Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

Dolemite_the_Wiz writes "The BBC reports that Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' will be re-released, with the remaining Python troupe's full support, in US theaters next month. The Film's Distributor, Rainbow Film Company are marketing the film as an alternative to all the hype that Mel Gibson's film 'The Passion of the Christ' has generated. Trailers for the Film will begin running in theaters on Good Friday. Wait until Biggus Dickus hears about this!"

Comments

Re:Re Re Re released

[Anita Coney]

Have you ever seen a movie in a theater?! I have, it's a heck of a lot better than watching it at home. Thus, THAT'S the advantage of re-releasing a movie to the theater. We get a chance, or a second chance, to see a great movie on a large screen.

Re:Re Re Re released

[sisco]

There are plenty of products on the market that prove that consumers do not act logically. Why else would people pay hundreds of dollars for a stuffed animal (a.k.a. beanie baby)???

Or why do people trade most of their tax return in order to get credit to lease a car, that they will wind up paying wayyy more than what it is worth.

Heck, I don't even make logical economical decisions all the time. Besides which, this offers the opportunity to go out and see it in the theatre... a potential good time with all your friends.

anyway, point being... consumers aren't always logical.

Re:When it was originally released...

[jwthompson2]

There will be lots of criticism from the likes of Pat Robertson and Falwell and the sort, but I, even as a southern baptist, appreciate this movie, considering it doesn't mock Christ as much as some might think...

Monty Python

[eXtro]

have always been the masters of irreverence. The silly and sometimes seemingly lame sketches have always just been a veneer over them thumbing their noses at God, Queen and Country, bureaucracy, castes and whatever else they thought deserved a bit of a dressing down. Satire was their means of writing an indignant letter to the editor.

I know in Canada This Hour has 22 Minutes fills a similar role, what American comedy troups or performers do this in the U.S.?

Grail schmail

[sketi]

Call me flamebait, but I always thought Life of Brian was the Pythons' best work. Highly underrated, IMO.

People called Roman, they go towards the house?

[Thedalek]

As a thinking Christian (Yes, such can and do exist), I never really had a problem with Life of Brian. It contains nothing which denies or detracts from the life and acts of Jesus, and accurately portrays the unthinking masses in a clever and thought provoking way.

Really, the whole point of the film is that an awful lot of people believe things without fully thinking them through.

Re:People called Roman, they go towards the house?

[FiloEleven]

It's obvious that the irony is understood, otherwise the inclusion of the parenthetical statement "Yes, such can and do exist" would have been omitted. It seems to me that you're the unthinking one in this exchange, as you've labelled the original poster as one of the many blindly believing masses when he clearly stated (and you quoted) that he wasn't. Or are you really so stupid as to believe that no Christians have reasoned through their faith and still have it?

Re:People called Roman, they go towards the house?

[Rostin]

Until I see such logical proof of this or any other religion, I shall continue to label all followers as "blindly believing masses".

Why are Christians (or any other religious people) obligated to prove to you that their beliefs are true before you concede the possibility that they are not all "blindly believing masses?" Why does my rationality (in your mind) depend on my ability to prove something to you?

Let's say for the sake of argument that you are the only sighted person in a society of totally blind people. You try as hard as you can to explain to the blind people that there are such things as light and color, but the skeptics insist that you are being irrational, because your proofs are not convincing enough to overcome their inability to see. Leaving aside the whole issue of whether or not the blind people are being rational in denying the existence of color and light, are YOU being rational in affirming it? Does this suggest anything to you about the rationality of your blanket assertion of the irrationality of all religious people?

Except that sight can be proven

[ttfkam]

Sighted person: Okay, stand right where you are.
Blind skeptic: Why?
SP: I'm going to take ten paces away from you.
BS: Okay.
SP: Now hold up one of your hands. Aha! You just raised your left hand.
BS: What about now?
SP: It's still your left hand.
BS: How did you know that?
SP: I can see.

Now have the sighted person get four items, each a different color, and hand them out. The items should have the same size, shape and texture. Have the sighted person identify each item to the person holding it. Have the sighted person occupied by a fifth volunteer so that the activites of the first four are hidden from sight. The first four will now trade with each other, whispering the color the sighted person attributed to the item he/she held. The sighted person is brought back into view and questioned about the items again. Repeat with a new group of blind volunteers. Assuming the blind are honest, this would provide proof. It's called "The Scientific Method."

On the other hand, the proofs I hear from theists include

1. I know God exists because I can feel his presence
2. Something amazingly good happened to me when it should have been bad
3. If God doesn't exist, how do you explain this world we live in?
4. 95% of the people in the world believe in a supreme being. What makes you right and everyone else wrong?
5. I see God's work everywhere
6. The Bible/Koran/Torah

Responses:

1. Ever been camping and notice some insect or spider crawling on your leg? Or rather, you thought there was something crawling on your leg but when you looked and swatted, nothing was there. Our senses are fallible. The only way to know for sure would be to see the bug -- something observable that others can observe as well.
2. Yes, the NFL wide receiver argument. "I want to thank God for giving me the ability to make that touchdown..." Yet we never hear, "We were kicking the other team's ass when Jesus suddenly decided to make me fumble three times." Good people win the lottery. Bad people win the lottery. Good people survive car accidents. Bad people survive car accidents. What makes you, the God-fearing Christian, more special than the other God-fearing Christian who is now hamburger in their smashed up Toyota Celica?
3. If the Giant Burnt Umber Crayon didn't throw a rave one hundred years ago in Grand Central Station, how do you explain the world? Same argument, different subject. It begs the question. Your conclusion is the same as one of your premises.
4. Fallacy of argumentum ad populum. "Nature abhors a vacuum." At one time, it was accepted by most. Popular agreement is not the same as proof. All things considered, it was a good theory at the time. It is still wrong.
5. I see the same world as you, but with no god in it. Once again, begging the question. God exists. The world is a product of God. The world exists. Therefore God exists. Take away the first premise and the argument falls apart.
6. Giant Burnt Umber Crayon

I know that I will hear noise about "strawman." Fair enough. Provide proof and we'll be done with it. If you can't provide proof, God is as likely to exist as the Giant Burnt Umber Crayon.

You are free to believe what you will. But unless you can demonstrate it to others, don't be indignant when others point and laugh at you when you proclaim it as truth. Don't want pointing and laughter, keep it to yourself or prove it.