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