Always Look on the Bright Side of Life 915
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!"
what have the romans ever done for us?? (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what have the romans ever done for us?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what have the romans ever done for us?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what have the romans ever done for us?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what have the romans ever done for us?? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:what have the romans ever done for us?? (Score:4, Funny)
Wasn't the LOB really about radical politics? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wasn't the LOB really about radical politics? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, it's just brilliant. :-)
Re:what have the romans ever done for us?? (Score:5, Funny)
the idiots out themselves.
sigh... yep - that historical character Noah was the first to make wine - whatever.
its not like the entire flood story was a rip of the Gilgamesh legend.
Re:what have the romans ever done for us?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What have the Americans done for us ? (Score:5, Informative)
Telephone - Either Bell (British) or Meuci (Italian)
Automobile - Karl Benz (German) [about.com]
High rise building - Quite tall, no? [ancientegypt.co.uk]
Re:What have the Americans done for us ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps Americans are arrogant, but to large degree Americans do have a basis for that arrogance. If the rest of the world wants what America has then stop bitching about it and do it.
A bomb? What are you giving him a bomb for? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A bomb? What are you giving him a bomb for? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A bomb? What are you giving him a bomb for? (Score:3, Funny)
Who needs to SEE the movie? Just read the Slashot comments here, we'll eventually recite the entire script...
I'm Not the Massiah, I'm Not the Massiah! (Score:5, Funny)
Gotta Love it!
Re:I'm Not the Massiah, I'm Not the Massiah! (Score:3, Funny)
Biggus Dickus... (Score:4, Informative)
When it was originally released... (Score:4, Insightful)
Have religious people took the stick out their ass, or will there be more criticism?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:When it was originally released... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:When it was originally released... (Score:5, Interesting)
> some might think...
With the exception of labelling Christ a "Bloody do-gooder", there is nothing againt him at all. He is shown first in the manger, then secondly giving the sermon on the mount.
Who is does mock, however, are those factions within the church (and politics in general) who spend all their time bickering about inconsequencial differences rather than presenting a common front based on the 95% of their beliefs that co-incide.
That's why some churches are dead against it.
Still.. my favourite scene is the "romans go home" conjugation.
Re:When it was originally released... (Score:3, Insightful)
As a southern baptist, and I include that mostly as a disclaimer, I would say there is a vast bit more difference than you imply. The issue of whether homosexuals, women and divorcees should be allowed and to what extent and in what roles they should be allowed to serve in
Re:When it was originally released... (Score:4, Interesting)
It amazed me at the time that there were so many supposed christians campagning against the most christian film I had ever seen. LoB manages to be very humane and also very positive towards christianity, not an easy combination to pull off.
The big biblical epics took more liberties with christianity than LoB did (compressing events and so on). Things I have read about Gibson's film indicates he does too.
I presume we are in for a good summer of weirdoes and loonies complaining about LoB and praising Gibson. I do home sometime I see one of these people pinned down and asked to name where exactly the pythons clash with scripture.
Just because the gospels don't mention the space battle, that doesn't mean it didn't happen!
Re:When it was originally released... (Score:4, Interesting)
Followed by a superb "Not the Nine O'Clock News" satirical sketch: a heated debate between a devoted follower of the Church of Python and a Bishop about "The General Synod's Life of Christ" -- an obvious parody of the life of our comic messiah John Cleese -- even the initials are the same!
Does anyone have a transcript of this sketch?
Re:When it was originally released... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comedy gold, pure comedy gold.
Do the yanks get any "Not the Nine o'clock News"? Is it too dated anyway?
"Wild? I was livid!"
Doesn't get any better than that...
Re:When it was originally released... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:When it was originally released... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:When it was originally released... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:When it was originally released... (Score:5, Informative)
Note that the movie was originally funded in part by George Harrison -- good friend of Eric Idle, who stepped in when the original backers, EMI, pulled out.
Re:When it was originally released... (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, Atheist are more anti-god, stating firmly that god doesn't exist. Agnostics take the view that there is no good evidence that god exists, then again there is evidence that he doesn't but we tend to lean towards no god, this is your erroneous description of an atheist. So Agnostics take the view that there is no compelling reaso
Re:When it was originally released... (Score:3, Insightful)
"It is often said, mainly by the "no-contests", that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is
Thoughts... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thoughts... (Score:3, Informative)
They decided it was most definitely heretical, but not sacrilegious. I'd have to agree.
Cue 400 posts of everyone's favourite bits... (Score:5, Funny)
Can't wait, seriously can't wait. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going to round up everyone I know who's never seen it and drag them to the cinema.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't wait, seriously can't wait. (Score:4, Funny)
I was the only one curled up in a tight little ball suffocating from my own laughter at the thought of Sister Perpetua threatening to cut my balls off if I missed a pop quiz,
Can...not ....resist.... (Score:5, Funny)
one of the best lines ever written.... (Score:5, Funny)
Serioulsy, this one line and its context says more about religion turning into dogma than anything else I can think of...
Monty Python (Score:5, Insightful)
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.?
Re:Monty Python (Score:3, Informative)
I can't believe as a Canadian you left out the Kids in the Halls though! Fantastic show if there ever was one. Never heard of This Hour has 22 Minutes...
Re:Monty Python (Score:5, Interesting)
Social satire prgramming includes (but is certainly not limited to) shows like "The Chappelle Show", "South Park", "The Simpsons" (which is still one of the most subtle), and when it was still airing, "Futurama". It's interesting how many of these kinds of programs are animated. Is it easier to speak dangerous words when your face isn't on the screen?
Re:Monty Python (Score:5, Interesting)
It's more flexible, which the satire can take advantage of to the hilt. On one of the Family Guy DVD commentaries, they observed how impossible the show would have been in live action, prompted by the show where Peter goes from fat slob, to thin slob, to thin, buff man, back to fat man in the course of half an hour. (Obviously you can fatten up an actor artificially, but the other direction is too violent to use for a TV show, and you certainly couldn't get them back to fat in one show's taping time.)
Cartoon Nixon on Futurama is funnier then the real thing or an actor playing Nixon could ever have been. (On one of the Futurama commentaries, Matt Groening says when he was a kid he always dreamed of doing something to make fun of Nixon; he never dreamt how successful Nixon-mocking would be 25 years later...
Yes, I listen to the commentaries. Best part sometimes.
Re:Monty Python (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, it's obvious that Comedy Central wanted a show with a conservative bent to follow the generally liberal Daily Show. There's nothi
Grail schmail (Score:4, Insightful)
I know this isn't Fark but.... (Score:3, Funny)
Aliens (Score:3, Funny)
People called Roman, they go towards the house? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:People called Roman, they go towards the house? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Responses:
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.
Re:People called Roman, they go towards the house? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Evangelium" is the "Good News". I feel the slice that Gibon gives us is mostly suitable for inflicting feelings of guilt, or aggression. Not much good news there.
Alex
Re:People called Roman, they go towards the house? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:People called Roman, they go towards the house? (Score:3, Interesting)
But I'm not a christian...
Re:People called Roman, they go towards the house? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
In short, to say Jesus didn't exist as a real historical figure who was executed during the Passover ceremony for blasphemy is exactly the kind of unscientific nonsense and blind faith that most often levelled against Christians.
You are putting words in my post that weren't there. I never said that Jesus wasn't a historical perso
Re:People called Roman, they go towards the house? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course they do which I'll get to. It's funny though that you sound like some Christians I know when you say that
You are putting words in my post that weren't there. I never said that Jesus wasn't a historical person. What I said was "myth" was the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are lots of more mundane reasons for being unable to produce Jesus's body, such as the followers stealing it and hiding it where the authorities couldn't find it.
Sorry about that - unintended. OK, so we're agreed Jesus was a historical figure who was executed for blasphemy during a Passover sometime in the early first century AD. We differ on whether he rose from the dead or not.
The problem is your "more mundane explanations" are much harder to defend given the evidence we have - especially the "followers stole the body" theory.
Instead, they suddenly appeared at a festival which has attracted righteous Jews from all over the area and preach that it was all part of God's plan that Jesus should die and rise again. Not only that but they claimed boldly and comprehensively how he is the Messiah who was promised in the writings they all know so well.
Did Jesus really say he was the Messiah? That is a debate that biblical scholars are still having today.
Yeah - he was executed for it.
Most of that came from John, which is by far the most "out there" of the Gospels w.r.t. earthly vs. supernatural events.
Not really. John only records seven miracles of Jesus - the least of all the gospels - because, and I paraphrase, "Jesus did all sorts of other things which would take all the books in the world to write down. I've carefully selected these ones in my account to show you who he was so that you might believe in him."
The whole point of Occam's Razor is that you don't accept the extraordinary (read supernatural) explanations (e.g. resurrection, reincarnation, alien abduction) if there are more mundane explanations that explain the facts.
That's a subtle and disingenuous misreading of the principle. Occam's razor says "of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."
(from here [wikipedia.org])
So our two competing explanations are (if I have yours right - if not please correct me):
Let me generalize your message (Score:3, Funny)
You're a [member of some group]. [One that doesn't meet my hateful stereotype], even. Congrats.
Why should that make you, and every other [person who I will mockingly name by the way they claim to violate my preconceived notions of your group], [do something that matches my stereotype for you], [do something else that matches a stereotype] ([example other group "you people" all fit into], usually), or [do something ignorant that yet again matches a stereotype (and I will elluci
Shoe or gourd? (Score:5, Funny)
Blessed are the Slashdotters (Score:4, Interesting)
The thumpers finally get a film and someone has to get all opposition-like. Sheesh. Let the fairy-tale sucklers have their little MOOvie.
ObBrian: The graffiti scene is one of the greatest scenes ever filmed in movie history.
"People called Romanes they go the house?" :-)
Would a Hollywood film ever have fun with Latin?
No. In the Hollywood version, they'd have to have to words "bitch" and "ass" in the scene 50 times, and there would be at least one fart.
Or trying to cash in on. (Score:3, Interesting)
Or as a way to cash in on all the hype of 'The Passion of the Christ'. Frankly I have to say that I respect Mel Gibson for getting this movie made when no one else would but the after effect marketing, the passion of the christ pins at Books a Million, and now this is just too much. I find it sad the Monty Python would try and cash in like this. I am even a Python fan but this is just sad.
Re:Or trying to cash in on. (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it sad the Monty Python would try and cash in like this.
Good thing you never saw the "Eric Idle Exploits Monty Python" show when it was on tour a few years ago. Or Idle's more recent Greedy Bastard Tour. [pythonline.com]
I think it's legit (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, this is a poke back at that. I mean people (probably the same people doing the Passion drives) just VILLIFIED The Life of Brian when it came out because it dared to
Just read it (Score:3, Informative)
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/LifeOf
An OOP question (Score:5, Funny)
Re:An OOP question (Score:5, Funny)
I'd say Jesus uses the Proxy pattern to give people some sort of limited access to God by delegation. You could also see him as the stub object used to invoke a remote procedure call on God. Despite the seemingly matching name, Jesus does not implement the Visitor pattern. See the GOF book.
Note that, even without Jesus, you can always initiate a client-server-communication with God bthrough a special form of message passing called "praying". Fun is, most people never get an acknowledge for the messages they've send, let alone a response.
Very rarely people get messages from God without sending Him a message first. To do this, you need to implement the Prophet interface and register with God as an Observer.
Re:An OOP question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:An OOP question (Score:5, Funny)
weird wild stuff.
'wolf nipple chips! get em while they're hot!'
Antisemitism complaints? (Score:4, Funny)
By: Incontinentia Buttox, Staff Wepowtew
Monty Python's 'Life of Bwian' gwossed ovew $117 million thwough its fiwst weekend.
Thewe's talk of Oscaw nominations. Many Chwistians say the film moved them to teaws. But of the welatively few Cleveland Jews the JPPF found who have seen the movie, most wewe distuwbed by what twanspiwed on the scween.
"It's a hawd movie to watch," says Wob Zimmewman, co-chaiw of the Judean Populaw People's Fwont of the Jewish Community Fedewation of Cleveland. "It's essentially two houws of Bwian being mistaken for the weal Jesus being stwuck vewy woughly and cwucified." Because of the gwaphic silliness, he is not wecommending that Jews ow anyone else go see "The Life."
My kids... (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe after a few more years of Catholic school, my sons will appreciate the brilliance of "Life of Brian". For now, "Holy Grail" is the hit.
The last time we watched it, my 9 year old son answered the question, "What is the capital of Assyria?". "Nineva, you dolt!" he exclaimed. He smiled and smugly looked up to me and said, "I googled it. I don't want to be blasted off of some bridge." That's my boy.
Why the flamebait headline michael? (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of letting Life of Brian stand on its own, you just have to draw the the comparison between the Passion and proudly declare the the seasonal alternative. If I didn't know better, your end statement seems to imply you feel very threatened by Passion and comforted by Life of Brian.
Here's a small hint: live and let live. Nobody is forcing you to watch Passion. For a lot of geeks, the release of Passion would've been just as big a news item as this, but it has a snowball's chance on a blue star of having that happen. If you're not comfortable enough with your beliefs to let Life of Brian stand on its own, or feel that you need to try to counter or bring down the beliefs of others, then you need to address your own personal crisis without dragging all of Slashdot in with you.
No matter what I believe, I recognize your right to believe whatever else you want. You should do the same. Just don't use Slashdot as your religious indoctrination platform. You'd be smart to leave those comments to the comments and not risk losing a small segment of readers who see the comment for what it is and threaten your ad revenue. Most of us don't go around trumpeting our religious beliefs at work, so don't do it here.
Re:Why the flamebait headline michael? (Score:3, Informative)
Free (as in beer) slogan suggestion.. (Score:3, Funny)
Now, a spoof of Islam (Score:5, Interesting)
Mohammed's life makes a great comedy. He married an older women for money. He became a used camel dealer. He had a favorite slave girl, Zaid. Then he went into religion around age 40. For years, he was considered a nutcase. Somehow, he and his followers managed to take over Medina, after which he started invading and conquering neighboring countries.
Visualize the Python version of that. It would drive the Islamic world nuts. But it would be worth it. Make sure it gets on satellite TV and file-sharing networks, so Arab kids see it. In most of the Islamic world, kids are forced to OD on religion, because the religious types run the schools. It's like the Dark Ages in Europe.
The last major film about Islam, Mohammed, Messenger of God [imdb.com], was way too respectful. It doesn't even show the face of Mohammed (played by Anthony Quinn), to respect Islamic tradition. The Saudis use it as a training film. It was pulled from US theaters in 1976 after threats from people we'd today call terrorists. Today, the US wouldn't back down.
Get some of the facts straight first... (Score:5, Informative)
1) Zaid was his adopted son (and one of his most devoted followers), not a slave girl.
2) They did not take over Medina, but were invited to move there to escape the persecution of the Kuraish aristocrats who were in control of Mecca. The two major Jewish tribes of Medina were particularly interested in Mohammed (PBUH) to help mediate their disagreements. Sure, he kicked a bunch of them out of Medina after they conspired against him, but that's a different story.
3) Anthony Quinn played the role of Hamzah "Lion of the Desert", Mohammed's uncle who converted to Islam. BTW, it not only doesn't portray Mohammed on the screen, but other important figures such as his best friend Abu Bakr, and his cousin Ali (to be the first and second Caliphs of Islam, respectively, after Mohammad's death). This belief also extends to all of the other Prophets, including Jesus and Moses. I don't believe this effect detracts at all from the film, on the contrary, I believe the film actually works better this way.
4) The movie's title is actually "The Message". It's not only on the cover of the video in English, but also the Arabic "Ar-risallah" written on a flag in the artwork. Sidepoint: this movie was filmed both in English and Arabic separately, with different actors for each language (both with an impressive cast billing for their respective audience). I wish they released both versions on the DVD instead of just English.
5) As far as I know, "The Message" was banned in various Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. I don't know if this still is the case. Despite its carefulness in respecting beliefs of the most conservative Muslims, it apparantly wasn't enough.
Apologies to the Daily Show... (Score:5, Funny)
"So, this week's box office reciepts show that 'Dawn of the Dead' has unseated 'Passion of the Christ' as the #1 movie in America. Lesson? One person rising from the dead...good. Lots of people rising from the dead...better."
Re:Re Re Re released (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Re Re Re released (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Re Re Re released (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Re Re Re released (Score:4, Insightful)
With as much crap as is released today, I'll gladly contribute my share to all of the folks who contributed to making and re-releasing this movie. I never understood why "timeless classics" stop playing in theaters. How many times have you wanted to go see a movie, in a theater (for a date, or just to get out of the house) and ended up watching something terrible like "scooby doo" because nothing good was playing? Life of Brian in the theaters will be an event to remember. Screw dressing up for star wars (every theatrical release of star wars post 1990 has been disappointing), I'm going to dig up my "Big Nose" costume.
Hail theathar! and Welease Wodewik!
Re-released ad infinitum (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly I wish they'd re-release more good old movies. It would cut down on the embarassingly crappy remakes, and hopefully cut back on the number of crappy movies made yearly as well since they'd have some stiff competition. Film festivals just don't have the critical mass and eyeball coverage that a wide re-release does.
Personally I rarely watch anything more than once, and if I do it's generally many many years apart. So buying DVDs/videos doesn't make any sense to me in the first place. I rent or see it in the theaters.
As for The Passion, Mel Gibson has cleverly made a film that people go to as an act of faith. He'll be making money hand over fist on this film for years if not decades to come. People don't even have to enjoy it, they just have to feel like seeing it makes them pious. Because if you haven't seen The Passion you're not a good Christian.
So here's the real question - what will be re-released next year around easter as counterprogramming to the re-release of The Passion of The Christ? And the next? And will this lead to more companies re-releasing old films in theaters?
Bryan as a first!? (Score:3, Insightful)
In some ways you could equate the Life of Brian to a funnier Forrest Gump, but you'll have to see it to understand what that means.
Re:W00T (Score:5, Funny)
Somebody called the trolls they go the house ?
What's that supposed to mean ?
it means "Firstus postus".
-no it doesn't ! it'd be "trolli ite domum"
Now, write it out a hundred times. If it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.
Jesus has risen from the dead and wants REVENGE! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Jesus has risen from the dead and wants REVENGE (Score:5, Funny)
Mel explicitly stated that he added Marianism... (Score:5, Interesting)
For reference, the two main Marian manuscripts cited [av1611.org] are "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" by Anne Catherine Emmerich and "The Mystical City of God" by Saint Mary of Agreda.
If Jesus was just a clever, wise or insightful man, his entire life was essentially wasted, and on top of that he is recorded as lying about his abilities. All of the serious documentation we have available from the time (and there's a surprising amount of it) indicates that he was considerably more than that. Jesus is better documented than any of the Caesars. There's also a heck of a lot of non-literate archaeological evidence which is very difficult to explain [wyattarchaeology.com] if the canonical record is not reliable.
But in everyday life "we're all individuals" and will carry on believing what the majority tell us. "I'm not!"
Re:Mel explicitly stated that he added Marianism.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Jesus is better documented than any of the Caesars
You have contemporary (and I mean contemporary, not 50, 100 years post) documentation of Jesus' life? Something that compares to Augustus' Res Gestae, Julius Caesars' Gallic Wars, Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, Trajan's letters to Pliny...I could go on...? Do please tell!Re:Good idea !!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good idea !!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good idea !!! (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe, but then God would kick Zeus's ass.
Re:Good idea !!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good idea !!! (Score:4, Funny)
Naa, Jesus would just walk out onto a lake and taunt Hercules until he had a heart attack. Or maybe turn all the water in Hercules' blood into wine, making him die from alcohol poisoning (though he was a Greek, so probably had a pretty high tolerance for wine).
Re:Good idea !!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Since he was most certainly fleeing the romans, it would have made sense for him to go East, not West. He could easily followed the Silk road to India, and have been exposed to Buddhism while there (in addition to learning magic tricks and medical secrets)
Re:Good idea !!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Now to add to what I said, Jesus was the son of God, granted. But the son of God was given to us in the human form. And what I said is that it seems humanly impossible (Health science people correct me if I'm wrong) to survive the first few steps of what Mel depicted as the passion of Christ, thus removing the human portion of Jesus and leaving only the Son of God part. Which I consider as a big failure from Mel's part. His other movies, even though exaggerated still, were not as bad as this one (again, this is my opinion and I welcome comments proving the opposite as I haven't probably seen all movies in which Mel played or directed or produced but I saw at least a good few)
So this is my idea of the context.
Cheers,Re:Good idea !!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that wasn't a given until Constantine and the Council of Nicaea [newadvent.org] said it was so around 325AD!!!
Re:Good idea !!! (Score:5, Informative)
Don't do what the Bible says. Don't necessarily believe what it claims Jesus said. Rather, try to live your life as the man lived his; with understanding and compassion for others (he spent a lot of time with prostitutes, thieves, lepers, etc), with respect for those of different faiths than his (remember, he was a Jew) and above all the knowledge that you don't have the right or authority to judge anyone, for only the Lord knows what's in your heart.
(tig)
Re:What about the Norwegians? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Memo to God (Score:3, Insightful)
If religion didn't already exist, P.T. Barnum would have invented it.
Re:"Alternative to hype"...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite obviously, despite protestations to the contrary of aethiests, agnostics and liberals, thier desires to push thier own beliefs on the world are just as strong as the Christians they're constantly accusing.