

    Originally posted by JustaFied
    It's important to understand the context of the film instead of just taking on faith everything that Mel Gibson dishes out. The anti-semitism issue (which you've so ably described) is one example of that. A strange parallel example that keeps coming to mind is a person whose primary opinion on the Kennedy assassination comes from watching Oliver Stone's "JFK", which is a misleading and irresponsible film.
    I agree. This is a point that I tried to make in "Art and Audience." Many directors make films on topics that require more than just pop-culture knowledge or an interest in films to evaluate. There are even some directors who are astonishingly well read and whose ability to put complex ideas on screen in thought-provoking ways is brilliant to say the least.

    I'm likewise very influenced by Stone's JFK on the matter of Kennedy's assassination, though like you I also recognize it is preposterous in some of its claims and inaccurate in many of its details. In that case though, I imagine so many of the important facts are still classified.
    http://anduril.ca/movies/

    There's a spirituality in films, even if it's not one which can supplant faith
    Martin Scorsese

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,650

    What is all the commotion about?

    The Passion of Christ didn't seem to be any more grapic than Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. The movie did give me a tinge of anger with regard to the Jewish high priests and it appeared to be more of a broad consensus about Jesus condemnation with a few weak pleas for justice. The Roman leaders seemed to come of this on top while the Roman soldiers came out the worst.

    The movie did offer one of the extravagant polar torments between suffering, sacrifice, and forgiveness.

    As a non-practicing Buddhist, I also feel a bit whiplashed by earlier comments about Catholicism and its predominate role in United States society and government and the seeming preference of some authors towards such a religion using the Ten Commandments as an example as opposed to other religions or philosophies. I thought America stood for tolerance and allowances of all such beliefs not just one.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656

    Re: What is all the commotion about?

    Originally posted by tabuno
    [BI thought America stood for tolerance and allowances of all such beliefs not just one. [/B]
    It does, tabuno.
    Remember, this site is small, these are the voices of only a few people.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,843
    Originally posted by tabuno
    I also feel a bit whiplashed by earlier comments about Catholicism and its predominate role in United States society and government and the seeming preference of some authors towards such a religion.

    I was also taken aback. I didn't expect to find such degree of ignorance and xenophobia in these forums. I used the posts to illustrate to my kids how there are Americans whose aim is to establish a theocracy, by gradually chipping away at the thin wall separating Church and State. My kids now understand more clearly that there are people who believe that "we have the belief in this country of majority rules". My kids also understand that there are Christians like Mr. Anduril who are willing to patiently engage these individuals, in an attempt to provide much needed guidance and education.

    I thought America stood for tolerance and allowances of all such beliefs not just one.

    It still does, tabuno. But we cannot take it for granted. We have to become more vocal and active in supporting politicians and institutions that uphold the basic principles that define these United States of America.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Delafield, Wisconsin
    Posts
    111
    Thing is ... People have to remember that our country was founded by Protestants (a branch of Christianity) ... there is no denying that. So, as much as many want to believe that America is the place of religious tolerance, they have to believe that we would have a great connection with Christianity then with other religions, and Christianity only in its Protestant form. For example, only one president in our nation's history has been a pure Roman Catholic (Kennedy) and he didn't last too long. All others have been protestant. Another reason why I think Kerry won't win but that is beside the point.
    The Moose Hole Movie Reviews:
    Hidalgo --- March 5th
    Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind --- March 19th
    Jersey Girl --- March 26th


    Click Here to Read The Moose's Review of Miracle!

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Delafield, Wisconsin
    Posts
    111
    Majority does rule ... We can't listen to every hair-brain miniority that comes and says we our not getting what we want. Gay marriage ... for example ... 60-65% of the country doesn't want it but the activist judges listen to the minority and say gay marriage should be allowed. How does that work?
    The Moose Hole Movie Reviews:
    Hidalgo --- March 5th
    Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind --- March 19th
    Jersey Girl --- March 26th


    Click Here to Read The Moose's Review of Miracle!

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Delafield, Wisconsin
    Posts
    111
    And I am not saying we should establish a theocracy ... Is the country telling you what religion to join? Or what ones are right or wrong? No. And I am not saying that either. What I am saying is what is wrong with "In God We Trust" on currency? You can't imagine, if you aren't Christian, that that "God" is your god? And if you are Atheist, well then I feel sorry for you because everybody should have a sense of spirituality in you but if you don't then that is your choice. But they shouldn't ruin it for the people who are religious, because believe it or not Atheism is in the deep minority in this country, so they shouldn't push around people who don't find "In God We Trust" objectionable. My stance isn't ignorance, it's common sense.
    The Moose Hole Movie Reviews:
    Hidalgo --- March 5th
    Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind --- March 19th
    Jersey Girl --- March 26th


    Click Here to Read The Moose's Review of Miracle!

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    330
    Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
    Thing is ... People have to remember that our country was founded by Protestants (a branch of Christianity) ... there is no denying that. So, as much as many want to believe that America is the place of religious tolerance, they have to believe that we would have a great connection with Christianity then with other religions, and Christianity only in its Protestant form. For example, only one president in our nation's history has been a pure Roman Catholic (Kennedy) and he didn't last too long. All others have been protestant. Another reason why I think Kerry won't win but that is beside the point.
    You are right, MickeyMoose15, that largely Christian immigration to North America eventually led to the establishment of three countries on this continent: Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico.

    Nevertheless, the immigrants who came to the United States sought to escape the religious intolerance that prevented them for practicing their beliefs in Britain, France, Spain, Germany, and other European countries (most of which had official state religions at the time). These immigrants wanted to have the freedom to practice their particular forms of Protestantism without the interference of state-run churches and church-run politics. The Establishment Clause, therefore, sets out this principle to prevent the creation of a national or state religion.

    Of course, the immigrants who ultimately formed the United States of America formulated the Constitution and other documents guided by Western traditions. They did not, and indeed could not, have envisioned a country with people expressing beliefs from outside these Western traditions and so these historic documents affirm trust in God as it was understood by its writers. The United States of America of today is a very different country than the one initially created and it has adapted to understand that the principle of religious tolerance first laid out in the Establishment Clause ought to protect the adherents of other religious traditions or those who choose not to practice religion at all. To this end, its institutions should not enforce a Christian worldview, Protestant or Catholic, on its citizens.

    At the same time, the United States of America, in my opinion, should not embrace a policy of secular humanism in its institutions. Rather, it should continue to allow the free expression of religious beliefs in its institutions; that is, all citizens, whether Buddhists, atheists, Christians, or otherwise, should have the freedom to express their religious convictions free from persecution or ridicule. They should also be allowed to draw on the moral guidance these convictions give them as they deliberate policy and formulate legislation. No law should exist to ban religious expression (Christian, Buddhist, or otherwise), where that religious expression is, as much as possible, consistent with the pursuits of a free, moral, and democratic society.

    Canada is a country that has embraced secular humanism as its unofficial religion and so it increasingly excises any form of religion from Government, its institutions, and its documents. In the process, it is moving increasingly towards a state similar to France, where citizens are actually denied any public expression of religious conviction. The end result is the suppression of religious expression. I pray that the United States of America never follows this road.
    Last edited by anduril; 02-29-2004 at 04:30 AM.
    http://anduril.ca/movies/

    There's a spirituality in films, even if it's not one which can supplant faith
    Martin Scorsese

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    330
    Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
    Majority does rule ... We can't listen to every hair-brain miniority that comes and says we our not getting what we want. Gay marriage ... for example ... 60-65% of the country doesn't want it but the activist judges listen to the minority and say gay marriage should be allowed. How does that work?
    On the contrary, majority does not rule... the principles of any free society should seek, by definition, to protect the rights and freedoms of all citizens (while recognizing the responsibilities of citizens to contribute to a moral and just society) and, as such, the Constitution and other founding documents of the United States of America are designed to protect the rights of minorities and ensure that these rights are never held hostage by the majority.
    Last edited by anduril; 02-29-2004 at 03:32 AM.
    http://anduril.ca/movies/

    There's a spirituality in films, even if it's not one which can supplant faith
    Martin Scorsese

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •