• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Crucifixion Is Horribly Violent – We Must Confront Its Reality Head On

Go to CruxDreams.com
Wragg134 said:
Back in the 60s and 70s crucifixion scenes were less violent. Not non-violent, but a slightly sanitised violence:

I remember watching the 1964 Gospel According to St Matthew by myself when I was quite young:
Click to expand...
But Pasolini's passion scene isn't 'sanitised', I find it very powerful, deeply moving,
because it is so understated, showing just enough, leaving the rest to our imagination.
To me it stands comparison with Bach's musical setting.

Pasolini was a gay, Marxist, atheist - but also a great admirer of Pope John XXIII,
the last reasonably humane and progressive pontiff before the present incumbent,
the film was didicated to him.
 
Jollyrei said:
That's an interesting point. I think the idea of trigger warnings may come from an incomplete understanding of the effects of traumatic or other bad things on people, and a notion that, in order to be mentally healthy, we need to avoid thinking about or experiencing bad things. We here stand in opposition somewhat to that notion, suggesting that it may even be healthy, normal, and helpful to explore the most terrifying and horrific fantasies, and make those thoughts acceptable rather than something to be repressed.
Click to expand...
Well, I've no specialist knowledge, and am cautious of expressing an opinion on a very difficult issue,
I can only say, I've found that exploration very helpful and easing to my mind,
but what helps me might be disastrously bad for others.
 
Eulalia said:
Well, I've no specialist knowledge, and am cautious of expressing an opinion on a very difficult issue,
I can only say, I've found that exploration very helpful and easing to my mind,
but what helps me might be disastrously bad for others.
Click to expand...
Entirely possible, and I'm no expert in clinical psych either, but I do see trends. They are likely not all just fads. Perhaps it's better to give some warning and acknowledgement that exposure to horiffic events causes stress than to just give people a blanket and a cuppa, and tell them, "well, it could be worse. Keep a stiff upper lip," which was the support for bombing survivors in WWII as I understand it.
 
Strange, warning theology students about scenes representing the crucifixion of Christ ‘may contain explicit nudity and violence’. (They’ll never make them good inquisitioners like that:oops:).

I thought this was about one of the core elements of Christianity : resurrection is the ultimate reward for suffering. It is supposed to give suffering and death a real sense.

I had to think about a thread from Zephyros, posted about erotic art on grave monuments :


http://www.cruxforums.com/xf/threads/cemeteries-eros-and-thanatos.5792/


I have commented therein that maybe the purpose of that kind of art, (veiling death by images of beauty and erotism), could explain much of what is going on on CF too? Erotisation of agony and death, focusing here on erotisation of crucifixion, in reality a cruel and humiliating way to die?
 
Jollyrei said:
That's an interesting point. I think the idea of trigger warnings may come from an incomplete understanding of the effects of traumatic or other bad things on people, and a notion that, in order to be mentally healthy, we need to avoid thinking about or experiencing bad things. We here stand in opposition somewhat to that notion, suggesting that it may even be healthy, normal, and helpful to explore the most terrifying and horrific fantasies, and make those thoughts acceptable rather than something to be repressed.
Click to expand...
We confront our demons
And we embrace them,
Only to find
They are ourselves.

Perhaps we should get to know them better, although admittedly there may be many with which we would choose not to identify, but rather say, "Know thine enemy!" We are simply exploring the 'demonology'. With few exception, each individual has a capacity to harm and to consider the prospect of harming another. But every individual is different and most are also capable of compassion. Film maker James Cameron overlooked this in the following observation on human nature:-

Edward Furlong (John Connor): "We're not going to make it, are we? Humans, I mean..."
Arnold Schwarzenegger (The Terminator): "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."

(From 'Terminator 2: Judgment Day' 1991)
 
Ave and happy new year to all members,

I think that idea that "sensible" students of Theology may be frightened or shocked by the horrific brutality of the crucifixion is pretty absurd. Maybe its this phenomenon which is actually coming from the United States.
But when I was young and went to university (admitted, that was long ago, in the 80ies) there was only one movie which had "remarkable" influence on the way how we look on the Jesus figure, his death and the ancient world he lived in and that was Monty Pythons LIFE OF BRIAN.
I had friends , which were students of Theology and thought LIFE OF BRIAN was the most "realistic" approach to understanding Jesus in its way how the political, social and psychological interferences and effects in ancient occupied Palestine created the "Messiah"-story, not in the humorous and "blasphemic" way how its told in the movie, of course, but the movie has a far more serious background in its "social commentary" that you may not see on the "funny" surface. At the same time the 80ies were a high time of all that horror and slasher stuff where blood and gore was requested, the more the better.

The fixation on the "Cross" as a torture instrument in our "special interest" and its use to display the "beauty of agony" in hanging bodies (male of female, depending on preference) is obviously a result of the execution of the supposed founder of christian religion being portrayed permanently in art and tradition in our "christian" world.
But if Jesus had been executed (for example) on the wheel and that depictions would re-create his "hot" body being tortured on the wheel, that could easily replace the cross in our fantasy, I think.

@Wragg134: Yes, these two did belong to my favorites, too, when I was young (including the scene you mentioned) but the Pasolini movie shows why its not necessary to show tons of blood and gore like Gibson. The scene with the struggling, resisting and screaming thief embraces the horror of the crucifixion very well without showing blood. Thats "movie art", I would say. Even a student of Theology in todays time should be able to watch this old movie without getting traumatized for life, I presume...

best regards
Ty.
 
Fox-on-Cross said:
In later years he executed by car his attacker.
Click to expand...
You mean 'he (was) executed by (being run over by) his own car (by) his attacker'.
The circumstances remain a mystery, the young killer said P had asked to sodomise him with a stick and they quarrelled,
but years later retracted that and said it was a Mafia killing, he was threatened into being the fall guy.
 
Last edited:
Joining this one a little late but I see no reason crucifixion has to bloody and violent.

A victim could be tied to a cross with their arms stretched out and suffer from their muscles being stretched. Muscles in the victims arms and over their chest are stretched in such a way as to cause large amounts of pain. These muscles would eventually fail affecting the victims ability to breathe and killing them. This could all be done without leaving any visible marks except from the restraints.

It's no secret that the Romans loved blood. There are examples of them designing gladiator weapons to maximize bleeding but not deeply penetrate a body. So with this in mind they made crucifixion bloody too.

I would find a situation perfectly believable where by a submissive woman in chains was brought out. She accepts her punishment without protest. Without resisting she could be tied by her wrists to the cross beam so her arms are at 90 degrees and she has no movement. Then as she is lifted her body pulls down applying the strain on her muscles and causing a large amount of pain. As her chest is tight her screams will be minimal but her pain will be high. She could then suffer for hours as those in the crowd watch her die. Then she can be taken down once her execution is complete. All without blood and gore. Also a simple gag will suppress what little screams she makes so the whole thing could be very peaceful to watch. But those who have watched will know she suffered greatly.

Maybe when I have time I should make that into a story. What do you think?
 
Darkmind said:
Maybe when I have time I should make that into a story. What do you think?
Click to expand...

If you do, I suggest you incorporate that mental dilemma "will I be released?"

Nails are so final, no-one would believe you could survive after the nailing, even if it did take many hours to die. Ropes, cuffs etc, there is always the chance.

In What I Don't Know the sufferer has no idea what her fate is, she's tied but not (yet) nailed. Uncertainties like this make a good story.
 
old slave said:
If you do, I suggest you incorporate that mental dilemma "will I be released?"

Nails are so final, no-one would believe you could survive after the nailing, even if it did take many hours to die. Ropes, cuffs etc, there is always the chance.

In What I Don't Know the sufferer has no idea what her fate is, she's tied but not (yet) nailed. Uncertainties like this make a good story.
Click to expand...
And the humiliation of been seen naked and hearing the comments. Here as less pain as much these feeling will be hard to endure
 
Eulalia said:
Hm, non-violent crucifixion? An interesting concept....
Click to expand...
It could be done.

It would still be humiliating and entertaining for the crowd. But maybe the crowd prefers not to see too much violence.

It would also still be very painful and slow for the victim so they would feel fair justice. Perhaps this type of execution would be used as a more respectable method as opposed to the normal nailing.

Or maybe a victim could be sentenced to feel a few hours of this as a punishment. Long enough to suffer pain but not so they suffer fatal injury. I suppose it depends on my mood......
 
A non violent crucifixion is an interesting idea. If it weren't for its religious connections maybe the old medieval punishment of the pillory might have been a similar period of humiliation tied to a cross in the market square for everyone to hurl abuse & mockery as well as rotten eggs & other unpleasant things. Whether in those times victims for a days roped to a cross would have been naked I doubt, I don't think malefactors in the stocks or the pillory were naked.
 
I have the impression that two concepts are mixed up here. What is meant by 'violent' crucifixion should be interpreted as 'deadly lethal'. Any judicial crucifixion is an act of (state) violence, either with ropes or with nails. I can imagine that hanging to a cross for an extended time is in reality also highly unpleasant and very painful, because of the pain by intense local pressure where the ropes carry the body weight. This would be experienced as 'violent' as well by the condemned. The difference is a prospect of a further life after the sentence. Extended hanging by ropes can also cause lethal effects, because that pressure can damage muscles, nerves and veins, and maybe lead to permanent disability or even need amputation.

I think, crucifixion using ropes has already been exploited many times on CF. I refer to one of my stories, 'Alpine Glow', in the 'No Trespassing' series, where a couple was caught driving over a prohibited road, and punished by being crucified by ropes.

http://www.cruxforums.com/xf/threads/no-trespassing.4778/#post-197719
 
Non-violent is my cross with primary purpose to be bound as helpless being, nude and shameful for myself (I never do nudism in my home, but often scarcely clothed) then I can release me when the pain becomes in more proportion as the enjoyment does. I can't imagine to be fastened by another without escape, that would be a great adventure!
I will speak about mild violent...
 
Fox-on-Cross said:
Non-violent is my cross with primary purpose to be bound as helpless being, nude and shameful for myself (I never do nudism in my home, but often scarcely clothed) then I can release me when the pain becomes in more proportion as the enjoyment does. I can't imagine to be fastened by another without escape, that would be a great adventure!
I will speak about mild violent...
Click to expand...
Agreed. I was of course referring to judicial crucifixion, where the condemned is forcedly crucified (regardless whether it is a intended as a self-sacrifice). Not to consensual / self chosen crucifixion for the excitment at home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom