Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!greipa!pesnta!amd!amdcad!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Time Bandits and Monty Python Message-ID: <2188@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Nov-85 14:44:15 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2188 Posted: Mon Nov 11 14:44:15 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Nov-85 01:54:23 EST References: <155@sdcc7.UUCP> <2084@pyuxd.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 46 In article <2084@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>> I don't think so. The point of the scene was to satirize the ridiculous >>> pompous notions of god-hood that people have. And it did so admirably, >>> making the magnificent god figure into a stuffy bureaucrat who isn't even >>> sure of the rules or the reasons why. ("I think it has something to do >>> with free will...") [ROSEN] I found it very funny myself, because it was (for me) a satire on silly notions of God as a gentleman. Can you imagine the TB god speaking to Job out of a whirlwind? >Which is why Gilliam's satire was so brilliant: he wasn't satirizing "the >truth" at all. The point he makes rehashes that standard Christian line that >you utter. Where do you think that came from, a box of cornflakes? Overuse >of hallucinogens? It was quite deliberate that Gilliam has god say "I think >it has something to do with free will", because THAT is your standard line! >And god himself doesn't exactly recall the real reason!! But he remembers >the gist... Angain, that's just the point. Where the hell did this "God is a gentleman" nonsense come from? God most certainly is NOT a gentleman (even Paul the Maltheist would agree to that :-) and the that portrayal of Him in the movie was as much a satire on bourgeous illusions about God (a popular target of MP) as of anything else. >One thing I've never seen is a proof that it WASN'T that way with Jesus. >It's well over a google times more reasonable to believe that Jesus was just >one more of the same breed who had good public relations men than to believe >what you do. And that, quite simply, is the basis for the far more rational >notion of non-belief. No one is going to present a *proof*, in case you haven't caught on yet. Go ahead and worship high reason, for all I care. Now, aren't we taking this a bit too seriously? I mean, this is Monty Python we're talking about. Their object is to be entertaining, after all. One might as well argue that they did _Brian_ the way they did because they knew all the smug people like Rich with their highbrow disdain for Christianity would eat it up. That's a silly reason too. Did you ever consider that they did it because it was funny? Charley Wingate