Delirious are sickos

[Ikantdance05]

I don't see anything wrong with that!

 

[kevin~]

The fact that it can't even be a realistic portrayal of the actuality just gives more reason why it shouldn't be shown to people who aren't ready for it. You have simply reinforced the fact that it can impact people as just more Hollywood gore.

isnt the point in showing it to impact people in letting them know what Jesus went through for us?

i think the issue here is whether the scenes is suitable for the younger audience, in my opinion it is fine, kids nowadays are exposed to too much media, i am sure they have seen more gruesome images. the difference here is that its not like any other mindless violent shows. the violence in passion actually depicts Jesus's love for us. For christians, after seeing how christ suffered for us, how can we not love Him more? We love because He first loved us.

to an extent, it is a realistic portrayal of the actual event, and it serves its purpose in showing us how Jesus suffered on the cross for us.

 

[6string]

It depends on what scenes they showed from it...some were very bloody and some not as so...also I don't think there is any reason to lose respect for them. It wasn't the smartest decision, but it wasn't the worst ever either...

I agree. I don't think their intentions were bad at all.

 

[Sketcher]

It depends on what scenes they showed from it...some were very bloody and some not as so...

I agree, that would be huge. Not all of it was bloody.

 

[6string]

isnt the point in showing it to impact people in letting them know what Jesus went through for us?

i think the issue here is whether the scenes is suitable for the younger audience, in my opinion it is fine, kids nowadays are exposed to too much media, i am sure they have seen more gruesome images. the difference here is that its not like any other mindless violent shows. the violence in passion actually depicts Jesus's love for us. For christians, after seeing how christ suffered for us, how can we not love Him more? We love because He first loved us.

to an extent, it is a realistic portrayal of the actual event, and it serves its purpose in showing us how Jesus suffered on the cross for us.

I understand your point - but not all children are exposed to these things every day. I know several Christian households that have no TVs, let alone computers. Many Christian parents are very protective of their kids. Home-schooling is common, so many are not exposed that way.

Are these parents over-protective? Maybe so, but that is their choice, and neither you nor Dilerious has any right to countermand that. If there are 11 year old kids at the show (and I have seen kids this young at Christian concerts) then one of two things have to happen:

1) The images displayed be something they can handle, or
2) A warning/disclaimer should be on the tickets so parents know up front.

As a parent myself, I wouldn't mind my child seeing the images, because I know that he will come to me or my wife with questions or issues and we can discuss it - but I can certainly sympathise with a parent who may have issues with what happened.

Also, again, I don't know exactly what was shown - I am assuming the "worst" from teh original post.

 

[wgjones3]

Sounds to me that Delierious was doing what they said they got into the business to do, which is minister the gospel of Christ to their audience. I have a lot more respect for them for doing that that I do for groups who never mention Jesus and try to convince their core Christian audience that they're ministering by their lifestyle now and not through their songs or personal testimonies.

But then, I never understood how anybody could throw a fit about the violence in The Passion. I'm one of those backwards people who thinks Christians should know the price that was paid for our sins.

 

[6string]

Sounds to me that Delierious was doing what they said they got into the business to do, which is minister the gospel of Christ to their audience. I have a lot more respect for them for doing that that I do for groups who never mention Jesus and try to convince their core Christian audience that they're ministering by their lifestyle now and not through their songs or personal testimonies.

But then, I never understood how anybody could throw a fit about the violence in The Passion. I'm one of those backwards people who thinks Christians should know the price that was paid for our sins.

I'm not throwing a fit, and I don't think you're backwards, I just agree with folks who are concerned about what imagery children should be exposed to.

And I reiterate: children. I'm not talking young adults.

 

[swdee]

It depends on what scenes they showed from it...some were very bloody and some not as so...also I don't think there is any reason to lose respect for them. It wasn't the smartest decision, but it wasn't the worst ever either...

Some of the most bloodiest scenes were shown: him being covered in blood whilst being whipped, nails being hammered into his wrists.
Just what we want our children to see

I as a christian, I have made a personal desicion not to watch this violent movie (as have may of my christian friends).
So I certainly do not want it to be suddenly shoved in my face!

As for posts saying that it doesn't matter cos children probably see bad violence on tv anyway, WELL THE CHURCH DOESN'T HAVE TO HELP FEED THEM VIOLENCE!!!!!!

Answer me this: if the saviour of mankind had been a woman who was raped to death would we then be happy to show children and young people an explicit video of that? What's the difference?

I find it very wierd, the church is totally against people seeing hardcore sex, but a man being tortured - oh that's ok, let everybody see it!!

 

[CJ.23]

I'm with swdee. Even if they have the correct license to show it, which one wonders, they are in violation of UK Law anyway in using the film before an underaged audience. Breaking the law is not funny. What if I decided to show porn to children? And as the film Sebastian by Derek Jarmin uses similar imagery in a hardcore sadomasochistic homoerotic context, and many people develop fetishes related to violence whipping and bondage after exposure in adolescence to such imagery, the UK censor made an informed and sensible decision to impose a legal restriction on screenings to younger audiences. Such violence should not be shown to minors, legally, morally or psychologically, regardless of the context and intent, in my opinion.

Children develop psychosexual associations very quickly, suffer from nightmares, and are often sensitive to violence - individuals vary wildly- and this is disturbing and could scar children in many ways.

Your mileage may vary, of course!
cj x

 

[philN]

I think it was an irresponsible decision.

And I don't think acknowledging that it is irresponsible or not allowing children to view it is in any way disrespectful towards Christ's work on the cross. I have not seen the Passion and I don't intend to. I can handle bad language and such in movies, but I personally cannot stomach excessive violence and gore and such. I realize that the movie is trying to depict what Christ went through, but just because it is in the Bible does not mean that all Christians should watch it (there are lots of parts of the Bible that I can read, but it would make me sick to actually watch it).

Now, if I am hesitant to see the Passion, I don't see why parents should be okay with their children being exposed to those images involuntarily. Maybe some kids can handle it, but certainly not all of them can. And the children at that age that can stomach it are not going to be thinking, "Wow, Christ went through that so that I might have eternal life with Him.", they are more likely enamored with the violence and the fact that the movie is rated R than with the meaning behind it all.

It was irresponsible of the band to show that footage without considering the personal convictions of some attendees and the children who cannot handle such images or understand the gravity of them.

My two cents.

 

[MoreInSorrow]

I think it was probably not the best decision for them to have that being shown on the screen, but to compare it to a woman being raped and shown is laughable at best. There is no comparison, as a rape would be MUCH worse, and much more graphic.

 

[*~i surrender~*]

did delirious even think about this tho? off topic - i was at same gig (if was one last fri) and i didnt even think bout it when they showed it. well course i did but not as to who it may offend, although i agree that it may not have been the best idea at the risk of offendin ppl, but that song, i think, is part of the soundtrack to the film, or least it was at our church. maybe they just didnt think of the consequences?

 

[Sketcher]

Or maybe it was a management deal - Delerious, the big Christian band and The Passion, the big Christian movie. Put them together and you have a big moneymaking tour. The music of Delerious and the blood of The Passion just do not go together artistically at all. The positive-vibe worship music and the gut wrenching scourging scenes put together would just make my gut wrench even more.

 

[Macewindu77815]

I personally don't see how you can personally think they are sickos for doing this though...I can understand not wanting to see the movie, but calling it a feeding of violence would be completely wrong...

 

[Freak4Dell]

Forget Delirious and the concert for a minute. How is it that a movie that shows nudity and sex can be rated PG-13 in the U.S., but something with violence can be R? Personally, I don't think the Passion was as bad as I expected, as far as violence goes. I guess that's because of all the things I heard about it before I watched.

I don't think Delirious are sickos for doing that, though. Kids experience much more than people think in school, so I think the movie would have been a positive thing.

 

[Sketcher]

PG-13 sex cannot compete with The Passion's violence when it comes to intensity. And unless you're talking about ghetto schools where elementary age kids see each other get shot and stabbed, I don't think they'd be used to half that much gore. Even then I don't think they'd be used to anything like that.

 

[Freak4Dell]

I seriously don't think it was as bad as I expected. I would like to see that unedited version, which I guess would have gotten an NC-17 rating or something if Mel Gibson hadn't taken some of the violence out.

 

[chemik]

no

 

[willrock4jesus]

Sorry. Didn't mean to laugh out loud at this.

Even children need to understand what Christ did for us. It was terrible, and sickening, but He did it for us. It's nothing to sugarcoat...even to children. That's just what I think.You have your opinion and I have mine. God bless

 

[steve_kyle]

Okay, you can say that they should not have shown the video. However, it is flat WRONG to call them "sickos" because you did not like the realistic images in the video. I've seen Delirious before, and am a big fan. Parents could easily shield thier kids' eyes from the screen for a moment. I have 2 kids, and would not have been freaked out by the video.

The fact is, even kids need to understand the price that Jesus paid for them. Is it traumatic? Yeah! I sobbed like a baby the first time I saw it. Am I going to let my 4 year old watch the entire movie? Not yet, but I will at some point.

Have your opinions, but do not resort to name-calling. It's just not very nice.