I am old enough (born in 1965) to remember the fuss surrounding the release of this film but, even as a zealous member of the Christian Union at Portsmouth Polytechnic (as was) in 1983-86, thought it was one of the funniest things I had ever seen. However, then, as now (more than 20 years later), I found the closing "Crucifixion" unacceptable...
The film, quite justifiably in my opinion, pokes fun at many things to do with religion, but John Cleese's justification for this particular scene (the Catholic Church's obsession with crucifixes) is no excuse; the film clearly over-steps the mark by making fun of such a seminal moment in human history...
As made abundantly clear by the recent arrest and imprisonment of an English woman in Sudan for agreeing to name a teddy bear "Mohammed" (as if the debacle over the Cartoon was not enough), there is plenty of religious stupidity out there. However, Mohammed was just a man, whereas Jesus claimed to be equal with God and accepted the praise of men as such (why else was he eventually crucified?).
And so, we are back to the classic "trilema" posed by the great C S Lewis. Everyone needs to have a considered opinion - what's yours?
Happy New Year.
31 December 2007
Normal service shall be resumed shortly
Hi there,
Long time, no Blog (I know)... during which I have changed jobs, relocated to the other side of the UK, and separated from my wife (divorce now pending). In addition to all this, I have had no end of trouble re-establishing a viable broadband connection at my home address (to enable me to blog easily)...
It is New Year's Eve here in the UK and Channel 4 are having a Monty Python evening -now showing the classic film, "Life of Brian", which I have to admit is mostly one of the funniest things I have ever seen...
Long time, no Blog (I know)... during which I have changed jobs, relocated to the other side of the UK, and separated from my wife (divorce now pending). In addition to all this, I have had no end of trouble re-establishing a viable broadband connection at my home address (to enable me to blog easily)...
It is New Year's Eve here in the UK and Channel 4 are having a Monty Python evening -now showing the classic film, "Life of Brian", which I have to admit is mostly one of the funniest things I have ever seen...
15 May 2007
Scientology and Me (Panorama 14-May)
John Sweeney deserves only praise for such an honest and transparently human piece of investigative journalism. Hovever, ignoring for a moment some of the more sinister aspects to the behavoiur of it's adherents, Scientology is no more of a "religion" than is "positive thinking".
In fact, leaving aside all the weird ideas about our being descended from aliens and such like (which is almost as wacky as what lies at the heart of Mormonism), any mention of "Jesus" was conspicuous by its absence last night. Therefore, what I would like to know is, why is the cult of Scientology allowed to use a cross as the basis of its emblem and to call itself a "Church"?
See also my comments on the website of "World's Last Chance" (another well-meaning but wayward enterprise) back in January this year.
In fact, leaving aside all the weird ideas about our being descended from aliens and such like (which is almost as wacky as what lies at the heart of Mormonism), any mention of "Jesus" was conspicuous by its absence last night. Therefore, what I would like to know is, why is the cult of Scientology allowed to use a cross as the basis of its emblem and to call itself a "Church"?
See also my comments on the website of "World's Last Chance" (another well-meaning but wayward enterprise) back in January this year.
16 April 2007
Re: BBC's 2007 "Castaway" Programme
I am the same age and - I suspect – have the same personality profile as Jonathan, but I am, nevertheless, amazed by his stubbornness. At first, I was amused by the psychological warfare he inflicted on his fellow castaways, especially as he has proved himself – time and again – to be a very useful person to have around. However, I think the joke has since worn a bit thin…
Therefore, when he has clearly been more "sinned against" than “sinner”; why does he not do what Joe and others - to say nothing of common sense – demand; and tell everyone what a completely useless, lying, pillock Hassan is?
Why has the word of someone who broke the water tank by mindless meddling, and is clearly "overdrawn at the intellectual bank", been accepted so unquestioningly by the group as a whole? Sadly, I think the trouble is, that Hassan is not the only one on the programme that is not “playing with a full deck of cards”.
Still, it does make for amusing viewing, for those of us who have nothing better to do with our free time.
Therefore, when he has clearly been more "sinned against" than “sinner”; why does he not do what Joe and others - to say nothing of common sense – demand; and tell everyone what a completely useless, lying, pillock Hassan is?
Why has the word of someone who broke the water tank by mindless meddling, and is clearly "overdrawn at the intellectual bank", been accepted so unquestioningly by the group as a whole? Sadly, I think the trouble is, that Hassan is not the only one on the programme that is not “playing with a full deck of cards”.
Still, it does make for amusing viewing, for those of us who have nothing better to do with our free time.
15 February 2007
Re: The Verdict - "Not Guilty"
With regard to the excellent BBC Drama "The Verdict", I posted this on the associated discussion forum, under the title "It was the only possible outcome!", but reproduce it here nonetheless:
No system of justice is perfect, but ours is pretty good; has stood the test of time; and definitely is not going to be shaken by the outcome of a BBC drama.
The jury's task was to try the case on the evidence not the arguments and, yes "Anna" was very believable, so well you may ask, “Why would she make this all up?", but we all know that people do not always tell the truth.
However, although both the victim and the defendants were "found" to have lied to the police; only "Anna" chose to lie in court when she clearly did not have to. She therefore handed the members of the jury the decisive piece of evidence on which to determine (since no case was proven) whom they should believe.
End of story.
No system of justice is perfect, but ours is pretty good; has stood the test of time; and definitely is not going to be shaken by the outcome of a BBC drama.
The jury's task was to try the case on the evidence not the arguments and, yes "Anna" was very believable, so well you may ask, “Why would she make this all up?", but we all know that people do not always tell the truth.
However, although both the victim and the defendants were "found" to have lied to the police; only "Anna" chose to lie in court when she clearly did not have to. She therefore handed the members of the jury the decisive piece of evidence on which to determine (since no case was proven) whom they should believe.
End of story.
17 January 2007
Re: the World's Last Chance website (Part 2)
As I said, I was not finished with this yet... To my mind, the World's Last Chance (WLC) website oscillates between the absolutely ridiculous and the genuinely surprising, many times; but here are some examples:
Ridiculous
"The official title of the pope is 'Vicarius Filii Dei', which translated is, 'Representative of the Son of God'... Since in Latin certain letters have numerical values, we only need to add them up to come to 666."
Surprising
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical letter, dated June 20, 1894...
"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ, hidden under a veil of flesh." The Catholic National, July 1895...
"But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff... [who] requires... complete submission and obedience of will... as to God Himself." Pope Leo XIII, the Great Encyclical Letters, p. 193.
WLC go on to use Revelation Ch 17:1-18 to indicate that the Roman Catholic Church went into its "wilderness experience" in 1798 and came out of it in 1929, by virtue of the Lateran Treaty, by which Benito Mussolini allowed the establishment of the Vatican City as a sovereign state.
I find it amusing to note that, just as the Roman Catholic Church went into her wilderness experience, "God's true church" (i.e. the one that, by then, had supposedly been wrongly observing Sunday as the Sabbath for 300-odd years) came out of it... although I would not contest the assertion that the Catholic Church has used suppression and oppression quite a lot over the centuries to retain "the unity of the faith"...
From 1929, then, it is but a short step to the conclusion that... "Bible Prophecy Reveals Next And Last Pope Will Be A Devil Impersonating John Paul II".
However, since Pope Benedict is not as young as he once was (God bless him), we probably don't have long to wait in order to find out if WLC are right!
Ridiculous
"The official title of the pope is 'Vicarius Filii Dei', which translated is, 'Representative of the Son of God'... Since in Latin certain letters have numerical values, we only need to add them up to come to 666."
Surprising
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." Pope Leo XIII, in an Encyclical letter, dated June 20, 1894...
"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ, hidden under a veil of flesh." The Catholic National, July 1895...
"But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff... [who] requires... complete submission and obedience of will... as to God Himself." Pope Leo XIII, the Great Encyclical Letters, p. 193.
WLC go on to use Revelation Ch 17:1-18 to indicate that the Roman Catholic Church went into its "wilderness experience" in 1798 and came out of it in 1929, by virtue of the Lateran Treaty, by which Benito Mussolini allowed the establishment of the Vatican City as a sovereign state.
I find it amusing to note that, just as the Roman Catholic Church went into her wilderness experience, "God's true church" (i.e. the one that, by then, had supposedly been wrongly observing Sunday as the Sabbath for 300-odd years) came out of it... although I would not contest the assertion that the Catholic Church has used suppression and oppression quite a lot over the centuries to retain "the unity of the faith"...
From 1929, then, it is but a short step to the conclusion that... "Bible Prophecy Reveals Next And Last Pope Will Be A Devil Impersonating John Paul II".
However, since Pope Benedict is not as young as he once was (God bless him), we probably don't have long to wait in order to find out if WLC are right!
12 January 2007
Re: the World's Last Chance website (Part 1)
Could it be that the Seventh Day Adventists (who were the first to postulate the idea) are right to suggest that Pope Benedict will be the penultimate pontiff before the final fulfilment of prophecy in the Book of Revelation?... Before dismissing the idea out of hand, on the basis that Jesus said no-one would be able to predict His return, it is important to note that what World's Last Chance (WLC) are predicting is not the Second Coming of Christ (i.e. not the end of the world), but "the beginning of the end..."
Having had to give them some credit for not being so foolhardy as to go against the eschatological teaching of Christ himself, I felt compelled to read on, to see how they justify their ideas, which are built upon the visions of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (c.550BC) and the Apostle John (c.100AD), as recorded in Daniel Ch.2:26-49, and Revelation Ch.13:1-8 respectively.
King Nebuchadnezzar had a vision of a statue made up of four parts, which (as the prophet Daniel revealed) represented 4 empires - that of the Babylonians of his day; and the three that were to come after it. On the other hand, John's vision (the whole book of Revelation) has proven to be much hard to interpret with any certainty. It is generally not contested that the former vision predicted events up to and including the fall of the Roman Empire in 476AD. However, despite some entirely credible interpretations of the "beast", "dragon", and "woman", WLC go and blow it all on a very dubious interpretation of the mention of "42-months, as follows: "...This period is equivalent to three and half years (42 divided by 12 months). And the Bible was written based on the Jewish calendar where every Jewish year is 360 days (30 days for each month). So, three and half years and forty-two months are both equal to 1260 days. The reason why we are changing the months to their equivalent in days is that when God gave time prophecies, He often equated a day for a year "...even forty days , each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years..."; and "I have appointed thee each day for a year..." (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6)."
Thus the 42 months becomes 1260 years; and is equated to the 1260 years for which, as it happens, the Roman Catholic Church held both religious and political power over Europe (538-1798AD), which was brought to an end by Napoleon. However, the key point is that, even if most people would equate the fourth empire of Nebuchadnezzar's dream with the the Roman Empire, WLC equate "the Beast out of the Sea" in Revelation 13, to Church of Rome rather than the Roman Empire.
For many, this will be a leap of faith they feel unable to take, but this is not the half of it. WLC also drag the USA into the picture (as "the Beast out of the Earth" in Revelation 13), and conclude that the worldwide, post-reformation, protestant Church (in it's widest possible sense) has been duped into wrongly adopting Sunday as their Holy Day. Please note, here, that I am deliberately avoiding use of the word "Sabbath" here, because I do not accept arguments about this that are based on a literal interpretation of the Creation stories in the first two chapters of Genesis. I am also mindful of Christ's warning that, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." [Mark Ch. 2:27].
I am not finished yet, but this will do for now...
Having had to give them some credit for not being so foolhardy as to go against the eschatological teaching of Christ himself, I felt compelled to read on, to see how they justify their ideas, which are built upon the visions of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (c.550BC) and the Apostle John (c.100AD), as recorded in Daniel Ch.2:26-49, and Revelation Ch.13:1-8 respectively.
King Nebuchadnezzar had a vision of a statue made up of four parts, which (as the prophet Daniel revealed) represented 4 empires - that of the Babylonians of his day; and the three that were to come after it. On the other hand, John's vision (the whole book of Revelation) has proven to be much hard to interpret with any certainty. It is generally not contested that the former vision predicted events up to and including the fall of the Roman Empire in 476AD. However, despite some entirely credible interpretations of the "beast", "dragon", and "woman", WLC go and blow it all on a very dubious interpretation of the mention of "42-months, as follows: "...This period is equivalent to three and half years (42 divided by 12 months). And the Bible was written based on the Jewish calendar where every Jewish year is 360 days (30 days for each month). So, three and half years and forty-two months are both equal to 1260 days. The reason why we are changing the months to their equivalent in days is that when God gave time prophecies, He often equated a day for a year "...even forty days , each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years..."; and "I have appointed thee each day for a year..." (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6)."
Thus the 42 months becomes 1260 years; and is equated to the 1260 years for which, as it happens, the Roman Catholic Church held both religious and political power over Europe (538-1798AD), which was brought to an end by Napoleon. However, the key point is that, even if most people would equate the fourth empire of Nebuchadnezzar's dream with the the Roman Empire, WLC equate "the Beast out of the Sea" in Revelation 13, to Church of Rome rather than the Roman Empire.
For many, this will be a leap of faith they feel unable to take, but this is not the half of it. WLC also drag the USA into the picture (as "the Beast out of the Earth" in Revelation 13), and conclude that the worldwide, post-reformation, protestant Church (in it's widest possible sense) has been duped into wrongly adopting Sunday as their Holy Day. Please note, here, that I am deliberately avoiding use of the word "Sabbath" here, because I do not accept arguments about this that are based on a literal interpretation of the Creation stories in the first two chapters of Genesis. I am also mindful of Christ's warning that, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." [Mark Ch. 2:27].
I am not finished yet, but this will do for now...
11 January 2007
George W. Bush - Are You Mad ?
I really thought that the President might actually take heed of the advice offered by the Iraq Study Group, despite the fact that it would require the consumption of a large serving of "Humble Pie" (...it was stupid of me - I know).
Can you believe it, though, this guy makes Tony Blair's behaviour over Iraq seem entirely rational. In fact, in the face of such madness, one might be forgiven for even considering the World's Last Chance website to be credible!
Can you believe it, though, this guy makes Tony Blair's behaviour over Iraq seem entirely rational. In fact, in the face of such madness, one might be forgiven for even considering the World's Last Chance website to be credible!
08 January 2007
Jesus Christ should be our Rock
"JESUS CHRIST IS THE ROCK ON WHICH WE STAND...
...AND THE ROCK OF WHICH WE SHOULD BE MADE!"
(Thank-you to Jeremy Simpkins, the Pastor of Jubilee Church, on Teesside (UK),
for being the "divine spark" of inspiration for the above illustration)
05 January 2007
What exactly is a Hybrid Embryo (?)
The announcement that the UK Government may ban this scientific research has prompted a lot of discussion in the media (e.g. BBC News website).
Before ranting on about the moral and ethical implications of this, it is always useful to check the facts... If scientists are taking the egg from a cow and removing all its contents before putting in human DNA from a stem cell, resulting in an embryo that is 99.99% human, that is a bit like putting a Snickers bar inside a Mars bar wrapper, and an ethical or moralistic argument against it cannot really be sustained...
However, the question that remains - and on which a variety of objectors should continue to focus - is, "From where and how are the stem cells obtained?"
Before ranting on about the moral and ethical implications of this, it is always useful to check the facts... If scientists are taking the egg from a cow and removing all its contents before putting in human DNA from a stem cell, resulting in an embryo that is 99.99% human, that is a bit like putting a Snickers bar inside a Mars bar wrapper, and an ethical or moralistic argument against it cannot really be sustained...
However, the question that remains - and on which a variety of objectors should continue to focus - is, "From where and how are the stem cells obtained?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
